The High Court has quashed a review decision affirming a 10-year removal and exclusion order against a Polish national, finding that the review process breached fair procedures because officials involved in the original decision also took part in the review.
Mr Justice McDermott said the involvement of two officials gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. One had recommended the original order and had also helped review it. The official who made the original order was consulted during the second review and had a significant input into the final decision. The court said the review should have been conducted independently of those who had made significant contributions to the original decision.
The case concerned P.R., whose wife J.R. and minor daughter K.R. were also applicants. Their identities are anonymised in the judgment. P.R. had lived in Ireland since 2006 and had acquired permanent residence. After he was convicted of six sexual assaults and sentenced in 2012 to three years in prison, with the final 16 months suspended, the Minister for Justice made a removal order and imposed a 10-year exclusion period.
Following an earlier review decision that was withdrawn by agreement, the Minister reconsidered the case with further submissions and evidence. On 18 September 2013, the removal order and exclusion period were reaffirmed. The applicants challenged that decision, arguing, among other things, that the review was not independent and that the removal decision was disproportionate.
The judge rejected the challenge to the substance of the Minister’s decision. He found that the nature and repeated pattern of the offences, alongside the individual circumstances considered by the Minister, could support a conclusion that serious grounds of public policy justified removal. He also found that the 10-year exclusion period was not disproportionate. The judgment noted that P.R. could apply to have the removal order revoked after three years.
The court held that the review regulations themselves could operate consistently with fair procedures and rejected the claim that Ireland had failed to provide an independent appeal mechanism or properly implement the relevant EU rules. It also rejected the applicants’ other grounds, including their complaint about the review notification and the argument that the earlier settlement barred the challenge.
The court granted leave to seek judicial review by certiorari and quashed the 18 September 2013 review decision because of the unfair review process. The judgment did not quash the original removal order on its merits; it set aside the review decision. The source does not state what further decision followed.