IT IS “grossly utilitarian” to argue that the State, as a matter of public policy, should have no liability for the sexual abuse of children in national schools for the reason that this would lead to many other claims relating to events in national schools, it was argued in the the Supreme Court yesterday.
David Holland SC argued that the State and taxpayer benefited from the national school system of education, which was a public project, and it was “just and proper” that the State should pay the cost of the few children sexually abused while attending those schools. In those circumstances, he urged the five-judge court to discount the State’s claim that holding it vicariously liable for some 20 sexual assaults by school principal Leo Hickey on Louise O’Keeffe, when she was an eight-year-old pupil at Dunderrow National School, Co Cork, in 1973, would “open the floodgates” for claims.
Mr Holland was making submissions for Ms O’Keeffe (43), Thoam, Dunmanway, Co Cork, in her continuing appeal against the High Court’s decision in 2006 that the Minister for Education and State are not vicariously liable for the assaults on her.
The action is regarded as a test case with more than 200 similar cases awaiting its outcome.
A complaint was made in 1971 by another parent about Hickey to the acting school manager and local curate, Fr Ó Ceallaigh, but Hickey remained in his post, the court has heard.
Ms O’Keeffe is alleging the State is also vicariously liable for the failure of Fr Ó Ceallaigh to report the complaint to the Department of Education.
Mr Holland argued yesterday that a national schoolteacher was in the position of a responsible parent and was responsible for the broader formation, including moral and spiritual formation, of children.
In this case, the abuse occurred on school property during the teaching process and the duties entrusted to Hickey by the department gave him the opportunity to commit the abuse. The court should also not forget that a schoolmaster in rural Ireland was “a pillar of society” who exerted immense power over children.
The fact the State was obliged under the Constitution to provide for free primary education as opposed to directly supplying it did not affect the position, Mr Holland added.
