M.p. V. Sister Zoe O'neill And Others
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Glennie |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] CSOH 93 |
| Date | 16 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | A1435/00 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 16 June 2006 |
| OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION [2006] CSOH 93 | |
| A1435/00 | OPINION OF LORD GLENNIE in the cause M P (AP) Pursuer; against SISTER ZOE O'NEILL AND OTHERS Defenders: ________________ |
Pursuer: McEachran QC, Stirling; Drummond Miller
First and Second Defenders: Duncan; Simpson & Marwick
16 June 2006
Introduction[1] This is a preliminary proof on time-bar, raising issues under sections 17 and 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973.
[2] The pursuer was born on 16 January 1963. Soon afterwards, her mother left the family for a time. She was left with her father, who placed her in Smyllum Orphanage, (to which I shall refer as "the Home"), in Smyllum Park, Lanark, run by the second defenders. She was resident there for about four and a half years, between June 1966 and December 1970 (according to her case on Record, which is supported by the documentary records lodged in process) or between 1965 and 1969 (as the pursuer insisted in her evidence). The difference in dates does not matter for present purposes. In this action she complains that whilst at the Home she was subjected to systematic and regular abuse.
[3] The nature of the alleged abuse appears from the following lengthy passage in Article 2 of Condescendence:
"The defenders knew the pursuer was a vulnerable child. Initially the pursuer was under the care of Sister A. Sister A was very kind to the pursuer. Sister A was replaced by Sister X and a lay helper called Y shortly after the pursuer arrived at the Home. Sister X and Y were in charge of the pursuer until she left the Home. They were very unkind to her. The pursuer was not aware of anyone being in charge of Sister X or Y. She does not know whether there was a Mother Superior. The Home had its own School, staffed by nuns. It had its own Chapel. There was no opportunity for the pursuer to have contact with persons outside the Home. She does not recall being visited by social workers. There was no-one to whom she could have complained. The pursuer was subjected to the standard regime in the said Home. Children including the pursuer in the said Home were regularly subjected to assaults and cruel punishments. The pursuer slept in a dormitory containing seven girls or thereby. In a cell adjacent to the dormitory slept one of the nuns, Sister X, and a lay helper by the name of Y. Children who wet their beds were punished severely: they were placed in cold baths with their soiled bed-sheets and thereafter made to lie on their beds with no bed-sheets. The pursuer witnessed such events on a nightly basis. She herself did not wet her bed. Nonetheless she was subjected to unwarranted punishment by Sister X and the lay helper, Y. Water was sprinkled on her bed by these individuals and she would be told that she had wet her bed. She was then subjected to the same punishment as genuine bed-wetters, as before condescended upon. Such happened to the pursuer around twice per week throughout her time at the Home. Towards the end of her time in the Home, in or around 1969, a stranger attempted to abduct the pursuer outside the Home by enticing her and her sister into his motor car. They refused to go with him. The pursuer, on telling Sister X of the incident, was told that 'it was your sister's fault'. The pursuer was thereafter beaten by Sister X and the lay helper, Y, each of whom pulled her hair and punched her on the back of her head. Towards the end of her time at the Home, in or around 1969, the pursuer was having her hair washed in one of the bathrooms. Uninvited by the pursuer, one of the boys entered the bathroom. Sister X accused the pursuer of immorality and pushed a bar of soap into her mouth. They were not provided with adequate food in that it was poorly cooked and unappetising. Children, including the pursuer, were made to eat all food which was placed before them. When children, including the pursuer, were unable to eat their food, they would be hit with a wooden spoon, a hairbrush or bare hands. Sister X and the lay helper, Y, beat the pursuer on a routine basis throughout her time at the Home for failing to eat food. Her brother and sister were made to watch her being forced to eat her food and being beaten if she was unable to do so. Any uneaten food was served up at the next mealtime. The pursuer was likewise made to watch her brother and sister when they were being beaten for failing to eat their food. She was made to watch this on a routine basis throughout her time at the Home. She was made on occasion to eat her own vomit. Hygiene and medical care were neglected. Baths were given no more than once per week. The pursuer was made to share the bathwater with the other girls in her dormitory, that is to say with another six girls or thereby. Accordingly, if the pursuer was last in the bath (as she frequently was) the water would be cold and dirty. She was given only one change of clothing per week. Such lack of attention to hygiene was unreasonable, even judged against the prevailing standard of the time. She was never seen by either a Doctor or a Dentist during the whole of her time at the Home. Children, including the pursuer, were assaulted and humiliated in front of other children and in front of other nuns and staff. They were slapped about the head and face, hit with implements including rulers and pulled by various parts of the body including the ears. The other nuns and staff did not intervene. Sister X and Y were able to assault and humiliate the pursuer and others with impunity. Such assaults took place on a daily basis. They often occurred at meal times. The pursuer seldom saw her siblings except on occasions when she was being beaten and they were summoned to watch and vice versa. Contact with families was discouraged. The pursuer's grandfather was the only member of her family who routinely visited. He was not always allowed to see his grandchildren. No explanation would be given to the pursuer when her grandfather was not admitted. Gifts he brought to the Home for her on the occasions of his visits were confiscated and not returned. Christmas presents from family members were confiscated and not returned to the pursuer each Christmas during her time at the Home. The pursuer ran away from the Home on approximately four occasions. She was returned to the Home by the Police. The Police did not ask her why she had run away. The nuns were polite to the Police. Once the Police left, the nuns and staff punished the pursuer by stripping her and putting her in a cold shower and separating her from the other children. Said treatment was systematic and regular. ... It occurred throughout the time the pursuer was a resident in the said Home. The punishments inflicted upon the pursuer were excessive, random and constituted assaults. They were frequently administered for no reason at all. They were cruel and unusual. The regime condescended upon was harsh and cruel. The treatment condescended upon was not the treatment reasonably to be expected of those acting in loco parentis."
