The High Court has refused a man’s application for judicial review of a 2012 decision by the Residential Institutions Redress Board, holding that he had not shown good and sufficient reason for bringing the challenge late. The court also rejected his argument that rules governing extensions of time were beyond the rule-making committee’s powers.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as M.O.S., had applied to the Board in January 2008 for redress relating to abuse he said he suffered as a child at St. Joseph’s Industrial School in Clonmel. His application was outside the statutory deadline. The Board refused to extend the deadline, first in 2008 and again after reviewing further documents and hearing evidence from the applicant, his wife and his psychiatrist. It issued its second refusal in January 2012.
The applicant argued that the Board had applied the wrong test for “exceptional circumstances” and failed to properly consider medical evidence about his use of repression to deal with traumatic memories. He said later court decisions had clarified the test, and that the change in the law justified allowing him to challenge the Board’s decision. He also argued that parts of the 2011 judicial review rules unlawfully restricted access to the courts.
The judicial review application was brought in 2016, more than four years after the Board’s decision. The court held that later judgments on exceptional circumstances did not provide good and sufficient reason to extend the time. The applicant, it said, had made an informed choice, on legal advice, not to pursue judicial review at the time. The court also found that his separate concern about how the Board treated the medical evidence could have been raised within the original time limit.
The judge noted that the Board had not identified specific prejudice to its ability to defend the challenge. However, the court considered the delay inordinate and accepted the Board’s concern that reopening concluded cases could undermine certainty and the timely completion of its work. Later decisions, the judgment said, did not generally reopen cases that had already concluded.
Because the extension was refused, the court said the applicant’s challenge to the rules would not assist him. It nevertheless considered that challenge and held that the Superior Court Rules Committee had authority to set procedural time limits and conditions for extending them. The court found the challenged provisions were not ultra vires and did not impermissibly restrict access to the courts.
The application was refused. The court did not quash the Board’s decision or order the Board to reconsider the redress application.