Eastern Health Board v M.K.; Re M., S. and W

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1996
• Date: 01 January 1996
• Court: High Court

(S.C.)

(H.C.)

Eastern Health Board

and

M.K

In re M., S. and W

- Admissibility - Hearsay - Children - Allegation of child sex abuse against parents - Videotape recordings - Whether statements adduced by means of video recording properly described as hearsay - Whether hearsay evidence relating to statements of abused children admissible - Whether certain safeguards required for reception of such evidence - Whether merely material upon which expert evidence based.

The first and second respondents were the mother and father respectively of the children M.K., S.K. and W.K., which children, the applicant sought to make wards of court. During the High Court wardship proceedings, see [1996] ILRM 370, it was alleged that the second respondent had sexually abused his child S.K. The evidence relied upon by the applicant to support its application was (a) the evidence of Mrs H., a speech therapist as to what S.K. had said to her on two occasions, and (b) the evidence of Mr. McG., a senior social worker, of what S.K. said and did at an interview he had with him, a video of this interview was made and seen by the High Court and by the Supreme Court, on appeal. The High Court admitted the evidence on a de bene esse basis, notwithstanding the objections of the respondents. The High Court made it clear that if the hearsay evidence had been excluded, the other evidence would not have justified the order making the children wards of court. Based on the hearsay evidence, the learned trial judge made a finding that "[S.K.] has over a period of years been grossly sexually abused by his father and that his mother knew of it and was powerless to stop it." The children of the two respondents, were taken into the wardship of the High Court, the applicant was appointed their guardian and it was further ordered that the children remain in the custody, care and control of the applicant until further order. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the respondents submitted that the hearsay evidence should not have been admitted and alternatively, that the said evidence was not scrutinised sufficiently. The applicant submitted that the wardship jurisdiction was inquisitorial in nature, and that the normal rules on hearsay did not apply. Held by the Supreme Court (Denham, Barrington, Keane, Lynch and Barron JJ.), in allowing the appeal, 1, that the wardship jurisdiction differed from the norm in relation to a lis inter partes in that it was inquisitorial and concerned primarily with...