The High Court dismissed Nkaima Thomas Tabi’s judicial review application challenging the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform’s refusal to grant him a certificate of naturalisation. The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Cooke on 16 April 2010.
The Minister’s decision, communicated by letter on 2 June 2009, said Mr Tabi did not meet the statutory “good character” condition. The stated reason was four District Court convictions for offences under the Road Traffic Acts, with fines totalling €475. The judgment says the convictions were undisputed.
Mr Tabi had received leave to seek judicial review in an order made by Mr Justice Peart on 27 July 2009. At the close of the applicant’s submissions on 14 April 2010, the court indicated that it considered the application unfounded and did not hear submissions in reply for the Minister. The written judgment set out its reasons.
The court rejected the argument that the Minister had applied an inflexible policy treating any adverse Garda attention as proof of poor character. It found no evidence that such a policy unlawfully restricted the Minister’s discretion. In any event, the court said the refusal rested on the four convictions, rather than on adverse attention alone.
The applicant’s submissions also described the offences as minor and argued they could not, by themselves, support the decision. The court held that road-traffic convictions were relevant to the statutory assessment and that the Minister could consider an applicant’s record and conduct in the State when assessing character.
The court further rejected arguments that the Minister had to put the convictions to Mr Tabi before deciding, or contact nominated referees and weigh their views. It said there was no such obligation in the circumstances, where the decision concerned a discretionary application for a privilege and the convictions were not disputed. The judgment noted that a mistaken-identity error could have provided a ground to challenge a decision.
The court concluded that the Minister’s reliance on the undisputed convictions was not arbitrary or manifestly unfair and found no legal or factual defect warranting certiorari. The application was dismissed; the judgment did not grant an order quashing the refusal.