The High Court has refused a family’s application for leave to appeal a ruling that dismissed their judicial review challenge to a deportation order against the second-named applicant.
In a judgment delivered on 16 December 2020, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the applicants had not shown a point of law requiring further appellate clarification. The court’s decision was limited to leave to appeal; it did not re-decide the original judicial review application.
The family proposed two questions for appeal. The first concerned how courts should assess proportionality when reviewing a deportation decision involving a parent of children lawfully resident in the State. The applicants also questioned whether a court could require them to identify a specific flaw in the decision-maker’s reasoning.
The judge said the proposed question largely revisited established Supreme Court principles: judicial review examines the legality of a decision, not whether it was the best or correct decision on its merits. He said he had assessed proportionality in the earlier case, including family and private life rights and children’s best interests. He concluded that those interests could be outweighed by the public interest in deporting a sex offender in circumstances such as those before the court. That conclusion formed part of the earlier ruling, not a fresh determination in the leave application.
The second proposed question asked whether public authorities exercising broad discretion must publish policies or criteria likely to guide their decisions. The judge relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in D.E. v Minister for Justice and Equality, which had rejected a similar argument in the deportation context. He said there was no suggestion in this case that an existing policy or practice had been applied but kept undisclosed, or that an undisclosed policy had caused prejudice.
The earlier judgment, J.W. v Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 1), was delivered in written form on 15 October 2020 after an ex tempore ruling on 31 July 2020. The present judgment, identified as No. 2, refused leave to appeal.