Diocese of Galloway ordered to pay man £473,000 over priest abuse
A Roman Catholic diocese has been ordered to pay a man more than £470,000 after he suffered "horrific" sexual abuse at the hands of a priest almost 50 years ago.The man, who has not been identified, was targeted by the priest when he was five years old while at school in Irvine in Ayrshire and again while he was a boarding school pupil in the Highlands aged 14 to 16.The Court of Session said the Diocese of Galloway was "vicariously liable" for the abuse, which has left the man unable to work since 2012.It ordered the diocese to pay a total of £473,250 for the impact it has had on his life.
The priest, who has not been identified, died in 2021 and had been convicted of sexual abuse.Lawyers for the man, also unidentified for legal reasons, raised an action against the church after the man was diagnosed with complex post traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) stemming from his experiences in childhood.In a written judgement, Lord Clark said the abuse had a "profound effect" on his life.
The diocese was the subject of the action because the priest was within its area at the time of the offending.The diocese covers Dumfries and Galloway, East and South Ayrshire, and parts of North Ayrshire.The man was first targeted by the priest aged five or six while a pupil at St Mark's Primary in Irvine.The same priest targeted the boy again in the late 1970s whilst he was a boarding school student at Fort Augustus Abbey Secondary School in the Highlands.The man had several jobs throughout his life, but felt unable to continue in employment from 2012 onwards.He developed CPTSD, originally diagnosed as severe PSTD, at around that time.Archbishop William Nolan, who was once Bishop of Galloway but is now Archbishop of Glasgow, gave evidence to proceedings.The court heard how he wrote a letter to the man shortly after the conviction of the priest - Lord Clark wrote about how this letter sought to "assist the pursuer".In his evidence, the archbishop referred to the now revamped safeguarding guidelines adopted by the Catholic Church.The diocese had argued the causes of the man's psychiatric injuries were attributable to other "adverse" life events.
'Horrific sexual abuse'
But Lord Clark wrote that his experiences while a primary school pupil were "serious and damaging".In his judgement, he said: "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."He added: "But the devastating nature of the horrific sexual abuse at St Mark's when he was a young child was the more prominent cause."Lord Clark originally awarded the man a total of £627,000 for the abuse carried out on him while he was a pupil at St Mark's.However, Lord Clark wrote that the man had already received £50,000 compensation for the abuse he had suffered from another church organisation and a representative of a person who had abused him whilst he was at Fort Augustus Abbey.Lord Clark wrote that the man had also received £153,749.67 in respect of the abuse perpetrated at St Mark's.Lord Clark said that £78,749.67 of came from the priest's estate which was paid in February 2024 and interim payments of £75,000 which had already been paid by the diocese.He concluded these payments meant that the final sum which was due to be handed over was £473,250.Lord Clark wrote: "The impact on the pursuer and the harm from which he continues to suffer cannot adequately be addressed merely by an award of damages but it is hoped that, this matter now having been dealt with, the pursuer can move on with his life."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Press and Journal
15 hours ago
- Press and Journal
David Knight: Being fined at the faffing-about early stages of Aberdeen bus gates has had me simmering every day for three years
Whenever I approach a hooded and disabled roadside speed camera – with 'not in use' on it – I slow down instinctively. There are a few of them dotted around Aberdeen. Like Daleks from Dr Who; temporarily rendered harmless, but still menacing. I suppose it's some kind of reverse psychology going on: our brains are still wired to be wary of speed traps. You'd think I'd speed up rather than decelerate. Or maybe I don't really believe the 'not in use' signs and suspect it's some kind of trick. My journalistic mind always suspects that the authorities are up to something. My standard starting point is that they are trying to hide important things from the public and so a permanent state of scepticism is healthy. To challenge things all the time. After all, there is a lot to process in Aberdeen right now, especially with bus-gate and LEZ (Low Emission Zone) fines popping through letter boxes at an alarming rate. The Post Office's immediate future as a viable going concern must surely be guaranteed thanks to this lucrative line of mail-delivery business. I gazed at a P&J colour-coded graphic shape depicting a myriad of current traffic restrictions around Aberdeen, including bus gates and LEZs. Stretching like a green medieval gauntlet around all the city centre's major streets – choking the life out of them, some might say. The first salvos in a legal challenge by local businesses against the profit-draining gates are expected in the Court of Session soon. My beef with council bus gates always has been whether correct processes – democratic and procedural – were followed. That should interest all citizens. Meanwhile, the first wave of data on Aberdeen LEZs is being digested on the first anniversary of their introduction. A hefty £4.5million in LEZ fines dominates the debate, but