The Court of Appeal has dismissed the Minister for Justice and Equality’s appeal on whether a person has a right to have their date of birth accurately recorded by the State.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Power on 5 February 2020, addressed one of three legal issues raised in the Minister’s appeal against a High Court judgment. It did not decide whether the applicant’s naturalisation should be revoked or whether her certificate should be amended.
The applicant, Mahelet Getye Habte, said the date of birth on her certificate of naturalisation was incorrect when calculated according to the Gregorian calendar. The High Court had declared that the right to have one’s identity correctly recognised by the State was an unenumerated constitutional right, and that the State had an implied constitutional obligation to accurately record central aspects of personal identity.
The Minister argued that the High Court judge had been wrong to make those declarations, including because Ms Habte was born outside Ireland and the Minister had no duty to register her birth. He also argued that the court had created a new ministerial function, contrary to the separation of powers, and that the circumstances around her date of birth raised questions about the accuracy of the information supplied.
Ms Habte argued that the right applied to her as an Irish citizen, regardless of where she was born, and that the Minister could not refuse to consider correcting her records by relying on a policy that allowed changes only for departmental clerical errors.
Ms Justice Power said a person’s date of birth was a significant part of personal identity. She held that the right to have it recognised and accurately recorded by the State was protected both by an unenumerated constitutional right and by the private-life protections in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court rejected the claim that the High Court had created a new administrative power. Its order required the Minister to consider, if appropriate in light of any report from an inquiry committee, whether the naturalisation certificate should be cancelled and reissued with the correct birth date. The ultimate decision under the statutory process remained for the Minister.
The judgment did not determine that Ms Habte’s error was innocent, or that her naturalisation involved deception or material misrepresentation. Those matters remained for the Minister to decide in the revocation process. Ms Justice Power noted that, at that stage, deliberate concealment or a breach of the duty of full disclosure had not been established. The Minister’s appeal was dismissed on this point.