Explore the Ryan Report

Chapter 14 — John Brander

Show Contents

A room in the School was set aside to operate as a shop. Mr Brander supervised the shop during break time. On the occasion in question, he arrived late and a large number of children had congregated in the room. There appears to have been a regulation that only a set number of children could be in the room at one time. He shouted at the children to get out of the room and form a queue outside.Taina appears not to have departed as instructed. At this point the statements made by the various witnesses diverge. What is clear is that there was an altercation between Mr Brander and Taina. The school principal, Sr Ines, was absent at the time. The vice-principal, in her Garda statement described how she met Taina in the corridor. Taina was very upset. She said that Mr Brander had struck her twice in the chest.


The vice-principal fetched Mr Brander to have him deal with the matter. There was a further altercation between Mr Brander and Taina. A male teacher, arrived on the scene and appears to have warned them that other people could hear. This teacher, on the advice of his union, the Association of Secondary Teachers of Ireland, later declined to make a statement to the Gardaí. Taina’s mother was called to the School at the request of her daughter. The mother, Mr Brander and Sr Edita,20 the School Manager, had a meeting in the course of which Mr Brander explained that he had merely brushed her arms down and that he was sorry that it had occurred. Sr Edita and Mr Brander appear to have thought that was the end of the matter. However, the mother made a Garda complaint that day.


The Gardaí took statements from the complainant, her mother and another student. The statement of this pupil was witnessed by a Garda. She said that, while she had not witnessed the incident complained of, she was herself pushed out of the room by Mr Brander. Initially, statements were taken from the vice-principal, Sr Edita and Sr Trista,21 who was in the room at the time of the alleged assault. Sr Trista was of the view that Taina had adopted a defiant attitude. She saw Mr Brander slap her arms down from the folded position twice but did not regard this as an assault. Sr Edita also seemed to have questioned the bona fides of the complaint, commenting that she was ‘roaring crying’ with no tears.


Some days later, Mr Brander and 12 further students made statements. Mr Brander denied the allegations entirely. He made no mention of her adopting a particular attitude or of slapping her arms down. He merely said that she was one of a group of children he ushered from the room. The first he knew that anything was wrong was when the vice-principal came to him. He was most surprised when he heard that Taina was crying, and stated that he had never used corporal punishment in the last 14 years and that ‘it was beyond my comprehension how I could be implicated with making any girl cry’. He said he had made an apology only in relation to the girl’s mother having to come to the school and not because he had done anything to warrant a complaint. He commented on his good relations with the family. Surprisingly, he was not questioned further regarding the inconsistencies between his statement and that of the other adults who had witnessed the events.


One of the students from whom a statement was taken on the later date, supported the allegations and was described as ‘collaborating the injured party’s account’. Each of the statements taken from pupils on the later date was witnessed by one of two teachers at the School. Three pupils described Mr Brander slapping her arms down, and specifically stated that they did not regard it as an assault. Two others referred to him putting his hand on her shoulder and ushering her out of the room. A number referred to her as having adopted a defiant attitude.


In the statement issued by the School quoted above, no mention was made of a Garda investigation in the early 1980s. The Investigation Committee learned of this investigation through Garda discovery and not through the School or the Congregation.


Despite Sr Ines’ concerns about Mr Brander’s behaviour, she did not consider dismissing him. When asked whether she was ever concerned that she might have to dismiss him, she replied that ‘well he was due to be retiring the next year or something’. She also said ‘he was a good teacher as regards teaching a subject ... I would have given a stiff talk to him ... There was never anything that serious to my mind that you could sack him’.


She said ‘He was ... a bit different to the other teachers, a little different, strict or whatever’. When asked by the Chairman was he a worry for her she replied, ‘Oh yes, he was in the end, but what could I do? In the end [I could] only talk to him and try and fix the situation, which I thought we did very well’.


At no point, either during his employment or after his conviction, did Sr Ines make contact with his previous employers to learn what they might have known of his behaviour.


The School’s public statement quoted above refers to reports that contact was made with the school in the early 1980s, alerting the authorities there about Mr Brander’s previous history. Sr Ines denied any record or recollection of receiving such information. She testified that she learned about this after her retirement in the mid-1980s, when she was advised by a senior teacher that Mr Brander was a paedophile.

Attempts to expose Mr Brander during the early 1980s


Following the revelations of the sexual abuse of children resident in the Kincora Boys’ Home in Belfast, Mr Rothe, who had been abused while a pupil of Mr Brander in Walsh Island NS in the 1960s, decided to make efforts to expose Mr Brander’s behaviour. At this point, he ‘began to realise that I wasn’t the only person that this had ever happened to’. In considering how to go about exposing Mr Brander, he was worried about the advisability of revealing that he had been sexually abused. As he was a teacher himself, he thought that it might give rise to comment that he himself was unsuitable to be a teacher. This man furnished documentation and gave evidence to the Investigation Committee.


He approached a number of individuals whom he felt might be in a position to assist him.

Members of the clergy


Mr Rothe made an appointment to meet with the Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin, in whose diocese Walsh Island NS was located. At the meeting, they discussed the circumstances of Mr Brander’s departure from Walsh Island NS. The Bishop told him that Mr Brander was an urgent problem at the time and it was dealt with quickly. He made the point that, if they had waited for the Department of Education to act, it could have taken years.


The purpose of the meeting, from Mr Rothe’s point of view, was to find out how it was possible that: a person who had been removed from a school for sexual abuse of a large number of pupils could still be working as a teacher especially so close to where he had abused.


Mr Rothe said that the Bishop appeared to be surprised to learn that Mr Brander was teaching in Tullamore. He was very critical of the manner in which the Department of Education dealt with this sort of problem.

  1. This is a pseudonym.
  2. This is a pseudonym.
  3. This is a pseudonym.
  4. He was again transferred to another primary school St Michael’s CBS Inchicore. He remained here for one month and then moved to CBS James’ St.
  5. This is a pseudonym.
  6. This is a pseudonym.
  7. This is a pseudonym.
  8. This is a pseudonym.
  9. This is a pseudonym.
  10. This is a pseudonym.
  11. Irish National Teachers’ Organisation.
  12. This is a pseudonym.
  13. This is a pseudonym.
  14. This is a pseudonym.
  15. This is a pseudonym.
  16. This is a pseudonym.
  17. This is a pseudonym.
  18. This is a pseudonym.
  19. This is a pseudonym.
  20. This is a pseudonym.
  21. This is a pseudonym.
  22. Irish for ‘This is a very good teacher: he has qualifications in Irish’.