The Court of Appeal allowed the Residential Institutions Redress Review Committee’s appeal and discharged the High Court’s orders concerning J.G.H.’s redress claim. The effect was to leave in place the Committee’s €34,000 award, increased from the Board’s original €6,000 determination.
J.G.H. was treated at the National Children’s Hospital on Harcourt Street, Dublin, and transferred to St. Gabriel’s Hospital in Cabinteely, where he lived for periods between 1962 and 1965. The judgment records that he suffered significant abuse at St. Gabriel’s, including sedation and prolonged confinement to bed. Medical evidence before the Committee said the transfers were unnecessary and the treatment lacked scientific justification.
The Residential Institutions Redress Board found that most of J.G.H.’s complaints concerned St. Gabriel’s, which was not listed as an institution covered by the 2002 Act. After a two-day hearing, it awarded him €6,000 for abuse relating to his time at Harcourt Street Hospital.
On review, the Committee concluded that the decision to transfer J.G.H. to St. Gabriel’s itself amounted to abuse under the Act. It increased the abuse score and awarded points for medically verified illness and psychosocial effects, while finding no compensable loss of opportunity. It directed the Board to make a €34,000 award.
The High Court later quashed the Committee’s decision and remitted the matter, finding that the Act allowed consideration of the consequences of the transfer to St. Gabriel’s. The Committee appealed. J.G.H. supported the High Court’s approach and also cross-appealed on the interpretation of another provision and the adequacy of the Committee’s reasons.
The Court of Appeal held that eligibility for an award depended on the statutory conditions, including residence in an institution listed in the Act’s schedule. St. Gabriel’s was not listed, so abuse suffered while J.G.H. was resident there did not qualify under the scheme. The court said common-law concepts of negligence and foreseeability could not be imported to create eligibility, and that the Act’s requirement for a fair and reasonable award applied only after statutory entitlement had been established.
The court also rejected reliance on the Act’s provision covering abuse outside an institution when a child remains in the care of a scheduled institution. J.G.H. was not resident in or being cared for by a scheduled institution when the abuse at St. Gabriel’s occurred. It upheld the Committee’s reasons and allowed the appeal. The judgment expressed sympathy for J.G.H. and said any broader change was for the legislature.