The High Court refused an application to prevent the deportation of a father from Ireland while his family’s judicial review proceedings continued, finding that the applicants had not raised a serious question to be tried. The ruling concerned interim relief; it did not determine the substantive challenge to the deportation order.
The applicants were four children, their father and their mother. The children are anonymised in the judgment; the first child was born in Ireland and was an Irish citizen. The father had unsuccessfully sought asylum before asking the Minister for permission to remain under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999. The Minister refused and made a deportation order on 19 May 2010. The family also sought certiorari to quash that order.
The applicants relied on a report from a consultant psychiatrist, who said the children would suffer serious consequences if their father were returned to Nigeria, even if he were later allowed back into Ireland. The court said the report did not distinguish the case. Justice Seán Ryan expressed reservations about the strength of the evidence, while stating that he did not criticise the doctor or the applicants’ legal advisers.
The family challenged how the Minister had considered their circumstances, including the mother’s stated intention to remain in Ireland if the father were deported, the father’s offer to obtain health insurance, an alleged error about free education in Nigeria, and the children’s rights and best interests. The respondents argued that the decision was proportionate and that the section 3 assessment had considered the family’s circumstances and the statutory factors.
Justice Ryan rejected the specific complaints as insufficient to raise a serious question for trial. He said the file addressed the effect on family life; the health insurance point was minor; the alleged education error was doubtful and had not been raised in representations; and the Minister was required by law to consider employment prospects. He also referred to earlier judgments rejecting similar general arguments, including challenges based on the European Convention on Human Rights and EU law.
Applying the Campus Oil test for an interlocutory injunction, the court concluded that the applicants had not met its first limb. It also agreed with the approach in earlier cases on the balance of convenience and adequacy of damages. The motion for an injunction was refused. The judgment did not quash the deportation order or finally determine the judicial review proceedings.