M v Minister for Justice

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Citation/s:[2024] IEHC 105
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:23 Feb 2024
Judge:O’Regan, M.
Category:Naturalisation
Keywords:Carltona Principle, Child Labour, Citizenship, Good character, Naturalisation
Country of Origin:South Africa
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/5bad7f26-6c46-419e-84aa-da1e670683fa/2024_IEHC_105.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
References:Hussain v Minister for Justice [2011], WT & ors v Minister for Justice [2015]

Facts: The applicant, a South African national, moved to Ireland in 2001 and applied for a certificate of naturalisation in 2017. This was refused in 2022 on the grounds that the applicant did not meet all of the statutory conditions contained in section 15, Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 and specifically, the good character criterion. This was due to … Read More

Principles:Repeat offending even if over a protracted period of time can be understood as not in line with ordinary civic duties and responsibilities generally expected in order to meet good character requirements for a naturalisation application. The Carltona Principle, allowing the Minister to delegate powers, applies to decisions under section 15 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956.
Go Back

A.J.A. v Minister for Justice and Equality

EMNireland


AJA v the Minister for Justice and Equality
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:15 Nov 2022
Judge: Simons G.
Category:Naturalisation
Keywords:Citizenship, Citizenship (Acquisition of), Country of Nationality, Naturalisation
Country of Origin:Somalia
URL:https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/ed387a08-4017-4bec-9a04-a43dab31dfff/2022_IEHC_624.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was a national of Somalia who applied for naturalisation in Ireland. The naturalisation application included a Somalian passport in the applicant’s name. The applicant’s solicitor subsequently informed the Minister of the circumstances in which the passport was obtained and submitted that the applicant was unsure as to its genuineness. It was submitted that she obtained the passport … Read More

Principles:Where there are serious and damaging allegations in a submission or recommendation used to make a decision such as that on a naturalisation application, basic fairness and natural justice requires that any information that may assist in dispelling concerns about an applicant’s good character should be highlighted for the decision maker.
Go Back

AP v Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 2)

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 241
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:02 May 2014
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:Naturalisation, Refugee Law
Keywords:Naturalisation, Refugee
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/e57633da-f414-4229-a7bd-fb50327dad07/2014_IEHC_241_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant applied to the Minister for Justice for a certificate of naturalisation and his application was refused, no reasons being provided. He was granted leave by the High Court to apply for judicial review of the refusal on the basis that the refusal to disclose reasons was unlawful. The court noted that, following the decision of the Supreme … Read More

Principles:

When refusing an application for a certificate of naturalisation, the Minister for Justice is entitled to do so on the basis that the applicant has not satisfied the “good character” criterion. If the Minister does not wish to disclose the information upon which his decision or the recommendation which led to it was based, he must provide a justification for this, subject to any appropriate claim of privilege he may wish to make. Any claim of privilege must be specific and should not be so vague or general as to leave the applicant and, as the case may be, a reviewing court, unclear as to the nature of the privilege claimed.

Go Back

AP v Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 1)

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 17
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:17 Jan 2014
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:Naturalisation, Refugee Law
Keywords:Naturalisation, Refugee
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/47b878df-6583-4494-a16c-09aece006b2b/2014_IEHC_17_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: Order 31, r. 15 RSC entitles a party to proceedings to notify the other party in whose affidavit reference is made to a document, to produce that document for inspection and permit copies thereof to be taken. If the other party fails to comply, he may not rely on the document(s) in question in evidence, unless he can satisfy … Read More

Principles:

Where an applicant challenges a refusal by the Minister for Justice to grant him a certificate of naturalisation and that decision was based on information contained in certain documents, inspection of such documents under O. 31, rr. 15 and 18 RSC will not necessarily be refused on grounds such as public interest privilege or that inspection would be inimical to the interests of the State if the court is satisfied that those grounds are not made out and if the document or documents in question are clearly relevant to its determination as to whether the refusal to furnish reasons for the refusal of the certificate was unlawful and if they contain information which might directly or indirectly enable the applicant to advance his case or damage that of the Minister in the proceedings.

Go Back

Mansouri v Minister for Justice and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2013] IEHC 527
Judgment Date/s:29 Jan 2013
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:Citizenship, Naturalisation
Keywords:Citizenship, Naturalisation, Refugee
Country of Origin:Algeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/67b0eaa2-de0c-4983-b75c-9554134c97d6/2013_IEHC_527_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant was an Algerian who had been granted refugee status in the State in 2007. He applied for a certificate of naturalisation in February, 2008. A decision had yet to be made in January, 2012, when he instituted proceedings and obtained leave to compel the Minister for Justice to make a decision in it. In the intervening period, … Read More

Principles:

When the Minister is deciding applications for certificates of naturalisation, he should ensure, as far as possible, that applicants are informed, in general terms, of the reasons for any delays in making decisions. Failure to do so may result in judicial review proceedings for mandamus issuing against him to compel him to make decisions on such applications, with applicants being entitled to claim some or all of their costs in the event that the proceedings become moot before obtaining a hearing date as a result of the making of a decision by the Minister.

