S v Minister for Justice and Equality

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr Justice Max Barrett
Judgment Date29 January 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] IEHC 34
Docket Number2018 No. 324 JR
CourtHigh Court
Date29 January 2019

[2019] IEHC 34

THE HIGH COURT

Barrett J.

2018 No. 324 JR

Between:
S
Applicant
– and –
MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
Respondent

Immigration – Permission to remain – Victims of Domestic Violence Immigration Guidelines – Applicant seeking permission to remain under the Victims of Domestic Violence Immigration Guidelines – Whether the respondent breached the applicant’s legitimate expectation as to the application of the Guidelines by applying conditions beyond those stated

Facts: The applicant, a national of India, came to Ireland lawfully as a student in April 2013. In February 2015 he married a Latvian national. Permission to remain was then granted to him as an EU national’s spouse. He claimed he suffered domestic abuse from his wife. In August 2016 she left Ireland and remained abroad. After she left he applied for permission to remain under the Victims of Domestic Violence Immigration Guidelines. His application was refused in December 2017. There was no appeal mechanism under the Guidelines. On request the respondent, the Minister for Justice and Equality, ‘re-examined’ the initial decision. In March 2018, an affirming decision issued. The applicant applied to the High Court seeking, inter alia, orders of certiorari quashing both decisions. He contended that: 1) the Minister breached the applicant’s legitimate expectation as to the application of the Guidelines by applying conditions beyond those stated; 2) the affirming decision was irrational/internally inconsistent; 3) there was a breach of Arts. 3/8/14 ECHR (interpreted in light of Art. 59 of the Istanbul Convention); 4) the decisions involved an unjustified/disproportionate breach of the applicant’s constitutional rights to privacy/dignity/equality; 5) the Minister erred in law and/or acted in breach of constitutional fair procedures in failing to provide adequate reasons sufficient to convey the essential rationale of the decisions; 6) the Minister acted unreasonably and/or failed to take into account relevant material and/or acted in breach of the applicant’s legitimate expectation that the terms of the Guidelines would be followed as regards supporting documentation; and 7) the Minister acted in breach of constitutional fair procedures in failing to have an independent, transparent appeal process with clear rules in respect of applications under the Guidelines.

Held by Barrett J that: 1) the Guidelines did not fetter the Minister’s inherent discretion; 2) the Minister brought financial dependence into consideration (a relevant issue) and so was considering different aspects of dependency; 3) the applicant could not rely directly on the referenced Articles; 4) there was no evidence that those rights were breached; 5) no such failure presented; 6) the court did not see the alleged unreasonableness, failure or breach of legitimate expectation to present; and 7) no authority was cited to support the proposition that there must be an appeals process.

Barrett J held that he would decline to grant the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • S v Minister for Justice and Equality
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 11 March 2020
    ...Facts: The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court delivered on 29 January 2019 ([2019] IEHC 34) refusing an application by way of judicial review for an order of certiorari quashing the decision made by the respondent, the Minister for Jus......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT