The High Court dismissed judicial review proceedings brought by an anonymised child over his claimed Irish citizenship and related deportation orders, finding that an application for a certificate of nationality was the more suitable remedy.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys gave judgment on 8 March 2018. He said the child’s claim to Irish citizenship depended on proving that his father was lawfully resident in the State for the required period before the child’s birth. The court did not determine whether the child was a citizen.
The child was born in 2012 to a mother who had arrived from Nigeria in 2006. Her asylum and subsidiary protection applications were refused, and a deportation order was made against her in 2007. The mother said she had formed a relationship with the child’s alleged father, identified in the judgment as G.N. The child argued that G.N. was his father and had been lawfully resident for three years before the birth.
The judgment recounts efforts to obtain evidence of the father’s identity and nationality, including applications to the District Court for orders concerning a passport. In 2017, the Department of Foreign Affairs said a passport application required the father’s passport showing reckonable residency stamps for the relevant period, or information from the Garda National Immigration Bureau. The Department and the Bureau later declined to provide the requested information, citing legal restrictions on disclosure.
A separate deportation order against the child was made in January 2016. The court noted that neither that order nor the order against his mother had been challenged, and said no challenge to either was possible at that stage. It also noted that the proceedings did not seek an order compelling officials to provide information that might assist with obtaining a passport or demonstrating citizenship.
After the judicial review began, the respondents pointed out that no application had been made under section 28 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 for a certificate of nationality. The child applied for one in January 2018. His counsel accepted that he had not known about that procedure when the proceedings were started.
The judge held that judicial review requires an applicant to show it is the most appropriate procedure where another remedy is available. The child’s counsel accepted that a section 28 declaration could resolve the citizenship issue, while raising concerns about delay, cost and the possibility of a DNA test. The judge considered those concerns speculative and said the child would have to establish descent from a lawful resident to obtain either a passport or a certificate of nationality.
The court dismissed the proceedings because the section 28 process was the more convenient remedy. The respondents accepted that the child would not be disadvantaged in that application by having unsuccessfully pursued judicial review. The judgment did not rule on the citizenship claim or decide the section 28 application.