Report of The (Irish) Commission To Inquire Into Child Abuse: Vol. 1

Chapter 1
Establishment of the Commission to

Inquire into Child Abuse (CICA)
1.01 On the 11th May 1999, the Government apologised to victims of child abuse and the Taoiseach,
Mr. Ahern, announced the establishment of a commission of inquiry and other measures. In the
course of a special statement, he said:
On behalf of the State and of all citizens of the State, the Government wishes to make a
sincere and long overdue apology to the victims of childhood abuse for our collective
failure to intervene, to detect their pain, to come to their rescue.
1.02 Mr Ahern went on to outline a number of measures, including the setting up of a Commission to
Inquire into Childhood Abuse, chaired by Ms Justice Mary Laffoy, Judge of the High Court. Other
measures that were announced included the establishment of a national counselling service for
victims of childhood abuse, and the amendment of the Statute of Limitations, to enable victims of
childhood sexual abuse to make claims for compensation in certain circumstances.
1.03 The Commission was initially established on a non-statutory, administrative footing, with broad
terms of reference given to it by the Government, which had as its primary focus the provision of
a sympathetic and experienced forum in which victims could recount the abuse they had suffered.
The Commission was required to identify and report on the causes, nature and extent of physical
and sexual abuse, with a view to making recommendations for the present and future.
1.04 The Commission made two reports to the Government, in September1 and October2 1999,
outlining how these terms of reference could be implemented, and its recommendations were
embodied in the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Bill, 2000 which was published in
February of that year. The Commission was established on 23rd May 2000 pursuant to the
Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act, 2000 as an independent statutory body. This Act
was subsequently amended by the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Amendment) Act,
2005 (the Act of 2005).3 The Act of 2000 is referred to as the ‘Principal Act’.
1.05 The principal functions conferred on the Commission, as laid down in section 4(1) of the Principal
Act of 2000 and as amended by section 4 of the 2005 Act, were:
(1) (a) to provide, for persons who have suffered abuse in childhood in institutions during
the relevant period, an opportunity to recount the abuse, and make submissions, to
a Committee,
(b) through a Committee—
(i) to inquire into the abuse of children in institutions during the relevant period,
1
Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, Initial Report on Terms of Reference, 7th September 1999.
2
Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, Report on Terms of Reference, 14th October 1999.
3
Amendments were also made by the Residential Institutions Redress Act, 2002: See Section 32.
CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. I 1

(ia) 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,
(ii) to determine the causes, nature, circumstances and extent of such abuse, and
(iii) without prejudice to the generality of any of the foregoing, to determine the extent
to which—
(I) the institutions themselves in which such abuse occurred,
(II) the systems of management, administration, operation, supervision,
inspection and regulation of such institutions, and
(III) the manner in which those functions were performed by the persons or
bodies in whom they were vested,
contributed to the occurrence or incidence of such abuse,
and
(c) to prepare and publish reports pursuant to section 5.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the inquiry under subsection (1) shall be conducted in
such manner and by such means as the Commission considers appropriate.
(3) The Commission shall have all such powers as are necessary or expedient for the
performance of its functions.
(4) (a) The Government may, if they so think fit, after consultation with the Commission, by
order confer on the Commission and the Committees such additional functions or
powers connected with their functions and powers for the time being as they
consider appropriate.
(b) The Government may, if they so think fit, after consultation with the Commission,
amend or revoke an order under this subsection.
(c) Where an order is proposed to be made under this subsection, a draft of the order
shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made
unless a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.
(5) The Commission may invite and receive oral or written submissions.
(6) In performing its functions the Commission shall bear in mind the need of persons who
have suffered abuse in childhood to recount to others such abuse, their difficulties in so doing and
the potential beneficial effect on them of so doing and, accordingly, the Commission and the
Confidential Committee shall endeavour to ensure that meeting of the Confidential Committee at
which evidence is given are conducted
(a) so as to afford to persons who have suffered such abuse in institutions during the
relevant period an opportunity to recount in full the abuse suffered by them in an
atmosphere that is sympathetic to, and understanding of, them, and
(b) as informally as is possible in the circumstances.
1.06 The term ‘abuse’ was defined by the legislation:4

(a) the wilful, reckless or negligent infliction of physical injury on, or failure to prevent
such injury to, the child,
(b) the use of the child by a person for sexual arousal or sexual gratification of that person
or another person,
4
Section 1 of the Principal Act, as amended by section 3 of the 2005 Act.
2 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. I

(c) 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, or
(d) 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.
The legislation governing the Commission is set out in the Appendices at Vol V.
The structure of the Commission

1.07 The Commission comprised two separate and distinct Committees which were required to report
separately to the Commission as a whole: 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.
1.08 The principal functions of the Confidential Committee,5 as laid down in section 15(1) in the
Principal Act as amended by section 10 of the 2005 Act, were:
(a) to provide, for persons who have suffered abuse in childhood in institutions during the
relevant period and who do not wish to have that abuse inquired into by the
Investigation Committee, an opportunity to recount the abuse, and make submissions,
in confidence to the Committee,
(b) to receive evidence of such abuse,
(c) to make proposals of a general nature with a view to their being considered by the
Commission in deciding what recommendations to make and
(d) to prepare and furnish reports.6
1.09 The specific mandate of the Confidential Committee was to hear the evidence of those survivors
of childhood institutional abuse who wished to report their experiences in a confidential setting.
The legislation provided for the hearings of the Confidential Committee to be conducted in an
atmosphere that was as informal and as sympathetic to, and understanding of, the witnesses as
was possible in the circumstances.7
1.10 The Confidential Committee heard from 1,090 witnesses who applied to give oral evidence of
abuse they experienced in Irish institutions. Volume III contains the part of the Report that is
based on evidence received by the Confidential Committee.
1.11 The principal functions of the Investigation Committee,8 as laid down in section 12 of the Principal
Act, which was amended by section 7 of the Act of 2005, were:
(a) to provide, as far as is reasonably practicable, for persons who have suffered abuse
in childhood in institutions during the relevant period, an opportunity to recount the
abuse and other relevant experiences undergone by them in institutions,
(aa) 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,
(b) to inquire into the abuse of children in institutions during the relevant period,
(c) to determine the causes, nature, circumstances and extent of such abuse, and
5
Section 15(1) of the Principal Act, as amended by section 10 of the 2005 Act.
6
Section 16 of the Principal Act as amended by section 11 of the 2005 Act.
7
Section 4(6) as substituted by section 4 of the 2005 Act.
8

(d) without prejudice to the generality of any of the foregoing, to determine the extent
to which—
(i) the institutions themselves in which such abuse occurred,
(ii) the systems of management, administration, operation, supervision and
regulation of such institutions, and
(iii) the manner in which any of the things referred to in subparagraph (ii) was done,9
contributed to the occurrence or incidents of such abuse,
and
(e) to prepare and furnish reports pursuant to section 13.
1.12 The powers of the Investigation Committee10 were, inter alia:

• to direct the attendance of witnesses,11
• to direct the production of documents,12 and
• to give such other directions that appear to be reasonable, just and necessary.13
1.13 The Investigation Committee also had the power:

• to require the discovery of documents,14
• to furnish interrogatories (or questions) which must be replied to,15 and
• to require parties to admit facts, statements and documents.16
1.14 The evidence obtained was presumed to be prima facie evidence of the matters to which it
related.17 Finally, the Investigation Committee also had the power to take evidence of a person’s
conviction for abuse of a child as evidence before the Committee of that abuse.18
1.15 The Principal Act also provided penalties, similar to those applying to contempt of court provisions,
for failure to comply with directions of the Committee.19
1.16 Section 13 of the Principal Act, as amended by section 8 of the 2005 Act, dealt with the report of
the Investigation Committee, and provided that the report:
(a) may contain findings that abuse of children, or abuse of children during a particular
period, occurred in a particular institution and may identify—
(i) the institution where the abuse took place, and
(ii) the person or, as the case may be, each person who committed the abuse but
only if he or she has been convicted of an offence in respect of abuse,
(b) may contain findings in relation to the management, administration, operation,
supervision and regulation, direct or indirect, of an institution referred to in paragraph
(a), and
(c) shall not contain findings in relation to particular instances of alleged abuse of
children.
9
Section 12(1)(d)(iii), as amended by section 7(c) of the 2005 Act.
10
Section 14, as amended by section 9 of the 2005 Act.
11
Section 14(1)(a) of the Principal Act.
12
Section 14(1)(b)–(d) of the Principal Act.
13
Section 14(1)(e) of the Principal Act.
14
Section 14(8) of the Principal Act, as inserted by section 9 of the 2005 Act.
15
16
17
18
19

1.17 The importance of the 2005 Act was that it amended Section 1320 of the Principal Act so that the
Investigation Committee could no longer identify a person it believed had committed abuse unless
that person had been convicted by a court.
1.18 The term ‘institution’ was defined by the legislation to include:

a school, an industrial school, a reformatory school, an orphanage, a hospital, a children’s
home and any other place where children are cared for other than as members of their
families.21
1.19 The ‘relevant period’ of the inquiry was from 1940 to 1999, but the Commission had power to
extend it in either direction. The Commission exercised this power for the Investigation Committee
by extending the beginning of the period back to 1936, by a decision of 26th November 2002. The
relevant period for the Confidential Committee was determined to be between 1914 and 2000,
being the earliest date of admission and the latest date of discharge of those applicants who
applied to give evidence of abuse to that Committee.
1.20 The Third Interim Report set out the history of the Commission from its inception as a statutory
body in 2000 to the suspension of the operations of the Investigation Committee and the
resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy which was announced in September 2003. Ms Justice Laffoy
stood down on 12th January 2004 (see Appendix II).
Appointment of new chairperson to the Commission

1.21 On 26th September 2003, the Minister for Education and Science announced the appointment of
Mr Sean Ryan S.C. as chairperson designate of the Commission to succeed Ms Justice Laffoy.
The Government requested Mr Ryan to undertake his own independent review of the Commission
and to make all necessary recommendations having regard to:
• the interests of victims of abuse
• the requirement to complete the Commission’s work within a reasonable timeframe,
which would be consistent with the needs of a proper investigation so as to avoid
exorbitant costs.
1.22 Mr Justice Ryan furnished his review of the workings and procedures of the Commission in
November 2003.
1.23 In summary, he concluded that there were major problems facing the Investigation Committee. If
it were to continue unchanged, there would be no prospect of its work being completed within a
reasonable time and at an acceptable cost. He suggested a number of changes that were needed
to overcome the problems:
(a) Amendments to the 2000 Act so as to focus the Investigation Committee on its core
function, which was to inquire into abuse of children in institutions.
(b) Changes to procedures which would enable allegations to be heard in logical units
for hearings (Modules).
(c) Publication of interim reports as the work proceeded.
(d) Establishment of ‘trust’ between the parties as to the fairness of the hearings.
1.24 The work of the Investigation Committee was suspended from September 2003 until March 2004.
Judgment was awaited in a High Court action brought by the Christian Brothers. This case sought
20
21
Section 1(1) of the Principal Act.

judicial determination, inter alia, of the constitutionality of the Investigation Committee’s approach
to making findings of abuse against elderly or deceased Brothers or those who could not properly
answer the allegations.
1.25 The work of the Confidential Committee continued throughout this time.
The work of the Investigation Committee post-2003

1.26 The Investigation Committee began in March 2004 to engage in widespread consultations, to see
if an agreed way forward could be found. The aim was to accommodate the 1,712 complainants
who had come forward by that time, together with respondent witnesses, within a reasonable
timeframe.
1.27 The Investigation Committee’s legal team met with representatives of over 20 special interest
groups representing complainants, and no consensus emerged.
1.28 The legal team explained to the groups the practical and logistical problems the Investigation
Committee would face if every single person who complained to it were to be heard. The
representatives were opposed to any form of selection of witnesses, even though they had no
solution to the problems that the requirement to hear every witness imposed.
1.29 The Investigation Committee also met the solicitors representing complainants. A further
complicating factor was that not all firms of solicitors were willing to communicate with the legal
team as a collective group. This may give some idea of the difficulties that the Investigation
Committee faced in trying to get the Inquiry restarted.
1.30 The Committee also had meetings with different groups representing respondents against whom
allegations of abuse had been made, to apprise them of the situation, to seek agreement, and to
invite their suggestions.
1.31 There was no agreement or any realistic proposal acceptable to all of the stakeholders as to how
to proceed. However, these meetings revealed a general acknowledgement of the difficulties that
had to be overcome. There was consensus as to the problems, even if the solutions were elusive.
The various stakeholders expressed goodwill towards the Committee and its efforts to make
progress. They were, in addition, reconciled to the fact that they were not going to achieve all that
they wanted, and that the Investigation Committee would be obliged to decide on a way forward
if no agreement emerged. The majority of the representatives recognised that the Committee had
gone to considerable lengths to explore possible solutions and agreement on how to proceed with
the Inquiry.
The Investigation Committee Policy Paper – May 2004

1.32 At a public meeting held in the Shelbourne Hotel in Dublin, on 7th May 2004, the Investigation
Committee announced its intention to make significant changes to deal with the obstacles to its
work. The chairperson set out proposals for hearing selected witnesses in the investigation of
institutions that had the largest number of complaints made against them; however, the larger
institutions had far more complainants wishing to give evidence.
1.33 At that point in May 2004, the length and form that the hearings would take was difficult to assess.
It was not known what, if any, objections were going to be raised. These uncertainties gave rise
to some concern in the Investigation Committee, particularly in relation to larger institutions, and
whether all hearings could be completed within a reasonable time. This would leave other potential
witnesses out of the investigative process.
1.34 For most of the smaller institutions (i.e. those against whom a small number of complaints had
been made), the Investigation Committee believed it could hear all those who had notified the
Committee of their intention to give evidence and who had then followed up with statements.
1.35 At the meeting on 7th May 2004, the Committee published and circulated a position paper on the
question of ‘naming and shaming’ abusers, which stated that the Inquiry was not going to be able
to complete its work if it proceeded on the basis of naming abusers. The document suggested
that, because of difficulties of proof, there would probably be many abusers in respect of whom
the evidence fell short. There were risks that people not guilty of abuse could be named. A further
point was the disparity that would exist between people who were named – necessarily, a limited
number – and the larger cohort of people who had indeed committed abuse (as a matter of
probability) but who were not named. These and other points were made in proposing the policy
that the Investigation Committee would not name abusers in the report, and would proceed with
the investigation on that basis.
1.36 Time was allowed for submissions to be made, and all parties were asked to assist the
Investigation Committee with suggestions that would allow the process to move forward. No
substantial submissions were received in respect of the policies outlined above.
1.37 At a further meeting in June 2004, the Committee announced its decision to proceed on the basis
of selection of witnesses for the hearings. This applied only to the larger institutions, which were
Artane, Letterfrack, Ferryhouse, Upton and Daingean. The policy of not naming abusers was
applied generally.
1.38 The Commission sought amendments to the legislation to incorporate these changes, and these
were set down in the Act of 2005.
1.39 The Investigation Committee at this time wrote to all complainants/solicitors to ascertain the
number of complainants who wished to proceed with their application to be heard. As a result of
this, 143 complainants withdrew their request to give evidence to the Investigation Committee,
while 174 other complainants transferred to the Confidential Committee.
1.40 The Investigation Committee then proceeded with the work of the Inquiry.
The Emergence hearings

1.41 The Emergence hearings began in June 2004. They were held in public at the Distillery Building,
Church Street, Dublin 7. The function of these hearings was:
• to re-commence the work of the Investigation Committee,
• to place the work of the Investigation Committee in historical context,
• to understand the reasoning behind the Government’s public apology,
• to understand the Government’s decision to institute a Scheme of Redress,
• to understand the reason why the Religious Congregations came to contribute to the
Redress Scheme, and why some of them had also issued public apologies,
• to understand the reasons why support/survivor groups were set up, and how they
were organised.
1.42 The Commission wanted to assure the public and the various stakeholders that the work of the
Commission was resuming in full. The hearings were scheduled for June and July 2004, and took
place over a period of about four weeks.
1.43 In advance of the Emergence hearings, the Investigation Committee’s legal team wrote to
representatives of the State institutions, the Religious Congregations, and to survivor groups,
setting out the types of questions that the Investigation Committee wished to explore. In the case
of the State and Religious Congregations, the Investigation Committee asked questions on the
following issues:
(a) insofar as the body concerned has ever issued a public apology in respect of child
abuse, the reasons for issuing such an apology;
(b) the reasons why the body contributed to the Redress Fund;
(c) the timing and manner in which allegations of child abuse emerged as an issue in
respect of institutions under the management or regulatory control of the body;
(d) a brief account of the protocols or procedures, which were in place from time to time
within the body which were designed to prevent, investigate or deal with allegations
of child abuse;
(e) the extent to which the body made enquiries as to how other similar institutions,
whether in Ireland or abroad, dealt with such matters and, if so, the result of such
enquiries; and
(f) the extent to which any enquiries carried out within the organisation (concerning
whether there was child abuse within the institutions managed or regulated by it) led
to it forming a view that such abuse did occur, together with the extent to which any
such view may have contributed to (a) and (b) above.
1.44 In the case of the survivor groups, the Investigation Committee asked questions on the following
issues:
(a) the timing and manner in which allegations of and knowledge of child abuse emerged
as an issue in Ireland;
(b) how the group was formed;
(c) by whom the group was formed;
(d) when the group was formed;
(e) who were the group's members (in general terms without any individuals being
named);
(f) how did the group's members come to join the group;
(g) what the group had done since its formation; and
(h) how the group was funded.
1.45 There was a very positive response to these questionnaires, and the Committee received
comprehensive statements from the various State agencies, the Religious Congregations, and the
survivor groups. Statements were received from the Department of An Taoiseach, the Department
of Finance, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Department of Education
and Science, and the Department of Health and Children. Statements were received from all of
the 18 Religious Congregations that contributed to the Redress Fund, and statements were
received from 10 survivor groups.
1.46 In order to place the emergence of child abuse as an issue in Irish society in its historical context,
the Investigation Committee invited Dr Eoin O'Sullivan, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy at the
Department of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College, Dublin, to give evidence, and this
is included in the historical overview.
State evidence
1.47 In order to explore the State’s response to the emergence of child abuse as an issue, the
Committee called the Taoiseach, Government Ministers and senior department officials to give
evidence.
1.48 In his evidence at the Emergence hearings, Mr Tom Boland, who was then Head of Legal Affairs
at the Department of Education and Science, provided a chronological account of the manner in
which the issue of child abuse was dealt with in his Department from 1998 to 2002. He stated
that institutional abuse first came to the attention of the Department of Education and Science as
an issue that they would have to deal with, as a result of the increase in the number of legal cases
being taken against the Department. There was also an increase in the number of Freedom of
Information requests coming into the Department from former residents seeking access to their
records. More generally, the Department was also aware of the fact that institutional abuse had
become a major public issue, following the broadcast of television programmes such as ‘Dear
Daughter’22 and ‘States of Fear’.23
1.49 Mr Boland said that the then Minister for Education and Science, Mr Micheál Martin, brought the
issue of institutional child abuse to Cabinet for the first time on 31st March 1998, and the issue of
litigation by former residents of reformatories and industrial schools. There was a general
discussion at that meeting as to how the State might best respond to the emerging question of
institutional child abuse. There was some discussion of the possibility of dealing with the issue
through a Commission process, but at that stage the focus was on establishing a scheme that
would provide counselling for the victims of abuse. The matter was not significantly progressed
during 1998, but it was raised informally at a number of Cabinet meetings throughout that year.
1.50 In December 1998, the Government decided to establish a Cabinet Sub-Committee to deal with
the issue of child abuse in institutions. The Committee was chaired by the Minister for Education
and Science and was composed of the Tánaiste, the Ministers for the Marine and Natural
Resources, Health and Children, Social, Community and Family Affairs, Justice Equality and Law
Reform, the Attorney General, and the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality
and Law Reform.
1.51 Mr Boland said that the Cabinet Sub-Committee’s remit ‘was to bring forward proposals to
Government on how to deal with the issue of sexual abuse’. However, according to Mr Micheál
Martin, the then Minister for Education and Science, its remit was wider and ‘not just sexual abuse,
but the, I suppose, the broad abuse of children’.
1.52 The Cabinet Sub-Committee immediately established a Working Group composed of the
Secretaries General and related officials from all of the Departments involved. It furnished its
report to the Cabinet Sub-Committee on 28th April 1999. The report was entitled ‘Measures to
Assist Victims of Childhood Abuse’. On 10th May 1999, the Government agreed the following
proposals:
• Establish a Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse.
• Legislate within the then Dail session to extend the concept of disability under the
Statute of Limitations to victims of child sexual abuse who, because of that abuse,
were unable to bring claims within the normal limitation period.
22
‘Dear Daughter’ was a dramatised programme broadcast in 1996 by RTE which featured Goldenbridge Industrial
School.
23
There were three programmes broadcast by RTE in 1999 in the ‘States of Fear’ series: ‘Industrial Schools and
Reformatories from the 1940s–1980s’, ‘The Legacy of Industrial Schools’, and ‘Sick and Disabled Children in
Institutions’.

• Immediately refer the issue of limitation periods as they applied to non-sexual
childhood abuse to the Law Reform Commission.
• Establish, over as short a timescale as practical, a dedicated professional counselling
service.
• Provide for an effective programme of publicity for these services.
• Prepare and publish as soon as possible a White Paper on mandatory reporting of
sexual abuse of children.
• Prepare the legislation for the establishment of a sex offenders’ register as a matter of
high priority.
• Apologise to victims of childhood abuse.
• The Cabinet Sub-Committee to meet regularly, to review the implementation of the
different elements of this decision.
• Accept the principle of the Labour Party Private Member’s Bill to amend the Statute of
Limitations, but in the context that the Government was progressing its own
comprehensive programme of measures, including legislation, in relation to child
sexual abuse.
1.53 Mr Boland explained the policy basis for the various child abuse measures adopted by the
Working Group:
A point had come where there was a general acceptance in political and administrative
circles that that process was not acceptable anymore, and that society and Government
needed to engage with this problem in a much more proactive way. In the interests of the
survivors of abuse themselves very definitely, but also in the interest of Irish society, that
the boil of past abuse, if you like, would be lanced and we would find some answers as
to what happened and explanation as to what happened.
1.54 He said that this view was informed by ‘a folk memory, if I could use that word, that industrial and
reformatory schools were very harsh places’, and also by the report of the Kennedy Committee,
the media and, in particular, the ‘Dear Daughter’ RTE television programme. Mr Boland’s view
was further informed by meetings with former residents and, to a limited degree, the work done
by Dr Gerry Cronin, a social historian appointed by Minister Martin to review the Department’s files.
1.55 On 11th May 1999, the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, announced the Government measures relating to
childhood abuse, as set out above. At the same time, he stated that ‘the starting point for this is
simple, but fundamental. We must start by apologising’.
1.56 In his evidence to the Investigation Committee, the Taoiseach described the thinking behind the
apology:
Well, it was the State has let you down, the State should have done better. There were
reasons why it didn’t, but they weren’t in our view justifiable. While times were different
and it is never a good thing to try to put policy today to what policy would have been on
another day, we still felt in this case that we had left a section of our community, who
were vulnerable, exposed in a way that would affect their lives. While all of the other
measures in the report were measures of guidance, help, assistance and therapeutic and
all of the rest, that sympathy wasn't just the only thing we could do, we actually had to
express it in a way that the State does not normally do. These were our people, these
were issues that were perpetrated against them and while not giving a judgment on any
of the institutions or what people in the institutions were trying or trying not to do, obviously
there were circumstances, circumstances of staff and resources and God knows what,
and mentality of people. The reality is we were dealing with a group of victims who were
decent honourable people, who had suffered and deserved the State's best apology the
State could give. The best way of doing that, whether it is always accepted or not in life,
is to do what you do in your own life, you would say sorry, and that is what we set out to do.
1.57 Mr Micheál Martin, the Minister for Education and Science at the time, said:
Basically, I felt at the time that if we stopped short of issuing an apology from the
perspective of the survivors it would have been a devastating blow. The package for a lot
of them would have been meaningless if there wasn’t that State recognition that what was
done to us was wrong and do you please believe us.
1.58 The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, told the Investigation Committee that the apology was his and Minister
Martin’s idea:
Yes, in fairness to the Working Group, I don't think they ever discussed the issue of the
apology. The apology, Chairman, I remember how the apology [came] around very clearly,
because while all of the issues that we were talking about; professional help and caring
and trying to assist these people back who had been badly dealt with by the State in our
view, the hurt was not going to be removed unless you said sorry. It was my view and
Minister Martin's view, we made the decision.
1.59 This was borne out by the evidence of Mr Tim Dalton, former Secretary General to the Department
of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Mr Dalton said that the apology did not emanate from the
Working Group, it was a political decision:
It emanated at Cabinet level subsequently ... While the apology was very much in line
with what the working group was saying the apology, as a matter of fact, arose later. Yes.
1.60 He continued:
I mean the Committee's working group's report emphasized the need for what was
described as a proactive approach, a sympathetic approach, and an apology would have
been very much in line with that. Although as a matter of fact the apology came up
subsequently.
1.61 The Taoiseach and Minister Martin described meetings they had with former residents of
reformatory and industrial schools at this time. The Taoiseach told the Investigation Committee:
I had met a number of the individuals, individuals who lived in my own constituency and
elsewhere as you travel around who made me aware of what they hoped and the concerns
they had and, obviously, wanted to see us taking action, and I think were happy to see
that we had set up a Cabinet Committee and that we had set up a Working Group that was
representative of our most senior public servants ... They wanted to see a Government do
something about it, they wanted a forum where they could express themselves if they
wished to do, some of them did, some of them didn't, and where they would be able to
put forward what had happened in their lives, what had happened in institutions that they
were sent to, as they saw it, totally as a matter of State action. They wanted to see us do
something about correcting the hurt that they suffered.
1.62 He continued:
I met a number of these groups and met a number of individuals. I think I can say without
exception, they struck me as being entirely genuine, entirely trustworthy and asking me
for help, asking for assistance and wanting us to do it because many of them, it had been
a long time since they left these institutions and their lives had been affected. Even those
of them who had moved on and where their life was together, they believed that this was
a hurt that had not been corrected and they were urging us to deal with it comprehensively.
1.63 Minister Martin said that he first became aware of the issue of institutional abuse in his ministerial
capacity in early 1998. Prior to his appointment, he had watched the two television programmes
‘Dear Daughter’ and ‘States of Fear’, and these programmes, particularly ‘States of Fear’, had a
profound impact on him. He told the Committee that, having viewed this programme, ‘... I was left
with the view they can’t all be wrong, they can’t all be false stories’.
1.64 Mr Boland explained the factors that led to the establishment of the Commission to Inquire into
Child Abuse in 1999:
First of all, I think of primary concern for the sub committee would always have been the
victims themselves. The objective of a Commission would be that it would provide a place
where they could tell the account of their lives to a sympathetic panel. That element of
having a sympathetic panel was always very important in the whole process of the
Commission. The hope was that in this way victims of abuse could be reassured that the
abuse they suffered was wrong and was utterly condemned by Irish society. There was a
very strong demand for that kind of listening forum from the victims themselves.
In addition then it was felt that a Commission could begin a process for victims of abuse
whereby they would feel more able to approach the institutions that were there for
professional help so that they could work through their pain and trauma.
For Irish society the idea was – and this is rather like a truth Commission – that it would
establish for Irish society precisely what happened and establish as complete a picture
as possible of the causes, nature and extent of childhood abuse including why it happened
and also who was responsible. It was very much an important factor that the Commission
would establish at least at an institutional level what institutions were responsible for what
happened. It was also felt that this kind of process would help Irish society to come to
terms with a very negative, very black period in our history. And it would also give to those
who were involved in running the institutions, primarily the religious congregations, an
opportunity to put their side of the case and show that in some cases, and maybe even
in many cases – that is a judgment for the Commission – that in fact they did good service
for the State too.
Perhaps this might have been a bit naive, but nevertheless it was an opportunity for
perpetrators of abuse, particularly those who felt appalled by what they had done, to come
forward and to give them an opportunity to relieve themselves of their burden. Very, very
importantly then a Commission would make recommendations for the future as to how to
prevent this happening again and what to do for victims of abuse going on into the future.
1.65 Later in his evidence, Mr Boland went on to discuss how the issue of compensation came into
consideration. He said that ‘a compensation scheme was very much in policy minds from a very
early time’, but the Government had taken the view that they would deal with it once the
Commission had concluded its work. On 20th July 2000, the chairperson of the Commission
informed the Department of Education and Science that a number of solicitors representing clients
who alleged having suffered abuse as children had adopted a position, whereby they would advise
their clients not to cooperate with the Commission until the issue of compensation was dealt with.
The chairperson expressed the view that this would have serious implications for the
Commission’s ability to carry out its task, and asked the Government to make a decision in
principle in relation to the setting-up of a compensation scheme as quickly as possible. On 27th
September 2000, the chairperson criticised the lack of action in relation to the issue of
compensation at a public sitting of the Commission. On 3rd October 2000, the Government decided
to agree in principle:
• to set up a compensation scheme,
• that the definition of abuse for the purposes of the scheme would be the same as in
the Commission legislation,
• that compensation would be paid on an ex-gratia basis, without establishing liability on
the part of State bodies, but subject to the claimant establishing to the satisfaction of
the body that he or she had suffered abuse and resulting injury, and
• that the amount of compensation would be broadly similar to that which would be
awarded to a claimant had he or she pursued successfully a claim for damages in
the courts.
1.66 Mr Boland outlined the policy basis for the compensation scheme:
I suppose there were a number of reasons ... Allowing cases to proceed to litigation from
a survivor's point of view and from a social point of view was simply the wrong thing to
do in the view of Government. It would negate any real sense of meaning from the apology
on behalf of the Irish Nation if then people who wanted to get compensation for the abuse
they had suffered had to go through an extraordinarily lengthy process in the High Court.
There was also of course the fact that many of those cases would fail not because they
didn't suffer injury and not because they had not been injured, but because of what might
be regarded as technical rules of evidence. And that was not acceptable to Government
either. There was a pure operational issue for the courts. 800 cases at that stage, maybe
a couple of thousand. Now we think maybe a few thousand. The effect it would have had
on the administration of justice or from the court system would be enormous.
1.67 Mr Boland pointed out that, in developing a policy on the compensation scheme, the Government
carried out a comprehensive review of the practice in other jurisdictions.
1.68 Following a consultation process, the Minister for Education and Science returned to Government
with a set of proposals for legislation, which subsequently became the Residential Institutions
Redress Act, 2002 (the Act of 2002).
1.69 Mr Boland discussed the indemnity agreement24 with Religious Congregations and issues of
apportionment of liability. He said that the Government's action in setting up the scheme was not
motivated to any significant extent by considerations of legal liability or culpability:
the Government determined upon a redress scheme with an approach that said this was
to be done regardless of the involvement of anybody else. And it was to be done by the
State paying for full compensation. This was seen as an issue for Irish society. It was an
issue that had to be dealt with fully and firmly for once and for all. Therefore, the most
effective way in which Government could achieve that was that to take responsibility for
it, and that is what it did. So the scheme was to be fully funded by the State. That was
the starting position. And full awards were to be paid.
1.70 He explained to the Committee how the Congregations became involved in making a contribution
to the scheme:
Clearly there would always be a difficulty in the minds of many people, not least those
who had suffered abuse, if the Congregations had no involvement at all in the
compensation scheme. Therefore it was felt as a policy objective desirable that they would
be involved. And in fairness to them they said quite early on that they would like to make
a meaningful contribution to the scheme. That was finally decided with them and
Government made a decision on that basis. But the scheme was going ahead in any
event.
24
Under the terms of the indemnity agreement reached with the Religious Congregations on 5th June 2002, the
Congregations agreed to make a contribution of \128 million towards the redress scheme. This was broken down as
follows: cash contribution \41.14 million; provision of counselling services \10 million and property transfers \76.86
million.

1.71 The indemnity agreement between the State and CORI provided for the 18 Religious
Congregations to make a contribution of \128 million to the Residential Institutions Redress Fund.
In return, the Government agreed to grant an indemnity to the Religious Congregations that were
parties to the agreement. However, the indemnity agreement of 5th June 2002 was not based on
any apportionment of responsibility for abuse.
1.72 Dr Michael Woods was appointed Minister for Education and Science on 27th January 2000, at
which stage the Taoiseach had issued his apology and the decision had been taken to establish
the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. During his time as Minister for Education and Science,
Dr Woods was responsible for bringing proposals to Government regarding the Redress Scheme,
subsequently the Act of 2002 and the indemnity agreement with the Religious Congregations.
1.73 Dr Woods gave evidence at the Emergence hearings, where he noted that Mr Boland had dealt
comprehensively with the Redress Scheme in his evidence but commented briefly on the matter
himself. He told the Investigation Committee that the more he became involved in the process
following his appointment as Minister for Education and Science, the more he became ‘acutely
aware of the issues and the problems which were faced by the victims’. Dr Woods said ‘that the
early establishment of the scheme was seen as (a) greatly reducing the stress of survivors of
abuse and, (b) it was to facilitate the progress of the Commission’. He said that the involvement
of the Congregations was seen by the State as a desirable policy objective but stressed:
as far as the State was concerned it was very firm in its decision that the State was going
ahead in any event with the Redress Scheme. That it was the right way to go.
1.74 Dr Woods said that part of the Government's desire to get the Congregations to contribute was
to bring about a situation where there was closure to the whole issue of past institutional abuse.
Religious Congregations’ evidence

1.75 The two major topics for the Religious Congregations at the Emergence hearings were the
contributions they made to the State Redress fund of compensation to victims and the apologies
that many of them issued. Contributions to the State fund posed much less of an issue or a
problem for them than the question of apology. They were largely in agreement on compensation.
Negotiations were carried out on their behalf by the Conference of Religious of Ireland (CORI),
which is an umbrella organisation for the various Religious Congregations in Ireland. The
agreement reached was favourable to the Religious Congregations, but the Investigation
Committee was not concerned with the wisdom or reasonableness of the agreement reached.
1.76 It might have been thought that Congregations who contributed to the fund were in effect
conceding that there had been some abuse in their institutions. The agreement did not require
them to do so, but the mere fact of payment into the fund, in return for an indemnity in respect of
any actions that might be taken, could have been regarded as an expression of some kind of
admission or acknowledgement, but it was said not to be the case.
1.77 The position with regard to apologies was more complicated. Some Congregations issued
apologies and some did not. Those that issued apologies used a variety of different expressions.
Through their spokespersons, they testified to the good intentions that lay behind the apologies.
Some of the apologies were more effective than others in meeting the needs of survivor groups.
1.78 Congregations were fearful that what they said in order to assuage the feelings of victims of abuse
might be used to damage them, as they saw it. Their words might be taken as concessions or
admissions as to events that were alleged to have happened. The aims of acknowledging past
wrongs and assuaging feelings of victims are at odds with the desire to avoid admissions and
concessions about abuse. Most of the apologies reflected tension between these objectives, and
were largely unsatisfactory as a result.
1.79 The attitude of many of the Congregations was conditional. If their members committed abuse,
they expressed regret for it. They did not accept Congregational responsibility for any abuse that
happened. As to whether abuse had actually happened, they said they were leaving that to the
Commission to establish, because that was the function of the Commission, and because they
had contradictory information on the claims of complainants and in the responses of their own
members.
1.80 On 31st January 2002, CORI issued a general apology on behalf of its members:
We accept that some children in residential institutions managed by our members suffered
deprivation, physical and sexual abuse. We regret that, we apologise for it. We can never
take away the pain experienced at the time by these children nor the shadow left over
their adult lives. Today the congregations with the State are giving a concrete expression
of their genuine desire to foster healing and reconciliation in the lives of former residents.
1.81 The Investigation Committee at the Emergence hearings heard evidence from representatives of
the following Religious Congregations that had contributed to the Redress Fund:
1. The Rosminian Institute of Charity
2. The Dominican Order
3. The Sisters of Mercy
4. Our Lady of Charity of the Good Sheperd
5. The Presentation Brothers
6. The Religious Sisters of Charity
7. The Christian Brothers
8. The Daughters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul
9. The Sisters of Our Lady of Charity of Refuge
10. The Brothers of Charity
11. The Daughters of the Heart of Mary
12. The De La Salle Brothers
13. The Sisters of St Clare
14. The Presentation Sisters
15. The Sisters of St Louis
16. The Hospitaller Order of St John of God
17. The Sisters of Nazareth
18. The Oblates of Mary Immaculate.
1.82 These representatives were examined as to the reasons underpinning the decision taken by the
Congregations to issue an apology, if they did so, and the reasons they contributed to the Redress
Fund, if they did so. The Investigation Committee also heard evidence during the Emergence
hearings from representatives of Congregations involved in the management, care and control of
institutions that were not the subject of its investigations into individual institutions.
The Rosminian Institute of Charity

1.83 The Rosminian Order operated two industrial schools, one at Upton in County Cork and the other
at Ferryhouse in County Tipperary, as well as a School for the Blind at Drumcondra in Dublin.
They had two post-primary schools, one in Omeath and one in Dublin. They also developed a
retirement home for blind men in Drumcondra, and a centre in Cork for adults with learning
disabilities.
1.84 In 1999, the Rosminians issued a public statement:

The members of the Rosminian Institute are saddened and shamed that young people in
our care were abused by members of our Order. We deeply regret not only the abuse but
also the shadow cast on the lives of those abused. We abhor all mistreatment of children
and we wish to express our profound sorrow.
1.85 Fr Joseph O’Reilly, giving evidence on 30th June 2004, said that the Order made that statement
because they felt it was the right thing to do:
Fundamentally we felt it was simply the right thing to do and it was something over which
we had no option to do.
1.86 The Order was aware that children had been abused in at least one of their institutions in 1979:
That was one of the reasons why we obviously felt that we would have to apologise.
1.87 Fr O’Reilly told the Committee that the Order contributed to the Redress Fund because:
We believed it was the right thing to do, it was the just thing to do, it was the natural thing
when you recognise that you have been part of something that has caused hurt and pain
to people in the past, that's fairly inescapable. I think there was a recognition on our part
that to go another route that seemed to be the only other route available at the time in
terms of litigation and going to the High Court, we felt that that would be disastrous for
all concerned.
1.88 He continued:
I mentioned that we felt that the option of going through the High Court and denying -- I
am not sure of the technical word -- denying complaints against us and being involved in
that process, we felt that would not be the right way to go and it would be disastrous for
all concerned. We felt it would be a hurtful, harmful way for all concerned ... We were
advised it would have meant years, maybe a lot more years than anybody knew at the
time ... Years of having to appear in court and putting people through questioning and
cross-examination, and trying to provide proof on this, that and the other ... From our end
we don't have the personnel to do that. We didn't have the inclination to do that. We felt
also that we didn't have the finances to do that in a way. We also felt that it would not be
at all consistent with what we had said by way of apology. It would not be consistent with
the type of relationship that we had with many past pupils. Not with all admittedly. We did
not want people to have to suffer on through that type of system ... It seemed that it would
have been cruel to consider those type of things. We wanted to be involved in the process
and we perceived the Redress Board as process that would offer a degree of healing,
you know. Because it offered the opportunity for things to be dealt with in a short enough
period of time in comparison to other options, and in a process that wasn't adversarial.
So we felt it offered much more of an opportunity for healing and, perhaps not
reconciliation, but certainly we would have been guided by the maxim of do no more
harm. Do no more harm.
1.89 The Rosminian Institute approached this issue, conscious of the obligations and of the difficulties,
but also believing in the benefits that would accrue to victims, its own members and to the Order.
In adopting this approach and pursuing it throughout the Inquiry, the Rosminian Institute was
unique, and its senior management and its members deserve acknowledgment and appreciation
in that respect.
The Dominican Order
1.90 The Dominican Fathers have a long tradition in education in Ireland. They operate a number of
schools throughout the country. They had one institution, an orphanage at Dominic Street, Dublin
known as St Xavier’s Boys Home. It closed in 1993, and the Order received their first complaint
in relation to this institution in 1995. Two further complaints emerged later that year and, in 2001,
legal proceedings were instituted by six former residents.
1.91 The Dominicans did not make a formal apology:

No, we didn't make a formal apology ... We didn't feel that a kind of a general apology in
terms of our small group of people would be of any great benefit, but if I were to meet
them I would be more than happy to do so.
1.92 Despite their decision not to make a general apology, the Order contributed to the Redress Fund.
The Sisters of Mercy

1.93 The Sisters of Mercy played a significant role in the industrial school system, as they had been
responsible for the management of 26 industrial schools. This is discussed fully in the General
Chapter on the Sisters of Mercy. They were also involved in numerous primary and post-primary
schools.
1.94 The Sisters of Mercy issued an apology in 1996, following the broadcast of the ‘Dear Daughter’
programme in 1995, which characterised a Sisters of Mercy Industrial School, Goldenbridge, as
having been abusive. The apology was as follows:
In the light of recent revelations regarding the mistreatment of children in our institutions
we the Mercy Sisters wish to take this opportunity to sincerely and unreservedly express
our deep regret to those men and women who at any time or place in our care were hurt
or harshly treated. The fact that most complaints relate to many years ago is not offered as
an excuse. As a congregation we fully acknowledge our failures and ask for forgiveness.
Aware of the painful and lasting effect of such experiences we would like to hear from
those who have suffered and we are putting in place an independent and confidential help
line. This help line will be staffed by competent and professional counsellors who will
listen sympathetically and who will be in the position to offer further help if required. In
this way we would hope to redress the pain insofar as that is possible so that those who
have suffered might experience some peace, healing and dignity.
Life in Ireland in the 40s and 50s was in general harsh for many people. This was reflected
in orphanages, which were under funded, under staffed and under resourced. It was in
this climate that many Sisters gave years of generous service to the education and care
of children. However, we made mistakes and irrespective of the passage of time as a
congregation we now openly acknowledge our failures and ask for forgiveness.
Regretfully we cannot change the past. As we continue our work of caring and education
today we will constantly review and monitor our procedures, our personnel and our
facilities. Working in close cooperation with other voluntary and statutory agencies we are
committed to doing all in our power to ensure that people in our care have a protective
and supportive environment.
We were founded to alleviate pain, want and misery. We have tried to do this through our
work in health care, education, child care, social and pastoral work. Despite our evident
failures which we deeply regret we are committed to continuing that work in partnership
with many others in the years ahead.
1.95 Sr Breege O’Neill, then Congregational Leader of the Sisters of Mercy, told the Investigation
Committee that the Congregation hoped that the apology would ease the pain and trauma of
former residents, and help to restore their relationship with the Congregation. She said that the
apology was not successful, because it was perceived as being conditional or incomplete. After
the apology, the amount of litigation involving the Congregation increased, and the Sisters felt
that this inhibited them in their dealings with former residents.
1.96 On 5th May 2004, the Congregation issued a second apology, the circumstances of which are
discussed in full in the General Chapter on the Sisters of Mercy.
1.97 Sr Breege O’Neill also discussed the reasons the Congregation became involved in the Redress
Scheme:
Our decision to become involved in the Redress Scheme, it came out of, I think, all of
what I have said up to now. Out of the experience for four years of trying to respond in
the different arenas to what was coming to us. I am talking about the litigation. I am talking
about the Commission. But also knowing that in some way those of themselves were not
going to bring closure ... Our decision was also informed by a pragmatism in relation to
the litigation. The sense that long drawn out litigation proceedings would be what we
would be putting our energy into for years and years and years.
Our decision to become involved in the Redress was not informed by an assessment of
the potential outcome of each individual case. It was a scheme the Government
announced. They invited our contribution or our involvement in it and we welcomed that
... But it wasn't an easy decision for the Congregation to take at the time because there
were many voices holding different views and we had to in some way come to our own
place of resting with it as being the best way forward at this time. That we did. Out of that
the decision was taken that we would contribute.
Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd

1.98 The Good Shepherd Sisters had four industrial schools in Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Wexford,
as well as a reformatory school in Limerick.
1.99 The Congregation did not issue a public apology:

We have not issued a public apology, no, but when we have met ex-residents and talking
to them and listening to how it was for them and how they experienced it, you know, it
has really saddened us a lot and we, like, we would always say, well, look, we are really
sorry that these are your memories, that this is how it is, that this was your experience,
we are really sorry about that.
1.100 The Congregation took the view that the public apology issued by CORI covered all of the 18
Congregations involved in CORI:
we agreed with the publication of the apology, as we see it as conveying our regret and
our sorrow that those who were in our care have painful memories and have been upset
by their time there.
1.101 The Congregation also contributed to the Redress Fund. Sr Claire O’Sullivan, a designated
spokesperson for the Congregation, outlined the reasons why as follows:
Well, firstly, we decided in principle in October 2000 that we would make a contribution
and, like, we did it for a few reasons. In response to the Government's invitation to
Congregations to contribute to the scheme was one of the reasons. Also, it was a
combination of our pastoral and practical considerations ... Practical considerations were
because of the financial restraints. If we went down the road of litigation, it would have
cost a huge amount of money and would have gone on for years, as we would see it ...
Also, we just didn't want to get ourselves into confrontation with our ex residents at all.
There was also the practical thing, that it would lead to a better use of the resources that
are available to us, resources that could otherwise be used to help us to assist former
residents and for other charitable works, rather than expending resources on preparing
for litigation, as I would have said there. It would also, instead of members being very
much involved in court cases, it would free up people, our Sisters, to spend time assisting
former residents and meeting with them and engaging in other charitable works. So that
would have been another reason for us. Also, we were glad to be able to get the
indemnity, that we could obtain indemnity from the State, as it is better to contribute to
the scheme, rather than processing, as I would have said, down the very costly road
of litigation.
The Presentation Brothers

1.102 The Presentation Brothers operated one industrial school, St Joseph's Industrial School,
Greenmount in Cork. The Presentation Brothers are currently involved in numerous primary and
post-primary schools in Ireland.
1.103 The Anglo-Irish Province of the Presentation Brothers has not issued a public apology, but the
Congregation issued the following statement on its website, which was referred to at the
Emergence hearings:
It was along the lines of, “we apologise for any wrongdoing or any abuse that occurred to
any person while in our care”. That was done for two reasons. First of all to give our
regret. Secondly, to encourage anybody out there who is hurting to come and make that
complaint.
1.104 The Congregation also contributed to the Redress Fund:

Well, we were members of CORI and in 2000 when this came up first we were
participating in the Faoiseamh25 help line and we contributed to the Faoiseamh help line.
We were a member of the 18 Congregations and when the question of the contribution
came up we felt that especially because of our 1955 incident26 that we would feel very
exposed if all this went to litigation. We felt that it was prudent management to make a
contribution to the Redress Board.
The Religious Sisters of Charity

1.105 The Sisters of Charity operated five industrial schools, including St Joseph’s and St Patrick’s in
Kilkenny and a group home, Madonna House in Dublin. The Religious Sisters of Charity also
operate 19 primary schools and eight post-primary schools, and provide special needs education
to a small number of schools.
1.106 The Sisters of Charity have never issued a public apology in respect of child abuse. However, the
Congregation has issued three specific apologies relating to the criminal convictions of three of
its staff, one in Madonna House and two in St Joseph's, Kilkenny.
1.107 The apology in relation to Madonna House was issued in 1994 and read:
The Religious Sisters of Charity are deeply concerned and saddened by what has
happened to the children at Madonna House. We offer our heartfelt apology to each and
every person who has suffered in a situation where we tried to ensure that they would
experience warmth, care and support.
25
An organisation funded by the Congregations that provides counselling for persons who have been abused by
religious Orders and Congregations.
26
This is dealt with in full in the chapter on St Joseph’s Industrial School, Greenmount.

1.108 The second apology was issued at the sentencing of a male childcare worker in St Joseph’s in
1997, and Sr Úna O’Neill, Superior General of the Religious Sisters of Charity, stated in respect
of it:
While other Orders might have found that the “States of Fear” programme or other
publications or broadcasts was their moment of realisation, I think it was the criminal
conviction of that childcare worker that was a very significant moment certainly for me
and those other Sisters who attended and for the Congregation subsequently. For us it
was a brutal initiation into the reality of sexual abuse of the most depraved kind. While I
would have read the Garda statements that the children made against this childcare
worker, it became very real when the boys were asked to speak in Court and they
described a most horrific litany of terror and hurt and humiliation and pain and
powerlessness. It was at that moment I think for us as a Congregation it became real. I
am not saying we accepted it or understood it, but it became real for us then.
1.109 The third apology was issued when another childcare worker from St Joseph's, Kilkenny was
convicted:
We are appalled that a care worker employed at St. Joseph's for 9 months from '76 to '77
abused children in his care and we are offering counselling services etc.
He came to St. Joseph's as a qualified care worker, had excellent references from his
former employees in the UK, and was interviewed by representatives from St. Joseph's
and from the Department of Education ...
Peter McNamara’s27 abuse of the children at St. Joseph's has caused untold misery for
the men involved. Nothing can make up for what happened to them and we deeply regret
their suffering.
1.110 Sr Úna O’Neill’s evidence on the background to these apologies is dealt with in detail in the
chapter on the Sisters of Charity.
1.111 Sr Úna O’Neill said that the Congregation contributed to the Redress Fund because:
we had a number of civil cases before the Court at that time ... We had had the
experience, I had the experience of attending these court cases and I had seen what that
process had done particularly to the men who had taken the cases against us. I had
spoken to them about the experience with both of them. I saw what it did with both the
volunteers and the staff who had to testify. There was a strong pastoral reason for us not
subjecting anybody to that kind of process if we could avoid it.
We also felt the definition of abuse was so broad that it would invite many more cases
against us and in fact that has proved to be the case. There has been a very, very
significant increase in the number of cases that have come in from 2000 up to today, very
significant increase for those that had come in beforehand.
We also felt that if we didn't contribute to the scheme, maybe we were wrong in this, we
felt that perhaps the Redress scheme would give a partial payment to the children and
then they would seek the rest from us through legal means and that would have been the
same reason as I have given beforehand.
The Christian Brothers

1.112 The Christian Brothers were involved in six industrial schools and one residential school for deaf
boys, as well as numerous primary and post-primary schools throughout the country. This is
discussed fully in the General Chapter on the Christian Brothers.
27
This is a pseudonym.

1.113 The apologies issued by the Christian Brothers are dealt with in full in the General Chapter on the
Christian Brothers. On 29th March 1998, the Christian Brothers issued the following apology:
Over the past number of years we have received from some former pupils serious
complaints of ill-treatment and abuse by some Christian Brothers in schools and
residential centres. We the Christian Brothers in Ireland wish to express our deep regret
to anyone who suffered ill-treatment while in our care and we say to you who have
experienced physical or sexual abuse by a Christian Brother and to you who complained
of abuse and were not listened to we are deeply sorry.
We want to do much more than say we are sorry. As an initial step we have already put
in place a range of services to offer a practical response and further services will be
provided as the needs become clearer.
1.114 The Christian Brothers told the Committee that they welcomed the establishment of the Redress
Scheme. Br Gibson stated that:
We would have welcomed it because, I suppose, fundamentally we, ourselves, had tried
to set up a mediation process and when the Government approached CORI and asked
CORI would they be prepared to donate a sum to that fund, we were happy to be involved
in doing that.
1.115 He continued:
And, of course, the most important thing, I suppose, was it was going to be set up on a
statutory basis, which we hadn't been able to do. Maybe, just to say also we were aware
that because of the serious nature of the complaints that had come, it was very difficult
to make a judgment about these. The Redress Scheme was not going to make a judgment
on those. We found particularly ourselves that a lot of the people being accused were
dead ... And a lot of people that had complaints against them were denying them
vigorously, Brothers were denying them vigorously. We were in the middle with an
allegation and a person who was saying this did not happen. We had many Brothers who
had spent, say, three or four years in institutions and then subsequently had spent,
maybe, 30 to 40 years teaching outside the institutions. During their time in the schools,
there had been no complaints against them, but subsequent to the apologies, allegations
had come. So we felt that long drawn-out process of legal litigation would not help anyone.
So because of that, we were quite happy to join with the Congregations in supporting the
Government scheme. When the Taoiseach in October of 2000 announced in principle
anyway that he was going to establish a body to compensate people, quite quickly we got
an additional 380 complaints. By the time the Agreement was signed, we had roughly
about 800 complaints, 791 potential complaints ... So we felt that the Redress Scheme
was an opportunity to assist those who had been in institutions to come to closure in a
difficult experience that they had had ... Also, that it wasn't making a judgment because
– judging something that took place 40, 50, 60 years ago was very difficult to judge. So,
in a sense, what we would feel is that from the very beginning of child abuse coming to
our attention in 1990, we have tried to be proactive in setting in place structures that
would assist people to come forward and would help them to come to terms with the
experience of abuse that they have suffered. We also put in place supports for people
who were accused of abuse, who were traumatised by the allegations of abuse and the
fact of setting up independent advisory panels and child protection services helped us in
doing that.
The Daughters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul

1.116 The Daughters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul operated one industrial school, four orphanages,
five centres for people with intellectual disability, an orthopaedic residential children’s hospital,
and a mother and baby home.
1.117 Sr Catherine Mulligan, a former Provincial Leader of the Congregation, stated that the
Congregation did not give a public apology for the following reason:
that was a considered stance on our part, again because of what we considered to be
the lower number of cases against any particular institution and ... having gathered the
information that we gathered, we could not say that we ran an abusive system.
1.118 However, the Congregation did contribute to the Redress Scheme, and Sr Mulligan gave reasons
for this. She said:
I think there was a general feeling that we should become part of that insofar as we could.
We were invited by the Government to become part of it and I don’t think there was any
sort of hesitancy about becoming part of it.
The Sisters of Our Lady of Charity of Refuge

1.119 The Sisters of Our Lady of Charity of Refuge operated an industrial school in Drumcondra in
Dublin, and a reformatory school at St Anne’s, Kilmacud, Dublin.
1.120 Sr Lucy Bruton gave evidence on behalf of the Congregation, and reiterated that they wanted to
be associated with the CORI apology of January 2002, which stated:
We accept that some children in residential institutions managed by our members suffered
deprivation, physical and sexual abuse. We regret that, we apologise for it. We can never
take away the pain experienced at the time by these children nor the shadow left over
their adult lives. Today the congregations with the State are giving a concrete expression
of their genuine desire to foster healing and reconciliation in the lives of former residents.
1.121 She added that:

At that time this expressed for us the feeling we had for people, complainants, and for
people who felt they had been abused or badly treated and we associate ourselves
positively with that statement today. We also welcome the reconciliation aspect of the
Commission and we hope that this would help us to move forward and move on.
1.122 Sr Bruton gave a number of reasons why the Congregation decided to be part of the Redress
Scheme:
First of all, CORI invited us to be part of the group of 18 Religious Orders who were
involved in childcare and the Government invited that group to participate and contribute
to the Redress Fund and in solidarity we decided to participate in the scheme ...
We were conscious of the five litigation cases that were pending against us at that time
and obviously we felt I suppose because there were some that we might hear of others.
We felt that it would be easier and quicker and less adversarial than the court process.
We would have indemnity following on the litigation which would mean that funds that
would be contributed would be directed towards former residents rather than in legal costs
and in long trials. We felt that it would give a measure of closure and that we would be
enabled to move forward without the long process of legal trials which are hard to prove
either way and particularly with so many of the people involved not actually being there.
The Brothers of Charity

1.123 The Brothers of Charity operated two schools for children with learning disabilities: Our Lady of
Good Counsel, Lota in Cork, and Holy Family School in Renmore, County Galway. They also ran
an adult psychiatric hospital in Belmount Park in Waterford, which included an adjacent service
for adults with intellectual disabilities. A similar service for adults with learning disabilities was
established in Clarinbridge in Galway, and another in Bawnmore in Limerick. Today, the
Congregation is the largest provider of services for people with an intellectual disability in Ireland.
1.124 The Brothers issued a public apology in 1995. Br John O’Shea, the Regional Leader in the
Congregation, gave evidence at the Emergence hearings:
We offered an apology and we offered counselling to people who had been abused while
in our services, and we encouraged that other people who had been abused would go to
their local Garda Station or whatever, and make their allegations known there ... I feel for
us that 1995 was the watershed in the sense of our awareness that we had a fairly
significant issue with abuse. I suppose because the thing came to light, there was
obviously a public interest in it, and I think while I wouldn't have the exact wording for
1995, but the general sense that we had was look, this has happened. It was quite a
shock to us really because it wasn't something we were prepared for, and certainly the
individual incidents we would have known of previously didn't add up to a comprehensive
picture, if you like, of widescale abuse. I think when we became aware of this and the fact
that it was a significant issue, our apology and, again, as I say, it was in the context of
maybe responding to what was at this stage in the public domain and, I suppose, maybe
articulating our response to it, that was to be one where we wanted to be open about it,
we wanted to encourage people who had complaints to make that it was better to get
them out in the open and that there were proper channels for doing this, and we
particularly encouraged people to report their allegations to the Gardaı́. Because the
service we provide would have resources in counselling and so on, we encouraged people
that felt they needed that to look for support, if you like.
1.125 Explaining why the Congregation contributed to the Redress Scheme, he stated that, prior to the
Redress Scheme, the Congregation was facing approximately 50 civil claims:
I suppose one of the things we felt if we were to go down a legal route, that it would be
a very long and complex thing and very difficult, and maybe particularly again for people
that were abused, it would be putting them through extra trauma and confrontation.
Certainly our approach was that we wanted whatever we were doing to be as least
confrontational as possible ... Redress would have provided an opening to us that would
have many advantages that the legal route wouldn't have. I suppose taking the population
that we are dealing with again, that it would be difficult for people with a disability to maybe
articulate their case, particularly if it had been done in a confrontational setting ...
Redress offered the more acceptable forum, if you like, for dealing with the issues that
we had to deal with. I suppose another issue would be where people are denying that
any abuse took place, that it also affords the person making allegations, that if they feel
that they are entitled to compensation for maybe the general institutional atmosphere that
they lived in or whatever hardship or deprivation might go with that, where it mightn't be
a specific allegation of a particular misdemeanour by anyone.
The Daughters of the Heart of Mary

1.126 The Daughters of the Heart of Mary operated one institution, St Joseph's Orphanage, Dun
Laoghaire from 1860 to 1985. The Sisters also operated a school, a retreat house, and two guest
houses for retired women.
1.127 The Congregation had not issued a public apology. Sr Anne Boland, Provincial of the Daughters
of the Heart of Mary, gave evidence to the Emergence hearings that, in 1971, a resident of one
of the schools disclosed to the Sisters that she had been sexually abused by a man who, along
with his wife, took some of the girls out for weekends. The Sisters reported the matter to the
Gardaı́. In 1997, a former resident instituted legal proceedings alleging abuse against a visiting
priest. The Sisters believe that this priest was convicted of charges relating to the abuse.

1.128 The Congregation contributed to the Redress Fund. Sr Boland stated:
when the Redress Scheme was being drawn up, at that time we had one set of allegations
against us, and we also had a number of records or requests for records, small in number,
asking for records. In view of the fact that we had over 2,000 children in our care down
through the years, we felt more claims could come in. But I would have to say also we
found there were very few. At that point, there was only one allegation. Since then, two
other allegations have come to us and we felt the best way to compensate, even though
we realise the care was good, and, you know, that would be from talking to the Sisters
and, indeed, from the past children, that it was a place that they were happy in. But,
nonetheless, we felt we could not meet their needs in a way that an ordinary family would.
So in order to redress that or compensate, we felt it would be better to go down the line
of entering the Redress Scheme. It would be less adversarial or conflictual to them and
to us for them to have to come or to put a claim for money to us individually. So that is
really why we entered the Redress Scheme.
The De La Salle Brothers

1.129 The De La Salle Brothers had significant experience of residential care in England. They first
became involved in residential care in Ireland in 1972, when St Laurence’s School in Finglas in
Dublin was opened. They were involved in the school until 1994. The De La Salle Brothers also
operate numerous primary and post-primary schools throughout the country.
1.130 The De La Salle Brothers considered issuing a public apology but decided against it, preferring
instead to issue individuals apologies. Br Pius McCarthy, the Provincial Secretary of the Order,
gave evidence at the Emergence hearings:
After the Christian Brothers made their apology, we thought about something similar, we
questioned whether we should do it or not, but we decided against it, we decided to deal
with each case individually, because at the time there was the Garda investigation going
on and we weren't quite sure what the outcome would be. We felt that by making an
apology, we might be indicating or influencing one way or the other. So we have
apologised in individual cases where somebody has come to us and said that they were
abused. We just decided that it would be better not to go down the road of a public
apology.
1.131 The Order contributed to the Redress Scheme for the following reasons:
In April 2001, we were invited by CORI to become part of the group of congregations who
were then negotiating with the State with regard to making a contribution to the
compensation scheme that had been announced in October 2000. The Congregations
who were negotiating had agreed in principle to make a contribution to the scheme and
details of the same were being discussed. We were approached, because there was at
that time litigation in existence relating to Finglas Children’s Centre, and even though we
didn't own the centre nor did we manage it in the strict sense, the Resident Manager was
a De La Salle Brother throughout the years and we had an involvement in administration
and also De La Salle Brothers had worked in it ...
We were also aware that some of the complaints made were specifically directed towards
members of the Congregation. At the time we were approached by CORI, we were aware
of eight claims arising from the centre. Really we were made aware of them by CORI,
they got the information for us. We were advised that any contribution made by the
Congregations would be in consideration of an indemnity from the State and this would
bring some certainty with regard to future litigation. We were also aware of the ongoing
Garda investigation into St. Laurence's which began in 1995 ... Also, we had come into
the negotiations at a late stage and accordingly we were guided to some extent by what
the other Congregations had done and we also wanted to show solidarity with them.
The Sisters of St Clare

1.132 The Sisters of St Clare, or the Poor Clares as they were also known, operated two institutions, an
industrial school in Cavan and a private orphanage at Harold’s Cross, with a primary school and
a commercial school attached.
1.133 They did not issue a public apology. Sr Patricia Rogers, Congregational Leader, outlined the
reasons for this as follows:
We have not issued a public apology, but we have associated ourselves with the CORI
apology, because we would accept that for many years the daily routine in the institutions,
they just didn't take account of the needs of children. The life was too regulated and too
disciplined to allow for differences in their physical and emotional development. While
Sisters and the lay staff who worked in the institutions made attempts to improve the
physical surroundings in which the children lived, it seems clear that there was less
understanding of the children’s need for affection and emotional support ... The State
provided very little at that time by way of support services, and access to psychologists
and social workers was very limited. I think as a result of that, both the children and their
carers suffered.
1.134 Sr Rogers stated that the Congregation contributed to the Redress Scheme for the following
reasons:
... we felt that we would be assisting people who had been in our care during their
childhood and who are now experiencing difficulties in their lives. We believe that the
Redress Scheme presented an opportunity for ending litigation in a quicker and in a less
adversarial manner than would be the case in court. We wanted at all costs to avoid a
confrontation situation if that were possible.
We also believe that the money expended by the Congregation would go directly to the
residents rather than be absorbed by legal fees.
We were aware that the Redress Scheme was going to have a far lower threshold of
proof than the courts in that no blame was going to be apportioned to any individual or
institution as a result of that.
The Presentation Sisters

1.135 The Presentation Sisters operated two industrial schools, St Francis’s Industrial School, Cashel,
County Tipperary, and St Bernard’s Industrial School, Dundrum, County Tipperary, which later
moved to Fethard in County Tipperary. The Presentation Sisters in Ireland continue to have strong
links with both primary and post-primary schools.
1.136 Sr Claude Meagher, Provincial of the South East Province of the Congregation, informed the
Committee that the Sisters decided to contribute to the Redress Scheme because:
CORI invited the Congregations to participate and, I suppose, there was quite a lot of
discussion and reflection went into that, and we made a decision because we had those
two industrial schools and we were aware that claims were now being initiated by former
residents, those made over the phone and those who had looked for records. We were
aware too that in one of the institutions certainly, the regime might have been described
as harsh, but the building and all about it prior to 1954, it wouldn't meet present standards
or anything near present standards, but renovation was done there in 1974. I suppose
our own enquiries and reading records would lead us to believe that the School wasn’t
adequate, so we feel that people would have suffered there, they may have suffered ... I
suppose we believe too that protracted litigation isn't in anybody's interest and we know
there would be huge difficulty, on the advice of our legal advisers, in following cases that
are dating back to the past, particularly where the Sisters who may have been involved
are dead and it is difficult to establish what happened. So in that sense we would feel it
is important we would be part of the Government Redress Scheme. I suppose there would
be considerable expenses involved in that, and that it is better to maybe direct the money
to the Redress Scheme rather than maybe trying to pursue legal issues in court.
The Sisters of St Louis

1.137 The Sisters of St Louis operated one industrial school, St Martha's Industrial School in Bundoran,
County Donegal. Sisters from the Congregation also worked at St Joseph’s Orphanage in
Bundoran, which was under diocesan management. The St Louis Sisters are involved in primary
and post-primary education in Ireland.
1.138 The Sisters of St Louis have not issued a public apology.
1.139 Sr Noreen Shankey, Regional Leader for Ireland, outlined the reasons why the Congregation
contributed to the Redress Scheme:
central to our participation in the Redress Scheme was a desire to prevent the ordeal of
past residents and ourselves having to go through the courts. As I mentioned, we had no
cases against us until after the Taoiseach's apology and the redress had been announced.
We also felt that the way of redress was a more humane way and that it would lead in
the direction of healing and reconciliation, and I welcome this emphasis with the present
Commission and the approach you are taking.
We were also advised by our legal people of the difficulty of prosecuting cases of this
nature before the courts, we could have long drawn out cases. Because the events
happened so long ago and with the Statute of Limitations, most of the people are dead,
in fact all except one person. We felt that the money would be better spent on redress
than in legal fees.
There was also an element of support from the other congregations because these
discussions were already underway when we joined in, there were already 12
Congregations, so we came in late in the day, but there was a supportive element being
with the other Congregations as well as learning from their experience.
There was also the advantage that if people went to redress, we would be indemnified
against other claims in the courts.
The Hospitaller Order of St John of God

1.140 The Order of St John of God operated a day and residential school for children with learning
disabilities at St Augustine’s in Blackrock, County Dublin and other institutions. In Ireland, the
Order provides mental health services, care for older people, and services for children and adults
with disabilities.
1.141 Fr Fintan Whitmore, Provincial of the Order, said that the Order had not issued a public apology:
No, no. We have not been able to establish as a fact that what was said has actually
happened. Therefore, we have no way of corroborating that. There have been no
convictions, there have been no proceedings that have arrived at any court processes
and so on in relation to that, and nobody has come forward with a confession that these
things have happened or that they were perpetrators of these acts within our own
organisation.
What we would say though, and I think what we have said in most cases, in all cases I
would say if it were true that abuse had taken place, then it is a most regrettable thing
and we would regret that any such happening could have happened or, indeed, that
anything could have happened to people that would leave them disturbed as a result of
being in treatment or in care with us or during their time with us.
1.142 However, the Order did contribute to the Redress Fund. Fr Whitmore outlined the reasons why,
as follows:
There are a number of reasons. One is the way in which we felt a lot of this could go
without something like the Redress Board was that it could get into litigation that would
be an adversarial system, that the people who were coming forward with accusations
were vulnerable people who had difficulties with life in general, and neither for themselves
nor for ourselves or anyone else would a long process involving court appearances and
denials and statements and so on and so forth have been beneficial to anybody, so we
felt that a process which would try to ascertain the truth without going through what could
have been very difficult processes for all concerned would have been a better way to go.
We also felt that we should act in solidarity with other religions at the time. The indemnity
was also an attractive proposition. They would be the principal reasons.
The Sisters of Nazareth

1.143 The Sisters of Nazareth provided services for children and the elderly in Ireland. The Sisters of
Nazareth operated a residential home for boys and girls, called the Nazareth House, which was
situated in County Sligo.
1.144 The Sisters of Nazareth have not issued a public apology.
1.145 Sr Cornelia Walsh, Sister Superior of the Congregation, outlined the reasons why the
Congregation contributed to the Redress Scheme:
Yes, we did, we joined. As a congregation we are a member of CORI and have been for
many years. And as such we were aware of and involved in the contacts between CORI
and the government representatives, which culminated in the setting up of the scheme.
As I said, we are one of the contributing Congregations. We welcome the Government's
initiative and have been dismayed at the obvious pain felt by so many of the country’s
citizens recalling a period in their lives when the pain of poverty, abandonment and loss
was worsened. We consider that the Government's initiative in recognising the shared
involvement of the State and those who sought to supplement and provide care which the
State could not, was a very worthy one, particularly as it offered a non-adversarial and
speedy avenue for those seeking and needing redress. We felt that the desire to heal and
provide help was defeated by the necessary rigours of the adversarial process which was
neither in the interests of the genuinely hurt and also the elderly and sick Sisters who
would have been required to attend hearings. And it is for that reason that we joined
the scheme.
The Oblates of Mary Immaculate

1.146 The Oblate Order operated Daingean Reformatory School in County Offaly [formerly Glencree]
and a detention centre at Scoil Ard-Mhuire in Lusk, County Dublin.
1.147 The Oblates issued a press statement following the broadcast of ‘States of Fear’ on 28th April
1999. It read:
We are asked to comment on the programme “States of Fear”. We would firstly say that
the abuse of young people is always abhorrent and abuse of young people in confinement
is doubly so. The Oblates of Mary Immaculate deeply regret that any young man was
mistreated while in their care and offer sincerest apologies.
At the same time we cannot accept certain of the assertions made by the programme
particularly in relation to funding. However, before commenting further, a more detailed
study of the available records would be required. We are glad the point was made that
many boys did experience kindness. This programme has lifted a veil on the way that
disadvantaged children have been treated in Irish Society. Hopefully it will prove to be a
step in a continuing work of research and healing.
1.148 Fr Tom Murphy, a member of the Order, said that the Oblates contributed to the Redress
Scheme because:
We felt that the redress procedure was best for the claimants and that it was better that
the money should go to them rather than for legal expenses. We also felt very strongly
that this would be and should be a pastoral reaction, a pastoral action if you like, in relation
to the whole question of abuse. We also saw a certain value in being one in solidarity
with other religious Congregations who were supporting the contribution. It would also
save surviving members, now elderly, and staff members from the trauma of maybe long,
litigious lawsuits. And it would also sort of avoid any excessively adversarial modes of
civil courts which would give rise to further alienation of claimants. In addition we hope
that it would speed up and facilitate a process of closure around this whole question. We
also needed to justify pledging funds that we held for our mission for this special purpose
of contributing, and after legal advice which we felt we had to have, we made the
contribution.
Evidence from representatives of the survivor groups

1.149 Ten groups representing survivors of child abuse were invited to attend the Emergence hearings.
These were:
(1) The Irish Deaf Society
(2) Irish SOCA
(3) SOCA UK
(4) Right to Peace
(5) One in Four
(6) Right of Place
(7) Alliance Victim Support
(8) Irish Survivors of Institutional Abuse International
(9) The Aislinn Centre
(10) The London Irish Women’s Group.
The Irish Deaf Society

1.150 Mr Kevin Stanley gave evidence on behalf of the Irish Deaf Society, a representative body which
has a number of umbrella groups within its organisation; one of these is for survivors of abuse
who are deaf. This was set up following the broadcast of ‘States of Fear’ and was designed to
‘give deaf people an opportunity to discuss things, their experiences and really to assist in part of
the healing process, healing from the pain that they would have experienced’.
1.151 The long-term objectives of the Society are to raise awareness that abuse has taken place in
schools for the deaf, which they believe was directly linked with the introduction of oralism and
the banning of sign language, that led to physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect.

Irish SOCA
1.152 Mr Patrick Walsh is a member of a survivor group known as Irish SOCA (Survivors of Child
Abuse), and he was nominated to represent it for the purpose of the Emergence hearings. After
the Taoiseach’s statement of 11th May 1999, a number of firms of solicitors placed advertisements
in various newspapers in the UK and Ireland, and public meetings were organised. SOCA
(Survivors of Child Abuse) was established at a meeting in London on 19th June 1999. Soon
afterwards, SOCA split into two groups, Irish SOCA and SOCA UK. The two groups were not
mutually exclusive, and many of SOCA’s members belonged to both organisations.
1.153 Mr Walsh said that the purpose of the group was to act as a support group for survivors, so that
they could make representations to the Irish Government on the proposed Commission to Inquire
into Child Abuse and Residential Institutions Redress legislation. It has also participated in various
consultative processes and made submissions to the Law Reform Commission during its work on
the Statute of Limitations. The group also assists its members in seeking access to information
and operates a legal referral service.
1.154 Mr Walsh said that Irish SOCA is funded from ‘the personal resources of the executive members
of Irish SOCA‘. He said it is not funded by the State, the Roman Catholic Church, or
membership fees.
SOCA UK
1.155 Mr Michael Waters gave evidence on behalf of SOCA UK (Survivors of Child Abuse – UK). He
traced the origins of the group to meetings that he used to have with other former residents of
Artane at social occasions. These meetings were initially very informal and in the nature of an
Artane Old Boys School.
1.156 In the early years, there were three to four meetings a year. They wrote to everybody they thought
might be able to help. The broadcast of ‘Dear Daughter’ in the mid-1990s marked a watershed
for them:
This without doubt was groundbreaking stuff ... This was the flagship overall, this was the
one that now had brought it all mainstream ...
1.157 He said that it had a major impact on his members:

It certainly did because although we were supporting each other and coming up into the
mid-90s now you had a mixed group of people. It was no longer a sort of -- although it
still had a title until into the mid-90's, the Artane Old Boys, but that was really redundant,
that was defunct as such because there was women that was involved as well that had
been in the institutes.
1.158 The first big meeting was in Coventry in 1998, and this venue was chosen to facilitate members
travelling from all over the UK. They advertised the meeting in the Irish Post, and the meeting
was attended by approximately 100 people. That meeting was followed by more meetings in
Coventry and in Birmingham. Numbers had grown to over 500, and the idea to form a group was
emerging. Eventually, a meeting was held on 19th June 1999 in London, and SOCA was launched
at this meeting. A constitution was adopted on 27th June 1999.
1.159 Mr Waters explained that his organisation has made representations to the Commission to Inquire
into Child Abuse and the Redress Board. They also worked towards developing an independent
counselling service, as many of their members did not wish to avail of the counselling provided
by the Religious Orders. SOCA UK continued to have regular meetings and assist their members
in tracing their family of origin, and they also refer people for legal advice.
1.160 The group is funded by the Department of Education and Science.
Right to Peace
1.161 Mr Michael O’Brien gave evidence on behalf of ‘Right to Peace’. He said that the origins of his
group could be traced back to 1999, when a lady named Josephine Baker organised a meeting
to discuss institutional abuse for people who had attended Ferryhouse Industrial School. Following
the meeting, a group of approximately 13 former residents of Ferryhouse decided to establish a
group ‘to see what we could do about the abuse that we suffered while children, sexual, physical,
traumatic and verbal abuse in an institution where we were sent to be cared for, in an institution
where we were supposed to be taught, cleaned, looked after and fed’. After the meeting, Mr
O’Brien said that he tried to promote his group in the media by placing advertisements in
newspapers and giving interviews on local radio. He said that the group has approximately 300
members and its aim:
was to get the State to do something about this abuse. Why? That it would never again
happen in this country that any child would be abused again in this country. That was our
main aim. Every obstacle that you can think of was put in our way, no help from nobody.
1.162 He continued:
That's why we set up our group to see can we get our rights back, to see can we get
redress for what happened for those of us who didn't do so well after coming out.
1.163 Mr O’Brien said that Right to Peace engages in counselling, giving advice and holding meetings.
The group is funded by the Department of Education and Science.
One in Four
1.164 ‘One in Four’ is a service-based, non-profit organisation and a registered charity that provides
support to men and women who have suffered sexual violence or sexual abuse. It was founded
by Mr Colm O’Gorman in the UK in 1999. Mr O’Gorman outlined the background to its
establishment and its early development as follows:
The charity was originally founded in the UK in 1999 ... It became a registered charity in
the year 2000 and it launched its services then. In Ireland I had been personally involved
in the making of a documentary with BBC television in relation to clerical sexual abuse.
When that documentary aired we found that our office in London was being inundated
with calls from Irish people, people both living in Ireland and in the UK, talking about their
own experiences of sexual violence.
1.165 He continued:
We subsequently in late April 2002 had a meeting with officials of the Department of An
Taoiseach. As a result of that meeting we felt very encouraged to perhaps proceed more
speedily than we had first anticipated towards the establishment of an organisation. We
submitted proposals to Government and were told to go ahead with the establishment of
the Irish organisation. We secured offices in November 2002 and started to see the first
clients of the service in about February 2003.
1.166 The organisation provides a psychotherapy programme and an advocacy programme. Mr

O’Gorman said that the organisation is funded through a variety of means, including grants from
the Department of Health and Children and by fundraising.

