Report vital if Church to be held accountable for actions

There have been three events of some significance since my article, a fortnight ago, about Archbishop Diarmuid Martin and the 1962 Report on Artane by Father Henry Moore.

The first and most important concerns the Archbishop. In response to a letter that Jim Beresford sent him, dated July 29 and referring to the article, the Archbishop promised that an immediate copy would be sent to him by registered post. It has not yet arrived, but this may be the fault of the Royal Mail which has been disrupted by an industrial dispute.The second, reported to me by Irish SOCA, is that an unspecified number of lawyers acting for abused people have filed for discovery of the Father Moore Report as important testimony in respect of their proceedings. The third event -- on the face of it the least important -- was an anonymous postcard among my mail which said: "How about your Collected Musings, ie 'The Child Abuser's Bedside Book', save you all those instalments." There was no address, so I cannot reply directly; it touched a raw nerve, however. It also made me conscious yet again that a whole Church, with many good and admirable sides to it, is being correctly held accountable for the serious damage done to maybe 30,000 Irish men and women who are the survivors, and many more who are now dead.

It was done once, when they were children, and this was bad enough. Far worse is the fact that it is being done all over again by Church and State in the cover-up that has gone on for the past eight years. These, including those I deal with, have lived for up to 80 years with that shadow over their lives. My concern for them is not unmixed with recognition that each revelation affects many others as well. In the Archbishop's letter to Jim Beresford, Diarmuid Martin said: "There was never any intention on my part to hide the document which has effectively been in the public domain for some years through it being provided to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. It was my understanding that the Commission would make the document available to any interested party at a time considered appropriate."

The Archbishop should know that none of this is the case. Father Moore's Report has never been in the public domain and there is no record of the Commission making it available to any party, interested or otherwise. Quite the reverse is the case.

On five occasions in the past two years the Father Moore Report on Artane has been the subject of questioning before the Commission. These were in September 2005 and in May and June of 2006. The extensive evidence in September 2005, given by a Christian Brother, Michael Reynolds, was essentially hearsay. He relied on "documentation" and claimed that this "seemed to suggest" that Archbishop McQuaid asked the chaplain to make the report. A garbled version was then accepted of what happened. What actually happened was as follows: Moore was appointed chaplain by the Archbishop with the subsidiary responsibility for reporting on what was happening in Artane and he delivered this report in November 1962. He then referred to it when he appeared before the Interdepartmental Committee on Crime Prevention and Treatment of Offenders. This had been set up by Charles Haughey. Artane was in his constituency. It was chaired by Peter Berry, Secretary of the Department of Justice.

Moore's Report, and the verbal testimony he gave, enraged Tarlach O'Raifeartaigh, Secretary of the Department of Education, who was also on the Committee. O'Raifeartaigh constantly interrupted Moore but Berry, to his credit, insisted on Moore being heard. O'Raifeartaigh gave Moore such a rough ride that the priest left the committee room shaking. Later, Archbishop McQuaid complained about this to the Department of Education. O'Raifeartaigh sent his inspectors to Artane, the visit announced in advance to the Christian Brothers there, and they arrived on December 20, 1962. The purpose of their visit was clearly to discredit Moore's complaints. Their own inspection report discounted or dismissed Moore's work.

We know, from fragments, what the report contained. He told the Archbishop about the staff, salaries and the old and decrepit state of the buildings. He described the conditions for the boys. "They are badly clothed. They have no overcoats, only rain capes. They have no vests and no change of footwear or socks. Sometimes the boys' shoes are too small and give them sore feet. Bedclothes are inadequate, the boys are undernourished and the medical facilities are appaling."

To his credit, though not to his advantage, Father Moore repeated this and much more to the Inter-departmental committee. Understandably, O'Raifeartaigh, whose Department of Education was entirely responsible, was apoplectic. The testimony given before Judge Sean Ryan has covered none of this. Greater emphasis has been given to the Inspection Report, engineered by O'Raifeartaigh, rather than to Father Moore's Report. The Department of Education visitors did a white-wash on Artane and ever since, the Father Moore Report has been effectively suppressed. All the exchanges before the Commission confirm this, with the added indignity that Moore, for offences four decades later, has had these brought up at the Commission -- without being ruled out of order by the Judge, which he should have done, since they are totally unrelated -- in order to further discredit the Moore Report.

