Drink driving conviction

[ddbcork]

Hi lads,

Can anyone please advise whether or not a drink driving conviction will result in my application being rejected?

Thanks

Dave

[knapps]

I don't think there are set rules.
When you apply you should tell them that you fully accept it as your fault and what have you done to address such habit.

[IQU]

its very hard to tell it will going to approve or refuse .but in some cases even citizenship appilcation was refused for speed,parking ticket etc etc.but some people got approval for road traffic ? its all luck my friend.i think as a human being its crime drink drive.you only not put your life into risk also another peoples.

[ddbcork]

i think as a human being its crime drink drive.you only not put your life into risk also another peoples.

I've already been judged by a professional judge. No need to do it all again. You don't know the circumstances.

Thanks for your input anyway.

[tullamore]

Driving whilst under the influence is considered a very SERIOUS offence in the STATE and generally will result in your application for naturalisation being turned down.
(i do know someone who was caught in Limerick and he subsequently lost his job and he had to leave Ireland because he could not secure alternative employment- he was a delivery driver ) Rather stay away from alcohol completely.

A parking ticket, faulty brake light etc. etc......will NOT affect your application in any way.

[Monifé]

Hi lads,

Can anyone please advise whether or not a drink driving conviction will result in my application being rejected?

Thanks

Dave

No one will know whether they will refuse your application as cases are dealt with on a case by case basis.

You can start to redeem yourself now. Enroll in an alcohol management course or a similar course for people who have been convicted of drink driving. Do some unpaid voluntary work in the community. All these little things would count towards your naturalisation application and if there are enough "good things" in your application they may outweigh the bad.

If your application does get refused, you can always apply again in a few years. Once a bit of time has passed since your conviction, and you have shown in that time that you are an upstanding member of the community, then it is possible you could be successful.

[IQU]

monife have a point.

[Irisheddy]

There was a case last year where a well respected indian doctor applied for citizenship and was turned down. It transpired that he had once cycled through a red light and was prosecuted for it. They refer to anything like this as "to come to the adverse attention of the Gardai"

I am not judginging you but I would imagine that drink driving is considered more serious than cysling through a red light which is quite commonplace. Some people have been turned down for even just coming to the attention of the gardai.

Now maybe you had a good excuse for drink driving and the judge let you off with a warning, I don't know. Even so it will still affect your chances.

[mudamus]

Hi lads,

Can anyone please advise whether or not a drink driving conviction will result in my application being rejected?

Thanks

Dave

It depends, like dangerous driving causing harm, may affect you as a responsible citizen.

[walrusgumble]

first of all, disclose the fact.failure to do so will lead to automatic refusal.secondly follow what monife says!been seen to have redeemed.is this the only offence was it serious?

[jebbaolu]

first of all, disclose the fact.failure to do so will lead to automatic refusal.secondly follow what monife says!been seen to have redeemed.is this the only offence was it serious?

Once you appeal a case and the case is pending, no conviction can be stated or reported in accordance to criminal justice code of conducts until the final judgement, and what and where is the final judgement DUDE ?. what else do you know about criminal justice systems tell the world ?


Even your court systems is full of fraud, it's when i know the law i realizes that, when i ordered garry doyle order, i could see the ways the garda framed statement try to rob peter to pay paul,

For example, a garda took an immigrant to court fro public order, and another one want to take the same person to court again for public order, do you know what the second garda did, he called the one that took the first case to witness the statement mad and asked him to make an oath statement signed and insert it, to connect the other garda with the second case, smart is it, is it right ? that's why we will force the judges to crack them by taken time to see their tricks. haha

[walrusgumble]

jeb.you are talking nonsense. again. if you are convicted by a court, that conviction is valid UNTIL you SUCCESSFULLY appeal your case.hence the terms appeal upheld and appeal allowed.

[yable22]

jeb.you are talking nonsense. again. if you are convicted by a court, that conviction is valid UNTIL you SUCCESSFULLY appeal your case.hence the terms appeal upheld and appeal allowed.

Please usurp immigration act 1999 (Deportation) Regulations 2002 S.I No 103 of 2002, and apply it to each of them convicted with rear seat belt conviction for children aswell.

[walrusgumble]

jeb.you are talking nonsense. again. if you are convicted by a court, that conviction is valid UNTIL you SUCCESSFULLY appeal your case.hence the terms appeal upheld and appeal allowed.

Please usurp immigration act 1999 (Deportation) Regulations 2002 S.I No 103 of 2002, and apply it to each of them convicted with rear seat belt conviction for children aswell.

