Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice

Last updated

Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Full case nameSivsivadze & ors (Appellants) v Minister for Justice and Equality & ors (Respondents)
Decided23 June 2015
Citation(s)[2015] IESC 53 ; [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403
Transcript(s) https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2015/S53.html
Case history
Appealed fromSivsivadze and Others v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and Attorney General (No 1) [2012] IEHC 137, [2012] IEHC 244
Court membership
Judges sittingMurray J, Hardiman J, O'Donnell Donal J, Clarke J, MacMenamin J
Case opinions
A deportation order is an executive decision within the powers of the State, exercised by the Minister, as authorised by statute, to deny an unlawful alien with no permission to remain in the State from seeking to do so. A deportation order is not a punishment or administrative sanction, notwithstanding that a prosecution could be brought for a breach of the order.
Decision byMurray J
ConcurrenceHardiman J, O'Donnell Donal J, Clarke J, MacMenamin J
Keywords

Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice[2015] IESC 53; [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403 [1] was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999 (the "1999 Act"), under which the Minister for Justice order the deportation of a non-national (without permission to remain in the State) for an indefinite period. [2]

Contents

Background

The appellants were a Georgian couple, who met in Ireland, and were married in 2009. They had two children (also named as appellants), neither of whom were Irish citizens. Ms Sivsivadze, at the time of the hearing, had been granted leave by the Minister for Justice to remain in Ireland, temporarily, on humanitarian grounds. During the course of the hearing, Ms Sivsivadze admitted that she had concocted a false story in order to obtain her permission to remain in Ireland. [3] Her husband, Davit Arabuli, had arrived in Ireland in 2001. In December 2001, the Minister made an order for Mr Arabuli's deportation under s3(1) of the 1999 Act, but "through various deceptive means Aribuli avoided deportation until November 2011." [4] The appeal to the Supreme Court focused on s 3(1) of the 1999 Act, under which the Minister for Justice can order the deportation of a non-national (who has no permission to remain in the State) for an indefinite period. The appellants had already unsuccessfully challenged the constitutionality of this section and s3(11) of the 1999 Act in the High Court, and had been refused a declaration that s3(1) and s3(11) of the 1999 Act were incompatible with Ireland's obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights ("ECHR"). [5] S3(11) permits the Minister to amend or revoke a deportation order.

Holding of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court judgment was delivered by Murray J. The appellants argued that s3(1) of the 1999 Act was unconstitutional in that, as a deportation order under it was for an indefinite period, this amounted to a disproportionate interference with the rights of the family under the Irish Constitution. The appellants also argued that s3(11) of the 1999 Act was incompatible with Article 15 of the Irish Constitution, in that it permitted an unlawful delegation of legislative powers to the Minister, in the absence of a sufficient statement of principles and policies in the legislation governing how the Minister should exercise his power to make a deportation order. [6] Alternatively, the appellant's argued (on the same grounds) that their family rights under Article 8 of the ECHR were breached by the provisions of the 1999 Act.

The Constitutional Arguments

The Supreme Court noted that the constitutional challenge focused "on the potentially disproportionate impact which allegedly an indefinite and perhaps lifelong deportation order may have on the family life of a person who will, as a result of deportation, be separated from a spouse and children lawfully resident in this country". [7] However, the Court noted that a deportation order under s3(1) of the 1999 Act is not necessarily unlimited in time, as the Minister can, under s3(11) of the 1999 Act, amend or revoke the order. The Court held that the Minister, in exercising the discretion to make an order under s3(1) of the 1999 Act, or to amend or revoke an order under s3(11) of the 1999 Act, must do so in line with the principles of proportionality and fair procedures, and in accordance with his obligations under the Constitution and the ECHR. The effect of a deportation order made in respect of a person who has no legal right to enter or remain in the State is to put that person in the same position as all other non-nationals who must seek permission from the Minister to enter the State. Such non-nationals do not acquire rights to enter or remain in the State simply due to the passage of time, so it would be "incongruous" for a deportation order to define a period of time within which the obligation to remain outside the State would end. [8]

The Supreme also rejected the argument that s3(11) of the 1999 Act amounted to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative powers to the Minister. Murray J held that the power of the State to exclude non-nationals or aliens from the entering the territory of Ireland is not a power that originates in statute, but "is a power inherent in a sovereign state"; he held that "what the Act of 1999 does, in effect, is to designate the Minister as being the person who makes the decision whether to make or revoke a deportation order". [9] Murray J cited the decision of Fennelly J, who considered s3(11) of the 1999 Act in Cirpaci (nee McCormack) & anor -v- The Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform : [10]

On its face, this provision confers a broad discretion, to be exercised in accordance with general principles of law, interpreted in the light of the Constitution and in accordance with fair procedures. [11]

Murray J concluded that the exercise of the power under s3(11) of the 1999 Act involves the exercise of a margin of appreciation related to the facts of individual cases, and that the discretion was clearly left by the Oireachtas to the Minister.

