Chapter 15 — Daingean

On the impossibility of change

As pointed out, there was very little instruction because of shortage of staff. There was a work routine: the boys would rise at 6.45 , wash and go to Mass, have 15 minutes for recreation and then eat breakfast. At 9.30 am, they would fall in, split up into their respective groups and then go to work. Over half went to work on the farm; others went to the bog, or the garden; others to the boot-makers, carpenters, printers, refectory, kitchen and laundry. There was also the band, spoken of by one witness. Another witness told the Committee it was ‘child labour’. None of them saw it as a daily routine of instruction. 6. The assignment of the boys to a Brother in a school/training group and whose task it was to integrate the newcomer into the life of the School

Not one witness spoke of being assigned to a Brother. Most of them spoke of being on their own. 7. The separation of juniors from seniors

There was never adequate separation of juniors from seniors. The playground was eventually segregated in the 1950s, but by then sexual exploitation and sexual liaisons had become part of the Daingean way of life, and the separating wall proved useless. Bullying was institutionalised, and younger boys sought protectors from older boys, and became their ‘hags’ in return. Newcomers were dehumanised, and a simple signal, an open hand with the thumb raised swimming through an imaginary sea, told them they were ‘fish’, newcomers with no rights. As they moved up the hierarchy, they perpetuated the system. 8. A sacramental religious framework

The School was a reformatory for Roman Catholics and ‘Religious practice was therefore an intrinsic part of the school’s life’. The Oblates stated that the School organised Christian Doctrine classes, retreats and special religious activities. Fr Luca made attendance at Mass optional in the 1960s, to encourage a more personalised faith commitment. 9. An insistence on discipline

Discipline in Daingean depended on corporal punishment. The Oblates have asserted that, as soon as corporal punishment was stopped in 1970, there was defiance and rebellion. The records show, however, that even when corporal punishment was at its most extreme in Daingean, defiance and rebellion were a way of life there. Serious riots occurred and the Gardaí had to be called in on three occasions. Abandoning corporal punishment without making any provision for an alternative regime, as occurred in 1970, was irresponsible and reckless. The inability to distinguish discipline from corporal punishment caused unnecessary hardship in Daingean. 10. Encouragement of sporting activities and other leisure activities such as drama and music

There was evidence of sport, music and drama, and many complainants recalled events such as school plays as being some of the good aspects of the School. 11. Many external contacts

Some external contacts with girls from local schools began in the 1960s. There was nothing before that initiative. 12. Help in finding a job

The Committee found no evidence of a structured approach to job finding. 13. An aftercare programme

The Committee heard no evidence of an aftercare programme. Most boys seemed to return home, but a surprising number went to Britain, where they finished up sleeping rough and declining into alcoholism. A large proportion went into other places of detention in Ireland or Britain. The memorandum by Mr H. B. Early of the Kennedy Committee, which was quoted earlier, was particularly critical of that aspect of care.

The Oblates failed to achieve almost all of the objectives that they set themselves in running Daingean. They never had the staff, the training or the resources to run the Institution in a way that would have made these objectives realistic ones. As Fr Luca wrote: ... The large numbers in such custodial situations with declining staff numbers not only rendered meaningful relationships between staff and boys unattainable but repressive measures for the purpose of containment were the order of the day.

General conclusions

General conclusions 1. Daingean was not a suitable location or building for a reformatory. The refusal by management to accept any responsibility for even day-to-day maintenance led to its complete disintegration over the years. 2. Daingean did not provide a safe environment. Management failed in its duty to ensure that all boys were protected. They lived in a climate of fear in which they were isolated, frightened and bullied by both staff and inmates. 3. Gangs of boys operated as a form of alternative government, victimising those who did not obey them, while the Brothers did nothing to break the system but acquiesced in it. 4. Flogging was an inhumane and cruel form of punishment. A senior management respondent described it as ‘a most revolting thing’ and ‘a kind of a horror’, and another respondent said that he was ‘horrified’ when he witnessed it, but the management did nothing to stop it and discussed the practice freely with the Department of Education and the Kennedy Committee. 5. Corporal punishment was a means of maintaining control and discipline, and it was the first response by many of the staff in Daingean for even minor transgressions. Black eyes, split lips, and bruising were reported by complainants. There was no control of staff in the infliction of punishment. 6. A punishment book was part of a proper regime, as well as being required by law. 7. The Department of Education knew that its rules were being breached in a fundamental way and management in Daingean operated the system of punishment in the knowledge that the Department would not interfere. 8. Sexual abuse of boys by staff took place in Daingean, as complainant witnesses testified. 9. The full extent of this abuse is impossible to quantify because of the absence of a proper system of receiving, handling and recording complaints and investigations. 10. The system that was put in place tended to suppress complaints rather than to reveal abuse or even to bring about investigations. 11. The Congregation in their Submission and Statements have not admitted that sexual abuse took place or even considered the possibility, but instead have directed their efforts to contending that it is impossible to find that such abuse actually occurred. 12. Having regard to the extent of the abuse of which Br Ramon was found guilty in Wales, the reservations expressed about his time in London, the known recidivist nature of sexual abuse and the complainant evidence received by the Investigation Committee, there must be serious misgivings about this Brother’s behaviour in Daingean during his long service there. 13. The Oblates acknowledged that they were aware of peer abuse and accepted that such incidents did take place. 14. Sexual behaviour between boys, which was often abusive, was a major issue that developed to such a degree because of the lack of effective supervision throughout the Institution and particularly during recreation. 15. The unsafe environment caused some boys to seek protection through sexual relationships with other boys in order to survive. 16. The conditions of neglect and squalor described by Dr Lysaght and the Kennedy Committee were primarily the responsibility of the management of the School. Inadequate buildings and the consequent overcrowding would undoubtedly have taxed the most efficient Manager, but dirt, hunger, shabbiness and lack of supervision were management issues and these were all present at Daingean. 17. The staff in Daingean was inadequate, ill-equipped and untrained. 18. The failure to offer emotional support was acknowledged by Fr Luca in 1972 when he wrote: The large numbers in such custodial situations with declining staff numbers not only rendered meaningful relationships between staff and boys unattainable but repressive measures for the purpose of containment were the order of the day. 19. The Department of Education neglected its regulatory and supervisory roles in Daingean and failed to condemn serious abuses, including the practice of flogging. 20. Daingean did not in practice have a remedial function, as a reformatory was intended to have, but operated as a custodial institution whose purpose was punishment by deprivation of liberty. Periods of detention were longer because of the supposed therapeutic value of a reformatory, a feature that was emphasised by the statutory minimum of two years. Because it was not officially a prison, there was an absence of legal and administrative protections for detainees.