The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to the Residential Institutions Redress Board’s refusal to extend the deadline for an application for redress. The court did not rehear the merits of the redress claim; it considered whether the Board’s decision-making could be set aside on judicial review grounds.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as M. G., sought to quash the Board’s refusal, dated 23 July 2010, to extend time. She applied to the Board on 21 August 2009, nearly four years after the 15 December 2005 deadline. She said she had not known of the scheme until she met a former resident in June 2009.
At a Board hearing, she said she had not seen advertisements about the scheme and did not understand an advertisement shown to her. Her solicitor’s affidavit said psychological assessments had recorded IQ scores between 74 and 82. The applicant argued that the Board failed to give proper weight to her intellectual and reading difficulties and that material introduced at the hearing without prior notice left her no opportunity to respond. She also challenged the Board’s treatment of ignorance of the scheme and its reliance on advertising.
The Board maintained that lack of knowledge alone could not amount to exceptional circumstances and said it had considered the applicant’s individual circumstances. Its determination refused an extension under section 8(2) of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002. It also said no evidence established legal disability by reason of unsound mind for the purposes of section 8(3), which it did not apply.
Kearns P. held that the court’s role was limited to reviewing the lawfulness of the Board’s decision, not deciding the application afresh. He said the Board could consider whether unusual circumstances had prevented someone from learning of the scheme, even though ignorance alone did not automatically qualify. But he concluded that, in this case, the applicant had access to extensive publicity, including newspapers, television and radio, and that the Board had adequately considered her difficulties.
The judge also noted that the applicant’s advisers had not objected when the IQ classification document was introduced or sought an adjournment. He found no irrationality or want of fair procedures in the hearing or decision. The court dismissed the judicial review claim; it did not award redress or direct the Board to extend the time limit.