Chapter 15 — Daingean

Emotional abuse

Another witness told the Committee: ... it’s like men at war who experience things cannot bring these things back to people in the street because people would not understand the situation that they were in. They dehumanised themselves. They dehumanise their enemy in order to be able to psychologically deal with killing them. The same is true when I came out of Daingean and I am looking at all of these people in the street and I am thinking they don’t know where I have been and they couldn’t understand me and you feel different to them and that’s why I went to England. I tried to escape.

Fr Murphy in his evidence told the Committee that, in the early 1960s, Fr Pablo,34 who was a trained psychologist, ‘... was suggesting changes ... trying to bring forward a better method of assessment and of treatment of these boys rather than the punitive, repressive thing’. It does not need training in psychology to recognise that a boy whose mother has recently died needs protection and guidance, while a boy from a criminal background needs containment. The system, as it evolved in Daingean, treated them both the same, offering only what Fr Murphy called ‘the punitive, repressive thing’.

In his evidence to the Committee, Fr Luca acknowledged one effect of institutional life on the children: ... that was one of the biggest punishments that you could give them, to take them from their own native place wherever it was and put them into a place where they didn’t want to be and to keep them there.

1.Daingean was a Reformatory and was run on penal lines, where repressive measures were the order of day. Many complainants who gave evidence to the Committee had been convicted of minor offences whose sentences seem disproportionate and would not have been given to adults for similar crimes. A basically unjust system was compounded by the way the Institution was run. Hardened criminals in prisons were not subjected to the violence or deprivation experienced by these boys. Prisons were regulated and subject to rules and to the law, but these constraints were not enforced in Daingean. 2.Management had a duty to ensure that all boys were protected but this was not done. Boys were isolated, frightened and bullied by both staff and inmates. 3.The boys had an alternative underground government which victimised those who engaged with Brothers. Management did nothing to break this system and appeared to have acquiesced in it. 4.The acknowledged failure of the staff to offer emotional support was not caused by the boys but by inadequate management.

Neglect

In the period 1940 to 1973, a total of 77 Oblates were attached to the School. On average, there would be 19 Brothers and five priests in the school community. However, not all of the Brothers or priests in the school community worked in the School itself. It is clear from the oral evidence and documents that the staff to pupil ratio was a fundamental problem at Daingean. Many of the Brothers assigned to the School were old and infirm, and played an inactive role in the day-to-day running of the School.

Fr Luca wrote in 1966: At present there are only nine active members of the Staff who are expected to cater at all times from seven in the morning to half-past ten at night, come what may, seven days a week.

The Oblate records for staffing in the School in 1969 listed seven priests and 17 Brothers, but Fr Luca could only rely on nine out of 24 listed staff to work in the care of the boys in Daingean.

Fr Hughes gave evidence about staff ratios operating in Daingean: I give you two examples there, we have a staff list of 1944 which shows the presence of a population, a school population, of 236. They were 24 Oblates in the school ... That would indicate there was a staff ratio of one member of staff to 10 inmates.

He also stated: Similarly in 1968, the population, the school population, of 104 shows the presence of 18 Oblates ...

However, as noted above, during this period Fr Luca wrote that ‘there are only nine active members of staff’. The problem clearly was worse than the records indicate.

One witness stated: There was probably not enough individuals to look after the amount of boys that were there, which is why so much went on there.

Another witness, when asked about supervision in the small section at night, replied: You asked me about the supervision over boys by priests, there was no supervision over them as far as I could see ... looking at it now – there was some young men down there, some young priests in it that could handle the situations that were down there probably, but then there was a lot of older men down there, they really didn’t do any work; I am talking about supervising.

In their Opening Statement, the Oblates stated that staff members were over-extended in their responsibilities. During the last decade of the School’s existence, the Brothers were clearly getting older and suffering ill-health more often. This was a result of the Oblate policy of appointing members of their Community to the School for long, indefinite periods. In fact, some Oblate Brothers served periods of up to 50 years in the School. Fr Luca in his evidence agreed with counsel for the Investigation Committee that the Brothers would more or less stay in Daingean for their entire working lives. Some of the Brothers even remained in the School after retirement rather than leave. These Brothers played no contributory role in the caring of the boys.

Fr Luca, throughout his period as Resident Manager of Daingean, had serious concerns about his staff and the pressure they were placed under while working at this School. In his evidence and in contemporary documentation this was evident. His concerns about lack of staff numbers and the effect this was having can be seen in a letter he wrote in 1966. In it he protested: At present there are only nine active members of the Staff who are expected to cater at all times from seven in the morning to half-past ten at night, come what may, seven days a week ... Br X is not named as he is full time on the farm. The average age of these men is over 40, and obviously increasing. The staff as a whole feels that under the present circumstances they are unable to continue much longer with the present system. The strain is regarded as far too severe, and unless something tangible is done in the immediate future, they feel that they will be fit subjects for special institution themselves. That the strain is evident is obvious by the fact that six brothers in five years are sent from here with nervous breakdowns. This in itself should be a raw reminder of the seriousness of the situation of the already seriously understaffed school ... At present the Staff feel that they are being treated very unfairly.

Fr Luca’s letter of concern for the stress placed on the staff of Daingean is illuminating. At no time was similar concern expressed for the unfortunate boys who were there. The consequences of having overworked and overstressed staff in Daingean were examined during the Phase I hearing. Fr Hughes was asked about the content of the letter of Fr Luca and about the problems that could result from stressed staff. When asked if this kind of strain carried with it any risks for the people in the care of those under that type of strain, he replied, ‘I suppose the men under stress might snap and become abusive, it is a possibility’. He accepted that it was an undesirable situation, where people working in a position of responsibility over young people were under extreme stress. On the basis of this evidence, there was never an adequate staff at Daingean.