The High Court has refused a child’s application for judicial review of a proposal to deport her, finding that the proposal was neither irrational nor a slur on her character and caused no prejudice.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice O’Regan on 26 July 2017, followed a hearing on 12 July 2017. The case proceeded as a telescoped hearing after an earlier order directed that the application be maintained on notice to the respondent. The court refused the application; it did not make a deportation order.
The child, identified in the judgment as O.O., was born in Ireland in October 2013. Her mother had applied for asylum, but had not included the child in that application. The child’s father acted as her next friend in the proceedings. His permission to reside in the State was expressly limited to him, the court said, and did not extend to the child.
In January 2015, the Minister issued a proposal to deport the child on the basis that she was in the State without permission. The proposal offered options, including making representations, but none were taken up. The immigration service later said the child’s position was linked to her mother’s case and that no negative decision would be made about the child unless a similarly negative decision was made about her mother.
At the hearing, the applicant abandoned claims that she could rely on her father’s permission or on an asserted practice of extending parents’ permissions to children under 16. The remaining arguments were that describing deportation as conducive to the common good was derogatory and irrational, and that the Minister had to intend to deport the child when issuing the proposal.
The judge rejected the claim that the wording was a slur. She said the reference to the common good identified a category of people who could be subject to deportation proceedings; it did not express a derogatory opinion about the child. The court also rejected the argument that the proposal required an immediate intention to deport, explaining that it identified the child as someone in respect of whom a deportation order could be made.
The judge said that even if there had been no immediate intention to deport when the proposal issued, certiorari would not be granted because the proposal had not altered the child’s status or caused prejudice. She noted that the child could still leave voluntarily before a decision on a deportation order and that the proposal gave her an opportunity to make representations. The judicial review application was refused.