The High Court has refused to dismiss a woman’s civil claim for damages over alleged childhood sexual abuse, despite finding that her delay in bringing the proceedings was both inordinate and inexcusable.
In a judgment delivered on 10 March 2015, Mr Justice McDermott ruled that the defendant had not established a substantial risk of an unfair trial or serious prejudice to his defence. The decision concerned the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim for want of prosecution. It did not determine whether the alleged abuse occurred or resolve the defendant’s separate statute of limitations defence, which was left for the trial.
The plaintiff alleges that her father and two older brothers sexually abused her. The allegations against the defendant, identified in the judgment only as C.B., concern abuse said to have begun when she was about five or six and continued until she was about 15. The defendant denied the allegations in his defence. He also argued that the passage of time had prejudiced his ability to defend the case.
The court considered the plaintiff’s earlier disclosures and her 1992 statements to gardaí, which she later withdrew. It also reviewed her Singapore proceedings over an alleged assault during childbirth in 2004, and medical and counselling evidence concerning her ability to pursue legal action. The judgment records competing evidence about when she became able to bring proceedings against her brothers.
The court accepted the defendant’s case that the delay in issuing the 2011 proceedings was inordinate and inexcusable. But it found that the defendant had not shown how the delay had impaired his ability to recall events or establish facts that could otherwise have been proved. Although some Singapore records and a former counsellor’s notes were no longer available, the judge was not satisfied that vital evidence had been lost, given the other records of the plaintiff’s complaints and treatment.
The alleged events took place when both parties were young, and the judgment noted that the allegations were said to have occurred covertly, without independent witnesses or scientific evidence. However, the court found no evidence that the passage of time had created a substantial risk of an unfair trial. It also said the trial judge could address any unfairness that emerged during the hearing.
The motion to dismiss was refused. The underlying claim remained listed for trial on 14 April 2015; the judgment made no finding on the truth of the abuse allegations.