Lobe v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Geoghegan,Keane C.J.,Murray,J. |
| Judgment Date | 23 January 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] IESC 3 |
| Date | 23 January 2003 |
[2003] IESC 3
THE SUPREME COURT
Keane C.J.
Denham J.
Murray J.
McGuinness J.
Hardiman J.
Geoghegan J.
Fennelly J.
BETWEEN
AND
BETWEEN
AND
Citations:
FAJUJONU V MIN JUSTICE & ANOR 1990 2 IR 151
CONSTITUTION ART 2
CONSTITUTION ART 9
CONSTITUTION ART 40.1
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3
H (J), RE 1985 IR 375
NORTH WESTERN HEALTH BOARD V W (H) 2001 3 IR 622
OSHEKU V IRELAND 1986 IR 733
POK SUN SHUN V IRELAND 1986 ILRM 593
LAURENTIU V MIN JUSTICE 1999 4 IR 27
ART 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION & S5 & S10 OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) BILL 1999, RE 2000 2 IR 360
POKU V UNTED KINGDOM 1996 22 EHRRCD 94
THE QUEEN EX PARTE MAHMOOD V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOME DEPARTMENT 2001 UKHRR 307 2001 1 WLR 840
IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 1956 S6
BROWNLIE PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 5ED 1998 391
MURRAY & MURRAY V IRELAND 1991 ILRM 465
M, STATE V AG 1979 IR 73
PERDIDO V IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE 1969 US APP 5TH CIR
ACOSTA V GAFFNEY 558 F2D 1153 CA 3ED 1977
SCHLEIFFER V MEYERS 644 F 2D 656 1981 US APP 7TH CIR
SCHNEIDER V RUSK 1964 377 US 163
KENT V DULLES 1958 357 US 116
ADOPTION (NO 2) BILL 1987, RE 1989 IR 656
CONSTITUTION ART 40
CONSTITUTION ART 41
CONSTITUTION ART 42
BOUZAGOU, STATE V STATION SERGEANT FITZGIBBON STREET 1985 IR 426
DUBLIN CONVENTION (IMPLEMENTATION) ORDER 2000 SI 343/2000
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S22
DUBLIN CONVENTION 1990 ART 8
KWEEDER V MIN JUSTICE 1996 1 IR 381
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT 2000 S5(3)(A)
OSAYANDE & LOBE V MIN JUSTICE UNREP SMYTH 8.4.2002 2002/22/5724
P & L & B V MIN FOR JUSTICE 2002 1 ILRM 38
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.1
IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 1956 S6(1)
IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S3(2)(E)
IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 2001
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (ALIENS) REGS 1977 SI 393/1977 REG 14
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (RIGHT OF RESIDENCE FOR NON ECONOMICALLY ACTIVE PERSONS) REGS 1997 SI 57/1997 REG 19
DUBLIN CONVENTION 1990 ART 7
ABDULAZIZ & CABALES & BALKANALI V UNITED KINGDOM 1985 7 EHRR 471
CONSTITUTION ART 41.1.1
CONSTITUTION ART 41.1.2
KEEGAN, STATE V STARDUST VICTIMS COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642
O'KEEFFE V AN BORD PLEANALA 1993 1 IR 39
Z V MIN JUSTICE 2002 2 IR 135 2002 2 ILRM 215
CONSTITUTION ART 41.1
CONSTITUTION ART 42.1
KELLY ON THE IRISH CONSTITUTION 3ED 989 - 1060
SHATTER ON FAMILY LAW 3ED CHP 1
RYAN V AG 1965 IR 294
MCGEE V AG 1974 284
G V AN BORD UCHTALA 1980 IR 32
ILLEGITIMACY ACT 1931
ADOPTION ACT 1974
GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS ACT 1964 S3
CONSTITUTION ART 42.5
F (M) V SUPERINTENDENT BALLYMUN GARDA STATION 1991 1 IR 189
NORTHAMPTON CO COUNCIL V ABF & MBF 1982 ILRM 164
NICOLAOU, STATE V BORD UCHTALA 1966 IR 567
EASTERN HEALTH V AN BORD UCHTALA 1994 3 IR 217 1993 ILRM 577
GONZALEZ CUVEAS V IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERCIVE 515 F 2D 1222 1975 US APP 5TH CIR
HEANEY V IRELAND 1994 3 IR 593
CHAULK V R 1990 3 SCR 1303
COX V IRELAND 1992 2 IR 503
CONSTITUTION SAORSTAT EIREANN ART 3
IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 1935
NATIONALITY & STATUS OF ALIENS ACT 1914 (UK)
CONSTITUTION ART 9.1.2
CONSTITUTION ART 29.4
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE STATUS OF REFUGEES 1951 ART 8
PROTOCOL ON THE STATUS OF REFUGEES 1967 (NEW YORK)
ALIENS ORDER 1946 SI 395/1946
IMMIGRATION ACT 1999 S3(1)
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S5(2)
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S3(2)(E)
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S3(3)(6)(B)
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S3(3)(6)(C)
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S22(2)(B)
DUBLIN CONVENTION 1990 ART 2
DUBLIN CONVENTION 1990 ART 3
YOGATHAS, R V HOME SECRETARY 2002 4 AER 800
ADAM & IORDACHE V MIN JUSTICE 2001 3 IR 53 2001 2 ILRM 452 2001/1/7
VILVARAJAH V UNITED KINGDOM 1992 14 EHRR 248
DPP, PEOPLE V O'SHEA 1982 IR 384
CONSTITUTION ART 34.4.3
MOUSTAQUIM V BELGIUM 1991 13 EHRR 802
BELDJOUDI V FRANCE 1992 14 EHRR 801
D (T) V MIN EDUCATION 2001 4 IR 259
BYRNE & BINCHY ANNUAL REVIEW OF IRISH LAW 1989
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 (UK)
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S22(2)(E)
MOORE V EAST CLEVELAND 431 US 494
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 1951
BOULTIEF V SWITZERLAND 33 EHRR 50 1179
DALIA V FRANCE 1981 ECR 1998-I 91
MEHEMI V FRANCE 1997 ECR 1997-VI 1971
GUL V SWITZERLAND 1996 22 EHRR 93
ASSOCIATED PROVINCIAL PICTURE HOUSES LTD V WEDNESBURY CORPORATION 1948 1 KB 223
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 10(1)(E)
X Y & Z V UK DEC NO 9285/81 6.7.82 DR 29 P505
Synopsis:
IMMIGRATION
Asylum
Constitutional law - Judicial review - Refugee and nationality - Right to reside in State - Whether family of citizen entitled to remain with child in State - Refugee Act, 1996 - Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000 - Child Care Act, 1991 - Bunreacht na hÉireann, 1937 - Dublin Convention (Implementation) Order, 2000 (SI 343) - Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956 (108 & 109/2002 - Supreme Court - 23/1/2003)
Lobe v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform - [2003] 1 IR 1
The cases dealt with situations whereby children had been born in the State to parents who were seeking asylum in the State. It was proposed by the Minister for Justice to make deportation orders in respect of the members of the families who did not possess citizenship (i.e. excluding those children born in the State). On behalf of the applicants it was contended that there was a prima facie right of the parents of an Irish born child to reside with that child within the State. It was contended that there was a mandatory obligation on the State to recognise the rights of a family in such a situation under the Constitution. The applicants also sought to challenge the Dublin Convention (Implementation) Order, 2000 as being ultra vires the Refugee Act, 1996. In the High Court Mr. Justice Smyth refused all reliefs sought. The respondent had taken into account the constitutional rights of the Irish-born children and their families. The respondent was entitled to require that the residence of the parents and their non-Irish children be terminated and to make deportation orders. The challenge to the Dublin Convention (Implementation) Order, 2000 was also dismissed. The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court. It was contended on behalf of the applicants that the children who had been born in the State had an unqualified right to remain and had a right to the care and company of their parents. The deportation of the other members, who did not have citizenship would constitute an attack on the rights of minors as members of a family.
