The High Court refused Mark Looby’s judicial review challenge to the Minister for Justice’s decision not to authorise him to apply to the court for compensation for an injury sustained during an incident in Dublin in 2001.
Mr Justice Hedigan held that the Minister had relevant evidence to classify the injury as minor and as sustained in the course of a duty not involving special risk. Under section 6 of the Garda Síochána (Compensation) Act 1941, the Minister was required to refuse an application where both conditions applied. The judge concluded that refusal was the only decision open to the Minister on the evidence before him.
Looby, a member of An Garda Síochána, was off duty on Fleet Street on 14 August 2001 when he saw a person threatening a member of the public with a knife. He identified himself as a garda and tried to take the knife after the person refused to put it down. A struggle followed, and Looby suffered a cut to the index finger of his left hand.
He received a tetanus injection the following day. His GP considered him at low risk of infectious disease, but blood tests were later carried out and were negative. In January 2002, Looby applied for compensation, describing a cut finger and anxiety.
The Department wrote to his solicitors in 2007 proposing refusal on the grounds that the injuries were minor and arose during a duty without special risk. In August 2008, it informed him that the Minister had decided to refuse authorisation on those grounds. Looby was granted leave to seek judicial review in January 2009.
He argued that both the assessment of the injury and the finding on special risk were unreasonable. His submissions included that the nature of the incident, rather than the type of duty, should determine whether special risk was involved. The Minister’s side argued that the statutory test concerned the duty being performed and that the injury and medical evidence supported the minor-injury classification.
The judge stressed that judicial review is limited: the court does not rehear the case as an appeal and can intervene only for an identifiable error of law or irrationality. He found relevant material supported the Minister’s decision and said a similar injury had been treated as minor in an earlier case. He also rejected the reliance on a US police-pension case, finding it addressed a different comparison of risks.
The court refused the judicial review application. It did not determine a compensation award; the issue before it was the Minister’s refusal to authorise an application to the High Court.