The High Court refused to restrain the removal of a Lithuanian national whose removal was scheduled for the afternoon of 20 October 2015, while directing the State to ask the Court of Appeal whether removal was compatible with a sentencing order requiring post-release supervision.
The application was brought against the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The applicant had arrived in Ireland in 2006 or 2007 and had been convicted of numerous offences between 2007 and 2010. The judgment records that the Minister made a removal order on 3 May 2013. The applicant faced a 12-year prison sentence, with three years suspended, for assault causing harm and false imprisonment. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal reduced the sentence to 10 years and attached an 18-month period of post-release supervision to the suspended portion.
Because more than two years had passed without enforcement of the removal order, the regulations required the Minister to be satisfied that the circumstances behind it still existed. The intended judicial review challenged the subsequent administrative review. The applicant argued that officials had not adequately considered the reduced sentence, the supervision requirement and evidence from a probation officer about progress in prison.
The High Court found that the applicant had shown the review was inadequate. It said there was no evidence the Minister knew of the sentence reduction, the supervision condition or the applicant’s progress in prison. That finding met the first threshold for the injunction application, but did not decide the underlying judicial review.
Applying the principles governing injunctions against removal, the court said the applicant’s rehabilitation and the possibility of further progress under supervision did not amount to exceptional circumstances warranting an injunction. It also considered the offences serious, while acknowledging that the applicant had served his sentence.
The court was concerned that removal before supervision began might conflict with the Court of Criminal Appeal’s order. However, it found the probation officer’s account described informal monitoring rather than a clearly structured programme of regular meetings and goals. The court directed the State to refer the matter forthwith to the Court of Appeal for clarification. It expressly said that direction would not stop removal, and refused the requested order restraining it. The judgment said the applicant could be brought back from Lithuania if the Court of Appeal later concluded that supervision in Ireland was required and removal was incompatible with the sentencing order.