The High Court has granted a family leave to challenge the potential lifelong effect of deportation orders under the Immigration Act 1999, finding substantial grounds for constitutional and European human rights arguments. It did not decide whether the law is invalid or whether the Minister’s decision should be quashed.
Mr Justice Hogan’s judgment, delivered on 26 April 2012, concerns judicial review proceedings brought by Lela Sivsivadze, her two minor children and Davit Arabuli. They challenged the Minister’s refusal to revoke a deportation order against Mr Arabuli. The judgment records that he was deported on 4 November 2011.
The applicants argued that an indefinite deportation order could interfere disproportionately with family life under Article 41 of the Constitution and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judge noted that the family’s two children are not Irish citizens. Ms Sivsivadze had humanitarian leave to remain in Ireland, while the judgment described Mr Arabuli’s history of using aliases and evading the earlier deportation order. The court said his deportation itself was not seriously contested; the central question was whether the order’s potentially lifelong duration could be justified.
The judgment explains that section 3(1) requires a deported person to remain outside the State, while section 3(11) allows the Minister to revoke an order. The judge said the prospect of revocation was speculative and that the law gave little guidance on the criteria for using that power.
At this leave stage, the court considered whether the applicants had shown substantial grounds to proceed. It concluded that they had, including on whether an indefinite order could be proportionate in light of the family’s circumstances and whether the lack of statutory criteria for revocation raised a constitutional issue. The judge also considered that the applicants had raised substantial grounds under Article 8.
The court did not make a final ruling on the constitutional or human rights challenges, nor did it determine that the deportation order must be revoked. It granted leave for the challenges to be heard in full, with the respondents to have an opportunity to defend the constitutional point about the revocation power.