Chapter 15 — Daingean

Physical abuse

The Assistant Secretary to the Department, in a handwritten note in Irish on the above memorandum, stated that (1) the Rules would be better understood if the English version was improved, and (2) there would be the danger that the Manager and the Department would be made a laughing stock by virtue of its contents if the present version were read out in open court.

The Assistant Secretary’s concerns were well founded. Prior to the changes and amendments suggested by the Department, some of these rules were so ill-thought out and badly worded that they would confuse an adult, let alone a poorly educated child.

To illustrate the point: RULE 8. Good manners should not be used only towards those whom we like. Not everyone may like one of us, yet each of us expects good treatment at the hands of others. Therefore; selfishness and unfairness in regard to the rights of others is absolutely wrong. This applies especially to meal-times when some boys may deprive others of their fair share. The school authorities will see to it that each boy gets his rights and that offenders are punished. RULE 10. Immoral or impure conduct is forbidden by God Himself and so is no mere school rule. Therefore to warn boys against it is absolutely for their own good. The school authorities must strictly forbid it and will be helpful and watchful in preventing any such conduct. RULE 17. Any intercourse between Senior and Junior Sections is an offence against the school rules. The forming of particular friendships between Senior and Junior boys is a more serious offence and merits a severe penalty.

The school rules were divided into two sections: MAJOR rules and MINOR rules. The major rules ran to seven typed pages containing 21 rules. The rules stated: ‘To break a major rule is serious and merits serious penalties’

It was two years before these rules were finally approved by the Department, in November 1960.

One of the boys accused of involvement in the 1958 riot gave evidence. As a result of the conviction in respect of the riot, he received a two-year sentence in St. Patrick’s Institution. He was asked whether he remembered the school rules. He said, ‘I don’t remember anything because I’d never seen the school rules’. Neither did he recall being lectured on the school rules.

He stated that he was punished severely by the Prefect for his part in the riot. He was taken out of the hall where the film was being shown, and brought to a hallway were he received the lashes from the Brother. There was no other Brother involved. He stated that he received blows on his arms, back and backside. He claimed that he had received over 100 blows, and then stood up and hit the Brother with his head, accidentally, resulting in more blows being given to him. He believed that this amounted to 140 blows in total.

This boy’s conviction and sentence to two years in a Borstal was facilitated by the Resident Manager’s evidence in court that the school rules had been in place from 20th June 1958 and had been specifically brought to the attention of two of the accused. The Department was uncomfortable with the Resident Manager’s history regarding the rules. It feared exposure of the fact that they had been submitted to the Department so recently, ie just before the trial and after the riot. The Department of Education knew that its acceptance of the Manager’s word that the rules had been in place prior to the riot was important for the case.

In 1968, a number of residents in the School attempted to set fire to part of the building. The Garda report on the incident stated that the trouble started on 25th August 1968, when a fight took place between rival gangs in the School. On the 26th, senior and junior sections were separated and confined to separate parts of the School. At this stage, the junior section boys decided not to fight amongst themselves and came up with a proposal that they all should join together to burn down the buildings. It was decided to attempt to burn down the junior dormitory at 11pm when the lights went off. Four boys obtained bottles of diesel oil. At 11pm that night, one boy sprinkled three vacant beds and part of the floor with the diesel. As he was about to strike the match, the night watchman sounded the alarm and more staff arrived. Order was restored.

On 27th August, the local Garda Sergeant was informed that a fire may be started in a number of workshops, and that four o’clock in the afternoon was fixed as the start time. The local fire brigade were alerted. However, the staff had restored order and no Garda assistance was required. The Manager separated the ringleaders and had them confined in a separate room. These boys were interrogated by a Garda Sergeant at Daingean, and it became evident that a full-scale conspiracy to burn down sections of the Reformatory was in existence. The four boys mentioned above were charged with attempted arson and conspiracy.

The severe regime of corporal punishment in Daingean did not prevent trouble in the institution. There are no recorded instances of riots in Daingean after the abolition of corporal punishment in 1970. The riots as described by the Gardaí suggest that the institution that was seriously out of control. This was a consequence of bad management and Daingean was a frightening and threatening environment as a result.

During Fr Luca’s time as Resident Manager of Daingean, it appeared that there was a serious problem with pupils absconding from the School. Examining the pupil files available, between 1963 and 1972, 35 children absconded on 46 different occasions (some pupils absconding more than once). As instances of absconding were not always recorded officially in pupil files, these figures are not accurate and are likely to be much higher. It does, however, give a strong indication of the magnitude of the problem.

During Fr Luca’s time, absconding became such a problem that, in 1966, it drew the attention of the media, which resulted in a petition being sent by the mothers of four boys to the Minister for Education, enquiring into conditions in the School. The mothers concerned stated in their letter to the Minister: When we visit our sons we feel that they are not free to speak their minds. They always seem to be in a state of tension.

In an article in The People newspaper in October 1966, it was highlighted that 18 boys had absconded between July and October in that year alone. Fr Luca was quoted in the article : Occasionally boys do wrong and they have to be punished. They may get a slap or a leather strap across their hands. But there is no brutality ... The stiffest punishment I have had to give in two years here has been to stop a boy’s holidays ... We try to run the school like a big family. We have our own farm ; we produce our own vegetables and bread. In fact we are almost self sufficient ... We care for more than 100 of the toughest boys in the country. Discipline sometimes has to be enforced. But nothing happens at St. Conleth’s that could remotely be described as cruel.

In response to the article, a memorandum was sent to the Minister for Education, where it was noted that the Industrial Schools Branch of the Department was satisfied that the discipline in the Reformatory was maintained in ‘a kindly manner’, and that the Resident Manager was devoted to the task with ‘a genuine interest in the welfare of the boys’. A similar comment was made by T. O’Raifeartaigh, Secretary of the Department of Education, in a report in 1969: Fr. [Luca] in particular is not only a man dedicated, but a man of vast common sense and goodness. A remark of his which struck me particularly was that indiscipline (e.g. running away) should not call for additional restrictions, as it is to be expected of these or any boys in such circumstances that they will occasionally kick over the traces.