79 entries for Commission Conclusions
Back1.Food: mealtimes were not properly supervised, and young or timid boys were bullied. Facilities for preparing and serving food for the boys were primitive. 2.Clothing: clothing was poor, patched and institutional, and the repeated criticism by the Department Inspector was to no avail, despite a healthy surplus in the School accounts. Underwear inspections in public were unjustified and degrading. 3.Accommodation and hygiene: accommodation was generally poor. Toilet facilities were primitive until 1953. 4.Education: the Christian Brothers condemn the Department of Education for failing to cater for educationally backward children in Artane, but the Congregation is also to be criticised for its failure to provide secondary education to many of the intelligent and able boys who passed through Artane. 5.Training: industrial training was a key objective of the system and, as the biggest industrial school, Artane >should have provided a high standard. However, training was only an offshoot of work that met the needs of the Institution. 6.The Band: boys who were in the band had better experiences of Artane than those who were not, and participation for some was a positive experience. The band was an extraordinary success and illustrated what the boys could accomplish with proper training. 7.Recreation: the Brothers put a considerable effort into training teams for matches with other schools and playing outdoor games, but the lack of indoor recreational facilities was a severe deprivation. 8.Aftercare: the purpose of aftercare was to ensure boys’ welfare, but direct contact was not thought to be essential, and it was often conducted only with employers to establish their level of satisfaction. It was, nevertheless, at a higher level than the ex-residents were aware of, and many were surprised at the level of contact maintained between the School and their employers.
In conclusion: There were limitations on Fr Moore’s capacity to prepare a comprehensive report on Artane. The areas of the School with which he was most familiar were the Chapel, the yard and the trade schools. He visited the farm from time to time, but he did not go into classes or the dormitories or the refectory. He said that he visited the refectory on one occasion and similarly with the band room. He was in the hall more often. He did not speak to the Christian Brothers to get information for his report because he felt that that would endanger the confidentiality that was required. As to the question of bias, it is clear that Archbishop McQuaid was not an admirer of Artane as an institution. Fr Moore explained how, on a number of occasions, his mentor had expressed adverse views about the Industrial School. The two men kept in touch during the course of Fr Moore’s chaplaincy and his views did not surprise his superior. In the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that Fr Moore was unlikely to have approached his task of reporting with a sympathetic eye. But at the time when he was requested to do so, he had been there for two years and had being briefing the Archbishop on the conditions. There was nothing to suggest that Fr Moore was bending his views to meet the preconceptions of the Archbishop during the period from 1960 to 1962 before he made his report. Neither is there any evidence to warrant the conclusion that the chaplain was deliberately or subconsciously manipulating the evidence so as to produce an adverse conclusion. Fr Moore’s opinions were formed because of his observations in the two years before he was asked to furnish his report. While Fr Moore’s information was inaccurate in some particulars, as the Brothers point out, the example they gave of the boys having to purchase overcoats, which they claimed ‘was clearly wrong’ and which, therefore called into question the reliability of the report in general is not borne out by an analysis of the documents. Most of Fr Moore’s information came from his own observations or from the boys themselves. As to what he himself saw, the Congregation does not challenge his evidence. But on his conclusions, based on what he was told by the boys, there is major conflict. It is nonetheless the case that Fr Moore is the only person who is able to report what the boys were saying during this time, or indeed at any other time. There is no record of anybody else, either official or Christian Brother, actually talking to the boys and recording what they said. Neither is there any evidence of somebody in a position to do that because of his relationship with the boys. In other words, Fr Moore was the only person who was in a position where boys felt able to confide in him. That in itself is a significant >comment on the Institution. The fact that a witness received information from the boys in Artane, even if some of it is shown to be wrong, can scarcely be regarded as a disqualification to give evidence about the Institution in the course of an inquiry like this. The Committee concluded that Fr Moore was not actuated by malicious intent or bias in regard to the Christian Brothers or to Artane. He was in a position to observe events and to form opinions, and he had valuable information to give the Committee. His report of 1962, his evidence to the Inter-Departmental Committee and his evidence to the Investigation Committee were honest attempts to describe the conditions in the Institution as Fr Moore saw them and found them and believed them to be, based on the information at his disposal. This witness was uniquely qualified to comment on conditions in Artane because of his personal experience of being a child in a residential institution run by the Christian Brothers. Fr Moore was a witness of integrity and accuracy, whose evidence and report were corroborated in substantial measure by other evidence, including Mr MacUaid’s findings, Mr Dunleavy’s report and convincing oral testimony of complainants and respondents.