Held by the Supreme Court in dismissing the appeal. Keane CJ held that the issue was whether children who were Irish citizens had the constitutional right to the care and company of other members of their family in circumstances where those other members had no legal right to reside in the State. It could not be said that the parents in this case could assert a choice to reside in the State on behalf of their children. The decision in Fajujonu, whereby a family were permitted to stay, was distinguishable on its facts from the present cases. The Executive was entitled to take the view that the immigration system should not be undermined by persons hoping to take advantage of the delay in processing their claim by relying on the birth of a child as basis for permitting them to remain in the State indefinitely. The orders of the High Court would be affirmed and the appeals dismissed. Denham J held that the Irish citizenship of an Irish child did not give rise to an absolute right to have his or her family reside in the State. Murray J held that the Minister's decision had been shown to be reasonable and rational in determining that there existed good and sufficient reasons in the interests of the common good in making the deportation order. McGuinness J held that it was clear that the personal rights of a child or a family were not absolute and for proper and proportionate reasons these rights must yield to the requirements of the common good. Hardiman J held that the applicants had not demonstrated that the decisions in question were at variance with reason or commonsense. If the court was to consider whether the decisions were acceptable in terms of policy it would be a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers. Geoghegan J held that it was clear based on previous caselaw that parents who were not citizens and who had children born in the State did not have a constitutional right to remain in the State. Fennelly J held (dissenting) that the reasons given by the Minister for the deportation could not prevail over the constitutional rights of the children. The State had not concerned itself with the rights of the parents involved and Fennelly J would have allowed the appeals.
23rd day of January2003. by Keane C.J.
The facts in these two cases, which were heard together in the High Court and this court, are not in dispute.
The first and second named applicants in the first case (hereafter "Mr. & Mrs. Lobe") arrived in the State on March31 st 2001 with their three children. All of them are nationals of the Czech Republic. At the time of her arrival, Mrs. Lobe was pregnant. An application having been made for asylum in this State, the applicants were informed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Danibye Luximon v Minister for Justice and Equality
...system was recognised. He made reference to the decision of Murray J. in A. O. & D.L. v. Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2003] IESC 3, where the learned judge stated:- "…it is an inherent and fundamental right of the State to control and regulate immigration. Its right, and ev......
-
I (K) v Min for Justice
...795. 10 10. Of course, it is plain from a series of cases such as Osheku v. Ireland [1986] I.R. 733, AO and DL v. Minister for Justice [2003] IESC 3, [2003] 1 I.R. 1 and Alli v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2009] IEHC 595 that these rights are not absolute and must yield i......
-
O (G) and Others v Min for Justice
...Having considered the judgments of the Supreme Court in Osayande and Lobe v. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2003] IESC 3 ("the O & L decision"), O'Sullivan J. concluded:- "I cannot see in them any warrant for extending the concept of "family" as considered in those judgm......
-
Alli (A Minor) v Min for Justice
...She acknowledged that the citizen children have constitutional rights but noted that according to the Supreme Court in Lobe and Osayunde [2003] IESC 3 (often referred to as A.O. and D.L. [2003] 1 I.R. 1), it does not flow from those rights that the family or parents and siblings of the chil......
-
Children of the Fíne and Children of the Family: Reformulating Children's Best Interests and Social Parenting in the Spirit of the Brehon Laws
...& Ors v Attorney General for Saorstát Éireann & Ors [1934] IR 44; Lobe & Ors v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Ors [2003] IESC 3. 7&8 HJ2010:Layout 1 27/05/2010 17:05 Page 156 156 JOHN BIGGINS The Brehon laws were especially clear as to the legal worth of children, child pro......
-
Citizenship and the Biopolitics of Post‐nationalist Ireland
...tasks of the Irish statehave been radically redefined.4251M.O'Connell, Changed Utterly. Ireland and the New Irish Psyche (2001) ch. 9.2 [2003] I.E.S.C. 3.ßCardiff University Law School 1. Post-nationalismIn 1997 the philosopher Richard Kearney published a well-received bookentitled Post-nat......