Judge Kieran O'Connor seemed surprised last week when the victims of swimming coach Derry O'Rourke wanted to describe their abuse when it was rendered legally unnecessary by his pleading guilty. But they persisted, and stated in public what he had done, and how he had ruined their lives.

Sophia and Gerard McColgan, along with their siblings, voluntarily gave up the anonymity to which they were entitled when they went to court to accuse Dr Desmond Moran and the North Western Health Board of failing to prevent their abuse at the hands of their father. Their counsel, Mr James Nugent, said the case itself was part of the healing process for the victims.

It ended with a settlement in which each of the four children received a six-figure sum. Sophia McColgan said: "This [the case] is for all victims." Her brother, Gerry, said they had received thousands of letters from other victims during the case, and he told them: "Hold your heads high."

Some of the destruction of self-esteem experienced by victims of child sex abuse stems from the fact that they may not have been believed. Describing the abuse in court, especially in a case in which an abuser is convicted or which ends in the vindication of the plaintiff in a settlement, represents a personal vindication.

The McColgans and the young women abused by O'Rourke were expressing the need of victims of abuse to regain publicly the dignity and sense of worth of which they were robbed. But this need offers a challenge to the legal system.

Those taking civil cases related to sex abuse in their childhood will come up against the statute of limitations, which limits the time lapse in which such a case can be taken. Criminal cases may also run into problems if the abuse took place a long time ago, and the accused can demonstrate a material disadvantage to his case as a result.

A guilty plea means that the victims do not have to give evidence, and do not have to face cross-examination by defence lawyers for the accused, which could prove very painful. However, it also robs victims of an opportunity to confront their abuser.

The importance of this to victims is revealed by recent cases. It was also brought home to me during the McColgan case, when a friend of mine came to the court to offer his support to the family. His wife, who died a few years ago, had also been an abuse victim. He brought with him some writings of hers in which she described this need for an acknowledgement of the violation, and her story expresses better than any observer could why victims have to be heard.

Sabina (not her real name) was sexually abused and tortured by her sister's boyfriend, later husband, when she was about eight years old. "He would issue threats of a very violent nature against me, and when I didn't obey his wishes he would carry out these threats against me," she wrote. "One threat was to cut my body slowly with a hot penknife. I broke under most of the other threats . . .

"I am particularly concerned that it is understood that the damage from acts of calculated violence is far-reaching in that the victim is likely to suffer deep and often unmentionable effects as a child, teenager and adult.

"To mention a few suffered by myself - multiple personalities, bouts of alcohol consumption to the point of feeling suicidal, depression and elation, nervous breakdown, long periods of life spent alone in self-imposed isolation from human beings due to mistrust and disbelief in humanity, discarding friendships like a spoilt child throws away sweet papers, inability to see the difference between reality and fantasy . . . I have lived most of my life in a state of fear."

Her abuser was arrested, tried and convicted when she was still a child. But this did not end her anguish, and she suffered from psychiatric problems all her life.

After years of counselling she resolved to confront her abuser by suing him for damages, but she was advised that she would face the difficulty of the statute of limitations, which rules out the taking of civil action after a certain lapse of time from when the alleged wrong occurred. This was the first obstacle raised in Sophia McColgan's case, and several days were given over to evidence on the impact of such abuse on the ability of the victim to take action against his or her abuser.

Sabina was intent on going to the European Court of Human Rights, if necessary, in order to obtain the right to bring a court case where she could confront this man as an adult.

She expressed it as follows: "It is my intention to ask him in a public court to see my psychiatrist and submit his personality for observation . . . I think it would be the least [my abuser] could do for humanity . . .

"I also want to ask [my abuser] in a public court to do the most important thing he could ever do in his whole life, and that is to take responsibility for his actions, take responsibility for the infliction of pain upon innocence. Until society brings people like [my abuser] in from the cold our children haven't a hope in hell . . .

"It is also my intention to take a civil action against my abuser as a symbolic gesture to women. I think if women had this basic civil right available to them it would alter a number of realities. It would bring dignity to an otherwise insane situation in that women suffering any of the effects I've mentioned earlier would be in a position to receive some financial relief to assist them in getting therapy . . ."

She never got her case to court. Three years ago, overwhelmed by the suffering she still bore, she took her own life. It is impossible to guess whether she would still have done so if she had found it easy to sue her abuser and confront him in court.

But the evidence already given in the McColgan case should be sufficient to justify a change in the law to allow victims of abuse confront in court their abusers, or those who, directly or indirectly, may have protected them.

Where the abuser pleads guilty in a criminal trial a possible solution to the dilemma faced by abuse victims - who are not then required to give evidence - would be to allow them to describe the abuse after conviction, but before sentencing. This could supplement the victim impact statements which are used in some cases to assist a judge in his sentencing.