.Artane used frequent and severe punishment to impose and enforce a regime of militaristic discipline. The policy of the School was rigid control by means of severe corporal punishment and fear of punishment. Such punishment was excessive and pervasive. The result of arbitrary and uncontrolled punishment was a climate of fear. All Brothers became implicated because they did not intervene or report excesses.<br><table><colgroup><col></col><col></col><col></col></colgroup><thead><tr><th></th>
 <th><strong>Boys</strong></th>
 <th><strong>Tradesmen</strong></th>
 </tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Weaving</td>
 <td>24</td>
 <td>2</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Tailoring</td>
 <td>54</td>
 <td>2</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Bootmaking</td>
 <td>41</td>
 <td>2</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Baking and milling</td>
 <td>9</td>
 <td>2</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Carpentry</td>
 <td>6</td>
 <td>1</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Cartwrights</td>
 <td>14</td>
 <td>2</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Smith work</td>
 <td>5</td>
 <td>1</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Fitters </td>
 <td>7</td>
 <td>1</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Tinsmiths</td>
 <td>7</td>
 <td>1</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Painting/Decoration</td>
 <td>10</td>
 <td>1</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Hairdressing</td>
 <td>3</td>
 <td>1</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Gardening</td>
 <td>12</td>
 <td>1</td>
 </tr><tr><td>Farm work</td>
 <td>60</td>
 <td>7</td>
 </tr></tbody></table>
1.Corporal punishment in Letterfrack was severe, excessive and pervasive, and created a climate of fear. 2.Corporal punishment was the primary method of control. It was used to express power and status and practically became a means of communication between Brothers and boys, and among the boys themselves. 3.It was impossible to avoid punishment, because it was frequently capricious, unfair and inconsistent. 4.Formal public punishments, and punishments within sight or hearing of others, left a deep and lasting impression on those present. Witnesses were still troubled by memories of seeing and hearing other boys being beaten. 5.The lack of supervision and control allowed Brothers to devise unusual punishments and there were sadistic elements to some of them. 6.The rules on corporal punishment were disregarded and no punishment book was kept, which meant that Brothers were not made accountable for the punishments they administered. 7.The Congregation did not carry out proper investigations of cases of physical abuse. It did not impose sanctions on Brothers who were guilty of brutal assaults. It did not seek to enforce either the Department’s or its own rules that governed corporal punishment. 8.The Department of Education was at fault in failing to ensure that the statutory punishment book was properly maintained and reviewed at every Inspection. 9.The Department was also at fault, in the one documented case that came to its attention, when it accepted an implausible explanation that was contrary to the information the Inspector had been given. 10.In dealing with cases of excessive punishment, protection of the boys was not a priority for the Congregation and, because the Department left supervision and control entirely to local management the children were left without protection.
1.Sexual abuse by Brothers was a chronic problem in Letterfrack. Brothers who served there included firstly those who had previously been guilty of sexual abuse of boys, secondly those whose abuse was discovered while they worked in that institution and, thirdly some who were subsequently revealed to have abused boys. A timeline of the documented and admitted cases of sexual abuse shows that: (a) For approximately two-thirds of the relevant period, there was at least one such abuser working there. (b) For almost one-third of the years there were at least two abusers present. (c) There were three abusers present in the institution during at least four different years. 2.As a matter of probability, more sexual abuse took place than was recorded in the documents or the oral testimony, but it is impossible to ascertain the full extent of such abuse. The reasons for this deduction include: Two Brothers committed long-term abuse of boys over separate periods of 14 years each. The fact that abuse could continue for so long is a major indictment of the institution. It is unlikely that in a small, closed Community persistent sexual abuse involving many victims could happen over such a length of time without causing suspicion or inquiry on the part of the other Brothers in the Community. If no suspicions were raised it suggests that relations between Brothers and boys were so inadequate, complaints could not be made. Other offenders could have been operating undetected in Letterfrack at the same time as the documented abusers notwithstanding the absence of complaint or documentary information. Most of the victims of the two Brothers who were convicted and sentenced did not come to the Committee to complain. It follows that more abuse happened than was the subject of complaints to the Investigation Committee. Brothers did not report suspicions about their colleagues. Reasons for under-reporting by boys were fear of repercussions, fear of being disbelieved, lack of faith that there would be a proper inquiry, feelings of shame and embarrassment, and the fact that sexual abuse is difficult for victims to corroborate or verify. Response 1.The Congregation did not properly investigate allegations of sexual abuse of boys by Brothers. 2.The Congregation knew that Brothers who sexually abused boys were a continuing danger. It was therefore an act of reckless disregard to send known abusers to any industrial school and, in particular, one as remote and isolated as Letterfrack. 3.The manner in which sexually abusing Brothers were dealt with is indicative of a policy of protecting the Brothers, the Community and the Congregation at the expense of the victims. 4.There was no explanation as to how Brothers who abused boys could have gone undetected in Letterfrack for so many years.
General conclusions Physical abuse 1. There was a climate of fear in Letterfrack. Corporal punishment was severe, excessive and pervasive. Violence was used to express power and status and was practically a means of communication between Brothers and boys and among the boys themselves. Punishment was inescapable and frequently capricious, unfair and inconsistent. Rules on corporal punishment were disregarded at all levels. 2. The Congregation did not carry out proper investigations of cases of physical abuse. It did not impose sanctions on Brothers who were guilty of brutal assaults. 3. Protection of the boys was not a priority for the Congregation in dealing with excessive and unlawful punishment, and the Department of Education abrogated responsibility by leaving supervision and control of this area entirely to local management. Sexual abuse 4. A timeline of documented and admitted cases of sexual abuse shows that for approximately two-thirds of the period 1936-1974 there was at least one Brother in Letterfrack who sexually abused boys at some time and for almost one-third of the period there were at least two such Brothers there. One Brother worked for 14 years before being detected. Another who served for a separate period of similar length went undetected for many years after the school closed. It is impossible to calculate the true extent of sexual abuse in the institution but it is clear that more abuse happened than is recorded. 5. The Congregation did not properly investigate allegations of sexual abuse. Brothers who sexually abused boys and who were known to be a continuing danger were still permitted to work with children. 6. The manner in which Brothers who sexually abused were dealt with is indicative of a policy of protecting them, the Community and the Congregation, from the effects of disclosure of abuse. The needs of the victims were not considered. Emotional/Neglect 7. The boys were unprotected in a hostile environment isolated from their families. 8. Remoteness was an acknowledged affliction that caused or exacerbated almost every difficulty that Letterfrack encountered from its inception. 9. Children left Letterfrack with little education and no adequate training. 10. Boys in Letterfrack needed extra tuition to bring them up to standard, but instead they got poor teachers and bad conditions. 11. The 1954 decision to restrict intake to children convicted of offences, taken in the face of opposition by both the Department of Education and District Justice McCarthy, was detrimental to the welfare of the boys in Letterfrack and was implemented in a way that was wholly inconsistent with the thinking behind it.
General conclusions 1. The pattern of abuse in Tralee was broadly similar to that in other industrial schools for boys, particularly those operated by the Christian Brothers. 2. Physical abuse was systemic and pervasive, and cannot be explained as a series of discrete cases of individual lapses. 3. Abuse became a matter of concern when it threatened the interests of the Congregation but not when it endangered boys. 4. Br Marceau’s brutality continued for so long because of inept, uncaring and reckless management by the Congregation and the authorities in the institutions in which he served. 5. Corporal punishment became physical abuse because of the excessive violence used and its general application and acceptance as a means of control of the Institution. 6. A junior member of the Community reported Br Garon’s sexual misconduct with boys to successive Superiors, and the probability is that other Brothers were also aware of his behaviour, which extended over many years . More sexual abuse could have taken place in Tralee without being reported. 7. Br Garon’s behaviour was reported. The problem was the failure or refusal by three Superiors to deal with it. 8. Predatory physical and sexual behaviour by boys on other boys was a prominent feature of life in the Institution and a source of anxiety and pain for younger boys. 9. The standard of physical care varied greatly depending on the capacity of the Resident Manager. 10. Trade training offered limited opportunities and became irrelevant and obsolete over the years. 11. Witnesses complained of a climate of fear in the Institution, of humiliation by the Brothers, the fear of sexual and physical bullying by their peers, and of the isolation experienced by children who were separated from families. A former member of the Congregation who visited Tralee briefly in the 1960s described the atmosphere as ‘a secret, enclosed world, run on fear; the boys were wholly at the mercy of the staff, who seemed to have entirely negative views of them’. The boys were ‘pathetically grateful’ for any act of kindness. 12. Department Inspections once again did not record the absence of a punishment book in Tralee and in one case that came to official notice Department unquestioningly accepted the proferred explanation.
