DISABILITY AND ADVOCACY groups have expressed concern at a ruling which will see a hearing which would have seen issues raised about the care of disabled people at a facility held entirely in private.

Following an application from the charity at the centre of the hearing for it to be held in private, an adjudicator for the commission (WRC) said that the case was “not in the public interest”, ruling that the case should be heard in private because it raised ‘special circumstances’ and barred the public and the press from attending the case.

When asked about the decision by The Journal, the adjudicator said the case involved “exceptional circumstances” as it involved claims concerning “vulnerable people” – the residents of the facility in question.

Adjudications by the WRC, a statutory body established in 2015, only became open to the press and the public following a Supreme Court ruling in 2021. Previously, they were held in private and decisions for each case redacted the names of the employer and the complainant.

Under the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, most adjudication hearings are public unless the WRC adjudication officers rule that there are “special circumstances” which warrant a private hearing and an anonymised decision.

In certain criminal court cases, particularly where complaints of rape are being addressed, parties involved in the case must by law be anonymised although proceedings can still be attended and covered by the media. Family law cases and certain types of injunction proceedings also often see a similar level of restrictions.

However, in the WRC the decision to withhold names of parties and to bar the media is legally at the “discretion” of the adjudicating officer, where “special circumstances” apply.

Disabled persons’ organisation the Independent Living Movement Ireland (ILMI) said the decision to hold the proceedings in private was concerning and raised “transparency” concerns over the managing of the facility and welfare of the residents.

The decision of the adjudicator will be made public after the hearing, but without parties identified.

Dr James Casey, policy advisor with the organisation, questioned whether disabled people were “actually being represented” in the decision taken to hold the case in private.

“There is a question of whether you are using that this person is ‘vulnerable’ so therefore you can’t release details, but there may be serious allegations being raised here,” he told The Journal.

That the public are excluded from proceedings which may raise concerns relating to the treatment of disabled people at the facility “doesn’t sit right” with ILMI, Casey said.

He added that the case is all the more in the public interest due to the nature of the case and the potential concerns facing disabled people at the facilty.

“For justice to be seen to be done it needs to be in public,” Casey said.

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) told The Journal that to “ensure confidence” in the process, the WRC should aim to hold such hearings with reporters in attendance, while allowing restrictions for the anonymity of some parties.

“The NUJ recognises that there are exceptional circumstances where reporting restrictions may be appropriate,” general secretary Seamus Dooley said.

“These restrictions include non publication of the names of the parties. This would meet concerns regarding privacy of vulnerable complainants. Public hearings, even with restrictions, can ensure confidence in the process.”

Speaking generally, Casey said there are concerns over whether there is a “culture of openness” in the disability services sector.

This, along with “diminished” workers’ rights, results in increasing difficulty for concerns to come to light due to a “fear” of reprisals, Casey said.

He added that the ILMI is concerned about large disability service providers using “negative disability imagery”, by presenting its users as “vulnerable without consulting them”.

“It’s an industry worth billions and the providers have massive power over disabled people’s lives through taxpayers’ money.”

Private

The application to hold the case in private was made by a member of management for the charity, which provides intimate care and specialised services for disabled people at facilities across the country.

When asked for the specific legislation behind the decision to bar reporters from this week’s case, the adjudicator declined to specify the legislation.

The adjudicator said she did not want to discuss the reasons for holding the hearing in private in front of the parties and exited the courtroom, before stating that evidence due to be heard concerned “vulnerable people”. These “exceptional circumstances” meant it would not be held with any outside parties present.

When asked about the criticism of the decision, the WRC forwarded press queries to the Department of Enterprise.

It did not respond to the criticism and pointed to section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 which gives powers to ban media from attending cases.

This provides what the WRC calls a “non-exhaustive list” of special circumstances allowing access to hearings to be restricted.

The department said it allows the adjudication officer overseeing a dispute “discretion” on whether the entirety of part of proceedings can take place away from the public.

It added that such decisions by adjudication officers are taken “only in a minority of cases” at the commission.

Access for All, a collection of disability activists and parents of disabled children, added to the criticism to hold the case in private.

“Open and transparent systems have to be in place for the protection of people with disabilities. To use our vulnerability as a shield we feel is very inappropriate,” a spokesperson for the group said.

Care Champions, an advocacy group advocating with and for loved ones in care, urged the airing of the allegations in a more public forum.

“It is extremely concerning that this case was not allowed to be reported, even anonymised as necessary,” a spokesperson said.