Insufficient evidence to tilt balance of injustice in favour of restraining deportation of Nigerian father

Injunctions – judicial review – asylum and immigration – challenging the decision of the Minister for Justice refusing to revoke the father’s deportation order – seeking an injunction restraining the deportation until the determination of the proceedings –sentenced to five years in prison with two years suspended – Minister looked to revoke his permission to reside and issued the deportation order - lives with the wife of the applicant child – if deported it is the intention of the partner and the infant child to travel with the father - father of another child – child enjoyed the company and society of his father between Thursday and Sunday on a weekly basis save the period of his incarceration - access with his father has been interrupted for a total period of three years by reason of his criminal activity - Okunade v. The Minister for Justice & Ors. [2012] 3 I.R. 152 - test for consideration as to whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction - the default position is that an applicant will not be entitled to a stay or an injunction - an exception to the general rule and that is when deciding what is to happen on a temporary basis a disruption of family life which has been established in Ireland for a significant period of time is a material consideration - balance of convenience and consequences for such infant of being deported - Court found that deportation albeit on a possibly temporary basis is not compensatable in damages and therefore in a deportation situation a consideration of the balance of justice is required – child would not suffer any disruption to his life if the father was to be deported as he was sufficiently young that it would not cause a disruption – partner willing to travel as a matter of choice - satisfied that the applicant child and father have established an arguable case - balancing the impact of the deportation order being implemented on the applicants and his other son on the one hand and the orderly implementation of measures which are prima facie valid on the other – Court not satisfied that there was sufficient information before the Court to make a determination on the strength or weaknesses of the applicants’ case – father’s own conduct has already caused a disruption to his son’s family life - effectively absent from his life - reduced impact – non-applicant son’s position has to be considered whether or not he is a party to the proceedings – Court not satisfied that the father has tendered sufficient evidence to tilt the balance in favour of the making of an injunction – injunction refused.