The High Court refused P.O’T.’s application for leave to seek judicial review of the Child and Family Agency’s handling of a child abuse complaint. The application sought disclosure of material, including an unredacted complaint statement, and an interim halt to the agency’s appeal process. The court also made permanent an order restraining publication of information identifying people referred to in the proceedings.
The complaint was made to gardaí in October 2011 and to the HSE, the agency’s predecessor, in August 2012. The complainant alleged abuse when she was aged between six and 16, during the 1970s and 1980s. In September 2013, the HSE made what the judgment describes as a “final determination” that the complaint was sustained, that P.O’T. posed a current threat to children, and that third parties should be informed. The applicant indicated he would appeal. The appeal process remained ongoing when he sought judicial review.
The applicant’s solicitor had requested full disclosure, including an unredacted version of the complaint statement. The agency’s appeal chairperson said the applicant had not explained the relevance of the requested material and that judicial review was premature while he was engaged in the appeal process. The judge considered the relevance objection unsustainable in relation to the redacted complaint statement and said the disclosure issue raised a point not previously addressed by the courts.
The judge said decisions to uphold a complaint or notify third parties could, in principle, be challenged by judicial review. He also discussed the natural justice protections required in such investigations. Those observations did not determine the underlying complaint or the merits of the agency’s findings.
The application also sought to quash the 2013 findings. The judge said that relief was out of time under the three-month limit and there were insufficient grounds to extend time, even if an extension had been sought. The applicant had not personally sworn the affidavit supporting the leave application; his solicitor had done so. The judge concluded that a personal affidavit was required in this case and that the applicant had declined to provide one, despite the issue being raised during the hearing.
The court therefore refused leave. It did not grant the requested disclosure order or halt the appeal process, and it did not quash the 2013 findings. The judgment states that granting leave would not in itself prevent the agency from notifying third parties, including in an emergency.