The High Court has declined to continue an injunction that would have prevented the State from removing a Moldovan-born man to Romania while his challenge to removal and exclusion orders proceeds. The ruling concerned interim relief only; the court did not decide whether the orders were valid.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered the judgment on 20 April 2018, the day before the proposed removal. The man had entered Ireland in 2004 using a false Lithuanian identity, the judgment states. He later obtained Romanian citizenship. The Minister proposed a removal order in February 2018; removal and exclusion orders were issued on 16 March, and a review decision affirming them followed on 13 April.
The man had been convicted in March 2017 of six offences relating to fraudulent jobseeker’s allowance claims totalling €30,015.40. He received a three-year prison sentence, with 18 months suspended, and was due for release on 21 April 2018. The judgment says he had pleaded guilty, confessed, co-operated with the prosecution and expressed remorse, but had made no repayment.
His lawyers argued that he had an arguable case, including that he did not pose a sufficiently serious present threat and that removal should not be based solely on past convictions or economic considerations. The judge noted that leave had already been granted and accepted that the case was arguable. The interim test, agreed by the parties, also required the balance of justice to favour an injunction.
Factors against continuing the injunction included the weight due to enforcing orders that were prima facie valid and the possibility of pursuing the proceedings from outside Ireland. The judge also considered the family circumstances. The man’s partner and their Ireland-born son were described in the judgment as being connected to Ukraine, where the son lived with his maternal grandmother. The judge said the son did not appear to be an Irish citizen. The partner’s separate immigration application was under review, and the judge considered that the family disruption did not outweigh the factors favouring removal at this interim stage.
The judge said the man could be brought back if he ultimately succeeded. He declined to continue the injunction, allowing the State’s proposed removal to proceed, while seeking priority for the substantive case. He set 30 April 2018 as the deadline for opposition papers, subject to hearing counsel.