Right of Place
1.167 Mr Eugene Tracey gave evidence on behalf of ‘Right of Place’, an organisation established on
10th July 1999 to help survivors of institutional abuse. Following the Taoiseach’s apology, he and
another man decided to place an advertisement in the Cork Examiner, inviting former residents
of St Patrick’s Industrial School, Upton to a meeting in Cork on 10th July 1999. At this meeting, a
committee was elected and it was mandated to approach the Government:
with a view to securing primarily education because a lot of us people were lacking in
education through no fault of our own. A lot of us needed counselling and we didn't know
how to access it, and it was literally nonexistent. Housing, social housing situations –
people were living, including myself at the time, in rat-infested bedsits. We took all of
these sort of situations on board.
1.168 They met with the Minister for Education and Science, Mr Micheál Martin, and a number of officials
from his Department, and they had discussions about how their aim of providing education and
improving conditions for survivors could be achieved. To assist them in their objectives, premises
were secured in Cork and leased by the Department on behalf of the group. The premises was
used by the group to hold meetings, so as to keep their members informed, and it was also used
to provide evening classes and literacy classes for its members. They worked in conjunction with
the CORK VEC,28 who provided them with an educational facilitator. The six staff in the building
were paid by FÁS.29
1.169 Mr Tracey told the Committee that the education programme had been a great success and had
provided courses for many people in schools and universities and trades.
1.170 The group also became aware that many people who came to give evidence to the Commission
needed somewhere to stay before and after they had given their evidence. Having identified this
need, the organisation obtained a house with the assistance of the Department of Health and
Children, and this can accommodate around 30 people. This house is also used for short-term
stays for members awaiting housing. In addition, the group received a grant from the Department
of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to build 10 apartments for the repatriation of
former residents who were living outside Ireland.
1.171 The organisation was initially funded by the Department of Education and Science, but it is now
funded by the Department of Health and Children.
Alliance Victim Support

1.172 Mr Tom Hayes gave evidence on behalf of Alliance Victim Support. They are a voluntary
organisation. They provide support to survivors in Ireland, particularly those who live in isolated
areas. The type of support consists of establishing the living conditions of these people and putting
them in touch with professional help and advising them of their statutory entitlements.
1.173 They receive some funding from the Department of Education and Science.
Irish Survivors of Institutional Abuse International

1.174 Mr Tom Cronin gave evidence on behalf of this group. They were established in the UK as a
result of a split with another group in 2002. He identified a number of issues that they would like
the Commission to consider, such as State financing of industrial schools and how the money
was spent, the role of medical personnel within the industrial school system, and the role of
the ISPCC.
28
Cork VEC – Cork Vocational Education Committees.
29
FÁS – Training and employment authority.

1.175 The group do not receive any funding.
The Aislinn Centre

1.176 Ms Christine Buckley, who is the Director of the Aislinn Centre, gave evidence to the Investigation
Committee. She described how, following the broadcast of the programme ‘Dear Daughter’, she
and two fellow survivors organised an event in the Royal Dublin Society called ‘A Happy Day’ in
April 1996. The purpose of this event was to put former residents in contact with each other, and
to enable them to get in touch with siblings with whom they had lost contact. The event was
attended by 550 people. She spent the next few years raising awareness of the issue of child
abuse. After the Taoiseach’s apology in 1999, the Aislinn Centre was established. She said that
the Centre operates an ‘open door policy’, where membership is not required. She insisted that
they do not operate on a membership basis, but acknowledged that they had assisted
approximately 3,500 individuals who had made contact with the Centre.
1.177 The work of the Centre is to promote healing through a variety of ways: counselling, education,
and activities which help with self-development. They offer courses in art, music, creative writing,
swimming lessons, driving lessons, financial advice through the Money Advice Budgetary Service
(MABS), computers, and drama, all with a view to confidence building.
1.178 The group receives some funding from the Government.
The London Irish Women’s Group

1.179 Ms Sally Mulready gave evidence on behalf of the London Irish Women’s Group. The group
emerged from SOCA UK, where many of the women who attended these meetings wanted to
meet and talk and share experiences that were personal to them as women, mothers and
grandmothers. It was set up in November 1999 and is not a rival group, and many of the members
are members of other organisations. They have a mailing list of 380 women and hold monthly
meetings. The group was involved in negotiations that led to the setting-up of outreach services
for survivors in the UK, which is funded by the Department of Education and Science.
1.180 The organisation does not receive any Government funding.
Experts and their assignments

1.181 The Commission engaged experts to assist in the investigation and to report on a number of areas
as outlined below.
Physical surroundings – Ciaran Fahy

1.182 The Commission appointed Mr Ciaran Fahy, Consulting Engineer, to report on the physical
environment in which the children resided. His brief was to examine the physical surrounding with
particular reference to the buildings in Artane, Clifden and Ferryhouse Industrial Schools as well
as Daingean Reformatory School. His reports are annexed to the chapters dealing with those
institutions.
Finance – Mazars
1.183 At the Emergence hearings in July 2004, it was clear that the Congregations would be making
the case that they had not been provided with adequate funds to enable them to look after the
children properly. Although the representations by the State at the Emergence hearings, and in
later submissions, seemed to accept that there was inadequate financial provision for the
institutions, the Committee wished to have this matter explored to try to assess to what extent the
lack of finance caused or contributed to failures of care in the system.
1.184 The firm of Mazars, Chartered Accountants, was engaged to report on funding. Mazars’ brief was
to examine the accounts of a number of specific institutions: Artane, Goldenbridge, Ferryhouse
and Daingean, and also to consider the question of funding more generally, and to review the
adequacy or otherwise of the capitation payments made in respect of children in industrial and
reformatory schools.
1.185 Because of the general importance of the issue of finance to the investigation of the institutions,
and specifically in respect of those that Mazars examined, a full discussion of this topic is
contained in Vol IV, Chapter 2 of the report, where the Mazars Report is annexed, together with
all the submissions that were made in response to the first draft of the report that was circulated.
Health records – Professor Anthony Staines

1.186 The Committee appointed Dr Anthony Staines, formerly of UCD, now Professor of Public Health
Medicine in Dublin City University, to lead a small group of researchers in a project to examine
health records relating to the children in institutions. It became clear that it was impossible in any
reliable way to study the health of children in the institutions on the basis of the limited and variable
records that were available.
1.187 The Committee has not taken the results of this study into account in its analysis of individual
institutions, but it recognises and appreciates the assistance that it has received from Professor
Staines and his team in their examination of the available material. The study undertaken by
Professor Staines and his team is annexed at Vol V of this report.
Dr Eoin O’Sullivan
1.188 Dr Eoin O’Sullivan, Senior Lecturer in Social Policy at the Department of Social Work and Social
Policy, Trinity College Dublin, gave valuable assistance to the Commission in two areas. First, he
gave evidence at the opening of the Emergence hearings on 21st June 2004, where he outlined
the history of industrial and reformatory schools in Ireland and helped to establish the historical
context of the institutions.
1.189 The second task undertaken by Dr O’Sullivan was to report on developments in the area of child
protection and care in the State, from the time of the Kennedy Committee Report in 1970 to the
present day. Dr O’Sullivan’s report is contained in Vol IV of this report.
Dr Diarmaid Ferriter
1.190 Prior to the Phase III hearings, a firm of solicitors representing a large number of complainants
commissioned Dr Diarmaid Ferriter, Senior Lecturer in Irish History at St Patrick’s College, Dublin
City University, to produce a report.
1.191 Dr Ferriter set out to:

attempt to put more historical context on the events discussed in the public hearings by
drawing attention to issues of class, gender and sexuality generally in Irish society, and
more specifically, sexual abuse in relation to the State and the legal system, as well as
looking at the manner in which information emerged, and was sometimes suppressed. By
extension, it will also touch on the institution of the family, emigration and how the State
and the Catholic Church perceived its role in relation to the moral welfare of Irish
Catholics.
1.192 Because Dr Ferriter had already been engaged, the Investigation Committee received his report
as a useful document containing expert research and opinion.
1.193 Dr Ferriter’s report is of interest and value, but the Investigation Committee was aware that,
because it deals with many of the questions that are at the very core of the Inquiry itself it could
not be used as the basis of making conclusions. Recognising the value of the work, the
Commission took over as sponsor, and it also is annexed to Vol IV of this report.
Mr Richard Rollinson
1.194 Mr Richard Rollinson is a retired Director of the Mulberry Care Centre in Oxford. He is an expert
in the field of residential childcare in the United Kingdom. The Committee asked him to furnish a
brief history of residential childcare in England, as it developed in the later part of the twentieth
century, and the report he furnished covers the period 1948 to 1975. Mr Rollinson’s report provides
valuable comparative and contextual information on the English system, and is annexed to Vol IV
of this report.
Professor David Gwynn Morgan

1.195 Professor Morgan is a Professor of Law at University College, Cork. He provided enormous
assistance to the Committee in research and analysis that extended over a wide area of interest
to the Committee and the Commission. His work did not extend to the individual chapters on
institutions, nor to the investigation of abuse in them. His particular contributions are reflected in
the chapters entitled History of Industrial Schools and Reformatories, Gateways and the
Department of Education. Professor Morgan conducted original research into material that would
have been very difficult to access without the assistance of Mr Jimmy Maloney of the Department
of Education and Science, whose contribution is acknowledged.
Research project – Professor Alan Carr

1.196 In its Opening Statement and at the Second Public Sitting on 20th July 2000, the Commission
announced its intention to conduct a research project. The Third Interim Report outlined the
proposed project.30 Difficulties were encountered in setting up the project, and the Commission
under Mr Justice Sean Ryan revised the scheme in consultation with Professor Alan Carr of the
Department of Psychology, University College Dublin. It was undertaken in 2005 and 2006. There
were 247 residents of institutions who gave evidence to the Commission and were interviewed by
Professor Carr’s research team. The report containing the results of the research study is
published in full in Volume IV of this report.
1.197 The ‘research study’ stands alone and separate from the work of the Commission, and its
conclusions were not taken into account in the reports submitted by the two Committees to the
Commission. The ‘research study’ comprises original research which adds to the knowledge of
this field of study.
30
See Third Interim Report, chapter 4.

Chapter 2
History of industrial schools and

reformatories1
An early nineteenth-century social problem
2.01 The earliest provision in Britain and Ireland for destitute children is to be found in the Act for the
Relief of the Poor of 1598. It provided for the appointment in every parish of ‘overseers of the
poor’ with, among other specific duties, those of ‘setting to work the children of all such whose
parents shall not be thought able to keep and maintain their children’. In 1771, legislation was
enacted, under which overseers were appointed to arrange for the maintenance and education of
orphaned or deserted children out of money raised by the parish. It was envisaged, too, that work-
houses were to be built, financed either by voluntary contribution or, if these were not forthcoming,
by official grants. In fact, neither was available on anything like the scale necessary to meet the
need. By the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, in both Ireland and Britain, the rapid
growth of populations meant that the parish ceased to be a viable unit for the administration of
relief. Destitute children roamed the countryside or streets, foraging for food and pilfering for a
livelihood. In Ireland, the Famine (1845–1849) made a bad situation immeasurably worse, leading
to the desertion of children by parents.
2.02 On an official level, the response to this significant social problem was the Poor Relief (Ireland)
Act, 1838. This established or confirmed a system of workhouses throughout the country, under
the central authority of the Irish Poor Law Commissioners (replaced in 1872 by the Local
Government Board for Ireland). By 1853, 77,000 children below 15 years of age (one third of them
orphans), which was 6.5% of the age cohort, were living in workhouses, while an unknown number
of ‘street urchins’ were still living wild in the towns.
2.03 One of the workhouse system rules was that families were forced to split, with children seeing
their parents only once a week. Moreover, in the workhouses, the children had to mix with all
types of adult paupers and vagrants, giving rise to the real possibility of abuse. No effective
education was provided. In addition, the stigma attached to workhouses meant that they were
perceived as providing charity for ‘the shameless, the idle and the shiftless’.
2.04 It might have been thought that an alternative policy to the workhouse could have been tried,
namely to make direct contributions of money or necessities to those in need (a policy then
generally known as ‘outdoor relief’), since this would allow the poor families involved to be assisted
outside the workhouse system. However, this was unpopular in official quarters, because of the
danger that it would be taken advantage of by persons who in fact had their own resources on
which to draw. It was partly to reduce the chance of this that workhouses had been established:
for the orthodox thinking was that charity should be extended only to those who were prepared to
accept the harshest and most overcrowded of conditions.
2.05 Apart from these official efforts, charitable organisations and individual philanthropists also
attempted to alleviate the problem by gathering some of these children into orphanages, charity
1
This historical overview has drawn extensively on the research provided to the Commission by Professor David
Gwynn Morgan, Dr Eoin O’Sullivan; Professor Séamus O’Cinnéide; Dr Moira Maguire (who along with Professor
O’Cinnéide compiled reports to the Sisters of Mercy); Professor Dermot Keogh (who wrote a report for the
Presentation Brothers on Greenmount) and Ms Sheila Lunney (who wrote an MA thesis entitled Institutional Solution
to a Social Problem: Industrial Schools in Ireland and the Sisters of Mercy 1869 to 1950).

schools, ‘ragged schools’2 – all institutions depending on voluntary contributions and, often, on
voluntary labour.
2.06 However, neither workhouses nor voluntary efforts were equal to the scale of the problem, and it
came to be accepted that something more was required. In the first half of the nineteenth century
in Britain and in Ireland, there were several commissions and committees to investigate both the
broad subject of poverty3 and the particular needs of poor children. The industrial school system
was proposed as a solution. This idea was based on a Continental model and, by the 1850s,
Germany, Switzerland and Scandinavia had nearly a hundred institutions for criminal and destitute
juveniles, whose achievements were well known in Ireland and Britain. The thrust of the education
provided in these schools, some of which were called ‘Farm Schools’, was in favour of practical
training, which would equip the children for employment, rather than academic learning. This
approach fitted in well with the Victorian idea of utilitarian progress, and also helped to provide
skills to fuel the Industrial Revolution. The motivation for these reforms has also been variously
attributed to the desire to help the needy, or the need to control those whom the authorities viewed
as a threat to the existing order.
Legislation and establishment

2.07 This Continental model was put into legislative effect and was implemented in Britain, in the
1850s.4 In Ireland a little later, the reformatory system was established by the Reformatory Schools
(Ireland) Act, 1858. A decade later, the industrial schools came too, this time by way of a Private
Member’s Bill introduced by The O’Connor Don,5 which became law as the Industrial Schools
(Ireland) Act, 1868. The reformatories were for those guilty of offences; and industrial schools for
those neglected, orphaned or abandoned; in other words, not for criminal children, but those
potentially exposed to crime. This dichotomy was in line with a fairly well-established distinction
between a penal school for youthful offenders and a ‘ragged school’ for the poor or vagrant.
2.08 In Ireland, the initial result of the 1858 and 1868 Acts was that a number of existing voluntary
schools and homes applied for and were granted certificates as reformatories or industrial schools.
These were for the reception of children committed by the courts, and they became eligible for
grants from public funds for the maintenance of such children. The next few decades brought
extensive new buildings and institutions. Although reformatory schools were established first,
industrial schools soon surpassed them, both in numbers of schools and of pupils. In the seven
years after 1858, 10 reformatories (five for females) were certified. By the end of the century, only
seven of the 10 original reformatories survived, some of the former reformatories having been re-
certified as industrial schools; and, by 1922, only five remained (one of which was a reformatory
for boys in Northern Ireland). The reformatory school population, which was nearly 800
immediately after the passing of the 1858 Act, fell to 300 in 1882, and to 150 in 1900.
2.09 On the other hand, however, by 1875, there were 50 industrial schools, and the highest number
of industrial schools was reached in 1898, when there were a total of 71 schools, of which 61 (56
schools for Catholics and five for Protestants) were in the 26 counties. At its height, in 1898 the
2
The idea of ‘ragged schools’ was developed in 1818 by John Pounds, a shoemaker. He began teaching poor children
without charging fees.
3
For example, Royal Commission (Nassau, 1832) to review the working of the Act for the Relief of the Poor, 1601 in
England (1832); Royal Commission for Ireland under Archbishop Whately of Dublin (1833–36) to inquire into the
conditions of the poor and to ameliorate them; others according to Caul 12, in 1804, 1819, 1823 and 1830. Mary
Carpenter’s seminal work, Reformatory Schools for the children of the perishing and dangerous classes and for
juvenile offenders (1851) was among the causes of the Commission of Inquiry into Criminal and Destitute Children
[HC 1852–53], before which Mary Carpenter was the principal witness.
4
In Britain, the schools were established by way of the Reformatory Schools (Youthful Offenders) Act, 1857 and the
Industrial Schools Act, 1854, though the latter applied only to Scotland. The legislation was consolidated in 1866.
5
A liberal Catholic described by Cardinal Cullen as ‘the only good man’ in Parliament; and a member of the House of
Commons Select Committee of 1861, which studied the problems of educating the destitute. Neilson Hancock, a
statistician and social campaigner, was able to show that, although the juvenile crime rate in Ireland was half that of
Britain, this proportion was reversed with regard to vagrants under 16 years of age; for Ireland had almost double the
British rate of juvenile vagrants. These statistics provided The O’Connor Don with the intellectual ammunition to argue
his case for the extension of industrial schools to Ireland.

population in the industrial schools was 7,998 residents, compared with the 6,000 children in the
same year in the considerably less salubrious conditions of the workhouses. Moreover, in the late
nineteenth century, social and economic conditions in Ireland were such that many children had
to be refused places in the schools. In 1882, over 70% of committal entries to industrial schools
were made under the category of begging.6
2.10 The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were eras when social reformers began to notice
children as individuals susceptible to neglect and ill-treatment. In Edwardian England, reformers
like Charles Booth and Sebohm Rowntree were attempting to quantify poverty, analysing its
causes and characteristics. One consequence of this thinking was that all the nineteenth-century
legislation in this field7 was replaced by the Children Act, 1908, popularly known as the Children’s
Charter. While making relatively slight substantive amendments,8 this Act applied a unified system
of law to both types of schools in Britain and in Ireland. The Children Act, 1908 dealt with a
number of topics, among them the prevention of cruelty to children, protection of infant life, and
provision for juvenile offence. However, its most important provisions were in Part IV, which
provided the constitutional basis for reformatories and industrial schools. It continued to be the
primary legislation for vulnerable children in Ireland until it was amended by the Child Care Act,
1991 which was not fully operational until 1996. The 1991 Act was replaced by the Children Act,
2001 which was signed into law in July 2001.
2.11 The 1908 Act was one of a trio of measures introduced by the Home Secretary, Herbert Gladstone,
and justly regarded as a late flowering of Victorian reformism. The other two measures were the
Probation of Offenders Act, 1907 and the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, which established
borstals. Another reform in a slightly earlier period was that the National Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) was first established in 1875 in the United States, and then in
Britain in 1884, and in Ireland in 1889.
2.12 It may be worth quoting from section 44 of the Children Act, 1908 since this is the closest the
legislation comes to what later generations would call a mission statement for the schools. This
section states:
The expression “industrial school” means a school for the industrial training of children, in
which children are lodged, clothed and fed, as well as taught.
2.13 The definition of a ‘reformatory school’ is defined in the same terms by section 44 of the 1908
Act, but, with the substitution of ‘youthful offenders’ for ‘children’.
6
The Aberdare Commission of Enquiry into Reformatory and Industrial Schools 1884, which dealt with the British and
Irish systems separately, warmly endorsed the schools. Partly as a result of this, there was a considerable expansion
in industrial schools in the 1880s and 1890s. See Jane Barnes, Irish Industrial Schools, 1868–1908 (Irish Academic
Press, 1989), p 64. The Cussen Report 1934–1936 credits the early spread of the schools to a speech by the Lord
High Chancellor of Ireland, Lord O’Hagan, to the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland (of which he was
president), in which he drew attention to the advantages to the social order which would follow on the establishment of
the industrial schools: JSSIS Part XXXIX, 1870, 225.
7
By 1908, for Ireland alone, the legislation comprised: the Industrial Schools Act, 1868, the Industrial Schools Acts
Amendment Act 1880, the Industrial Schools (Ireland) Act, 1885 and the Industrial School Acts Amendment Act, 1894,
and the Reformatory Schools (lreland) Act, 1858. Other minor amending Acts were passed in 1893, 1899 and 1901.
The 1908 Act substituted the Chief Secretary for Ireland in place of the Home Secretary.
8
However, there were two significant improvements in the Act which never received a fair trial in Ireland: day industrial
schools, and release on licence. Questioning the advantages of institutional life and perceiving the value of keeping a
child in a family environment (unless this was wholly evil) in the late nineteenth century, the Philanthropic Reform
Association proposed the establishment of day industrial schools: Jane Barnes, Irish Industrial Schools, 1868–1908
(Irish Academic Press 1989), pp 85–86.

Policies underlying the School system
Intervention in the family
2.14 Until the legislation establishing the schools, the law seldom intervened in the affairs of a family.
The new legislation, however, gave Magistrates’ Courts (the pre-Independence equivalent of the
District Court) jurisdiction to intervene in the interest of the child, usually of the poorer class, to
protect their physical or moral wellbeing. Doing so meant a major interference with the family and
parental rights.
2.15 Barnes9 states that, as originally conceived, industrial schools had two objectives: the first being
to provide appropriate skills and training to enable children ‘to be capable of supporting
themselves by honest labour’; the other being to reform the child’s character. To achieve these
ends, it was considered necessary that ‘the links between child and home [be] ruthlessly cut’, on
the basis that the home was a bad influence. For this reason, committal was generally imposed
for the maximum period, correspondence between the children and families was vetted, and
parental visits were allowed only at the discretion of the Manager.
Religious ownership and management

2.16 Each type of school was to be independently managed and run, though subject to State approval
and inspection. Thus, a fundamental feature was private, largely religious philanthropy. It seemed
natural that churches should take responsibility for providing assistance to the poor. In Ireland,
Catholic emancipation in 1829 made the Church a central institution. It was powerful both at the
level of the Hierarchy and, even more so, at grassroots where, in the absence of a trusted
landowner class, the priests who were educated and nationalistic were regarded as community
leaders. Apart from religion, the main focus of the Church’s influence lay in education. The
burgeoning character of the Catholic Church in the post-Famine period may be illustrated by the
simple fact that the number of nuns increased eightfold between 1841 and 1901. There was
huge growth in the numbers of priests and Brothers as well as nuns, and the establishment of a
comprehensive range of services in the fields of education, health and social services. Moreover,
there was even surplus capacity, so that many of the Orders exported personnel and services to
America, Canada and Australia.
2.17 A related issue was the fear of each of the major religions of proselytisation by the other side. On
either side, this was not an unreasonable fear: Catholics were moved by the fact that the last relic
of Catholic subservience was not gone until 1829. The ‘established Church’ was Protestant, in
particular Anglican, and Protestant institutions were more richly resourced. Thus, a major concern
of the Catholic side, which persisted into the twentieth century, was to keep Catholic orphans from
being taken into the ‘Birds-nests homes’ run by the Protestant orphan societies. On the other side,
the immense potential of the Catholic Church as the church of the great majority of the people
was evident. From the perspective of both sides, the schools allowed an opportunity to imbue
children with religion and to present a caring image of the Church.10
2.18 In response to these considerations, the main modification of the English model, contained in the
Irish Industrial Schools Act of 1868, concerned safeguards to prevent any change in the religion
of a child committed. Catholic and Protestant children had to be committed to separate schools.
The control of the religious was also copperfastened by a provision that State funds could be used
only for maintenance and not for capital expenditure to set up State schools; and that funding
would be on a capitation basis. This avoided any suspicion of the Government favouring one
denomination, which might have existed had payments been based on the institution as an entity.
In addition, this met Catholic resistance to State ownership. From the perspective of the State,
the cost would be less, and it was believed that schools conducted by voluntary management
would retain an adaptable character, and that their pupils would have better opportunities for
employment than those afforded by juvenile houses of correction under official management.
9
Jane Barnes, Irish Industrial Schools, 1868–1908 (Irish Academic Press, 1989), pp 85–86.
10
Brı́d Fahey Bates, The Institute of Charity: Rosminians, Their Irish Story 1860–2003 (Dublin: Ashfield Publishing
Press, 2003), pp 68–69.

Finance
2.19 A distinction that was observed in the financial regime of the schools was that recurring
expenditure on food, staff equipment, etc was the responsibility of the State. This was funded by
central and local government on a capitation basis,11 whereas capital expenditure was funded by
the owners of the schools. This was an incentive to maximise numbers and not to spend money
on capital items such as buildings, sports facilities or other benefits for the children.
2.20 A check was imposed by the Treasury on the granting of new certificates between 1875 and 1879,
in order to keep down its contribution. As a result of this policy, admissions were restricted.
Moreover, several new schools were built, their founders being under the impression that they
would be certified on completion, yet they failed to receive certificates immediately. One such
school was built for Roman Catholic girls at Mallow. The building was erected in 1873, but
certification of this School was refused for six years after its completion.12
2.21 The Children Act, 1908 dropped the restriction on the use of public funds for capital expenditure
but, in contrast to the position in England and subject to one or two exceptions, Irish local or, until
the 1940s, central government did not use this power. Indeed, the reality is that Irish local
authorities were often overdue in paying the contributions, even to maintenance, which they were
legally obliged to make.
2.22 The schools were founded either by the philanthropic donation of a premises and land by a
concerned land owner, or the capital required to build the schools was raised by public
subscription from a group of community-minded citizens, with the major impetus in collection and
spending coming from the religious authorities. For instance, almost immediately after the
legislation was enacted, the Dublin Catholic Reformatory Committee was established to meet this
financial challenge.
2.23 Another example was the Cork Reformatory Committee,13 set up by the Cork Society of the St
Vincent de Paul in 1858. They purchased a 112-acre farm at Upton, 14 miles from Cork City, for
use as a reformatory school, and they asked the Rosminian Order to take charge of it, as they
had experience of operating reformatories in England. A building was completed on the site in
1860 at a cost of £5,000, and the lease of the lands and buildings was transferred to the
Rosminians in 1872.14 This operated as St Patrick’s Reformatory School in Upton, County Cork
until 1889 and, thereafter, as an industrial school.15
2.24 In 1869, Lord Granard, the local landowner, invited the Sisters of Mercy to establish a school in
Newtownforbes, County Longford. He gave the Sisters a house for use as a convent and gardens,
rent free, and an annual cash donation of £90.16 In the same year, Our Lady of Perpetual Succour
Industrial School, Newtownforbes, was certified for the reception of 145 girls.
2.25 One of the legacies of this piece-meal way of establishing the schools was that there was an
uneven geographical distribution of schools throughout Ireland, which had a considerable impact
on whether children were likely to end up in an industrial school.
‘Industrial’ training
2.26 The principal virtue claimed for the schools, by the utilitarian thinkers who championed them, was
that they would equip the residents with skills, which would enable them in later life to survive by
11
The Children Act, 1908, ss 73–75. In the nineteenth century, most of the recurring expense fell on central government
[the Treasury paid 5s/week for each child]. Local authorities’ contribution ranged from 1 shilling to 2/6. Voluntary
contributions were very small. The result was that, for example, in 1880: the contributions were as follows: treasury
(£68,000); local authorities (£23,000); other sources (parental contributions, voluntary subscriptions and industrial
profits): £16,000.
12
Barnes, p 50.
13
Brı́d Fahey Bates, p 72.
14
15
16
Taken from: The Parish of Clonguish: Its People and its Culture (December 2005), p 15.

steady, if humble, employment. In the nineteenth century, this was accomplished in the case of
girls. According to Ó Cinnéide and Maguire:17
Girls’ schools provided a narrower range of industrial training than boys schools, focusing
on domestic service, laundry, and sewing. The majority of girls who left industrial schools
went into domestic service. Indeed the schools were a vital source of domestic servants,
particularly because the schools were among the few institutions that provided a coherent
training program for domestic servants. Some schools, including High Park and St.
George’s in Limerick, were particularly noted for their training program, and girls from
these schools had no trouble securing work as servants. Goldenbridge Industrial School
was also an important source of trained domestic servants. Mona Hearne, author of Below
Stairs, shows that of the 877 girls discharged from Goldenbridge between 1880 and 1920,
over 300 were placed in service; the nuns kept in touch with these girls for at least three
years after discharge, and only rarely were bad reports received.
2.27 As to the boys’ schools, they commented:

the [Samuelson Commission’s]18 remit was to examine industrial and technical training in
all schools, including industrial schools, throughout the United Kingdom ... The
Commission’s report was extremely critical of the general standard of training in Irish
schools generally; the one exception was Irish industrial schools, which they found to be
models of technical and industrial training.19
2.28 Barnes acknowledged that some schools did in fact excel in providing children with the skills and
training which enabled them to support themselves once they were discharged. She took the view
that, in the early years of the system’s existence, there was some tension between providing
industrial training to ameliorate poverty, and the general feeling that industrial training should not
facilitate upward social mobility.20
2.29 Barnes claimed that only a small percentage of boys entered trades for which they had been
trained, and that the majority ended up working as unskilled labourers, mainly on farms. However,
this could be the result of the general lack of opportunities for poor people in Ireland in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.21
2.30 Barnes and most other writers give a largely favourable impression of the nineteenth century
industrial schools system. On the other hand, John Fagan, who was appointed Inspector of
Reformatory and Industrial Schools in 1897, criticised virtually all aspects of the system at the end
of the nineteenth century, especially the physical conditions in the schools and the overall
condition of the children. He was particularly critical of the poor hygiene and lack of cleanliness
in the majority of the schools.22 Ó Cinnéide and Maguire summarise Fagan’s criticisms, and
comment:23
conditions in many of the schools seem to have deteriorated around the turn of the
century, in what Barnes termed a spirit of “complacency and a resistance to change”.
17
Séamus Ó Cinnéide and Moira Maguire, The Industrial Schools Over A Hundred Years: A Monograph, p 20
18
This was a Commission established by the British Parliament to examine industrial and technical training in all
schools throughout the UK. It reported in 1884.
19
Séamus Ó Cinnéide and Moira Maguire, p 19.
20
Séamus Ó Cinnéide and Moira Maguire, p 19, p 20.
21
22
23

Chapter 3
Gateways
3.01 Over the period from 1936 to 1970, a total of 170,000 children and young persons (involving about
1.2% of the age cohort) entered the gates of the 50 or so industrial schools.1 The period for which
they stayed varied widely, depending on the ground of entry; but the average was more than
seven years.
3.02 The result was that, although the population of the schools at any particular time fluctuated widely,
it remained above 6,000 from 1936 to 1952, peaking at 6,800 in 1946 partly as a result of the
wartime emergency conditions. Thereafter, the improving economic conditions of the 1950s, and
even more so in the 1960s, meant that the population in the schools fell steadily to 4,300 in 1960
and 1,740 in 1970. This amounted to an average reduction, over the period from 1950 to 1970,
of 250 per year.
3.03 Although the balance varied from decade to decade, the great majority of children were committed
because they were ‘needy’. The next most frequent grounds of entry were involvement in a
criminal offence or school non-attendance. Each of these grounds involved committal by the
District Court. The remaining two grounds, which over the entire period from 1936 to 1970 were
less frequently used, were being sent by a Health Authority and voluntary entry.
3.04 The figures for reformatory residents were much smaller than those for industrial schools. There
were only three reformatories, and their populations (most of whom were offenders) fluctuated
between 100 and 250. Although the average length of stay was one year, this meant that, in the
period from 1936 to 1970, a total of approximately 2,000 to 3,000 children and young persons
spent time in a reformatory.
‘Needy’ children
3.05 For the entire period under consideration, the governing law was section 58(1) of the Children
Act, 1908 (as amended by the Children Acts, 1929 and 1941). A child could be committed to an
industrial school if he or she, inter alia:
(a) was found begging or receiving alms;
(b) was found not having any home, or visible means of subsistence, or was [found]
having no parent or guardian, or a parent or guardian who did not exercise proper
guardianship; or
(c) was found destitute, not being an orphan and having both parents or his surviving
parent, or in the case of an illegitimate child, his mother, undergoing penal servitude
or imprisonment; or
(d) was under the care of a parent or guardian who, by reason of reputed criminal or
drunken habits, was unfit to have the care of the child; or
(e) was the daughter ... of a father who had been convicted of an offence of [sexually
abusing his daughters]; or
1
Section 44 of the Children Act, 1908 (as amended by section 6 of the Children Act, 1941) defines ‘child’ as one under
the age of 15 (originally 14); and a ‘young person’ as one between the ages of 15 and 17 (originally 14 and 16). This
is pursuant to section 57(1) of the Children Act, 1908 as amended by section 9 of the Children Act, 1941. The
umbrella term ‘young offenders’ comprehends any offenders between the ages of seven and 21 years.

(f) frequented the company of any reputed thief or of any common or reputed prostitute
(other than the child’s mother); or
(g) was lodging or residing in a house used for prostitution.
3.06 Section 58(4) of the 1908 Act stated:

Where the parent or guardian of a child proves to a [District Court] that he is unable to
control the child, and that he desires the child to be sent to an industrial school ... the
court, if satisfied on inquiry that it is expedient so to deal with the child, and that the parent
or guardian understands the results which will follow, may order him to be sent to a
certified industrial school.
3.07 Subsequent legislation expanded the 1908 Act in two main respects. In order to come within the
‘destitute’ category, a child’s parents had, under the 1908 Act, to be in prison or be deceased. The
Children Act, 19292 in effect widened this category by providing that a child could be committed if
its parents were unable to support it, in circumstances where both parents consented, or the
court was satisfied that a parent’s consent could be dispensed with owing to mental incapacity
or desertion.3
3.08 Yet, the precise scope of these legislative categories probably did not make a significant difference
in the numbers of children committed. Whatever the basis of the committal, these children all
came under the category of ‘needy’, and the majority of them were as a result of poverty, but
some were committed because of other social circumstances such as illegitimacy.
Offenders
3.09 The second largest category of those committed were children or young persons who had been
involved in an offence. Section 57 of the Children Act, 1908 as amended by section 9 of the
Children Act, 1941 governed the law relating to young offenders. The first issue was on what
basis it was decided to send a young offender to a reformatory rather than an industrial school.
The main ground was age, although the seriousness of the offence was also a factor. The practice
can be best explained in this area by considering the cases in three categories, according to age:
(1) A child under the age of 12 could not be sent to a reformatory school, only to an
industrial school; and, indeed, the records show relatively few children below the age
of 12 being committed for offences, even to an industrial school.
(2) A child of (after 1941) 12, 13 or 14 could be sent to an industrial school provided that:
the child was a first offender; there were ‘special circumstances’ as to why the child
should not be sent to a reformatory; and the child would not ‘exercise an evil influence
over the other children’.4 In fact, despite these conditions, children under 15 years
were usually sent to industrial schools.
(3) It was not open to the court, under the Act, to send the offender aged (after 1941) 15
years and upwards to an industrial school.5 Thus, if a custodial sanction were to be
selected, the only option was the reformatory.
2
Later re-enacted in section 10(1)(d) of the Children Act, 1941.
3
The full wording of section 10(1)(e) of the 1941 Act was as follows:
‘Provided also that the Court shall not make an order that a child be sent to a certified industrial school on the
grounds stated in paragraph (h) unless—
(i) the child’s parents consent or his surviving parent or, in the case of an illegitimate child, his mother consents
to such order being made, or
(ii) the Court is satisfied that owing to mental incapacity or desertion on the part of the child’s parents or his
surviving parent or, in the case of an illegitimate child, his mother, the consent of such parents or parent may
be dispensed with, or
(iii) one of the child’s parents consents to such order being made and the Court being satisfied that, owing to
mental incapacity or desertion on the part of the other parent or to the fact that the other parent is undergoing
imprisonment or penal servitude, the consent of that parent may be dispensed with’.
4
Section 58(3) of the Children Act, 1908 as amended by section 10(2) of the Children Act, 1941.
5
Section 57(2) of the Children Act, 1908 as amended by section 9(2) of the Children Act, 1941.

3.10 Into category 2 above came girls who were regarded as having been ‘morally corrupted’. In 1944,6
St Anne’s Reformatory School in Kilmacud was established to accommodate girls who were
considered a risk to other children because of sexual experiences. As can be seen in the chapter
on St Joseph’s Industrial School, Kilkenny,7 girls as young as eight who had been raped or abused,
or even those children in contact with such girls, were considered unsuitable for an ordinary
industrial school and were sent to St Anne’s Reformatory School. Unlike boys, girls who were
sent to reformatories were usually sent until their sixteenth birthday.
3.11 The reformatory school was reserved for the tougher type of boy, who became eligible for
committal between the ages of 12 and 17 years. After the Children Act, 1941 took effect, the legal
period of detention was between two and four years.8 However, the period of actual detention for
boys was often no more than one year, provided that the offender’s behaviour and home
circumstances were satisfactory. Before 1941, the equivalent period of detention was between
three and five years.9
3.12 By contrast, boys committed to industrial schools were invariably sent until they were 16 years old.
3.13 The practice was that offenders were committed to a reformatory only following a straightforward
conviction, whereas those sent to an industrial school were sent when charged ‘with an offence
punishable in the case of an adult by penal servitude or a less punishment, and the court is
satisfied that the child should be sent to a certified school’,10 with no conviction being recorded.11
3.14 Between 1923 and 1943, the most common offence for which juvenile males were sent to
reformatories was larceny; subsequently, house-breaking overtook larceny in the share of the
committals.12
3.15 The position was complicated by the fact that several ways of treating the offender were open to
the District Court. Committals to a reformatory or industrial school were just two among several
possible sanctions within the range of sanctions that were available, irrespective of the particular
offence committed13 since, in the case of young offenders, the law was more concerned with the
offender than the offence.
3.16 A detailed statistical analysis of the use of alternatives to committal shows that, between 1948
and 1957, out of 21,000 charges against juvenile offenders, only 701 or 4.5% of those against
whom a ‘charge was proved but no order made’ were committed to an industrial school, whilst
916 or 18% of those convicted were sent to a reformatory school.
6
Kennedy Report, p 1.
7
See chapter on St Joseph’s, Kilkenny.
8
Section 65(a) of the Children Act, 1908 as amended by section 11(1) of the Children Act, 1941.
9
Section 65(a) of the Children Act, 1908.
10
Section 58(3) of the Children Act, 1908.
11
See sections 57 and 58(3) of the Children Act, 1908.
12
Annual Figures for the JLO for 1968–2003 are given in O’Donnell, O’Sullivan and Healy (eds), Crime and Punishment
in Ireland 1922 to 2003: A statistical Sourcebook (IPA, 2005), Table 5.3.
13
What follows is a paraphrase of section 107 of the 1908 Act where the available sanctions are summarised. Section
107 states:
‘Where a child or young person charged with any offence is tried by any court, and the court is satisfied of his guilt,
the court shall take into consideration the manner in which, under the provisions of this or any other Act enabling
the court to deal with the case, the case should be dealt with, namely, whether—
(a) by dismissing the charge; or
(b) by discharging the offender on his entering into a recongizance; or
(c) by so discharging the offender and placing him under the supervision of a probation officer; or
(d) by committing the offender to the care of a relative or other fit person; or
(e) by sending the offender to an industrial school; or
(f) by sending the offender to a reformatory school; or
(g) by ordering the offender to be whipped; or
(h) by ordering the offender to pay a fine, damages, or costs; or
(i) by ordering the parent or guardian of the offender to pay a fine, damages, or costs; or
(j) by ordering the parent or guardian of the offender to give security for his good behaviour ...’.

3.17 The conclusion that may be drawn is that, in general, many District Justices did exercise some
care and discrimination before they sent an offender to a school. The question of whether the two
most viable alternatives, probation and a ‘fit person’ order,14 were under-utilised is discussed
below.
Non-attendance at school
3.18 For the period under review, the governing statute was the School Attendance Act, 1926. This
Act15 made it an offence for a parent to fail to send to school any child below the age of 14 years,
it became 15 years after 1972.16 More significantly, if the parent was convicted of a second offence
within three months of conviction for the first, the court could ‘if it thinks fit’ either send the child
to an industrial school or make a ‘fit person’ order. The thinking seems to have been that this
would be a way of ensuring an education for such children.
3.19 The annual number of prosecutions of parents ranged between 6,000 and 7,000 for most of the
1930s. This figure peaked in the early 1940s, and reached just below 13,000 in 1944.
Subsequently, the numbers fell to the level of the 1930s, before beginning a steep decline in the
early 1950s.
3.20 Dublin, Cork, Waterford and Dun Laoghaire had dedicated full-time School Attendance Officers
(SAO). Outside these centres of population, however, the SAO was a local Garda who took on
this duty, as one among his many tasks. This was undoubtedly one of the reasons why so many
children committed under this heading came from urban centres, as can be seen from the
statistical analysis below.
3.21 It seems reasonable to infer from the figures, for both the nation as a whole and Dublin, that the
children committed under the 1926 Act were not the victims of a policy of pouncing on a few
arbitrarily chosen children. Rather, there was a process with some flexibility and with intermediate
stages before the point of committal was reached. Yet, while not arbitrary, the system was severe
and far-reaching: from visits to parents to formal warnings, through prosecution of parents, to
eventual committal. A striking point of contrast appeared from Table IV of the Tuairim Report,
showing that those admitted to approved schools (equivalent of industrial schools or reformatories)
in England in 1964 for ‘truancy’ numbered 45, compared with 66 in the same year in Ireland,
although England had 16 times the relevant age cohort.
3.22 Committal to an industrial school was most extreme in the case of non-attendance at school.
Neediness could have complicated causes that were hard to resolve. It could be argued that there
needed to be some sanction for juveniles who offended. However, non-attendance at school was
not so heinous that it called for sanction of such severity. The enormity of committing a child for
several years, simply for failure to attend school, began to be appreciated more as time went on.
3.23 A major issue was the fact that it was a court which was selected as the agency through which
children and young persons were directed to a reformatory or an industrial school. Historically,
14
Section 17(4)(a) and (b) of the School Attendance Act, 1926.
15
Section 17 of the School Attendance Act, 1926 states:
‘(1) Whenever a parent fails or neglects to cause his child to whom this Act applies to attend school in accordance
with this Act and, so far as is known to the enforcing authority of the school attendance area in which the child
resides, there is no reasonable excuse for such failure or neglect, such enforcing authority shall serve on such parent
a warning in the prescribed form ...
(2) If a parent does not comply with a warning duly served on him under this section, he shall, unless he satisfies
the Court that he has used all reasonable efforts to cause the child to attend school in accordance with the Act, be
guilty of an offence under this section ...
(4) If in any proceedings against a parent under this section the parent satisfies the court that he has used all
reasonable efforts to cause the child to whom the proceedings relate to attend school in accordance with this Act or
the parent is convicted of a second or subsequent offence under this section in respect of the same child, the court
if it thinks fit may—
(a) order the child to be sent to a certified industrial school ...’.
16
SI 105/1972: School Attendance Act, 1926 (Extension of Application) Order, 1972 raised the school leaving age from
14 to 15.

the reason for this seems to have been the simple, human rights point that, given the significant
deprivation of liberty involved, it would have been inappropriate if this important decision had been
vested in, for example, a local health authority. However, the court was known to the residents
themselves, and everyone else, principally as a place in which minor criminal offences were tried.
The inevitable result was that those committed were unfairly stigmatised as criminals whereas, in
fact, their only ‘crime’ was poverty. The fundamental unfairness of this was raised consistently by
witnesses before the Commission.
3.24 In addition, most of the usual safeguards which are the hallmark of the adult criminal justice
system were denied to those whom a court was considering sending to an industrial school. There
was next to no legal representation, and the facts relied on by the Garda/ISPCC Inspector/SAO
were seldom contested, so that the issue of whether they had to be proved beyond reasonable
doubt scarcely arose. Although there was an appeal process, it was seldom used.
3.25 Although some ex-staff members stated that they did not like this method of committal, there is
considerable evidence, both from documents and oral testimony, that children committed to these
schools were seen as being criminals by staff, and that a lot of the mistreatment experienced by
the children emanated from this perception. Staff recalled that even very young children
remembered appearing in court and talked about it among themselves. The general view was that
committal through the courts was logical only if the schools were regarded as places of detention.
In England, the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933 had established a radical distinction. It
confined the courts’ involvement with children or juveniles to those who were accused of an
offence.
3.26 The Courts of Justice Act, 1924 made provision for the setting-up of Children’s Courts in separate
buildings, in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford. However, only one such court came into being,
in Dublin:17 the Dublin Metropolitan Children’s Court, which was established in 1923.
3.27 The case for committal of a child was presented to the court by an Inspector of the ISPCC, who
was also colloquially known as the ‘cruelty man’, or less often by the Catholic Protection and
Rescue Society, or by an SAO or a Garda (depending on which ground was being relied upon).
3.28 The main factor shaping the procedure was that the child was almost always unrepresented. A
parent (or guardian) was required by law to be present, and the mother frequently appeared before
the court. The parent was usually uneducated and, in an age of deference, dominated by the
circumstances of the proceedings. They were unlikely to be able to make the best of any case
against committal. As regards facts, the evidence of the ISPCC Inspector or the SAO was
seldom contested.
3.29 The schools deplored the reluctance of District Justices to make committals or, alternatively, to
do so before an offender had committed so many crimes that a school would have no rehabilitative
effect on him. In the 1960s, they complained, too, that committals were for too short a period for
any good to be done. There were fundamentally different understandings of the objectives and
potentials of the school. Some District Justices seem to have disapproved of the schools as places
of ‘containment’, to which children were to be sent only as a last resort. By contrast, the schools
themselves, or at least the managers speaking in public, would claim that the schools were
primarily educational not penal institutions, which could be successful in educating a child and
saving him or her from a life of crime or misery. The Managers18 claimed, too, that the District
Justices’ view had the potential to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, since it meant that only
‘incorrigibles’ would be sent to the schools.
3.30 The number of adjournments which were granted before the committal was actually made
suggested a judicial reluctance to commit.
17
Section 80 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924.
18
‘Managers’ was the term used under the 1908 Act. This later became more commonly referred to as ‘resident
manager’.

3.31 Of equal importance with the numbers involved was the length of time for which each child was
committed.
3.32 For reformatories, the ‘period of detention’ was laid down as not less than two, or more than four,
years,19 or in any case not beyond the age of 19.20 In practice, the period of actual detention
was usually about one year, provided that the offender’s behaviour and home circumstances
were satisfactory.21
3.33 The position in regard to industrial schools was more complicated. As regards the children
committed by the courts, the almost invariable practice was to commit until the age of 16. The
legislation22 appeared to allow the court some discretion in committing children. Nevertheless, up
to the 1960s in the thousands of cases which have been checked, in both the Dublin County
Borough and provincial courts, the District Justice always made the order apply right up to the
time when the child would be 16 years.
3.34 Given that committal was until 16 years, the length of time for which any child or young person
was committed by a court depended on their age at the time of committal. It is significant that
those children who were committed for being ‘needy’ were often committed at very tender years.
Thus, they had to reside for many years in both a junior industrial school and senior industrial
school.
3.35 The net result was striking. In the case of a reformatory school, an offender was sent away usually
for about one year (which was in line with a normal criminal sanction). By contrast, for committal
to an industrial school, the age of release was fixed at 16 years, and the length of the committal
period varied depending on the age of the child at the date of committal. The justification offered
for this anomaly was that committal was seen not as a punishment but as a period for which the
child or young person needed protection (or education), until they were old enough to fend for
themselves. In any case, the reality comes through in the following Dáil exchange:
Deputy Dillon: “May I bespeak the good offices of the Minister with special reference to
this category of children so that they will not be left permanently in industrial schools ...?”.
J Lynch: “... the word ‘permanently’ might create a wrong impression. They would all be
entitled to be released at 14 years of age. For the purposes of childhood, that is surely
permanently”. (DD: vol 166, col 779)
3.36 These figures varied slightly from decade to decade; however, the average committal period for
the period from 1951 to 1960 was:
• ‘needy’: 8.8 years
• school non-attendance: 4.2 years
• offences: 4.1 years.
3.37 Children were occasionally removed from school by their parents without the consent of the
Minister for Education or the school. For example, some just failed to return from holidays; some
parents removed their children from the jurisdiction; and some absconded.
19
Section 65(a) of the Children Act, 1908 as amended by section 11(1) of the Children Act, 1941.
20
Originally (under the 1908 Act) this was three to five years. However, the 1941 Act reduced this period from two to
four years. It also raised the upper age limit of committal to a reformatory from 16 to 17 years, and reduced the
period of detention, after which managers could release on licence, from 18 to six months.
21
In The Irish Press 27th June 1967, Joseph O’Malley gives the eventual average length of stay in Daingean
Reformatory as about 15 months.
22
Section 65(b) of the Children Act, 1908 states:
‘The detention order shall specify the time for which the youthful offender or child is to be detained in the school,
being— ... in the case of a child sent to an industrial school, such time as to the court may seem proper for the
teaching and training of the child, but not in any case extending beyond the time when the child will, in the
opinion of the court, attain the age of sixteen years’.

3.38 However, more official removals could be made by the exercise of the Minister’s discretion to
order early discharge, usually because there had been a change in family circumstances or where
a parent made a complaint about abuse.
3.39 A parent or guardian of a child detained in an industrial school had the right to apply to the Minister
for Education for the release of the child.23 The relevant legislation was, in the first place, section
69(3) of the 1908 Act, which gave the Minister discretion to release any child or young person
committed. Following the constitutional challenge in the Doyle case,24 the law was amended by
the Children (Amendment) Act, 1957 which made the exercise of this discretion mandatory where
the circumstances that had given rise to the committal order had ceased and were not likely to
recur; and, further, where the parents were able to support the child. This change did not apply
to offenders or those committed for non-attendance at school.
3.40 This trend in favour of early discharge was intensified following the Kennedy Report in 1970,
which stated:
The whole aim of the Child Care system should be geared towards the prevention of
family break-down and the problems consequent on it. The committal or admission of
children to Residential Care should be considered only when there is no satisfactory
alternative.25
3.41 One of the most influential of the persons consulted, though his authority did not always carry the
day, was the Manager of the relevant school. Their counsel was usually against early discharge:
no case of the school authorities taking the initiative to secure a release has been found in the
documents. Leaving aside any financial disincentive, the Resident Manager would probably have
considered that the best option for a child was staying in the School and would have been
inherently unlikely to draw back and determine dispassionately that any child would be better
off elsewhere.
3.42 The average percentage of applications for early discharge, as compared with the average
percentage population in the schools, was 6.1%. Of these applications, an average of 72%
succeeded. This was a fairly small number of applications, and may suggest that the system of
early release was not well known.
3.43 Throughout the 1950s, the number of successful applications increased. This trend was in line
with the general improvement in economic and social conditions in the country over the course
23
Section 69(1) of the Children Act, 1908 states:
‘The [Minister] may at any time order a youthful offender or a child to be discharged from a certified school, either
absolutely or on such conditions as the [Minister] approves ...’.
Section 5 of the Children (Amendment) Act, 1957, which superseded the 1908 Act provision, in the case of children
committed under [section 58 of 1908 Act], stated:
‘(1) Where—
(a) a child has been committed to an industrial school under section 58 of the Principal Act, and
(b) an application is made to the Minister for Education by a parent or guardian for the release of the child, and
(c) the Minister is satisfied that the circumstances which led to the making of the committal order have ceased
and are not likely to recur if the child is released, and that the parent or guardian is able to support the child,
the Minister shall order the discharge of the child.
(2) The Minister may, if he so thinks proper, refer the application to the court.
(3) If the Minister refuses the application, the parent or guardian may refer it to the court.
(4) The court, if satisfied in regard to the matters referred to in paragraph (c) of subsection (1), shall have jurisdiction
to order the discharge of the child.
(5) A reference to the court under this section shall be made to the District Court in the District in which the
committal order was made or, if the applicant resides in another District, in that District.
(6) The order for the discharge of the child, whether made by the Minister or the court, shall operate to revoke the
detention order.
(7) (a) Where the District Court or, on appeal, the Circuit Court, orders the discharge of a child, the court may award
costs and expenses to the successful applicant ...’.
This provision was introduced in response to the Doyle case discussed at Appendix, para (iii).
24
Doyle v Minister for Education. The case was decided in 1956 but not reported until 1989 at [1989] ILRM 277. The
Supreme Court decided that, because of the wording of Article 42.1 of the Constitution, the right of parents to raise
their children was inalienable and could not be transferred to the State, even with the consent of parents.
25
Kennedy Report, p 6.

of the decade. There were, however, notable exceptions: Artane and Letterfrack for boys, and
Goldenbridge for girls, stand out in terms of the high percentage of refusals.
3.44 The figures for reformatories differ: St Conleth’s, Daingean, as the only reformatory school for
boys, had, by its remit, different criteria in relation to the release and discharge of the children,
not least because young offenders were committed by the courts for a relatively short period,
compared to other categories of offender, so the vast majority of applications were turned down.
Thus, there were relatively few applications, even compared to the population in the School.
Furthermore, the success rate, at an average of 24%, was much lower than for industrial schools.
3.45 The process had to be initiated by the parents, who would often have been uninformed as to how
to do this. What is missing is any reference to residents whose parents or guardians never applied
for early discharge in the first place or who had no parents to apply. This meant that children
without parents or guardians to apply had no chance of being released. The documents do not
contain any reference to release being considered for such children. There was no official agency
charged with the duty of reviewing each case, either periodically or where there were signs of
a change in the child or in family circumstances. This was a serious and fundamental flaw in
the system.
3.46 As mentioned, there were three paths to the schools, of which the first was committal via the
District Court, and was by far the most frequently used and has already been covered. At the time
of the Kennedy Report, there were 97 (or 4%) of the industrial school population in the voluntary
category, with 80% and 16% in the court and health authority categories respectively. However,
in an earlier period, when those committed by the court would have been more numerous, children
maintained voluntarily were even less significant. For the period 1949 to 1969, the average
‘voluntary’ population figure was 101 or 2.2% of the entire schools’ population.
3.47 The remaining major category was children placed in certified industrial schools by the health
authorities. As with children placed voluntarily and directly in the schools, by parents or guardians,
such children entered without the involvement of a court and could be withdrawn without legal
formality;26 if and when family circumstances permitted.
3.48 Until it was repealed in 1991, the statutory authority of a health authority or board to place a child
in an industrial school was section 55 of the Health Act, 1953 (or its precursors). By this provision,
a health authority was empowered to provide for the assistance of a child by boarding the child
out, by sending him to an industrial school approved by the Minister for Health or, where the child
was not less than 14 years of age, by arranging for his employment.27
3.49 These powers applied only to two rather narrow categories of child. In addition to a means test,
the child had to be either an orphan or had to have been deserted by his parents or parent; and,
in the case of an illegitimate child, whose mother was dead or was deserted by the mother, or the
parent/guardian had to consent.28
3.50 The Cussen Report in 1936 took the view that local authorities/health authorities:
as a whole [they] would appear not to have sufficiently appreciated their responsibilities
under law in regard either to the schools or the children, and the evidence which we have
adduced indicates that they still display little interest in the work of the schools beyond
the payment of a weekly capitation grant ...
26
Section 56 (2) of the Health Act, 1953 states that:
‘Where a health authority have sent a child to a school approved of by the Minister, the authority—
(a) may at any time, with the consent of the Minister, remove the child from the school, and
(b) shall remove the child from the school if and when required so to do by the Minister or by the managers of the
school, or upon the school ceasing to be approved of by the Minister’.
27
Section 55(1) of the Health Act, 1953.
28
Section 55(1) and (2) of the Health Act, 1953.

3.51 In the early 1950s, the number of children sent to the schools by boards of health increased for
such reasons as the need to find somewhere to house children who would earlier have lived in
county homes. Whatever the causes, a pattern developed in the late 1940s by which health
authorities sought to put children in industrial schools, despite the preference of the Department
of Health for boarding out (this tension between the two authorities is discussed in Eoin
O’Sullivan’s chapter).
3.52 Accordingly, the health authorities encouraged existing industrial schools to apply to the
Department of Health for the necessary certification to enable them to receive health authority
referrals.
3.53 Equally, because of the falling numbers of residents being committed by the courts, schools were
actively looking for children, and made the health authorities aware of this.
3.54 Little seems to have changed during the quarter of a century up to 1970, when the health boards
were established, and they increasingly employed social workers to work with children in care and
their families. The social workers saw it as their duty to try to avoid breaking up the family, unless
there was no alternative. Where there was no alternative, then fostering was the preferred option.

Chapter 4
What the schools were required to do
4.01 The Children Act, 1908 described in very broad terms the functions of industrial schools and
reformatories. The duties and responsibilities of owners and managers of these schools were set
out in the Rules and Regulations for the Certified Industrial Schools in Saorstát Éireann which
were approved by the then Minister for Education in 1933.
4.02 The 1933 Rules are set out in full as follows:
RULES AND REGULATIONS
FOR THE
CERTIFIED INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS
IN SAORSTÁT ÉIREANN
Approved by the Minister for Education, under the 54th
Section of the Act, 8 Edw. VII., Ch. 67.
1. NAME AND OBJECT OF SCHOOL.
Date of Certificate.
Number for which Certified....Accommodation is provided in this School for only children.
This number shall not be exceeded at any one time. No child under the age of six years is
chargeable to the State Grant, and of the children of the age of six years and upwards not more
than are chargeable to that Grant.
2. CONSTITUTION AND MANAGEMENT.
3. CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION.
Being [Roman Catholic Girls/ Boys] sent under the provisions of the Children Act, 1908, or the
School Attendance Act, 1926, or the Children Act, 1929, or otherwise as the Management may
determine.
4. LODGING.
The children lodged in the School shall have separate beds. Every decision to board out a Child,
under the 53rd Section of the Children Act, 1908, shall have received previous sanction from the
Minister for Education, through the Inspector of Industrial Schools.
5. CLOTHING.
The children shall be supplied with neat, comfortable clothing in good repair, suitable to the season
of the year, not necessarily uniform either in material or colour.
6. DIETARY.
The Children shall be supplied with plain wholesome food, according to a Scale of Dietary to be
drawn up by the Medical Officer of the School and approved by the Inspector. Such food shall be
suitable in every respect for growing children actively employed and supplemented in the case of
delicate or physically under-developed children with special food as individual needs require. No
substantial alterations in the Dietary shall be made without previous notice to the Inspector. A
copy of the Dietary shall be given to the Cook and a further copy kept in the Manager’s Office.
7. LITERARY INSTRUCTION.
Subject to Rule 8, all children shall be instructed in accordance with the programme prescribed
for National Schools, Juniors (that is, children under 14 years of age) shall have for literary
instruction and study not less than four and a half hours five days a week and Seniors (that is
children of 14 years of age and upwards) shall have for the same purpose not less than three
hours, five days a week; at least two-thirds of the periods mentioned to be at suitable hours
between breakfast and dinner, when the most beneficial results are likely to be obtained. Religious
Instruction may be included in those periods, and, in the case of Seniors, reasonable time may
be allotted to approved general reading. Should the case of any individual pupil call for the
modification of this Rule it is to be submitted to the Inspector for approval. Senior boys shall
receive lessons in Manual Instruction which may be interpreted to mean training in the use of
carpenter’s tools.
8. SCHOOLS.
The Manager may arrange for children to attend conveniently situated schools, whether Primary,
Continuation, Secondary or Technical, but always subject to (a) the sanction of the Inspector in
each case, and (b) the condition that no increased cost is incurred by the State.
9. INDUSTRIAL TRAINING.
Industrial employment shall not exceed three and a half hours daily for Juniors or six hours daily
for Seniors. The training shall, in the case of boys, be directed towards the acquisition of skill in
and knowledge of farm and garden work or such handicraft as can be taught, due regard being
given to fitting the boys for the most advantageous employment procurable. The training for girls
shall in all cases be in accordance with the Domestic Economy Syllabus, and shall also include,
where practicable, the milking of cows, care of poultry and cottage gardening.
Each school shall submit for approval by the Inspector a list setting forth the occupations which
constitute the industrial training of the children and the qualifications of the Instructors employed
to direct the work. Should additional subjects be added or any subject be withdrawn or suspended,
notification shall be made to the Inspector without delay.
10. INSPECTION.
The progress of the children in the Literary Classes of the Schools and their proficiency in
Industrial Training will be tested from time to time by Examination and Inspection.
11. RELIGIOUS EXERCISES AND WORSHIP.
Each day shall be begun and ended with Prayer. On Sundays and Holidays the Children shall
attend Public Worship at some convenient Church or Chapel.

12. DISCIPLINE.
The Manager or his Deputy shall be authorised to punish the Children detained in the School in
case of misconduct. All serious misconduct, and the Punishments inflicted for it, shall be entered
in a book to be kept for that purpose, which, shall be laid before the Inspector when he visits. The
Manager must, however, remember that the more closely the School is modelled on a principle
of judicious family government the more salutary will be its discipline, and the fewer occasions
will arise for resort to punishment.
13. PUNISHMENTS.
Punishments shall consist of:—

(a) Forfeiture of rewards and privileges, or degradation from rank, previously attained by
good conduct.
(b) Moderate childish punishment with the hand.
(c) Chastisement with the cane, strap or birch.
Referring to (c) personal chastisement may be inflicted by the Manager, or, in his presence, by
an Officer specially authorised by him, and in no case may it be inflicted upon girls over 15 years
of age. In the case of girls under 15, it shall not be inflicted except in cases of urgent necessity,
each of which must be at once fully reported to the Inspector. Caning on the hand is forbidden.
No punishment not mentioned above shall be inflicted.
14. RECREATION.
Seniors shall be allowed at least two hours daily, and Juniors at least three hours daily, for
recreation and shall be taken out occasionally for exercise beyond the boundaries of the school,
but shall be forbidden to pass the limits assigned to them without permission.
Games, both indoor and outdoor, shall be encouraged; the required equipment shall be provided;
and supervision shall be exercised to secure that all children shall take part in the Games.
Fire Drill shall be held once at the least in every three months, and each alternate Drill shall take
place at night after the children have retired to the dormitories. A record of the date and hour of
each Drill shall be kept in the School Diary.
15. VISITS (RELATIVES AND FRIENDS).
Parents, other Relations, or intimate Friends, shall be allowed to visit the children at convenient
times, to be regulated by the Committee or Manager. Such privilege is liable to be forfeited by
misconduct or interference with the discipline of the School by the Parents, Relatives, or Friends.
The Manager is authorised to read all Letters which pass to or from the Children in the School,
and to withhold any which are objectionable.
Subject to approval of the Inspector, holiday leave to parents or friends may be allowed to every
well conducted child who has been under detention for at least one year, provided the home
conditions are found on investigation to be satisfactory. Such leave shall be limited to seven
days annually.
In a very special or urgent case, such as the serious illness or death of a parent, the Manager
may also, at his discretion, if applied to, grant to any child such brief leave of absence as will
enable the child to spend not more than one night at home: the circumstances to be reported
forthwith to the Inspector’s Office.
16. CHILDREN PLACED OUT ON LICENCE OR APPRENTICED.
Should the Manager of a School permit a Child, by Licence under the 67th Section of the Children
Act of 1908, to live with a trustworthy and respectable person, or apprentice the Child to any trade
or calling under the 70th Section of the Act, notice of such placing out on Licence, or
apprenticeship of the Child, accompanied by a clear account of the conditions attaching thereto,
shall be sent, without delay, to the Office of the Inspector.
17. STATE GRANT.
Under the present financial arrangement no Child will be paid for out of the Funds voted by the
Oireachtas until it has reached the age of Six Years. A Child, however, under the age of Six Years
may be sent to the School under an Order of Detention signed by a District Justice; but in such
case the State allowance for maintenance will not be made until it shall appear from the Order of
Detention that the Child is Six Years old – from that date only will it be regularly paid for.
18. PROVISION ON DISCHARGE.
On the discharge of a Child from the School, at the expiration of the period of Detention, or when
Apprenticed, he (or she) shall be provided, at the cost of the Institution, with a sufficient outfit,
according to the circumstances of the discharge. Children when discharged shall be placed, as
far as practicable, in some employment or service. If returned to relatives or friends, the travelling
expenses shall be defrayed by the Manager, unless the relatives or friends are willing to do so. A
Licence Form shall be issued in every case and the Manager shall maintain communication with
discharged Children for the full period of supervision prescribed in Section 68(2) of the Children
Act, 1908. The Manager shall recall from the home or from employment any child whose
occupation or circumstances are unsatisfactory, and he shall in due course make more suitable
disposal.
19. VISITORS.
The School shall be open to Visitors at convenient times, to be regulated by the Committee (or
Manager), and a Visitors’ Book shall be kept. The term “visitors” means members of the Public
interested in the school.
20. TIME TABLE.
A Time Table, showing the Hours of Rising, Work, School Instruction, Meals, Recreation, Retiring
etc., shall be drawn up, shall be approved by the Inspector of Industrial Schools, and shall be
fixed in the Schoolroom, and carefully adhered to on all occasions. All important deviations from
it shall be recorded in the School Diary.
21. JOURNALS, etc.
The Manager (or Master or Matron) shall keep a Journal or Diary of everything important or
exceptional that passes in the School. All admissions, discharges, licences and escapes shall be
recorded therein, and all Record Books shall be laid before the Inspector when he visits the
School.
22. MEDICAL OFFICER.

I. A Medical Officer shall be appointed who shall visit the school periodically, a record of
his visits being kept in a book to be provided for the purpose.
II. Each child shall be medically examined on admission to the School, and the M.O.’s.
written report on the physical condition of the Child should be carefully preserved.
III. A record of all admissions to the School Infirmary shall be kept, giving information as
to ailment, treatment, and dates of admission and discharge in each case. Infirmary
cases of a serious nature and cases of more than three days duration shall be notified
to the Inspector’s Office.
IV. The M.O. shall make a quarterly examination of each child individually, and give a
quarterly report as to the fitness of the children for the training of the school, their
general health, and the sanitary state of the school. The quarterly report shall be in
such form as may be prescribed from time to time by the Minister for Education.
Application shall be made to the Minister for the discharge of any child certified by the
M.O. as medically unfit for detention.
V. Dental treatment and periodic visits by a Dentist shall be provided and records of such
visits shall be kept.
In the event of the serious illness of any child, notice shall be sent to the nearest relatives or
guardian and special visits allowed.
23. INQUESTS.
In the case of violent death, or of sudden death, not arising in the course of an illness while the
child is under treatment by the M.O., a report of the circumstances shall be at once made to the
local Gardaı́ for the information of the Coroner, a similar report being at the same time sent to
the Inspector.
24. RETURNS, etc.
The Manager (or Secretary) shall keep a Register of admissions and discharges, with particulars
of the parentage, previous circumstances, etc., of each Child admitted, and of the disposal of
each Child discharged, and such information as may afterwards be obtained regarding him, and
shall regularly send to the Office of the Inspector the Returns of Admission and Discharge, the
Quarterly Accounts for their maintenance, and any other returns that may be required by the
Inspector. All Orders of Detention shall be carefully kept amongst the Records of the School.
25. INSPECTOR.
All Books and Journals of the School shall be open to the Inspector for examination. Any teacher
employed in the school who does not hold recognised qualifications may be examined by the
Inspector, if he thinks it necessary, and he shall be informed of the qualifications of new teachers
on their appointment. Immediate notice shall be given to him of the appointment, death,
resignation, or dismissal of the Manager and Members of the School Staff.
26. GENERAL REGULATIONS.
The Officers and Teachers of the School shall be careful to maintain discipline and order, and to
attend to the instruction and training of the Children, in conformity with these Regulations. The
Children shall be required to be respectful and obedient to all those entrusted with their
management and training, and to comply with the regulations of the School.
27. REMOVAL TO A REFORMATORY.
Whenever a Child is sent to a Reformatory School, under the provisions of the 71st or 72nd
Sections of the Children Act of 1908, the Manager shall, without delay, report the case to the
Inspector.

28. CHILD NOT PROFESSING RELIGIOUS PERSUASION OF THE MANAGER TO BE
REMOVED BY THE SCHOOL.
In order to insure a strict and effectual observance of the provisions of the 66th Section of the
Children Act of 1908, in every case in which a Child shall be ordered to be detained in a School
managed by Persons of a different Religious Persuasion from that professed by the Parents, or
surviving Parent, or (should that be unknown), by the Guardians or Guardian of such Child; (or
should that be unknown) different from that in which the Child appears to have been baptized or
(that not appearing), different from that professed by the Child the Manager or Teachers of such
School shall, upon becoming acquainted with the fact, or having reason to believe that such is
the fact, give notice in writing, without delay, to the Inspector, who will thereupon immediately take
any necessary steps in the matter.
29. ESCAPES.
Should any Escape from the School occur, the Manager shall, with as little delay as possible,
notify the particulars to the nearest Gardaı́ Station, to the Gardaı́ Superintendents of the County
and adjoining Counties, and to the Inspector’s Office.
These Rules have been adopted by the Managers of Industrial

School.
Corresponding Manager
19
Approved under the 54th Section of the Children Act of 1908.
Minister for Education
19
Discipline in schools
4.03 Discipline was an important issue in all the schools, and excessive corporal punishment for
breaches of discipline was the most common complaint of former pupils. Unlike sexual abuse,
which was in all circumstances wrong and unlawful, physical abuse arose, amongst other reasons,
out of the then legal entitlement of school authorities to chastise pupils physically. It is important,
therefore, to set out fully what the law was in relation to punishment, and to ensure that actions
are judged by standards appropriate to their time.
4.04 The basic law was set out in the Children Act, 1908 which recognised the existing common law
right of a parent or teacher to punish a child. Section 37 provided:
Nothing in this Part of this Act shall be construed to take away or affect the right of any
parent, teacher, or other person having the lawful control or charge of a child or young
person to administer punishment to such child or young person.
4.05 The common law position was that a teacher was entitled to punish a child if the child was of an
age when he or she could appreciate the correction; when the punishment was both moderate
and reasonable; when the implement used was fit for the purpose and not inappropriate. As to
the amount of punishment, that varied with the age, sex and physical condition of the child.
4.06 The Children Act, 1908 recognised the existing right to punish children but did not alter it. The Act
brought together and consolidated the provisions relating to industrial schools and reformatory
schools, and also authorised the making of rules and regulations for running such institutions.
Pursuant to that statutory authority, rules and regulations were produced in a form that remained
substantially unchanged during the lifetimes of the schools. The Manager of the School signed
the certification form containing the rules and regulations and returned it to the Department. The
result was that there was official acceptance by the School, through its Manager’s signature, of
the rules and regulations contained in the certificate. This was the system that operated until the
early 1930s.
4.07 In 1933, instead of sending separate documents for signature to each school, the Minister
embodied the rules in one standard form that was sent to the schools, and these rules are set out
in full above. Although the precise form of the document changed over the years, from the late
nineteenth century until 1933, when it crystallised into its final shape, the terms and conditions
were essentially the same. The regulations governing the schools during the period of this Inquiry
are those in the standardised form of 1933.
4.08 The relevant sections of the 1933 Rules and Regulations relating to corporal punishment are set
out again in full below.
Rules and regulations governing corporal punishment

4.09 The 1933 Department of Education Rules and Regulations for Certified Industrial Schools were
aimed at reducing corporal punishment to a minimum, and to controlling as far as possible such
punishments as were inflicted.
4.10 Regulation 13 stated:

Punishments shall consist of:—
good conduct.
Referring to (c) personal chastisement may be inflicted by the Manager, or, in his
presence, by an Officer specially authorised by him, and in no case may it be inflicted
upon girls over 15 years of age. In the case of girls under 15, it shall not be inflicted
except in cases of urgent necessity, each of which must be at once fully reported to the
Inspector. Caning on the hand is forbidden.
4.11 This regulation was prefaced by a clause which counselled caution in its use. It said:
The Manager or his Deputy shall be authorised to punish the Children detained in the
School in case of misconduct. All serious misconduct, and the Punishments inflicted for
it, shall be entered in a book to be kept for that purpose, which shall be laid before the
Inspector when he visits. The Manager must, however, remember that the more closely
the School is modelled on a principle of judicious family government the more salutary
will be its discipline, and the fewer occasions will arise for resort to punishment.1
Instructions in regard to the infliction of corporal punishment in national schools

4.12 The 1946 Rules and Regulations for National Schools applied to the ‘education provision’2 within
the industrial and reformatory schools. Regulation 96 of these Rules gave specific instructions for
the use of corporal punishment in national schools. It stated:
1
Regulation 12 of the Rules and Regulations for the Certified Industrial Schools in Saorstát Éireann, 1933, approved by
the Minister of Education under the Children Act, 1908.
2
The Department submits this wording ‘education provision’ means, in other words, the internal national school.

96.(1) Corporal Punishment should be administered only for grave transgression. In no
circumstances should corporal punishment be administered for mere failure at
lessons.
(2) Only the principal teacher, or such other member of the staff as may be duly
authorised by the manager for the purpose, should inflict corporal punishment.
(3) Only a light cane or rod may be used for the purpose of corporal punishment which
should be inflicted only on the open hand. The boxing of children’s ears, the pulling
of their hair or similar ill-treatment is absolutely forbidden and will be visited with
severe penalties.
(4) No teacher should carry about a cane or other instrument of punishment.
(5) Frequent recourse to corporal punishment will be considered by the Minister as
indicating bad tone and ineffective discipline.
4.13 This regulation did not permit the use of the leather strap in the classroom.
4.14 In November 1946, Circular No 11/1946, which was signed by Michael Ó Sı́ochfhrada, the
Department of Education Inspector, gave more detailed guidelines on the use of corporal
punishment. It was directed to the Managers of all industrial schools. The title of the Circular
was ‘Discipline and Punishment in Certified Schools’. It impressed upon Resident Managers their
‘personal responsibility to ensure that the official regulations’ on matters of discipline and
punishment were ‘faithfully observed by all the members of the staffs of these schools’. The
Circular stated that corporal punishment should only be used as a last resort, where other forms
of punishment had been unsuccessful as a means of correction.
4.15 The Circular went on to stipulate:

• Corporal punishment ‘should be administered only for grave transgressions, and in no
circumstances for mere failure at school lessons or industrial training’.
• ‘Corporal punishment should in future be confined to the form usually employed in
schools, viz slapping on the open palm with a light cane or strap’.
• ‘This punishment should only be inflicted by the Resident Manager or by a member of
the school staff specially authorised by him for the purpose’.
• Any other form of corporal punishment which tends to humiliate a child or expose the
child to ridicule before the other children is also forbidden. Such forms of punishment
would include special clothing, cutting off a girl’s hair, and exceptional treatment at
meals.
4.16 The Circular attempted to marry the provisions of the 1933 Rules and Regulations for Certified
Schools with the new 1946 Rules and Regulations for National Schools. In so doing, a certain
amount of ambiguity arose with regard to the use of a leather strap, which was clearly not
permitted in the classroom by the 1946 Rules and Regulations.
4.17 In December 1946, Circular 15/46, signed by Michael Breathnach, Secretary of the Department
of Education, and entitled ‘Circular to Managers and Teachers in regard to the infliction of Corporal
Punishment in National Schools’ was sent to all national schools. It appears from this document
that two additions were made to section 96(1) and (3) which did not appear when the original 1946
Rules and Regulations were circulated to the schools (these additions are identified by italics):
Rule 96(1): Corporal punishment should be administered only for grave transgression. In
no circumstances should corporal punishment be administered for mere failure at
lessons.
should be inflicted only on the open hand. The boxing of children’s ears, the pulling of their
hair or similar ill-treatment is absolutely forbidden and will be visited with severe penalties.
4.18 The Circular did not authorise the use of a leather strap as an implement of punishment in
national schools.
4.19 In 1956, a further Circular from the Department of Education, Circular 17/56 entitled ‘Circular to
Managers and Teachers of National Schools in regard to Corporal Punishment’, was issued. This
Circular was in response to publicity which had been given to the matter of corporal punishment
in national schools, and was issued to re-affirm the Department’s policy with regard to corporal
punishment and to give guidance to those ‘who may be disposed to contravene Rule 96 of the
Code’. The Circular stated:
In re-issuing that rule, set out hereunder, opportunity is being taken to announce an
amendment, printed in italics, of Section (3).
4.20 The full Rule 96 was then set out, with the amendment to section (3) as follows:
(3) Only a light cane, rod or leather strap may be used for the purpose of corporal
punishment which should be inflicted only on the open hand. The boxing of children’s
ears, the pulling of their hair or similar ill-treatment is absolutely forbidden and will be
visited with severe penalties.
4.21 This amendment is significant, in that it authorised at an official level the use of the leather strap
in national schools after a 10-year gap. The evidence would indicate, however, that the leather
strap was used in schools throughout this period.
4.22 The status of these Circulars could be debated. They were not statutory provisions, neither were
they regulations or statutory instruments made under legislative authority conferred on the
Department. The Department was, however, the relevant regulatory body and was clearly in a
position to issue guidelines and recommendations and instructions. It appears that a school could
not be prosecuted for breach of instructions contained in such Circulars. Neither, it would appear,
could the Department enjoin observance by way of court order. The Circulars can be regarded as
possessing a certain authority, on the basis that they represented the thinking of the Minister and
the Department of what constituted reasonable and moderate punishment in schools at that time.
Such views would not be binding on a court, but it would appear that they would have been
relevant to the consideration by a judge or jury as to what was moderate or reasonable in the way
of punishment in a school.
4.23 Abolition of corporal punishment did not occur in Irish schools until 1st February 1982, when
Department of Education Circular 9/82 stated that any teacher who used corporal punishment
was now to be ‘regarded as guilty of conduct unbefitting a teacher’ and would be subject to ‘severe
disciplinary action’.
4.24 Although this Circular could have provided grounds for a civil action against a teacher who acted
in breach of it, it was not until 19973 that physical punishment by a teacher became a criminal
offence.
4.25 Submissions made by the Christian Brothers and other Congregations on the subject of corporal
punishment and physical abuse emphasised that the historical context is essential to any
investigation. In particular, the fact that such punishment was permissible and widespread in
schools and homes at the relevant time needed to be taken into consideration. The rules and
prohibitions set out what was permissible or recommended in using corporal punishment, but it
did not follow that departure from them constituted physical abuse. Neither did it follow that
conduct that was occurring in other schools or in families at the time could not be abusive.
3
Section 24 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 provides:
‘The rule of law under which teachers are immune from criminal liability in respect of physical chastisement of pupils
is hereby abolished’.
With the removal of this immunity, teachers are now subject to section 2(1) of the 1997 Act, which provides that:
‘A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault, who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—
(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another ...’.
Teachers who physically chastise pupils may now be guilty of an offence and liable to 12 months’ imprisonment and/or
a fine of £1,500, pursuant to section 3(1) of the 1997 Act.

