(IRELAND)
RTE [Dublin, Ireland]
June 23, 2026
By Ailbhe Conneely
At the age of eight, Louise O’Keeffe was sexually abused by her school principal Leo Hickey in a Cork primary school in the 1970s.
She buried the memory, moved on to secondary school, completed her education, and went on to work as a secretary.
The only person who was aware of the abuse was her mother, but the details were not divulged.
In 1995, gardaí contacted Ms O’Keeffe regarding allegations against Hickey by several former students.
Such was the level of abuse and trauma endured at the school, it took more than 20 years before any girl summoned the courage to approach gardaí.
Seeking justice
In 1998, Hickey was charged with historical sex offences, including 386 counts of indecent assault against 21 girls, who gave evidence of abuse.
He pleaded guilty to 21 sample charges.
Ms O’Keeffe was among those who attended the criminal trial and as the testimonies of the women were read out, memories flooded back.
Determined that no child should experience what she went through she sought a solicitor in an effort to hold the State accountable for failing to have safeguards in place against the abuse.
Ms O’Keeffe brought a civil action against Hickey, the Minister for Education and Science, the Republic of Ireland and the Attorney General.
She claimed damages for injuries suffered because of the sexual abuse; arguing that the State was vicariously liable for the abuse by the teacher and that safeguards to prevent her suffering abuse were not in place.
The State denied responsibility for the acts of the teacher. Hickey was not appointed by the State (he was appointed by the local bishop in Cork); although his salary was paid by the State, and the conditions of his work were ultimately set by the government.
The High Court ordered Hickey to pay Ms O’Keeffe in excess of €300,000 in compensation but it dismissed the claim of direct negligence brought against the State.
Then, in 2008 the Supreme Court threw out the case on appeal, saying that the State was not liable because Hickey was employed by the local school which was managed by the Catholic Church.
Ms O’Keeffe was on the verge of losing her family home, with costs awarded against her in the High Court and the Supreme Court running to tens of thousands.
In 2009, the Supreme Court refused to award the State its costs against her, even though she had lost.
The court treated it as an exceptional public-interest test case involving important constitutional and legal issues.
Following the Supreme Court loss on the substantive issue, Dr Conor O’Mahoney and his team at the Child Law Clinic at UCC got involved.
They suggested that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg may treat the case more favourably.
In 2014, Ms O’Keeffe argued to the European Court that the State had failed to structure the education system so as to protect her from abuse (Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights).
She also argued that she had not been able to obtain recognition of, and compensation for, the State’s failure to protect her (Article 13).
The legal argument focused on a specific timeline and the question of ‘prior complaint’.
In 1971, a parent made a formal complaint to the school’s manager about Hickey abusing a child, however, the Department of Education did not investigate the matter.
Due to the teacher remaining in the classroom, he was in a position to abuse Ms O’Keeffe two years later.
By not taking action, the State allowed a known danger to remain in the school, making it directly responsible for the abuse she suffered later.
Forty-one years following the sexual abuse, the European Court ruled in favour of Ms O’Keeffe.
It found the State had failed to “put in place any mechanism of effective State control against the risks of such abuse occurring”.
When the European Court of Human Rights rules against a State party, there is an obligation to take individual measures (to address the specific case before the court) and general measures (to address any similar cases arising).
Ms O’Keeffe was awarded damages as an individual measure.
The general measure took the form of an ex-gratia payment scheme to compensate others abused in schools and the Irish state.
Obstacles to redress
Before Ms O’Keeffe went to Europe with her case and following her loss at the Supreme Court in 2009, the Chief State Solicitor’s Office wrote to other victims of child abuse (not the women at Dunderrow National School) who had hoped to hold the State to account for the abuse they had suffered as children.
The letter written on behalf of the State Claims Agency warned them not to pursue legal action, and that the government would pursue them for costs if they carried on.
“… in the event that a Notice of Discontinuance is not served by that date (31 March 2009) then our instructions are to seek our costs in the event that your clients claim is not successful against our clients,” it stated.
