‘Ms Y’ court challenge to stop HSE inquiry into her care is struck out

Asylum seeker had sought abortion on suicide grouds and and was refused

‘Ms Y’, the woman at the centre of an abortion controversy last year has settled her High Court challenge aimed at stopping a HSE inquiry into the care provided to her by various state agencies. Photograph: Thinkstock
‘Ms Y’, the woman at the centre of an abortion controversy last year has settled her High Court challenge aimed at stopping a HSE inquiry into the care provided to her by various state agencies. Photograph: Thinkstock

A High Court challenge, brought by the woman at the centre of an abortion controversy last year and aimed at stopping a HSE inquiry into the care provided to her by various state agencies, has been struck out.

A claim for damages will be advanced “expedititiously”, the woman’s lawyers said in a statement.

The woman, referred to as Ms Y, is an asylum seeker who arrived in Ireland in early 2014. She had been raped in her home country, subsequently discovered she was pregnant and sought an abortion on the grounds of feeling suicidal.

Despite seeing a number of agencies, the pregnancy was well advanced by the time her case was assessed by a three-doctor panel.

READ MORE

She had a caesarean section against her initial wishes and the child was placed in State care.

A HSE inquiry was later established and Ms Y opposed that in High Court proceedings.

In a statement yesterday, Ms Y’s representatives confirmed her delight that it was not necessary to proceed with judicial review proceedings. The statement said the HSE had confirmed it “will not publish, circulate within the HSE or disclose to any third party the so called draft report into her care, and that the report will never be used in a manner that infringes Ms Y’s legal rights”.

The report was compiled after an inquiry was established to examine the response of the State and other agencies in the case.

“These proceedings were brought to quash this report and this has now effectively been achieved an renders the report entirely redundant,” the statement said.

A spokesman for the HSE said the report had not been quashed . “Following an agreement between lawyers for Ms Y and the HSE, the case did not proceed to court and has been been struck out,” the spokesman said.

It was claimed Ms Y was unable to participate in the inquiry, which began in August 2014, due to her ill health.

It was alleged the inquiry breached her rights to fair procedures and constitutional justice and orders were sought halting it and also quashing a draft report concerning her case which was allegedly “leaked to media”.

The HSE had opposed the application.

The three day action was due to open before the High Court on Tuesday but, following talks between the parties, the Presidet of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, was told by Richard Kean SC, for Ms Y, the matter could be struck out, with no further order required.

Maurice Collins SC for the HSE said his client was consenting to the matter being struck out.

No further details were given to the court.

A statement on behalf of Ms Y, represented by solicitor Caoimhe Haughey, said: "Ms Y feels vindicated in her refusal to ever accept the draft report or any of its findings," it added. "Ms Y will now move forward and advance her case for damages expeditiously."

When the matter came before the High Court last December, it was claimed the draft report was put together in the absence of Ms Y being interviewed. Ms Y suffers from a medical condition and was “extremely vulnerable”, it was stated

Ms Y’s version of events should have been ascertained before any report was compiled it was claimed. The leak of the draft report, the contents of which featured in both print and broadcast media, “compounded her illness” and breached her rights including to privacy, she claimed.

Ms Y was also unhappy the four person inquiry team appointed by the HSE to conduct the inquiry was composed of individuals who were or had been in the past employees of the HSE. This gave rise to an apprehension of “bias”, she claimed.

The inquiry team did not include a consultant obstetrician or a consultant psychiatrist, it was submitted. A stay had been placed on the inquiry pending the outcome of the action.