What has immigration laws got to do with the basic concept of Criminal Law? (ie An Appeal Court either confirms a conviction or overt turns the conviction)

More to the point, what has deportation orders got to do with entitlement to citizenship?

Do you know the difference between residence and Citizenship. If you get refused citizenship because of crime, you can't be deported. it will not effect your residence in the country. if you get criminal conviction, while it might hurt your citizenship application, it may not effect your residence.


People who cite the law in a completely inaccurate way is the retarded fashion like yours (did you even read that link?) should be barred from posting. Leave discussion on those issues to people who actually have qualifications will you, please


Your information is simply erroneous, and there maybe people stupid enough to follow what you are saying.

[yable22]

jeb.you are talking nonsense. again. if you are convicted by a court, that conviction is valid UNTIL you SUCCESSFULLY appeal your case.hence the terms appeal upheld and appeal allowed.

Please usurp immigration act 1999 (Deportation) Regulations 2002 S.I No 103 of 2002, and apply it to each of them convicted with rear seat belt conviction for children aswell.

What has immigration laws got to do with the basic concept of Criminal Law? (ie An Appeal Court either confirms a conviction or overt turns the conviction)

More to the point, what has deportation orders got to do with entitlement to citizenship?

Do you know the difference between residence and Citizenship. If you get refused citizenship because of crime, you can't be deported. it will not effect your residence in the country. if you get criminal conviction, while it might hurt your citizenship application, it may not effect your residence.


People who cite the law in a completely inaccurate way is the retarded fashion like yours (did you even read that link?) should be barred from posting. Leave discussion on those issues to people who actually have qualifications will you, please
Your information is simply erroneous, and there maybe people stupid enough to follow what you are saying.

You see the way you got angry when a fact is been spell out for you, when an immigrant is convicted, the immigration department can not just refuse rather than deportations tell me ?
Because they'll have to quote the section and subsection of the law that lead to the refusal of such application.

I will play you to the constitutionality of s.13 of the 1992 act which was challenged on two occasions, in White V Ireland 1995 2 I.R 268 The applicant claimed that an accused had a right to confront his accuser in open court. Kinlen J. rejected this argument. He noted that the jury could view the demeanor of the witness through the television link. He went on to hold that if an accused did have a constitutional right to physically confront a witness that right must yield to the rights of the child.

Citizenship Directive, article 28(1)
Before taking an expulsion decision on grounds of public policy or public security, the host member state shall take account of considerations such as how long the individual concerned has resided on its territory, his/her age, state of health, family and economic situation, social and cultural integration into the host member state and the extent of his/her link with the country of origin. RE- Jipa 2008 ECRI-5157

Under the European union directive, there're certain ground for exclusions stated in article 27 and article 27 2 which was displayed in the case of Van Duyn V Home office 1994 ECR 1337

So to exclude people from citizenship, residency, work, social means is prohibited under those article, so don't come here and tell people that, they can be refused naturalization, which has the right to judicial review in retrospect and say that, it may not affect their residency without noticing that, naturalization and residency department intertwined in their scope of operation, i wll give you instances of judicial review precedences on naturalization application been refuse under the 1956 citizenship and immigration act in due course if you can reduce your anger.

[walrusgumble]

jeb.you are talking nonsense. again. if you are convicted by a court, that conviction is valid UNTIL you SUCCESSFULLY appeal your case.hence the terms appeal upheld and appeal allowed.

Please usurp immigration act 1999 (Deportation) Regulations 2002 S.I No 103 of 2002, and apply it to each of them convicted with rear seat belt conviction for children aswell.

What has immigration laws got to do with the basic concept of Criminal Law? (ie An Appeal Court either confirms a conviction or overt turns the conviction)

More to the point, what has deportation orders got to do with entitlement to citizenship?

Do you know the difference between residence and Citizenship. If you get refused citizenship because of crime, you can't be deported. it will not effect your residence in the country. if you get criminal conviction, while it might hurt your citizenship application, it may not effect your residence.


People who cite the law in a completely inaccurate way is the retarded fashion like yours (did you even read that link?) should be barred from posting. Leave discussion on those issues to people who actually have qualifications will you, please
Your information is simply erroneous, and there maybe people stupid enough to follow what you are saying.

You see the way you got angry when a fact is been spell out for you, when an immigrant is convicted, the immigration department can not just refuse rather than deportations tell me ?
Because they'll have to quote the section and subsection of the law that lead to the refusal of such application.

