Damages for rape victim over newspaper article

A RAPE VICTIM'S case against the Sunday Worldhas been settled and the newspaper has apologised unreservedly for distress caused by an article published in 2007.

Lavinia Kerwick will receive substantial High Court damages, it is understood.

Ms Kerwick was raped in 1991 when she was 18. She waived her right to anonymity in order to describe the impact of having been raped after the defendant in the case received a nine-year suspended sentence.

Her combined libel, privacy and personal injury proceedings against the Sunday Worldwere settled ahead of a High Court sitting in Clonskeagh yesterday before Mr Justice Paul Gilligan.

Ms Kerwick had sought damages from Sunday Newspapers Ltd, trading as the Sunday World, over an article she said defamed her, breached her privacy and inflicted emotional distress on her.

Ms Kerwick was represented by Michael O’Higgins SC who yesterday told Mr Justice Gilligan that he was pleased to say the case had been settled and that an apology would be read to the court.

The statement was read by Eoin McCullough SC for the Sunday World.

"In December 2007, the Sunday Worldpublished an article following the appointment of a man to a school board who had previously been convicted of the rape of Lavinia Kerwick some 16 years previously," he said.

“Lavinia Kerwick had waived her right to anonymity to highlight what she perceived as the wholly inadequate sentence handed down to the perpetrator.”

Mr McCullough said Ms Kerwick’s actions had received widespread support and brought about changes in the law which allowed victims to be heard at sentence hearings and for the DPP to appeal sentences which were unduly lenient.

"The Sunday Worldhas always acknowledged, and now wishes to reiterate, that her actions showed great personal courage and resolve and brought about enormous benefits to victims of rape, the effects of which are still being felt today," he said.

Mr McCullough said the article in question made reference to some of the difficulties which Ms Kerwick experienced in the aftermath of the case and also passed comment on her circumstances in 2007.

“The article was the subject of considerable distress to Lavinia Kerwick and her son and we wish to apologise unreservedly to Lavinia Kerwick for this and to wish her well for the future,” he said.

The week before last, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne ruled that the abolition of juries in personal injury cases meant Ms Kerwick was not entitled to have her proceedings heard before a jury.