The Court of Appeal has dismissed a Lithuanian man’s appeal against the High Court’s refusal to quash a removal order made by the Minister for Justice and Equality. The order, which included a three-year exclusion from the State, was based on the man’s repeated criminal offending.
The appeal concerned the Minister’s decision to make the order in March 2013 and affirm it after a review in May 2014. The man sought certiorari, an order quashing the decision. The High Court refused his application in July 2016.
The judgment records 26 convictions during 2011 and 2012, including theft, road traffic offences and unlawful possession of articles. The man was arrested 13 times between August 2011 and March 2012 and served several prison sentences. The Court of Appeal noted that the offences were dealt with in the District Court and that theft was at the lower end of offending, but said the number and pattern of offences, and the prison terms imposed for some, meant they could not be treated as trivial.
The man argued that the offences were too minor and too remote to establish a genuine, present and serious threat to public policy. He also said the Minister had not given proper weight to evidence of employment and submissions that he was in a steady relationship and had changed his life. The Minister’s position was that the repeated offending showed a propensity to re-offend and a present risk to the public.
The Court of Appeal found that the Minister had assessed the man’s personal conduct as a whole, rather than relying solely on convictions or custodial sentences. It said the Minister was entitled to treat the pattern of repeated offending as indicating a present risk. The court also held that employment evidence and the claimed relationship had been considered. The employment was supported by a small number of payslips, while the relationship was uncorroborated; the court said the Minister was not required to give significant weight to unsupported assertions.
The man also argued that Irish regulations did not properly transpose Article 27(2) of the EU Free Movement Directive. The court held that he lacked standing to raise that challenge on these facts: the Minister’s decision rested on the man’s personal conduct and the public policy exception. It left the broader transposition question for a case where it clearly arose.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court had not erred and dismissed the appeal. It did not quash the removal order.