4.26 The complexities of this question can be exaggerated and are, in fact, more theoretical than real.
People who lived during the time when corporal punishment was legally permissible in schools,
and was acceptable in family circumstances, have no difficulty in deciding whether punishments
that they experienced or witnessed were excessive. Teachers, parents and children knew what
was acceptable, and were able to condemn excesses. They also knew what amounted to cruelty
and brutality. The documentary, and much of the oral evidence about physical abuse related to
instances that were considered at that time to be wrong, judged by contemporary standards, not
by those of today. The term ‘physical abuse’ was not used, but the concepts underlying the term
were well understood.
Punishment book
4.27 Pursuant to regulation 12 of the 1933 Rules and Regulations for Certified Industrial Schools, all
industrial schools were required to keep a punishment book, in which all serious punishments
were to be recorded. Only two such books, relating to a short period of time,4 were discovered to
the Investigation Committee in the course of its inquiries, indicating that there was a complete
disregard for this requirement on the part of school Managers. This had serious implications for
the work of this Committee. Any investigation into historical abuse depends, amongst other factors,
on proper records being maintained; and the information gleaned from one of the punishment
books, from St Patrick’s Industrial School, Upton, would indicate that such records would have
been a very important reference for the investigation.
4
St Patrick’s Industrial School, Upton, County Cork and St Joseph’s Industrial School, Dundalk, County Louth.

Chapter 5
Investigation Committee Report –

preliminary issues
5.01 The work of the Committee from late 2004 covered over 20 industrial and reformatory schools.
Further modules included the investigation of the career of one abuser, who was employed in a
succession of national schools. In addition to these inquiries, other areas examined included the
role of the Department of Education, and the funding of the schools.
5.02 The work of preparation for the hearings was extensive and time-consuming. The steps included:
• Obtaining statements from the complainants.
• Locating respondents and obtaining responses from persons named by the
complainants.
• Obtaining responses from Religious Congregations and Orders affected by the
allegations.
• Inviting responses from relevant Government Departments.
• Extensive discovery of documents was also obtained from: the Director of Public
Prosecutions (DPP); An Garda Sı́ochana; the Health Service Executive; and the Irish
Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children (ISPCC). Discovery was also obtained
from: the Department of Education and Science; the Department of Health and
Children; the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform; the Orders and
Congregations and some dioceses; and, occasionally, from the complainants
themselves.
5.03 A vast amount of material was received through this process, and over a million documents had
to be analysed in detail by the legal team in order to ascertain the relevant information needed
for the hearings.
5.04 Individual books of evidence and material were produced and furnished for each hearing, and
circulated to the numerous parties involved in each particular case, including complainants and
respondents and Congregations.
5.05 The Investigation Committee had sought to limit the number of lawyers present at the private
hearings, in the belief that that would have assisted complainants giving evidence about sensitive
or private matters. The Committee referred the matter to the High Court under section 25 of the
Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act, 2000 for a decision as to whether its proposal was
lawful, and the court decided that it was an interference with the constitutional rights of the
respondents and Congregations.1 As a consequence, it was impossible to limit the number of
lawyers who attended. A typical Phase II private hearing was attended by a large number of
persons at very considerable cost. For example:
1
In Re Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse [2002] 3 IR 459.

• Chairperson and two Commissioners;
• Registrar;
• stenographer;
• sound engineer;
• senior and junior counsel and solicitor for complainant;
• three members of the Investigation Committee’s legal team;
• two senior members of the particular Congregation or Order;
• senior and junior counsel and solicitor for an individual respondent plus the individual
respondent;
• the same for a second named respondent if there was one;
• the complainant witness.
5.06 The result was that it was a daunting experience for a witness to come to the Phase II private
hearings. The Committee was conscious of this, and tried to make the occasion as informal as
possible and to reduce areas of conflict. Counsel co-operated with the Committee in this respect,
and the Committee was appreciative of the manner in which the lawyers for all the different
interests conducted themselves in the hearings.
5.07 A small number of institutions were the subject of a more limited form of investigation than by way
of full hearings. In the case of St Joseph’s Industrial School, Salthill and St Joseph’s Industrial
School, Glin, both run by the Christian Brothers, the institutions themselves and the system of
management and the nature of the complaints were all very similar to the matters that had been
investigated in all the other Christian Brothers’ schools; and, as a result, it was unnecessary to
have full hearings. Instead, the discovered documentary materials were examined for information
as to abuse during the relevant period. Significant documents were sent to appropriate parties for
comment, where those parties had not produced the discovered material, and any comments
received by way of submission were then taken into account in the chapters on these two
institutions.
5.08 A similar method was adopted in investigating Our Lady of Good Counsel, Lota. This institution
was the subject of a series of six separate Garda inquiries, which were continuing while the
Committee was pursuing its work. A limited number of witnesses had already been heard by the
Investigation Committee prior to 2003, and that testimony, together with documentary evidence,
formed the basis of the chapter on the institution.
5.09 One category of institution that was not included in full Investigation Committee hearings
comprised three schools for deaf children. It was clear that members of the deaf community
wanted to participate. In the consultation period that took place in early 2004, Mr Kevin Stanley
and other officials of the Irish Deaf Society attended meetings and offered assistance, and were
enthusiastic about their members’ desire to be part of the investigation process. The numbers of
persons (109 in total) who notified the Investigation Committee that they wished to participate in
its proceedings in respect of deaf schools were as follows:
• St Joseph’s School for Deaf Boys, Cabra – 65
• St Mary’s School for Deaf Girls, Cabra – 23
• Mary Immaculate School for the Deaf, Beechpark, Stillorgan – 21.
5.10 Unfortunately, it proved impossible to arrange full hearings for these institutions. The principal
difficulty was in getting statements from a sufficient number of former residents of these
institutions. There had been a protracted and unproductive correspondence between the
Committee and solicitors representing the great majority of the deaf complainants about the taking
of statements, and the period of time that was necessary for that purpose, and the cost of doing
so. The result was that little had been achieved even by late 2005. It was impracticable to prepare
all the necessary materials and to arrange hearings in these cases. Obtaining statements from
complainants was only the first step in putting all the pieces together to enable full investigative
hearings to take place. Since that first step was not satisfactorily completed in a reasonable time,
there was no question of all the other necessary procedures being completed so as to enable
hearings to take place.
5.11 The Investigation Committee had, since early 2005, been implementing a programme of
interviewing witnesses who were not heard in private hearings, and decided to offer that facility
to all of the deaf complainants. The Committee put in place appropriate interpretative services,
and witnesses responded in considerable numbers. A total of 78 persons in this category were
interviewed.
5.12 In the circumstances, limited investigation of these institutions was also carried out by way of
analysis of documentary material.
The programme of interviewing witnesses

5.13 A scheme of interviews was introduced in early 2005, following the hearings into St Joseph’s
Industrial School, Ferryhouse and St Patrick’s Industrial School, Upton. Selection of witnesses
had previously been made in those investigations by examining the documents that had been
submitted, and a proportion of the potential complainant witnesses had been called to testify.
There remained a substantial body of witnesses who had the option of transferring to the
Confidential Committee, but whose first choice was to contribute to the work of the Investigation
Committee.
5.14 In early 2005, the Committee devised another means of including complainants in the work of the
Investigation Committee: in a progress report and outline of work to be done, the Committee
published on its website details of an interview process that it was introducing. It proposed to
invite complainants for interview, which would be carried out by members of the legal team.
5.15 For those institutions which the Committee was not investigating by way of hearings, all the
complainants were invited for interview.
5.16 In respect of three large institutions – Artane, Letterfrack and Daingean – all complainants who
were not called to give evidence before the investigation into these institutions were invited to be
interviewed by a member of the legal team.
5.17 In respect of the inquiries into the remaining institutions heard by the Investigation Committee, all
complainants were invited to give evidence, and those that did not want to proceed to the hearing
were offered an interview. Many complainants proceeded in this manner.
5.18 The interviews had two primary purposes: first, to furnish a means of checking or cross-
referencing, to ensure that all relevant topics arising in an institution had been properly considered;
and, second, to give everyone who wished to do so a means of participating in the work of the
Investigation Committee.
5.19 The interview process was greatly valued, and witnesses participated in substantial numbers. A
total of 552 people ultimately attended for interview.
The Investigation Committee’s method of investigation
5.20 The Committee made clear, at the meeting of 7th May 2004, the difficulties of identifying and
naming individual respondents accused of abuse. Having considered all the issues, the Committee
abandoned the policy of naming individual abusers. This policy change paved the way for the
Committee to concentrate on the area of investigating further into neglect and emotional abuse
issues.
5.21 The investigation into most schools consisted of a Phase I public hearing, which allowed the
Congregation involved the opportunity of presenting their case as to how their institutions were
managed. It also gave the Congregation the opportunity of making any concessions or arguments
that it thought relevant before the hearing of the evidence in private.
5.22 Most Congregations made concessions of some kind at these hearings, particularly in regard to
questions of emotional abuse and neglect. They also furnished useful background materials which
it would have been difficult for the Investigation Committee to assemble about the history of the
Institution and relevant administrative details. Above all, the Phase I hearings outlined the position
that the Congregation was adopting on the questions of abuse in the Institution.
5.23 There was no cross-examination at the Phase I hearing. Counsel for the Investigation Committee
took the Congregation witness through the evidence and invited responses, and the
Congregation’s own counsel was then able to examine the witness further to clarify any matters.
Complainants and their legal representatives were present at these hearings, but they did not
have a role in questioning the witnesses.
5.24 Phase II hearings, the private hearings into specific allegations of abuse in institutions, then
commenced. When the private hearings were completed, the Phase III public hearings enabled
the Congregations to respond to the evidence.
5.25 The Phase III public hearings also included the Departments of Education and Science; Justice,
Equality and Law Reform; and Health and Children, as well as hearings into the Irish Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (ISPCC).
5.26 At these Phase III hearings, legal teams that had represented substantial numbers of
complainants were engaged by the Investigation Committee to cross-examine relevant witnesses.
Counsel and solicitors on those occasions took the role of amicus curiae, which is that of a person
whose role is to assist a court in a case where it is thought necessary to have interests represented
when they are not parties in the action. The Committee expresses its gratitude to counsel and
solicitors for performing this role so ably and helpfully. Submissions were sought and received
from complainants and respondents heard following these hearings.
Hearings
5.27 The Rosminian Institute was unique among the Religious Congregations and Orders in its
approach. Management and members were candid in their admissions, they were supportive of
the work of the investigation, and they were sympathetic to their ex-residents. Other
Congregations adopted a more defensive attitude and were more sceptical of evidence of abuse.
5.28 Some Congregations appeared more concerned with discrediting the complainant than with
finding out what had happened in its institution. No person or body should have been more
concerned with uncovering instances of abuse than the Religious Congregations that ran the
schools. However, some Congregations perceived allegations as an attack on the whole
Congregation and adopted a defensive position, which militated against the truth emerging.
Contamination
5.29 Difficulties arose from the matters being investigated and the circumstances surrounding the
establishment of the Commission and the Residential Institutions Redress Board.
5.30 The events in question happened a long time ago. Most industrial schools had been closed by
the mid-1970s. When the Investigation Committee hearings took place, many of the incidents
recalled had taken place at least 40 years prior to that.
5.31 The Investigation Committee heard from witnesses some of whom had endured lives of hardship
and poverty, and many had been afflicted by physical illnesses and psychological problems. Some
had experienced substance addictions that tended to impair memory. Many witnesses at private
hearings acknowledged such misfortunes.
5.32 Outside events had the potential to influence evidence given by witnesses. Following the ‘Dear
Daughter’ programme in 1996, which documented allegations of abuse in Goldenbridge Industrial
School, there was a flood of publicity about abuse in institutions. There were television
programmes such as ‘States of Fear’, which were broadcast by RTE in April and May 1999 dealing
with institutional abuse, which attracted enormous public interest and comment. The largest
institutions such as Artane and Goldenbridge were often discussed in all the media, including the
internet. Books of reminiscences appeared, and one major study, ‘Suffer the Little Children’ by
Raftery and O’Sullivan,2 was published.
5.33 The campaign for recognition and redress continued after the establishment of the Commission.
Many meetings were held by victims’ groups in Ireland and the UK. They were also used to
organise complainants to participate in the Commission’s work. These meetings were well
attended. Members of the audience participated and, on occasions, recounted their experiences
of abuse in the institutions. These meetings were another source of potential influence and
suggestion to witnesses.
5.34 Attending meetings to press for a Redress Scheme, and to provide generally for advantageous
conditions for victims of abuse, was not wrong, and it was entirely to be expected that people
would attend and would describe their experiences. Witnesses who attended the meetings,
however, were very defensive and reticent about what went on. The Committee is satisfied that,
at some of these meetings, individual accounts of abuse were recounted in detail and individuals
were identified.
5.35 Yet another source of potential pressure and influence on witnesses complaining of abuse was to
be found in the developments that led to the enactment of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment)
Act, 2000.
5.36 The story of the amendment to the Statute of Limitations Act, 1957 can usefully begin with the
Taoiseach’s announcement of the package of redress measures on 11th May 1999, when this
Commission was also announced. The Taoiseach announced that the Government would amend
the 1957 legislation to enable victims to bring claims for sexual abuse, but it was not anticipated
at the time that physical abuse would be included. The progress of the Amendment Bill through
the Oireachtas was followed closely, and was discussed at meetings of victims groups all over
Ireland and the UK. The Government referred the question to the Law Reform Commission, whose
consideration and report also gave rise to public interest. The solution that was put in place in the
Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 2000 was confined to sexual abuse. The Residential
Institutions Redress Act, 2002 was not so confined, and extended to the full range of abuse with
2
Mary Raftery and Eoin O’Sullivan, Suffer the Little Children (New Island, 1999).

which this investigation is concerned. There was an important period during which there was real
concern that compensation might be restricted to cases of sexual abuse.
5.37 The amendment to the Statute of Limitations conferred an entitlement to bring a late claim on
persons who, by virtue of the trauma associated with sexual abuse, had been unable to bring a
claim within the existing limitation period. In addition, it provided for an extension of time to claim
for victims who had spoken about their experiences and who therefore would have had difficulty
in proving the necessary psychological impairment required by the Act. Such a person qualified
by fulfilling one of two conditions, namely: (a) the claimant had consulted a solicitor and had been
advised that the claim was statute barred; or (b) the claimant had made a report to An Garda
Sı́ochana about sexual abuse within one year prior to the enactment of the legislation.
5.38 People giving evidence about events that occurred many years ago in their childhoods might not
be precise on detail. Many of them were young children in large institutions, in which the adults
dressed the same and were known as ‘Sister’, ‘Brother’, ‘Father’ or by surnames, religious names
or nicknames. In addition, staff came and went, and sometimes stayed only for very short periods
of time.
5.39 Potential distorting influences on evidence were not confined to complainants. While some ex-
staff members were extraordinarily candid in their acknowledgment of abuses in institutions, others
were unable to recall major incidents or practices that were features of them. There was a
tendency to shut out unpleasant and embarrassing incidents. The inability of some former staff
members to recall any unfavourable aspects of their experiences in institutions was not inspired
by a desire to mislead the investigation. It was, rather, incapacity to accommodate the fact that
people whose mission was spiritual and religious could have behaved cruelly, basely and self-
indulgently, and that colleagues might have stood by or covered up such wrongdoing.
5.40 It was not always easy for respondent witnesses to testify to the shortcomings, either of
themselves or of their colleagues, when they had to do so in the presence of senior members of
their own Congregations.
Anonymity
5.41 In the Position Paper published in May 2004, the Investigation Committee considered the question
of naming individuals who were believed to be guilty of committing abuse of children. The
Committee subsequently decided to implement the policy that was set out in the Position Paper.
5.42 The amending legislation in 2005 only permitted the naming of persons who had been convicted
in the criminal courts of abuse of children. The legislation did not require that the person to be
named should have been convicted of the specific abuse that was the subject of the report. In
other words, if a person had been convicted of abuse of children of some nature at some time, it
was permissible under the legislation for him or her to be named as being responsible for abuse
in some quite different circumstances or at a different time.
5.43 Even under the unamended legislation, naming some individuals was always going to be fraught
with difficulty and inconsistency. The probability was that only a very small number of persons
would actually be named. This issue was debated in the Position Paper, and outlined to the public
meeting of the Investigation Committee. The supposed benefits of being able to name persons
who committed abuse were outweighed by the disadvantages.
5.44 The Report does not identify individuals by name in respect of any abuse that they committed.
5.45 The anonymity of complainants is guaranteed under the Act.

5.46 Although the process is called anonymising, that is a relatively convenient and pronounceable,
but somewhat misleading, way of referring to the actual process, which is protecting persons living
or dead by giving them pseudonyms. The mechanics of the process are that respondents are
given names from a catalogue of names that have a common source. For example, all the
Christian Brothers are given names of French origin. In other cases, Spanish or Italian names are
used. As far as possible, the names have been chosen with a view to emphasising the fact that
they are pseudonyms.
5.47 Some names have not been anonymised. Officials of the Department of Education are generally
described by the names they used in correspondence or reports.

Chapter 6
The Congregation of Christian

Brothers
Introduction
6.01 This preliminary chapter deals with topics that are of general application to the consideration of
abuse in industrial schools run by the Christian Brothers.
Foundations
6.02 Edmund Ignatius Rice (1762–1844), a wealthy import and export trader in the city of Waterford,
opened a school for poor children in that city in 1802. He began recruiting men who shared his
ambition to provide a free education for the poor Catholic children of Ireland. By 1803, a monastery
was built in the city and more young men joined. In this way he founded the Institute of the
Brothers of the Christian Schools, which became known as the Irish Christian Brothers.
6.03 His inspiration had come from a remark made by the sister of the Bishop of Waterford, with whom
he was discussing his ambition to become a member of a religious Congregation. A band of
ragged boys passed by and, pointing to them, she exclaimed, ‘What! would you bury yourself in
a cell on the continent rather than devote your wealth and your life to the spiritual and material
interest of these poor youths?’ Inspired by these words, Rice talked to other friends, all of whom
advised him to undertake the mission to which he was being called. He settled his business affairs
in 1800, the most profitable year he had known, and two years later opened his first Christian
school.
6.04 The schools were open to all comers and were free to the poor. He developed a system whereby
one Brother, sometimes with a monitor as assistant, would teach about 150 boys who were graded
not by age but ability. He was adamant there should be no physical punishment, which he found
contrary to his own spirit. In 1820 he wrote, ‘Unless for some faults which rarely occur, corporal
punishment is never inflicted’.
6.05 His schools were a success and, as Edmund Rice’s reputation spread, his Community grew
rapidly in numbers. By 1806, schools were established in Waterford, Carrick-on-Suir, and
Dungarvan, and by 1808 the Community had Houses in Dublin, Cork and Limerick. Initially, they
adopted, with modifications, the Rule of the Presentation Order of nuns and, like them, were
subject to their local bishops. In 1820, however, the Order now known as the Christian Brothers
became the first Irish Community of men to be granted a charter by the Holy See1 and to be
recognised as a Papal Institute. This new status meant that the Brothers were no longer under
the authority of local bishops, and could develop their own internal management, under the overall
authority of the Holy See, through the Secretariat of State for Religious. Br Rice was unanimously
elected Superior General, and all the Houses were united under the new regime except for Cork,
as the local bishop there refused his consent. In 1826, they too joined the greater Congregation,
although one member, Br Austin Reardon, opted to remain under the old Order and founded the
teaching Congregation of Presentation Brothers.
1
The Holy See is the episcopal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, commonly known as the Pope.

6.06 From 1802 to 1868 the Christian Brothers remained a small group of men who managed only day
schools for poor Catholic boys. It was the introduction in 1858 of the industrial school system into
Ireland that led to the Congregation moving into the management of residential schools. The new
industrial schools fitted in with their charism of educating and helping the poor. Moreover, the
schools were being subsidised by the State, through a capitation system, whereby a sum was
paid for each boy placed in the school. It was a system that for the first time would provide the
Christian Brothers with a guaranteed income to feed, clothe, house and educate the boys.
6.07 The Brothers opened their first industrial school in Artane in 1870. It was a purpose-built school
for 825 boys, built to the highest specifications. From that date, there was a rapid expansion of
the Christian Brothers throughout Ireland and Great Britain. In 1868 a small number were sent to
Australia, and the Congregation rapidly flourished there. In 1875 they moved to Newfoundland,
where they opened another school. By 1900 there were Christian Brothers’ schools in Ireland,
Britain, Australia, Newfoundland, Gibraltar, New Zealand, India and Rome. Soon after that, the
Congregation developed in Africa, the USA and later in South America. The Brothers are today a
worldwide organisation with institutions in more than 26 countries on all populated continents.
6.08 In Ireland, the Christian Brothers soon occupied the dominant position in the industrial school
system. Between 1868 and 1894 they had control of six industrial schools spread across the
country, certified to take in a total of 1,750 boys. In 1831 the residence of the Superior General
of the Irish Christian Brothers and the centre of teacher training was moved to North Richmond
Street (O’Connell Schools) Dublin from Our Lady’s Mount (North Monastery) in Cork. In 1874 it
was transferred to Belvedere House in Drumcondra, now the residence of the President of St
Patrick’s College, Drumcondra. In 1875 the Brothers moved to Marino House, on the original
Lord Charlemont demesne, and established their Generalate there. They recruited boys for their
novitiates in schools across the country and sent them to their boarding schools, such as the one
in Baldoyle, where they studied for the Leaving Certificate.
6.09 In 1956 the Irish Province divided into two, St Helen’s Province and St Mary’s Province.
6.10 The growth in numbers of Christian Brothers was remarkable. In 1831, there were only 45
Christian Brothers. By 1900, there were almost 1,000; and by 1960, there were 4,000 Christian
Brothers in Ireland.2
6.11 The six Christian Brothers’ industrial schools in Ireland were as follows:
Name of School Years of operation Certified number of boys

Artane Industrial School for 1870–1969 825
Senior Boys
St Joseph’s Industrial School for 1870–1970 145
Senior Boys, Tralee
Senior Boys, Salthill
Senior Boys, Glin
Senior Boys, Letterfrack
Carriglea Park Industrial School 1896–1954 250
for Senior Boys, Dun Laoghaire
Total 1,750
2
B. Coldrey, Faith and Fatherland. The Christian Brothers and the Development of Nationalism, 1838–1921 (Dublin: Gill
and Macmillan, 1988), p 22.

6.12 The Congregation operated, in addition, two day/boarding schools, for orphans – namely, The
O’Brien Institute and St Vincent’s, Glasnevin – and a school for the deaf, St Joseph’s School for
the Deaf, Cabra, as well as over 100 primary and secondary schools.3 While the Sisters of Mercy
managed a much greater number of industrial schools than the Brothers, they were diocesan
congregations that were not under central management until the mid-1980s and were in effect
independent institutions until then. The Brothers, by contrast, were a unitary organisation under
central management and control from 1820.
6.13 The Christian Brothers became a powerful and dominant organisation in the State and were
responsible for providing primary and post primary education to the majority of Catholic boys in
the country. Their greatest involvement was with non-residential education, and only a minority of
Brothers were involved in industrial school work at any time.
6.14 The extent of the Congregation’s involvement in residential care was reflected in the number
of complaints (over 700) received by the Investigation Committee from former residents of its
institutions, and in the number of hearings held (149) and interviews given (220).
6.15 The Investigation Committee conducted full investigative hearings into four of the institutions:
Artane, Letterfrack, Tralee and Carriglea Park. Limited inquiries by way of analysis of discovered
documents took place into the remaining two industrial schools, Salthill and Glin, and St Joseph’s
School for Deaf Boys, Cabra.
The Christian Brothers’ mission

6.16 In 1923 the Christian Brothers set out a new Constitution and Rule that reiterated the mission of
the Congregation:
The main end of the Congregation is that all its members labour for their own sanctification
by the observance of the Evangelical Counsels and of these Constitutions. The secondary
end is that they endeavour to promote the spiritual good of the neighbour by the instruction
of youth, especially the poor, in religious knowledge, and their training in christian piety.
The Brothers conduct Schools in which they teach the poor gratuitously; Institutions for
orphan and neglected children; Day Schools and Boarding Schools which are maintained
by the fees of the pupils; and other educational works.4
6.17 The majority of the Brothers who had worked in the industrial schools and who gave evidence
made the decision to join the Congregation when they were 13 or 14 years of age. Some spoke
of having joined the Christian Brothers at such a young age out of a spirit of adventure and a
desire to do good in the world. They received instruction in theology and philosophy, and believed
in the message of salvation through good works that was the cornerstone of the Christian
Brothers’ mission.
Organisation and management

6.18 Supreme authority in the Congregation is vested in the General Chapter5 which is held every six
years. It is composed of former senior office holders, former Superiors General and delegates
from each Province. The General Chapter is also the Congregation’s legislative body whose
statutes are known as Acts of Chapter. Outside the periods when the General Chapter is in
session, authority is vested in the Superior General and his Council as the governing body.
6.19 The General Chapter elects the Superior General and four assistants to serve for a period of six
years on the General Council. The Superior General may serve for no more than two consecutive
terms. The assistants remain in office until a new General Chapter is convened.
3
There are currently 122 schools in the Christian Brother network in Ireland, according to the Marino Institute of
Education website.
4
Constitutions (1923).
5
The general assembly of representatives from the Congregation of the Christian Brothers.

6.20 The General Council appoints the Provincials and their assistants, who in turn appoint Superiors
to Communities. The basic organisational unit is the Community. Each Community is headed by
a Superior, assisted by a Sub-Superior and a local council, all appointed by the Provincial Council.
The Superior is appointed for a three-year term and may be reappointed, but, like his superiors,
he may only serve two consecutive terms.
6.21 When a Community of Brothers operated an industrial school, the Provincial Council ensured that
their Superior was also the Resident Manager. These dual roles are relevant when considering
the statutory demands of the position of Resident Manager. The practice also made it difficult for
the Brothers to accept the recommendation of the Cussen Commission6 that the Minister for
Education should control the appointment of Resident Managers. The Congregation was obviously
going to guard its right to appoint Superiors of its own Communities.
6.22 Brothers appointed to the position of Superiors, who thereby became ex officio Resident Managers
of the institutions, assumed a very large responsibility but received no training for the role, even
though the calibre of the manager affected the whole institution. A good manager not merely ran
the school well, but improved the living conditions for staff and boys. A poor manager had a
serious impact on an institution.
6.23 Although the Congregation was well organised at a national and provincial level, local organisation
was often unsatisfactory. There was no discernable management structure in place within the
industrial schools looked at by the Committee. Individual post-holders were appointed by the
Superior, but there was no system of monitoring or support once the appointment had been made,
and there was no obvious system of consultation with younger members of the Community who
were often responsible for the day-to-day running of the school. There was no formally recognised
complaints procedure within the local Community. This was evidenced by the number of
complaints communicated to the Visitor7 that had not been voiced by the Brothers to the Superior
in the community.
6.24 The lack of any safe, secure method of making a complaint was a serious difficulty for the boys.
Boys could only speak about the actions of a Brother to another Brother and were naturally
reluctant to do so, fearing that they would be disbelieved or reported back to the Brother about
whom they complained of. In the 1940s, a sodality8 in Artane allowed boys to make complaints in
a safe and confidential environment. Four sexual abusers were uncovered as a result, and were
removed from the institution. This facility was discontinued and was never introduced into any
other industrial school run by the Brothers. The obvious success of this initiative was not perceived
as such by the Congregation, and it is probable that a great deal of the sexual abuse that
continued unchecked for many decades in some schools could have been prevented by the
introduction of a simple complaints mechanism.
Christian Brothers managers’ meetings

6.25 Meetings were held annually by the managers of the Congregation’s six industrial schools together
with the O’Brien Institute, St Vincent’s, Glasnevin, and St Joseph’s School for Deaf Boys, Cabra.
They discussed general issues affecting the operation of their institutions, and little attention
appears to have been focused on the affairs of individual schools. From a review of the minutes
of these meetings held between 1936 and 1965, it can be seen that among the matters
considered were:
• Dealings with the Department of Education and its policy regarding the institutions.
• Numbers in the institutions and the impact of decreasing numbers.
6
Commission of Inquiry into the Reformatory and Industrial School System Report, 1936 (the Cussen Report) (Dublin:
Stationery Office).
7
A Visitor was a Congregational Inspector who reported back to the leadership of the Congregation. See
Supervision/Visitations below.
8
An association where the main object is the well-being and improvement of a different group of persons, such as men,
women and children, or more specially, priests, youths, church helpers, prisoners, immigrants, nurses, married people,
couples, etc.

• Matters concerning the welfare of the children, including health, education, and
aftercare.
• Financial affairs of the schools including the manner in which accounts should be
maintained and presented, determination of the level of income to be taken by
brothers (stipend) from the school income, payment of teachers; approach to be
adopted in seeking increased grants from the Department.
• Consideration of issues to be discussed at Resident Managers’ Association
meetings.
• Other significant issues that might affect the institutions from time to time, for
example the response to the Cussen Report.
6.26 These meetings were held in advance of the annual meeting for Resident Managers of all
industrial schools and reformatories, which were convened by the Resident Managers Association.
This association was a means whereby industrial schools could present a united front in
negotiations with the Department of Education.
Funding
6.27 The Christian Brothers contended that the quality of care provided in their industrial schools was
the best they could provide, because the State funding was significantly below what was
necessary to provide a proper standard of care.
6.28 The funding from the State was by the capitation system, whereby a fixed sum was paid to the
Congregation for each boy in the institution. Part of the grant was paid by the State and part by
the local authority from whose area the child came.
6.29 According to the Department of Education and Science in its statement furnished in advance of
the Phase III hearings, the payment was intended ‘to cover the expenses incurred in maintaining
the children in the schools, including clothing, footwear, food, general medical care, staffing and
accommodation’. The Department of Education and Science also explained that, under the
legislation that set up this system, ‘the school premises were owned and provided by the religious
orders. The schools provided their own buildings, farms and plant without the aid of the State and
local Authorities’.
6.30 The main disadvantage of the capitation system was that the financial position of the institution
was determined by the number of children committed. As a result, there was pressure on schools
to maximise numbers and there was no incentive to allow early release of children.
6.31 In their Opening Submission for the Artane hearings, the Congregation dealt with the question of
funding in general terms, which applied to all their industrial schools. It made two important
assertions: first, it stated that the Kennedy Committee found that the grant aid paid to industrial
schools in Ireland was ‘totally inadequate’; and, secondly, it compared the capitation in the State
to funding in Northern Ireland and found that the former rate was significantly below the allowance
in the neighbouring jurisdiction.
6.32 With regard to the Kennedy Report finding, however, it must be noted that, at the time of the
publication of that report in 1970, numbers in industrial schools had fallen dramatically and
therefore the system of capitation that depended on large numbers of children in care was no
longer an appropriate method of funding such schools. Kennedy recommended that the capitation
system be replaced by an annual agreed budget, and this was ultimately put in place.
6.33 Throughout the 1940s and 1950s and for some of the 1960s, capitation was a reasonable method
of financing because schools had large numbers of children and the fixed costs associated with
the running of these schools could be spread across a larger pupil population.
6.34 The industrial schools run by the Christian Brothers, with the exception of Letterfrack after 1954,
had sufficient numbers of boys for economies of scale to be an important factor in assessing
adequacy of funding. Farms provided food for the institutions and, in some cases, additional
income. Trades such as tailoring and boot-making provided cheap clothing and could also be a
source of additional income.
6.35 The chapters on the individual schools reveal that food, clothing, accommodation, education and
aftercare were poorly provided. When the Department Inspector raised any of these issues with
a Resident Manager, the standard response was that funding was inadequate to provide a higher
level of care.
6.36 For most of the relevant period funding was adequate to provide basic care for children in industrial
schools, particularly during periods of high occupancy. By the late 1960s, falling numbers made
it impossible for all six industrial schools to stay open and, by 1973, only Salthill continued to
operate.
6.37 The Brothers who lived in the monastery, even those with little or no involvement with the school,
were assigned a stipend out of the capitation grant. This money was not paid to them personally
but put into a fund for the maintenance of the Community.
6.38 The level of stipend to be taken from the school was determined internally by the Congregation
and on occasion was discussed at the Annual Managers’ Meeting. The 1940 minutes stated:
The Community income is made up mainly by the brothers’ Stipends. The following scale
was decided upon.
Artane: Manager: £500
Sub-Manager: £300
And each of the brothers (engaged in the institution) £120
For all other institutions:
Manager: £300
Sub Manager: £200
And each Brother: £120.
6.39 The minutes went on:

The Community Expenses would not include ordinary “Rations” such as Bread, Flour,
Meat, Milk, Butter, Fish, Eggs, Vegetables – Laundry, Fuel & Light. Any Balance (cr.) is
to be treated as an Advance from Community to Institution as is done in case of ordinary
House Loan A/c.
6.40 By 1954, the stipend had increased to £250 per Brother, and was £400 per Brother in 1964.
6.41 The stipend was the same amount irrespective of how much work the Brother did in the institution
or in caring for the boys.
6.42 Stipends were in effect, in the nature of salaries that the Brothers paid themselves out of the
school income and amounted to a substantial proportion of it. These stipends could represent up
to 15% of the total capitation grant received by an institution.
6.43 The stipend was sufficient to enable some Communities, notably Artane, Carriglea and Glin, to
invest money in the Congregation’s Building Fund and to make payments to the Congregation by
way of annual Visitation Dues.
6.44 Details of the Building Fund requested by the Committee were furnished between July 2007 and
February 2008.
6.45 The Congregation stated:
The Building Fund consisted of monies which were forwarded to the Provincial Councils
by communities for use in refurbishing existing schools and building new schools. A
Community submitted excess funds to the Building Fund, which funds could be called on
for refurbishments and/or erections of new buildings.
6.46 This contrasted with the Congregation’s Opening Statement for Artane in which they stated:
the Brothers, in keeping with their vocation, lived frugal lives and surplus monies thus,
generated in the Community Accounts were lodged to a Building Fund established by the
Congregation for use on capital expenditure on Artane. It is quite clear, therefore, that the
financial contribution from the Community in Artane to the Institution was substantial.
6.47 The Congregation was not in a position to say how much money in total was paid into the Building
Fund by their industrial schools, but the accounts furnished show that Artane was consistently
one of the largest contributors. Visitation Reports show payments into this fund by all the industrial
schools at some point. There was also some evidence of payments out of this fund to the industrial
schools, but these were relatively small sums and were generally concentrated in the period
immediately prior to the closure of the institution as an industrial school.
Visitation Dues
6.48 In the Phase III public hearing for Tralee, Br Nolan was asked to explain what the Visitation
Dues were:
The Brothers in the Community maintained their House through taking a stipend and
taking a salary from the money available. So also would the Provincial Council, they had
no means of support other than putting a stipend on each House. It is a few hundred
pounds. It changed with time of course. It was a levy on each Brother to contribute to the
Provincial Council.
6.49 The accounts for Artane show that the greatest expense in the House accounts over the period
1940 to 1969 was annual Visitation Dues. In that period the non-capital expenditure of the House
was £236,000, and approximately one-third of this, £82,575, was sent to the Provincial towards
the support of the Congregation by way of Visitation Dues.
6.50 In all of the correspondence between the Department of Education and the Orders on the question
of finance, the financial needs of the Community or the Congregation were never discussed. The
Department of Education’s understanding of its role as set out above was to pay capitation grants
in respect of youthful offenders and children committed to their schools under the provisions of
the Children Acts, 1908 and 1941, and the School Attendance Act, 1926.
6.51 The stipends paid to all Brothers, out of which Visitation Dues and payments to the Building
Fund account were made, represented a drain on resources available for the maintenance of
the children.
Supervision/Visitations
6.52 Supervision of Communities was the responsibility of the Provincial Council for the region and
was exercised by way of annual Visitations by a member of the Council. The Visitor stayed with
the Community for a number of days, following which he sent a written report to the Provincial
Council, which was copied to the Superior General. The Provincial or another member of the
Council sent a follow-up letter to the Superior of the Community referring to salient points in the
report, but the report itself was not given to the Superior.
6.53 Visitations were a requirement of Canon Law, and their primary objective was to ensure that the
Brothers were acting in the spirit of their vocation and observing the rules of the Congregation. In
addition, the Visitor was required to inquire into the condition of discipline in the Community, its
finances, and its premises. Although his function was primarily to inspect, the Visitor was also
required to take immediate action if, during the course of his inspection, he encountered ‘anything
of a serious nature ... opposed to the religious spirit’ in the Community.
6.54 Visitations proceeded according to a formal pattern laid down in the Constitutions of the Order.
The Visitor had a preliminary meeting with the Superior and then he had individual meetings with
the Brothers. These conversations were confidential, and the Superior was expressly prohibited
from attempting to influence what Brothers said in their conversations with the Visitor. The Visitor
then met the Superior for a second time to discuss his administration of the Community. The
Visitor did not routinely speak to the boys, and only met individual boys on exceptional occasions.
6.55 Visitation Reports for Communities attached to industrial schools followed the same general
pattern, dealing with topics of Community observance and usually including comment on some or
all of the following topics: health and diet, schools, premises, trades, aftercare, statistics,
recreation, and finances.
6.56 The rules of the Congregation required that, if ‘serious irregularities’ reported at the time of the
Visitation had not been remedied within a period of two months, the Brothers who reported them
were to write to the Provincial or the Superior General directly and inform him of their continuance.
6.57 The Visitations were thorough, and the reports provided a good deal of detail about the operation
of the various Communities. Although their purpose was primarily religious and concerned with
the Community, the reports usually contained information about the industrial school and the
children. Some Brothers were candid in reporting problems to the Visitor, as is demonstrated in
the individual chapters on institutions. The system also enabled a Brother to circumvent his
Superior by making a complaint to the Visitor if he felt that the former would not believe him. A
number of cases of sexual abuse became known in this fashion.
6.58 Visitors often made frank observations and they could be severely critical in their reports, although
the summaries that the Provincials sent to the Managers were usually much more discreet in
their comments.
6.59 Visitation Reports are the single most valuable source of documentary evidence about life in the
Brothers’ industrial schools. They were written during inspections or shortly afterwards. The writers
were senior members of the Congregation. Reports were intended for internal use by the Council
of which the Visitor was a member. Where they contain criticisms of Brothers or institutions, the
reports can therefore be considered reliable.
6.60 The Visitation Reports often contain information and comment that are much more critical and
disapproving than the Department of Education Inspector’s reports, which were also supposed to
be conducted annually and were focused on the health of the boys and the conditions within
the school.
6.61 The system had its limitations. In Communities where there were no personnel problems, the staff
tended to close ranks. Visitors were more likely to get a realistic picture of an institution when
there were problems in the Community, such as when relations were strained among the Brothers.
Some Brothers testified that they were reluctant to complain to the Visitor for a number of reasons,
including lack of familiarity with the Visitation system or feeling too junior to report. Others feared
they might jeopardise their careers by complaining or that the complaint would get back to their
Superior who would react badly to it. Furthermore, there were no objective standards applied to
these reports and so different Visitors inspecting within months of each other could come to quite
different conclusions as to the adequacy of the management.
6.62 The major deficiency of the Visitation system was that, while it was able to identify problems in
an institution, it did not provide solutions or ensure that changes were put in place. In some cases,
the Visitation Report was highly critical of a particular Resident Manager or member of staff, but
the Council did nothing to remedy the situation, and the Provincial in his follow-up letter did not
even mention the problem. A member of the current Provincial Leadership Team was asked to
explain this failure to act on Visitors’ complaints, and he attributed it to the fact that the Visitation
was a personal inspection, the report was a discussion document, and the Provincial Council
might not necessarily agree with all of its conclusions.
6.63 Even if this interpretation is accepted as applying in certain cases, it does not explain why the
Provincial authorities remained inactive in cases where they and the Visitor were united in their
criticisms of a particular staff member. The records of the Congregation do not disclose any
instance when a Superior/ Resident Manager was removed from his post for failing in his duties.
Joining, leaving and transferring

Joining the Congregation
6.64 Christian Brothers were recruited when they were very young. Most of the Brothers and former
Brothers who gave evidence joined in their early teens, many when only 14 years of age. Brothers
known as Postulators travelled around the country visiting primary and secondary schools to
recruit boys. The new recruits were then sent to boarding schools operated by the Congregation,
where they studied and sat for their Intermediate and Leaving Certificates, before beginning their
preparation for life in religion. Brothers who were not suitable for teacher training became
Coadjutor Brothers and worked as cooks, gardeners, farmers or general support staff in the
schools.
6.65 Many of the Brothers and former Brothers who gave evidence to the Committee described the
education and standard of care that they received in these schools as excellent. Conditions were
good, the quality of care they received was of a high standard and, while life was extremely
regimented, there was no corporal punishment.
6.66 One former Brother described his experiences as follows:

[it was a] well run [boarding school] ... much better run school than the one I had left ... It
was immensely pleasant and companionable and I have nothing only good memories of
it. I had no trouble about it I think in my mind ... When I went to the juniorate, to Old
Connaught, there was no corporal punishment, there was no sense of fear. They were
much better. I think I had a particularly bad set of teachers in [a named National school],
but there was good teaching and everything was structured. I think again, a good boarding
school operates on keeping you busy all the time and we were certainly kept busy all the
time ...
6.67 Other Brothers described a similarly positive experience. One Brother said that ‘the staff were
very good, they were very good teachers ... they were excellent teachers’. Another former Brother,
who was critical of many aspects of the training process, said that;
‘I have very happy memories of Baldoyle. It was a very friendly place. We got on very
well with each other. It was happy go lucky. We were very well treated. I have no particular
axe to grind about ... Baldoyle’.
6.68 In his article ‘Seven Years in the Brothers’, Professor Tom Dunne described the contrast between
the juniorate he attended and his old schools as ‘remarkable’:
Here there was no corporal punishment and bullying was not tolerated. We were treated
fundamentally as adults who had taken on immense responsibilities, and as new members
of the Community. The teachers were all Brothers, and were among the best the
Congregation had. It was all profoundly civilised, carefully disciplined and immensely
caring.
6.69 A boy could not enter the Novitiate until he was 15 years of age, at which point he wore the habit
of the Congregation. When he had completed his Leaving Certificate, he spent a year in the
Novitiate studying religion. He took his first religious vows on the first Christmas Day after the
completion of the Novitiate. These were temporary vows and were renewed annually.
6.70 Having completed the Novitiate, the temporarily professed Brother was sent to the Congregation’s
Teacher Training College in Marino to study primary school teaching. The course was two years
in length, but the Congregation was given a dispensation from the Department of Education
whereby its members left the college when they completed their first year to work in schools run
by the Congregation. After a number of years working in the field, the Brothers returned to college
to complete their second year and become fully qualified National Teachers. This arrangement
with the Department delayed the acquisition of the National Teacher qualification.
6.71 The rules of the Congregation provided that a temporarily professed Brother could not take
perpetual vows until he was 25 years old and had made temporary vows for at least six years. In
this regard, the rules of the Congregation differed from the requirements of Canon Law, under
which an individual could make permanent vows at 21 years of age.
6.72 The combination of these provisions meant that young Brothers were unable to acquire their
qualifications as teachers until they were well advanced towards a binding commitment to their
vocations. These young, temporarily professed Brothers were often sent to industrial schools to
teach for a number of years before returning to Marino. They were put in charge of large classes
of boys and were also expected to perform supervisory duties in the afternoons and evenings and
throughout the weekend. They had neither the teacher training nor the childcare training to equip
them for this task.
Leaving the Congregation

6.73 An individual could leave the Congregation voluntarily or he could be dismissed. The rules
governing the departure and the dismissal of religious are contained in the Constitutions of the
Congregation and the Code of Canon Law 1917.
6.74 The rules draw a distinction between Novices, temporarily professed Brothers, and perpetually
professed Brothers. Novices could leave voluntarily at any time, as they had not taken any vows.
The General or Provincial Councils could dismiss them for ‘just reasons’, and there was no
requirement to inform the Novice of the reasons for his dismissal. The decision to dismiss the
Novice was taken by the General or Provincial Council.
6.75 A temporarily professed Brother could leave voluntarily at the expiration of his annual vows. The
Superior General or the General Council could dismiss him for ‘grave reasons’. He was entitled
to be told the reason for his dismissal, and had the right to have an opportunity to defend himself
and to appeal to the Holy See. The Congregation also had the power to refuse to permit a Brother
to renew his vows for ‘just and reasonable motives’. The evidence before the Committee indicated
that the latter was the preferred method of removing temporarily professed Brothers.
6.76 Having taken perpetual vows, a perpetually professed Brother could only leave the Congregation
voluntarily by applying to be dispensed from his vows. In Pontifical Congregations such as the
Christian Brothers, only the Holy See could grant a dispensation from perpetual vows. This power
was sometimes delegated to an Apostolic Visitor, who could grant a dispensation where he
considered it wise and necessary to do so. If Rome granted it, the local Bishop formally executed
the indult. The discovery material indicated that Brothers who wished to be dispensed applied first
to the Provincial Council who, if they voted in favour of the request, would forward it to the General
Council. If they in turn voted in favour, it was sent to the relevant Secretariat in the Vatican. A
dispensation was not automatically granted.
6.77 The dispensation procedure was often utilised in cases of suspected sexual abuse. Where the
authorities were satisfied that a particular individual had committed the acts complained of, he
was encouraged to apply for a dispensation instead of having to undergo the dismissal procedure.
6.78 This method of dispensation was also employed in cases where the dismissal procedure had
been instituted and the General Council had taken the decision to dismiss the Brother but the
decree of dismissal had not been issued. The Brother would be invited to pre-empt the dismissal
by applying for voluntary dispensation and could leave the Congregation without stigma.
6.79 If a Brother was accused of a serious offence under Canon Law or the rules of the Congregation,
and the authorities were satisfied as to the truth of the allegation, but the Brother refused to apply
for a dispensation, they were left with no option other than to institute formal dismissal
proceedings. A perpetually professed Brother could not be dismissed unless he had committed
an ‘external grave delict’, had received two warnings about his conduct and had failed to correct
his behaviour. These admonitions were known as Canonical Warnings, and the immediate major
Superior administered them personally or had them administered by a colleague acting on his
instructions. The warning was composed of two parts: the first was a call to correct the offending
activity and to do the appropriate penances; and the second was a threat of dismissal. In addition,
the Superior was ‘bound’ under Canon Law to remove the offending Brother ‘from the occasion
of relapse even by transfer if it is necessary to another house where vigilance is easier and the
occasion of delinquency is more remote’. The Canon Law set out what constituted a ‘grave delict’
and it included sexual offences against minors. The rules required that each of the three offences
must have been of the same type, or, if different, have been ‘of such a nature that when taken
together they manifest the perversity of the will resolved on evil’. The rules also provided that
one continuous offence could give rise to dismissal if it ‘from repeated admonitions, has virtually
become threefold’.
6.80 If a Brother had been issued with two Canonical Warnings and had committed a third delict, his
case was forwarded to the Superior General and the General Council, who then considered
whether he should be dismissed. The Brother was given the opportunity to defend himself, and
Canon Law required that his responses be entered in the records. The General Council then voted
on whether the Brother should be dismissed. If a majority of the votes was in favour of dismissal,
the Superior General issued a formal decree of dismissal, which was forwarded to the Holy See
for confirmation. The Brother had a right to appeal the decision to the Holy See. Even if the
dismissal was confirmed, the Brother remained bound by his religious vows until he applied for,
and was granted, a dispensation by the Holy See.
6.81 Canon Law and the Constitutions of the Congregation also provided for immediate dismissal in
the case of ‘grave external scandal, or of serious imminent injury to the Community’. In this
situation the decree of dismissal was issued by the Provincial with the consent of his Council, or
‘if there is danger in delay’ by the local Superior with the consent of his Council and the Local
Bishop. The case was then forwarded to the Holy See for judgment.9
6.82 The dismissal process which took place in the General Council, and which was often described
as a canonical trial, is different from the formal canonical trial provided for in the Code of Canon
Law, which describes the procedure for the dismissal of religious priests or members of non-
exempt religious orders, and the procedure for the dismissal of members of diocesan
congregations.
How Brothers were transferred

6.83 The Congregation was a large national organisation that moved its members around periodically.
The regularity with which Brothers were moved depended on the functions they performed and
where they were working. Teaching Brothers were moved more regularly than Coadjutor Brothers.
6.84 Industrial schools were perceived as hardship postings and they had a high turnover of staff. The
vow of obedience meant that Brothers had to accept their postings no matter how unpleasant they
found them to be.
6.85 Young Brothers were often appointed to teaching positions in industrial schools. The posting of
Brothers happened at the same time each year, at the start of a new academic year. Brothers
transferred outside of this period often excited comment, because the sudden transferring of a
Brother could signal a serious punishment. No contemporaneous information exists concerning
the criteria that were used to assess the suitability of Brothers for particular postings. However,
the records of the Congregation show that, on a number of occasions, individuals who were
9
Cn 653.

accused of sexual abuse were transferred to other residential or day schools. In some cases,
Brothers who had been sexually abusing children were, in their later careers, appointed to senior
positions within the Province. When asked at the Phase I hearing for Letterfrack how this had
happened, Br Gibson explained that, because the leadership in the Congregation changed every
12 years, there was no memory within the organisation of offences committed before that. He
acknowledged that there was a personal file for each Brother and concluded that these files were
not consulted in making appointments.
6.86 If Br Gibson’s theory is correct, it means either that the Provincial Council made its decision to fill
senior posts without reference to the Brother’s history or to his personal file, or that the Council
made its assignment in the knowledge of the man’s previous trouble.
Impact of religious life on institutional care

Vows
6.87 Christian Brothers took the traditional vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, as well as two
additional vows, namely ‘perseverance in the congregation’, and, for teaching Brothers, ‘teaching
the poor gratuitously’. They differed in this regard from the Coadjutor Brothers, who did not teach,
and whose commitment was to domestic chores in communities.
Poverty
6.88 The vow of poverty required Brothers to deprive themselves of the right of disposing of anything
of monetary value without the permission of their Superiors. They were not allowed to accept,
take or retain anything for themselves save what they were allowed by their Superiors. They were
required to give to the Congregation whatever they acquired by their industry or ability while under
temporary or perpetual vows.
Chastity
6.89 Constitution 87 relates to the vow of chastity. It ‘not only obliges the Brothers to celibacy, but
also imposes upon them the obligation of avoiding everything contrary to the sixth10 and ninth11
Commandments of God’12. In addition to the injunctions against adultery and coveting one’s
neighbour’s wife, the Brothers were to restrict communication with women to a minimum.
Constitution 89 spelled out what was required:
The Brothers, in their interviews with the mothers or female friends of their pupils and in
all conversations with females, must observe great reserve and modesty and make the
conversations as brief as possible.
6.90 Constitution 91 deals with relations between Brothers and their pupils. It states:
Whilst the Brothers should cherish an affection for all their pupils especially the poor, they
are forbidden to manifest a particular friendship for any of them. They must not fondle
their pupils; and unless duty and necessity should require it, a Brother must never be
alone with a pupil.13
6.91 The meaning of the word ‘fondle’ was discussed during the public hearings into Letterfrack
Industrial School, when Br Gibson, on behalf of the Congregation, argued that the word did not
have a sexual connotation, notwithstanding its location in the chapter of the Constitutions dealing
with chastity.
6.92 A circular letter from the Superior General, Br P. J. Hennessy, in 1926 went into the nature of the
vow of chastity in some detail. He wrote:
10
You shall not commit adultery.
11
You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife.
12
Congregation of the Christian Brothers 1962, Chapter VIII ‘Chastity’, p 23 section 81.
13
Const 8 of the 1923 Constitutions.

In a discourse on “The Education of the Child”, Pere Lacordaire says: “It is necessary,
above all, to love one’s pupil: to love him in God, not with a weak and sensual affection,
but with a sincere affection which knows how to preserve firmness”.
The child’s spiritual endowments and the end to which he is destined naturally cause the
thoughtful religious to “love him in God”, while his natural charms tend to excite that “weak
and sensual affection” that may easily prove to be ruinous to the child and teacher. Here
is a DANGER SIGNAL that should never be lowered and should ever be heeded. The
teacher who allows himself any softness in his intercourse with his pupil, who does not
repress the tendency to “pets”, who fondles the young or indulges in other weaknesses,
is not heeding the danger signal and may easily fall. Disastrous results for teacher and
pupil have sometimes resulted from such heedlessness and effeminacy. Chapter VIII,
Part I, of our Constitutions in its different articles, sets forth salutary precautions in this
connection.
6.93 Assertions by some members of the Congregation that they had no awareness of the possibility of
Brothers sexually abusing boys were not supported by the Acts of Chapter or the documentation.
6.94 Br Hennessy went on to exhort teachers to impress on their pupils the importance of purity:
They must rigidly refrain from all unnecessary freedoms with their persons at all times. In
bed they ought to fold their arms over their breasts in the form of a cross, and before
falling asleep pray to their Guardian Angel to preserve them from every dangerous thought
or act during the night.
6.95 As early as 1887, the Superior General was explicit in pointing out the danger of sexual activity
amongst the boys:
With vigilance in the playground is intimately connected watchfulness in regard to the
conduct of boys in and about the water-closets ... Much harm may be done, and sin not
unfrequently committed, in those places, if the necessary precautions be not taken, and
if wholesome discipline be not strictly enforced ... A serious responsibility rests on the
Brothers in this matter, if through their carelessness or want of proper caution any of their
pupils should come to learn evil they knew not before.
6.96 Although these advices were sent out to all Communities, they do not appear to have formed part
of the training Brothers received. Some Brothers spoke of their lack of any awareness of the
possibility of peer abuse among the boys in their care. The Committee heard evidence, however,
that peer abuse was a constant and serious problem in industrial schools.
Obedience
6.97 The vow of obedience required Brothers to obey their Superiors in all things that pertained, directly
or indirectly, to the life of the Congregation, as well as their vows and the Constitutions of the
Congregation. They owed their entire obedience to the Superior General of the Congregation and
to their immediate Superiors. The reason for this total obedience was explained as follows:
The motive of obedience should be the spirit of faith whereby the Brothers consider their
Superiors as the representatives of Jesus Christ in their regard; hence they must always
show them honour, esteem and reverence.14
6.98 This vow of obedience permeated every aspect of life within the Congregation and was something
the Brothers and former Brothers who gave evidence to the Committee spoke about at length.
Apart from the obvious implications of the vow, the main way in which it affected Brothers was in
their interactions with their seniors, in particular their reluctance to criticise them. The chapters on
specific schools disclose cases where the obligation to be subject to the will of the Superior and
to serve the interests of the Congregation discouraged or prevented Brothers from reporting
abuse, or making protests about objectionable behaviour, or even making suggestions as to
improvements. In some circumstances, it inhibited the reporting of suspicions about sexual
misconduct on the part of other Brothers.
14
Const 97 of the 1923 Constitutions.

6.99 The importance of the vow is emphasised by Constitution 62, which requires the General Council
to be careful not to admit to the profession of vows by any Brother who in his conduct shows a
‘want of submission, and due respect for, those placed over him’ or a ‘litigious and critical spirit’.
A Brother who deviated from this duty to obey was quickly reminded of his position. One former
Brother described his experience of obedience thus:
I think the vow of obedience was conceived of as being partly like military discipline.
Indeed, the priests who gave the Brothers their retreats and so on, and the 30-day retreat
we had in the novitiate, all from Jesuits, and they’d famously have a military metaphor for
what they’d do. I think there was a certain amount of that, this was like the army and you
just obey.
But that’s not what I understood as the vow of obedience, I think the vow of obedience
was an internal – if I can use the kind of language that I think would have learned – an
internal resignation of your will to the will of your Superior. The most important thing about
obedience was not what you did but how you thought. I certainly would have believed that
when I was that age, yes.
6.100 The same witness described some of the more unusual ways in which obedience was tested while
the Novices were in training. He recalled how Novices were made to walk about with no coats or
hats in bad weather, and he went on to describe one incident when he was put to the test. He
told the Committee:
The one I remember in terms of work was being told to move a pile of stones in part of
the garden, I think, an old shrubbery from there to literally the far side of the table and
spending several days doing it with an old wheelbarrow, when it was all finished he came
around and said, “That is very good now. Excellent. Now would you move them all back
again please”. You were meant to say, “certainly, Brother”, which I did being a very good
boy.... It was a bit silly really but we just accepted it.
6.101 This unnecessary labour had a function: it was an exercise in discipline and obedience. The vow
of obedience taken by all perpetually professed Brothers required them to obey their legitimate
superiors. The Superior was empowered to impose ‘such penances or humiliations as his faults
or the usage of the Community may require.’15
6.102 The Brothers and former Brothers who gave evidence recounted a number of examples of the
punishments, often humiliating, that were meted out to Brothers who disobeyed. A number of
respondent witnesses described how their Superiors verbally admonished them. Discipline
seemed to be harder on the younger Brothers.
Discipline
6.103 Brothers were required to exercise discipline in their daily lives. They rose early for prayer and
Mass, and were required according to the rules of the Congregation to live an asectic and spiritual
life with few comforts. They practised fasting, and mortification of the flesh, in order to perfect their
communion with God. Visitation Reports contained long and detailed accounts of the Brothers’
religious observances, and any laxity on the part of the Superior in enforcing the Rule was a
matter for comment.
Retirement from the world

6.104 The Christian Brothers were obliged ‘not to maintain any intercourse with externs’ without
permission from their immediate Superior. Brothers were not allowed to read newspapers, listen
to the radio, visit friends or attend outside functions or sporting events without express permission.
Walks had to be taken in the company of at least one other Brother.
6.105 Correspondence from lay people, particularly containing complaint or criticism, was treated with
suspicion and hostility. The documents revealed an anxiety on the part of the Congregation to
avoid scandal or adverse comment, which dominated its relationship with the outside world.
15
Congregation of the Christian Brothers 1962, Chapter XIII ‘Mortifications & Humilitations’, p 30 section 128.

6.106 The injunction against undue familiarity with lay people was even more strictly enforced in the
case of women. Brothers were instructed to keep all conversations with mothers or female friends
of the children in their care to the minimum. One consequence of this was that the Christian
Brothers’ institutions became all-male worlds. Numerous witnesses gave evidence to the
Investigation Committee about the problems caused by the lack of female involvement in the day-
to-day operation of the schools.
Modesty and silence

6.107 According to Chapter XIII of the 1923 Constitutions, ‘The Brothers shall observe silence at all
hours out of recreation. If, however, duty or necessity require a Brother to speak at such times,
he should do so as briefly as possible and in a subdued tone’. This necessity for silence affected
the general atmosphere of the schools and was often imposed on the children as well as the
Brothers. Justice Cussen16 was particularly critical of the practice of imposing silence during meal
times and recommended that it be discontinued. Some complainants recalled silence during
mealtimes into the 1950s, and many recalled that there was a general rule of silence when moving
through the building and in the dormitories at night.
6.108 A consultant psychiatrist who regularly visited Artane in the 1960s told the Committee:
On average my general impression, well; with the greatest respect to everybody, it was a
daunting institution. The abiding impression I had was that during the school hours my
biding impression was the silence. The silence. So you had all these children, young boys,
and virtually not a sound.
6.109 In his evidence to the Committee, he said, ‘it was one of an intimidatory type of silence’.
6.110 Numerous complainants spoke of the insistence on silence in the daily tasks of eating and
preparing for bed. Silence was a rule strictly adhered to in everyday life. Whistles were used in
some cases to signal to the children when they were to move from one activity to the next.
6.111 There were several warnings in the Visitation Reports referring to the neglect of the rule of silence
in the school.
Impact of vows on institutional life

6.112 The adherence by the Christian Brothers to their vows, and the monitoring of such adherence by
senior Brothers, led to the application of these principles to the day-to-day care of the children.
The virtues of obedience, chastity and hard work had to be inculcated in the children for the good
of their souls, and for the good of society as a whole.
6.113 Obedience and discipline were part of the life of the institutions. The daily timetable provided the
framework for a closely controlled and well-orchestrated routine. The whole system was
regimented, but Artane with its large numbers was particularly so.
6.114 The regimentation and discipline were needed not just to keep order: it was, the Christian Brothers
believed, a necessary lesson to be learned by boys who had never been properly controlled by
their parents.
6.115 There were, however, doubts within the Congregation about the efficacy of the industrial school
regime as the best way to prepare children to become upright and decent citizens in a Christian
society. These reservations were sometimes expressed in Visitation Reports but were not acted
upon by the authorities.
6.116 This concern, that the needs of the boys were not being met by the school, clashed with the
philosophy of the Congregation and the way of life they advocated for themselves. The boys
needed to be prepared for the day ‘when they pass through Artane gates into the wide world’,
16
The Cussen Report 1936 – Commission of Inquiry into the Reformatory and Industrial School System, para 74.

but the Brothers needed to keep their minds on the spiritual way of life and withdraw from that
wide world.
6.117 The importance of all the vows taken by the Brothers was emphasised in a circular letter dated
3rd October 1958 from the Superior General to each Christian Brothers’ Community. The Superior
General wrote:
It is evident that in many of the houses of our Province the rule of silence is not being
well observed. The observance of silence has always been regarded as essential to the
Religious Life ...
Silence is necessary for the practice of recollection without which there can be no spirit
of prayer or true holiness of life...
The cause of these defections [from the Brothers] is to be found in the loss of the religious
spirit due to such secularizing influences as too great intercourse with externs, frequenting
places of public resort and undue preoccupation with the news of the day.
Our rule warns us against the danger to vocation of holding too great intercourse with
externs. The sentiments and outlook of people who live in the world are, of necessity,
very different from those of religious. A Brother who frequents the company of seculars
either by visiting them in their homes or by holding long and unnecessary conversations
with teachers, parents, or domestics will be in danger of imbibing the spirit of the world
and losing his esteem for his vocation ...
Too great preoccupation with the newspaper or with radio programmes can also be a
cause of the loss of the religious spirit by diverting attention from the affairs of the soul
and diminishing interest in the spiritual life.
6.118 These are values for a spiritual life of religious meditation, but they do not form a basis for training
young boys to enter the outside world.
6.119 To counteract the attraction of the outside world the Brothers lived a life of religious and secular
study. It was not surprising that they applied the same way of life to the boys in their care. Through
moral teaching, religious observance and hard work in the school and in the workshops, they
sought to change and reform the children. Young boys from poor families were confronted with
this regime, and found it arduous. It not merely clashed with the culture from which they came,
but it placed them in an all-male world that did not meet the emotional and developmental needs
of children and adolescents.
6.120 The strict regime, the routine that took away all initiative and placed all its emphasis on following
orders, led to the boys becoming institutionalised. Many left to join the army, or drifted into other
institutionalised occupations, and far too many ended up in institutions like prisons or in
psychiatric care.
Evidence of Brothers
6.121 A recurrent complaint made by Brothers in their evidence to the Committee and found in the
documentation was the unequal division of work.
6.122 In his evidence at the public hearing into Letterfrack during Phase I, Br Gibson stated:
You see the Brothers who were teaching in the school, who were mainly the young
Brothers, they were with the boys almost 24 hours a day; in other words, from 6:00 to
10:00 at night. They would have had very little free time during that period. They slept
then in small bedrooms at the end of one of the dormitories. Often those rooms were very
simple. There wasn’t heating for a lot of the time. That was their place of living and then
they went up to the house for a short period of recreation at night-time, but effectively
speaking they were on the job seven days a week.
6.123 The vow of obedience made it difficult for these Brothers to voice their disquiet. Junior Brothers
were in awe of their seniors in the Community. Each Community that operated an industrial school
had senior Brothers who did not work in the school or act as carers but who nevertheless
exercised authority and influence over those who fulfilled those arduous duties. Many Brothers
spoke of how they resented this unequal burden of labour when they were juniors in the
institutions, but felt they could not challenge the system by asking the senior Brothers to do
more. Some junior Brothers felt that, because of their lack of seniority, there was no point making
suggestions for reform.
6.124 Many of the Brothers who gave evidence complained about the difficulties they had in carrying
out the onerous dual responsibilities of teaching and caring, which inevitably had an adverse effect
on the children.
The failure to train Brothers in childcare

6.125 In their Opening Statement on Tralee, the Christian Brothers defined the purpose of industrial
schools as being:
To cater especially for neglected, orphaned and abandoned children, to safeguard them
from developing criminal tendencies and to prepare them for industry.
6.126 To achieve this end, children were removed from the backgrounds of neglect and poverty, given
a basic education and were taught a trade. In the process, it was believed that they were improved
by hard work and religious observance. These objectives remained central to the Christian
Brothers’ thinking, and became the basis of the training given to the new recruits. The teaching
Brothers were trained as national school teachers, and received no special training in childcare.
Many Brothers deplored this fact.
6.127 The Brothers explained that this failure to give specialist training was due to the fact that ‘there
existed no special training system in Ireland for carers in Industrial Schools’ and that there was
no awareness of the emotional needs of children. They had a ‘physical care philosophy’.
6.128 In fact, ideas on how to provide better care were being developed abroad. As early as 1943, Dr
Anna McCabe, the Medical Inspector of Industrial Schools, attended a course in England and
recommended the establishment of a child guidance clinic, but her advice was ignored. The
Carysfort Conference of 1951 revealed that there was expertise in the State on care issues.
Members of the Sisters of Charity went to England to do Home Office courses and returned with
schemes to reorganise the system of care homes they provided.
6.129 No such training was undertaken by the Christian Brothers until, in the early 1970s, Br Burcet17,
who had worked in senior positions in both Letterfrack and Artane, attended the course in the
School of Education in Kilkenny in 1973, and implemented some of what he had learned in the
last remaining industrial school operated by the Brothers, Salthill. He recalled his frustration in
Artane in the mid-1960s when he was trying to change teaching methods and to introduce
psychological expertise. He felt that he was engaged in an uphill struggle and that there was no
understanding of the importance of this kind of approach among the Leadership of the
Congregation.
6.130 New ideas had the potential to undermine the institutions and the Brothers who worked in them.
It was this fear of change that ensured that the institutions run by the Christian Brothers remained,
in all essential respects, unchanged from their foundation in the 19th century to their closure.
6.131 One effect of the belief that teacher training and the religious way of life were an adequate basis
for training and caring for children was that the Christian Brothers never passed on their expertise
in a formal way. They were experienced in dealing with boys in institutions; their own members
had taught and cared for boys for years. They should have been in a position to pass on
information and advice to those coming after them, yet they produced no written texts, nor did
they give formal lectures on the subject even to their own members. Brothers testified that they
17

were given no guidance on childcare issues during their training in Marino. Brothers learned
techniques of control from older Brothers, in an ad hoc way.
6.132 It is unfortunate that a Congregation dedicated to the education of the poor never devised a
system of education for their own members, which would have prepared them for the demanding
care work they did in these schools, in addition to their teaching duties.
How the Brothers responded to the allegations of abuse

6.133 During the Investigation Committee’s Emergence hearings, Br David Gibson, then Province
Leader of St Mary’s Province of the Christian Brothers, outlined the response of the Congregation
to the issue of child abuse in Ireland.
6.134 He said that allegations of child abuse first arose as an issue in the 1980s, when four allegations
of child abuse were made against Irish Christian Brothers. Following an official inquiry into child
abuse at an orphanage run by the Congregation at Mount Cashel in Canada, the Canadian
Leadership highlighted the issue at the 1990 General Chapter of the Congregation. The Province
Leader from Canada presented a graphic picture of what it was like to have to deal with allegations
from the past in a public inquiry and the subsequent litigation under the full glare of media
exposure. He also referred to the need to look at institutions and the protocols that were in place
to deal with the issue of abuse.
6.135 After the General Chapter concluded, the Congregation leader urged its various Provinces to issue
guidelines and protocols on child protection. The leadership teams of the Irish Provinces drew up
guidelines based on international best practice and published them in 1993.
6.136 Between 1990 and 1996 the Congregation received approximately 30 allegations of child abuse.
Because of these complaints and the increasing publicity, the Congregation established an
independent advisory group to which it passed the complaints, and received advice on how to
respond. A further 52 complaints were received between 1996 and the Christian Brother Public
Apology issued in March 1998.
6.137 Br Gibson said that the Congregation had great difficulty in coming to terms with the fact that
Brothers could have abused children. ‘It was something totally contrary to the whole vocation of
a Brother and yet we were getting detailed accounts of how Brothers abused children’. It had
particular difficulty in accepting that members of its Congregation had engaged in sexual abuse,
‘[This] was creating the greatest problem and difficulty for us to come to terms with’.
6.138 It is difficult to understand why allegations of abuse should have come as such a shock to the
Congregation. The documentation made available to this Committee disclosed that allegations of
child abuse, and particularly child sexual abuse, were a recurring and persistent problem for
the Congregation.
6.139 In 1995, St Mary’s Province organised seminars about the nature of child abuse which were
conducted by Dr Art O’Connor, a consultant Forensic Psychiatrist in the Central Mental Hospital,
and Ms Kate Keery, a social worker from Temple Street Children’s Hospital, and they were
attended by individual Brothers. A similar exercise was carried out in the Southern Province.
6.140 Child abuse was a major issue at the 1996 General Chapter of the Congregation, which was held
in Johannesburg, South Africa. The Chapter issued a document entitled ‘New Beginnings with
Edmund’ in which it stated:
There are signs of that death [in not living the Gospel vision] in our congregational story.
Such signs include undue severity of discipline, harshness in Community life, child abuse,
an addiction to success, canonizing work to the neglect of our basic human needs for
intimacy, leisure and love. To-day we have been made painfully aware of these aspects
of our sinful history.
6.141 The Congregation appointed a full-time Director of Child Protection Services, and set up an office
called the Westcourt Child Protection Service to deal with allegations of abuse.
6.142 On 14th April 1997, on the occasion of his receiving the Freedom of Drogheda, the Congregation
Leader, Br Edmund Garvey, expressed an apology and asked for forgiveness from former pupils
who had suffered abuse at any of the schools or institutions run by the Congregation.
6.143 In October 1997 the Congregation asked Dr Robert Grant, a psychotherapist, to come to Ireland
to speak to the Brothers and school principals on the issue of child protection and abuse. During
its meetings with Dr Grant, the Leadership Teams considered making a public apology
acknowledging certain failures on the part of the Congregation and expressing a willingness to
meet with complainants and to deal with their complaints.
6.144 According to Br Gibson:

He [Dr Grant] was emphasising the need to really take this on board, that child abuse had
taken place in our institutions. Through his help but also from our own realisation of this,
we felt the time had come to make some form of apology.
6.145 In order to consider what form the apology should take, the Leadership held a retreat in November
1997 and invited an Australian Brother, Br Paul Noonan, to attend. Br Noonan had been leader
of the Melbourne Province in Australia when it responded to allegations of child abuse in Australian
Christian Brothers’ institutions and had issued its own apology in 1993. Br Noonan outlined the
impact of the apology and encouraged the Irish Provinces to follow suit. The Australian apology
included the following:
We have studied the allegations available to us, and we have made our own independent
inquiries. The evidence is such as to convince us that abuses did take place, abuses that
in some cases went well beyond the tough conditions and treatment that were part of life
in such institutions in those days.
While the extent of the abuse appears to have been exaggerated in some quarters, the
fact that such physical and sexual abuse took place at all in some of our institutions
cannot be excused and is for us a source of deep shame and regret. Such abuse violates
the child’s dignity and sense of self worth. It causes psychological and social trauma that
can lead to lasting wounds of guilt, shame, insecurity and problems in relationships.
6.146 There followed a paragraph entitled ‘Our Apology’, which read as follows:
We, the Christian Brothers of today, therefore unreservedly apologise to those individuals
who were victims of abuse in these institutions.
We do not condone in any way the behaviour of individual Brothers who may have
perpetrated such abuse.
In apologising, however, we entreat people not to reflect adversely on the majority of
Brothers and their co-workers of the era who went about their work with integrity and deep
regard for the children entrusted to their care.
Their work and dedication are reflected in the numerous students who, despite deprived
backgrounds, went on to take their places as successful members of Australian society.
We are deeply grateful for the very many expressions of thanks and support we have had
from former students.
6.147 Br Gibson said that the Irish Leadership Team decided to issue a public statement:
because we felt that there was a need for healing and we felt that no healing would be
possible unless we were prepared to accept the fact that it happened, number one, and
to say that we know it happened, we are sorry it happened and to be open and honest
with that.
6.148 He added that the Congregation intended its public statement to be more than an apology: it was
to set out various mechanisms to promote healing, such as mediation, counselling and
reconciliation. The leaders engaged in a widespread consultative process before issuing the
apology. It met with individual Brothers, the advisory group, the Archbishop of Dublin, the
Conference of Religious of Ireland (CORI), the Government and legal experts. The statement was
issued on 29th March 1998 and read:
Over the past number of years we have received from some former pupils serious
complaints of ill-treatment and abuse by some Christian Brothers in schools and
residential centres.
We the Christian Brothers in Ireland wish to express our deep regret to anyone who
suffered ill-treatment while in our care. And we say to you who have experienced physical
or sexual abuse by a Christian Brother and to you who complained of abuse and were
not listened to, we are deeply sorry.
We want to do much more than say we are sorry. As an initial step we have already put
in place a range of services to offer a practical response and further services will be
provided as the needs become clearer.
6.149 The Congregation subsequently received a further 260 complaints which ranged from ‘allegations
of a harsh regime or of inadequate schooling to very serious allegations of abuse’. In consultation
with the independent advisory group, the leadership teams asked 18 individual Brothers against
whom allegations were made and who remained in active Ministry to withdraw from work. Three
subsequently returned to work.
6.150 The Congregation in 1998 established an independent pastoral service, to respond to the needs
of those alleging abuse and to provide practical and financial support to those coming forward,
but did not proceed with a mediation and conciliation scheme on the advice of a task force.
6.151 Another part of the Brothers’ reaction to the issue was its contribution to the Residential Institutions
Redress Scheme. In its statement to the Commission prior to the Emergence Hearings, the
Congregation stated that it had wished to make ‘a meaningful contribution’ to the scheme, but this
decision was not based on a sense of culpability or negligence but on a pastoral desire to bring
healing and closure. Other reasons included:
• A greater number of former residents would get redress from the scheme than they
would through the courts;
• The experience would be less adversarial and less stressful;
• The money would go directly to the former residents;
• It would be faster than the courts; and
• The scheme would be set up on a statutory basis.
6.152 Br Gibson described a change in attitude in the Congregation following the ‘States of Fear’18
television programmes in 1999 and the publication of Suffer the Little Children19 in 2000, when
the Brothers became more sceptical and disbelieving of claims of abuse. He said that the
Congregation was ‘alerted ... to the danger of exaggerated allegations, false claims, and false
memory’. It believed that many of the allegations contained in the programme and book were
‘inaccurate and grossly exaggerated’, and the Leadership Teams became concerned that ‘every
allegation was being viewed as the absolute truth’. The Congregation also complained that their
submissions were not taken into account by the Government in the drafting of the Commission to
Inquire into Child Abuse Act, 2000. ‘The Act that was passed failed to provide protection to those
who could be wrongfully accused.’
6.153 This account of the Brothers’ odyssey on abuse, particularly sexual and physical, traces their
journey from shock and dismay at the allegations, through a period of acceptance, which gave
way ultimately to scepticism and suspicion, which were the characteristics of the stance taken by
the Congregation in the Investigation Committee’s proceedings.
18
There were three programmes broadcast by RTE in 1999 in the ‘States of Fear’ series: ‘Industrial Schools and
Reformatories from the 1940s-1980s’, ‘The Legacy of Industrial Schools’, and ‘Sick and Disabled Children in
Institutions’.
19
Suffer the Little Children, by Mary Raftery and Eoin O’Sullivan, 1999, New Island.

