The Supreme Court has determined that a legal decision rendered by a judge was appropriate, in which it was contended that the welfare of a child’s Constitutional rights was overlooked by Justice Minister Helen McEntee. This oversight occurred when she chose not to revoke a deportation order made before against the father, in response to his conviction of assault.
On Thursday, a five-member bench of the Supreme Court declined an appeal contesting the decision made by the High Court. This decision overruled the Minister’s resistance to cancelling a deportation order, which was issued half a decade ago towards a man from Albania.
Mr Justice Séamus Woulfe delivering the court’s main judgment, shared the history of the case. He revealed that the individual, due to legal stipulations, remains unnamed. The man illegally moved to the state in the late twentieth century, living and working under a pseudonym. He started a relationship with an Irish woman and they were blessed with a son, later getting married.
Over ten years ago, he was sentenced for a couple of firearm-related crimes and an assault resulting in harm. But, prior to his conviction and after the offences, the man received consent to stay in Ireland for a period of three years as the parent of a child who was an Irish citizen.
The Justice Minister was oblivious of any previous convictions concerning the man and failed to investigate pending charges against him. In 2017, during his incarceration, a suggestion was made to deport him under section 3 of the Immigration Act beholden to 1999. Following several discussions, the Minister created a deportation order in 2019 and declined to override this order by July 2021.
The man, his wife, and their child sought the intervention of the High Court, which in turn annulled the Minister’s denial to terminate the deportation order.
Giving the Supreme Court’s verdict, Mr Justice Woulfe expressed that Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan from the High Court came to the right conclusion and therefore, the appeal made by the Minister should be rejected.
The Right Honourable Justice Woulfe remarked that it was correct for her to reflect on the inherent and inalienable rights of the minor under Article 42A of the Constitution, disregarding the fact that the family did not utilise this clause in their founding court documents. He asserted that the child’s rights and welfare were indisputably ongoing concerns throughout the deportation proceedings before the Minister and during the judicial review case.
He believed that the wellbeing of a child who is an Irish citizen is a primary or essential factor, which doesn’t automatically determine the final decision, as some deportation situations might have other critical aspects to consider.
Justice Woulfe emphasised that the High Court had sufficient reasoning to surmise that the Minister neglected to regard the best interests of the child when deciding against revoking the deportation order.
Agreeing with Justice Woulfe’s statements, Justice Maurice Collins also expressed that the Irish citizen’s wife and child did not safeguard the man from deportation. Nevertheless, when substantial and tight-knit connections between him and his family, specifically his child, exist, the proposed family separation is a noteworthy circumstance which the Minister should duly consider.
He also affirmed that significant importance must be attributed to the child’s welfare, which cannot presume or enforce a rule against deportation, if it contradicts the child’s best interests.
Justices Elizabeth Dunne, Aileen Donnelly accorded with Justice Collins’s verdict and alongside Justice Gerard Hogan, concurred with the views of Justice Woulfe.