Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 55

Thread: School Caretaker Convicted of Indecent Assault Molests More Boys After Returning to the School

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rockall
    Posts
    78,982

    Default School Caretaker Convicted of Indecent Assault Molests More Boys After Returning to the School

    The thread title tells it all, but I am finding it very hard to understand how this could happen. Nor is it the first time in Ireland in which a school caretaker has repeat-offended.

    http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/c...ob-512400.html

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    3,845

    Default Re: School Caretaker Convicted of Indecent Assault Molests More Boys After Returning to the School

    This is hard to credit.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    22,431

    Default Re: School Caretaker Convicted of Indecent Assault Molests More Boys After Returning to the School

    Some serious questions here for the Board of Management and the Head Teacher of the school.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    137

    Default Re: School Caretaker Convicted of Indecent Assault Molests More Boys After Returning to the School

    Quote Originally Posted by C. Flower View Post
    The thread title tells it all, but I am finding it very hard to understand how this could happen. Nor is it the first time in Ireland in which a school caretaker has repeat-offended.

    http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/c...ob-512400.html
    It was even worse than that, Sir.

    Read the fuller report here - Convicted abuser who kept school job raped children again - Courts, National News - Independent.ie

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    137

    Wink Re: School Caretaker Convicted of Indecent Assault Molests More Boys After Returning to the School

    Quote Originally Posted by C. Flower View Post
    The thread title tells it all, but I am finding it very hard to understand how this could happen. Nor is it the first time in Ireland in which a school caretaker has repeat-offended.

    http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/c...ob-512400.html
    Look at one sentence in the report you have quoted. "The man had earlier been convicted in a District Court in Donegal for two incidents of indecent assault at the same school in 1985 and 1986. He was not identified in the local papers at the time and he returned to work in the same school where the abuse continued."

    "He was not identified in the local papers at the time" - And he's not been named this time either.

    He's due to be sentenced next Monday, July 18th, but what are the odds that he'll be too ill, or whatever, and there'll be an adjournment, so that he'll be sentenced later.

    And it'll be done quickly at 9.00am before there's a reporter about.

    No, I'm only joking, Your Honour. Irish Courts are the finest in the World.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    12,044

    Default Re: School Caretaker Convicted of Indecent Assault Molests More Boys After Returning to the School

    One of the christotaliban was on as quick as a flash on one of the other forums yelping about how if it was a priest everyone would be attacking the church etc etc (the usual whattaboutery) until it was pointed out to her he had been a seminarian and had left before ordination because of some 'event'.

    I hope the management board and governors or whoever they are lose their houses in a civil suit.
    Think National. Act Local. Oh- and superstition is just the dark matter of human history.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    15,318

    Default Re: School Caretaker Convicted of Indecent Assault Molests More Boys After Returning to the School

    There needs to be an investigation to see how a man who was on the sex offenders register was given that job. Particular attention needs to focus on ensuring that there is nothing sinister about the circumstances.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    6,111

    Default Re: School Caretaker Convicted of Indecent Assault Molests More Boys After Returning to the School

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Con O'Sullivan View Post
    One of the christotaliban was on as quick as a flash on one of the other forums yelping about how if it was a priest everyone would be attacking the church etc etc (the usual whattaboutery) until it was pointed out to her he had been a seminarian and had left before ordination because of some 'event'.

    I hope the management board and governors or whoever they are lose their houses in a civil suit.
    I just wonder where the parents of the pupils, and the pupils themselves can go in this situation; for sure the pupils were abused and others were put in the way of danger! The case of Louise O'Keeffe, whose failed civil case against the Department of Education left her liable to costs of up to €600,000, is interesting. The Department of Education was found NOT to be responsible for the sexual abuse Ms O'Keeffe suffered as a pupil in a Co Cork school. The then Minister for Education Mary Hanafin told the Dáil that "these are issues that happened long ago and while the State is not liable for what happened to Ms O'Keeffe, I do not want her to be under any further distress".

    Because Louise lost her case the State Claims Agency began to pursue her for costs. The Department of Education then said it had no part in the pursuit of Louise O'Keefe for costs in her case. It said it was "the State Claims Agency, rather than the Minister or department, which is responsible for the management of these claims". It continued "the State Claims Agency will engage with the plaintiff's solicitor in relation to the issue of payment of costs - taking into account all circumstances". A spokeswoman pointed out that "the courts found that the Department of Education and Science had no responsibility in this case". All personal injury claims against the Minister for Education (including those in respect of abuse of a child) have been delegated by the Government to the State Claims Agency.

