The Irish High Court has found that two former residents of the industrial school, An Grianán, who were forced to work in an adjoining Magdalene laundry were denied fair procedures in deciding their exclusion from the compensatory redress scheme.
While it was accepted that both women worked in the laundry, they were denied access to the redress scheme by the Department of Justice as they had been admitted to An Grianán, which was a separate entity and served a different purpose, and not the laundry itself. The Government justified the exclusion as the women had been entitled to compensation under the Residential Institutions Redress Board scheme (RIRB) – one of the women had received compensation, while the other got no redress as she had not been aware of the scheme at the time.
The Department of Justice refused appeals of the women in June and October 2015, at which point proceedings were lodged. At the same time, a complaint had been made to the Ombudsman which was not upheld as the women were not admitted to one of the 12 listed institutions under the scheme. Subsequent evidence of the HSE was produced to say that An Grianán and the High Park Magdalene laundry were one and the same. The Ombudsman agreed to examine the cases following judicial review of the decision, leading to the Ombudsman launching an investigation into whether the scheme has been fairly administered.
Mr Justice Michael White in the High Court found that both women were denied fair procedures, and natural and constitutional justice in how their applications were decided by the Restorative Justice Unit (RJU) in the Department of Justice that the administers the scheme. The Court believed that fair procedures were not applied as the women were not given an opportunity to make submissions on the evidence considered by the RJU as to whether there were two distinct institutions. Judge White also stated that the fact a dispute that had arisen between the RJU and the Ombudsman’s office during the investigation had been concealed and only emerged during the hearing was relevant to proceedings.
He concluded, however, that it was not for the court to decide eligibility to the scheme. He further rejected that the decisions were unreasonable and irrational as he believed it highly relevant should an applicant have previously received compensation from the RIRB.
The Court directed the RJU to reconsider its decision in light of these findings and the Ombudsman’s review. Formal orders have been adjourned until late July.
Click here for further reporting on the case.