462 entries for State Inspections

The majority of the Christian Brothers who gave evidence on this issue were unaware of its being a problem. Four Brothers who were in Tralee during the 1950s and 1960s said that they were aware that occasional bullying occurred. Br Bevis said that he would deal with it when he came across it.

Br Boyce conceded that, although he never experienced any bullying or preying on the younger boys by the older ones, the boys were very clever and he would not know that it was going on. No boy ever came to him and he said that, if you asked a boy, he would not tell because the others would retaliate.

Br Mahieu stated that he and three other Brothers whom he named were aware that there were complaints from younger boys about bullying and molesting. He also told the Committee that he spoke to the boys about homosexual behaviour but was not asked to do this by the Resident Manager. He did it because of the complaints by the boys about being bullied, physically and sexually. He said that Tralee was a ‘reasonably happy type of place’ before 1966. Then it ‘changed radically, dramatically’ when the schools in Glin and Upton closed, and boys from those schools came to Tralee. The boys who came to Tralee were very streetwise, aggressive and tough. There were more fights, bullying and running away, and stealing became a regular feature of life in the School.

Bullying was part of life in Tralee and contributed to a climate of fear that pervaded the Institution. Violence by bigger boys on smaller went unreported and unpunished. Relations between bigger and smaller boys echoed those between the Brothers and the boys, in being characterised by the use of physical power. Conclusions on physical abuse 1.Physical aggression was a means of communication between Brothers and boys and was used to control the large number of boys that were in Tralee. 2.The efforts of the Superior General in the late 1930s to reduce corporal punishment .in Christian Brothers’ institutions were an indication of an unease at a high level at the amount of corporal punishment in these schools generally. There was, however, no evidence that his warnings and exhortations were heeded or that measures were put in place to ensure that punishments were kept within the guidelines. 3.The story of Br Marceau indicated that excessive punishment only became a concern when it endangered interests such as the reputation of the Congregation or when it ran the risk that litigation would be instituted, but not when it endangered boys. The sequence of events as revealed by the documentation in the Br Marceau case was an example of uncaring and reckless management by the Congregation, which had serious consequences for the children involved. 4.The evidence of physical punishment and fear reported by complainant witnesses was confirmed by some respondent evidence and by the information inferred from the documentary materials. 5.Younger boys were not protected from older boys and were subjected to physical and sexual bullying. The authorities in Tralee did not provide a safe or secure environment for these children.

In their Opening Statement, the Christian Brothers stated that there was no reference in any of the surviving correspondence, annals or Visitation Reports to boys being sexually abused by Brothers or staff members. Had there been an allegation, the problem would have been dealt with in keeping with the practice at the time. They outlined this practice as follows: (i)It would have been reported to a higher authority. (ii)The Brother would have been removed from the school. (iii)The allegation would have been investigated. (iv)If the offence was proved true, the Brother would have been censured in the following manner: (a)if not finally professed, the Brother was generally dismissed. (b)if finally professed, he was called to headquarters, given a Canonical Warning and transferred from the scene of his misbehaviour. (c)if the abuse was repeated, the finally professed Brother was usually dismissed or advised to seek a canonical dispensation in order to pre-empt dismissal.

Br Piperel taught in Tralee for a year in the late 1930s. He had been moved there from Letterfrack where he had been the subject of a serious complaint that he was sexually interfering with boys. At the time of the complaint, Br Piperel had been in Letterfrack for some eight years and he continued his career there for another four years. Thereafter, he served in other industrial schools for almost 10 years. The records contained complaints about the Brother’s work and attitude in these institutions, but did not record incidents of sexual impropriety.

The Christian Brothers have acknowledged that one Brother, Br Garon, ‘behaved in an inappropriate manner in the boys’ showers’.

Br Garon was almost 60 years old when he arrived in Tralee, where he worked for almost 20 years from the early 1950s.

Three witnesses recalled inappropriate behaviour on the part of Br Garon.

The first of these witnesses was in Tralee in the mid-1950s. He said that Br Garon regularly took a shower with the boys. He would wash them and get them to wash him including his private parts.

The second witness said that he was aware that this Brother had showers with the boys but he said it ‘didn’t interfere with me in any way’.

The third witness recalled washing Br Garon, who used to get into the showers with the small boys. The boys used to wash each other’s backs and Br Garon used to do the same. This went on for ‘a while’. He said that they thought it was ‘the norm’.

In a Garda statement responding to allegations made against him, Br Marceau acknowledged that Br Garon used to be in the showers with the boys. He said: On one occasion I had reason to look for Br Garon who was in the showers with the boys and he and the boys were naked. I was shocked and never approved of that.

A second Brother, Br Lisle,22 made a supplemental statement in January 2006 in relation to alleged sexual abuse by Br Garon. In it, he recalled that boys had made complaints to him about this Brother. The solicitors for the Christian Brothers informed the Committee in a letter dated 27th January 2006 of the information given to them by Br Lisle. The letter explained that, during the course of a meeting between Br Lisle and the Deputy Provincial of St Helen’s Province on 16th January 2006, Br Lisle disclosed that, when he was in Tralee, a number of boys had made ‘allegations of sexual impropriety’ against Br Garon, and that he had told the Resident Managers of these allegations at the time. The Committee was also advised that, insofar as the Deputy Provincial knew, this was the first time that the Brother had made these allegations.

In the statement made four days later, on 31st January, Br Lisle explained that about four or five boys between the ages of nine and 16 complained to him that they were reluctant to go for showers because Br Garon would ‘interfere with them while in the showers’. They said that Br Garon would shower them and request that they wash him also. Br Garon would be naked with them in the showers. The boys also told him that Br Garon would take a boy from the yard for an ‘individual shower’ every day.