High Court dismisses judicial review of naturalisation refusal citing good character failure due to serious drug conviction.

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Record No. 2024 / 663 / JR

[2025] IEHC 679

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 15 OF THE IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 1956 (AS AMENDED)

Between

OLAYIWOLA SAHEED AKANDE

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY

Respondent

Judgment of Mr. Justice Cian Ferriter dated the 3 December 2025

Introduction

1. In these judicial review proceedings, the applicant seeks to quash a decision of the respondent ("the Minister") of 19 February 2024 in which the Minister refused the applicant's application for a certificate of naturalisation. The refusal was on the ground that the applicant did not satisfy the “good character” criterion in s.15(1)(b) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 ("the 1956 Act").

2. The applicant challenges the decision as being irrational, and as having failed to take into account relevant considerations and relying on irrelevant considerations, in essence for failing to properly recognise and weigh in the applicant's favour the passage of some 10 years with exemplary behaviour since he was convicted of a serious offence, significant mitigating factors relating to the circumstances of the offence and his rehabilitation into the community including his successful completion of a Community Return Scheme.

Material facts

3. The applicant is a national of Nigeria, born in 1985. He came to Ireland in February 2000 as a minor accompanied by his father. An application for permission to remain in the State as being part of his father’s family unit was lodged on his behalf in 2002. In August 2004, he was informed that the application was refused and that the Minister proposed to make a deportation order against him. In February 2005, the applicant married an Irish national, and applied for permission to remain in the State on this basis. The application was granted, and he was given a Stamp 4 permission, which was registered at the Garda National Immigration Bureau in August 2006.

4. On 23 September 2010, the applicant was charged with possession for sale or supply of drugs with a market value of €13,000 or more, pursuant to s.15A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 as amended. This charge carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years imprisonment, in the absence of a finding of “exceptional and specific circumstances relating to the offence, or the person convicted of the offence, which would make a sentence of not less than 10 years imprisonment unjust in all the circumstances”

(s.27(3D)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977 as amended).

5. The applicant pleaded guilty before Dublin Circuit Court and on 14 December 2011 was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment with 3 years suspended, with a number of more minor and linked/overlapping offences being taken into consideration. On 4 December 2012, the applicant was transferred to Shelton Abbey open prison. He was released on temporary day release on

18 occasions while there. On 9 January 2014, having served 2 years and 27 days of his sentence, the applicant was released from prison on the Community Return Scheme. The applicant completed the assigned 22 weeks on the Community Return Scheme on 20 June 2014, with his Community Service Supervisor having provided positive reports.

6. While in prison, by letter dated 1 March 2013, the applicant had been n o t i f i e d t h a t the Minister proposed to revoke his permission to remain in light of his criminal conviction.

He was informed that he could make representations to the Minister outlining why his permission should not be revoked. No representations were made on the applicant’s behalf and his permission to remain expired on 25 August 2013.

7. By letter dated 24 October 2013, the applicant was notified that the Minister proposed to make a deportation order in respect of him. He was invited to make representations to the Minister outlining why a deportation order should not be made in his case. Representations were submitted on his behalf and on 12 June 2015 he was granted permission to remain in the State on a further “Stamp 4” basis for a six-month period.

8. The applicant’s permission to remain has been renewed periodically since and he presently holds a “permission to remain” valid until12 November 2026.

9. The applicant first applied for a certificate of naturalisation on 21 April 2008. This application was refused by the Minister on 7 October 2013, on the basis of not satisfying the good character criterion. This decision was taken while the applicant was in prison and at a time when the applicant held no permission to remain in the State.

10.The applicant submitted a subsequent application for a certificate of naturalisation on 13 May 2021. The applicant’s criminal conviction from 2011 was disclosed in the application, and a letter dated 4 May 2021 from the Probation Service was enclosed, confirming the applicant’s participation in the Community Return Scheme and the positive reports arising from that. Reference was also made to the applicant’s Irish associations through his wife.

