The Supreme Court has dismissed Caroline McNamee’s appeal against a Court of Appeal decision setting aside a jury award of €493,037.47 in her civil case against Michael Boyce. The Court concluded that the balance of justice required the proceedings to be dismissed because of prolonged, unexplained delay and resulting prejudice to Boyce’s defence.
McNamee alleged that Boyce sexually abused her during visits to the home he shared with his wife. Boyce denied the civil allegations. He had been convicted in 1999 of one of six criminal sexual-assault counts relating to McNamee; that conviction was affirmed on appeal. The Supreme Court judgment records that the High Court had ruled the assault underlying the conviction was statute-barred in the civil proceedings.
McNamee issued a civil summons in June 2001, nearly nine years after the last alleged assault and 22 years after the first. It was served in December 2002. After a notice of intention to proceed in July 2011, a statement of claim was served the following month; an amended claim in March 2012 added allegations of rape, buggery and oral rape. The trial judge excluded claims concerning alleged assaults after 4 July 1985.
The High Court refused an application to dismiss the case in 2012, finding inordinate and inexcusable delay but concluding that the balance of justice did not then favour dismissal. At a six-day jury trial in 2014, the jury found that Boyce had sexually assaulted McNamee between 1979 and 1985, that she suffered psychological and psychiatric injury as a result, and awarded damages. The Court of Appeal later set aside that order, holding that the balance of justice favoured dismissal.
The Supreme Court appeal concerned how an appellate court should review a trial judge’s balancing of delay and fairness, including the weight given to a defendant’s own failure to progress the case. The Court said the trial judge had applied the correct principles, but appellate courts must assess whether the conclusion was within the range open on the facts.
The Court accepted that Boyce’s failure to enter an appearance for years was relevant, but not decisive given McNamee’s long delay and Boyce’s imprisonment for part of that period. It also found that the death of Boyce’s wife in 2005 caused material prejudice. She had given evidence for him at the criminal trial, but could not testify in the civil trial. A transcript could not fully replace live evidence, particularly because the civil claim included more serious allegations added in 2012 that had not been addressed in her 1999 statement.
The Supreme Court held that the especially lengthy delay, with no serious explanation, combined with the impairment to Boyce’s ability to present his defence, meant the trial should not have proceeded. It dismissed McNamee’s appeal, leaving the Court of Appeal’s decision to set aside the High Court order in place. The Supreme Court did not make a new finding on the truth of the civil allegations; it decided the appeal on the effect of delay and prejudice.