Order for removal and exclusion of Romanian father from the State was not unfair

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – Romanian family challenging the removal order issued by the Minister for Justice excluded the father from the State for 5 years – free movement of persons – father was in the process of serving a sentence of imprisonment - on temporary release - arrested and taken to Dublin Airport for deportation – deportation prohibited pending the determination of his challenge – argued that the removal order process was contrary to fair procedures – pre-judgment – argued that the Minister reached a decision to make a removal order with an exclusion period in advance of a full proper and adequate analysis and consideration of the case and circumstances – argued that the Minister acted unlawfully - restrictions which can be imposed on an EU citizen who is resident in the State – no rational and cogent basis for the decision - inadequate reasons – no grounds of public policy or security which justify the making of the removal order - fundamental rights of the family unlawfully infringed – proportionality – failed to respect their rights as EU citizens – argued that the Minister decision to mark the removal order as urgent was unreasonable – argued that the review/appeals procedure was defective and unlawful – no effective remedy – internal review – no independent court or tribunal – failure to transpose fully and effectively EU law – injunctive relief restraining his removal – factual background – conviction for sexual assault - basis of the removal decision was that there was no evidence of social or cultural integration, the infringements into the family’s rights was proportionate and that the father was serving a custodial sentence – right of residence of EU citizens – Minister argued that the family could not simultaneously challenge the initial decision and the review - Carltona doctrine – Court determined that in this case judicial review cannot extend to the first instance decision as there is an administrative review procedure available - only decision that can be reviewed in this case is the internal review procedure – argued that the redress procedures available in the State to challenge a removal order do not either separately or cumulatively comply with the redress procedures required – required features – whether judicial review is a lawful redress - Court determined that the State redress procedure does comply with the Directive – whether the Minister applied the correct test when ordering his removal - serious grounds of public policy – decision made in context of the father’s criminal behaviour, his late plea and subsequent decision not to engage in a sexual offenders’ course - clear evidence that the Minister considered his criminal behaviour and these circumstances as a matter of serious grounds of public policy – Court determined that the Minister applied the correct test – whether the Minsiter’s proportionality assessment was lawful – Minister appropriately considered the issue of rehabilitation - whether the decision making and enforcement process was cumulatively unfair - the decision making and enforcement processes were not unfair.