Judge rules that age restrictions in redress Act are unconstitutional

People who  were abused in residential institutions up to the age of 21 will be entitled to seek redress, under a ruling from the High Court.

A High Court judge has ruled that the provision in the 2002 law restricting redress for abuse in residential institutions to children under 18 is unconstitutional and an "unjustifiable discrimination" on grounds of age as the abuse occurred when persons under 21 were regarded in law as children.

The challenge to provisions of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 was brought by a woman who had turned 18 days before she was admitted to St Patrick's Mother and Baby Home on the Navan Road, Dublin, in 1968 after becoming pregnant allegedly by an older brother.

She suffered abuse at the mother and baby home, where she remained until 1969, but was deemed not to be entitled to redress as she was over 18 at the time of the abuse. Her baby was taken from her and placed for adoption.

Her younger sister, also pregnant allegedly by an older brother, was admitted to the same home on the same day and ultimately secured redress for abuse suffered there because she was under 18. Both girls alleged they had been abused in the family home for 10 or 11 years by their two older brothers.

Section 1.1 of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 defines a "child" as a person under 18 and section 7 of the Act provides redress may only be paid to a child.

Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill ruled yesterday that the definition of "child" as a person under 18 years and cognate words, including childhood in section 1.1, is unconstitutional.

He upheld arguments by James O'Reilly SC, for the woman, that the 2002 Act's definition of child as a person under 18 meant the woman was discriminated against contrary to Article 40.1 of the Constitution - the right to be held equal before the law - in that she was not being considered to be a child at the time she lived in the mother and baby home.

He also ruled the discrimination was not relevant to or justified by any legitimate legislative purpose and failed to reflect legal and social conditions of the 1960s when persons under 21 were minors in law.

He said the State's "understandable desire" to clearly limit the extent of the redress scheme by introducing an age limit could not justify excluding from the scheme persons who enjoyed in law the status of children during the time they were resident in a residential institution.

Mary Carolan, Irish Times

More story at-http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1112/1226408554527.html

© 2008 The Irish Times

• telephone
  • 01 662 4070
• fax
  • 01 611 4650
• email
  • info@oneinfour.org
• address
  • 2 Holles Street
    Dublin