4,228 entries for Historical Context

In their Submissions to the Investigation Committee at the conclusion of the private hearings into Goldenbridge, the Sisters of Mercy stated that: Corporal punishment was routine ... But ... we say that there has not been established that there was:— (a) Serious or extreme violence, whether leading to children’s deaths or not; (b) Daily unjustified physical abuse; ...

During her evidence to the Committee at the Phase III hearing into Goldenbridge, Sr O’Donoghue stated: At the Phase I hearing I said very clearly that we were not in a position to accept as factually correct the allegations of serious physical abuse or injury to any child. And that would cover those points.

She continued that, having attended all of the private hearings, she would be of the same view: Yes, we would, following the hearings we would be of the same view.

Having given that evidence, Sr O’Donoghue was asked why the Sisters had apologised. She replied: I think that, perhaps, an examination of the apology, both apologies, may be revealing in some way. I think that we have always acknowledged that we recognise that children suffered pain and hurt while in our institutions. We know that those institutions, as any other institutions, were systems. We regret deeply that suffering continued for the children through the years that they were there. We deeply do feel that and want in some way to both acknowledge and to work, as I have already said, for some kind of recovery. Where specific allegations of a serious nature have been made, the apology couldn’t, until these matters would be completed, specify what the outcome of specific allegations were. In relation to Goldenbridge, our conviction is that, like anywhere else, children would have suffered in Goldenbridge pain and hurt one way or another that was not adverted to. At the same time we have seen and believe that there is ample evidence to say that the Institution was a reasonably effective and caring institution, according to the standards of the time.

Sr O’Donoghue was referred to the portion of the apology which dealt with hurt and damage, and she was asked what caused the children hurt or damage. She replied: I believe that I couldn’t summarise that in a sentence, it is a very complex situation. But there were large numbers, there was lack of understanding, there was a regimental way of life, there was corporal punishment, and factors like that which would have been unfriendly, to put it at its mildest, to the needs of children who were hurt already and who had experienced loss.

The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (the Commission) was established in May 2000 pursuant to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act, 2000 as subsequently amended by the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Amendment) Act, 2005 (the Acts).1 The Commission was initially established on a non-statutory basis following a public apology on 11th May 1999 by the Taoiseach to those abused as children in Irish institutions over previous decades. High-profile media coverage of the experiences of children in Irish institutions was widely broadcast at this time.

The non-statutory Commission, which comprised three members, made recommendations to the Oireachtas, including that the Commission should be put on a statutory basis. The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act (the Act) was enacted on 26th April 2000 and the Statutory Commission was established on 23rd May 2000, pursuant to the Act. The Act, as amended, governs the functions, powers and procedures of the Commission. The Commission as established under the Acts consists of a Chairperson, who is a Judge of the High Court, and ordinary members known as Commissioners.

The remit of the Commission under the Acts was to hear evidence from witnesses about childhood abuse in Irish institutions, as defined by the Acts, and who were less than 18 years at the time.

The Commission was given four distinct functions: To hear evidence of abuse from persons who allege they suffered abuse in childhood in institutions during the ‘relevant period’2 To conduct an inquiry into abuse of children in institutions during that period and to determine the causes, nature, circumstances and extent of such abuse To inquire into the manner in which children were placed in, and the circumstances in which they continued to be resident in, institutions during the relevant period To prepare and publish reports on the results of the inquiry and on its recommendations in relation to dealing with the effects of such abuse and to prevent where possible and reduce the incidence of abuse of children in institutions and to protect children from such abuse.3

The legislation provided for the establishment of two committees of the Commission, the Confidential Committee and the Investigation Committee. Details of the members of the Confidential Committee, both past and present, are set out in Appendix Two. The Commission’s functions of hearing evidence of, and inquiring into, abuse were performed through the Confidential Committee and the Investigation Committee. Members of the Commission were assigned to one or other Committee; they could not be members of both. Persons who wished to give evidence about abuse had to choose to give their evidence either to the Confidential Committee or the Investigation Committee. The Commission and its Committees were independent in the performance of their functions.4

This is the final Report of the work of the Confidential Committee (the Committee), provided for in section 16 of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act, 2000, as amended.5 This Report presents the oral evidence recounted by 1,090 witnesses who attended hearings with the Committee between 2000 and 2006. This report also includes information contained in the 3rd Interim Report dated December 2003.

The principal functions of the Confidential Committee were: To provide a forum for persons who have suffered abuse in institutions during their childhood, and who did not wish to have that abuse enquired into by the Investigation Committee to recount their experiences and make submissions in confidence To receive evidence of such abuse To make proposals of a general nature with a view to their being considered by the Commission in deciding what recommendations to make6 To prepare and furnish reports.7

The mandate of the Committee was to hear the evidence of those who wished to report their experiences in institutions in a confidential setting, as defined in the legislation. The legislation provided that the Confidential Committee was to endeavour to ensure that meetings of the Committee at which evidence was being given were conducted so as to afford to witnesses an opportunity to recount in full the abuse suffered by them in an atmosphere that was sympathetic to, and understanding of, them, and as informally as was possible in the circumstances. 8

The Committee was required to hear the evidence of witnesses9 who wished to report four types of abuse as defined by the Acts. The definitions changed in the 2005 Act and the changes made by the 2005 Act are highlighted in bold below: Physical abuse: The wilful, reckless or negligent infliction of physical injury on, or failure to prevent such injury to, the child. Sexual abuse: The use of the child by a person for sexual arousal or sexual gratification of that person or another person. Neglect: Failure to care for the child which results, or could reasonably be expected to result, in serious impairment of the physical or mental health or development of the child or serious adverse effects on his or her behaviour or welfare. Emotional abuse: Any other act or omission towards the child which results, or could reasonably be expected to result, in serious impairment of the physical or mental health or development of the child or serious adverse effects on his or her behaviour or welfare.10

The Committee classified all reports of abuse under one of the above types, as defined by the Acts. Witness reports of abuse included all four types, and combinations of those types of abuse. The definition of abuse includes acts that occurred to children, as well as acts of omission, such as medical, social, educational or emotional neglect that ‘results, or could reasonably be expected to result’11 in having serious adverse effects on them both at the time and afterwards.