Chapter 14 — John Brander

Signed

The procedures allowed complaints to the Department of Education, but, as this memorandum points out, the problem now rested with the management of the school.

Further internal memoranda on the problem of Mr Brander were exchanged: Convent of Mercy, Sec.school, Tullamore [To] PO [in Post Primary Section] (1)This school caters for girls only according to the ... October Lists. (2)There is no adverse report on the teacher Mr [Brander] in the reports on this area’s Inspection File for the school. [Signed] R/Cig (Inspection Section) ... [To] PO [in Secondary Salaries Section] We discussed this case on the telephone earlier today. As you will note from above, the teacher who is the subject of complaint is at present employed in a Girls School: the inference seems to be that he is not, therefore, a risk to the pupils even if he was guilty of the offence or offences complained about by Mr [Rothe]. As you will note also from above minute, there is no adverse report of any Inspector on file here in respect of Mr [Brander]. On the contrary, the last Inspector’s report in which he was mentioned – one dated [two and a half years earlier] ... – praises the teacher’s work in the phrase “Oide an-mhaith é seo: cailíochtaí sa Ghaeilge aige.”22 Copy of that Report is attached. The fact remains, however, that the Department has received Mr. [Rothe’s] very serious complaint and that the whole context of the complaining letter might well appear to imply that Mr. [Rothe] considers the nature of the offence to be such as to indicate unfitness for employment as a teacher by reason of conduct unbefitting a teacher. As you are no doubt aware, the relevant statutory regulations [viz. Regulation 4 of the Regulations for the Register of the Intermediate School Teachers] empower the Minister (not the Registration Council) to “remove from the register the name of any teacher who shall be shown to his satisfaction to have been guilty of conduct which is, in the opinion of the Minister, unbefitting a teacher.” Before doing so (i.e removing a name), the Minister is required by the regulations to give the teacher an opportunity of being heard. Having regard to the complaint and to the statutory provisions which I cite and which are obviously designed to cover the kind of offence or offences complained of I consider that the papers should be submitted for the Department’s decision as to whether any action beyond consideration of the complaint should at this stage – 13 years post eventum – be put in train. I note that the complainant offers no explanation whatever of the lateness of his complaint; such explanation might well be considered reasonably necessary, however, in view of the implications of the lateness for the availability of evidence at this juncture. If, however, evidence was made available to the Department about the offence or offences at or around the time of their occurrence, then the question arises,: from the nature of the present complaint, why did the Dept. not act earlier. I do not express any opinion on the bona fides of the complaint or on whether any action should be taken on it beyond considering it carefully – and in the light of any other evidence available on the matter in the Primary Branch – if there is any such evidence – and that a Departmental decision should be obtained. For the complainant may have the matter raised elsewhere presently and seek to blame the Dept. for alleged negligence. [Signed] [PO Post Primary Financial Section]

Some time passed before the matter was considered again. The following memo was sent by an official in the Secondary Salaries Section to a colleague: I will have a word with you about this after the holidays D.V. I understand from Primary branch that staff had no knowledge of the allegation made during the [teacher’s] period of service as a N.T. Accordingly Minister had no knowledge of the alleged offence at time of registration. Do you think any action should be taken – I don’t! [Signed]

This memo was sent to HEO in Registration and Pensions, who noted: query out re primary no problem with Registration [Signed]

On the same day, the HEO in Registration and Pension wrote to a HEO in Primary Payments Section: [To] HEO 1.We have had a complaint about Mr. [Brander] currently a secondary teacher, but who taught in Walsh Island NS, Geashill, Co Offaly. Could you ascertain whether there is any record of a complaint against this teacher on the primary side? Are there any indications on why he left Primary teaching. 2.Please also confirm that Mr [Rothe] teaches in ... Thanks. [Signed] Registration [and Pension]

She in turn wrote to a colleague in Pensions: Offaly     176/6     Walsh Island NS [To] Pensions Re: Mr [Brander] – Sec Branch –[HEO]– Registration has asked if we have any record of a complaint against this teacher – he transferred to Secondary Teaching some years ago and served as Principal Teacher in Walsh Island NS according to our school records [in the late 1960s]. His own cards are missing also the file ... for apt. of Principals in this school is missing so I cannot trace his details at all. (Taken up [late 1970s]). Perhaps you would have something on him in Pensions. I’d be thankful to get a reply if so. [Signed] HEO

The official in the Pensions section replied setting out Mr Brander’s service history which showed numerous changes of post.

