A NORTHERN Ireland woman who was a victim of sexual abuse by the priest Brendan Smyth cannot sue the State for damages, the High Court decided yesterday.
The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Costello, was giving judgment on a preliminary issue on whether the Attorney General had a duty to speedily process warrants issued by the RUC for Smyth's extradition from the Republic.
The judge said he believed neither the AG nor the Government owed any duty of care to the woman It had been claimed that the state should be made responsible for the failure of the AG to speedily process extradition warrants in 1993.
The handling of the extradition application by the AG's office provoked a political storm in November 1994, and led to the collapse of the Fianna Fail/Labour coalition government.
It is expected that the woman, now in her 20s, will appeal yesterday's decision to the Supreme Court.
Mr Justice Costello, in his reserved judgment, said that on April 23rd, 1993, nine warrants for the arrest of Smyth were issued in Northern Ireland. They related to sexual offences alleged to have been committed by him in the North between 1982 and 1987.
The warrants were forwarded to the Garda Commissioner. Smyth was resident in the Republic at the time. The Commissioner forwarded the warrants to the office of the AG, where they were received on April 30th, 1993.
Under the Extradition Act, 1965, the AG had to direct the Commissioner not to endorse the warrants unless the AG believed there was a clear intention to prosecute or to continue the prosecution of the person; and that such an intention was founded upon sufficient evidence.
The woman in the proceedings and other members of her family and relatives had been victims of Smyth's sexual crimes to which the warrants related.
Before the AG had given any direction to the Commissioner about the warrants, the AG's office was informed on December 6th, 1993, that the priest intended to return to the North to stand trial on the charges referred to in the warrants.
Smyth did so on January 21st 1994, when he appeared at Belfast Magistrates Court. On June 28th, 1994, he was convicted at Belfast Crown Court of 17 charges of sexual abuse, in respect of some of which the plaintiff had been a victim. He was sentenced to four years.
By summons of June 1st, 1995 the woman instituted proceedings. She pleaded that the AG owed her a duty of care or constitutional obligation to consider the execution requests and speedily to process them to ensure Smyth was quickly brought to justice.
She claimed the failure to "endorse the warrants for execution and the delays in bringing the accused to trial" caused her enormous shock and distress.
The continuing emotional upset and stress and consequential, psychiatric problems caused by the sexual abuse were greatly aggravated by the AG's failure to take adequate steps to endorse the warrants for execution and bring the perpetrator of the offences to justice.
She claimed damages for personal injuries.
Mr Justice Costello said the 1965 Act, as amended, imposed no statutory duty on the AG to victims of the crimes referred to in the warrant which he was required to consider. The statute imposed a function on him, not a duty or a power.
The AG's statutory function was to consider whether there was a clear intention by the Northern Ireland authorities to prosecute the person named in the warrant for the offences with which he was charged and to consider whether such an intention, if it existed, was founded on sufficient evidence.
Having satisfied himself on those points, he was then required to decide whether to give a direction to the Commissioner. His function was a professional one.
In considering whether there was a clear intention to prosecute, the circumstances of the victim of the crime were in no way relevant. Likewise, in considering whether the intention to prosecute was founded on sufficient evidence, the victim's circumstances were again in no way relevant.
The statute conferred a public professional function on the AG, which created no relationship between him and the victims of the crimes referred to in the warrants he was considering.
He said that even if there had been a sufficient relationship of proximity between the AG and the plaintiff and even if the kind of injury of which she complained was reasonably foreseeable, it would be contrary to public policy to impose a duty of care on the AG.
Mr Justice Costello also rejected a submission that the State owed the woman a constitutional duty or obligation under Articles 40.3 or 41 or otherwise to consider the extradition request and process it speedily.