The High Court has quashed the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal of permission to remain to a third-country national who is the father of an Irish child. The court found that the decision did not address the child’s mother’s serious mental ill-health when assessing the child’s best interests. It remitted the application to the Minister for fresh consideration; it did not grant the father permission to remain.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Max Barrett on 30 June 2021, concerned an application for judicial review of a refusal made on 27 February 2020. The Minister’s stated reason was that refusing permission would not force the child to leave the European Union and deprive her of the genuine enjoyment of her rights as an EU citizen.
The court said the Minister’s decision was required to consider all specific circumstances relevant to the child’s best interests. It found that the decision’s reasoning was silent on the mother’s mental ill-health and its possible implications for the child if the father were removed from the family. The decision’s list of documents considered also did not mention a psychiatrist’s letter dated 19 July 2016. The judge concluded there was evidence that representations about the mother’s mental health had been partly or fully ignored, or not understood. The applicants succeeded on this ground.
The court rejected two other complaints. It found the Minister had not been given documentation claiming the father was a primary carer; the evidence instead described the mother as the primary carer, assisted by the father, who lived at a different address. The court also rejected a challenge based on errors in the refusal decision, including a wrong entry date and references to another name and a temporary residence card. It considered those errors immaterial in the context of the decision.
In deciding whether to grant relief, the court considered the father’s criminal convictions, including road traffic offences and public order and civil registration offences. It also noted that a conviction for possession of stolen property had previously been quashed and disregarded it. Despite hesitation about the criminal record, the judge concluded that the decision’s failure to assess the possible implications for the child warranted quashing it in the particular circumstances. The matter was sent back to the Minister for a fresh decision.