6.154 A closer examination of the Brothers’ March 1998 public statement of apology shows that it was
not at all apparent what conduct was regretted. The ‘formal apology’, instead of making clear the
Congregation’s regret for abuse that had happened in its institutions, gave rise to considerable
problems of interpretation and called into question the nature of their attitude to the complaints.
Indeed, it was not even clear that the statement could properly be called an apology. It did not
expressly acknowledge that abuse had occurred and did not accept any Congregational
responsibility for what had taken place in its institutions.
6.155 If the Brothers intended this document to have substantial meaning, they should have made it
clear that they were apologising for abuse that they believed and accepted had happened. This
they notably failed to do. A public apology that required scrutiny to discover whether it actually
contained a meaningful expression of regret failed in its purpose.
6.156 This first public step that was taken by the Brothers was couched in guarded, conditional and
unclear terms, and did not actually acknowledge that Christian Brothers had committed abuse of
children in their care or that the Congregation bore any responsibility. This was before ‘States of
Fear’ was broadcast in 1999 which was, according to Br Gibson, the catalyst for a more defensive
approach by the Congregation.
6.157 The statement compared unfavourably with the Australian version, which may have some
difficulties of interpretation but which did expressly admit that abuse happened and apologised
to victims.
6.158 The Australian Brothers also stated that they had conducted their own independent inquiries,
which had yielded convincing evidence. If the Irish branch had examined the records and
consulted members and former Brothers, it would also have discovered convincing evidence that
serious cases of abuse had occurred in the Irish institutions.
Rome Files and documentary evidence

6.159 In the Emergence hearings in July 2004, Br Gibson described how files, which came to be known
as ‘The Rome Files’, came to the attention of the Leadership Team in Ireland.
6.160 In 2003, the Leadership Team took the decision to employ an archivist to look at all the documents
in the possession of the Congregation. This archivist was asked to go to Rome to look at the files
there that related to the Irish Communities for any references to abuse. He explained that, in the
early 1960s, a decision was taken to move the Congregation’s headquarters from Dublin to Rome.
The management team brought with them the relevant archives for their own work, and left in
Ireland the files and records that dealt with the Christian Brothers in Ireland.
6.161 Br Gibson explained:

However, when our archivist went to Rome, she came across their minute books of their
Council decisions, the General Council decisions. In those, she came across details of
allegations of abuse in the institutions in Ireland that did not exist in our files ... Yes, all of
these dealt with incidents of child abuse in our institutions between, say, 1930 and when
they closed.
6.162 Br Gibson outlined the number of allegations recorded in respect of residential schools:
... we came across details of incidents of abuse in our institutions in Ireland. We came
across eleven incidents of child abuse in Artane, ten in our day schools, three in
Letterfrack, two in Tralee, two in the OBI,20 and two in Glin. Now, what we came across
was that there had been information given to the Leadership Team at the time when they
occurred. These allegations had been investigated. The investigation included getting the
boys to write out what had happened to them and the boys had done that in some cases
– well, in one case at the moment we have one incident of that. Then they had at the end
20
O’Brien Institute.

of what they called a trial, they had a decision made, and the decision was either to give
a Canonical Warning to the person, they were dismissed from the Congregation or they
were rejected for the application for vows that year. Now, we wouldn’t have the details of
all the allegations, but a lot of material has emerged there which we didn’t know about ...
It shows that there were individual cases of abuse. It wasn’t, in a sense, systematic or
widespread, but over 30 years in Artane there were eleven cases that had been
discovered at the time they had occurred.
6.163 Br Gibson went on to state that, in 1990, the Leadership Team in Ireland was not aware of the
existence of these files at all. He asserted that it was only when he saw these files that he
understood the comments that he saw in the Constitutions and Acts of the Congregation
emphasising that a Brother should never be alone with a child. He said:
That makes sense in the light of this discovery of complaints where children were abused
in the institutions.
6.164 He confirmed that there was no mention of the children in these records:
The focus was on the culpability of the person who did it and I am not sure how much
was done for the children who suffered.
6.165 The Rome Files were made available to the Committee after the Emergence hearings had been
completed. They contained details of applications for dispensations or disciplinary hearings in
respect of more than 130 Brothers. At least 40 of these cases referred specifically to improper
conduct with boys. In the majority of cases, the actual crime being investigated was not detailed,
and phrases such as ‘evidenced unsuitable moral character’ or ‘grave misconduct’ or ‘caused
scandal’ were used when recommending a dispensation.
6.166 The Rome Files were by no means exhaustive. Brothers who left the Congregation before any
allegations came to the attention of the authorities would not appear in the Rome Files.
6.167 In addition, the Brothers who left following allegations of abuse did not appear in these files. For
example, Mr Brander21 a former Christian Brother, did not feature although he received a
Canonical Warning for sexually abusing boys in 1953 and was ultimately dispensed from his vows
in the late 1950s.
6.168 The Rome Files make it impossible to contend that the issue of abuse and, in particular, sexual
abuse of boys was not an urgent and continuing concern to the Congregation. In circumstances
where the issue of abuse in institutions had been the object of so much media attention from 1995
onwards, it is surprising that these files were only discovered to the Committee in 2004.
6.169 The scale of the problem as revealed in these documents was very serious. When other features
of abuse are taken into account, there is reason to believe that the amount of such abuse was
substantially greater than is disclosed in these records. First, there was the recidivistic nature of
child abuse; secondly, children were frightened and reluctant to speak about it; and thirdly, many
adults experienced difficulty in dealing with it.
6.170 In light of the investigations that had taken place in other jurisdictions and the evidence contained
in their own archives, together with the complaints received, the Leadership Team in this country
could be in no doubt that sexual abuse of children in their care had occurred at an unacceptably
high level in their institutions.
6.171 In the circumstances, although it was legitimate to protest about exaggerated allegations and false
claims, which were undoubtedly made in some instances, it was also the case that an attitude of
scepticism and distrust of all complaints was unwarranted and unjustified.
21

The Congregation and the Commission
6.172 The Christian Brothers, like every other Congregation coming to the investigation, had to decide
what position to adopt on the various issues that arose including:
• The quality of life generally for the children in its institutions;
• How it would approach the issue of whether abuse of children took place in the
institutions; and
• How it would conduct itself at the private hearings.
The Christian Brothers on the nature and quality of institutional life

6.173 The apologies issued by the Christian Brothers of Australia and Ireland said nothing explicit about
the nature and quality of life in their institutions. The evidence of the Irish Christian Brothers to
the Investigation Committee helped to clarify their position on this matter.
6.174 The Christian Brothers submitted that their schools provided positive experiences for the boys in
them and that they offered a generally good standard of care, education and training when
considered in the context of the time, having regard to shortages of resources and finance, and
lack of training for the Brothers. Br Gibson expressed this in his evidence in Phase I of the
Letterfrack hearings. He said:
I think also it is important to remember that we are talking about a time in the 40s, 50s
and 60s where now there is a tendency to judge life at that time from the viewpoint of
how life is now. What I would be hoping to show is that the Christian Brothers provided a
very necessary service to the State in caring for children who themselves were
marginalised. The financial support provided by the State will show that it was grossly
under funded and that the Brothers had to go to enormous lengths to provide adequately
for the needs of the pupils.
I suppose what we are pointing out in fact is that the funding level was very difficult and
it meant that literally the Brothers had to provide a quality education and a care of children
on funding that was very inadequate.
The emotional impact of residential care, and we will deal with that later on, was not really
understood and certainly separation from home and from the family, however bad the
home was, and unfortunately some of them were very inadequate, it wasn’t fully
understood the impact of that on children separated from their families.
Well, I suppose what I would say is this: Brothers were trained to be teachers. There was
no training for residential childcare. There was no State training, there was no State
funding ... I think the first course in childcare, serious course, was in Kilkenny in 1970 and
one of our Brothers went on that course when it started. There wasn’t any form of childcare
formation. There were occasional day courses or day seminars in childcare in the 1950s,
but other than that there was no proper training available and certainly no funding for it. I
would say the Brothers who went to these institutions were chosen specially, a lot of them
were of the highest calibre.
6.175 This view, that the emotional needs of children and the effects of residential care and separation
from family were not really understood, was reiterated in the oral and written submissions made
by the religious Communities. Issues raised in these submissions include the lack of any
appreciation for the emotional needs of children in care, the inadequate funding from the State,
and the lack of childcare training until the 1970s. Each of these is examined in the chapters
dealing with individual institutions.
Philosophy of care
6.176 The Congregation accepted that a focus on physical care was not sufficient to care for a child
fully and properly, but they stressed the prevailing economic and legal climate in which the
industrial schools operated as being the reason for this emphasis. In particular, they emphasised
the extreme poverty of the country during the relevant period. They contended that there was no
awareness anywhere prior to the early 1960s of the need for developmental or emotional care of
children. The Closing Submission for Artane quoted one senior member of staff who served in
Artane from 1954 to 1969:
I knew absolutely nothing about this, the philosophy of Artane when I was there was a
physical care philosophy. Look after the health of the boys, look after their physical
education, like by drill and so on. Look after their health and so on. But it was a physical
education philosophy. There was no understanding and I had no understanding at the time
about any kind of emotional education, psychological education, I had no understanding of
that at the time.
6.177 In 1927, the Superior General, Br P. J. Hennessy, set out the obligations on Superiors of
orphanages, industrial schools and schools for the deaf and dumb:22
Because of their forlorn and afflicted condition, the children of our orphanages, industrial
schools and schools for the deaf and dumb are specially dear to the Sacred Heart of Our
Lord, and the Brothers who are assigned to labour in these schools may truly feel that
they are specially privileged ... Superiors and Brothers must hold in respect the inmates
of these institutions, manifest sympathy in their lowliness and afflictions, and at all times
treat them with consideration and kindness. Severity and sternness would produce
ruinous results on the character of these afflicted ones.
The Superior, showing himself as a kind father, should set the standard of conduct to his
Brothers in their regard. He should be generous in supplying their temporal needs –
abundance of wholesome, well-prepared food of which pure milk should be a large
constituent, decent clothing suitable to the season, tender care in their ailments, and
kindly provision for their recreation and pastimes. He should, as far as he can, secure for
them suitable employment when they must leave the school, and they should know that
kindly sympathy in difficulties they may encounter after having left school will be gladly
extended to them by Superiors and Brothers.
6.178 The circular went on to recommend that the Superior should address the boys once a week and
give guidance on the importance of cleanliness, truthfulness and honesty, and should impress
upon them the meaning of ‘moral courage’ and the ‘love of truth’.
6.179 Although the words ‘emotional care’ were not used, the obligation of love, respect and
consideration for their vulnerability outlined by Br Hennessy encompassed much of what would
now be regarded as ‘emotional care’. In advocating that the Superior ‘should set the standard of
conduct to his Brothers’ by being ‘a kind father’, it is clear that the idea was to nurture children
through love, kindness and good example, and not just through punishment for infringement of
rules.
6.180 The contention in the Opening Submission for Artane was that emotional needs were not
considered at all in the caring of children, because such needs were not recognised in society as
a whole. It was clear, however, from the Cussen Report which was published in 1936, and even
from earlier Department of Education23 Annual Reports dating back to 1926, that the vulnerability
of children who were removed from their parents and placed in care was recognised and
understood well before the 1940s. These reports advocated the requirement for something more
than mere physical care.
6.181 The 1926 Department of Education Report stated:

When children have to depend entirely on a school for what their homes should give them,
much more than efficient instruction and material comfort is of importance, and it will be
obvious that, apart from arrangements for education and physical wants, there is good
reason to avoid any exaction of a hard and fast uniformity in other phases of school
activity and to encourage whatever may relieve the institutional features of such schools.24
22
P394 Circular Letters 1821–1930
23
Department of Education Annual Report 1925/1926.
24
Report of the Department of Education for the School Years 1925–26–27 and the Financial and Administrative Year
1926–1927, p 83.

6.182 This Report went on to state:
Interwoven with all activities of the schools is the moral training of the pupils, each child’s
circumstances having to be taken into account – physique, intelligence, habits,
recreations, surroundings and the effect of home influences before and after the school
period being recognised as factors in the formation of character. Individual tendencies are
noted, and, together with character developments, are briefly recorded to enable
responsible members of the staffs to draw out the best qualities and to overcome the
weaknesses of their pupils as well as to aid managers in making prudent decisions for
disposal on discharge.
6.183 In 1936 the Cussen Report stated at paragraph 69:
It must be borne in mind that the children committed to these schools have been deprived
of parental control, where such control existed, and that, in many cases they are children
requiring special study and care. It is, therefore obvious, that the person in whose charge
they have been placed should be carefully selected for the work which, because of its
difficult and peculiar nature, demands qualifications and gifts that might not be considered
indispensable in ordinary schools.
6.184 The Congregation correctly pointed out that an emphasis on physical care was echoed in the
Department of Education inspections. The inspection reports dealt with material and physical
aspects of the care of the children with little mention of their emotional well-being. Emotional well-
being could have been assessed by talking to the children and the Department Inspectors did not
generally do this.
6.185 The Christian Brothers stated that the failure of the Department to address this aspect of the work
being carried out ‘... gives an indication of how even at that time, the Department viewed the
purpose and function of industrial schools’.
6.186 The Department of Education’s Annual Report for 1924–1925 set out its function:
These schools came under the control of the Department of Education on 1st June 1924.
The function of the Department is to certify that the schools are fit for the reception of the
young persons and children committed to them. This is carried out by inspection and while
the Certificate is in force, State contributions in the form of Capitation Grants are made
towards the maintenance of the inmates.25
6.187 The Report went on to state:
In Saorstát Éireann all Reformatory and Industrial Schools are conducted by voluntary
managers, who own the Schools and are responsible for the upkeep of the buildings, the
appointment of the staff, the expenditure of the funds and all details of the school
management.
6.188 The Department did not assert control over the daily management of the schools or the way in
which care was provided. The Department was at fault because it failed to supervise the
institutions to ensure that the emotional needs of the children, which it had recognised from 1925,
were being met. That did not exempt the Congregation from responsibility for its own failure in
this regard. Moreover, the Christian Brothers had been educating children and managing industrial
schools since the preceding century and were therefore, in a position to identify the failings of the
system and to address them.
25
Report of the Department of Education for the School Year 1924–1925 and the Financial and Administrative Years
1924–25–26, p 84.

The Christian Brothers’ position on whether abuse occurred in their
schools
Physical abuse
6.189 Br Reynolds gave evidence in public to the Investigation Committee on 15th September 2005
regarding Artane. He prefaced his evidence with his general view that the picture presented of
Artane from the late 1980s through media coverage and publicity was largely negative and
seriously unbalanced. He stressed the need for balance because, ‘the Congregation’s position is
that Artane in the whole and in the round was a very positive institution’.
6.190 This was a position adopted in the Submissions in respect of the four Christian Brothers’ schools
examined in detail by the Committee.
6.191 The basic stance that their institutions were not abusive and provided a positive experience for
the boys led Br Reynolds to be sceptical of evidence to the contrary. As far as the Congregation
were concerned, when something was documented it was more likely to make some concessions
but not otherwise. An example of this was when he was asked about boys being punished for
bed-wetting. Even though individual Brothers had conceded that this occurred and many ex-
residents had testified about their experience, he was unable to accept that punishment for bed-
wetting was a feature of life in industrial schools: ‘Yes, they may have happened in instances, and
all I am saying is I haven’t any documentary evidence’.
6.192 Evidence from Brothers and ex-Brothers was regarded as potentially fallible unless backed up by
documentation. For this reason, in preparing their Submissions, the Congregation stated that they
took no account of the statements of complaints made by former pupils. They confined themselves
for this exercise to the archive material. He accepted that they had cross-checked documented
evidence with people in the Congregation as a separate exercise, but these results did not form
part of the public statement, and were a matter for private hearings. He was challenged about the
limited picture that the 11 instances documented in their records for Artane gave of the situation,
and his response was that he depended only on what he could find in the documentation and
these were presented to the Commission, and thereafter it was up to the Committee to decide.
6.193 On the issue of corporal punishment, the Christian Brothers submitted that the industrial schools
were no different from other schools in that they all accepted the use of corporal punishment.
Rules and regulations governing corporal punishment

6.194 The official rules and regulations governing corporal punishment are set out above. For the
convenience of the reader they are repeated in this section. There were two sets of rules for the
use of corporal punishment, one consisting of the rules and regulations produced by the
Department of Education,26 and the other was set down by the Congregation.
6.195 The 1933 Department of Education Rules and Regulations for Certified Industrial Schools were
aimed at reducing corporal punishment to a minimum and to controlling as far as possible such
punishments as were inflicted. Regulation 13 stated:
Punishment shall consist of:—
good conduct.
Referring to (c) personal chastisement may be inflicted by the Manager, or, in his
presence, by an Officer specially authorised by him, and in no case may it be inflicted on
26
Rules and Regulations for the Certified Industrial Schools in Saorstát Éireann Approved by the Minister of Education
under the 54th Section of the Act, 8 Edw VII., Ch 67, clauses 12 and 13 (see DES chapter).

girls over 15 years of age. In the case of girls under 15, it shall not be inflicted except in
cases of urgent necessity, each of which must be at once fully reported to the Inspector.
Caning on the hand is forbidden.
6.196 This regulation was prefaced by a clause which counselled caution in its use. It said:
The Manager or his Deputy shall be authorised to punish the Children detained in the
School in case of misconduct. All serious misconduct, and the Punishments inflicted for
it, shall be entered in a book to be kept for that purpose, which shall be laid before the
Inspector when he visits. The Manager must, however, remember that the more closely
the school is modelled on a principle of judicious family government the more salutary
shall be its discipline, and the fewer occasions will arise for resort to punishment.27
6.197 The 1946 Rules and Regulations for National Schools applied to the education28 provision within
the industrial and reformatory schools.
Instruction in regard to the infliction of Corporal Punishment in National
Schools
circumstances should corporal punishment be administered for mere failure at lessons.
(2) Only the principal teacher, or such other member of the staff as may be duly authorised by
the manager for the purpose, should inflict corporal punishment.
(3) Only a light cane or rod may be used for the purpose of corporal punishment which should
be inflicted only on the open hand. The boxing of children’s ears, the pulling of their hair or similar
ill-treatment is absolutely forbidden and will be visited with severe penalties.
(4) No teacher should carry about a cane or other instrument of punishment.
(5) Frequent recourse to corporal punishment will be considered by the Minister as indicating
bad tone and ineffective discipline.
6.198 This rule did not permit the use of the leather strap in the classroom.
6.199 In November, 1946 a circular Cir. 11/46 prepared by Michael Ó Sı́ochfhrada, the Department
Inspector, gave more detailed guidelines. The title of the circular was ‘Discipline and Punishment
in Certified Schools’. It impressed upon Resident Managers their ‘personal responsibility to ensure
that official regulations’ on matters of discipline and punishment were ‘faithfully observed by all
members of the staffs of their schools’. The circular stated corporal punishment should only be
used as a last resort where other forms of punishment had been unsuccessful as a means of
correction.
6.200 The Circular went on to stipulate:

• Corporal punishment should be administered for very grave transgressions and in no
circumstances for mere failure at school lessons or industrial training.
• Corporal punishment should in future be confined to the form usually employed in
schools, viz., slapping on the open palm with a light cane or strap.
• This punishment should only be inflicted by the Resident Manager or by a member of
the school staff specially authorised by him for the purpose.
• Any form of corporal punishment which tends to humiliate a child or expose the child
to ridicule before the other children is also forbidden. Such forms of punishment
would include special clothing, cutting off a girl’s hair and exceptional treatment at
meals.
27
Rules and Regulations for the Certified Industrial Schools in Saorstát Éireann Approved by the Minister of Education
under the Children Act, 1908.
28
The Department submit this wording ‘education provision’ in other words the internal national school.

6.201 The Circular attempted to marry the provisions of the 1933 Rules and Regulations for Certified
Schools with the new 1946 Rules and Regulations for National Schools. In so doing a certain
amount of ambiguity arose with regard to the use of a leather strap in the classroom which was
clearly not permitted in the classroom by the 1946 Rules and Regulations.
6.202 In December 1946 Cir.15/46 prepared by Michael Breathnach, Secretary of the Department of
Education and entitled ‘Circular to Managers and Teachers in regard to the infliction of Corporal
Punishment in National Schools was sent to all national schools’. It appears from this document
that two additions were made to Section (1) and (3) which did not appear when the original 1946
rules and regulations were circulated to the schools:
should be inflicted only on the open hand. The boxing of children’s ears, the pulling of their
hair or similar ill-treatment is absolutely forbidden and will be visited with severe penalties.
6.203 The circular did not authorise the use of a leather strap as an implement of punishment in
national schools.
6.204 In 1956 a further circular from the Department of Education Cir. 17/56 entitled ‘Circular to
managers and teachers of national schools in regard to corporal punishment’ was issued. This
circular was in response to publicity which had been given to the matter of corporal punishment
in national schools and was issued to re-affirm the Department’s policy with regard to corporal
punishment and to give guidance to those ‘who may be disposed to contravene Rule 96 of the
Code’. The Department stated:
In re-issuing that rule, set out hereunder, opportunity is being taken to announce an
amendment printed in italics, of Section (3).
6.205 The full rule 96 was then set out with the amendment to Section (3) was as follows:
(3) Only a light cane, rod or leather strap may be used for the purpose of corporal
punishment which should be inflicted only on the open hand. The boxing of children’s
ears, the pulling of their hair or similar ill-treatment is absolutely forbidden and will be
visited with severe penalties.
6.206 This amendment is significant in that it authorised at an official level the use of the leather strap
into national schools after a ten year gap. The evidence of the Investigation Committee would
indicate that the leather strap was used in Christian Brother schools throughout this period.
6.207 The Christian Brothers had their own rules and regulations in their Acts of Chapter and circular
letters and, from the earliest days of that organisation, minimal use of corporal punishment was
advocated. In the regulations made at the annual meetings of the Managers between 1881 and
1906, the position was clearly stated:
8. No instrument of punishment is to be allowed in the institution except the strap of
leather. No boy shall be punished therewith on any part of the body save on the palm of
the hand.
10. Extraordinary punishments are to be inflicted by the Manager only, or by some one
specially appointed by him, and in his presence.
6.208 The dangers of excessive or abusive physical punishment were well understood by the
Congregation. In 1900 the Superior General, Br Moylan, wrote on the topic of corporal punishment
in his first circular letter:
Though the Rule (Const 180, Acts of Chapter 65; D and R Chap L.1) contains definite
instructions relative to the use of Corporal Punishment in our School, the Chapter desired
I should refer to it in this Circular. Indeed, there are few matters I wish to urge with greater
insistence upon the attention of the Brothers and especially of the young Brothers, than
the evil done by the use of injudicious punishment when correcting faults of their pupils.
Corporal punishment is always degrading, and is more or less so according to the nature
of the corrective used. Apart from the physical pain endured, the child’s nature shrinks
from the shame which its infliction inspires; the boy’s incipient manhood revolts against it.
Given in excess or when undeserved, it does harm which runs through a whole lifetime;
it is never forgotten and sometimes never forgiven. The remembrance of such punishment
sinks into the retentive memory of childhood, and there remains in clear outline and with
every aggravating detail, when even the wrongs of after years have been well nigh
forgotten.
Corporal punishment should be resorted to only when every other means of correction
has failed. In some instances it should not be employed at all, as it serves only to render
the delinquent more obdurate, and to hurry him more rapidly along the evil course from
which it was intended to turn him aside.
6.209 Br Moylan continued with an uncompromising indictment of unfair or excessive punishment that
echoed through the century that followed and has immediate resonance with the work that was
undertaken by the Commission:
He does far worse who punishes when punishment is not deserved, or exceeds what the
child’s own consciousness of justice tells him should not be overstepped. Such
chastisement is brooded over and resented as a wrong which, perhaps, even years of
kindness may not entirely obliterate. Sometimes it does incalculable injury. Long after it
is recalled with bitterness, and associated unhappily not merely with the teacher who
inflicted it, but with religion itself.
6.210 Br Moylan’s words were not generally adhered to, as was clear from the circular written by his
successor, Br Whitty, in 1906:
At the General Chapter of 1900, Acts were framed to lessen the amount of corporal
punishment in the schools. Conditions were prescribed for the use of it; and various
restrictions imposed to prevent its abuse. In many schools, and even in many
establishments, these regulations faithfully were carried out, in the proper spirit, and with
the best results. In other schools – the minority truly, but still, I regret to say, too large
minority – it was not so. In these schools much of the old spirit continued to prevail. The
restrictions, laid down by the Chapter, were either ignored, or but half observed, and even
that grudgingly. The Brothers in these schools set up a standard to suit their own ideas
of what was, and what was not, legitimate punishment in given cases. These Brothers
also decided for themselves the proper times and occasions for administering corporal
punishment-and not in accordance with Rule. This course of action was very improper,
very censurable and could not have the blessing of God.
6.211 Br Whitty went on to recount the consequences of such behaviour as including discontent in the
classrooms and even petitions from parents calling for the removal of Brothers.
6.212 He concluded with a strong exhortation to his members to restrict corporal punishment ‘within the
narrowest limits’:
The Brothers generally would do well to bear in mind that the growing spirit of the times
is opposed to corporal punishment in the schools. The tendency is to abolish it. In some
countries it is positively forbidden, and illegal, for the teacher to punish a child for any
cause. He must find other and more rational methods of dealing with him. Other countries
are much ahead of Ireland in this respect; but even in Ireland the same tendency is
manifesting itself – to restrict corporal punishment in schools within the narrowest limits.
It would not be to the credit of the Brothers, as educators, to be found at the rear of this
movement when they should rather lead the way.
6.213 The 1920 Chapter was even more specific. It set down guidelines for corporal punishment which
included the advice that it should not be administered within one hour of starting or finishing school
and that numbers of boys should not be punished at the same time. It stated that:
the strap ... shall not exceed 13 inches in length; 114 in width and 14 inch in thickness; in
junior schools the strap is to be of smaller dimensions ... No child shall be punished on
any part of the body save on the palm of the hand.
6.214 The rules were revised in 1930 and stated:

It must be the aim of every Brother to reduce corporal punishment to the minimum.
Frequent recourse to corporal punishment indicates a bad tone and ineffectual
discipline ...
Corporal punishment should be administered only for grave transgressions – never for
failure in lessons.
The principal teacher only, or a Brother delegated by a Superior, shall inflict the corporal
punishment. An interval of at least ten minutes should elapse between the offence and
the punishment.
Only the approved leather strap may be used for the purpose of inflicting the corporal
punishment. The strap is to be left on the master’s desk except when in actual use.
The boxing of children’s ears, the pulling of their hair and similar ill treatment are
absolutely forbidden.
The particulars required by the headings in the corporal punishment book should be
entered in that book before the infliction of the punishment.
6.215 Residential institutions were specifically brought within these Acts of Chapter relating to corporal
punishment, which were the rules applying to Christian Brothers throughout the period relevant to
this inquiry.
6.216 The prohibition on striking a child on any part of his body other than the palm of the hands, which
was reiterated in the 1910 and 1920 Chapter, was omitted in the 1930 rules and did not appear
again in any of the rules set down by the General Chapters until 1966.
6.217 As long as corporal punishment was tolerated, the possibility of abuse existed and this was
recognised by Br Noonan, Superior General, in 1930:
The opinion amongst educators that corporal punishment should be altogether abolished
in schools is hardening. While admitting its decline in our schools, the Committee felt, and
the Higher Superiors are aware, that abuses have arisen; and they will recur, I fear, as
long as our regulations give any authority for the infliction of corporal punishment. Let us
aim at its complete abolition in our schools and anticipate legislation which would make
its infliction illegal.
6.218 The 1930 rules were adopted verbatim in 1947 and in the 1960s, and circulars were sent to all
institutions requesting moderation and decorum in the use of the strap. In 1966, for example, the
Acts of General Chapter stated:
It must be the aim of every Brother to reduce corporal punishment to a minimum. It should
be administered for serious transgressions only – never for mere failure in lessons. Only
the approved leather strap may be used for the purpose of inflicting corporal punishment.
Not more than two strokes on the palm of the hand are to be administered on any
occasion. The strap is to be left in the Master’s desk except when in actual use. The
Department’s regulations should be borne in mind.
6.219 This was the first time that Government regulations were referred to, but the recommendation was
that they should be borne in mind rather than adhered to as a legal obligation. This was addressed
in 1968 when the Acts of Chapter stated:
Government regulations must be observed in the administration of corporal punishment
and it must be the aim of each Brother to reduce it to a minimum.

6.220 Abolition of corporal punishment did not occur in Irish schools until 1st February 1982, when a
Department of Education circular stated that any teacher who used corporal punishment was
now to be ‘regarded as guilty of conduct unbefitting a teacher’ and would be subject to ‘severe
disciplinary action’.
6.221 Although this circular could have provided grounds for a civil action against a teacher who acted
in breach of it, it was not until 199729 that physical punishment by a teacher became a criminal
offence.
6.222 For over 100 years the Acts of Chapter recommended that corporal punishment should be
minimised and ultimately abolished. It is inexplicable, therefore, that Brothers who were in serious
breach of the Congregation’s own rules were tolerated and protected by the Congregation.
Complaints by parents or lay-persons were discounted, even when these complaints reached the
Provincial Leaders, notwithstanding the clear understanding the Congregation had of the danger
posed by abuse of this rule.
6.223 As already cited a submission made by the Christian Brothers and other Congregations on the
subject of corporal punishment and physical abuse is that the historical context is essential to any
investigation, and particularly the fact that such punishment was permissible and widespread in
schools and homes at the relevant time. The chapters that follow recount details of corporal
punishment which by any standards, at any time, amounted to physical abuse.
Punishment book
6.224 Under the 1933 Rules and Regulations for Certified Industrial Schools, all such schools were
required to keep a punishment book in which all serious punishments were to be recorded.
6.225 There was no evidence that the Christian Brothers kept such a book in any of their residential
schools during the relevant period. To require exclusive reliance on records and documentation
was a difficult position to justify, because the Brothers themselves failed to keep the records that
were required by law, and which were intended to allow external inspectors to see that regulations
were being complied with.
6.226 However, such documents that do exist are an important source of information. In the chapters
on each individual institution that follow, a detailed examination of the records precedes the oral
evidence heard by the Committee in the hearings.
Sexual abuse
6.227 The Congregation’s approach to allegations of sexual abuse of pupils was broadly similar for all
its schools. It was set out by Br Michael Reynolds in a representative capacity in September 2005
and may be summarised as follows:
• The Congregation accept that there were instances when members of the
Congregation and members of staff engaged in the sexual abuse of boys while in
their care.
• That such instances took place is a matter of great regret to the Congregation.
• That there was no systemic sexual abuse of boys in their institutions.
• Brothers who did sexually abuse boys betrayed the trust given them and thereby
caused pain to the great number of Brothers who honoured this trust and devoted
themselves to the education and welfare of the boys in their care.
29
Section 24 of The Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 provided:
the rule of law under which teachers are immune from criminal liability in respect of physical chastisement of pupils
is hereby abolished.
With the removal of this immunity, teachers are now subject to section 2(1) of the 1997 Act which provides that:
a person shall be guilty of the offence of assault, who without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly, directly or
indirectly applies force to and causes an impact on the body of another.Teachers who physically chastise pupils may
now be guilty of an offence and liable to 12 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of £1,500.

6.228 It is stated in the Congregation’s Artane Opening Statement that:
• The Congregation endeavoured to ensure the safety of the children in its care,
whether in day schools or in residential institutions.
• Brothers, during their training as teachers, were not given specific instruction in child
protection, and such instruction is relatively new in the training of teachers and
others involved in the education and care of youth.
• The issue of sexual abuse was seen as a moral one where such abuse was seen as
a grave moral failing. It was the cause of scandal and a moral danger both to the
child and to the abuser.
• Long-term psychological damage caused by sexual abuse was not understood by
society at the time.
• The recidivist nature of child sexual abuse was, likewise, not understood by society at
that time.
• The response of the Congregation to instances of sexual abuse was conditioned by
this inadequate understanding of the issue.
• Procedures were in place for dealing with abuse, but they were of their time and were
therefore very inadequate by current standards.
6.229 The Congregation’s statement describes how Brothers guilty of child sexual abuse were dealt with:
• A Brother not yet a finally professed member of the Congregation was usually
dismissed.
• A finally professed Brother was summoned to the Provincialate and either given a
formal Canonical Warning or dismissed.
• A repeat offender was dismissed.
6.230 The source material referred to and analysed by the Congregation in making its submission was
identified as contemporaneous documentation extracted from the Provincial Archives of the
Christian Brothers in Ireland and the General Archives of the Christian Brothers in Rome. As in
the case of its submission in relation to corporal punishment, the Congregation does not in this
submission place reliance on other possible sources of information such as the recollections and
accounts of those who lived and worked in the institutions during the relevant period, nor on the
accounts contained in the statements of complainants furnished to the Commission.
6.231 The documents extracted from the Christian Brothers archives in Rome were not comprehensive;
in most cases, they did not contain statements of the evidence; they sometimes referred to the
offence under scrutiny in oblique terms and they referred only to those cases where the allegation
against the Brother was considered well founded.
6.232 Having analysed the documented cases, the Congregation concluded that the approach to sexual
abuse was that it was seen as a moral issue. Such abuse was seen as a grave moral failing on
a number of grounds:
• It was morally wrong, sinful in itself.
• It was a cause of serious scandal to and endangered the morals of the child.
• It damaged the reputation of the individual offender, the institution and the
Congregation.
6.233 Its analysis of these cases also leads the Congregation to comment that there was no adequate
understanding either of the emotional impact which sexual abuse caused the child or of the
recidivistic nature of the abuser. The Congregation agreed with a suggestion by counsel for the
Commission that the fact that the abuse was a crime should have been added to this list.
6.234 It was submitted by the Congregation that, while the approach to instances of sexual abuse of
children was very inadequate by present-day standards, the manner in which the Congregation
did respond was characterised as follows:
• There was no cover up of the issue.
• When personnel became aware of the issue they reported it to the Congregation
authorities.
• Structures in place made it possible for boys to bring such issues to the attention of
the Resident Manager or other personnel, and this in fact happened.
• The Congregation removed the abusers from the institution and in most cases from
the Congregation.
• The Congregation Visitor was attentive to the dangers of sex abuse.
• Guidelines and recommendations were issued to assist with child protection.
6.235 In its investigations into individual schools, the Committee found that the Congregation’s response
to sexual abuse fell short of the measures outlined above.
6.236 After the conclusion of the evidence given in Phases I, II and III hearings, the Congregation
furnished written submissions setting out its position in relation to various aspects of the evidence
heard by the Investigation Committee.
6.237 In essence, the submissions made by the Christian Brothers at this stage in relation to allegations
of abuse were that the quality and reliability of the evidence given by complainants during the
Phase II hearings had been undermined owing to a broad range of significant factors. The effect
of these undermining factors was to render much of the evidence (particularly in respect of sexual
abuse) implausible, inconsistent, contradictory, and therefore unreliable.
Assessment of evidence
6.238 The Congregation emphasised in its submissions the impact that publicity and lobby groups had
on the reliability of evidence about abuse. It also outlined concerns regarding the Statute of
Limitations (Amendment) Act, 2000 which, it submitted, affected the reliability of allegations of
sexual abuse.
6.239 Many witnesses were questioned closely by counsel for the Christian Brothers about their
association with lobby and support groups. There was a clear implication by the Congregation
that active association with a lobby group was indicative of a lack of objectivity on the part of
the witness.
6.240 The Committee recognised there were grounds for concern that some complainant witnesses had
been influenced by events at meetings. For example, lists of names of Brothers who were present
in the institutions were distributed at some meetings so that ex-residents would be able to name
abusers. Issues such as this diminished the credibility and reliability of the testimony of some
witnesses.
6.241 The Christian Brothers were able to cross-examine all the complainants who came forward, and
the issue of collusion was fully explored by their counsel. Evidence of some witnesses was
discounted by the Committee where these issues arose.
6.242 The Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act, 2000 was also cited by the Congregation as a
significant factor, in that it granted extension of time for bringing claims for damages in respect of
sexual abuse in circumstances that did not apply to other forms of abuse including physical abuse.
One of the conditions for getting an extension was making a complaint to the Gardaı́.
6.243 In their final Submission for Artane, the Christian Brothers stated:
it is likely that complainants were aware of the possibility of this requirement being
incorporated into the pending legislation. Indeed ... many complainants went to the Gardai
at the suggestion of their legal advisors.
6.244 The Submission went on to state:
A substantial number of the other allegations of sexual abuse which were made to the
Commission (including allegations where the complainant ultimately chose not to give
evidence) were first made to the Gardai around 1999/2000 also and it is not unreasonable
to infer that some of these complainants may have been influenced by the prevailing
perception as to what they would have to allege so as to be eligible to make a claim
for compensation.
6.245 Matters affecting weight and transparency of evidence were not confined to complainants. On the
respondent side, some members and ex-members of the Congregation were reluctant to speak
openly and frankly about their memories of the industrial schools in which they worked. They were
reluctant to criticise the Congregation or their colleagues, and the defensive attitude which was
adopted by the Congregation in its Opening Statement was mirrored by some of the respondent
witnesses.
6.246 These and other considerations were relevant in assessment of evidence, but the occasions of
determining facts that were merely asserted on one side and denied on the other, with no
accompaniment of documentary or circumstantial material or corroboration, were greatly reduced
by the Committee’s method of investigation.
Impact of allegations on respondents

6.247 The Committee was satisfied that some allegations of abuse were false. A small number were not
the result of contamination or exaggeration but were deliberately manufactured for the purposes
of compensation or to cause maximum damage to the Christian Brothers.
6.248 Respondents spoke to the Committee about the impact that allegations of sexual abuse had on
their lives.
6.249 One Brother had an allegation of sexual abuse made against him which was never pursued by
the complainant. This Brother had come in to the Investigation Committee to answer this charge,
but was not given an opportunity to do so because of the failure of the complainant to attend, and
expressed his distress at having the allegation hang over him for four and a half years.
6.250 Another Brother described an allegation of sexual abuse that was made against him as ‘hurtful’.
He went on to say that there had never been an allegation against him in all of the subsequent
40 years that he had been a teacher. ‘Yes, I feel deeply hurt that these allegations come from a
period in my life where I literally cared for the uncared for’.
6.251 After two years, a decision was made by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) that no
prosecutions would take place. He spoke of the impact the allegations had:
This has had impact not alone on me ... But it has impacted on me and my family. It has
impacted also on a true and loyal staff, that any one of those could find themselves where
I am today. This has got to be stopped. How I don’t know, but it will have to be halted.
6.252 This man was reinstated to his teaching position shortly after the DPP’s decision, when the Board
of Management of his school declared itself satisfied, after an investigation, that this be done.
6.253 Another Brother described the experience of being accused of wrong-doing in 1997, some 40
years after he had left the Institution:
It was eight years of torture and disappointing because I felt I had dedicated myself when
I was in Artane to the people there and done great work and I was the same in every
school I was in and this was a horrible way to finish my career.
6.254 This former Brother was in his mid-60s when these allegations were put to him. He was married
with two children. Eventually, some seven years after the initial interrogation, the DPP made a
decision not to prosecute.
6.255 Allegations of sexual abuse are difficult to verify. Length of time and the inherent secrecy of the
act make it hard for complainants to prove their case, even on the ‘balance of probabilities’. To
prove such a case beyond reasonable doubt, as is required by the criminal law, is even more
difficult. In the same way as it is difficult to prove abuse, so it is also difficult to prove that abuse
did not occur.
6.256 In one case before the Committee a Brother was reinstated on the strength of a DPP decision.
Counsel for the Congregation stated that there was ‘an infrastructure put in place ... to determine
what is the correct thing to do’.
6.257 In subsequent correspondence with the Investigation Committee, it emerged that no such
procedures had been followed in this case and that the decision had been taken by the Provincial
Leadership Team. The decision was based on the fact that the only allegations against this man
were from the two years he had spent in Artane and that the Leadership Team ‘were satisfied
that they had no concerns that Br Romain30 posed any childcare dangers to children or pupils
under his stewardship’.
6.258 The Congregation stated that they were guided in this case by the 1987 Regulations and by the
Irish Bishops Advisory Committee which issued ‘A Framework for a Church Response’ (Green
Book 1996) ‘which was being adhered to by the Congregation’. In fact, the Green Book set out a
detailed procedure for dealing with allegations of child sexual abuse and these do not appear to
have been applied in this case.
6.259 It is in the interests of both genuine complainants and accused that allegations be investigated
expeditiously and in an independent and transparent manner.
The private hearings – Phase II

6.260 At the private hearings the Congregation of the Christian Brothers was usually represented by
senior and junior counsel, who were attended by the firm of Maxwells, Solicitors. At least one
senior member of the Congregation, and on most occasions more than one, was present on each
day of the hearings and heard all the testimony of both respondents and complainants. Individual
respondents were represented by either senior or junior counsel or by both. They, too, had their
own solicitor in attendance. Complainants were represented for the most part by senior counsel.
Solicitors for the complainants were also present. Some members of the Investigation Committee
legal team was present throughout.
6.261 The Congregation provided their own responses to all the complainant statements. Most were
signed by former members of staff and they generally took the form of a blanket denial of the
allegations.
6.262 There were several problems with these response statements:

• Some of the statements were signed by Brothers who were not in the School at the
time. The fact that they had signed the document gave the impression that they were
in a position to affirm the facts asserted in statements, but in reality they were in no
position to do so.
• Brothers who signed the statements gave evidence to the Committee that
contradicted the facts asserted in the response statements.
• Some statements simply omitted relevant facts, while at the same time making
assertions that were known to be incorrect or misleading.
30

6.263 The Christian Brothers began making their response statements using a policy of denying that a
Brother was ever in the institution when a complainant had got a name even slightly wrong, or
had used a Christian name or a nickname rather than the Brother’s surname.
6.264 Counsel explained the reason for this approach as follows:

I understand that in the early statements instructions were given that the Brothers were
known only by their surnames. We now know after only a few days it was a mixed bag.
6.265 In circumstances where the individual respondent either admitted abusing the complainant, or
elected to ask no questions, the Congregation was still entitled to cross-examine the witness, and
in most cases it availed itself of this opportunity.
6.266 The records provided by the Congregation, whilst limited and incomplete in some respects, were
more extensive and detailed than the materials in the archives of other Congregations, and
contributed significantly to the overall picture of these institutions. The structure of the chapters
on the institutions, proceeding from documented cases of abuse to the uncorroborated evidence,
reflects this approach. The documented cases were examined for behaviour described and for
the way the cases were managed. This illuminated attitudes the Congregation had at the time to
Brothers who broke the rules.
6.267 The documents originally discovered to the Committee were added to on several occasions. A
public hearing on discovery issues, arising out of the investigation of Carriglea Industrial School,
took place in November 2006 after prolonged correspondence failed to produce requested
material. The Congregation supplied this additional material subsequent to that hearing, which
included recordings and notes of interviews with Brothers about their experiences in industrial
schools. A further substantial body of documentary evidence was furnished in March 2007, when
the Congregation’s solicitors notified the Committee that it had decided to waive its claim to
withhold documents from discovery on the grounds of privilege.
6.268 The contemporary records of the Congregation, and in particular their Visitation Reports, allowed
an in-depth investigation of the industrial schools under their control, and this was helpful to the
work of the Committee.

Chapter 7
St Joseph’s Industrial School, Artane

(‘Artane’), 1870–1969
Introduction
Background
7.01 St Joseph’s Industrial School, Artane was established under the Industrial Schools Act (Ireland),
1868 by the Christian Brothers at the request of the then Archbishop of Dublin, Cardinal Cullen.
It opened on 28th July 1870 with the aim of caring for neglected, orphaned and abandoned Roman
Catholic boys, and it operated as an industrial school until its closure in 1969.
7.02 The Industrial School was located in a north-eastern suburb of Dublin some five kilometres from
the city centre in an area which was, at that time, open countryside amenable to intensive farming.
The application for a certificate in June 1870, to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, stated that Artane
Castle plus 56 acres of land had been purchased for the purpose of setting up an industrial school.
The request was approved and the School was licensed to accommodate 825 boys on 9th July
1870. From an original intake of three pupils, it quickly grew in scale, housing 700 boys by 1877,
and reaching its certified size of 825 boys before the end of the nineteenth century. During its
existence, approximately 15,500 boys were cared for and educated in Artane.
7.03 In 1870, the buildings consisted of a large dwelling house with out-offices, gardens and 56 acres
of arable land. The property had been purchased for £7,000, and it was proposed that dormitories,
classrooms etc. would be erected for a further £1,600. Three boys were admitted in the beginning
and then tarred sheds were put up to accommodate 40 boys. The Congregation’s Opening
Statement described how the ambitious scheme developed thereafter:
Public personages of all shades of opinion gave the school generous support. To raise
funds for the provision of permanent buildings a petition signed by a large number of
people was presented to the Lord Mayor. A public meeting was called by the Lord Mayor
in response to this petition and substantial voluntary funds were soon received. From this
response and from newspaper articles of the time it is clear that there was strong public
support for the work of the school. The design, atmosphere and work ethos of the school
received much acclaim from numerous eminent persons in public life and many visitors
were impressed with what they witnessed.
7.04 Although the initial proposal was that £1,600 would be spent building dormitories and classrooms,
an Annual published by the Brothers in 1905 recorded that buildings costing over £60,000 had
been erected at Artane by that time. The land associated with the School increased from 56 acres
to more than 350 acres by the early 1940s.1 In 1934, some 147 acres were under meadow and
1
Report on Artane Industrial School for the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse by Ciaran Fahy, Consulting
Engineer (see Appendix 1).

tillage, with the remainder being used for grazing, apart from land occupied by buildings and
playgrounds. The main building still stands today.
7.05 Artane was conceived on a grand scale. Dormitories accommodated up to 150 boys, sleeping in
ordered rows of beds with no personal space. The dining area or refectory accommodated all 825
boys at one sitting. A submission in 1934 to the Cussen Commission into industrial schools
boasted that a ‘magnificent corridor 365 feet long runs the whole length of the building’.
7.06 The undertaking comprised the School, the trade shops and the farm, in addition to the Community
house. The trade shops and the farm constituted a substantial business enterprise, of which the
farm brought in a large yearly income.
7.07 The Investigation Committee engaged a Consultant Engineer, Ciaran Fahy, to examine and report
on the buildings and accommodation in Artane, and his report is annexed at Appendix 1 to this
chapter.
7.08 The Rules and Regulations of Artane were similar to those of other industrial schools and required
it to provide for the physical needs of the boys committed to the School, who were to be supplied
with suitable accommodation, clothing, food, and instruction. Recreation was to be provided and
they were allowed to receive visitors and to correspond with outsiders. They were to receive
religious instruction, a secular education and industrial training. The School was also required to
develop a spirit of industry, pride and discipline amongst the children.2
7.09 The number of children detained in Artane from 1937 to 1969 was as follows:
1936 n/a 1944 820 1952 732 1960 421 1968 230
1937 679 1945 820 1953 696 1961 395 1969 211
1938 737 1946 811 1954 739 1962 367
1939 772 1947 797 1955 650 1963 341
1940 820 1948 830 1956 566 1964 319
1941 817 1949 803 1957 496 1965 314
1942 817 1950 776 1958 426 1966 307
1943 810 1951 749 1959 446 1967 230
7.10 These boys were ordered to be detained in Artane by the courts for reasons of inadequate parental
care, destitution, neglect, truancy or the commission of minor offences. It is clear, however, that
poverty was the underlying reason why children were sent to Artane, whatever the statutory
category grounding the detention.
7.11 The reasons for committals during the period from 1940 to 1969 were as follows:
Improper School Destitution Homelessness Larceny Other crime

guardianship Attendance
Act
1374 1045 720 227 229 90
7.12 Other admissions to Artane were insignificant in number in the 1940s but they increased
substantially later. Health Board and voluntary admissions increased from 13 in the 1940s to 113
2
Rules and Regulations of Industrial Schools 1885.

in the 1950s, and 136 in the 1960s. These admissions were not included in the number of children
in respect of whom a capitation grant was payable by the Department of Education. They were
either privately funded to attend the School or paid for by the Health Board, and in the latter years
they accounted for an additional 50% of boys in Artane.
7.13 During June 1969, the 211 boys who were still detained in Artane were moved out and the
Institution closed on the 30th of that month. 120 boys were discharged to their parents or
godparents or placed in jobs. Of the remainder, 26 boys were transferred to Ferryhouse, and the
others went in small numbers to different institutions around the country. These dispositions were
agreed after much discussion and many meetings between the School authorities and the
Department of Education.
7.14 In the years leading up to the closure, and particularly during the late 1960s, there was a dramatic
decline in the number of children who would potentially have made up the population of industrial
schools. Legal adoption, fostering and boarding-out were among the principal reasons for the
decline. In addition, attitudes of the public and a number of State officials had become
unsympathetic to industrial schools as a means of caring for deprived children. Improvements in
economic and social conditions and benefits also contributed.
7.15 Artane, as the biggest industrial school, was most vulnerable to these developments. The Superior
was a member of the Kennedy Committee that began work in 1967 and was expected to report
in mid-1968. He was privy to the thinking of the Committee and was able to inform his colleagues
in the Congregation that the Committee was going to recommend the closure of Artane.
7.16 Br Reynolds, Deputy Leader of St Mary’s Province of the Christian Brothers, said at the Phase I
hearing that it was clear at the time that the Kennedy Committee would recommend the closure
of industrial schools. The Opening Statement stated:
it was becoming clear to the Congregation that the future of Artane Industrial School was
uncertain and had been under discussion from the middle nineteen fifties. Eventually, in
or around 1967 the Congregation took a decision in principle to close the institution.
7.17 Br Reynolds added that he thought that the decision ‘could have been taken in 1967’, with the
timing being left to the Provincial to decide. On 23rd January 1968 the Provincial informed the
Minister for Education that the School would close on 31st August of that year. At a meeting
attended by the Minister in March, the Brothers agreed to a deferment until 31st December 1968,
to give the Department time to arrange alternative accommodation for the boys. One further
extension until 30th June 1968 was subsequently agreed.
The Cussen Report and Artane

7.18 The beginning of the relevant period of this inquiry coincided with the publication in 1936 of the
Cussen Report into Industrial and Reformatory Schools.3 The Congregation had made a written
submission to the Cussen Inquiry, with a detailed account of the system of care and an
unapologetic defence of all aspects of the Institution.
7.19 The Congregation was worried that the Cussen Commission would call for changes in Artane,
and there was relief when that body’s visit to the School went off successfully and the Brothers
were reassured by their belief that the Commissioners seemed pleased by what they saw. The
Brothers knew that talk of change was in the air and they were hoping to persuade the
Commissioners to approve the existing state of affairs. Br Strahan, who wrote the submission for
the Congregation, concluded it with the request that Artane should remain as it was:
3
Commission of Inquiry into the Reformatory and Industrial School System 1934-1936 chaired by Justice Cussen.

Whether judged by the greatness of its successes, or by the small proportion of its failures,
or by the world-wide fame it has attained, we submit, Mr Chairman, Ladies and
Gentlemen, that not only should Artane be allowed to stand untouched, but that it should
be cordially and generously supported.
7.20 The submission responded to the suggestion that the School was too big, by arguing that it had
succeeded beyond all expectations and that:
in its largeness lies its chief merit and advantage; for it is its size and its multiplicity of
activities that afford exercise to those following the various trades, etc., within its own
precincts. It is only in a large school that such a variety of trades could be established to
meet the immediate demands of the Institution.
7.21 Acknowledging that ‘the air has become charged with reports of even drastic changes’ because
of recent legislation in England, Br Strahan emphasised the differences between the countries
and the fact that the new ideas were as yet unproven. He wrote that the legislation dealt ‘with a
different people, a people of different temperament, of different religious opinions’.
7.22 The submission painted an idyllic picture of life in Artane, describing in detail the facilities for
education, training, recreation, aftercare and the living conditions of the boys as being in all
respects of the highest quality. No significant faults were admitted. However, in spite of the writer’s
zeal in defending every feature of the Institution, something of the impersonal nature of the School
crept into the submission. The mealtime routine was described as follows:
After mid-day we hear a bugle-call and see the assembling of the clans from farm and
shops and band room and knitting room, as they form in companies before dinner hour.
We see them walk in perfect order, but with free step, and await in silence till the presiding
Brother pronounces Grace. We see them sit down in perfect silence until given leave to
chat ...
7.23 Some issues that were of real concern to the Commissioners in the Cussen Inquiry were
discussed very favourably in the Christian Brothers’ submission, but it transpired when the Report
was published that they were anything but convinced. The recommendations made by the Cussen
Commission rejected some important parts of the submissions that the Congregation had put
forward. The proposal to split up Artane into four units, the criticism of education, and the
dissatisfaction with supervision and aftercare of children leaving Christian Brothers’ industrial
schools went directly against the arguments in support of the Institution. Some other
recommendations were not specific to Artane but were no less applicable and were also implicitly
adverse findings.
7.24 The Commission concluded that the School was too big by a factor of about four, and
recommended that it should be divided. Paragraph 72 of the Report stated:
In our opinion the best results can be obtained only where the number under any one
Manager does not exceed 200 pupils. We think that in no case should the number exceed
250. It is necessary in this connection to refer specifically to the case of Artane Industrial
School, which is certified for 800 boys and where there are on an average about 700
boys. It is in our view impossible for the Manager in an Institution of this size to bring to
bear that personal touch essential to give each child the impression that he is an individual
in whose troubles, ambitions, and welfare a lively interest is being taken. We strongly
recommend, therefore, that Artane should be divided into separate Schools, the pupils
being segregated according to age and attainments. Each school should contain not more
than 250 pupils under the control of a sub-manger, whose appointment and removal
should be subject to the approval of the Minister ...
7.25 Artane was also singled out for criticism of the education provided. The Commission noted with
regret at paragraph 92 of the Report:
... that in Artane Industrial School, with over 700 pupils, only the minimum standard of
literary education required by the regulations is provided, and pupils, however promising,
cannot, as a rule, proceed beyond sixth standard.
7.26 The Commission commented on supervision and aftercare of children discharged from industrial
schools, and was critical of this aspect of care in schools run by the Christian Brothers. Paragraph
120 said:
We are not satisfied as to the adequacy of the methods of supervision and after-care of
children discharged from these schools, particularly in the case of boys leaving the
Industrial Schools which are under the management of the Christian Brothers.
7.27 On this subject, the Brothers’ submission had described a very satisfactory situation, which was
obviously not accepted by the Commissioners:
The school keeps in touch with the ex-pupils by letters, enquiries, meetings, when on
holiday, reports from employers, etc., for at least two years, and generally for three years
after they leave school, and taking into account how greatly they were handicapped in
earlier life, it is most gratifying to find the small percentage of those who have failed to
make good.
7.28 The Cussen Report made other observations and criticisms that were not specific to Artane or to
Christian Brothers’ institutions, and they are discussed as they arise in considering the evidence.
7.29 The concerns expressed by Cussen were well founded. In particular, the excessive numbers of
boys in the School continued to have a detrimental effect on the capacity of the Institution to
provide a caring environment and on the lives of those who lived and worked in it, and contributed
greatly to the problems that emerged over the years. The Congregation has conceded that,
because of the numbers and because of the need for constant vigilance, Artane was run on a
highly organised basis, even to the point of regimentation.
7.30 The recommendation to divide the Industrial School was not implemented, although, in the last
years of Artane’s existence when the numbers had dropped to a fraction of previous decades, the
boys were segregated into two groups according to their ages. The documentary records of the
Christian Brothers and the Department of Education did not disclose the reason for rejecting the
proposal to divide the School. There was no record of discussion or debate or of any explicit
decision in that regard. Although the Congregation in its submissions has blamed the Department
of Education for failure to implement this recommendation, it must also bear responsibility. If the
Brothers had proposed such a change, it is difficult to see how the Department could have
reasonably opposed it. When the division was made in 1967, admittedly a much smaller alteration
in view of the reduced population, it was an internal decision of the Congregation.
Management and staff

7.31 The hierarchical nature of the religious leadership in Artane had consequences for the
management of the School. Evidence before the Committee pointed to a rigid and simplistic
management structure, whereby all the power and all the decision-making function lay with the
Resident Manager. Individual Brothers spoke to the Committee about their own feelings of
helplessness and frustration at their inability to effect change. Older Brothers had authority over
younger colleagues, and this allowed a system to develop whereby all the heavy workload of the
Institution fell on a small number of young, inexperienced Brothers who were obliged by their vows
of obedience to carry out instructions without question.
7.32 The Institution was not adequately staffed. The day-to-day operation was left to a small number
of largely inexperienced and untrained Brothers who were required to work for up to 14 hours a
day, seven days a week. Other Brothers lived in the Community and participated to varying
degrees in the Institution, for example in administrative work, while some Brothers did not
participate at all in the running of the School due to age, ill-health or even, according to one
Brother, because of disinclination. These Brothers were supported by the School, but did not
participate in its work.
7.33 The Brothers working in the Institution were not instructed in childcare. Their tuition was the
teacher training for national schools which was provided by the Congregation at its own Marino
training college. Brothers attended teacher training in Marino for one year and were then sent out
to a Christian Brothers’ school for experience for a number of years, before returning to complete
their second and final years. Many young Brothers were sent to Artane as their first posting in this
interim period, when they were wholly unqualified to care for children and had completed only half
of their course as teachers. The Investigation Committee heard evidence from former members
of staff of Artane that they were shocked by their first experience and overwhelmed by the scale
of the task imposed on them.
The investigation
7.34 Phase I of the hearings into Artane took place on 15th September 2005 with a public session at
the Alexander Hotel, Merrion Square, Dublin 2. Evidence was heard from Br Michael Reynolds,
who described life in the Institution and outlined the Congregation’s view as to how the
Institution operated.
7.35 Phase II commenced on 26th September 2005 in the offices of the Commission and continued in
private in accordance with the legislation until 16th December 2005. The Investigation Committee
invited 78 complainants to give evidence as part of the Artane inquiry, of whom 48 attended and
gave evidence. 26 respondents, either Brothers or ex-Brothers gave evidence. In addition, the
Committee heard from two other witnesses who were in a position to give general information
about the Institution.4
7.36 In Phase III of the Investigation Committee’s inquiry into Artane, Br Reynolds returned to give
evidence on behalf of the Congregation at a public hearing which took place on 22nd and 23rd May
2006. This session focused on issues that arose as a result of the private hearings into Artane
and the documentary material furnished to the Commission.
7.37 In addition to oral evidence, the Investigation Committee considered documentary discovery
material received from a number of sources, namely the Christian Brothers, the Department of
Education and Science, An Garda Sı́ochána, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Archbishop
of Dublin and the Health Service Executive.
7.38 There are Department of Education General and Medical Inspection Reports for most of the period
of the investigation. Files from the headquarters of the Christian Brothers in Rome yielded
evidence of cases of sexual abuse considered by the Congregation to have been admitted or
proven against individual Brothers. Visitation Reports of the Christian Brothers were another
valuable source of information. Infirmary records were scant and were shown to be misleading in
some cases. There was a statutory requirement to maintain a punishment book, which was to be
examined by the Department of Education Inspector, but no such book was maintained.
7.39 An unusual feature about Artane was that there was independent evidence as to conditions there.
The evidence was firstly that of Fr Henry Moore, who was chaplain to Artane by appointment of
4
Dr McQuaid and Fr Henry Moore.

the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr J.C. McQuaid, from 1960 to 1967. Fr Moore was the author of a
confidential report on conditions in Artane, which he wrote in 1962 at the request of the
Archbishop. He also gave evidence about the Institution to an Inter-Departmental Committee on
juvenile crime in the same year, as a result of which controversy arose between officials of the
Department of Justice and the Department of Education. Fr Moore was exceptionally qualified to
comment on residential schools and the Christian Brothers, because he had spent nearly 10 years
as a resident of St Vincent’s Glasnevin, an orphanage operated by the Christian Brothers. Fr
Moore’s evidence is discussed in detail later in this chapter.
7.40 The Investigation Committee also heard evidence from Dr Paul McQuaid, consultant psychiatrist,
who was a regular visitor to Artane in the late 1960s.
7.41 The Investigation Committee engaged experts to prepare reports on Artane. Mazars, a firm of
accountants and financial consultants, analysed the accounts of the Institution and produced a
report which was provided to the Congregation for comment and response. The issues concerning
Artane are analysed in the Mazars’ report which is dealt with in Vol IV. As indicated above, Mr
Ciaran Fahy, consulting engineer, prepared a report on the buildings and lands of the Institution,
which was similarly sent for comment and which is also annexed (to the chapter).
Concessions and submissions

7.42 The Investigation Committee received submissions from the Christian Brothers in relation to
Artane in February 2007. A number of complainants and individual respondents also made written
submissions on the oral and documentary evidence that emerged during the inquiry.
7.43 The Christian Brothers made similar submissions regarding Artane as they made in relation to
other institutions. In particular, they submitted that:
an analysis of all the evidence before the Commission strongly suggests that, at a time
of significant economic deprivation in the State, the Congregation fully and properly
discharged its legal and moral obligations to care for the boys in Artane and that it did so
notwithstanding limited financial and related support from the State. Further, in spite of
considerable restrictions, the Congregation adopted a progressive and reforming
approach to childcare which became particularly apparent in the 1960s. When one takes
all of the evidence before the Commission into account, there can be no doubt that, at
all times, the welfare and best interests of the boys was the paramount concern of the
Congregation and of its members who worked in Artane. The evidence would also suggest
that the quality of care which was thus provided to the boys was, in all the circumstances,
of a particularly high standard.
7.44 The Congregation accepted that the regime was mainly one of physical care and did not
encompass much in the way of emotional attention. The Brothers denied that the Institution was
generally an abusive one, and their fundamental contention was that Artane was a positive
Institution which generally was a force for good.
7.45 With regard to sexual abuse, they acknowledged that such incidents had happened, and they
greatly regretted them. They said that, as a Congregation, it did not tolerate such behaviour and
the available evidence, they claimed, showed that they responded appropriately according to the
norms of the time, even if present standards would condemn them.
7.46 As to allegations of physical abuse, the Congregation was also generally defensive. It maintained
that this issue had to be seen in the context of the time, when corporal punishment was permitted,
not only in industrial schools but in all schools, and was also common in homes across the country.
Moreover, the Christian Brothers’ own rules forbade excessive punishment and encouraged a
minimalist approach to the physical punishment of children. Where excessive punishment
occurred, it was disapproved of, and the records of the Congregation showed that, where
instances came to light, they were the subject of comment and criticism. A Disciplinarian was
employed in the School to deal with all serious breaches of discipline, and that promoted
consistency of treatment.
7.47 They maintained that there was overall a good relationship between Brothers and boys in Artane,
and the picture of a frightening regime with a climate of fear was a misrepresentation of the
situation.
7.48 The positions adopted by individual respondents were more consistent with the evidence of the
complainants.
Issues
7.49 In accordance with the legislation, the Committee was required to determine what abuse took
place in Artane, how it happened, how much of the particular abuse was perpetrated, and why it
happened. This chapter addresses the different forms of abuse, which can be summarised as
physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect and emotional abuse. The method adopted in this and
other chapters, in dealing with specific abuse, is first to analyse documentary material which may
be considered reliable, and then to proceed to the oral evidence given by complainants and
respondents, and to relate it where appropriate to the documented evidence. A further question
has also to be considered, namely whether the Institution provided a safe, secure environment
for the boys who were detained in it.
7.50 With regard to the oral evidence of complainants, the Congregation in its submissions drew
attention to features that it maintained detracted from the credibility and reliability of testimony of
abuse. It pointed out that the events in question happened many years ago, and witnesses’
memories were less reliable because of the lapse of time. They also pointed to interference of
independent recollection by reason of contact with other former residents and by attendance at
meetings promoted by campaigning groups. Other relevant features included media publicity and
issues of compensation. These problems were exacerbated in the investigation of Artane because
it was the biggest institution and one of the most controversial.
7.51 Any investigation of an institution such as Artane has to be aware of the possibility that evidence
may be lacking in credibility or reliability for many reasons. Memories can indeed be affected by
lapse of time. Witnesses whose credibility is not in issue may nevertheless be mistaken in their
recollection of particular events. Influences may operate even subconsciously. A tendency to
exaggerate the details of events also cannot be overlooked. Some witnesses intentionally set out
to give untruthful evidence. The campaign for recognition and redress for wrongs alleged to have
been committed in the past was not a reason to reject the testimony of everybody involved. The
fact that witnesses attended meetings or spoke to others was relevant in considering the value of
their evidence, but was not a basis for rejecting it as necessarily unreliable.
7.52 There can be no general rule, in Artane or elsewhere, either to accept or to reject the evidence
of witnesses who may have been affected by factors tending to reduce the reliability of their
evidence. Each witness has to be considered individually. As with evidence in a civil or criminal
trial in court, the Committee may accept or reject the whole or any part of the testimony offered.
7.53 Grounds for questioning reliability of evidence were not confined to complainants. Respondents
also were subject to lapses of memory and potential distortions of recollection. In some cases,
the reliability of evidence could have been affected by the gravity of the allegations made against
respondents themselves or against their colleagues; loyalty and affection for others, and for the
Institution and the Congregation, may also have had a distorting influence on their testimony.
7.54 The approach taken by the Committee, of proceeding from analysis of documentary material
containing contemporary accounts of incidents and then, where possible, assessing the oral
evidence by reference thereto, tended to lessen the occasions where it was necessary to choose
between witnesses asserting and denying particular events.
7.55 The Committee was satisfied that its approach yielded an accurate picture of the Institution and
the matters which it was required to determine.
Physical abuse
Introduction
7.56 The role of corporal punishment in the management of the Institution is central to this topic. The
Congregation accept that it was part of the disciplinary regime, but it also contends that Artane
was no different in that respect from other schools, and that corporal punishment was also a
feature of home life for many children at the time. Against a background of widespread use of
corporal punishment, they contend that the system of discipline in Artane was not stricter than it
was in primary schools. They do, however, concede that there were cases of excessive
punishment by Christian Brothers in Artane. Some of those were documented in the
Congregation’s records that were made available by way of discovery of documents to the
Investigation Committee. The Brothers point to these records as evidence that the Congregation
did not overlook or condone excesses in physical punishment. They also accept that there may
have been more cases, but they are reluctant to go further by way of concession on this issue
than was required by the documentary material in the Congregation’s archives. In coming to their
position on physical abuse, the Brothers did not take into account the allegations that were made
by complainants in their written statements.
7.57 The spokesman for the Christian Brothers at Phases I and III of the hearings was Br Michael
Reynolds, who conceded that:
There are three and possibly four cases there where I would say yes, there was certainly
very severe punishment administered. I am not saying that is the totality of it, I am saying
that is what I can work out of on record. I would say the discipline was quite strict and
corporal punishment was used and so on. What I am saying is I don’t think that even
in relation to physical punishment that it was an abusive institution by the standards of
the time.
7.58 He was then asked if he accepted that it probably went further than that and he replied:
I do, yes. Unfortunately I am doing that in one sense off the top of my head or from a gut
feeling rather than saying – if I was challenged on that I can’t stand it up with
documentation because I haven’t got it, but I am not saying that in the absence of
documentation that nothing else happened other than what was documented here.
7.59 In relation to documentary sources, Br Reynolds was unable to explain the absence of a
punishment book, which was required by regulations to be kept, but he accepted the obvious point
that such a record would have assisted the inquiry. Indeed, as appears from the discussion of this
matter below, maintaining that book would also have tended to reduce excesses.
7.60 The Congregation’s concessions stopped far short of what the complainants alleged and did not
even match the admissions of individual respondents. Among the latter witnesses were Brothers
and former Brothers who expressed sympathy with the boys and agreed with much of their
evidence, and a number of them were also prepared to admit their own failings and frustrations
and to criticise the system generally. The Congregation engaged a barrister, Mr Bernard Dunleavy,
to report privately on a number of institutions, including Artane. In the course of this research,
some Brothers were much more candid in interviews with Mr Dunleavy than were the Brothers
who appeared before the Investigation Committee.
7.61 Complainants alleged that the regime of discipline was unlawful, cruel and unjust. They claimed
that it was impossible to avoid punishment in Artane, and that punishment was administered
inconsistently, irrationally and capriciously by different Brothers. They alleged that, even if a boy
obeyed all the rules and did what he was told, he could encounter a Brother who was in bad form
or who had some other excuse for administering punishment. A boy might be punished for
anything or for nothing. They maintained that there was a pervasive climate of fear in the Institution
that came about because of the unbridled use of corporal punishment.
7.62 Although Artane had an appointed Disciplinarian to deal with serious offences, all Brothers carried
leathers and administered punishment for a wide variety of infractions, and other adults were also
permitted to punish. Witnesses did not generally complain about punishment that they felt was
deserved, even if it was severe.
7.63 One long-serving Disciplinarian was acknowledged, by all the former residents who spoke about
him, to have been strict but fair even though he sometimes punished them severely. This Brother
was named and accused of physical abuse in many complainants’ statements, but the
Investigation Committee did not find that the evidence at Phase II supported such a conclusion.
7.64 The Investigation Committee had to choose between conflicting accounts of the regime in Artane
on the fundamental issue as to whether uncontrolled corporal punishment was a feature of the
system, so that physical abuse was systemic, or whether there were occasional contraventions of
the rules that did not undermine a proper system of management.
7.65 The material available to the Investigation Committee in considering this issue included:
• The evidence of former residents and members of staff.
• The evidence of Dr Paul McQuaid, Consultant Child Psychiatrist, who did some work
and research in Artane.
• The report written by Fr Henry Moore in 1962, together with his evidence to the
• Department of Education discovery.
• Garda Sı́ochána discovery.
• Contemporary documents including the Visitation Reports compiled by the Christian
Brothers during the period under review.
• Letters on the subject of corporal punishment provided by the Christian Brothers.
Documentary evidence
Br Noonan’s attempts to limit corporal punishment

7.66 Br Noonan was Superior General of the Congregation from 1930 to 1949. He was anxious to
reduce the reliance on corporal punishment and he admonished those who were intemperate in
its use. There are some grounds for believing he did keep down its excessive use during his
tenure of office. Letters written by him make it clear that the management of the Congregation
knew excessive and frequent use of corporal punishment was a problem from the beginning of
the period of this inquiry.
7.67 A Visitation Report in the early 1930s described an extraordinary penalty imposed on a Brother
in the refectory:
Br Sebastien5 erred on two occasions in punishing boys severely. The Superior reproved
him publicly and ordered him to make a public apology, on his knees in the Refectory ...
Br Sebastien was honestly penitent and determined to amend. Indeed he is on the whole
a good young Brother.
7.68 The severity of the punishment meted out to the boys to warrant this extraordinary reprimand was
not disclosed, but Br Sebastien did not mend his ways and continued to punish boys excessively.
Evidence of his subsequent conduct was found in a letter to him in 1937 from the Superior
General, Br Noonan, who made it clear that he deplored severe physical punishment:
In order to make your life more pleasing to God by fidelity to your obligations I wish to
point out two rather serious faults mentioned in the suffrages I received about you. One
is your severity to the boys. This is indefensible; it is in every way against the canons of
the teaching profession. Punishment in a moderate way is allowed; but severity is
altogether to be avoided. It injures the boy’s feelings and never produces real
improvement. Let Christ be your Model; He was meek and kindness itself, yet He was the
greatest Teacher the world has ever known. Do not imagine you have discovered better
methods in harshness and severity.
7.69 The second fault referred to in the letter concerned his vow of poverty.
7.70 In a similar letter in 1935, Br Noonan wrote to Br Jules6 in Artane:

You incline to the harsh side in school both in language and in inflicting bodily pain. Pupils
hate sarcasm and they have a keen sense of what is just and fair in punishment. If you
would secure respect for yourself and for your teaching be kind and just towards your
pupils. It is said you are a poor student yourself. Perhaps it is due to your failure to make
preparation for your work as a teacher that your pupils are made to suffer doubly.
7.71 Br Jules previously worked in Tralee in the 1930s, where his behaviour had also come to the
attention of the Provincial and a Visitor. Whilst in Tralee, he was accused of beating a boy
severely. When he was asked for an explanation of this severe corporal punishment, Br Jules
wrote to the Provincial claiming that the Industrial School Inspector had advised him to give the
boy special physical training to remedy a physical defect. The boy failed to perform an exercise
on this occasion, though formerly he had been capable of doing so, and he had therefore been
punished. Br Jules acknowledged that this punishment was excessive in the circumstances.
7.72 Less than a month later, the Visitor commented that Br Jules had his:
boys in a state of terror. He maintains a harsh, unnatural discipline. His boys show this.
At times, he has been very severe and has treated individual boys in a cruel manner. He
does not seem to realise that he is severe or if he does he will not admit it. Br Karcsi7 is
being drawn to follow his bad example however, Br Karcsi is by no means so bad ... Were
it not for the occasional outbreaks of severity on the part of Br Jules, and his general harsh
manner in dealing with them, the school would hold a high place amongst our Institutions.
7.73 Br Jules had been due to take his perpetual vows, but was rejected. The following year, it was
noted that he was too exacting in school. He showed ‘little devotedness to study’ and was
‘troublesome, crossgrained’. It was concluded that he ‘has not had good record – doubtful
candidate’. He was, however, ultimately allowed to take his vows.
5
6
This is a pseudonym. See also the Tralee chapter.
7

7.74 He moved from Tralee to Artane, where he stayed until the 1950s. He later worked for six years
in Glin.
7.75 Br Beaufort8 was on the staff of Artane throughout the 1940s and early 1950s, having previously
worked in Tralee,9 where he received a letter from Br Noonan, Superior General of the
Congregation, warning him about his temper and the risk he posed of causing serious bodily harm
to the boys:
A still more dangerous weakness in you was mentioned in the suffrages. You are
passionate in your dealings with the boys. In fact at times you show so little control of
your temper that you are in danger of inflicting serious bodily harm on the boys by your
manner of correcting them. Watch yourself and pray to God to give you some of His
meekness and forbearance. Never punish a boy in any way except what is permitted by
the Rule. Forgive easily the small failings of your pupils and in this way more good will be
done than by harsh treatment.
7.76 The Investigation Committee heard evidence from complainants about Br Beaufort. A witness
recalled an example of his temper, when he suffered the kind of serious bodily harm apprehended
by Br Noonan. Br Beaufort thought that the boy was laughing at him in class and responded
impetuously:
he jumped straight at me, picked me up, threw me like a dog around the place. I hit desks,
hit the floor. I landed after some time on the floor. The commotion of boys screaming had
brought Br Quintrell,10 who was in 11 school, which was the next school, he flew in and
pulled him off. I know I was unconscious, and I know to God that if it hadn’t been for him
coming in, I do not think I would be here today, in all honesty. The attack was vicious.
Moments later, he was apologising, crying.
7.77 At the time of this incident, the boy was recovering from injuries to his hand sustained from an
accident in the carpenter’s shop, which was confirmed by the infirmary records. The wounds
opened in the assault by Br Beaufort. In addition, the witness complained of lacerations and
injuries to his left eye and neck. Some of his teeth were broken, he lost one tooth on one side of
his mouth and two on the other. He was brought to the infirmary after the attack and when he had
quietened down he was taken to the dormitory. Until this incident he had had no difficulty with Br
Beaufort, whom he described as friendly.
7.78 Another witness, who was in Artane from 1945 to 1950, claimed that Br Beaufort oscillated
between kindness and impetuous violence.
7.79 In conclusion:
• Notwithstanding the opposition of the Superior General to excessive and
intemperate punishment and clear guidance given to Brothers, the problem
persisted.
• The Superior General expressed himself in the restrained, admonitory language
of pastoral counselling rather than issuing direct instructions.
• In circumstances where every Brother in Artane was given a leather for corporal
punishment of the boys, it is difficult to see how these excesses could be
avoided. Restricting the leather to the Disciplinarian would have had a direct
effect on preventing capricious and excessive punishment, and Br Noonan could
have directed that this be done.
8
9
Br Beaufort had previously also worked in Carriglea in the early 1930s.
10

Letter of complaint to the Department of Education by former resident
7.80 In 1946 a former resident of Artane (from 1929 to 1935) began to correspond with the Department
of Education regarding conditions at Artane. Initially, his complaints related to the primitive
sanitation system in operation in the Institution. Then, in a letter dated 6th November, he wrote:
It is 11 yrs since I was in Artane and I dont forget one minute of it, neither do others, the
injustices done to others and myself, I will see; wont happen to others:
Boys beaten, under the Shower Baths by Staff Mr Byrne,11 Boys heads beaten on the
Handball Alley Wall by Bro Acel12 And a Drill Master who used say “do it where you Stand”
when a Boy ask to go to the W.C.
7.81 In a memorandum dated 8th November 1946, the Assistant Secretary in the Department of
Education agreed with the Inspector that no action was required in response to this letter. No
response was sent to the former resident and no comment was sought from the Resident
Manager.
7.82 • The attitude of the Department of Education to a serious complaint was

dismissive. No attempt was made to establish the veracity of the complaints.
Br Maurice13
7.83 A Visitation Report in the late 1930s was critical of a Brother for his free use of the ‘slapper’, which
was a shorter and thinner strap than the leather. The Visitor noted that the boys were:
well disciplined and I am happy to be able to say that there was no evidence of undue or
severe corporal punishment. I was assured by practically all the Brothers that there is
very little corporal punishment indulged in. I did come across one case of the free use of
the slapper. This was in the class room of Br Maurice. He gave about 16 slaps one after
the other. I walked in just at the end. The slaps were not severe and the effect could only
help towards demoralising the poor lads. I had a word with Br Wiatt14 and asked him to
help Br Maurice to establish his control without having recourse to the useless method of
indiscriminate slapping. But it is indeed satisfactory to find that there is very little corporal
punishment and that in recent times there has not occurred any instance of undue
severity. Br Eliot15 is Master of Discipline and is doing very well in this position. He is very
anxious to do his best and he is succeeding very well in his exacting duties. There is still
too much reliance on the slapper and not enough on personal influence. The only member
of the staff who has succeeded in getting along with the boys without having recourse to
corporal punishment is Br Dennet.16 His personal influence is very great, and his single-
mindedness and truly Christ-like attitude in his dealing with his boys is having a marked
effect for good on them.
7.84 In view of the content of this section of his report, it is hard to understand how the Visitor could
have been assured that there was very little corporal punishment indulged in. The comment that
it was ‘satisfactory to find that there is very little corporal punishment’ was contradicted by the
criticisms he went on to make. He noted that only one member of the staff had ‘succeeded in
getting along with the boys without having recourse to corporal punishment’, and there was ‘too
much reliance on the slapper and not enough on personal influence’. Furthermore, his comment,
‘It is indeed satisfactory ... that in recent times that there has not occurred any instance of undue
severity’ implied that there had been such instances in the past.
11
12
13
14
15
This is a pseudonym. See also the Carriglea chapter.
16

7.85 • At the very least, this report showed there was a problem regarding the use of
corporal punishment in Artane. Only one Brother could maintain discipline
without using the leather.
Br Eriq17
7.86 Br Eriq worked in Artane for less than a year in the late 1940s. He left in April, not August, which
was the usual time for Brothers to be moved. Br Eriq had previously worked in Tralee in the late
1930s, where three consecutive Visitation Reports were critical of his severity towards the boys.
A full account is contained in the Tralee chapter.
Br Olivier18
7.87 The Inspector of Industrial Schools wrote, in July 1949, asking for details of an incident involving
Br Olivier, and the Resident Manager replied three days later:
Last year [the mother of a boy] happened to visit the School the very day her second son
... had a black eye. She mentioned the matter to me, and I investigated it there and then.
Apparently the Brother losing his temper in class gave the boy a blow on the face with
the palm of his hand, and next day the skin was discoloured. (Of course the discolouration
disappeared within a few days.) I spoke to the Brother implicated (Br Olivier) and made it
clear that such should not happen again. And as far as I know nothing has happened
since then.
7.88 Br Olivier gave evidence to the Investigation Committee. He did not recall being reprimanded by
the Resident Manager for using excessive violence, but he thought that an elderly teacher had
told him to keep his temper in check.
7.89 Br Olivier served in Artane in the late 1940s and early 1950s. He said that all Brothers were issued
with a leather strap to maintain discipline, and commented:
The danger with that is this; that it could be used excessively ... depending on the type of
person you were. You could be somebody with a short fuse like myself, I have to admit I
had the short fuse, and there would be times perhaps when ... you would be inclined to
use it. You see it was the only armoury you had ... In fairness I would say though that the
Rules of the Congregation laid down, I am just thinking back and I want to be fair to the
Brothers as well, rules are there maybe to be broke, but it was specified that corporal
punishment should never be used for failure in lessons, that type of thing.
... I could go a week, a month, without ever giving a slap to a fella, it could happen. I am
not trying to make myself out that I am a saint or that I wouldn’t use it, I certainly would
indeed, and I’m awfully sorry ...
7.90 He said he did not adhere to the rules regarding corporal punishment very often. He did not recall
the rules being brought to his attention while in Artane. He had never seen a punishment book:
I could have slapped a fella maybe on the face or something like that. I might even hit a
fella a punch in the back. It could have happened.
7.91 Several witnesses complained about Br Olivier’s excessive use of physical punishment. One
witness said he used to punch boys on the jaw without warning. The Brother responded to this
allegation by saying:
Yes. That could be. I am not denying it. I cannot remember any specific case ... but I am
not denying that such a thing could have happened.
17
18

7.92 Another witness told the Committee, ‘life with Br Olivier was one long beating ... for one reason
or another’.
7.93 This witness described in detail an incident which he believed was a punishment for trying to get
out of playing hurling, the sport in the charge of Br Olivier. The witness described how he
developed a blister on his finger and tried to lance it with a needle, as he had seen his grandmother
doing. He said that Br Olivier, however:
... accused me of deliberately trying to harm myself to avoid going training. He said he
would cure it for me. That evening in the dormitory, him and Br Boyce19 called me into
the boot room ... they had a kidney shaped utensil and boiling water. They got hold of me
and I realised what they were going to do and I tried to make a run for it. The pair of them
got hold of me and Br Olivier got my finger and shoved it in. I screamed and roared and
tried to pull it back and they held it. After 10 or 15 seconds the pain went. It just went
numb and it was bearable. They held it in for a while and out it come. That’s when he told
me to walk the passageway, gangway which was linoleum in the centre of the dormitory.
As time went on it swelled, it swelled. He obviously went to bed.
7.94 The night watchman found the boy, who had not gone to bed because of the instruction from the
Brothers to ‘walk the passageway, gangway’, and told him to go to bed:
The next morning I got up my finger was a white ball of flesh, waterlogged. I reported
sick, I reported to Br Cretien20, which you had to do to get to see the nurse. I told the
nurse what happened. I was treated at least a month or six weeks until eventually all the
skin peeled off. Sometimes the nurse would cut it. After some weeks I was like a plucked
chicken, bare skin. In time the skin grew back on the nail. To this day that finger, especially
in cold weather, is numb, there is no feeling in it. I swear they must have burned the
nerve ends.
7.95 Br Olivier gave his account of the incident:

... I was trying to help him, I was trying to cure him. That was a common thing long ago
in the country, a bread poultice, you know, in water, like, before it comes to the boil. That’s
what I tried to do with him. He looked upon it as a penance I think, but I didn’t mean it as
a penance.
7.96 The complainant told the Investigation Committee that there was no bread involved. The records
show he was treated in the infirmary for a septic finger and that the Artane general practitioner
saw him to treat the finger on two occasions, although the witness did not recall being seen by
the doctor.
7.97 The Investigation Committee was faced with two conflicting versions of the motivation for this
incident. On the one hand, Br Olivier claimed it was an attempt to treat a septic finger. On the other
hand, the complainant firmly believed he was being punished for injuring himself to avoid games.
7.98 If the main motive was treatment, then the treatment should have been administered with due
care, to ensure no further injury would result. There was an infirmary with a trained nurse available,
and no explanation was offered as to why this facility was not used. The two Brothers opted to
use instead a ‘hot poultice’ and clearly did not ensure the water was of a low enough temperature
to prevent scalding.
7.99 There were, however, elements of punishment to the whole procedure. The boy was so terrified
that he tried to make a run for it. Despite being in obvious pain, he was then made to walk the
19
20

corridor. Normal resources for treating sick children were not used, suggesting the Brothers did
not take the injury to the finger seriously. Given these facts, it is not surprising the boy believed
he was being punished, rather than treated, for his affliction.
7.100 Moreover, the respondents’ defence was more cautious than a totally innocent explanation of the
incident would suggest. In cross-examination, the complainant was initially told that Br Boyce had
no recollection of the event, casting doubt on whether it had taken place. When he gave evidence,
however, Br Boyce recalled the incident and said the water was not boiling. It turned out that both
Brothers could recall the event, but insisted the motive was driven solely by concern to cure
the finger.
7.101 The occurrence of the event was no longer in dispute. Nor was it in dispute that he was treated
for some weeks for a septic finger. The boy’s feeling that it was more punishment than treatment
does not seem surprising. Subsequent events proved he needed care and professional treatment.
7.102 A second, subsequent incident happened some considerable period later when the boy again
failed to attend training. Br Olivier, he said:
took me into the washroom. What we used to do if a Brother was going to beat you that
night we tried to hang on as long as we could with our trousers on and our clothes. If you
stripped off you only had a night-shirt. You didn’t have pyjamas. I thought he is not going
to come, good. I stripped off. Sure enough he came in.
He brought me into the washroom. He told me to kneel down on the floor and he stood
over me with his arms folded. He was quite cool and calm and he said ‘I have told you
now more than once to come out and I am going to give you the hiding of your life’ real
calm. He was enjoying it. He said ‘hold your hand out. Hold your left hand out and don’t
drop it until I tell you’. He took this leather strap out and he gave me four or five straps. I
couldn’t hold it out any longer because the strap was starting to go up my arm. I had welts
on it. I dropped it. He said ‘I have warned you not to drop your hand. Now, put your other
hand out’ and I did. He started to beat me again. Again I dropped it. He said, ‘I did tell
you’ and he went berserk. When you seen this man when he lost his temper he was like
a wolf. His jaws literally went out and he bared his teeth and he just lashed at me. I was
running trying to get away from him. He hit me, it didn’t matter where, legs, back, head,
anywhere. During that I must have passed out because when I came around there was
water running on my head and the taps from these baths were about that wide ... real old
fashioned taps. I must have thought I was dreaming it. Then I thought I was drowning. I
drew back and I cracked my head on the nozzle of the tap so I had blood coming down,
I had tears, I was soaking wet. He wasn’t finished then. He threw me on the ground and
he said ‘you’ll walk that floor for the rest of the night. Of all nights I thought the watchman
would come but the watchman didn’t come that night. Nobody came and I walked that
passage until 6.30 the next morning. I was so terrified of going to bed that he might come
back and beat me again. I walked the whole night without sleep, I swear to God ....
The injuries, you just put up with them. I was black and blue but I just had to put up with
them ... I never missed a session after that, I can assure you.
7.103 In evidence, Br Olivier queried the complainant’s recollection in relation to this incident, as Br
Olivier said that he would not have been training boys of the complainant’s age at this time.
7.104 Br Olivier did not recall the incident but, with honesty, again said ‘I am capable and I am ashamed
to say I am capable of that’. His approach was clear and candid, because he refused to say that
it did not happen simply because he could not remember the incident. He was willing to take
responsibility for his general behaviour, even though the details of the complainant’s account did
not make sense to him or trigger a memory. There was no dispute that such an incident could
have happened, and the likely explanation was that the complainant was mistaken about the time
lapse between the events he described.
7.105 Br Olivier was also involved in a shocking incident that began when a 12-year-old boy accidentally
defecated on the floor in the sports dressing room. The Brother came on the scene and some of
the excrement ended up on his shoes. The Garda statements made by the witnesses differ as to
how this happened, and the precise sequence of events, but what is admitted in statements made
by Br Olivier is that he told the boy to lick the excrement from his shoes and he did so. The
Brother, in his statement to the Gardaı́, said that he was shocked when the boy did this and told
him to stop: ‘I only said it out of frustration. I didn’t mean him to do it’.
7.106 In the 1990s, Br Olivier wrote an apology to the former resident. A copy was furnished to the
Committee by the Congregation. Br Gibson had asked him about a statement made by the former
resident. Br Olivier’s letter to the man was as follows:
Br Gibson ... brought to my attention a statement you made to him some time ago.
I am deeply saddened to learn of your pain and hurt and I sincerely offer you my humble
apology for my part in causing any of the above pain and hurt.
I hope you find in the goodness of your heart the courage to forgive me and I promise to
remember you always in my prayers.
I pray and hope that you will find peace of mind and happiness in your life.
May God bless and protect you always.
Sincerely yours.
7.107 In his written response to the Investigation Committee, Br Olivier gave a full account of the incident
as he remembered it, and repeated this apology. He wrote:
On the day in question I was playing football with another Brother in a field far away from
the dressing room.
When we finished playing we returned to the dressing room to change and I noticed [the
complainant] coming out of the dressing room. I asked him what he was doing there and
he said he had to go to the toilet. I brought him back in and noticed the floor and my
shoes were covered in faeces. I told him to clean up the mess and he replied he had
nothing to clean it with. I spontaneously told him to lick it, meaning my shoes. To my
horror he proceeded to do so and I immediately told him to stop and to go back to the
class or he would be late. I did not give him any beating or bath and I proceeded to clean
my shoes and the floor myself.
On the day in question I was not on duty. I also wish to state that I never refused anyone
permission to go to the toilet in my entire teaching career.
I repeat the unqualified apology I made to [the complainant] sometime ago when this
incident was brought to my attention.
7.108 He was specific in his statement that the apology was for asking the boy to lick excrement off his
shoes. In that sense, it is indeed an ‘unqualified apology’. However, the Christian Brothers, in their
response to the complainant’s allegations, wrote:
[The complainant] describes in detail an occasion, while out training, he had stomach
cramps, and accidentally defected himself. He claims that he was terrified that Brother
Olivier would find out, so he hid his soiled clothing. Brother Olivier ultimately found the
clothes and stained his shoes on the soiled clothing. [The complainant] alleges that
Brother Olivier made him lick his boots clean. This alleged act took place in front of an
‘entire group’. [The complainant] continues that the group was asked to leave and he was
then “subjected to a beating from Brother Olivier which lasted about 5 minutes”. In relation
to the allegations made against Brother Olivier I would like to refer to a letter dated the ...
addressed to [the complainant] from [Br Olivier] In this letter [he] wrote “I am deeply
saddened to learn of your pain and hurt and I sincerely offer my humble apology for my
part of the above pain and suffering”. While this letter acknowledges [the complainant’s]
alleged pain, the letter is not intended to be an admission of the allegations made against
Brother Olivier.
7.109 There is a marked contrast between the apologetic position taken by Br Olivier and that of the
Congregation. The Brother admitted the essence of the complaint, namely that he told the boy to
lick excrement; the Congregation adopted an exculpatory position, despite the fact that the Brother
and the complainant agreed that the incident essentially did take place. Br Olivier made an
unqualified apology in his letter for the purpose of making amends, whereas the Congregation’s
submission put the best gloss on a situation that had the potential for embarrassment for the
Brother and the Congregation. The effect was to detract from the force of the apology that was
always meant to be ‘unqualified’.
7.110 The former resident did not proceed with his complaint before the Investigation Committee.
7.111 • The Brother’s spontaneous response to the unfortunate and embarrassing

incident when the boy defecated was an abuse of power. When he was
confronted about it years later he was able to admit what had happened and to
apologise to the victim. The Congregation’s failure to do the same was
regrettable.
Br Cyrano21 – a broken arm

7.112 In the mid-1950s, the mother of a boy in Artane wrote to the Department of Education to ask if
she could be allowed to see her son, who had sustained a broken arm and head injuries during
the previous week. She also asked if the incident could be investigated. She wrote:
I heard during the week that my boy Thomas22 Artane School had an arm broken as a
result of a blow with a brush by one of the brothers I call to the school yesterday and the
superior admitted that one of the brothers had given him a blow and that his arm was
broken I did not see the boy23 but I believe he was attending another hospital for treatment
the superior said he had it xrayed and seen the result the arm is in Plaster of Paris I also
heard that his head was bandaged during the week Im very worried over it and I called
on Sunday to see him and was not allowed If it could be arranged for me to see him to
ease my mind. In any case please have the matter investigated and let me no the result.
7.113 The Department asked for a full report on the incident and asked if arrangements could be made
for the mother to visit her son. The boy’s father, who was resident in England, also wrote to the
School asking for a report on the matter. It is clear from a letter from the Department of Education
to the School that a report was furnished but it has not survived. In this letter, the Inspector of
Industrial Schools wrote:
The incident referred to should have been reported immediately to this Office and the
boy’s parent should also have been notified of the boy’s injury without delay and the
parent should have been allowed to see the boy when she requested.
In connection with the administering of corporal punishment in the school, I am to refer to
the Circular no. 11/46 of the 1st November, 1946 “Discipline and Punishment in Certified
21
22
23
From the infirmary register it appears that while the boy was not confined in hospital he was due for a check up the
day his mother called to see the superior so he may well not have been in the Institution when his mother called.

Schools” (copy enclosed) and I am to suggest that the terms of that Circular should be
brought to the notice of the School Staff from time to time.
7.114 Given the seriousness of the injuries to the boy, these reprimands are slight. The Department’s
powerlessness to take further action is evident in this case.
7.115 The incident was then raised in the Dáil and was covered by the Press. The TD, Captain Peadar
Cowan, regretted having to raise the matter in the Dáil, but he said that:
the House will want an assurance from the Minister, and the country will want an
assurance from him, that punishment, if it is to be inflicted on those sent to industrial
schools, will be inflicted by some person of experience and responsibility. If punishment
were to be imposed in a fit of hot temper, it would be exceptionally bad and, in fact, as in
this case, it would be dangerous.
... The very fact that the incident did occur shows how necessary it is that this House,
through the machinery of the Department of Education and through the Minister charged
with that responsibility, should have the closest supervision of schools such as this, where
children, many of them without parents at all, are sent to be brought up.
7.116 The Minister for Education agreed, ‘I think the punishment should be administered ... by a
responsible person in conditions of calm judgment’.
7.117 The Minister then added:

Apart from my high regard for the Brothers concerned, the community concerned, there
is also a very constant system of inspection for all such institutions. I personally have
visited practically all of them ... I know in that particular school how deep is the anxiety
for the children’s spiritual and physical welfare. This is an isolated incident; it can only
happen again as an accident.
7.118 This response implied that the regular inspections of the School included consideration of the
administration of corporal punishment. There is, however, no evidence that the inspections
conducted on the Department’s behalf included an examination of the use of corporal punishment.
Punishment books were not kept. Neither the General Inspection Report nor the Report on Medical
Aspects of School Accommodation referred to this matter on the standard printed inspection form.
There are no references to it in the general observations and suggestions section. Although one
of the Brothers in this incident recalled being interviewed by Dr McCabe24 about it, no report from
her survives in the records. The report from Dr McCabe following her next annual inspection made
no reference to the incident, or to the question of punishment in the School.
7.119 In one newspaper, under the headline, ‘Boy Wasn’t Beaten, Say Teachers’ the journalist wrote:
A boy in a school for delinquents had his arm broken when he resisted a beating, the Dáil
was told before it broke up this week, but teachers at the school gave a different version
of what happened ... Captain Peader Cowan told the Dáil that the boy resisted [being]
slapped on the hands with the leather ... The boy, said Captain Cowan, grabbed a
sweeping brush to resist the punishment, but was struck on the arm by it as two Brothers
wrested it from him ... When I visited the school yesterday, teachers told me the story had
been exaggerated. The boy was hurt when he attacked the Brother with a brush, they said.
24
Dr Anna McCabe was the Department of Education Inspector for most of the relevant period.

7.120 The Congregation referred to this incident in its Opening Statement. They commented:
Although there are differences of opinion concerning precisely how the injury was caused
and when the mother was allowed to see the boy, it is quite clear that the boy was injured
and that his arm was broken. The Brother in question was transferred out of Artane.
7.121 At the first public hearing on 15th September 2005, Br Reynolds, speaking for the Christian
Brothers, was asked if he found it appropriate for the Congregation to effect such a transfer under
the circumstances, and he replied:
It wasn’t appropriate. I would say it wouldn’t have been uncommon in various places at
the time. Certainly that one is the most serious incident we have and it was handled badly
I would say from all aspects of it. The other thing that gives some sort of indicator or is
indicative of society at the time and what surprised me when I read it that even Peader
Cowan, the TD who alerted the Dáil to it at the end of it said, “this is an isolated incident
and it won’t happen again” and so on. That came as a surprise to me, but I am taking
that as indicative of the times as well. It’s probably indicative of the attitude that somebody
who did something of that nature could be transferred elsewhere.25
7.122 The boy whose arm was broken is now deceased. The only witness available to the Investigation
Committee was Br Michel,26 who was involved in the incident with Br Cyrano. Br Cyrano made a
statement at the time, in which he said:
As I was asking Br Michel something about the Easter tests he mentioned that a boy ...
had caused him trouble that morning. He asked me what should he do and I told him that
it would be better to give some punishment as he would only cause trouble again. I closed
my door and began writing on the black board. During this time I could hear the boy
talking and saying “I won’t give in if you keep at me for a week”. The boy was making
remarks similar to this but I could not hear them to make them out. My own class stopped
their work when they heard the noise next door. I knew from this that the boy was resisting
punishment. I continued writing on the board and suddenly the door was opened in a
hurry. A boy from Br Michel’s class entered saying that [he] wanted me immediately. I
dropped the chalk and went in. As I entered I saw Br Michel and the boy in a corner. Br
Michel was holding the boy who in turn had a brush raised as if to hit [him]. I lost my
temper and in the spur of the moment I caught the brush and hit the boy. But how often
or where I hit him I can’t say for definite. Then I gave the brush to another boy and told
him to leave [it] at the far end of the room. As I was going back to my own room again I
noticed the boy looking at his arm. I asked him to bend it which he did. I then left the
classroom and went back to my own.
7.123 Following the incident, a fellow pupil took the boy to the infirmary. The infirmary record read
as follows:
... Injury to arm (Accident in schoolroom) Iodex dressing and crepe bandage. Head
dressed and bandaged. Taken back to school by boy who brought him to the infirmary.
7.124 This treatment indicates that the boy had lacerations to his arm and head, in addition to the
fracture that was later diagnosed. The severity of the beating must have been obvious.
7.125 A doctor did not see him until the next day, when the entry in the infirmary record read:
... Examined by Dr [name] – sent to Mater Hospital. X-rayed. Result: fracture. Put in
plaster. To return [date]. Admitted to Infirmary.
25
It was in fact the Minister for Education who used those words. See paragraph 7.117.
26

7.126 The boy continued to attend the Mater Hospital on a daily basis, and he was finally discharged
two months after his first attendance.
7.127 Had the mother not written asking for an investigation into the matter, these two infirmary records
would have been the only written evidence of the incident. It was simply recorded as an ‘accident’,
and no Brother was mentioned as being involved.
7.128 Six days after the mother’s letter of complaint was written, Br Cyrano, who had struck the blows,
wrote to the Provincial of the Congregation:
I am very sorry for all the damage I have done to the Brothers of Artane Community and to
the Brothers in general. I have been very much upset and worried since it has happened. I
will never forget it all my life. I would like if you would give me a change, as I would never
really settle down again in Artane. As a favour I would be very much obliged if you
considered my case, in making the change ...
7.129 These two contemporary documents within the records of the Congregation contain no details at
all about the nature of the incident and the personnel involved. The infirmary record wrongly
described it as an accident, with no indication that the fracture was the result of a deliberate blow,
and the Brother’s letter expresses concern about the damage done to the Congregation rather
than concern about what had happened to the boy. Even so, the fact that he was so upset and
worried, and felt he would never be able to forget it, did not accord with Br Reynolds’s assertion
that the attitude of the times to such incidents was not to view them as seriously as they would
be viewed today.
7.130 This document also revealed that Br Cyrano was transferred out of Artane at his own request,
because he felt he could never settle down there again. The assertion that his transfer was the
result of action taken by the Congregation, to remove him from his position in Artane,
misrepresents what actually happened.
7.131 Br Michel, the other Brother involved in the incident, appeared before the Investigation Committee
and also expressed his remorse, describing it as ‘one of these things that I have to carry with me
to the end of my life’. He said:
... a thing happened which I have found very difficult to bear ever since. It is 51 years ago
now. In the classroom one morning, a young lad and myself – he wasn’t responding to
the slaps that I was giving him, as far as I can recollect it now, and I was a young man,
he was quite a hefty fellow. At any rate he decided to rush to the side of the classroom
and grab a brush and went to strike me with it. Now I was absolutely nervous, didn’t know
what to do and did the wrong thing, unfortunately. I called in another Brother, and he
grabbed the brush from this young man and it all happened on the spur of the moment,
regretfully. He did strike the young chap and he caused some injury to him. The matter
was investigated at the time by the inspector for industrial schools and, regretfully, that
other man was transferred out of the place.
7.132 This Brother did not know that the transfer was made at the request of his colleague and thought
it followed the Inspector’s investigation. Under questioning, he added:
It happened very very suddenly and in actual fact I didn’t realise there was any harm
done, if you know what I mean, at the time until sometime afterwards, some days later.
7.133 This young Brother had seen a boy hit several times with a brush, causing visible injuries to his
head and arm and he ‘didn’t realise there was any harm done ... at the time until sometime
afterwards, some days later’. This simple statement indicates how a violent incident did not seem
to be extraordinary in Artane. The extent of the harm done only emerged after the complaints had
been made.
7.134 Br Michel blamed himself for the incident. He said, ‘I was young, I was timid. I hadn’t the control
I should have’. He then uttered the following apology, ‘I wish to apologise profusely to people that
I offended and I feel I have done my best to put that before the Commission’.
7.135 Neither of the Brothers escorted the boy to the infirmary: a fellow pupil took him. Br Cyrano, who
struck the blow, appears to have suspected a fracture, because he wrote in his statement that he
saw the boy looking at his arm and asked him to bend it, but he did not pass on that concern to
the infirmary. The obvious severity of the injuries should have resulted in a full medical history
being taken and a thorough examination.
7.136 The TD who raised the matter in the Dáil took up the case as a solicitor and wrote making a claim.
In correspondence, it was suggested that a payment could be made to the parents by way of
settlement. The Christian Brothers at the time were willing to make a settlement in order to avoid
proceedings, but they were advised that a payment would not prevent a claim being made when
the boy reached his majority, and that payment should not be made to the parents. No agreement
could be reached, and the matter apparently ended without any payment being made.
7.137 In conclusion:
• Young, inexperienced Brothers were left to cope with difficult children without
adequate training, and without the support and supervision of a good
management system.
• There was no ordered system of discipline: control was maintained by force.
• The gravity of inflicting serious injury on a boy was not apparent to the Brothers
until an external complaint was made.
• It should have been routine for the parents and the Department to be notified of
a serious injury to a child, however it was caused. Failure to disclose such a
serious incident immediately suggests that there was a policy of concealing
damaging information.
• Injuries inflicted by Brothers should have been fully investigated.
• The infirmary record was wrong, and was not subsequently amended as it should
have been.
Death of boy after fall

7.138 An Artane boy’s death in the early 1950s was recalled by complainants and respondents as a
tragic and traumatic event that affected everyone in the School at the time and left a lasting
impression for years after the event. Many former residents, including some complainants, alleged
the boy fell because he was being chased and punished by a staff member. For this reason, the
Investigation Committee investigated the incident in full.
7.139 At bed-time, around 8.30pm, Stephen Cavanagh27 fell some 14 feet to the ground and suffered
injuries including gum and lip lacerations. He was brought to the Mater Hospital, where he
underwent an operation under general anaesthetic to repair the lacerations of his mouth. His
condition deteriorated after the operation and he did not respond to treatment, and he died in the
early hours of the next day. A post-mortem examination was carried out and an inquest was held
in the hospital the next day, resulting in a verdict of accidental death.
27

7.140 A boy who was acting as monitor at the time of the incident told the inquest what he saw: the
deceased went up the stairs to the dormitory with the other boys and then came back out onto
the stairs and went to do a ‘circus trick’ in which he leaned his body on the handrail and slid down
a short distance ‘when he seemed to overbalance and fall face downwards to the floor below’,
which was a distance of over 14 feet. The injured boy had damaged his teeth and ‘put his hand
to his left side as if he was hurt’. He was able to go into the dormitory to get his boots before he
was taken to the hospital.
7.141 A Brother who was on duty on the first-floor landing described in evidence to the Committee how
the injured boy was being partly carried by another boy and was brought to the infirmary before
being removed to hospital. He said there was no question of the boy being pushed or being
pursued at the time and that ‘he just accidentally fell over the staircase’.
7.142 The treating doctor at the Mater Hospital gave evidence to the inquest that the boy was admitted
to the hospital at 9pm on the evening of the accident, with a history of having fallen about 14 feet
and that, on examination, he was conscious and suffering from shock, with a laceration of the
lower lip and lower gum, four upper front teeth missing and a bruise over the right lower jaw. The
doctor decided to operate to repair the injury to the boy’s lip and gum, which he performed at
around 12.30am. He described the anaesthetic that was given and said that an endotracheal tube
and pack were placed in position. He continued: ‘After the operation was completed, his breathing
became embarrassed, for which he was immediately treated, but in spite of this he did not
respond, and died’. The doctor expressed his agreement with the evidence given by the
pathologist as to the cause of death.
7.143 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.
7.144 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.
7.145 The inquest concluded with a verdict of accidental death.
7.146 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’.

7.147 — 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.
Br Gerrard28
7.148 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.
7.149 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 ...
7.150 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.
7.151 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 Gardaı́ 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
28

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.
7.152 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’.
7.153 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.
7.154 — 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.
Br Searle29
7.155 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.
7.156 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.
7.157 — 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.
29

Br Verrill30
7.158 The parent who made a previous complaint in the mid-1950s about Br Gerrard, which is
considered above, made another written complaint two years later that Br Verrill had injured his
son. It seems that the letter was written during the course of a General Election campaign, as it
refers to a visit to the writer’s home by a candidate who was a doctor by profession and who saw
the injured boy and encouraged the writer to complain.
7.159 The letter stated:

Dear Sir
I wish to make a Complaint regarding my son ... I noticed he had marks of Violence on
him, In fact a Candidate who called to the house to day remarked his face Swollen and
Bruised as the man who called happens to be a Dr.
He advised me to write in to you and ask for explanation from you and to get a reply
within 3 days before he goes ahead with an investigation. This is not the first time it has
happened it would appear that Bro Verrill takes out his temper on the children, in fact if it
happened to a ordinary man he would get 6 months. As my Dr. Candidate said he looked
as if he was Punched ontil he bleed. Trusting you will look into the matter as soon as
Possible as my T.D. expects a reply within 3 days. Sorry again to have to Complain as
its going on to long now. After all he is only a child and I am sure the High Author dose
not Know about the treatment giving to those boys. Trusting again I will have a reply soon.
7.160 Recorded on the back of this letter is a handwritten note:

Answered: [Date] Examined boy’s face no mark. Got him to examine it himself no mark.
Boy asked not mention to [Br Verrill]. Wish acceded to. Reason? Mentioned boy was
happy at Trade & Technical Course. Boy states that he did not see any T.D. Asked father
to put me in touch with T.D.
7.161 It is clear that:

• Examining the boy for marks of violence was not an adequate response to the
allegation of violence but was more consistent with a defensive attitude by the
Superior. The father complained of assault by the Brother, and that should have
been properly investigated. Instead, the focus was on disproving the allegations.
A full record should have been kept.
• The Superior should have been concerned at the boy’s fear of being removed
from his trade by Br Verrill if he discovered that a complaint had been made. He
could have reassured the boy that he would not be removed from the course,
while still carrying out an investigation.
7.162 In its Opening Statement, the Congregation referred to the following letter as a single allegation,
but in fact it contained two separate complaints.
7.163 In an anonymous note to the Minister for Education, a boy had written:
The treatment we receive out here in Artane is unbearable specially from Br Verrill if you
say a Vulgar word and he hears about it he takes you out of bed ... gives you a shocking
treatment, there has been proof of this in some boys faces during the last month.
[The Boy]
Yours sincerely
PS Do what you can Sir
30

7.164 This letter was sent to the Resident Manager together with a letter from Mr Ó Sı́ochfhradha,
Inspector, Department of Education. He advised the Superior that a boy’s father had called to the
office that morning, complaining that his son had been ill-treated by Br Verrill. He wrote:
He alleges that Brother Verrill took the boy out of bed and beat him and that the boy,
when on a visit home last Sunday, “had the remains of a black eye”. He also stated that
the boy appeared to be going deaf as a result of the treatment he received.
In this connection I am to enclose an anonymous letter received in this Office some time
ago.
7.165 He enclosed the handwritten note quoted above. Mr Ó Sı́ochfhradha asked the Resident Manager
for his observations on the parent’s allegations.
7.166 The Resident Manager replied that, having investigated the matter, he was convinced that there
was no truth in the allegations. The boy concerned had advised him that he had given backchat
to a member of staff in front of other boys. The member of staff concerned did not punish him at
that point. He was told to report the incident to the Disciplinarian, who was directly in charge of
the conduct of the boys in the School. The Resident Manager went on:
The boy says that he went off to bed quickly that night immediately after tea without
having reported this matter and that when Br Verrill sent for him he got up again. He was
told that his offence was rather serious especially on account of the bad example he had
given to the other boys [The boy] himself has told me that the only punishment he got
was a few slaps. He is definitely sure that he was not ill-treated in any way and that at no
time was he struck on any part of the head or face. He is also sure that he never had a
black eye or ear injury.
The boy says that he had forgotten all about this business until he went on a visit home
on the 17th ult. On account of what his father said to him, he believes that whoever took
the story to his father must have told lies as his father seemed to have a very wrong
impression about the whole affair.
7.167 The child concerned prepared a statement at the time. It read:

In about the middle of October I gave back chat to [a Brother] and I also took up a bottle
and let on I was going to hit him with it. I was told to report to Br Verrill about this. I did
not report it. When I was in bed at about 8.30 Br Verrill called me and he gave me some
slaps but he did not hit me on the face or ears, or eyes. I had everything forgotten till I
got out for the day on the 17th of Nov.
7.168 There was no Department of Education pupil file available for this boy. There was no further
correspondence from the Department in the Congregation’s discovery.
7.169 Notwithstanding these complaints, Br Verrill was later commended in a Visitation Report for his
work as a Disciplinarian:
Tribute was paid by many to the success of Br. Verrill as Disciplinarian. The elimination
of the tougher element has resulted in a much more manageable type prevailing. The
strict rigidity of previous years has disappeared. The boys appear quite orderly and are
obviously friendly towards the Brothers.
7.170 Br Verrill was singled out for positive comment in another letter, written to complain about three
of his colleagues, in which the writer stated that her grandson had no difficulties under Br
Verrill’s care.
7.171 A number of complainants gave evidence in relation to Br Verrill. A resident in Artane in the 1950s
said, “I don’t know what he didn’t like about me but he used to beat me ... I told my mother about
it ... and she said I must have been up to no good”. He alleged he would beat him for not
concentrating in school. He said that he had his trousers pulled down in front of the boys and was
walloped with a black leather on his buttocks. He added:
He had his hand on my back when he hit me with the leather he put the leather down
and had his hands on my testicles, squeezed me, took his hands away and got the leather
and walloped me again ...
Verrill used to wallop me across the face sometimes. Verrill was the worst, I was scared
of the man, I was absolutely scared of him. Anytime I seen him I used to run away or
walk away, I was so frightened of the man.
7.172 He alleged the Brother would call him names such as ‘soiler’ and ‘slasher’ for wetting the bed. He
also called him a dunce in school.
7.173 Another resident in Artane, for seven years during the 1950s, complained that Br Verrill caught
four boys smoking and beat them with a leather strap and cane. He then put the boys up in front
of the whole school and they had to apologise. He said that his little finger was split as a result.
He went to the infirmary and his finger was bandaged.
7.174 A resident there for five years in the 1950s said of Br Verrill, ‘... if he happened to be in bad
humour or if you were passing by him, he would hit you a clatter ... I had boils on the back of my
neck and he hit me on the back of my neck’. This was with the strap and he would do this to other
boys. When asked whether he complained about this, he said he didn’t know to whom he would
have complained.
7.175 — The cases cited above are an example of the consequences of a failure by the
authorities to stop abusive behaviour by a Brother. Complaints were not
investigated and breaches of the rules were overlooked. The dismissal of written
complaints supports the assertions of ex-pupils that they could not complain
about their treatment to anyone in Artane.
Directions to limit corporal punishment

7.176 A Visitation Report in the late 1950s criticised two Brothers for excessive use of corporal
punishment. It wrote the following about one Brother:
Br Vailant31 was reported to be rather severe on certain boys, troublesome ones, and to be
exceeding the permitted limits of punishment. I spoke to him about this and he promised to
be more careful in future. He has excellent control and should not have to resort to
corporal punishment at all.
7.177 It then made the following criticism about Br Deon:32

It was also stated that Br. Deon was too severe. When I spoke to him about it he said his
attention had never been called to it and that he would amend.
7.178 One complainant claimed he had been struck by Br Vailant so hard that he had to be treated in
hospital as an in-patient in 1959. The blow was known as an ‘electric jowler’, struck downwards
across the face. The Brother who attended the oral hearing was asked if he was familiar with this
phrase, and replied, ‘Yes, they called it a jowler ... it was being struck on the face like, I suppose,
like getting an electric shock‘.
31
32

7.179 He admitted that ‘instead of using a leather I actually, on a number of occasions, struck boys with
my hand on the face. I would say that that was ... not correct, that was being severe’.
7.180 He was asked if he had been consulted by the Congregation when it was preparing its statements
in response to individual complaints. He replied:
I remember discussing with ... the Provincial at the time and ... I said to him, yes, that
there was an element of truth in the allegations that were being made, but we didn’t go
into details as I remember it.
7.181 The Brother who prepared the Congregation’s response simply stated:
Brother Vailant was the disciplinarian in Artane for part of my stay there. He was a strict
disciplinarian. It is possible that there was some folklore about him and the manner in
which he used to punish the boys. However I never saw him giving any boy an electric
jowler. The leadership team have confirmed to me that save for the complaints furnished
to the Commission there are no records of complaints of abuse of any type made against
Br Vailant during the relevant period.
7.182 There was no mention in this response that the Brother had previously admitted that there was
an element of truth in the allegations.
7.183 Br Vailant, who had two spells in Artane in the 1950s and early 1960s, stated that he felt the boys
were angry against the State that committed them, against their parents who did not care, and
angry against the Brothers as the ones who were keeping them there. ‘In their eyes’, he explained,
‘we were seen as types of jailers’. He admitted he used the leather strap for misbehaviour and
then added:
... I think I would have to put my hand up and say that I also used it for failure in lessons,
even though I knew that that was discouraged. If you ask me why I would use it for failure
in lessons I would say to encourage people to get on and to learn something.
7.184 Br Vailant was asked about the reference to him in the Visitation Report quoted above, which
noted that he was ‘exceeding the permitted limits of punishment’. When asked if could remember
the rebuke, he replied:
I think I could say that I was never aware that that was written about me in a Visitation
Report ... I don’t actually remember that [the Visitor speaking to me]. He said that I was
too severe. Well, I would say now that I probably was, or at least that I was too strict, or
maybe too demanding.
7.185 He was asked if he exceeded his own standards and regretted it. He replied:
I would say yes ... I would say instead of using a leather I actually, on a number of
occasions, struck boys with my hand on the face. I would say that was, you know, not
correct, that that was being severe and that maybe is what the Provincial was referring
to ...
7.186 Under questioning, he added:

... I became aware that I was doing things that were not strictly right or not strictly
necessary ... Like using the leather too frequently, or using it for failure in lessons, or in
work. Also, using my hand instead of what was recognised as a way of punishing.
7.187 — The Visitor should have dealt effectively with Br Vailant’s severity when it came to
his attention. The failure of a proper system for monitoring punishments
administered by Brothers has left a number of ex-staff members of Artane with
feelings of guilt and remorse for what occurred there.
7.188 Shortly before this Visitation, the Provincial wrote a letter to all Brothers to express his concern
about levels of corporal punishment. He wrote:
In a Circular issued in January 1957 I asked the Brothers of the Province to avoid as
much as possible the use of corporal punishment in the schools. For some time after the
issuing of that Circular there appeared to be good reason to believe that the request was
being carried out. More recently, however, the leather has come back into frequent use
in at least some schools. This is a matter for sincere regret. As I have already stated
frequent recourse to the use of the leather indicates a bad tone in the classroom. It may
make the lives of the children unhappy and nullifies much of the benefit of their Education.
It is to be hoped that, in time, wiser counsels will prevail and that the use of the leather
will be reserved for cases in which it is really necessary for the purpose of correction.
7.189 He did not say how he knew ‘the leather had come back into frequent use in at least some
schools’, but the Visitation Reports and the complaints referred to above may have played a part
in informing him. What is clear is that, by the standards of this senior Christian Brother, the leather
was being used too often and in circumstances where it was not really necessary.
A letter from a concerned grandmother

7.190 A boy’s grandmother wrote to the Superior General in late 1962 complaining about the way her
grandson was treated during his time in the Institution. The original letter of complaint is no longer
extant, but the content is evident from an internal letter from the Christian Brothers’ Provincial
Council to the Superior General:
The Council here has considered the letter you handed into us from a Mrs McCarthy33
making a number of accusations against certain Brothers in Artane and an attack on
Artane in general. We consider Mrs McCarthy a very dangerous woman and one who
could do a lot of harm.
We think she should get a reply stating that the matter will be looked into as soon as
possible; That the Superior of Artane is away at present and will not be back until the end
of September. You however will be able to give her the best answer to satisfy her and
cool her down. With the Superior of Artane absent at present it would be difficult to get
accurate information at present concerning all the statements Mrs McCarthy makes.
7.191 The Superior General replied to the grandmother’s letter in November 1962. His letter discussed
efforts made concerning the boy’s care after he left Artane. He also stated that the School Superior
offered the boy a free place in the secondary school, which he declined. He went on to respond
to the grandmother’s complaint:
As to his troubles at school, he evidently received punishment, but it was not in the manner
or in the spirit which you seem to suggest. In this he may have exaggerated things to
you, and your affection for the boy may have caused you to see them in a more serious
way. As far as we could discover there was no unkind feeling towards him, as all felt that
his make-up was not that of the ordinary boy ...
7.192 In February 1963, Mrs McCarthy brought her grandson to Artane to discuss with the Superior his
difficulty in keeping jobs and to see if he could help in finding employment. What happened in the
course of this meeting is in dispute. The grandmother gave her version of what happened in a
letter written later that month (26th February) to the Minister for Education:
33

I could not believe my eyes, without word or warning the Superior, closed his fist + struck
the boy a most brutal blow on the side of the jaw, saying to him why wont you work. He
then said in the most deliberate tone to him, you are mental the boy said I am not. He
said you are suffering from a mental dicease, this he repeated about five times; every
drop of blood had left the boys face from the blow, which had sent him staggering to the
other side of the Office, all the unfortunate boy could say was wh... and his voice went. I
was so shocked and dazed from the scene. I was not much better than the boy. I could
not think straight. However Bro Colbert34 happened to come in just then and the Superior
said look who we have here. He then left the Office. I followed him outside the door and
told him it was the yrs of ill treatment of that Kind had the boy the way he was, and told
him to get the boy medical and mental treatment ... He was removed to St Brendan’s on
The Sat evg 9th February.
7.193 The grandmother turned to a clergyman named Canon O’Neill for assistance with her complaint.
He wrote to Monsignor Barry,35 who passed on Canon O’Neill’s letter to the Superior General.
After meeting with the Superior in Artane, the Superior General, Br Mulholland, wrote to Monsignor
Barry on 26th February 1963:
Further to my note of 23rd February I have now made full enquiries into the allegations in
Mrs McCarthy’s letter. I have ascertained that she is a mental case with a strong antipathy
against Artane School and that she is given to exaggeration in all matters she speaks or
writes about. It is easy to note that she is a very dangerous type of woman ...
Now just to give you an example of her powers of exaggeration I asked the Superior of
Artane about the blow he was alleged to have given the boy on the 7th of February. He
said he was talking to [the boy] in presence of Mrs McCarthy about the number of jobs
he was in and of his leaving each of them without cause. To impress matters on [the boy]
he gave him a tip of his hand and that is what is described as a staggering blow. 36 That
will give us some idea of what to believe of the allegations made in the rest of the letter.
As far as I could ascertain there is no truth in the accusation that boys are taken out of
bed at 10p.m. and beaten “for any minor fault”. It must be only hearsay on Mrs McCarthy’s
part. We all know how boys are inclined to exaggerate the slightest happening.
7.194 On the same day, the grandmother wrote a long letter of complaint to the Minister for Education,
which will be discussed presently.
7.195 Monsignor Barry replied, accepting the ‘unreliability and untrustworthiness of her complaints’
and continued:
I am sorry that you have been put to so much trouble but unfortunately, these sort of
people give us all a lot of trouble and their complaints have to be nailed. I am happy to
be in a position to reassure Canon O’Neill that the story as he got it was completely
without foundation.
7.196 On 1st March 1963, the grandmother met the Superior General by appointment. At the meeting,
that lasted two hours, she discussed her grievances concerning Artane. On the same evening,
the Superior General and the Provincial decided that the matter should be handed over to a
solicitor if she persisted. The Provincial informed the Superior of Artane and commented:
The Superior General had great patience with her and he thought by listening to her and
getting her to unburden herself she would be pacified but no she left him thundering
against the Brothers and against Artane and saying she was going to make certain that
34
35
36
The same incident is referred to in the Department’s inspection into the matter as ‘a shaking’.

such things would not happen again. The Superior General was very beaten up on Friday
evening and today.
It is amazing the trouble which one strange woman can make but the Superior General
has come to the conclusion that she is an able dealer ...
7.197 In her long letter to the Minister, the grandmother made many complaints of severe beatings of the
boy by different named Christian Brothers in Artane. She also protested about his poor standard of
education when he left the Institution. In addition, she described the incident that occurred when
she and the boy met the Superior at Artane.
7.198 Officials of the Department of Education carried out an investigation and rejected the complaints.
In the course of their inquiry, the officials interviewed the boy and his grandmother, and they
received written statements from each of the Brothers involved, furnished to them by the Superior
of Artane. Mrs McCarthy was unhappy with the way that she and her grandson were questioned.
The officials’ investigation was hampered by the grandmother’s refusal to give the names of boys
said to have witnessed the events involving her grandson and, in addition, they failed to obtain
information from the chaplain, Fr Moore, who had some knowledge of the matter and was unhappy
that he had not been approached directly but through the Superior of Artane. More importantly,
he feared that his bond of confidentiality with the boys in Artane might be prejudiced. A genuine
misunderstanding might have caused the failure to get information from the chaplain. In the
circumstances, it would be unfair to criticise the inspectors on this ground. Whatever impediments
there may have been to the inquiry, it nevertheless seems unsatisfactory that the officials did not
question the Brothers involved. The report of the investigation did not, however, equivocate:
From an examination of the evidence obtained through interviews, enquiries made by
phone and the reports furnished by the Brothers concerned, in association with the
grandmother’s refusal to give the names of the boys who witnessed [the boy’s] being
taken from his bed at night for punishment, it is clear that the charges of brutality and
sadism made by Mrs. McCarthy are without foundation. The fact that she is content to
leave her other grandson in the care of the Brothers in Artane lend support to this opinion.
Br Ourson37 did give [the boy] a shaking ... but considering the boy’s infuriating failures to
remain in employment, he showed remarkable restraint. Outside this occurrence, nothing
emerged from the enquiry to justify the charges of ill-treatment ...
7.199 The more senior official in the Department of the two who investigated decided that the
grandmother should not receive a written reply to her complaint, because she had not co-operated
by naming witnesses among the boys.
7.200 Br Reynolds was examined in relation to this in Phase I of the Investigation Committee’s inquiry.
Referring to the view of the Brothers that the grandmother was dangerous, he said:
I think in that particular case they had reasonably good foundation for the conclusions
that they came to. I don’t particularly want to talk about the good lady in question, but I
think if you examine the documentation in relation to that case it is quite clearly shown
that Number one, an investigation was carried out and the considered opinion of the
Resident Manager was that the incident she was complaining about didn’t actually take
place. Nonetheless, they did issue a letter, not just to Artane, to all our industrial schools
saying if punishments of this nature, if it should happen that they did take place it should
cease if that is the custom or if it has happened. I am not sure why that happened.
It would appear to me that that was their action to it first of all in relation to giving
instruction to the various institutions and may well have said to the mother or the
grandmother who was complaining, “we have done this. We don’t accept your complaint,
37

but we have done this in relation to that complaint”. I haven’t documentary evidence in
relation to that but I can’t see why else they would send that out to all industrial schools
if there wasn’t some reason of that nature for it.
7.201 Br Reynolds was referring to a circular sent by the Superior General to the Christian Brothers’
industrial schools prohibiting the Brothers from taking boys out of bed at night to administer
corporal punishment.
7.202 The letter, dated 4th March 1963, was a ‘Direction to all our Residential Schools’ and it stated:
Should it be a custom that Brothers, Teachers or Night Watchmen take boys out of bed
at night time and beat them that custom is to cease. I am now forbidding it. The Br.
Superior is to call the attention of the Br. Disciplinarian, Brothers, Teachers and Watchmen
who may have to supervise boys in the dormitory to this prohibition.
Such a custom, if ever it existed, could only bring serious trouble and shame on our
management.
The Regulations regarding corporal punishment in our Rules and Acts of Chapter are to
be adhered to.
• A serious complaint was inadequately investigated and was dismissed on
insufficient grounds by both the Department of Education and the Superior.
• The Superior did not deny that ‘to impress matters on the boy he gave him a tip
of his hand’. The severity of the blow was subsequently disputed, but it is
accepted that the boy was physically chastised in the presence of the
grandmother. Neither the Brothers nor the Department of Education criticised
the Superior for hitting the boy in this way.
• The correspondence reveals a lack of respect for the grandmother and her
complaints. She is seen as a dangerous troublemaker whose complaints ‘have
to be nailed’. The decision by the senior official in the Department of Education
not to reply to the grandmother’s letter itself revealed a contempt for her
complaint.
• The Department’s inspectors accepted written statements from the Brothers and
did not question them directly, thereby affording them a preferential credibility.
• Although the grandmother’s complaint was totally rejected, the Superior still sent
out a letter prohibiting a method of giving punishment that the establishment
claimed had never happened. This odd fact suggests there was an apprehension
that there was some truth in what had been alleged.
• Many witnesses before the Investigation Committee testified that they were taken
out of bed and punished, thereby supporting this part of the grandmother’s
complaint.
Br Lionel38
7.204 A case of documented abuse was summarised in the Opening Statement by the Congregation. It
involved a boy who received treatment in the infirmary following a beating by a Brother:
In 1964 a Brother gave a beating to a boy, apparently for misconduct with other boys.
The nature of the misconduct is unclear. There is reference to this incident in the infirmary
diary for June of 1965 (sic), from which it is clear that the boy was beaten on the back
38

and legs. There is no indication that the matter was investigated or that any action was
taken against the Brother.
7.205 The 1964 infirmary diary contained an entry regarding a boy who complained of a sore back and
legs. The entry simply stated: ‘got beating by Br Lionel for bad conduct with other boys. Resting’.
7.206 In evidence, Br Lionel denied that this had happened. The Brother said that he was never
reprimanded for this incident and said that he had no recollection of the particular boy named in
the diary. He went on to say that he had indeed severely punished another named boy for sexually
interfering with three younger boys. He described the beating as follows:
I had to deal with just one incident of [peer abuse] ... I literally gave the person responsible
when he had admitted doing it – he admitted openly to having done this to three children
and I gave him literally a hiding. I mean a hiding ... I would have slapped him on the
hands, I would have slapped him on the backside. It was literally – it was something to
deter him from ever doing this again ... It stands out in my mind, it was the toughest thing
I ever had to deal with.
7.207 A workman witnessed this beating and reported it to the Superior, Br Ourson. According to Br
Lionel, the boy was brought before the Superior, where he recounted what he had done in the
presence of the Brother and the workman. The Brother then claimed the workman said, after
hearing what the boy had done, ‘if I was dealing with him I would have killed him’.
7.208 The Brother was unable to describe to the Committee the nature of conduct which in his view
merited this severe punishment. All he could say was that the three young boys had come to him
reporting ‘badness’ being done to them by the offender.
7.209 The Brother admitted he had beaten another boy in the manner described, but not the boy named
in the diary, which leaves the entry in the infirmary diary unexplained. If the entry is correct, a
second boy must have received a beating that was so severe he required treatment in the
infirmary.
7.210 It was obvious from the worker’s reaction that the beating he had seen was one of extreme
brutality. In evidence, however, the Brother remained unapologetic about the incident. He viewed
the offending behaviour as sufficiently serious to warrant this extreme punishment, and invoked
the workman’s later comment as support of his claim. Given the obvious severity of the beating,
the matter should have been fully investigated and reported on by the Superior, irrespective of
the offending behaviour of the boy.
Beating by an employee
7.211 In their Opening Statement, the Christian Brothers referred to an incident in the mid-1960s when
an employee injured a boy:
The Manager’s diary contains an entry ... which states that two boys, who were brothers,
were sent unaccompanied to the Mater Hospital and did not return. This note is followed
by the word “readmitted” which seems to indicate that the boys did eventually come back
to Artane. It appears that one of the boys was injured, his brother accompanied him to
the hospital and both absconded. Two lines below the original entry there is another entry
as follows: “The injury received was caused by an employee of the School, who was the
object of a jeering attack by the injured boy and others”. It is obvious from the handwriting
that the two notes were not written by the same person. It is not clear whether the two
notes refer to the same boy, nor is there any indication what the nature of the injury was.
7.212 The Brothers maintained that it was ‘not possible to come to any logical conclusion on the matter’.
What is clear is that an employee injured a boy. The source of the information that the employee
punished the boys for jeering at him most likely came from the employee concerned, who
presumably was questioned in relation to the assault. There is no record that he was reprimanded.
If it was not acceptable behaviour, then some record of the reprimand should surely have been
made. There is no other record of this incident.
Newspaper article
7.213 An article about discipline in church-run schools in Ireland appeared in a newspaper report in the
late 1960s. In it, the journalist wrote about a pupil from Artane Industrial School, who had recently
become emotionally disturbed and had been kept under sedation in the School infirmary. Despite
this fact, he was punched in the stomach by a Brother as he came out of the toilets that morning.
The boy also said the nun in the infirmary kept a cane there. The journalist went to the School to
confront the Brother Superior about the matter. The journalist wrote this account of the meeting:
“Brother, is it true that Delmar39 punched Michael40 in the stomach last week?”
Brother Gilles41 moves the papers about on his desk, nibbles a biscuit.
“Sure, I asked Brother Delmar about it this morning. He says he can’t recollect punching
Michael at all.”
“Could that be because he punches so many boys that he can’t recollect this particular
instance?”
Brother Gilles looks sideways at me and giggles, leans back in his chair, twiddles his
thumbs and does not reply.
“Is it true, what Michael says, that the nun keeps a cane in the infirmary?”
“I couldn’t say,’ says Brother Gilles. ‘It’s news to me.”
“But you’re in charge here, aren’t you? Surely you must know what goes on?”
“I really couldn’t say.”
7.214 The Superior wrote to the Assistant Secretary in the Department of Education. He had been asked
for a statement in response to the article. In it, he protested that he had not given an appointment
to the journalist who had accompanied a Mr O’Neill,42 who had requested an interview. He
explained:
Mr O’Neill asked for the interview because Michael used to visit his home in Blackrock on
the second and last Sundays of each month. On [a particular Sunday] Michael was out in
Mr O’Neill’s house when he complained of a pain in his stomach which, he stated, was
the result of a punch he received from one of the Brothers that morning. Mr O’Neill brought
the boy back here that night and put him into our Infirmary. The Matron took charge of
him and put him to bed. In a matter of minutes Michael was sitting up viewing the television
programme. The following morning he was examined by the school doctor who didn’t
discover any marks on his stomach: in fact he told the boy to get up and go to school.
Michael got up but stayed in the Infirmary that day and attended school as usual the
following morning. He was never under sedation tablets here ...
7.215 The letter continued:

Articles like this have done much harm to Industrial Schools and they are most
embarrassing to the staff and the hundreds of past pupils who are upright and honest
39
40
41
42

citizens of the state. It is also to be regretted that a semi-state controlled organization like
R.T.E. should invite [this journalist] to appear on a programme to cause more annoyance
to the teaching authorities.
[... a television journalist ...] interviewed a former pupil of Artane School. This boy gave a
completely false picture of the school as it is to-day and many people, who knew the
conditions here, telephoned to ask why some Brother wasn’t in the studio to state the
facts. On the same programme when false allegations were made about the Gardaı́, a
Garda was present to give his side of the story, the true story; but we were not asked by
the R.T.E. authorities to state our case.
It is hard to blame [the journalist in question] and other members of the journalistic
profession from across the water for launching their unjust attacks on Irish schools since
there is much unfair and unjust criticism from so-called responsible sources here in
Ireland. Not a voice is raised in defence of those who have dedicated their lives to this
difficult task.
7.216 The Assistant Secretary replied as follows:

Dear Br Gilles,
Thank you for your letter ... concerning [the journalist’s] visit to Artane and [the]
subsequent article ... I hasten to assure you that my verbal request to you through Mr.
Wade for your version of [the] visit was entirely for the record and was not intended to
imply that the Department was testing the veracity of [the] account.
It was obvious that [the] account was biased, tendentious and in parts highly improbable.
However I had to compile a record of all the cases mentioned in the article and a note
from you was necessary to complete that record.
It is highly regrettable that the Reformatory and Industrial School system should be the
subject of so much ill-informed and malicious attack. The difficulty in dealing with the
problem is that it is not always possible to identify those responsible or to be sure of the
motivation which inspires the attack.
The ignorant and the malicious, like the poor, we have always with us.
7.217 The main interest of this article is that it made an allegation that a Brother in whose care the boy
had been placed punched the boy in the stomach. Mr O’Neill had found the boy retching, brought
him to the infirmary when he returned the boy to the School, and made an appointment with the
Resident Manager. The man was clearly very concerned. While a doctor was called and he found
no marks on the boy’s stomach, the key allegation, that a Brother had punched him, was not
investigated. The overwhelming concern in the correspondence was for the reputation of the
Institution and the insult sustained by Br Gilles. The Department dismissed the complaint in the
article out of hand, and merely sought the Manager’s response ‘to complete the record’.
Evidence from individual respondents

7.218 A total of 26 Brothers who had served in Artane gave evidence to the Investigation Committee.
From their testimony, certain facts emerged about which there was no disagreement. These
included:
• All the Brothers were issued with a leather strap when they arrived at the School and
most of them carried it with them.
• All of them were allowed to administer corporal punishment for minor offences, yet
nowhere was it set out in clear, unequivocal terms what a minor offence was. They
all said that punishment was left to their judgment.
• A combination of immaturity, overwork, long hours, isolation and lack of proper
supervision led to severe strain and exhaustion.
7.219 The following points emerged in their evidence.
7.220 Br Fontaine,43 who was on the staff of Artane from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s, said that he
never witnessed Brothers losing control or punishing boys excessively and that he himself had
never done so. However, he did say:
At times you would hear the boys talking and you got the impression that somebody had
gone overboard and you would have a feeling that something had happened that shouldn’t
have happened. But it would be from listening to the boys themselves. The Brothers
themselves would not talk about something like that.
7.221 Br Davet44 was in Artane in the early to mid-1960s and regarded the use of corporal punishment
as a symptom of the stress the Brothers were under. He said, ‘if situations arose and you were
supervising quite a large number of boys a situation could arise where you would use corporal
punishment then ... it was part of the stress that was put on the men supervising ...’.
7.222 He also acknowledged that there were ‘some Brothers that were regarded as being tough and
could possibly use the leather excessively ...’.
7.223 Br Yves,45 who was in Artane for two years in the 1960s, agreed that he punished boys to excess,
and now regretted it:
That’s a fair comment. When I went there I was twenty years of age, I was just out of first
year training college. It was for me a baptism of fire to go into that kind of situation. I had
no experience much as a teacher ... If I was severe, and I was severe, it was my way of
coping, and, you know, to those boys that I punished severely, I am exceedingly sorry.
7.224 He remembered being reprimanded by the principal of the School for beating a boy too harshly,
and toned down his severity accordingly.
7.225 Br Burcet,46 who had two spells in Artane, in the mid 1950s and then throughout the 1960s, told
the Investigation Committee how one witness had moved him to recall an incident. The former
resident gave evidence that the first time he received the strap was from Br Burcet when he was
one of the youngest boys in Artane, aged eight or nine:
The first experience I have with a strap or a leather as they are called, it was from Br.
Burcet. again there is a lot after that but because it was the first one it stuck with me ... I
remember retracting my hand ... and then receiving ... the strap around that area
(indicating) and then on the buttocks area. That was for retracting my hand ... All I
remember, and that’s why it stuck with me, was the stings, the stings in the actual body
areas. It was more than two or three [strokes].
7.226 Although Br Burcet had denied beating the boy in his statement written in 2002, when he simply
wrote, ‘I did not abuse [the complainant]’, he changed his evidence. He said:
When I heard him describing it in evidence I was very taken and I was very conscious of
how credible it was ... When he was giving his evidence and as he described it, it made
a very, very big impact on me ... to hear it in his own words as he described that ...
7.227 Br Burcet was singled out for praise by some of his colleagues, and many of the boys listed him
among the more kind and fair Brothers. He described to the Committee how the experience of
Artane had affected him:
43
44
45
46

In my last year in Artane I was Disciplinarian. I didn’t like the job, I didn’t want the job ...
and I wouldn’t say I was very good at it. But during that period there was a fire and part
of the building was burnt down ... I was in charge then and that had a huge effect on me
... I became paranoid about where kids were ... if I found boys in places where they
shouldn’t be ... I punished them more severely than would have been necessary.
7.228 He then described punishing some boys on the backside:

... when some boys were interfering with other boys, they would be punished and one of
the punishments they would get would be on the backside with the leather. I wasn’t too
keen on doing it, I had a certain reluctance about it ...
7.229 In relation to one particular incident of peer abuse brought to his attention by Br Gaspard47, he
said:
I just brought [the boy concerned] to the boot room ... He had his nightshirt on him, he
bent down, I gave him three or four smacks of the leather on the – not on the bare
backside and he ran out the door and I was glad to see him go.
7.230 When Br Burcet was asked if he punished more in Artane than in other schools, he replied:
Yes, I did punish more. I would say that it was more true of when I went there first than
when I started to find my feet there ... In the latter part I probably punished less, until I
was made disciplinarian ... it did change me, because when I left Artane ... I didn’t use
corporal punishment at all.
7.231 Br Burcet later taught in Letterfrack and Salthill.
Congregational response
7.232 There is a marked contrast between the Congregation’s response to the evidence of physical
abuse and that of individual respondents. The Congregation took up a very defensive position,
but the individual respondents were, for the most part, more open and concessionary, with the
result that areas of disagreement between respondents and complainants diminished, and some
areas of agreement emerged. Individual respondents were able to recall and admit cases of
excessive punishment or cruelty, but they were reluctant to see policy implications in such
episodes. The Brothers were, however, less forthcoming in regard to physical abuse than some
Brothers had been when they spoke to Mr Dunleavy when he was preparing his report on Artane
for the Congregation. He described what he discovered in his interviews:
In the course of interviewing members of the Christian Brothers who worked previously
at Artane Industrial School a picture of a particularly brutal form of discipline emerged. It
seemed that many of the Brothers who came to Artane to teach, did so as relatively young
Brothers, often indeed Artane was their first mission. As such they seem to have been
both equally enthusiastic and inexperienced and were highly influenced by the views of
the School expressed to them by Brothers who had been there longer than themselves.
Nearly all of the Brothers that I interviewed told me that it had been explained to them by
senior Brothers at Artane Industrial School that the boys would not respect a Brother who
did not discipline them extremely severely, and that a Brother who would not deal out
such punishment would soon become know to the boys as a “Silly Brother” – it was not
clear whether there was any sexual connotation in such a nickname. One Brother related
an incident where his fellow Brothers had burst into applause when he entered a room
where they were, as it had been learned that he had punished one of his pupils by
punching him in the face – previously he had not dealt out such harsh punishment.
Another Brother recalled holding a colleague’s soutane while he beat a pupil with his fists
47

round a handball alley – the location having been chosen so that the only path of escape
for the boy was past the Brother who was meeting out the punishment. It is my conclusion
that unofficially at least, a system existed in Artane Industrial School of inflicting unusually
brutal punishment on pupils, that such a system was tacitly sanctioned by the more senior
Brothers at the School, and that this unofficial code of discipline made it inevitable that
the physical abuse of pupils at Artane Industrial School would occur. Several Brothers
relayed stories of occasions on which fellow Brothers had “snapped” and had punished a
pupil excessively. The actions of the subjects of these stories were always termed as
being entirely out of character. It seems to me however that the level of ordinary
punishment in the school was so extreme, that when Brothers punished their pupils in an
excessive manner, such punishment was inevitably of the most brutal kind. The reluctance
of the school to properly investigate and deal with any allegations of physical abuse, or
even to report the injury of pupils to parents or the Dept. of Education, ensured that such
a system would persist.
Fr Moore
7.233 Fr Henry Moore was the chaplain of Artane from 1960 to 1967. In 1962 he was asked by the
Archbishop of Dublin, Dr McQuaid, to give him a report on Artane, which he delivered on 7th July
1962. The report is discussed later in this chapter. He gave evidence about his report and
generally in relation to conditions in Artane.
7.234 Fr Moore’s report stated:

The administration of punishment is in charge of a disciplinarian, but in practice is not
confined to him. There seems to be no proportion between punishment and the offence.
In my presence a boy was severely beaten on the face for an insignificant misdemeanour.
Recently, a boy was punished so excessively and for so long a period that he broke away
from the Brother and came to my house a mile away for assistance. The time was 10.45
p.m., almost two hours after the boys retired to bed. For coming to me in those
circumstances he was again punished with equal severity. Some time ago, a hurley stick
was used to inflict punishment on a small boy. The offence was negligible.
Constant resource to physical punishment breeds undue fear and anxiety. The personality
of the boy is inevitably repressed, maladjusted, and in some cases, abnormal.
7.235 Br Reynolds at Phase I said the Brothers were not challenging Fr Moore’s eye-witness account
and commented:
... we are saying that if anything like that happened it shouldn’t have happened and it was
wrong. The thing that surprises me about it was that he didn’t bring it to the attention of
the Resident Manager.
7.236 Fr Moore gave evidence to the Investigation Committee of the difficulties he had in bringing
complaints to the Resident Manager.
7.237 He said that the overall atmosphere in the School was:

very oppressive and it seemed to me to engender a great fear, an atmosphere of fear in
the boys, generally, either in anticipation of punishment or actually experiencing
punishment. In a word I would have described it as excessive and out of proportion.
7.238 He described incidents he had witnessed, including one in his report to the Archbishop in which
he referred to a boy being severely beaten on the face for an insignificant misdemeanour in
the playground.
7.239 He expressed a particular concern about the levels of corporal punishment used by Br Videl48,
who was in the School in the early 1960s and about whom he heard consistent reports of his
excessive disciplinary actions and beatings.
7.240 He recalled an occasion when Br Videl punished a boy who had snatched a comic from a younger
boy in the playground. The Brother took the older boy to one of the classrooms:
I was concerned at that stage about the evidence that I had been hearing about his
severity, so I decided I would follow myself after him and I would stand outside the
classroom door ... When I did that I counted the number of slaps he was giving the boy
and my attention was distracted somehow after 19 slaps ... I would have considered that
grossly excessive for the demeanour or misdemeanour, which in my view was tawdry.
7.241 He did not think the system in Artane was conducive to boys making complaints. He said:
... as far as I could see the boys were afraid to make a complaint. I was in a sort of
invidious position because I had been instructed by Br Ourson, the Superior, that the boys
were not to make complaints to me, that if they had complaints they should go to him.
7.242 While he went to Br Ourson with complaints of sexual abuse, he said that he was reluctant to do
so in respect of physical abuse. Other Brothers advised him informally that this was not his
function. For this reason, he directed boys who came to him with such complaints to go directly
to Br Ourson. He does not know whether they in fact did so. He had not gone to Br Ourson about
the Brother for this reason. He went instead to the Brother Provincial, but he did not know what
the outcome was or whether the Brother was reprimanded.
7.243 Fr Moore’s evidence is important on the extent of corporal punishment in Artane and the difficulty
for staff and boys in making complaints. In an environment where the victim is afraid to report it
to the authorities, abuse will flourish. This and other evidence indicates that boys did not report
abuse to the authorities because they would have been punished for doing so.
Dr Paul McQuaid
7.244 Dr Paul McQuaid returned to Ireland in 1965 after four years of postgraduate training in England
and Scotland, and took up the position of Assistant Psychiatrist in charge of the Child Guidance
Clinic in the Mater Hospital. In or about 1967 or 1968, he began to visit Artane on a weekly basis
and he had free access to the Institution.
7.245 Dr McQuaid said that his general impression was that it was a daunting institution. The abiding
impression he had was that of silence during school hours, notwithstanding the large number of
boys in the place:
The silence. So you had all these children, young boys, and virtually not a sound.
7.246 The boys’ unease was noticeable:

It was a forbidding place, no question about it. There was a sense of just something about
the way that the kids presented. You got a sense that they were intimidated, but again it
was 40/50 years ago, times were different. They were there because they were within a
juvenile controlled system and how do you control large numbers of kids.
7.247 He recalled an incident which happened one day when he visited the School unannounced:
I walked in one day and as I said there was this silence, I was on my own and I don’t
think I was expected in that sense.
48

As I walked down the corridor I heard this (slapped hands together) like that (indicated),
just as I walked down, the door opened and a boy walked out and his face was coming
out and he had a black eye developing. I stopped him and he was very upset. He was
trying not to cry. Anyway I said, you know, “What happened?” He said – I can’t remember
what he said, but what transpired was that he had been hit by the Brother in charge, that’s
what he said. I had no reason to disbelieve him.
7.248 Dr McQuaid returned to the issues of punishment and fear in Artane later in his evidence. He
drew a distinction between national schools and other institutions:
We know that particularly in institutions corporal punishment was used in a way somewhat
beyond what it was used for in national schools in that it was an instrument of control.
7.249 Dr McQuaid said that there would have been a degree of difference in terms of the extent of the
punishment in Artane as opposed to the schools that he attended. In his school days, corporal
punishment was administered by a dean of discipline, as distinct from individual teachers in the
classroom, but he confessed that he would not really have known what was happening in Artane
if he had been asked. However, he did repeat that his impression of Artane ‘was one of an
intimidatory type of silence and control’. He was asked whether it was his perception at the time
that there was a problem in Artane with regard to corporal punishment or excessive corporal
punishment, and he replied that:
... we were given to understand that the issue of control was a matter for the individual
Brother. So how an individual Brother might deal with a recusant child or class, as I
understood it then and since, was that it was a matter for the individual Brother.
7.250 The difference in the system of government in a school where punishment was administered by
a designated person, as compared with Artane and other Christian Brothers’ institutions, should
not have existed, because the statutory Rules and Regulations for industrial schools provided that
corporal punishment could only be inflicted by the Manager or in his presence. If the rule had
been observed, the regime would have been more ordered, and cases of excessive or capricious
violence less common. A Brother would have to justify to the Manager why a boy should be
punished and would not be permitted to react spontaneously to a situation. Consistency, another
feature of ordered regimes, would be maintained.
1962 inspection
7.251 An allegation of excessive corporal punishment was referred to in one of the reports of a special
inspection carried out by three officials49 of the Department of Education in December 1962. This
inspection followed the appearance by Fr Henry Moore, the chaplain to Artane, before an Inter-
Departmental Committee where he expressed his concerns about the way Artane was run. In
particular, he commented on the excessive discipline and overuse of corporal punishment. It was
in this context that the reference to discipline appeared in the principal report of the group, which
was written by Mr MacUaid. The relevant part stated:
Complaints about the treatment of children in industrial schools are not infrequent but
from experience I would say that the majority are exaggerated and some even untrue.
For example, you will recall the case where a mother brought her child to the hall and
alleged that he had been beaten on the head and on the buttocks by a Br Javier50 in
Artane. Fortunately, Dr McCabe was in the office the same day and on uncovering the
bandaged head she diagnosed the “injury” as ringworm. The child had bruises on his
body but in the subsequent investigation Br Javier claimed that they had been made in a
rough and tumble fight with other boys and the balance of the evidence favoured the
49
Dr Anna McCabe (Medical Inspector), Mr Seamus Mac Uaid (Higher Executive Officer) and Mr MacDáibhid (Assistant
Principal Officer and Inspector in Charge of Industrial Schools).
50

Brother’s case. Because Br Javier is the Dean of Discipline in Artane he was interviewed
specially, away from the Superior and Bursar, on his duties Br Javier is a vigorous young
man in his late twenties with six years teaching experience. His duties as Disciplinarian
do not allow him to teach at present but he hopes to be relieved of his appointment this
summer and re-assigned to the classroom. His policy of deprivation of privileges because
of misconduct and acquainting the culprit of the reason is basically sound but he explained
that successful application of this policy was not always possible owing to the ages of the
boys, some of whom did not care if, say, the privilege of watching television or going
home for a few hours on Sunday was withdrawn. He felt that, having withdrawn privileges
and still being faced with insubordination, he had no alternative but to punish moderately
with the leather on the hands in certain cases. He stated that he probably used the leather
about twice a week. Br Javier is Dean of Discipline for 400 odd boys and, I believe, fills
this demanding position with sincerity and firmness but without harshness. The only
criticism offered is that he is too young for an exacting job that requires maturity and had
little experience of the city type prior to his appointment as Disciplinarian. In a subsequent
discussion, the Superior whole-heartedly supported the work of Br Javier. In response to
the suggestion that a course in psychology in U.C.D. would help in an office of this
important nature, he replied that the question had never been examined by the Order but
that Br Javier would probably return to teaching next September.
7.252 The general disposition of the Department of Education was defensive. The official’s example of
an unfounded allegation is questionable. If the boy who presented to Dr McCabe had bruises on
his body, that in itself was a serious matter, calling for a thorough investigation.
7.253 The report said that ‘the balance of the evidence favoured the Brother’s case’, but a report on
such a specific matter should have set out the evidence considered.
7.254 The key role of Dean of Discipline was given to a Brother ‘too young for an exacting job that
requires maturity’. He also had little experience of the type of boy in Artane.
7.255 The report admitted that ‘complaints about the treatment of children in industrial schools are not
infrequent’, but then relied on the ‘experience’ of the writer to ‘say that the majority are
exaggerated and some even untrue’.
7.256 A Disciplinarian who was judged to be firm, but without harshness, nevertheless had to use the
leather on boys ‘twice a week’.
Evidence given by complainants

7.257 The Investigation Committee heard a total of 48 former residents. They tended not to complain
about punishments that were justified, even if they were severe. As one witness said, ‘I didn’t
mind being beaten if I deserved it’. Many witnesses often qualified their accounts by saying they
had deserved the chastisement. One Disciplinarian was consistently described as a very strict but
very fair man, because he did not punish unjustly.
7.258 The former residents did complain, however, about unjust punishments. Unfair, capricious
punishments created a climate of fear because they were administered for little or no reason, and
therefore could not be avoided. Examples include failure at lessons, writing with the left hand and
bed-wetting.
7.259 They complained about punishments so severe they breached the accepted standards of the time.
In particular, the punishments given to absconders were cited as excessive and cruel.
7.260 Another major cause of complaint was the method by which punishment was administered. One
or more complainants before the Investigation Committee recounted the following kinds of
punishment, which were often idiosyncratic to certain members of staff, and included:
• Being beaten with a hurley, fan belt, pram tyre, and sticks of various kinds. A
deceased Brother admitted in a Garda interview that he used a fan belt to strike
boys.
• Being beaten on the bare buttocks or other parts of the body.
• Being hit by the open hand or fist on the face or other parts of the body.
• Being kicked on various parts of the body.
• Being lifted by sideburns or the hair at the temples.
• The use of various methods to make the punishment more painful.
7.261 Many complaints were about the timing and circumstances of the punishment. For example, boys
were taken out of their beds to be punished, or the punishment would be deliberately delayed to
cause anguish about what was to come.
Examples of unfair punishment

7.262 The Investigation Committee was struck by the number of witnesses who cited one particular
long-serving Disciplinarian, Br Cretien, as being strict but fair. As Disciplinarian, he had to
administer corporal punishment frequently, but the witnesses were almost unanimous in saying
he used it only when it was deserved and it was never excessively severe.
7.263 In contrast, there were many complaints about Brothers who used corporal punishment unfairly.
One witness, who was in Artane in the 1940s, was accused of stealing when in fact he had just
performed an act of kindness. The complainant used to deliver potatoes to the wife of a staff
member, and she would give him a piece of bread and jam as a reward. On one of those occasions
he was subjected to a beating by a number of Brothers who had become suspicious of his having
the bread and jam. He said that was taken into Number 6 classroom and beaten. He told the
Committee:
I guarantee you if you were lifted by the locks enough times you will say you done
everything. It doesn’t matter whether you done it or not, you will own up to everything. I
owned up to everything bar eating the bread and jam. I didn’t realise that that’s what I
was getting bet for. I never owned up to eating the bread and jam. I was lifted up and
beat. I got no tea that day.
7.264 He said that every Brother who was there punched him:
The old men were teaching the young men which was worse still when I think about it now.
The old men that should have sense teaching the young men how to effect punishment.
7.265 Later, he said that he was positive that the Disciplinarian was the man who showed the other
Brothers how to beat him. The strap was also used on this occasion:
At that time I don’t think I should have been beat. That’s why I am so much hard against
that. I don’t think that them men should have hit me that day for nothing at all.
7.266 He could not forgive them for it. He was visibly upset when talking about this incident, and said
that this resentment about the injustice of it all had hurt him all his life. Recalling another incident
when he was sent to town and went to a shop without permission, he drew the distinction between
deserved and undeserved punishment:
I don't forgive them men because I really do not forgive them because I really think that
they beat me unnecessarily. Doing a good turn and they come and bash you ... I don't
think I should have been bashed up. I could have been bashed up for taking children to
the bus and I might have been accepting it because I didn't go in a straight line, I didn't
go from Artane back, I went to Woolworth’s instead. I know I was wrong there. I should
have been bashed up for that. But I don't accept being bashed up for the bread and jam.
7.267 Another witness, at the School from the mid-1940s to the mid-1950s, said:
You don't seem to understand, the place was built on terror, regular beatings were just
accepted. What you're hearing about is the bad ones, but we accepted as normal run of
the mill from the minute you got up, that some time in that day you would get beaten. The
last two out of the washroom got beaten. The last two out of the boot room got beaten.
The last two down to the piss pots got beaten. Everything was timed and everyone that
was last got beaten. We accepted that. We didn't even regard that as cruelty. That was
the way the regime was run.
7.268 Another witness, at Artane from the late 1940s to the early 1950s, was punished for trying to stop
a Brother hitting his younger brother. He described the incident:
[My younger brother] knew nothing, he was only 7, as you know, and I cannot exactly
remember what he chastised him for but he started hitting him anyways so I said “leave
him off, he is only a boy”. I was only a boy myself. He just laid off and he laid into me
then. I just remember vaguely, that was my first impression of that particular Brother,
you know.
7.269 Another former resident described how he was hit for bed-wetting:
I used to wet the bed and try and hide it, try and make my bed dead quick. Then after a
few days they used to come around the dorm and pull it back, probably because of the
smell of piss. Then when they caught you, you just got a whack around the head, you
know. You were told ... to take your sheets and put them up in the corner and when you
came back at night you would pick them up.
7.270 A witness who was there a decade earlier insisted that, in his day, the bed-wetters were given
the strap:
They were called out of their beds, yes, while everybody was in their beds doing the
things they were doing, reading. The sound box wasn't on every night but it seems on
these nights it would be off and he would call out, the teacher would call out the bed-
wetters and they would have to line up and they had a strap, I seemed to think that the
strap was about 14 to 15 inches long. It was about two inches wide and it was about half
an inch to three quarters of an inch ... They had to hold their hand out and they would have
to pull their sleeve up so there is no chance of the sleeve taking some of the pressure, so
you would have to pull your sleeve up and you would have to hold your hand out and the
rule was you didn't pull your hand across, you didn't pull your hand away ... If you pulled
your hand away and the Brother got it on the knee, he would just hit you anywhere, the
strap would land and you would have to roll yourself up into a ball to try and minimise the
areas where this bloke could hit you. You would have it on the head and you would have
it on your hands because your hands would be on your head. And used to have it on –
he would wallop you on the back. Many times they would go into a bit of a frenzy while
doing that. So you had to find the courage of not pulling your hand back and it did take a
lot of courage to leave your hand there.
The second rule was that you weren't allowed to cry. They did not like boys crying. So
when the strap landed on your arm, just about halfway up your arm, it would leave a mark
on your arm and your hand would go numb. It was only when you got into bed that you
could feel the life going back into your arm. It was difficult to be brave on those occasions.
7.271 A man described the beatings he received in the 1940s for writing with his left hand:
I was born left-handed, and I learned to write at school left-handed and I was told that the
devil was in me that's why I was left-handed and they decided to stop me. They would
come from behind, I wouldn't know and they would come down with the side of a ruler or
a cane on my hand to stop me using my left hand. They beat the devil out of me, that
was the saying. I had to use my right hand to write. To this day I couldn't cut a piece of
bread with my right hand, I still do it with my left hand. I butter my bread with my left hand
I can't do it with my right hand. But I write with my right hand.
7.272 A resident in Artane, from the late 1940s to the early 1950s, said one Brother punished for
‘minor things’:
Not getting your different letters crossed right when you are writing and just general things
that happened in class, like, you know. Not singing properly or not answering when you
should answer or not knowing something that he thought you should have known. Things
like that, just general sort of stuff.
7.273 Another witness, at Artane in the mid-1960s, described being hit after being accused wrongly of
tearing a blanket:
We heard [Br Lionel] saying “who tore this blanket?” ... I answered him and I says “we
don't know” you know. He didn't seem to take the answer too well, you know, and he
called me down ... he asked me again ... So I gave him the same answer I gave him the
first time, we didn't know who tore the blanket. He didn't seem to take that so the next of
all he gave me a blow across the head there ... with his fists. He had a bunch of keys in
his hand. The mark is there on my head if you wish to feel it or if any of your friends. The
mark is there, yes. My head bled. I fell to the floor that day and going down I walloped
my head off one of the bed legs there. There was rows of beds like in the other dormitory.
I hurt my head as well falling to the floor because I wasn't a very strong boy in them days
... I got hearing trouble through the blow afterwards, as life went on.
7.274 An ex-resident from the 1960s described the punishments that ensued every Thursday, following
the inspection of underpants for soiling:
... when they were to be collected every Thursday night, and you were issued with a clean
pair, you would stand by your bed with the underpants in your hand and the Brother would
instruct another boy to go around and see who had soiled their underpants. If you came
across somebody whose underpants were soiled he would raise his hand and you would
go up to top of the dormitory and get a hiding.
7.275 He said that it happened more in dormitory number one, because that is where the younger boys
were. When asked how the boys were punished, he replied:
The punishment always started with facing the wall, because you faced the wall at the
top of dormitory. Then when it came to your turn you put out your hands and you would
get slapped.
7.276 The number of slaps depended on whatever Brother was in charge. He said that the same Brother
wouldn’t be in charge seven nights of the week and it wouldn’t necessarily be the same Brother
every Thursday.
7.277 Two Brothers confirmed that this degrading underpants inspection and punishment of boys did
take place. One of them conceded: ‘If [he] says I put him facing the wall I will admit that. If [he]
says I slapped him on the hands I would also admit that’. Although the Brother claimed that the
reason for these inspections was because of complaints from the laundry staff about soiled
underwear, there was no evidence from complainants that they were required to wash out their
underpants if they were soiled, which would have addressed the problem. The Brother also
accepted that boys who soiled their underwear did not do so on purpose, and added, ‘I do not
think they deserved to be punished’.
Examples of excessive punishments

7.278 Many former residents complained of punishments that were excessively severe and violent. One
witness, at Artane from the mid-1940s to the mid-1950s, described seeing a classmate being
beaten. John51 was a very slow learner, but the Brother teaching Irish was not aware of this. He
kept asking him questions, and persisted until he got the right answers, even though the boy had
no idea what the questions meant:
We started tittering laughing. I think Br Laurent52 thought we were laughing at him. He
asked him again. Poor John kept guessing and always getting the wrong one. Eventually
Br Laurent just blew his top. He hit that lad and got his head and smashed it ... on the
bench. The ink wells went up, he was covered in ink, snots, blood, everything. He spent
the entire half an hour, three quarters of an hour beating this lad until John eventually had
a run of luck and picked this out three times in a row. With that when the bell went or the
whistle, Br Laurent just slumped down exhausted from beating this lad. While we were,
in the beginning, tittering, some of the lads were crying, we were frightened that he was
going to kill him. We made way for him at the door. It was ghastly. The Brother at the
other end, one class faced that way and the other faced that way, never intervened once
to come down. That wasn't like Br Laurent but he just lost it that day. He battered this
poor lad, he was in bits. So don't tell me there it was isolated cases, that Brother at the
other end should have done something about it but he didn't.
7.279 One witness, at Artane in the 1960s, had reported a Brother for sexual abuse, and he described
the purging of ‘badness’, the Artane term for sexual activity, that ensued following his reporting
the matter:
After that happened, the next day I was brought out of class and I was questioned about
who I was committing badness with ... Because I didn't name names at that particular
time, but because of the beating I was getting, I was giving names of other boys who I
had committed badness with and those other boys were taken out of class and they were
beaten until they gave names. It was just one vicious circle that kept going on for two –
for three days. I had been taken out because other boys started giving my name back
again. It was even said to me, but who said it I don't know, “you should have kept your
mouth shut and none of this would have happened”..
But for three days I was systematically abused, both outside the classroom, in the
dormitory, anywhere where I went within those environments. I was taken to a music room
just off the corridor to the right of where the classes are and I had been beaten so much
that I went to the toilet in a bin and another boy seen me and told a Brother that I had
done that and I was taken back out and flogged again because I had done that. We
weren't allowed to go to the toilet; we were being punished for something that I had
started.
7.280 Another witness described an occasion when a Brother struck him on the genitals in the course
of a beating, and the boy protected himself with his hand but the Brother took his hand away:
“What’s the matter with you? Those are no good to you anyway”... With that, he had me
against the wall ... He put his fist between my legs and pushed me upwards while I was
leaning back against the wall. He had his other hand on my chest to make sure I would
fall forward and then he took his hand away.
51
52

7.281 A former resident who was there in the 1960s described the punishment given to boys whose
shoes were ‘cast’. He explained:
what cast means is they were cast out, thrown away because they were absolutely gone
beyond repair. Depending on the state of your shoes ... would depend on the severity of
the clattering you would get.
7.282 He then described the punishment:

If your shoes were cast you knew you were going to the wall. You would go and face the
wall until they finished the inspection on all the children and then you would receive slaps.
With Br Karel53 he could use a hurl, he could use a leather. Br Raoul54 the same, leather,
hurl ... At times a hurl, at times a leather. At times an open palm. At times, as far as I was
concerned a closed fist, pulling of the sideburns, being lifted by your sideburns. The
particular instant that would frighten me and still does today was ... The chap in front of
me at the time was a guy called David.55 When we were going up to get the boots
examined you could see that ... there was no sole left in the boot and when he got up in
front of him, he turned up the boot and I know now I didn’t know then that ... Br Raoul
was just being totally sarcastic and he said “They’ll do you another week ...” and David –
it was a relief, he was too young to understand, so was I to what was going on, but when
David turned to walk away with his boots, thinking that’s great, he suddenly got a belt of
a hurl on the back of – the back, then he was beat up and down the dormitory with a hurl.
Other forms of punishment

7.283 Some punishments were peculiar to Artane. Several witnesses described the practice of putting
boys ‘on a charge’.
7.284 A former resident of the 1940s described what was involved:

Artane, people don't realise, it was a prison in itself. You were surrounded by gates and
you were surrounded by big buildings. If you done something wrong in my time there was
a 30 foot wall. I don't know how anyone was going to get over a building. But you got a
little patch to mind and you had to stand minding that wall.
7.285 The boys were left there until ‘Whenever they'd feel like coming back for you’.
7.286 Another resident who was there between the mid-1940s and mid-1950s said:
I was fairly regularly on a charge in Artane. You were put in charge of a building or a gate
and you walked up and down. Br Armande56 would go from gate to gate often passed us
and he said to me, “You seem to be in a lot of trouble”.
7.287 He explained further:

by the church there was the wicker gate, you were on a charge, it meant you stood by
that, you didn't let anyone out. Then there was another chap on the main gate. Then there
was somebody on the building, which was usually me in the last few months. You had to
parade up and down there, you couldn't play ... Br Cretien always had a stick up his
sleeve. He always beat you with a stick and then you got the charge.
7.288 In addition to the strap, some Brothers had idiosyncratic implements, such as a fan belt or a pram
tyre. Boys could be struck on the palm of the hand, the arm, the face, the stomach, the legs and
53
54
55
56

the backside. Another implement used was a hurley. Sometimes, boys were punched and kicked.
Lay teachers, said one resident who was there in 1940s, did not have a leather. He explained:
there was a bit of social distinction. The lay teachers tended to carry sticks, quite often
broken off hurley handles that had been filed and the sharp edges removed leaving a
manageable sized club.
7.289 Common physical punishments were ‘the clatter’ and lifting boys by the hair at the temples or
sideburns. Br Burcet said, ‘My interpretation of clattering would be to give a fellow a thump or a
clip behind the ear’. These punishments were often used either as a rapid chastisement or as an
immediately available alternative to the strap.
7.290 Two Brothers admitted using a dowel. One Brother said, ‘I might have used a dowel ... I think they
would have come from the carpenter’s shop’.
7.291 Br Burcet was more precise. He said:

I recall once using a dowel, yes ... I became paranoid about where people were. Now, I
was under a lot of pressure and I was often frustrated and so on when boys went missing
because I had this fear that we could have another fire. On one occasion, when a boy
was missing and we had to spend a lot of time looking for him, the dowel was – a baby’s
cot, you know the little thing? I hadn’t a leather that happened to be handy, and I slapped
the boy on the hand with that. The thing broke and that was it.
7.292 One witness described a punishment chosen to fit the crime. The witness was in Artane from the
mid-1940s to the mid-1950s, and he described one incident:
I was given my own suit, as I say. The very first Sunday I was there, that was the first
time I wore it because that was when we wore our best suits. During the Mass I had
terrible runs. I ran down the passageway to the door and Br Cretien blocked my way. He
said “You can't go. The host is exposed”. I had to wait until the Host was put away and
then I made a beeline. The latrines were a good 100 yards from where the chapel was. I
never made it and I soiled my pants. In those days, in 1945, they didn't have flush
lavatories. It was a box with a bucket underneath. The paper was newspapers cut up. I
done my best to clean my pants. We didn't have underpants in those days, we had lined
trousers. I did my best to clean myself and wipe it but I stunk. After breakfast when I went
to the dormitory I had to report to Br Boyce he was in charge of dormitory five then ...
Everybody was busy doing their scrubbing and he told me to take my clothes off. They
never had hot water in Artane, the cold tap was put on, I stood in it naked and he got the
lads who had the big long scrubbers to scrub me. They weren't very strong and he didn't
think they were doing a bloody good job anyway. He got the hand scrubber and he said,
“I will show you”. (Indicating) He scrubbed all my buttocks and legs down. I was red raw
after it. He threw me out. I had to dress there and then. No drying off or anything. That
was my only experience with Br Boyce.
Delayed punishment
7.293 Witnesses described having to wait before the corporal punishment was administered. Some were
taken out of their beds at night to be punished. Boys sent to the Disciplinarian had to wait facing
the wall until he was ready to deal with them, which led to an increase in anxiety about what was
to come.
7.294 Bed-wetters were often the victims of delayed punishment. A boy who was there in the 1950s
described the procedure:
[If you wet the bed] the next day you might have to – it depends on what Brother would
be on – strip down your bed. You would try and hide it but if you couldn't hide it then the
next night you would have to face the wall up in the dormitory.
7.295 Facing the wall meant having to stand in the dormitory, wearing only a nightshirt, when the other
boys had gone to bed. Boys remained facing the wall for one or two hours before being allowed
to get into bed.
Techniques that increased pain

7.296 Some complainants described how the pain of corporal punishment could be intensified through
techniques of delivering the blow, or simply through failure to take account of the physical condition
of the boy. A resident in the 1940s complained:
When beatings were applied, whether by a leather or strap, no account was taken of
whether you had chilblains or you didn't. You just got it and you took it and who were you
to complain to, there was no one to complain to.
7.297 A former resident from the same period explained:

Another Brother, if you are talking or doing other things in the dormitory that you weren't
supposed to be doing, he would make you go in to the washroom and put your hand into
very cold water, because there was no hot water in Artane, and he would make you put
your hand in the cold water for about ten [minutes] to quarter of an hour. Then he would
call you out and while your hands were still wet, he used to make you put your hand,
palm upwards, on the iron bedstead and he had a foot ruler and he used to slice the top
of your fingers. It was only afterwards when the blood returned to your hand that you
actually got the pain that was involved. Speaking here, it doesn't seem to imply that being
hit at the top of your fingers was a great punishment but it certainly was. The pain
afterwards was more than the actual striking of the fingers.
7.298 Another technique was to get the boy to hold his hand over a hard object; the same witness
explained the procedure:
There was one teacher, and if he needed to smack you with the strap, would make you
hold your hand possibly about an inch or two away from the desk and then he would
smack you with this strap ... and when they walloped you on the front of the hand, your
hand came down on the desk, so you got it on the front and the back of the hand.
7.299 Another witness, there in the 1950s, described a similar procedure. He said, ‘You would put your
hands out and if he missed he would make you put your hands on the wall ... so you couldn't pull
your hand back’.
7.300 A resident from the late 1940s described how a teacher would punish boys who got something
wrong:
If you didn't get something right in class, if he asked me a question or whatever it was
and I can't remember what it was, if I didn't get it right, he would come along and he would
take your ear. He said “this part of your ear is no good, it won't do any harm”. He pierced
the side of my ear with his nail and dragged you to the board to write the correct answer
on the board whatever it was that you got wrong. He would escort you back the same
way. You would have to pray that you didn't get something wrong the next day because
although your ear was sore with a scab on it he would still do the same thing with the
same ear.
7.301 He then added, ‘Outside of that he never used the cane. I never saw him raise the cane to anyone’.
7.302 One of the functions of the rules and regulations for corporal punishment was to ensure that
chastisement was carried out only for serious offences, so that the punisher knew how and when
to punish and the wrongdoer knew what to expect. One effect of these other forms of punishment
was to remove predictability about physical punishment. Uncertainty about what was going to
happen next contributed to the climate of fear described by many of the complainants.
Punishment leading to injury

7.303 Some witnesses complained that the punishments they received sometimes resulted in serious
injury. A former resident from the 1940s described an incident on the playing fields:
[The Brother] was, I would say in his time, a great hurler. He always carried a hurley with
him no matter where he went. When I was on the hurling team, when I was fighting to get
on it, I was put in goal and I was dropped and he then said, “I will teach you to be a good
goalkeeper”. He beat – he hit balls at me, I am not sure you know how hard a hurley ball
is. He hit hurley balls at me one after the other. One of them hit me on the eye and my
eye came up (indicating) really, really large. He apologised. The other balls that hit me
on the body and head quite badly. He was the one in actual fact who hit me on the knees
... with the hurley. A day later my knees came up like balloons ...
It was deliberate because I wasn't doing what he wanted me to do. I wasn't being a good
enough goalkeeper. I wasn't stopping enough balls properly ... The next day my knees
came up like balloons. I couldn't walk and I was taken down to the infirmary. There was
a lady looked after me. I never saw a doctor all the time I was there. I don't know how
long I was there, I can't remember to be honest with you, he came to visit me when I was
there ... I was in a while but I can't remember how long.
7.304 In their Opening Statement given before the public hearing, the Christian Brothers outlined the
rules, regulations and guidelines that governed the use of corporal punishment in industrial and
in national schools. They also give an outline gleaned from internal documents of the policy of the
Congregation in relation to corporal punishment. A more detailed analysis of the rules, regulations
and policy documents of the Congregation are discussed in the Christian Brother General
Chapter.
7.305 These regulations setting the acceptable standards of the day were often broken. Moreover, the
Brothers often broke the two main provisions about corporal punishment in the Christian Brothers
Acts of Chapter, namely that proper comportment, gravity and propriety should be observed in
administering corporal punishment, and that the only form of corporal punishment authorised
should be a leather strap on the palm of the hand.
7.306 Most of the witnesses did not complain of being punished if they had done wrong and deserved
chastisement. Their main objections were to unjust, capricious punishments or excessive
punishments that were administered without ‘proper comportment, gravity and propriety’, or where
the experience was either cruel or humiliating.
Ability to complain
7.307 In the course of his interviews on behalf of the congregation, Mr Dunleavy discussed the ability of
Brothers to complain to their superiors about incidents or deficiencies in Artane:
No Brothers interviewed recalled any means by which they could make a complaint on
any matter concerning the School. Several Brothers expressed feelings of disquiet about
things they had seen during their time at Artane but maintained there existed no process
by which they could make their feelings of unease unknown. The absence of any proper
complaints procedure for staff was mirrored in a total absence of such a procedure for
pupils. If a pupil had a complaint relating to any matter within the School or concerning
any Christian Brother in the School he would have to make that complaint to another
Brother. Apart from the inadequacy of such a system, Brothers being interviewed
recognised that such a complaints procedure was unlikely to be invoked by a pupil
because of the fear of his complaint being relayed back to the Brother concerned.
7.308 Mr Dunleavy reviewed 11 cases of alleged physical abuse and found that they shared certain
features:
(a) In no case of an allegation of physical abuse did the School notify the Dept. of
Education of the allegation.
(b) In no case where the Dept. of Education became aware of an allegation of physical
abuse did it insist on carrying out its own investigation, or insist that an independent
investigation be carried out.
(c) In all cases involving allegations of physical abuse of which the Dept. of Education
became aware, the Dept. were content on each occasion for the School authorities
to investigate themselves.
(d) In no case involving an allegation of physical abuse could I find any evidence that
either the School or the Dept. of Education dismissed or disciplined the individual
involved.
(e) In no case involving an allegation of physical abuse does it appear that the experience
of the incident led the School to establish any safety measures or any appropriate
code of practice or even a simple regulation governing the maximum force to be used
against a boy, to ensure that such incidents did not recur.
(f) In no case of an allegation of physical abuse, where it was clear that the Dept. of
Education’s own guidelines concerning the proper procedures for the notification of
an injury to a boy had not been followed, did the Dept. of Education insist on carrying
out its own investigation, or insist that an independent investigation be carried out.
7.309 The documentary evidence, the recollections of independent witnesses, the evidence heard by
the Committee between September and December 2005, and the report of Mr Dunleavy that was
commissioned by the Congregation all described a regime of punishment and physical abuse
in Artane.
7.310 It is an inadequate response to the allegations of physical abuse to attempt to refute them by
forensic analysis. The Congregation failed to address central issues about Artane. There is a body
of information showing the prevalence of excessive use of corporal punishment in cases that are
documented and others that are acknowledged. The evidence of complainants confirms what is
beyond dispute. There was an absence of an ordered system of management and governance of
the institution that had inevitable consequences.
Conclusions on physical abuse

7.311 1. Artane used frequent and severe corporal punishment to impose and enforce a
regime of militaristic discipline.
2. Corporal punishment was systemic and pervasive. Management did nothing to
prevent excessive and inappropriate punishment and boys and Brothers learnt
to accept a high level of physical punishment as the norm.
3. Brothers used a variety of weapons and devised methods of increasing suffering
when inflicting punishment, and in some cases they were cruel and even
sadistic.
4. Brothers did not intervene to stop excessive punishment by colleagues, and
there was a code of conduct between Brothers that prevented criticism of each
other’s behaviour, even in cases where it was clearly extreme or excessive. All
Brothers, therefore, became implicated in excesses.
5. Even where a child behaved and kept to the rules, he could still be beaten.
6. The result of arbitrary and excessive punishment was a climate of fear.
7. Artane did not operate within the Rules and Regulations for industrial schools
and the precepts of the Christian Brothers concerning corporal punishment.
8. The absence of a punishment book in Artane was a disregard for a specific legal
requirement intended for the protection of children. The Punishment Book was
not maintained in Artane because the Christian Brothers chose not to maintain it.
9. The Department was also at fault in failing to ensure that the statutory
punishment book was properly maintained and reviewed at every inspection.
10. The Department of Education failed in its supervisory role by maintaining a
defensive and protective attitude towards the management and staff. Even when
it conducted an investigation, the Department simply accepted Brothers’
explanations uncritically.
Sexual abuse
The Congregation’s approach to sexual abuse in Artane

7.312 The Christian Brothers’ Opening Statement on the issue of sexual abuse commented on six
Brothers who were guilty of sexual abuse while they were in Artane. It then discussed five more
Brothers who sexually abused boys in other institutions after their time in Artane ‘because of a
possible retrospective connection to Artane’. The Statement finally dealt with two cases in the
1930s, in each of which a Brother was assigned to the staff of Artane with knowledge that he had
previously been guilty of child sexual abuse.
7.313 Following its review of the cases of these 13 Brothers, the Congregation concluded that there was
no systemic sexual abuse of boys in Artane. With regard to Brothers who abused, the Statement
accepted that they did ‘betray the trust given them causing serious damage to boys in their care’,
and it contrasted this with ‘the great number of Brothers who honoured this trust and devoted
themselves to the education and welfare of the boys in their care’, to whom it said the offending
Brothers caused pain. The Brothers accepted that the approach to instances of sexual abuse was
‘very inadequate by present day standards’ and then went on to propose arguments which were
intended to exonerate the Congregation at the time:
• There was no cover up of the issue.
• When personnel became aware of the issue, they reported it to the Congregation
authorities.
• Structures in Artane made it possible for boys to bring such issues to the attention of
the Resident Manager or other personnel, and this in fact happened.
• The Congregation removed the abusers from the Institution and, in most cases, from
the Congregation.
• The Congregation Visitor was attentive to the dangers of sex abuse.
• Guidelines and recommendations were issued to assist with child protection.
7.314 The Congregation does not accept any blame as a Congregation for sexual abuse in Artane. It
contends that the Brothers who dealt with cases of sexual abuse did so in a proper manner by
the standards and procedures of that time. It acknowledged that these procedures would not meet
present-day standards. It repeated the apology that it issued to people who suffered abuse in
its institutions.
7.315 The Congregation contended that Brothers who committed sexual abuse were dealt with severely.
A guilty Brother was either given a warning or he was dismissed. Repeat offenders were
dismissed. A Brother who had not taken permanent vows was usually dismissed. Of the cases
recorded in the archives, 11 Brothers were finally professed and two were of temporary profession.
Dealing first with the 11 Brothers in the former category, six Brothers were permitted to apply for
and were granted dispensation from their vows, three were given Canonical Warnings, and no
sanctions were applied to the remaining two Brothers. One of the two Brothers of temporary
profession was dismissed, and the other did not renew his vows at the end of the year.
7.316 These details show that the only actual dismissal was in the case of a Brother of temporary
profession. The most common sanction was to permit the Brother to apply for a dispensation from
his vows, a procedure which required the endorsement of a Bishop. Taking this course spared
the Congregation the trouble of proceeding with a formal Canonical trial and it was of immense
advantage to the abuser. He was able to leave the Congregation of his own volition, to all
appearances in good standing. He was in the same position as a person who had lost his vocation
to be a Brother and who had been permitted to rejoin the outside lay world. The records
acknowledged this sharp distinction, and detailed comments made by the Congregation also
recognised it. For example, in relation to one case, information was given that the Brother:
applied to the Apostolic Visitor who advised him to seek a Dispensation from Vows. His
application was granted and he left the Congregation ...
7.317 In another case, a decision was made that the Brother ‘should be dismissed from the Congregation
but he was given the opportunity to apply for a Dispensation from Vows’. In a subsequent general
comment on the six cases of Brothers recorded as having been guilty of sexual abuse in Artane,
the Opening Statement confusingly appeared to equate these two quite different means of exiting
the Community of the Christian Brothers:
The sanction applied was either dismissal or a canonical warning. In cases where it was
decided to dismiss a Brother, the normal procedure was to instruct him to apply for a
dispensation from vows.
7.318 The records indicate that the authorities were very well aware of the distinction between dismissal
and a grant of dispensation from vows, which was a considerable benefit offered to an abuser
otherwise facing expulsion. Dismissal means removal from office, not permission to resign. The
Brothers’ Statement offered no explanation as to why this facility was offered to offenders.
7.319 The Opening Statement made a cursory reference to the question why abuse was not reported
to the Gardaı́:
It would appear that the abuse was not reported to the civil authorities. However, reporting
of allegations and/or instances of child sex abuse may not have been common practice
in the general population at the time.
7.320 The implication is that sex abuse against children was not normally reported to the Gardaı́ by ‘the
general population at the time’ and that this furnished mitigation or explanation of the failure by
the Brothers. The introduction of ‘allegations’ is not relevant in a section dealing with recorded
cases of undisputed sexual abuse committed by Christian Brothers. Moreover, what may or may
not have been common practice in the general population cannot be the rule for providers of
childcare who should be setting standards. And, as a later account will show, the practice of the
Brothers differed according to the case: when laymen were suspected of sexual abuse, the
Christian Brothers reported them to the Gardaı́.
7.321 Dealing with the two cases where Brothers known to be guilty of sexual abuse elsewhere were
assigned to Artane, the Christian Brothers observed that this was unacceptable by current-day
standards, but the implication is that it was acceptable by the standards of the time. The Christian
Brothers in their submission to the Investigation Committee stated that the ‘fact that it happened
in the past is indicative of the lack of understanding of the recidivistic nature of child abuse’. The
Statement does not indicate on whose part there was the lack of understanding, but a helpful
pointer is found in the introductory remarks to this section. Here, it is stated that the long-term
psychological damage caused by sexual abuse was not understood by society at the time ‘nor
was the recidivist nature of child sexual abuse’. These failures of understanding are attributed to
society at the time, and the ‘response of the Congregation to instances of sexual abuse was
conditioned by this inadequate understanding of the issue’.
7.322 In its Opening Statement, the Congregation did not accept any responsibility at Congregational
level for the undeniable, recorded abuse that took place in Artane. They blamed society for its
inadequate understanding of the long-term psychological effects of such abuse and its recidivist
nature. They claimed that the Brothers behaved appropriately for the time, although they did
concede that these past methods would not now be considered proper. The Christian Brothers
had long experience dealing with sexual abuse, and were better informed than others about its
dangers and prevalence. They could not, therefore, attribute their failure to respond to a ‘lack
of understanding’.
Documented cases of sexual abuse
Br Platt57
7.323 The earliest record of a Brother sexually abusing a boy in Artane dated from the early 1930s. It
was specifically furnished by the Christian Brothers as an illustration of how expeditiously these
cases were dealt with by the Congregation.
7.324 Br Platt, who was in charge of the infirmary in Artane, voluntarily confessed to the Superior that
he had ‘abused a boy and acted immodestly with him’. The Superior referred the matter to the
Provincial Council, and the case was considered by both the Provincial Council and the General
Council. The Superior General wrote to the Provincial, saying that he had interviewed the
offending Brother in August 1932 and ‘told him of the risk we ran in retaining him in the
Congregation’. He was given one day to consider applying for a dispensation from perpetual vows
or stand trial within the Congregation. The following day, Br Platt appeared before the General
Council and informed it of his decision not to apply for a dispensation. His expulsion was then
considered and a vote was taken on the issue. The Council unanimously voted in favour of his
retention in the Congregation rather than expulsion. He was given a Canonical Warning and the
daily recital of the Miserere as a penance and was ‘sent back to Baldoyle’. The Council noted that
he was very repentant.
7.325 It appears that there was reluctance at a high level within the Congregation to expel this Brother,
despite their awareness of the danger he posed. The Superior General was very worried about
the situation, because he wrote in a letter to the Provincial on 19th August 1932 that he considered
him to be ‘a great danger to us’ and also considered it a ‘risk’ to retain him in the Congregation.
He even cited cases where two Brothers had been hanged in Canada for ‘murder of their victims
after such offence’:
He is a great danger to us. Two Brothers were hanged in Canada within the past two
years for murder of their victims after such offence. A Brother of a community in charge
of an Industrial school in Rome awaits his trial for the murder of a boy in the school who
told of his offence to his Superior. The school is closed and the community disbanded.
57

7.326 No consideration was given to the child who had been abused. In fact, the Brother could not even
recall his exact name. There was no record of the boy being spoken to.
7.327 Notwithstanding the concern of the Provincialate, this Brother was assigned to Glin Industrial
School in the late 1930s and remained there for seven years.
7.328 This Brother refused to seek a dispensation from his vows and the Congregation unanimously
agreed not to take action. This case shows that the Congregation knew, as early as 1932, of the
recidivist nature of these offenders. His description as a ‘danger’ and a ‘risk’ to the Congregation
illustrates a clear understanding of this man’s propensity to re-offend, but it is noteworthy that the
‘great danger’ was to the Congregation and not to the boys.
Br Herve58
7.329 The second recorded account of sexual abuse by a Brother who served in Artane concerns Br
Herve, who was sent there in the late 1930s with a history of sexual abuse in a previous school
in the south of the country, and who worked there on administrative duties until his retirement
some seven years later. He came to Artane following a short stay in an institution to which he had
been moved as a matter of urgency. In the school in which he was a teacher, Br Herve was
accused of having ‘kissed, fondled, embraced and meddled with boys in his class’ and he admitted
that the charges were ‘substantially true’. Br Herve’s Superior was aware of his activities for at
least four years. The Superior was not alone in his knowledge, because, as the correspondence
discloses, boys in the School, some parents, the Dean of the diocese, local clergy and even
visiting priests conducting Missions were aware of the Brother’s behaviour, in addition to some
members of the public.
7.330 The problem presented by Br Herve’s conduct in his school came to a head in early 1938, when
the Superior expelled two boys for immorality, following an investigation that he said he carried
out reluctantly. ‘Why I moved in the case of the boys ... at all was because two mothers – Doctors’
wives asked me to investigate certain bad conduct and of course language going on in a certain
class’.
7.331 One mother, whose boy was expelled, tried to get him reinstated and consulted a local solicitor,
who was unsympathetic and called to see the Superior and told him that what he did ‘was quite
right and that he would not touch the case’.
7.332 The boy’s mother had more success in enlisting the support of the Dean of the Parish than with
the solicitor. In February 1938, the Dean called on the Superior of the School and asked that Br
Herve be ‘removed at once on grounds of immorality’. The Dean stated that Br Herve ‘kisses,
fondles, embraces and indeed fiddles or meddles with the boys’ and that this ‘has been going on
for the past five years’. The Dean said that Br Herve’s activities had been brought up at the last
Mission in the parish, when a number of parents asked the Missioner for advice as to what to do.
He had recommended that they report the matter to the Superior of the College, but the parents
refused, ‘not wishing to get the Brother concerned into trouble’. The Dean was reluctant to get
involved; indeed, he specifically asked the Superior not to ‘drag him into it’ but was just asking
him to transfer Br Herve from the School.
7.333 The Superior had known about Br Herve for years, as he informed the Provincial:
During the past few years I spoke to Br Herve about these matters, while last September
I called him into the Office and abused him and rated him roundly for his kissing of the
boys and his fondling of them. On that occasion he promised to give it up for good.
58

7.334 The Superior did not tell the Dean that Br Herve had a history of misconduct with boys: ‘In
speaking to the Dean I did not pretend to know such a thing existed at all’.
7.335 The Superior told the Provincial that in his view the matter had come to light out of ‘a woman’s
revenge’, but he accepted that ‘Quite apart from this it appears that Br Herve is guilty’. He
suggested that, if the Provincial investigated the matter, he should do so discreetly and not come
to the School during school hours. The Provincial dispatched one of his Consultors who stayed in
a hotel so that ‘the investigation could be carried out quietly’. This Brother recorded that Br Herve:
admitted that the charges were substantially true. He did kiss and fondle boys, but always
(a) openly, (b) when others were present, and never in a gross manner. It was not alleged
by anyone that there was gross immorality at any time.
7.336 Because he had admitted his guilt, the Br Consultor did not feel that it was necessary to investigate
the matter further, which saved him the ‘disagreeable duty’ of seeing those who had made the
charges, and saved Br Herve and the School ’from talk that would arise if an investigation were
to be made by me’. He recommended Br Herve’s immediate removal because:
His actions are a constant source of talk and criticism among the boys and their parents.
It may be taken for granted that he is much talked of [in the area] and being one who is
loose in morals, and one who should not have charge of boys.
7.337 The Provincial took immediate action and ordered that Br Herve be transferred. He wrote to Br
Herve notifying him and also referring to the impact of his abusive activities on the Congregation
and on the boys who were abused:
By indulging in such improprieties you have scandalised your pupils, given rise to a good
deal of unsavoury gossip among them and their parents, done grave injury to the
reputation of the College, brought discredit on yourself, and, I greatly fear lowered the
Brothers in the estimation of a big section of the public. May God grant that the
consequences are not worse.
Every Christian Brother is bound by his Rule as well as by the laws of charity and justice
to do all in his power to safeguard the virtue of his pupils and to assist them as far as he
can to preserve their innocence if they have not already lost it. You[r] conduct was well
calculated to rob them of this precious treasure of innocence. What greater wrong could
you do them? You cannot reasonably make the plea that you did not realise the gravity
of your offence.
7.338 The Provincial gave Br Herve a Canonical Warning pursuant to Constitution 218 and a ‘serious
warning that a repetition of any of the faults with which you are now charged will render you liable
to expulsion from the Congregation’. He told Br Herve to make a determined effort to combat his
‘immoderate tendency to softness in dealing with your pupils and to think seriously over the grave
spiritual harm your actions inflict on both them and yourself’. He also stated that, ‘May God grant
that the consequences are not worse’. He transferred Br Herve as soon as possible pursuant to
the rules of the Congregation.
7.339 On the same day that he wrote to Br Herve, the Provincial also wrote to the Superior of the School
sympathising in ‘the amount of worry and humiliation that has been inflicted on you by the
deplorable conduct’ of Br Herve. He stated that:
The unfortunate man is really more to be pitied than to be censured, but to make him
realise the gravity of his offence I am giving him the canonical warning provided for in the
Constitution, and in doing so I think I am adopting the most charitable course that can be
pursued in a case of this kind.
7.340 The Superior replied, thanking the Provincial for his comments and agreeing that Br Herve was
more to be pitied than to be censured and concluding ‘He just has no control over his hands ...’.
7.341 The Superior reinstated the expelled boy in the School. His mother had threatened to inform the
Bishop and to ‘bring this case further and further’. As he told the Provincial, the Superior had to
‘capitulate with the best grace I could’.
7.342 The crisis was resolved with the boy’s return to the School and Br Herve’s transfer. The Superior
was more than a little relieved:
For the past four years I always feared that when the inevitable would come in his case
that it would be much more serious.
7.343 Similarly, the Superior noted that the complaining parent was not sure whether Br Herve had
‘meddled with the boys in their privy parts’ but thought not. He then commented. ‘Knowing Br
Herve as we do I thank God he did not do worse’.
7.344 During the Phase III hearing into Artane, Br Reynolds, referring to the nature of Br Herve’s
meddling, commented as follows:
But I mean, what the Provincial believed or didn't believe I am not sure is of any
consequence. What I was saying in the submission is that the lady thought it didn't
happen, the Dean thought it did. And, obviously, that's the view that I am taking, that if
the Dean thought it did well then it did happen.
7.345 It was put to Br Reynolds that this comment showed clearly that the Congregation was aware of
the recidivistic nature of abuse as far back as 1938. Br Reynolds did not agree:
I would come back to say that this letter, in my view, does not point out that the recidivistic
nature of child abuse was known to whoever wrote it. What he is saying is that this
individual person, certainly he believed, abused but he wasn't in a position to take any
action on it until he had sufficient proof.
7.346 This observation is scarcely correct, as the correspondence shows that the Superior had brought
Br Herve into his office in September 1937 ‘and abused him and rated him roundly for his kissing
of the boys and his fondling of them. On that occasion he promised to give it up for good’.
However, Br Reynolds persisted in his view that they had no evidence prior to 1938.
7.347 Br Reynolds was also reluctant to accept that the reference to ‘May God grant that the
consequences are not worse’ referred to the involvement of the Gardaı́ or other authorities:
That's your interpretation is all I am saying ... Off the top of my head that would not have
been my interpretation of that. But I am not saying that you are not correct in that.
7.348 The Superior did not incur criticism although, in his correspondence to the Provincial, he admitted
that he was aware of Br Herve’s activities for years but did not even report to his own authorities
until events forced his hand. Instead, the Provincial sympathised with him.
7.349 The letter from the Provincial to Br Herve shows awareness of some of the damage that sexual
abuse could inflict on a child.
• The School was driven to take action only when there was a threat to expose
the behaviour of Br Herve.
• The Provincial expressed sympathy for, rather than criticism of, the Superior.
• The offending Brother was considered to be an unfortunate man who was
‘more to be pitied than censured’.
• There was relief that worse did not happen, having regard to the known habits
of Br Herve.
• The Congregation was aware of the harm Br Herve was inflicting on children in
his care, but did nothing to alleviate it or to ascertain the full extent of the
damage.
• Sending a Brother with this history to a residential school for boys was
reckless and dangerous, and showed a disregard for the safety of children in
care.
Br Gustav59
7.351 Br Gustav began teaching in the O’Brien Institute in the 1920s. Three boys made written
statements in which they alleged that ‘they had been immodestly handled’ by him on a number of
occasions. These written statements no longer exist. The matter was considered so serious that
it was referred to the General Council for consideration. At his trial before the General Council,
the Brother ‘admitted immodesty in each case stated but not as gross as specified’.
7.352 The General Council issued a Canonical Warning to Br Gustav and imposed as a penance the
daily recital of the Miserere for six months. A further condition was his transfer out of Dublin, with
the injunction that he was not to return without the leave of the General Council. It was conceded
in the minutes of the General Council meeting that this Brother had been dealt with very leniently:
This lenient treatment of [Br Gustav] is largely due to the man’s age and, although it was
not told him, to his very low condition of health.
7.353 After these events, the Brother was transferred frequently from school to school in the north of
Ireland, spending on average two years in each, before being assigned to Artane for a short period
prior to his retirement to Baldoyle. No allegations were made against him in Artane.
7.354 No dispensation or expulsion was sought in respect of Br Gustav. Although ill-health was
suggested as the reason for leniency, he remained a Christian Brother until his death some 19
years after the charges were brought.
Allegations of sexual abuse against four Brothers resident in Artane in 1944

7.355 Br Leroi60 was accused of sexually abusing boys in Artane in 1944. His personal card retained by
the Congregation stated, ‘Evidence of immoral relations with boys in Artane came to light’. This
Brother sought a dispensation from his vows and left the Congregation in 1944, and the
Department of Education service history records Artane as his last teaching post.
7.356 Br Laurent, who gave evidence to the Investigation Committee, said:

... he came to Artane the same year as I was there. We arrived at the same time. The
outgoing [Superior] said to Br Leroi ‘you are not welcome here’. Probably some accusation
had been made about Br Leroi and because of that then he was sent to Artane.
7.357 The second case involved Br Tristan61 who worked in the kitchen. He was found to have sexually
abused a number of boys following complaints made by the boys themselves. He was tried by
the General Council in 1944 and was unanimously adjudged guilty. When the charges were laid
against him, he:
59
60
61

denied “some” of the matter of each charge, admitted “jostling” or “wrestling”, said he had
“no bad intention” and “never lay on any boy” in the back-store so often referred to by
boys. He admitted “tricking” with several boys, denied “touching” a boy’s face or body.
7.358 The minutes recorded that the abuse had occurred frequently over a long period of time. The boys
had given detailed written statements, which indicated long, continuous and frequent wrong-doing
on the part of this Brother.
7.359 These statements were not discovered to the Committee and would appear not to have survived
in the records of the Congregation. The General Council voted unanimously to expel him. He
appealed the decision to the Apostolic Visitor, who advised him to seek a dispensation from his
vows, which he duly did. The dispensation was granted and he left the Congregation in 1944.
7.360 Br Tristan had arrived in Artane in the early 1940s under a cloud of suspicion from Carriglea Park
Industrial School, where he had served on the staff for a year. From the records, it appears that
he had been given a Canonical Warning because of ‘an incident’ that arose during his time in
Carriglea before he was sent to Artane. No details are provided as to the exact nature of this
incident. It also appears that he was transferred to Carriglea from a training college under
suspicious circumstances. Again, no details are given of his time in this college, where he was
stationed during the 1930s, or what warranted his removal. The minutes of the meeting of the
General Council, where the details of this Brother’s trial in the Artane case are recorded, stated
that he:
... was also reminded of the causes of his removal from [the training college] and Carriglea
– a Canonical Warning had been given him re Carriglea incident.
7.361 Br Julien,62 the third Brother who was found guilty of sexually abusing boys, was a non-teaching
Brother who had served two terms in Artane and had spent seven years in Salthill in the 1930s.
His personal card stated: ‘Clear evidence came to light of serious, long-continued misconduct with
boys in Artane’.
7.362 Br Julien applied for dispensation from his vows, which was granted and he left the Congregation.
The documents did not give any details of the nature of the abuse that this Brother had engaged
in with the boys, and there were no documents concerning how the allegations came to light or
what investigation was carried out.
7.363 Br Edgard,63 the fourth Brother who was dismissed from Artane in 1944, was a teaching Brother
who was not yet a fully professed member of the Congregation. In this case, the statements of
six boys who complained of sexual abuse by the Brother were furnished in discovery. The boys
ranged in age from 11 to 14 years. The case of this Brother was the only one that provided any
information as to the nature of the sexual abuse that was alleged. The allegations were of fondling
of their private parts, tickling their bodies, and embracing them. The incidents occurred in the
classroom, in the Brother’s own room and in the boys’ dormitory. Br Edgard was transferred to a
Dublin day school and was shortly thereafter refused permission to take final vows and left the
Congregation. The Department of Education service history recorded the Dublin day school as
his last teaching post.
7.364 The Visitation Report dated 30th October 1944 referred to the dismissal of these Brothers who
were ‘accused of irregularities’. No direct reference was made to the fact that they had sexually
abused boys in the School, it merely referred to ‘irregularities’ being ‘discovered some weeks ago
62
63

in the Institution’. The Visitor who wrote this report took the view that ‘there was nothing to be
alarmed at’ and went on to state that:
In our Institutions it should be considered a very grave offence for a Br. to take a boy to
his room on any pretext, or to be seen alone with a boy on any occasion.
7.365 He went on to state that this rule was breached in Artane:

Unfortunately the Rule forbidding such was not observed in Artane. Boys were also taken
out of the shops and off the parade by Brothers for various reasons. These have now
been prohibited.
7.366 The Visitation Report, having acknowledged inappropriate conduct on the part of four Brothers,
made a number of recommendations to prevent such events in the future. These
recommendations provide some clue as to circumstances of the discovery of the abuse. One
recommendation made by the Visitor was that:
Brothers should not prevent or discourage boys to come to the Superior even with
complaints. Boys should have free access to the Superior at all times. If that were the
practice the disturbing conduct experienced lately would have been avoided.
7.367 Another recommendation was:

No Brother – young or old – is to allow a boy to enter his bedroom, nor is any Brother
allowed to take a boy from the school, shops, or parade. No Brother is to be alone with a
boy anywhere. Any Br. who sees this Rule violated is to report it immediately to the
Br. Superior.
7.368 It was also recommended that glass panels should be inserted in the doors of locked rooms near
the kitchen and store-rooms, and that the ‘Superior should have access to all rooms and stores
in the Institution at all reasonable times and keys should be provided to enable him to have such
access’. A subsequent Visitor considered this unnecessary and the glass panels were not
inserted.
7.369 A letter written to the Superior General by the Visitor in October 1944 stated:
I have spent a week in the above Institution, and have come to the conclusion that there
is very fine work being done here. The boys are very open and intelligent and now that
the rotten bricks have been removed the structure will be more than safe for the future.
The Brothers who were outside the circle were quite unaware of what was going on and
knew nothing about it until all was over. Thank God the disease was discovered in time,
and that such a drastic remedy was applied. I don’t think there will be any more “Dry rot”
for many a long year.
7.370 One ex-staff member, Br Saber,64 spoke of the importance of the boys’ sodality introduced by the
Resident Manager which met once a week:
During my ten years there, there was no case against – of sexual abuse brought against
a Brother. I would say due to, I suppose, the group that were there and due to the sodality
and that the boss was conscious of it and that he would keep an eye out for it and ask
the lads. He was an active man, he would come there, he would walk the dormitories at
night, he would be around. He had his ear to the ground. Br Dennet was the same. There
were Brothers there who knew more about institutes than I did, the younger Brothers. All
we thought of was keeping them occupied, taking them out to games, taking them to
circuses, you know.
64

7.371 The sodality gave an opportunity for boys to talk informally to the Resident Manager and this led
to the discovery of sexual abuse.
7.372 Some years later, in a letter dated 19th November 1958 to the Superior following a Visitation, the
author strongly recommended the establishment of a sodality or the introduction of the Legion of
Mary for the boys:
I understand there was a sodality in the past but that it was abused in some way.
Therefore in introducing such a sodality again it would have to be done with discretion
and I think it would be better for a member of the staff to introduce and look after it rather
than the Superior.
7.373 It is possible that the level of sexual abuse in Artane in 1944 was an aberration, but it is also
possible that discontinuing the informal contact between the Superior and the boys resulted in
such behaviour going undetected in subsequent years.
Br Lancelin65
7.374 Br Lancelin came under suspicion of sexual involvement with boys while he was in Artane in 1944
and was transferred to Carriglea. His personal card stated:
Suspicion had been aroused by a tendency to particular friendship with a boy in Artane.
7.375 In Carriglea, sexual abuse was disclosed and several boys furnished written statements accusing
Br Lancelin of ‘immoral conduct’. (These allegations are dealt with in more detail in the Carriglea
chapter.) The complaints were investigated by the Brother Provincial, who referred the matter to
the General Council. When the case came to trial before the General Council, Br Lancelin admitted
to the offences and pleaded guilty. The personal card made reference to one of the offences
committed saying, ‘One offence occurred on Xmas. day 1944, though he made vows on Xmas.
morning’.
7.376 The General Council voted unanimously to dismiss him from the Congregation in 1945. Again,
this Brother was not a finally professed member but rather a temporarily professed Brother and
so dispensation from vows was not an issue.
7.377 Br Laurent said that he recalled Br Lancelin leaving Artane, but he did not know the reason for his
transfer and had not heard his name mentioned in connection with child abuse. The Department of
Education records indicated that Carriglea was this Brother’s last teaching post.
Br Gaillard66
7.378 In the early 1950s, a complaint of sexual abuse was made against Br Gaillard, who was then
teaching in a north Dublin primary school. This Brother had taught in Artane in the mid-1940s.
There is no documentary evidence of complaints against this Brother in Artane, although he did
apply for a transfer from there due to ‘conscientious reasons’.
7.379 The complaint was made by the father of a boy who reported to the Superior that this Brother was
abusing his son and up to 12 other boys in the primary school. The abuse took place in the
Brother’s private room, where he sat the boys on his lap and fondled their private parts. Br Gaillard
received a Canonical Warning and was transferred to another Christian Brothers’ primary school,
where he remained for three years. In the mid-1950s, he wrote to the Superior General, voluntarily
seeking a dispensation from his vows on the basis that he was unable to prevent himself from
interfering with boys. In this letter he wrote:
65
66

I received a Canonical Warning for interfering with boys. I cannot overcome it. I have tried
it for three years and it is worse I am getting. I just find it impossible to stand in front of a
class as a Christian Brother.
7.380 Br Gaillard was granted a dispensation a month later, and shortly thereafter took up a teaching
post at another school, where he stayed for two and a half years.
7.381 In the late 1950s, the Provincial of the Christian Brothers wrote to the manager of another school
in the west of Ireland who had sought a reference in respect of Mr Gaillard. The Provincial was
frank about his history of sexual abuse. He referred to his ‘interference (morally) with boys’ and
felt that he could not write a reference for him. Notwithstanding this setback, Mr Gaillard was still
able to continue teaching until his retirement in the mid-1980s. He did two short periods of teaching
in rural schools, both of which commenced and ended in the middle of school terms, which is
unusual and which might imply removal for misconduct. Br Laurent, who was on the staff of Artane
at the time, told the Investigation Committee that he knew Br Gaillard, but had never heard of him
having any involvement with abuse in Artane.
• Br Gaillard was transferred within the Congregation, notwithstanding a history
of abuse.
• His letter seeking dispensation could not be clearer in underlining the danger
he posed to children.
• By being granted a dispensation from vows, he left the Congregation
apparently in good standing.
• He was able to move into a teaching job immediately on leaving the
Congregation.
• The Provincial, when asked directly for a reference, was not afraid to identify
him as a danger to children, but there is no evidence that he took steps to
notify other schools or the Department of Education.
• Despite the employment pattern of this man prior to 1960, there are no known
complaints about his later career.
Br Fremont67
7.383 Br Fremont taught in Artane in the early 1950s, and was later found to have sexually abused boys
in a Christian Brothers’ school in the Midlands. In the late 1950s, the mother of a boy in the School
made a complaint about Br Fremont to the Superior of the School. From a report written by the
Superior to the Provincial Council, it appears that Br Fremont got boys to expose their private
parts and he also exposed himself to them. The Superior questioned him about these incidents,
and he admitted that they were true.
7.384 The Superior referred the matter to the Provincial Council of St Mary’s Province. A member of the
Provincial Council then interviewed Br Fremont. In the course of this interview, the Brother, when
questioned about whether he had abused boys in Artane, admitted that he had once interfered
with a boy in Artane, and that in another school where he had been teaching there had also been
an incident. He further admitted that the sexual abuse in the Midlands school had taken place.
This case was considered so bad that the unanimous decision of the Council was to dismiss him,
but he was given the option of voluntarily seeking a dispensation from his vows, which he
exercised. The dispensation was accordingly granted.
67

7.385 The Department of Education records indicate that he ceased teaching within the State system at
that time.
Br Ricard68
7.386 Br Ricard, who taught in Artane in the mid-1950s, sexually abused boys in a Christian Brothers’
school in Waterford in the late 1950s. There is no documentary evidence of complaints about him
during his time in Artane. His earlier abuse came to light when one of the boys abused in Waterford
became a pupil at a private secondary school run by another Religious Community. Br Ricard
wrote a ‘sordid and immoral letter’ to the boy which was intercepted by the Superior of the College,
who informed a member of the Christian Brothers Provincial Council. The Brother’s personal card
states that he ‘admitted accusations of having interfered immodestly with at least one 12 year
old pupil’.
7.387 A meeting of the General Council was held, at which he admitted the charges. Both the Provincial
and General Councils at the time considered his case to be the worst of its kind that they had
ever come across and voted unanimously for his immediate dismissal. Nevertheless, he was given
leave to apply for a dispensation from his vows, which he did. His departure was immediate and
was obviously considered very serious, as he was put on a boat and sent to England.
7.388 A letter sent the following day to the Brother Procurator General, regarding the dispensation from
perpetual vows of Br Ricard, reveals the anxiety felt by the Brothers about this case:
This is one of the worst cases we have had in my experience. It is so bad that we have
voted unanimously in both Provincial and General Councils that he be granted a
dispensation ...
7.389 The letter discloses how the abuse was detected:

For a whole year he had been “interfering” in a homosexual way with two or three very
respectable pupils at [a private secondary college]. One of these came to [a college run
by another Order] last August and it was through a letter censored by the [Superiors at
that college] that the whole matter came to light. The Brother admitted everything the boy
... had stated.
7.390 The letter goes on to say:

We fear that the evil ways into which he had fallen may be of some years duration. He
leaves immediately for England (on leave of absence). Were he to remain in Ireland and
were the parents of the boys to get to know of his behaviour at [the Christian Brothers
College] there would be a great danger of a public prosecution.
The case is, as I have stated, one of the worst we have had. Do everything you can to
secure an immediate Dispensation and forward same as expeditiously as you can.
7.391 Br Ricard sought a reference, but was not provided with one as it was felt that ‘there is no knowing
what use he might make of it’. According to a letter written by the Provincial Assistant to the
Superior General, he was informed that he could not continue teaching and would not be given a
reference. However, it appears from records furnished by the Department of Education and
Science that the ex-Brother came back to Ireland less than a year later and took up a senior
position in a school in Co Kildare and remained there for some years. He was then appointed an
assistant teacher at a school in Dublin where he worked for a few years, before moving to a Dublin
secondary school where he worked until the late 1980s.
68

7.392 • The Congregation facilitated this man’s immediate departure for England so as
to avoid a ‘great danger of a public prosecution’.
• The Brothers did not inform the parents about the abuse of the boy who had
been abused.
• It is clear, by inference from the correspondence, that the boy’s College
authorities behaved similarly towards the parents of their pupil.
• The man was able to return to Ireland and obtain a senior teaching position
after a year’s absence.
• The Congregation put self-interest in avoiding adverse publicity before their
duty to the boys in their care and to their parents.
Br Karel
7.393 Br Karel, who was removed from Artane following allegations of sexual abuse in the 1960s, spoke
about the allegations, which he denied in full, and the events leading to his leaving Artane. Br
Karel said that, in the early 1960s, he was approached by the Manager of the School, who told
him that two boys had signed a joint statement in which they alleged that ‘I put my hand under
the bedclothes and touched them in the genital area’. A third boy also made a similar allegation
but he did not sign the joint statement. The boys made these written allegations after speaking
with the chaplain, Fr Henry Moore. Fr Moore recalled speaking to the Superior in Artane, Br
Ourson, about an allegation of sexual abuse that had been reported to him by a pupil. He could
not recall the name of the Brother in question, but he could confirm that the Brother was removed
shortly after the complaint had been communicated.
7.394 The Resident Manager informed Br Karel of the allegations and that the Provincial Superior would
have to be informed. Within days, he was summoned to the Provincial’s office in Marino, where
he was asked about the allegations:
I explained as best I could that I didn't do it, that there was a mistake somewhere, what
could I do, what else could I say? I didn't do it and that was as honest as I could be in
saying that.
7.395 Br Karel was not shown the written statement signed by the boys, neither was he given an
opportunity to question the boys himself. He was asked if the allegations were true, and he denied
them. As far as he was aware, no further investigation of the matter took place. He returned to
his normal duties in Artane for a year, before being transferred to a day school outside of Dublin.
Some ten years after leaving Artane, he was transferred to Letterfrack, where he worked for less
than two years.
7.396 When this Brother applied for a dispensation from his vows many years after these allegations, a
report was prepared by a senior Christian Brother, which stated:
While Br Karel was in Artane an accusation was made against him that he had interfered
sexually with some of the boys. The Provincialate files are incomplete on this and contain
simply a joint statement of three boys. However, the Provincial at the time ... on the basis
of the case as presented, transferred Br Karel out of Artane ... There is no record of any
similar accusation against him in succeeding years.
7.397 Whether Br Karel was transferred soon after the complaints or at a later stage remains unclear,
but the question of his guilt or innocence was not resolved. The Provincial was satisfied to let the
matter rest and to use Br Karel’s desire for a transfer as part of the reason for moving him. The
authorities appear to have thought that the allegations were true but they did not investigate the
matter. The result was that there were two possible situations: either the School had a child abuser
on the staff, or three pupils had made serious, untrue charges against the Brother.
7.398 Br Karel maintained that his transfer from Artane was made almost a year after these allegations
were made, and a Visitation Report would appear to bear that out. He said that he had already
requested a transfer within a year of being sent to Artane, and that the Provincial had also
suggested that it would be ‘the wisest thing’ in light of the allegations. In any event, he was not
transferred immediately after the allegations were made.
7.399 The Brother received no advice or warning following his interview with the Provincial and, indeed,
when he applied for dispensation from his vows some 20 years later, he was asked to undergo
counselling with a view to saving his vocation.
7.400 Br Davet, who spoke to the Committee, recalled Br Karel’s departure from Artane as being unusual
because it occurred in the middle of the school year. He said that he had no idea why he left and
had heard nothing about a complaint signed by three boys. He also said that he knew nothing
about any inquiry carried out by the Superior or the Provincial.
7.401 Leaving the situation unresolved was expedient, but it was unfair and unsatisfactory for the Brother
and potentially dangerous for the boys.
Br Lamar69
7.402 Br Lamar, who had taught in Artane in the early 1960s, applied for dispensation from vows in the
early 1970s, stating that he was unable to keep his vow of chastity and that his record in relation
to chastity had not been good. A document relating to the application, signed by the Provincial,
stated: ‘He is known to have interfered with boys in his class’. It does not specifically state what
class or what school this was in. Although there is no document indicating that he abused boys
in Artane, at the time of his departure from Artane the Provincial wrote to the Superior General
and referred to Br Lamar as someone ‘who did not turn out too well in Artane’.
7.403 Witnesses recalled the sudden departure of Br Lamar, one of whom, Br Davet, said:
All I remember was that at prayers one morning he just got up and stormed out, and that
was it. I thought he had some sort of a nervous breakdown or something ...
7.404 Br Davet said that he did not ask any questions about this departure, believing that the man was
not well.
Br Adrien70
7.405 Br Adrien, who worked in Artane in the early 1960s, was removed as a result of a complaint
that was made to the chaplain, Fr Henry Moore, and passed on by him to the Superior and to
the Provincial.
7.406 Prior to serving in Artane, Br Adrien had served in Letterfrack, and was acknowledged as being
a danger to boys there. The Resident Manager of Letterfrack wrote of this Brother in 1959:
I hope you will forgive my candour in saying that I would prefer to have no one at all for
the boys’ kitchen than to have the constant strain of watching and worrying about him.
It is impossible to keep one’s eye on him. Every time he gets my back turned he is in the
kitchen and goodness knows, there are enough difficulties and worries to contend with,
without having to think of him every minute and hour of the day.
The position regarding the Monastery kitchen is regrettable but unfortunately he has not
got proper control in the boys’ department either. In my opinion he is not suitable at all to
handle young boys and it is positively dangerous, especially in these times, to have him
69
70

looking after them. A weakness in discipline in this important department will have a very
detrimental effect on the boys’ behaviour and will add to everyone’s difficulties and will
seriously affect the tone of the school.
Taking the above considerations into account and also your own personal knowledge of
Br Adrien I ask you seriously to reflect on the harmful effect his staying here is bound to
have, and I entreat you to permit the transfer to go through as originally arranged.
7.407 The Superior’s request was granted, but it was scarcely a satisfactory solution to move Br Adrien
to St Joseph’s School for Deaf Boys in Cabra. He remained there for two years until he went to
Artane and, despite the concerns expressed in the above letter, he was put in charge of the
boys’ kitchen.
7.408 Some two years later, a letter to the Resident Manager following a Visitation referred to Br Adrien
as follows:
I am sorry about Br Adrien and I only hope that we will hear no more about such cases.
Rather there will be no such case to hear about.
7.409 No further information was provided, and it is unclear what type of ‘case’ was being referred to.
The Visitation Report does not give any clearer indication as to what was being alluded to in
respect of this Brother and, in fact, the Visitor commended him on his excellent cooking and his
improvement of the food for the boys.
7.410 The Committee heard evidence from one complainant who made allegations of sexual abuse
against Br Adrien. His evidence was unusual in that it was corroborated by the chaplain, Fr Moore.
The complainant in this case was 11 or 12 when he went to work in the refectory of Artane. Within
a short while, a grooming process was commenced by Br Adrien:
[He] used to take me into his confidence and give me sweets and an apple or an orange
or whatever. He used to show me a bit of affection. Obviously, not getting any affection
that I used to have from my grandmother, it was lovely to have. I used to look forward to
the treats that I used to get—and after a period of time, slowly but surely—not realising
what was happening, I was being given sweets and all of a sudden my hand was taken
and it was placed on – what we called at the time, we committed badness, but my hand
was taken and put on his penis. Being an innocent child, I didn’t realise what was
happening, or whatever. I was being shown what to do with my hand and this, that and
the other and I was being given sweets.
7.411 This went on for a period of time and became more frequent. Br Adrien would often make a point
of beating him in the refectory in front of all the boys if he committed any slight infraction: ‘I was
being shown who was in charge here, “you do what I tell you to do”’.
7.412 Br Adrien had an office at the back of the refectory and, when the complainant was brought there,
the same pattern of behaviour continued. The door was locked and he was made to masturbate
the Brother in return for sweets and treats. He also alleged that, on one occasion, Br Adrien anally
raped him. The second time he tried to do this, the boy resisted by kicking out. In return, he was
badly beaten and had no escape from the locked room.
7.413 The complainant went to Confession on a Friday in the mid-1960s and told the chaplain, Fr Moore,
what had been happening with Br Adrien. He was shocked and asked the boy to repeat what he
said outside of the confessional. The boy did so and then the priest reported the matter to the
Superior, Br Ourson.
7.414 The following Monday, Br Ourson and a large number of the teaching Brothers came out to the
pre-school assembly in the yard, and the complainant was summoned to Br Ourson’s office.
There, he was asked to repeat exactly what he had told the chaplain. When asked what Br
Ourson’s reaction was, he said, ‘I can’t say what his reaction was. All I know is that within 24
hours Br Adrien was gone out of Artane’.
7.415 The matter did not rest there. According to the witness, he was taken out of class the next day
and was questioned about boys he had been ‘committing badness with’. He was beaten in the
course of this questioning until he named boys. Those boys were in turn taken out of class and
beaten until they gave names. He was taken out again over two or three days, and was beaten
because of being named by other boys:
It was just one vicious circle that kept going on for two – for three days. I had been taken
out because other boys started giving my name back again. It was even said to me, but
who said it I don’t know, “you should have kept your mouth shut and none of this would
have happened”.
7.416 He went on to say that for three days he was systematically beaten:
both outside classroom, in the dormitory, anywhere where I went within those
environments. I was taken to a music room just off the corridor to the right of where the
classes are and I had been beaten so much that I went to the toilet in a bin and another
boy seen me and told a Brother that I had done that and I was taken back out and flogged
again because I had done that. We weren’t allowed to go to the toilet, we were being
punished for something that I had started.
7.417 He said that six Brothers punished him during that period:
I was beaten by so many of them at that particular time I can’t say if all done it because
I was systematically just taken out and being accused of this and accused of that and
there was no let up whatsoever ... it was like it was a punishment over me going and
reporting.
7.418 He recalled being badly bruised and swollen after these events but said that nobody intervened
on his behalf:
Brothers didn’t go against Brothers, they all stuck together. I think the whole school knew
that I had reported Br Adrien, the whole lot of the Christian Brothers and everything, so
there was no sympathy shown for anything that I may have done on my behalf.
7.419 From that time on, life for the complainant settled down in Artane, and he was not subjected to
any further sexual or physical abuse.
7.420 Fr Henry Moore confirmed what this witness said about making the complaint to Br Ourson. He
knew he had been an altar boy, and what was being alleged when the boy spoke of ‘badness’.
He recalled the boy was very upset and nervous when telling him.
7.421 Fr Moore suggested that he should tell the Superior, but the boy’s first reaction to that suggestion
was that he was too afraid. It would be taken that he was ‘squealing’, as he put it, on Br Adrien.
The boy was relieved when Fr Moore said he would speak with Br Ourson. Fr Moore also reported
the allegation to the Provincial Superior in Marino, Br Mulholland, to reinforce his concern about
the matter. Fr Moore recalled Br Adrien being removed within a matter of days.
7.422 Complainants testified that a campaign of physical punishment directed against sexual activity
between boys followed Br Adrien’s removal, but this was denied by the Congregation. Fr Moore
remembered complaints being made to him by boys about the activities of a Brother who was
going from class to class inquiring in a frightening manner about sexual activity among the boys,
although he could not recall if this coincided with the Br Adrien incident:
But I do remember a group, some two, three or four, coming to me and being almost in
a state of panic about this. I asked them about what was troubling them and they told me
that there was something going on in the school, in the school rooms. Br Videl was going
from class to class and calling out boys and inquiring about their sexual activity and getting
– and then beating them in the corridor outside of class and getting them to inform on
other boys and beating them. This was continuing all throughout a day, a particular day.
They were very, very fearful of this. As I say, it seemed to me in a state of panic.
So I decided then that I would have to confront Br Videl myself and relate to him what the
boys had said and how distressed they were. He told me that there was a problem of
pretty widespread sexual activity among the boys.
7.423 Another complainant spoke of a sudden increase at this time in the Brothers’ interest in detecting
sexual abuse in the Institution. This Complainant spoke of a particular campaign against sexual
behaviour between boys when Brothers used to check on boys in toilet cubicles. He said that the
school was assembled and the Brother in charge spoke to the boys and told them of the high
number of boys found misbehaving in this way, and told the boys that it had to stop. He himself
was never caught by the Brothers, and he said he was not aware what happened to the boys who
were detected, although he could recall them being brought into a classroom.
7.424 A number of respondent witnesses who were in Artane during this time stated that they recalled
Br Adrien being in the kitchen, but they had no recollection of him leaving. Fr Moore said that
such an assertion would surprise him very much indeed, as he had certainly noticed his departure
and had discussed it with at least one Brother.
7.425 The statement in response to the allegation about Br Adrien filed by the Congregation was signed
by a Brother who was in Artane for a period which overlapped for one year with the complainant’s
stay. The Brother stated that, for the purpose of making his statement, he relied on his own
knowledge and personal experience of Artane Industrial School. The statement addressed the
issue of sexual abuse in Artane generally, in the same way as all statements signed by
representatives of the Congregation.
7.426 The statement went on to deal with the specific allegations made by this complainant. It said, in
relation to the particular campaign of physical abuse following Br Adrien’s departure, that ‘Whilst
there was corporal punishment in Artane at that time, I do not believe that it amounted to the type
of violent behaviour that is alleged by the complainant’. In support of this contention, the
Congregation quoted the Visitation Report filed by the Congregation after a 1962 visit to the
Institution. The Visitor stated:
The discipline generally is good and the Superior as well as the Brothers in general are
pleased with it. It is not harsh or severe by any means, but effective nevertheless.
7.427 The statement then dealt with the particular allegation that the complainant was taken out of his
bed by a number of Brothers and beaten over a number of days as a result of having made the
complaint to Fr Moore. It stated:
I can state that I never saw boys being beaten in the manner alleged. I myself never
witnessed such beatings, nor did I ever hear allegations of beating of this wide-ranging
nature while I was in Artane. The only punishment authorised was with a leather strap
and this could only be administered on the hand. I find it difficult to accept that such a large
number of brothers would gang up in the manner alleged and cause such disturbance in
the school without being detected. The Brothers who are still alive may make their own
response to these allegations. Each of these allegations against each of these
respondents is not admitted by the Congregation.
7.428 It was not alleged by the complainant that this wide-ranging punishment took place during this
Brother’s time in Artane. The complainant specified the year in which this event took place, and
this was after the departure of this Brother from Artane. There are Christian Brothers in the
Congregation who were in Artane during that time and who would have been in a position to
speak with more authority on this matter, but they were not selected to make the statement on
behalf of the Christian Brothers in this case.
7.429 In relation to the allegations of sexual abuse by Br Adrien, the Christian Brothers stated: ‘[Br
Adrien] will make his own response to these allegations. They are not admitted by the
Congregation. The Congregation denies that sexual abuse was tolerated, accepted or prevalent
in Artane’.
7.430 Br Adrien was removed from Artane and sent to a day school in Dublin. In the late 1960s, he was
returned to Letterfrack for a number of months, following which he went to a Dublin school for 10
years. He later spent 10 years on missionary work. There is no reference in his personal card to
his ever receiving any sanction or warning in relation to his abuse.
7.431 Sexual abuse by Brothers was a serious issue in Artane, but many Brothers said that they had
absolutely no awareness of this problem and no knowledge of any Brother leaving under a cloud.
7.432 • This Brother in the 1960s was in a position to perpetrate serious and repeated
sexual abuse of a boy over an 18-month period.
• The boy was, by his own evidence and by the evidence of Fr Moore, too afraid
to report it himself to the Superior, which contradicts the Congregation’s
assertion that there was no difficulty about boys who were sexually abused
going to the authorities in Artane with complaints.
• Br Adrien was removed from Letterfrack, where it was ‘positively dangerous’ to
have him looking after boys. The implication is clear that he sexually abused
boys there.
• Transferring him to a residential school for deaf boys knowingly endangered a
large new group of children.
• His behaviour in Artane could not have come as a surprise to the authorities.
• This case demonstrates indifference by the Congregation to the protection of
children from a sexual predator. It is evidence of a policy of avoiding the
disclosure of abuse rather than dealing with it.
Other cases
Br Dennis71
7.433 Br Dennis served in Artane in the late 1960s. He was questioned by the Gardaı́ in the early 1990s
in relation to allegations of interfering with boys, in a school in the north-east of the country, on
two occasions between the late 1980s and early 1990s. He denied the allegations at the time, but
when questioned about them again almost 10 years later he admitted to a limited level of sexual
abuse involving these boys. He also admitted to getting sexual gratification from young boys. Br
Dennis told the Gardaı́ that in the mid-1990s his Superiors sent him to the Granada Institute, a
centre for the treatment of sex offenders in Shankhill County Dublin which was operated by the
St John of God Order.
71

7.434 Br Dennis also admitted the allegations which had been made by former residents of Artane,
insofar as they described inappropriate external touching and fondling. Although these individuals
alleged masturbation and anal rape, he did not admit to those more serious charges:
... I wish to say that I accept some of the allegations as being true, insofar as they describe
inappropriate external touching and fondling. I deny however any of the allegations that
refer to masturbation and buggery.
7.435 Only one man who had made a statement to the Gardaı́ about Br Dennis gave evidence to the
Investigation Committee. He alleged that Br Dennis told him to clean his room and, while he was
doing so, the Brother took out his penis and then ‘he brought my head down onto his penis which
was erect and he rubbed it against my lips’. On another occasion when he was sent to clean the
room, Br Dennis ‘started fondling me and played with my penis. He pressed himself against me
and ejaculated’. The witness described a third incident that he said took place, in a derelict area
near the playing fields, at holiday time when most of the boys had gone home for holidays. He
said that this time the Brother had his penis out and attempted penetration, but gave up when the
boy screamed with pain.
7.436 Br Dennis attended an oral hearing of the Investigation Committee. He admitted to a limited degree
of sexual activity with nine- to 12-year-old boys in Artane. He was asked how he began to abuse.
He said:
I don't know how it came about really. At the time I probably deluded myself into thinking
that I was being kind to them and using it as a way of encouraging them and making them
– I mean, I don't subscribe to it now, but that's how I was able to justify it to myself at
the time.
7.437 Br Dennis had no recollection of the first time he had abused, but was able to confirm that it had
occurred in the classroom:
If somebody was having difficulty with a particular problem, mathematics perhaps, I might
bring him up and put my arm around his waist or something, and kind of draw him
towards me.
7.438 He conceded that he had no idea how many boys were involved. He said that the activity had
commenced within six months of his arriving in Artane and continued until he had left two years
later. He said that it continued ‘fairly regular’ for an 18-month period.
7.439 He said he only stopped sexually abusing some 20 years later, when he was detected.
7.440 Br Dennis said the urge to interfere with boys had not been present before his appointment to
Artane, but had started during his teaching time there:
I was convincing myself that I wasn't doing anything wrong, that I was kind of giving
encouragement or making up for some lack in their lives. I mean I was deluding myself
really. But that's the way I looked on it at the time. I was justifying it for myself in that way.
7.441 He said that, although he engaged in this behaviour at the top of the classroom of some 22 to 23
boys, he did not think that they would have been aware of what was going on. Indeed, he said
that he believed the boy himself would not have been aware of what was happening. He said that
it was totally secret and that he did not discuss it with anyone and that ‘Probably deep down I
probably did know it was wrong, yes’.
7.442 He admitted that there would have been a selection process:

There would have been. But I am not sure in what way; whether it was the ones that were
weaker at a particular subject or something. That's the way I justified it, that I was giving
them encouragement and explaining how to do something. But again, I can't really say ...
Well, in order to justify it I had to feel that I was doing him a service in some way, it kind
of made it right for me at the time.
7.443 Br Dennis was never challenged or confronted about his behaviour in Artane, and he went on to
abuse in the next school he was posted to. There, a boy complained to the authorities in the mid-
1980s that he had touched him inappropriately. Br Dennis stated:
[The boy] had a pain in his stomach on a particular day and I massaged his stomach. He
claims, and he could well be right, that while I was massaging his stomach my elbow was
touching his penis at the same time ... I was investigated by the Garda ... I was fairly sure
at the time that I had done nothing inappropriate, but it was investigated by a Garda ... I
was told that I had no case to answer ... For that reason I continued on in the school.
7.444 He continued teaching after that investigation until the early 1990s, when a former pupil of Artane
made an allegation about sexual abuse. Br Dennis said that he had stopped his misbehaviour
after the previous investigation and had not interfered with any boys in his latest teaching post.
However, he was removed once the Artane allegation came to the attention of the authorities in
the Congregation:
Once our headquarters got to hear of that they said that once, it could have been all right
once perhaps, the first allegation, but when a second allegation came they decided that
they would have to take action. So I was taken out of teaching at that stage.
7.445 Br Dennis confirmed to the Committee that he had continued his activities, in the same pattern
which did not change, from his first posting to Artane in the late 1960s until he was reported some
20 years later. Speaking about the investigation that occurred following the 1980s allegation,
he said:
The parents of the boy came and accused me of behaving badly with the son and that he
was going to go further with it. So the next thing a Garda came up to the school and our
own headquarters had been notified at that stage and I ... was summoned to headquarters
anyway. I was asked various questions. At the time I denied everything to them because
I had more or less convinced myself that these things hadn't happened ... Yeah, but the
fact that the Garda could find no substance either, that was the main reason why I was
left[in the school] at that time.
7.446 Br Dennis continued teaching in the School for a further five years, after which he was transferred
as teaching Principal to another Christian Brothers’ school in the west of Ireland. After about six
months there, he received a phone call from an individual who claimed to have been abused by
him and demanded money. The Brother met this individual and another man, and gave them
some £800. However, the allegation was brought to the attention of the Superior by the individual
or someone on his behalf:
The Brother Superior at the time, he rang headquarters and I was summoned to
headquarters the following day and when I went there they said that ... the fact that it was
a second time they said that it called for more serious action. I was asked to take sick
leave because, I mean I was very traumatised at the time anyway. So I went back and
met the Board of Management, this is some time later now. I went off on sick leave for
a period.
7.447 Br Dennis said that the Provincialate did not know at that stage that he had paid money, and they
asked him if the allegations were true:
They did and again I more or less denied them. This time they decided, the fact that it
was a completely different case, that there was a danger that there was some grounds
for the allegations.
7.448 Br Dennis’s ‘more or less’ denial obviously rang alarm bells:
A short time after that they advised me to go for professional help, so I went to the St
John of God, Granada Institute ... I was going there for a period of time and it took quite
a while for me to admit, even to myself, that what I had done was wrong. As part of the
therapy there I began to come to terms with it more and eventually was able to make a
clean statement to them. I spent quite a long time there, in individual treatment and in
group therapy ... At first I found it very difficult, but with time I began to open up more to
the group because I saw that they were able to be open, and I kind of felt that I was
lagging behind. So eventually, something happened anyway and there was a kind of
breakthrough for me that I was able to admit it. From that period on I seemed to come to
terms with the whole situation and to realise – well, I probably realised – I did realise
before, the gravity of the situation I suppose, but it really only came home to me because
as part of the therapy we were getting reports from people who had been sexually abused
and it began to come home to me then the enormity of the thing.
7.449 He did not admit his abusive activities all at once:

In dribs and drabs at the start. I think it was actually the Artane investigation that – I was
called to Clontarf, I think that was the deciding factor that really opened me up to the
whole – I was able to – I got great support from the group at that time and I decided that
I had to put all my faith in the group. Before that I was very hesitant, because I am by
nature shy and not having much confidence in myself, but when I saw how much support
I was getting from them it made me open up completely to the group and to the therapists.
7.450 It was a long process:

Well, I still spent a lot of time in Granada to fully come to terms with it. Some of the group
there, they would suggest that they felt that they were ready for the world again but I was
very slow to suggest that, I kind of waited until I was told by the therapists in Granada
that as far as they were concerned I was in a position to leave therapy, but that I should
have no contact with, no direct contact with children, as far as was possible.
7.451 Br Dennis said that, prior to his actions in Artane, he had not felt drawn to young boys. While he
eventually admitted he had acted for sexual gratification, he had begun by deceiving himself that
he was comforting the boy. He said that he found it very difficult to pinpoint any one thing that
started it for him:
Well, I suppose, I was under pressure. Under pressure, having very little free time, I
suppose, in Artane ... I was young and I didn't seem to feel that pressure, but it probably
was there in spite of me, I don't know.
7.452 He went on to say that he was sexually naı̈ve and shy, and he tended to select boys who were
weaker and needed more help: ‘Maybe I was looking for a shy boy trying to give them confidence.
That might be my justification, I couldn't really say’.
7.453 Part of his therapy in the Granada Institute was to accept responsibility for what he had done,
which also involved telling his Superiors the whole story:
I told them eventually, yes, but it took some time for that to happen as well ... Well, they
were invited to – they would have meetings over in Granada with the therapists and the
Leadership Team and myself. The first session yielded nothing at all, but after about four
months I suppose, I gradually began to open up to the Leadership Team, as well as to
the group members.

