Louise O'Keeffe redress scheme
Micheál Martin condemned the handling of the Louise O’Keeffe case and argued victims were being cruelly treated by a redress scheme that would reject them for lack of prior complaint. The Taoiseach said the judgment was under review, acknowledged the scheme was not working if all applicants were rejected, and said the judgment would be reviewed.
On several occasions, I have raised with the Taoiseach and the former and current Ministers for Education and Skills, Deputies Bruton and McHugh, the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR, judgment in the Louise O'Keeffe case and its aftermath and the degree to which victims have been shamefully, cynically and cruelly treated by the Government in recent years. The ultimate cruelty is to announce a redress scheme knowing that in effect the victims will never pass the test of prior complaint. That is the cruellest thing to do to any victim of sexual abuse and someone who has been through that trauma. Essentially, that is what has happened despite it having been pointed out to the Taoiseach and to the Minister time and again.
When will Mr. Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill's report be published and sent to the Minister? When will the issue of prior complaint be removed once and for all? It is an appalling insult to suggest that the only way a person is worthy of inclusion in a redress scheme is for someone who had been abused previously to have reported it to the authorities. It is reprehensible.
Comment on this
There is no worse crime than one against a child and there is no worse form of crime or a crime that is more unspeakable than child abuse. On this particular issue Mr. Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill is examining about 20 cases and the wider issue as to whether the interpretation of the Louise O'Keeffe judgment is too narrow. I do not have a date yet for that but I have requested one. I understand there may be a separate judicial review which may hold up Mr. Justice O'Neill's work. I appreciate what the Deputy is saying. A scheme in which all applicants are rejected is one which is not working. We need to review that and Mr. Justice O'Neill is reviewing the issues for us. Fundamentally what is behind this is whether the State could have acted in some way and did not do so. I do not have the term which is used to hand but it is on the basis of a failure to act when it could have done so.
Comment on this
The ECHR judgment was on the basis of a systemic failure by the State.