PR, JR and KR (a minor) v Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 201
Nature of Proceedings:First instance
Judgment Date/s:23 Mar 2015
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:Entry Ban, EU Treaty Rights, First instance, Free Movement, Minor, Removal Order
Country of Origin:Poland
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/363467f3-78cc-4e9e-a000-eaa5f2b662c8/2015_IEHC_201_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The first named applicant was a Polish national and an EU citizen. He had been living in Ireland since October, 2006. He married a Polish national in 2011. They had one child, who was born in Ireland in 2012. In October, 2011, he acquired permanent residence under the EC (Free Movement of Persons) (No. 2) Regulations 2006, as amended, … Read More

Principles:

Conviction of a Union citizen or a family member for sexual crimes can constitute a basis for making a removal order on the grounds of public policy in respect of such a person under the EC (Free Movement of Persons) (No. 2) Regulations 2006 and justify a lengthy exclusion period.

The procedure provided under the Regulations of 2006 for review of the making of removal orders is compliant with EU law and Directive 2004/38/EC.

A ministerial official who was involved in the decision-making process leading to the making of a removal order should refrain from having any involvement in deciding whether or not to affirm the order as part of any review application. Failure to do this will risk an affirmation decision being set aside on the ground of objective bias.

Go Back

Kovalenko v Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Siochana, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Commissioner of An Garda Siochana, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 624
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:12 Dec 2014
Judge:McDermott J.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:Entry Ban, EU Treaty Rights, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Minor, Removal Order
Country of Origin:Latvia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/9314a321-e09e-43af-81aa-481cb6afb378/2014_IEHC_624_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The second named applicant was a Latvian national and, therefore, a Union citizen. He had been living in Ireland since December, 2003. He married a Latvian in 2005 and had lived with his wife since his removal on foot of a removal order made pursuant to the EC (Free Movement of Persons)(No. 2) Regulations 2006, as amended, in June, … Read More

Principles:

Conviction of a Union citizen or a family member for sexual crimes can constitute a basis for making a removal order on the grounds of public policy in respect of such a person under the EC (Free Movement of Persons)(No. 2) Regulations 2006.

When assessing whether or not to make such an order, the Minister for Justice is entitled to take into account the nature and seriousness of the criminal conduct and the attitude and subsequent behaviour of the offender. That may be considered alone or, in appropriate circumstances, cumulatively with other factors under the heading of “public policy” when deciding to remove or exclude such a person.

It is not necessarily relevant that the person has not committed any other offences in the meantime; a wider appraisal of the risk to public policy created by allowing him or her to remain in the State must be made by the Minister.

If, when making a removal order or affirming its making, the Minister comes into possession of material information pertaining to the risk posed by the applicant to public policy, it should be put to the applicant for comment in accordance with fair procedures.
A ministerial official who was involved in the decision-making process leading to the making of a removal order should refrain from having any involvement in deciding whether or not to affirm the order as part of any review application. Failure to do this will lead to an affirmation decision being set aside on the ground of objective bias.

Go Back

X Adeoye & Ors v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Ors

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:X Adeoye & Ors
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:25 Nov 2011
Judge:Hogan, J
Category:Citizenship, Deportation
Keywords:Absconding, Citizenship, Country of Origin, Dependant, Deportation, Deportation Order, Entry Ban, Expulsion, Expulsion Decision, Expulsion Order, Family Life (Right to), Family Member, Family Unity (Right to), Foreigner, Minor, Non-EU National, Non-national, Removal Order
Country of Origin:Nigeria
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The Adeoye family sought to quash a decision of the (then) Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (the Minister) pursuant to s. 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 to refuse to revoke Mr Adeoye’s deportation order. Mr Adoeye, an architectural student from Nigeria married to an Irish citizen, who had been unsuccessful in an asylum application, and who had … Read More

