Court denies request to have information removed from Pulse

The wife of a former priest has been refused High Court orders directing the removal of material about her and her two children from the Garda Pulse database.

Gardaí were entitled to keep a computer record relating to allegations of historic child sex abuse against the former priest, Mr Justice Michael White ruled.

The man married sometime after leaving the priesthood in 1995.

The abuse allegations, involving alleged sex with two children, dated back to 1981.

The Pulse record states historical abuse allegations were made against the former priest and, as he now has two children, there “may be child protection issues”. The record also states he is considered to be such a low risk level the HSE would be entitled to close its file on him.

The wife claimed the refusal to erase the material breached her own, and her children’s privacy and family rights under the Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights.

The Garda Commissioner argued the Pulse record was factually accurate and not capable of causing any harm to the woman and children.

To properly conduct their functions, gardaí need to maintain an accurate record of incidents such as the making of a complaint, it was argued.

The Commissioner also argued the woman had a remedy under data protection laws and that her judicial review application was brought on the mistaken belief the Pulse record is inaccurate.

Rejecting her application, Mr Justice White said the record arose after a complaint was made by a woman to the former priest’s religious order that she had been abused by him as a child.

The order referred the matter to gardaí who notified the HSE in accordance with the government’s “Children First” guidelines and also conducted their own investigation. Statements were taken from two alleged victims who did not want to pursue the allegations.

The DPP also directed there should be no prosecution.

The HSE carried out its own investigation and an independent child welfare consultant concluded the husband was “at the lowest possible point of the low risk end of the scale for any repeat sexual abuse”, the judge said.

The consultant said the HSE was entitled to close the case but also said the Pulse database should be updated.

The woman sought the removal of the information entirely and took legal proceedings when that was refused.

Mr Justice White said the wife was not investigated, not referred to on Pulse, and there was no suggestion she colluded in any form of abuse.

The maintenance of a complete Pulse record which is factually accurate, and where access is limited to authorised officers, is not in itself harmful to the children, he said.

While the Commissioner’s insistence the Pulse record always had to be maintained may not be a proportionate response to a deletion request in all instances, in this case the interference with the woman’s private family life for the purpose of ruling out child protection issues was proportionate, he said.

Her fear that a garda could have unauthorised access to the record and use it for “nefarious purposes”, or in error, when Garda vetting is being carried out, is speculation and insufficient reason to order removal of the record, he said.

He also noted access is limited to an investigating officer, members of the domestic violence and sexual assault unit, Garda vetting, and to officers above the rank of inspector.