Damache v Minister for Justice & Equality and Ors Determinations
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Clarke C.J.,Dunne J. |
| Judgment Date | 05 November 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IESCDET 254 |
| Date | 05 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | 2019 No. 17 JR |
| Court | Supreme Court |
[2019] IESCDET 254
THE SUPREME COURT
Clarke C.J.
Dunne J.
Irvine J.
2019 No. 17 JR
AND
RESULT: The Court grants leave to the Applicant to appeal to this Court directly from the High Court.
REASONS GIVEN:
ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED
| COURT: High Court |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 31 st May, 2019 |
| DATE OF ORDER: 31 st May, 2019 |
| DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 14 th June, 2019 |
| THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 12 th July, 2019 AND WAS NOT IN TIME. |
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear appeals is set out in the Constitution. As is clear from the terms of Article 34.5.3° thereof and the many determinations made by this Court since the enactment of the Thirty-third Amendment, it is necessary, in order for this Court to grant leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal, that it be established by the applicant that the decision sought to be appealed involves a matter of general public importance, or that it is otherwise necessary in the interests of justice that there be an appeal to this Court. In addition, because this is an application for leave to appeal directly from the High Court, it is also necessary that it be established that there are “exceptional circumstances” warranting a direct appeal to this Court.
The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the 33 rd Amendment have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this Court in B.S. v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Price Waterhouse Coopers (A Firm) v Quinn Insurance Ltd. (Under Administration) [2017] IESC 73. The additional criteria required to be met in order that a so-called ‘leapfrog appeal’ direct from the High Court to this Court can be permitted were addressed by a full panel of the Court in Wansboro v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 115. Accordingly it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purpose of this determination.
It should be noted that any ruling in a determination is a decision particular to that application and is final and conclusive only as far as the parties are concerned. The issue calling for the Court's consideration is whether the facts and legal issues meet the constitutional criteria as above identified. It will not, save in the rarest of circumstances, be appropriate to rely on a refusal of leave as having a precedential value relative to the substantive issues, if and when such issues should further arise in a different case. Where leave is granted on any issue, that matter will be disposed of in due course in the substantive decision of the Court.
The application for leave filed, and the respondent's notice thereto, are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties in detail.
This application concerns s. 19 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, the procedure to revoke citizenship.
The applicant was born in Algeria and is an Algerian citizen by birth. He arrived in Ireland in July, 2000 and was eventually naturalised as an Irish citizen pursuant to s. 17 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 in November, 2008 on foot of his marriage to an Irish woman.
The applicant subsequently became implicated in terrorist activities. For the purposes of this determination it is not necessary to set out in full their extent or their treatment in the courts. However, what is of relevance is that in July, 2018 the applicant pleaded guilty before a federal court in Philadelphia, United States to having conspired to materially assist a terrorist group.
As a consequence of his conviction on 18 th October, 2018, the respondent informed the applicant of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial