The High Court has dismissed a challenge to the law governing the proposed revocation of Ali Charaf Damache’s Irish citizenship, finding that the case was premature and that the statutory process should continue.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys ruled on 31 May 2019 that the challenge to section 19 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 was fundamentally misconceived in principle and had not been made out as it applied to Damache. The court did not decide whether his citizenship should be revoked.
The Minister for Justice and Equality had notified Damache in October 2018 of an intention to revoke his citizenship, citing his guilty plea in the United States to conspiracy to provide material support and resources to terrorists. The notice invited him to seek a committee of inquiry. Damache challenged the law’s constitutionality and compatibility with European and EU rights, and sought to quash the notice and prevent the Minister from revoking his citizenship.
The judge held that revocation was an executive decision, made after an advisory inquiry that should follow fair procedures. The committee’s report would precede any final decision by the Minister. A proposed revocation was not itself a final decision, and the court said it was generally inappropriate to review such a proposal in advance. Any eventual decision could be challenged by judicial review.
The court rejected arguments that the statutory process improperly assigned a judicial function to the Minister, breached fair procedures, or lacked an effective remedy. It also found that claims of disproportionality were premature because relevant facts had not yet been established and no final decision had been made. The notice party, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, did not participate.
The judgment said Damache could apply to the committee without prejudice to the proceedings. The Minister had consented to extending the time for such an application, but the court released the respondents from any requirement to continue extending that time after 28 days. Any application made could be without prejudice to steps he might take in other proceedings.
The judge said he was minded to extend the existing stay on actual revocation, subject to hearing counsel. The judgment therefore records no final decision on whether the stay would continue. The respondents were awarded their costs.