1. Background

2. Holding of the Supreme Court
     The Appeal against the High Court Decision    The Request for an Injunction    Conclusion  

3. References

4. External Links

P.O. v Minister for Justice [https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ie/cases/IESC/2015/S64.html&query=(.2015.)+AND+(IESC)+AND+(64) [2015] IESC 64]; [2015] 3 IR 164 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against a High Court decision refusing to reverse (quash) a decision of the Minister for Justice and Equality to revoke a deportation order.

Background

P.O. arrived in Ireland from Nigeria in September 2006. Her son, S.O. (the second appellant) was born in Ireland in November 2006, and, at the time of the proceedings, S.O. had spent his entire life in Ireland (although he was not entitled to Irish citizenship).  His father (and P.O.’s husband) continued to live in Nigeria. P.O.’s application for asylum status was rejected in 2006. She brought judicial review proceedings regarding that decision, but these were discontinued in 2009. In May 2012, the Minister signed a deportation order for P.O. and S.O., under which they were obliged to leave the state by June 2012. They made an application to the Minister under s3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 for revocation of the deportation order. In February 2013 the Minister affirmed the deportation order. P.O. and S.O. applied to the High Court for an order quashing that decision.^[1] The High Court dismissed the application, finding that the Minister had given reasonable consideration to all the material submitted as part of the application (much of which was available on file prior to the making of the deportation order). The High Court also found that deportation would not disproportionately affect the applicant’s rights to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.^[2]

Holding of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court case had two elements. First, the appellants sought to appeal the decision of the High Court refusing to grant judicial review of the Minister’s decision, which the appellants claimed was unreasonable and legally flawed. Secondly, they sought an injunction, preventing their deportation, pending the outcome of their appeal. The Supreme Court addressed both elements.^[3] The main judgments in the Supreme Court were delivered by Charleton J and MacMenamin J.

The Appeal against the High Court Decision

The Supreme Court refused to grant the appeal, and upheld the decision of the High Court. Charleton J upheld the High Court decision that the Minster had not ignored the relevant information given by the applicants, and, indeed, had sourced relevant and current information.^[4] The judge noted that the obligation on the Minister, in relation to s3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 is not to review old and rejected arguments, but rather “something new involving a substantial change is required”.^[5] The Minister is required to:

“consider carefully and fairly the reasons that are put forward for revocation; and he must also verify that since the deportation was made no change of circumstances has occurred, either so far as concerns the applicant or the situation in the country of origin…in dealing with an application to revoke, the Minister is not obliged to embark on any new investigation or inquiry; nor is he obliged to enter into any exchange of observations and replies or into any debate with the applicant…”.^[6]

MacMenamin J came to the same conclusion in refusing the appeal. The judge asked counsel to ensure that the Minister’s attention was drawn to the particular circumstances of this case: that S.O. had resided in this State for his entire life and was within the State’s educational system.^[8] MacMenamin J said that “it is difficult to avoid the observation that real issues of ministerial discretion may arise in this case”.^[9]

The Request for an Injunction

The Supreme Court rejected the appellants request for an injunction preventing their deportation, pending the outcome of their appeal. Charleton J noted that no new facts had come to light that might be regarded as altering the circumstances of the appellants since the date of the deportation order of the 9 May 2012, and that no arguable case had been made out for the grant of an injunction pending the hearing of the appeal.^[10]

Conclusion

The Supreme Court refused to overturn the decision of the High Court, and affirmed that the Minister was entitled to confirm the deportation order.

References

External Links

• [https://scoirl.wordpress.com/2015/07/19/po-v-minister-for-justice-real-issues-of-ministerial-discretion-in-deportation-of-eight-year-old/ PO v Minister for Justice: real issues of ministerial discretion in deportation of eight year old]
• [https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ie/cases/IESC/2015/S64.html&query=(.2015.)+AND+(IESC)+AND+(64) P.O. v Minister for Justice [2015] IESC 64]; [2015] 3 IR 164.
  

• Waikato
• Waikato Campaign
• Waikato District
• Waikato (district), New Zealand
• Waikato Mounted Rifles
• Waikato Plains
• Waikato (region)
• Waikato river
• Waikato River
• Waikato Times
• Waikato University
• Waikeria Prison
• Wai khru ram muay
• Waikikamukau
• Waikiki
• Waikiki Aquarium
• Waikiki beach
• Waikiki Beach (Cape Disappointment)
• Waikiki Natatorium War Memorial
• W. Aikman
• Waikoloa Village
• Waikoloa Village, Hawaii
• Waikoloa Village, HI
• Waikouaiti
• Waikouaiti River