The High Court has granted leave to seek judicial review of a deportation order on one limited ground: whether the Minister gave proper weight to the constitutional rights of three Irish citizen children when deciding to deport their father.
Mr Justice Cooke said on 23 July 2010 that the challenge could proceed on the basis that the Minister’s decision may have been disproportionate or unreasonable in its treatment of the children’s interests. The court did not quash the deportation order or decide the substantive challenge. It said the Minister’s assessment might still be found reasonable, balanced and proportionate at a full hearing.
The judgment said the Department’s file note had considered the statutory requirements, possible prohibitions on refoulement and the applicants’ rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It identified maintaining the integrity of the State’s asylum and immigration procedures as a substantial reason for deportation.
The court rejected the broader proposed challenges to the Minister’s assessment of Mr T.’s private life and the family’s Article 8 rights, and found no substantial ground in the complaint about fair procedures concerning an alleged statement to a garda. It said the relevant consideration was the underlying fact that Mr T. and the children’s mother did not live together, and that she received allowances including those of a single parent.
The judgment recounted that Mr T. entered the State in 1999 and claimed asylum; his claim was found manifestly unfounded and an appeal was rejected in 2000. He later obtained five years’ residence as the husband of a French national. The court said that marriage ended and his wife left the State in 2002, but the breakdown and her departure had not been disclosed when renewal was sought in 2008. Mr T. continued working after his entitlement to work ended.
The three children were born in the State in 2004, 2006 and 2008. The court said they could not be deported, though their parents could choose to take them abroad. It identified their young ages, medical conditions affecting two children, their need for care and support, and their father’s employment and potential contribution as matters that could merit particular weight. The court also said the parents’ separate households, the father’s unlawful employment and the history of his immigration proceedings could be argued to have received too much weight.
The substantive hearing will address whether the Minister’s conclusion was unlawful on that single ground. The court left procedural issues, including the standard of proof, to that hearing.