Chapter 7 — Record of abuse (male witnesses)

Neglect

Witnesses discharged before 1970 made 156 reports of poor bedding in relation to 16 Schools. The main neglect reports about bedding concerned the poor quality and lack of adequate blankets and clean bedding provided to the residents. In particular, witnesses who wet their beds frequently reported that their mattresses and bedclothes were neglected and constantly smelled of urine.

Witnesses from one School, where all aspects of care were reported as neglected, described the beds as ‘filthy’. Mattresses were described as rotten from urine, sheets were rarely changed, blankets were thin and lice infested and bedding was changed infrequently, in advance of inspections. Witnesses discharged from three other Schools before 1960 reported that the mattresses were lice and flea infested and that checking blankets for fleas was a regular task. Witnesses from these Schools had to make their own mattresses, filled with straw, cocoa fibre or dried husks.

Witnesses from three Schools who wet their beds reported having to sleep directly on rubber sheets. Witnesses from two Schools reported that co-residents who soiled their beds were forced to sleep on straw mattresses that were placed directly on the floor. Others described mattresses that were made of hessian sacks filled with straw. Canvas ‘stretcher beds’ were reported from another School in the 1950s and 1960s, and iron beds with metal springs in most Schools for all periods. Improvements were reported in the 1970s and 1980s.

Sixty six (66) witnesses gave accounts of inadequate medical attention including being ignored, punished or ridiculed when they complained of being unwell or injured. Accidental injuries and childhood illnesses were reported by many witnesses to have been left untreated. Witnesses in a number of Schools reported never seeing a doctor or that the doctor was only ever called to see someone who was ‘really ill’. One witness who reported his finger and thumb were broken when he fell off a cart in a farm accident, had to continue working and received no subsequent treatment, ‘it mended by itself’. The Committee heard reports from three Schools of weekly and/or monthly visits by the local doctor. In one School a local doctor’s regular visits were described to be like ‘troop inspections’, where he walked past rows of residents and asked if everyone was ‘alright’.

The area of neglect in healthcare most frequently reported by witnesses was the absence of investigation into the cause of non-accidental injury to residents. Witnesses reported being attended by visiting doctors and nurses attached to the Schools’ infirmary, as well as attending doctors’ surgeries and local hospitals with injuries received as a result of abuse. In the majority of instances witnesses stated that the doctors and nurses who treated these injuries failed to make inquiries as to the cause of the injuries and most witnesses reported being returned to abusive environments without investigation or an assessment of risk. The Committee heard reports of various ‘treatments’ including ‘splints’ and bandages being applied, as well as ointment, iodine and caustic soda being administered to the residents by the infirmary nurse following physical abuse or injury.

Most Schools were reported to have had an infirmary, some of which had a nurse in attendance. The infirmaries in four Schools about which there were many reports of abuse to the Committee were described by witnesses as places to be avoided due to the fear of abuse by members of religious and nursing staff in charge. Nurses were generally remembered as non-committal about non-accidental and other injuries. Repeated wounds from beatings were reported to have elicited no query from most nurses as to their cause, while some were sympathetic but unable to intervene on the residents’ behalf: ‘what could she do, they employed her’. One witness stated that in recent years he met a School nurse who had treated his injuries following a particularly severe beating. She remembered the incident and told him she ‘could do nothing about it’, as she had been sworn to secrecy. In one School witnesses were attended by a nurse who ‘did not want to know what happened when boys turned up badly beaten’.

A number of witnesses reported that their parents brought them to hospital while they were at home on leave, two of whom had their broken arms examined and treated. Their injuries were sustained as a result of physical assault in the School by religious staff. Both witnesses said they had not received any treatment at the time of the initial injury in the School. Another witness was hospitalised while on weekend leave for treatment of abscesses that had been neglected in the School.

Three (3) witnesses reported the death of boys who they described were ignored or neglected when they complained of being sick. One witness reported his belief that a co-resident died as a result of eating poisonous berries. Two (2) witnesses reported being hospitalised following suicide attempts in the context of abuse episodes. They were transferred back to the institution without psychological assessment or treatment.

Witness accounts of inadequate supervision and lack of appropriate care and protection were heard in relation to all decades. Witnesses described supervision ranging from ‘patrolling’ yards with sticks and the regimented use of a whistle, to young children being left in the care of older residents without any supervising adult staff. ‘If the babies were crying some boys would be designated to get up and have a look, I remember turning them around or moving them. What were they doing letting an 8 year old boy do that?’ Large numbers of residents were routinely under the supervision of a single staff member or other co-residents in areas including classrooms, trade shops, farms, bogs, dormitories, refectories and yards. ‘I recall only 2 Brothers being in charge of 200 boys; the bullies were given a free rein.’

One hundred and thirty eight (138) witnesses reported that the lack of supervision of religious and lay staff by managers facilitated opportunities for physical, sexual and emotional abuse. I was in there for 4 years, Fr ...X (Resident Manager)... was in charge. I only saw him 5 or 6 times in the 4 years.... Lack of supervision by priests who were in charge meant that prefects had a free hand and when I reported ...(the abuse)... to Fr ...X... he wouldn’t hear of it.

Similarly, witnesses reported that the lack of supervision of older residents provided opportunities for bullying and abuse among co-residents. Forty (40) witnesses from 10 Schools stated that the absence of supervision led to bullying of younger or more vulnerable residents by co-residents. ‘Bullying thrived in the absence of supervision ... and was condoned by religious staff.’

Night watchmen were reported to have been employed by nine of the Schools referred to by witnesses. There were 43 separate reports of physical and sexual abuse by these men, who had responsibility for residents in the dormitories during the night. Three (3) night watchmen were consistently described as drunk while on duty, patrolling with a stick that they used freely both to waken witnesses to use the toilet during the night and to punish them if they had wet their beds.

Staffing levels were commonly reported by witnesses to have been inadequate over substantial periods of time. The Committee heard a small number of accounts where former residents remained on as staff. It was believed they had no contact with their own family, were not trained, and were engaged as live-in staff. These staff were involved in supervising residents and were frequently described as emphasising order and discipline in a harsh and abusive manner.

The Committee also heard reports from witnesses that changes of staff and Resident Managers could have a noticeable impact on the atmosphere in the School, increasing or decreasing the risk of further abuse for residents: ‘The peaceful life of the School was shattered when this Brother came. He was brutal and went berserk. He enjoyed beating us and took every chance to do it’.

The lack of adequate supervision and follow-up was reported by witnesses who were placed by the Schools with ‘foster’ and ‘holiday’ families or on work placements while still under the age of 16 years. A witness who had been placed with a farming couple without follow-up or supervision when he was 10 years old had to work hard from the day he arrived and being told by the ‘foster’ father: We gave the nuns £10 and a box of chocolates for you, if we had bought a pair of suck calves they would be worth more to us now. He was never paid, but had been ‘fed well and not been beaten’. This witness also reported being sexually abused by local men who he believed were aware he had come from an Industrial School.