The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against the refusal to quash a removal order and three-year exclusion period imposed on a Romanian national. The court refused the relief sought, leaving the High Court’s decision in place.
The appellant had sought judicial review of the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision, made on 10 February 2016, to uphold the removal order and exclusion period. The original order was made on 29 October 2015. The High Court refused the application in April 2017, and the appellant was removed from Ireland on 1 July 2017. The appeal concerned that High Court judgment and order.
The case followed the appellant’s 2015 conviction for assault causing harm, with theft also taken into consideration. The assault occurred on Dublin’s North Circular Road in March 2014. The judgment records that the woman was punched and kicked in the face and suffered a broken nose, a perforated eardrum and continuing effects. The appellant received a sentence of three years and six months, with the final two years suspended.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the High Court had not properly assessed proportionality or the mitigating circumstances, including his lack of prior convictions, early guilty plea, remorse, accepted offer of compensation and claim of low risk of reoffending. He also argued that the Minister had not given adequate reasons for the three-year exclusion period.
The Court of Appeal found that the High Court had conducted a proportionality assessment and considered the mitigating factors. It said the Minister’s decision was based on the appellant’s personal conduct in its totality, not solely on the conviction. The court concluded that the High Court was entitled to find the Minister had considered the effect on the appellant’s private life and any hardship on return to Romania, and that the decision was reasonable in the judicial review sense.
The court also held that the challenge to the exclusion period’s length and reasons was not properly before the High Court because it had not been clearly set out in the Statement of Grounds. It described the High Court judge’s comments about whether the appellant’s argument attacked the EU Directive as obiter and immaterial to the case. The appeal was dismissed and the requested relief refused.