The IHRC today welcomed the landmark judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case O’Keeffe v Ireland, which addressed the failure by the State to protect the applicant from sexual abuse in a national school in 1973 and to put in place a system of adequate and effective remedies for that abuse.
The case concerns the sexual abuse of the Applicant, Ms Louise O’Keeffe, by a school principal which occurred while she was attending primary school. The Applicant had successfully brought civil proceedings against her abuser and was awarded damages, although only a small proportion of those damages will ever be paid. The complaint of abuse against the teacher was also the subject of a criminal prosecution and conviction. However, her associated claim against the State for allegedly failing in its duty to protect her was unsuccessful before the domestic courts. The Applicant lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights claiming that the State had breached a number of her Convention rights including freedom from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3) and the right to an effective remedy (Article 13).
In light of the importance of the issues raised, the IHRC, as a third party intervener, submitted written observations on the case to the European Court of Human Rights in 2011. Those submissions are referred to in the Grand Chamber’s judgment.
In its observations the IHRC outlined the structure of the public education system in Ireland, the obligatory nature of primary education and the manner in which publicly funded education is delivered largely under the auspices of private actors, most often being under the patronage of a religious body. The IHRC questioned whether the State maintained sufficient control over publicly funded national schools to ensure that the rights enshrined under the Convention are fully upheld within the education system. In addition the IHRC questioned whether the domestic legal proceedings available to the Applicant sufficiently addressed the alleged breaches of her fundamental rights under the Convention. The Court agreed with the IHRC’s submission in finding that the State had breached Article 3, in failing to protect the Applicant at a time when the State was well aware of the risks of child sexual abuse, and also that the domestic remedies available to the Applicant were inadequate to address the State’s responsibility in that regard.
Commenting on the case today, Mr Des Hogan, Acting Chief Executive of the IHRC stated:
"This is clearly a significant judgment not only for the Applicant concerned, and other victims of historical child sexual abuse, but the judgment also has profound implications for the State education system. The manner in which the human rights of children and parents are reflected and vindicated by the State will now need careful review given the Court’s findings on the absence of effective civil remedies under Article 13 of the Convention."
Mr Kieran Rose, Acting Chair of the IHRC also welcomed the judgment stating
"The IHRC has for some time been raising questions about the manner in which the education system is regulated by the State. This was a very prominent issue in the IHRC Report on Education and Religion published in 2011, where a number of significant recommendations were made to the State regarding compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights in the education system. This judgment affirms the findings of the IHRC in that report and makes it abundantly clear that the State may not avoid its human rights obligations by delegating public functions that engage human rights standards, such as education, to private actors. The IHRC will now take time to study this judgment in detail to consider what action the State should take to ensure compliance with the findings of the Grand Chamber."
ENDS/
For further information please contact Fidelma Joyce, IHRC Tel: 01 8589601 Mobile 087 783 4939
Notes to Editors:
The written observations of the IHRC in the case of O’Keeffe v Ireland, Application 35810/09.
The IHRC published a report entitled; Religion and Education: a Human Rights Perspective, in May 2011. The Report is available on the IHRC website at the following link:
The Report (at pp 97-102), reached a number of conclusions regarding the States human rights obligations in the context of religious education in the State, and further made a number of recommendations (at p. 104- 106) to address the apparent failure of the State to uphold human rights and particularly the religious and philosophical convictions of all parents and children in the education system.
The Applicant separately settled her claim with the State under Article 6 ECHR, in respect of the delays in dealing with her civil claim against the State in the domestic courts.
Article 3 ECHR provides:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6 ECHR provides:
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
Article 13 ECHR provides:
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.