C.I. & Ors -v- The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Ors [2015] IECA 192 (30 July 2015)

C.I. & Ors -v- The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Ors [2015] IECA 192 (30 July 2015)

The trial judge erred in law by holding that deportation always engages Article 8 ECHR where private life is established, regardless of lawfulness of residence. The correct test, consistent with ECtHR jurisprudence, is whether the consequences of deportation for the individual reach a level of gravity affecting their physical or moral integrity. On the facts, there was no evidence of such grave impact; thus, the Minister's decision that Article 8 was not engaged was reasonable.

Citation
[2015] IECA 192
Parties
Applicant/respondent: C. I.; Applicant/respondent: T. I. (A minor suing by his mother and next friend C. I.); Applicant/respondent: T. T. I. (A minor suing by her mother and next friend C. I.); Respondent/appellant: The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Respondent/appellant: Attorney General; Respondent/appellant: Ireland; Notice Party: The Human Rights Commission
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Deportation, Article 8 ECHR, Right to Private Life, Judicial Review, Proportionality, Immigration Control
Immigration Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Deportation Article 8 ECHR Right to Private Life Judicial Review Proportionality +1 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. I.

Applicant/respondent

T. I. (A minor suing by his mother and next friend C. I.)

Applicant/respondent

T. T. I. (A minor suing by her mother and next friend C. I.)

Applicant/respondent

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Respondent/appellant

Attorney General

Respondent/appellant

Ireland

Respondent/appellant

The Human Rights Commission

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister erred in law in failing to accept that the applicants’ Article 8 ECHR rights to private life were engaged by deportation.
  2. 2 What is the correct legal test for engagement of Article 8 ECHR in deportation of persons never lawfully resident in the State.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in law by holding that deportation always engages Article 8 ECHR where private life is established, regardless of lawfulness of residence. The correct test, consistent with ECtHR jurisprudence, is whether the consequences of deportation for the individual reach a level of gravity affecting their physical or moral integrity. On the facts, there was no evidence of such grave impact; thus, the Minister's decision that Article 8 was not engaged was reasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders of certiorari granted by the High Court are vacated.
  • Further orders in respect of applicants’ claims to be determined after hearing the parties.