The ECHR Arguments

The Court applied the same logic to the ECHR arguments, noting that there was nothing in the relevant sections that would restrict the Minister, when making a decision, from "fully taking into account the Article 8 rights of the family directly affected by a deportation order or a refusal to revoke one, in accordance with the principles laid down in the European Convention." [12]

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Related Research Articles

<i>Irish Life and Permanent plc v Dunne</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Irish Life and Permanent plc v Dunne, [2015] IESC 46, [2016] 1 IR 92, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court clarified the impact of a lender failing to comply with the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears 2010 on that lender's right to obtain an order of possession of mortgaged property.

<i>Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38 is a reported decision of the Irish Supreme Court, in which the Court, in affirming High Court orders to strike out two judicial review proceedings as frivolous, held that, to challenge the decision of a public authority, one must attempt to rely on proved individual circumstances.

<i>Callan v Ireland & The Attorney General</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Callan v Ireland& The Attorney General, [2013] IESC 35; [2013] IR 267; [2013] ILRM 257, was an Irish Supreme Court case which ruled on the decision to commute the sentence of death imposed on Callan to penal servitude for 40 years without allowing for remission. Noel Callan had been sentenced to death in 1985 but had his sentence commuted to 40 years of penal servitude by the President of Ireland, Patrick Hillery. The High Court rejected Callan's appeal that he was eligible for remission. Callan then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that Callan was indeed serving imprisonment and so by law could request remission of his penalty.

<i>Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

In the case of Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality, and Law Reform [2010] IESC 3; [2010] 2 IR 701; [2011] 2 ILRM 157, the Supreme Court of Ireland found that the proportionality test should be used when reviewing administrative actions that implicate fundamental rights protected by both the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. While the case concerned an application for judicial review of an asylum decision, the decision was described as carrying “implications for the whole body of Irish administrative law”.

<i>Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Vincent Sweeney v Governor of Loughlan House Open Centre and Others [2014] 2 ILRM 401; [2014] IESC 42; [2014] 2 IR 732, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the sentenced served in the administrating state should be of the same legal nature as the sentence imposed by the sentencing state. This decision reversed a previous decision by the High Court that Sweeney's incarceration violated the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Acts 1995 and 1997.

<i>Dunne v Donohoe</i> Irish supreme court case

Dunne v Donohoe [2002] IESC 35, [2002] 2 IR 533 was an Irish Supreme Court Case wherein the court held that a Garda Superintendent was a persona designata and that a guideline issued the Garda Commissioner that imposed fixed preconditions to applications for a firearm certificate would result in the superintendent acting Ultra Vires. By ruling that the guideline interfered with the status of a superintendent as a persona designata, the Court provided an important finding in establishing the limits of discretionary powers under the Irish constitution and the legal standing of guidelines issued under the auspices of a national body.

<i>Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Dekra Eireann Teo v Minister of Environment, [2003] 2 IR 270; [2003] 2 ILRM 210; [2003] IESC 25 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which it was decided that the earliest opportunity to apply for a review of a decision made by the court arises within the three-month period after the decision is made, and that courts have no power to extend that time. The Court held that a key feature of both European law and court rules is the policy of urgency.

<i>Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Dolny</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Dolny[2009] IESC 48, was an Irish Supreme Court case. The court found that a European extradition can be applied if the offense is very similar to an offense in Irish statute.

<i>P., L., & B. v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

P., L., & B. v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 107, [2002] 1 ILRM 16 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that refusal of an application for asylum may constitute a sufficient basis for the government to order the applicant's deportation.

<i>Dimbo v Minister for Justice</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

The case of Dimbo v Minister for Justice[2008] IESC 26; [2008] 27 ILT 231; [2008] 5 JIC 0101 was a Supreme Court that held that when deciding to make a deportation order in relation to the parents of an Irish born citizen under s.3 of the Immigration Act 1999, the state must consider facts that are specific to the individual child, his or her age, current educational progress, development and opportunities and his/her attachment to the community.

<i>N.V.H v Minister for Justice & Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

N.H.V. v Minister for Justice & Equality [2017] IESC 35 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a challenge to the absolute prohibition on employment of asylum seekers contained in Section 9(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 and held it to be contrary to the constitutional right to seek employment.

