Chapter 15 — Daingean

Physical abuse

In the Emergence hearing into Daingean, the Oblate Congregation did not apologise for any excessive corporal punishment, but they did refer to the press statement which was issued after the broadcast of ‘States of Fear’ in 1999 in which they stated: We would firstly say that the abuse of young people is always abhorrent and abuse of young people in confinement is doubly so. The Oblates of Mary Immaculate deeply regret that any young man was mistreated while in their care and offer sincerest apologies.

In response to a question from the Investigation Committee, the Oblates stated that that press statement: was in the nature of an expression of concern after the TV documentary ‘States of Fear’ in which one of the reformatories was mentioned. It was thought that such a statement was required in view of the public interest in the programme. In their statement the Oblates also indicated that further research was needed. No further statements of this kind have been made ...

In their Opening Statement the Oblates submitted the following: Allegations of physical abuse have also been made. The Oblate Management file shows two complaints of excessive corporal punishment in the lifetime of the school. The school files show five complaints in the lifetime of the school of pupils being struck by staff members: two of these are also found in the DES discovery documents. The Oblates do not seek to defend the use of excessive corporal punishment. However the use of corporal punishment in the period must be judged in the context of a society where it was acceptable in itself and in the context of an institution where numbers were large, facilities were very limited, and there was little or no psychological assessment to exclude violent or unmanageable boys or any resources to deal with them. As a result it was a very difficult task to maintain order in the reformatory and eliminate violence among the boys themselves. It should be mentioned that evidence of support from parents can also be found in the files, and also letters from boys which reveal a good relationship between pupils and staff.

In their Submission, the Oblates summarised their position and acknowledged that the corporal punishment described by some of the complainants was ‘unreasonably severe’. They also acknowledged that ‘the punishment for certain infringements such as absconding and attempting to escape was in itself ‘over severe’. They conceded that such punishment had serious consequences for the boys, and they apologised unreservedly for that, but they denied that it was abusive or administered randomly.

They asked the Commission to examine the issue in the context of the times and the type of institution that operated in Daingean. They also suggested that the question to be examined by the Commission was summed up by the Chairman when he pointed out that the issue was not simply whether boys were beaten in institutions but whether they were abused by being beaten.

From the evidence, it emerged that corporal punishment was administered in three different ways, all of which breached the rules and regulations for corporal punishment in residential schools. These were: 1.The form of punishment known as a flogging. 2.Punches, slaps, kicks or blows with an available implement such as a hurley, a stick or, in the case of one particular Brother, a garden hose and a spade. These blows were given as immediate chastisement for aberrant behaviour or for disobedience and minor insolence. Some staff members were singled out as resorting to such punishment more frequently and harshly than others. 3.Blows with a strap for behaviour warranting less serious punishment.

At a conference held in the Department of Education on 30th June 1952, with Fr Pedro,7 the Resident Manager of Daingean, District Justice McCarthy and the Minister for Education and his officials present, issues relating to Daingean and Marlborough House were discussed. The minutes at one point revealed the following: Justice MacCarthy asked whether corporal punishment had often to be inflicted. Father Pedro said no. Occasionally a caning on the hand, but no more.

The policy of administering an occasional caning on the hand and no more did not conform to the reality of corporal punishment in Daingean. More than the other institutions, Daingean had a system of administering corporal punishment in a formal, almost ritualised way. It meant more than just being beaten with a strap or cane. If a boy was put ‘on report’ by a Brother for breach of discipline, the Disciplinarian would administer corporal punishment in a way known as a ‘flogging’.

Just a year later, in 1953, Fr Pedro explained in a letter to the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools exactly what a ‘flogging’ meant in Daingean: “Flogging” means that a boy is put on his knees receiving a few (5 or 6) light strokes of a light strap on the back. This is not done except for serious offences such as a) insubordination (b) deliberate destruction of property (c) public immoral conduct (d) inciting others to riotous conduct (e) absconding. Absconding must be regarded as a serious offence otherwise it would be impossible to keep those type of boys in the School. The usual punishment for ordinary breaches of rule is a few slaps on the hand or deprivation of re-creation for 15 or 20 minutes.

The use of the strap on the hand as permitted by the rules was not a ‘flogging’. According to the Resident Manager, who had the responsibility for enforcing the rules, a flogging was specifically the administration of blows to the back of a boy who was made to kneel at the time.

In the same year, Dr McCabe, the Department of Education’s Medical Inspector, wrote about the use of flogging in Daingean: “Flogging” ... consists in taking the offender into a small room, removing his pants and administering 5 or 6 strokes on the bare posterior with a leather strap which is quite flexible about 1” wide and 1 yard long (It resembles a strap used to put around a suitcase) The punishment is administered by the disciplinarian ... who is a very understanding patient man and always offers an excuse in defence of a boy if at all possible.

Br Abran,8 who was himself identified as harsh and cruel by complainants and who gave evidence before the Committee, described a flogging that he had been asked to witness in the 1960s. He recalled standing 15 feet away from the boy on the stairs on the ground floor. The boy had his hands on the steps and his nightshirt was lifted up.

He described how the boy, who received around six strokes, was screaming and shouting: ‘... he was only a small chap. I was horrified myself’. He recalled that there was another Brother present with the Prefect. He was asked by the Superior to witness the beating. He said ‘... I don’t know the circumstances, possibly rumours of a type of cruelty was in vogue and I was there to – acting as a witness or just to be there ...’.

When questioned further, he added: I said that the boy in question was a small boy who should not have been punished in that certain way anywhere, firstly ... I had never seen such an incident like that before. It was the first and last time.

He later explained that normally such a punishment took place in the office but, on that occasion, the Superior had requested that he be present as a witness: I think there was some kind of trouble, you had boys up in the roof and some trying to abscond. It was a weak era during that period apparently and because of that I was asked to attend this particular one, to ensure that things were sort of semi-okay ...