11. As part of his application, the applicant supplied a personal statement expressing his remorse and explaining the mitigating circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence. The circumstances revolved around the fact that his father was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2008; he had to leave his job to care for him; that on his father's death the responsibility for financially providing for siblings left behind in Nigeria fell to the applicant and his brother who had been brought to Europe over them. As he and his brother were unable to financially support his siblings, relationships with them fractured. It was in this context that he made "the worst decision of my life" that was completely out of character for him and a gross error of judgement. This led to him being sentenced to 7 years with 3 years suspended. He says that he was a model prisoner during his time in prison and used his time there to take advantage of educational opportunities. He quickly moved to an open prison and was subsequently regularly released on a temporary release programme. He was ultimately released from prison under the Community Return Scheme which is an incentivised scheme for the supervised release of qualifying prisoners who complete unpaid community work as a condition of their early release. According to the Probation Service website, the Community Return Scheme has been very successful in helping offenders reintegrate back into their communities. There is a very high rate of non-reoffending by participants in the scheme.

12. His application contained letters from the Probation Service which confirmed his release in January 2014 under the community return scheme and his successful completion of that scheme. The letters noted that a review of his probation service records indicated that the community service supervisor provided positive reports and that no warnings were issued and that his case was closed to the probation service since June 2014 and had not been referred to the service since.

13. The applicant’s application was also supported by a detailed submission from his solicitor which cited inter alia a passage from the judgment of Haughton J in Talla v The Minister for Justice and Equality [2020] IECA 135 (addressed later in this judgment) in which it was held that while "plainly criminal convictions are relevant to the assessment of character, but they are likely to vary greatly in significance, depending upon the nature of the offence and the length of time which elapsed since its commission, as well as any pattern of repeat offending.”

14. The applicant's essential case was that he had completely put his once-off criminal conduct behind him, had been of exemplary character since, had not reoffended, was integrated back into the community, was living in a stable marriage and working for many years. It was submitted that all of these positive factors outweighed the negative factor of his criminal conviction.

15. On 14 June 2023, the Minister wrote to the applicant’s solicitors, enclosing a Garda Vetting Report of 20 November 2022 which disclosed his criminal convictions from 2011 and invited the applicant to provide any further information or context in relation to its contents, in relation to the good character requirement of s.15(1)(b). In truth, the applicant had already addressed these matters in his original application.

16. On 5 September 2023, the Minister informed the applicant that his naturalisation application would be put on hold pending the outcome of a road traffic charge against the applicant for a failure to produce an NCT certificate. On 24 January 2024, the applicant’s solicitors informed the Minister that this charge had been struck out by the District Court on 27 October 2023.

The Decision

17. In a decision made under section 15 of the 1956 Act, which was embodied in a recommendation to the Minister from officials in her department dated 19 February 2024 and communicated to the applicant under cover of letter dated the 20 February 2024, the Minister refused the applicant a certificate of naturalisation. This refusal was on the basis of not satisfying the good character criterion set out at section 15(1)(b) of the 956 Act.

18. As the decision adopted a recommendation of officials in the Minister’s Department, I will for ease refer to the terms of that recommendation as “the decision”.

19. The decision is structured on the basis that it looked at “concluded criminal proceedings” and then “other matters relevant to an assessment of the applicant's character”, before the recommendation is set out. The decision expressly states that in the case of these matters it will be indicated whether the matter is considered to reflect negatively on the applicant's character with the result that it falls to be weighed adversely as regards an assessment of the applicant's character; whether it reflects positively on the applicant's character and therefore fell to be weighed favourably or was a neutral factor. The decision says that “the recommendation to be made to the Minister will follow a full assessment of all relevant matters considered in their proper context and having balanced positive and negative factors as appropriate”.

20. Under the heading “concluded criminal proceedings”, the drugs conviction is addressed. This part of the decision notes that the applicant had offered an explanation of the events with a view to mitigating his moral culpability and then sets out in full the personal statement expressing remorse and explaining the circumstances surrounding the offence in the

decision. The decision-maker says that this was carefully considered. The decision then goes on to set out the applicant's release from prison under the community return scheme and the positive reports from the community service supervisor. The applicant's exculpatory representations submitted on his behalf by his solicitor are also then summarised. The decision then says:

“The fact the offence was disclosed by the applicant in the Form 8 is to the applicant's credit. The applicant's provision of further information through his solicitor is demonstrative of his forthrightness and cooperation in this regard. The submissions made by the applicant and his formal legal representative have been acknowledged and it is accepted there is mitigating context attached to the offence. It is asserted that the applicant continues to express his regret to the Minister of his ill judgement in these matters. However, it is considered that the offence constitutes a very serious matter which reflects adversely on the applicant. The applicant has a history of noncompliance with the laws of the State which reflects adversely on the applicant and accordingly will be weighed in coming to a decision on whether the applicant is ‘of good character’”.

