The UK Supreme Court made a historic ruling on the 18th of July, when it ruled that the authorities cannot rely on complex immigration rules that are the policy of the current government, and which have never been made lawful by virtue of a parliamentary decision. The rules in question were those relating to the the coalition government’s interim immigration cap. The case, R (on the application of Alvi) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) is surely a victory for fundamental democratic principles. You can read more about it on the blog of Lewis Silkin, the law firm that acted in all three of the cases that led to the decision.
Ireland’s immigration rules are mostly comprised of policy that has never come before our parliament, Dáil Eireann. Indeed, many of the policies that are applied in practice are not even published in policy documents. In some cases, humane and sensible policies are applied, so that we have what has been described as a system of “hidden remedies”; the policy in respect of immigrant victims of domestic violence is a case in point (read more here).
Previous drafts of our much-anticipated Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill have failed to set out clear and transparent rules under which people can enter and remain in the State, leaving many of the key immigration rules to the discretion of the Minister for Justice. This recent UK decision offers some food for thought for those charged with redrafting the forthcoming third version of the Bill, which Minister Alan Shatter has said he will publish this year.
Principal, Claire McCarthy Solicitor
