J (C) v Residential Institutions Review Committee
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | MS. JUSTICE CLARK, |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] IEHC 388 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 31 July 2009 |
[2009] IEHC 388
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
AND
RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT 2002 S10
RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT 2002(SECTION 17) REGS SI 646/2002
RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT 2002 S13(4)(B)
FOLEY v JUDGE MURPHY & DPP 2008 1 IR 619 2007/24/4877 2007 IEHC 232
ENGLISH v EMERY REIMBOLD & STRICK LTD 2002 1 WLR 2409 2002 3 AER 385
ENGLISH v EMERY REIMBOLD & STRICK LTD 2002 1 WLR 3381
HADJIANASTASSIOU v GREECE 1993 16 EHRR 219
FLANAGAN v UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN 1988 IR 724 1989 ILRM 469 1988/8/2214
FAULKNER v MIN FOR INDUSTRY 1997 ELR 107 1997/3/962
ANHEUSER BUSCH INC v CONTROLLER OF PATENT DESIGNS & TRADE MARKS 1987 IR 329 1988 ILRM 247 1987/1/11
MISHRA v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS 1996 1 IR 189 1996/13/4227
RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT 2002 S15
RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT 2002 S15(2)
MCCORMACK v GARDA SIOCHANA COMPLAINTS BOARD & ANOR 1997 2 IR 489 1997 2 ILRM 321 1997/4/1431
RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT 2002 S15(3)
RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT 2002 S15(5)(A)
RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT 2002 S15(6)
CREEDON, STATE v CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1988 IR 51 1989 ILRM 104 1988/1/79
O'DONOGHUE v BORD PLEANALA 1991 ILRM 750 1991/5/1081
O'KEEFFE v BORD PLEANALA 1993 1 IR 39 1992 ILRM 237
MULHOLLAND & KINSELLA v BORD PLEANALA (NO 2) 2006 1 IR 453 2006 1 ILRM 287 2005/40/8371 2005 IEHC 306
RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT 2002 S13(4)
KEEGAN & LYSAGHT, STATE v STARDUST VICTIMS COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642 1987 ILRM 202
RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT 2002 S15(7)
RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT 2002 S15(8)
RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS BOARD
Award
Review of award - Duty to give reasons - Failure to give reasons - Irrationality - Unreasonableness - Whether reasons given inadequate or sufficiently comprehensive - Whether decision irrational or unreasonable in circumstances - O'Keeffe v An Bord Pleanála [1993] IR 39, State (Keegan and Lysaght) v Stardust Victims Compensation Tribunal [1986] IR 642, State (Creedon) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal [1988] 1 IR 51 and Mulholland v An Bord Pleanála (No 2)[2005] IEHC 306 [2006] IR 453 applied; Foley v Her Honour Judge Murphy [2007] IEHC 232 [2008] IR 619 distinguished; English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2409 , Flanagan v UCD [1988] IR 724, O'Donoghue v An Bord Pleanála [1991] ILRM 750, Hadjianastassiou v Greece (1992) 16 EHRR 219, Faulkner v Minister for Industry and Commerce (Unrep, Supreme Court, 10/12/1996), Anheuser Busch INC v Controller of Patents Design and Trademarks [1987] IR 329, Mishra v Minister for Justice [1996] 1 IR 189 and McCormack v Garda Síochána Complaints Board [1997] 2 IR 489 considered - Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 (No 13) ss 13 and 15 - Reliefs refused (2006/139JR - Clark J - 31/7/2009) [2009] IEHC 388
J(C) v Residential Institutions Review Committee
Facts: The applicant had sought judicial review of a decision of the Residential Institutions Review Committee upholding the amount of the award made by the Residential Institutions Redress Board pursuant to the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002. The applicant had been the subject of physical and emotional abuse at an industrial school in Ferryhouse in Clonmel. The case of the applicant had been allocated a 10 point allocation out of a total of 100 allowable points based on a scale as to trauma and abuse. An award made by the Redress Board was upheld by a Review Committee and the applicant claimed that the Review Committee decision failed to disclose any or sufficient reasons and was irrational and unreasonable having regard to the evidence offered. The applicant alleged that he had been belittled and humiliated in his initial assessment.
