The High Court held that an applicant who waited three years and nine months for a naturalisation decision was entitled to the costs of judicial review proceedings after the Minister granted his application on the eve of the hearing.
The judgment, delivered by Kearns P. on 16 December 2011, said the late decision made the proceedings moot. The only issue left for the court was costs. It did not make an order compelling the Minister to decide the application, or decide the naturalisation application itself.
The applicant, an Iranian national and recognised refugee in Ireland, applied for a certificate of naturalisation on 2 February 2008. He said the delay had caused significant inconvenience. He had been detained for extended periods at immigration control when travelling and had stopped travelling outside the State.
The Department told him in 2009 that average processing time was 23 months, and later correspondence put it at 26 months. It said applications were processed chronologically, that necessary checks and balances took time, and that his file would be submitted to the Minister in due course. The applicant and his solicitor sent repeated requests for expedition and explanations. The applicant said all required documents had been with the Department since June 2008 and nothing remained outstanding.
The applicant argued that the Minister had a legal duty to consider the application and issue a decision within a reasonable time, even though the Minister had discretion over whether to grant naturalisation. The Minister disputed that the delay was unreasonable and said a fair, rational system processed applications in chronological order. The applicant argued that this account was not supported by affidavit evidence.
The court said the Minister’s statutory discretion was subject to the rule of law and did not permit a decision to be deferred indefinitely. It distinguished earlier cases in which evidence showed an orderly processing system. In this case, the court said the Department’s letters were not evidence proving that such a system operated. There was no affidavit evidence supporting the Minister’s assertion of a fair and rational system, and no explanation for the delay beyond the Department’s stated average processing times.
The court concluded that, if the judicial review had proceeded, the applicant would have been entitled to relief because of the unexplained delay. It therefore found him entitled to his costs. The judgment addressed the costs of proceedings rendered moot by the grant; it did not set a general processing deadline for naturalisation applications.