21. Under the heading “Other matters relevant to an assessment of the applicant's character”, the decision states as follows:

“The applicant has been in stable, active and gainful employment since 2016. He is employed by Marks & Spencer as a sales adviser in a full-time permanent capacity since 14/08/2016.

The applicant's previous legal representative submits that Mr. Akandi is of excellent character and conduct and has worked and supported himself though out his time in the state. They assert that the applicant has paid his debt to society and served his sentence and has been completely reformed. In addition the letter from the Probation Service dated 04/05/2021 confirms that the applicant's case was closed in June 2014 and he has not been referred to the service since. The above matters are to the applicant's good character and constitute evidence in favour of the applicant's good character and his application for naturalisation. They fall to be weighed against the other adverse matters identified above.”

22. The decision-maker then set out his “recommendation” as follows:

“In order for the applicant’s application for naturalisation to be successful, therefore, the Minister must be satisfied that the applicant fulfils the statutory conditions set out in Section 15(1) INCA 1956. including the criterion that the applicant is of good character…..I have carefully considered the entirety of the case and extensive submissions when formulating this recommendation, including, the vetting disclosure received from the National Vetting Bureau, An Garda Síochána, the applicant’s explanation in relation to the conviction, the length of time that has elapsed since the commission, the detailed representations submitted on his behalf by his legal representative and the applicant’s personal testimony of the facts as disclosed to the Minister during the course of his application.

I have also considered the exculpatory information provided, all relevant mitigatory information, the applicant’s immigration history in the State, the Irish Associations claimed, the applicant’s remorse and the positive reports from the Probation Services. Having heard the full facts of the case in court, Mr Akande was convicted of an offence of Possession for Sale or Supply Drugs Value €13,000 or more in the Dublin Circuit Court on 14/12/2011 and he was sentenced to a seven year prison sentence, with three years of the sentence suspended.

While Mr Akande pleaded guilty and was released from his custodial sentence on 09/01/2014 onto the Community Return Programme, in the context of the offence, the Conviction and the sentence imposed by the courts, demonstrates how serious1y the courts regarded the offence. The vintage of the offence is very much outweighed by the serious sanction of the conviction. Prisoners are released early in Ireland for a number of reasons, including good behaviour and due to the capacity limits within the prison service at that time. A mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years applies for conviction of an offence involving possession for sale or importation of controlled drugs to the value of €13,000 or more.

While the court recognised mitigating factors which reduced the sentence to 7 years, the fact remains that the quantity of drugs invo1ved indicated an intention to sell or distribute and that they were not for personal use. The market value of drugs involved indicates an involvement in serious criminality and the sentence imposed is a reflection of the necessary deterrent effect and the serious harm caused to society by distribution of controlled drugs. An examination of the application confirms that the applicant does not meet all of the statutory conditions contained in Section 15.

1 am not satisfied that the applicant satisfies the criteria provided in Section 15(1) (b)

of the Irish Nationality & Citizenship Act 1956, as amended on the basis of not satisfying the good character criterion. By reason of all of the foregoing, I would recommend that the Minister not grant a certificate of naturalisation in the applicant’s case.”

23. This recommendation was adopted by the Minister.

Relevant Legal Principles

24. There is no dispute as to the relevant legal principles.

25. S.15(1) provides in material part that “Upon receipt of an application for a certificate of naturalisation, the Minister may in his absolute discretion, grant the application, if satisfied that the applicant is …(b) of good character”.

26. Power J. reviewed the caselaw on good character in a naturalisation context in MNN v. Minister for Justice [2020] IECA 187 (“MNN”), and provided the following guidance:

"The following emerges from the case law:

i. in describing the Minister's discretion as 'absolute', the Oireachtas intended to emphasise that the grant of a certificate of naturalisation involves the conferring of a privilege;

ii. the fact that naturalisation is the grant of a privilege does not mean that an applicant enjoys inferior legal protection when pursuing such an application;

iii. the Minister's absolute discretion to grant naturalisation only arises if satisfied that an applicant is of 'good character' and, extensive as that competence may appear, it does not release the Minister of the obligation to operate within the rule of law and his determination is amenable to judicial review;

iv. in determining the criteria to be considered when assessing 'good character' an applicant's character and conduct must be assessed against reasonable standards of civic responsibility gauged by reference to contemporary values;

v. the connection between character and criminality can only be established when the Minister has all relevant information, including, context and mitigating factors, in connection with a crime;

vi. information that is presented to the Minister in a Submission or recommendation must be accurately recorded, complete and seen in context and considered in full by the decision maker before reaching a determination; and

vii. in deciding whether an applicant fulfils the 'good character' requirement of the Act, the Minister must undertake a comprehensive assessment of an applicant as an individual and must consider all aspects of character.”

