Supreme Court turns down rape victim's application

The Supreme court has turned down an application by a former resident of an industrial School who during the 1960's was raped by her step-grandfather for leave to legally challenge the decision not to award her redress for the attacks.

The decision not to make an award to the woman, who had received redress for the abuse she suffered while resident at Goldenbridge Industrial school, for the physical and psychological injuries she claims she suffered as a result the rapes that occurred when she spent weekends at her grandmother's home was made by Residential Institutions Redress Review Committee.

The court heard that the woman, who is now in her fifties, became so traumatised from constant abuse and thrashings at Goldenbridge Industrial School that she was unable to explain that the reason she did not want to spend weekends at her grandmother's home was because she was

being frequently raped.

The woman was a resident at the school between February 1960 and December 1967. During that time she claimed that, despite saying she didn't want to go, she was sent home every weekend to her grandmother's house.

In awarding the woman €76,666 redress arising form her experiences at Goldenbridge, the Committee ruled that, because the rapes occurred at weekends in her grandmother's home, the woman was not entitled to compensation in relation to them.

It also stated that, had the rapes occurred in Goldenbridge or if they were carried out by its personnel, it would have increased that sum considerably.

Toady the three judge Supreme Court with Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan, Ms

Justice Fidelma Macken and Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan said that the

court must refuse the application.

He said that the court was satisfied that all relevant material was put before and understood by the Committee.

The court also rejected the argument that the evidence before the Redress board was so at odds with the outcome that it should be considered to be unreasonable.

Moving the application Counsel for the woman Dr Michael Forde SC said that his client's story was a "saga of shocking abuse and brutality."

The woman claims she told a nun at the school she did not want to go to her grandmother's home but did not tell the nun why.

She claims this was because she was so traumatised from constant abuse at the school that she had been deprived of the capacity to explain why she did not want to go.

She contended that, had she not bee subject to neglect and brutality at Goldenbridge, she would have been able to explain why.

The woman claims that, in her years at Goldenbridge, she was educationally deprived and not allowed attend special education classes; was beaten, thumped and kicked by various staff members and was subject to particularly savage beatings by a particular nun.

On one occasion at Goldenbridge after her fingers got infected from threading rosary beads, she said she did not dare say anything and got no treatment for the infection.

She also said that she go not explanation for the absence of her sisters after they left Goldenbridge and was "too scared to ask", because "she would be punished."