The High Court has proposed striking out a judicial review case brought by A.O. over delays in processing his Irish citizenship application, finding that the proceedings were premature. The court said the application for leave was made before A.O. had submitted a properly completed vetting authorisation form required by the Department of Justice.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Garrett Simons on 26 July 2024, followed a motion by the Minister for Justice to strike out the proceedings as premature and/or an abuse of process. The judgment says the principal relief sought was an order directing the Minister to decide the naturalisation application within ten weeks.
A.O. applied for a certificate of naturalisation on 27 August 2020. In February 2022, the Department asked him to complete a vetting form so that the Garda National Vetting Bureau could provide information relevant to the statutory “good character” criterion. The form he first returned was invalid because he had entered his date of birth where the date of completion was required. The Department requested a replacement, which was returned in or about 22 March 2022.
However, A.O. had applied for leave to bring judicial review on 28 February 2022, before the corrected form was submitted. The judge held that the later submission did not cure the problem: an applicant seeking an order compelling a decision must have met the decision-maker’s requirements when proceedings are instituted. He concluded that A.O. had no arguable grounds for mandamus at that point and that the Minister was entitled to have the case struck out as premature.
The judgment also records a separate concern raised by the Department about the validity of a Nigerian passport submitted with the citizenship application. A.O. said he had since obtained a new passport from Nigerian authorities. The judge said the Minister was entitled to time to consider whether the explanation resolved the concern, and treated the passport issue as a further reason the judicial review was premature.
The court’s conclusion set out a proposed order, rather than recording a final order already made. The judge’s provisional view was that each party should bear its own costs. He also asked the Department to tell A.O. whether it would continue processing the existing application or whether he needed to make a fresh one.
Either party could seek to address the proposed orders by notifying the registrar within 21 days and arranging a relisting for 11 October 2024. In the absence of such notification, the judgment says an order would be made striking out the proceedings with no order as to costs.