The Supreme Court has allowed M. O’S.’s appeal against the refusal of his application for judicial review of a Residential Institutions Redress Board decision. The Court extended the time to bring the challenge, quashed the Board’s decision of 9 January 2012 and remitted the matter to the Board for reconsideration. It did not decide whether M. O’S. was entitled to a redress award.
The Board had refused to extend the time for him to apply to its scheme, finding no exceptional circumstances under section 8(2) of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002. The High Court refused judicial review in May 2017, concluding that he had not shown good and sufficient reason to extend the separate court deadline for seeking leave to challenge that decision.
M. O’S. had been placed in an industrial school from November 1962 to April 1964. He said he suffered physical, sexual and other abuse there and described its effects on his adult life. He first applied to the Board in 2008. A further application in 2010 was supported by two reports from a consultant psychiatrist. After an oral hearing in November 2011, at which M. O’S., his wife and the psychiatrist gave evidence, the Board refused an extension. The judgment records that the Board’s decision was communicated by letter dated 11 January 2012, although it also refers to the decision as made on 9 January.
M. O’S. did not seek judicial review within the three-month period. He said he received legal advice that a challenge was unlikely to succeed and could expose him to significant costs if unsuccessful. He described himself as having limited means and said the risk of costs deterred him. In February 2016, the Court of Appeal’s decision in J. McE. adopted a broader interpretation of “exceptional circumstances” for the redress scheme. M. O’S. sought leave for judicial review the following month.
The Supreme Court held there was no absolute rule preventing a later development in case law from being considered when deciding whether to extend time. It said the court must assess the reasons for delay and all relevant circumstances. The Board accepted that, if the extension were granted, its 2012 decision was inconsistent with the interpretation in J. McE. and the matter should return to it.
The Court found that M. O’S.’s explanation, the change in the law, the absence of identified specific prejudice to the Board and the lack of impact on third parties justified the extension. It extended time to 18 March 2016, granted leave and made an order of certiorari quashing the Board’s decision. It did not decide the separate challenge to the validity of the rule governing extensions, finding that issue unnecessary to resolve in this case.