important health information about reductions in potentially lethal emissions must also be evaluated. My health was not helped by pondering over not one, but four fines which arrived at my door. Two were imposed in Aberdeen, but are now a bit old. I don't bear grudges, but I have been simmering about them every day for three years. The other two were just a matter of weeks ago. Not in Aberdeen, but in a galaxy far, far away in England. Parking fines administered while I was on a mercy mission to visit a sick elderly relative. Twice for the same offence, in effect: once the night before and again in a dawn swoop by a patrol the next day before I awoke. They had me bang to rights, but surely not twice overnight? With my legal magnifying glass to hand I spotted one ticket had recorded me mistakenly as being at another car park half a mile away. It was enough: a legal technicality, but my challenge in writing was upheld and one fine was quashed on appeal. Hardly the case of the century, but again shows that challenging things is healthy – and reading small print is always essential. This recent saga made me think back to that old pair of fines from years before. I managed to incur two Aberdeen bus-gate fines in the same spot within days of each other; that took a serious level of ineptitude on my part, you might think. But shell-shocked and bewildered, I returned to the scene of my 'crime' to walk slowly through the bus-gate zone instead to discover where I went wrong. I still couldn't make sense of it due to shambolic signage which drew much criticism. I thought of this again after the lawyer leading the legal battle reckoned bus-gate fines would have to be refunded to motorists if he won in court. However, he was only talking about fines dating back to when the 'experimental' status of the current bus-gate layout was made permanent earlier this year. But what about me and many others? I fell foul of what I describe as a 'pre-experiment' experimental stage of this troubled project when a pilot bus-gate was trialled temporarily at one end of Union Street. It was the embryonic forerunner of what you see today, but also triggered a furore of protest and many fines. I hate to take issue with the legal expert, but surely as these people were punished during an earlier chaotic faffing-about stage of bus gates – before they became legally binding – they actually have a stronger argument for recompense? Paying a fine is hardly a matter of life or death, you might say. But it might be if you were breathing in exhaust emissions in what are now LEZs. Early evidence shows some reductions. Good news, but we must bear in mind that the smallish Aberdeen LEZs seem harsher and more intense than elsewhere in Scotland. So it begs a challenging question: have they got the balance right? David Knight is the long-serving former deputy editor of The Press and Journal
STV News
4 days ago
- STV News
Former St Mirren director defamed colleagues over comments on charity build
Two St Mirren directors were defamed when a former colleague accused them of pursuing a 'secret plan' to build a charity centre on the club's land, a judge has concluded. Alan Wardrop claimed that children's charity Kibble – a shareholder in the Premiership side – had applied for a £2.65m grant from the Scottish Government. Mr Wardrop claimed the application was to allow it to finance a 'first of its kind' wellness centre for disadvantaged children on ground belonging to the side. He then claimed the charity had lied about what it was doing. He then made allegations against Jim Gillespie and Mark MacMillan, the chief executive and director of corporate services of the charity, who are also directors of St Mirren. These remarks prompted Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan to launch a legal action against Mr Wardrop, who was a Buddies' director between 2016 and 2022. The two men claimed the remarks made by Mr Wardrop had damaged their reputations. They instructed lawyers to pursue a defamation action at the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court. The remarks were made in May 2023 during his campaign to become elected to the board of the St Mirren Independent Supporters Association – an organisation which owns 51% of shares in the club – and the Herald newspaper. Lawyers for Mr Wardrop told judge Lord Clark that Mr Wardrop's comments were covered by sections six and seven of the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021. Section six covers matters of public interest – that somebody being sued for defamation can defend themselves against the action if they can show that the remarks were made in the public interest. Section seven covers honest opinion – that if a person can show their opinions were formed as a consequence of scrutinising evidence available then this can be a defence to the action. In a written judgement published by the court on Wednesday, Lord Clark concluded that the statements made by Mr Wardrop were defamatory. He said that the evidence showed that the two pursuers and the charity weren't planning to build the facility on land owned by St Mirren. But he did not award the two pursuers any damages. He said this was because lawyers for Mr Wardrop had shown that his remarks were covered by sections six and seven of the 2021 Act. He wrote: 'The central issues in this case are whether the statements were true and, if not, whether the defences under section 6 or section 7 of the 2021 Act succeed. 