Evidence in Irish citizenship dispute did not establish that man had been born in Ireland

Hogan J (nem diss): Claim for Irish citizenship – section 60(8) of the Civil Registration Act 2004 – refusal of Registrar General to register him as having been born in Ireland – Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, s. 6(1) and s. 6(3) – Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004 – Order 84C of the Rules of the Superior Courts – the power of an t-Ard Chlaratheoir to conduct inquiries under s. 65 of the 2004 Act – whether the appeal is out of time – scope of the appeal created by s. 60(8) of the 2004 Act – was the decision of the High Court to reverse the decision of An tArd Chláraitheoir correct – Mr. Chesnokov has not established on the balance of probabilities that he was born in Dublin – documentary record in this matter was such that An tArd-Chláraitheoir was entitled to reach the conclusion that the appellant has not established on the balance of probabilities that he was born in Dublin on 28 September 1940 – appeal allowed.

"In these circumstances, called upon as I am to review the documentary evidence and thereby effectively to step into the shoes of An tArd Chláraitheoir and consider whether the evidence to support the late registration is “adequate” for the purposes of s. 19(5), then, given the statutory context and the general purposes of the 2004 Act, I cannot agree that Mr. Chesnokov has established on the balance of probabilities that he was born in Dublin on 28th September 1940. Inasmuch as Hedigan J, concluded otherwise, I fear that this is not borne out by a review of the documentary evidence for the reasons given elsewhere in this judgment and that his conclusions amounted, with respect, to an error of law."

(Irvine J.) Claim for Irish citizenship – section 60(8) of the Civil Registration Act 2004 – refusal of Registrar General to register him as having been born in Ireland – whether Mr. Chesnokov’s appeal to the High Court had been brought within the time prescribed for so doing – whether the the nature and scope of the appeal from the decision of An tArd-Chláraitheoir was what has been described in recent case law as an appeal “on the record” – the evidence submitted by Mr. Chesnokov in support of his application was adequate – evidence simply does not support the conclusion that judged by reference to the balance of probabilities his birth took place there on 28th September 1940 – appeal allowed.

"I have read the historical analysis of the war in Europe in the later part of 1940 as is described by Hogan J. in his judgment and I agree with his conclusions as to the impact that such a state of affairs would likely have had on the possibility of Mr. Chesnokov’s mother successfully travelling between Dublin and Moscow in sixteen days commencing in late September of that year. However, even without resorting to those facts, I am satisfied that the evidence produced to An tArd-Chláraitheoir, when objectively assessed having regard to the purposes of the Act, was not adequate for the purpose of establishing his entitlement to have his birth registered as having occurred in Henrietta Street, Dublin on the 28th September 1940. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the trial judge erred in law when he concluded that the evidence was sufficient for such purpose."