The High Court has dismissed Mary Ward’s action against the North Eastern Health Board and the religious congregation named as the fifth defendant, finding that the delay in bringing the case had left both defendants unable to defend it fairly.
In a judgment delivered on 16 March 2007, Mr Justice O’Neill ruled on two motions seeking dismissal on the ground of inordinate delay and prejudice to the defendants’ right to a fair trial. The motions were brought by the fourth and fifth named defendants. The court found neither had caused or contributed to the delay, which it held was inordinate.
Ward’s statement of claim alleged that she became pregnant at 14 after being raped by a maternal uncle and was detained at a mother and babies home run by the fifth defendant in Dunboyne, County Meath. She alleged ill-treatment, forced labour and that her child was taken for adoption without her consent. She also alleged further rape by the same uncle, a second pregnancy at about 16, and detention at Saint Patrick’s Home on the Navan Road in Dublin, where she said she suffered similar treatment. These were allegations in her claim; the judgment did not determine whether the alleged events occurred.
The defendants relied on evidence about the loss of potential witnesses and records. The congregation said most sisters who may have been at Dunboyne had died, while the two surviving sisters could not recall Ward or her presence there. The Health Board said it had no records relating to her detention or first child’s adoption, and that a former children’s officer, identified in the evidence as Muriel Doherty, had died. The judge also noted that documents produced for the application were administrative and could not help witnesses address the allegations; they did not establish that Ward had been in Dunboyne.
The court considered that the allegations were too vague for the defendants to identify who was said to have done what, where or when. It found that, given the passage of time and the total loss of evidence available to the defendants, a normal trial inquiry was no longer possible. The court granted the relief sought in both motions and dismissed the action. The judgment determined the applications to dismiss; it did not make findings on the truth of the abuse allegations.