The High Court has refused an anonymised applicant’s challenge to the Residential Institutions Redress Board’s interpretation of who must be notified under the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002.
In a judgment delivered on 9 November 2007, Mr Justice Brian McGovern held that the Act’s definition of “relevant person” was clear and unambiguous. He refused all the relief sought in the judicial review.
The applicant, who has a profound hearing impairment, said she suffered bullying and sexual abuse while resident as a child at a school for girls with impaired hearing. She alleged the abuse was committed by fellow residents. She applied to the Board for redress and named people in a written statement about the alleged abuse.
The applicant argued that fellow child residents named as alleged abusers were not “relevant persons” whom the Board had to notify under section 11(8). She sought a declaration on the meaning of that term, an injunction against notifying certain former residents and an interim order preventing notification while the judicial review was pending. Leave to bring the judicial review had been granted on 21 May 2007.
The Board maintained that the statutory definition covered people referred to as having carried out the acts complained of. Section 11(8) requires the Board to take reasonable steps to inform a relevant person when an application refers to them. The Act provides for written evidence from that person and allows oral evidence or cross-examination with the Board’s consent, where the interests of justice make it necessary or expedient.
The judge said the Board could assess evidence to decide whether abuse probably occurred and whether an award should be made, while noting that the scheme did not permit a finding of fault or negligence. He rejected the argument that the Board could not decide whether an alleged act occurred. He also considered the section 11 rights reasonable and proportionate, noting that a person facing serious complaints could have relevant information to give the Board.
The court concluded that the statutory wording was neither ambiguous nor absurd and did not fail to reflect the Oireachtas’s intention. It therefore refused the requested declaration, injunction and interim order. The judgment did not determine whether the applicant’s allegations were true or whether she was entitled to redress.