The High Court has refused a Polish national’s challenge to a decision upholding an order for his removal from Ireland, finding that the Minister’s review had properly assessed his repeated offending as a present threat to public policy.
The applicant, who had lived in Ireland since 2007, challenged the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision of 22 September 2015. That decision affirmed a removal order made in March 2015, including a five-year exclusion period. The challenge was heard as a judicial review. In a judgment delivered on 21 July 2017, Ms Justice Faherty denied the relief sought.
The removal process began in 2012 after the applicant accumulated criminal convictions. The judgment records 40 convictions between 2010 and 2015 for offences including theft, assault, road traffic and drug offences, and damage to property. He served periods in custody. After his release in May 2014, he made submissions through NASC, the Irish Immigration Support Centre, that he had rehabilitated, addressed his alcohol problems and was law-abiding.
Further offences followed. The Minister’s review considered convictions recorded in May 2015 for offences committed after the initial removal decision and after the review had been sought. The decision-maker concluded that the continuing pattern showed a propensity to re-offend and justified removal on serious grounds of public policy. The applicant argued that his offences, considered individually or together, did not meet the required threshold and that the review had not adequately identified a present threat. He also argued that the 2006 Regulations failed to reflect the protections in the EU Free Movement Directive.
The judge found that the decision-maker had been aware of the Directive’s requirement that an individual’s conduct represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting a fundamental interest of society. The review considered the nature and range of the applicant’s offences, including that offending continued after he had been notified of the proposed removal and after he had claimed to have changed his behaviour. The judge held that the convictions could be considered cumulatively and that the decision identified the threat as one to public safety and the common good.
The court also noted that the Minister had considered the applicant’s residence, family and employment circumstances, integration, alcohol dependency, and claimed lack of support or accommodation in Poland. The applicant did not challenge the proportionality assessment on those matters.
The judge rejected the first ground of challenge, finding the decision neither unreasonable nor irrational under EU law. She did not consider the separate argument about the wording of the 2006 Regulations, saying it was unnecessary in light of her conclusion. The court denied the relief claimed; the removal order therefore remained upheld by the Minister’s review decision.