740 entries for Commission Conclusions

The Investigation Committee conducted hearings in public and private sessions into abuse in Letterfrack. Br David Gibson, Provincial Leader of St Mary’s Province, gave evidence in a public session on 16th June 2005. His evidence was based on a detailed Opening Statement submitted to the Commission in advance of the hearing.

The Investigation Committee then proceeded to hear evidence from complainants and respondents in private hearings, which ran from 17th June 2005 to 20th July 2005. Forty complainants were invited to give evidence to the Committee, and 25 did so. Fourteen respondent witnesses gave evidence at the private sessions.

In the third stage of the Investigation Committee’s inquiry into Letterfrack, a public hearing was convened on 22nd May 2006, and Br Gibson once again gave evidence on behalf of the Congregation. This session focused on issues that arose as a result of the private hearings into Letterfrack and the documentary material furnished to the Commission.

In addition to oral evidence, the Committee considered documentary discovery material received from the Christian Brothers, the Department of Education and Science, An Garda Síochána, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Archbishop of Tuam and the Health Service Executive (formerly the Western Health Board).

The Investigation Committee received Submissions from the Christian Brothers and also received written Submissions on behalf of a number of complainants and individual respondents. These Submissions were made following the oral hearings and in light of this evidence and the documentary evidence which emerged during the course of the inquiry.

The Christian Brothers made similar Submissions regarding Letterfrack as they made in relation to other institutions. They made the following qualified concessions regarding the main areas of contention that arose in relation to the investigation into Letterfrack: It is accepted that, unfortunately, instances of abuse did occur but it is submitted that the level of abuse was not in any way as extensive or as widespread as the allegations and much of the surrounding publicity initially would have suggested. The question of the nature, extent and responsibility for the abuse is a very complex one and not subject to easy determination. However, it is submitted that the evidence does not support a finding that the Congregation itself is responsible for abuse. It is further submitted that the occurrence of instances of sexual abuse should be viewed in the context of the secretive circumstances in which such abuse was perpetrated and the lack of contemporary insight into the recidivistic nature of paedophilia.

This part of the report comprises three sections based on the sources of evidence. First, the documentary material obtained by the Investigation Committee pursuant to the legal process of discovery of documents was analysed, and instances of physical abuse were catalogued, generally in chronological order, together with relevant evidence of complainant witnesses. Second, the evidence at the Phase II hearings given by Brothers and former Brothers who served in Letterfrack is detailed, again with complainant testimony. The third section sets out further reliable evidence of former residents.

The Committee received documentary evidence in respect of seven cases that dealt with allegations of physical abuse by Brothers in Letterfrack. These cases gave an insight into how allegations were dealt with by the Congregation. Use of a horse whip (1940)

On 8th April 1940, the Sub-Superior of Letterfrack, Br Vernay,3 by-passed the Superior and wrote a letter to the Provincial complaining about punishment in the School. The punishment of the boys in Letterfrack has for some time past been of such a character that without going into detail I feel constrained to call your attention to the matter. The thing has now become public property and the rehearsal of the acts are not creditable to the school nor to those concerned. The instruments used and the punishments inflicted are now obsolete even in criminal establishments. Were it not for the frequency of the acts I should not have troubled you. I expect that an insistence on the prescriptions of the Rule without further ado will go far towards putting matters right. I may mention that there are differences of opinion in the Community at the moment in respect of these punishment in which I do not wish to become involved.

A member of the Provincial Council made a handwritten note on the letter that the Superior was queried on 10th April 1940 on the practices complained of, but there is no record of what the Superior said. Neither was the nature of the offensive punishments specified.

It is clear from the letter that the Sub-Superior was concerned as follows: first, as to the fact that the excessive and offensive punishments had been going on ‘for some time past’; secondly, the matter was being discussed in public and thus causing discredit to the School and the Brothers; thirdly, the instruments used and the punishments inflicted were, he thought, wholly inappropriate; fourthly, he drew attention to divisions in the Community of Brothers about these punishments; and fifthly, and most importantly, it was the frequency of the acts that had impelled him to write.

A senior Brother in the Provincial team carried out the annual Visitation of the School in May. He found that there was a cleavage between the Brothers in the Community, in which most of them lined up on one side or the other and two sought to remain neutral. The source of the disharmony was the punishment of a number of boys who were guilty of improper conduct. The Superior commissioned two Brothers to punish them and they did this as the boys were going to bed ‘using a horsewhip rather freely’. Two Brothers and a teacher witnessed the punishment from a distance, and one of the Brothers later characterised it as brutal and others agreed. The report went on: The severe punishment was a subject of gossip in the workshops and village. The Superior realises that he acted imprudently in the matter and that the consequences might have been serious. The estrangement that followed these incidents made life in the Community unpleasant. Reconciliations have been effected and let us hope they will be lasting.

Notwithstanding the reference in Br Vernay’s letter to the Provincial to the frequency of this punishment, later in the report the Visitor said: Boys appear to be happy and contented and I was assured that outside the case of severe punishment alluded to above there has been no excessive punishment.

Following the Visitation, Br Corben,4 the Provincial, wrote to the Superior outlining some of the salient features of the report. He informed Br Troyes5 that the Superior General had written to the Provincial on the subject, stating: One item of the Report is so serious that I confine my remarks to it. The Superior who permitted the punishment which the Law of the Congregation (Act 65 of Acts of General Chapter) forbids and humanity abhors should get more than a mere reprimand ... The reputation of the Congregation is at stake. A less offence in Prior Park6 was punished by fines, imprisonment, dismissal of the Head of the School, and an order from the Government to close the School or to put it under new management.

The part of the Superior General’s letter that the Provincial omitted was: a secular body who would continue an official in office after allowing a law to be set aside to permit an offence which the common law punishes does not merit public confidence. I wish you to discuss in Council what is to be done in this case with the Superior of Letterfrack. I think the offence should not be passed over.