The High Court has dismissed a judicial review brought by a 17-year-old girl who challenged the reasons given for refusing her admission to the Garda Juvenile Diversion Programme.
The applicant argued that the programme director had failed to give adequate reasons for the refusal. Her case was limited to that issue: she did not plead that the decision was irrational or unreasonable. The court said the hearing was not an appeal on the merits.
The director’s October 2021 letter said the applicant had benefited from the programme on several previous occasions and that, after considering the statutory criteria, the director was not satisfied that another admission was appropriate, in the applicant’s best interests and consistent with the interests of society and the injured party.
The applicant’s lawyers argued that this was insufficient, including because the letter did not explain how the director had considered written representations about the applicant’s autism spectrum disorder diagnosis or pre-diagnosis, support needs and circumstances. The judge found that the director had considered those representations before deciding the case, but was not required to explain in detail how each item of material affected the decision.
Justice Mark Heslin held that the reasons were clear and intelligible in context. He said the reference to previous admissions, read alongside the statutory criteria, made the basis for refusal understandable. The applicant’s solicitor had understood and challenged that reasoning, the judgment said. A discursive explanation was not required.
The proceedings followed an allegation that the applicant assaulted a staff member at the special care unit where she lived in December 2020. The judgment records that the applicant had previously received three formal and two informal cautions in connection with five earlier assaults on care workers at the unit. Those matters formed part of the background to the director’s decision; the High Court did not determine the assault allegation in the judicial review.
The court dismissed the applicant’s claim that her fair-procedure rights had been breached. It did not quash the refusal or order a fresh assessment. The judgment records that the parties were to discuss the form of the order and costs; the judge’s preliminary view was that the usual rule that costs follow the event should apply, with further submissions to be filed if the parties could not agree.