or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
High Court refuses judicial review of the decision affirming removal and order excluding Polish national from the State for five years, on the grounds that he had failed to establish that the Minister for Justice’s decision - that his personal conduct represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society such as to warrant his expulsion - was either a disproportionate or an unreasonable one.
Judicial review – Polish national challenging decision of Minister for Justice and affirming a removal order and order excluding him for 5 years – European Law – free movement of persons - criminal conduct - removal and exclusion orders – decision to affirm – subject of a European Arrest Warrant – contested the warrant – Minister sought to rely on point that was referred to the CJEU in a different case – alleged separation of powers – mootness - whether decision to make the removal and exclusion orders against the applicant lawfully made under the Citizens’ Rights Directive and the 2015 Regulations - non-refoulement - did not seek international protection - no threat of persecution or serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was ever identified - a present threat - public policy proviso - failed to persuade the Court that that the decision that his personal conduct represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society to warrant his expulsion was either a disproportionate or an unreasonable one – fair procedures - error of fact – what turns on the mistake - personal conduct of the applicant and not on the specific criminal conviction or convictions to which that conduct may have given rise - in the specific circumstances of this case, the erroneous reference in the decision to the disqualification from driving of the applicant does not render the decision bad in law - decision is not rendered unlawful by any material error of fact – judicial review 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.