The High Court has ruled that the Minister for Justice is not obliged to consider waiving naturalisation requirements under section 16 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 where an applicant has applied solely under section 15.
Delivering an ex tempore judgment, Ms Justice Nessa Cahill dismissed a judicial review brought by a Democratic Republic of Congo national and mother of four Irish citizen children, whose application for naturalisation was refused on good character grounds.
The applicant submitted her application in August 2018 under section 15 of the 1956 Act. In April 2025, the Minister refused the application following a recommendation that several road traffic offences, including driving without insurance or a driving licence, meant that the applicant had not satisfied the statutory good character requirement.
The applicant challenged the decision, arguing that the Minister had failed to consider exercising his discretion under section 16, which permits certain naturalisation requirements to be waived, including where an applicant has Irish associations. She further argued that, if the Minister had considered exercising that discretion, inadequate reasons had been provided.
However, the Court noted that the applicant had expressly indicated that Irish associations were not applicable when completing her application. The central issue was therefore whether the Minister was required to consider a section 16 waiver without an application or specific request.
Relying on Martins v Minister for Justice [2018] IEHC 268, Ms Justice Cahill held that the Minister was not obliged to consider exercising his discretion under section 16 where an application had been made solely under section 15. The Court emphasised that the Minister could not be faulted for failing to exercise a discretion that had not been invoked.
The judge clarified that the Minister could consider a section 16 waiver voluntarily in an appropriate case, provided the applicant's right to fair procedures was respected. She also observed that considering and rejecting such a waiver without prior notice could potentially prejudice an applicant.
Ms Justice Cahill acknowledged that the naturalisation application form could have provided clearer information about the availability of section 16 waivers and suggested that a separate application form might be appropriate if the two procedures were treated as distinct applications.
Although refusing the relief sought, the Court expressed concern about the Minister's delay of six years and eight months in determining the application. Ms Justice Cahill indicated that any subsequent section 16 application should be dealt with promptly, particularly given the history of delay.
In light of the significant delay and the lack of clarity in the application form, the Court made no order as to costs.