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, in judicial review of decision refusing an Australian national’s application to become a naturalised Irish citizen, determines that although the Minister for Justice came to his decision by the wrong route by purporting to exercise a discretion that he does not possess, he nevertheless came to the correct conclusion that the Australian national id not satisfy the required condition of continued residence for the requisite period.
Asylum and immigration – judicial review – Australian national challenging the decision refusing his application to become a naturalised Irish citizen – Minister concluded that he failed to show that he was in continuous residence for the requisite year – out of the country for 100 days - absent for a period in excess of what might be described as the ‘discretionary absence period’ – definition of “continuous” – statutory interpretation - Minister’s conclusion is correct - not open to the Minister to make allowance for the referenced “temporary absences” - Minister, in his application of the ‘discretionary absence period of 6 weeks + possibly more in exceptional or unavoidable circumstances’, has sought to exercise a discretion that he does not possess - neither materially wrong nor irrational but rests on a legal error – Minister has come to the right conclusion by the wrong route - reliefs refused.
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 fast reporting service for all Irish judgments over the past ten years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now