Man sexually abused by priest at Irvine Catholic primary school awarded £627,000 in damages

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] CSOH 23
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Session Outer House
• Judge:
  Lord Clark

The anonymous pursuer, F, argued that significant weight ought to be ascribed to his experiences at the school in assessment of damages. The action came to proceed solely against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Galloway, originally convened as second defender, which argued that other abuse the pursuer suffered later in life was an equal contributor to his mental health issues.

The case was heard by Lord Clark. Milligan KC and McCaffery, advocate, appeared for the pursuer and Primrose KC and Rolfe, advocate, for the second defender.

Most significant factor

In the late 1970s, the pursuer was a pupil at St Mark’s primary school in Irvine. When he was aged five to six, he was subjected to physical abuse and very serious sexual abuse by a priest, including anal penetration. He was later physically and sexually abused again when he was a boarding school pupil at Fort Augustus Abbey secondary school. He developed Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and in 2012 stopped working as he felt unable to continue.

The defender accepted that the abuse of the pursuer at St Mark’s took place and accepted vicarious liability for the conduct of the priest. The issue remaining in dispute was the extent of loss, injury and damage caused by that abuse, having regard to the other adverse experiences suffered by the pursuer at Fort Augustus Abbey and later in life.

Psychiatric experts instructed by both parties, Dr O’Neill for the pursuer and Professor Fahy and Dr de Taranto for the defender, agreed on the risk factors present in the pursuer’s childhood, including abandonment by his father and physical abuse by his stepfather. However, Dr O’Neill took the view that the abuse at St Mark’s was the most significant factor in the development of his CPTSD, while the defender’s experts ascribed roughly equal weight to his experiences at St Mark’s and Fort Augustus Abbey. Dr O’Neill also opined that the pursuer was academically bright and in the absence of the abuse would have enjoyed more success both academically and vocationally.

For the pursuer it was submitted that repeated penetrative abuse was the most severe form of childhood abuse, and the time at St Mark’s was the single biggest contributor to his CPTSD. Any inconsistencies in his evidence could be attributed to his mental ill health, and it was notable that he showed more evident distress recalling the events at St Mark’s than when recalling the events at Fort Augustus Abbey.

The defender submitted that the pursuer was wholly incredible and unreliable. As a witness he was hostile, evasive and untruthful, and gave the version of events which most suited his purposes. Even if he had not sustained the abuse at St Mark’s, the serious and sustained sexual and other abuse at Fort Augustus Abbey would have rendered the pursuer unable to work within around a year to two years of him first disclosing this abuse.

Serious and damaging

In his decision, Lord Clark said of the pursuer as a witness: “It is undoubtedly correct that there are significant problems with the evidence given by the pursuer. On various occasions he did not accept that what he had said, for example to the police, was in fact correct. He tried to give reasons for the discrepancies, such as saying that on one occasion he was in a police interview room and ‘it came out all wrong’.”

However, he noted: “The priest at St Mark’s was convicted of anally raping the pursuer on various occasions. That jury decision, reached beyond reasonable doubt, is convincing evidence. No similar evidence was led of any conviction of those who abused the pursuer at Fort Augustus Abbey. At least one of them was arrested and charged with certain offences on various pupils, but there appears to have been no charge of rape of the pursuer. There may be reasons for that but on the evidence it fits with the view that the abuse at St Mark’s was at a greater level of culpability and harm.”

Evaluating the expert evidence, Lord Clark said: “On my assessment that the abuse at St Mark’s was to some extent of greater force in causing the injuries, I am not able to accept the view of the defender’s experts that the pursuer would have been in exactly the same position in any event due to the events at Fort Augustus Abbey. Older victims could have more awareness of the violation than younger ones, but it does seem very clear in this case that the pursuer was aware at the time of the multiple rapes and other sexual abuse at St Mark’s. Indeed, he was very seriously traumatised by this abuse, which at that age it was impossible for him to escape from.”

He added: “Dr de Taranto and Professor Fahy’s conclusion that the abuse at Fort Augustus Abbey would have resulted in the pursuer not being psychiatrically fit to continue working after one to two years perhaps has some support, but I am unable to conclude that such a limited period would have been the actual result.”

Lord Clark concluded: “This is a complex case in which there was serious and damaging sexual abuse of the pursuer when he was very young at primary school. He then suffered further abuse at secondary school, with sexual elements, and of a physical and emotional nature. That later abuse lasted longer than the first and may well, based on the medical literature, have had a profound effect on his life. But the devastating nature of the horrific sexual abuse at St Mark’s when he was a young child was the more prominent cause. That being so, he is entitled to an appropriate award of damages for that abuse.”

Having determined that a lump sum approach was the most appropriate in the circumstances of the case, Lord Clark therefore awarded the pursuer £627,000.