J.D. -v- Residential Institutions Redress Committee & ors [2009] IESC 59 (27 July 2009)

J.D. -v- Residential Institutions Redress Committee & ors [2009] IESC 59 (27 July 2009)

The definition of 'child' in section 1(1) of the Act of 2002 is not incompatible with the State's obligations under the ECHR. The Act of 2003 does not apply retrospectively to events before its enactment, and the redress scheme does not engage Article 8 ECHR so as to invoke Article 14. No discrimination contrary to Article 14 was established, and the applicant failed to show that the definition of 'child' was incompatible with the Convention.

Citation
[2009] IESC 59
Parties
Applicant/respondent: J. D.; Respondent/appellant: Residential Institutions Redress Review Committee; Respondent/appellant: Ireland; Respondent/appellant: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
27 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Cross Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court
Outcome
cross-appeal dismissed; application for declaration of incompatibility refused
Legal Topics
Definition of Child, Discrimination, European Convention on Human Rights, Judicial Review, Redress Scheme, Retrospective Application of Law
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Definition of Child Discrimination European Convention on Human Rights Judicial Review Redress Scheme +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. D.

Applicant/respondent

Residential Institutions Redress Review Committee

Respondent/appellant

Ireland

Respondent/appellant

The Attorney General

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Cross Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the definition of 'child' in section 1(1) of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 is incompatible with the State's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), specifically Articles 8 and 14
  2. 2 Whether the Act of 2003 applies retrospectively to events occurring before its enactment
  3. 3 Whether the redress scheme constitutes discrimination contrary to Article 14 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The definition of 'child' in section 1(1) of the Act of 2002 is not incompatible with the State's obligations under the ECHR. The Act of 2003 does not apply retrospectively to events before its enactment, and the redress scheme does not engage Article 8 ECHR so as to invoke Article 14. No discrimination contrary to Article 14 was established, and the applicant failed to show that the definition of 'child' was incompatible with the Convention.

Court Disposition

cross-appeal dismissed; application for declaration of incompatibility refused

Orders

  • Cross-appeal dismissed
  • Application for declaration pursuant to section 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 refused