The Sisters of Charity have won a court order halting an action against them alleging they are vicariously liable for the alleged rape and sexual assault of a schoolgirl by a groundsman allegedly employed in a Magdalene laundry.
The three judge Court of Appeal ruled there was inordinate and inexcusable delay by the complainant in bringing her case which, along with the death of the groundsman and several other potential witnesses, so prejudiced the defence case there was a real risk of an unfair trial.
The plaintiff claimed she was so traumatised by assaults allegedly inflicted on her when aged 12 to 15 that, in a desperate effort to stop the groundsman accosting her on her way to and from school, she once hammered her knee with a paperweight to such an extent she was hospitalised and avoided going to school for a time.
Her life has been severely affected by her experience, she changed from being a happy normal child who liked school to one who became self-destructive, left school early and developed alcohol, medication and relationship problems, the woman claimed.
She felt huge shame and unable to tell anyone for years, has a severe psychological disorder and symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, it was also alleged.
The woman alleged the Sisters of Charity were vicariously liable for personal injuries and emotional suffering arising from the assaults of the groundsman alleged to have occurred in a hut and shed in the grounds of the laundry between 1977-1980.
In a pre-trial application seeking to stop the case, the Sisters argued they were prejudiced defending it on grounds including delay and having no records of the groundsman.
In his 2014 High Court judgment permitting the case proceed, Mr Justice Max Barrett said, while the 29-year delay bringing the case was inordinate, it was "far from inexcusable" as it seemed the woman never escaped from the dominion of her alleged abuser. Her claim suggested "a sorry picture of a long-suffering woman" who has lived her life in the shadow of what she claimed was repeatedly done to her by the groundsman, he said.
No evidence
Ms Justice Mary Irvine, with whom Mr Justice Michael Peart and Mr Justice Alan Mahon agreed, on Thursday gave the Court of Appeal judgment overturning that decision.
Ms Justice Irvine disagreed there was a sound evidential basis for the High Court finding the delay was excusable. There was no evidence the groundsman continued to have dominion over the woman after the alleged abuse ceased in 1980 and various facts did not support the finding she came from such a background she would not lightly go to court.
The schools attended by the plaintiff indicated she came from “a relatively normal middle-class background”, said the judge. There was also no evidence to support the High Court finding a “myriad of miseries” experienced by the woman during her lifetime excused the delay.
During the period of delay, the woman married, had a family and held positions of employment, she added.
In considering whether the balance of justice lay in allowing the case proceed or not, the judge said the Sisters were not responsible for the delay and had suffered the “grossest imaginable prejudice” due to the death of the groundsman and many other potential witnesses.
An action in which the defendant can call no evidence at all on the central issue, the alleged abuse, clearly lacked the concepts of mutuality and fairness essential to the administration of justice, she held.
Rossa Fanning, for the Sisters, sought its legal costs against the woman whose counsel said that application would be vigorously contested.
Costs will be dealt with at a later date.
