The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal concerning a deportation order as moot after the Minister revoked the order against the third named appellant. The Court declined to consider the appeal’s underlying legal grounds or the separate challenge to a costs order.
The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Denham on 20 November 2013, said the two first named appellants were Irish citizens and the third and fourth named appellants were their parents. The Minister had made a deportation order against the third named appellant on 20 August 2009 and affirmed it on 3 November 2009.
The appellants sought judicial review in the High Court, including leave to challenge the deportation order. The High Court refused leave on 1 February 2011. It later granted a certificate for an appeal on issues including the O’Keeffe test and the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Meadows. The judgment noted that the appellants had not relied on Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union, which formed the basis of the European Court of Justice’s subsequent Zambrano decision.
The Minister informed the third named appellant by letter dated 21 February 2012 that the deportation order had been revoked. The judgment said the third appellant had temporary residency until 24 February 2014, while the third and fourth appellants then had permission to reside in Ireland. It said any future deportation risk would require a fresh order and could raise new issues.
The Court held that the appeal was moot because there was no longer a live dispute for it to resolve. It said a decision on the former deportation order would be hypothetical and amount to an advisory opinion. Although courts may hear moot appeals in exceptional circumstances, the Court found no such exception here. It said the case was not a suitable test case and that the importance of a legal issue alone was not enough to justify hearing a moot appeal.
Counsel for the appellants argued that an outstanding High Court costs order should be addressed as part of the appeal. The Court said a costs issue did not, by itself, justify hearing a moot appeal and distinguished the circumstances of Caldwell v Mahon Tribunal. It did not decide whether the costs order was properly made. The Court also did not consider the test for reviewing the validity of the deportation order. It dismissed the appeal as moot.