On 7 June 2011 the High Court in Efe & Others v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform decided that the common law rules of judicial review provide an adequate mechanism for securing fundamental rights.
The case concerned a deportation order issued to a Nigerian national. The applicant alleged that his deportation would harm his family ties with his Irish-born child and two Irish citizen step children.
In deciding whether judicial review was the appropriate way to assess the rationality and reasonableness of an administrative decision, Justice Hogan held that judicial review "is broad enough to ensure that the substance and essence of constitutional rights will always be protected against unfair attack, if necessary through the application of a Meadows-style proportionality analysis". In Meadows v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Supreme Court held that where fundamental rights are at issue, Courts should have regard to the proportionality of an administrative decision when assessing its reasonableness.
The High Court in Efe also had to determine whether courts can hear new evidence in judicial review proceedings that was not presented to the administrative decision-maker, and whether the common law rules of judicial review satisfy Article 13 of the ECHR.
In relation to hearing new evidence, Justice Hogan reiterated the rule on separation of powers. He stated that if a Court were to consider new evidence after the final administrative decision, it would be akin to a Court exercising the powers of the Executive - and thereby crossing "a borderline between review and appeal". In the context of this particular case, Justice Hogan noted that the effect of the Minister's revocation power within section 3 (11) of the Immigration Act of 1999 is likely to permit the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to consider new evidence after the Department of Justice has issued a deportation order.
When considering whether common law rules of judicial review satisfy Article 13 ECHR, Hogan J referred to the recent ECtHR decision of Kay v. The United Kingdom. This decision asserts that a proportional analysis of the decision of a government body which affects a person's fundamental rights will fulfil the requirements the right to an effective remedy in Article 13 ECHR. In applying Kay, Hogan J restated the Supreme Court's majority view in Meadows.
Click here to view a previous PILA Bulletin piece on the Meadows case.