Minister ordered to provide documents to former nun Nora Wall

The Minister for Justice has been ordered by the High Court to hand over documents sought by former nun Nora Wall for her action claiming damages against the State arising from her wrongful conviction for the rape of a 12-year-old girl.

Ms Wall (65), whose case was previously certified by the Court of Criminal Appeal as a miscarriage of justice, is claiming  damages arising from her prosecution.

She claimed the Minister for Justice, the State and Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) knew, or ought to have known, that the complainant, and an allegedly corroborating witness, had lied in their statements to gardaí.

In 1999, the former Sisters of Mercy nun, known as Sr Dominic, became the first woman to be convicted of rape in Ireland.

Ms Wall was released on bail four days into a life sentence after it emerged a prosecution witness had been called, against the direction of the DPP, to testify at her trial. That witness later admitted fabricating evidence in which she claimed to have seen Ms Wall holding down the alleged victim during the attack.
Miscarriage of justice
In light of those new facts, the Court of Criminal Appeal in 2005 declared Ms Wall's conviction a miscarriage of justice.

Ms Wall then sought damages against the State and sought discovery of documents.

She claims the State knew, or ought to have known, the complainant and the witness, as well as lying to gardaí, had connived together in making false statements.

Yesterday, Mr Justice Michael White ordered the Minister and State to provide certain documents  which record the reason or reasons the witness for the prosecution was not to be called at the trial.  
Credibility of complainant

He ordered the defendants should also disclose documents created before July 31st, 1999, dealing with any assessment of the credibility and/or reliability of the complainant.

Discovery of all documents recording the systems in place at the time of the trial to ensure compliance with the directions of the DPP concerning the calling of witnesses was also ordered. This includes documents recording the circulation of the DPP’s direction not to call the witness for the prosecution.

The DPP is not a defendant or a notice party to the case and the judge said the discovery order was not against the DPP.  For the purposes of this discovery application, he did not regard the DPP as an agent or servant of the Minister and the State.

The judge said he shared the concerns of the DPP that serious allegations were made against her office and against the complainant when neither were parties to the proceedings.

Mr Justice White also noted the appeal court when certifying Ms Wall’s case as a miscarriage of justice, said it had been established the prosecution witness gave “entirely fabricated evidence” which gave rise to a compelling inference of collusion between the witness and the complainant.