Not a “real” common travel area: Pachero v Minister for Justice and Equality

There are two issues given consideration in this case note. On the first account is the judgment itself in Pachero v Minister for Justice and Equality concerning two third-country nationals, and their legal status within the jurisdiction of Ireland. The parties in question had challenged a section of the Immigration Act 2004, which determined their legal status within the State after appearing to innocently fall foul of the archaic and somewhat indistinguishable features of Irish immigration law. This outcome stemmed from the Common Travel Area and the open land borders between the United Kingdom and Ireland. Secondly, there is the substance of the Common Travel Area, regarding which the judge in his judgment provides one of the clearest understandings of the relevant public policy since the decision in Kweder v Minister for Justice.

This case note at the outset contextualises the Common Travel Area, setting out how it came about, and why it is still in use 90 years after its creation. The facts of Pachero are then discussed, wherein the applicants had apparently misunderstood the Common Travel Area. Next, the judgment of Hogan J is examined. Finally, some wider analysis and commentary is provided on the current undertakings by British and Irish immigration officials on a new regime of short-term visas through the creation of a British-Irish Visa Scheme, unique for the UK and Ireland, separate from the Schengen Visas used elsewhere in the European Union. By mapping the circumstances over the course of the case note, it will become apparent that Pachero has played an important role in getting to a point of closer British-Irish co-operation on the Common Travel Area.