It will be noted that the alleged abuse is of a non-sexual nature. Nonetheless, since the allegations are disputed, I have omitted the names both of the pursuer and of the individuals alleged to have committed the abuse.
[4] The pursuer raised this action on 16 May 2000. The defenders have taken a time-bar defence. There is an issue as to whether the action is time-barred. If it is, the pursuer asks the court to exercise its discretion to override the time limits.
The background[5] In 1997 stories began to appear in the media about abuse at residential care homes run by nuns. These were discussed by Lord Drummond Young in his Opinion in the case of AB and others v. Sister Bernard Mary Murray and others (unreported, 2 June 2005), which concerned allegations of abuse at Nazareth House. The articles in the media were not confined to that establishment. It was agreed between counsel that a sufficient account of that media publicity can be taken from paragraphs 43-48 and 131 of Lord Drummond Young's Opinion. I set out below extracts from those passages:
"[43] On Sunday 18 May 1997 an article appeared in the News of the World newspaper, under the headline 'Nazareth', dealing with events that were said to have taken place many years previously in Nazareth House, Cardonald. The article began:
'A home for orphans was turned into a house of horrors by depraved nuns who delighted in making the kids' lives hell.
Youngsters were dragged from their beds and BEATEN, made to clean their teeth with CARBOLIC SOAP and forced to drink MOULDERING milk'.
The article went on to allege that some of the victims had been tracked down, and that many were still suffering mental torment. A number of individuals were named, and the events that were said to have happened to them were set out in some detail; these included beatings and punishment for bedwetting. A further article appeared in the News of the World the following Sunday, 25 May 1997, under the headline 'Wicked nuns left us scarred for life'. This contains a number of other detailed allegations made by named individuals who had been resident in Nazareth House.
[44] The author of both of these articles, Michael Jarvis, described in evidence how the articles came to be written and the reaction to them. He stated that unprecedented numbers of people came forward spontaneously in reaction to the initial article. Somewhere between 12 and 20 individuals came forward in the first week, and over the first two weeks after 18 May he spoke to between 30 and 35 individuals. Mr Jarvis stated that those concerned were in their fifties or older. Almost all were very distressed when they spoke, and said that they were delighted that the articles had been written. ...
[45] A third article appeared on Sunday 1 June 1997, under the headline 'Cardinal to probe house of horrors'. This contains further specific allegations from named individuals. Prior to 1 June Mr Jarvis...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Linda Jordan V. Quarriers+joseph Richard Nicholson
...SLT 778, Carnegie v Lord Advocate 2001 SC 802, Agnew v Scott Lithgow 2003 SC 448, B v Murray 2004 SLT 967 and MP v Sister Zoe O'Neil & Ors 2006 CSOH 93. Two principal submissions were made on the basis of that review of Scottish authority. One was that the objectivity of the section 17 test......
-
Stephen Findleton V. Quarriers
...SLT 778, Carnegie v Lord Advocate 2001 SC 802, Agnew v Scott Lithgow 2003 SC 448, B v Murray 2004 SLT 967 and MP v Sister Zoe O'Neil & Ors 2006 CSOH 93. Two principal submissions were made on the basis of that review of Scottish authority. One was that the objectivity of the section 17 test......
-
David Whelan V. Quarriers+john Porteous
...SLT 778, Carnegie v Lord Advocate 2001 SC 802, Agnew v Scott Lithgow 2003 SC 448, B V Murray 2004 SLT 967 and MP v Sister Zoe O'Neil & Ors 2006 CSOH 93. Two principal submissions were made on the basis of that review of Scottish authority. One was that the objectivity of the section 17 test......
-
A Mce V. The Reverend Joseph Hendron And Others
...In this connection, however, I must take note of the obiter remarks of Lord Glennie in the recent case of M v O'Neill 2006 S.L.T. 823 [2006] CSOH 93 at paras. [27] -[30]. Lord Glennie there construes the phrase "injuries in question" where it appears in section 17(2)(b) of the 1973 Act as m......