The Supreme Court has ruled that courts reviewing administrative decisions affecting constitutional rights must consider proportionality as part of the reasonableness test. It held that the strict approach associated with planning decisions in *O’Keeffe v An Bord Pleanála* does not apply in the same way to decisions outside areas of special technical skill.
The ruling came in an appeal by Abosede Oluwatoyin Meadows, who sought to challenge a 2002 deportation order. The High Court had refused her leave to apply for judicial review, finding no substantial grounds to question the Minister’s decision under the *O’Keeffe* standard. It certified a point of law for the Supreme Court.
Meadows, a Nigerian national, had claimed that she feared for her safety if returned to Nigeria, including a risk of female genital mutilation. Her refugee status application and appeal had been refused. In submissions to the Minister, her solicitor argued that expert evidence about conditions in Nigeria should be considered and raised concerns about torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and non-refoulement. The Minister’s letter said he was satisfied that the statutory prohibition on refoulement was met.
The Court said the general test remained the one stated in *The State (Keegan) v Stardust Victims’ Compensation Tribunal*: whether a decision plainly and unambiguously flies in the face of fundamental reason and common sense. Judicial review examines the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision, and the applicant carries the burden of proof. But where rights are affected, the court must also consider whether the decision is proportionate. The means must be rationally connected to the legislative objective, impair rights as little as possible, and have effects proportionate to that objective.
The judgment distinguished decisions by technically skilled or professional decision-makers, such as planning authorities, where courts should be slow to intervene in the specialist area. It said deportation decisions are not technical in that sense, while recognising the Executive’s primary role in immigration policy and the courts’ duty to protect constitutional rights through an effective remedy.
The Court did not decide the merits of Meadows’s refugee or protection claims, nor did it quash the deportation order. It found substantial grounds to seek judicial review of the Minister’s decision concerning non-refoulement and granted leave only on that issue, limited to the specified grounds relating to section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996.