Chapter 15 — Daingean

Physical abuse

The Department official was sufficiently concerned by what he heard that he phoned Fr Luca the same day, requesting a school report as soon as possible. Fr Luca said he would investigate the matter but assured the Department official that boys were not prevented from writing home, quite the contrary.

The boy absconded from Daingean in January 1970 and, as there were no further records relating to him, it would appear that he was never brought back and that he remained at large. Neither was there any account of the investigation of the complaint.

The discovered documents reveal an unexplained anomaly. The Department’s system for processing requests for early discharge was to send a standard communication form, requesting the Manager to indicate whether discharge was recommended by him. That occurred in this case, but the form sent by the Department was dated one month prior to the mother’s visit to the Department – 12th May 1969. Fr Luca filled in this form but did not make clear whether he recommended a discharge or not, although he did state that he thought there was little hope for lasting or radical improvement in the boy. There was no reference in that document to the complaint by his mother. The document signed by Fr Luca is dated 13th June 1969 and is stamped as received by the Department on 16th June 1969.

Irrespective of the whereabouts of the boy, the mother’s complaints were serious but they went uninvestigated. The complaint that the boy had been bullied and terrorised in the Institution was similar to the evidence of many witnesses at the private hearings. The circumstances of the meeting in the Department, the boy’s escape and the lack of follow-up are not easy to reconcile with good administration.

The next documented complaint came in September 1969, when the Department of Education was visited by the mother of a boy admitted to Daingean two months previously. She came into the Department personally, the day after her visit to Daingean, with another son and complained of ill-treatment of her son on two occasions.

The first occasion was when she visited him, shortly after he had arrived in Daingean, and she said his face was black and blue from a beating that Br Enrico10 had given him. The boy had asked his mother not to say anything about it at the time.

The second occasion was when she visited him a month later. His face was swollen and discoloured as a result of a further beating he had received at the hands of the same Brother. She described the state of agitation her son was in when telling her, and how he wanted to run away there and then. The mother told the official that she did not object to her son being disciplined with a strap, but she did object to him being beaten with a fist and with a portion of a plastic hose. She said she could provide a witness to the state of her son’s face, and gave the name and address of another visitor present at the time. She also complained that she was not getting letters from her son, who said he had written to her on a number of occasions. On the day of the visit, she spoke to a Brother about this, and he said he had posted two letters on behalf of her son to her. She did not bring up the beating with this Brother on the day of the visit.

The Department official promised the mother that the matter would be investigated, and an official was sent to Daingean. Clearly, the Department was becoming alarmed because of these very similar complaints coming in quick succession. An unusually detailed investigation was carried out, and the full text of the report is given below: Daingean Admitted 1969 – stealing Runaí Cunta As instructed I visited Daingean to investigate Mrs. [Walsh’s]11 complaint about the ill-treatment of her son in Daingean and interviewed Brother [Macario],12 Acting Manager, and John Walsh.13 Brother [Enrico], who was alleged to have beaten the boy was on annual leave and called to this Office ... by arrangement where the investigations were completed. In the interim I visited the boy’s mother ... and also spoke to Father [Salamon],14 S.J. and Mr. [Carlos]15 who had experience of [John] in [a boy’s] Club where he was a member for a number of years. Though [John] had been described by the authorities in Daingean as being a bit of a ‘pup’ his mentors in the [boys’] Club would not agree with this opinion. They did say that he could be difficult at times. Brother [Macario] did not deny that on one occasion ... the boy had got ‘cuffed’ but did not know of any previous assault on the boy by a member of the Staff. Members of the [Walsh] family had arrived in Daingean ... and seeing the condition of [John’s] face had created an incident. When interviewed [John] admitted that he had absconded six times since [he arrived] and after an unsuccessful attempt to escape on ... had been brought back by Brother [Enrico] who counselled him on the futility of his intention and gave him a couple of apples. [John] admitted that he liked Brother [Enrico]. When he called to the Office, Brother [Enrico] described the incident. Having brought [John Walsh] back to St. Conleth’s as described above, Brother [Enrico] was on his way to organise the milking of the 100 cows kept on the farm in Daingean which [Walsh’s] earlier absconding had interrupted. The usual supervisory staff were being helped out by students from the Oblate Noviciate in Athy and word was sent to him that [Walsh] had again absconded and was threatening a young Clerical student who was attempting to restrain him. When Brother [Enrico] arrived on the scene [Walsh] was already half way across the canal which bounds the Reformatory. With assistance, Brother [Enrico] was able to shepherd him out of the canal and once on the bank he gave him a backhander on the face and then seizing a length of plastic hose, which was the nearest thing to his hand he gave [Walsh] three strokes on his wet jeans. He admitted that at that stage his patience with the boy was exhausted. He admitted that the boy’s face had swelled up as a result of the backhander and that because of his jeans being wet he had left weals on [John’s] legs with the plastic hose ... Control of delinquents in Daingean is a difficult task calling for endless patience and understanding but the one unjustifiable feature of the present case, notwithstanding the provocation given by the boy, is that while [John] is fifteen years old and weighs 8 ½ st. Brother [Enrico] is a giant of a man, weighing 17 sts. whose backhander could cause considerable damage in the circumstances. The best way of finishing this case would, I suggest be a talk with the Manager, Father [Luca], O.M.I. on his next call to the Office and if you agree this will be done.

There is a handwritten note on the report to say that the matter will await Fr Luca’s next visit, and this is dated 18th November 1969.

This case again illustrates the Department’s ambivalence to the use of violence in Daingean, even as late as 1969. The fact that the boy did not confirm to the Inspector that he had been beaten should have made the Department concerned and suspicious. The beating the Brother admitted giving the boy was an example of uncontrolled violence on the part of ‘a giant of a man’ on a boy of 15 years. The Inspector, however, identified the disparity in size as ‘the one unjustifiable feature’, and did not address the issue of unregulated and uncontrolled punishment in his report.

The Investigation Committee heard allegations from six witnesses as to the severity and violence of this Brother.

One witness present in the late 1960s described this Brother as ‘... a very big, tall, stocky Brother who worked on the farm’. He described an incident where six pupils were taken from the dormitory and beaten in turn by this Brother with a leather. They were accused of plotting an escape and he was going to make sure it did not happen. He said that this Brother: had some lad there standing and each one of us in turn—he made us lie across the stairs had him stand on our hands and he whipped us with a leather ... I had only a nightshirt and he pulled up our nightshirts over our heads.

Another witness present in the late 1950s and early 1960s stated that he worked on the farm: Br. Enrico was in charge of the farm. He was nicknamed the Bull, he was a big strong man, he was over six foot. He didn’t like being called the Bull ... On one occasion I got a bang of a shovel or a spade, I don’t know which, I was brought to hospital and I got stitched.

The infirmary records for this pupil confirmed the injury complained of: ‘12.7.60 Accident, Cut face, Dentures smashed’.

The witness recalled that the incident centred round him calling the Brother by his nickname and stated, ‘In fairness to the man I don’t think he didn’t mean to hurt me as seriously as he did’. He said he lost three or four teeth in the incident and, contrary to the medical record, did not have dentures at the time. He stated that his teeth were not repaired in Daingean. He got the dentures at a later date when he left Daingean and joined the British Army.