A public inquiry into the alleged abuse of patients at Muckamore Abbey Hospital has unlawfully failed to call any former health minister to give evidence, it was claimed in the High Court.
Lawyers for the families of some ex-patients also challenged the tribunal’s plans for dealing with their resettlement.
A judge was told that inadequate reasons were given in the decision-making process.
“This cries out for an explanation,” counsel submitted.
The public inquiry is examining events at the hospital in Co Antrim for adults with special needs over a period between 1999 and 2021.
It was established by former Health Minister Robin Swann following a major police probe into claims that vulnerable patients were subject to ill-treatment in Muckamore Abbey.
Fifteen individuals are facing prosecution in connection with the criminal investigation.
Judicial review proceedings have been brought by Glynn Brown, spokesman for a campaign group seeking to expose any abuse.
Mr Brown’s 28-year-old son Aaron, is a former patient at Muckamore who now receives care at private facilities in Belfast.
Brigene McNeilly, whose brother Bryan McCarry spent more than 30 years in the hospital, is also part of the legal challenge.
They are seeking to quash a decision not to call any of those who served as health minister in Northern Ireland during the relevant period to testify at the tribunal on issues related to the allocation of resources.
The court heard there was a determination that two permanent secretaries could provide relevant evidence on decision-making within the Department of Health,
But Monye Anyadike-Danes KC, representing the families, claimed that was not enough to cover the Inquiry’s terms of reference.
She contended that seven former Stormont health ministers, from Bairbe de Brun to Mr Swann, held “unique positions of leadership” and should have been called.
“These permanent secretaries cannot be a substitute, they simply advised the ministers on making their decisions,” the barrister contended.
“In the absence of adequate reasons… this was unlawful.”
During submissions Mr Justice Humphreys repeatedly challenged her to back up those claims.
“How can you impeach the reasons as being unlawful if it transpires (that the permanent secretaries) give the evidence that the Inquiry wanted to receive?” he asked.
Maintaining that an insufficient explanation was provided, Ms Anyadike-Danes replied: “It’s obvious that these two permanent secretaries cannot deal with all the issues.”
Another part of the case centred on concerns about the level of transparency in the hearing of evidence.
The families challenged plans to hear closing statements before holding further sessions about the resettlement of patients from Muckamore.
However, Denise Kiley KC, for the Inquiry, argued that the process could still be modified following consultation with core participants.
“The grounds of challenge are premature,” she said.
“When the Inquiry informed patient groups about the plans to hold the sessions it invited representations from them.”
Ms Kiley added that the process was part of an “innovative and creative way to make sure any future recommendations are properly informed”.
Judgment was reserved following closing arguments in the case.
Speaking outside court, Mr Brown stressed the decision to seek a judicial review was not taken lightly.
He said: “It’s an extreme measure, but it’s only because we felt forced into a corner.”