'Each side had sound reasons for the positions they took before the court, with evidence giving a fair degree of support. As has been explained, there was sufficient material before the defender which allowed him to reach his understanding about what the pursuers planned to do. 'But, on balance, it has not been shown that his allegations were true. They were defamatory. 'However, the circumstances result in the defence under section 6 applying in relation to the campaign statement and Herald statement, and also the defence under section 7 being made out for the Herald statement. 'As a consequence, the pursuers' claims for damages have not been successful. 'It is not necessary to grant an interdict against the defender from making any such statements again, as sought in the pursuers' first conclusion in the summons. 'The defender will be aware, from the reasoning I have given, that the statements made were defamatory and, but for the defences, would have led to awards of damages. 'There is no right or basis for him to be able to make such statements again and if he were to do so the defences would not apply. 'It would not be in the public interest to make such statements, since the true position has now been determined, and as he now knows the statements were not true he could no longer have an honest opinion.' Lawyers believed the case was the first time that the Scottish defamation law was considered by the courts. The judgement tells of Mr Wardrop's defamatory remarks. Lord Clark wrote that in the supporters association statement, Mr Wardrop said that Mr Gillespie and Mr McMillan 'failed to disclose' to club shareholders, officials and supporters that the charity wanted to build a facility on land owned by the club. Mr Wardrop said that 'together with Renfrewshire Council they applied to the Scottish Government for a £2.65m grant under the name The St Mirren Wellbeing and Regeneration Masterplan.' Mr Wardrop also stated: 'It was not disclosed to other SMISA club board directors and no prior agreement was secured. 'Both Kibble employees did not declare their plans to build on St Mirren owned land to St Mirren SMISA board members but denied any conflict of interest. 'Having discovered the issue under Freedom of Information, I raised it at the club's AGM. I, like many others, no longer have trust and confidence in Kibble's directors serving on the board of St. Mirren FC and I put my SMISA board application forward on the basis I wish to remove them'. The judgement also states that Mr Wardrop told the Herald: 'I have been made out to be a liar by Kibble and the board of St Mirren, now it should be clear to everyone what a huge cover-up this has been, in denying, denying and denying, when they were actually lying, lying and lying.' Lawyers for Mr Wardrop argued that these comments were made on a matter of public interest. They also argued that he made them after scrutinising publically available information and that the legislation covered him in the action. Lord Clark upheld these submissions. He wrote: 'It was apparent from the evidence that the defender actually believed that publication of the campaign statement and the Herald statement were in the public interest. 'There is no suggestion that he knew that the defamatory facts presented were untrue. 'Far from it, his post-publication conduct supports his actual belief and indeed on his evidence in court he remains in the belief that the statements were true. 'He did not unwarrantedly or gratuitously drag into the statements any allegations which do not have a real bearing on the theme of the statements generally.' He also wrote: 'The evidence supports the point that the defender took reasonably extensive steps to verify his belief that it was in the public interest to publish what was said. 'They were reliable sources. The amount of information sought and obtained demonstrates the steps taken to verify the information. 'The status and content of that information, taken together, is reasonably capable of allowing the inferences to be drawn, resulting in his view. 'He carried out the enquiries and checks that were reasonable to expect and open to him, coming across no obviously contradictory evidence.' Lord Clark also said that if the pursuers had been successful, they would have been awarded £40,000 each. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Glasgow Times
4 days ago
- Glasgow Times
St Mirren directors accused of 'secret plan' were defamed, judge rules
Alan Wardrop claimed that children's charity Kibble - a shareholder in the Premiership side - had applied for a £2.65 million grant from the Scottish Government. Mr Wardrop claimed the application was to allow it to finance a 'first of its kind' wellness centre for disadvantaged children on ground belonging to the side. He then claimed the charity had lied about what it was doing. He then made allegations against Jim Gillespie and Mark MacMillan, the chief executive and director of corporate services of the charity, who also directors of St Mirren. These remarks prompted Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan to launch a legal action against Mr Wardrop, who was a Buddies' director between 2016 and 2022. The two men claimed the remarks made by Mr Wardrop had damaged their reputations. They instructed lawyers to pursue a defamation action at the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court. The remarks were made in May 2023 during his campaign to become elected to the board of the St Mirren Independent Supporters Association - an organisation which owns 51 per cent of shares in the club - and the Herald newspaper. Lawyers for Mr Wardrop told judge Lord Clark that Mr Wardrop's