The High Court has dismissed a woman’s personal-injury action against three trustees of the Saint Joseph’s – Daughters of the Heart of Mary, ruling that the passage of time had made a fair trial impossible.
The plaintiff alleged that she suffered sexual, physical and emotional abuse while living at an orphanage run by the congregation in Dún Laoghaire between 1965 and 1969. She said older residents, known as “charge girls”, abused her during bath time and subjected her to other mistreatment. She also alleged that nuns imposed degrading punishments and that the congregation failed to supervise the older girls adequately. The defendants denied the allegations.
The proceedings began in April 2017. The defendants applied to have the action dismissed because of delay, arguing that they could no longer defend it fairly. The application was heard on affidavit evidence. The parties agreed that the court would not decide whether the delay was excusable, and the court did not consider the separate question of whether the claim was statute-barred.
In a judgment delivered on 14 November 2019, Mr Justice Barr considered whether the defendants faced a real risk of an unfair trial under the test in *O’Domhnaill v. Merrick*. He said the question was whether the defendants could receive a fair hearing if the case proceeded, without regard to whether the plaintiff was to blame for bringing it late.
The judge found that the plaintiff’s two main named witnesses, Sisters Keating and Holmes, had died. Another named nun, Sister Delahunty, and four other nuns who had worked at the orphanage during the relevant period had also died. Two surviving members of the congregation who had worked there had no recollection of the plaintiff or of complaints about Sisters Keating or Holmes, according to evidence before the court. The plaintiff had not identified the “charge girls” she alleged were primary abusers.
The available records amounted to entries in the orphanage and school registers confirming the plaintiff’s presence at those institutions. The judge found them of no evidential value on the central allegations. He also said the plaintiff’s affidavit referred to other former residents who recalled similar treatment, but did not identify them or establish that they had witnessed the alleged treatment of the plaintiff.
The judge rejected the submission that the case was principally about a wider system of supervision or punishment, finding that the pleaded claim concerned specific acts allegedly done to the plaintiff. He concluded that the defendants could not obtain a fair trial and dismissed the action on that basis.
The ruling did not determine whether the alleged abuse occurred or whether the defendants were liable. The court decided only the defendants’ application to dismiss the proceedings because of the risk of an unfair trial.