The High Court declared the definition of “child” in the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 repugnant to the Constitution, finding that it discriminated against an applicant who was 18 when she entered St. Patrick’s Mother and Baby Home in 1968. The court also rejected her claims under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judgment, delivered by O’Neill J. on 11 November 2008, arose from a judicial review of a decision refusing the applicant access to the statutory redress scheme. The applicant had turned 18 eleven days before entering the home. At the time, the age of majority was 21.
The applicant’s account was that she had suffered years of abuse by two older brothers and became pregnant through incest at 17. The judgment records that there was no factual dispute about her account of the treatment she experienced at the home. She gave birth to a son in December 1968; he was taken from her and placed for adoption after two to three months. She left the home in April 1969.
After the home was added to the institutions covered by the 2002 Act in 2004, the applicant applied for redress. The Residential Institutions Redress Board refused her application because she was not under 18 while resident there. The Residential Institutions Redress Review Committee affirmed that decision on 6 October 2006, saying it could not award redress to someone outside the Act’s age limit.
The court held that the State had not shown a legitimate legislative reason for excluding people who were over 18 but remained minors under the law at the time. It noted that the applicant’s younger sister, who entered the home on the same day and had similar experiences, could qualify because she was a year younger. The judge said the Act’s express under-18 definition could not be interpreted to include those who were minors under the law then prevailing. He therefore struck down that definition and said the meaning of “childhood” for the redress provision could be assessed by reference to the law in force when a person lived in an institution.
The court did not grant the requested damages or decide the applicant’s eligibility for an award. It separately rejected her Convention claims: the events in the home predated the 2003 Act, Article 8 did not establish a right to redress, and Article 13 did not guarantee success in litigation. The judgment noted that a person could still sue under general law outside the statutory scheme.