The High Court refused a woman’s judicial review challenge to the procedure used before a deportation order was made, finding that the absence of a further opportunity to leave Ireland voluntarily after her representations were rejected did not unlawfully impede her right to make them.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as A. L., challenged the constitutionality and Convention compatibility of section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999. She argued that there should be a gap between the rejection of representations and the making of a deportation order, so a person could leave voluntarily without facing an order. She said the lack of that option could deter people from advancing human rights claims.
The Minister had issued a deportation proposal in 2008, and the applicant made written representations that October. The Minister considered them in April 2013 and rejected them. A deportation order was signed on 10 May 2013, and the applicant was notified of the decision by letter on 20 May.
The applicant relied on her time in Ireland, her marriage to Mr. Q. L. in 2012 and family-life protections under Article 41 of the Constitution and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Minister’s side argued that the applicant had no entitlement to reside in the State and that the section 3 process was adequate. These were submissions by the parties, not findings by the court.
In addressing fair procedures, the judge relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dellway Investments, which established a right to be heard for a person affected by a public decision. The judgment found that the applicant was affected by the Minister’s decision and had a constitutional right to fair procedures, including the right to make representations.
The court concluded that section 3 provided that opportunity: the applicant had made written representations, which the Minister considered before making the deportation order. The possibility that unsuccessful representations would be followed by an order without a further voluntary-departure option could deter an applicant, the judge said, but was not an unlawful or unconstitutional interference with the right to make representations. The court held that the absence of a gap breached neither the Constitution nor Article 8 of the Convention, and refused the reliefs sought. The judgment did not cancel the deportation order.