Chakari v Criminal Injuries Tribunal

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 01 October 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 527
• Docket Number: 2016 No. 897 JR
• Date: 01 October 2018

Between:

SULTAN CHAKARI

Applicant

– and –

THE CRIMINAL INJURIES TRIBUNAL, MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondents

[2018] IEHC 527

Barrett J.

2016 No. 897 JR

THE HIGH COURT

Judicial review – Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme – Declaratory reliefs – Applicant seeking declaratory reliefs concerning the lawfulness of the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted – Whether Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 has application in respect of decisions yet to be taken

Facts: The applicant, Mr Chakari, submitted a non-fatal injury application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal on 22nd July, 2016. The Tribunal did not have sufficient information from Mr Chakari to make a decision on the substantive application. Certain relevant documentation remained outstanding so Mr Chakari’s application to the Tribunal was incomplete and could not be processed. As a result, Mr Chakari’s application, at his election, remained pending. Mr Chakari came to the High Court with a judicial review application seeking certain declaratory reliefs concerning the lawfulness of the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted, the non-statutory administrative scheme, pursuant to and in accordance with which the Tribunal operates.

Held by Barrett J that, if Mr Chakari wished to challenge the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, the correct course of action was to commence plenary proceedings; if he wished to challenge a decision of the Tribunal, he must progress his application to the point where there was a decision that was susceptible to judicial review. Barrett J held that Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 has no application in respect of decisions that have yet to be taken.

Barrett J held that, there being nothing for the court to review, there was nothing further for the court to do, save to refuse all reliefs sought.

Reliefs refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 1st October, 2018.

1 An essential element of any judicial review application is that there is some form of action on the part of a respondent decision-maker for a court to review. Here there is nothing. There has been no decision, there has been no failure to make a decision; it is not alleged that anything has been done in excess of jurisdiction. There is nothing for the court to review.

2 Mr Chakari submitted a...