The High Court has quashed a decision that an injury sustained by David Costigan when a prisoner head-butted him in a patrol car was minor. The court said the injury could not reasonably be characterised that way, but deferred further orders for a hearing with counsel.
Mr Justice Hedigan delivered the judgment on 13 May 2015 in Costigan’s judicial review challenge to a decision by the Minister for Justice and Equality. The decision had refused him authorisation to apply to the High Court for compensation.
The judgment said Costigan suffered a fractured nose on 2 January 2008. He was taken to Loughlinstown Hospital for urgent treatment and referred to St Vincent’s Hospital, where he attended on 10 January. He underwent manipulation of the nasal fracture under local anaesthetic and was fitted with a splint.
After continued discomfort, he had surgery under general anaesthetic on 30 January 2008 to correct a deviated nasal septum. He stayed in hospital for two days and wore an external nasal splint for two weeks after the operation.
At a reassessment in February 2010, Professor Michael Walsh recorded intermittent nasal congestion. His examination found significant congestion and scar tissue in the right nasal airway, which he considered related to the earlier surgery and trauma. He also noted that congestion could be associated with sensitivity to dusty, dry air, consistent with Costigan’s asthma.
The judge compared the injury with two earlier cases cited to the court, in which similar injuries were found not to be minor and authorisation was granted. Those cases involved awards of €25,000 and €18,500. The Minister’s counsel had argued that there were differences, but Mr Justice Hedigan found the distinctions strained and the injuries identical in their main respects.
The court said judicial review did not allow it to substitute its view for the Minister’s. It could intervene if the decision was factually unsustainable or unreasonable. In this case, the judge concluded that a broken nose requiring two procedures, including one under general anaesthetic, a two-day hospital stay and symptoms at least related to the injury two years later could not reasonably be treated as minor.
The decision refusing authorisation was quashed. The judgment did not specify compensation or make the further orders sought; the judge said he would hear counsel on those orders.