Redress scheme could cost €1bn

Floater

How many of these claimants

a) are chancing their arm?

b) while they have some basis for a claim will end up laughing all the way to the bank given the size of settlement they receive?

c) are people who have had a material chunk taken out of their lives and suffered as a result of establishment negligence, for which no sum of money can compensate?

The obsolete adversarial legal system is hardly the best way to process the matter expeditiously, justly and economically.

Floater

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

mike65

I doubt there are many if any chancers trying to make a mint from the Catholic Church in Ireland/the State but the government seems to have fvcked up spectaularly again by letting the Church
pay such a small part of the overall costs - they should pay 90%,not 10%.

They failed in thier duty of care first and foremost, the State can be picked up on the fact they were not willing to stick thier noses into the Churchs' business as the state was of course scared of the crozier but I think we're all beyond that stage now. Thank God!

Needless to say costs would be much lower without the damned lawyers. When the revolutuion comes....

Mike.

gom

To be honest
Thats €1 Billion that the Church can easily afford if they are made pay for it. The state(i.e. FF and the Civil servants) should get real and blame the church and stop protecting it. Its in their interests(Financial and political) to blame the pope. So much land is owned by the church. I can't begin to count the number of times my gf told me she did a convency search for hundreds of acres owned by various religious orders....

Make the Soldiers of God pay. It is them whom carried out the acts.

Yes the state was probably aware of it. But so was 1 in 3 people in Ireland and they hid it well too...

star gazer

While i would see it unlikely that many people would try to fraudulently go for the gold, there is a strange feeling for me that the religious institutions are being allowed to wriggle out of their responsibilities. I would suggest that even one incident of viscious abuse could leave a child traumatised and in fear for the rest of her/his life so i would suggest that the money on offer might just about buy a house for the abused but won't exactly see them living it up for the rest of their lives.
The legal profession have a valuable place in irish society, however they appear to be taking the state to the proverbial cleaners. Whether it be tribunals, insurance claims (for consumers) or the redistribution of wealth from the religious institutions and the state in the redress board they appear to be making a great deal of money which could have gone to the victims or the state's coffers. Can anyone seriously believe that while the present minister for justice is there the legal profession will ever seriously reform to bring a sense of proportion (10% rather than 40%) to the monies being paid to lawyers.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Floater
b) while they have some basis for a claim will end up laughing all the way to the bank given the size of settlement they receive?

Maybe you should ask them if they'll be "laughing", I'm sure after all they've been subjected to already they'd be more than happy to let you know.

Floater

Originally posted by Frank_Grimes
Maybe you should ask them if they'll be "laughing", I'm sure after all they've been subjected to already they'd be more than happy to let you know.

If you read my (root) posting again I think you will see that I have allowed for the fact that there will be genuine claimants.

Please stop twisting the issue!

If Ireland’s fraudulent insurance claim track record is anything to go by, similar con merchants and their legal advisors will show up at this process too.

What is required is a fundamental change in the legal process which may require a constitutional amendment.

Appoint one or more investigating judges to sift through the cases that will under the current system head for "due process". Their duty would be to get to the truth in an non-adversarial environment – like a “judge d’instruction” in other countries. You shouldn’t need a lawyer to represent you to tell the investigating judge your story. If you feel you want one, pay for him yourself. The judge after all will have a similar legal training to the lawyer you might hire yourself to represent you.

The judge prepares a written report on each case and recommends the level of settlement. If the claimant (or state) is dissatisfied with this, the report is submitted to a judge sitting in court who makes a final decision. If you are dissatisfied and want to go on to the Supreme Court fine, on the usual terms on costs.

The presence of lawyers or the risk that they will be present at the early stages of the adjudication process will drive up costs enormously and will influence the size of settlements given generally.

Floater

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Floater
If you read my (root) posting again I think you will see that I have allowed for the fact that there will be genuine claimants.

I have read the post and you did say:

How many of these claimants

b) while they have some basis for a claim will end up laughing all the way to the bank given the size of settlement they receive?

Yes you are allowing for the fact that many are genuine but you are implying that they are getting more than they deserve or something similar.

