The High Court dismissed a Polish man’s challenge to a removal order, finding that his proceedings were brought outside the applicable time limits. The court also concluded that the wording of the notice gave adequate notice of the time allowed to leave Ireland and that his conduct weighed against granting relief.
The man arrived in Ireland in or about 2012. In 2013, he committed burglaries at nine homes in County Kerry and was sentenced in December 2014 to four years’ imprisonment, with two years suspended. The Minister for Justice made a removal order in July 2015 under the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2006. A notice issued three days later said the time allowed to leave would be “not less than one month” from notification.
The man began judicial review proceedings in May 2016, seeking declarations that he should have a month after his release from prison to leave and that the notice was defective because it gave no specific departure date. He had been released in May 2016. The court treated the first request as moot because he had received that period.
The judgment said the remaining claims were, in substance, a challenge to the removal order and its notice. Such a challenge had to follow the procedures and time limits for judicial review, and could not avoid them by being framed as a request for declaratory relief. The court held the case was out of time under section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. It said that, even if that section did not apply, the case was also late under the relevant High Court rules. No extension of time had been sought.
Considering the merits in case its time-limit conclusion was wrong, the court found the notice’s “not less than one month” wording consistent with the regulations and European directive. It said the wording gave the applicant notice of the time available to put his affairs in order and challenge the decision.
The judgment also addressed an alleged serious burglary in Tralee on 3 July 2016, while the man was on bail. The allegation was set out in a Garda officer’s affidavit; the judgment said it had not been explained or denied. The judge said the man had not instructed his lawyers about the incident during an earlier injunction hearing, and treated the withholding of information as relevant to the court’s discretion. The alleged offence was not a criminal finding in these judicial review proceedings.
The court dismissed the application. It also ordered that, because section 5 applied, the applicant be heard on any consequential application in that regard.