The woman, who hid from the authorities for almost five years after deportation orders had been issued, cannot be identified for legal reasons.

Mr Justice Richard Humphreys yesterday placed a four-week stay on the injunction discharge order so the mother and child can “pursue any consequential orders” and “put their affairs in order”.

Last May, the judge rejected claims made by the woman and her child the deportation should be revoked. The mother took the action on grounds including the child’s educational rights not being properly considered. Dismissing the case, the judge found the child’s educational rights, such as the right to free primary education while in the State, are not a barrier to deportation.

An appeal against that decision is pending before the Court of Appeal. At the time, a temporary injunction was secured preventing the State from deporting them.

They wanted the injunction continued until their case has been determined.

They claimed a recent Court of Appeal judgment supported the injunction application, particularly their argument the child should not be identified with the mother going into hiding after the deportation orders were issued.

The State sought to have the injunction discharged.

In a ruling yesterday, Mr Justice Humphreys said he was satisfied to discharge the injunction. When considering the balance of justice, he said it was “not unjust” to deport the applicants before the appeal is heard. The applicants could progress their appeal without being present in Ireland, he said. He said the main factor against refusing to grant the injunction was the disruption to the child. However, he said he did not regard that argument as being decisive.

He said he had to have regards to the public interest in enforcing deportation orders, the weak nature of the applicants’ case, the lack of any legal basis for the applicants to be present in Ireland and the mother’s misconduct.