The High Court has quashed decisions refusing two women entry to the Government’s Magdalen Laundry ex gratia scheme, finding that they had not been given a fair opportunity to address evidence considered in assessing their eligibility. The court remitted both applications to the Department of Justice and Equality for reconsideration.
Mr Justice White’s judgment, delivered on 1 June 2017, concerned two judicial review applications. The applicants’ identities remain anonymised in the judgment. Each sought to overturn a refusal of admission to the scheme, which covers women determined to have been admitted to and worked in one of 12 listed institutions.
The first applicant said she lived at An Grianán Teenage Centre from 1977 to 1982 and was required to work in the Magdalen Laundry at St Mary’s Refuge, High Park. The second applicant said she lived at St Dominic’s Industrial School in Waterford and later at An Grianán in Drumcondra, and worked in laundries in Waterford and High Park. The Department treated admission as requiring residence in the laundry institution. The applicants argued that being required to work there should qualify, particularly where An Grianán and St Mary’s Refuge were on the same campus.
The court did not decide how “admitted to” should be interpreted or whether either applicant met the scheme’s criteria. It said eligibility was for the scheme’s administrators, and found the Department’s interpretation was a genuine dispute that was not irrational or contrary to common sense. It also noted the need to avoid double recovery where a person had already received compensation for the same wrong.
The court found, however, that the applicants had not been given the documentation considered by the Department before their refusals, so they could not make submissions or challenge it. The evidence disclosed during the proceedings also raised a factual dispute about the separation of An Grianán and St Mary’s Refuge. The court noted that some An Grianán residents had previously been included in the scheme, at a time when the separation between institutions was considered uncertain.
For the first applicant, relief was granted on the ground that the decision relied on information she had not had an opportunity to challenge. For the second, relief was granted on the ground that the decision breached her rights to natural and constitutional justice and fair procedures. The court refused relief on the claim that the decisions were unreasonable and irrational.
The cases were remitted to the Department to be considered alongside other matters under review between it and the Ombudsman’s office. The judgment did not order that either applicant be admitted or award compensation.