It is clear that we still have a long way to go.

Irish Independen Saturday August 11 2007

Such Devoted Sisters

Victim of abuse cannot pursue action for damages

Mary Carolan

A man whose life was blighted after he was seriously physically and sexually abused at a residential school operated by the Brothers of Charity cannot proceed with an action for damages against the State and Southern Health Board (SHB), the High Court has decided.

Because a settlement of £28,000, secured by John Barrett (53) in a 1999 action brought by him against the Brothers of Charity, was recorded at that time as "full and final settlement of all claims", he could not now proceed with his action against the Southern Health Board and the State, Mr Justice Éamon de Valera ruled yesterday.The 1999 settlement was made without admission of liability. In his action against the health board and State, Mr Barrett, The Ballagh, Enniscorthy, Co Wexford, claimed the health authorities and the State failed to properly inspect or inquire into what was going on at Our Lady of Good Counsel school at Lota, Glanmire, Cork. Moreover, he claimed his experiences there blighted his life, leading to problems with drink, depression and sexual relationships.

Although his parents were then still alive, he was admitted to Lota on the application of the Cork Health Authority in 1961 at the age of nine after he was mitching from school where he was being allegedly beaten for failing to write with his right hand. He claimed he was subject to serious and frequent sexual abuse until he left Lota at the age of 16. The abuse included being buggered on three or four nights a week for two- to three-hour periods each night, he claimed. A Brother Ambrose, also known as James Kelly, had been convicted and sentenced to 36 years on charges relating to that abuse and also relating to abuse of other boys at Lota. Mr Barrett claimed other Brothers also abused him.

Mr Justice De Valera delivered his reserved judgment yesterday on an application - made in March 2006 - by the health board and State defendants (the Ministers for Health and Children and Education and Science, Ireland and the Attorney General) for an order dismissing the proceedings on grounds of the earlier settlement, delay, and because, they claimed, the proceedings were brought outside the legal time limits.

Mr Justice De Valera said Mr Barrett's claim against the SHB and State was initiated in July 2000. A defence was filed by the SHB in 2001 but no defence had been filed by the other defendants. The judge noted that certain facts alleged by Mr Barrett, including that he was admitted to Lota in 1961, when he was described as suffering from a mild mental subnormality, and that he was physically and sexually abused there, were not contradicted. It was also not contradicted that Mr Barrett was able to read on admission to Lota but not to write and had received no further education there. It was also uncontradicted that Mr Barrett developed severe alcoholism and depression from early adult life which was professionally diagnosed as having been caused by the abuses suffered at Lota and that he was psychologically inhibited from disclosing abuses until 1997.

Mr Justice De Valera said he was satisfied that the defendants are "concurrent wrongdoers" within the provisions of section 2 of the Civil Liability Act 1961 and that other provisions of that Act applied to the case, including section 16 which provided that, where a person suffers damage as a result of concurrent wrongs, satisfaction by any wrongdoer "shall discharge the others whether such others have been sued to judgment or not".

Section 16, when applied to this case, discharged the SHB and State defendants in circumstances where Mr Barrett's claim had been fully satisfied, the judge ruled.

ADDITIONAL:

Case may go to Supreme Court

John Downes

The man at the centre of yesterday's failed High Court challenge is considering taking his case to the Supreme Court.

John Barrett told The Irish Times he was disappointed at the decision of Mr Justice De Valera not to allow him to proceed with an action for damages against the State and Southern Health Board. The court ruled that because a previous settlement in an action brought by him against the Brothers of Charity was recorded at that time as "full and final settlement of all claims", Mr Barrett could not proceed with his separate action. "I don't think I should have lost," he said. "When that document was put in front of me I had no idea what I was signing. The case against Brother Ambrose hadn't even come up before the courts." Mr Barrett, who survives on an invalidity pension, said he did not know how he will pay the costs of his failed challenge.

He estimated there were some 2,000-3,000 survivors of abuse who cannot apply to the Residential Institutions Redress Board for compensation. But the board includes payments from both the religious orders and the State, he said. As a result, it was his belief that victims such as himself should also receive compensation from the State. "As far as I'm concerned the Government has broken its agreement with survivors," he said. "The religious have kept their side of the agreement, I've been paid by them. But as far as I'm concerned the Government have not.

"It is the Government at the end of the day who took me from my home in the middle of the night and sent me to Lota."