Go Back

Mallak v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2012] IESC 59
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:06 Dec 2012
Judge:Supreme Court (Fennelly J gave judgment for the Court) (Denham CJ, Murray J, O’Donnell J, McKechnie J)
Category:Citizenship, Naturalisation
Keywords:Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Citizenship, Citizenship (Acquisition of), Geneva Convention & Protocol, Naturalisation, Non-national, Refugee, Refugee (Convention)
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/01c05728-fb80-47dc-a324-7b100387151a/2012_IESC_59_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The appellant was a citizen of Syria. He and his wife were recognised as refugees in Ireland in 2002 and he subsequently applied for a certificate of naturalisation pursuant to Section 15 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (as amended). This application was refused by the Minister in November 2008 acting in his absolute discretion. He did … Read More

Principles:

It does not necessarily follow that where a decision is in the absolute discretion of the decision maker, no reason need be given for it. There is a difference between having a reason and disclosing it. It cannot be correct to say that the ‘absolute discretion’ conferred on the Minister necessarily implied that he is not obliged to have a reason. That would be the very definition of an arbitrary power and the rule of law required all decision makers to act fairly and rationally, meaning that they must not make decisions without reasons.

While the grant or refusal of a certificate of naturalisation is, at least in one sense, a matter of privilege rather than of right, the mere fact that a person is seeking access to a privilege does not affect the extent of his right to have his application considered in accordance with law or apply to the courts for redress. It would be contrary to the notion of a state founded on the rule of law if all persons within the jurisdiction, including non-nationals, did not in principle have a constitutionally protected right of access to the courts to enforce their legal rights.

It is impossible for an applicant to address the Minister’s concerns and to make an effective application when he is in complete ignorance of the Minister’s concerns. More fundamentally, it is not possible for an applicant, without knowing the Minister’s reason for refusal, to ascertain whether he has a ground for applying for judicial review and, by extension, it would not possible for the courts to effectively exercise their power of judicial review.

Several converging legal sources strongly suggested an emerging common view that persons affected by administrative decisions have a right to know the reasons on which they are based including Section 18 of the Freedom of Information Act 1997, Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which provides that every person shall benefit from the right to good administration including the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions,  as well as relevant jurisprudence. 

The Supreme Court considered that at the very least the decision maker must be able to justify the refusal to give reasons.

Go Back

Spila v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2012] IEHC 336
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:31 Jul 2012
Judge:Cooke J
Category:Citizenship, Naturalisation
Keywords:Alien, Citizenship, Citizenship (Acquisition of), Country of Birth, Nationality, Nationality (Ethnic), Naturalisation, Stateless Person
Country of Origin:Latvia (Ethnic Russian)
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/031a0c42-4d25-441d-8bd1-460eb938823e/2012_IEHC_336_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicants were ethnic Russians born in Latvia and residing in Ireland from 1999 onwards. They applied for naturalisation as Irish citizens under the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (as amended). They described themselves in their application as “Latvian (ethnic Russian)”. However, under Latvian law they only had an entitlement to an “Alien’s passport” from the Latvian authorities, … Read More

Principles:

Having regard to the Minister’s absolute discretion under Section  15 of the 1956 Act* the mixed question of fact and law as to whether the applicants, in their particular personal circumstances, were stateless, was first and foremost a matter of policy for the Minister, and for him to decide that in the first instance. 

It is always possible to make a new application for naturalisation incorporating all new and relevant information and expert opinion relied upon, including as to issues of statelessness.

(* Regard should now be had to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mallak v Minister for Justice [2012] IESC 59, 6 December 2012, on the nature of the Minister’s ‘absolute’ discretion under s. 15 of the 1956 Act.)

Go Back

Hussain v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2011] IEHC 171
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:13 Apr 2011
Judge:Hogan J.
Category:Naturalisation
Keywords:Citizenship, Citizenship (Acquisition of), Nationality, Naturalisation
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/44af5cc1-4aa1-44fe-bbed-2542390b4596/2011_IEHC_171_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland
References:Jiad v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] IEHC 187; L.G.H. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2009] IEHC 78

The Applicant was a national of Pakistan who had lived in Ireland lawfully since 2000. He applied for certificate of naturalization in December 2005. In March 2010 his application was refused by the Minister on the grounds that he had not disclosed that he had not disclosed on his application form that he had been investigated by Gardai for passing … Read More

Principles:The Minister’s assessment of good character for the purposes of s. 15 of the INCA 1956 is amenable to judicial review and his conclusion must to be one which is bona fide held and factually sustainable and not unreasonable.
Go Back

