Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court grants judicial review of the decision refusing a minor a certificate of naturalisation where the Minister for Justice and Equality was not satisfied that the minor’s father was of good character, on the grounds that the correct interpretation of the relevant statutory provision is that the applicant who must meet the conditions of naturalisation to the satisfaction of the Minister is the minor born in the State; and accordingly, the Minister erred in concluding that it was a condition of the naturalisation of the child that the father satisfy the Minister of the father’s good character.
Asylum and immigration – judicial review – challenge to the decision refusing a minor a certificate of naturalisation - Minister was not satisfied that the child’s father was a person of good character – whether the good character of the parent, guardian or person in loco parentis applying on a minor’s behalf a condition precedent to the exercise of the discretion to naturalise that minor- statutory interpretation – born in the state - child’s mother is a citizen of Moldova – undocumented when arrived in the State - alleges that the father was violent towards her - Minister granted the mother permission to remain in the State - father applied for naturalisation - father electronically submitted a completed application form for the naturalisation of the child as a minor - decision under challenge - procedural history and grounds of challenge – relevant statutory provisions - legislative history - interpretation of s. 15(3) of the Act of 1956 for which the Minister contends - Section 5 of the Interpretation Act 2005 - obscurity or ambiguity - literal interpretation - purposive construction – provision is ambiguous in that it is capable of being read in two ways - judicial review granted.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.