The High Court has rejected a family’s challenge to an internal review decision upholding a removal order against a Romanian man who had been convicted of sexual assault. The order included a five-year exclusion period from Ireland.
Mr Justice Eagar’s judgment, delivered on 19 January 2016, concerned judicial review of the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision on review. The court held that it could examine only the internal review decision, because an administrative review of the original decision had been completed before the judicial review proceedings began.
The man had lived in Ireland with his wife and daughter for eight years. In January 2015, while he was serving a prison sentence, the Minister notified him of a proposal to make a removal order. He made written representations through his solicitor, including submissions about his family’s circumstances, his residence in Ireland and his prospects for rehabilitation. The Minister signed the removal order on 26 February 2015, imposed a five-year exclusion period and certified his removal as urgent.
A senior departmental officer reviewed the decision and affirmed it in a decision dated 5 March. The man was released temporarily from prison the following day, arrested and taken to Dublin Airport for removal to Romania. The High Court restrained his removal while the proceedings continued.
The family argued that the review procedure and judicial review together did not provide the redress required by EU law. They also contended that the Minister had applied the wrong threshold for removing a person with a right of permanent residence, and that the assessment of proportionality and urgency was flawed. The Minister disputed those claims.
The court found that the State’s administrative review and judicial review procedures complied with the relevant EU Directive. It held that the internal review had applied the correct legal test for the removal decision and that the Minister’s proportionality assessment was lawful. It also found that the decision-making and enforcement process was not cumulatively unfair.
The judgment therefore rejected the challenges to the internal review decision. It did not quash the removal order or determine the original decision separately; the court had ruled that the original decision was not open to review in these proceedings.