comments were covered by sections six and seven of the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021. Section six covers matters of public interest - that somebody being sued for defamation can defend themselves against the action if they can show that the remarks were made in the public interest. Section seven covers honest opinion - that if a person can show their opinions were formed as a consequence of scrutinising evidence available then this can be a defence to the action. In a written judgement published by the court on Wednesday, Lord Clark concluded that the statements made by Mr Wardrop were defamatory. He said that the evidence showed that the two pursuers and the charity weren't planning to build the facility on land owned by St Mirren. But he did not award the two pursuers any damages. He said this was because lawyers for Mr Wardrop had shown that his remarks were covered by sections six and seven of the 2021 Act. READ MORE: 'Sickened': Police officer faces sack after 'shocking' racist jibe He wrote: 'The central issues in this case are whether the statements were true and, if not, whether the defences under section 6 or section 7 of the 2021 Act succeed. 'Each side had sound reasons for the positions they took before the court, with evidence giving a fair degree of support. As has been explained, there was sufficient material before the defender which allowed him to reach his understanding about what the pursuers planned to do. 'But, on balance, it has not been shown that his allegations were true. They were defamatory. 'However, the circumstances result in the defence under section 6 applying in relation to the campaign statement and Herald statement, and also the defence under section 7 being made out for the Herald statement. 'As a consequence, the pursuers' claims for damages have not been successful. 'It is not necessary to grant an interdict against the defender from making any such statements again, as sought in the pursuers' first conclusion in the summons. 'The defender will be aware, from the reasoning I have given, that the statements made were defamatory and, but for the defences, would have led to awards of damages. 'There is no right or basis for him to be able to make such statements again and if he were to do so the defences would not apply. 'It would not be in the public interest to make such statements, since the true position has now been determined, and as he now knows the statements were not true he could no longer have an honest opinion.' Lawyers believed the case was the first time that the Scottish defamation law was considered by the courts. The judgement tells of Mr Wardrop's defamatory remarks. Lord Clark wrote that in the supporters association statement, Mr Wardrop said that Mr Gillespie and Mr McMillan 'failed to disclose' to club shareholders, officials and supporters that the charity wanted to build a facility on land owned by the club. Mr Wardrop said that 'together with Renfrewshire Council they applied to the Scottish Government for a £2.65 million grant under the name The St. Mirren Wellbeing and Regeneration Masterplan.' READ MORE: Man made £442k in ill-gotten gains during time as drug dealer Mr Wardrop also stated: 'It was not disclosed to other SMISA club board directors and no prior agreement was secured. 'Both Kibble employees did not declare their plans to build on St. Mirren owned land to St Mirren SMISA board members but denied any conflict of interest. 'Having discovered the issue under Freedom of Information, I raised it at the club's AGM. I, like many others, no longer have trust and confidence in Kibble's directors serving on the board of St. Mirren FC and I put my SMISA board application forward on the basis I wish to remove them'. The judgement also states that Mr Wardrop told the Herald: 'I have been made out to be a liar by Kibble and the board of St Mirren, now it should be clear to everyone what a huge cover-up this has been, in denying, denying and denying, when they were actually lying, lying and lying.' Lawyers for Mr Wardrop argued that these comments were made on a matter of public interest. They also argued that he made them after scrutinising publicly available information and that the legislation covered him in the action. Lord Clark upheld these submissions. He wrote: 'It was apparent from the evidence that the defender actually believed that publication of the campaign statement and the Herald statement were in the public interest. 'There is no suggestion that he knew that the defamatory facts presented were untrue. 'Far from it, his post-publication conduct supports his actual belief and indeed on his evidence in court he remains in the belief that the statements were true. 'He did not unwarrantedly or gratuitously drag into the statements any allegations which do not have a real bearing on the theme of the statements generally.' He also wrote: 'The evidence supports the point that the defender took reasonably extensive steps to verify his belief that it was in the public interest to publish what was said. 'They were reliable sources. The amount of information sought and obtained demonstrates the steps taken to verify the information. 'The status and content of that information, taken together, is reasonably capable of allowing the inferences to be drawn, resulting in his view. 'He carried out the enquiries and checks that were reasonable to expect and open to him, coming across no obviously contradictory evidence.' Lord Clark also said that if the pursuers had been successful, they would have been awarded £40,000 each.
