The High Court quashed a decision by the Residential Institutions Redress Board refusing to extend the deadline for B. F.’s application for redress. The court found that the Board had assessed his ability to apply by reference to his capacity to work, rather than whether he was emotionally and cognitively able to address his childhood and instruct a solicitor.
B. F. applied to the Board in May 2011, seeking redress for physical abuse he says he suffered during about a year at St. Vincent’s Industrial School in Goldenbridge as a child. The statutory deadline had expired in December 2005. The Board may extend the deadline where it considers exceptional circumstances exist.
After an oral hearing, the Board decided in March 2012 that there were no exceptional circumstances. It noted that B. F. had known of the Board’s existence by about 2003, had worked as a bricklayer when work was available, and had no references to alcohol abuse or depression in medical records from the relevant period before 2008. It concluded that his drinking and concerns about his family history had not prevented him from applying.
B. F. told the Board he had been depressed, drinking heavily and struggling with relationship breakdowns and family issues. He said he had not understood that the redress scheme might apply to him and had not felt able to deal with the issues or make enquiries. A consultant psychiatrist’s report described his depression as long-standing and inadequately treated, and supported his account of difficulties during the period. The Board noted the report but concluded that the evidence did not show he had been unable to apply.
In judicial review proceedings, B. F. argued that the Board had failed to engage with relevant medical and personal evidence and had unfairly relied on his ability to work. The Board submitted that the applicant had to show that the circumstances caused his failure to apply, and that the evidence did not establish this.
Justice Iseult O’Malley held that the key question was whether B. F. was emotionally and cognitively capable of addressing his personal history and instructing a solicitor, not whether he could physically attend one or carry out manual work. She found that the Board had not properly considered the psychiatrist’s opinion about long-standing depression and had assessed the effect of the applicant’s family concerns by reference to his ability to work. The judge found the decision irrational and ordered it quashed.
The judgment does not determine whether B. F. is entitled to redress or direct the Board to grant an extension. It sets aside the Board’s refusal; the source gives no further order on how the application should then be decided.