McGrath v Health Service Executive (Unapproved) [2023] IECA 298 (08 December 2023)

McGrath v Health Service Executive (Unapproved) [2023] IECA 298 (08 December 2023)

Section 14(1)(a) of the Children First Act 2015 requires mandatory reporting by mandated persons to Tusla of disclosures of harm suffered by a person as a child, even if the person is now an adult. The statutory language, use of past tense, legislative context, and purpose of child protection support a broad...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] IECA 298
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Tom McGrath; Respondent: Health Service Executive
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Mandatory Reporting, Definition of Child, Retrospective Abuse, Statutory Duties of Mandated Persons, Ultra Vires Challenge
Child Protection Law Statutory Interpretation Administrative Law Mandatory Reporting Definition of Child Retrospective Abuse Statutory Duties of Mandated Persons Ultra Vires Challenge

Source-derived case record

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tom McGrath

Applicant/appellant

Health Service Executive

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.14(1)(a) of the Children First Act 2015 requires mandatory reporting by mandated persons to Tusla of disclosures by adults of harm suffered as a child, even if the person is no longer a child as defined by the Act.
  2. 2 Whether the HSE's policy and interim standard operating procedure exceed the statutory requirements of the 2015 Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 14(1)(a) of the Children First Act 2015 requires mandatory reporting by mandated persons to Tusla of disclosures of harm suffered by a person as a child, even if the person is now an adult. The statutory language, use of past tense, legislative context, and purpose of child protection support a broad interpretation. The HSE's policy and interim procedures are consistent with the statutory obligation. The narrower interpretation advanced by the appellant is not supported by the text or purpose of the Act.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed. The High Court's interpretation of s.14(1)(a) is affirmed. The HSE's policy and interim procedures are not ultra vires or unlawful.