A Burmese man who has spent eight years in direct provision has won his appeal with the Supreme Court regarding the legal ban which has prevented him from working.

Today, the seven-judge Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favour of the man, having found that “in principle”, the ban in the Refugee Act on asylum seekers seeing employment violates their constitutional right to seek employment. However the matter has been adjourned for a further six months to allow the legislature to consider how to address the situation.

This could have major implications for other asylum seekers in the same situation.

Mr Justice O’Donnell said the man was in the asylum system for eight years before getting his refugee status. He also said that the State could have a policy of restricting employment of asylum seekers but the Refugee Act completely removed their right to work.

“The point has been reached when it cannot be said the legitimate differences between an asylum seeker and a citizen can continue to justify the exclusion of an asylum seeker from the possibility of employment,” Mr Justice O’Donnell said.

He said the man’s evidence of depression, frustration and lack of self-belief because he was not able to work bore this out.

“This damage to the individual’s self-worth and sense of themselves is exactly the damage which the constitutional right [to seek employment] seeks to guard against,” he said.

He also said that if there is no time limit for processing an application for asylum, he would be prepared to find the “absolute prohibition” on seeking employment. The court will adjourn the matter for six months as this situation has been declared a matter for executive and legislative judgement due to the intersection of a number of statutory provisions.

The man arrived in Ireland from Burma back in 2008 and was initially refused refugee status. The man appealed this decision and the High Court found errors in how his applications were decided and eventually granted him refugee status last September.

The man argued to the Supreme Court that while he was in direct provision receiving a weekly allowance of €19, he suffered depression, saying that being allowed to work was vital to his development, personal dignity and sense of self-worth.

The man lost his case in the High Court and Court of Appeal, with the State arguing that the Supreme Court should reject the man’s appeal as he could now seek employment but Mr Justice O’Donnell declared this matter a point of law of general public importance.