Floater

Originally posted by Frank_Grimes
I have read the post and you did say:

How many of these claimants

b) while they have some basis for a claim will end up laughing all the way to the bank given the size of settlement they receive?

Yes you are allowing for the fact that many are genuine but you are implying that they are getting more than they deserve or something similar.

No. I am saying that there is a risk that there will be a group of claimants who will get more than they might otherwise be entitled to as a result of "litigation blackmail" for want of a better term.

The insurance claim analogy might be someone who hurts themselves at work, and though fully recovered the next week sues his employer for a few hundred thousand for backpain or similar and stays off work for three months "holiday".

Item c) in my root posting allows for the fact that there will be genuine claimants for whom no sum of money will recompense them fully.

Floater

star gazer

No. I am saying that there is a risk that there will be a group of claimants who will get more than they might otherwise be entitled to as a result of "litigation blackmail" for want of a better term.
floater

Ordinarily i would probably agree to be very vigilant, however in thiese circumstances it would be better that some fraudsters got a payment and real claimants get their fair payments rather than the judges catch all the fraudsters at the cost of putting a lot of pressure onto people that have, in fairness gone through some indescribable abuse and can still be reeling from it. Er on the side of genorisity on this one, but if a fraudulent claim is found, make an example of them.

gollem_1975

I definitely think that there will be a few chancers looking for compo.
anyone who doesn't think so is somewhat naive IMO.
however , I think the issue of chancers within the ranks of the claimants will not be picked up as an issue due to the nature of the crimes committed against the bulk of the claimants.

I must add that I don't know what procedures are to be used to determine the validity of the claims or the amounts of the payments due to the claimants.

as to the projected amounts due to the claimants ( a figure of 1billion has been mentioned ) can a comparision be drawn with the army deafness claims a few years ago . the total amount paid out in this situation came in well below that originally estimated if I'm not mistaken.

does anyone know if the state could actually force the 'congregations' to pay out more than the 128mill they have agreed to . i know people have said that the church does have considerable property assets. however how liquid are these assets , i.e. are they churches ,schools and can't be just sold off quickly to raise funds.

Floater

Originally posted by star gazer
Ordinarily i would probably agree to be very vigilant, however in thiese circumstances it would be better that some fraudsters got a payment and real claimants get their fair payments rather than the judges catch all the fraudsters at the cost of putting a lot of pressure onto people that have, in fairness gone through some indescribable abuse and can still be reeling from it. Er on the side of genorisity on this one, but if a fraudulent claim is found, make an example of them.

I'm not suggesting that a single individual should get less than they deserve in the process.

The litigation blackmail is unlikely to come from honest claimants working within a non adversarial system who feel they have been fairly treated.

It will come from lawyers if they are allowed to turn the system into an adversarial gravy train - hyping up expectations of victims and pocketing 30-50 per cent of the proceeds in the process. Making the victims far worse off as a result.

Get the system right and people will be treated fairly and all parties should be happy with the outcome. Only a minority of countries still use the outdated adversarial legal system which is a thousand years out of date. The world has moved on to a non-adversarial approach with a codified legal system that is fairer, more certain of outcome and accessible.

Floater

star gazer

The competition Authority are doing investigations into all the professions but they won't report on the legal profession for at least another 15 months. I don't think any reform will be allowed to happen until after they report if at all. There is little or no chance of something being done to change the way The redress board will give out money in time for it to benefit the victims of institutional abuse.
The best they can hope for is that the redress board doesn't try to keep it's awards under the level the high court would give and that the lawyers would honourably cap their own expenses.

The Brigadier

I have read several articles on this over the last couple of years and I must say I am disgusted at the way the church has been allowed to abuse the people of Ireland not once but twice..

The catholic church is one of the wealthiest organisations in the world. The bishops palace in drumcondra alone is worth €200million. Why has the church been allowed to cut a deal worth €128million to absolve themselves of all responsibiliteis for clerical abuse in Ireland?

On top of this the church is using it's charitable status (which imho should have been revoked many years ago) to avoid capital gains tax on property they are selling to pay off their debt....

