The Supreme Court of Ireland has found that new rules will be required when it comes to revoking citizenship. The new process will have to contain appropriate safeguards for those facing the severe consequences of loss of citizenship, including an independent decision-maker.
The decision comes following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ali Charaf Damache’s case last October, where the Court declared that the existing law governing revocation of citizenship was unconstitutional on natural justice grounds due to insufficient safeguards.
The Court was of the view that due to the serious impact of revocation of citizenship, as both an Irish and EU citizen, a high standard of natural justice must apply to the process. The Court was not concerned with the independence of the committee of inquiry, but held that the process provided for under section 19 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 did not provide sufficiently robust procedural safeguards that met the high standards required by natural justice. In particular, it could not be said that there was an impartial and independent decision maker where the same person who initiated the process ultimately decided the outcome. The Court therefore found section 19 to be repugnant to the Constitution.
A follow up hearing was held in January where Siobhán Stack SC, for the Minister, argued only part of section 19.2, and section 19.3, should be revoked but Ms. McDonagh and Siobhán Phelan SC, for the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, intervening as amicus, argued it was necessary to strike down additional parts of section 19.
Ms. Justice Elizabeth Dunne in the Supreme Court rejected arguments by the Minister that only part of section 19.2 should be struck down and granted declarations that section 19.2 and 19.3 be struck down in their entirety. It was not necessary, she held, to strike down section 19.1 which contains the ministerial power to revoke and the grounds for such revocation. She held that a court should only strike down so much of a statutory provision as is necessary in light of a finding of unconstitutionality.
Noting the concerns of Mr. Damache and the IHREC that to strike down section 19.2 and 19.3 while leaving in place section 19.1 could lead to the possibility of revocations taking place with no safeguards, she said it was “manifestly clear” the process in section 19.1 did not provide the procedural safeguards required to meet the high standards of natural justice applicable to a person facing the severe consequences of revocation of citizenship.
Ms. Justice Dunne justified not striking down section 19.1 by stating striking down 19.2 and 19.3 was sufficient alone and that it is “inconceivable” that any contested revocation of a certificate of naturalisation would take place without appropriate safeguards having been put in place.
Other parts of section 19, including section 19.4 which deems that a child whose name was entered on a naturalisation certificate under the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1935 is a citizen, remain in place.
Click here to read the full decision.