BRIAN F. CONROY,
Madam, - Irish judges often render decisions which seem arcane or unpalatable or plain wrong to many laymen. This is not sufficient in itself to justify condemnation or even criticism, particularly given the complex and contentious nature of many of the disputes arising in our courts. But when a judgment of the highest court in the land flies in the face of fundamental logic, we should all be concerned, irrespective of the matter at issue.
This has now occurred in the case of D.L. v. Minister for Justice. The reasoning of the Supreme Court majority in that case can be summarised as follows: First premise: All Irish citizens have a right to reside in this country. Second premise: Children who are Irish citizens have a right to the society, company and care of their parents, regardless of whether one or both of the latter does not have Irish citizenship.
Conclusion: If the Government so decides, the parents of children holding Irish citizenship can be deported, whether or not these children wish to remain in this country.
We do not need to call on Aristotle to point out the gaping chasm between the Supreme Court's two premises and the conclusion arrived at. To fill this gap, rather than an admission that the rights invoked do not exist or are no longer of great significance, we have a couple of vague references to the "common good" and "the overriding need to preserve respect for and the integrity of the asylum and immigration system". One is left with no option but to conclude that our courts are now willing to manipulate certain core constitutional concepts at the Government's convenience. - Yours etc.,
BRIAN F. CONROY, St Edmund's College, Cambridge University, Cambridge, England.