A man who has lived in Ireland almost his entire life has failed in his urgent attempt to stop the Minister for Justice from removing him to Italy while he challenges the decision in a full judicial review.
The judgment was finalised and delivered on 31 July 2026 by Mr Justice Conleth Bradley, and was published today, 6 August.
The applicant, identified only as M.R., arrived in Ireland in 1997 at the age of two and is now 31. His name is withheld under standard court practice in immigration and Article 40 detention cases, where anonymity protects private individuals, victims of crime, and family members. The judgment contains sensitive details about violence, family relationships, and a young child, so anonymisation is routine.
The Minister proposed Removal and Exclusion Orders in early June and refused a request for extra time to make representations. The orders were signed on 29 June. A later review upheld them. M.R. was arrested on 23 July, brought an Article 40 challenge, and was released. He then secured leave to bring judicial review and sought an interlocutory stay on his removal.
The court applied the Okunade test, a standard used in immigration cases. It asks first whether the applicant has an arguable case, and then weighs which side faces the greater risk of injustice if the order is paused or allowed to proceed. Even where a case is arguable, the default position is that valid State decisions should continue unless strong reasons are shown.
The State had already booked a flight for 10 August, arranged Garda escorts, and contacted Italian authorities. The cost was put at €2,174.56.
M.R. argued that removal would cause severe disruption. He has lived in Ireland for 29 years, has an Irish child aged six, and shares a home with his mother and sister. He said he feared homelessness or destitution in Italy.
The court noted that Italy is a safe EU country and that the applicant has family connections there. It also found that his presence in Ireland was not required for the judicial review and that he could give instructions from abroad.
A central factor was his criminal record. While many convictions were for road traffic offences, the judgment highlighted two recent assaults: one on his former partner, described in the Minister’s order as an “egregious and sustained assault,” and another on Gardaí. These matters carried significant weight against granting a stay.
In the end, the court held that M.R. had not shown anything beyond the ordinary disruption of being returned to his country of nationality.
The main judicial review has yet to be heard, and the court has made no finding on whether the Minister’s orders are lawful.
The application for an injunction and stay was refused, clearing the way for the removal to proceed while the main case continues.
Pat Coyne