The victims of the convicted child-abuser Donal Dunne, a former Christian Brother, will serve proceedings on the State within the coming weeks for damages arising from the abuse that took place in schools over a number of decades.
This follows protracted negotiations between lawyers for the victims and the Department of Education, seeking to have them included in the State compensation scheme established for the victims of institutional abuse.
These negotiations came to nothing, and last month in the Seanad the Minister for Education and Science, Dr Woods, said in relation to these victims: "The determination of responsibility can be more effectively carried out by the courts."
Dunne was jailed in 1998 for abusing children in a number of day schools in Dublin and the midlands in the 1960s. Between 1947 and 1985 he served in nine primary and two secondary schools and was moved from school to school following complaints.
In February 1999 the minister for education, Mr MichéalMartin, told the Dáil that the Department's response to complaints in 1982 had been "seriously lacking".
In May of that year the abuse of children in residential institutions was brought to light, and the Taoiseach apologised to victims and announced a Commission of Inquiry into Childhood Abuse. He also announced changes to the Statute of Limitations, to allow abuse victims to process their claims.
After some prompting from the commission, under the chairmanship of Ms Justice Laffoy, a compensation tribunal for victims was set up. But, while the terms of reference of the Laffoy Commission includes schools, that for the compensation tribunal does not.
This resulted in a number of letters between Dunne's victims and their lawyers, on the one hand, and the Department of Education and Science and Government politicians on the other, seeking a way for Dunne's victims to access compensation without the ordeal of a court case.
The central issue for the Department and the Government is that of liability. Dr Woods does not accept that the State has or had liability for what happened in primary schools, while acknowledging that it did have responsibility for residential institutions.
He explained in the Seanad on March 22nd: "The State . . . to a significant degree replaced parents as the natural protector and care-giver of the children concerned [in the institutions]. This placed a heavy responsibility on public bodies for their welfare.
"In the case of ordinary schools, public authorities did not have this level of responsibility and did not have the powers to intervene which they had in the case of residential institutions.
"The schools, to a very significant degree, were highly autonomous institutions for which the State had functions in respect of academic standards and professional teacher qualifications."
This point was echoed in a letter from the Tánaiste, Ms Harney, to one of the victims.
Proceedings were issued almost a year ago, but were on hold pending the outcome of the negotiations with the Department. They are now being proceeded with, and the victims will sue the State, the boards of management of the various schools, their principals and the perpetrator.
Mr James McGuill, solicitor for about 10 of the victims - there are an estimated 50 in all - told The Irish Times: "Given the probability that each will blame the offender, there will be a big exercise in discovery. That will cover the state of knowledge and the systems of control etc.
"We could be talking about another three years, with every step smothered in legalese, and the defendants denying everything - that the victims were at school at all, that they were abused, everything. It will be a long-drawn-out process, expensive and inappropriate to the type of people we're dealing with. The legal language will be almost as bad as the original abuse."
He points to a recent British case where the courts found that the state was liable for abuse in schools. In his Seanad speech the Minister stressed that the situation in Britain, where the schools are state-owned and state-run, was different.
Mr McGuill responded: "The State compels people to go to school. It selects, trains, pays and supervises the teachers. We could have dealt with this differently. We could have agreed not to put liability at issue, or to have private arbitration. There are only a limited number of cases."