Member Login

Challenge to proposal to revoke Irish citizenship is fundamentally misconceived

By: James Cross BL

or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments

High Court refuses judicial review of proposal to revoke the applicant’s Irish citizenship, on the grounds that it is not appropriate to judicially review a mere proposal, the challenge ignores the presumption of constitutionality and revocation of citizenship is an executive function.

Asylum and immigration – judicial review – challenge to proposal to revoke applicant’s Irish citizenship - applicant has brought a number of constitutional challenges – immigration history - Irish criminal investigation in respect of conspiracy to murder - U.S. criminal investigation in relation to terrorist conspiracy and consequent extradition application - proposal to revoke the applicant’s citizenship - procedural history and relief sought - stay on revocation of Irish citizenship - lack of information in the applicant’s papers - pleading point regarding the statement of opposition - general impermissibility of reviewing a mere proposal - presumption of constitutionality and of a conforming interpretation regarding ECHR and EU law – legal history - what is judicial and what is executive or administrative - is revocation of citizenship a judicial function? - well within the core of the executive function to decide on the grant or revocation of citizenship and, subject to legislative regulation, that is a core executive function in more or less any nation state - alleged breach of fair procedures - the fundamental misconception in this submission is the false premise that this is a judicial or quasi-judicial function - revocation is an executive decision made after an advisory inquiry before independent persons using fair procedures - ack of a right of appeal or final approval reserved to the courts is simply a rerun of the judicial function misconception – complaint of bias not founded on evidence - question of vagueness is not pleaded in these proceedings - the ECHR - art. 6 does not apply to public law - the deprivation of citizenship on grounds of involvement in terrorism is not in itself arbitrary or necessarily disproportionate - EU Charter - challenge to the legislation in principle is fundamentally misconceived and fails - ignores the presumption of constitutionality - asserts disproportionality in the context where the facts have yet to be found - seeks a pre-emptive order to cut off at the knees an inquiry that has yet to even begin– costs follow the event.

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.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *