Nuns who were accused of abuse at Catholic school will not stand trial

TWO women who were accused of horrific physical abusive against young girls in their care while they were nuns will not stand trial in front of their accusers after a Sheriff ruled against the case proceeding.

Anne Kenny, 77, and Agnes Reville, 76, were alleged to have committed assaults on teenage girls who were residents of Dalbeth Approved School, in Greenock Road, Bishopton, on various dates between 1970 and 1971.

But a Sheriff has now decided the prosecution should not take place as too much time has passed since the offences were alleged to have been committed, records have been lost and potential witnesses have died.

Ms Kenny had been accused of tying one girl’s hands to pipework, repeatedly striking her on the head and body with a carpet beater and a riding crop or similar instrument, pulling her hair, causing her to fall down stairs, abducting her, forcing her into a room, detaining her against her will and failing to provide nourishment, to her severe injury and permanent disfigurement.

She was also alleged to have forced the same girl to drink an anti-psychotic liquid and to have repeatedly struck another girl with a carpet beater and repeatedly hit her on the head with her hand, forced her into a room and detained her against her will.

It was further claimed that she assaulted another teenager by repeatedly striking her on the body with a carpet beater or similar object.

Ms Reville was accused of assaulting a 15-year-old girl by forcing her arm up her back, seizing her hair and dragging her along a corridor, striking her on the face with her elbow, causing her to fall down a flight of stairs and forcing her to drink an anti-psychotic drug.

She was alleged to have repeatedly stuck another girl on the face, knocked her to the ground, knelt on top of her, squeezed her face, dug her fingers into her body, grabbed her hair and dragged her along a corridor, repeatedly abducted her and placed her in a room to detain her against her will.

A third charge maintained that she assaulted a 14-year-old girl by pulling her hair, punching her on the head and body, forcing her to drink an anti-psychotic drug, detaining her against her will and failing to provide nourishment.

The offences were alleged to have taken place 40 years ago at the school, which was run by the Catholic Church.

At a pre-trial debate held earlier this year, counsel representing Ms Kenny and Ms Reville – who both live in England – argued the accused would not get a fair trial due to a lack of written records, such as social work reports and medical documents, many of which have been lost, the death of potential witnesses and the passage of time.

It was maintained that, under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the accused would be deprived of the opportunity to attempt any reasonable cross-examination as vital documents required to mount any challenge to evidence from accusers were missing and key witnesses, such as the housemistress and school nurse, had both died.

Giving his determination yesterday, Sheriff David Pender stated: “I am not persuaded, as a general rule, that the passage of time alone will seriously undermine the prospects of a fair trial. If the complainers give evidence on the basis of the statements which have been disclosed to the defence, there is a possibility there will be a case against both accused.

“The difficulty for the defence is that it would not be possible to cross-examine, properly and fully, any of the complainers because of the absence of records. It would also be very difficult to lead contradictory evidence because of the non-availability of witnesses who were around at the time.”

He said it had been argued that, in Ms Kenny’s case, she would be left in a situation where it would be her word against the complainers’ and, as such, she would be robbed of the right to a fair trial.

Referring to statements disclosed to the defence in which conduct was alleged to have taken place which would have resulted in serious injury, he said such injuries were bound to have required medical intervention and added: “If allegations of this type were to be made in the course of the trial, in my view, the absence of medical records would be grossly prejudicial to the accused.”

He continued: “I consider that, as a consequence of the passage of time, the loss of records and the death of potential witnesses, the risk of prejudice to both accused is so grave that it would be impossible to direct a jury in such a way that prejudice could be avoided.”

After Sheriff Pender had provided copies of his notes to defence counsel and the Crown, senior depute fiscal John Miller said the Crown would reserve the right to appeal but only after full consideration had been given to the contents of the six-page determination.