The High Court has quashed the Minister for Justice’s July 2003 refusal to revoke a deportation order against Claudia Fitzpatrick, finding that the reason given was irrational and breached fair procedures. The court did not revoke the deportation order or decide whether Mrs Fitzpatrick could return to Ireland while her application is reconsidered; that question remained for further consideration.
Mr Justice Ryan gave judgment on 26 January 2005 in a judicial review brought by Philip and Claudia Fitzpatrick. The couple challenged only the refusal to revoke the order. They did not challenge the order itself, made on 25 April 2002 and enforced on 14 March 2003.
The judgment records that Mrs Fitzpatrick is a Romanian national and that Mr Fitzpatrick is an Irish citizen. She had entered Ireland using a false identity, worked illegally and later applied for asylum under another name. The couple married in November 2002. After her deportation, they asked the Minister to revoke the order so she could apply for a visa to re-enter Ireland and live with her husband.
In a letter dated 3 July 2003, the Minister refused, giving as the reason that the couple had not lived together as a family unit for an appreciable period since the deportation. The letter also noted Mrs Fitzpatrick’s use of false identities and misleading the immigration authorities. The judge said the decision had been based on the stated reason, and expressly set the other points in the letter aside in assessing the challenge.
The couple argued, among other things, that the decision failed to account for their marriage and was disproportionate and irrational. The judge found that the marriage had been considered. He also rejected the claim that the adult Irish spouse had the constitutional right asserted on his behalf to live in Ireland with his non-national wife.
But the judge found no logical connection between the stated reason and the Minister’s decision. The separation relied on had been caused by the deportation order itself. The court also said the couple’s time living together before deportation had not been taken into account, and that the Minister’s approach was not properly applied without further inquiry.
The court quashed the refusal. It left undecided the Fitzpatricks’ request for an injunction that would permit Mrs Fitzpatrick to return to Ireland while the application was reconsidered.