The High Court has dismissed a personal injuries claim alleging sexual abuse by a member of the Redemptorist Order, finding that the passage of time had made it unfair for the defendant to defend the case.
The ruling followed an application by Michael Kelleher, named as the nominated defendant for the Order, to strike out John Moloney’s claim because of delay. The judgment was delivered by President of the High Court Kearns P. on 17 July 2014.
Moloney alleged that Brother Martin Carey, also known as Brother Majella, sexually assaulted and abused him while he served as an altar boy at the Order’s premises on Sexton Street, Limerick, between 1965 and 1970. Moloney was aged seven to 11 during that period. The judgment records that he also alleged abuse by two teachers at a Christian Brothers school, which was the subject of separate proceedings.
Moloney first complained to the Redemptorist Order in late 1993. He said the Order told him Carey had denied the allegations and had been found innocent after an assessment. He maintained that the response left him feeling disbelieved and unable to complain again for years. He made a formal complaint to gardaí in January 2010. The personal injuries summons issued in April 2012, following authorisation by the Personal Injuries Assessment Board in December 2011.
The court accepted that the delay was inordinate but found it excusable. Kearns P. said the psychological effects of the alleged abuse and Moloney’s fear of rejection and humiliation explained both the delay before his first complaint and the period after the 1993 complaint. The judge accepted that Moloney genuinely believed he had been disbelieved, while finding that this did not necessarily mean the defendant was at fault or had intended to prevent him from pursuing a complaint.
The parties disputed what the Order’s records showed about its investigation. Moloney argued that an internal memo and a January 1994 letter indicated that the Order had concluded abuse occurred, but had told him Carey was innocent. The defendant denied that interpretation. The court found the documents insufficient to tip the balance in Moloney’s favour, given the memo’s ambiguity, the author’s account and the substantial prejudice to the defence.
Carey, whom the judgment identified as the most important witness for the defendant, died in 1997. The court also cited a lack of relevant documents, the destruction of potentially important records and the likely unreliability of any indirect witnesses’ memories. It concluded that allowing the case to proceed would create “a patent unfairness” and dismissed it under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
The ruling determined the defendant’s application to strike out the claim on delay grounds. It did not decide whether the alleged abuse occurred.