A MAN who sought redress for alleged abuse suffered at an industrial school some 40 years ago has lost his High Court challenge to the refusal to accept his application for compensation.
The Residential Institutions Redress Board had refused to accept the man’s application on grounds it was made too late and there were no exceptional circumstances allowing it to be accepted outside the specified time limits.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Daniel O’Keeffe ruled there was nothing irrational or unreasonable in the board’s decision and held it was entitled to conclude no exceptional circumstances existed in the man’s case.
The elderly man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, is aged in his 70s and has lived in the UK since the mid 1950s. He had been in St Patrick’s Industrial School at Upton in Cork for six years, where he claims he was abused.
The man claimed he was unaware of the redress scheme until November 13th, 2005, when he saw an advertisement in the News of the World. He claimed he did not understand the process, that there was a closing date of December 2005, or how to apply.
He said he was eventually advised about the redress scheme at the Irish Centre in Coventry in early 2006 and on January 23rd, 2006, had filled out an application form.
That was rejected by the board, initially in May 2006 and again in May 2007, as being outside the time limit for applications.
As a result of the board’s initial refusal, the man and 17 others similarly refused took High Court proceedings. These were settled on the basis of an agreement for the board to hold oral hearings relating to each case.
The oral hearing into the man’s case took place last October and, on December 19th, 2008, the board again rejected the application.
Yesterday, Mr Justice O’Keeffe said the board was entitled to conclude the man had an adequate opportunity from November 15th, 2005, to December 15th, 2005, to make his application, which he had failed to do.
No evidence was presented to show the man’s state of knowledge of the scheme constituted exceptional circumstances in that period, he said.
The board was justified in concluding there were no grounds for extending the time, the judge held.
The judge also ruled the man had become aware of the board’s scheme as a result of an advertisement of the scheme by the board in the UK, and that he had become aware within sufficient time to all for him to make his application before December 15, 2005.
Outside court, the man’s solicitor, Eileen McMahon, expressed disappointment with the court’s decision.
The board’s refusal to accept the application was “a harsh decision” and the judgment was “equally harsh”. Ms McMahon said she would be consulting further with the man relating to his bid “to get justice”.