High Court awards damages for sexual abuse by teacher, rejecting CICT payment offset and granting exemplary damages.

This judgment is circulated in a redacted form to avoid identification of the parties

Neutral Citation Number: [2006] IEHC 393

THE HIGH COURT

[1998/10555 P]

BETWEEN

L. O’K.

PLAINTIFF

AND

L. H., THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEFENDANTS

Judgment of Mr. Justice de Valera delivered on the 24th day of October, 2006.

Damages

1. The plaintiff obtained judgment against the first defendant on the 8th day of November, 1999 and the defendant did not seek to

appear nor was he represented at the subsequent hearing between the plaintiff and the second, third and fourth defendants which

was heard in the High Court in Dublin commencing on the 3rd day of March, 2004.

2. I am now asked to measure the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled against the first defendant.

Special Damages

3. A figure of €5,104 was claimed by the plaintiff against the defendants and agreed between the plaintiff and the second, third and

fourth defendants (subject to liability). I am satisfied on the evidence that this is an appropriate amount to award the plaintiff under

this heading against the first defendant.

General Damages

4. In deciding on the appropriate figure for general damages I am accepting the evidence of the plaintiff herself and that of Dr.

O’Leary, her psychiatrist.

5. Since the sexual assaults on the plaintiff when she was a little girl her life has been blighted and I am satisfied on the evidence

that the sexual abuse that she suffered has been, as described by Dr. O’Leary:

“quite intrusive in her life… and still is to the present date”.

6. Sexual abuse of the kind suffered by the plaintiff is extremely emotive and I must ensure in measuring damages that such

measurement is carried out dispassionately and judicially.

7. There have been a number of cases in the recent past in which juries awarded sums in the region of €1,000,000 for injuries arising

out of the sexual abuse of young children but the Supreme Court has made it clear that these are excessively high figures.

8. The Supreme Court has laid down guidelines in decisions such as Gough v. Neary [2003] 3 I.R. p. 92 in relation to the limit of

damages in personal injury actions, of which this is one, and that limit appears to be somewhere in the region of €400,000 and this for

what are described as “catastrophic injury” cases.

9. In deciding on the appropriate amount of general damages in L. O’K.’s situation I must maintain a proportionality between the limits

set down by the Supreme Court and the severity of the damage to the plaintiff herself.

10. In these circumstances I believe that the appropriate figure is €200,000 being made up as to €150,000 for general damages to the

date of trial and €50,000 for general damages into the future.

Aggravated and Exemplary Damages

11. It has been urged upon me, and I accept, by counsel for the plaintiff that I should also consider making awards under the heading

of aggravated and exemplary damages. Among the matters which I should take into consideration when considering aggravated

damages is the manner in which the wrong was committed, the conduct of the wrongdoer after the commission of the offence and

the conduct of the wrongdoer in the defence of the action up to and including the trial of the action. In this matter the first

defendant has refused to take any part in the trial and I am satisfied that I am entitled to take this into consideration as well as his

behaviour at the criminal trial which was the “trigger” for L. O’K. in initiating this action.

12. I am also entitled to take into consideration the nature of the wrong committed by the first defendant and a sexual assault by a

teacher on one of his young pupils is a matter which must excite the “proper indignation of the public” per McCarthy J. in the Supreme

Court decision McIntyre v. Lewis [1991] 1 I.R. 121 which was followed by McCracken J. in the High Court decision Crofter Properties

v. Genport Limited [2002] 4 I.R. 73 and award a sum for exemplary damages.

13. Under the headings aggravated damages and exemplary damages, therefore, I award a sum of €50,000 under each heading.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal

14. In 2002, L. O’K. was awarded, and accepted, €33,962.24 as an ex gratia payment for compensation from the CICT. I am satisfied

that it should not be taken into consideration in respect of her action against the first named defendant herein.

Total Damages

15. Therefore I award the plaintiff arising out of the judgment obtained by her against the first named defendant the sum of

€305,104.