The record award of €600,000 made at the High Court early last year to a woman who was repeatedly sexually assaulted and abused over a five-year period until she was 17 was reduced to €350,000 by the Supreme Court yesterday.
The judge held that the original award was "disproportionate" in a case which, while "very severe and serious", was not the "worst-case scenario".
The award was made by a High Court jury against Simon Murphy, who carried out the abuse between 1990 and 1995. The abuse took place from when the girl was aged 12 until she was 17. She is now in her 20s.
The appeal to the Supreme Court against the amount of the High Court award was brought by Murphy, of Ramsgrange, near New Ross, Co Wexford.
Earlier, in another court, he had been sentenced to eight years' imprisonment on a number of counts of sexual abuse of the plaintiff in the present case and three other victims. Two years of the sentence were suspended.
The High Court was told that Murphy had admitted the abuse and that the only issue for the jury to decide was the amount of damages. In the Supreme Court, Murphy argued that the jury's award was excessive.
Giving the Supreme Court judgment yesterday, Mrs Justice Susan Denham said it appeared this was the first award of damages for sexual abuse by a civil jury.
This was also the first appeal to raise the issue of the sum to be awarded in general damages for sexual assault, sexual abuse and rape, in a continuum, of a teenage girl.
Consequently, there were no precedents to guide the court, she said. However, there was information from other sources which might inform the court and be of assistance.
Mrs Justice Denham, with whose judgment Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan and Mr Justice Brian McCracken agreed, said there was no doubt the case was one in which a jury would be entitled to award substantial damages. However, the damages awarded must be fair and reasonable, she added.
Having considered the facts and all the circumstances of the case, she was satisfied that the sum of €600,000 awarded by the jury was so far in excess of a reasonable award of compensation that it was disproportionate and should be set aside.
Mrs Justice Denham said the plaintiff was entitled to obtain, as general compensatory damages, a sum which would compensate her for the wrong she had suffered. The sum should be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances and be proportionate to the injuries suffered by the plaintiff.
It was an unfortunate fact that over the last decade there had been many cases of sexual assault and rape of children before the courts. Consequently, there was judicial knowledge of "this dark side" of Irish society. In that context, while this was a very severe and serious case, it was not the worst-case scenario.
Therefore, the judge said, it would not be a case in which to award the maximum sum of general damages.
In assessing the injury suffered by the plaintiff, it was relevant to consider the actions of Murphy, Mrs Justice Denham added. He had admitted the offence immediately on being interviewed by gardaí and pleaded guilty in the criminal trial at the first opportunity. He had been sentenced to eight years for the abuse.
The steps taken by him, his early admission, early plea and apology, because they would have helped to alleviate the suffering of the plaintiff, were factors for consideration, she said. Had he not pleaded at an early stage and rendered an apology, the injuries to the plaintiff might have been further aggravated.
Murphy's early plea enabled the plaintiff to tell her story in the criminal trial without having to suffer cross-examination, the judge said. Counsel had expressed an apology on Murphy's behalf. While those matters were of limited relevance to the issue of compensation for the woman, some weight might be attached to them.
Mrs Justice Denham said a comparison might be drawn to the situation if he had not taken such steps. Similarly, while an expression of remorse through his counsel was a factor, it was so rather to contrast the situation in this case with a case where it did not occur and where the conduct of a defendant might exacerbate the already occurring injuries of a plaintiff.
In all the circumstances of the case, she was satisfied an award of general damages to the plaintiff should be at the higher end of the range of awards of general damages in personal injuries actions generally.
Bearing in mind all the circumstances of the case and the relevant factors, the very serious injuries to the plaintiff, yet allowing that they were not the worst-case scenario, she was satisfied the appropriate award would be €350,000.
Earlier, Mrs Justice Denham said it must be recognised first and foremost that no award of money would put the woman back in the position she was in before the sexual abuse.