S.G. (Albania) v The Minister for Justice and Equality No.2

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys
• Judgment Date: 14 May 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 308
• Date: 14 May 2018
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2017 No. 734 J.R.]

BETWEEN

S.G. (ALBANIA)

APPLICANT

AND

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

RESPONDENT

(No. 2)

[2018] IEHC 308

[2017 No. 734 J.R.]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial Review – Deportation order - Interpretation Act 2005 - Statutory interpretation - Application for leave to appeal

Facts: These proceedings concerned an application brought by the respondent for leave to appeal a decision of the High Court in which an order of certiorari was granted in favour of the applicant in relation to a deportation order that had been made against him by the respondent. The respondent argued that the Court was wrong in law in applying section 26 of the Interpretation Act 2005, as opposed to section 27 of that Act. In doing so, it was said that the Court had failed to implement that statutory intention of the Oireachtas in creating the said legislation. The respondent also made a further argument that the Court had reached the wrong conclusion on the basis of the facts.

Held by Humphreys J. that the application would be dismissed. The key matter under consideration had already been clarified by the judgment of O'Donnell J. in Minister for Justice and Equality v. Tobin [2011] IEHC 72 [2012] 4 I.R. 147. Section 26 of the Interpretation Act 2005 required a Court to apply modifications in the process of reading one Act as referring to another. Statutory interpretation was required to reach a judgement because the Oireachtas in drafting the relevant legislation had failed to state its intention with clarity. In regards to the respondent's second argument, this was very much fact specific and did not raise a point of law on which the application could possibly succeed. As such, even if the Court considered that the respondent's first point was one of exceptional public importance, the respondent would still not succeed because of the fact-specific decision reached regarding the second point.

Application refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys delivered on the 14th day of May, 2018

1 In S.G. (Albania) v. Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 1) [2018] IEHC 184 [2018] 3 JIC 2311 (Unreported, High Court, 23rd March, 2018), I granted an order of certiorari in favour of the applicant in relation to a deportation order. The respondent now seeks leave to appeal and I have received helpful submissions from Ms. Siobhán Stack S.C. (with Ms. Grainne Mullan B.L.) for the respondent and from Mr. David Leonard B.L. for the applicant.

2 While seven questions are proposed, questions (a) to (e) and (g) are essentially reformulations of the basic point as to whether I was correct in applying s. 26 of the Interpretation Act 2005, as opposed to s. 27 of that Act.

3 The ramifications of the judgment are presented by the respondent, if I may respectfully say so, in a somewhat scaremongering way, and while I appreciate that Ms. Stack is constrained by her instructions, the suggestion that around 1,000 deportation orders are involved has to be seen in the context that to date only one or possibly two other cases, so far as I can recall, have been brought challenging such orders on the grounds that arose in S.G. (No. 1).

4 Furthermore, Ms. Stack says that the effect of the judgment was to strike out part of the statute. That is not an accurate description. The judgment sought to implement the statutory intention of continuity, set out in s. 26 of the 2005 Act, which necessitated reading in necessary modifications. The judgment stated that...