I will play you to the constitutionality of s.13 of the 1992 act which was challenged on two occasions, in White V Ireland 1995 2 I.R 268 The applicant claimed that an accused had a right to confront his accuser in open court. Kinlen J. rejected this argument. He noted that the jury could view the demeanor of the witness through the television link. He went on to hold that if an accused did have a constitutional right to physically confront a witness that right must yield to the rights of the child.

Citizenship Directive, article 28(1)
Before taking an expulsion decision on grounds of public policy or public security, the host member state shall take account of considerations such as how long the individual concerned has resided on its territory, his/her age, state of health, family and economic situation, social and cultural integration into the host member state and the extent of his/her link with the country of origin. RE- Jipa 2008 ECRI-5157

Under the European union directive, there're certain ground for exclusions stated in article 27 and article 27 2 which was displayed in the case of Van Duyn V Home office 1994 ECR 1337

So to exclude people from citizenship, residency, work, social means is prohibited under those article, so don't come here and tell people that, they can be refused naturalization, which has the right to judicial review in retrospect and say that, it may not affect their residency without noticing that, naturalization and residency department intertwined in their scope of operation, i wll give you instances of judicial review precedences on naturalization application been refuse under the 1956 citizenship and immigration act in due course if you can reduce your anger.

1. All Applications for Citizenship, any applicant will be asked, to disclose all cases, whether civil or criminal, concluded or pending. (OP relax, you are asked to disclose all cases whether concluded, pending or appealed. Make sure you follow Monife's suggestions.

2. Only the extreme retarded would believe that a person is not convicted by a court simply because they are appealing. At most, it suspends the effect of the conviction. (eg sentence to jail or requirement to pay a fine) It is not automatic that everyone appeals their cases.

3. There is absolutely nothing to prevent a Minister for Justice to decide to refuse Citizenship to somebody for simply being in Court. Its harsh, but Courts can do little about it.

4. Absolutely nothing was spelt out for me. You have simply reconfirmed again, how bloody stupid you are. (ie citing matters that you don't have a clue about). Point out something is when you highlight to someone (me) that they are incorrect. The only thing that you have done was highlight what an idiot you are. If you are going to make comments on others posters, make sure you get it right, or you will be made a fool of.

Just to Spell it out, this topic is ABOUT CITIZENSHIP. The OP has asked about NOTHING about any fears of Deportation. So do not bring it up. It is not relevant, and if people were gullable enough, they would have paid heed to your post, and you would have freaked them out. Once again, read what the Topic is about - CITIZENSHIP


IF there was a risk of deportation, (WHICH THERE IS NOT, OP HAS NOT ASKED FOR IT,) the minister as per Section 3 will inform that person of intention to deport and will give that person a chance to make submissions. There is no point discussing this any further as the topic is about CITIZENSHIP. Only just say one thing, The Minister would be entitled to deport someone for a conviction (Obviously, not a simple seat belt matters) (In this Context I am talking about NON EU Citizens)

5. You are again, showing complete and utter retardness by quoting EU law. There is absolutely no EU law issues here. NO. There is no element of Cross Border action in order to trigger EU law. NONE. The Citizenship Directive has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCY IN THIS CASE. I am assuming that this person is an non EU Citizen. There is no point discussing the Directive here, but, only to say, if an EU citizens (other than Irish) was living here and was threatened deportation then, yes, you are correct Article 27-33 of Directive is relevant. BUT its not here. SO stop talking about it here. The matter is about Citizenship. The only time EU might be relevant is when the Minister attempts to revoke a naturalised person's Irish Citizen (as per Rothman 2010) That is not relevant here.

6. EU law, as stated by the Rothman case (a case where, unlike this op, got EU citizenship, lied in getting it, but lost it and his citizenship of birth, which was also EU) acknowledge that Member States and ONLY members states can determine the right to grant citizenship to people. It only needs to consider EU law when looking at whether it should revoke status (all ready give, not the case here) but it does not mean that EU law would stop member states. This is not the United State of Europe, and it is not Federal Europe. No other Member State, bar Belgium (which is a nothing country anyway) would tolerate the European Union dictating who that country must give their citizenship too.

NO Treaty Article or Regulation or Directive prevents exclusion from citizenship . Only when you get citizenship, can you then rely on EU law and in most cases (not all) can only rely on EU law if there is a cross border issue.

Other than that, you challenge exclusion before Domestic law, which, in this Country, the Minister (because it is an administrative action) has a lot of leeway (but not entirely, he still must follow fair procedures) A person can apply before Irish Courts, and under Irish Law apply for Judicial Review. Does not mean that they will win.