Held by Clark J. that minor errors made were of no material consequence. It was accepted by all of the parties that the applicant was entitled to an award pursuant to the Act of 2002. It was the assessment of quantum of the award which the applicant was unhappy with. The applicant was looking for the Court to reassess the quantum of the award which was not within the jurisdiction of the Court. The applicant was not entitled to the reliefs sought.
Reporter: E.F.
This is the substantive hearing of an application for judicial review of the decision of the Residential Institutions Review Committee ("the Committee"), dated 20 th December, 2005, upholding the amount of the award made by the Residential Institutions Redress Board ("the Board") to the applicant under the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002.
Peart J. granted leave to the applicant on an ex parte basis in February, 2006 to apply for judicial review on the grounds set out at paragraph (e) of his statement of grounds. At the substantive hearing Ms. Deirdre Murphy S.C. appeared with Mr. Breffni Gordon B.L. for the applicant and Ms. Adrienne Egan B.L. appeared for the respondent.
The applicant was born in 1944 in inner city Dublin. He grew up in the inner city in a tenement until his family moved to new housing in a council estate in the suburbs. He was one of a large family where his father was a painter and his mother was at home with her family. Initially he attended school in the inner city and then moved to the school in the area where his family had been re-housed. He liked school but fell out with the Principal when his mother challenged the validity of a punishment. He was then expelled and returned to his old school from where he was subsequently expelled for non attendance. He then attended a third school but his attendance was poor leading to his father being convicted on at least two occasions under the School Attendance Act 1926 for failing to ensure he attended at school. Eventually in 1958, two months before his fourteenth birthday, the District Court committed the applicant to a certified industrial school at St Joseph's at Ferryhouse in Clonmel.
For a period of about sixteen months between 1958 and 1959 the applicant resided at Ferryhouse where he was very unhappy and fearful. It is accepted by all of the parties to these proceedings that he suffered physical and emotional abuse there and fortunately was not subjected to any sexual abuse.
He left Ferryhouse at 15 years of age and applied to join the National Army but he did not meet the entry requirements. He did not return to school but became very active in sport and then obtained various jobs open to a youth of his age and background until he was seventeen when he then left for England where he has lived since. He applied to join the British Army and although he failed the basic induction test he was entered into a three week preliminary education course which brought him up to the standard required to be accepted as a private. While he remains embarrassed by his limited written skills and how he speaks his career path has been one of consistent promotion and he eventually rose to the rank of Captain.
The applicant married in 1973 and had two children. He is now divorced and in a new long-term relationship. He left the army in 1987 after 25 years of service and became the commander of a school's combined cadet force. He holds the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Reserve Forces where he is a physical education instructor to the children of Officers in the Reserves He is due to retire this year at the age of 65.
In April, 2004 the applicant applied to the Redress Board for compensation in respect of the abuse that he suffered while a resident in Ferryhouse. He submitted a written statement with his application form in which he detailed the abuse that brought him within the redress scheme. He recounted how he was always cold and hungry, that he lived in constant fear of the authorities and suffered frequent beatings. He described two particularly severe beatings which he said occurred as punishment over trivial mistakes. In addition to the state of fear and discomfort he suffered at Ferryhouse he complained that he received little or no tuition or education while there. He said that when he left Ferryhouse he lacked confidence and was insecure. He lost his dignity and self-respect and in later years found it difficult to open up and often took out his frustration on his children and was unable to tell his wife about his experiences.
The applicant established that he had been resident at Ferryhouse during the relevant period from documentation which he had obtained pursuant to a request under the Freedom of Information Acts. He also submitted a medical report from his Psychiatrist, Dr. Falkowski, which is dated the 14 th May, 2003 and based on one interview carried out on the 17 th March that year. That report recited the applicant's background and states that he had no previous psychiatric history and no symptoms of alcohol withdrawal or dependency. He was active in sports and teaches judo; he owned his own home and has no financial worries. However he found his time in Clonmel to be terrible and had intrusive thoughts about the abuse to which he was subjected and was upset by anything which reminded him of school. He avoided these reminders and felt anxious and edgy, which Dr. Falkowski considered to be symptoms of an anxiety disorder. The report describes that he continues to suffer from anxiety, is lacking in confidence and has low self-esteem and "is likely to continue to have these problems for the rest of his life."
At the request of the Redress Board, a further report was obtained by Dr....
To continue reading
Request your trial