We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Updated 21.38
DOLORES ATWOOD, THE woman at the centre of former archbishop Richard Burke’s defamation action against RTÉ has said that she is “very happy” with the judgement.
Earlier the case was settled, although RTÉ confirmed that they had paid no damages in the settlement.
Burke had taken the case alleging he had been defamed by a Prime Time Investigates programme entitled Mission to Prey.
The 2011 programme wrongly branded him a paedophile, Burke claimed.
“I am very happy and I like the judgement,” Atwood said outside court.
I’m happy that I was able to come from Canada to Ireland to testify, and I am very pleased RTÉ was able to believe me and stand by me in all this. I’m really glad the truth finally came out. I am very, very happy.
When asked whether or not she can now put the case behind her Atwood said it will “take time”.
It will take time, because of the way he described me, what he said about me that was not true. That was sad, you know, but I am happy the truth finally is out there.
The court heard evidence from Atwood, who claimed she had been abused by Burke in her native Nigeria when she was 13 or 14. Burke claimed they had consensual sex when she was 20.
RTÉ argued that they believed Atwood’s testimony, but accepted that the programme had wrongly said that Burke declined to be interviewed.
Both sides today agreed that the matter is resolved. Though no specifics were given, RTÉ confirmed that it had not paid damages but had made a contribution to Burke’s costs.
“We are very grateful to Dolores for coming over here, it was very difficult for her to come over here and speak truthfully,” said Kevin Bakhurst, Deputy Director General of RTÉ, outside court.
In a statement, the broadcaster said it considers the matter over.
“RTÉ accepts it incorrectly stated in the programme that Richard Burke had declined to be interviewed for the programme and for this RTÉ apologises.
“RTÉ acknowledges that Richard Burke has consistently and vehemently denied these allegations, and has done so throughout his evidence at this hearing.
Dolores Atwood stands over her allegations, and RTÉ considers her to be a sincere and honourable person.
“Richard Burke and RTÉ agree this matter is now closed.”
Originally published at 12.24pm
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The settlement will be paid by the people who pay the TV license so they should be told the amount that was paid out.
No payout was made, except part of his legal expenses, according to everyone involved.
Denise FAIRY, read the article again, NO payout! Also, the guy is as guilty as fuk
Denise the troll not bothered actually reading the article.
“He insisted he never knew Ms Attwood when she was 13 or 14 and told the High Court that she blackmailed him to into paying her at least €176,000 to keep their relationship quiet.”
From where did he get Eur176,000 ?
The ECB?
His order would have paid it, to avoid damaging the order and the church; the same reason the church moved abusers and covered up abuse
So how much credibility could this lady have considering she allegedly sought and accepted over €100k to keep quiet about their relationship ??
It could happen to a bishop!
so they believe she blackmailed him too? sounds like a nice person and came back looking for €200k more apparently. doesn’t matter where he got it from, this woman should repay that money.
Spin. That’s his version of “opps I’ve been caught with my pants down and I need to pay to keep her quiet”. Having done this he went on to lie and claim it didn’t happen, they never bumped into each other until she was 20. So when he was described as a paedophile, by any definition this was accurate, given what had occurred between Delores Atwood and the former Archbishop.
Clearly it wasn’t accurate judging by the outcome.
Why is he not suing her for extortion? She is glad good old RTE could believe her. The test is could the court believe her and this was not tested. The other angle on this is if RTE has managed to get the former Archbishop to give his side of the story, would it have influenced the tone of the program?
Also could it be verified whether or not the lady and the former Archbishop knew each other when she was 13 or 14 years old? What is not disputed is the fact that he had a sexual relationship with this woman at some point and that he had to basically bribe her (and she accepted these bribes) to keep quiet. The outcome was a stalemate. No winners here. Except the legal profession.
If he kept it in his pants then there would be none of this in my view.
so rte where correct in the mission to pray programme.
Eh?
No.
They wrongly and maliciously portrayed an innocent man as a paedophile based on hearsay.
Nothing ‘right’ about that in anyone’s book.
If that was as you say, why has settlement been reached today with no payout ?
The allegations of peadophilia haven’t been withdrawn. RTÈ only apologised for saying that he wouldn’t be interviewed and the ex archbishop was obviously content to settle under those terms!!
Nothing like us Irish and hearsay…
eh yes he took a case for defamation and settled with no payout with no blame attached to rte so the primetime investigation was valid.
he seen the evidence and knew the game was up and looked for a way out so the allegations are still valid
Quite right David. This is a curious settlement. A fair bit of between the lines reading is required of that statement. It reveals much more than it seeks to conclude.
So wait she falsely accused him?
RTE’s statement today says she spoke truthfully
Of course RTEs statement says that, she was *their* witness !!!
no he got no money rte paid some of his costs only, the halfwits who put into the baskets paid th hush money.
RTE had a great “Would You Believe” program once about how the orphanages here were selling orphans to a big pharmaceutical company to do vivisection type experimental brain surgeries on, after seeing that program I heard then that it was more common than I could believe and came on a report in Dublin Castle on the google search engine to a link how the government here was not going to investigate that with the child abuse happening at that time. Why is this still hushed up as the Nazis did the same in concentration camps?
This is the same rate programme that had to settle with fr kevin Reynolds. For false accusations. Made against him. He won substantial damages and an apology from rte. a very flawed programme.
Does RTE ever learn?
The Board and the Executive of RTE should be fired !
The sooner the better!
Just another witch hunt against a Catholic.
Ya because the Catholic Church despise a witch hunt
Do you have Catholic witches now, I thought they were nuns.
As a catholic I’m happy that such “questionable” priests are outed. Wouldn’t want communion never mind confession from him.
Joe you are most likely a canteen catholic who voted for homo-marriage.