27. The appropriate approach to dealing with convictions in the context of assessing good character under s.15 was set out by Haughton J in Talla v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2020] IECA

135 (“Talla”). In his judgment in that case (at para 37), he adopted the following principles set out by Lang J. in Hiri v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] ETHIC 256 in the context of the test of “good character” under the equivalent English statute:

"35... .In my judgment, in deciding whether an applicant for naturalisation meets the requirement that "he is of good character", for the purposes of the British Nationality Act 1981, the Defendant must consider all aspects of the applicant's character. The statutory test is not whether applicants have previous criminal convictions - it is much wider in scope than that. In principle, an applicant may be assessed as a person 'of good character', for the purposes of the 1981 Act, even if he has a criminal conviction. Equally, he may not be assessed as a person 'of good character' even if he does not have a criminal conviction. Plainly, criminal convictions are relevant to the assessment of character, but they are likely to vary greatly in significance. depending upon the nature of the offence and the length of time which has elapsed since its commission. as well as any pattern of repeat offending. So, in order to conduct a proper assessment, the Defendant ought to have regard to the outline facts of any offence and any mitigating factors. She ought also to have regard to the severity of the sentence. within the sentencing range as this may be a valuable indicator of the gravity of the offending behaviour in the eyes of the sentencing court.”

28. This passage was in fact quoted by the applicant's solicitors in the naturalisation application letter in the present case.

29. I will address other authorities raised by the parties later in this judgment.

Summary of parties’ submissions

30. The applicant’s pleaded case is that the decision was irrational in failing to give appropriate weight to the passage of time since 2010 without further convictions; in failing to assess the applicant's character in the round and in particular failing to give due weight to the positive factors including his finding of eligibility for the community return scheme and his successful completion of that scheme; and that a disproportionate weight had been put on the single drugs conviction from 2010, ten years after the applicant had been refused naturalisation on the same basis and without any further adverse factors arising in the meantime. The applicant emphasised the alleged failure to give weight to the fact that the applicant in fact served only two years in prison, due to decisions taken by the sentencing judge, by the Irish Prison Service and by the Probation Service which reflected both on the mitigating circumstances relating to the offence and the applicant’s subsequent exemplary behaviour and rehabilitation. It was submitted that these were matters which the Minister failed to have proper regard to, resulting in the unsustainability of the finding on character in the present case.

31. While the applicant advanced in his pleadings and written submissions a case in proportionality, it is accepted that, as naturalisation is conferred as a privilege and not by way of right, proportionality in the conventional legal sense does not apply in the context of naturalisation decisions: see Hyland J. in the Court of Appeal in M. v. Minister for Justice [2025] IECA 1 at para. 34. Counsel for the applicant says that proportionality is advanced as a ground in this case on the basis that the failure to give any or any proper weight to the passage of time without reoffending is so disproportionate as to be irrational.

32. Counsel for the applicant emphasised that when it came to that portion of the decision which sought to weigh positive factors in the scale (being the section of the decision under the heading "others matter relevant to an assessment of the applicant's character" set out above), the Minister failed to have regard to his positive completion and rehabilitation under the community return scheme and said nothing about the fact that he had not reoffended and had been of good behaviour since his conviction.

33. The applicant submitted that the core finding of the decision was found in the sentence "the vintage of the offence is very much outweighed by the serious sanction of the conviction"

which was then immediately undermined by the following sentence: "prisoners are released early in Ireland for a number of reasons, including good behaviour and due to the capacity limits within the prison service at that time." It is said that this sentence betrays a fundamental mischaracterisation of the community return scheme. There is no evidence that the applicant was released due to overcrowding. Rather his early release was due to his inclusion in and successful completion of the community return scheme, matters which reflected to his credit. In engaging in conjecture as to reasons for his release unrelated to the evidence before the Minister, it was submitted that the Minister relied on inaccurate information and failed to assess the positive weight attaching to his involvement in the community return scheme, and his subsequent good behaviour, in proper context. This led to a failure by the Minister to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the applicant as an individual, considering all aspects of character, contrary to requirements (vi) and (vii) of the principles adumbrated by Power J in MNN (as set out at para 26 above).

