J.W. v The Minister for Justice and Equality & ors (No.2) (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for leave to appeal following the dismissal of a judicial review challenge to a deportation order. The original judicial review was brought by multiple applicants, including minors suing by their mother and next friend, against the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Attorney General. The initial judicial review was dismissed by the High Court, with a formal judgment published on 15th October 2020. The applicants seek leave to appeal that decision.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, in applying the Supreme Court test from Meadows v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the High Court was correct in law to exercise judicial review jurisdiction on the basis that:
   1. It is insufficient for an applicant merely to assert that a decision is irrational, unreasonable, or disproportionate and invite the Court to reassess proportionality or reasonableness;
   2. The Court may require the applicant to identify the specific error, omission, or flaw in the decision-maker’s reasoning that renders the decision unlawful.
2. Whether Irish law recognizes a principle analogous to that in R. (Lumba) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department obliging public authorities with broad discretion to publish any policy or criteria by which such discretion is exercised, whether formally adopted or established by practice.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The applicants challenged the deportation order on grounds including irrationality, unreasonableness, and disproportionality, particularly emphasizing family and private life rights and the best interests of the children involved.
• They questioned whether the Court should be limited to assessing irrationality or unreasonableness or whether it should reassess proportionality itself.
• They contended that there may be a legal obligation for the Minister to adopt and publish a policy guiding the exercise of broad discretion in deportation decisions, akin to the principle in Lumba.

Respondents' Arguments

• The respondents submitted that judicial review is concerned with legality, not merits, and that the Court’s role is not to substitute its own decision for that of the decision-maker.
• They argued that proportionality involves a range of acceptable decisions and that a decision within this range cannot be quashed simply because another decision might be preferred.
• Regarding the policy publication issue, the respondents relied on prior Supreme Court authority rejecting the need for a Lumba-type policy in deportation contexts and highlighted that no undisclosed policy or practice was alleged here.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the applicants’ proposed questions in light of established Supreme Court jurisprudence, emphasizing the clear legal principle that judicial review addresses the legality rather than the merits of a decision. It rejected the applicants’ suggestion that the Court should reassess the proportionality balance as though it were the decision-maker. The Court clarified that proportionality involves a spectrum of acceptable decisions and that a decision falling within this range cannot be quashed merely because the Court might have preferred a different outcome.

The Court confirmed it had conducted a thorough proportionality assessment, including consideration of family and private life rights and the best interests of children, weighed against the public interest in deporting a sex offender. The Court found the decision not disproportionate and therefore lawful.

Regarding the second question, the Court referred to prior Supreme Court authority rejecting the existence of a legal obligation for the Minister to publish policies governing discretionary deportation decisions. The Court noted that unlike in Lumba, no undisclosed or unadopted policy was alleged, and the Minister’s discretion was exercised in a general discretionary context without infringement of legal rights.

Consequently, the Court found no substantial grounds warranting appellate clarification on either question.

Holding and Implications

The Court refused the application for leave to appeal.

This decision means the dismissal of the judicial review challenge to the deportation order stands. The Court’s ruling confirms the established legal principles that judicial review does not permit courts to substitute their own decision for that of the decision-maker and that proportionality assessments encompass a range of lawful outcomes. No new precedent was set, and the ruling reinforces existing jurisprudence on judicial review and the exercise of Ministerial discretion in deportation cases.