The High Court has dismissed a third judicial review challenge to orders for the removal and exclusion of a Polish citizen, and released the State from an undertaking not to remove him while the case was pending.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys also refused the applicants’ request to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The judgment, delivered on 15 March 2019, says the court found no significant change in circumstances requiring a further ministerial review before removal.
The removal and exclusion orders were made on 8 May 2017 following criminal offences committed during the first applicant’s residence in Ireland. A review affirmed the orders in September 2017. In earlier judicial review proceedings, the court dismissed the challenge to the removal order but directed the Minister to provide reasons for the three-year exclusion period. A later review decision was quashed after the applicants challenged it, and they discontinued the first proceedings.
In the current case, the applicants argued that the Minister should reconsider the exclusion order in light of what they described as the applicant’s rehabilitation, family life and obligations under a suspended sentence. The judge said a second or later review would not suspend removal and that the Minister could not be required to reconsider the decision continuously as time passed. He also found the cited rehabilitation and family circumstances were continuations of matters that existed during the earlier proceedings.
The judge said the suspended sentence did not prevent removal, as its relevant condition was cooperation with the Probation Service and could be met without the applicant being in the State. He rejected the claim that the earlier quashing of a review decision created a legitimate expectation of another review. The regulations allow the Minister to review an exclusion order on the Minister’s own initiative if information shows a material change in circumstances, but the Minister’s position was that the circumstances raised did not meet that threshold.
The court refused an amendment sought on the hearing day to challenge the validity of the 2015 regulations, finding it would impede the hearing and lacked an adequate explanation for the delay. It also declined a CJEU referral, saying the proposed questions were unnecessary in the circumstances and some depended on amendments refused by the court.
The judge said the removal order would become unenforceable on 7 May 2019 absent a further ministerial review process. He released the respondents from their undertaking not to remove the applicant, dismissed the proceedings and awarded costs to the respondents, including solicitors and two counsel. Those costs may be set off against costs payable to the applicants under orders in the earlier judicial reviews.