The High Court has declined to overturn a deportation order made against a man convicted of a serious cocaine offence, rejecting a challenge brought by him, his wife and their minor son under Irish constitutional and European human rights protections.
In a judgment delivered on 14 November 2019, Mr Justice Max Barrett said the Minister for Justice had extensively considered the family’s rights and the information submitted before deciding to deport the man. The court answered “No” when asked whether the decision breached the applicants’ Article 41 rights or their right to respect for family life under Article 41 or Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It also said the Minister’s decision was not unlawful and declined all relief sought.
The judgment records that the man had been convicted under section 15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 in connection with a plan to import more than €1.4 million worth of cocaine into Ireland. He received a ten-year prison sentence, with three years suspended, and was released early in 2016. A deportation order was made in August 2019.
The applicants argued that the Minister had applied the wrong test to the constitutional rights of a family based on marriage, including the Irish-citizen wife’s rights, and had failed to give sufficient weight to family life and the children’s interests. They also argued that the offence was years earlier, that the man had committed no further crimes after his release, and that his participation in the Community Return Scheme and enhanced remission indicated a low risk of reoffending.
Mr Justice Barrett said the Minister’s decision appeared to apply the “insurmountable obstacles” test to both its Article 8 and Article 41 analyses, despite Court of Appeal guidance that Article 41 required a different starting point. But he said administrative decision-making did not have to be perfect and found the error was not enough to set aside the decision. The Minister had considered the family’s circumstances, the possible consequences of deportation, and the family’s rights alongside the State’s power to control the entry of non-nationals.
The court also rejected the arguments about proportionality, the weight given to the conviction and the man’s post-release circumstances. It noted that the Minister had considered the seriousness of the offence, the man’s criminal history in the United Kingdom, the family’s circumstances and school letters concerning the minor applicant. It did not accept that the man’s presence after release had been tolerated in the full sense, given the ongoing deportation process and his lack of a settled legal right to remain.