The High Court refused an application to temporarily prevent the deportation of a Nigerian father while his family sought leave to challenge the deportation order by judicial review. Mr Justice Cooke held that no fair issue had been established for trial and that damages would be an adequate remedy if the father later succeeded in the judicial review proceedings.
The ruling concerned only the requested interlocutory injunction. It did not determine the judicial review application or quash the deportation order. The judgment says the father’s judicial review proceedings were begun within the 14-day period under section 5 of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. The Minister had declined to give an undertaking not to deport him before the return date of the leave application.
The father, who had arrived in Ireland in 2007 and had been unsuccessful in an asylum claim, was the third applicant. The other applicants were two minors and their mother. The first applicant, the couple’s daughter, was born in Ireland and is an Irish citizen. The mother had permission to reside here with her since 2005. The father had received a deportation order in June 2010 and was required to report to the Garda National Immigration Bureau to arrange his removal.
The applicants argued that the Minister’s assessment of the family’s circumstances was unreasonable and disproportionate, including in its consideration of family life and the Irish-born child’s interests. The court said the Minister’s file note addressed the statutory factors, the applicants’ individual circumstances, and the balance between their rights and the State’s interests. It held that a judicial review challenge required a material flaw in the decision-making approach, such as a mistake of fact or law, failure to consider a required factor, or reliance on an irrelevant consideration.
The judge found no serious issue in the Article 8 assessment. He said the family had lived apart for years before the father arrived, and the material before the Minister did not establish a settled family life in Ireland sufficient to support the challenge. The court also rejected the argument that the Minister had failed to warn the family about the consequences of a deportation order, noting that the proposal letter expressly said the father would have to leave and remain outside the State.
On interim protection, the court set out when deportation before a judicial review hearing could be incompatible with the State’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. It said the Minister was not obliged to give an undertaking, but the court could restrain deportation where needed to preserve an effective remedy. Applying that approach, it refused the injunction, finding no fair issue for trial and concluding that the costs and disruption of a temporary separation could be compensated if the order were ultimately quashed.