Principles:It behoves the judicial branch of government to ensure that the fundamental rights in respect of marriage and family life are taken seriously and given “life and reality”. In deciding whether to revoke a deportation order made against the spouse of a citizen, the deciding Minister must weigh the rights of the applicants fairly.
Go Back

LAT & Ors v Minister for Justice and Equality & Ors

adminLeave a Comment


Tijani
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality & Ors
Court/s:High Court
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:02 Nov 2011
Judge:Hogan G.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Entry Ban, Expulsion, Expulsion Decision, Third-Country National, Third-Country national found to be illegally present
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/ABA421A317AFC24B80257A1500503C9E?Open&Highlight=0,LAT,~language_en~
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The application for judicial review presented a single issue of law, i.e., whether a deportation order made under section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999 must be made personally by the Minister for Justice and Equality. The deportation order had been made in the name of the Minister by Noel Waters, the Director General of the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration … Read More

Principles:

The Minister for Justice and Equality does not have to make deportation orders under section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999 personally. The Carltona doctrine applies to the making of deportation orders under section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999.

Go Back

Troci v Governor of Cloverhill Prison

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Governor of Cloverhill Prison
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:Unreported High Court (Hogan J) 2nd November 2011 2011 IEHC 405
Nature of Proceedings:Article 40.4.2 Enquiry
Judgment Date/s:02 Nov 2011
Judge:Hogan G.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Detainee, Detention, Entry Ban, Expulsion, Expulsion Decision, Family Life (Right to), Family Unity (Right to), Third-Country National, Third-Country national found to be illegally present, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Albania
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/2cb16ab5-b669-4336-a856-160050889e46/2011_IEHC_405_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

This case involved an application brought under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution of Ireland. The Applicant, Ervis Troci, an Albanian national, was arrested pursuant to s. 5(1) (d) of the Immigration Act 1999. He had sought asylum, and his application had been rejected and he subsequently sought to remain in the State for humanitarian reasons. While in the State, the … Read More

Principles:The suspicion on the part of an immigration officer or member of the Garda Siochana underpinning the arrest of a person against whom a deportation order is in force under s. 5(1)(d) of the Immigration Act 1999, must refer to some overt act or deed, including statements, on the part of the arrested person, or some external piece of intelligence which suggests that there is a risk that such a person will seek to evade deportation.
Go Back

Om v Governor of Cloverhill Prison

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Governor of Cloverhill Prison
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:1st August 2011, 2011 IEHC 341, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Article 40.4.2 Enquiry
Judgment Date/s:01 Aug 2011
Judge:Hogan, G.
Category:Deportation, Detention
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Detainee, Detention, Entry Ban, Expulsion, Expulsion Order, Nationality, Non-EU National, Non-national, Refoulement, Refoulement (Non-), Removal, Removal Order, Third-Country National, Third-Country national found to be illegally present
Country of Origin:Contested
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/bcf48dda-1963-4d70-b922-1aab45121c45/2011_IEHC_341_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

This case involved an application brought under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution of Ireland. The Applicant, David Fracis Om, who had unsuccessfully sought asylum, claimed to be Liberian, but his precise origins were a matter of doubt throughout the asylum process. The Refugee Applications Commissioner had found that he showed a distinct lack of knowledge of Liberian history and geography, … Read More

Principles:
  1. The question of whether a suspicion that a person intends to evade deportation, so as to allow for that person’s detention, is justified under s. 5(1) (d) of the Immigration Act 1999 is an objective one.
  2. Detention of a person (against whom a deportation order has been made) under s. 5 of the Illegal Immigrations Act 1999 must be for the purposes of effecting a deportation order, and it must be evident that the deportation can actually be effected within the eight week statutory period.
  3. Matters relevant to whether there is any likelihood that deportation can be effected within the maximum detention period are:
    whether there is an investigation of an Applicant’s nationality;
      whether it would be necessary for the Minister to consider the issue of refoulement afresh; and
        practicalities re organising deportation.
          Go Back