DE -v- The Minister for Justice & Equality & ors [2018] IESC 16 (08 March 2018)

DE -v- The Minister for Justice & Equality & ors [2018] IESC 16 (08 March 2018)

The Supreme Court held that, even assuming an obligation to disclose criteria or policy exists, the applicant and his advisers were sufficiently aware of the alleged practice such that no procedural unfairness arose. On the medical grounds, the evidence presented to the Minister did not establish a real risk of a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] IESC 16
Parties
Applicant/appellant: D. E. (an infant suing by his mother and next friend); Respondent: The Minister for Justice and Equality; Respondent: Commissioner for An Garda Síochána; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Leave to Seek Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Deportation, Judicial Review, Article 3 ECHR, Ministerial Discretion, Humanitarian Leave to Remain, Disclosure of Policy, Medical Grounds for Non Removal
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Deportation Judicial Review Article 3 ECHR Ministerial Discretion Humanitarian Leave to Remain +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. E. (an infant suing by his mother and next friend)

Applicant/appellant

The Minister for Justice and Equality

Respondent

Commissioner for An Garda Síochána

Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Refusal of Leave to Seek Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is an obligation on the Minister to publish or disclose any policy or criteria by which broad statutory discretion is exercised in deportation/revocation decisions (Lumba issue)
  2. 2 Whether the Minister failed to properly consider the applicant's medical condition under Article 3 ECHR as clarified in Paposhvili v Belgium
  3. 3 Whether substantial grounds existed to justify leave for judicial review of the Minister's refusal to revoke a deportation order

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that, even assuming an obligation to disclose criteria or policy exists, the applicant and his advisers were sufficiently aware of the alleged practice such that no procedural unfairness arose. On the medical grounds, the evidence presented to the Minister did not establish a real risk of a serious, rapid, and irreversible decline in health or significant reduction in life expectancy as clarified by Paposhvili v Belgium, and thus did not meet the high threshold for exceptionality under Article 3 ECHR. Accordingly, there were no substantial grounds to justify leave for judicial review of the Minister's refusal to revoke the deportation order.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal of leave to seek judicial review affirmed
  • No order for costs specified