The Supreme Court declared moot an appeal concerning a deportation order against Akintola Lofinmakin after the Minister revoked the order and granted him temporary permission to reside in Ireland. The Court declined to decide the two certified questions and said a disputed High Court costs order did not keep the appeal alive.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice William M. McKechnie on 20 November 2013, arose from a judicial review challenge brought by Lofinmakin and members of his family. The Minister had made the deportation order on 20 August 2009 after refusing an application for him to remain in the State. His wife, Rachel Yinka Amonusi, was lawfully resident under the Irish Born Child Scheme, 2005, and their two children were Irish citizens born in Ireland.
The High Court refused leave to seek judicial review in February 2011, finding that the applicants had not shown substantial grounds to quash the Minister’s decision. It later certified two questions for appeal: whether Article 24.3 of the EU Charter applied to the deportation decision, and how the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Meadows should guide judicial review of such decisions.
While the appeal was pending, the Minister revoked the deportation order on 21 February 2012 and permitted Lofinmakin to reside in Ireland until 24 February 2014. The respondents argued that the appeal had become academic. The appellants argued that it should proceed, including because the High Court had ordered them to pay the respondents’ costs and because the legal questions could recur.
The Supreme Court held that the deportation order and the process challenged had no continuing legal effect. Even if the appeal succeeded and leave were granted, the Court said, no substantive remedy remained available. It therefore found no live dispute between the parties. Although courts retain discretion to decide moot questions in exceptional circumstances, the Court found no sufficient reason to use that discretion here. It said future proceedings, if any, would arise in different factual and legal circumstances.
The Court also rejected the argument that the outstanding costs order made the appeal live or justified hearing the certified questions. The Minister’s counsel indicated that the High Court costs order could be vacated. The Supreme Court therefore declared the appeal moot and declined to determine it. The judgment did not decide either certified question or resolve the underlying challenge to the original deportation decision.