Mallak v Minister for Justice
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr Justice Fennelly |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] IESC 59 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | [S.C. No. 339 of 2011] |
| Date | 06 December 2012 |
BETWEEN:
[2012] IESC 59
Denham C.J.
Murray J.
Fennelly J.
O'Donnell J.
McKechnie J.
THE SUPREME COURT
MINISTER LAW
Powers
Discretion - Natural justice - Administrative decisions - Obligation to give reasons - Absolute discretion of decision maker - Application for certificate of naturalisation - Whether general obligation at common law to give reasons for administrative decisions - Whether obligation to give reasons in certain situations - Whether respondent's decision invalid - Pok Sun Shum v Ireland [1986] ILRM 593; AB v Minister for Justice [2009] IEHC 449, (Unrep, Cooke J, 8/6/2009) and Hussain v Minister for Justice [2011] IEHC 171, (Unrep, Hogan J, 13/4/2011) considered - Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (No 26), ss 14 and 15 - Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1986 (No 23), s 4 - Irish Nationality and Citizenship 2004 (No 38 ), s 8 - Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 (No 23), s 33 - Freedom of Information Act 1997 (No 13), s 18 - Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003 (No 9) - Refugee Act 1996 (No 17), s 3 and 17(2) - Appeal allowed (339/2011 - SC - 6/12/2012) [2012] IESC 59
Mallak v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
MINISTER
Powers
Minister - Powers - Discretion - Natural justice - Administrative decisions - Obligation to give reasons - Absolute discretion of decision maker - Application for certificate of naturalisation - Whether general obligation at common law to give reasons for administrative decisions - Whether obligation to give reasons in certain situations - Whether respondent's decision invalid - Abuissa v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] IEHC 366, [2011] 1 IR 123; AB v Minister for Justice [2009] IEHC 449, (Unrep, Cooke J, 8/6/2009); Council of the European Union v Bamba (Case C-417/11) (Unrep, ECJ, 15/11/2012); East Donegal Co-Operative Livestock Mart Ltd v Attorney General [1970] IR 317; Eviston v Director of Public Prosecutions [2002] 3 IR 260; Garvey v Ireland [1981] IR 75; In re Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill 1999 [2000] 2 IR 360; LGH v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2009] IEHC 78, (Unrep, Edwards J, 31/1/2009); Hussain v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2011] IEHC 171, (Unrep, Hogan J, 13/4/2011); International Fishing Vessels Ltd v Minister for the Marine [1989] IR 149; Jiad v Minister for Justice [2010] IEHC 187, (Unrep, Cooke J, 19/5/2010); McCormack v Garda Síochána Complaints Board [1997] 2 IR 489; Mishra v Minister for Justice [1996] 1 IR 189; Parti écologiste "Les Verts" v European Parliament (Case 294/83) [1986] ECR 1339; Pok Sun Shum v Ireland [1986] ILRM 593; R v Gaming Board for Great Britain [1970] 2 QB 417; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fayed [1998] 1 WLR 763; Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern (Case C-135/08) [2010] ECR I-01449; State (Creedon) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal [1988] IR 51; State (Daly) v Minister for Agriculture [1987] IR 165; State (Keegan) v Stardust Victims' Compensation Tribunal [1986] IR 642 and State (Lynch) v Cooney [1982] IR 337 considered - Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (No 26), ss 14 and 15 - Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1986 (No 23), s 4 - Irish Nationality and Citizenship 2004 (No 38 ), s 8 - Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 (No 23), s 33 - Freedom of Information Act 1997 (No 13), s 18 - Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act 2003 (No 9) - Refugee Act 1996 (No 17), ss 3 and 17(2) - Appeal allowed; decision quashed (339/2011 - SC - 6/12/2012) [2012] IESC 59
Mallak v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Facts: The appellant had applied for asylum in the state, and had been successful in his application with the respondent accepting his refugee status. The appellant had then applied for a certificate of naturalisation to the respondent on a number of occasions, the last of which was refused by the respondent in 2008. As the appellant"s wife had been successful in her application for naturalisation, the appellant sought to discover the reasons for his refusal. The respondent refused to provide any reasons, which led to the current matter coming before the courts. Cooke J at first instance refused the appellant"s application for judicial review, and rejected the submission that the decision in question had to be explained by a statement of reasons.