7. Cite the Irish Law (because EU law is not relevant) that supports your case. You won't find any

8. Stop shifting goal posts. Residency & Deportation are two different things

9. Who is teaching you this rubbish (they should be exposed), because, unless you have a difficulty in reading English, you are not getting it from any books. Stop coming on this shit showing yourself up as idiot. Don't cite the law, unless you are correct. Its not funny, because, show people are stupid enough to believe you. If you gave that information in the outside world, you would be liable to be sued for negligence.

10. Respond with further nuggets of retardation (ie horrible wrongful and irrelevant citing of law) I will report you and you will be banned.

11. Go and learn what Judicial Review is actually all about. It is not an appeal process. It does not appeal the decision per se, but the manner in how the Minister made his decision. IE Did he follow fair procedures, did he have regard to one's Constitutional Rights. The Court can't say if it agreed with the Minister or not. It can only say whether a decision, in light of the information before the decision maker, is completely out of touch of common sense etc

The High Court, are slow in interfering with issues like the Minister's right to refuse citizenship . I never said a person can't challenge refusal, so stop putting words in my mouth, you little (swearword for a bad person). I was responding to another issue, your retarded suggestion on convictions.

12. Naturalisation and residency are NOT intert winded. They are too separate rights. You don't have a right to Naturalization after living in Ireland after 3/5 years. But you do have a right to apply and be considered in a fair and rational manner. The Minister considers an application for citizenship and an application for residency or deportation on different criteria. Not every NON EU citizen, who lives in Ireland wants to be an Irish Citizen, and not every person will be granted citizenship.

13. You will find little case law to support you. You some how not only discuss issues that have nothing to do with Citizenship, but you also some how manage to mix principles and confuse yourself. It is so sad that you have spent so long typing out what should be impressive comments, and genuinely believing them, only to be so wrong.

The only time Residency issue is discussed in a citizenship case is when whether someone meets the residency requirement for citizenship is at risk.

14. Unless you can provide case law that dealt with someone who has been refused on the basis of criminal offence like penalty points (I know one which the court ruled against the Minister) , after all this is the topic in this case, don't bother responding you will be reported.


15 Section 13 of 1992?. There is absolutely no legislation, whether relevant or not relevant, concerning immigration and citizenship issues enacted in 1992. No body doubts that an accuser has a right to confront / cross examine in court, its a Constitutional Right as per Re: Haughey 1971. It is a flexible right, it does not apply in all cases. What about it?, you are not in Court What has that passage on White case got to do with (1) Citizenship (2) Support in any way, your opinion that a conviction is not a conviction if you appeal? By the way, the right to physical confrontation is not absolute, it may occur via video link.

[mania3]

Please usurp immigration act 1999 (Deportation) Regulations 2002 S.I No 103 of 2002, and apply it to each of them convicted with rear seat belt conviction for children aswell.

What has immigration laws got to do with the basic concept of Criminal Law? (ie An Appeal Court either confirms a conviction or overt turns the conviction)

More to the point, what has deportation orders got to do with entitlement to citizenship?

Do you know the difference between residence and Citizenship. If you get refused citizenship because of crime, you can't be deported. it will not effect your residence in the country. if you get criminal conviction, while it might hurt your citizenship application, it may not effect your residence.


People who cite the law in a completely inaccurate way is the retarded fashion like yours (did you even read that link?) should be barred from posting. Leave discussion on those issues to people who actually have qualifications will you, please
Your information is simply erroneous, and there maybe people stupid enough to follow what you are saying.

You see the way you got angry when a fact is been spell out for you, when an immigrant is convicted, the immigration department can not just refuse rather than deportations tell me ?
Because they'll have to quote the section and subsection of the law that lead to the refusal of such application.

I will play you to the constitutionality of s.13 of the 1992 act which was challenged on two occasions, in White V Ireland 1995 2 I.R 268 The applicant claimed that an accused had a right to confront his accuser in open court. Kinlen J. rejected this argument. He noted that the jury could view the demeanor of the witness through the television link. He went on to hold that if an accused did have a constitutional right to physically confront a witness that right must yield to the rights of the child.

Citizenship Directive, article 28(1)
Before taking an expulsion decision on grounds of public policy or public security, the host member state shall take account of considerations such as how long the individual concerned has resided on its territory, his/her age, state of health, family and economic situation, social and cultural integration into the host member state and the extent of his/her link with the country of origin. RE- Jipa 2008 ECRI-5157

Under the European union directive, there're certain ground for exclusions stated in article 27 and article 27 2 which was displayed in the case of Van Duyn V Home office 1994 ECR 1337

So to exclude people from citizenship, residency, work, social means is prohibited under those article, so don't come here and tell people that, they can be refused naturalization, which has the right to judicial review in retrospect and say that, it may not affect their residency without noticing that, naturalization and residency department intertwined in their scope of operation, i wll give you instances of judicial review precedences on naturalization application been refuse under the 1956 citizenship and immigration act in due course if you can reduce your anger.

