THE HEARING of a High Court action against Cardinal Seán Brady and others arising from sex abuse claims against the late Fr Brendan Smyth has been specially fixed for July 13th next. The case is expected to last two weeks.The action, brought by a woman who alleges she was abused by Fr Smyth, since deceased, was mentioned before Mr Justice John Quirke briefly yesterday via an application for a hearing date.
Counsel for Cardinal Brady agreed to the hearing date subject to his side receiving information.
Liam Reidy, for the woman, said the case related to Fr Smyth’s sexual abuse of her between 1970 and 1975.
The proceedings are against Gerard Cusack, as principal of the Norbertine Order, of which Fr Smyth was a member; Bishop Philip Leo O’Reilly, of the Lismore diocese, in his capacity as the alleged relevant bishop for the Norbertine Order; and Cardinal Brady.
Counsel for Bishop O’Reilly said there was an issue of whether his client had any responsibility for the Norbertine Order.
Mr Reidy said the proceedings had been issued in 1997 and, on discovery that Cardinal Brady had influence in an investigation of the conduct of Smyth in 1975, he was joined in his personal capacity in December last.
Mr Reidy said the hearing date application was consented to by the other defendants, but he understood counsel for Cardinal Brady was objecting.
Mr Reidy said he wanted the case to be fixed for July 13th because his side believed a notice for particulars, seeking further discovery of documents, was being sought as a delaying tactic.
Insofar as his side could do so, they would provide the particulars sought in the interim, he added.
Maurice Collins, for Cardinal Brady, said his client was not at all responsible for the “leisurely pace” of the case to date, and he rejected the suggestion of delaying tactics.
His side had received no response to a notice for particulars which was essential if the case was to go ahead, counsel said.
Counsel said his side wanted documents relating to the plaintiff’s medical reports for the period in question, and relevant documents concerning the allegations of abuse, distress and alleged loss.
They also wanted particulars of her “date of knowledge” of the alleged abuse, which was relevant under the statute of limitations.
When Mr Reidy said he could comply, Mr Collins said he would not object to the hearing, subject to his securing the particulars.
He wanted the plaintiff medically examined, and said arrangements would be made for this.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to the CW Team or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that the CW Team agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
CW Team
SIC: IT