The High Court has refused a Polish national’s application for judicial review of the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision to affirm orders for his removal from Ireland and exclusion for five years from the date of removal.
The orders were made on 27 June 2017 under the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015. The Minister affirmed them on 13 September 2017 after a review. The applicant sought to have the review decision and both orders quashed.
The judgment said the applicant had 47 convictions: 21 motoring offences, 22 theft offences, two burglaries and two failures to appear in court. The Minister relied on that record in deciding that his personal conduct represented a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society.
One part of the challenge concerned the applicant’s separate proceedings under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. He argued that removal could interfere with those proceedings. The Minister undertook not to remove him while they were pending, subject to his remaining in custody or complying with bail conditions. In November 2018, the High Court directed his surrender to Poland, which took place on 13 December 2018. The judge held that the issue about interference with those proceedings was therefore moot and did not decide it.
The court considered the remaining challenge to whether the removal and exclusion orders were otherwise lawful. It rejected arguments that the decision was irrational in its treatment of non-refoulement, that imprisonment prevented the applicant from being considered a present threat, and that the Minister had failed to assess the seriousness of his conduct. It also rejected complaints about fair procedures and disclosure of documents.
The Minister acknowledged that the review decision incorrectly referred to the applicant as having driven while disqualified. The judgment said none of his 47 convictions was for that offence. However, the court found the mistake did not make the decision unlawful in the circumstances, including because the applicant had repeatedly been convicted of driving without a licence and without insurance. The court also rejected a challenge to the decision’s vernacular description of an offence as “hit and run”.
The court refused the application for judicial review. The judgment did not quash the removal or exclusion orders; it said they remained in effect.