Vol. 497 No. 4
4 Mr. Flanagan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the plans, if any, he has to introduce legislation to amend the Statute of Limitations to allow for the hearing of court actions brought by victims of sexual abuse against those responsible for this abuse, which actions cannot be heard and determined by the courts by virtue of the time lapse; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24952/98]
The Statute of Limitations, 1957, provides a period of three years for the commencement of personal injuries proceedings based on negligence, nuisance or breach of duty beyond which the proceedings may be struck out because they were not commenced in time. The three year period does not run when the plaintiff is under a legal disability, principally where the plaintiff is a minor or of unsound mind.
The Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 1991, amended the law so that the three year limitation period in such cases runs from the date on which the injured person discovers, or could reasonably have discovered, that the injury occurred if this date is later than the act or omission leading to the injury. I understand this Act substantially implemented the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission's Report on the Statute of Limitations — Claims in respect of Latent Personal Injuries (LRC 21-1987).
In addition, the 1957 Statute provides for a flat six year period for claims for personal injuries arising out of actions not based on negligence, nuisance or breach of duty. In such actions, the limitation period does not run during any period when the plaintiff is under a disability.
I am aware that the application of the Statute of Limitation in cases of sexual abuse of children has been the subject of recent comment in the media, including the legal press. This is a complex area of the law which merits the closest examination. I am considering a number of options open to me for carrying out that examination and the decisions made will be announced shortly.
The Statute of Limitations, 1957, as amended by the Act of 1991, does not adequately meet my concerns, especially with regard to school children who may have been abused by teachers or children in care who may have been abused by care workers. Care workers and teachers are employees of the State, which has a duty to ensure that a technical bar, a blunt instrument in the form of the Statute of Limitations, cannot and should not be applied to bar a victim from having his action heard in the courts.
Teachers and care workers are now pleading guilty in the criminal courts to acts of abuse that may have been perpetrated years ago. They are doing so in the knowledge that they will have no responsibility towards their victims because of the Statute of Limitations, which debars any action being taken three years after the attainment of the age of majority by a student in a case against a teacher.
The situation is fundamentally unjust. The position of the State is also fundamentally untenable with specific reference to teachers, because the State is the ultimate employer. Does the Minster accept that he can stand over a situation where perpetrators of the most gross acts of indecency against children can walk away with no civil responsibility because of the inadequacy of the law, including the Statute of Limitations?
I have sympathy with the cases outlined by the Deputy but the difficulty is that this is an extremely complex area. The matter is the subject of detailed interdepartmental discussions and consultations with the Office of the Attorney General.
The question of the referral of the matter to the Law Reform Commission is under active consideration, not least because of the complexity of the issues involved. There is the need to ensure there is certainty in the law, although this is of little benefit to anybody unless there is justice in the law in terms of compensation.
A conviction in a criminal court is a certainty.
The Law Reform Commission is considering the periods of limitation in professional negligence cases. In view of the complexity of this area, I am disposed to considering referring this matter to the commission so that it may examine the limitation period which applies in child abuse cases. That is the best way forward. I am not parking it or submitting it to a committee for the sake of examination, rather I am disposed towards this line of action because of the complexity which arises, which I am sure the Deputy appreciates.
Will the Minister confirm that he will refer the matter to the Law Reform Commission and report back to the House within six months?
It would not be possible for me to say when the Law Reform Commission might report on this matter, but I am disposed towards asking the commission to look at it.
