Judgment: 2010-07-14 · Court archive

High Court grants leave to challenge mother’s deportation and pauses removal

The court allowed a focused judicial review challenge to proceed and granted an interim injunction, pending the substantive hearing. It did not decide whether the deportation order was unlawful.

High Court · [2010] IEHC 296

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • J.B.
  • D.Q.B.
What

The court allowed a focused judicial review challenge to proceed and granted an interim injunction, pending the substantive hearing. It did not decide whether the deportation order was unlawful.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ireland
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Cooke on 14 July 2010, concerns a deportation order made under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 on 1 April 2010. The third named applicant, the mother, sought leave for judicial review and an interim injunction. The court also granted a short extension of time to bring the application, finding good and sufficient reason in light of the issues affecting the Irish child’s future.

The High Court granted J.B. (a minor), D.Q.B. and A.B. leave to challenge a deportation order against the child’s mother, and issued an interlocutory injunction preventing her deportation until the substantive case is heard. The court did not decide the challenge to the order itself.

The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Cooke on 14 July 2010, concerns a deportation order made under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 on 1 April 2010. The third named applicant, the mother, sought leave for judicial review and an interim injunction. The court also granted a short extension of time to bring the application, finding good and sufficient reason in light of the issues affecting the Irish child’s future.

The court limited the judicial review to two grounds. The first is whether the Minister properly weighed the child’s interests, including whether deporting the mother would in practice require the very young, dependent child to leave Ireland with her, or leave the child without her care. The second is whether the Minister considered other, less restrictive measures to control the mother’s limited or temporary stay in Ireland.

The judgment described those issues as substantial enough to be determined at a full hearing. It said the child’s age and day-to-day dependence on the mother meant the balance of convenience favoured keeping them together while the case proceeded. The interim injunction is pending that hearing; it is not a final ruling on the legality of the deportation order.

The court rejected or excluded other proposed grounds at the leave stage. It found no arguable Article 8 case on the facts described, and rejected the contention that the applicants lacked an effective independent remedy, noting that the High Court can review and quash an unlawful deportation decision. It also found no arguable basis to challenge the Minister’s stated reasons concerning economic wellbeing and border control. The court’s comments on those matters concern whether grounds could proceed, not a final determination of the two grounds it allowed.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review