Chapter 14 — John Brander

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.

The process took over a year and a half to come to the decision to do nothing. Another feature of the handling of this case by the Department was the dismissive attitude that was adopted in regard to Mr Rothe, who was not even given the courtesy of a reply to his letter. The debate was not about how to investigate his complaint but about what to do about a troublemaker who had complained.

Events post Mr Brander’s retirement

Mr Brander retired in the mid-1980s. He was subsequently convicted of abusing a boy to whom he was giving grinds. The publicity following this conviction led a former pupil of Walsh Island NS to come forward and make a statement to the Gardaí, which resulted in a full-scale investigation into Mr Brander’s period of service there.

Around the time of his third trial, Mr Brander wrote to the Christian Brothers saying that he himself had been a victim of sexual interference during his time in the Christian Brothers after he joined the Congregation in the 1930s. He described several occasions over a period of 10 years during his education and training in the Brothers when he was sexually abused by a number of named persons. The latest of the incidents happened in the 1940s. One of the offenders he named was a Brother who was expelled from the Congregation because of sexual abuse. In the letter Mr Brander said: I was very innocent when joining, and I look upon those incidents as having a profound influence on my teaching years.

Mr Rothe continued his quest to have his concerns, namely the exposure of Mr Brander and a general inquiry into the abuse of children, dealt with, in contacts with a number of politicians, some of whom raised the issues with Ministers for Education.

Conclusions

1.By permitting Mr Brander to be eased out of the Congregation, the Christian Brothers did nothing to prevent him continuing in a career of teaching, despite his repeated sexual interference with children and knowledge as to the danger he represented to them. The Provincial at the time of his dispensation said that ‘we could not allow him in future to have any contact with boys as it would be dangerous for himself and for the boys’. 2.Within days of leaving the Congregation, Mr Brander took up a position as Principal of a National School, which would have necessitated some form of application process to the School Manager, who was most likely the parish priest of the area. It is scarcely credible that an accurate reference could have been furnished, so the possibilities are that a favourable reference was given which satisfied the employer or that the latter did not seek a reference. In either case, there is ground for suspicion. 3.During the course of his subsequent career, Mr Brander’s sexual and/or physical abuse of children came to the knowledge of his employers, including a parish priest and senior members of two separate communities of nuns, a Bishop, members of the clergy, the Gardaí, the Department of Education and an Inspector thereof, and colleague teachers, but on each occasion he was able to continue his career. 4.By choosing to take the easy way out, the persons and bodies with knowledge of Mr Brander’s activities must bear heavy responsibility for the damage he did to children throughout his career and following his retirement.