Dáil Debates Pathway to Redress for Victims of Convicted Child Sexual
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2018-07-04a.493 Dáil debates Wednesday, 4 July 2018 Pathway to Redress for Victims of Convicted Child Sexual Abusers: Motion [Private Members] 5:45 pm Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) Link to this: Individually | In context I move: That Dáil Eireann: notes: — the 2014 European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) judgment on the Louise O’Keeffe case; — that the interpretation and application of this judgment is omitting sex abuse victims even when their perpetrators have been convicted because they have not made a prior complaint; — that this interpretation is failing abysmally to apply justice to sex abuse victims whose perpetrators have not only been identified but also been convicted; — that the State Claims Agency manages litigation in cases of alleged child sexual abuse in schools taken against the State and it is authorised to offer out-of-court settlements to citizens that come within the terms of the ECHR judgment; — that only seven out-of-court settlements have been offered to date; — that retired High Court judge, Mr. Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill, was appointed in November 2017 to independently assess eligibility of sex abuse applications to an ex gratia scheme but only 21 applications have been received; and — the pre-conditions are causing huge distress to the victims involved; agrees that it is unjust that citizens, who have been sexually abused by people who were employed by the State in primary schools and whose perpetrators were subsequently convicted of sex abuse, are excluded from the State’s own redress scheme because they are unable to prove a prior complaint; and calls for access to the State’s redress scheme for those citizens who were sexually abused in primary school, whose perpetrators have already been identified and convicted, on the same terms as has been afforded to those in residential institutions. I wish to share my time with Deputy Micheál Martin. Frank O'Rourke (Kildare North, Fianna Fail) Link to this: Individually | In context Is that agreed? Agreed. Page 1 of 34 Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) Link to this: Individually | In context The terms of this motion are self explanatory. I must say at the outset that I am absolutely flabbergasted and appalled at the Government's refusal to accept the motion and, in addition, at the tone and content of the countermotion. We are seeking justice, humanity and compassion for people who have suffered over many years due to circumstances entirely outside of their control. All we are getting in the countermotion is the same old cant, legalese and jargon to which we have already been treated. The Minister will be aware that reparation has been made for the victims of abuse in residential institutions. I do not say it to belittle them in any way, but the abuse many of those victims suffered is less than the abuse we are talking about here tonight. However, the Government's attitude to people who were abused in primary schools by teachers who were members of religious orders is markedly different from their approach to the victims in residential institutions. The attitude of the Government to the people on whose behalf we are speaking tonight seems to be coldly adversarial, determinedly so. If the Government has learnt anything from the recent cervical cancer scandal, it will surely realise at this late stage, that that sort of attitude to helpless victims is repugnant to the majority of the Irish people. I have deliberately couched this motion in very narrow terms to prevent the Government using the "floodgates" argument. We are talking only about victims where the perpetrators have been convicted before the courts of this country. Since 1973, which is 45 years ago, only 72 people have been convicted. The ratio of victims to people convicted is 2.5. If we multiply 2.5 by 72, that is 182. What we are seeking to do is to allow them to enter the present redress scheme which was set up in 2015 in the wake of the Louise O'Keeffe case. If one multiplies 182 by €84,000, the maximum figure is €15 million, and that depends on everybody making a claim and on everybody getting the maximum amount and not a penny less. The fact of the matter is, as the Minister will be aware, Louise O'Keeffe, one of the survivors, fought a 15 year legal battle for justice. Her case was turned down by the High Court. She went to the Supreme Court where she was also turned away. An interesting thing happened on the day of the European Court of Human Rights decision in Louise O'Keeffe's case; a fulsome message of congratulations was sent by the Taoiseach, the head of Government, to Louise O'Keeffe, congratulating her on her victory. What is extraordinary about that is that the day after the Supreme Court decision, Louise O'Keeffe and all her fellow plaintiffs got a letter from the State, of which the Taoiseach is the head, threatening them that if they did not withdraw their cases forthwith they would be visited by action for costs that would literally take the roofs from over their heads. That was a naked, shameless threat from the person who then congratulated Louise O’Keeffe when undaunted she went on to the European Court of Human Rights and got a judgment to the effect that the systems in place in Irish primary Page 2 of 34 schools were insufficient to protect children from that type of activity. However, even as the Government was compiling the fulsome congratulations it was planning how best to prevent people availing of the European Court of Human Rights judgment. The Government set up a redress compensation scheme, allegedly, to allow the victims the right to access compensation without having to go through the convoluted casino of the Irish judicial system, but it put two insurmountable barriers in their way. The first one relates to a prior complaint. That has been rubbished by every legal scholar and commentator in this country and beyond. In any case, even if everybody else is wrong and the Government is correct and prior complaint is the kernel of the Louise O'Keeffe case, there is nothing in the Louise O'Keeffe judgment that forces the Government to confine itself to cases where there was a prior complaint. Second, the Government insisted that people should have taken legal action within the period set out by the statute of limitations. That was despite the fact that every legal adviser in the country knew and advised those plaintiffs that there was no point in taking legal action because they had no case. If they could get over the hurdle of the need for a prior complaint, then they had to face the, arguably, larger hurdle, that they ignored the advice of their legal advisers and proceeded to take a case which they were told was a waste of time and money. On 22 May my colleague raised this matter with the Taoiseach and asked him why those barriers were being put in the way of this particular group of victims. The Taoiseach's response was that compensation in redress schemes was made on the basis of evidence. Deputy Martin responded that what greater evidence did he need than people who were brought before the courts and convicted. He could have added that the majority, if not all, of those perpetrators admitted the offences. What greater evidence does one need than that? The Taoiseach's response to that was that in that case it would have to be considered. He stated, "If, as the Deputy said, there is no doubt that abuse has taken place in these cases, certainly that is something we can examine. I will take the matter up with the Minister for Education and Skills soon." I take it that the Taoiseach has taken up the matter with the Minister. If the countermotion is his response, that is a poor lookout for justice, humanity and fairness in this country. Let us get away from the legal distinctions for a moment and talk about the victims. As the Minister knows, they are real people. John Allen was abused at the age of nine in the famous North Monastery primary school in Cork, as he cried for his mother. Many years later when the perpetrator of that abuse, the man that ruined his life was brought before the courts of this country, John Allen went into the witness box and pleaded with the judge not to send that individual to prison, and his plea was accepted. I hope for John's sake that Shakespeare was right when, to paraphrase him, he said the giving of mercy benefits those who give as well as those who take because John Allen and his fellow survivors have got damn all mercy from this State. I have some knowledge of the life experience of those people. I will not invade their privacy by spelling out details here on the floor of the Dáil, but Page 3 of 34 suffice it to say that any cursory examination as to what happened to those people in later life will show a lamentable litany of broken relationships, broken marriages, broken homes, broken dreams and broken lives. They were people who were robbed of much of the potential with which they were born through circumstances entirely outside their control. This was done as a result of the actions of teachers who were paid by the State in schools those people had to attend, because it was legally obligatory to do so, and the schools were managed by the State.