The High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to a removal decision after finding that the applicant had deliberately lied under oath while pursuing the case. Mr Justice David Keane ruled that the lies amounted to an egregious abuse of the court’s process.
The case concerned a decision by the Minister for Justice on 9 September 2016 affirming a removal order against Igor Mavlanous, a Latvian national. The order included a ten-year exclusion period. Mavlanous was removed to Latvia on 29 September 2016, and the court granted him leave to seek judicial review in February 2017.
The single issue identified for the proposed challenge was whether the Minister was correct to conclude that Mavlanous was not entitled to permanent residence in Ireland. That issue was not decided. The court instead considered a preliminary question: whether the proceedings should be dismissed because of Mavlanous’s conduct in bringing and maintaining them.
In an affidavit sworn in August 2017, Mavlanous denied returning to Ireland after his removal. A Garda affidavit later described his alleged return and an attempt to apply for a personal public service number under another name. In December 2017, Mavlanous admitted that he had re-entered Ireland shortly after his removal, saying he had returned because his wife was ill and his daughter was distressed. The judge noted that he had provided no evidence corroborating those family circumstances.
Justice Keane distinguished the case from a Supreme Court decision involving a broader constitutional challenge and children who were themselves applicants. Here, he said, the case concerned judicial review of a discrete decision, and there was little evidence before the court about the child’s best interests or the effect of dismissal on family life. He also concluded that European Union law did not prevent dismissal under the domestic rules governing judicial review.
The order dismisses the proceedings as an abuse of process. It does not determine whether the 2016 review decision was legally correct, whether Mavlanous qualified for permanent residence, or any potential criminal liability arising from his conduct.