The High Court granted Garda Burke leave to seek judicial review of the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal to authorise her to seek compensation under the Garda Síochána (Compensation) Act 1941. The ex parte decision, delivered by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys on 12 October 2015, means the challenge may proceed; it does not decide whether the Minister’s refusal was lawful or whether compensation is due.
The judge held that the application was made within time. The Minister’s final decision letter was dated 25 June 2014, and papers were filed in the High Court Central Office on 24 September 2015. The judge said filing was sufficient to stop the clock for the time limit, and concluded the application was within the three-month period.
The judgment said Garda Burke suffered her injury on 26 April 2007, while the source also records that consideration of her compensation application was finalised on 25 June 2015. The judge said the length of the delay troubled him, but expressly made no finding at the leave stage about who was responsible. He observed that fair procedures suggested deciding whether an injury was minor should take months rather than years. He also raised concern that the delay took the applicant beyond the limitation period for a personal injury action, which he described as a presumed alternative remedy.
On the classification of the injury, the judge considered an earlier statement in *Merrigan v Minister for Justice* that an injury which cleared up after about two months without lasting effects could be minor. He said that passage addressed the recovery period, not the period a member was unable to work. In his view, an injury causing complete absence from work for a number of weeks could not ordinarily be described as minor, even if the absence was less than eight weeks.
Having regard to the applicant’s submissions, the judge found an arguable case for relief and granted leave on the grounds and for the relief set out in the applicant’s statement. Those grounds and requested relief are not reproduced in the source. Costs were reserved, and service on the Minister was directed through the Chief State Solicitor’s office.