Chapter 8 — Letterfrack

Physical abuse

The evidence of former residents about the punishment regime in Letterfrack was substantially confirmed by respondent witnesses, and there was little dispute as to the punishments that were administered. There were fewer areas of dispute as between complainant and respondent witnesses than there were between complainants and the Congregation of the Christian Brothers. The Congregation acknowledged that there had been breaches of the rules as to corporal punishment, in respect of which they were apologetic, but adhered to the position that excesses were not the norm and that the regime, when considered in the proper historical context, was not an abusive one. Punishment that was excessive, arbitrary, uncontrolled and pervasive had an impact that was not limited to the particular incident or the particular recipient, but created a climate of fear and distrust throughout the Institution. The Congregation failed to consider the full extent and long-term impact of the corporal punishment regime in Letterfrack when coming to the conclusion outlined in its Final Submission.

1.Corporal punishment in Letterfrack was severe, excessive and pervasive, and created a climate of fear. 2.Corporal punishment was the primary method of control. It was used to express power and status and practically became a means of communication between Brothers and boys, and among the boys themselves. 3.It was impossible to avoid punishment, because it was frequently capricious, unfair and inconsistent. 4.Formal public punishments, and punishments within sight or hearing of others, left a deep and lasting impression on those present. Witnesses were still troubled by memories of seeing and hearing other boys being beaten. 5.The lack of supervision and control allowed Brothers to devise unusual punishments and there were sadistic elements to some of them. 6.The rules on corporal punishment were disregarded and no punishment book was kept, which meant that Brothers were not made accountable for the punishments they administered. 7.The Congregation did not carry out proper investigations of cases of physical abuse. It did not impose sanctions on Brothers who were guilty of brutal assaults. It did not seek to enforce either the Department’s or its own rules that governed corporal punishment. 8.The Department of Education was at fault in failing to ensure that the statutory punishment book was properly maintained and reviewed at every Inspection. 9.The Department was also at fault, in the one documented case that came to its attention, when it accepted an implausible explanation that was contrary to the information the Inspector had been given. 10.In dealing with cases of excessive punishment, protection of the boys was not a priority for the Congregation and, because the Department left supervision and control entirely to local management the children were left without protection.

Sexual abuse in Letterfrack

The recorded information about sexual abuse in Letterfrack during the relevant period can be outlined as follows.

Br Dax spent 14 years working in Letterfrack over two periods between the early 1960s and the mid-1970s. He pleaded guilty to sample charges of indecent assault and buggery of boys in Letterfrack. He was sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Four of the victims for the criminal prosecutions also gave evidence to this Committee. Br Dax remains a member of the Congregation.

Br Anatole was a member of the Congregation for over 20 years, until he applied for and was granted a dispensation from his vows in the early 1980s. He pleaded guilty to sample counts of indecent assault in respect of three boys during his period in Letterfrack. He received a suspended sentence.

The disclosed documents record allegations in the 1930s that a Brother was engaging in sexual misconduct with boys and is an example of how such a complaint was handled.

The Provincial received an anonymous letter of accusation from ‘a friend of the school’. How he responded is not recorded but, as appears below, he may have passed it to a deputy to follow up. A second letter from the same source galvanised him into action. On the day he received it, he sent the Brother against whom the allegations had been made a typewritten transcript and requested an urgent response. The letter writer asked the Provincial to change this Brother for the sake of the morals of the boys: I wrote just two weeks ago telling you that something was happening in the school with the Brother ... it has come to my notice that some of the boys were looking through the partition ... and saw a boy on his lap, etc. which has caused a great comment. I would not like it to get around outside. I believe this is not the first time.

The Provincial did not conceal his disquiet. Having set out a transcription of the anonymous letter, he wrote to Br Piperel: These recurring warnings are causing me grave anxiety. Taken in connection with what did happen between you and boys on a previous occasion there is quite justifiable cause for all my anxiety. Has anything wrong, such as is described in the above letter, taken place between you and a boy, or boys? The matter is so grave, and is fraught with such serious consequences to you, to the Institution and to the Congregation, that I require you to be very open and candid with me. Please let me have a letter from you by return.

In the course of a three-page, handwritten letter, Br Piperel set out his defence. He began by recalling that a Visitor had mentioned the matter to him previously and that it was only when the Visitor had left that he remembered the occasion. The inference was that, following receipt of the first letter, the Provincial asked the Visitor to raise the matter with Br Piperel in Letterfrack, and the latter had denied any knowledge of it.

His explanation was that, three weeks previously, one of the boys in the School brought him a message from the Gardaí in Letterfrack village: While I was wording a reply the boy remained in the room, and as I wanted him to understand the message he was quite close to me while I was writing. After finishing I told the boy to re-arrange the desks, which were out of order after the Drawing. All this took only about seven or eight minutes ... After dinner I met this same boy and he brought with him another boy whom he stated was calling him names because he was doing messages for me to-day. Although the door of the schoolroom was open the boy looked through the partition while I was writing the message. I asked him why he called the boy names and he stated he only did that to get the other boy into a row. He then stated that he had been quite mistaken and I punished him. Both boys were emphatic about anything having happened. I can understand other boys exaggerating on this and probably making some statement to some individual in the premises.

Br Piperel claimed that one of the lay staff in the School had a motive for having him removed from the Institution and would have been pleased to get him into trouble, thereby implying that he was the anonymous friend of the School who had written to the Provincial.

The Brother’s reply should have given rise to even greater concern on the part of the Provincial, but instead it seems to have been taken as a complete refutation of the charges of impropriety. The mystery in the case was how the letter of response could have given any reassurance.

At the time of the complaint, Br Piperel had been in Letterfrack for some eight years and he continued his career there for another four years. Thereafter, he served in three further industrial schools over a 10-year period. The records contained complaints about the Brother’s work and attitude in these institutions but did not record incidents of sexual impropriety. His last posting was to a day school in Cork in the 1950s, where his career as a teacher came to a dramatic end as a result of a complaint.

This matter came to the attention of the School when an influential medical specialist told the Superior that a colleague was troubled because his nine-year-old daughter was being accompanied home from school by Br Piperel, who would wait near the School for her. The girl’s father had spoken to the Brother but he maintained that he was not doing anything wrong. The nuns in the School, a local teacher and parents were also concerned about the situation, which was not confined to this particular child. The doctor told the Superior that the girl’s father was going to report the matter to the Gardaí if the situation continued, and the Superior sought an immediate transfer, which was granted. Br Piperel remained in the Congregation until his death nine years later.

In their Opening Statement, the Christian Brothers recorded the facts about this Brother in summary form, noting that he ‘was given the opportunity to explain himself and give his interpretation of what happened’. They commented: It is not clear why Br Piperel was moved around from institution to institution despite being a danger to the boys. There is no detailed account to indicate what discussion took place about the matter, nor any indication as to why such a decision was taken.