Minister 'erred in law' in ruling out two homes from mother & baby homes redress scheme

Landmark ruling as High Court judge directs children's minister to consider adding two homes to scheme 

Marie Thornton and John Duncan Morris outside the courthouse in Dundalk in July 2025 as a judicial review to add institutions to the mother and baby redress scheme got underway. Picture: Ciara Wilkinson

A judge in the case of two survivors who were excluded from the mother and baby home redress scheme has delivered a landmark ruling that the children’s minister was wrong in not considering adding two homes to the compensation deal.

Marie Thornton, who is a survivor of Temple Hill in south Dublin and John Duncan Morris who was in Stamullen in Co Meath had taken the High Court action over being excluded from the redress scheme.

They are two of an estimated 19,000 survivors excluded from the payment scheme, including those who spent less than six months in homes as well as those who were boarded out.

The case centred on the interpretation of section 49 of the governing legislation.

The provision allows the minister, with the consent of the public expenditure minister, to add institutions to the schedule where they provided “pregnancy-related and infant care services” and were subject to regulatory or inspection functions.

The applicants resided in institutions that provided infant care only.

Judgment 

Judge Alexander Owens said it was a two-limb test in Section 49(2)(a) of the 2023 act which states that the minister, when adding such an institution, must also specify a concluding year in respect of the institution being inserted.

In his judgment he said he “proposes to make declarations that the minister erred in law in evaluating whether St Joseph’s and Temple Hill were institutions established for the purpose set out in the relevant words”.

“She did not apply the first limb to the test to St Joseph’s and Temple Hill.”

The second limb of the test is whether the institution in question was “an institution… in respect of which a public body had a regulatory or inspection function”.

The first limb of the test requires the minister to identify the “institution”, and to ascertain “the purpose” for which that “institution” “was established”.

"The evidence establishes that the minister did not apply the first limb of the test when she decided that she was precluded from making a regulation including St Joseph’s and Temple Hill in Schedule 1 of the 2023 Act."

He disagreed with the interpretation that the institution has to have paternity-related and infant care services.

The children’s minister will now be directed to properly consider adding these institutions to the scheme and will be required to give this legal decision appropriate regard in doing so.

Survivor and lawyer spoke to the 'Irish Examiner'

The case raised significant questions of statutory interpretation, administrative discretion, and equality before the law.

John Duncan Morris told the Irish Examiner: “We all lived these horrible lives in those homes. My mother’s four-year anniversary was on Sunday. I only got to meet her once, and now we just want to get this case finalised. 

We should never been here in the first place. 

I do wish it would come to an end; I am tired. It is very hard. But we won the first round. 

In a statement, Norman Spicer from Coleman Legal told the Irish Examiner: 

“This decision is a milestone for survivors of the mother and baby institutions and we commend our clients for their efforts and determination to see these legal cases to their successful end.

“Our clients have succeeded in the first leg of this journey; to add further institutions to the mother and baby institutions payment scheme which will help to ensure that survivors are treated equally by the Government and the State.”