<i>Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform[2002] IESC 14, [2002]; 2 ILRM 215 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the absence of an oral hearing need not infringe the right of an applicant for refugee status to natural and constitutional justice.

<i>AMS v Minister for Justice and Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Ams v Minister for Justice and Equality, [2015] 1 ILRM 170; [2014] IESC 65, was an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court held that Section 18 (4) of the Refugee Act 1996 allowed the Minister of Justice to assess the potential financial strain that a refugee's dependents would place on the State while deciding on an application for entry.

<i>T(D) v L(F) & Anor</i> Irish Supreme Court case

T(D) v L(F) & Anor, [2003] IESC 59 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in relation to foreign divorce proceedings, the burden of proof is on the parties to establish their domicile. Thus, in this case the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the husband and upheld the judgement of the High Court as he was unable to establish his domicile.

<i>A (a Minor) v Minister for Justice and Equality and others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

A v Minister for Justice and Equality, Refugee Applications Commissioner, Ireland and the Attorney General[2013] IESC 18, (2013) 2 ILRM 457 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court concluded that a certificate of leave to appeal was not required in order to appeal to the Supreme Court a decision of the High Court to dismiss proceedings as frivolous or vexatious.

<i>Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy, [2010] IESC 17; [2010] 3 IR 77, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that inpatient treatment with a restriction order attached to it in a European Arrest Warrant came within the meaning of "detention order" in s.10(d) of the European Warrant Act 2003. This gave the definition of "detention order" a wide meaning. The case involved an appeal against extradition to the United Kingdom.

<i>Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Coleman</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Coleman[2009] IESC 38; [2009] 2 ILRM 363; [2009] 3 IR 699 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the inherent jurisdiction of the court with respect of a solicitor's misconduct. The court also considered the remedies available where a solicitor is in breach of a solicitor's undertaking.

<i>Y.Y. v Minister for Justice and Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Y.Y. v Minister for Justice and Equality[2017] IESC 61 is an Irish Supreme Court case which concerned the deportation of "Y.Y.", who was an Algerian national. Y.Y. was facing deportation from Ireland to his native country, where he was sentenced in absentia to three life sentences and two death sentences for terrorism related offences. Y.Y. appealed to the Supreme Court against a High Court decision that dismissed his challenge to a deportation order made by The Minister for Justice and Equality under the Immigration Act 1999. He argued that if he were deported to Algeria, he would be under a real threat of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. Thus, deporting him would go against Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

<i>Smith v Minister for Justice and Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Smith v Minister for Justice and Equality[2013] IESC 4 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case which concerned the deportation of one the appellants, "Mr Smith", who was a Nigerian national. The appellant argued that the deportation order made against him should be revoked by the Minister for Justice pursuant to section 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 for several reasons. The most notable of these was the right of a citizen to have a family; as articulated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi, a deportation order which would force a citizen of the European Union (EU) to leave the Union was contrary to the principles of EU law, as it would deprive the citizen of their right to live in the Union.

<i>Thomas Murphy v Ireland and Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Thomas Murphy v Ireland and Others[2014] IESC 19; [2014] 1 ILRM 457; [2014] 1 IR 198; was a Irish Supreme Court case where the Court held that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is not required to provide information justifying a decision to hold a trial in the Special Criminal Court, unless it can be shown the decision was made mala fides. This decision further specified that the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) neither specified the nature of a fair trial nor identified trial-by-jury as a right.

References

  1. ↑ Sivsivadze & ors v Minister for Justice and Equality & ors [2015] IESC 53, 23 June 2015, retrieved 30 April 2024
  2. ↑ Brazil, Patricia (2015). "Asylum and Immigration Law". Annual Review of Irish Law: 14–60, 35 – via Westlaw.
  3. ↑ "Couple lose bid to overturn deportation order against husband". Irish Times. 23 June 2015.
  4. ↑ "Sivsivadze v MJELR: indefinite deportation not disproportionate as non-national doesn't acquire right to re-entry over time". SCOIRL. July 2015.
  5. ↑ Sivsivadze and Others v Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and Attorney General (No 1) [2012] IEHC 137, [2012] IEHC 244
  6. ↑ Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403; [2015] IESC 53 [3].
  7. ↑ Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403; [2015] IESC 53 [45].
  8. ↑ Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403; [2015] IESC 53 [58].
  9. ↑ Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403; [2015] IESC 53 [67].
  10. ↑ Cirpaci (Née McCormack) and Cirpaci v The Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform [2005] IESC 42, [2005] 4 IR 109.
  11. ↑ Cirpaci (Née McCormack) and Cirpaci v The Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform [2005] IESC 42, [2005] 4 IR 109 [26].
  12. ↑ Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403; [2015] IESC 53 [85].
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.