845 entries for Transfers

The witness remembered Br Etienne making contact with him when he was leaving Artane at nine years of age: I remember there was ten boys, about ten, could be more could be less, waiting in a waiting room for a minibus that was going to take us to [another Industrial School]. I remember him being sat in the waiting room and I remember him giving me a white prayer book which I took at the time, but eventually found out that on the inside it said ‘always keep our secret’.

When asked if he had any further contact with the Brother he said: I believe I had a letter from him about a year after or maybe even less, after I was in [Industrial School to which transferred], which asked me how I was getting on. The letter was actually read to me by one of the nuns, asking me how I was getting on, hope the nuns were looking after me and a p.s. again saying, ‘always keep our secret’.

The statement of the Congregation and a statement delivered by Br Etienne to the Investigation Committee denied that the complainant had been abused.

In a letter to Br Gibson dated October 2003, Br Etienne admitted to certain acts of sexual abuse of the complainant but denied that this happened in the classroom or in the attic. The admission by Br Etienne was sent to Br Gibson in the context of the complainant’s application to the Residential Institutions Redress Board. It was forwarded to the Commission by Br Gibson when he received it.

The letter stated: I can verify that he was sexually abused by me in Artane in the sixties. I also wish to state categorically that he is lying when he describes how he was abused. What he accuses me of never happened either in the classroom or in the attic nor anywhere else in the school. I never had a key to the attic and never attempted to bugger him.

The Brother gave no further information and, although he denied the details of the abuse as outlined by the complainant, he did not give details about the sexual abuse he was admitting to or how it had occurred.

Counsel for the Christian Brothers said that the Congregation did not consider it appropriate to test the credibility of a complainant in circumstances where the fact of abuse had been admitted. The Investigation Committee noted that the Christian Brothers made a statement some months before Br Etienne’s letter, saying: The Complainant makes allegations of abuse of a sexual nature on a number of occasions against [Br Etienne] ... For my own part I find the allegations difficult to accept. In particular where the Complainant alleges that on one occasion the abuse allegedly occurred in a classroom. The classrooms were very public places and I cannot accept that abuse of this nature was conducted in such a location.

This case again raises the issue of the value to the Inquiry of denials by the Congregation in circumstances where it did not make any proper enquiries of the alleged perpetrator. The Congregation’s position was unchanged until the hearing. In the subsequent submission prepared by the Congregation in response to the oral hearings, this case is included in the category of cases not specifically dealt with by the submission: The Congregation’s decision not to refer specifically to such allegations is not to be taken as an admission on its part that such allegations are true or accurate.

Counsel reiterated that a decision was made by the Congregation to send Brothers accused of criminal offences to their own solicitors to be separately represented, that the Congregation did not question these Brothers in relation to the allegations, and that they did not have access to Br Etienne’s statement as prepared through his own solicitors, when the Congregational statement was being prepared. It was a policy decision to have a dividing line in respect of those Brothers who were subject to the possibility of criminal prosecution.

Counsel for the complainant submitted that the approach taken by the Christian Brothers was unhelpful: it seems to have been a case where the approach adopted is: “Prove it. We are not going to go and ask the people who were there what it was like and try and put together our picture of it. We will deny everything; you prove it and we will cross-examine everybody on the minutiae of everything”.

In the circumstances that arose in this and the previous case, the Congregation found itself in an embarrassing position when its rejection of allegations was contradicted by admissions of abuse. This arose because of the view that allegations of abuse against individual Brothers impacted adversely on the Congregation’s charism and that it was therefore appropriate to adopt a position on specific factual issues independent of that of the Brother.

A policy of keeping the individual accused Brother at arm’s length, while at the same time filing a statement of denial in respect of allegations against him, was bound to lead to confusion, misunderstanding and embarrassment for the Congregation, particularly as amending statements were not furnished when new information came to light. Furthermore, the complainant was given the impression that the Congregation would challenge his evidence and he was caused unnecessary anxiety in this regard.

Two complainants gave evidence of sexual abuse by laymen who were not staff members of Artane. The incidents were not disputed by the Congregation and were used in their Phase III Submissions to illustrate the willingness of the Congregation to deal with issues of sexual abuse.

The first incident happened in the 1960s and involved a man who was himself a former resident of Artane. He approached the complainant returning from Croke Park and offered him a cigarette. They were sitting on the grass chatting when the man put his hand up the boy’s shorts. The man said to him: ‘do you want me to tell the Brother you were smoking or are you going to let me play with you?’ The witness said that he was more frightened of the Brothers than this man, so he let him touch him. In the end, he remembers jumping up and running the rest of the way back to the School, crying. When asked why he was crying by the Brother on yard duty, he said that his team had lost the match.

The next Sunday, a Brother told the boy that a visitor wanted to take him out for the day but, when the boy saw that it was the same man, he refused to go. The Brother called him into his office and asked him why he didn’t want to go. The complainant said he broke down and told the Brother everything. ‘Before I was finished the conversation, the police were outside and took the man away’.