The appellant now sought to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court on three grounds. Firstly, that s 15 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 ('s 15') was unconstitutional. Secondly, that a requirement to give reasons should be read into s 15, and finally that EU law required the provision of reasons for the decision and the matter should be referred to the CJEU. The respondent stated that although the decision itself was susceptible to judicial review, the absolute discretion provided to him under s 15 meant he was not compelled to explain the decision.
Held by Fennelly J, that the appellant"s submission that s 15 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 was unconstitutional would not be considered until after the second submission. Fennelly J considered that the fact a decision was made at the absolute discretion of a minister did not permit him to disregard the requirements of natural justice. In the instant case, whilst the appellant could reapply for a fresh decision to the respondent, the failure to provide reasons meant that the appellant could not make an effective application or remedy any point that might lead to a refusal. Such absence meant that the appellant could not determine whether the matter was susceptible to review, which in turn meant the Court could not exercise its power to review decisions effectively. Pok Sun Shum v Ireland [1986] ILRM 59, McCormack v Garda Síochána Complaints Board [1997] 2 IR 489 and State (Creedon) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal [1988] IR 51 considered.
As the failure to give reasons in the case deprived the appellant of any opportunity to challenge the decision fully, for that reason the decision would be quashed and remitted to the respondent. As such, there was therefore no need to consider the constitutionality of s 15 or referring the matter to the CJEU.
LYNCH, STATE v COONEY & AG 1982 IR 337
PARTI ECOLOGISTE LES VERTS v EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 1987 2 CMLR 343 1986 ECR 1339
IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 1956 S15
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1997 S18
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1997 S18(1)
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1997 S18(2)
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1997 S18(2)(B)
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1997 S27(4)
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1997 S27(1)(C)
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1997 S23
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1997 S24
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1997 S26
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1997 S28
ABUISSA v MIN FOR JUSTICE 2011 1 IR 123 2010/1/227 2010 IEHC 366
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 41(2)(C)
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S3(1)
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S17(2)
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S3(2)
CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES 28.7.1951 (GENEVA CONVENTION) ART 34
IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 1956 S14
IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 2001 S8(A)
IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 1986 S4
IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 2004 S8(A)
IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 2004 S8(B)
CIVIL LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 2011 S33(B)(i)
CIVIL LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 2011 S33(B)(ii)
IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 1956 S16
IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 1956 S15A
IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 2001 S5
SHUM v IRELAND & AG 1986 ILRM 593 1986/4/1484
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 13
ROTTMANN v FREISTAAT BAYERN 2010 QB 761 2010 3 WLR 1166 2010 AER (EC) 635 2010 ECR I-1449 2010 3 CMLR 2
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 51
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 41
TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 267
MISHRA v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS 1996 1 IR 189 1996/13/4227
H (LG) v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS UNREP EDWARDS 30.1.2009 2009/24/5913 2009 IEHC 78
MIN FOR JUSTICE v HUSSAIN UNREP HOGAN 13.4.2011 2011/26/6875 2011 IEHC 171
GARVEY v IRELAND & ORS 1981 IR 75
HOGAN & ORS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN IRELAND 4ED 2010
EVISTON v DPP 2002 3 IR 260
IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 1956 S15(1)
B (A) v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP COOKE 18.6.2009 2009/4/839 2009 IEHC 449
DALY, STATE v MIN FOR AGRICULTURE 1987 IR 165 1988 ILRM 173 1987/2/387
CREEDON, STATE v CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1988 IR 51 1989 ILRM 104 1988/1/79
JIAD v MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP COOKE 19.5.2010 2010/24/6010 2010 IEHC 187
KEEGAN & LYSAGHT, STATE v STARDUST VICTIMS COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642 1987 ILRM 202
EAST DONEGAL CO-OPERATIVE LIVESTOCK MART LTD & ORS v AG 1970 IR 317
ART 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION & S5 & S10 OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) BILL 1999, IN RE 2000 2 IR 360 2000/11/4122
REFUGEE ACT 1996 S3(2)(A)(v)
IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 1956 S15(1)(A)
IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 1956 S15(1)(B)
IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 1956 S15(1)(C)
IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 1956 S15(1)(D)
IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 1956 S15(1)(E)
BROADCASTING AUTHORITY ACT 1960 S31(1)
CIVIL SERVICE REGULATION ACT 1956 S7
INTERNATIONAL FISHING VESSELS LTD v MIN FOR MARINE 1989 IR 149 1988/8/2385
MCCORMACK v GARDA SIOCHANA COMPLAINTS BOARD & CMSR OF AN GARDA SIOCHANA 1997 2 IR 489 1997 2 ILRM 321 1997/4/1431
GARDA SIOCHANA (COMPLAINTS) ACT 1986 S7(3)
R v GAMING BOARD FOR GREAT BRITAIN, EX PARTE BENAIM & KHAIDA 1970 2 QB 417 1970 2 WLR 1009 1970 2 AER 528
TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 296
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kendall v The Minister for Justice and Equality
...respondent, namely, that there is a general immunity from disclosure, could not justify such refusal. 26 Mallak v Minister for Justice [2012] 3 I.R. 297, which is relied upon by the appellant, does not assist one way or the other on the issue of whether or not the document should be made av......
