MR v The Minister For Justice, Home Affairs and Migration (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns an interlocutory application for a stay or injunction to prevent the Applicant’s proposed removal from Ireland to Italy. [Para 13] The Applicant is an Italian national who arrived in Ireland in 1997 at the age of 2 and has lived in the State permanently since then. [Para 14] On 5 June 2026, the Minister proposed Removal and Exclusion Orders against the Applicant and invited representations. [Para 15] The Applicant sought an extension of time to make representations, but the request was refused and the Department required any representations by close of business on 26 June 2026; the Applicant’s solicitor later submitted representations on 29 June 2026 after becoming aware of that refusal only that morning. [Para 16][Para 17][Para 18][Para 21] Removal and Exclusion Orders were then made on 29 June 2026, and a request to set them aside was refused. [Para 22] Judicial review proceedings followed, including an order permitting the application to be filed without an affidavit from the Applicant because he was in custody. [Para 23] The Applicant was later arrested and detained on foot of the Removal Order, brought Article 40 proceedings, released on bail, and ultimately given unconditional release. [Para 25][Para 26] The Applicant also obtained leave to seek judicial review of the removal and exclusion decisions and the reviewed decision upholding them, together with liberty to bring this interlocutory motion. [Para 28][Para 29]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant should be granted an interlocutory injunction or stay restraining his removal from Ireland to Italy pending the substantive judicial review proceedings. [Para 13][Para 31][Para 93]
2. Whether, applying the Okunade test, the Applicant had shown factors sufficient to displace the default position that prima facie valid removal measures should be implemented pending determination of the judicial review. [Para 38][Para 54][Para 93]
3. Whether the balance of justice, including the risk of injustice to either party, favoured maintaining or refusing the removal order pending the substantive hearing. [Para 38][Para 39][Para 60][Para 93]

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant relied on the proposition that the first-instance threshold was wrongly applied and that the true threshold was “imperative grounds of public security,” which he said had not been met. [Para 66][Para 69]
• He contended that his long residence in Ireland, deep family ties, and the impact on his Irish citizen child meant removal would cause more than ordinary disruption and would tilt the balance in favour of a stay. [Para 79][Para 80]
• He argued that removal could leave him homeless or destitute in Italy and would disrupt his family life, including contact with his child, mother, sister, and father. [Para 81]
• He submitted that some convictions were road traffic matters and that he was entitled to the presumption of innocence in relation to any current issues. [Para 71]
• He also indicated that the substantive issues might involve a reference to the CJEU. [Para 53]

Respondent's Arguments

• The Minister relied on the seriousness of the Applicant’s criminal record, including violent assaults and re-offending while in prison, as significant factors supporting removal on imperative grounds of public security. [Para 73][Para 74][Para 75]
• The Minister submitted that the Applicant’s complaints about family disruption rang hollow in light of the consequences of his convictions for family life. [Para 85]
• The Minister further submitted that Italy is an EU Member State, that the Applicant has familial connections there, and that contact with family in Ireland could be maintained remotely or by travel. [Para 83][Para 84][Para 86]
• The Minister relied on the orderly implementation of a prima facie valid order and the practical arrangements already made for removal, including a booked flight and Garda escort. [Para 62][Para 64]

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began from the agreed Okunade framework and emphasized that the balance-of-justice exercise turns on where the greatest risk of injustice lies. [Para 33][Para 38][Para 39][Para 41][Para 42] The Court accepted that the first limb was satisfied because leave had already been granted on substantial grounds, so the real question was whether any further factors displaced the default position against interim relief. [Para 38][Para 54][Para 93]

On the public-interest side, the Court accepted evidence that removal arrangements were already in place, including a booked flight, Garda escort, and preparations by the Italian authorities. [Para 62][Para 64] The Court also treated the Applicant’s criminal history, especially serious assaults and re-offending while in prison, as a factor attracting significant weight against granting an injunction or stay. [Para 73][Para 74][Para 75][Para 78]

On the Applicant’s side, the Court considered the long residence in Ireland, family ties, and asserted hardship in Italy, but held that these matters did not amount to more than the ordinary disruption of removal. [Para 79][Para 80][Para 81][Para 83][Para 84][Para 87] The Court further found that the substantive judicial review did not require the Applicant’s physical presence in Ireland and that he could communicate remotely with legal representatives, so there was no material prejudice to his case if removed. [Para 89][Para 90]

The Court therefore concluded that the Applicant had not shown sufficiently weighty factors to displace the default position that prima facie valid measures should proceed pending the substantive hearing. [Para 65][Para 87][Para 93]

Holding and Implications

REFUSED. The Court refused the Applicant’s interlocutory application for an injunction or stay restraining removal from Ireland to Italy. [Para 93][Para 94] The substantive judicial review application was left to proceed to directions, and the parties were invited to address costs separately. [Para 95][Para 96] The decision has only the direct effect of allowing the removal order to be implemented pending the main proceedings and does not state any new precedent. [Para 93][Para 94]