4,228 entries for Historical Context

In relation to the complaints against private schools there were two interviewees. Both complained of sexual abuse; one complainant described ongoing sexual abuse by a priest on staff for a period of four years. This complainant further stated that other boys were victims of this priest. The sexual abuse was primarily fondling. The complainant stated that this priest would, following football matches, pick different boys for ‘inspection’ and bring them to his room to make sure that they had washed themselves properly. In response to this allegation the Congregation in question stated that they did not intend to dispute the complainant’s statement and apologised.

A lay member of staff was alleged to have sexually abused the second complainant on one occasion. He detailed how approximately six years later he informed his family but was not believed. A number of years later he made a statement to the Gardaí. He also described how he was the victim of peer abuse as the older boys in the school bullied him. He described the food as extremely bad.

Neither complainant reported the abuse while in school.

Many of the children in these institutions were particularly vulnerable because they were ill, or were suffering from some disability or were orphans without adults to protect them. The guiding principle that the more vulnerable the person, the greater the duty of care, should have ensured the institutions provided the kind of care commensurate with the children’s needs. The complainants not merely claimed that their needs were not met but alleged that some adults exploited their vulnerability by abusing them and by not according them the respect due to all human beings. Children must be respected and consulted, and their interests must always be paramount in the way in which care is provided.

In national schools, the assumption that children are being educated in a professional way should not be taken for granted. The Department of Education and Science, the diocese, the board of management and parents need to assess the quality of the school by looking beyond its academic proficiency. The developmental and psychological needs of the child are equally important. Children must be facilitated in making complaints and their complaints must be listened to.

It must never be assumed that any particular teacher or carer ‘would never behave like that’. There are no recognisable or common traits that mark people out as abusers. People who are otherwise respectable, law-abiding pillars of the community can be child abusers and it is the responsibility of all adults in society to listen to and protect children from such people.

In the early 1980s a Garda investigation was commenced following allegations made by a pupil,Taina,19 that she had been assaulted by Mr Brander. In the course of this investigation, students and teachers were interviewed and made statements to the Gardaí. The circumstances surrounding these allegations are as follows.

A room in the School was set aside to operate as a shop. Mr Brander supervised the shop during break time. On the occasion in question, he arrived late and a large number of children had congregated in the room. There appears to have been a regulation that only a set number of children could be in the room at one time. He shouted at the children to get out of the room and form a queue outside.Taina appears not to have departed as instructed. At this point the statements made by the various witnesses diverge. What is clear is that there was an altercation between Mr Brander and Taina. The school principal, Sr Ines, was absent at the time. The vice-principal, in her Garda statement described how she met Taina in the corridor. Taina was very upset. She said that Mr Brander had struck her twice in the chest.

The vice-principal fetched Mr Brander to have him deal with the matter. There was a further altercation between Mr Brander and Taina. A male teacher, arrived on the scene and appears to have warned them that other people could hear. This teacher, on the advice of his union, the Association of Secondary Teachers of Ireland, later declined to make a statement to the Gardaí. Taina’s mother was called to the School at the request of her daughter. The mother, Mr Brander and Sr Edita,20 the School Manager, had a meeting in the course of which Mr Brander explained that he had merely brushed her arms down and that he was sorry that it had occurred. Sr Edita and Mr Brander appear to have thought that was the end of the matter. However, the mother made a Garda complaint that day.

The Gardaí took statements from the complainant, her mother and another student. The statement of this pupil was witnessed by a Garda. She said that, while she had not witnessed the incident complained of, she was herself pushed out of the room by Mr Brander. Initially, statements were taken from the vice-principal, Sr Edita and Sr Trista,21 who was in the room at the time of the alleged assault. Sr Trista was of the view that Taina had adopted a defiant attitude. She saw Mr Brander slap her arms down from the folded position twice but did not regard this as an assault. Sr Edita also seemed to have questioned the bona fides of the complaint, commenting that she was ‘roaring crying’ with no tears.

Some days later, Mr Brander and 12 further students made statements. Mr Brander denied the allegations entirely. He made no mention of her adopting a particular attitude or of slapping her arms down. He merely said that she was one of a group of children he ushered from the room. The first he knew that anything was wrong was when the vice-principal came to him. He was most surprised when he heard that Taina was crying, and stated that he had never used corporal punishment in the last 14 years and that ‘it was beyond my comprehension how I could be implicated with making any girl cry’. He said he had made an apology only in relation to the girl’s mother having to come to the school and not because he had done anything to warrant a complaint. He commented on his good relations with the family. Surprisingly, he was not questioned further regarding the inconsistencies between his statement and that of the other adults who had witnessed the events.

One of the students from whom a statement was taken on the later date, supported the allegations and was described as ‘collaborating the injured party’s account’. Each of the statements taken from pupils on the later date was witnessed by one of two teachers at the School. Three pupils described Mr Brander slapping her arms down, and specifically stated that they did not regard it as an assault. Two others referred to him putting his hand on her shoulder and ushering her out of the room. A number referred to her as having adopted a defiant attitude.

In the statement issued by the School quoted above, no mention was made of a Garda investigation in the early 1980s. The Investigation Committee learned of this investigation through Garda discovery and not through the School or the Congregation.

Despite Sr Ines’ concerns about Mr Brander’s behaviour, she did not consider dismissing him. When asked whether she was ever concerned that she might have to dismiss him, she replied that ‘well he was due to be retiring the next year or something’. She also said ‘he was a good teacher as regards teaching a subject ... I would have given a stiff talk to him ... There was never anything that serious to my mind that you could sack him’.

She said ‘He was ... a bit different to the other teachers, a little different, strict or whatever’. When asked by the Chairman was he a worry for her she replied, ‘Oh yes, he was in the end, but what could I do? In the end [I could] only talk to him and try and fix the situation, which I thought we did very well’.