The High Court dismissed most of a Polish man’s judicial review challenge to his removal and exclusion orders, while adjourning one issue about the length of the exclusion period for further submissions.
In a judgment delivered on 20 July 2018, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys refused the applicants’ late application to amend their grounds. The proposed amendments included an allegation that the Minister had failed to conduct a balancing exercise and new complaints based on the Constitution and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The judge said the applicants had not adequately explained the delay in raising the balancing point. The rights arguments had not been made to the decision-maker and, in any event, had been considered in substance.
The first applicant is a Polish citizen who came to Ireland in 2008. He has five convictions, including three for assault causing harm. He had a child with an Irish citizen; the child, who was also an applicant, was born in March 2018. The father said he remained on good terms with the child’s mother and had played an active role in the child’s life before his imprisonment.
The Department notified him in 2013 that it proposed to make a removal order. A removal order and an exclusion order requiring him to remain outside Ireland for three years were made in May 2017. A review was refused in September 2017. The applicants sought judicial review of the review decision and the original orders.
The judge rejected the complaints that the Minister had failed to consider the applicants’ family and children’s rights. He found that the decision, read as a whole, considered both the father’s and child’s rights, including the child’s interest in the care and company of both parents. He also noted that the applicants did not pursue a separate complaint about the absence of a final date for removal.
However, neither the exclusion order nor the accompanying analysis gave reasons for choosing a three-year period, and the Minister had not provided reasons later. The judge said the Court of Appeal’s decision in Balc indicated that reasons should be given. He left open whether the orders should be quashed or whether the decision-maker should instead be directed to provide fresh reasons, and agreed to consider further submissions on that issue.
The order dismissed the amendment application and the proceedings, except for “relief G2 on ground H3”. Those remaining elements were adjourned to 23 July 2018 for further submissions. The judgment did not decide their ultimate outcome.