2004

2002

The Demolition of St. Theresa's Gardens

So St. Theresa's Gardens are being demolished ,,, well that's a good thing as far as I am concerned. While this place will be obliterated from the face of the earth - the memories of sexual abuse - rape - grinding poverty will live on.

I will not forget the abuse I suffered at the hands of those who were, in the least, supposed to be my main protectors. So much for being ONE-HAPPY-FAMILY. It was the weakest of us who suffered and the abusers were the strongest. But No More!

No Forgiveness and No Forgetting.

A Survivor of St. Theresa's Gardens.

Cheating abuse victims

Ron McCartan broke down and cried in Court Number 4 at the Four Courts in Dublin last Tuesday as his family gathered around to comfort him. It had been a seven-year battle, but was a moment he had yearned for almost his entire life. It was also a moment which should have the most profound implications for the largest compensation scheme ever established in this country, writes Mary Raftery .

Ron is 61 years old. At the age of 10, he was sent to Artane Industrial School, where he was raped repeatedly by one Christian Brother and severely beaten by others. In this regard, as he says himself, he was not unusual. "Many, many other boys suffered the same," he told me yesterday. "We've had to live our whole lives feeling humiliated and worthless because of what they did to us as children."

What does make Ron unique, however, is that he decided to fight both the State and the Christian Brothers through the courts, instead of opting for the compensation scheme available through the Residential Institutions Redress Board (RIRB). With the final settlement of his case on Tuesday, Ron received damages of €350,000. This far exceeds anything paid out to date by the RIRB. But what caused Ron to cry was the personal apology to himself from both the Christian Brothers and the State, which was read into the court record. It was the culmination of his absolute determination that they publicly acknowledge the damage they had done to him as a child. This is not an option for anyone going through the RIRB. For them there is no personal apology, no acceptance of individual responsibility from those who destroyed their childhoods and their lives. All they get is a sum of money, which has now been shown to be substantially less than might be available through the judicial process.

Of the almost 15,000 people to apply to the RIRB, roughly 7,000 have now had their cases heard. The average payout is €70,000, less than a quarter of Ron's settlement. Of the larger awards, a minuscule number (well below 1 per cent) have received over €200,000, with only a single individual getting the maximum of €300,000. The overwhelming majority (80 per cent) have received under €100,000. In addition, the average amount awarded has steadily declined since the RIRB began its hearings four years ago.

It was always a premise of the scheme, repeated by numerous Government Ministers, that the payments would be at a level commensurate with High Court awards. The problem is that no court has as yet ruled on damages specific to abuse suffered in a residential institution. There is, however, some indication that the RIRB amounts have been well below what the courts might award. In 2003, in what became known as "the visitor case", a man sued both the State and the Irish Sisters of Charity for the sexual abuse he suffered as a child while visiting a friend in the industrial school in Kilkenny.

This was a single incident of abuse, perpetrated by a male childcare worker at the institution, and was described by the judge as being at "the lower end of the scale of sexual abuse". However, in recognition of the trauma suffered, he awarded the victim damages of €75,000. There have, in addition, been a number of high-profile cases of individuals sexually abused as children by priests and teachers where the damages awarded by the courts have substantially exceeded the maximum paid out by the RIRB.

It is also increasingly apparent that many of those who have had their cases heard by the board have emerged feeling hurt, humiliated and damaged by the process. They are further subjected to the gag clause in the legislation which makes it a criminal offence for them to reveal how much they received or what happened at the hearings. "No one can tell me to keep quiet anymore," says Ron. "All our lives, we had this secret, that we'd been abused and tortured. I went to court because I wanted them to apologise directly to me personally, to have to say my name. With the redress board, all you get is a bit of money, usually a pittance, and then you have to keep quiet about it. That's just wrong."

It is difficult to believe that it was the intention of those who established the redress board that victims should feel bullied and humiliated by virtue of going through the process. Nor do I believe that this is the intention of those who currently run the board. It was, after all, established in the first place to spare people the trauma of going through the courts.

However, it is clear that the problems are significant.

The RIRB must move to stop the hurt which has become so much part of the experience of the thousands of vulnerable people with whom it deals. It must also reappraise urgently the amounts it awards in the light of mounting evidence that it is now short-changing victims of abuse.

© 2007 The Irish Times