Murray v Hicks & Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice William Davis |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 2532 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: TLQ/14/1094 |
| Date | 29 July 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 2532 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice William Davis
Case No: TLQ/14/1094
Mary O'Rourke QC (instructed by AO Advocates) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
William Norris QC (instructed by Hill Dickinson) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
(As Approved)
Wednesday, 29 July 2015
(2.12 pm)
Mr Peter Murray has brought this action against Martin Devenish, who is sued on behalf of the unincorporated association known as the Sons of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, in relation to alleged sexual abuse suffered by Mr Murray in the early and mid 1970s, when he was at a seminary school run by the defendant association.
This application relates to applications for relief from sanctions in relation to a variety of documents and pieces of evidence.
I say straight away that the defendant does not object, or to be more accurate is neutral as to whether I should give permission in relation to the amendment of the particulars of claim and the amendment of the claimant's first witness statement, both matters from which reliefs from sanction are needed. Subject to one matter in the amended particulars of claim to which I shall return, I shall give such permission. There shall have to be a discussion hereafter as to the date of service of those documents.
There are three further items in relation to which the claimant seeks permission to serve and have relief from sanction. They are: a supplementary or additional statement he made in June of this year; a statement of a Mr Speight; a psychiatric report from a Dr Kennedy.
I shall deal with them in the same order that they were dealt with by Ms O'Rourke when presenting the application.
The first matter which she addressed was the service of a psychiatric report from Dr Roger Kennedy dated 12 May of this year.
In June of 2014, there was a case management conference before Master Yoxall which dealt with a number of matters, one of which was permission to rely on expert evidence. The Master gave permission to rely on written expert evidence on the issue of the nature and extent of any psychiatric and/or psychological injury suffered by the claimant and to consider whether that injury was caused, in whole or in part, by the alleged abuse and to consider and identify any other causes.
The order went on to identify the two experts who were to be instructed. I say "to be instructed". In the case of the claimant, it was an expert who had been instructed and whose report was served with the particulars of claim, namely a lady named Dr Kate Hellin. She was and is a consultant clinical psychologist and psychotherapist, rather than a psychiatrist, but it is common ground that she is regularly instructed in cases of this kind. It is not suggested that she does not have the relevant expertise. Her name was one of the very many that were included in the list of proposed medical experts served by the solicitors acting on behalf of the claimant the previous year. This list was prepared in March of 2013.
The defendant's psychiatric expert was identified as a Professor Maden. His report was not then available. An order was made for service by a particular date. I think I am right in saying that that date was met, or if it was not met, then the necessary leave and permission was given for an extension of time.
At the time of the making of that order, nothing was said which indicated that anybody other than Dr Hellin had been instructed; certainly nobody else who was named on the list of proposed experts.
As a matter of fact, a Dr Shapero had been instructed some time in the autumn of 2012. Dr Shapero had interviewed the claimant twice, once in October of 2012 and again on 1 May of 2013. He in due course prepared a draft report dated June 2013. None of that was mentioned at the time of the case management conference, since the claimant intended to rely on Dr Hellin's report. It may be that nothing at that stage had turned on that omission.
There matters stood. Professor Maden duly reported and, for entirely proper reasons, discussed in extenso the conclusions of Dr Hellin. Some, if not many, of those conclusions he agreed with; others he did not. It is instructive to just consider for a moment what Dr Hellin said about the claimant's case. At paragraph 1.8 of her report, she said this:
"I have no doubt that the sexual acts perpetrated by Mr Riddell [I interpose to say that that is the person allegedly responsible for committing the sexual abuse] when Mr Murray was at a critical stage of sexual development and in early adolescence has had a significant impact on the development of his sexuality and had served to distort his notions of intimacy, such that his capacity for emotion and sexual closeness in adulthood has been obstructed. The abuse conferred a sense of specialness in Mr Murray, which exacerbated his pre-existing narcism."
Dr Hellin's report runs to some 46 pages and I do not propose to quote any further from it. But she discusses at some length the effect of the alleged abuse on the claimant and her conclusions are reflected in what were then the particulars of claim. As I have indicated, Professor Maden prepared his report, a report again of considerable length, 36 pages, much of which dealt with issues raised by Dr Hellin.
On 10 March of this year, Ms O'Rourke QC was instructed and, in due course, a consultation was held with the claimant, and I believe Dr Hellin, and it was as a result of that that the further expert, Dr Kennedy, was instructed, and he has now reported.
I am told, and I have no reason to doubt this, that Dr Shapero's services were dispensed with, because he was the subject of very considerable adverse comment in a judgment by Mrs Justice Swift in November of 2012. Whether he was dispensed with for other reasons as well, I do not know and I am not going to speculate. I do observe that the adverse comments made by Mrs Justice Swift came some six months before his second interview with the claimant and seven months before his draft report. In any event, Dr Hellin was the second expert consulted on behalf of the claimant.
The position today is, so I am told by Ms O'Rourke QC, that Dr Kennedy has become involved entirely because of her involvement in the case. She indicated to me that she came to the view that there might be some imbalance between Professor Maden and Dr Hellin, a professor of forensic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peter John Sebastian Murray v Father Martin Devenish (Provincial Superior of the London Province of the Sons of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Sued on his own behalf and as a representative of all other members of the unincorporated association known as the Sons of the Sacred Heart of Jesus)
...out application. 39 Various matters were considered by William Davis J. on 29 th July 2015 (His judgment M v Hicks and others is [2015] EWHC 2532 (QB)). Amongst other directions he: i) Adjourned to the trial judge the Defendant's application to strike out the claim as an abuse of process; ......