JR123's Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Colton J |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] NIQB 42 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 09 June 2022 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2022] NIQB 42
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: COL11865
ICOS No: 2020/8658/01
Delivered: 09/06/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
(JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY JR123
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
________
Mr Hugh Southey QC appeared with Mr Steven J McQuitty (instructed by the
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission) for the Applicant
Dr Tony McGleenan QC appeared with Mr Philip McAteer (instructed by the
Departmental Solicitors Office) for the Respondent
________
COLTON J
[1] I am obliged to counsel for their able written and oral submissions.
Introduction
[2] The court gave a written judgment in relation to the substantial issues raised
in this application on 1 November 2021 (JR123 [2021] NIQB 97). The court granted a
judicial review against the Department of Justice (“the Department”) and declared
that Article 6(1) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978
(“the 1978 Order”) is incompatible with the applicant’s rights under article 8 of the
European Convention on Human Rights (“article 8”) by reason of a failure to
provide a mechanism by which he can apply to have his conviction for a criminal
offence considered to be spent, irrespective of the passage of time and his personal
circumstances. This judgment should be read in conjunction the substantive
judgment.
[3] The court permitted the parties some time, following the judgment, to
consider the question of any further relief, particularly with regard to the applicant’s
pleaded claim for damages. The parties were unable to agree a position. The
applicant argues that he is entitled to damages against the Department for the breach
of his article 8 rights as declared by the court. The Department resists that
submission.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
Department of Justice and JR123
...distress and frustration.” [93] The kernel of the judge’s reasons for dismissing the respondent’s claim for just satisfaction is found in [2022] NIQB 42 paras [29]–[30]: “In the court’s view this is a classic public law challenge to a statutory scheme of universal application. It does not i......