Mr Justice Peter Kelly approved a settlement involving a package worth €6.3million for Grace, the non-verbal, intellectually disabled woman who is now in her 40s and who lived with an abusive foster family for 20 years, until 2009.
Grace lived in the home for almost 13 years after the local health board decided to stop placing children at the home in 1996. The decision to remove Grace came after the mother of a female service user claimed her daughter was sexually molested while she had spent a week on holiday/respite at Grace’s foster home.
The decision to reverse this decision to remove Grace occurred after a letter was sent by the foster father to then Minister for Health Michael Noonan in August, 1996.
The letter to Mr Noonan, which had been copied to the health board, appealed to the minister to “decide in their favour”.
Also in August 1996, MrNoonan received a letter from the principal of a school attended by the foster parents’ grandson, in which the principal wrote in support of Grace staying with the foster family.
The matter is the subject of a Commission of Investigation, chaired by SC Marjorie Farrelly, launched in March of this year.
Further to this…
RTE reports:
Mr Justice Peter Kelly approved a settlement involving a package of measures worth €6.3m for the woman referred to as ‘Grace’.
The Health Service Executive apologised to the woman in court for the failings in her care.
The failings included inadequate monitoring and oversight of her care and inadequate action to remove her from the foster home after significant concerns had been raised.
In its apology the HSE said the care she received fell short of the compassionate, caring and personalised support that she was entitled to.
It said the HSE had taken steps locally and nationally for continued service improvements, standards and safe care.
…Mr Justice Kelly said a decision had been made in 1996 to remove ‘Grace’ from the foster family. But he said that decision had been reversed by a three-person committee in the health board for reasons which remained a mystery to this day.
He said this was after representations were made by the foster parents to the then minister for health.
…He asked what extraordinary hold the foster family had over the health board officials who made the decision. He said if it was not for the fact that a commission of inquiry has been set up, he would have wanted answers to these questions.
Former CEO of Rehab Angela Kerins outside the High Court last July
Further to former CEO of Rehab Angela Kerins losing her High Court action against the Public Accounts Committee in January…
RTE reports:
Former CEO of the Rehab group Angela Kerins has asked the High Court not to award costs against her for her failed legal challenge to the Dáil’s Public Accounts Committee.
Lawyers for Ms Kerins told the three-judge divisional High Court the case was an “exceptional one”.
…This morning, lawyers for Ms Kerins began submissions in her application regarding costs of the action.
Senior Counsel John Rogers said he would be asking the court to depart from the norm where the losing party bears the costs of the action.
From top: Denis O’Brien leaving the High Court after giving evidence last week; an excerpt of Mr O’Brien’s witness statement given to the court
Mary Carolan, in The Irish Times, reports:
Businessman Denis O’Brien’s action over statements made by two TDs in the Dáil about his banking affairs has concluded at the High Court with judgment reserved.
Ms Justice Una Ní Raifeartaigh reserved judgment until the new year and said she would not finalise her decision until the High Court rules on the separate case of former Rehab chief executive Angela Kerins. That case raises some similar issues and judgment was reserved on it last October.
Protesters occupying buildings linked to 1916 on Moore Street, Dublin 1, in January
You may recall how protesters occupied buildings on Moore Street earlier this year.
They were attempting to prevent the demolition of certain buildings on either side of 14-17 Moore Street – which has been declared a national monument – claiming other buildings on the street also had historical significance and should be protected.
Newstalk reports:
The High Court has ruled that extra buildings are to be designated as national monuments on Dublin’s Moore Street.
Relatives of the signatories of the 1916 Proclamation had been trying to have a number of buildings added as national monuments.
The State had disputed the buildings had any link to the 1916 Rising.
Independent TD Michael Lowry has lost his High Court bid to stop his trial on mainly tax related charges.
The TD’s arguments for stopping his trial were “devoid of any substance”, Mr Justice Seamus Noonan said.
The judge today refused Mr Lowry’s application for orders restraining the DPP proceeding with the prosecution of the TD before Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.
He also refused to order the TD be tried in his native Co Tipperary rather than Dublin.
Alan Murphy and Kelly Gilsenan in the offices of South Dublin County Council, top, and Anti Austerity Alliance TD Paul Murphy, above, in the Dáil yesterday
Yesterday, during Leaders’ Questions, Anti Austerity Alliance TD Paul Murphy told the Dáil about homeless Dublin couple, Alan Murphy and Kelly Gilsenan, who camped out at the offices of South Dublin County Council in protest over their accommodation situation.
The council subsequently sought an injunction from the High Court so that the couple could be removed from the offices.
Yesterday, the High Court was told Alan and Kelly had been moved up the local authority housing list.
However South Dublin County Council told the court it wasn’t sure when Kelly and Alan – who has a six-year-old son with asthma – would be housed as there are 8,500 people on its housing list.
From yesterday’s Leaders’ Questions…
Murphy: “Today, a young couple, Alan Murphy and Kelly Gilsenan, are before the High Court. They are not before the court because they committed a heinous crime, but because they are homeless. They are homeless due to the decisions of this Government. The Government has shown the same disregard to people on rent supplement, who are facing massive hikes in rent, as it has shown to lone parents.”