34. Counsel for the Minister for her part contended that the decision plainly on its face took into account all of the material and submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant. The decision expressly had regard to the applicant's release under the community return scheme, the positive reports provided by his community service supervisor, the submissions made by his solicitor including the mitigating circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence the fact that he was a model prisoner who was released early. The decision expressly accepts that there was mitigating context attached to the events. Accordingly there was no question of failing to take into account relevant considerations. The reference to the reason why prisoners were released early in Ireland was simply a statement of fact and significantly when the decision is viewed in the round it is clear that the Minister understood and attached positive weight to the fact that he was released from prison under the community return scheme, that the community service supervisor provided positive reports, that there was mitigating context attached to his offence, that he continued to express his regret as to the ill judgement involved in the commission of the offence, that he had been in stable active and gainful employment 2016, that he has worked and supported himself throughout his time in the State and that he had paid his debt to society.

Discussion

35. The essence of the applicant’s case is that the Minister in assessing good character attached undue weight to the his once-off conviction notwithstanding its antiquity and not enough weight to the long passage of time with good behaviour since then. The applicant has a very high bar to overcome in demonstrating that a decision of this nature is irrational; he must demonstrate that no reasonable decision maker could have arrived at the decision based on the material before her. He must demonstrate that the decision flies in the face of fundamental reason and common sense. It is not for the court to substitute its view on the merits of the application, or to recalibrate the weight which the Minister attached to the various positive and negative factors weighing in the good character scales.

36. Ultimately, the Minister took the view that the various positive factors including successful completion of the community return scheme, the mitigating circumstances surrounding the offence, the good character and employment and behaviour since 2010 were not sufficient to outweigh the severity of the offence with which the applicant was convicted notwithstanding the passage of time since then. It is clear that the decision-maker viewed the conviction as a very serious one, involving a large quantity of drugs for sale or distribution and therefore serious criminality, and took the view that the vintage of the offence was outweighed by the serious of the conduct involved. This Court cannot gainsay that conclusion. It was a conclusion within the rational range of conclusions open to the Minister.

37. The applicant relied on the decision of Humphreys J. in PSM v. Minister for Justice [2016] IEHC 474 which was a case concerning a proposed deportation for the purposes of preventing crime i.e. that the Minister in that case was of the view that the applicant was at risk of reoffending. The Humphreys J. referred as an “odd feature” of the case that the Department of Justice through the Irish Prison Service was affording the applicant enhanced remission in recognition of a reduced risk of re-offending and recognition of his efforts at rehabilitation while at the same time proposing that he be deported on the basis of the risk of reoffending. Ultimately, Humphreys J. upheld the deportation order in that case on the basis that the order was not based on a high risk of re-offending.

38. I do not see that this case helps the applicant. The Minister's decision here was not based on a risk of re-offending; it was based on the view that the seriousness of the applicant's conviction was such as to outweigh the passage of time and the positive aspects of the applicant's life and behaviour since then. I do not accept the submission that the refusal of citizenship to someone who was not re-offended for a lengthy period might be seen as a failure to encourage rehabilitation. The applicant clearly availed of a rehabilitation scheme and was a beneficiary of that scheme in terms of a reduction of the time he spent in prison. In any event, the statutory question is not one dependent on whether refusal of citizenship to past offenders might be seen as a deterrent for a crime or as a failure to encourage rehabilitation; it is one rooted in an assessment of “good character”.

39. Counsel for the applicant laid emphasis on the statement of Haughton J. in Talla (at para. 71)

that “offences become increasingly historical with the passage of time”. That statement of Haughton J. is qualified by the remainder of the relevant sentence in that section of his judgment where he says “that it is a matter for the Minister to consider alongside the entirety of an applicant's history up to the point of any future decision.” In short, long passage of time may not have quite the same weight where the original offence was a very serious or grave one.

