The High Court rejected a Nigerian man’s challenge to his detention under an outstanding deportation order, finding that the immigration officer was entitled to arrest him on the information available at the time. The court said the man was not entitled to the relief he sought, but left the form of the final order to be addressed by counsel.
The man had claimed asylum in Ireland in 1999. His claim and appeal were rejected in 2000, and a deportation order was made that November. He left Ireland in spring 2000 without notifying the authorities and took no steps to have the order revoked.
By 2005 he was living and working in London with his wife, a Portuguese national. He travelled alone to Farranfore Airport on 15 February 2005 with an Irish visa, intending to visit a friend in Tralee. At immigration control, he was told the deportation order remained in force. He said he was unaware of the order and told the officer he was married to a Portuguese citizen and lawfully resident in the UK. The officer checked Garda records, which also classified him as an “evader”, and arrested him.
The man was detained at Cloverhill Prison for 71 days. In March 2005, after UK authorities confirmed they would accept his return, the parties agreed to his deportation to the UK that evening. The court approved that agreement. The man reserved the right to challenge the lawfulness of the deportation, and the court later heard further written and oral submissions. Because he had already been released and deported, it could no longer order his release.
The man argued that the immigration officer could have refused him permission to land and send him back to the UK, and that his detention was therefore unlawful. He also relied on European Union rights connected to his marriage and his wife’s right to live and work in the UK, as well as the right to respect for family life. The State argued that his wife was not exercising EU free movement rights in Ireland and that he had supplied no documents at the airport proving their marriage or her status in the UK.
The judge said there was no evidence linking the visit to Ireland to the exercise of the wife’s EU treaty rights. He also distinguished cases relied on by the man, which involved spouses living or working in the state where entry or residence was sought, or proof of family ties. The judge concluded that the outstanding deportation order and the absence of supporting documents meant the officer could act on the information then available. He rejected the argument that the officer’s actions were disproportionate based on facts not disclosed at the time.
The court refused the reliefs claimed and said it would hear counsel on the form of order.