“Alan suffers from serious epilepsy. He was in a coma in Tallaght hospital and had to quit his job. Kelly is now his full-time carer. They are two of the nicest people one could meet. Their previous landlord sold their house so they were forced to move out. Like many others, they did everything they could to find somewhere else to live. However, they simply could not find a landlord who would accept rent supplement or a rent they could afford. As no suitable accommodation was offered by South Dublin County Council, like others they were forced to sleep in a tent. They decided to bring the problem to the council’s door by sleeping in its offices overnight a couple of weeks ago. The council went to the High Court to seek an injunction to force them out of the offices. Is this what we have come to? Does the Tánaiste stand over a situation where councils are going to the High Court to seek injunctions against homeless people because they do not have sufficient emergency accommodation for them?”
“Since a court case a week and a half ago, the couple have been sleeping in a tent in Sean Walsh Memorial Park. They have also stayed in emergency accommodation. The conditions in the emergency accommodation are horrific. In the first place they stayed, the entrance was blocked with rubbish, the mattresses were covered in urine and mould was growing on the windows. In the next place, there was vomit and food on the floor and unwashed mattresses. Alan and Kelly are not criminals. They are simply homeless as a result of decisions made not by them but by others. However, they are treated like criminals. Their situation, as Alan described it to me yesterday, is like an open prison, with curfews, no cooking facilities and no individual freedom. They are not alone. There are 3,000 people in a similar situation, 1,000 of whom are children. The Tánaiste is responsible for a significant part of this problem by refusing to increase the rent supplement caps while also refusing to introduce rent controls. Will she now review this decision?”
“Meanwhile, there is a hole of €18.5 million in Dublin city’s budget for homelessness services. Will the Government give a commitment to fill that hole? Will it investigate the conditions in emergency accommodation and commit itself to improving them? Finally, will the Tánaiste take note of the housing activists who have taken matters in their own hands? They have taken over a hostel owned by Dublin City Council on Bolton Street, which was just left there. They have refurbished it and are opening it to house homeless people. If they can do that with no resources and as volunteers, given the hundreds of empty NAMA properties throughout the State and in south Dublin why cannot the State take the same action to provide emergency accommodation and social and affordable housing?”
Joan Burton: “First, with regard to Alan and Kelly, if the Deputy has been advising them as constituents, I strongly suggest that he ask them to get in touch with the community welfare service in the area. That has been the consistent advice to people in housing difficulties. They should go and talk to the community welfare service, which has complete discretion with regard to the amount of rent that may be paid. At this point, there have been well over 1,000 cases dealt with by the community welfare service. A total of 1,200 cases are in the Dublin local authority areas and 700 to 800 are throughout the rest of the country. I am surprised if the Deputy has been dealing with the case, as I would hope he would advise the couple to contact the community welfare service….”
“RTÉ had argued there was no point anymore in this injunction, that everything was in the public domain and the effect of the order continuing was like holding a sword of Damocles over RTE and the entire media.
The judge [Donald Binchy] disagreed, he said today in this 11-page judgement that the court was being asked to lift orders in relation to documentation and information which was unknown and which may or may not already be in the public domain.
Now lawyers for Denis O’Brien were, he noted, no longer objecting to the broadcast or publication of the proposed script because much of that is in the public domain but lawyers for IBRC say some of the script contains legal advice and they were claiming legal professional privilege over that but, firstly, Mr Justice Binchy said that the court was also being asked to recognise that RTÉ had acted responsibly to date and to accept that there was no reason why it would not continue to do so.
And he said that it was indeed the case that RTE had acted responsibly and it was reasonable for the broadcaster to make this application. But notwithstanding the developments which he described as dramatic, he said it did not follow that the court order should not be continued in relation to information that has not yet come into the public domain. ”
He said, on the contrary, the rationale of the original decision of the court still applies in relation to any documentation or information that has not yet come into the public domain and, interestingly Seán, he also said that the defendant, that’s RTÉ, continues to hold confidential information and documents belonging to the plaintiffs, that’s Denis O’Brien and IBRC, and has declined to identify that documentation, in its possession and he said that the plaintiffs had established a convincing case that this documentation is the subject of a right of confidence and if the case proceeds to a full trial and if the plaintiffs succeed, he said, they will obtain orders requiring the return of that documentation aswell as permanent injunctions regarding publication of that information.”
[Denis O’Brien’s lawyers] were saying that, while the information contained in the proposed script was now in the public domain that RTÉ was still in possession of other information and did not say what that information was and they said that the terms of the injunction went beyond simply what the proposed script was.
And the judge agreed and said that the plaintiff shouldn’t have to rely on the good intentions of RTÉ and it wasn’t unreasonable to infer that RTÉ wanted to leave open the possibility that it might want to publish information concerning Mr O’Brien between now and a full hearing of this matter unless restrained from a court by doing so. And he said it wouldn’t be appropriate to vacate the existing order but instead, the correct course of action to take was to amend the order to take account of developments since it was originally made.”
Judge Donal Binchy’s written judgment released today giving his reasons for granting an injunction to Denis O’Brien and Irish Bank Resolution Corporation against RTÉ.
“What is particularly curious is that Deputy Murphy is persistent in her claims even though I have made clear that what she is saying is untrue and she has repeatedly made erroneous and untruthful statements about my banking relationship.”
