10,992 entries for State Inspections

The pathologist described the boy’s condition when he carried out the post mortem. Externally, there was a lacerated wound on the lower lip and the four central upper teeth were broken. There were superficial skin lacerations and bruises on the lower jaw near the chin. Internally, there were no fractures of the jaw or skull bones detected: ‘Both lungs were oedematous. The lower lobes, and the posterior half of the upper lobes of both lungs were congested with blood. The thymus gland was enlarged. The heart showed slight thickening and contraction of the cusps of the mitral valve. The veins on the surface of the brain were distended with blood, otherwise no abnormality was detected in the brain. All other organs examined appeared normal’. The pathologist then gave his opinion as to the cause of death which was embodied in the jury’s verdict: ‘Death in my opinion was due to cardiac and respiratory failure, secondary to acute congestion of the lungs following the injuries accelerated by general anaesthesia and probably predisposed to by the presence of an enlarged thymus gland’. The coroner added that he regarded the supervision of the Brothers as adequate.

A Sergeant from Raheny Garda Station visited the School on the day following the accident and inspected the scene, and spoke to the boy who was acting as monitor, and gave evidence to the inquest about the location of the fall.

The inquest concluded with a verdict of accidental death.

The Resident Manager reported the matter to the Department of Education in a letter that was received six days after the accident, in which he briefly described the incident and expressed his understanding that the boy died when he ‘reacted unfavourably to the anaesthetic’. Dr Anna McCabe visited Artane two days later to get details of the accident. She reported the following day in a short note, in which she recorded that the inquest found that the ‘cause of death was attributed to anaesthesia’. She went on to say: ‘No negligence was attributable to the School’.

— The evidence in this case does not support a conclusion that the Christian Brothers were at fault for the boy’s death. The precise reason why the boy died remains somewhat unclear because of the multiplicity of medical complications cited by the pathologist.

In the mid-1950s the father of a boy wrote to Br Gerrard, who was in charge of the boys’ kitchen, to complain about the treatment his son had received while working there. He wrote: Sir, It has come to my notice about my son’s hand which is sepiet; and also the method used in your kitchen. My son is no robber and I hope you will be able to answer for the character you have given him, have you got any authority to use a rod with iron through it. You have noticed I hope I have not giving you the title of brother, as I don’t think you are fit to be one. I will make regular inspection of his body either at home or in the school. I have already wrote to the authorities about the matter. I will expect a reply and explanation from you as soon as possible. If the child concerned has suffer any Punishment through this letter I hope you will be prepared to face a court of Inquiry as I will demand it from the Ministry of Education. I am not going over your head yet that’s why I am writing to you, hoping you will have a explanation of your conduct. You will want to look after that childs hand if you don’t Artane will be getting into trouble for neglect by outside factors. Trusting you will reply soon as I am fed up listening to the treatment dealt out at Artane by others who have complained.

The father received no response from Br Gerrard, and wrote to the Superior the following month: I have already sent a letter to Bro Gerrard concerning an Enquiry about my Son; which he did not reply to in fact it is nearly a week ago, as you Know silence is to admit of guilt. I wish you would remind him and ask him to reply so I am not going to be treated as dirt ... If I do not have a reply soon, I will be forced to lodge a Complaint to the Board Of Education as well as the Minister of Education as I would not stand by and see my Son Branded as a robber ... Hoping you will look into the matter as soon as possible ...

The Congregation commented in its Opening Statement that the main complaint of the second letter was that the boy’s character had been impugned. They further argued that, as there was no further document available on the matter, this was a case that they considered to have insufficient documentary evidence, and what was available provided evidence of opposing views and so left matters inconclusive. They did not refer to the first letter containing serious allegations of physical abuse.

Among the materials disclosed to the Committee under legal process of discovery was a statement by an employee who worked in the boys’ kitchen at Artane for over 20 years. He mentioned Br Gerrard who was in charge of the boys’ kitchen until the early 1960s when he was transferred to another position. This employee worked in the kitchen from the later 1930s until the early 1960s, and his statement to the Gardaí in 1999 named a number of Brothers whom he recalled working in the kitchen during this time. He particularly recalled an incident with Br Gerrard. He said: I had many arguments with Brother Gerrard mostly because of the way he would beat the kids. Sometimes he would go overboard when beating the kids. I can remember telling him to stop beating the lads on a number of occasions. One day when I came into the kitchens Brother Gerrard was really laying into a lad. He had him down on the ground and was beating him all over his body with the leather. I went over to him and pulled him away from the boy and I hit Brother Gerrard across the face. He said he would speak to the Superior and get me sacked. I never heard any more about that incident.

He went on to state that, ‘I had a leather myself and I often hit the lads from time to time when I felt they deserved it’.

A witness who was in Artane up to the early 1950s recalled Br Gerrard and said his ‘weapon’ was a: ... stretched out rubber from a pram wheel. I know there was never any prams in Artane, but that is what he used to use. When he would hit you my goodness me, the pain, you just cannot remember. He would take the very very tip of your finger and then he would say, “Come again” with a big evil smile on his face as he went up on his toes and he would whack again. Absolutely cruel, cruel man.

— This letter from a concerned parent was ignored. A person with a legitimate interest was expressing a serious concern, and it was not dealt with at any level by the authorities in Artane.

In a letter to the Department of Education from the foster-mother of a boy who was resident in Artane in the 1950s, only part of which survives, the woman complained that the boy’s head was cut following a blow from Br Searle. The Resident Manager prepared a report for the Department regarding her complaint, the relevant portion of which reads: The Br Searle mentioned in [the mother’s] letter was changed from Artane about two years ago. I have got in touch with him about the matter and the following statement is taken from the letter which I received from him: “I remember the occasion when [this boy] received a slight cut on the head. It will be remembered that on a prior occasion when I had a group of boys out on walk, one of them ... jumped out on the road, was struck by a lorry, and was killed instantaneously. The fear of a similar occurrence haunted me subsequently when taking boys on a walk. About four years ago when I had a group of boys out on a walk [the boy] began to act in a similar and even more dangerous manner. I was shocked at the thought of what could have happened to him. The impulsive thrust which accidentally struck him was a gesture of protection from a greater danger on a busy highway. I explained all this to [the mother] at the time but to the best of my recollection I never suggested that she should say nothing about what happened”. I am here for the past four years and never at any time did I receive a complaint from [this woman]. As a matter of fact she has expressed, frequently, her thanks for all that was being done for the boy.

The injury to the head was not disputed. The Brother explained that it was an ‘impulsive thrust which accidentally struck him’. The foster-mother had, apparently, had all of this explained to her, yet she was concerned enough to make a complaint to the Department of Education.

— The unquestioning acceptance of the explanation given by the Brother, without even asking the boy what happened, was indicative of the uncritical approach adopted by the Department of Education to genuine complaints.