Chapter 1 — Establishment of the Commission

The structure of the Commission

The Commission comprised two separate and distinct Committees which were required to report separately to the Commission as a whole: the Confidential Committee, and the Investigation Committee. Members of the Commission were assigned to one or other Committee. They could not be members of both.

The principal functions of the Confidential Committee,5 as laid down in section 15(1) in the Principal Act as amended by section 10 of the 2005 Act, were: to provide, for persons who have suffered abuse in childhood in institutions during the relevant period and who do not wish to have that abuse inquired into by the Investigation Committee, an opportunity to recount the abuse, and make submissions, in confidence to the Committee, to receive evidence of such abuse, to make proposals of a general nature with a view to their being considered by the Commission in deciding what recommendations to make and to prepare and furnish reports.6

The specific mandate of the Confidential Committee was to hear the evidence of those survivors of childhood institutional abuse who wished to report their experiences in a confidential setting. The legislation provided for the hearings of the Confidential Committee to be conducted in an atmosphere that was as informal and as sympathetic to, and understanding of, the witnesses as was possible in the circumstances.7

The Confidential Committee heard from 1,090 witnesses who applied to give oral evidence of abuse they experienced in Irish institutions. Volume III contains the part of the Report that is based on evidence received by the Confidential Committee.

The principal functions of the Investigation Committee,8 as laid down in section 12 of the Principal Act, which was amended by section 7 of the Act of 2005, were: to provide, as far as is reasonably practicable, for persons who have suffered abuse in childhood in institutions during the relevant period, an opportunity to recount the abuse and other relevant experiences undergone by them in institutions, to inquire into the manner in which children were placed in, and the circumstances in which they continued to be resident in, institutions during the relevant period, to inquire into the abuse of children in institutions during the relevant period, to determine the causes, nature, circumstances and extent of such abuse, and without prejudice to the generality of any of the foregoing, to determine the extent to which— the institutions themselves in which such abuse occurred, the systems of management, administration, operation, supervision and regulation of such institutions, and the manner in which any of the things referred to in subparagraph (ii) was done,9 contributed to the occurrence or incidents of such abuse, and to prepare and furnish reports pursuant to section 13.

The powers of the Investigation Committee10 were, inter alia: to direct the attendance of witnesses,11 to direct the production of documents,12 and to give such other directions that appear to be reasonable, just and necessary.13

The Investigation Committee also had the power: to require the discovery of documents,14 to furnish interrogatories (or questions) which must be replied to,15 and to require parties to admit facts, statements and documents.16

The evidence obtained was presumed to be prima facie evidence of the matters to which it related.17 Finally, the Investigation Committee also had the power to take evidence of a person’s conviction for abuse of a child as evidence before the Committee of that abuse.18

The Principal Act also provided penalties, similar to those applying to contempt of court provisions, for failure to comply with directions of the Committee.19

Section 13 of the Principal Act, as amended by section 8 of the 2005 Act, dealt with the report of the Investigation Committee, and provided that the report: may contain findings that abuse of children, or abuse of children during a particular period, occurred in a particular institution and may identify— the institution where the abuse took place, and the person or, as the case may be, each person who committed the abuse but only if he or she has been convicted of an offence in respect of abuse, may contain findings in relation to the management, administration, operation, supervision and regulation, direct or indirect, of an institution referred to in paragraph (a), and shall not contain findings in relation to particular instances of alleged abuse of children.

The importance of the 2005 Act was that it amended Section 1320 of the Principal Act so that the Investigation Committee could no longer identify a person it believed had committed abuse unless that person had been convicted by a court.

The term ‘institution’ was defined by the legislation to include: a school, an industrial school, a reformatory school, an orphanage, a hospital, a children’s home and any other place where children are cared for other than as members of their families.21

The ‘relevant period’ of the inquiry was from 1940 to 1999, but the Commission had power to extend it in either direction. The Commission exercised this power for the Investigation Committee by extending the beginning of the period back to 1936, by a decision of 26th November 2002. The relevant period for the Confidential Committee was determined to be between 1914 and 2000, being the earliest date of admission and the latest date of discharge of those applicants who applied to give evidence of abuse to that Committee.

The Third Interim Report set out the history of the Commission from its inception as a statutory body in 2000 to the suspension of the operations of the Investigation Committee and the resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy which was announced in September 2003. Ms Justice Laffoy stood down on 12th January 2004 (see Appendix II).

Appointment of new chairperson to the Commission

On 26th September 2003, the Minister for Education and Science announced the appointment of Mr Sean Ryan S.C. as chairperson designate of the Commission to succeed Ms Justice Laffoy. The Government requested Mr Ryan to undertake his own independent review of the Commission and to make all necessary recommendations having regard to: the interests of victims of abuse the requirement to complete the Commission’s work within a reasonable timeframe, which would be consistent with the needs of a proper investigation so as to avoid exorbitant costs.