40. These cases are all context specific. It is however of some note that Phelan J. in Ahmed v.

Minister for Justice [2024] IEHC 661 took the view that the use of a false identity in the asylum process by the applicant in that case, notwithstanding that this had happened some 14 years previously, reflected badly on the applicant's honesty and integrity both of which are central to the question of good character which the Minister was obliged to consider (at para. 44). That case also involved commission of various road traffic offences (including an offence related to driving without insurance) where nine years had passed without re-offending by the time the application came before the Minister for consideration (para. 54). I agree with the following statement of Phelan J, contained at para. 59 of her judgment: “as a matter of principle the fact that the weight attaching to prior misconduct may diminish with time does not mean that the misconduct in question may not be so serious on the particular facts of a case that the Minister considers that it continues to justify the refusal of citizenship.” She emphasises, as will be the case here, that any future decision will be required to be made in accordance with ordinary standards of reasonableness, and fair procedures “in light of all factors prevailing at that time

- good and bad”.

41. Phelan J. noted at para. 76 of her judgment that “diminishing weight may attach to old offences as time passes without repeat offending. Length of time or antiquity is a factor which may lessen the weight to be attached, depending on all the circumstances of the case.” I agree but it also follows that diminished weight might nonetheless still be significant weight depending on the gravity of the offences and the overall context. In the case at hand, it is clear that notwithstanding the passage of time since the applicant’s conviction, the Minster nonetheless continued to attach significant negative weight to the conviction in terms of assessing the applicant’s character given the seriousness of the offence. That was an approach reasonably open to the Minister and not one that can be said to be irrational.

42. The applicant complains that if the passage of time, at 10 years or so, without re-offending is not at this stage sufficient to demonstrate good character, he will never be in a position to demonstrate good character; what more can he do, the applicant rhetorically asked. I cannot hold as a matter of law that this is so. The letter accompanying the decision made clear that the applicant is free to re-apply for a certificate of naturalisation in the future – he may re-apply at any time. In accordance with the authorities, the Minister would obviously have to assess any future application for naturalisation on its own terms including any further passage of time since the commission of the offence and any further good behaviour.

43. As noted earlier, the applicant laid emphasis on the line in the decision that "prisoners are released early in Ireland for a number of reasons, including good behaviour and due to the capacity limits within the prison service at that time", submitting that it betrayed a fundamental mischaracterisation of the community return scheme and involved the taking into account of an irrelevant consideration. However, I do not think that this one line – loose as it is – can be taken to detract from the overall assessment of character involved in the decision and in particular cannot be taken to trump or displace the clear positive credit given in the decision in assessing character to the applicant’s participation in the community return scheme and his good behaviour since the conviction.

44. In my view, the Minister complied with her obligations as set out in the summary of principles contained in the judgment of Power J. in MNN. The Minister had all relevant information including context of mitigating factors. That information was accurately recorded and considered in full by the decision-maker. The Minister undertook a comprehensive assessment of the applicant as an individual and considered all aspects of character as disclosed by the submissions made to her. The decision sets out the applicant’s personal statement in full. Its notes his release from prison under the community return scheme and the positive reports from his community service provider. The decision expressly accepts that there was mitigating context attached to the offence. It acknowledges his submission that he has paid his debt to society, has continued to be of good behaviour and regards himself as completely reformed and gives credit for all of that. The decision is ultimately very clear on the significant negative weight which the Minister continued to attach to the applicant’s serious criminal conviction given the nature of the offence involved and her view that this negative factor outweighed the various positive ones.

45. Ultimately, it seems to me that the applicant's case amounts to an invitation to the court to substitute a different decision on the merits of the case. This, of course, is something which the court cannot do; it is for the Minister and not the court to attach the weight she considers appropriate to the various positive and negative factors in determining whether good character is established.

46. While the applicant is to be commended for the manner in which he has turned his life around and has lived and worked without blemish since his release from prison, in my view, he has not made out irrationality in the decision in the legal sense. Failure to have regard to relevant considerations, or improper reliance on irrelevant considerations, is not made out. The Minister took into account all relevant information and submissions. She used her judgment to assess the weight to be given to the various positive and negative factors presenting to arrive at her conclusion, including the continuing weight to be attached to the serious conviction. This Court cannot second guess that weighing exercise.

Conclusion

47. For the reasons outlined above, I refuse the applicant's application for an order quashing the Minister's decision.