The High Court has ruled that the Minister for Justice acted irrationally in refusing to revoke deportation orders against a Nigerian couple who had left Ireland in 2005 and remained abroad.
The applicants sought judicial review of the Minister’s decision of 17 July 2023 to leave in place orders made against them in 2017. Their main argument was that the refusal was irrational because the Minister’s assessment acknowledged that they had returned to Nigeria years earlier, yet concluded there were no unusual, special or changed circumstances since the orders were made.
The couple had applied in 2005 for permission to remain under a scheme for parents of Irish-born children. They left Ireland that July without notifying the Minister or the relevant registration officer. The court found they breached notification requirements under the Aliens Order 1946. Letters about proposed deportation orders, sent to the only Irish address they had provided, were legally served but not received. The couple had already left the country.
The Minister made deportation orders in October 2017, on the understanding that the applicants had remained in Ireland without permission. The orders and related notices were sent by registered post to their last supplied address and were returned undelivered. The applicants said they first saw the orders in August 2021, after learning of them during a UK visa application and obtaining documents through a freedom of information request.
In December 2021, they applied to have the orders revoked, saying they had lived in Nigeria since 2005 and that the orders affected their ability to travel to other European countries. Their solicitors supplied supporting documents. The Minister refused to revoke the orders in July 2023.
The High Court said the Minister’s assessment accepted that the applicants had left Ireland and resided in Nigeria since 2005, information that had not been known when the orders were made. It nevertheless concluded there were no changed circumstances. The judge found that contradiction irrational and held that the applicants had established a right to judicial review on that ground.
The court rejected the applicants’ separate Article 8 argument. It found they had not established that the effect of the orders on travel between third countries engaged Article 8 rights. It also stressed that the case challenged the refusal to revoke the orders, not the orders themselves, and did not decide whether the Minister had power to make orders against people outside Ireland.
The judgment grants relief against the 2023 refusal; it does not itself revoke the deportation orders. The parties were invited to agree the form of order, including costs, by 20 January 2025. The judge’s preliminary view was that the applicants should receive their costs, subject to any dispute.