The High Court has quashed the Residential Institutions Redress Board’s decision to refuse Oliver Hayde an extension of time to apply for redress, finding that the Board did not adequately explain why his circumstances were not exceptional. The matter was remitted to the Board for reconsideration in accordance with law.
Mr Justice McCarthy’s judgment, delivered on 3 October 2007, concerned a judicial review of the Board’s 26 September 2006 refusal. The central issue pursued in court was whether the Board had given sufficient reasons. The judge said the applicant’s separate challenge to the substance of the refusal was not pursued; judicial review could not be used as an appeal simply because the discretion might have been exercised differently.
Under section 8 of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002, applications generally had to be made within three years of the scheme’s establishment day. The Board could extend that period where it considered exceptional circumstances existed. It said Mr Hayde’s application was received on 8 June 2006, after the 15 December 2005 deadline, and that no exceptional circumstances had been established. It also said the statutory provision for applicants under a legal disability due to unsound mind did not apply on the medical evidence before it.
The Board’s decision letter said it had considered the application, accompanying documents, medical reports and explanations or submissions made on Mr Hayde’s behalf. In a later letter, it said the material did not establish exceptional circumstances requiring an extension. The judge held that those statements did not explain why the circumstances presented failed to meet the test.
In affidavits, Mr Hayde said he first learned that redress might be available on 22 May 2006, when two friends from a residential institution visited him in Nottingham. He said he then acted quickly, with an application made on 8 June. The judgment also records his deafness and difficulty reading, and that he had left Ireland in 1963. These were matters in the evidence; the court did not decide whether they amounted to exceptional circumstances.
The judge concluded that the Board was exercising quasi-judicial functions and had to give reasons sufficient to let an unsuccessful applicant understand why the application failed. He said the Board’s general statement that it had considered the material did not disclose what factors or legal principles led it to find no exceptional circumstances.
The court did not direct the Board how to exercise its discretion, decide that an extension must be granted, or determine the underlying redress application. It quashed the refusal and remitted the matter to the Board for a lawful reconsideration.