-
McEnery v Commissioner of an Garda Síochána
...An Garda Síochána, as set out in the letter of 25th March, 2013. 59 The recent decision of this Court in Mallak v. Minister for Justice [2012] 3 I.R. 297 ( Mallak) is the appropriate starting point in considering the current state of the law in this jurisdiction on the necessity for a decis......
-
Lennon v Disabled Drivers Medical Board of Appeal Reeves v Disabled Drivers Medical Board of Appeal
...these decisions do not satisfy the requirement in law to give adequate or sufficient reasons. 35 In Mallak v. Minister for Justice [2012] 3 I.R. 297 Fennelly J. summarised the position as follows: ‘In the present state of evolution of our law, it is not easy to conceive of a decision maker......
-
Nisar Ali v Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation
...challenge in the light of recent decisions such as Meadows v. Minister for Justice [2010] 2 I.R. 701 and Mallak v. Minister for Justice [2012] 3 I.R. 297. 94 28. In my view, the legislative and factual background against which O'Neill was decided is so different from the present case as to ......
-
Duty To Give Reasons For Administrative Decisions
...v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2012] IESC 59; (Supreme Court, 6 December 2012, Fennelly J delivering judgment for the On 6 December 2012, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of Cooke J in the High Court and quashed a decision of the Minister for Justice refusing to gr......
-
Judicial Review of the Decisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions
...evasion charges in the Special Criminal Court in December 2015. Thomas Slab Murphy convicted of tax evasion, (visited 9 January 2015). 38 [2012] IESC 59; [2012] 3 IR 297; [2013] 1 ILRM 73 [hereinafter Mallak ]. Trinity College Law Review [Vol 19 legislation, 39 Article 296 of the Treaty on ......
-
Super-Citizens: Defining the 'Good Character' Requirement for Citizenship Acquisition by Naturalisation
...Citizen (Version 5.5, August 2016), 4. 73 [2017] IEHC 630. 74 Mallak v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2011] IEHC 306, [2012] 3 IR 297. 75 UK Visas and Immigration Operational Guidance, ‘he Good Character Requirement’, Nationality instructions, Vol 1 (UK Visas and Immigration......
-
SHAPING A COMMON LAW DUTY TO GIVE REASONS IN SINGAPORE
...Jurisprudence Relating to Reasons” (2012) 3 Canadian Journal of Administrative Law and Practice 253 at 263. 113 See paras 51–68 below. 114[2012] IESC 59. 115Mallak v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform[2012] IESC 59 at [63]. 116Mallak v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Refor......
-
A critical assessment of the duty of District Court judges to give reasons
...in Oates. 29Oates, para. 51 30[1991] ILRM 750 31O’Donoghue v. An Bord Pleanála [1991] ILRM 750, at 757 32Mallak v. Minister for Justice [2012] 3 IR 297, Fennelly J. stated at p.322, para. 68 – 69 34Law Reform Commission, Report on Penalties for Minor Offences (LRC 69 – 2003) 35ibid. p. 50. ......