The High Court has refused an injunction to prevent the removal of Nicholas Lockwood, a US national detained at Dublin Airport after immigration authorities refused him leave to land. The ruling addressed only whether his removal should be restrained; it did not decide the ultimate merits of the challenge to the refusal of entry.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered judgment on 8 April 2019. Lockwood and Baseball Ireland Development Company Limited by Guarantee sought the injunction against the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Garda Commissioner.
Lockwood arrived from Washington on 1 April. The judgment records differing accounts of what he told an immigration officer: his barrister said Lockwood’s instructions were that he mentioned both a holiday and baseball coaching, while the officer said coaching arose only after further questioning. It was accepted that Lockwood did not clearly state at the outset that he was visiting as a volunteer baseball coach, and that he did not initially say the coaching was on behalf of Baseball Ireland.
Lockwood said he was unpaid. Later correspondence referred to approximately €12,000 in “expenses”. Immigration authorities interpreted messages found during a phone search as showing that he intended to undertake paid work without a permit and had given a different reason for entering Ireland. Those were the grounds on which leave to land was refused. The judgment also records an alternative explanation from Baseball Ireland colleague Christopher Saint Amand, who said the messages were light-hearted warnings to explain the voluntary coaching clearly if asked.
The applicants’ solicitor sought revocation or withdrawal of the refusal and later made a renewed application for leave to land. The Department maintained its position and said a volunteer worker required a permit, a legal interpretation the applicants disputed.
Applying the injunction principles in *Okunade v Minister for Justice and Equality*, the judge said there was no irreparable harm to Lockwood. He considered that the arguments had not shown a clear reason why the refusal was unlawful and said any good-faith reapplication would have to be made from outside the State. The balance of convenience and justice was “massively against” an injunction. The application was refused, leaving the removal decision in place at this stage.