Chapter 2 — Methodology

Witnesses

Additionally, it was not possible to establish prior to their hearings that the evidence of 60 of the 1,090 witnesses would fall outside the remit of the Acts, for one or more of the following reasons: They were not less than 18 years at the time the alleged abuse occurred. The abuse described did not fall within the meaning of the Acts. The abuse described did not take place in an institution as described within the meaning of the Acts.16 They were unable to give a sufficiently coherent account of their evidence to meet the criteria of the Acts.

The direct evidence of 1,014 of the 1,090 witnesses that fell within the remit of the Acts is presented in the following chapters. Fifty one (51) of the 1,014 witnesses reported abuse in more than one institution, 36 of those reported abuse in Industrial and/or Reformatory Schools and ‘Other’ Institutions. As a result there is some unavoidable overlap in the evidence reported in certain sections of this report.

Prioritisation of witnesses

When scheduling hearings the Committee took into account the age, state of health and any other relevant facts brought to its attention in relation to persons wishing to give evidence. Priority was given to elderly witnesses and those in poor health. The evidence of prioritised witnesses was heard in the earlier period of the Committee’s hearings, between 2000 and 2003. Where necessary the Committee scheduled hearings overseas and travelled to hear evidence from elderly witnesses and those in poor health who were unable to travel to Dublin.

Hearings

A Witness Support Officer co-ordinated the hearing appointments and associated arrangements. The first witnesses to the Committee were heard in September 2000. The Committee heard its final witness in March 2006. The timing of hearings were scheduled in order to maintain witness confidentiality and anonymity.

The majority of hearings were held in the Commission offices in Dublin. One hundred and sixty six (166) of the 1,090 hearings were held in other locations in Ireland and in locations overseas. Witnesses who were house-bound through illness or disability who wished to be heard in their home or place of residence were facilitated. A number of hearings were conducted in hotels in provincial centres to facilitate witnesses who had particular difficulty travelling to Dublin, and the evidence of three witnesses was heard in Irish prisons. Witnesses who lived overseas and wished to give their evidence in Ireland were facilitated by assistance with travel and accommodation arrangements within guidelines established by the Department of Education and Science. A number of witnesses had not been back to Ireland for a substantial length of time. Some had never returned since their departure as young people and the Committee hearing was the occasion of their first return visit. See Table 1 for details of hearing locations:

Location of hearing	Males	Females	Total witnesses
CICA offices	501	423	924
USA	2	0	2
Ireland	57	30	87
UK	31	44	75
Mainland Europe	1	1	2
Total	592	498	1090

Process of hearings

The hearing of witnesses’ evidence took place over a six-year period between 2000 and 2006. Over 2,000 hours of evidence was recorded. All Confidential Committee hearings were conducted by two Commissioners except in circumstances when only one Commissioner was available; this occurred infrequently. The hearings were audio recorded where the witness consented to it; where consent was not given no audio record was made and the Commissioners present made a contemporaneous written record as required by the Acts.17 In a small number of instances the recording was subsequently discovered to be blank or incomplete due to either a technical fault or human error. In these circumstances contemporaneous notes were retained. The evidence of witnesses was recorded in the following way: The audio recording discs were individually numbered and archived. The archive was managed in a secure and systematic fashion. Anonymous extracts from the hearings were entered into a database using a large number of pre-formulated headings (fields) that permitted observations to be made in general terms on matters specified in the Acts.18 The amalgamated evidence and the conclusions are presented in this Report.

