The High Court continued an interim injunction preventing a man from issuing defamation proceedings that would identify a woman who had accused him of sexually abusing her as a child. The order will remain in place until the hearing of her substantive action. The court did not decide whether the allegation was true or whether any defamation occurred.
The woman made the allegation during a hospital admission for psychological and psychiatric care in 2013. The man denies it. After she disclosed the allegation to a hospital counsellor, it was reported to An Garda Síochána and the HSE. She gave gardaí a written statement on 17 July 2013. The HSE later informed a designated diocesan officer, and the man was suspended from active ministry pending the complaint’s outcome. He said the suspension was handled in a way that disclosed his identity and caused considerable trauma and damage.
In November 2013, the man’s solicitor threatened High Court defamation proceedings unless the woman retracted the complaint and apologised. Her solicitors sought an undertaking that he would not name or identify her in any proceedings. He refused. The woman then obtained an interim injunction from Hogan J. on 13 November 2013 and issued a plenary summons the following day. The interlocutory hearing took place on 13 and 14 March 2014, with further submissions completed in May.
The judgment records psychiatric evidence that the woman was clinically depressed and that public disclosure of her identity posed a substantial risk to her life. The court considered the open administration of justice alongside the parties’ constitutional rights. It said a litigant’s right to have the other party identified is not absolute and that anonymity may be preserved in exceptional cases where proportionate.
The judge noted that the woman had made her complaint to people in authority and had not sought to publicise the man’s identity. The court also said she was not responsible for decisions that led to publicity about his suspension. While acknowledging his anger and frustration at being suspended while maintaining his innocence, the judge concluded that the risk to the woman’s life took precedence.
The court continued Hogan J.’s order until the substantive action is heard. The ruling concerns interim protection of identity; it does not determine the underlying allegation or the threatened defamation claim.