Priest fails to prevent sex assault case

A Franciscan priest has failed in his application to prevent the DPP proceeding with his prosecution on nine charges of indecent assault on a young girl. It is claimed the priest first abused the girl while hearing her Confession. Following the alleged assaults which relate to periods from 1981 to 1982 and to 1987, it is claimed the girl developed a drink problem, anorexia, depression requiring hospitalisation and had a nervous breakdown in her late 20s. She claims she had to leave school at 15 because of bad concentration and disruptive behaviour due to alcohol abuse.

She claims the first incident of abuse occurred when she became upset at the age of 13 or 14 when talking to the priest in Confession about her father's drinking. She claims he took her around the screen, put her on his knee, locked the door and sexually abused her and then gave her 10 Hail Marys as her penance.

Now in her early 30s, she has claimed she did not disclose the alleged abuse for many years because she was afraid of the priest who had told her that "God will punish you" if she reported the alleged incidents.

The priest has denied the allegations.

In the High Court yesterday, Mr Justice O'Sullivan refused to grant the priest, now in his early 60s, an order prohibiting the DPP from taking any further steps in his prosecution on indecent assault charges.

The priest had argued he was entitled to an order of prohibition because of the delay in reporting the alleged offences. i until 1995. The priest claimed the delay created a real risk of an unfair trial and had deprived him of a crucial witness who was now dead.

The priest had sought an additional order requiring the DPP to procure the reports and records of a psychiatrist who treated the girl. The judge found the priest was entitled to the reports and Mr Maurice Gaffney SC, for the DPP, undertook to procure them for the priest.

In his judgment, Mr Justice O'Sullivan said the girl had developed an alcohol problem about the age of 13, soon after the first alleged incident of abuse in the friary. The girl alleged the abuse had continued until she left the choir at the age of 15 and occurred again in 1987.

The girl said the priest would call to her home and developed a good relationship with her parents who believed he was keeping her on "the straight and narrow". The girl alleged the priest would call to her home on Saturday evenings when her parents were out and abuse her there.

The girl moved out of home around 1983 and in 1989 told her boyfriend of the alleged abuse. Her boyfriend suggested she report it. She had a nervous breakdown following this disclosure and was reluctant to report the matter. She said she was terrified of the priest and felt no one would believe her.

She did not report the alleged abuse until 1995 when her boyfriend disclosed it to another Franciscan priest after, it was claimed, the alleged abuser had called to their home. She ultimately told both the Franciscans and the gardai. The priest was returned for trial in 1997.

The judge noted the priest had denied the allegations of abuse as false and "deeply hurtful" and said he was shocked by them. He had said he was friendly with the girl and her parents and had given the girl a book on the facts of life because she was mixing with "rough company".

The judge said he considered the priest to be in a position of dominance over the girl and that he had exercised this in a powerful and insidious way. He was a priest, 30 years older than the girl, her confessor, a friend of her parents and trusted to such an extent the girl's mother was not suspicious when her daughter told her not to let the priest into the house and to tell him she was not at home.

The judge said there was nothing in this case to distinguish it from others where the courts had refused to grant orders of prohibition. He accepted delay and lack of specificity in the charges could cause problems for both the prosecution and defence but this was not sufficient to secure an order of prohibition.