1.The documentary evidence revealed that Carriglea had a serious problem with sexual activity among the boys for most of the 1940s, some of which was predatory and abusive, involving older boys with younger boys. 2.The Christian Brothers failed in their duty to protect the children in their care in Carriglea. 3.Although a strict regime of supervision was introduced in 1946, it was unlikely that the habits and practices of the previous decade would >be >easily eradicated. 4.A Brother was transferred to Carriglea from Artane in 1944 about whom concern had been expressed because of his ‘particular friendship’ with a boy in Artane. Such a transfer was ill-judged and dangerous.
General conclusions 1. Glin had a severe, systemic regime of corporal punishment. 2. The Congregation transferred two Brothers to Glin, despite evidence or suspicion of sexually abusing boys in another Institution under the control of the Christian Brothers. This decision protected both the Congregation and the Brothers but endangered the boys in Glin. 3. Documentary sources revealed serious deficiencies in the physical care, facilities, accommodation, education, training and aftercare in Glin Industrial School. 4. Problems affecting the standard of care in Glin persisted, despite being reported by both the Congregation’s Visitor and the Department of Education Inspectors. 5. Glin Industrial School failed in its fundamental requirement to provide care, education and training for the boys. 6. The Department of Education failed in its supervisory duties. Its role was protective of the institution and its response to serious complaints was cursory and dismissive.
In conclusion: The Brothers’ assurances to Tom Murphy’s family that they would carry out a proper investigation, take action and not cover up were hollow: they did not investigate, they withheld information, and they supported the perpetrator. The Murphys were treated shamefully: the parents were in turn passed on from one person in authority to another; their case was treated with indifference; they were delayed a meeting with the senior Brother; and when the meeting did eventually take place, they were patronised, cross-examined and misled. The need for proper procedures and protocols is highlighted by these cases, but they are of little value if those in authority are working to their own agenda. The failure to deal with this abuser led to other children being victimised, and the Congregation bears responsibility. The danger perceived by the Christian Brothers was the revelation of sexual abuse rather than the fact of abuse. Victims’ families were unwilling to prosecute this abuser in three separate cases, which would tend to suggest substantial under-reporting of sexual abuse. This perpetrator was able to exploit the reluctance of his victims to charge him and the complacency of his brethren.
In conclusion: Although the allegations in this case were treated with more urgency than other incidents of sexual abuse cited above, the resolution of the case was motivated by a desire to avoid damaging publicity against the School. The consequences for other children who would come into contact with this man were not considered. • The treatment of Mr Nolan, a layman, can be contrasted with that of Br Dacian, which is outlined above and whose abuse also came to light at the same time. • Mr Nolan made serious allegations of sexual abuse which caused a settlement to be reached in his unfair dismissal case. There was no evidence from the Christian Brothers’ files that these allegations were investigated by the Provincialate or passed on to the Western Health Board.
1.The appointment to Salthill of a Brother with a known propensity for abuse of boys showed a reckless disregard for the safety of children in care. 2.Concerns were raised about three Brothers whilst they were in Salthill. In none of these cases was the abuse addressed, other than as a practical problem for the Congregation. One Brother continued in his post and the two others were transferred to other schools. In the case of one of them, there is documentary evidence of serious abuse of young boys continuing for over 20 years after his transfer from Salthill. 3.The Congregation protected its own reputation instead of protecting children.
