The applicant in this case made an application for redress pursuant to the HIA Redress Board pursuant to Section 2 of the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Act 2019.

In the course of the application, the applicant for the judicial review, alleged that on 3 June 1982, when he was aged 15, he was remanded overnight at St Patrick’s Training School in Belfast and while so remanded was sexually abused by a member of staff called “Fra”.

In the course of the application the HIA Redress Board queried whether “Fra” was a religious brother or a secular member of staff, the applicant replied saying he was unsure but he thought he was not a religious brother as he wore normal clothes.

In considering this application for redress the assigned HIA Redress Panel considered the applicant’s statement of abuse, his GP notes and medical records, relevant material from the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry and the response of the De La Salle Order who operated St Patrick’s training school at the relevant time. 

The De La Salle Order provided evidence that there had been a trainee chef in the school who was known as “Fra” and that he was convicted of sexual abuse in the 1990s. However, they further advised that “Fra” had been suspended on 12 March 1980, resigned and did not work at St. Patrick’s Training School again. 

The HIA Redress Panel rejected the application for redress on 17 February 2023 on the basis that the applicant was not in the institution at the same time as “Fra”.

In these circumstances the HIA Redress Scheme allows an applicant to appeal such a decision to a Single Judicial Member (SJM) pursuant to Section 16 of the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Act 2019 on the following basis:

• the panel failed to take the applicant’s account into consideration;
• the panel failed to provide sufficient weight to the potential that another person named ‘Fra’ may have been involved and
• that the fact that the applicant’s medical notes failed to mention the alleged abuse ought not to have diminished the credibility of the applicant’s account.

The SJM proceeded by way of a full re-consideration of the evidence and having done so on 5 April 2023 he decided that the applicant had failed to satisfy him on the balance of probabilities that the abuse occurred as alleged.

The SJM specifically referenced the fact that the coincidence of the De La Salle Order having confirmed that there had been a specific abuser named “Fra” employed at the institution prior to the applicant being there, raised the possibility of “informed imagination” on the applicant’s part.

The applicant sought leave to apply for a judicial review on the basis that the SJM had failed to direct and/or consider an oral hearing of the appeal as he was entitled to do pursuant to s.9(3)(b) of the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Act 2019.

The applicant also alleged that there had been a breach of fair procedures as he had not been provided with the response of the De La Salle Order and had not had an opportunity to challenge that response, which the SJM had weighed in his decision to reject the appeal.

The Court noted that Section 9 of the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Act 2019 provided that the SJM may in exceptional circumstances direct an oral hearing and that prior to the application for judicial review neither the applicant nor his legal representative had requested an oral hearing.

The court then proceeded to consider the proportionality of the situation, would the refusal of an oral hearing on these matters result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant. In doing so the court noted that “Whilst in civil litigation such a decision will generally be made after hearing a witness give evidence, the procedure under the 2019 Act involves a different paradigm. If it were the case that any application or appeal which required consideration of an applicant’s credibility demanded an oral hearing, this would wholly subvert the statutory scheme.”

The court noted that the High Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction in the field of judicial review was not intended to be used as a court of further appeal from the SJM and it would only intervene in cases of manifest unfairness.

The court noted that the Historical Institutional Abuse (Northern Ireland) Act 2019 imposed no obligation to disclose the response of the De La Salle Order to the applicant and that even if this response had been provided to the applicant, there had been no suggestion that the applicant was in a position to provide the SJM with any additional or fresh evidence, which would have altered the basis on which the SJM came to make his decision. 

The court concluded that there was no evidence to demonstrate that the procedures adopted to deal with this application for redress gave rise to some material prejudice to the applicant or that he had lost some meaningful opportunity, therefore the court refused leave to apply for judicial review.

The full judgment can be found here.