Chapter 15 — Daingean

Physical abuse

She went on to state: the type of boy now being sent in is much tougher than in former years – housebreakers, stealers of large sums of money, car stealing and crashing.

She then asserted: It is the opinion of all that these boys are sent in far too late for the Manager and his Staff to make much impression on them.

With regard to one boy she examined, he ‘... admitted running away several times and on the last occasion arrived home. He is an unpleasant type of boy and very prone to lying’.

Having received her report, Mr Ó Síochfhradha, the Department Inspector, submitted his own memorandum on the complaints. He wrote: Dr. McCabe is satisfied, and I agree with her, that the punishment inflicted in these extreme cases is not excessive and is resorted to only when absolutely necessary. This form of punishment was administered when necessary during [Fr. Neron’s] period of office as Resident Manager (1940s). As a matter of interest the salutary effect of the leather strap when applied on the proper place is referred to in an Article (Page 80) in the June 1953 issue of the “Approved Schools Gazette” – copy attached to file cover.

This is in marked contrast to the circular prepared by Mr Ó Síochfhradha in 1946, in which he gave more detailed guidelines as to the permissible administration of corporal punishment in residential schools. In this circular he impressed on the Resident Managers that corporal punishment should only be used as a last resort and ‘only for grave transgressions’.

Given the tone of the 1946 circular, the response by him and Dr McCabe is puzzling. It is even more absurd that Mr Ó Síochfhradha should then write to the Minister recommending ‘... the salutary effect of the leather strap when applied on the proper place’, when he himself had ruled the only proper place was on the hand.

The Department of Education referred to this matter in its Submission to the Investigation Committee: While the punishment of boys in this instance appeared to contravene Department regulations, the Inspector is not recorded as having challenged the Resident Manager and it is possible that Dr. McCabe considered reformatories requiring a different approach in regard to discipline and the use of corporal punishment. There is no evidence that she offered advice on how the troublesome boys could have been treated differently; the 1946 circular stated that principals could draw on the advice of the Department’s Medical Inspector “regarding any children who are specially troublesome of difficult to control”.

This statement itself revealed the problem. The Inspectors were the only persons who could, through their regular visits, ensure that the rules for corporal punishment were being followed. If Dr McCabe believed that the rules and regulations relating to corporal punishment did not apply to reformatories, this was a fact that should have been recorded in the Department records. It is a measure of the inadequacy of the Department’s supervision that it did not know what standards its own Inspector applied. In this case, the Inspector reported back and received Departmental approval for her approach.

Dr McCabe’s acceptance of the blatant breach of the rules and regulations governing corporal punishment is significant. No attempt was made to disguise the regime in operation. The Department of Education knew its rules were being breached in a fundamental way and condoned it. As a result, management in Daingean could and did operate a system of punishment in breach of the rules laid down by the Department, in the knowledge that the Department would not interfere.

The Department received another complaint, in 1964, contained in a letter from a solicitor on behalf of the parents of a boy, in which it was alleged that the boy had sustained injuries on his first day in Daingean in November 1963. His mother complained that, when she visited him in February 1964, she saw that his face was injured and her son told her that he had ‘received violence’ from one of the Brothers in the School. The solicitors requested that the Department investigate the matter, as the parents had not been informed by the School of their son’s injuries.

There was a short, handwritten note on the letter by a Department official, ‘please send copy to Mgr and ask him for his observations’.

The next letter on file is a letter from the Department of Education to the solicitors: I am directed to inform you that the allegations made by the parents of the boy have been investigated by the Manager of the school. He is satisfied that the allegations made by the parents are without foundation and that none of the Brothers in St. Conleth’s treated the boy with violence of any kind. I am to add that the boy’s mother visited him [in June, 1964] and is reported as having expressed her pleasure at her son’s progress and well-being.

There is no record of what investigations the Resident Manager made and no written record of what he told the Department.

During a visit to Daingean in early June, a father noticed that his son had a black eye. The boy’s explanation was that he had been kneed in the face by a Brother, who took bread from him. Another boy gave him a slice of his bread, and that boy in turn was beaten.

On 13th June 1969, the boy’s mother called to the Department of Education to apply for the discharge of her son, and had a conversation with an official who recorded what she said. She complained that he had been ill-treated in Daingean. She alleged that he had a black eye inflicted by one of the Brothers, and she also recounted the incident with the bread, which she claimed took place in the presence of another Brother, whom she named. The note of the meeting prepared by the Department official stated that this Brother denied having seen the incident. She was also annoyed that she had not received any letters from her son, as promised by the School.