The High Court quashed the Minister for Justice’s refusal to revoke R.C.’s deportation order because the decision did not take account of the constitutional rights of his Irish-born daughter. It declined a similar challenge by A.C. and T.C., finding that the refusal in their case followed a proper consideration of the application.
Mr Justice Quirke gave judgment on 21 December 2004 in two judicial review cases heard together. The applicants did not challenge the validity of the deportation orders. They challenged the Minister’s decisions refusing to revoke them under section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999.
R.C., an Albanian Kosovar national, was deported on 20 February 2003. His Irish citizen partner, S.C., had given birth to their daughter, C.C., earlier that month. The judgment records that the Minister’s officials knew R.C. was the father of an Irish-born child, but the respondent conceded at the hearing that the child’s rights and interests had not been considered when the revocation application was refused.
The judge rejected the applicants’ argument that the Minister had applied an inflexible policy requiring couples to have lived together for an appreciable period after marriage. He found that the applications had been considered separately on their individual merits, and that the period of living together could be a relevant consideration. But for R.C., the decision was invalid because the Minister had not considered whether there were sufficient reasons connected with the common good to refuse revocation despite C.C.’s citizenship rights and the consequences for her.
A.C., a Romanian national, had been deported in September 2002. He married T.C. in Romania in January 2003; she was an Irish citizen with three children. The Minister refused to revoke A.C.’s deportation order, citing concerns that the marriage might have been entered into to facilitate his return and that the couple had not lived together as a family unit since marrying. The court found the decision lawful and proportionate, and said it did not breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court granted certiorari quashing the refusal concerning R.C. The judgment does not state that the deportation order itself was quashed. Relief sought by A.C. and T.C. was declined.