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 |
Supreme Court allows appeal from High Court, and sets aside order purporting to quash a decision of the Minister for Justice refusing to vary the permission granted to a wife to remain in the State, where her permission had expired after two years, but her husband needed to remain in the State for a further two years to complete his studies, on the grounds that: (a) the right to a family and private life (important though it was) did not outweigh the the State's very weighty interest in the orderly application of the immigration system; and (b) the reasons given by the Minister were adequate in the circumstances.
Immigration - respect for family life - Article 8, European Convention on Human Rights - special visa system - opportunity for young people to study and work in the State - maximum stay of two years - married couple - husband on student visa - wife on study and work visa - expiration of wife's visa - application for variation of permission - refusal - judicial review - decision quashed in High Court - failure of Minister to consider family rights in detail - interaction between Constitution of Ireland and ECHR - failure to raise constitutional issues in initial claim - whether Article 8 was engaged in case - whether decision interfered with wife's right to family life - obligation on wife to leave State and return to Canada, leaving husband in State to complete studies - whether interference was necessary in a democratic society - whether such interference proportionate to the legitimate public end sought to be achieved - reasons given by Minister - letter appended by judge to applicant.
"One does not, I think have to be a dewy-eyed romantic to realise that this decision amounted to a very significant interference with the private life of this married couple. The whole essence of marriage is a coming together for mutual love and support. To ask this couple - who clearly love and are devoted to each other - to live apart for two years is to ask a great deal."
"A great deal of judicial ink has already been spilled - both in this jurisdiction and elsewhere - in presenting what amounts almost to a biblical exegesis of the text of Article 8 ECHR."
"By contrast, the Minister has here concluded - if only by implication - that the applicant's right to respect for a family life (important as it was) does not outweigh the State's very weighty interest in the orderly application of the immigration system. Having regard to all the factors I have mentioned, that decision could not be regarded as unreasonable or otherwise unlawful in the context of the application of Article 8(2)."
"A Court speaks through its judgments and orders. To my mind a letter of this kind is essentially no more than an annex to the judgment. Whether a letter of this kind is written is really a matter of personal judicial judgment-writing style upon which opinions may legitimately differ."
Concurring judgments also by Dunne J and Charleton J.
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.
The only subject matter index for all Irish judgments over the past thirteen years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now