Victims of child abuse urge Dáil to close legal loophole

VICTIMS of child abuse want the Dáil to close off a legal loophole through which members of religious orders and the State can escape punishment for telling lies in victim compensation claims.

Patrick Walsh, British spokesperson for the Irish Survivors of Child Abuse, said the Residential Institutions Redress Act, as it stood, allowed members of religious orders and the State to get away with telling untruths in compensation actions brought before the Redress Board.

Under the act only victims of abuse found guilty of perjury face severe penalties, including imprisonment. SOCA has asked the leaders of all the opposition parties in the Dáil to take the issue up with the Minister for Education, Noel Dempsey, as soon as possible.

The issue is bound to stir up a lot of political controversy, because it will change the very basis on which the Redress Act was sold. It was never meant to be adversarial

A spokesperson for the Department of Education said because of the risk of constitutional challenge, provision has been made for the accused to put their side of the case forward.

If there was a conflict of evidence the board would then consider the medical evidence. If it tallied with what the victim was saying, that was the end of the matter.

She said the board also had to be careful that there would not be an incentive for a disreputable person to make a claim. That was why the penalties for perjury were included in the act.

SOCA is also insisting that the act, signed into law in April last year, should be amended to compel religious orders to co-operate with the board.

As it stands, their involvement is voluntary. Mr Walsh said what they discovered was a clear conflict between the terms of the Redress Act and the particulars of the indemnity agreement.

Under the act, there was no obligation whatever on the part of the religious orders to comply with any of the directions from the Redress Board. Their role was essentially passive.

“The act talks about them receiving invitations to assist the board that they might wish to respond to.”

In the indemnity agreement, however, there was a clear and unambiguous binding legal agreement on the religious to assist the State in defending all legal actions, including applications to the Redress Board.

“We say that binding legal obligation ought to have been contained within the Redress Act and should not have been concealed in the Indemnity Agreement.”

The department spokesperson said that if the religious organisations refused to co-operate they would lose their indemnity, so it did not need to be part of the act.

Mr Walsh said as things stood the potential to ambush abuse survivors was huge.

“If the intention of the State is to oblige religious orders to come before the Redress Board and give battle then that should be contained within the act.”

Also, if they came and told lies they should face the same punishment for perjury as the victims. “What we are looking for is transparency and honesty. We want the legislation to apply equally to all the parties involved,” he pointed out.