The High Court has refused an application for judicial review by an anonymised man who challenged a €20,500 award for abuse he suffered at St Joseph’s Industrial School at Ferryhouse, Clonmel. The court also lifted a stay on the running of time that had been granted when leave was given to bring the case.
The man was sent to Ferryhouse in 1958, shortly before his 14th birthday, and lived there for about 16 months. The judgment records that the parties accepted he suffered physical and emotional abuse there, but no sexual abuse. He applied to the Residential Institutions Redress Board in 2004. The Board awarded him €20,000, plus €500 expenses.
The Board allocated 10 points out of 100: six for severity of abuse, two for medically verified illness, two for psychosocial effects, and none for loss of opportunity. The judgment records medical evidence of anxiety, low confidence and low self-esteem. In explaining its assessment, the Board also considered his poor school attendance before Ferryhouse and his later career, including promotion in the British Army.
The man sought a review of the award. In December 2005, the Residential Institutions Review Committee upheld it. He then asked the High Court to quash the Committee’s decision, arguing that it gave inadequate reasons and was irrational or unreasonable, particularly in awarding no points for loss of opportunity despite the medical evidence.
The court said the Committee’s role was to review the amount of the award, rather than conduct a new hearing or remake findings of fact. Although the Committee’s written decision was brief, the judge found it clear that it agreed with the Board’s assessment under the four award headings. The Board’s reasoning therefore explained the basis for the Committee’s decision, and the judge concluded the reasons were sufficient for the applicant and the court to understand and review it.
On irrationality, the judge said the court could not substitute its own assessment for that of the Committee. The question was whether the Committee had relevant material to support its decision. The judge found that it did, including evidence about the abuse, medical reports and the man’s subsequent education and career. The court noted a factual error in the Committee’s decision, which said he was one of eight children; he was one of 12. The judge found that error immaterial.
The application for relief was refused. The High Court did not reassess the amount of the award. It lifted the stay concerning the running of time under the 2002 Act.