The Supreme Court has ruled that the process in section 19 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 for revoking a naturalised citizen’s citizenship is invalid under the Constitution because it does not provide an independent and impartial final decision-maker.
In a judgment delivered on 14 October 2020, Ms Justice Dunne said the consequences of losing citizenship required high standards of natural justice. The Court allowed Ali Charaf Damache’s appeal from a High Court decision that had rejected his challenge to the legislation.
The case arose after the Minister for Justice issued a notice in October 2018 stating an intention to revoke Mr Damache’s citizenship. The stated ground was that he had failed in his duty of loyalty to the nation and fidelity to the State, following his guilty plea in a United States federal court to a terrorism-related offence. The notice invited him to seek an inquiry. The revocation process had not gone beyond that notice when the Supreme Court considered the appeal.
Under section 19, a person facing proposed revocation may seek an inquiry by a committee appointed by the Minister. The committee’s chair must have judicial experience, and the committee reports its findings to the Minister. The Minister makes the final decision and is not bound by the report. The Act provides no appeal from that decision.
The Court rejected Mr Damache’s argument that revoking citizenship is the administration of justice and therefore a function reserved to the courts. It concluded that revocation is an executive function, noting that it was not an order historically characteristic of courts and would not itself enforce deportation, which would require a separate statutory process and decision.
But the Court found the statutory safeguards insufficient. Although the committee was independent in carrying out its inquiry, it could only report to the Minister. The same Minister initiated the process, had representatives present the case for revocation at an inquiry, and ultimately decided whether to revoke citizenship. The Court held that this did not meet the required standard of fairness for a decision with such serious consequences.
The ruling addressed the validity of the process, not the merits of the proposed revocation. The Court noted that the Minister’s decision to initiate the process had not been challenged. It did not decide whether Mr Damache had failed in his duty of loyalty, whether his citizenship should be revoked, or the European Union and European Convention arguments, which it said were unnecessary to consider.