The High Court ruled that permission granted to a non-national to enter Ireland lapses when that person leaves the State, including when they later seek to return across the land border from Northern Ireland.
Mr Justice Hogan delivered the ruling on 29 December 2011 in proceedings brought by a Bolivian married couple against the Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General. The couple had been granted permission to remain in Ireland until 14 January 2012, pending registration with the Garda National Immigration Bureau. They travelled to Northern Ireland and then by ferry from Larne to Stranraer, Scotland, where police arrested them because they had no UK visa.
The couple said through their solicitor that they had mistakenly believed the Common Travel Area allowed them to travel freely between Ireland and the UK. They had presented their passports openly to police. A Garda National Immigration Bureau detective inspector told the court the UK authorities had decided to deport them, and that the couple’s Irish permission had lapsed when they left Ireland. He said their route to London was circuitous and could raise suspicion, but confirmed they posed no security or public policy risk.
The application before the court sought an interlocutory injunction requiring the Irish respondents to tell the British authorities that the couple still had a right to enter Ireland. In substance, it sought an interim declaration that their permission to remain until 14 January had not lapsed on departure.
The judge interpreted section 4 of the Immigration Act 2004 as requiring a fresh permission after a non-national leaves Ireland. He held that this applied whether the person returned by air, sea or across the Northern Ireland border. A different interpretation, he said, would create inconsistencies in immigration control.
The court accepted the couple’s account of an innocent mistake for the purposes of the application, while noting that fuller information might later emerge. The judge said any decision to grant them new permission would be for an immigration officer in the first instance. If satisfied they had made a mistake and did not intend to enter the UK illegally again, an officer could not properly refuse entry on that ground under section 4(3)(h).
Because the earlier permission had lapsed, the basis for the requested interlocutory injunction did not arise, and the application was refused. The court did not decide whether it had jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory declaration of this kind; that question was left for a more suitable case.