The first-named applicant, a Nigerian national and the mother of an Irish citizen child, had been refused asylum. She applied for leave to remain in the State on the basis, inter alia, of her child’s constitutional rights. The Minister refused to grant leave to remain and made a deportation order against the applicant on the ground that the interest of the common good in maintaining the integrity of the asylum and immigration systems outweighed matters that supported granting leave to remain. The applicants sought to quash the deportation order, arguing, inter alia, that the Minister’s decision was disproportionate and not justified under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
The High Court granted leave to seek judicial review and held that the Minister’s decision did not disclose any reason for deportation other than the general reference to the integrity of the asylum and immigration systems and that is was therefore impossible for the Court to carry out its own examination required by ECHR jurisprudence in order to ensure that the principle of proportionality was observed and that way provide an effective remedy in compliance with Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Section 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.
The Court also held that in cases dealing with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, the normal test for reasonableness as applied in judicial review proceedings could be too onerous for an applicant and that to ensure an effective remedy was available a more heightened form of review must be undertaken.