The High Court has joined S.F. as a notice party in a judicial review brought by K.M.M. against the Residential Institutions Redress Board. The order allows S.F. to present her own case through counsel; it does not decide the applicant’s challenge to the Board’s determination.
K.M.M. had alleged in an application under the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 that S.F. physically and sexually abused her while she lived in an institution for about eight months, from June 1978 to February 1979. S.F. denied the allegations. The judgment records that the Board notified her of the complaint in April 2013 and treated her as a “relevant person” under the Act.
S.F. submitted written evidence, sought permission to give oral evidence and cross-examine K.M.M., and attended the Board’s hearing in October 2013. The Board granted consent for cross-examination. It later informed S.F.’s solicitors that it had made no adverse finding against her. According to evidence from the Board’s registrar, the Board preferred S.F.’s written and oral evidence over K.M.M.’s written account.
K.M.M.’s judicial review challenges several aspects of the Board process, including allowing S.F. to give oral evidence and cross-examine her, restrictions on K.M.M.’s counsel during cross-examination, and the Board’s assessment of the evidence. Those are the applicant’s claims in the proceedings, not findings decided in this judgment. K.M.M. had sought a review by the Residential Institutions Review Committee, but that process was postponed pending the court case.
S.F. applied to join the judicial review, arguing that the Board’s decision directly affected her interests. The applicant opposed the request, contending that S.F. was not directly affected and had nothing necessary to add to the legal arguments.
Mr Justice McDermott held that the Board’s favourable conclusion directly affected S.F. because she had participated in the process to answer serious allegations and could regard the outcome as valuable to her. The judge said she was entitled to put her own case independently of the Board’s defence, even if the Board advanced similar arguments. The court therefore ordered that she be joined as a notice party.