In the matter of section 5 of the Illegal Immigrant (Trafficking) Act, 2000 (As Amended) between A.Z, M.Z, and C.Z (A minor suing by his mother and next friend M.Z.) v The Minister for Justice and Equality (Unapproved)

      The appellant (hereinafter "the Minister") appeals the order of the High Court (Phelan J.) made on the 2 nd December, 2022, wherein the Court granted an order of certiorari quashing the Minister's decision, notified under cover of letter dated the 13 th July, 2021, which refused to revoke a deportation order made in respect of the first respondent dated the 26 th June, 2019, under �s. 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (the "1999 Act").

      The family has lived together continuously with the exception of a three-year period when the first respondent was imprisoned, after a conviction for offences arising out of an altercation with a co-worker in 2012 when he discharged 6 bullets from an illegally held firearm striking his colleague.� He was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with three years suspended, and ultimately served three years of this sentence. The first and second respondents married shortly after the shooting incident took place.

      The submissions on behalf of the first respondent also focused heavily on the requirement to treat the child's best interests as paramount in conducting a proportionality test. While there was reliance on international case law regarding the best interests of the child, strangely there was no mention of the third respondent's special needs requirements, nor his autism diagnosis.

  The 2017 deportation order was subsequently revoked on the 26 th January, 2018, following the settlement of judicial review proceedings. It is unclear on what basis these proceedings were compromised. In November 2017, while these proceedings were extant, the first respondent sent the first of a series of threatening and abusive emails to the Department of Justice and Equality.

  The document acknowledged all submissions in respect of the third respondent's social and medical issues.� It acknowledged the level of care that the third respondent had required in respect of his hearing loss and diagnosis of autism, and the submission that the first respondent assisted with the care of his son when his wife was working.� It was accepted that it was "in the best interest of (the third respondent) to have the care and company of both of his parents".� However, this had to be balanced against the overall public interest in the particular facts of the case.