1. All Applications for Citizenship, any applicant will be asked, to disclose all cases, whether civil or criminal, concluded or pending. (OP relax, you are asked to disclose all cases whether concluded, pending or appealed. Make sure you follow Monife's suggestions.

2. Only the extreme retarded would believe that a person is not convicted by a court simply because they are appealing. At most, it suspends the effect of the conviction. (eg sentence to jail or requirement to pay a fine) It is not automatic that everyone appeals their cases.

3. There is absolutely nothing to prevent a Minister for Justice to decide to refuse Citizenship to somebody for simply being in Court. Its harsh, but Courts can do little about it.

4. Absolutely nothing was spelt out for me. You have simply reconfirmed again, how bloody stupid you are. (ie citing matters that you don't have a clue about). Point out something is when you highlight to someone (me) that they are incorrect. The only thing that you have done was highlight what an idiot you are. If you are going to make comments on others posters, make sure you get it right, or you will be made a fool of.

Just to Spell it out, this topic is ABOUT CITIZENSHIP. The OP has asked about NOTHING about any fears of Deportation. So do not bring it up. It is not relevant, and if people were gullable enough, they would have paid heed to your post, and you would have freaked them out. Once again, read what the Topic is about - CITIZENSHIP


IF there was a risk of deportation, (WHICH THERE IS NOT, OP HAS NOT ASKED FOR IT,) the minister as per Section 3 will inform that person of intention to deport and will give that person a chance to make submissions. There is no point discussing this any further as the topic is about CITIZENSHIP. Only just say one thing, The Minister would be entitled to deport someone for a conviction (Obviously, not a simple seat belt matters) (In this Context I am talking about NON EU Citizens)

5. You are again, showing complete and utter retardness by quoting EU law. There is absolutely no EU law issues here. NO. There is no element of Cross Border action in order to trigger EU law. NONE. The Citizenship Directive has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCY IN THIS CASE. I am assuming that this person is an non EU Citizen. There is no point discussing the Directive here, but, only to say, if an EU citizens (other than Irish) was living here and was threatened deportation then, yes, you are correct Article 27-33 of Directive is relevant. BUT its not here. SO stop talking about it here. The matter is about Citizenship. The only time EU might be relevant is when the Minister attempts to revoke a naturalised person's Irish Citizen (as per Rothman 2010) That is not relevant here.

6. EU law, as stated by the Rothman case (a case where, unlike this op, got EU citizenship, lied in getting it, but lost it and his citizenship of birth, which was also EU) acknowledge that Member States and ONLY members states can determine the right to grant citizenship to people. It only needs to consider EU law when looking at whether it should revoke status (all ready give, not the case here) but it does not mean that EU law would stop member states. This is not the United State of Europe, and it is not Federal Europe. No other Member State, bar Belgium (which is a nothing country anyway) would tolerate the European Union dictating who that country must give their citizenship too.

NO Treaty Article or Regulation or Directive prevents exclusion from citizenship . Only when you get citizenship, can you then rely on EU law and in most cases (not all) can only rely on EU law if there is a cross border issue.

Other than that, you challenge exclusion before Domestic law, which, in this Country, the Minister (because it is an administrative action) has a lot of leeway (but not entirely, he still must follow fair procedures) A person can apply before Irish Courts, and under Irish Law apply for Judicial Review. Does not mean that they will win.

7. Cite the Irish Law (because EU law is not relevant) that supports your case. You won't find any

8. Stop shifting goal posts. Residency & Deportation are two different things

9. Who is teaching you this rubbish (they should be exposed), because, unless you have a difficulty in reading English, you are not getting it from any books. Stop coming on this shit showing yourself up as idiot. Don't cite the law, unless you are correct. Its not funny, because, show people are stupid enough to believe you. If you gave that information in the outside world, you would be liable to be sued for negligence.

10. Respond with further nuggets of retardation (ie horrible wrongful and irrelevant citing of law) I will report you and you will be banned.

