The High Court quashed only the three-year exclusion period in a review decision concerning the removal of a Polish national from Ireland, finding that the Minister had not explained why that period was chosen. The removal order itself remains in place, and the review decision remains to be concluded.
In a judgment delivered on 8 November 2016, Ms Justice O’Regan held that the Minister’s 27 April 2016 decision gave an apparent basis for making a removal order but did not explain why the exclusion period was three years rather than another duration. The initial order had imposed a five-year exclusion period, later reduced on review.
The applicant sought judicial review of the review decision. He argued, among other grounds, that his conviction did not establish a present and serious threat to public policy, that mitigating circumstances had not been given sufficient weight, and that the exclusion period was arbitrary and unexplained. The Minister opposed the application, arguing that the decision was adequately reasoned and that the weight given to the circumstances was for the decision-maker.
The applicant had pleaded guilty in August 2014 to an offence relating to the cultivation of about 120 marijuana plants, valued at about €97,000, in his attic. In May 2015 he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, with the final year suspended for two years. The Minister issued an initial removal order with a five-year exclusion period in November 2015. Following a review sought by the applicant, the Minister’s April 2016 decision maintained removal but reduced the exclusion period to three years.
The court rejected the applicant’s argument that the cannabis-related offence could not justify special measures because it involved no violence or wider criminal activity. It also held that assessing the circumstances and the weight to give them was for the Minister. The court was satisfied that the reasons for removal were apparent from the decision’s proportionality section.
However, the April decision gave no reason for choosing three years or for reducing the original five-year period. The court therefore quashed only the part of the review decision imposing three years’ exclusion. It did not quash the removal order or decide the review afresh; the judgment states that the review decision remains to be concluded.