The applicant had been deported to Nigeria after an unsuccessful asylum claim but thereafter had been readmitted to the State for six months in order to sit his leaving certificate. When the six-month period neared its end, the Minister invited the applicant to make representations regarding why he ought to be allowed to remain in the State, which the applicant duly made. While in the State, the applicant had begun a relationship with an Irish woman, who became pregnant by him. The applicant did not disclose this to the Minister in his representations. The Minister issued the applicant with a deportation order. The applicant brought the matter of his girlfriend’s pregnancy to the Minister’s attention at that stage, stating that he had not disclosed this matter previously, as he did not want his girlfriend to suffer undue media attention.
The applicant sought a revocation of the deportation order in light of the circumstances. A consultant child psychologist averred that the first year of a child’s life was of great importance and that a father should see his child on a daily basis in that period. The applicants sought an injunction restraining deportation pending the full judicial review hearing. In refusing relief to the first-named applicant (the father), but in granting an injunction restraining that applicant’s deportation to the second-named applicant (the child), the Court found that if the evidence of the psychologist was correct, then the balance of convenience favoured granting injunctive relief.
