The High Court dismissed the final ground of a judicial review challenge to a Ministerial decision imposing a seven-year exclusion period on a Polish EU citizen. Mr Justice Keane held that the Minister’s review decision gave sufficient reasons for that period.
The judgment, delivered on 31 July 2019, concerned the remaining issue in proceedings brought by P. R., J. R. and their daughter, K. R., a minor suing through her father. The court had previously rejected their challenge to the Minister’s 14 March 2017 review decision. The outstanding question was whether the decision failed to explain why the exclusion period was seven years and, if so, whether that made it invalid.
An earlier removal order, made in January 2013, had imposed a ten-year exclusion period. The applicants argued that the reduced seven-year period in the 2017 review decision was irrational because it would expire later—March 2024 rather than January 2023—and that the Minister had not explained why seven years, rather than another period, was selected.
The judge considered the Court of Appeal’s decision in *Balc*, which said reasons must be provided for an exclusion period. He distinguished that case: the Court of Appeal had found that the decision there failed to assess the effect of removal on the applicant’s rehabilitation. In this case, the applicants had not originally advanced a rehabilitation-based proportionality argument. The judge also ruled that a new argument about the EU interest in the first applicant’s rehabilitation went beyond the grounds on which leave for judicial review had been granted.
The 2017 review decision ran to 16 pages and addressed the first applicant’s offending, personal circumstances, representations, rights and proportionality. It recommended upholding the removal order with a reduced seven-year exclusion period. The judge concluded that the period was considered proportionate to the threat the Minister found the applicant’s conduct represented. He said the decision did not need to explain why seven years was chosen over six or eight, provided it gave reasons showing that the measure imposed was proportionate.
The court rejected the remaining challenge and dismissed the proceedings. The ruling resolved the last ground of challenge to the Minister’s decision; it did not make a new removal order or determine any later application to amend or revoke the exclusion period.