11. Go and learn what Judicial Review is actually all about. It is not an appeal process. It does not appeal the decision per se, but the manner in how the Minister made his decision. IE Did he follow fair procedures, did he have regard to one's Constitutional Rights. The Court can't say if it agreed with the Minister or not. It can only say whether a decision, in light of the information before the decision maker, is completely out of touch of common sense etc

The High Court, are slow in interfering with issues like the Minister's right to refuse citizenship . I never said a person can't challenge refusal, so stop putting words in my mouth, you little (swearword for a bad person). I was responding to another issue, your retarded suggestion on convictions.

12. Naturalisation and residency are NOT intert winded. They are too separate rights. You don't have a right to Naturalization after living in Ireland after 3/5 years. But you do have a right to apply and be considered in a fair and rational manner. The Minister considers an application for citizenship and an application for residency or deportation on different criteria. Not every NON EU citizen, who lives in Ireland wants to be an Irish Citizen, and not every person will be granted citizenship.

13. You will find little case law to support you. You some how not only discuss issues that have nothing to do with Citizenship, but you also some how manage to mix principles and confuse yourself. It is so sad that you have spent so long typing out what should be impressive comments, and genuinely believing them, only to be so wrong.
14. Unless you can provide case law that dealt with someone who has been refused on the basis of criminal offence like penalty points (I know one which the court ruled against the Minister) , after all this is the topic in this case, don't bother responding you will be reported.

15 Section 13 of 1992?. There is absolutely no legislation, whether relevant or not relevant, concerning immigration and citizenship issues enacted in 1992. No body doubts that an accuser has a right to confront / cross examine in court, its a Constitutional Right as per Re: Haughey 1971. It is a flexible right, it does not apply in all cases. What about it?, you are not in Court What has that passage on White case got to do with (1) Citizenship (2) Support in any way, your opinion that a conviction is not a conviction if you appeal? By the way, the right to physical confrontation is not absolute, it may occur via video link.

The only time Residency issue is discussed in a citizenship case is when whether someone meets the residency requirement for citizenship is at risk.
k
T




It does seems to me that, you only know how to insult people call them names like idiot, Illiterates, lack of knowledge of anything than to look good, it's only an intelligent educated people will actually know the bullet point and think what i am thinking mate. Maybe the new bill immigration and protection bill 2008 is passed they could use conviction to get rid of whoever is stupid among immigrant but for now, no way at all.

However, every applicant kept the copy of their citizenship application even if you stole some copies anyway, well if the naturalization believed and have substantial ground that applicant did not list anything about anything with the law, we will reply them swiftly.

Furthermore, i quoted the article of the European law the superseded Irish law on immigration given in relations to excluding people from citizenship, but your lack of knowledge and ability to absorb defeat fail again because you know nothing of European law anyway. And you even said earlier that, i should allow those who have degrees or certificate to justify immigration law, i bet you don't know who i am and what i have in stock anyway.

You lack the knowledge of Evidence law aswell, to suggest the constitutionality example of the accused right to see what evidence or reasons they used against them. you're rude and have psychiatric problem if i am retarded as you called me, silencer.

Article 9 of the Irish constitution 1 (3) did state that...

No person maybe excluded from Irish Nationality. most especially on sex.
And i refer you to the super state aspect of prohibition of such exclusion you trying to pull it down as if you know anything whereas you don't.
Now article 9.1.2 says that....
That the entitlement of any other person had to be determined by legislation.

Now explain to me why it's discretionary when it's said so in article 9.1.2 having met the five years reckonable to apply ?

And it contradict the case of Mishra V Minister for justice 1996, by discretionary not by legislation, any take, use your head not your mouth and don't jealous me.

.

[walrusgumble]

i don't know what your calling yourself anymore, but you are an exception, you deserve eveything you get. i would not mind but alot of this law can be found on the net. some people can be dangerously incorrect with the comments they offer but you take the biscuit. i trust no one is stupid enough to pay heed to any "legal" advice you give. whatever your are thinking prove it, cause for all i know your irish,i am merely treating you the same if you were one of our own irish idiots .but alas i know what your getting at and its pathetic.boy called wolf.you seem obsessed by it.

[walrusgumble]

you have conveniently misinterpreted article 9 for your own purposes.article 9.1 contains 3 clauses. it refers to IRISH people before the republic(most of those people are now dead), and prohition of discrimination ON SEX.how is that relevant here?.it does not say legislation, it says law.law is more than just legislation.the legislation, ie section 15 of the act gives the minister sole discretion on who gets citizenship. if you want to discuss immigration bill do it somewhere else. it would want to be a very serious crime to get yourself deported after 5 years.article 9 says nothing as suggested by you.read the citizenship act 1956-2004. you will find that,again, i am correct.

