The High Court dismissed a judicial review challenging a removal order after the applicant withdrew the proceedings, and ordered his solicitor to indemnify him for the Minister’s costs. The court also directed the solicitor and the junior counsel who acted for the applicant to respond to concerns about their professional conduct. It made no final finding on those conduct concerns in this judgment.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Keane on 30 May 2018, concerns a removal order made against the applicant, a Polish national, in June 2015. The Minister’s decision cited his criminal convictions and included a five-year exclusion period. The applicant sought judicial review in March 2016, shortly before his scheduled release from prison, and obtained leave and a stay on removal at an ex parte hearing.
The Minister later sought to dismiss the proceedings, arguing that the application was outside a statutory 28-day time limit. The High Court found the applicant had been notified of the removal order in June 2015, more than nine months before seeking leave. It said the application had been brought in breach of the statutory time limit and that the judge who granted leave had not been told about the applicable time limit or the requirement to seek an extension.
The court also found that the applicant had received the Minister’s written reasons with the removal order. It concluded that the central claim advanced at the initial hearing—that no reasons had been provided—had no factual foundation, and that the judicial review could not have succeeded on the evidence and law before it. The applicant later sought an extension of time, but the court found his application did not establish good and sufficient reasons or substantial grounds to challenge the order.
The judgment records that the applicant failed to attend a required Garda immigration appointment after his release and had not been located. In November 2017, his solicitor told the court that the applicant had returned to Poland and no longer wished to continue. The court dismissed the proceedings and struck out the extension application.
Under Order 99, rule 7, the court ordered the applicant’s solicitor to bear personally the amount of the Minister’s costs payable by the applicant, once agreed or taxed. The judge found a clear default in the legal representatives’ duty to the court and said the proceedings should not have been brought. He left open whether their conduct amounted to professional misconduct.
The court directed the solicitor to provide documents about the firm’s fee arrangements and required the solicitor and junior counsel to show cause in writing why they should not be found to have breached proper professional standards and their duties to the court. They were given 14 days to respond, with a further hearing to follow. The judgment did not determine those show-cause issues or make the further costs order it said might be considered.