The High Court has quashed a 2019 decision refusing to review a Mauritian man’s application for permission to remain in Ireland, after finding that material submitted on his behalf had gone missing and was not considered.
Mr Justice Heslin ruled that the missing documents included two positive references that could have been relevant to the Minister’s assessment of the man’s character, conduct and connection with the State. The court said it could not conclude that considering them would have made no difference to the decision.
The man, his wife and their two daughters were the applicants in the judicial review. Their names are anonymised in the judgment. The wife and children had been granted permission to remain for three years in 2018. The man’s application for international protection had been refused, and a review of an earlier refusal of permission to remain was rejected in a decision notified on 26 September 2019.
The challenge before the court was narrowed to the claim that the Minister failed to consider a solicitor’s letter dated 3 April 2018 and its enclosures. The judgment records that the letter was sent and received, and that the Minister did not consider it. The material included a reference from an accommodation-centre manager and another from an officer at Volunteer Centres Longford, as well as a hospital appointment letter.
The court described the two references as potentially relevant to statutory factors the Minister was required to consider, including the applicant’s character and conduct and his connection with Ireland. The Minister’s refusal had referred to the man’s road-traffic convictions and an adult caution, and said the State’s interest in preventing crime outweighed the family’s interests. The court did not decide what weight the references should receive or what the Minister should decide on review.
The respondent argued that the missing material would not have changed the outcome, pointing to other information previously considered. The judge found that the 2018 references were different in substance and form from earlier references and that the court could not safely say they were irrelevant or would have made no difference. He also found that the respondent bore a material part of the blame for the missing documents.
The order quashes the decision notified on 26 September 2019. It does not itself grant the man permission to remain or determine the outcome of a fresh review. The court directed the parties to correspond about the form of the order and costs; its preliminary view was that the usual rule, costs following the event, should apply. If they could not agree, short written submissions were to be filed within 14 days.