This instilled fear in victims and many pulled out.
Fast forward to 2014, the European Court judgment changed matters; the government had no choice but to act, but this resulted in two flawed payment schemes.
Ex gratia payment schemes
In 2015, the first scheme opened – requiring survivors to show proof of a prior complaint against their abuser – before they could be admitted.
In basic terms, they had to show that someone had made a complaint about the abuser to a school authority before the abuse occurred.
If they could not prove such a complaint existed, they were excluded from the scheme, even if the abuse itself was accepted.
By 2017, 50 applications had been made; all had been refused, and questions were raised in the Dáil.
Applicants were entitled to appeal a negative decision, and it was the job of retired High Court judge Iarfhliath O’Neill to assess them independently.
Before he considered the appeals, Mr O’Neill reviewed the terms of the ex-gratia scheme.
In 2019, he concluded that the pre-condition of proof of a prior complaint involved “an inherent inversion of logic and fundamental unfairness to applicants”.
The scheme was scrapped.
In July 2021, another iteration was established with further pre-conditions.
One was that applicants must have instituted proceedings against the State on or before 1 July that year.
As already outlined, the Supreme Court held that the State could not be vicariously liable for the actions of teachers employed by boards of management/religious orders, so most victims hadn’t taken proceedings.
Therefore, the pre-condition was not workable for a significant number of survivors.
Another pre-condition was the ‘real prospect test’, requiring applicants to show that, but for the State’s failure to implement child protection measures before 1991/92, there was a real prospect that the applicant could have been saved from the abuse.
Specifically, they had to show that if the State had operated an effective child-protection system before 1991/92, there was a real prospect that the abuse would have been prevented.
This was difficult for survivors. It required them to prove a hypothetical historical scenario centered on what would have happened decades ago if the State had operated on a different child-protection regime.
The second ex gratia scheme ceased in July 2021 and one-third of the €31m budget allocated to it was paid out. In total, around 170 survivors of abuse received redress.
Bizarrely, most of the people abused by the same teacher as Ms O’Keeffe – after whose case instigated the ex-gratia schemes – did not qualify.
Amicus curiae
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission intervened as amicus curiae in two sets of High Court proceedings where survivors challenged the State’s refusal to admit them to the ex-gratia schemes.
PD v Minister for Education, Ireland and the Attorney General in 2022 and KW v Minister for Education, Ireland and the Attorney General in May 2024 were settled by the State.
Other cases have also settled, and it is understood that litigants received €84,000 each – the amount of redress paid by the State under the ex-gratia schemes and the amount paid by the State to Ms O’Keeffe.
The Dunderrow women who were abused in the same classroom as Ms O’Keeffe cannot comprehend returning to court to fight for redress, when the O’Keeffe judgment clearly finds that the State failed to protect them and is liable.
In addition, the women do not understand why they are being discriminated against compared to other survivors like PD and KW, who also had not complied with the State’s preconditions to the ex gratia schemes, but received redress when they challenged the State through the courts.
In a statement, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IRHEC) expressed concern that “the intransigence of the Irish government has forced survivors to take legal proceedings in order to vindicate their rights, leading to further unnecessary stress and retraumatisation”.
The commission says it is aware of at least 40 cases where the State has paid compensation equivalent to redress payments in settlement of litigation to survivors whose cases come within the terms of the O’Keeffe judgment.
Europe’s view
The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers is responsible for oversight of the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
Its most recent published assessment of Ireland’s implementation of rulings of the Strasbourg court by member states notes that O’Keeffe v Ireland and one other case have been “pending implementation for a very long time”.
“For the implementation of O’Keeffe v Ireland in particular, the authorities should still take measures to ensure that adequate redress is offered in relation to claims for historic abuses in schools,” it stated.
Last year, IRHEC wrote to the Committee accusing the Government of now being “engaged in a limited defacto ‘shadow’ redress scheme, which falls outside any formal ex gratia scheme structure”.
