Sunday, April 02, 2006
To gamble or not To gamble
Liam Fay wrote this in this mornings SundayTimes (SEE BELOW)
and I do agree with him.Taking a case aganist anyone is a gamble even when its the state,everyone knows and is WARNED about the risk.the state will not pay my costs and that of
anyone else' that lose their claims against them,I do feel sorry for Louise o' Keeffe and the many many other people like her ....But this is THE REALITY when you fail in court cases you can lose everything.
The real issue for me here is who in law is responsible for my children while they are in school, and why is it not the state.
Comment: Liam Fay
Truth of O'Keeffe case is mired in cynical politics
Louise OÂKeeffe is a fortunate woman. Given the appalling sexual abuse that shattered her childhood, this may seem an insensitive, if not senseless, comment. Following her failed civil action against the department of education, however, OÂKeeffe has been lucky  her plight has been adopted as a political cause célèbre.
As often happens when stories disappear into the headlines, the details of the OÂKeeffe case have been lost in transit. According to popular perception, she is simply the separated mother-of-two who is being pursued by the state for a legal bill of Â500,000, a blameless victim fighting a heartless system.
This image has been cultivated primarily by the outpourings of politicians, all of them eager to prove their humanitarian credentials. Demands that the state waive its costs have been led by LabourÂs Jan OÂSullivan and Fine GaelÂs Olwyn Enright, and echoed by several government deputies.
Naturally, the media has joined the plaintive chorus, making the governmentÂs refusal to drop its legal bill seem callous. Actually it isnÂt. The truth is that OÂKeeffe took an informed gamble, and lost.
As an eight-year-old in 1973, she was abused repeatedly by Leo Hickey, her teacher at a Cork school. Having admitted numerous indecent assaults, Hickey was jailed for three years in 1998. OÂKeeffe subsequently secured Â54,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation tribunal, on condition that it be repaid from any further damages she received.
In 2004, she took High Court proceedings against Hickey and the state, which she claimed was vicariously responsible for his actions. The amount of damages to be paid by Hickey to OÂKeeffe has yet to be assessed. But the High Court rejected her claim of state responsibility, and was therefore compelled to award costs against her.
In taking her High Court action, OÂKeeffe was clearly aware of the risks. Had she sued the Bishop of Cork and Ross, under whose patronage the school was run, she would probably have won, but received limited damages. By targeting the state, she and her lawyers were making a financial, as well as legal, calculation.
The fact that these pertinent realities are so routinely overlooked in favour of emotive grandstanding suggests that our politicians are still playing games with the issue of child sex abuse.
and I do agree with him.Taking a case aganist anyone is a gamble even when its the state,everyone knows and is WARNED about the risk.the state will not pay my costs and that of
anyone else' that lose their claims against them,I do feel sorry for Louise o' Keeffe and the many many other people like her ....But this is THE REALITY when you fail in court cases you can lose everything.
The real issue for me here is who in law is responsible for my children while they are in school, and why is it not the state.
Comment: Liam Fay
Truth of O'Keeffe case is mired in cynical politics
Louise OÂKeeffe is a fortunate woman. Given the appalling sexual abuse that shattered her childhood, this may seem an insensitive, if not senseless, comment. Following her failed civil action against the department of education, however, OÂKeeffe has been lucky  her plight has been adopted as a political cause célèbre.
As often happens when stories disappear into the headlines, the details of the OÂKeeffe case have been lost in transit. According to popular perception, she is simply the separated mother-of-two who is being pursued by the state for a legal bill of Â500,000, a blameless victim fighting a heartless system.
This image has been cultivated primarily by the outpourings of politicians, all of them eager to prove their humanitarian credentials. Demands that the state waive its costs have been led by LabourÂs Jan OÂSullivan and Fine GaelÂs Olwyn Enright, and echoed by several government deputies.
Naturally, the media has joined the plaintive chorus, making the governmentÂs refusal to drop its legal bill seem callous. Actually it isnÂt. The truth is that OÂKeeffe took an informed gamble, and lost.
As an eight-year-old in 1973, she was abused repeatedly by Leo Hickey, her teacher at a Cork school. Having admitted numerous indecent assaults, Hickey was jailed for three years in 1998. OÂKeeffe subsequently secured Â54,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation tribunal, on condition that it be repaid from any further damages she received.
In 2004, she took High Court proceedings against Hickey and the state, which she claimed was vicariously responsible for his actions. The amount of damages to be paid by Hickey to OÂKeeffe has yet to be assessed. But the High Court rejected her claim of state responsibility, and was therefore compelled to award costs against her.
In taking her High Court action, OÂKeeffe was clearly aware of the risks. Had she sued the Bishop of Cork and Ross, under whose patronage the school was run, she would probably have won, but received limited damages. By targeting the state, she and her lawyers were making a financial, as well as legal, calculation.
The fact that these pertinent realities are so routinely overlooked in favour of emotive grandstanding suggests that our politicians are still playing games with the issue of child sex abuse.
