[ad_1]
The High Court, in a significant ruling, has ruled that the law governing the procedure according to which Irish citizenship can be revoked is unconstitutional.
The five-judge court ruled that the procedure to revoke citizenship set out in the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, specifically section 19 of the act, is unconstitutional on grounds of natural justice.
Under section 19, the Minister of Justice initiates the revocation procedure, ultimately makes the decision to revoke or not, and is not bound by the findings of a three-person investigative committee appointed by the Minister, the court noted.
This process did not meet the high standards of natural justice applicable to a person who faces such serious consequences as the loss of citizenship and, therefore, is constitutionally invalid, he ruled.
The decision is of great importance and affects another 40 cases.
The court ruled unconstitutional when it granted an appeal from Ali Damache, a native of Algeria who became a naturalized Irish citizen in 2008, over a notice of intent to revoke his Irish citizenship. He is serving a sentence in the United States after pleading guilty in October 2018 to having conspired to materially aid a terrorist group.
The October 2018 notification delivered by the Minister to Mr Damache described the intention to revoke his Irish citizenship on the basis of having shown disloyalty to the State.
The appeal focused on the process surrounding the revocation of citizenship, the procedural guarantees and the consequences of the loss of citizenship on other rights.
Sunniva McDonagh SC, for Mr. Damache, said on appeal that his client had pleaded guilty to a crime of conspiracy to avoid a prison term of 40 to 45 years. While he is serving a long term, he has important ties in Europe and the revocation of his Irish citizenship would mean that he would not be able to visit his children in France once released, he said.
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission participated in the appeal as amicus curiae, assistant to the court on legal matters. He argued that a high degree of procedural safeguards is required around ministerial decision-making to revoke Irish citizenship, which could be achieved through judicial recourse or the establishment of a sufficiently independent court or tribunal.
Issuing the court’s ruling on Wednesday, Judge Elizabeth Dunne said that a person facing the prospect of revocation of citizenship should be entitled to a process that provides minimal procedural safeguards, including an independent and impartial decision maker.
He noted that before a naturalization certificate can be revoked, the Minister will notify the affected person that they can request an investigation into the reasons for the revocation. Any such request is referred to an investigative committee appointed by the minister, consisting of a chairman with judicial experience and other persons the minister deems appropriate.
The committee is made up of two lawyers and a former Dáil member.
The judge said she was satisfied that there was nothing to show that the committee is anything but independent in the exercise of its functions and that it would not find a violation of natural justice for lack of independence on its part.
However, the problem with Article 19 stems from the fact that the envisioned process does not meet the high standards of natural justice applicable to a person facing consequences as severe as those at stake in this case, he said.
A person facing the prospect of revocation of a naturalization certificate should be entitled to a process that provides minimal procedural safeguards, including an independent and impartial decision maker.
Although the commission of inquiry is independent, its functions are limited, its conclusions are not binding on the minister and there is no right to appeal the minister’s decision, he said.
This resulted in a situation in which the same person who initiated the revocation process, and whose representatives present the revocation case to the committee, ultimately makes the decision to revoke.
On that basis, it concluded that Section 19 does not meet the required high standards of natural justice and is therefore invalid considering the provisions of the Constitution.
He did not agree with other arguments on behalf of Mr. Damache, including that the Article 19 process amounts to an unconstitutional administration of justice. What was involved here was not the administration of justice but the exercise of an executive function, he said.
[ad_2]