Smith v Minister for Justice and Equality & ors [2013] IESC 4 (01 February 2013)

Smith v Minister for Justice and Equality & ors [2013] IESC 4 (01 February 2013)

No new facts, materials, or circumstances arose between the first and second applications for revocation of the deportation order; the grounds advanced were repetitive and could have been raised earlier; there was no material change in law or fact requiring the Minister to reconsider; thus, the trial judge was correct to refuse leave to seek judicial review.

Citation
[2013] IESC 4
Parties
Applicants/appellants: Charles Smith and Alimat Smith (Minors Suing By Their Father and Next Friend Omololu Smith), Sikirat Smith, Rufai Smith, Ajoke Moriamo Smith and Omololu Smith; Respondents: The Minister for Justice and Equality, The Attorney General and Ireland
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
01 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal (judicial Review) / Supreme Court Appeal From Refusal of Leave to Seek Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order refusing leave to seek judicial review affirmed.
Legal Topics
Deportation, Family Rights, Judicial Review, Revocation of Deportation Orders, Article 8 ECHR, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Zambrano Principle, Discretion in Judicial Review
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law European Union Law Deportation Family Rights Judicial Review Revocation of Deportation Orders +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Smith and Alimat Smith (Minors Suing By Their Father and Next Friend Omololu Smith), Sikirat Smith, Rufai Smith, Ajoke Moriamo Smith and Omololu Smith

Applicants/appellants

The Minister for Justice and Equality, The Attorney General and Ireland

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (judicial Review) / Supreme Court Appeal From Refusal of Leave to Seek Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister was obliged to reconsider the revocation of a deportation order in light of new facts or changes in law
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to revoke the deportation order disproportionately interfered with the family and personal rights of the applicants under the Constitution, ECHR, and EU law
  3. 3 Whether new jurisprudence (Zambrano, Dereci, S. & ors) required a reassessment of the deportation order

Ratio Decidendi

No new facts, materials, or circumstances arose between the first and second applications for revocation of the deportation order; the grounds advanced were repetitive and could have been raised earlier; there was no material change in law or fact requiring the Minister to reconsider; thus, the trial judge was correct to refuse leave to seek judicial review.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order refusing leave to seek judicial review affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of the High Court refusing leave to seek judicial review affirmed