7.454 Br Dennis said that he had lied, when he was first accused, out of fear: ‘I don't know what kind of
fear it was, but it was out of some kind of fear and a sense of shame; that I didn't want to reveal
that I was a failure or something like that’.
7.455 He said that, in the Granada Institute, he had also come to an awareness of the impact of the
abuse on the boys:
Probably the effects that it had on them in later life, where it could have led to marriage
break-up and to suicidal tendencies. That their whole life really was all messed up ... It
was traumatic for me, but even though I didn't look on it in that way, at that time I was
thinking more of the victims at that particular time. But it was very traumatic for me as
well. I found it very hard. There was one – I was advised to have at least one Brother that
I could talk to, so I chose a Brother that I could talk to about all my misgivings and upset,
and I found that that was a help to me all right, that that helped me greatly.
7.456 The Christian Brothers’ statement responding to the complainant who made allegations to the
Investigation Committee stated that the allegations were not in keeping with the character of the
Brother. The complainant’s allegations were expressly not admitted. The statement did not say
that Br Dennis had been sent to the Granada Institute by the Congregational Superiors in the mid-
1990s in respect of his activities in Artane.
7.457 Br Dennis filed two separate statements of response to the complainant’s allegations. The first
was a long statement that dealt in detail with the complainant’s allegations, which were denied in
full. It commenced by stating that he did not remember him or the incidents that were alleged to
have occurred and ‘that the Complainant is both inaccurate and mistaken in much of his
recollection’. It did not make any admission and, in the final paragraph, he said ‘I deny any
allegations of abuse made against me contained in [the complainant’s] statement which is not
directly or indirectly denied or referred to in this response statement’. He did not refer to the
admissions that were made to the Gardaı́, or to the fact that he had been sent by the Superiors
of the Congregation to the Granada Institute in the mid-1990s in respect of his activity in Artane.
7.458 His second statement to the Commission was dated a few weeks after the first statement and
was the standard denial of abuse, with a legalistic paragraph which stated that he was required
to prove a negative in respect of events alleged to have occurred on unspecified dates over 30
years ago.
7.459 The significance of the approach taken by the Congregation and by Br Dennis is twofold:
• The Congregational response in this instance did not tell the whole story. It was
seriously misleading because it did not reflect the Congregation’s actual knowledge
of Br Dennis: the Superiors in the Congregation sent him to the Granada Institute in
1996 because of allegations from Artane. It is inconceivable that they did not also
know about the previous allegations. In the course of his treatment in Granada, Br
Dennis had meetings with the leadership team of the Christian Brothers and his
therapists, at which he eventually opened up about his abuse. None of this is
reflected in the Congregational response in which they attested to his good
character.
• Br Dennis’s statements of response to the Commission cannot be trusted on face
value. They contain assertions that he knew to be untrue and which contradicted the
import of his earlier statement to the Gardaı́ and the Granada Institute.
7.460 The complainant confined his allegations of sexual abuse to two Brothers and spoke positively
about others.
7.461 This complainant’s allegations are, at least in part, confirmed by Br Dennis’s admissions to the
Gardaı́. The Investigation Committee had the benefit of being able to hear the Brother’s evidence
at an oral hearing but, at the time when the complaint was heard, Br Dennis had not yet given
evidence and the complainant was subjected to a rigorous cross-examination by the Christian
Brothers, without any reference to the information they had. If Br Dennis had not been able to
attend and give evidence, valuable information would have been lost to the Inquiry.
Br Etienne72
7.462 A complainant resident in Artane during the late 1960s alleged sexual abuse by Br Etienne, which
he said took place in the classroom and in the attic. He described an occasion when Br Etienne
told him to stay behind in the classroom when the other boys left to go to the yard. The Brother
closed the door and locked it. He went on to describe what happened:
An item of furniture, to me it was either a cupboard with books or a piano or some sort of
wooden structure was pulled from the wall, Br Etienne started kissing the back of my neck
and ...
My memories are just, well being put down, lying on my stomach; Br Etienne lying on top
of me with my face sideways, kissing my neck, kissing the side of my face. I remember
pain in my buttocks area, it was the pain of, like, somebody trying to enter. It ended with
hot splashes on my back area, my bottom area. Then I was allowed to join the other boys
in the yard.
7.463 The witness went on to say that his trousers were pulled down and his shirt lifted during this
encounter. He said that Br Etienne was dressed in the usual long cassock and cummerbund and
that, during the assault, he had his cassock open and his trousers down. He said that this
happened a number of times in the classroom.
7.464 The complainant said that the sexual abuse also occurred in the attic of Artane:
I remember being led up a stairs, it seemed to me an isolated stairs but as part of the
building, the school area and the dorm area. I remember gas masks around and the attic
was to me, enormous, it just seemed to go on forever. I remember a mattress and it was
the same routine, but this time on a mattress.
7.465 The complainant said that this had occurred on more than one occasion. As to other memories of
Br Etienne, he said:
he was kind, I don’t ever remember being hit by him in class or anything like that ... He
was my teacher. I don’t ever remember being actually physically smacked by him.
7.466 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’.
7.467 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
72

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’.
7.468 The statement of the Congregation and a statement delivered by Br Etienne to the Investigation
Committee denied that the complainant had been abused.
7.469 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.
7.470 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.
7.471 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.
7.472 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.
7.473 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.
7.474 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.
7.475 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”.
7.476 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.
7.477 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.
Three cases involving laymen

7.478 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.
7.479 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.
7.480 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’.
7.481 In their responding statement, the Christian Brothers refer to this incident briefly:
The Complainant refers to an incident of abuse by a former resident whilst he was
returning from a trip to Croke Park ... I cannot comment on the allegation of sexual abuse
committed by the outsider other than to say that boys were closely supervised at all times
to try to ensure that something like this did not happen. It is noteworthy that the
Complainant was in a position to complain about the alleged abuse by the former resident
and that the authorities in Artane took appropriate action.
7.482 At the Phase III hearing, the implications of this case were discussed with reference to the point
that this lay person had been handed over to the Gardaı́, whereas the same had not occurred
with offending Brothers. It emerged then for the first time that there appeared to be some dispute
as to the circumstances of the case, in that Br Reynolds, the Christian Brothers’ spokesman,
suggested that the case was not reported as an instance of sexual abuse but rather as one of
absconding, and that it involved two boys who failed to return from a trip to Croke Park and were
seen going into the man’s house. He said that it subsequently emerged that they had been
sexually abused. Such an alternative case does not appear to be based on any evidence available
to the Committee, and so it is treated as an accepted instance of sexual abuse known to the
Artane authorities. In those circumstances, the difference in the handling of this complaint against
a layman as compared with offending Brothers is indeed striking.
7.483 This point was made even more clearly in the following case, which was raised at an oral hearing
of the Investigation Committee. In this second case of abuse by a layman, another complainant
described an incident with a man who was a friend of the Brothers, and he took the witness and
two other boys on a weekend trip to Northern Ireland. They all slept in the same room, which had
four beds. When they were in bed, the boys would not stop giggling and the man ordered the
witness to get into his (the man’s) bed. The man ‘started to rub me and put his hand on my
genitals. He got me to put my hand on his genitals and I was feeling really scared, I didn’t know
what to do’. He did not know whether the other two boys could see what was going on but he
presumed they could. He said that he masturbated the man and that he felt disgusted afterwards.
The following morning he had a shower and recalled trying to ‘scrub the skin off my body’.
7.484 When the complainant got back to Artane, he told his older brother who was also a pupil there
what had happened. He thinks that his brother said it to someone else, because he was brought
in front of a senior Brother in the School. He recalled two men coming in to the Brother’s office and
was told they were Gardaı́. He told the full story of the abuse he had experienced to the Gardaı́.
7.485 When he left the office and was making his way over to the dormitory, he got ‘an awful hiding’.
He said that this beating was administered by another Brother who had been present during his
interview with the Gardaı́. He never saw the man around Artane after that.
7.486 In their response, the Congregation confirmed that a lay person who had been accused by some
boys of sexual abuse was told to stay away from the School and the matter was reported to the
Gardaı́. The statement went on to say:
However, this incident does demonstrate that the Congregation took any complaints of
sexual abuse very seriously indeed, reported them to the Gardaı́ and took all necessary
steps to prevent the alleged perpetrator from having any contact with the boys in the
future.
7.487 Two Christian Brothers recalled this incident, one of whom said that it had been his idea to allow
the man into the School. He said that the man had offered to help out by driving the boys on
outings. He admitted that it was a bad decision on his part to allow this. He believed that the
Resident Manager had called in the Gardaı́ when the allegation was reported to him.
7.488 One of the Brothers remembered another incident. He said that two boys came to him to talk it
over when the matter was being investigated by the Gardaı́. The older boy came to him first, and
told him that he was one of the boys who had been abused by the man. He then told him that he
himself was abusing the younger boys but that had now stopped. The Brother told the Investigation
Committee that this came as a big shock to him, as he had thought him to be a very decent boy.
He said that that was the only incident he encountered in Artane of boys abusing other boys. He
did not believe the boy was making a complaint as such. He believed that he just wanted to talk
to somebody about it. The Brother did not do anything further in the matter and did not think that
the boy should be punished.
7.489 This Brother recalled a further incident, where he believed a man was behaving inappropriately
with the boys. He said that this particular man used to visit the School and talk with the boys. He
had the nickname of ‘Dirty Hairy Sixpence’. He would put a sixpence into his trousers pocket and
invite the boys to retrieve it, which involved them in inappropriate touching of the man. The Brother
said that he had received no complaints about this man during his time in Artane, and that it was
only now, because of an allegation in which another Brother was referred to as ‘Sixpence’, that
he realised what the man had been doing.
7.490 This Brother confirmed that ‘Sixpence’ used to come freely into the School and talk with the boys.
When asked whether this was a regular occurrence, he said that ‘Well, he did’. When asked
whether it struck him as odd that a man could be allowed to enter the School freely, he said, ‘No,
it never crossed my mind it just—no, I didn’t no’.
7.491 At the Phase III hearings, Br Reynolds was not able to explain why the Gardaı́ had been called
in the case of a layman, but had not been called in relation to sexual abuse by Brothers. He said
that the reluctance to involve the Gardaı́ was ‘common practice right across society’.
7.492 These cases undermine the position adopted by the Congregation in relation to sexual abuse,
namely that it was seen as a moral failing rather than criminal behaviour on the part of the Brother
and was dealt with as such. No ambiguity existed in the case of lay offenders. To assert, as the
Congregation has done, that it was ignorant of the full implications of sexual abuse of children is
not consistent with its response to these lay offenders. The Congregation was aware of the
criminal nature of this conduct and took swift and effective action, which makes its failure to do
so in the case of its own brethren all the more difficult to excuse.
Other complainant evidence

7.493 This part deals with evidence of complainant witnesses that has not been cited in the examination
of documented and confirmed cases. It includes extra information from witnesses who were cited
above and data from witnesses not previously discussed. This material is uncorroborated evidence
from credible and reliable witnesses.
7.494 Complainants described the different kinds of abuse that they experienced.
7.495 One witness recalled how he was warned to avoid certain Brothers when he first went to Artane:
There was always talk amongst the boys who to keep away from. When I went in there
first, being naı̈ve you don’t know anybody and you have boys coming to you and telling
you “you watch Brother so and so, and watch Brother so and so. Don’t let him come near
you or don’t let him get you into a place on your own”, things like that, like. But it only
happened to me by one particular Brother, where sexual abuse took place, the rest was
physical and mental abuse.
7.496 Another witness described how abuse by Br Bruce73 became progressively more severe,
culminating in an attempt to commit anal rape. The witness was detained in Artane during the
1940s:
... at first it was just, he used to just take me trousers down and just stand there and make
me masturbate him and things like that. But then it got a bit deeper and deeper where he
would ask me to do things, which I couldn't understand at the time. But like, he would ask
me to – oral sex and things like that. Then he started bringing me, just, it is only 50 yards
down into the shower rooms and in there he would bring me down, usually down the left-
hand side into one of the curtain rooms at the bottom there and then on a couple of
occasion he actually tried to rape me, but he never did succeed. He used to be very upset
himself even afterwards, you know, what he was doing.
7.497 A witness from the 1940s described how Br Armande progressed from talking about sex to
physical contact and then to masturbation:
He liked to talk dirty ... So over a period of time he used to ask me “have you ever popped
or ejaculated”' and things like that. No, “I can't”. I knew other boys could. I forget how the
conversation – but the subject of circumcising came up and he said “probably that's your
problem. I will show you some time”. Over a period of time – he would press into you, he
invariably wore a cloak so anybody looking from the sides couldn't see what was going on.
73

One incident, as I say, in the theatre, when we used to file in the theatre, at the end of
every, maybe, third row was left vacant so that a Brother would sit there presumably to
keep an eye on us. I happened to be in this seat and Br Armande – the seat was vacant,
so I didn't know what Brother it was going to be. I think he was either a projectionist or
assisting the projectionist. Once the film started he came and sat beside me. I always
remember he gave me a sweet and he started touching and petting and one thing and the
other. I got to admit I was aroused. He kind of got my hand and done the same, messing.
7.498 The same witness described another occasion when sexual activity was aborted because of the
arrival of another person in the dormitory:
The other incident with Br Armande was the morning I was expelled from the band ... I
was expelled from the band and I was told to report to the dormitory. He told me to go
over to the far corner of the dormitory where the Brother’s sleeping room was. He said
“lie on the bed there and take your trousers down”. He disappeared and went off down to
the long hall, I suppose, to check. There I was in the bed waiting for him to come. I got
to admit I was quite excited about it because I had never ejaculated and he was going to
show me ... I was just coming up to 16, 15 and a half. I had heard other boys saying they
had. Whatever happened, somebody must have came. The next thing I knew the door
was open and he hollered “anybody in here, get out now”. I jumped up, put on my trousers,
ran down and joined everybody else at the parade. That was the incident.
7.499 This witness described how a sympathetic approach by the Manager led to his divulging
information about abuse:
He put a friendly arm around me, drew me close to him and he said, “Tell me, what's
troubling you?” I started to cry and I blurted out all the things that happened to me and
why I hated God, I hated my own parents for being weak and dying, I hated religion. “Tell
me”.. So I told him about what Olivier had done and I told him about Br Armande . I told
him the specific incident, general as well, but mainly what Br Olivier had done to me. I
told him about the Br Armande. I would never have had the courage to go and complain
to anybody because I would be terrified I would get another hiding, they wouldn't believe
me. On that occasion he was so kind that he got my confidence, he spoke to me like a
father. I blurted out and told him everything.
7.500 The witness described another experience that was commonly mentioned by former residents of
boys’ industrial schools. When boys were in bed, Brothers sometimes went through the dormitories
checking to see whether boys had wet their beds. That was the ostensible reason why Brothers
put their hands under the bedclothes but there was unease among boys at the time.
7.501 A number of complainants spoke of the requirement to sleep with their arms crossed and above
the blanket, which was a rule of the Congregation. Some supervising Brothers were more diligent
about enforcing this rule than others, but the object was to ensure that boys were not committing
‘badness’ during the night. One Christian Brother confirmed that he enforced the rule of sleeping
with arms above the blankets but claimed that he did not know why he was doing so. He stated
that he was not aware that it had any purpose of preventing self-abuse by boys.
7.502 A complainant described getting a slap on his private parts by the Brother in charge when he was
not lying in the correct position.
7.503 Another described how Br Gaspard questioned him about where his hands were:
He pulled the covers down slightly and got my hands like that (indicating). That is how
they told us to fall asleep in bed. Then he got down on one knee, might have been two
knees, and just slid his hand across my lower abdomen. Didn’t touch anything, just straight
across. That was it ... There was something odd about it, obviously. It wasn’t the sort of
thing you done. It’s always sort of remained with me.
7.504 A complainant resident in the 1950s alleged that, when supervising the showers, Br Verrill used
to require the boys to bend over, to make sure that they were clean. He said that, on a few
occasions while doing this, he used to put his hands on the boys’ testicles and say ‘did you like
that?’. The complainant said that he got so used to being humiliated that he accepted it and did
not regard it as unusual at the time.
Sexualised relationships
7.505 Relationships between Brothers and boys were unlikely to be the subject of complaint in the same
way as violent or forced incidents of abuse.
7.506 One witness who was in Artane in the 1940s described a sexual relationship with a Brother that
he said was different from what happened with other Brothers. This relationship was a sexual
affair with affection and reciprocity. It is scarcely necessary to add that it was a case of serious
sexual abuse:
... I had sexual relations with him. That is the way I look at it. I will say the others abused
me, but with him I would be kinder with the words because the man did look after he me,
but I did do things with him that today people would stand up and scream about. But he
was kind. He was probably the only person in my life up to that time. Probably the only
person in my life up to that time that would give me a hug, look after me. Anyone, nobody
could get to me. You know, he kept the others away. Monitors never reported me because
they knew I would report them. Simple. He looked after me, I looked after him. As simple
as that ... sexual abuse did take place. But at that time that was mine, I now know that it
was wrong. But at the time, if he had asked me to eat his head, I would have eaten his
head, as simple as that.
7.507 When it was suggested to him that this relationship appeared to form a large part of his memories
of Artane, he replied:
It does, actually, because as I said, he was probably was the one person I loved at that
point. I did love the man, you know. I know he done that, but I loved him. I have very fond
memories of the man. But now I am 68.
7.508 In contrast, he named four other Brothers as having been sexually abusive of him. This
complainant said that, at the same time that he was being sexually abused, the Brothers were
emphasising the evils of sex:
They screamed about the dangers of badness and yet they were practising it on us.
7.509 Another complainant spoke about a lay teacher’s behaviour that he saw as coming into a different
category from other sexual experiences in Artane:
He used have his cloth over him and he kind of took my hand and placed it on top with
the cloth covering it in case anybody came in. I touched him like that ... He carried on ...
and then sent me back to my place. That’s all [he] ever done, he was a fondler more than
anything. He didn’t ask you to undress or anything like that.
7.510 He confirmed the statement that he had made to the Commission:

All boys liked [him] because he was a gentle kind of man.
7.511 He said that the teacher looked after the boys and that they put up with him for that reason.
He said:
We weren’t idiots. Boys at that age were aware, I was anyway, that some of the teachers
and some people were like that.
7.512 He continued:
he was good to us ... He wasn’t cruel like some of the Brothers. I personally found him very
nice and also he always brought a newspaper in every morning. When he was finished the
lads would get it. Some of us were avid readers. In that way he was a man’s man, if you
like. I know he was a groper but he was a decent man in every other way.
7.513 A number of witnesses, who did not themselves claim to have been sexually abused, stated
that they believed that other boys were sexually abused in Artane. Almost all of these witnesses
acknowledged that they had not actually seen sexual activity taking place, so their evidence and
recollections were based on mixtures of surmise, hearsay and deduction. One witness explained:
The way I reckoned it was that when I was being abused, I know other boys were going
through the same doors, going through the same classroom doors, going the long hall ...
I saw them. I saw boys going through the doors ... I mean down to classrooms. I saw
them going into classrooms when they shouldn't have been in the classrooms.
7.514 He added:
The reason why I think it odd was because the classrooms, any time I ever went into one
when I shouldn't have been there, it was for that reason. That is the only places they
could take you. So I reckoned that if it was happening to me in there and Brothers were
taking them in there, that it was happening to them. I had seen many Brothers go in there
with children, and then I would hear children crying when I was in the dormitories. I knew
what they were crying for, because I had done a bit of it myself. I knew boys, that when I
was keeping – watching Brothers on the Parade, and I was hiding from them and seeing
them hiding from them, I knew what they were hiding from.
7.515 Other witnesses testified that they had seen boys going into Brothers’ rooms at night in the period
after bedtime and before the night watchman came on duty.
Respondents’ awareness of sexual activity in Artane

7.516 Respondent witnesses gave evidence as to their awareness of sexual activity in Artane. Four
Brothers testified that, during their training for the Christian Brothers, they had been instructed
about the possibility of inappropriate sexual activity between Brothers and boys.
7.517 Br Saber stated that:

I would say the best instruction we ever got was before we left the training college. Before
we left the training college, we got a talk from our Superior on sexual abuse, right. The
attraction of a kid – of a Brother to a young fellow, right. He would be very clear and very
specific minded, be careful of it, avoid it ... Some other Brothers would say to me that it
didn’t mean much to them because they never encountered it. Right? It did, it meant
something to me, I can honestly say that. To most people it did. There was an outbreak
in Artane previously seemingly of some Brothers being accused.
7.518 Br Gaspard stated that there was a general rule that Brothers should not be alone with boys. One
of the reasons for this rule was that it provided a defence for Brothers if accused of abuse.
However, he stated that this rule was not rigidly enforced. He informed the Committee that he
was always conscious of the rule:
I mean that I went out of my way to make sure that I never gave any, never did anything
that would be sexually incorrect in my dealings with the boys in Artane.
7.519 The third and fourth Brothers were less forthcoming. One acknowledged that Brothers were given
specific instructions about sexual abuse, but that it was not a priority. He said he remembered it
being discussed but it was not an issue.
7.520 The four Brothers testified to having heard rumours of colleagues being asked to leave because
of sexual abuse in the School. Br Michel described the rumours as follows:
There was a rumour as regards sexual matters, that some years previous to our time,
there were one or two men dismissed from the Congregation. Now I didn’t know them. I
cannot even name them because it was so long ago, but that rumour was about, that a
few men were in trouble with boys and they were actually dismissed.
7.521 Br Gaspard stated:

The rumours were about ... there were a few Brothers who sexually abused boys and
they were dismissed from the Congregation because of that.
Sexual activity between boys
A documented case
7.522 A case in the early 1960s, that is documented in the records of the Department of Education,
illustrated knowledge by the management of Artane about sexual activity among boys.
7.523 A former Artane boy, who was still under the supervision of the Resident Manager of Artane, was
on remand in Marlborough House on a charge of indecent assault of a young girl. He had a frank
conversation with the officer in charge about his sexual history and proclivities. He went on to say
that he had engaged in sexual activity with three other boys on several occasions during his time
in Artane.
7.524 The Superintendent notified the authorities in Artane, and the Resident Manager visited
Marlborough House with a senior Brother to interview the boy. In a subsequent letter to the
Department of Education, the Superintendent reported that the boy ‘admitted what he had done
and gave the names of the other boys whom he committed offences with in Artane’.
7.525 An internal memorandum in the Department expressed:

very grave concern and particularly so in the case of the underprivileged children who
were sent to Artane by the Courts. It is also suggested that Dr McCabe enquire from the
Resident Manager whether he has traced the extent of this practice in the school and
what are his proposals for dealing with the situation.
7.526 The following month, Dr McCabe reported her interview with the Resident Manager of Artane.
She first inquired about the boy who had at that stage been dealt with by the District Court, and
she went on to ask about the three boys who had been implicated in sexual activity in Artane.
She was told that ‘they have now left the school’. Dr McCabe then asked about the extent of the
problem and what proposals the Resident Manager had for dealing with it. She noted:
I then inquired about the supervision carried out and as far as is reasonably sensible it
appears to be well done – but as the Brother intimated to me when boys are so inclined
if opportunity arises and temptation is there it is very difficult to be always on the qui vive.
In fact the Superior said that to have a complete supervisory system the Brothers detailed
for such work would need to have no other duties but as it is now the Superior is having
to teach and perform various tasks. However, he is quite well alive to such moral dangers
and as far as it is possible for him will see that strict supervision is enforced. He also
reminded me that there are retreats at stated intervals each year and that the Chaplain is
very interested in these boys and also the Superior gives a little talk in the Chapel at
prayer time.
7.527 The proceedings in the District Court were described by the Superintendent of Marlborough House
in his letter to the Department:
Rev Brother Leon74 was requested by Dist. Justice Price, B.L. to attend [the] Dist. Court
... and the Justice directed him, as being the legal guardian; to have arrangements made
to have the boy committed to Grangegorman Mental Hospital, so that he could be
subsequently transferred to Portrane Mental Hospital for treatment and the Justice further
remanded [the boy] to Marlborough House until ... he was to appear at [another] Court ...
... the boy again appeared before Dist. Justice Price [at the other] Court. Brother Leon
again attended the Court and stated that no arrangements were made to have [the boy]
committed to a mental hospital; so the Justice let the boy out on his own bail of £10 and
made an Order that he was to be of good behaviour for 12 months; when he was
discharged. The mother of the boy was not in Court at any time.
7.528 The Resident Manager was inconsistent in what he told the Department of Education.
7.529 The Manager first told Dr McCabe that the three boys had left the School. On a visit to the
Department, the Resident Manager ‘stated that he did not know the identity of the boys as Bro.
Leon who had handled the matter had since died but that he would find out and reply later’. It is
not easy to understand how the Manager could have given that information to the Department
because he was, after all, present at the interview with the boy in Marlborough House when the
names of the boys were given. Furthermore, the manager had previously told Dr McCabe that the
three boys had left the Institution, so at that point he must have known the names. Finally, the
Manager wrote in response to a formal request sent two months earlier and gave two names,
adding that one of them was still in the School and that the other had been discharged the
previous year.
• The Department expressed concern about the revelation of sexual activity
between boys in Artane, and asked Dr McCabe to inquire into the extent of the
problem and the proposals for dealing with it. The Manager undertook to do no
more than was already in place, which, by his own admission, was inadequate.
The Department did not pursue the matter.
• The Resident Manager was inconsistent in the information he gave to the
Department, indicating a lack of respect for the Government officials who
raised the matter with him.
• This case indicated that there was a higher level of sexual activity in Artane
than the authorities there were capable of dealing with.
• It is a matter of concern that no documentation relating to this matter survived
in the records furnished by the Christian Brothers.
Another investigation
7.531 Br Romain75 spoke about an investigation into sexual activity among boys that occurred during
his time in Artane, during the late 1960s. He said that up to a dozen boys, who were all in the
same domestic economy class, had complained of being sexually abused by older boys in the
School. Br Jeoffroi,76 who was a young Brother in Artane at the time, instituted an investigation.
74
75
76

The witness said that ‘everybody knew about it’, when asked whether the pupils and staff generally
knew of this investigation. Br Jeoffroi interviewed all the boys but the witness was not in a position
to give further information. He did not know if boys had been punished or not – he only
remembered the fact of the investigation.
Complainants’ evidence
7.532 Sexual activity between boys in Artane appears to have been a common feature during all of the
relevant period. Part of this activity consisted of sexual abuse by older boys with younger boys,
in this report referred to as ‘peer abuse’. Many complainant witnesses, however, were reluctant
to discuss sex between boys generally, and particularly the question of peer abuse. Nevertheless,
the Committee was satisfied on sufficient evidence and reasonable inference that both these
features of sex between boys were present at all relevant times.
7.533 A witness spoke about an unwelcome approach:

I was working in the tinsmiths and this boy attacked me and threw me on the floor and
lay on top of me. At the time it was a sex act. I didn't know it was a sex act at the time.
Like I said, I never even saw my aunty's ankles. Of course I didn't know that, that's what
it was. That's what he was doing. It was reported. When Br Cretien asked me, “yes, I was
attacked”. He still gave me six, right on the hand, not anywhere else, directly on the hand.
He said he had to punish both of us. That boy never came near me again. I believe he
was punished again for other acts which he did to other boys.
7.534 Another witness explained the reason for fearing becoming known as a sexually active boy:
You know, there was two things that you never did in Artane. One was you never touched
another boy in a sexual area. Me personally never did anyway. Another thing is that you
never told of it if it ever happened to you because then you're open, you're open season
then. If you are open season that means the boys get you. So you don't tell anybody, you
keep your mouth shut and that's it ... Nobody, except a priest. I told nobody. I am sure it
happened to other boys and they told nobody either because you didn't tell. You know, I
mean, you were a soft touch then.
7.535 A further witness was embarrassed about his sexual activity, even though it was by consent:
Well, it is probably a bit embarrassing, but to be honest with you I was actually involved
in that myself. It was just sort of playing around basically ... No, it wasn't very frequent
but it happened every now and then. But it was very common in Artane, it was very
common that boys would be playing around with each other ... Most of the time, 99% of
the time it would be a case of just two boys messing about.
7.536 He went on to comment on the Brothers’ awareness, and on the prevalence of one particular form
of common sexual activity:
... you have got to appreciate in places like Artane, well it wasn't very, very common but
quite a lot of times boys would be masturbating each other. If another boy that wasn't,
you know, doing that would find out they would say it was badness.
7.537 Another witness recalled an admonitory talk by a Brother:

... and the Brother who was giving the speech, God knows who he was, turned around
and says “right, we know what you boys are doing, you have got to stop it”. This Brother
in particular said, “We found over 300 children playing with each other”. Now there was
only about 450 in the school. We were all standing there listening and that and, I don't
know whether they ever stopped or not.
7.538 A witness spoke of the enormous interest of the Brothers in ‘badness’ and the sin of impurity:
Badness was the sin of impurity. They had the sixth commandment. I remember Br Jules
used to say there is more people in hell because of the sixth commandment, the sin of
impurity. They were absolutely bonkers on this. When we were growing up, young lads,
14, 15, you are getting feelings, you are getting wet dreams and things like that ...
As I say, they must have thought that must be one of the reasons of so called badness.
It meant boys messing with one another, thought, word or deed or whatever. They
regularly wanted to know if you spoke, swore, told bad jokes. They had a mania for this
sort of thing.
Congregation’s approach to peer abuse

7.539 The Congregation in its Opening Statement said that it was aware of the possibility of sexual
abuse among the boys themselves. Precautionary measures were taken to ensure that such
abuse did not occur, including careful supervision of the boys at all times but particularly in the
dormitories. The Statement referred to a 1946 Visitation Report which expressed concern about
the danger of a lack of proper control in the infirmary, on the grounds that failure to ‘exercise
proper control over the boys who are confined there when convalescing ... may be a source of
serious danger to their morals’. The Statement said that, although Brothers who worked in Artane
confirmed that such abuse occurred, there was no documentary evidence available to the
Congregation concerning individual cases of peer abuse. The only documented case of peer
abuse appeared in records disclosed by the Department of Education and Science.
Brothers’ awareness of peer abuse

7.540 Brothers testified to their awareness of peer abuse, but their accounts differ as regards its
prevalence, the Brothers’ obligation to look out for it, and the punishments meted out.
7.541 One Brother, Br Saber, who was in Artane for 10 years in the mid-1940s and 1950s, spoke about
his awareness of sexual abuse both involving boys with boys and Brothers with boys. However,
he stated that there was no sexual activity during his time in the School, which he attributed to Br
Tyce,77 the Resident Manager, and to the sodality.
7.542 Br Boyce, who was in the Institution at around the same time, said that he was aware of the
possibility of peer abuse, or ‘badness’ as it was known, but that he never came across it, and his
knowledge of the subject came not from the Brothers but from overhearing boys’ conversations.
He confirmed that he ordered the boys to sleep with their hands crossed, but said that it was
nothing to do with masturbation, it was just the custom.
7.543 A Brother who was in Artane during the 1950s stated that he never heard of any type of untoward
sexual activity, either amongst boys or staff, the possibility of boys masturbating was never
mentioned and he never punished for it.
7.544 Br Laramie,78 who was also there in the 1950s, stated that he was aware of the term ‘badness’,
which was code for sexual activity. He said that the boys and various religious magazines used
the term. Although the Brothers were aware of the issue, he could not recall any specific incidents
involving boys.
7.545 Another Brother who was there throughout the 1950s said that he remembered the term ‘badness’
as referring to peer abuse and that all staff would have been aware of the term. Despite this, he
said that he never encountered any incident of badness nor had to punish a boy for it. However,
77
78

he was contradicted by a colleague who remembered having to punish a boy who had been
referred to him by this Brother who insisted that punishment was necessary:
I was in charge and he reported to me that [the boy] was interfering with other boys and
he kind of said to me you will have to do something about it. As I understood it then that
when some boys were interfering with other boys, they would be punished and one of the
punishments they would get would be on the backside with the leather. I wasn’t too keen
on doing it, I had a certain reluctance about it. I didn’t do anything for a while. Then Br
Gaspard came back to me again and told me that this was going on and that I had to do
something about it. I just brought him to the boot room. My memory now, I am working
from memory now and it is a long time ago, my memory is that he had his nightshirt on
him, he bent down, I gave him three or four smacks of the leather on the – not on the
bare backside and he ran out the door and I was glad to see him go.
7.546 Despite having to mete out this punishment, his recollection was that sexual activity between boys
‘wasn’t a major crime’, although Brothers were told to be vigilant.
7.547 A Brother who was in Artane in the 1950s stated:

We were always being alerted to be on the look out, to be a presence in places where
the boys would be, and I think we did that to the best of our ability. But we would be
aware that things happened and there were normal healthy young fellas at that time so
we tried to be as protective as we could be in that area by being a presence around
the place.
We would have been alerted to be on the lookout, to be there, to be careful and to make
sure that people are not injured in a situation like that, or that damage is done to them.
So, that we would be there as a protection. It would have been—we would be, I suppose,
on the alert and keep moving around and wherever.
7.548 He said, however, that although the Brothers were aware of it, they would rarely talk about it. He
denied that he would have discussed the matter with the boys in order to find out who was abusing
whom, on the grounds that it was ‘none of my business’. He stated that if he became aware of an
incident ‘I would have to hand that over to somebody at a higher authority level ... I would probably
go to the Disciplinarian’.
Conclusions on sexual abuse
Incidence
7.549 1. Sexual abuse by Brothers was a chronic problem in Artane. Brothers who served
in Artane included firstly those who had previously been guilty of sexual abuse
of boys, secondly those whose abuse was discovered while they worked in
Artane 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 more than half of the 33 years under consideration, there was at least
one such abuser working there;
(b) For more than one third of the years there were at least two abusers
present;
(c) During one year in the 1940s there were seven such Brothers in Artane at
the same time.
2. More abuse occurred than is recorded in documents because of inadequate
recording and reporting procedures. In particular:
(a) There was little or no communication on an informal, friendly basis between
boys and Brothers including the Superior.
(b) The sodality was a means of informal communication between boys and
the Resident Manager that uncovered four sexual abusers in Artane in 1944,
but it was discontinued.
(c) Because boys could be punished for complaining about abuse, there was
inevitably under-reporting.
(d) In the 1960s, the Resident Manager gave instructions that complaints were
to be made directly to him and not to the chaplain, thereby cutting off a
channel of information.
(e) One offender, Br Dennis, admitted sexually abusing many boys in Artane,
but only one of his victims gave evidence at the Phase II oral hearings.
(f) In other cases of documented abuse, there were no complaints to the
Committee.
3. Other causes of under-reporting also operated, including the fact that sexual
abuse is difficult for victims to corroborate or verify, the fear of being
disbelieved, lack of faith in the investigation process, and feelings of shame
and embarrassment.
4. Sexual activity between boys was common, and there was a significant amount
of predatory sexual behaviour by bigger boys on smaller, vulnerable ones, but
complainants and respondents were guarded in dealing with it.
5. Evidence and inferences in this and other boys’ institutions suggested that some
Brothers sought victims among boys they believed were engaged in sexual
activity with other boys.
Response
6. Cases and allegations of sexual abuse were not properly investigated;
information was not shared in the Congregation; cases were not reported to the
Department; and the Gardaı́ were not informed.
7. The Congregation was aware of the criminal nature of sexual abuse perpetrated
by Brothers.
8. The Congregation was also aware of the risk of recidivism in such cases.
9. Sexual abuse by Brothers posed a serious risk of damaging the reputations of
the Institution and the Congregation if it became public, and cases were
managed primarily with a view to protecting them against that danger. The
offender was an incidental beneficiary of this policy.
10. The most common reaction was to move the offending Brother to another
Christian Brothers’ institution, without regard to the hazard to boys in the new
location and with no evidence that the Superior was alerted. Some Brothers were
moved to industrial schools after abusing in day schools.
11. The Christian Brothers have submitted that repeat offenders were dismissed
from the Congregation, but this does not appear to have occurred. Even when
the Council voted for expulsion, this was often done by inviting the Brother to
seek dispensation from his vows, which allowed him to leave the Congregation
with no taint or suspicion on his character. The Brother could continue teaching
in a lay capacity.

12. Only Brothers of temporary profession were dismissed by being refused
permanent status by the Congregation, but these Brothers were also able to
move on with their reputations intact.
13. Some Brothers and former Brothers found to have committed sexual abuse were
able to continue damaging children for many years because of the policy of
concealment of the disclosure of abuse, failure to investigate properly and
failure to report.
14. The Congregation claimed in its Opening Statement that the impact of abuse on
young boys was not properly understood at the time and that the response to
the child was therefore inadequate. The reality is that the needs of abused
children were not considered at all. It was not a case of insufficient
understanding, but rather of giving priority to other concerns. For a Community
of religious in loco parentis, this was a fundamental breach of their duty of care.
Emotional abuse and neglect

7.550 Although some Congregations conceded that institutional detention was not an appropriate way
to care for children,79 the Submission of the Christian Brothers defended the kind of care they had
given. They wrote:
It is clear that the level of poverty in Ireland during the period under review was such that
the basic physical needs of many people required for day to day living went unfulfilled ...
In this context it cannot be surprising that there was a strong focus in Artane on the
physical care of the boys ... The “philosophy of care” underlying the operation of Artane
... can be broadly described as a philosophy of physical care concentrating on the physical
well-being of the boys.
7.551 The Congregation accepted that a focus on physical care alone was not sufficient to fully and
properly care for a child, but contended that it was important to note the general economic and
legal context in which the Congregation’s care of the boys was provided. A senior Brother
described this approach in his evidence as follows:
the philosophy of Artane when I was there was a physical care philosophy. Look after the
health of the boys, look after their physical education, like by drill and so on ... it was a
physical education philosophy. There was no understanding, and I had no understanding
at the time, about any kind of emotional education, psychological education. I had no
understanding of that at the time.
7.552 The Christian Brothers concluded this section of their Submission by asserting that the totality of
the evidence suggests that, especially when viewed in the context of the times, the Congregation
fully and properly provided for the physical needs of the boys.
7.553 They went on to concede that at times there were shortcomings, such as the condition of the
classrooms and toilets that were criticised in the Visitation Reports, but added, ‘these
shortcomings were addressed after the criticism’.
Emotional abuse
7.554 Extracts from the 1926 Annual Report of the Department of Education, and the Cussen Report in
1936, highlight that there was an awareness of the emotional needs of the child. They warned
that a regime based on ‘a hard and fast uniformity’, in which the child loses his sense of
individuality through just being one among hundreds of other children, caused permanent damage
79
See General Chapter on the Christian Brothers at para ???.

to the child. The Congregation, on the other hand, claimed that it was not until the early 1960s
that the emotional needs of children began to feature in the thinking behind childcare.
7.555 The Congregation also contended that the emotional needs of children were not a consideration
at the time, either by the Congregation or by the Department of Education. In support of this
contention, the Congregation stated that, when the Department carried out a full and thorough
inspection in December 1962, it ‘focussed almost entirely on the physical conditions in which the
boys lived and on their education’.
7.556 Some individual Brothers who gave evidence to the Investigation Committee displayed a greater
awareness of the boys’ emotional needs than the Congregation. The Brother who was quoted by
the Congregation in their Submission, and who had served a number of years in Artane and had
held a senior position in the Institution, told the Investigation Committee:
As a result of what I experienced in Letterfrack80 I came to the conclusion that a lot of
these children were disturbed and a lot of these children hadn’t had their basic needs for
love, affection ... fulfilled ...
As regards the Industrial School Branch [of the Department of Education], it is my opinion
that when Artane closed in 1969 we were still working out of a physical care philosophy.
All the improvements that were done in Artane; central heating was brought in; we got
new classrooms; we got new improvements to the cinema; we had the Godparent
associations and so on; all these improvements, while they were very welcome ... they
were still coming out of that physical care philosophy. I went into Artane as a teacher and
I think I can honestly say I left it as a teacher.
7.557 It was only later, after Artane closed, that he supplemented his training as a teacher by attending,
under his own initiative, a childcare course. At one point in his testimony he said:
as I looked back over the years at my time in Artane I became aware that there were
times when I punished boys ... and might have done better ... I looked back at Artane and
saw what the system was like ... the more knowledge I acquired the more critical I became
I suppose of how I saw Artane and what I did.
7.558 Some of the other Brothers showed a similar awareness of the emotional needs of the children in
their care, and lamented that the system did not address them. One Brother, who was in Artane
from the late 1940s to the early 1950s, told the Investigation Committee:
I would say I was lacking in appreciation of ... the circumstances in which these chaps
found themselves, away from home and that kind of thing ... I wouldn’t know who was
legitimate or illegitimate or anything of that nature and I tried to treat everyone the same
and of course you cannot do that. In that sense I would regret that.
7.559 Another Brother, who was in Artane in the 1960s, told the Investigation Committee of an occasion
when the degree of deprivation of some of his pupils was brought home to him in a disquieting
way. He recounted the following incident:
... I remember teaching a lesson, it was English reading and it was about a family, and I
discovered a boy in the class who didn’t understand what the word “mother” meant.
“Brother” or “sister”, it meant nothing to him. I was taken aback by that.
7.560 Another Brother told the Investigation Committee of one boy in Artane who had taught him a great
deal about human nature. He said:
I did learn before I left Artane, if I could tell you a small little story. There was the chap, I
can remember his name ... he feared neither God nor man. He didn’t give a hoot about
80
He went there after many years in Artane.

anybody. He was a desperado ... constantly in trouble ... he was the toughest fellow I
have ever came across anywhere. Who arrived to see him but his mother. The fella didn’t
even know he had a mother. So he was in to meet her ... she was all over him ... he was
due out in three months and he was welcome to come to her and she would look after
him ... that guy ... went back, I couldn’t believe it, he was a model, because for the first
time in his life he realised he had a mother, there was somebody. He didn’t care what
she was like. And he was complete – a model boy.
7.561 These Brothers, even though their training did not include study of the emotional needs of children,
were aware that the boys needed more than just food, clothing, accommodation and education,
and craved individual attention.
7.562 One Brother explained:

sometimes a fellow, you would be nice and a fella would come up to you trying to play up
to you and say, “Can I be your chafer?” God love them.
7.563 While the boys and Brothers had to keep their distance, it was open to any Brother to rise above
these constraints and offer more than just physical care to these boys. From the evidence before
the Committee, regrettably few Brothers chose to do this, but those who did were remembered
with warmth and gratitude by the ex-residents who attended the oral hearings.
7.564 A Brother, who was in Artane from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s, spoke of what he called ‘that
softening down ... in the whole system’ that occurred during his time in Artane. It became ‘a kinder
place to be than the first day I entered it’. He told the Investigation Committee:
But I have to say now, in all sincerity, that in the latter years that I was there, there was
a hell of an improvement, both in food, dress, entertainment, mixing with the outside world.
Getting parents or getting Godparents for these kids and trying to get them out and
breaking the system.
7.565 When asked to explain what he meant by ‘breaking the system’, he explained:
You don’t change an environment overnight ... It is done over the years. What I am trying
to get across is that when these changes did take place ... you didn’t wave a magic wand
and say, “everything is new, everything is grand”. It took years even when Br Ourson
was there.
7.566 Some individual Brothers did not recognise Artane’s shortcomings, even when looking back at
their time there. One Brother described it as ‘a happy place’. Another Brother said, ‘I was always
very happy with the years I spent in Artane. I enjoyed the company of the boys ... and enjoyed
the fact that you could talk to them ...’. Another said, ‘It was a very busy place, and a fairly happy
place, there was a lot of exuberance in the yard ...’.
Reasons why the emotional needs of children were not met
The problem of numbers

7.567 Artane was purpose built for 825 children, and the capitation system meant that keeping the
numbers up was an economic necessity. One Brother in his testimony summed it up neatly:
I would say the biggest problem was what can you do to change the life for 800 young
fellas? It was entirely too big. Now who was responsible for that? ... the more we had the
more money we got. But the more we had didn’t necessarily mean that it was a better
place for them to be.
7.568 Paragraph 72 of the Cussen Report published in 1936 stated:
In our opinion the best results can be obtained only where the number under any one
Manager does not exceed 200 pupils. We think that in no case should the number exceed
250. It is necessary in this connection to refer specifically to the case of Artane Industrial
School, which is certified for 800 boys and where there are on an average about 700
boys. It is in our view impossible for the Manager in an Institution of this size to bring to
bear that personal touch essential to give each child the impression that he is an individual
in whose troubles, ambitions, and welfare a lively interest is being taken.
7.569 For the sake of ‘the care and after-care of the pupils’, Cussen recommended that Artane should
be divided into separate schools of no more than 250 pupils.
7.570 In paragraph 80, the Cussen Report commented on the effects of institutional life:
In some schools monotonous marching round a school yard took the place of free play at
the time for recreation. Such drill-like exercise, especially if prolonged, becomes a dreary
routine deleterious to mind and body, and it should be replaced by free play and organised
games that will develop in the child alertness of movement and individual confidence, and
thus help to compensate in some measure for the lack of initiative and individuality that
are characteristic of children reared in institutions.
7.571 Concerned to prevent this institutionalisation, the Cussen Report, in Recommendation 15,
advocated that:
Reasonable contact of pupils with the outside world is desirable and should be permitted
to a greater extent that is the case at present.
7.572 Cussen’s recommendations were not put into effect. Indeed, in the 1940s the numbers in Artane
swelled to 844.
7.573 Some senior Brothers questioned the regimented lives in Artane. In 1952, the Visitation Report
contained the following observations:
The presence of over 700 boys in one establishment with all kinds of social background
necessitates a great amount of regimentation and vigilance, and these have been
developed in Artane to the n-th degree so that it would be almost impossible to find a
loophole in the system. From Rising Bell till “lights out” the boys are regimented under
the watchful eyes of Brothers who are experts in their various duties – so that it becomes
almost true to say that the boys are never called on to make decisions for themselves
even in small details except at one moment in the day – the moment when they must
decide to go or not to go to the altar for Communion.
And then one begins to wonder if it can be possible that this system, so perfect in itself,
is fundamentally all wrong from top to bottom. Is it achieving the end for which it was
evolved, to train the will, memory and understanding of the boys so that when they go out
into the world they may be able to take their parts as good citizens and good Catholics?
Will young people who know nothing about freedom, since their birth or since their early
boyhood, be able to use sensibly the freedom which is theirs when they pass through
Artane gates into the wide world? These questions cannot be answered after a period of
five days’ residence in Artane. However, more than one experienced Brother in the
Community has asked himself similar questions and has not been too happy about the
answers.

7.574 In the 1956 Visitation Report the Visitor, commenting on the character training of the boys, wrote:
The control of so many boys has led, in the system employed, to over much “shepherding
especially from 6.30 till bed time. The separation of Juniors and Seniors would be most
desirable. The lack of play-hall space is a crying need. Notwithstanding the devoted care
of the Brothers it must be admitted, I think that the Institution is much too large. If it is to
continue as an Industrial School its division into Junior and Senior sections would seem
to be most desirable.
7.575 It was 1960 before the division was finally made, and in the Visitation Report for that year it
was noted:
As an aid to discipline in this large Institution the boys have now been divided into two
groups – the boys over 14 and those under that age ... it was time this move was made.
Of course it means doubling the number of Brothers on duty.
7.576 The Congregation’s Opening Statement reveals the relationship between boys and staff over
the years:
1940s – average number of pupils – 802
1950s – average number of pupils – 620
1960s – average number of pupils – 286.
7.577 The staff quotas provided by the Congregation are as follows:

1940–1947 – 16 to 20 Brothers and up to 6 lay staff
1947–1960 – average 14 Brothers
1960–1966 – average 11 Brothers.
7.578 The evidence of the Brothers and former Brothers in relation to staff ratios was that a small
number, between six and 10 of the younger Brothers, carried the main burden of teaching and
supervision of the boys. This led to the situation that Brothers who were directly involved in these
duties were over-worked and often stressed. It is not clear why so many Brothers living in Artane
were not directly involved with the care of the children.
7.579 The Investigation Committee heard evidence from many former pupils and staff from Artane with
regard to the size of the Institution. A former pupil, in Artane from the mid-1940s to the early
1950s, described:
The first night, I was put in the ward, I couldn’t believe it. It looked to me huge. All the
beds in a line and I was put into this bed and I was crying. I was told to stop crying and I
couldn’t. I was smacked [by the Brother who was on at nights] to say if you don’t stop
crying you will get another one ... I couldn’t sleep ... I was woken up and I had wet the bed.
7.580 A former Brother described how there was no preparation or training in Marino for dealing with
the large numbers in Artane or for the type of boys that were sent there. Artane was run like the
Army, everything ran like a clock. The boys marched for breakfast, marched to the dormitories,
other than the free play in the playground everything was structured. The size of the School and
the numbers during his time (800 boys) did not leave much room for understanding the boys.
7.581 Another former Brother who served in Artane in the early 1960s said:

the numbers were very large and you had to have your wits about you to keep an eye on
everything, you know, to make sure nobody was in danger. You would want to keep the
smaller children away from bigger so they wouldn’t be run down or hurt or anything.
7.582 He recalled that, in his time, two Brothers would be keeping an eye on over 400 boys.
7.583 Most of the Brothers who appeared before the Investigation Committee complained about the
numbers in the School.
7.584 One Brother was asked if the system made it difficult to be compassionate with individuals. He
replied, ‘I would say so, yes, I would agree. I mean it was numbers, large numbers you were
dealing’.
7.585 A Brother in Artane in the 1950s, whilst saying that there was a good atmosphere between the
800 boys and the 25 to 30 Brothers, said that it was ‘mass production ... It was impossible to do
anything worthwhile with them’. He felt that the Brothers on the ground were interested in the
children’s welfare and many of the children did well, but it depended more on their background
and make-up. When asked why nobody spoke out about the impossibility of looking after 800
boys, he replied:
I was going to use ignorance ... It was lack of knowledge or lack of insights by the Brothers
ourselves, by headquarters and that. I mean 800 – there were 800 people that weren’t
wanted and that nobody else would take them.
7.586 A Brother who was there in the late 1950s was angry about the situation:
You had in Artane at that time 600, or whatever, pupils. You had, effectively, 16 or 17
Brothers, the teaching Brothers on the staff, who had to teach them full time ... So I would
be asking today, ‘Why was it that I was expected to do the impossible in Artane by my
country from 1955 to 1959?’ ... the system survived because of the dedication of the few.
And I suppose we are paying for that today.
7.587 He went on to say:

Some of them [the lads] unfortunately who had problems and maybe who should not have
been there at all, they should have been in some other institution that could care for such
people like that ... at that particular time we weren’t as aware ... about the importance
of having places for people like that who need specific care and specific attention and
specific help.
7.588 A Brother who served a total of nine years in Artane between the mid-1940s and mid-1950s
explained:
... the new kids coming in who would be lost, you know, really some of them were lost
really. 825 kids. Divide that by five and that’s 160. 160 kids in a dormitory was very
formidable ... It was cruel ... That was the total responsibility of two really. It was really
the two in the dormitory made the kids or developed a kind of relationship with them.
7.589 He was still angry at the enormity of it all. He railed against the system that allowed such numbers:
825 kids were imposed on us. No. 1 by the Superior, No.2 by the authorities, by the
Archbishop of Dublin, who wanted the kids sent to Artane, not Letterfrack or to Galway
because they were too far from home ... 825 where the maximum was supposed to be
800 and you had kids on the floor and it was really cruel and unnatural and wrong.
7.590 This Brother also saw children who were isolated and lost within the system. He told the
Investigation Committee:
I suppose you never knew a kid, like, to talk to him. You would pick out a lonely child ...
If he hadn’t a friend it would be tough. Really tough. You could see a kid that is lonesome,
you would take him in the hand or something. He was the only boy from Gorey. He was
the only boy from Wexford ...
7.591 The Investigation Committee heard the evidence of ‘the only boy from Gorey’. He had been sent
to Artane for stealing a purse when he was ten and a half years old. He explained that his family
were very poor and his sister had told him to take it. He was sent to the Industrial School for five
and a half years in the 1950s. His mother had simply told him he was ‘going away for a few days’.
He told the Investigation Committee about his early days in Artane:
I think I was the only one from Gorey ... It was very difficult [to make friends] for a long
time ... I was terrified ... there were so many boys ... I never saw the likes of it before in
my life ... The first Brother that ever met me there was Br Bruce the day I went there. I
don’t know what it was, from that day onwards we seemed to get on very well together.
He was explaining the school to me that night and ever since that we were friends ... He
was brilliant, yeah. Brilliant. Brilliant ... he was exceptionally good to me. For what reason
I couldn’t tell you. But I liked him and he liked me ... I would be chopping sticks for him
and he would bring [extra food] down under his habit.
7.592 Apart from this friendly Brother, he lived in ‘a constant state of fear’. Yet this friendship, so valued
by the terrified young boy, was in itself problematic for the Christian Brothers.
7.593 As well as being an enormous institution, Artane was totally male dominated, and the Investigation
Committee heard evidence from a number of Brothers who served in Artane about the lack of
women in the Institution.
7.594 A Brother who served in Artane in the late 1960s described how the lack of females there at the
time left a lot to be desired, ‘The gentle touch of a woman ... was missing’.
7.595 One Brother who served in Artane from the mid-1940s to mid-1950s recalled that Artane was a
totally male dominated place. He particularly remembered a group of boys coming from a convent
in Mount Merrion in the 1950s. He described how they arrived in Artane in brand new clothes and
were dressed like dolls. He remarked, ‘we could see the female hand all over the place. They
never met boys, they never met men. They were thrown into Artane’.
7.596 He also felt that the dormitory for the young children should have had a nurse working there full-
time to care for the boys. It was not within the power of the younger Brothers to make suggestions
such as the need for women in the place. Visitors could be spoken to about some deficiencies,
but they were not ‘on the ground’ and could be a bit removed.
7.597 Another Brother, who also served in Artane throughout the 1950s, was asked whether the boys
craved affection. He replied:
yes, affection and because of the lack of women around to put it baldly. That was kind of
a gesture that was made later on towards the end of the 1950s or the beginning of the
1960s to get them foster parents to get them more and more in touch with the outside
world and that kind of thing and maybe to improve the feeding or the grub ... they were a
few extra women brought in in the nursing set up ... but still it was Artane.
7.598 The arrival of four nuns to work in Artane in 1963 is noted in the Visitation Report for that year:
There are four Sisters in residence in a Convent in conjunction with the Infirmary. They
supervise the Infirmary and spend time in the dormitories every day, checking the beds,
the boys’ clothes, the wash rooms and so forth. Because of time schedules it is
unfortunate that they cannot have much contact with the boys and hence their influence
on them cannot be great. The two in the dormitories feel the lack of this opportunity and
are hoping that as time goes on they will be able to have more contact with the boys,
especially the little ones. The Superior has this matter under observation and
consideration and he hopes to be able to provide more contact with the boys for them
in time.
Mixing boys with different needs
7.599 The Cussen Report had recommended that boys be medically and psychologically examined and
assessed for suitability to be sent to an industrial school. That recommendation was not
implemented, and the result was that children were ordered to be detained in Artane and other
institutions when they were unsuitable and where there were no facilities for dealing with their
disabilities. This put extra pressure on the Institution and made life more difficult for the children
themselves. Respondent witnesses gave evidence of their awareness of these problems, and the
authorities in later years complained to the Department about its failure to identify and differentiate
between children who had different needs, and particularly those who suffered from mental or
psychological disability.
7.600 Mr Dunleavy in his report for the Congregation also identified this problem, which he stated was
exacerbated by a reluctance on the part of the Brothers to direct boys to other institutions which
were better able to care for them, even when there were places available for that purpose. He
quoted the Visitation Report for 1968 as follows:
Some are very retarded ... Others are mentally deficient, and in recent years the
proportion admitted in this latter class has been on the increase. As such children require
very specialised attention it is not easy for an industrial school to adjust its programme to
care for them in a satisfactory manner. The policy of the Department in directing these
boys to Artane, without consultation, is quite unfortunate.
7.601 He acknowledged that there was something of a double standard in the attitude of the Brothers
in Artane:
However there does seem to have been a certain reluctance in the school, once children
with mental problems had been accepted, to allow them to leave the school for Institutions
which might have been better able to care for them.
7.602 Even as late as 1969, it could be seen that there was no systematic way of dealing with children
who were misplaced in Artane. Mr Dunleavy remarked:
Equally disturbing are a collection of applications from 1969 for boys to be admitted to St.
Augustine’s Special School as being mildly mentally handicapped. It transpires that in
some cases psychiatric evaluations of the boys determining their handicap had been
made up to two years before an application was made on their behalf to St. Augustine’s
Special School.
7.603 He concluded his review of this feature of the Institution:

It is clear from the above that while a deplorable practice existed of “dumping” mentally
and emotionally disturbed children in Artane Industrial School, a school which was
certainly not equipped to deal with their special needs, the school itself took no steps to
alleviate the situation, and indeed appears to have been slow to recognise that the
situation existed in the first place.
The need to keep a distance between the Brothers and the boys
7.604 The Christian Brothers prohibited Brothers forming particular friendships, and they had a rule that
a Brother should never be alone with a child. These instructions were part of the training each
Brother received at Marino. The ban on forming particular friendships was partly to protect the
Brothers’ vow of celibacy, but it was also to ensure the Brother would love everyone equally as
God’s children. The instruction about never being alone with a child was to protect the Brother
from allegations and also from any temptation. With this purpose in mind, these were good rules
and were designed to protect all individuals involved.
7.605 Generally in families the parent singles out his own child from other children outside the family. In
this relationship the child is made to feel special, and needs the affection that flows from this
relationship and the sense of being protected by the parent. This bond is the foundation of the
child’s self-esteem, and it gives the child confidence to tackle the stresses of life in the outside
world. Despite being in loco parentis, the Brothers, with a few exceptions, could not provide this
parental relationship because the system did not allow for it.
7.606 Quite apart from the fact that the rules of the Congregation made the kind of emotional support
the children needed more difficult to deliver, the actual day-to-day interaction was one of fear and
distance. This more than anything damaged the development of the children and this was not
necessary. Even with the large numbers, Brothers could have behaved in a kind and measured
way towards the children, showing them consideration and respect. The absence of this quality
of care was the most emotionally abusive element in Artane.
7.607 Again and again, complainants told the Investigation Committee that they felt there was nobody
they could go to for help or for protection. As shown above, many Brothers spoke of wanting to
help a child who looked lost or lonely, but few were able to do so. As a result, many children went
through life in Artane feeling ignored, except when being chastised and punished, and feeling
nobody cared about them in any way at all. This failure to acknowledge the child, to make the
child feel important and loved, left many of them feeling marginalised and rejected.
Climate of fear
7.608 The Investigation Committee heard convincing evidence from complainants and Brothers who
served in Artane that control of the vast numbers of children was accomplished by means of a
strict regime and through a climate of fear. One Brother remarked that even well-behaved boys
lived in fear of being punished. Children who were hardened by dysfunctional backgrounds, were
placed with orphans and emotionally disturbed children, under the control of young Brothers who
received no training other than their teacher training.
7.609 In the Visitation Report of 1954, the Visitor gave an example of the level of control that was
inherent in Artane:
Br Cretien is chief Disciplinarian. It is gratifying to hear that there is not much necessity
for corporal punishment. There was a good test of the spirit of discipline on my second
day in Artane. It was Saturday night and the boys were retiring to the dormitories. More
than half had got in; many were on the stairs and a number still in the yard when the
electric light failed. There was no stampede or sign of confusion. A few candles were
lighted and to my surprise I found the boys sitting on or standing beside their beds in
absolute silence.
7.610 As one Brother who served in Artane in the late 1950s put it:
If we did not have a strict discipline at that stage the place would have gone to rack and
ruin and those who would have suffered most would have been the boys ... it had to be
strict because we had no back up services whatsoever ... some of them unfortunately
who had problems and maybe who should not have been there at all ... the boys who
could not understand that there was a certain way of doing a thing and that if they did not
do that then it was going to lead to trouble for them, even if they were punished it didn’t
register with them.
7.611 Later in his evidence, he was asked whether there were boys in Artane who were too emotionally
fragile to be there in the first place:
In all probability that would be a way to put it yes. They had come from backgrounds
where they didn’t have the normal supports and so on as young people and they were
coming in and they find themselves in a large group. Looking back now it must have been
an impossible situation for them and knowing what we know now those young people
should not have been there. There should have been a place for them but that wasn’t
available at that particular time, as far as I know.
7.612 As the evidence unfolded before the Investigation Committee, it became clear that Artane did
undergo a certain amount of change in the 1960s. Numbers were falling, and two Brothers in
particular were singled out by their peers as men of vision who tried to bring innovations into the
School for the betterment of the boys. A Godparent association was formed, and boys were placed
with families for Christmas, summer holidays, and occasional Sundays. This was seen as a step
forward, where boys would be able to live in a normal family situation. Nuns were introduced into
the School, and their presence had a calming effect on the boys. A new games room and
swimming pool were opened in the mid-1960s.
7.613 Although some of the Brothers recognised the need for the boys to be better prepared for the
outside world, there does not appear to have been any consistent policy to prepare the boys
emotionally and psychologically for their post-Artane days.
7.614 The Investigation Committee heard from a number of complainants that they did not have much
family contact and that, on occasions, for example on the death of a family member, the situation
was not handled in a sensitive manner. There is no evidence, however, that the Institution had a
policy of discouraging children from having contact with their families. Boys from Dublin usually
went home regularly.
7.615 Many witnesses to the Investigation Committee gave instances of acts of kindness, when
particular Brothers treated them well. This evidence was often given by way of contrast with other
negative experiences in Artane. The complainants named several Brothers as being particularly
kind and fair, and these kind members of the Congregation made a positive contribution to the
lives of the boys in Artane.
• The number of boys in Artane, the extreme regimentation of their lives, the lack
of appropriate training of the Brothers, the insufficient numbers of staff, and the
pervasiveness of corporal punishment all had serious adverse effects on the
welfare and emotional development of many of the children who passed
through Artane.
• A climate of fear in Artane was a dominant memory for many ex-pupils. Practices
used for management and control of the boys were frightening and abusive from
the child’s point of view. It was a problem central to the whole system in Artane
that the boys’ perspective was not taken into account. The Christian Brothers
did not understand the impact of those practices.
Neglect
Finance
7.617 The topic of finance in Artane and in the other institutions specifically investigated by Mazars is
discussed more fully elsewhere in this report, in the context of issues that arise in all institutions.
That discussion focuses first on whether the capitation per child was sufficient in institutions
generally. It then considers the accounts of four particular institutions including Artane. The reports
prepared by Mazars were sent for comment to the relevant Congregations, which responded with
submissions that they prepared with the assistance of their own experts, following which Mazars
finalised a comprehensive report.
7.618 By making comparisons with contemporaneous indices, Mazars established that the grant paid
per child in the industrial school system was adequate to provide a reasonable level of care for
most of the relevant period. When other factors were taken into account, such as the value of the
farm and the profit made from trades, the financial position was even stronger. A significant further
factor that applied in Artane was the economies of scale that arose because of the large numbers
accommodated there.
7.619 Artane was virtually self-sufficient, providing the majority of its needs from its own resources. The
Industrial School’s sources of income were: capitation/maintenance grants (84%); income from the
farm and trade shops (10%); and the balance from a variety of other sources, including parents’
contributions and receipts from band performances. The Institution was also in receipt of a
substantial primary grant for the running of the national school attached to the Industrial School.
7.620 In its Opening Statement in relation to Artane, the Congregation contended that:
The level of grant aid was a constant topic of discussion between the Resident Managers
Association and the Department of Education, the former continually insisting that the
grants paid were seriously inadequate.
7.621 The Christian Brothers’ own Resident Managers’ meetings also took the view that funding was
inadequate and throughout the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s they used the Resident Managers’
Association in order to express this view to the Department of Education, seeking increases in
the grants paid. These requests were often made in years when the financial position in Artane
was strong.
7.622 The Christian Brothers went on to state that the validity of the claim of gross under-funding made
by the Resident Managers is strongly supported by the Kennedy Report, which described the grant
aid paid to industrial schools as ‘totally inadequate’. When the Kennedy Report was published in
1970, numbers in industrial schools had fallen so dramatically that funding was at that point
inadequate to meet the needs of the many institutions that were struggling to stay open. When
the Kennedy Report was published, Artane had already closed down.
7.623 For most of the period under consideration, funding in Artane was adequate to provide for the
children in its care. The Visitation Reports and the evidence of complainants and respondents
indicated, however, that the physical care provided was poor, even by the standards of the time.
7.624 Mazars have looked at the accounts for Artane and have identified, as far as possible, how the
money was spent. On the expenditure side, the biggest item was salaries and wages of lay staff.
In addition, the Institution provided a stipend for almost every Brother in the Community. The level
of stipend was decided by the Managers of Christian Brothers’ residential schools and, in Artane,
it varied from £120 per Brother per annum in 1940 to £300 per Brother per annum in the 1960s.
The amount was uniform, and no account was taken of the extent to which any particular Brother
was engaged in the care of the children or the work of the Institution.
7.625 The accounts show that the stipends constituted the principal source of income for the Community.
They were paid into the ‘House’ account every year for almost every Brother. The account built
up a substantial surplus of income over expenditure, and showed a cumulative surplus (excluding
land sales) from 1940 to 1969 of approximately £56,000.
7.626 In addition to providing the Community with an income, the Industrial School also provided for the
day-to-day expenses of the Brothers. In 1966, the Visitor recorded that:
... In addition to supporting the boys the School supports the Brothers to the extent of
food, maintenance but not clothing or medical or any luxury items. In addition there is
transferred from the School Account to the House Account each year £300 per Brother
for extra services, etc ...
7.627 The Community was also able to invest substantial sums in its Building Fund.
• Artane was an important source of support and income to the Congregation.
• Lack of funds was not a reason for failure to provide for the children in Artane.
• Artane was a major contributor to the Building Fund and to the support of the
Provincial Organisation.
• The Artane Community charged a full stipend for Brothers who had little or no
involvement in the care of the boys and funded the Community’s day-to-day
expenses out of the maintenance grant for the children, which enabled the
House to run at a profit.
Physical care of the boys in Artane

7.629 The Christian Brothers maintained in its Opening Statement to the Artane module that the
documentary evidence:
clearly demonstrates that the boys were well fed and clothed and that their welfare needs
were catered for ... Where criticisms were made or shortcomings were pointed out,
remedial action was taken.
7.630 The sources of evidence relied on were the Department of Education Inspection Reports and the
Visitation Reports from the Congregation.
7.631 While Artane was directly responsible for the physical care provided, the Department of Education
had supervisory responsibility.
7.632 The Department of Education Inspector, who inspected Artane regularly from 1944 until 1962,
reported under the headings of: Food, Clothing, Accommodation, Recreational Facilities, and
Health and Education. Her General Inspection reports are a source of contemporaneous
comment. The reliability and consistency of Dr McCabe’s reports were questionable, and this is
discussed in the chapter dealing with the Department of Education.
7.633 By and large, Dr McCabe was impressed with the way Artane was run and was not overly critical
of the care provided. However, when each individual element of care is analysed, she was often
quite critical of the standard provided and, taken as a whole, her reports point to serious
deficiencies in the School.
7.634 It is useful to look at Dr McCabe’s reports in conjunction with the Visitation Reports compiled by
the Congregation’s own Visitor who inspected annually. The Visitor’s prime function was to report
on the Brothers in the Community, but they also made observations on the care of the boys and
the general standard of the Institution. These reports were more critical of the Institution than
those of the Department Inspector, and often highlighted issues that should have come to the
attention of the Department Inspector but were not mentioned by her.
Food
7.635 Dr McCabe was generally satisfied with the standard of food provided in Artane. In her first report
of April 1939, she stated, ‘the quantity, quality and variety of their diet is satisfactory’. Likewise, in
1944 she expressed herself as satisfied that the food was ample and varied.
7.636 In 1953, she identified the kitchen and refectory as being in need of modernisation and she
continued to be critical of the kitchen and refectory facilities throughout the 1950s. Her
categorisation of the food as ‘good’ or ‘v.good’ has to be qualified by the absence of adequate
facilities for its preparation.
7.637 Visitation Reports from the 1950s did not identify any particular problems with the food or the
kitchen facilities until November 1957, when the Visitor wrote:
Everything in connection with the kitchen and the preparation and serving of food calls
for complete re-organisation and re-conditioning ... Too many boys are at each table
though half of the room is vacant almost. All the food for the meal is piled on the table
before the meal begins. The boys proceed to make a most awful mess when the meal
begins. There is not the slightest attempt to eat in a civilised fashion. The Brother and
teacher in charge can do nothing with over 500 to look after. A great deal of the food is
wasted and the waste is the main support of nearly forty pigs.
I shall comment later on the condition in which many of the boys come to meals. To me
the sight was just revolting. One can just imagine the comments of visitors but every care
is taken on the conducted tours to prevent visitors from seeing the spectacle.
7.638 The shortcomings in the system were apparent to the management, as evidenced by the special
efforts made to ensure that the boys who played in the band were given particular instruction in
table manners. The 1957 Visitation Report commented:
They have special table drill in all the niceties of handling sets of knives, forks, spoons,
serviettes etc and in how to behave themselves in a decent home. I have reason to know
from friends of my own who had some of these lads staying in the house that they made
a wonderful impression and have done a tremendous amount to win admirers for Artane
and to counteract the smear campaign that would appear to be the settled policy of certain
sections of the public Press.
7.639 The Visitor went on to describe conditions which would have more than justified a campaign of
protest on the part of the press if the full picture of conditions in Artane was made known:
The boys in the full trades and on full farm work deserve special treatment and better
meals. These lads really make the running of Artane possible yet in all the apartments
devoted to the farm and the trades there is not a single toilet or wash-basin for these
boys. They come into their meals in a shocking condition, hands, faces and clothes are
covered with the grime of the trades, boots, stockings and portions of the trousers often
soaking from working in the cowhouse or the manure pit. These boys remain in this
condition all day Winter and Summer, at meals, during afternoon school and in the chapel
... No boy could retain his self-respect under the conditions that exist for many of them.
7.640 The Visitor blamed Br Gerrard’s ‘slip-shod methods’ for the poor standards in the kitchen and
refectory.
7.641 A Brother who was there at the time confirmed that the report reflected the conditions he had
seen: ‘My own impression was that things were not satisfactory in whatever visits I did make to
the refectory ... with large numbers ... it was difficult’. He pointed out, however, that things
improved when a new Brother came and facilities were improved in 1962: ‘There was a
tremendous improvement both in the standard of food, the way the food was presented, the menus
that were there’.
7.642 It is difficult to reconcile that Visitation Report of November 1957 with the one of just seven months
earlier, in which the Visitor remarked:
Br Gerrard has charge of the boys kitchen and does his work very efficiently. The food
served is good and plentiful and the boys looked healthy and strong.
7.643 It is even more difficult to reconcile this Report with the Reports of Dr Anna McCabe. She did not
mention any of the matters raised in the late 1957 Report, which would indicate that either she
did not actually see the boys in the refectory or she did not see anything remiss in the way meals
were served. Either explanation has disturbing implications.
7.644 The condition of the boys’ kitchen may be contrasted with the provision made for the kitchen that
looked after the 24 Brothers in Artane. The Visitor noted in 1960:
The food supplied to the Brothers is excellent and very well cooked. There is a cook,
assistant cook, six boys in training, and a Brother looking after the Brothers’ kitchen.
7.645 The boys’ kitchens were renovated and a new Brother put in charge in 1960, and the Visitation
Reports noted an immediate improvement, as in 1962 when the Visitor stated:
There is very little trouble on this score and the Brothers think that the improvement in
the meals has a lot to do with the easier discipline among the boys.
7.646 The Committee heard evidence from a respondent who spent four years in Artane in the mid to
late 1950s. He was in charge of supervising meals for a period, a task he carried out with the
assistance of a lay staff member. He stated that, despite the large numbers in the School, meals
were conducted in a very orderly fashion and the boys were very well behaved. He does not recall
mealtimes being particularly difficult, as documented in the Visitation Report of 1957. He stated
that meals were not conducted in silence and were quite lively events.
7.647 A respondent, who first went to Artane in the mid-1950s and spent almost 15 years there, accepted
in his evidence to the Committee that ‘while the food was adequate that, at that particular time,
the serving of the food and the way it was presented wasn’t the best’. He acknowledged that this
was not satisfactory. In addition, the large number of boys being catered for in the refectory made
things more difficult. Things changed dramatically for the better when a new Brother took charge
of the kitchen. He changed the way in which food was prepared and presented.
7.648 Fr Moore was critical of the food served and the way it was served. In his report of 1962 he stated:
The boys are reasonably well fed. There is fair variety but obvious essential requirements
such as butter and fruit are never used ... In general I feel that the boys are under-
nourished and lacking calcium and other components. At table I have observed the unruly
indelicate manners of the boys.
7.649 During his inspection in 1966, Dr Lysaght81 commented unfavourably on the lack of variety in the
diet of the boys and on the institutional nature of the refectory. The dining room was large, and
all of the boys ate together at the same time, which gave:
81
Dr Charles Lysaght was commissioned by the Department of Education to conduct general and medical inspections
of the industrial and reformatory schools in 1966 in the absence of a replacement for Dr McCabe since her retirement
the previous year. He inspected Artane on 8th September 1966.

a feeling of institutional mass feeding and just as the large numbers in each dormitory it
tends to hinder or delay development of individuality.
7.650 While the meals were ample and well cooked, the weekly menu lacked imagination and variety.
With the newly modernised kitchen, there was no excuse and, once again, Dr Lysaght placed his
faith in the nuns to turn things around.
7.651 Many of the complainants who gave evidence to the Investigation Committee from the 1940s era
complained about food. One ex-resident described the diet:
I would sum up my time in Artane as cold, brutal and hungry and the cold was because
of the hunger. There was this enduring feeling of cold and this gnawing pangs of hunger.
There was never any satisfaction, never any way to relieve the hunger. That was it,
hungry, everybody was hungry all the time.
7.652 Another complainant, committed in the early 1940s at the age of nine, recalled that his mother
often sent him food parcels, but that he only received a parcel once as they were stolen by the
other boys. He did not blame them for this, as he stated that they were always hungry, ‘We ate
the grass for God’s sake’. He stated that they had a small loaf dipped in fat for breakfast, and
vegetables with gravy for dinner. He recounted how one Brother would conceal sticks of bread in
his cassock and distribute them to the boys: ‘As soon as he appeared we went around him like a
pack of dogs looking for food’.
7.653 A witness, committed in the mid-1940s, alleged that the food was diabolical. He stated that, during
mealtimes, younger boys were sometimes moved to older boys’ tables on a temporary basis.
When this occurred, the younger boys invariably went hungry because they could not get to the
food fast enough. He also asserted that, whenever visitors came to the School, the boys got
better food.
7.654 A further complainant from this era recalled how the boys divided the loaves between them. The
first boy would cut himself a big slice, and the second boy would do the same, so that, by the
time the last boy came to take his slice, there was little left. The younger boys were often left
hungry as a result of the system of distributing food.
7.655 On the other hand, a complainant who was committed in the mid-1940s and remained in Artane
for six years asserted that he had no complaints to make about food, as ‘the food was better than
what I was getting outside’. He described living in abject poverty before being sent to Artane, and
his records indicate that he was malnourished and underweight on admission.
7.656 While complaints about food feature with decreasing frequency in the 1950s and 1960s, a
complainant who was committed to Artane for five years in the early 1950s stated that there was
never enough food, and that the boys had to resort to scavenging from the swill buckets to sate
their hunger. He singled out one Brother who would slip him extra food. He also alleged that
bullying took place during mealtimes, with the result that some boys got less food than others.
7.657 A complainant resident in Artane during the 1960s complained that the food was unpalatable. One
surmised that the reason the quality of the food was so poor was because the boys cooked it and
did not possess the requisite culinary skills. Another complainant from this era recalled that,
whenever a Visitation or inspection took place, the quality of the food markedly improved.
7.658 A respondent, who was in Artane during the 1940s, stated in evidence to the Committee that he
punished boys who took food from other boys at mealtime. He asserted that ‘the majority of the
boys always admitted that they were well fed’.
7.659 Another respondent, who worked in Artane between 1950 and 1959, gave evidence that ‘the food
was always reasonably good, except that it wasn’t very attractive’.
7.660 Mr Dunleavy made the following comment about mealtimes:

