Church members `fear damnation' if they produce folder for court

The High Court has reserved judgment on an application for documents from the Church of Scientology brought by a Dublin businesswoman…

The High Court has reserved judgment on an application for documents from the Church of Scientology brought by a Dublin businesswoman who claims she suffered a personality change after being subjected by the church to mind control techniques.

The court was told church members feared damnation if they disclosed a "counselling" folder related to Ms Mary Johnston and are claiming "sacerdotal privilege" for the document.

Ms Johnston (33) operates a sports equipment shop at Westwood, Foxrock, Co Dublin, and is a former interprovincial squash player. She applied for documents which she claims she requires for an action for damages against the church and three named persons, Mr John Keane, described as "mission holder", Mr Tom Cunningham and Mr Gerard Ryan, described as church members.

She alleged that while undergoing "treatment" offered by the church - which she described as a pseudo-religious cult - she suffered increasingly from a dissociative stress reaction and became intolerant and rejected her family and friends.

READ MORE

She claimed she suffered a distinct personality change and would often adopt a fixed stare and simulated smile while switching off her feelings. She became increasingly confused and her general health suffered.

She had hoped to become a member of the Irish squash squad before she started scientology courses, Ms Johnston claimed. It was unlikely now she would realise that ambition.

She alleges that around January 1993 when, to Mr Cunningham's knowledge, she was in an "emotionally liable condition", he represented that courses known as "dianetic auditing" would greatly improve her sense of well-being. Pressure was exerted on her to have a test, which took place in March 1992 with Mr Keane as the evaluator Ms Johnston claimed Mr Keane and Mr Cunningham pressurised her into subscribing for a "purification rundown and training routing" at a cost of £1,200.

Despite her protests that she did not have the resources, she alleged the men brought such pressure to bear that she felt obliged to subscribe and paid over the £1,200.

She was obliged to have a medical examination but was not permitted to attend her own doctor. She was told to attend a "doctor" of the organisation who turned out not to be a registered medical practitioner but a cult member.

Ms Johnston said she was persuaded to join up and to sign "a billion year contract" to work for scientology.

When she said she was reluctant to become further involved with scientology, great pressure was brought to bear on her. She received regular telephone calls at work and at home, and was accused of being selfish and of thinking only of herself. One recruiter sought to persuade her to sell her business and use the proceeds to involve herself further with the church, she claimed.

The defendants have denied her claims. They say the church is a bona fide religious organisation and that they conducted their dealings with Ms Johnston lawfully and in a manner which was concerned only with her wellbeing.

They deny they exerted pressure on her or acted improperly towards her. They say her involvement with them was predicated on the basis that she was entitled to act, and did act, in accordance with her own free will.

The defendants further deny Ms Johnston suffered any personal injury, loss and damage, or that they had been guilty of exerting undue influence over her.

Mr Justice Geoghegan asked that documents containing the church's constitution and rules be produced to him. Mr David O'Neill, for the church, said these were in eight volumes already discovered. Certain documentation relating to Ms Johnston was with the organisation in England, where she had attended for certain tests.

The organisation in Ireland had disclosed everything it had relevant to Ms Johnston's claim.

On the question of "sacerdotal privilege" for counselling notes concerning Ms Johnston, Mr O'Neill said that Article 44 of the Constitution said the State promised to hold God in reverence and to respect and honour religion. Mr Justice Geoghegan said Ms Johnston had waived privilege. The court had to decide whether, having regard to the importance a church or organisation attached to the confidentiality of notes, it should be slow to direct their production.

Mr O'Neill said the protection of the documents was necessary for the spiritual enlightenment and progress of the church's members. His clients had the "greatest conscientious objection" to producing the counselling folder.