The Supreme Court allowed the Minister for Justice and Equality’s appeal in a case about a refusal to alter Jaimee Middelkamp’s existing visa permission. The court concluded that the refusal did not infringe Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights or engage any aspect of it.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Peter Charleton on 1 February 2023, agreed with the result in the principal judgment of Mr Justice Gerard Hogan. The appeal concerned the decision not to change the terms of Ms Middelkamp’s visa permission. The judgment does not describe the Supreme Court as ordering a new visa or directing the Minister to take further action.
Ms Middelkamp, a Canadian citizen, came to Ireland under a two-year working visa. Her husband had permission to study dentistry at University College Cork for four years. She worked as a paralegal in a Cork law firm. As her two-year permission neared its end, she argued that Article 8, which protects respect for private and family life, supported her claim to remain with her husband.
Justice Charleton said the working arrangement was time-limited and did not provide for an extension. He reasoned that a request to extend or grant a visa did not, by itself, require the Minister to assess Article 8. In his view, an applicant seeking to rely on human rights considerations in that context had to set out specific circumstances capable of engaging those rights. He found no exceptional circumstances in this case.
The judgment distinguished a visa request from deportation proceedings. It noted the State’s submission that humanitarian considerations, including Article 8, would ordinarily arise if the State proposed to deport Ms Middelkamp and she raised those matters under the relevant statutory process. That was not the decision under appeal.
The appeal also raised the nature of a letter written by High Court judge Mr Justice Richard Barrett to Ms Middelkamp explaining his reasoning. Justice Charleton said a judge may explain a decision to help parties understand it, while cautioning that an explanation outside the judgment should not contradict or qualify the judgment’s reasons. He said the letter could not itself ground an appeal unless it did so. The Supreme Court’s stated disposal was to allow the Minister’s appeal.