The frequency of Mr Brander’s changes of post, as evident from this document, and the nature of the complaint being made by Mr Rothe, should have raised questions and/or prompted a more detailed investigation.

The HEO in Primary Payments was then in a position to reply to the HEO in Registration and Pensions: Mr [Rothe] apptd. as Asst. on ... and still serving. 1. We have no records unfortunately re Mr [Brander] – his cards and apt. file are missing – the file ... apt. of Principal is noted in Registry “Up” [late 1970s] but Records Section do not have it. All I have is a record of his past Primary Service. See copy obtained from T.P.O. [Signed]

The HEO in Registration and Pensions then sent a memorandum to the official in the Secondary Salaries Section and this communication concluded the Department’s consideration of the complaint made by Mr Rothe [To] Uas P.O. You are familiar with the background to this case. You will note from Primary Payments that neither the file nor the teachers cards are available. The General Section tell me that they cannot trace any papers either. Perhaps the following points might help in reaching a decision: the complaint refers to alleged incidents over 10 years ago; the management of his current school are aware (per Mr [Rothe]) of the position; the Inspectors report ... is satisfactory; he is due to retire ... as far as this section is concerned his registration papers are in order. My feeling is that the Department (and in particular the Registration Section) does not now have a sufficient basis to proceed with any action against the teacher. However, I do propose that we submit a file through [Principal Officer], and [Chief Inspector] for their agreement or observations. It might also be no harm to inform Mr [Rothe] that we have “noted” the contents of his letter. However, it does not seem appropriate for Registration Section to issue such a letter. Perhaps Inspection, or Primary Branch would be more suitable. [Signed]

HEO Registration

The official in Secondary Salaries simply wrote his comments on the suggestions in the last two paragraphs and initialled and dated them. He wrote ‘Agreed’ next to the contention that the Department did not have ‘sufficient basis to proceed with any action against the teacher’, and against the suggestion that Inspection Section or Primary Branch should issue a letter to Mr Rothe he wrote ‘Not necessary’.

The Department of Education has acknowledged that the manner in which Mr Rothe’s complaint was handled was inadequate. Counsel for the Department of Education, pointed out in the course of his cross-examination of Mr Rothe that, on a current affairs programme in the late 1990s: ... Minister Michael Martin acknowledged that even by the standards of the time the Department’s handling of your written complaint was impossible to stand over.

In the Department of Education and Science’s Statement to Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, made in the advance of its Phase III hearing, the Department wrote: Mr [Brander’s] conviction subsequently led to many parliamentary questions and ministerial representations on the apparent inaction by the Department of Education to deal with Mr [Brander] in [the early 1980s]. The letter appeared to cause no sense of alarm in the Department and effectively was not acted upon. This view was expressed by the Minister for Education in [the late 1990s], Michael Martin, when he stated that “following my review of the papers, I am firmly of the view that the Department’s response to this complaint was seriously lacking and that there can be absolutely no excuse by reference to the standards of the time”. Rule 4 of the 1967 Regulations for the registration of secondary school teachers provide for the removal of a name from the Register of Secondary School teachers by the Minister if warranted – “The Minister may, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, refuse to register him on the grounds that, in the opinion of the Minister, his moral character renders him unfit to be employed as a teacher” and “the Minister may, after a similar opportunity of being heard, remove from the Register the name of any teacher who shall have been shown to his satisfaction to have been guilty of conduct which is, in the opinion of the Minister, unbefitting a teacher”. The Regulations allowed for legal representation. While the Department’s papers on this case indicate that withdrawal of recognition as a teacher was identified as possible course of action, this was not pursued.

The memoranda set out above between civil servants seem to have been more concerned with procedural niceties in dealing with the complaint rather than actually investigating it. At no stage were the past, present or potential future victims of Mr Brander considered. The fact that the complaints related to a period 10 years previously and that Mr Brander was due to retire in the near future were used to justify taking no action.

A proper approach would have taken into account the following: There were serious allegations dating back at least 10 years of sexual and physical abuse of children. The alleged abuser was a vice-principal with power over children. At the time the complaint was made, Mr Brander had three years before he was due to retire and so could do much more harm. A full investigation was required.