Where to now?
In June 2024, the Scoping Inquiry into Historical Sexual Abuse in Day and Boarding Schools Run by Religious Orders was submitted to the Government.
It recommended the establishment of a statutory inquiry and a survivor engagement programme.
In July last year, the Government approved the establishment of a Commission of Investigation into the Handling of Historical Child Sexual Abuse in Day and Boarding Schools.
The scope of the commission extends to all day and boarding schools and may consider child sexual abuse that occurred between 1927 and 2013 in its report.
Mr Justice Michael MacGrath has been given five years to conclude his work, but the view of survivors and advocate groups is that it is likely to take longer.
In a letter to the Minister for Education sent last February, seen by RTÉ News, IHREC highlighted failures of the State regarding the implementation of Ms O’Keeffe and accused it of failing to take account of, or act to remedy the “unlawful discrimination perpetrated against the women of Dunderrow National School.
The letter outlined the mental and physical abuse survivors claimed to have been subjected to in the school as well as the ex-gratia schemes established by the state; human rights report and court reports.
It set out its argument as to why the State failed to implement the judgment.
In response, Minister for Education Hildegarde Naughton pointed to the Commission of Investigation.
She said the “horrendous sexual abuse” described in the letter would be within the scope of the Commission’s work.
The Inter-Departmental Group, which is examining any future redress scheme, is also under way.
The minister asked that IHREC await the response of Government for the advice which is scheduled to be completed by May 2027.
Minister Naughton stated that she did not accept “any suggestion” that Ireland had failed to implement the European Court of Human Rights in the O’Keeffe case.
“… and I equally cannot accept that the almost €14m paid to those who discontinued relevant litigation is not fair and equal in giving effect to the important judgment obtained by Louise O’Keeffe from the European Court of Human Rights,” she added.
Council of Europe Commissioner on Human Rights
Commissioner for Human Rights in Europe Michael O’Flaherty said the right to an effective remedy and redress is a basic human right enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights.
He said restorative justice must be survivor-centered and that victims should not be forced to endure complicated and costly court battles.
“Survivors have the right to truth, comprehensive support and fair and equal compensation.
“They must be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity, avoiding secondary victimisation. All member states of the Council of Europe must fully implement the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights,” he said.
Department of Education response
In a statement, a spokesperson for the Department of Education said the Government was very conscious of the ongoing impact of the trauma experienced by survivors of abuse.
However, he said the department could not comment on individual or specific cases which may be the subject of potential litigation.
The department said a “range of specific and general measures” had been taken to fully implement the 2014 European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judgment in O’Keeffe v Ireland, including the provision of an ex-gratia payment scheme and the development of “extensive measures” to improve child protection in schools.
“The ex-gratia scheme was implemented in order to provide compensation to individuals falling within the scope of the ECHR judgment who had instituted legal proceedings against the State in respect of day school sexual abuse and subsequently discontinued those proceedings following rulings in the domestic courts,” he said.
The spokesperson said the Scoping Inquiry into Historical Sexual Abuse in Day and Boarding Schools Run by Religious Orders, published in 2024, recognised the significance of the issue of redress for survivors and their expressed wish that those running schools where child sexual abuse occurred should be held accountable financially.
“The report of the Inter-Departmental Group (IDG), established to advise Government on the recommendations of the Scoping Inquiry, was considered by Government and published on 8 July 2025.
“The IDG recognised that consideration of a redress scheme may have far-reaching implications and advised that a further phase of more detailed work needed to be undertaken to ensure that the Government is fully informed in any decision it may take,” he said.
The statement pointed out that the Government accepted this advice and the IDG has commenced this further work to examine the mechanisms that may be brought to bear to ensure that those responsible for schools where historical sexual abuse happened meet their obligations to survivors.
“The IDG aims to complete its work by May 2027 and will make a report to the minister, based on which Government will give consideration to establishing a redress scheme,” he said.
If you have been affected by this story, please visit our helplines page.