The High Court has granted Vasile Lupascu leave to pursue a limited challenge to a deportation order, based on the order’s failure to specify a destination. The court refused the other reliefs sought at this stage; it did not decide the substantive judicial review.
Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered the judgment on 21 December 2004. The application was made under section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, which required the applicant to show substantial grounds for seeking judicial review. The proposed challenge concerned a deportation order dated 7 August 2003, notified on 9 October and deemed received on or about 13 October 2003.
Lupascu argued that the delay between the Minister’s proposal to deport him and the order—about two years—allowed him to establish deeper ties in Ireland. He said he had bought property with a mortgage and that his wife had a work permit. He also argued that he should have been invited to update his submissions before the order was made, and challenged the adequacy of the Minister’s reasons and the fairness of the process.
The State disputed his account that he had heard nothing during the delay. Its affidavit said he had contact with the authorities, knew the deportation proposal remained under consideration, and could have sent updated representations. The court noted that a Department letter given to him in March 2003 said his application for leave to remain was still under consideration and that an identity document could not then be issued.
Mr Justice Peart found no substantial grounds to argue that the delay amounted to acquiescence in Lupascu’s presence. He said the applicant could have sent updated submissions after the March letter and was not entitled to expect the Minister to invite them in every case involving delay. The court also had no evidence supporting the claimed mortgage or house purchase, and found that his wife’s work permit did not prevent the Minister from proceeding under the statutory process.
The judge refused leave on the other grounds, including challenges concerning reasons and materials said to have been unavailable to the applicant. He allowed leave only on the ground that the deportation order contained no destination of deportation. That permission allows the limited issue to proceed; the judgment does not determine whether the order should ultimately be quashed.