![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions >> Duman & Ors -v- Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform [2007] IESC 64 (20 December 2007) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2007/S64.html Cite as: [2007] IESC 64 |
[New search]
[Context]
[Printable version]
[Help]
Judgment Title: Duman & Ors -v- Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform Composition of Court: Murray C.J., Denham J., Fennelly J., Kearns J., Finnegan J. Judgment by: Denham J. Status of Judgment: Approved
| ||||||||||||||
THE SUPREME COURT [S.C. No: 482/2006] Murray C.J. Denham J. Fennelly J. Kearns J. Finnegan J. Between/ Gheorghe Dorin Duman and Alina-Vica Gap Samolia and Kevin Duman (an infant suing by his father and next friend, Gheorghe Dorin Duman) Applicants/Respondents and
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform Respondent/Appellant Judgment delivered the 20th day of December, 2007 by Denham J.
At the core of the case is the refusal by the Minister of the first and second named applicants' applications under the IBC 05 Scheme. 2. Eight Cases 3. These related cases are:
(ii) Oguekwe v. The Minister, Appeal No. 489/2006 (iii) Dimbo v. The Minister, Appeal No. 484/2006 (iv) Fares v. The Minister, Appeal No. 483/2006 (v) Oviawe v. The Minister, Appeal No. 480/2006 (vi) Duman v. The Minister, Appeal No. 482/2006 (vii) Adio v. The Minister, Appeal No. 481/2006 (viii) Edet v. The Minister, Appeal No. 005/2007 4. The general facts and law relating to the Minister's decision in the administrative scheme in the seven cases are set out in the Bode judgment. The particular facts, law, and decision of this case are set out herein. 5. Parties 6. Particular Facts
![]() ![]() On the basis of the foregoing, I am not satisfied that you are a person of good character who has not engaged in criminal activity as set out in the Minister's announcement and, accordingly, your application for permission to remain in the State under the revised arrangements is hereby refused."
On the basis of the foregoing, I am not satisfied that you are a person of good character who has not engaged in criminal activity as set out in the Minister's announcement and, accordingly, your application for permission to remain in the State under the revised arrangements is hereby refused." 7. High Court Proceedings The High Court (Finlay Geoghegan J.) on the 14th November, 2006, noted, in considering the decision:-
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 2. The decision of the [Minister] on the applications under IBC/05 of the first and second named applicants communicated in the letter of 12th September, 2005, and confirmed in the letters of 24th November, 2005 are unlawful as they were taken in breach of the [Minister's] obligations under section 3( 8. Appeal 9. Decision 10. Conclusion I am satisfied that the proceedings and appeal are misconceived. The IBC 05 Scheme was an administrative scheme established by the Minister to deal with a unique group of foreign nationals. The parameters of the scheme were established clearly. The criteria included that applicants should not have been involved in criminal activity. The scheme was administered by the Minister within its criteria. Both the applicants have been involved in criminal activity and have been convicted of offences. At no time was it intended, within the ambit of the scheme, that the Minister would consider, or did the Minister consider, the Constitutional or Convention rights of the applicants. Thus the grounds of the application, and the appeal, relating to Constitutional and Convention rights, were misconceived, and premature. Applicants, unsuccessful in their application under the IBC 05 Scheme, remain in the same position they were in before their application. All relevant Constitutional and Convention rights remain to be considered, in another process, for example under s.3 of the Immigration Act, 1999, as amended. Consequently, I would allow the appeal and reverse the decision of the High Court.
|