The High Court has refused Garda Noel Callan’s application to overturn the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision not to authorise him to seek compensation in court for an injury sustained on duty.
In a judgment delivered on 5 February 2018, Mr Justice Max Barrett said the Minister’s decision was bona fide, factually sustainable, not unreasonable and not otherwise legally flawed. The court refused all the reliefs sought. It did not decide an appeal on the injury’s merits or substitute its own view for the Minister’s assessment.
Garda Callan was injured on or about 26 August 2011 while arresting people for public order offences in Swords, County Dublin. One person kicked out, and Callan’s left little finger became caught in a patrol-car door. He was taken to hospital, where the nail was removed and the lacerated nail bed was stitched. He was absent from work for a week and then assigned indoor duties for two weeks.
In evidence, Callan described numbness, tenderness and sensitivity that made everyday tasks painful. He said the symptoms took about eight months to ease and that he continued to experience tenderness and numbness, particularly in cold weather. He also said the nail regrew in a permanently deformed shape. His doctor described a permanent but minor cosmetic blemish, while a doctor engaged by An Garda Síochána considered that he had no significant long-term effects or residual impairment.
The Department initially recommended refusing authorisation, then invited further submissions. After reviewing the submissions and medical reports, a departmental official recommended allowing the application, but an assistant principal officer ultimately recommended refusal. The Minister’s letter of 16 November 2016 said the injury was of a minor character. There was no dispute that the injury occurred during a duty not involving special risk.
Justice Barrett emphasised that judicial review is limited to whether the decision was lawful; it is not a rehearing. He considered the medical evidence and earlier cases on the statutory test, but concluded that the Minister’s assessment was within the law. He noted that another Department official had reached a different view, but said that did not establish a legal basis to quash the decision. The court therefore refused certiorari, a declaration, an order directing authorisation, and the alternative request for a fresh review.