Background
M.R., an Italian national, arrived in Ireland aged two and had lived there for about 29 years. In June 2026, the Minister proposed making removal and ten-year exclusion orders. Following a dispute about the time allowed for representations, the Minister made the orders on 29 June 2026 and, after review, upheld them on 24 July 2026.
The applicant obtained leave to seek judicial review on substantial grounds, including a challenge concerning the applicable “imperative grounds of public security” threshold. He then sought an interlocutory injunction or stay preventing his removal to Italy pending determination of that challenge.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court refused the injunction and stay. Applying Okunade v Minister for Justice, the Court held that the applicant had not shown factors sufficient to displace the default position that prima facie valid removal measures should be implemented pending judicial review.
Although M.R.’s long residence in Ireland, family connections and relationship with his six-year-old Irish-citizen child were relevant, the Court found that removal to Italy would not create more than the ordinary disruption required to justify interim relief. Italy was a safe EU Member State, the applicant had family connections there, and he could maintain contact with his family remotely and through visits. His physical presence was not necessary to pursue the judicial review.
The Court also gave significant weight against relief to the applicant’s convictions, including serious assaults on a former partner and a Garda, drug possession, reoffending in prison, and the absence of meaningful evidence of sustained rehabilitation. The substantive judicial review was directed to be listed for directions.
Key Takeaways
- Leave to bring judicial review on substantial grounds does not itself justify a stay of a removal order.
- Long residence and family ties may be insufficient where removal is to a safe EU state and contact can be maintained remotely.
- Serious offending and public-security concerns can carry significant weight in the Okunade balance-of-justice assessment.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the demanding interim-relief threshold in Irish removal cases. The court kept the merits challenge—including the proper public-security threshold for removing a long-resident EU citizen—for the full judicial-review hearing, while allowing the removal order to be implemented in the meantime.