The High Court refused an application to temporarily restrain the deportation of a man from Ireland while his judicial review proceedings continue. Ms Justice O’Regan ruled on 16 March 2017 that the applicants had not provided enough evidence to tip the balance in favour of an injunction.
The judicial review challenges a 9 December 2016 decision by the Minister for Justice and Equality refusing to revoke a deportation order made on 27 May 2016. The applicants had received leave to seek an order quashing that refusal. The immediate application before the court was for an injunction preventing implementation of the deportation order pending the proceedings; the court did not decide the underlying challenge.
The judgment says the second applicant arrived in Ireland in April 2005, aged 17. After an offence, he was sentenced in January 2012 to two years in prison, with one year suspended. The Court of Appeal increased the sentence to five years in September 2013, with the final two years suspended. The judgment describes a later six-month residence permission, followed by steps to revoke it and the deportation order.
The second applicant has a child, H, born in 2009. The judgment records that H’s mother had told the Minister that H and his father had a good relationship and that the father took him from Thursday to Sunday every second weekend. It also refers to a letter saying H stayed with his paternal grandmother while his father was in prison. The judge said H’s position had to be considered even though he was not a party to the proceedings.
The applicants also relied on the second applicant’s infant child, born in November 2016, and his Irish citizen partner. The judgment records conflicting accounts in the court papers about whether the partner would travel to Nigeria with the second applicant if he were deported. The judge agreed with the Minister that the infant was too young for the proposed departure or separation to cause significant disruption to his life.
Applying the Supreme Court’s approach to interim injunctions, the judge accepted that the applicants had an arguable case. She said there was not enough information to assess its strength, including because the respondents had not yet filed a statement of opposition. Against the potential impact on the applicants and H, she weighed the public interest in implementing a measure that was prima facie valid and the risk to the public interest identified in the judgment, including the second applicant’s criminal history.
The court concluded that the evidence did not justify an injunction and refused the application. The judicial review itself remained unresolved.