The High Court dismissed a judicial review challenge to a deportation order made against the second-named applicant, a man convicted of sexual assault on a minor. The court ruled that the challenge failed on its merits and discharged any interim injunction that remained in force.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys on 15 October 2020, concerned a deportation order made on 8 May 2019. The applicants had sought to have it set aside, arguing that the Minister had not properly considered proportionality, family and private life rights, policies governing discretionary powers, and the children’s best interests.
The judgment records that the second-named applicant arrived in Ireland in 2008 and applied for refugee status as a Liberian, using a passport later found to be false. His refugee application and appeal were rejected. He was convicted of sexual assault in 2014. On appeal, the Circuit Court upheld the conviction, reduced his sentence from six months to five months’ imprisonment, and placed him on the Sex Offenders Register for seven years.
A first deportation order, made in 2017, was withdrawn following earlier judicial review proceedings. A further proposal was made in 2018, followed by the 2019 order challenged in this case.
Justice Humphreys found that the Minister could conclude that the offence outweighed the family members’ interests. He said the family and private life circumstances had been considered in substance and that the applicants had not shown a failure to consider the children’s best interests. The court also rejected the claim that the Minister was obliged to publish policies on the relevant discretionary powers.
The judge said the applicants’ arguments about constitutional rights had not been put to the Minister in the form later advanced to the court. He noted that the submissions to the Minister had relied on a constitutional provision that had already been repealed. He also said the children were not going to leave Ireland and found that their interests did not make the deportation decision unlawful in the circumstances.
The court dismissed the proceedings. It did not need to decide whether to set aside an amendment to the case or dismiss it on discretionary grounds, because the challenge failed on its merits. Any interim injunction still in force was discharged, and any undertakings given by the respondents were released.