Judgment: 2026-07-31 · Court archive

High Court refuses stay sought by Italian man facing removal after 29 years in Ireland

High Court · [2026] IEHC 579

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • M.R.
  • Mr Justice Conleth Bradley
What

High Court refuses stay sought by Italian man facing removal after 29 years in Ireland

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Read the report below for the decision and any reasons given.

The High Court has refused to halt the removal to Italy of an Italian national who has lived in Ireland since the age of two and is challenging removal and exclusion orders made against him.

Mr Justice Conleth Bradley ruled on July 31 that the man, identified as M.R., had not shown sufficient grounds to displace the normal position that a prima facie valid removal measure should remain operative while judicial review proceedings are pending.

M.R. arrived in Ireland in 1997 and has lived here for 29 years. The Minister proposed removal and a 10-year exclusion order on June 5, 2026. The orders were made on June 29 after representations from his solicitor were received that morning, and a subsequent review upheld them on July 24.

The High Court granted M.R. leave on July 27 to challenge both the original decisions and the review decision. The latest ruling concerns only his attempt to prevent removal pending that substantive case.

The court was told a flight to Italy had been booked for August 10 at an approximate cost of €2,174.56, with three gardaí due to accompany him and arrangements made with Italian authorities.

Mr Justice Bradley accepted that M.R. has lived almost his entire life in Ireland and has an Irish citizen child aged about six. M.R. argued that removal would severely disrupt family life and could leave him homeless or destitute in Italy.

However, the judge placed significant weight on the applicant’s criminal record, including convictions arising from serious assaults on a former partner and a garda, and a cocaine possession conviction. He also noted that Italy is a safe EU member state, that M.R. has family connections there, and that he could participate in the judicial review proceedings remotely.

The stay and injunction were therefore refused. The substantive judicial review remains pending, and costs will be dealt with separately.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review