The churches then, again imho, have the barefaced cheek to hand around collecting dishes every week to collect money from the people of ireland..... Have they not got enough allready? Were in the bible did Jesus ask people to build temples of gold in which to worship him?

The estimated shortfall on the clerical sex abuse will be in the region of €800million. That averages out at over €200 per person in Ireland that will be coughing up for the vile acts carried out by the clergy in Ireland, and permitted by the Church at levels all the way up to the Vatican itself.

I am not a Catholic, in fact I am not even a Christian - so I resent having to fork out for the acts perpetrated by the church while the bishops live in opulence(And believe me we will pay this money in our taxes). In fact I read that Cardinal Connell is moving into a €7million property in D4???? How can they justify this??? How can the Irish government allow this to go on??? Was Bertie smoking crack when he signed this deal???

The catholic church should be treated like any other corporate body, they have the resources to do so. I feel there needs to be a fundamental shift in attitude from the church - more hands in pockets - less begging bowels out!!!

And maybe if a few more priests actually READ the bible the church would have more respect, certainly from me...

Biffa Bacon

Personally I don't see why anyone should receive monetary compensation for non-monetary loss, but that's somewhat off-topic.

Even if you do agree with that principle however, seeing as how no one in the Church apart from the abusers themselves have actually been found guilty of any crime, I don't see why the money should not come entirely from the State out of general taxation. Seeing as how no one is guilty, why should the burden not be shared equally?

star gazer

I sympathise Mr. Melody, but one point that seems to be at the root of the bad deal was the fact that the Taoiseach openly apologised for the abuse that happened. (don't get me wrong the apology was necessary and just the begining). However, legally it leaves the country in a pickle because the apology could be used as defence by the religious institutions which left them in a very strong bargaining position. They should have taken a moral stand and paid fifty-fifty with the State and been a part of the apology in 1999 on a platform with the Taoiseach, taking responsibility for what were deplorable crimes and their subsequent cover-up, which in a lot of ways made things a lot worse.

star gazer

Even if you do agree with that principle however, seeing as how no one in the Church apart from the abusers themselves have actually been found guilty of any crime, I don't see why the money should not come entirely from the State out of general taxation. Seeing as how no one is guilty, why should the burden not be shared equally?
Biffa Bacon

The church, as a whole played a big part in covering up the offences, thereby increasing the suffering and the injustice. The State was actually charged with the duty of care so it was responsible for handing the children over to the religious institutions.
I guess in a sense the country is guilty for not listening to the complaints and suffering of the abused children.

Personally I don't see why anyone should receive monetary compensation for non-monetary loss, but that's somewhat off-topic.
Biffa bacon

ok there was no direct financial loss, but the hardship endured would surely have hindered their ability to earn an income, indirectly.

The Brigadier

The point I am making is that any large body such as the church is responsible for it's representatives....

Clerical abuse was known about by the church and allowed to continue. The senior members of clergy are just as guilty as the perpetraitors themselves.

As you mentioned this was covered up by the church. Why have the church not apologised?? The pope made an apology for the actions of the church during world war II, is an apology here too much to ask??

I think criminal charges should be levelled against the church. The senior members who covered this up should at least be guilty of "Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"... Their assets should be seized by the CAB and sold off to pay recitude for their crimes...

Manach

Every thing is a matter of balance, if for instance it can be shown that the Church's services are a positive net gain to society, would people then pay compensation to the Church for services rendered?

Regarding properties, at least the Church cannot take land as governments allow themselves to do.

Cork

I think the Church has provided this state with education. The whole agreement between the church and the state was approved by cabinet. Was it a good deal?

Time will Tell.

The army deafness claims were to cost the state a mint. This was not the case.

Estimates or liability are estimates.

Many partys like governments and parts of the civil service turned a blind eye to what was going on.

This should have been sorted years ago. Michael Woods was right to conclude agreement - if it meant haggling over €.

Victims need justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.

When the opposition are spouting on - what did they do for victims of abuse?


Had Pat Rabbitt not a seat at cabinet?

I am not saying it was a good deal but trying it up in the courts for years would have been a far greater injustice.