The Court of Appeal has quashed the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal of an Angolan-born man’s application for Irish naturalisation, finding that the decision-making process did not meet the requirements of natural and constitutional justice.
In a judgment delivered on 13 July 2020, Ms Justice Power said the material before the court did not establish that the decision maker had considered the applicant’s explanations about two road traffic convictions and an alleged domestic incident. The court allowed the appeal from the High Court and remitted the application to the Minister for reconsideration. It did not grant naturalisation or decide that the applicant met the good character requirement.
The application was refused in February 2018 on the basis that the Minister was not satisfied the applicant was of good character. The departmental submission cited the “nature” of the traffic offences and an alleged incident in which section 12 of the Child Care Act 1991 had been invoked. A Garda report described allegations following a domestic altercation. The applicant disputed the account and supplied explanations, including that the criminal proceedings arising from the incident had been withdrawn and struck out. The Court of Appeal treated these as his submissions, not findings about what occurred.
The applicant had also disclosed two strict liability road traffic offences relating to insurance and motor tax. He told the Minister that financial difficulty and his move from the family home explained the lapse in insurance and why he had not received the notices and court summonses. He said he paid the fines when he learned of them. The court noted that this context did not appear in the submission put before the Minister.
The court said serious allegations may be relevant to a character assessment even without a prosecution or conviction. But the decision maker must consider the relevant information in context and assess the applicant as an individual. The judgment found no indication on the face of the submission that the applicant’s contextual and potentially exculpatory information had been brought to the decision maker’s attention. The affidavit evidence described later consideration by a departmental official but did not establish what happened to the additional submissions before the final decision was made.
The court concluded that it could not find that the refusal flowed from all the relevant evidence, or that the Minister had considered the material before deciding the applicant was not of good character. It therefore quashed the February 2018 refusal and ordered the application remitted for reconsideration in accordance with fair procedures. The court’s stated provisional view was that the applicant should receive the costs of the High Court proceedings and appeal, subject to the respondent’s opportunity to make written submissions on costs.