General conclusions 1. The Visitation Reports described Salthill in the early years as dirty, cold and unhealthy. The boys’ refectory was shabby, the buildings dilapidated, the dormitories unsuitable, the pantry damp and with cobwebs and the boys’ kitchen outdated. Improvements were made over the years but many of these problems persisted. Washing facilities were grossly inadequate for most of the time. The boys’ clothes were severely criticised. Their bedclothes were dirty and insufficient. 2. There was little recreation for the boys and an absence of enthusiasm or capacity on the part of the Brothers to arrange for pastimes or amusements for them. 3. Training was substandard and very restricted, and the workshops were unhealthy and actually dangerous for a time. 4. The education provided was substandard. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, management knew that there was a teacher in the School who could not write legibly on a blackboard and who was responsible for the whole primary school being retarded by a full year. Although this man was only identified in 1958 by a Visitor, he had been on the staff of the School for nearly 20 years at this time. In a vital area of care within the specialist remit of the Brothers, this gross inadequacy was permitted to continue. 5. Two Visitors in the late 1960s and early 1970s, identified the inadequacies of the care given to the children. They were able to understand the needs of children and the failure of this Institution to meet these needs. 6. When change came, it came slowly and laboriously, and an improvement in one area was often not accompanied by betterment in others. 7. It is not easy to understand how the Departmental Inspector could have been satisfied with conditions in the Institution when what was described by the Visitors was so clearly inadequate. 8. In regard to physical abuse, the documents contain a record of general complaints about violent behaviour by Brothers as well as cases that occurred in Salthill. One Brother who was found to have engaged in harsh and cruel treatment of boys in Letterfrack was again the subject of complaints of severity towards children in Salthill. Another Brother was found to be repeatedly guilty of excessive harshness in schools to which he was assigned after his service in Salthill. A further Brother was warned by the Superior General about his conduct towards boys and it was said of yet another that he should not be put in charge of boys. 9. Concerns were raised about three Brothers in regard to sexual abuse while they were in Salthill. In none of the cases was the abuse addressed other than as a practical problem for the Congregation. In the case of one Brother, there is documentary evidence of serious abuse of young boys continuing for over 20 years after his transfer from Salthill.
1 .Physical abuse of boys in the School is documented in the records. 2.Corporal punishment, at times excessive, took place at the School as late as the mid-1990s, despite the ban on corporal punishment which had been in place since 1982. It is particularly regrettable that this form of punishment was used on children with disability, who should have been treated with kindness and consideration. 3.In a case involving a teacher, Mr Ashe, about whom numerous complaints of physical abuse had been made, the Board of Management was unable to dismiss him because it was overruled by the school patron, the Archbishop of Dublin. However, it is noteworthy that the Board sought his resignation first and was prepared to give him a reference to enable him to transfer to another school. 4.The Department of Education was ineffective in investigating complaints of physical abuse in the School. In the case of Mr Ashe, no action was taken against the teacher and the file is mysteriously missing. 5.The requirement of the Archbishop’s consent to dismissal made it more difficult for the School Management to deal with the serious problem that affected the lives of the pupils. 6.Even as late as the mid-1990s, a care worker, Mr O’Sullivan, was not dismissed from his employment despite the fact that senior management found that he had been physically abusive towards younger children. The solution of transferring him to another residential house within the Institution ignored the safety of the children in the School.
1.The fact that such a serious problem of sexual abuse among boys was only uncovered when the Health Board became involved in the Moore investigation, and boys were encouraged to speak in a confidential and safe environment, has serious implications. It is probable that sexual activity was ignored or tolerated for some considerable time before the Health Board intervened. Complaints were dismissed or ignored and no attempt was made to protect children from predatory behaviour. 2.The extent of the problem as revealed by the Health Board investigation should have triggered a full-scale inquiry on the part of the management as to how children could have been subjected to such abuse whilst in their care. In fact, it appears that staff were not even properly informed of the ongoing investigations, and there is no evidence that there was any urgency about putting safeguards in place to prevent future occurrences. 3.Despite numerous reported incidents of peer abuse in the early 1990s involving the same boys, the school management did not undertake an investigation into the residential units. 4.The attitude of management displayed ignorance on how children should be protected whilst in their care. Incidents of peer abuse were treated as one-off events and did not lead to any systemic changes that would make abuse more difficult for the perpetrators and easier for victims to report. 5.The amount of sexual activity amongst the pupils suggests that they were not given adequate education or training about the social rules that control normal sexual behaviour.