    Louise, a separated mother with two children aged seven and nine, said at the time she was in shock and felt she was being made an example of. "They [ department] won their case and had their judgment. Wasn't that enough for them?" she asked. She said the costs amount was more than the value of her home and everything she owned. She commented that her children were now the same age as she was over the period she was abused and she believed that, in pursuing her for costs, the department was abusing her children. Ms O'Keefe initiated her civil action against the department in September 1998 following the conviction of her abuser Leo Hickey in June that year. It came to a High Court hearing before Mr Justice Eamon de Valera in March 2004 and he delivered his judgment on January 20th this year. The State immediately sought costs. Dáil deputies from several parties criticised the decision to seek costs. The TDs were attending an Oireachtas committee on education hearing on child protection issues arising from recommendations in the Ferns report. Labour TD Jan O'Sullivan called on the State to waive the costs. Fine Gael's Olwyn Enright said that in court cases such as this, the State should not be looking for costs. Fianna Fáil's Barry Andrews agreed. Colm O'Gorman, of the One in Four group, said: "It's a dodge that the State is not liable in such cases - it will result in costs that will ruin a woman's life."

    So if injured parties in the present case go after the Department .... be wary..... be very wary!
    Give me a misty day, pearly gray, silver, silky faced, wide-awake crescent-shaped smile

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Rockall
    Posts
    78,982

    Default Re: School Caretaker Convicted of Indecent Assault Molests More Boys After Returning to the School

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew49 View Post
    I just wonder where the parents of the pupils, and the pupils themselves can go in this situation; for sure the pupils were abused and others were put in the way of danger! The case of Louise O'Keeffe, whose failed civil case against the Department of Education left her liable to costs of up to €600,000, is interesting. The Department of Education was found NOT to be responsible for the sexual abuse Ms O'Keeffe suffered as a pupil in a Co Cork school. The then Minister for Education Mary Hanafin told the Dáil that "these are issues that happened long ago and while the State is not liable for what happened to Ms O'Keeffe, I do not want her to be under any further distress".

    Because Louise lost her case the State Claims Agency began to pursue her for costs. The Department of Education then said it had no part in the pursuit of Louise O'Keefe for costs in her case. It said it was "the State Claims Agency, rather than the Minister or department, which is responsible for the management of these claims". It continued "the State Claims Agency will engage with the plaintiff's solicitor in relation to the issue of payment of costs - taking into account all circumstances". A spokeswoman pointed out that "the courts found that the Department of Education and Science had no responsibility in this case". All personal injury claims against the Minister for Education (including those in respect of abuse of a child) have been delegated by the Government to the State Claims Agency.

    Louise, a separated mother with two children aged seven and nine, said at the time she was in shock and felt she was being made an example of. "They [ department] won their case and had their judgment. Wasn't that enough for them?" she asked. She said the costs amount was more than the value of her home and everything she owned. She commented that her children were now the same age as she was over the period she was abused and she believed that, in pursuing her for costs, the department was abusing her children. Ms O'Keefe initiated her civil action against the department in September 1998 following the conviction of her abuser Leo Hickey in June that year. It came to a High Court hearing before Mr Justice Eamon de Valera in March 2004 and he delivered his judgment on January 20th this year. The State immediately sought costs. Dáil deputies from several parties criticised the decision to seek costs. The TDs were attending an Oireachtas committee on education hearing on child protection issues arising from recommendations in the Ferns report. Labour TD Jan O'Sullivan called on the State to waive the costs. Fine Gael's Olwyn Enright said that in court cases such as this, the State should not be looking for costs. Fianna Fáil's Barry Andrews agreed. Colm O'Gorman, of the One in Four group, said: "It's a dodge that the State is not liable in such cases - it will result in costs that will ruin a woman's life."

    So if injured parties in the present case go after the Department .... be wary..... be very wary!
    Do you know if they pursued these costs and made her sell her home? I had the impression that they had not. It's dreadful that a woman like this was left on her own to tackle the State and left to carry the can.

    And of course, it is shocking and wrong that the Department of Education hides behind the skirts of the bishops in this way.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    6,111

    Default Re: School Caretaker Convicted of Indecent Assault Molests More Boys After Returning to the School

    Quote Originally Posted by C. Flower View Post
    Do you know if they pursued these costs and made her sell her home? I had the impression that they had not. It's dreadful that a woman like this was left on her own to tackle the State and left to carry the can.

    And of course, it is shocking and wrong that the Department of Education hides behind the skirts of the bishops in this way.
    Louise went all the way to the Supreme Court and they ruled, in 2009, not to award costs to the State. But it was 10 years of terrible stress for Louise.
    Give me a misty day, pearly gray, silver, silky faced, wide-awake crescent-shaped smile

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    12,044

    Default Re: School Caretaker Convicted of Indecent Assault Molests More Boys After Returning to the School

    The Department of Education is one of eight government departments supposedly to be investigated in connection with the Magdalene laundry issue.

    That Department above all still has rotten churchmice in its bureaucracy. I saw traces of it in the last couple of years at odd moments.

    On the subject of civil remedies through the courts I wouldn't imagine the families of the children concerned in this case would be sueing the DofE but would have a damn good case against the Board of Management of the school and the management of the school itself for employing someone they knew to be a risk to children- a convicted abuser.

