THE SUPREME Court has refused to award the State its legal costs in a case taken against it by a woman who was sexually abused by a national school principal, citing the special circumstances of an important test case.
Louise O’Keeffe could have faced costs of up to €750,000. There are about 200 other cases pending involving abuse by adults, many of them teachers paid by the State. Last December the Supreme Court ruled the State bore no vicarious liability for actions of the principal in this case because there was no employer/employee relationship, formal or substantive, between the teacher and the State.
She was abused by Leo Hickey in 1973 when aged eight, and several parents withdrew their children from the school. Hickey resigned in January 1974 and was then employed at a boys’ school in Ballincollig, Cork. He continued to teach until his recognition as a teacher was withdrawn after criminal proceedings were taken in the 1990s. He was jailed for three years in 1998 after pleading guilty to 21 sample charges of indecent assault on 21 girls.
Ms O’Keeffe yesterday described the court’s decision on costs as a “huge relief”, pointing out that her youngest child, now 11, was only six months old when her legal ordeal began.
“When you are facing the payment of costs of anything between €500,000 up to €1 million, you can well imagine the strain that puts on a household,” she said.
Yesterday Ms O’Keeffe recalled that “when the charges were made against Leo Hickey, I was not the first person who came forward. I got courage from others that did so – we are all cogs in the wheel. This whole ordeal has been handled badly and I felt strongly about that,” she said.
Her own legal costs are unknown as yet.
“I haven’t discussed costs with my legal team yet, but I plan to enjoy this time for a while, and to celebrate with my kids,” she said.
Ms O’Keeffe was awarded €53,000 in damages from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. She sued Hickey and the State in the High Court in 2006, but, while her action against Hickey was successful, the court rejected her claim against the State. She appealed this to the Supreme Court, which upheld Mr Justice de Valera’s ruling. It reserved judgment on costs.
Yesterday the five-judge court unanimously ruled there were exceptional reasons why the State should not secure its costs. These included the fact that this was a test case against a public body involving issues of relationships between a primary school teacher paid by the State, the employer who is manager of the school, the owner or trustee of the school and the minister for education.
Other factors included the fact there was a substantial volume of similar cases of sexual abuse of children by adults, a significant number of which involved teachers paid by the State.
The decision was welcomed by the One in Four organisation, which called on the Minister for Education to amend the law so that the State assumes full responsibility for the conduct of teachers in Irish schools.
“The Supreme Court ruling in December 2008 confirms that the local bishop and the board of management are the employers of the teaching staff. One in Four believes that the State must assume this function,’’ its executive director, Maeve Lewis, said.
A spokesperson for the Department of Education said each party would now cover its own costs in relation to the case.
Ruairí Quinn, Labour Party education spokesman, welcomed the refusal to award the State its costs in the case. “By highlighting the shocking abuse that she suffered, Louise O’Keeffe did the State some service, and shone a welcome light into some of the darkest recesses of the recent history of our education system.”
The Irish Primary Principals’ Network (IPPN), welcomed yesterday’s judgement saying it showed “humanity and empathy”.
Director of the IPPN Seán Cottrell said one of the central findings of the judgements was that “each of the 3,300 Boards of Management of primary schools, and not the State, that carries responsibility for the conduct of school employees”.
Larry Fleming, IPPN President said the case highlighted the need to ensure all Boards of Management are properly trained and resourced to carry out their full range of responsibilities.