The High Court has refused a Romanian citizen’s application to quash a decision upholding his removal from Ireland and a three-year exclusion period. The court found the decision proportionate and said it was based on the circumstances of the offence as well as the conviction.
The applicant, identified as G.C., sought judicial review of a decision made on 27 January 2016 and communicated by letter on 10 February. He argued that his single assault conviction did not establish that he posed a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to public policy or security. He also said the Minister had given insufficient weight to mitigating circumstances and imposed an extra-judicial sanction.
G.C. was convicted on 10 March 2015 of an assault that occurred on or about 9 March 2014 on or around Dublin’s North Circular Road. He received a three-and-a-half-year prison sentence, with the final two years suspended, and was released on 23 April 2016.
The Minister disputed that the removal decision rested on the conviction alone. The State relied on the reported violence and its impact on the victim, the applicant’s account that he acted in self-defence, and his refusal to answer questions about the force he used. The judgment records that the victim’s impact statement described physical and continuing effects, including a broken nose and perforated eardrum.
Justice O’Regan reviewed the nine-page decision under challenge. She said it addressed the applicant’s mitigating submissions and discussed proportionality in detail. The decision considered the account of the assault, including that the applicant punched and kicked the victim in the face, left, then returned and continued the assault. It also considered his heavy drinking and whether alcohol could create a future risk.
The judge concluded that the decision-maker had considered the circumstances, including mitigation, and had reached a fair and proportionate decision. She was not satisfied the decision was irrational or unreasonable, or that the evidence justified quashing it. She also held that a challenge to the three-year exclusion period’s reasoning was outside the grounds on which leave had been granted.
After his release, G.C. missed several appointments with the Garda National Immigration Bureau and moved from Rathmines to Fairview without notifying it, according to affidavits described in the judgment. His solicitor said some appointment dates conflicted with work obligations and that he may not have fully understood his reporting duties. The judge said there was no need to decide whether those missed appointments affected the availability of discretionary relief, because the application failed on its merits.