In the course of the hearings, witnesses recounted their experiences in their own way and the majority of witnesses were able to give a clear account of their experiences. Witnesses with communication disabilities were assisted as necessary. Some had prepared for the hearing and brought written statements and supporting documentation to assist them. Others came to their hearings prepared to speak unaided. A small number of witnesses requested that their written statement be read into the record. Others requested that their companion at the hearing speak on their behalf. The witness was required to verify the account given in these circumstances and witnesses could add to the verbal account as they wished. In accordance with the Acts, witnesses were not permitted to take notes during their hearing or otherwise record their hearing. The witnesses were not provided with a copy of the mini-disk recording of their hearing.19 The summarised report of the witnesses’ evidence with details of the abuse history was entered into the database following the hearing. This record was confirmed and agreed by the Commissioners who attended the hearing. Witnesses were offered the opportunity to come back and listen to the recording of their hearing if they wished.20

Witnesses could speak as briefly or in as much detail as they wished at a hearing. Most hearings lasted between one and two hours. The Commissioners listened to and recorded the evidence provided. Witnesses were asked if they wished to make a self-directed statement or to be assisted by general questions, for example ‘Can you tell us about your family?’ or ‘What was your first memory of ...named School...?’ or ‘What do you want to tell the Commission about what happened to you?’ Many witnesses asked for initial assistance in the form of questions from the Commissioners. A number of witnesses reported that they had never disclosed their experiences to anyone before, either to their parents, spouse, partner, their own children, their siblings or others. In accordance with the Acts, the witnesses were provided with a sympathetic forum in which to present their evidence, unchallenged.21 Witnesses who became distressed while recounting their experiences were given time to continue their account. During the hearings Commissioners sought clarification of certain points made by witnesses where necessary, in order to fully understand the information provided. There was no requirement or provision under the Acts for legal representation at hearings of the Confidential Committee.

There was no contact between Commissioners and witnesses outside the hearings. All contact was directed through the Witness Support Officers. These contacts arose in replying to letters, phone calls, forwarding information packs, arranging appointments for hearings, reimbursing expenses, liaising with counsellors and arranging for witnesses to return to listen back to their audio-recorded evidence.

Companions at hearing

Witnesses could be accompanied to the hearings by a companion if they so wished. It was the witness’s choice whether the accompanying person attended the hearing or waited in a nearby waiting room for the duration of the hearing. Confidentiality bound the accompanying person. Those who wished to be accompanied by a sign language interpreter or other professional person were facilitated to do so. There was no requirement or provision under the Acts for witnesses to have legal representation at Confidential Committee hearings. The number of witnesses who chose to attend hearings with and without a companion is shown below:

Companions	Males	%	Females	%	Total witnesses	%
Accompanied, at hearing	205	35	194	39	399	37
Accompanied, not at hearing	179	30	215	43	394	36
Unaccompanied	208	35	89	18	297	27
Total	592	100	498	100	1,090	100

Almost three quarters of the witnesses (73%) were accompanied to the Commission. Half of these witnesses were accompanied by their companion throughout their hearing with the Committee and the other half requested that their companions remained in the waiting room while they were giving their evidence to the Committee. A noticeably larger proportion of male witnesses were unaccompanied when they attended for their hearing.

Compilation of evidence

The Committee hearings generated three types of witness information from which this Report is compiled: The oral evidence of witnesses recorded at the hearings Points of clarification sought by Commissioners on particular matters Documents, statements, letters, certificates or photographs shown to and provided by witnesses to the Commissioners.

The Committee engaged a research consultant to design a detailed database template for archiving witness evidence. This database was used by the Commissioners to record the accounts of witnesses in such a manner that the information obtained could be analysed and a comprehensive report, with conclusions of a general nature, produced. Assessments were made of some information to facilitate classification of data. Examples of this are the information on parental occupation status22 and the classification of different forms of abuse as provided for in the Acts.

The Committee made a decision to present the evidence reported by witnesses in a gender-differentiated way. The rationale for this was that boys and girls were segregated in the majority of institutions that were managed by different religious Congregations and Orders, State agencies and voluntary sector organisations. Further, there were some differences in the recounting of individual experiences by male and female witnesses that the Committee considered should be treated separately.

In most instances information is presented in the order of frequency reported except where data for male and female witnesses is presented conjointly. In those instances the male data is presented first, as male witnesses formed the largest overall cohort.