The High Court has awarded substantial legal costs, estimated at up to €1 million, to the Christian Brothers arising from its legal challenge to proposed procedures of the Investigation Committee of the Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse, writes Mary Carolan
Mr Justice Abbott was making final orders and declarations arising from his judgment of November last, which was further expanded on earlier this week, in the action by the congregation against the Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse, the Minister for Education and Science, Ireland and the Attorney General.
The commission, initially chaired by Ms Justice Laffoy, who resigned last year, was set up on a statutory basis in April 2000 under the Child Abuse Act, 2000 (the 2000 Act).
Ms Justice Laffoy has since been replaced as chairman of the commission by Mr Justice Ryan.
Mr Justice Abbott also granted two declarations to the congregation, including a declaration that the investigation committee was acting in excess of the provisions of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act, 2000, in not providing an interpretation of the terms of that Act relating to the corroboration and testing of evidence of witnesses.
He also declared that a requirement in the final ruling of the investigation committee of October 18th, 2002, and the committee's framework document were in excess of the provisions of the 2000 Act.
In the case of inquiries in relation to allegations of abuse against deceased and incapacitated persons, the committee had required the respondent to provide a written statement as a precondition to the right to cross-examine witnesses.
Because lawyers for the commission had, during the legal proceedings, clarified issues relating to the aggregation of evidence, the judge said he would not make a declaration that the committee's final ruling on the matter of aggregating evidence was invalid.
He noted that counsel for the commission had said that the committee, in reaching any conclusions adverse to a person or body, would only rely on evidence that would be admissible in a civil court as evidence of wrongdoing.
Evidence of wrongdoing in one instance would only be considered in respect of a separate instance if that evidence would be admissible in a civil court hearing a claim regarding that separate instance.
In all other respects, the judge declared that the actions of the commission were within the provisions of the 2000 Act.
While the Christian Brothers had failed in its legal bid to prevent the investigation committee making findings of abuse against deceased, elderly, infirm or untraceable members of the order, Mr Justice Abbott said the congregation, through its proceedings and its securing of declarations in relation to how the investigation committee should do its work, had effected "a sea change" in the way the committee would proceed.
The solution advanced by the court might not be the congregation's preferred solution, but the committee would now be proceeding in a different way and it would be entirely wrong to say the congregation was not substantially victorious in its claim, the judge added.
On that basis, and because the congregation's legal challenge raised matters of major public interest and as it had sought to have the commission address its concerns prior to taking legal proceedings, he granted an application by Ms Mary Irvine SC, with Ms Sara Moorehead, for the congregation, for costs of the challenge, which ran for five days before the High Court last year, against the commission.