BishopAccountability.org
	Missionary Priest Continues Libel Case Irish Times July 8, 2011 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0708/breaking52.html The High Court has refused to grant an order cutting short the time for RTE to file its defence to claims the broadcaster libelled a missionary priest in a recent RTE Prime Time Investigates programme concerning alleged abuse of children and teenagers in Africa by Irish missionaries. Fr Kevin Reynolds, a member of the Mill Hill Missionaries and acting parish priest of Ahascragh, Co Galway, says he is prepared to undergo a paternity test to prove his innocence of claims against him in the Prime Time Investigates programme entitled 'Mission to Prey', broadcast on RTE One on May 23rd last. Fr Reynolds claims the programme wrongly accused him of raping an underage girl when she was a maid in a house which he had frequented while in Africa and also wrongly alleged he fathered a child by that girl. He has assented to a request from the Mill Hill Missionaries Society superiors, together with the Bishop of Elphin, to step down from his ministry in Ahascragh and leave his home as a result of the very serious “false accusations” levelled against him by RTE pending an investigation, according to court documents. Lawyers for Fr Reynolds secured permission from the High Court earlier this week to apply yesterday for an order requiring RTE to file its defence within fourteen days of the filing of the statement of claim in the libel proceedings. That statement of claim was filed on June 29th last and, under the normal rules, RTE would have 28 days within which to file a defence. Today, Frank Callanan SC, for Fr Reynolds said his client was 65 years old, out of his home and ministry and despondent about how his good name had been damaged among the people of his parish. It was imperative the case was brought on with a good deal of dispatch, counsel urged. The allegations made were very serious, that his client had raped an underage girl who was a maid in a house he had frequenented and had fathered a child by her and set out to conceal his paternity, counsel said. RTE could not use the paternity test issue as a means of “stringing out the proceedings”, he added. RTE had been on notice since May 11th Fr Reynolds would be disputing the allegations in the documentary, counsel said. Despite that, the station went ahead with the programme later that month and proceedings were served on June 17th last. Opposing the application, David Keane SC, for RTE, who said it was an unprecedented application. A very large number of libel cases come before the courts which are also serious and there was nothing exceptional about this case to justify the order sought, counsel said. This was the “most extraordinary case of pre-emptive chastisement” he had ever come across, counsel said. There were two interests involved, the reputation of Fr Reynolds and the countervailing interests of a free press and freedom of expression. Mr Keane argued counsel for Fr Reynolds was confusing the seriousness of the allegations with an urgency for the case to be heard. There was no reason this defamation case should be treated any differently to others in procedural terms. This case would require serious deliberation and consideration on both sides and it would be necessary to bring witnesses from another continent, he added. The plaintiff had requested the paternity test and RTE had put in place the arrangement for that, he said. The station was not using the paternity test to obstruct the lititgation. In his ruling, Mr Justice Sean Ryan said there was nothing exceptional about the case which would allow him abridge time for the filing of a defence. The issue was whether the case should be given a special category over and above other defamation cases, he said. There was a risk, if this case was isolated from others and “shepherded” through specified procedures, of giving the impression he had a particular view about the merits of the case. RTE did not have to produce a good reason concerning why the ususal rules should be followed and the rights of both parties would be best preserved by adherence to the rules, he said. He would refuse the application and the case could proceed in the normal way. If RTE failed to file a defence within the 28 days, it was open to Fr Reynolds to make an application during the courts summer vacation sittings, the judge added.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.