The Supreme Court has allowed J.R.’s appeal against a High Court order dismissing her civil proceedings because of delay. It refused the State’s application to dismiss the case, leaving the underlying allegations for later proceedings rather than deciding them on their merits.
J.R. alleges that she was repeatedly abused by family members from around 1960, when she was about five, until about 1996. She says she went to Raheny Garda Station at least twice around 1967, aged about 12, to report the abuse. According to her claim, Gardaí responded dismissively and sent her home, and the abuse continued. These remain allegations in the civil action.
The State sought dismissal on the basis that the passage of time left it unable to defend the case fairly. An Garda Síochána Inspector Brian Fenton said 34 Garda members had served at Raheny station in 1967–68; eight had died, three could not be interviewed because of age and infirmity, and no station records of reports from that period were available. The proceedings began with a plenary summons issued on 6 February 1998; the statement of claim followed on 10 July 2001.
The High Court dismissed the proceedings on 22 July 2004, finding the delay inordinate and inexcusable and the State’s position in defending the case hopeless. J.R. appealed, arguing in part that the State’s alleged failure to respond to her complaints contributed to the delay and that the lack of a record was part of the very case she was bringing.
Giving judgment on 1 February 2007, Denham J. said the roughly 40-year gap between the alleged events and the proceedings was inordinate. But the Court also had to weigh whether the delay was excusable and where the balance of justice lay. It found that the State’s alleged contribution to the delay required careful consideration, and that the absence of a report was central to J.R.’s claim. Dismissing the action because of those same matters would not be proportionate or fair. The State had not discharged its burden of showing that dismissal was justified.
The Court did not decide the merits of J.R.’s allegations or determine whether Gardaí received or mishandled a complaint. It also did not decide the separate issue of delay after her solicitor was instructed, because the High Court had not ruled on that ground. The judgment says the State had not pleaded the limitation statute, so the Supreme Court did not consider it. The appeal was allowed and the State’s application to dismiss the proceedings was refused.