The High Court has refused an Afghan woman’s application for discovery in a moot judicial review over delays in deciding her application for Irish citizenship. The discovery request was made to support her claim for costs; the court did not decide the costs issue itself.
The woman applied for a certificate of naturalisation in November 2021. After her first application fee expired unprocessed amid a Covid-related backlog, she paid again, and receipt was acknowledged in August 2022. In October 2023, her solicitors sought an update and warned that judicial review proceedings would follow unless a decision was made within 10 days.
The Department of Justice replied in November 2023 that the application was being prepared for the Minister and that updated Garda vetting and other final checks were needed. It estimated a decision in about 12 weeks, subject to those checks. Garda vetting was completed in December, according to material later disclosed. The Minister’s evidence was that other background checks finished on 27 February 2024, the day papers were filed in the Central Office. The applicant served notice of the intended proceedings on the Minister the following day.
A positive naturalisation decision was made in March and notified to the applicant on 22 March 2024. The Minister said it was issued through the ordinary processing system and that the proceedings had no bearing on its timing. The applicant disputed that account and sought documents about the background checks and the Department’s processing procedures. One two-page background-check document had been withheld under a Freedom of Information Act provision concerning State security.
Justice Siobhán Phelan said the proceedings remained at the pre-leave stage: permission to bring judicial review had not been granted, and the applicant was no longer pursuing leave after the decision made the case moot. She found the timing of the decision, following the indicative 12-week period, did not provide a sufficient basis to doubt the Minister’s evidence or justify discovery to investigate a possible causal link.
The judge also considered the papers filed to support leave were premature and inadequate, including because they did not exhibit the application file or establish that the applicant had completed e-vetting. She refused discovery, finding it was not shown to be necessary or relevant to deciding costs in these moot, pre-leave proceedings. The court said it would hear the parties on consequential matters; the ruling did not determine who should pay costs.