Abuissa v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2010] IEHC 366
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:01 Jul 2010
Judge:Clark J.
Category:Naturalisation, Refugee Law
Keywords:Citizenship (Acquisition of), Naturalisation, Refugee, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Occupied Palestinian Territories
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/3bf09c32-e521-4ab1-a396-ef7a94fdd90f/2010_IEHC_366_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The Applicant was a Palestinian national born in Libya who has been granted refugee status. He applied to the Minister for naturalisation as an Irish citizen. His application was refused and no reason for the refusal was furnished to him. He sought judicial review of the decision of the Minister refusing him a certificate of naturalisation on the basis that … Read More

Principles:The Minister has an absolute discretion in deciding whether to grant a certification of naturalisation and is not required to give reasons for a refusal to grant such a certificate.
Go Back

Jiad v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2010] IEHC 187
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:19 May 2010
Judge:Cooke J.
Category:Citizenship, Naturalisation
Keywords:Citizenship, Citizenship (Acquisition of), Integration, Naturalisation
Country of Origin:Iraq
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/22b614b9-9196-426d-912f-8f377ee79e49/2010_IEHC_187_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland
References:Pok Sun Shum and Ors v Ireland and Ors; Mishra v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; AB v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; LGH v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Anor; Singh and Anor v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

The Applicant was an Iraqi who had been refused refugee status but granted leave to remain in the State in May 1997. He applied to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform under section 14 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956 (as amended) for a declaration of naturalisation as an Irish citizen. His application was refused by … Read More

Principles:The State has an absolute discretion as to whether or not to grant naturalisation. This power is exercised by the Minister. No arguable case could be made out that a refusal to grant a certificate of naturalisation is tainted by illegality by reason only of the fact that it one of a series of refusals for which no reason has ever been given.
Go Back

AB v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2009] IEHC 449
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:18 Jun 2009
Judge:Cooke J.
Category:Citizenship, Naturalisation
Keywords:Citizenship, Citizenship (Acquisition of), Integration, Naturalisation, Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Refugee Status
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/2b99a249-e9b0-4004-94fc-b1dc05096557/2009_IEHC_449_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland
References:Pok Sun Shum v Ireland [1986] ILRM 593

The Applicant, a declared refugee of Nigerian nationality, was refused a declaration of naturalisation by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Minister decided that the Applicant did not fulfil the condition of being of ‘good character’ under s. 15 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 because he had failed to produce his driving licence when … Read More

Principles:

In considering an application for naturalisation, it is for the Minister to determine what criteria ought to be considered in assessing whether the condition as to ‘good character’ in section 5 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956, as amended, has been met.

Go Back

LGH v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Attorney General

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2009] IEHC 78
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:30 Jan 2009
Judge:Edwards J.
Category:Citizenship, Naturalisation
Keywords:Citizenship, Citizenship (Acquisition of), Naturalisation
Country of Origin:China (PRC)
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/611a06fd-3e06-43e2-9762-cb070c5f0b51/2009_IEHC_78_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland
References:Mishra v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Pok Sun Shum v Ireland

The Applicant was a Chinese national and a refugee. She applied to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform under section 15 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956, as amended, for a declaration of naturalisation as an Irish citizen. The Minister refused her a declaration of naturalisation in the exercise of his absolute discretion under section 15 … Read More

Principles:

The Minister has absolute discretion in deciding applications for naturalisation, but he must act judicially in the exercise of that discretion.

Go Back

Robert & Anor v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2004] IEHC 348
Judgment Date/s:02 Nov 2004
Judge:Peart
Category:Naturalisation, Refugee Law
Keywords:Naturalisation, Refugee, Refugee Law, Refugee Status, Residence Permit

The Minister refused the Applicants’ requests for naturalisation on the basis that time spent in the asylum process did not contribute towards the residence requirement of five years. The Applicants sought to review the Minister’s decision, arguing, inter alia, that he had fettered his discretion in the exercise of the “absolute discretion” conferred on him in deciding whether to issue … Read More

Principles:Where an asylum applicant withdraws his claim and subsequently applies for naturalisation, time spent in the asylum process will not normally be relevant in calculating residence in the State for the purposes of seeking naturalisation.
Go Back

Pok Sun Shun & Ors v Ireland & Ors

Respondent/Defendant:Ireland & Ors
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[1986] 6 ILRM 593
Judgment Date/s:28 Jun 1985
Judge:Costello
Category:Citizenship, Deportation, Naturalisation
Keywords:Citizenship, Citizenship (Acquisition of), Deportation, Deportation Order, Naturalisation
Country of Origin:China

The first-named plaintiff was a native of China who arrived in Ireland in 1978. As a result of what was described as a “serious incident” in 1979 he was informed by the Department of Justice that he would have to leave the country. Later that year he married the second named plaintiff and they subsequently had three children and at … Read More

Principles:The State is entitled to deport a person even if they are married to or related to an Irish citizen.
Go Back