Minister defends role on O'Keeffe case costs

MINISTER FOR Education Batt O’Keeffe has defended his department’s role in the Louise O’Keeffe case.

“My department cannot sustain a position whereby persons can take cases against the State on the basis that, win or lose, they will get their costs,” he said.

“Our desire is to find a fair balance between the need to protect the taxpayer against costs incurred defending cases where the courts have decided that the State has no liability and to treat individuals humanely . . .’’

Earlier this month the Supreme Court refused to award the State its costs in a case taken against it by Ms O’Keeffe, who was abused as a child by a national school principal in Cork. She could have faced costs of up to €750,000.

The Minister said the case had been handled by the State claims agency. There had to be a court hearing in respect of costs, as the plaintiff had sought costs against the State. “The State was not found liable by the High Court or the Supreme Court,’’ he said.

“The Supreme Court was told by counsel for the State that while an award of costs against the plaintiff was being sought, the matter of enforcement would be treated with the greatest sensitivity.’’

He said his department had no involvement in the day-to-day management of national schools.

“Teachers are selected, appointed and employed by the school authorities, normally boards of management which are appointed by the patron,” he added.

“The judgment of the High Court, which was upheld in the Supreme Court, reflects the reality of the relationship that exists between the department, schools and teachers, essentially, as set out in the Education Act 1998 and, therefore, has no implications for Irish education.”

Fine Gael spokesman Brian Hayes asked why it was necessary to pursue Ms O’Keeffe for costs on the part of the State, whatever about her own costs.

“She is an exceptionally brave person who challenged a fundamental principle in Irish education,” said Mr Hayes.

The case had historical and legal precedent, he added.

“Is the Minister telling the House that neither he nor his department had any responsibility and that it was exclusively a matter for the State claims agency?,” said Mr Hayes.

“This case was very different from many others and its sensitivity was not lost on me,” said Mr O’Keeffe.

He said he had indicated early on that, as Minister, he would not pursue her, in terms of taking her house from under her feet, but would deal with the matter in a fair and even-handed manner.

He said about 140 similar cases were being taken against the State, and the agency had advised the legal representatives of those involved that they would have to consider the costs involved.