A Supreme Court judge has said he would quash immigration decisions refusing entry to two Malaysian students, concluding that “contrary to public policy” under the Immigration Act 2004 must be read narrowly alongside national security.
Gerard Hogan J. delivered the judgment on 19 December 2024 in appeals by Chain Wen Wei and Tang Ting Ting. Both had been refused leave to land in Ireland on 12 December 2020 under section 4(3)(j) of the Act. The source identifies them as Malaysian nationals and says they had come to pursue a full-time English-language course due to begin on 4 January 2021. Because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the course was being delivered online.
Guidelines published by the Government on 27 October 2020 said prospective students seeking English-language courses should wait until in-person tuition resumed. Immigration officers refused the applicants entry by reference to that policy. The judgment says the guidelines had no particular statutory foundation and that the applicants posed no national security threat.
The High Court upheld the refusals in March 2021, finding them lawful under section 4(3)(j), but granted leave to appeal on the meaning of “public policy”. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals in June 2023, treating public policy and national security as separate concepts.
Hogan J. disagreed. He said the phrase should refer to personal conduct posing a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society. He reasoned that reading “public policy” as an open-ended, standalone ground could permit refusals for vague reasons. The judgment also discusses the distinct rules that apply to EU, EEA, UK and Swiss nationals.
The conclusion says it was “not really disputed” that the applicants did not pose the required threat if the narrower interpretation applied. Hogan J. therefore said he would grant an order of certiorari quashing both refusals.
The supplied source contains Hogan J.’s judgment only. It does not state the Supreme Court’s overall disposition or final order, so the article does not present his proposed order as the Court’s final outcome.