The High Court dismissed a woman’s claim against the Health Service Executive and a regional leader of the Congregation of the Brothers of Charity, finding that the delay in bringing the proceedings had made a fair trial impossible. The judgment did not determine whether the alleged assaults occurred.
The plaintiff alleged that Dr Denis Lane O’Kelly, a consultant psychiatrist at Belmont Park Hospital in Waterford, sexually assaulted her during two outpatient consultations after hospital admissions in or around 1988. She sought damages arising from those alleged events. The first and second defendants applied to have the claim dismissed because of delay.
Mr Justice Noonan said the proceedings began in September 2016, about 28 years after the alleged events and 14 years after Dr Lane O’Kelly’s death. The plaintiff’s case was that she had been alone with him, leaving her as the only person able to give evidence about what happened. The judge said the defendants could not fairly defend the claim without the psychiatrist’s evidence.
The defendants also cited the hospital’s closure in 1992 and the deaths of former staff and managers. The judge relied on the risk of an unfair trial arising from the death of the person accused, describing that prejudice as decisive. He said it did not matter for this part of the analysis whether the plaintiff herself contributed to the delay.
The judgment records that the plaintiff said she disclosed the abuse to a fellow patient and raised a question with a nurse about whether it was usual for a psychiatrist to conduct an internal examination. She told the court that a 2011 television documentary about Dr Lane O’Kelly acted as a catalyst for taking action. Her psychiatrist’s 2015 report said shame, self-blame and fear of not being believed had impaired her capacity to take legal action until shortly before the assessment.
The judge said the defendants had relied on both the O’Domhnaill and Primor lines of authority, but focused on whether the passage of time created a real risk of an unfair trial. Having dismissed the claim on that basis, he did not decide the separate question under Primor of whether the delay was both inordinate and inexcusable. He nevertheless observed that the delay appeared inordinate and raised concerns about its explanation and the pace of the later proceedings.
The order dismissed the claim against the first and second defendants. The judgment does not state an order disposing of the claim against the third defendant, who was appointed to represent Dr Lane O’Kelly’s estate.