The High Court granted the Minister for Justice and Equality leave to appeal a ruling that had quashed the refusal to revoke a deportation order against an anonymised applicant. The appeal will address whether the Minister must consider a family’s circumstances as a whole when deciding an application by one family member, where the members initially had no entitlement to remain in the State apart from any discretionary permission granted by the Minister.
In the earlier substantive judgment, S.T.E. v. Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 1) [2016] IEHC 379, the court made an order of certiorari quashing the Minister’s decision. The Minister then sought leave to appeal under section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000.
The Minister’s proposed questions were too broad, the court said, and did not meet the statutory requirement for a sufficiently specific question of law arising from the judgment. The judge also noted that the State’s practical concerns about assessing a family as a whole had not featured in argument at the substantive hearing.
The court nevertheless considered that practical implementation issues could arise and framed a focused question of exceptional public importance. It concerns whether, when family members—including parents and a child exercising family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights—are initially in equally precarious positions, the Minister must take a holistic view of the family’s collective fate and avoid requiring one member to leave while permitting another to stay without compelling justification.
The judge said the Minister need not wait for all family members’ applications to reach the same stage. Rather, an individual application must be assessed in the context of the family as a whole. The judgment described possible outcomes including revoking the permission given to one parent, granting permission to both, or treating them differently where clear and compelling objective reasons justify it. These observations set out the judge’s view; the certified question is for the Court of Appeal to consider.
The ruling distinguished situations where a family member has an independent entitlement to remain in Ireland. It also referred to a related case, K.R.A. v. The Minister for Justice and Equality, and said the respondents undertook to seek a direction that the appeals be heard together and to prosecute this appeal expeditiously.
The order grants leave to appeal on the question framed by the court, subject to those undertakings. The judgment does not decide the appeal itself.