The High Court has refused a Lithuanian man’s application to quash a removal order made on public policy grounds, finding the decision rational, reasoned and sustainable on the material before the decision-maker.
The judicial review concerned an order made by the Minister for Justice and Equality on 19 March 2013 and affirmed in May 2014. The applicant, identified in the judgment as M.V., challenged both the removal decision and the rules governing its basis. The court refused the relief sought; it did not make a new finding on the merits of the removal decision.
M.V. had lived in Ireland since 2011. The judgment records convictions in 2011 and 2012 and 13 arrests between August 2011 and March 2012, ten relating to theft. His counsel acknowledged 26 convictions by the time the removal decision was made, including theft, driving offences, leaving the scene of an accident, possession of prohibited articles and failing to attend court. The respondents said he had served a cumulative 33 months in prison. The judgment also records that the Irish Prison Service said he became unlawfully at large in February 2013.
In representations opposing removal, M.V. said his father and siblings lived in Ireland, he had no family left in Lithuania, and he had worked for a clothing recycling firm. He also described himself as reformed, said he was in a relationship, and argued that his convictions were not serious enough to establish a threat to public policy. The respondents argued that his repeated offending supported the Minister’s assessment of a continuing threat.
The court rejected the challenge to the Minister’s assessment of his criminal history. It said the decision had extensively set out that history and that the finding of recidivist tendencies was neither irrational nor without basis. It also rejected the employment argument, finding the claim of consistent and reliable employment incongruous with the recorded prison sentences and the information about his being unlawfully at large.
M.V. argued that the domestic regulations failed to give effect to EU law because they did not adequately require a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society. The court rejected that argument, concluding that the Directive had been transposed through the 2006 Regulations and that the general legal context was sufficient. It noted that criminal convictions alone could not justify removal, while also accepting that repeated offending could support a removal decision under the applicable test.
The judgment was delivered on 22 July 2016 by Ms Justice Stewart. The court refused the reliefs sought.