The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Australian citizen Roderick Jones, upholding the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision that he did not meet the continuous residence condition to be eligible for consideration for naturalisation.
In a judgment delivered on 14 November 2019, Ms Justice Máire Whelan said the High Court had erred by interpreting “continuous residence” as requiring uninterrupted presence in Ireland throughout the year before an application. That reading would mean that even a day trip abroad could break continuity, an outcome the Court of Appeal considered unworkable and absurd.
The case concerned the first part of section 15(1)(c) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, which requires one year’s continuous residence in the State immediately before an application. The court said the term must give weight to physical presence in Ireland, but does not impose a complete ban on travel during the relevant year.
Jones applied for a certificate of naturalisation on 31 August 2017. For the year before his application, he reported several trips abroad, including travel to Portugal, Scotland, London, Australia and Belgium, as well as visits to the United Kingdom. The judgment records a dispute about how travel and return days should be counted. Jones assessed his absences at about 90 days; the Minister put them at approximately 100 days, with only about three days related to work. The court said more than 90 per cent of his absences were not work-related.
The Minister’s decision, dated 11 October 2018, found Jones ineligible because his absences exceeded the generally allowed six weeks. The Minister’s stated practice allowed up to six weeks’ absence for holidays and other reasons, with possible additional allowance in wholly exceptional circumstances.
The Court of Appeal held that this practice was a reasonable, flexible approach intended to mitigate the strictness of the statutory condition. It found the policy did not unlawfully fetter the Minister’s discretion or impose an unlawful extra-statutory barrier. The court also upheld the conclusion that Jones had not met the continuous residence requirement, treating that as a finding of fact rather than the result of legal error.
The appeal was dismissed, save for the High Court’s erroneous interpretation of the statutory term. The Court of Appeal did not grant the relief sought to quash the Minister’s decision or remit the application for reconsideration.