A WOMAN who claims she was abused at an industrial school in the midlands has lost her High Court challenge against the Residential Institutions Redress Board’s refusal to allow her to bring a claim for compensation.
The woman, now aged 41 and who cannot be identified for legal reasons, claimed she was subject to physical and emotional abuse at the industrial school she was sent to in 1977. The woman, who the court heard has intellectual difficulties, remained at the midlands-based school until 1987.
In 2009, almost four years after the time limit had expired, she sought compensation under the Government scheme set up in 2002 for those abused while resident in industrial schools, reformatories and other institutions subject to State regulation or inspection.
In July 2010, the redress board said the claim was made after the time limit and refused to extend that limit to allow her application for redress.
The woman then brought an action to the High Court aimed at overturning the board’s decision on grounds that it failed to take into account her intellectual problems and that her case amounted to exceptional circumstances. The board denied her claims.
In his judgment yesterday, the president of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, dismissed the woman’s claim and upheld the board’s decision.
He said he was satisfied there was “no irrationality or want of fair procedures in the manner the board had dealt with the case”.
The woman claimed she had no idea she was entitled to apply for compensation until after the closing date. She learned of the board’s existence in June 2009 following a casual meeting with a woman who had been in the same institution with her.
The board, in rejecting her claim, said her application was made out of time and there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the board exercising its discretion to extend time.
In her High Court action, the woman claimed the refusal was irrational, broke the rules of natural and constitutional justice and amounted to a failure to apply fair procedures.
She claimed the board failed to take into account her intellectual and reading difficulties.
The court heard her IQ was assessed as borderline, which amounted to an exceptional circumstance. It was also claimed the board erred by finding that her lack of knowledge of the scheme did not amount to an exceptional circumstance.
The board said it carefully considered the woman’s difficulties before making its decision. It argued that it conducted an extensive advertising campaign to inform the public of its existence.
Mr Justice Kearns said he was satisfied the board gave “careful, full and detailed consideration” to the concerns about the woman’s intellectual abilities before making its decision.