    Firstly the Gardai should be checking what charges are available in terms of child endangerment against the school board and management. If the Irish legal system is weak on the availability of such charges as it is often found to be then the parents should sue the arses off the school board and those involved in re-employing this wretch.

    They wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court against a civil suit considering the man was known to them to have been a convicted molester and should never have been employed in a role anywhere near a school.

    I do hope the families concerned take the houses off these morons in Donegal. I'd like to know how the hell this creature had enough pull to be re-employed at the same school and who was involved in arranging this appointment- and why.
    Think National. Act Local. Oh- and superstition is just the dark matter of human history.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    6,111

    Default Re: School Caretaker Convicted of Indecent Assault Molests More Boys After Returning to the School

    In the Louise O’Keefe case in 2008 the Supreme Court ruled that the local Bishop and the Board of Management are the employers of the teaching staff and are ultimately responsible for any sexual abuse carried out by teachers. So, although the State lays down the requirements for teacher training and registration, employs inspectors to monitor the quality of teachers’ work, provides funding for the running costs of schools and pays teachers’ salaries, it is not their employer ....

    And although Louise won one part of her battle she has gone to the European Court
    to establish State responsibility for the sexual abuse of pupils by teachers in State funded schools
    Give me a misty day, pearly gray, silver, silky faced, wide-awake crescent-shaped smile

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    12,044

    Default Re: School Caretaker Convicted of Indecent Assault Molests More Boys After Returning to the School

    Have you seen the Supreme Court's ruling on that Andrew? That could be quite interesting in terms of the determination they made on employment and responsibility. I suspect at some stage there will be a legal battle over whether Bishops are employees of the church and that would be another link in the chain of legal responsibility for that particular gang of chancers...
    Think National. Act Local. Oh- and superstition is just the dark matter of human history.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    6,111

    Default Re: School Caretaker Convicted of Indecent Assault Molests More Boys After Returning to the School

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Con O'Sullivan View Post
    Have you seen the Supreme Court's ruling on that Andrew? That could be quite interesting in terms of the determination they made on employment and responsibility. I suspect at some stage there will be a legal battle over whether Bishops are employees of the church and that would be another link in the chain of legal responsibility for that particular gang of chancers...

    LOUISE O’KEEFFE

    Plaintiff/Appellant
    and

    LEO HICKEY, THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
    Respondents

    JUDGMENT delivered on the 19th day of December, 2008, by Mr. Justice Hardiman.
    This case raises difficult issues in the area of vicarious liability and Church/State relations. The plaintiff says that thirty-five years ago she was sexually assaulted by a teacher at school. The school was owned and run by a private religious group but was recognised by the State as a national school. The assaults took the form of inappropriate touching and feeling of her body. Many years later she sued the teacher and received a very substantial award of damages. But she has not been able to recover much if any of this from the now retired teacher. She has also made a successful claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, but she is dissatisfied with the amount awarded (about €53,000). In the present action she claims that the Minister, the State and the Attorney General as their representative - that is the taxpayer - should compensate her for what happened. This would require an enormous revolution in the principles of vicarious liability as applied in Ireland.

    The plaintiff has not sued the religious group who managed the school, the trustees of its property, or its officials past or present. She has sued the State defendants, claiming that they are liable to compensate her either directly or vicariously. The learned trial judge dismissed the allegations of negligence against the State and no appeal has been taken from this finding. The case is therefore one of alleged vicarious liability.

    Link

    Link 2

    Link 3

    Hope the links works
    Give me a misty day, pearly gray, silver, silky faced, wide-awake crescent-shaped smile

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    12,044

    Default Re: School Caretaker Convicted of Indecent Assault Molests More Boys After Returning to the School

    Cheers Andrew. It is odd why the lady didn't sue the religious order concerned. But this ruling might come in as precedent where responsibility for redress is considered.

    On the one hand we have the remaining christotaliban demanding everyone should believe that the state should pay all redress because it failed to stop clerical predators in schools and institutions by way of inspection and investigation. Thereby attempting to push the notion that the church and orders had no duty of care or responsibility under the law to deal with its own mentalists.

    On the other hand the christotaliban only acknowledge their own golf-club rules by saying the state has no business interfering in matters they think should be dealt with via the nonsensical canon law.

    There are two seperate arguments there, one claming that the church has nothing to do with nothing and the other that the church should be entirely responsible via ecclesiastical hocus pocus for its molesters.

    Sooner or later all this is going to have to be dealt with in a court of law and the legal system is going to be compelled to inform the church that its mumbo-jumbo has no power under the legal system in the state. The church and the state's legal system have been turning somersaults in an attempt to avoid that coming to the fore in any court but it is as inevitable as the rain.

    The church will lose that battle in a Supreme Court and that will be the day when the spell is finally broken over the state.
    Think National. Act Local. Oh- and superstition is just the dark matter of human history.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Share us
Follow Us