January-31-2014 in Employment Law

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Humans Rights (the “ECHR”) delivered on the 29th January 2014 its landmark judgment in the case of O’Keeffe v Ireland.

The ECHR made up of seventeen judges decided, by an eleven to six majority that:

  • there had been a violation by the Irish State of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment; and
  • there had been a violation by the Irish State of Article 13 of the Convention, namely the right to an effective remedy.

The case involved an action before the ECHR taken by Louise O’Keeffe against the Irish State in which she asserted that the State had failed to meet its obligations in protecting her from sexual abuse suffered during her time at national school. Ms O’Keeffe was sexually abused by her former school Principal in 1973 when she was aged 9 years old.

A series of complaints against the Principal had previously been made in 1971 by parents to the School Manager who was a priest. However these complaints were not brought to the attention of the Department of Education. It was not until a Garda investigation against the former Principal in the 1990s that these complaints were brought to light.

Ms O’Keeffe had previously taken a civil case against her former Principal and the then Minister for Education and Science. The Principal was ordered to pay compensation to her in the sum of €305,104. However, both the High Court and the Supreme Court dismissed Ms O’Keeffe’s claims against the State (the Department of Education and Science).

It was argued by the State that the School Management (before 1975 when Boards of Management were established, school management comprised a Single Manager, usually a priest) should be held responsible for what occurred. The High Court held that the State could not be held vicariously liable for the behaviour of the Principal. In addition, it was also argued by the State that Ms O’Keeffe had not exhausted all legal remedies available to her before the Irish Courts as she had not sued the Bishop of Cork and Ross as Patron of the school. The Supreme Court disallowed Ms O’Keeffe’s appeal and whilst acknowledging the tripartite relationship involved in national schools, decided that the State was not responsible for what happened to Ms O’Keeffe as a pupil in national school.

Ms O’Keeffe appealed these decisions to the ECHR on the basis that the Irish State as her former teacher’s employer had failed to structure the primary education system so as to protect her from abuse and had failed to properly investigate her ill-treatment or provide her with an appropriate and adequate remedy in relation to such treatment.

In support of her claim that the State was the Principal’s employer she relied on the facts that the State pays teachers’ salaries, supervises school curriculum, regulates the teaching profession and carries out school inspections.

The ECHR accepted Ms O’Keeffe’s arguments and found that:

  • Ireland has a unique Constitutional model of State funded primary education (and the State sets the curriculum and funds same)
  • It was an inherent obligation of a Government to protect children from ill-treatment, especially in primary education, by adopting special measures and safeguards
  • A State could not absolve itself from the obligation to protect children from abuse by delegating to private bodies or individuals (Managers and Boards of Management of schools)
  • The State had to have been aware of the level of sexual crime against minors through its prosecution of such crimes at a significant rate prior to the 1970s
  • Given the management structure of national schools, no effective mechanisms of State control were put in place to monitor and control the risk of abuse taking place in national schools;
  • Any system in place was ineffective since the complaints made against the Principal were not notified by Managers to the State. The abuse suffered by pupils continued over a prolonged period.

Ms O’Keeffe had also relied upon Article 8 (respect for private life), Article 2 of Protocol 1 (right to education), and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention in asserting her case before the ECHR. It was decided that the complaints under these Articles did not give rise to any separate issues to those already examined by the Court.

The Irish State has been ordered to pay Ms O’Keeffe the sum of €30,000 in respect of damages and €85,000 in relation to her costs and expenses.

For further information and assistance on the implications of this judgment, please contact any member of the Employment Law Department at Hayes who have specialist expertise in the Irish education system.

Back to Full News
Share this article: