Court halts abuse action

Case prejudiced due to ‘inexcusable’ delay

The Supreme Court has halted a woman’s action for damages against her now deceased paternal grandfather over alleged sexual abuse.

The High Court stopped the action after finding the case was prejudiced due to "inexcusable" delay in bringing the case. In its judgment, the five-judge Supreme Court unanimously upheld that ruling. Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman said the action "passed beyond the reach of fair litigation".

The woman alleged she was abused between the late 1980s and early 1990s at her grandparents Dublin home. She initiated civil proceedings in 2008, five years after making a formal complaint to gardaí. She claimed her grandfather ruined her childhood and caused her to suffer alcoholism, depression and chaos in her adult life.

‘Inexcusable’

In 2009 Mr

READ MORE

Justice Peter Charleton

halted the now 29-year-old woman’s action after finding “inexcusable” delay in bringing it.

The judge noted a key witness, the woman’s grandmother, had died and her death meant a hearing taking place “in the absence of any proper ability for the defendant to meet the claim of sexual abuse”, he said.

In 2003, a formal complaint was made by the woman to gardaí in the west. Mr Justice Charleton said while a garda had dealt with it properly and efficiently, the matter was “disgracefully” not followed up when the file was transferred to the appropriate station in Dublin.

In 2008, the woman brought civil proceedings against her grandfather. A complaint was made to the Garda Ombudsman Commission about the handling by Dublin gardaí of the allegations.

Negligent handling

A finding of negligent handling was made and the relevant Garda officer was “fined the very small sum of €150”.

Mr Justice Charleton said the woman “was very badly let down” by An Garda Síochána.

Giving the Supreme Court decision, Mr Justice Hardiman said he could find “nothing to displace” the High Court finding the delay in bringing the case was “inordinate and inexcusable”. The dismissal of the woman’s appeal was done “with some reluctance” as it meant the plaintiff will be deprived of redress for an alleged “grave wrong”, he said.