The High Court quashed only the three-year exclusion period in a review decision concerning the removal of a Polish national from Ireland, finding that the Minister for Justice and Equality had not explained why that period was imposed. The removal decision itself was not quashed, and the review remained to be concluded.
The applicant, who had lived in Ireland since 2006, pleaded guilty in 2014 to an offence involving the cultivation of about 120 marijuana plants, valued at approximately €97,000, in his attic. In May 2015, he was sentenced to three years in prison, with the final year suspended for two years.
The Minister issued a removal order in November 2015, with a five-year exclusion period. After the applicant sought a review, a decision dated 27 April 2016 maintained the removal order but reduced the exclusion period to three years. The applicant brought judicial review proceedings challenging the review decision. He argued, among other things, that the offence did not establish a present and serious threat to public policy, that mitigating circumstances had not been given sufficient weight, and that the exclusion period lacked reasons.
The Minister argued that the applicant’s conduct could justify removal on public policy grounds and that the decision, read as a whole, gave sufficient reasons. The court accepted that the Minister could treat the conduct as a danger to society warranting special measures, and that it was for the Minister to weigh the circumstances when deciding whether to make a removal order.
However, the court found that the review decision explained the basis for removal but did not explain why an exclusion period of three years was chosen, or why it was reduced from the original five years. The judge noted that no additional information or representation about the length of the exclusion period had been provided to explain the change.
The court therefore quashed only the part of the review decision that imposed the three-year exclusion period. It did not quash the removal order. The judgment states that the review decision remained to be concluded.