Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Dunne agreed with the proposed outcome of an appeal by the Minister for Justice and Equality over a Canadian woman’s time-limited Working Holiday Authorisation visa. She concluded that the Minister’s approach complied with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, while disagreeing with another judge about whether the couple’s family rights were engaged.
The judgment says Jaimee Middelkamp came to Ireland on a two-year visa to join her husband, identified in the text as Mr Paul, who was studying dentistry on a visa of longer duration. The couple had married before arriving. They lived together in Ireland, and Middelkamp worked and supported her husband’s studies.
Before her visa expired, Middelkamp sought to vary it under section 4(7) of the Immigration Act 2004. Dunne noted that “vary” might not be the strictly correct term and said the visa was a special, expressly time-limited arrangement produced through negotiations with participating countries. The excerpt does not set out the Minister’s original decision or the High Court’s reasoning in detail.
Dunne said the couple had undoubtedly enjoyed family life while their stay was lawful. Agreeing with Justice Gerard Hogan, she found that their rights under Article 8(1) were engaged. She disagreed with Justice Peter Charleton, who had concluded that Article 8 was not engaged.
The judges’ difference on engagement did not change Dunne’s view of the appeal. She said both Hogan and Charleton had emphasised states’ entitlement to regulate the entry of non-nationals. In Dunne’s view, the Minister’s approach satisfied Article 8. She agreed with Hogan’s judgment and the order he proposed, while the supplied pages do not state the terms of that order or the Court’s formal disposition of the appeal.