The High Court has quashed a removal order and five-year exclusion order against a Lithuanian man after finding that the decision-maker failed to address his family rights in Ireland.
In a judgment delivered on 22 July 2016, Ms Justice Stewart held that the applicant’s family ties and serious head injuries were relevant to whether removal would interfere with his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court said those matters did not appear to have been addressed when the removal decision was made.
The applicant had come to Ireland with his parents and two brothers in January 2006. He was convicted of aggravated burglary in 2012 and sentenced to six years in prison, with the final two years suspended. He was released on 25 October 2015. The removal order followed his criminal conduct and included a five-year exclusion period.
The applicant sought judicial review, arguing, among other things, that the decision-maker had not properly considered his family life, the nature of any threat he posed, and whether the review process was fair. He also said that exclusion from Ireland could affect his pursuit of a personal injuries claim arising from head injuries suffered in custody. The respondents disputed those arguments and said the decision should be read as a whole; they also argued that he could pursue his civil claim from abroad.
Justice Stewart considered European human rights decisions concerning family ties and removal. She found prima facie evidence of close family ties in Ireland and acknowledged that the applicant’s injuries could require some dependence on family during recovery. Although the decision-maker appeared to know about his injuries and family circumstances, the court said it was unclear whether the decision-maker had treated his Article 8 rights as a live issue.
The judge held that the decision-maker should have recognised the applicant’s family rights and then considered whether interference with them was lawful and necessary in a democratic society. She also said the relevant EU directive and domestic law had to be considered in light of his circumstances. The failure to follow that process was a fundamental error.
The court granted an order of certiorari quashing the decision. It did not rule on the applicant’s other grounds, saying the Article 8 finding was sufficient to dispose of the case. The judgment does not state what decision the authorities made after the order was quashed.