[walrusgumble]

i know nothing about eu and constitutional law? i think everyone here,regardless of what they think of me know that that is bollox. address the 15 points i raised. read the rothman decision. are you actually serious or just delluded? mishra was based on a unjustified discriminatory practice which the applicant was not part of.he was not a criminal.as i have said in my 15 point post court will interfere if decision flies in the face of common sense and where fair procedures were not applied as what happened in mishra. go to bailii.org and find more relevant cases. i never mentioned law of evidence or right to silence and right not to incriminate oneslf.any way those rights are not relevant or effected on conviction. you are really clutching at straws.as for eu, go and read the treaties,short cut- read rothman. do you enjoy making a fool of yourself?

[bugside]

Don't you see how many commented on reply ?

Knowledge is power and it depends on how you argue the law, the quotations of article 9, shows you how i can stop the minister from using discretionary power on citizenship application rather than legislation laid down contrary to ministerial and secretary act 1924 has it was demonstrated in the case of Howard V Minister for public work per planing permission which which was struck down by Walsh J, stop acting the maggot, for further law research which i think will help you a bit further in law if you're one of us though log on to westlaw.ie and get the latest.

A chara.

[walrusgumble]

Don't you see how many commented on reply ?

Knowledge is power and it depends on how you argue the law, the quotations of article 9, shows you how i can stop the minister from using discretionary power on citizenship application rather than legislation laid down contrary to ministerial and secretary act 1924 has it was demonstrated in the case of Howard V Minister for public work per planing permission which which was struck down by Walsh J, stop acting the maggot, for further law research which i think will help you a bit further in law if you're one of us though log on to westlaw.ie and get the latest.

A chara.

No you can not. Article 9 says nothing of the sort. In rare ocassions, the court will interfere if the decision completely smacks of a failure by the Minister to consider anything.

The fact that you refuse / unable to respond specifically with the points I put to you, and simply act like a 5 year old rehashing or changing the goal posts, or citing more irrelevant law, shows you truly are a troll. The fact that you are being banned, under different guises by the moderators also is an indication.

There is a recent case from the Supreme Court on refusal of citizenship. It involved a well known immigration solicitor who was refused citizenship. go and read it as it gives an indication of what the law says.

To be more relevant to op, you can challenge a refusal in the High Court, this is correct (I never said you can't) , but due to the Separation of Powers (ie Minister's Executive Power to decide who gets citizenship ie a political decision vs the Courts Role) the Courts are slow in interfering.

OP, whatever chance of succeeding in a case where you are refused (I don't for one minute say you will be refused!) A high Court will strike out a case, if you failed to disclose information known to you, which you were asked for (eg criminal conviction) and its clear from the application form that you were asked for it.

Going back to this imbecile: Howard v CPW, that involved 3 sets of proceedings, a case concerning doctrine of non delegation, (at least there is SOME relevancy) It had nothing to do with Citizenship, there is no discretion in those planning cases. The main challenge was made by Howard because he was angry that he could not enjoy protection under new legislation which came into effect retrospectively (He could not because if he did, it would over rule the previous Court Decision, thus interfere with their jurisdiction)


if you want to Challenge the Citizenship Act on the basis of excessive Ministerial Discretion. Howard case, its ultimate case lost! The last of the Howard cases showed the Court's preparation to give leeway to the Government in the Manner that it legislates (here, the make previously declared actions illegal by the court, now legal) I see where your coming from, but the facts of Howard case are irrelevant here.

Interestingly, Minister Shatter, when in opposition complained constantly about the Minister's complete discretion and lack of following guidelines set down by the Parliament and complained that the criteria is not set down in legislation. Problem is, now that he is Minister, there is not one suggestion that Shatter is going to change the status quo. I do , however, understand that Section 15 of the Act, is being challenged in Court at the moment.



You the hell is wasting money on you?, providing you service to westlaw.ie . You are too retarded to even read what the cases/legislation says. Most of this stuff can also be found in hard copy and other FREE websites.

I ask every person read Article 9 of the Constitution and see for your self what a gomb this guy is.

[PROBATE]

Don't you see how many commented on reply ?

Knowledge is power and it depends on how you argue the law, the quotations of article 9, shows you how i can stop the minister from using discretionary power on citizenship application rather than legislation laid down contrary to ministerial and secretary act 1924 has it was demonstrated in the case of Howard V Minister for public work per planing permission which which was struck down by Walsh J, stop acting the maggot, for further law research which i think will help you a bit further in law if you're one of us though log on to westlaw.ie and get the latest.

A chara.

No you can not. Article 9 says nothing of the sort. In rare ocassions, the court will interfere if the decision completely smacks of a failure by the Minister to consider anything.

