Chakari v The Criminal Injuries Tribunal & ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant submitted a non-fatal injury application to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal on 22nd July, 2016. As of the date of the hearing, the Tribunal had not received sufficient information from the Applicant to make a substantive decision, with relevant documentation outstanding. Consequently, the application remained incomplete and pending at the Applicant's election. The Applicant subsequently initiated judicial review proceedings seeking declaratory reliefs concerning the lawfulness of the Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted, the non-statutory administrative scheme under which the Tribunal operates. The Tribunal responded to a solicitor's request that certain provisions of the Scheme be dis-applied, stating that all applications are processed within the parameters of the Scheme. The court was asked to review this position.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there exists a decision or action by the Tribunal that is subject to judicial review.
2. Whether the court may grant declaratory relief in the absence of a decision or refusal to decide by the Tribunal.
3. The appropriate procedural route to challenge the Scheme or the Tribunal's operation thereof.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant sought declaratory reliefs concerning the lawfulness of the Scheme under which the Tribunal operates.
• The Applicant's solicitor requested the Tribunal to dis-apply provisions excluding payment of general damages for pain and suffering and legal costs.
• The Applicant relied on authority suggesting that judicial review could be used to resolve legal issues absent an actual decision.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Tribunal asserted that it must act strictly within the parameters of the Scheme and is not competent to vary it.
• There has been no decision or failure to decide by the Tribunal that could be subject to judicial review.
• The appropriate challenge to the Scheme is by plenary proceedings, not judicial review in the absence of a decision.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
QL v. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] IEHC 223	Whether judicial review can be used to obtain declaratory relief absent a decision, in exceptional circumstances.	The court considered the precedent but rejected the notion that it creates a new hybrid procedure allowing judicial review without a decision to review, emphasizing that no material change or new facts justified such relief here.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasized that a prerequisite for judicial review is the existence of a decision or failure to decide by the respondent that is subject to review. In this case, no decision had been made by the Tribunal because the Applicant's file was incomplete, and the Tribunal was unable to proceed. The Tribunal's statement that it must act within the Scheme does not constitute a reviewable decision, as the Tribunal is legally bound to act according to the Scheme and lacks authority to vary it. The court rejected the Applicant's reliance on precedent permitting declaratory relief absent a decision as not intended to create a new procedural approach allowing judicial review of nothing. The court noted the absence of any material change or new facts that might justify declaratory relief under that precedent. The court concluded that the proper course to challenge the Scheme is by plenary proceedings, and that judicial review is only appropriate once a decision has been made by the Tribunal.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED ALL RELIEFS SOUGHT by the Applicant.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Applicant's judicial review application was dismissed due to the absence of any decision or action by the Tribunal subject to review. The court clarified procedural boundaries by confirming that judicial review cannot be used to challenge the Scheme or obtain declaratory relief absent a Tribunal decision. No new precedent was established; rather, the ruling reaffirmed established principles governing judicial review and administrative law procedure.