Agreed Joe, this guy seemed more interest in getting his hole than serving God.
Trollin’, trollin’ trollin’,
Though the streams are swollen
Keep them doggies trollin’, E. O’Leary
He didn’t have much taste in his women though.
rode all alround him
@ E. O’Leary. That’s right E. you stand up for the corrupt church like a good Catholic. Deny the existence of pedophilia in the church and how it’s clergy covered it up. Call love evil when it’s two gay people who love each other like the rest of the false Christians.
I wonder what became of that journalist who fronted the “Mission to Prey” programme?
Did Rte pay her expenses for travelling over??
My comment was deleted. Poor form. The support was split but obviously the church still hold the higher ground despite their litany of abuse of innocent children.
Rightfully so as it was a disgusting comment.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck & quacks like a duck….
now there’s a disgusting and quite simply stupid comment from you E oleary you probably think the story of brendan Smith was an attack on a Catholic also.
Kmac, are you the new troll? Pathetic.
It was a disgusting comment. Deserved to be deleted
@David….Far from it. I’m just a fella lookin at an archbishop who had the brass balls to bring RTE to court for wrongly accusing him of being a paedophile, his defence being that she was 20. He was the victim in all of this. People are still prepared to take instruction & direction from the likes. You couldn’t make it up.
By all accounts the testimony that came out over the course of the trial was extraordinary and reflected badly on all parties involved (the Archbishop [she may have been over age but the embarressment is obvious], Ms. Atwood [if there is any truth to the blackmailing claims], and RTE). The best solution for all was to put it to an end.
And Kmac, you can’t just go around calling people paedophiles and no amount of green thumbs will convince a court otherwise!
” I’m just a fella lookin at an archbishop who had the brass balls to bring RTE to court for wrongly accusing him of being a paedophile, his defence being that she was 20. ”
She was 20 years old so how does having sex with her make him a paedophile?
Doctor he had consensual sex with her at the age of 20. No peadophilia here.
You’ll find the girl in question claims she was 13/14.
Rte accepts it incorrectly stated that he had declined to be interviewed. That’s it. Then he walks away from it.
Claims but no proof so it’s just slanderous hearsay and in turn it’s slanderous and quite offensive to suggest I somehow support peadophilia.
I’m not sure if that comment is because of your ignorance or stupidity a mixture of both I fear sadly, I just hope you are not a parent E.oleary
Yes I am a parent and a bloody good one at that.
@E oleary for the good of your kid(s) and for society in general please don’t instill your ignorance into them .
The settlement doesn’t mention any withdrawal of the peadophilia allegations. He was obviously accepted the settlement with those allegations still standing. Is your only outrage due to him being a catholic clergy member. Do you even care or is your only mission to try protect the Catholic Church from child rape accusations.
“Claims but no proof ”
The story of a Christians life.
“Rightfully so as it was a disgusting comment.” -If the journal gave out trophies for the amount of disgusting comments -this “E.O’Leary” would have to build an extension to hold his. #gold
It might be a swan…
Dirty fecker . Sleeping with vulnerable women in Africa. Why was the case stopped? Hmmmm.
Exactly, maybe it was because the credibility of the woman was called into question…. Hmmmm
One of the worst cases of slander n modern media history.
Up there with Albert Reynolds v the Sunday Times.
RTE should rightly be ashamed of themselves.
Journalistic standards?
I’ve seen better journalism on the Sun.
Heads should have rolled right at the top of the Montrose monstrosity.
Thank God the era of ‘Bash a Catholic today’ is finally coming to an end.
Scandalous.
Absolutely scandalous.
This one ?
I don’t know about that. This was a “she said, he said” case with not much backing up her story. The mission to prey programme was a massive disaster for rte.
however, at best, this man Burke seems to have been a massive cad, who betrayed his vows and embarrassed himself, his family and his church. Taking this case he has done himself more damage than the mission to prey show did. However he rose to be an archbishop is astounding.
Agree with your comments, except the first line.
If plaintiff was so sure he would have seen it through to the end, & trusted jury to see that ‘not much backing up her story.’
Noah, you are a scandalous fake. I could forgive that if you were remotely amusing, but sadly no – no entertainment value whatever.
I think “former Arch Bishop ” Burke was badly advised here. on another note, it makes the payment of eighty five grand to that crunt John Waters look even worse. RTE have grown a spine, but far too late IMHO.
So he isn’t a paedophile but RTE believes the woman who said he was? That clears things up
Liberals constantly bang on about clerical celibacy being an anachronistic way of life.
Human beings should have the right to express their sexuality freely they argue.
Yet here we have a man who acted in a natural manner and what’s the response?
That’s right.
Condemnation.
Well done.
Today hypocrisy has reached new levels.
Níl aon hypocrite mar do hyopcrite féin..
An old Irish adage.
RTE need to change its policies for the future!
It is continually criticising The Catholic Church in Ireland.
The BBC is much more respectful!
I was advised that the Board of RTE advised staff that no one should wear a cross around their necks!
What a disgrace!
We the people of Ireland who pay the TV licence should be respected!
Sad day for RTE.
Truth always out!
- most likely she can prove they had sexual relations
- but most likely she cant prove it was when she was under 18
- so his word against hers
- we knew there was a lot of pedophiles in the RC church. And cover ups.
- but also a lot of untrue allegations
- rte got involved where it couldnt be proved one way or another.
- it wasn’t just the journalist who made a mistake. But she was the fall guy.
the archbishop thought he was ron jeremy.
Must of had a large congregation
Jesus big blue eyes will be welling up with tears, flowing over his blond beard and dropping onto his cloud when he hears this.
It’s a tsunami of smears.
But RTE paid Burkes bill???
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say