The fact that you refuse / unable to respond specifically with the points I put to you, and simply act like a 5 year old rehashing or changing the goal posts, or citing more irrelevant law, shows you truly are a troll. The fact that you are being banned, under different guises by the moderators also is an indication.

There is a recent case from the Supreme Court on refusal of citizenship. It involved a well known immigration solicitor who was refused citizenship. go and read it as it gives an indication of what the law says.

To be more relevant to op, you can challenge a refusal in the High Court, this is correct (I never said you can't) , but due to the Separation of Powers (ie Minister's Executive Power to decide who gets citizenship ie a political decision vs the Courts Role) the Courts are slow in interfering.

OP, whatever chance of succeeding in a case where you are refused (I don't for one minute say you will be refused!) A high Court will strike out a case, if you failed to disclose information known to you, which you were asked for (eg criminal conviction) and its clear from the application form that you were asked for it.

Going back to this imbecile: Howard v CPW, that involved 3 sets of proceedings, a case concerning doctrine of non delegation, (at least there is SOME relevancy) It had nothing to do with Citizenship, there is no discretion in those planning cases. The main challenge was made by Howard because he was angry that he could not enjoy protection under new legislation which came into effect retrospectively (He could not because if he did, it would over rule the previous Court Decision, thus interfere with their jurisdiction)


if you want to Challenge the Citizenship Act on the basis of excessive Ministerial Discretion. Howard case, its ultimate case lost! The last of the Howard cases showed the Court's preparation to give leeway to the Government in the Manner that it legislates (here, the make previously declared actions illegal by the court, now legal) I see where your coming from, but the facts of Howard case are irrelevant here.

Interestingly, Minister Shatter, when in opposition complained constantly about the Minister's complete discretion and lack of following guidelines set down by the Parliament and complained that the criteria is not set down in legislation. Problem is, now that he is Minister, there is not one suggestion that Shatter is going to change the status quo. I do , however, understand that Section 15 of the Act, is being challenged in Court at the moment.



You the hell is wasting money on you?, providing you service to westlaw.ie . You are too retarded to even read what the cases/legislation says. Most of this stuff can also be found in hard copy and other FREE websites.

I ask every person read Article 9 of the Constitution and see for your self what a gomb this guy is.

I could read the argument burning you therein per article 9.2, i did not one day mentioned that, a locus standi could never be created to challenge any in competencies and misuse of discretionary powers in the government department thus every questions you put to me has been answered to date except the unreasonable one's- re-wednesbury v m.picture that lead to wednesbury unreasonableness.

You continue to make some obscene' statement about me often on these discuss and often banning me from arguing with you just because you controlled the website and hate challenges and free speeches, made me not interested in arguing with you again.

Furthermore, please give the recent case pending in the high court on refusal of a solicitor if you don't mind ? beside that solicitor must be part of the former government that created mess in the legal,political and economic mess that the present government is trying to clean up now.

Would you mind stop insulting me because of your anger and stop banning me so that, and counter attack your legal claims, by the way nobody sponsors my degree education, is all paid for by myself despite the academic criminality that has engulf the Irish educational system that lead to the recent downgrading of degree education in Ireland.

If minister shatter knew what he was doing or probably people like you that work under him creating problems in the citizenship and immigration system that, there's no legislation or guidelines for granting citizenship why are you vegetating on peoples application then ?

The same section 15 you are talking about had been challenged before in 1986 and 2002 in the case of Pok Sun Shum V Ireland inter alia that section 15,16 of the 1956 act were repugnant to article 9 in that they discriminated against the exercise of the right of his wife, the second-named plaintiff, who was an Irish citizen, Costello j rejected the claim that
''The right given by article 9 are rights given to all persons, so that no person can be excluded from Irish nationality by reasons of sex of such person.No right of the [second-named]plaintiff herself is being infringed by ss.15 or 16 of the act, and assuming that the first-named plaintiff can claim rights under the constitution. no rights conferred by article 9 on him are infringed by ss.15 and 16. ''
Which the judge says that, the section does not permit the minister to exclude the plaintiff from Irish citizenship by reasons of sex.

Please come again and do not take me out and lets argue your knowledge and mined because your parent paid for my education.

The judge also noted that under the 1956 act the minister for justice was empowered to confer a benefit or privileged on an alien who had applied for CON and that granting of such a CON was not a mandatory consequence once an alien had satisfied certain conditions. Consequently the minister was not obliged to give reasons, and that case scenario whereby the minister immunity on given reasons had been removed long time, so there you are.