The High Court has dismissed a claim for damages over alleged assaults and sexual abuse by prison wardens, finding that the delay before proceedings began made it unfair for the defendants to face a trial.
The plaintiff, identified in the judgment as D.O’F. (otherwise known as D.F.), alleged that he was assaulted and sexually abused by wardens while detained in St. Patrick’s Institution and Shanganagh Prison between 1967 and 1969. He identified one alleged abuser as “Fitz”. The defendants—the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and the Attorney General—asked the court to dismiss the proceedings because of the delay.
The plaintiff said he first told family members about the alleged abuse in 2001, having been unable to speak about it earlier. He sought his prison records in 2004, applied to the Residential Institutions Redress Board in January 2005, and later applied to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. After PIAB authorised court proceedings, he issued them in November 2006. The Board had rejected his redress application because the institutions were outside its remit.
The defendants said the delay had seriously hindered their ability to investigate and defend the claim. They could not identify a person matching the description “Fitz”. The judgment records that prison governors who examined a photograph supplied by the plaintiff identified the pictured officer as someone not known by that name. Records were incomplete, and potential witnesses included deceased former governors and an acting governor who was about 90 and had lived in a nursing home for an extended period.
The plaintiff’s counsel argued that he had proceeded promptly once the case was issued and relied on a psychiatrist’s report to support his account of being unable to disclose the alleged abuse. The court accepted that there had been no delay after proceedings began, but said it could consider the full period since the events when exercising its inherent jurisdiction. It found the delay inordinate and inexcusable. The judge was not fully satisfied that the report clearly supported the claimed inability to speak before 2001, and found no excuse for the further delay between 2001 and the 2006 proceedings.
The court concluded that the passage of time, the importance of oral testimony, missing or unavailable witnesses, and difficulties identifying the alleged abuser created clear and patent unfairness to the defendants. It therefore dismissed the proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction on grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay causing prejudice. The judgment did not decide whether the alleged abuse occurred or determine the underlying damages claim.