Chapter 15 — Daingean

Introduction

Age spread in a sample year in the 1960s was:

%	Age
6%	13 years +
11%	14 years +
31%	15 years +
35%	16 years +
15%	17 years +
2%	18 years +

The following Table is based on Department of Education Records and shows the offences committed by a total of 87 pupils, which led to their detention in Daingean in 1955–1956:

Grounds for committal	Number committed
Larceny and receiving	28
Shop/House breaking	49
Arson	1
Indecent assault	2
Burglary	2
Common assault	2
Others	3

The Oblates stated that the typical social class of the pupil in their school was urban working class. The boys were mainly from the larger Irish cities of Dublin, Cork and Limerick. The levels of literacy among the boys committed were significantly lower in a sample of boys compared with a normal national school. Of the complainants who gave evidence to the Committee, many ended up in Daingean for trivial offences that owed more to poverty than criminality, particularly those admitted under the first two categories set out above. The urban-rural divide

In an article entitled ‘The Juvenile Offender’ written in 1963 the author, James O’Connor, wrote: The offences which merit committal to Daingean vary from court to court, but more particularly from city to country. In Dublin a boy might have eight or nine previous convictions before he receives a reformatory sentence, whereas in the country he may have committed his first offence.

Fr Luca also wrote about the urban-rural divide in the School and the differences and difficulties this presented to the school authorities. Most of the boys in the School came from an urban background. Fr Luca stated that the rural boys were more difficult to deal with than even the toughest boy from the city. He stated that, for a rural boy to be sent to Daingean, he must have done something ‘very radically wrong’: A boy or girl who seriously offended would be regarded as sort of social outcasts, they would be marked as people not fit to be in that area.

He also stated, somewhat contradictorily, that the District Justices in the country wanted to stamp out crime problems in their area and therefore if a country boy offended he was sent straight to Daingean immediately. The city court Judges tended to avail of the Probation Act more often and gave the offenders numerous chances.

Daingean did not receive boys who were guilty of non-attendance at school.

In their Opening Statement the Oblates referred to a particular issue, which they considered especially relevant to this inquiry. The issue was how the system failed to meet the special needs of some of the pupils.

The Oblates identified two types of pupils: those who ‘... were in no frame of mind to respond to its programme for whatever reasons. These had needs that were not compatible with the School’s ethos’, and those who ‘should not have been sent to the school because their capacity to respond was limited through psychological or educational difficulties that called for a specialist approach that the school did not have’.

The Oblates, in other words, acknowledged that the Institution failed to provide for the special needs of the vast majority of its pupils.

The Resident Manager in the 1960s explicitly referred to the situation he was faced with as ‘unjust’ to the pupils, but it was clear that the regime in Daingean was incapable of responding to individual needs.

Severely psychiatrically disturbed children also ended up in Daingean, and these children could not have been properly looked after by the reformatory system. The Oblates were correct in stating that these children were let down by the State, which failed to provide specialist facilities.

The Oblates maintained that they acted responsibly, and drew attention to these problems without succeeding in having them addressed until very late in the day.

• From its re-establishment as a Reformatory in 1940, Daingean was a poor solution to a problem that had been allowed to escalate to crisis proportions. The interests of the boys were not prioritised in the discussions leading up to the opening of Daingean. Daingean’s isolation, clearly identified as a problem by Government officials, was regarded as an advantage by the Congregation. Isolating boys from family and friends was part of the ethos of the Institution. The lack of clarity with regard to responsibility for maintenance of the buildings in Daingean, identified in the Department of Finance letter, proved to be an on-going problem which contributed to the appalling living conditions of the boys. The complainants who gave evidence mainly came from backgrounds of poverty and neglect. Although they all came through the court system, very few of them were hardened criminals. Daingean did not address the special needs and disadvantages of these boys.

Fr Murphy, Provincial of the Oblate Congregation, presented evidence to the Investigation Committee at the Emergence hearing on 23rd July 2004. Fr Michael Hughes, the Provincial Archivist, gave evidence at the Phase I public hearing into Daingean on 9th May 2005. Complainant and respondent witnesses were heard in private between 10th May and 2nd June 2005 at the Commission’s offices. Finally, a public hearing in Phase III was held on 6th June 2006, and evidence was again given by Fr Hughes.