ONE of the two victims of convicted paedophile Joseph Nugent has instituted High Court proceedings to secure damages as a result of the crimes perpetrated upon him.
The case – which was launched in June 2001 – is due to be heard on February 13 on the High Court personal injuries list.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has rejected claims by Deputy Pat Breen (FG) that Minister Michael McDowell was to blame for identifying Nugent’s victims.
The victim taking the legal action against the child rapist is now in his 30s.
Nugent (74) of Drumellihy, Cree was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment at Kilrush Circuit Court in November 2004 on one count of buggery and one count of indecent assault against the man who is taking the proceedings.
The man said that he was first assaulted by Nugent aged eight and the abuse continued until he was 15.
The man said that Nugent has never apologised.
He said, “There has been no apology. He doesn’t feel sorry for what he did. I will never forgive that paedophile for what he did.”
The man said that he was upset at reports that Nugent had transferred the land that he farmed out of his name.
The man said, “There should have been a move made to freeze his assets.”
He said, “I’m also very mad that there has been no compensation as there are still legal and psychiatric costs and it is wrong that I would have to pay that and I won’t be paying it.”
The man said that the outstanding bills amounted to around €8,000. He asked, “Why should I pay it?”
Meanwhile, the Dept of Justice has rejected Fine Gael Deputy Pat Breen’s claim that the Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, answered the Dáil question on Nugent “in unusual and extensive detail about the case which clearly identified those involved”.
Last week, Deputy Breen blamed the Tánaiste and sections of the media for causing the controversy that followed his tabling of a Dáil question enquiring into the early release of Nugent.
However, a spokesman for the Department of Justice said, “The Department of Justice rejects any assertion that Deputy Breen’s Parliamentary Question was not answered in the normal way.
He said, “Deputy Breen asked the Tánaiste when a prisoner (with details supplied) would be eligible for early release and if he would make a statement on the matter.
“Where a Deputy requests a statement on a case, and to ensure that the Deputy asking the question is fully aware of the facts behind the case, it is normal practice for information relating to the conviction, sentence and nature of offence to be given by the Tánaiste in replies to such Parliamentary Questions.”