The High Court has refused the applicants a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court over its earlier refusal to grant leave for a judicial review challenging a deportation order.
The application concerned an order made on 9 March 2010 by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform against the fifth named applicant. The applicants argued that the Minister’s assessment of the order’s effect on their family life was disproportionate and unreasonable. On 2 November 2010, the High Court declined leave, finding no substantial ground that the Minister’s evaluation met the judicial review threshold for irrationality or unreasonableness.
The applicants then sought a certificate under section 5(3)(a) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, proposing questions about how courts should assess proportionality when an administrative decision affects constitutional or European Convention rights. Their proposed questions included whether a court should decide for itself if the correct balance had been struck, and whether a child’s best interests should be paramount in that assessment.
Mr Justice Cooke said the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in *Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform* had clarified the applicable approach. In judicial review, the High Court must assess whether the decision was irrational or unreasonable, including whether its impact on rights was clearly disproportionate. It must do so by examining the decision and the information available to the decision-maker at the time, rather than conducting an appeal or substituting its own decision.
The judge said the court had already examined the competing rights of the applicants and the State in its earlier judgment and had found the Minister’s balance proportionate. He concluded that the proposed questions did not raise a point of exceptional importance meeting the statutory test. He also found that an appeal would have no purpose because success on the proposed issue could not reverse the earlier judgment.
The application for a certificate was rejected. The ruling concerned permission to appeal; it did not itself determine a fresh challenge to the deportation order.