Aslam v MJE [2011] IEHC 512 – Islamic Proxy Marriage at Irish Law

In recent years, the Irish High Court has handed down a number of judgments which clarify the position of some Islamic marriage practices at Irish law. To summarise the story so far:

  • Hassan & Another v. MJELR [2010] IEHC 426 establishes that some foreign religious marriages can be recognised at Irish law even if they do not comply with the civil law of the country where they are contracted.
  • H v. A [2010] IEHC 497 apparently establishes that an actually polygamous marriage contracted abroad cannot be recognised at Irish law. However, Hamza & Another v. MJELR [2010] IEHC 427 confirms that Irish law can recognise a marriage which is simply contracted under foreign law which permits polygamy provided (i) neither spouse was domiciled in Ireland at the time of marriage and (ii) no second spouse has been taken.
  • Hamza & Another v. MJELR [2010] IEHC 427 confirmed that a foreign proxy marriage could be recognised at Irish law, especially where neither spouse was domiciled in Ireland at the point of marriage.

Continue reading “Aslam v MJE [2011] IEHC 512 – Islamic Proxy Marriage at Irish Law”

Aslam v MJE [2011] IEHC 512 – Islamic Proxy Marriage at Irish Law

UNHCR #do1thing: Subsidiary Protection

In an earlier post, I outlined the core meaning of the terms refugee and asylum seeker. In addition to refugee protection in Ireland, an asylum seeker who fails to fall within the terms of this definition may be entitled to subsidiary protection. Subsidiary protection came about as a result of European Union law. Where an asylum seeker can show that she will face a real risk of serious harm in her home country, she will be entitled to subsidiary protection. Serious harm is defined as the:

UNHCR #do1thing: Subsidiary Protection

S & Another v MJELR and Safeguarding Marriage.

The rights conferred by Article 41 of the Constitution are nevertheless real rights and must be regarded as such by the Minister. They cannot be treated as if, so to speak, they were mere discards from dummy in a game of bridge in which the Minister as declarer has nominated the integrity of the asylum system as the trump suit.

I am in some danger, at this point, of becoming a Hogan J. fan-girl. S & Anor. v. MJELR is another landmark in his formal but functional Article 41 immigration jurisprudence. In March, Hogan J. considered a married couple’s challenge to a refusal by the Minister for Justice to revoke a deportation order pursuant to s. 3 of the Immigration Act 1999. The order affected E; the Nigerian wife of S, an Irishman with physical and intellectual disabilities. The couple had met a little before the Minister decided to deport her on foot of a failed application for asylum. They have been married for over a year, and the marriage is valid (concerns about S’s capacity to marry had been considered and dismissed at an earlier hearing). Over time, E has become heavily involved in S’s care and they have lived together as man and wife.

Continue reading “S & Another v MJELR and Safeguarding Marriage.”

S & Another v MJELR and Safeguarding Marriage.