The High Court has allowed a woman identified as “Ms. Y.” to bring intended civil proceedings under that pseudonym and to give her residence as Dublin. It also prohibited publication or broadcast of material relating to the proceedings that would, or would be likely to, identify her.
Mr Justice Cross made the order under section 19 of the Refugee Act 1996, in a judgment delivered on 18 March 2016. The application had sought protection under section 27 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008. The judge did not decide whether the woman would qualify for an order under that provision, or whether the application would have succeeded without the Refugee Act.
The intended claim is against the Health Service Executive, the Irish Family Planning Association, Spiritan Asylum Services Initiative Limited trading as Spirasi, Adeen Henry, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General. The proposed claims include negligence, breach of duty, trespass, assault and battery, false imprisonment and alleged interference with constitutional and European Convention rights. These are claims the woman intends to bring; the judgment did not determine their merits.
In affidavits supporting the application, her solicitor said she came to Ireland in March 2014 after alleged kidnapping, assault and rape in her country of origin. The affidavits said she discovered she was pregnant in Ireland, became suicidal and sought a termination. Medical procedures were performed under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 and resulted in the safe delivery of a child, the judgment records. She was granted refugee status in August 2014.
The court considered medical reports from her treating psychiatrist, Professor O’Keane. A report dated 25 February 2016 described the woman as extremely vulnerable and said revealing her identity could cause undue stress and irreparable damage to her recovery. The judge accepted that she had a medical condition and that an anonymity order would not prejudice the interests of justice. He was less certain that the evidence met the specific test in section 27 requiring identification as a person with that condition to be likely to cause undue stress.
The judge said the evidence indicated that the distress would arise from being identified with her history, rather than specifically identified as someone with the medical condition. He did not resolve that statutory question. Instead, he concluded that publication of her name would breach the Refugee Act’s confidentiality protections because it would disclose that she had applied for asylum and been granted refugee status.
The order permits the intended proceedings to proceed under the title “Ms. Y.” and permits her residence to be stated as “Dublin”.