BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

1. On the 19th of June, 1998 the Plaintiff herein issued a Plenary Summons against the above named Defendants in which he claims damages for personal injuries, loss and damage sustained by him and occasioned by reason of the assault, negligence, breach of duty including breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the Defendants or any or either or all of them and their respective servants and or agents.

2. The Plaintiff alleges that on or about the 1st of September, 1991 when attending at confession in a room at the Shrine in Knock County Mayo he was sexually assaulted by a priest.

3. His father and mother also attended the same confessor on the same day. The identity of the priest is presently unknown to the Plaintiff and to his parents. A garda investigation has taken place. Names and photographs of the priests hearing confessions on the 1st of September, 1991 have been furnished to the Gardai. The Garda investigation I understand is now complete and no criminal proceedings are contemplated.

4. The Defendants are sued in their representative capacity as representing the priests of the diocese, the first named Defendant as Archbishop of the diocese and the second named Defendant as Parish Priest of Knock.

5. The Defendants are joined in this action as tortfeasors. The allegation against them is that they were negligent in permitting a priest who was a paedophile to hear confessions at the Shrine in Knock. In other words that they facilitated in the wrong doing of the offending priest.

6. I am satisfied that the Plaintiff can establish a prima facie case against the Defendants. There is a prima facie case of wrong doing against them and they may well fit into the category of joint tortfeasors.

7. There is in existence a list of the names of all priests who heard confessions at the Shrine on the 1st of September, 1991. There are as many as 43 to 45 names on that list.

8. If the list were to be made available to the Plaintiff’s mother it is possible that this would enable her to refresh her memory as to the name of the priest which she presently cannot recollect but which name was on the door of the confessional. If this list of names was made available to the Plaintiff’s mother it would, if she is able to select a name, then eliminate all the other names from the inquiry.

9. Mr. Paul Gardiner Senior Counsel who appears on behalf of the Defendants submitted to me that the Defendants are not aware of the identity of any wrongdoer and that the Defendants could not in the circumstances identity the name of the wrongdoer.

10. However it is possible that the Plaintiff’s mother may or may not be able to identify the wrongdoer if and when she goes through the list of 45 names.

11. I am disposed to make an Order pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Notice of Motion that is that the Defendants should make discovery on oath to the Plaintiff of the names and identities of those persons in holy orders who were engaged in the administration of the sacrament of confession in the Roman Catholic Shrine at Knock County Mayo on the 1st of September, 1991.

12. I suggest that this list should be made available to the Plaintiff’s mother in the presence of a Solicitor for the Plaintiff and in the presence of a Solicitor for the Defendants and that she the mother should be given sufficient time to peruse this list and to nominate if she is able to do so, the name of the priest whom she recollects as being on the door of the confessional on the 1st of September, 1991.

13. If the Plaintiff’s mother can identify a name then there is liberty to the Plaintiff to bring an application to the Court in respect of orders pursuant to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Notice of Motion dated the 14th of July, 1999.

14. I am making an order that the costs of this application be reserved for the trial.

15. Dated the 18th of July, 2000.

16. I am reluctant to amend the order which I have originally made in this case on the 26th of May, 2000. It is now alleged by the Defendants that the Plainitff’s mother had in fact named a priest in a statement which she made to an Garda Siochana in the course of the Garda investigation. It seems to me that if the name selected by her from the list which is to be provided for her does not correspond to the name given by her to the Gardai that that should be the end of the matter. However I am of the view that that is a matter for the Judge and if appropriate a jury to assess at the trial of the action.