Apart from assembly and religious services, mealtimes were the only occasions when the
whole school was present together. It seems extraordinary then that only one Brother was
assigned to supervise the large refectory where up to 800 boys could be eating at once.
In the course of being interviewed Brothers who had formerly worked at Artane told of
leaving the door behind them open at all times so that they could escape if the situation
in the refectory got out of hand. Brothers spoke of the atmosphere being “like a powder
keg” and related stories of how Brothers had occasionally been assaulted by boys with
knives from the dining tables. At each table of boys a senior boy was placed in charge,
and it was his job to distribute the bread and tea to the other boys at the table. It was also
his function, should any boy be misbehaving at the table to tell him to leave the table and
stand by the wall so that he could be punished by the Brother in charge in due course.
• Food from the farm and bread from the bakery made it possible to provide for
the needs of the School and the Community at reasonable cost.
• Mealtimes were not properly supervised, and young or timid boys were bullied
and did not get enough to eat. This was a failure of management.
• Facilities for preparing food and for serving it were primitive. Meals were poorly
prepared and monotonous. A Brother categorised as ‘slip-shod’ by his own
colleagues was in sole charge of this department for up to 15 years until the
early 1960s and complainants testified that food was poor until this Brother was
replaced. This was evidence of inferior management in the fundamental task of
providing three meals a day for hundreds of boys. The facilities available in the
Brothers’ kitchen were in stark contrast to those provided for the boys.
• The problems identified by the Visitor in 1957 and confirmed by witnesses were
not picked up by the Department Inspector. The food during an inspection was
not typical of that served on a daily basis, indicating a serious flaw in the
inspection procedure.
Clothing
7.662 Dr McCabe was critical of the standard of clothing provided for the boys.
7.663 In 1944, following a number of general inspections, Dr McCabe complained that the boys’ clothes
were very patched, but was informed that there was difficulty in procuring material. She reiterated
her criticism sporadically.
7.664 In 1955, following a general inspection of the School, a Department Inspector, Mr Ó Sı́ochfhradha,
wrote to the Resident Manager outlining a number of concerns in relation to the care of the
boys. The Resident Manager responded by saying that while he agreed that the improvements
were necessary:
The only obstacle that stands in the way and hinders progress being made in [the] scheme
outlined is the lack of funds. The school is in a weak condition financially and for obvious
reasons we are unable to meet fully our ordinary commitments at present.
7.665 This conflicts with the Visitation Report for 1955, which stated that the financial position of Artane
was very satisfactory:
On the 31st December, 1954 the Surplus Income from the School Account was £4,645 ...
and from the House Account £12,113 ... On both accounts there was a Credit Balance at
the end of the year of £36,203 to carry on to the 1955 accounts. There is a sum of £30,000
invested in the Building Fund.
7.666 At this time, there was to the credit of the Institution £30,000 in the Congregation’s account.
Between 1944 and 1956, the sum of over £17,500 was paid into the fund. Around this time, Artane
paid back a long-standing debt of £8,800 to the building fund. The Community paid Visitation
Dues of £3,000 in 1955.
7.667 A Visitation Report in 1947, while describing the boys as ‘well fed and very well clothed’,
recommended that boys should be allowed to wash and change after working in the farm.
However, 10 years later, in 1957, the Visitor commented that the boys came in to meals in a filthy
condition and stayed in their dirty and often wet clothes all day.
7.668 A complainant committed in the mid-1940s described how boys who worked on the farm wore
their everyday boots whilst working. They did not have overcoats or waterproof clothing, and wore
a sack over their shoulders if it was raining.
7.669 Many of the complainants resident in Artane in the 1940s complained of the quality of the clothing.
The Brothers confirmed that the School produced its own cloth from which trousers were made.
Although this material was clearly unsuitable for use in clothing, it was not replaced until the mid-
1960s. A number of Brothers who spoke to the Investigation Committee stated that one of the
major improvements introduced in the 1960s was an improvement in the boys’ clothing. Instead
of being made by the tailoring shop, the clothes were bought in and were more comfortable and
fashionable. The report of Dr Lysaght dated June 1966 described the boys as ‘well clothed: neat
and tidy’.
7.670 The inspection of underwear also had a humiliating and embarrassing impact on the boys. A
witness who was sent to Artane in the late 1950s explained how, every Saturday evening, the
boys would line up and receive their change of clothing for the following week. They had to display
their underwear to the Brother in charge and were punished if it was soiled. Another man who
was in Artane during the late 1960s described a similar regime and said that he did not wear his
underwear for fear that it would be soiled by the end of the week.
7.671 This humiliating and unnecessary practice was referred to by a number of complainants who
described the weekly inspection of underpants. If the underwear was soiled, the boy would have
to face the wall and await punishment, which generally meant slaps on the hand with the leather.
One Brother said:
I accept that I did examine the underpants. The reason for examining the underpants was
that complaints had come from the woman and the staff in the laundry that soiled
underwear was coming down to the laundry, and with the number of boys that was in
Artane at the time she wasn’t too happy about it ... so word came up to us that we were
to check the underpants and if an underpants was badly soiled, not the ordinary run of
the mill thing like slide marks, that didn’t matter, it was a case where the underpants was
badly soiled, it is then that I would take action ... I would take the action of getting the
fellow to go to the washroom and so on and clean it, then we would throw it into the bag
with the rest of it. I will admit that – not in connection with the underpants – if [the
complainant] says I put him facing the wall I will admit that.
7.672 When asked whether the boys deserved to be slapped for something they had no control over,
he replied:
I do not think they deserved to be punished ... I accept that if I did slap them. I don’t think
I slapped them for soiling their pants. I slapped them for other reasons but not for that ...
normally I would not punish a boy for soiling his pants. I mean that could happen to
anybody. But if [the complainant] says I did it on one particular occasion, fair enough I
will accept that.
7.673 Many former residents spoke of the inspection of underpants, and recalled the punishment that
ensued if they were soiled, but not one of them recalled having to wash them before they were
thrown into the laundry bag.
7.674 Fr Henry Moore82 reported in 1962 that clothing was an aspect of the general care that was
‘grossly neglected’. He said that the boys’ clothing was ‘uncomfortable, unhygienic and of a
displeasing sameness’. The quality of the clothing was poor due to the fact that they were
manufactured at the School. Overcoats were only supplied to those boys who were in a position
to pay for them. He described as pathetic the sight of hundreds of boys on their Sunday walk in
the depths of winter without an overcoat. He was also critical of the fact that boys had to change
from their Sunday clothes after their walk into their everyday clothes which, in his view, was bad
for morale. There was no change of clothing in accordance with the seasons, and the boys wore
hob-nailed boots and heavy clothing all year round.
7.675 An additional criticism was the lack of personal ownership of clothes, that were common property
amongst the boys. Clothes were distributed randomly from a common pool, often without regard
to size. Stockings and shirts were replaced once a week, underwear only once a fortnight.
7.676 Fr Moore commented:

This fundamental disregard for personal attention inevitably generates insecurity,
instability and an amoral concern for the private property of others. This I consider to be
a causative factor in the habits of stealing frequently encountered among ex-pupils.
7.677 A respondent who was in Artane in the 1960s recalled how shirts and undergarments were
distributed randomly, and there was no sense of ownership attached to these.
7.678 Fr Moore referred in his report to the lack of overcoats for the boys. The leader of the Department
group that inspected Artane just before Christmas 1962 noted that, in early December, 412
raincoats had been ordered by the Institution for all the boys:
... as regards clothing the overcoats supplied by the school are raincoats only 412 of
which were ordered early in December. All the boys questioned (50 approx.) wore
woollen underpants.
The clothing of the boys while lacking refinement was adequate apart from the doubtful
desirability of providing cloth overcoats which will require further investigation.
7.679 Complainants who stated that the clothing provided by Artane was not adequate in cold weather,
even into the late 1960s, were probably correct.
• Clothing was poor, patched, and institutional in style, and the repeated
criticism by the Department Inspector was often to no avail.
• Underwear inspections in public were a feature of life in Artane. The
explanation that this was done to clean the underpants before they were sent
82
See Department of Education and Science Chapter, One-off Inspections.

to the laundry was not confirmed by former residents. It would not, in any
case, have afforded justification for this degrading practice.
• Changes of clothes were not available to boys who worked in wet, muddy and
dirty conditions. Until the mid-1960s, overcoats were not provided. Bad clothing
marked out the boys and reduced their self-respect and personal dignity.
Accommodation and hygiene

7.681 In 1944, Dr McCabe identified sanitation as being in need of modernisation. The poor state of the
sanitation facilities was described in a letter written by a former resident to the Department of
Justice in October 1946:
the only W.C.s 900 boys have at Artane Ind. School [are] 30 filthy buckets at the rear of
a Hand Ball Alley which the boys use and I want to know when are more modern and
hygienic lavatories going to be provided for the boys.
7.682 He also queried whether the boys were involved in emptying and cleaning ‘these buckets of
stenchious filth’.
7.683 The Resident Manager responded, confirming that a farm labourer was employed to empty and
clean the sanitary buckets as part of his duties. The labourer who usually performed this task had
become unwell, and a number of the boys who worked on the farm had carried out this chore on
a temporary basis. He assured the Department that another farm labourer had been assigned this
task and was not assisted by the boys. The Department confirmed to the letter writer that plans
for the modernisation of the sanitation system were ‘under active consideration’. The Department
categorically denied that the boys were involved in removing the buckets. The letter went on
to say:
The sanitation system at the school has been inspected time and again by Inspectors of
this Department and by Sanitary Inspectors and as far as is known no complaint has been
made about it from the point of view of the hygiene and health of the boys beyond the
statement that the system is an old one. Scrupulous attention is given to the daily
cleansing and disinfecting of the system.
7.684 A man who was a pupil in Artane in the 1940s described the state of the toilets and the occasional
duties given to some of the boys:
We had only buckets behind the handball alley ... I would say there was about 20 to 30
buckets ... it was newspaper we used instead of toilet rolls, there was no such thing ...
They had to be emptied ... There was two men, [he thought they were siblings], ... at the
time it was a horse and cart ... They were lay men ... I was one of the ones that had to
help on that occasion because I was a hefty lump of a lad ... You had to put a bit of paper,
them buckets could be over full ... You have a dirty job there ... we were just emptying
the buckets ... into this barrel. We called it a barrel. It was a horse and cart ... it had to be
done every day. Imagine there is 800 people were going through toilets ... the handball
alley was your wee wee, the back of the handball alley. You put them back. They were
lovely looking going back ... They went back with a kind of coat on them.
7.685 The buckets, he insisted, were not washed out: ‘Where would you get water?’.
7.686 The 1943 Visitation Report noted:

The Toilets for the boys are not modern in any sense. They are of the dry kind and
buckets are used and changed daily. There is no running water in the urinals; they must
be washed out every day.
7.687 In each year between 1944 and 1947, the Visitor noted that the lavatory facilities required
replacing. Work commenced on the replacement of this system in 1948.
7.688 This primitive system remained in use until 1950, when the Visitation Report for that year stated:
‘The sanitary block completed by Br Tyce meets a long-standing want’.
7.689 Apart from identifying the sanitation as being in need of modernisation, Dr McCabe expressed
herself as consistently impressed with the condition of the premises in Artane. Conversely, the
Visitor was regularly critical of aspects of the accommodation of Artane.
7.690 Facilities for the boys were poor. There was no indoor recreation hall, as identified by the Visitor
in 1945 and again in 1956: ‘The lack of a play-hall space is a crying need’. Similar comments
were made in subsequent reports, but nothing was done until 1965 when an enclosed play shelter
was erected, with recreation rooms for use during the winter. The financial position of the
Institution was good during the 1950s, but the Visitation Reports reveal a marked reluctance to
spend money on the Institution because of uncertainty as to its future as an industrial school.
7.691 This uncertainty dogged Artane from about 1954 onwards and materially affected the standard of
care but, even before that, there was a lack of urgency in seeing to the needs of the boys. Facilities
that were in everyday use by the boys were left in poor condition, for example the lavatories, the
recreation hall, the classrooms, and the kitchen and refectory.
7.692 In 1955, Dr McCabe identified areas that required attention, including the kitchen and a new
recreation hall. The Resident Manager accepted that the various improvements were necessary,
and added that new schoolrooms were also required as the School building was in a dangerous
condition and had been condemned some 40 years earlier. He stated:
The only obstacle that stands in the way and hinders progress being made in scheme
outlined is the lack of funds. The school is in a weak condition financially and for obvious
reasons we are unable to meet fully our ordinary commitments at present. As a matter of
fact I cannot see how the work being done in this school can be continued for long under
the present conditions.
7.693 He sought confirmation from the Department as to the nature of any financial aid that would be
available from the Department to effect the improvements.
7.694 Matters came to a head when, on 24th November 1957, the Provincial of the Christian Brothers
wrote to the Department of Education following a visit to Artane. He stated that urgent repairs and
renovations were necessary, particularly to the kitchen and roofs. Before entering into a
consideration as to whether the Congregation would incur any liability to effect such
improvements, he requested information regarding the Department’s position in relation to the
future of industrial and reformatory schools. He noted that the number of boys in Artane had
steadily decreased and that ‘it is proving more than uneconomical to try to run it’ with smaller
numbers.
7.695 This letter caused anxiety in the Department, which is reflected in an internal memorandum dated
25th November 1957. The realisation sank in that, without Artane, the nearest location to Dublin
of a senior boys’ industrial school was in Clonmel:
If Artane school were to close down the question of the provision of alternative
accommodation for the area now served by it would have to be considered as an urgent
problem. It is doubtful if any Religious Order would be very willing to undertake the
provision of new Senior boys Industrial Schools in the Dublin area without a substantial
grant in aid from the State towards the cost of the new building and an assurance that
the State and local authorities would give a substantial increase on the existing rate of
capitation maintenance grants.
7.696 The capitation grant was increased by 50% as a result of the intervention by the Provincial.
However, improvements remained outstanding and the Resident Manager pointed out that,
despite the increase in the capitation grant, overheads remained high and were always
increasing.
7.697 By 1961, the kitchen was complete and new classrooms were due for completion that autumn;
the recreation hall was not completed until 1965.
7.698 Dr Lysaght was not impressed by the standards of cleanliness in the bathrooms and dormitories.
He stated that, despite the School having being certified for 830 boys, realistically nowhere near
this number of boys could be accommodated in the dormitories or dining room. In fact, of course,
that number and, indeed, more than that number had been accommodated in Artane throughout
the 1940s and well into the 1950s.
7.699 Even with the falling numbers, Dr Lysaght was of the view that the dormitories were far too large,
with 90 to 100 beds in each dormitory. Such a large number ‘gives an impression of institutional
care and regimentation which is of course objectionable and not in accordance with modern
trends’.
• The 800 boys in Artane had no toilet facilities other than dry buckets until about
1950. The Department of Education and the Congregation should not have
allowed such primitive conditions to continue for so long.
• Some facets of the accommodation were poor and overlooked. Even when no
uncertainty about the future of Artane existed and numbers were at their highest,
provision of proper facilities for the boys was not considered a priority.
Education
7.701 Primary school education was a right of every child in the State during the period covered by this
investigation. Failure to attend school was the reason given for committing 1,045 of the 3,685
boys detained between 1940 and 1969.
7.702 It is clear from the section dealing with accommodation in Artane that the classrooms provided
were poor, even by the standards of the time. Successive Visitation Reports decried the
dilapidated and unsuitable condition of these buildings that had been condemned in the 1930s.
As early as 1934, the Visitor commented:
The Buildings are in good repair on the whole, but the class-rooms are said to be unsafe;
they will hold until the findings of the Commission now in session will determine the school
accommodation required.
7.703 By 1937, the Superior expressed the view to the Visitor that the classrooms were adequate and
would survive another 10 years.
7.704 It was not until 1963 that new classrooms were provided, five years before Artane ceased
operating as an industrial school and opened as a secondary school for boys. Not only were the
buildings themselves in poor condition, but they were cheerless and depressing, according to both
ex-pupils and ex-staff members.
7.705 The standard of the School premises came in for criticism in 1956 when the Visitor noted that
they were drab, crowded and the furniture old fashioned. However, given the uncertain future of
industrial schools, he recommended that any plans to refurbish be postponed. Plans for the
construction of new classrooms were approved by the Department of Education in 1959, and they
were completed in 1963.
7.706 The Visitation Reports are complimentary of the standard of primary school education in Artane
throughout the years, and frequently note that it is on a par with, if not better than, the standard
in ordinary day schools. The Visitors were not alone in their praise. It is noted again and again in
the Visitation Reports that the Department of Education School Inspector marked the standard of
teaching as either efficient or highly efficient.
7.707 Br Wiatt held the position of Principal from the mid-1930s to the mid-1950s. He was praised in
many Visitation Reports for the well-organised manner in which he ran the School.
7.708 The Visitation Report in November 1938 noted that the School was well organised and the classes
of reasonable size. The Visitor remarked that the numbers of boys in classes was in fact lower
than in ordinary schools. There was a wide divergence in ages amongst children, particularly in
the lowest class, because many children who were admitted to Artane had little or no education
before being sent there. In the 1930s and 1940s, when numbers in the School rose to over 800,
there were up to 24 teachers engaged in teaching classes, from infants through to 6th standard.
The teaching staff was mostly made up of Brothers. By the mid-1950s, the number had reduced
to 16 classes with 14 teachers, due to falling numbers.
7.709 By 1957, there were 526 boys in the Institution, a drop of over 200 in two years. The Visitation
Report that year noted that the School was overstaffed, with 12 teachers, and class sizes were
well below average. Numbers continued to drop steadily in the Institution into the 1960s and, by
1968, there were 280 boys in the School.
7.710 The school day was unconventional. Most of the boys attended school in the morning, from 9.30
a.m. to 11.40 a.m. and returned in the evening, from 5.00 p.m. to 7.15 p.m., a feature that the
Cussen Commission criticised. The afternoons were spent in trades, at band practice or at
knitting school.
7.711 There was also ‘midday school’, which ran until 2.00 p.m. and catered for children of all ages who
were classed ‘backward and neglected’. Children who were not otherwise engaged in trades, the
farm or the band attended this class. The value of this class was questioned by the Visitor in
1958. It did not follow any particular curriculum and was not subject to Departmental Inspections.
7.712 Boys over 14 who attended trades-training all day were required to attend ‘continuation school’,
which ran from 5.00 p.m. to 7.15 p.m. They were taught by the same teachers who took the
midday class, and these classes were not subject to inspection by the Department of Education.
7.713 Although the continuation school offered an opportunity for extra education to boys who might not
otherwise achieve 6th class standard, nevertheless there was little room in the above timetable for
recreation. The boys who attended the continuation school in the evening did so after a long day
working in a trade or on the farm. They were exhausted by the time they got to school, and did
not even have time to change out of their work clothes before class.83 This daily routine remained
until the School closed in 1968, although it was debated in 1959 whether normal school hours
should be introduced.
83
The fact that they were tired is noted in many Visitation Reports.

7.714 The same year, a secondary top school was formed in the School, although the Visitor opined in
his Visitation Report of 1965 that a technical top might have been more appropriate. The School
had opted for the secondary top, as there were no metal or woodwork teachers available.
7.715 Two classes were formed from amongst those who had passed their Primary Certificate, and the
first tranche of boys from Artane prepared to sit their Intermediate Certificate in 1966. However,
it was also the last time a boy from Artane Industrial School would sit this examination. The
Visitation Report of December 1966 noted that the class had been discontinued because of
Department regulations. Only eight boys had passed the examination that year. Instead, a class
for boys who wished to join the catering industry was set up under the supervision of the CERT84
organisation. It was hoped that the more promising boys could continue their education in the
local secondary schools, although the Committee has seen no evidence that this ever occurred.
7.716 In 1964, a special remedial class was formed for boys of sub-normal ability. The class was a
success, and the Principal hoped to form another class so that the age range of boys would not
be so disparate.
7.717 By 1966, the number of boys of sub-normal ability had increased to the point where it was
becoming an acute problem. The Christian Brothers were critical of the Department’s policy of
directing these boys to Artane when the Institution did not have the specialised facilities to deal
with these children.
7.718 The School followed the National School programme, and the boys were eligible to sit the Primary
Certificate examination. Many of the Visitation Reports point to the high success rate of the boys
who sat this examination, but these figures need to be examined against the total number of boys
in 6th standard. In some years, up to 50% of the boys in 6th standard in the primary school were
not presented for this examination, which made the very high pass rate for those who did sit for
it less significant.
7.719 The standard of education for the boys engaged in trades during the day was criticised by a
number of Visitors. The first hint of disapproval appeared in the Visitation Report of 1947, in which
the Visitor noted that the few hours devoted to school work in the evening lacked drive and
efficiency. In 1952, the Visitor queried in his report the wisdom of taking the boys out of primary
school at the age of 14, regardless of whether they had reached the 6th standard.
7.720 In 1952, the Visitor noted that more could be done for this category of boys. He stated:
... our institutions owe a great deal to those boys who work full time at their trades. Their
work is of great financial advantage to each establishment. One obvious difficulty is that
those teaching the trades are tradesmen and not teachers. If they have the power to
control and teach it is only by accident and not as a result of their previous training.
7.721 He noted with satisfaction the introduction of mechanical drawing during evening classes, and
wondered whether it would be possible to employ vocational teachers to develop this aspect of
education further.
7.722 In 1954, 40 of the boys who had passed the Primary Certificate were nominated to sit the
Technical School examinations. Two teachers from Marino Technical School taught woodwork
and mechanical drawing. They were paid by the Vocational Committee. 16 boys sat the exam in
June 1954, and 12 passed. In 1956, all but one of the 16 boys who presented for the examination
were successful, and all had higher marks than the average. However, this scheme was
discontinued.
84
Council for Education, Recruitment and Training.

• The pass rate for the Primary Certificate was high by national standards, but
not all boys of 6th class standard sat the examination.
• Boys who attended continuation school did so after working at a trade during
the day. Many boys had not attained 6th standard before they reached 14 and
were taught by teachers in classes that were not subject to Department
Inspections. The standard of their education was the subject of contemporary
criticism in Visitation Reports.
• Boys who completed the Primary Certificate went over the same course until
they reached 14 and went into trades training, and did not get the opportunity
to progress into secondary education.
• The Christian Brothers have been critical of the Department of Education’s failure
to provide for the educationally backward children in Artane, but they must also
accept blame for their failure to provide secondary education to intelligent and
able boys who passed through Artane. The Congregation ran secondary schools
close to Artane, and yet no provision was made for any Artane boys to attend
these schools.
Training/trades
7.724 Training was an essential part of the philosophy of the Industrial School. If the boy was to become
a useful citizen, he should be trained for productive employment. The author of the 1952 Visitation
Report discussed some of the issues:
Artane has a more elaborate organisation of trades than our other Industrial Schools.
These trades serve, or are supposed to serve, a dual purpose – training the boys for
outside life and balancing the Artane budget. Br Oscar85 has charge of the shops, and
each shop has one or more trained lay tradesman. In practice, some of the trades serve
only one purpose. For example, the wages of the two shoemakers amount to £800 per
annum. It is believed that this sum plus the money expended on leather would supply the
boys with factory-made boots for one year. On the other hand, the tinsmiths supply the
establishment with such things as kitchen-ware and refectory-ware at a cost well below
factory prices, but no boy has been placed as a tinsmith in any outside factory in the past
six years.
7.725 The Visitor noted that:

the position is satisfactory with regard to placing tailors, shoemakers, waiters band boys
and farmers, unsatisfactory in the case of bakers, weavers, carpenters, mechanics and
painters, and hopeless in the case of tinsmiths. These latter have to be fitted in anywhere
a vacancy can be found irrespective of its nature.
7.726 He then asked the very pertinent question:

Would a boy who has served as a tinsmith for two years and who has to go into a post
of a very different type for which he has received no training have a grievance? Would
he feel that he had been exploited for two years? Are the Brothers justified for economic
reasons in putting a boy at such work when they know that he is almost certain not to
continue in it later? The nurse told me that one of her patients was a tinsmith against his
will. He wanted to be a carpenter. I should have mentioned earlier that as far as is
convenient the boys get their choice of trade.
85

7.727 The Visitor’s question deserves to be answered. Were the Brothers using the boys as child labour,
or were they genuinely training the boys for trades that would give them a chance of finding
employment? This was an issue identified by the Cussen Report as being problematic as far back
as 1936.
7.728 The evidence is mixed. The majority of boys did not get jobs for which they had received training.
Farming was the main activity to which boys were assigned in Artane, despite the majority coming
from the city, and not surprisingly they tended to return to urban living. Boys who were taken on
by farmers were let go once they were old enough to be paid full wages. As the Visitor had
predicted, in later years they felt resentment that they had been used as child labour.
7.729 Some boys did enter trades for which they had been trained, and they spoke well of Artane. A
complainant sent to Artane in the mid-1940s, who was trained as a decorator, was extremely
complimentary of the quality of training that he received. Another complainant from this era, who
was trained as a tailor, praised his lay instructor for the high standard of instruction. A witness
who was committed to Artane in the early 1950s, and remained there for five years, was placed
in the band where he played the drums in his last two years. He had very happy memories of his
time with the band and was very complimentary of the Brother in charge.
7.730 A respondent who spent five years in Artane from the late 1950s gave evidence that the Superior
and another Brother interviewed boys to see what areas they were interested in and, if they could
facilitate their choices, they generally did so.
7.731 The Investigation Committee, however, heard many complaints that boys could not enter the trade
they wanted. The low demand for farm training and the high level of farm work that needed to be
done meant that many boys found themselves in farming, despite expressing preferences for
other trades. Most of the boys worked on the farm, and there was no doubt that the main purpose
of this work was to provide food and an income for the Institution.
7.732 Some boys were put into trades that had become obsolete, such as weaving and tailoring. One
complainant explained: ‘Mass production was coming in and it was nearly all machinists ... Where
once a tailor cut one suit, now they could cut 100 suits’.
7.733 Even when the trade was a needed one, there were problems. Br David Gibson explained at the
public hearing on 16th June 2005 into Letterfrack:
[The children] weren’t going through the normal apprenticeship and therefore when it
came to them continuing their training, the training that they had already received was not
accepted by the unions ... There was an inherent difficulty in the training that the young
people were getting.
7.734 This issue was raised in the Cussen Report, but nothing was ever done to resolve it. The status
quo was just accepted by both the Department and the Congregation and, as a result, boys trained
in Artane continued to face real problems finding employment to suit their skills.
• The Christian Brothers assumed a responsibility to provide training and they
failed to do so for many of their pupils.
• Industrial training was a key objective of the system and the largest industrial
school in the country should have provided it to a high standard but training
was, to a large extent, only a by-product of work that met the needs of the
Institution.
• In an era of high unemployment, it would have been impossible to place all the
boys in jobs, and it would be unreasonable to criticise the Christian Brothers
for failing in this regard. In many respects, they achieved a high level of
employment for their school leavers. However, much of this employment was
menial and exploitative and, for some, led to a lifetime of such work.
The Artane Boys Band

7.736 Fr Henry Moore stated in his report to Archbishop McQuaid in 1962 that ‘in my opinion the band
is the only worthwhile achievement of the school’.
7.737 The band performed regularly in Croke Park at major GAA fixtures. They also toured the length
and breadth of the country and broadcast shows on radio. The high point of their fame saw them
perform at venues in New York and Boston, in May 1962, and included a television performance.
7.738 According to the Congregation, by the 1960s, approximately 80 boys were involved in the band
at some level. This was a much higher number than in previous decades, when the participation
was as low as 40 boys.
7.739 According to Fr Moore:

The time used, the money spent, the number of engagements annually met are, I fear,
out of all proportion to the results obtained. The maintenance of the band, although
approximating £2,000 annually, is a continual strain on financial resources.
7.740 A Visitation Report in 1957 painted a different picture and stated that the band was on a ‘sure
financial footing and more than paying its way’. Visitation Reports also reveal that, in 1938, the
School received £215 in payments for band performances. It was operating at a loss in the early
1940s. By 1957, the band was earning the School just under £900 per annum.
7.741 Fr Moore also expressed concern at the effect that participation in the band had on the boys’
education. In 1946, the Resident Manager had obtained sanction from the Department of
Education to credit the time the boys spent attending broadcasts and performances as part of
their school attendance. Fr Moore believed that the boys’ education suffered as a result of
prolonged hours of band practice and days missed from school attending performances. He found
little evidence to suggest that even a small number of boys continued their musical career upon
leaving school.
7.742 Br Vailant told the Investigation Committee that life in Artane tended to revolve around the band
and that the needs of the band took priority.
7.743 The boys who toured with the band stayed with families in the locality. They were taught table
etiquette and instructed on ‘how to behave themselves in a decent home’. Their behaviour on tour
did a ‘tremendous amount to win admirers for Artane and to counteract the smear campaign that
would appear to be the settled policy of certain sections of the public Press,’ according to the
Visitor in 1957.
7.744 Some of the boys who formed part of the band went on to make a career in the Army band.
Almost all of the complainants who were in it and gave evidence to the Investigation Committee
gave positive feedback regarding their experience with the band. One complainant stated that he
was treated very well in the band, and that the majority of boys in the band had been transferred
to Artane from convent industrial schools.
7.745 • Participation in the band could be a positive experience for the boys involved,
and it was an extraordinary achievement and an illustration of what could be
achieved with proper direction and training. Boys who were part of the band
fared better in Artane and afterwards.
• Boys who were not in the band missed an important part of the life of the
Institution. The band absorbed a huge amount of time and energy, and similar
efforts should have been directed at improving conditions for all the boys.
• The band was the public face of Artane, and members of the public would have
been reassured when seeing the boys performing that they were receiving
good care and education, but in fact the band did not represent the reality for
most boys in Artane.
Recreation
7.746 One of the more disturbing images of Artane that was presented to the Committee was the plight
of the boys during recreation periods. Weather in Dublin is often cold, wet and windy and, until
1965, there was no proper indoor recreation facility where they could play. A barn-like structure
had been erected in the mid-1940s, that had no walls and a tin roof, and which barely fitted the
hundreds of boys. Dr McCabe formed part of a tripartite inspection team that carried out a two-
day inspection of Artane in December 1962. On the issue of recreation, the inspection team stated:
He [the Resident Manager] deplored the money spent by a predecessor on the erection
of a huge play-shelter of hay-shed design which gave cover overhead but absolutely no
protection from wind or cold. This indeed was a hopeless attempt at planning and a waste
of money ... The recreation hall is a long cement-floored room, uncared for, dismal,
depressing and dirty and with no redeeming feature whatsoever. The school classrooms
are of the same ramshackle type ... demolition is probably the only solution.
7.747 Visitation Reports had identified the lack of proper recreational facilities from the early 1940s, but
no improvements were effected until the mid-1960s. This directly impacted on the daily lives of
the boys in Artane and should not have taken over 20 years to address.
7.748 Games and sports were part of the day in Artane. Teams were fielded in GAA events throughout
Leinster. These teams reached a high standard of proficiency, and boys with a talent for sport
had a more positive experience in Artane than boys who had not. In general, the Committee did
not hear much evidence from these boys, although some did attend hearings and were able to
distinguish the experiences with teams from other experiences in Artane.
7.749 The Brothers put a considerable effort into training teams for matches with other schools and
playing outdoor games. However, the lack of indoor recreational facilities represented a severe
deprivation.
Aftercare
7.750 In 1947, the Department of Education wrote to the Resident Manager seeking information on the
aftercare provided, following a query by the Joint Committee of Women’s Societies and Social
Workers. The Resident Manager responded, confirming that a Brother was assigned on a full-
time basis to deal with aftercare. Another Brother helped out in cases where boys had ‘slipped
and fallen’. The Resident Manager stated that he himself settled difficult cases, which had meant
‘travelling as far as Leitrim, Westmeath, Wicklow etc’.
7.751 Contact was maintained with the boys by way of letters and visits. When boys were sent to the
country, the Parish Priest of the town was informed and asked to ‘take a paternal interest in the
boys ... Kind and encouraging replies to these requests are invariably received’. He also confirmed
that the Society of St Vincent de Paul in Dublin were being encouraged to include past pupils as
beneficiaries of their work. It was hoped that eventually this would become a nationwide initiative:
Boys who have lost employment are helped to find new employment when practicable.
On a number of occasions when it was considered necessary and advisable boys have
been recalled and retained for a further period in the School.
7.752 Although Dr Lysaght was informed that the Manager placed the boys in suitable jobs upon
discharge, ensured that they were properly treated, and if they left a job, found them another, he
still expressed concern. He commented:
this while outside the province of the School and Dept. of Education would seem an
essential part of the support of young boys to make their way in the world. It can well be
the case that all the time and care given them in the schools can be of no avail unless
they are safeguarded during the first year or two after leaving.
7.753 He was told a Brother was assigned to visit the boys and keep in contact with them. Many of
those who trained in the band found work in the Army bands; others were placed to work in hotels
or in houses of religious orders. In fact, the vast majority of the boys did not go into such
employment, but were sent as farm hands all over the country.
7.754 A common theme amongst the complainants committed to Artane is that Brothers were never in
direct contact with them once they left Artane. When records were put to them that the Brothers
did make enquiries with their employers to check their progress, they accepted this was true, but
as far as they were concerned once they walked through the gates of Artane for the last time,
they were very much on their own in the world.
7.755 Another common thread running through the testimony was that the boys were placed in low-
income or, indeed, no-income jobs that offered no stability: they tended to move from job to job.
Some complainants did fare well in later life, but they felt that this was despite, rather than because
of, their experience in Artane, or indeed any assistance they received from the Brothers on
leaving Artane.
7.756 One witness, who left Artane in the mid-1940s, went to work on a farm in County Laois. He worked
seven days a week and slept in a hayloft above the horses. He earned up to 10 shillings a week.
He moved from this job to another farm in the area where he was treated better, and from there
he moved to another farm before moving back to Dublin. He was not aware that the Brothers
were checking up on his progress, as revealed in the records.
7.757 Another witness, who left Artane in the early 1950s, was also sent to a farm in Athlone. He was
not paid the 12 shillings a week promised to him and had to beg for money to go to the cinema.
He eventually went back to Artane where he was told that he was a failure. He stayed there for a
while, working on the farm for which he received no payment. He went from there to work for a
butcher in Roscommon, where he was treated well. He was told not to tell anyone that he had
come from Artane, but instead to say that he had worked with a wealthy family in Wicklow. When
news leaked as to his true origin, he felt compelled to leave. His employment history after that
involved a succession of low-paid, menial jobs.
7.758 One witness, who left Artane in the late 1950s, remarked that when he was discharged, ‘I wasn’t
able for the outside world’. A complainant who left Artane 11 years later expressed the same
sentiment, ‘Based on up to the time I left, I don’t think that I was prepared for the outside world,
to be honest with you’. Another witness said very simply, ‘I lost a little bit of faith because after I
came out I realised about life, that life wasn’t as simple as it was in Artane’.
7.759 A witness who was sent to Artane in the late 1950s stated that he spent three years training as a
wood machinist, which he thoroughly enjoyed. When the time came for him to leave Artane, he
was told that a job had been secured for him on a farm in Tipperary. When he queried why he
was being sent to a farm rather than to a position suited to his training, he was told that that was
all he was fit for. He refused to go to the farm and found himself a job.
7.760 Another witness, who left Artane in the late 1950s, was placed with a butcher in Co Leitrim after
being trained as a weaver: ‘Even today I can’t understand they trained me as a weaver and they
gave me a job as a butcher’. He received no monetary payment, and instead was given clothing
from a market every month. He continued, ‘I asked to go back, I was there for about a year and I
asked if I could go back to Artane, of all places to go back to, but it was the only place I knew’.
He stated that he never received any direct communications from the Brothers whilst in Leitrim,
and was surprised to learn that they had been in contact with his employer. The Brothers found
him another job as a chef in Dublin.
7.761 A witness, who was discharged from Artane at the age of 16 in the mid-1960s, was sent to work
on a poultry farm, having received training in this area. He stayed there for two years and was
very badly treated: ‘I was given less than 2 a week, I was hardly being fed, and kicked like a
football’. However, he said, it was better than life in Artane.
7.762 Another witness said:

We were not trained in how to live amongst society, we were brought up in a society
where we all had to fight to keep our corner and stand up to bigger boys who bullied you
or tried to get you to do things that you didn’t want to do, take your food off the table or
whatever. So it was a constant battle to stand up and be counted or be put down, one or
the other. Unfortunately that’s the way my life went in the early part of my years from
Artane. It was always the same, I always thought people were talking about me, people
were ganging up on me and I would lose my head. I would just lash out and hit people.
7.763 A respondent, who worked in Artane in the 1950s, gave evidence that echoed the evidence of the
complainants. On the one hand, he believed the boys were looked after in terms of education,
training and food, but he questioned how well prepared they were for life after leaving Artane.
7.764 Mr Dunleavy commented on aftercare:

The provision of after care was one of the statutory requirements of the industrial school
system, and the School was supposed to have some regard to the welfare of its former
pupils until they attained 18 years of age. In practice both archival records and interviews
with Christian Brothers who worked at Artane indicate that aftercare, such as it was, was
a very hit-or-miss affair. The Brother in charge of aftercare was responsible for trying to
secure full or licensed employment for the boys and then monitoring their progress, usually
for two years. In practice employers made representations to the Brother responsible for
aftercare and if they were considered suitable, boys were assigned to work for them. Boys
were often left unmonitored in their new positions and the only information the school had
in relation to them was that provided by the boys themselves should they choose to write
to the School during the early course of their employment. The low priority with which
aftercare was regarded is indicated by the fact that of the two Brothers who were in charge
for many years, Br. Colbert was quite an elderly man while Br. Leon was known to be an
extreme eccentric, and neither man was even provided with the services of a motor car
to attempt to visit the boys who were to be found in employment throughout the country.

• The objective of aftercare was to ensure the welfare of the boys following their
discharge from Artane. It was often conducted, however, without direct contact
with them. It would appear that post-discharge inquiries were conducted
mainly with employers, to establish their satisfaction with the boy.
• Insofar as aftercare did occur, and subject to the limitations set out above, it
was more extensive than the ex-residents were aware of. Many were surprised
when they saw documentation showing the level of contact maintained
between the School and their employer.
• Direct communication with boys who had left Artane would have had a positive
impact. Failure to provide more of it represented a missed opportunity to
extend support and encouragement to boys after discharge.
Health
7.766 Dr Anna McCabe carried out General and Medical Inspections of Artane between 1939 and 1963.
Before she resigned from her position in 1965, she prepared a report on the industrial and
reformatory schools system in Ireland dated 29th February 1964, in which she made specific
reference to Artane. Although critical of specific aspects of care in Artane, Dr McCabe was
complimentary of the overall management of the Institution. She regarded the School as very well
run, and described the boys as healthy and well looked after. She was satisfied with the medical
care available to the School, which she noted involved weekly visits from a GP and regular
attendances by a dentist.
7.767 Scabies and chilblains were identified as problems in the 1940s and, in 1944, with 100 cases of
scabies identified by Dr McCabe, she expressed her dissatisfaction with the medical record-
keeping in the School, as very few records were kept at all.
7.768 In 1946, Br Tyce wrote to Dr McCabe on behalf of the Disciplinarian, requesting permission for
the height and weight of the boys to be measured every six months rather than every three months
as ‘it is very troublesome here on account of the very large number of boys; and it affects the
different departments of the Institution’. He received a terse response from Dr McCabe dismissing
the proposal. By 1948, Dr McCabe noted with satisfaction that the medical records were well kept.
7.769 After another criticism of record-keeping in the mid-1950s, her Report of 1958 recorded that she
was satisfied in this regard. She also noted that the children were examined by medical personnel
from Dublin Corporation, which ensured that they could avail of free ophthalmologist and dental
care funded by the local authority. However, while the local authority carried out medical
examinations on all of the boys, it was only prepared to pay for spectacles and dental treatment
required by boys from Dublin. In her 1956 Report she suggested that the dentist be requested to
fill teeth rather than extract them.
7.770 In the early 1960s, a high proportion of children were treated in the School infirmary compared to
the numbers sent to hospital. Also of interest during this period was a significant number of boys
classed as noticeably below average physique.
7.771 Mr Dunleavy’s report observed that the infirmary was run ‘in a somewhat haphazard manner’:
When qualified staff left the infirmary they were not replaced and indeed a Christian
Brother who was suffering from mental illness at the time was placed in charge of the
infirmary.
7.772 He referred to the situation that arose in 1959, and which is recorded in the annals, when the
nurse handed in her notice and it ‘was decided not to replace her but instead to hand over the
running of the infirmary to a member of the Community’. Mr Dunleavy also cited the Visitation
Report for late 1959, which states:
The arrival of Br Danton,86 who is a mental case, created the problem of trying to get him
something to do ... He was tried in charge of the infirmary but had little or no control over
the children and would even send them to the medicine chest to get their own medicines.
7.773 His interviews with Christian Brothers confirmed that the infirmary was run in an amateur fashion.
7.774 At the public Phase I hearing, Br Reynolds commented on Br Danton’s appointment to the
infirmary. He rejected the Visitor’s description of the Brother’s mental condition, and he did not
appear to regard it as a major example of incompetence or failure of care. He said:
I would say a number of things about it. First of all, obviously I know who the Brother was,
I knew the Brother and I would not agree with the description of the Visitor, but so be it.
Secondly, I would say that he wasn't a teaching Brother and I don't think the criticism was
in relation to the mental soundness of the person. I think the main criticism was here was
somebody that was sent in and he does not seem to be able to fulfil any role, so essentially
I think the Visitation Report said that he was a negative quantity in the place. I would take
that certainly I presume not in the community and from religious observance, but from the
point of view that his work rate wasn't very good and his contribution wasn't adequate in
the eyes of the Visitor. As you wisely say, why not take him out. The simple fact of the
matter was he was left there, they tried him in a number of situations, they didn't work
and eventually he was moved on. During part of that time incidentally, the Brother in
question was studying in university, he wasn't a full-time member of the staff.
7.775 Dr Lysaght had visited the School in Spring 1966 and was critical of the medical record-keeping.
He revisited in September and noted that record-keeping had improved. He noted that the boys’
weight and height were recorded every quarter, by their teachers in class, to cause minimum
disruption. He said that, ‘In general the boys impressed me as healthy, well nourished and
physically fit’. He carried out a spot check on a sample of boys and found a large number had
tooth decay. Dr Lysaght recommended that a dentist by assigned to the School but, again, the
issue of who would pay for the service was raised.
7.776 Many witnesses complained about the medical care they were given. One complainant, who was
in Artane in the 1940s, stated that the doctor visited approximately every six months. All of the
boys stood out on parade, and the doctor, accompanied by a Brother, walked up and down
between the rows of boys. That was the extent of the examination. Other complainants have
confirmed this practice.
7.777 A complainant who was committed to Artane for six years in 1945 recalled being told to go to the
infirmary a number of times for various ailments. He never went, and nobody ever checked
whether he had in fact attended. He gave his reason for not attending: ‘All screaming in there.
The things I have heard about that place. I can’t remember it now. I was never actually in it’.
7.778 A complainant committed to Artane in the early 1940s recalled many of the boys had scabs on
their faces. His mother took him out for the day and, on seeing the state of his face, she bought
him some salving cream. This complainant, who was 10 when he was sent to Artane, stated that
he was never examined by a doctor or nurse during his four years there.
86

7.779 Another former pupil, who spent seven years in Artane during the 1940s, stated that he had never
received a routine check-up in Artane. The same complainant stated that he grew more than a
foot in height in the 12 months after being discharged from Artane, because he received proper
medical attention for the first time.
7.780 One witness, who spent seven years in Artane from 1946, described the treatment he received
for a serious injury he sustained to all of the fingers on one hand, as a result of an accident during
training in the carpentry workshop. He stated that sulphur was poured over his wounds and he
used to pass out with the pain. He was kept in the infirmary for quite some time, but did not see
a doctor. He stated that, in his seven years in Artane, he only saw the doctor once when there
was an outbreak of diarrhoea in the School.
7.781 In an interview given in the late 1980s, Br Burcet described how hard he had to work there. He
said that, on one occasion, 100 boys contracted influenza, and he was on his own in the dormitory
looking after them. He described the utter exhaustion he felt at the end of the outbreak. Looked
at from the perspective of the boys, one Brother in charge of 100 seriously ill boys was not an
adequate standard of care. Whilst the tireless and selfless endeavours of the Brother in question
are to be commended, the system that placed both him and the boys in such a situation must
be condemned.
General observations on Departmental Inspections

7.782 The Congregation stated that the overall judgement of Dr McCabe on Artane was positive. In some
respects, this is correct, but an analysis of Dr McCabe’s reports reveals that she was impressed at
the scale of the enterprise of Artane and the way a small number of Brothers managed the vast
number of boys, rather than with the standard of care the boys received. Much of her comment
was aspirational rather than factual. Rather than record conditions as they were, she tended to
rely on promises that there would be improvements in the future. Successive Resident Managers
did not inform the Department of Education as to the true financial position of the Institution, with
the result that conditions were tolerated by the Inspector, in the belief that the Institution was
barely surviving on the funding it received when she should have insisted on immediate changes.
Conclusions on neglect
7.783 1. 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.
Fr Henry Moore
7.784 Fr Henry Moore spent nine years in St Vincent’s Orphanage, Glasnevin, an institution run by the
Christian Brothers, before he entered the priesthood. His first appointment, to the parish of
Coolock, included the position of chaplain in Artane, which he held from 1960 until 1967. He
prepared a confidential report on the School in July 1962 at the request of the Archbishop of
Dublin, Dr McQuaid. His report was severely critical of the organisation and management of the
Institution. Contrasting conclusions on the Institution were expressed in three reports written by
Department of Education personnel, after they carried out an unannounced inspection of the
School in December that year. The most senior official concluded that the School emerged very
creditably from the inspection. The two approaches were analysed in depth at meetings of an
Inter-Departmental Committee on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders in early
1963. Fr Moore gave evidence to the Investigation Committee, during which he reiterated and
elaborated on the contents of his report. The Christian Brothers rely on the three reports from the
Department of Education officials to defend the Institution against Fr Moore’s criticisms.
7.785 Fr Moore’s report to the Archbishop said that, with 450 boys in the School, the only way it could
be successfully managed was by breaking the number down into small units. He was critical of the
way the boys were indiscriminately admitted to the School without regard to their circumstances,
background or special needs. He was particularly uncomplimentary about the general atmosphere
in the School and the consequences for the boys:
The very structure of the school is in dilapidated condition, colourless and uninspiring and
reflects the interior spirit ... The atmosphere is somewhat unreal, particularly in regard to
lack of contact with the opposite sex and this unnatural situation in a group of 450 boys
plus a staff of 40 men invariably leads to a degree of sexual maladjustment in the boys
... The boys seem to be denied the opportunity of developing friendly and spontaneous
characters; their impulses become suffocated and when they are suddenly liberated their
reactions are often violent and irresponsible.
7.786 Fr Moore criticised the rigid and severe discipline in Artane, where every activity was marshalled
and which he thought often approached pure regimentation:
Constant recourse to physical punishment breeds undue fear and anxiety. The personality
of the boy is inevitably repressed, maladjusted, and in some cases, abnormal. Their liberty
is so restricted that all initiative and self esteem suffers.
7.787 In addition to its general condemnation of the regime, the report made detailed criticisms of the
care provided in Artane under the headings of diet, apparel, medical attention, religious
observance, education, technical instruction, and aftercare.
7.788 In comments on the boys’ clothes, for example, Fr Moore thought that this aspect of care was
‘grossly neglected’ and had adverse consequences:
A boy’s personal clothing is as much the property of his neighbour. Shirts, underwear
(vests are not worn), stockings, footwear, nightshirts (no pyjamas) are all common
property and are handed down from generations. When these articles are duly laundered
they are distributed at random, sometimes without regard to size.
7.789 Stockings and shirts were replaced once a week, underwear once a fortnight. There was no
change of clothing in summer, and the boys wore hob-nailed boots and heavy clothes all year
round. In contrast, he was impressed when he visited the Industrial School in Salthill, also run by
the Christian Brothers, and saw that the boys there ‘were attired appropriately and inexpensively
for the summer season.’
7.790 Overall, Fr Moore suggested ‘a reappraisal of the system at governmental level ... and a major
reform in the management of Artane’. He strongly recommended the introduction of female staff
to the School and the renaming of the School to that of a patron saint, in order to remove the
public misconception that Artane was in some way associated with the prison system.
7.791 In summary, the report concluded that Artane required drastic revision as ‘the methods employed
are obsolete, proper training is neglected and there is no attempt at adequate rehabilitation’.
7.792 Fr Moore learned about an Inter-Departmental Committee that was considering submissions in
relation to Industrial and Reformatory Schools and he contacted the Chairman, Mr Peter Berry,
who was the Secretary of the Department of Justice. A meeting took place on 26th November
1962 attended by Fr Moore, Mr Berry and the Secretary to the Committee, Mr Toal. Fr Moore’s
criticisms, as summarised in the minutes, included the following: the absence of aftercare; a big
percentage of boys needed psychiatric treatment which was not available; a psychologist was
also required; many of the boys were institutionalised from babyhood until 16 years; the
educational standard was very low; trade training was poor and did not lead to jobs in those
callings and boys ended up in dead end jobs; neglect in regard to clothing, bed clothes, food and
medical care; the Manager was unsuitable and ‘an unwilling captain’; and the Institution was short
of money. At Mr Berry’s request, Fr Moore agreed to attend a meeting with Dr Ó Raifeartaigh,
Secretary of the Department of Education.
7.793 This meeting took place on 13th December 1962. Dr Ó Raifeartaigh gave Fr Moore a very different
reception to the one he received from Mr Berry and vigorously cross-examined him on the minutes
of the November meeting. He accused Fr Moore of being inaccurate as regards certain salient
facts and effectively suggested that he had a vendetta against the Christian Brothers. Fr Moore
was shaken after the encounter, and wrote to the Archbishop the following day, informing him that
the meeting had been ‘a most humiliating and embarrassing experience’. Mr Berry was quick to
distance himself from the stance adopted by the Secretary of the Department of Education and
wrote to the latter reproving him on his hostile interrogation of Fr Moore.
7.794 The upshot of the December meeting was that the Secretary of the Department of Education
ordered an unannounced inspection of Artane by three senior Department personnel. They were
requested to focus on food, clothing and management in general: ‘they should state the facts
reasonably and with discretion – good and bad to be included’. The inspection took place over
two days on 20th and 21st December and each inspector furnished a report.
7.795 Mr Seamus Mac Uaid, Higher Executive Officer, wrote the principal report, which was described
by the Chairman, Mr Berry, as ‘a model of its kind’. The general conclusion of the report was
reassuring to the Department, but many of the detailed observations did not differ significantly
from Fr Moore’s. The writer began with a summary of his findings:
it is my opinion that the boys in Artane Industrial School are well fed, warmly clothed,
comfortably bedded and treated with kindness by the Christian Brothers in an atmosphere
conducive to their spiritual and physical development. I believe, however, that boys should
not be reared away from the refining influence of women and am convinced that the
introduction of female assistance at key points in the management would render more
effective the work of the institution.
7.796 He described Artane as:

a massive pile standing on rising ground ... erected in the 1870’s with all the solidity of
the period and an extravagance of space that makes a nightmare of maintenance in
modern times.
7.797 A feature of this report is the frequent reference to the desirability of involving women in the work
of the Institution, and how male standards compared unfavourably with female ones in respect of
care of children. Mr Mac Uaid cited the example of the kitchen, which was staffed by one Brother
and five older boys and which had recently been modernised, at a cost of £25,000:
The standards of cleanliness, cooking and presentation of the food were high but they
were male standards and lacked the finishing touches which woman alone can provide in
this particular domain.
7.798 The aprons worn by kitchen staff were dirty, the plates were slightly greasy and not dried properly,
and it would be preferable if dessert were served on a delph plate rather than the enamel plates
used. However:
from observation and the questions asked of the boys, I am satisfied that the children are
well fed and empty plates bore testimony to the quality of the food.
7.799 Whilst he was satisfied with the menu for the two days of the inspection, he did note the absence
of butter from all meals.
7.800 The report described in turn: the food given to the boys and the cooking and dining facilities; the
dormitories; the boys’ clothing; the laundry; the washing facilities; games and recreation; education
and training; aftercare; the farm; holidays; and the general atmosphere. The overall conclusion
was that:
Artane emerged from the inspection with credit. Within the limitations of an inherited
system which favoured big schools, all male management and a public purse that had to
be prised open at times, the Superior, Br Ourson, is doing a good job in providing for the
spiritual, educational and physical needs of the boys entrusted to his care.
7.801 The writer commended him on the improvements he had made to the School, in particular to the
kitchen and classrooms. He recommended the following innovations, which the Manager had no
objection to, provided that they were funded by the Department:
1. Introduction of a small community of nuns to provide much-needed female influence on
various aspects of industrial school life.
2. Creation of two separate schools for junior and senior boys.
3. Establishment of a hostel for boys leaving Artane who had been abandoned or orphaned.
7.802 Dr McCabe reported her complete satisfaction with the medical facilities, treatment and monitoring
provided in Artane. She referred to her own regular medical and general inspections and medical
checks carried out every two years by the local authority. She commended the hygiene and said
that the boys’ diet was very good. The dormitories were ‘large, airy spacious and very well
maintained’. Dr McCabe concluded:
I would also wish to state that there is a most pleasant relationship between the Brothers
and their care and I have never met with any fear on the boy’s behalf of those in charge
of them.
7.803 In his short covering report, the most senior inspector, Mr MacDaibhid, Assistant Principal Officer
and Inspector in charge of industrial schools, endorsed the reports of his colleagues and added:
To sum up I would say that the school emerged very creditably from the inspection. No
serious fault could be found in Artane and the impression of the “big happy family”
atmosphere which pervaded the entire institution was inescapable. Atmosphere in such a
school is all-important. Minor adverse criticisms only could be levelled at the school.
7.804 In the course of his report, Mr MacDaibhid mentioned that the ‘overcoats supplied by the School
are raincoats only, 412 of which were ordered in December’. Mr MacUaid disclosed in his report
that the number of boys in residence was 413, which means that outer garments for all the boys
were being procured. The provision of overcoats for the boys was a matter of controversy in the
questioning of Fr Moore by counsel for the Christian Brothers. This report suggests that these
raincoats were being ordered for the first time, and it does not disprove Fr Moore’s report.
7.805 Mr MacDaibhid concluded:

Having passed strictures on Bro Ourson in the past, I must say that he emerged from this
inspection with, in my opinion, much improved stature, his previous weakness being an
apparently casual disregard for the authority of the Department.
7.806 The Department Inspection Reports on Artane were considered by the Inter-Departmental
Committee in March and again in May 1963. The Committee ‘could not agree’ that the School
had emerged commendably from the inspections, or that the praise accorded to the management
was deserved. Mr MacDaibhid continued to assert that the criticisms noted in the MacUaid report
were minor and were applicable to all industrial schools, although he did concede that there was
a need for more money, which was true of industrial schools generally. Dr McCabe’s report on
the School ‘was noted’. Ultimately, the Committee agreed to bring the criticisms noted by Mr
MacUaid and recorded in the minutes of the March meeting to the attention of the Minister for
Education.
7.807 The relevant part of the minutes is introduced by the statement that the MacUaid report ‘was then
considered paragraph by paragraph, the Chairman indicating the many ways in which the
criticisms corresponded to what Fr Moore had said’ and goes on:
The Report makes these criticisms for instance:-
“that boys should not be reared away from the refining influence of women;
“the necessity for having female assistants at key points in the institution;
“there is an extravagance of space which makes a nightmare of maintenance (of
Artane) in modern times;
“nowhere else was I more forcibly struck by the criticism that Artane is too big than in
this vast dining hall among 400 youngsters ... The fact that the dining hall was designed
to accommodate several hundred more than the number present added to the
impression that the charge “institutionalised” could not be defended here;
“it is essential that a woman qualified in domestic economy and with a female assistant,
be placed in charge of the kitchen and dining hall;
“the standards here (in the dormitories) were male standards ... the furnishing of a
dormitory is a woman’s role which man cannot adequately fill;
“the clothes in most cases were of the rough type tweed in the familiar poor-house
colours ... automatically identifying the wearers ... The Sunday clothes were ... equally
drab in colour and unimaginative in pattern ... a woman with ideas could do really good
work in the school workshop ...
“add to this shirts buttoned or unbuttoned at the neck and no ties and even the most
presentable boys are handicapped in appearance;
“on paper this (each boy’s issue of clothes) looks a generous issue but it is not
supported by the appearance of the boys;
“the same general criticisms are made of the laundry which is described as being old-
fashioned in methods and machinery;
“he (the Dean of discipline) is too young for an exacting job that requires maturity, had
little experience of the city type prior to his appointment as disciplinarian;
“in response to the suggestion that a course in psychology in U.C.D. would help in an
office of this important kind he (the Superior) replied that the question had never been
examined by the Order;
“the play-yard was disappointing, its surface uneven and puddle-holed contributing in
turn to dirty boots and shoes and spattered legs;
“the recreation hall is a long cement-floored room, uncared for, dismal, depressing and
dirty and with no redeeming feature whatsoever ... The school classroom one of the
same ramshackle type ...
“the Superior drew attention to the lack of a satisfactory hostel for orphans or
abandoned boys leaving Artane at 16 years;
“the absence of a hostel for post industrial school boys with no homes to go to is a
weakness in the system of aftercare which I think the Department should try to rectify;
“12 boys (out of 150 eligible) were entered for the M.T. Group Certificate ... in June,
1962 but all failed ... this Branch will pursue this unsatisfactory performance with our
Technical Instruction Branch;
“the Resident Manager very seldom applies for the retention of boys until the age of
17 years to continue their secondary or technical school studies and the replies given
by the Bursar in defence of this policy were vague and unsatisfactory;
“Cleanliness in the bakery was barely adequate and the white tunics of the apprentices
could do with replacement”.
7.808 The Committee also set out and approved general recommendations for change for industrial
schools, many of which were influenced by the Moore and Department of Education inspections.
The recommendations included the following:
(1) The term ‘industrial school’ should be abolished.
(2) Larger State grants should be made to industrial schools.
(3) Inspections should take place more frequently.
(4) Minimum standards regarding clothing, bedding etc should be prescribed by regulations.
(5) Adequate financial provision should be set aside for maintenance, repairs and appropriate
recreational facilities.
(6) A matron/nurse should be appointed to each school.
(7) City children should not be committed for lengthy periods to country institutions.
(8) Firm links between institutions and the Probation Service should be established for the
benefit of those leaving institutions.
(9) Visiting Committees should be set up for each industrial school and, where appropriate,
Aftercare Committees.
7.809 A specific recommendation was agreed regarding Artane that an educational psychologist should
be appointed to the School.
7.810 Although the Minister for Justice approved these recommendations, they were never implemented
by the Department of Education which had that remit. Nevertheless, the proceedings of the Inter-
Departmental Committee laid the foundations for the establishment of the Kennedy Committee
in 1967.
7.811 Before Dr Anna McCabe retired from her position as Medical Inspector, she furnished a General
Report on Industrial and Reformatory Schools dated 29th February 1964. She made specific
reference to Fr Moore’s report, and stated that she was in substantial agreement with most of its
contents. However, she rejected outright his findings regarding the boys’ clothing, diet and medical
facilities available in the School, and she complimented Br Ourson on his management and
attributed many improvements to his intervention.
7.812 Fr Moore in evidence said that he called to the School every morning to say Mass. After breakfast,
he returned to his parish and visited the School every afternoon for an hour or two, which he
spent mostly in the recreation yard, infirmary and workshops.
7.813 He was aware that Archbishop McQuaid was very unhappy with the state of affairs in Artane. He
was concerned about the vastness of the Institution. Fr Moore believed that the Archbishop’s
disquiet regarding Artane was motivated by a deep concern for the children. In 1962, when he
was asked by the Archbishop to write a report regarding Artane, he did not feel any pressure to
colour his report in line with the Archbishop’s trenchant views. In fact, the Archbishop’s opinion
mirrored his own experience of Artane after two years’ working there. Fr Moore had become
involved in the area of aftercare, much to the annoyance of the Brothers, he said. He worked with
a youth club for former Artane boys run by the Legion of Mary, which highlighted to him the
deficiencies in the provision of aftercare by the Brothers. He understood his purpose in writing the
report was to present a global picture of his experience of Artane. He became aware subsequently
that the Archbishop stated in correspondence with the Department of Justice that he had
appointed Fr Moore to set about reforming Artane.
7.814 Fr Moore visited the refectory for the purpose of his report and observed that ‘it was generally
unruly. Boys sitting at tables snapping each other’s food, as it were, things like that. Pretty unruly
I would have thought. Pretty crude’.
7.815 He contrasted the appearance of Artane boys with their peers in the parish:
It is difficult to describe. I could use the one word, to me anyway, at the time they looked
institutional. That’s a blanket sort of description but I discerned a certain difference in a
boy who was institutionalised, in his pallor, in his gait, in his general appearance.
7.816 He said that some of the Artane boys were most definitely undersized for their age.
7.817 He stated that the boys told him that they had to pay for their overcoats and, as a result, most
boys did not own one:
I would have noticed on wintry days in the schoolyard, for example, very cold, bleak area
of north Dublin, it seemed to me that they were very cold and some of them had chilblains
and they would have runny noses and using their sleeves to clean their noses and to me
looked very cold and pretty miserable.
7.818 The boys went for a walk most Sundays and, even in the depths of winter, they did not wear
overcoats.
7.819 He knew the Superior in St Joseph’s Industrial School, Salthill and visited him at the School.
Salthill was a much smaller school than Artane but he was very impressed by the way in which
Salthill was managed, ‘I thought Salthill was more civilised and more happier’.
7.820 Fr Moore confirmed the evidence of a complainant who said that he had reported sexual abuse
to Fr Moore when he was in Artane. The boy had confided in him that he had been sexually
abused by Br Adrien who worked in the kitchen. Fr Moore had always found him to be personable
and thought that he was popular with the boys. He had never experienced or heard of complaints
of sexual impropriety during his own time as a pupil in St Vincent’s and this was the first time he
had ever had to deal with such a matter. Fr Moore suggested that the boy go to the Superior, Br
Ourson, about the matter, but he was reluctant to do so, as he felt that it would be perceived that
he was telling tales on Br Adrien. Fr Moore offered to speak to Br Ourson. He immediately went
to Br Ourson and told him the nature of the allegations made against Br Adrien who said that he
would deal with the matter. Fr Moore also informed the Provincial, Br Mulholland, to reinforce the
seriousness of the matter. Within days, Br Adrien was removed from Artane and transferred to
another institution. His departure was not announced: he simply disappeared.
7.821 He did receive another complaint, which he reported to Br Ourson, and the Brother was removed
from the School.
7.822 His observations regarding the standard of education were based on his own personal contact
with the boys. He did not observe them in class or consult with teachers or the headmaster
regarding their education, although he would have had informal conversations with them regarding
education. Similarly, his finding regarding the medical facilities in the School was made without
consultation with the local GP or the Brother in charge of the infirmary.
7.823 As regards trades training, he observed:

My experience was the boys didn’t have a choice of which trade they were assigned to;
wherever there was a shortage personnelwise in a trade perhaps. I don’t know the reason
but they didn’t have a choice.
7.824 An elderly Christian Brother was in charge of aftercare. He had to secure approximately 30 to 40
jobs per year. Most of the jobs were badly paid, menial jobs, and many of the boys were placed
in positions for which they were not suited. A high proportion of boys emigrated.
7.825 He was asked for his observations on the comment made by Department Inspector Mr MacDaibhid
that Artane was one ‘big happy family’, and he replied that such an observation was a travesty.
7.826 He had a good relationship with most of the Brothers. However:

there was a resistance to any intrusion in the affairs of the Institution of Artane by the
Brothers in general. They seemed to me, autonomous in their management and they
resented and resisted any interference from anybody in their work.
7.827 Conditions did improve in Artane over his time there. Clothing and food improved, a swimming
pool was installed and, most importantly, numbers were very much reduced. A community of nuns
helped out in the School, introducing much-needed female influence. Aftercare improved with the
opening of a hostel in Eccles Street by the Archbishop. Under cross-examination, he accepted
that he was not aware of changes that the Brothers had initiated, such as the introduction of a
remedial teacher and a psychological support service. Whenever the subject of Artane came up
in conversation with the Archbishop after he had submitted his report, the Archbishop would
mention the fact that he was working upon changing matters.
7.828 In summary, he said:

Fundamentally I would have to say, my critique would be on the grounds of defective
training in the emotional and psychological preparation for the after-life, for post-Artane
days. I found boys were – they many times had an inability to negotiate everyday tasks
like handling money, interpersonal relations. Now admittedly many, many of those I am
talking about would have had long experience of institutional care before they came to
Artane ... I feel also that the environment was harsh, Dickensian and in my view extremely
excessive in its administration of punishment and emotional deprivation. I think today that
the many, many complainants of their bad experience of Artane would, in my view,
validate everything I have said about it, and the Archbishop of Dublin.
7.829 The Christian Brothers reject the conclusions drawn by Fr Moore in his report and in his evidence
to the Investigation Committee. They contend that his evidence is unreliable, inaccurate and that
it is contradicted by the contemporaneous Department reports and evidence from former Brothers.
They submit that Fr Moore was a young, ambitious priest eager to please his Superior. He was
well aware of the Archbishop’s attitude to Artane, who considered the Institution ‘the plague spot
of his diocese’. They contend that Fr Moore’s report does not portray an objective analysis of
Artane, but rather a biased account providing affirmation of the Archbishop’s views.
7.830 The Congregation contends that Fr Moore had relatively little direct experience of day-to-day life
in Artane. He did not live in the School, and therefore his observations are based on his visits to
the School, which were limited to particular areas. They contend that his overall contact with the
School would not enable him to come to informed conclusions on the manner in which the School
was run.
7.831 They cite, as an example of the shortcomings in Fr Moore’s research, his analysis of the boys’
diet. During his evidence to the Investigation Committee, it emerged that his conclusions on diet
were based on one visit to the refectory, his general observations of the boys and the views of a
doctor, who accompanied some of the boys on a camping trip, that they were undernourished and
undersized. However, the report did not disclose the limited sources which led Fr Moore to his
conclusions, but instead gave the impression that a comprehensive review and analysis of the
nature and adequacy of the boys’ diet had taken place.
7.832 Similarly, his conclusion regarding the low standard of education in Artane was based on illegible
letters he received from former residents, and the Christian Brothers submit that such a flimsy
basis for such an evaluation ‘is of no real value’. They also emphasise that Fr Moore was relatively
young and inexperienced, with no teaching experience, and submit that all of these factors, when
taken together, render his assessment unreliable.
7.833 The Brothers in their Opening Statement on Artane said that Fr Moore was ‘both unprofessional
and indiscreet in the manner in which he carried out his assignment’. Whilst he acknowledged in
his covering letter to the Archbishop enclosing the report that his observations were restricted to
his personal experience, he proceeded to offer his opinion on areas in which he clearly had no
training or expertise. The Congregation contend that the statistics he presented were inaccurate
and misleading.
7.834 Similarly, his criticisms of the medical care in Artane have to be viewed in light of the fact that
he had no medical training and did not discuss the matter with the GP who regularly attended
the School.
7.835 The Christian Brothers regard it as extraordinary that, whilst he had no difficulty in criticising the
lack of experience of staff in the School, he had no doubts about his own ability to assess
standards in the School, despite the fact that he had worked in the School on a part-time basis
for less than two years.
7.836 The Christian Brothers submit that, even where no expertise was required, Fr Moore’s report
contains ‘glaring errors’. Most notable is his assertion that the boys had to pay for their own
overcoats. The Investigation Committee heard evidence from a Brother who strongly rebutted this
allegation, and none of the complainants who gave evidence raised it as an issue. One of the
Department officials who conducted the inspection in December 1962 found that the boys had
overcoats of sorts, although few wore them. The Christian Brothers submit that this glaring error
must raise serious doubts over the accuracy of other aspects of the Moore report. On the other
hand, the fact that an order for raincoats for all the boys had been placed in early December, prior
to the surprise visit, makes it impossible to reject the evidence that boys did not have coats.
7.837 The Moore report led to an unannounced two-day inspection of Artane by three Department of
Education personnel. The Christian Brothers assert that this:
inspection was extremely thorough and comprehensive and that there appears to have
been a genuine effort on the part of those compiling the report to present an accurate
account of all aspects of life in Artane.
7.838 They submit that what adds weight to the veracity of the Department reports is the fact that they
criticise various aspects of the School where such criticism is warranted. The reports present an
‘honest and reliable account of a thorough inspection’, and ‘considerable weight ought to be
attached to these reports’.
7.839 In summary, the Christian Brothers submit that:

the Moore report was prepared on the basis of a superficial examination of the relevant
circumstances by an inexperienced person who was not qualified to properly assess a
number of the issues which he addressed and who probably prepared the report with the
dominant purpose of confirming the Archbishop’s firmly expressed views rather than with
the purpose of providing an accurate assessment of the school. In these circumstances,
it is submitted that the Moore report cannot be relied on in making any findings on the
state of matters in Artane at that time.
7.840 The Christian Brothers submit that the evidence given by Fr Moore to the Investigation Committee
copperfastens the view that his assessment of Artane is biased, inaccurate and unreliable. His
evidence only serves to emphasise his limited contact with various aspects of life in Artane and
his limited interaction with the Brothers. They regard as particularly significant the fact that he was
completely unaware of the participation of a specialist team from the Mater Hospital in providing
a psychological service for the boys in Artane before he relinquished his position as chaplain.
7.841 The Brothers contend that Fr Moore’s assertion that the Archbishop was behind the initiative
to introduce an Order of Sisters to the School is incorrect. They submit that contemporaneous
correspondence makes it quite clear that the Brothers spearheaded this enterprise.
7.842 The Congregation vigorously rebuts the claim by Fr Moore that the Brothers resisted and resented
any interference in the School from outside bodies. On the contrary, it says, the Brothers actively
sought the assistance of outside parties such as the Child Guidance Clinic at the Mater Hospital,
the Godparents Guild and, in the mid-1960s, they employed a remedial teacher. It is submitted
that the totality of the evidence demonstrates that the Christian Brothers were fully supportive of
and co-operative with participation from outside parties.
7.843 The Christian Brothers request that the Commission reject the findings made by Fr Moore. They
conclude that he:
presented himself as a witness who had a particular insight into the workings of Artane
and his position there as chaplain for seven years would, prima facie, suggest that he did
have such an insight. However, an examination of his testimony, especially when viewed
in the light of that of other witnesses suggests that his knowledge of Artane and of issues
relevant to the care of the boys was, in fact, extremely superficial and that his recollection
about a number of matters was completely incorrect.
• 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.
General conclusions
7.845 1. 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.
2. Sexual abuse of boys was a chronic problem in Artane. The documented and
admitted cases show that for more than half of the 33 years under consideration
there was at least one Brother in Artane who at some time engaged in sexual
abuse of boys. Much more abuse occurred than is recorded in documents
because of inadequate recording and reporting procedures and other causes of
under-reporting. Sexual activity between boys was also common and there was
a significant amount of predatory sexual behaviour by bigger boys on smaller,
vulnerable ones.
3. Incidences of abuse were managed primarily with a view to protecting the
Congregation and the Institution from the harm that would be done if sexual
abuse by Brothers became public. This involved suppression of disclosure of
abuse, failure to investigate properly and failure to report. The policy facilitated
further abuse when offenders were transferred within the Congregation or
permitted to leave in good standing.
4. Artane failed generally to provide for the emotional needs of the boys. At
management level there was a lack of respect for the boys as individuals. One
example was the humiliating practice of inspection of underwear in public.
5. The number of boys in Artane, the extreme regimentation of their lives, the lack
of appropriate training of the Brothers, the insufficient numbers of staff and the
pervasiveness of corporal punishment all had serious adverse effects on the
welfare and emotional development of many of the children who passed through
Artane. The climate of fear was a dominant memory, and practices used for
management and control of the boys were frightening and abusive. It was a
problem central to the whole system in Artane that the boys’ perspective was
not taken into account. The Christian Brothers did not understand the impact of
those practices.
6. Artane had sufficient income to provide for the boys’ physical needs but it failed
to do so in many respects:
• Accommodation was generally poor. Toilet facilities were primitive until
1953.
• Facilities for preparing and serving food for the boys were primitive.
• Clothing was poor, patched and institutional, and the repeated criticism by
the Department Inspector was to no avail, in spite of a healthy surplus in the
School accounts.
7. Artane failed to cater for either educationally backward children or for those who
were brighter. No effort was made to provide secondary education for boys who
were capable of benefiting from it.
8. Industrial training was a key objective of the system and the biggest industrial
school should have provided a high standard, but training was only an offshoot
of work that met the needs of the Institution.
9. The success of the band illustrated what the boys could accomplish with proper
training and adequate resources.
10. The Brothers put 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.
11. Aftercare for the boys’ welfare required direct contact with them but it was often
conducted only with employers to establish their level of satisfaction and not to
see how the boys were doing. . Aftercare was better than ex-residents were
aware of and many were surprised at the level of contact maintained between
the School and their employers.
12. In regard to Artane the policy pursued by the Department of Education was to
defend the system and the institution over which it presided. The Department
inspected and supervised perfunctorily and neglected its obligations to the
children.
13. The Department of Education and the Christian Brother management did not
improve or change a system that was failing. Individual Brothers with a genuine
calling and desire to care for and educate disadvantaged children found
themselves in an institution that forced them to use methods of control that
prevented the kind of care they could have given.

Appendix
Report by Ciaran Fahy (14th March 2008)
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this report is to describe the physical surroundings of Artane Industrial School
with particular reference to the buildings. It is based on research carried out by Ciaran Fahy and
Neil Gillespie during the course of which all of the relevant documentation in the possession of
the CICA was examined. On 2nd September 2005, Ciaran Fahy and Neil Gillespie visited Artane
and met Br Michael Reynolds, Deputy Head of St Mary’s Province of the Irish Christian Brothers
and also Mr Bushnell.87 Br Reynolds taught in St David’s CBS Secondary School from about 1978
to 1984 and Mr Bushnell was a pupil in Artane.
In addition to the above, Ciaran Fahy visited the Christian Brother’s archive at Cluain Mhuire on
the North Circular Road and some old photographs and maps were made available by the
Christian Brothers and many of these are incorporated in this report. The following documents
were provided and found to be of considerable assistance:
- An Annual published in 1904 which was intended as a souvenir or record of the school.
It was published 10 years after an earlier account appeared in the Illustrograph, a
monthly illustrated paper.
- The Christian Brother’s Educational Record 1927, relating to Artane Industrial School.
This document which was compiled in 1927, contains a good deal of helpful
information in relation to the early years of the school.
- The Visitation Reports from 1940 to 1968. These annual reports were prepared by a
senior member of the Christian Brothers who typically spent about a week in the
school and reported on all aspects of its operation. These reports also focused on
the Community of Brothers. The authors of them normally varied from year to year.
- The Annals. These were prepared on an annual basis by the Resident Manager of the
school and were intended to record the most important events which took place in
that year.
The report is to be read in conjunction with four appendices drawing together various maps and
photographs as follows:
• Appendix No 1: Maps/Drawings
This contains extracts from Ordnance Survey sheets showing the current layout taken
from the Dublin Street Map as well as the layout in 1936. There is also a sketch of the
main building prepared in 1944 together with a survey drawing of the same building
prepared in 1990 when it was being partitioned.
• Appendix No 2: Aerial Photographs
This contains two aerial photographs provided by the Christian Brothers.
• Appendix No 3: Current Photographs
87

This contains photographs of the remaining buildings on the site taken recently. This
comprises three buildings namely the main building, the Chapel and the refectory
which is now used as the band school and occupied by the Artane School of Music
which incorporates the well known Artane Band previously the Artane Boys Band.
• Appendix No 4: Archive Photographs
This contains archive photographs provided by the Christian Brothers extending back
to 1900.
2.0 Background
2.1 Location
Artane Industrial School, the largest in the State, was founded in 1870 and closed in 1969. It was
located in the north eastern suburbs of Dublin, five km from the GPO in an area that was originally
open countryside and which is now built up. It was located on the western side of the Malahide
Road (R107) and there was access to it from this via a main gate lodge and also from the Kilmore
Road. There was extensive farmland associated with the institution and the bulk of this was
contiguous to the buildings. This has now been disposed of and most if not all of it has been
developed and in addition, only three of the original buildings are still in existence.
The general location of Artane Industrial School is shown in map 1, which is an extract from the
current Ordnance Survey Street map of Dublin. The Malahide Road can be seen in the lower right
hand corner running more or less diagonally and it intersects Collins Avenue and subsequently
the Kilmore Road. The original main entrance into Artane was on the Malahide Road more or less
opposite Killester Avenue and even in the current street map it is possible to see the outline of
the avenue that ran from this to the main building which is still in existence and which is a long
rectangular building parallel to the Malahide Road. This building is now used by St David’s CBS
School which has operated at this location since 1973. There was a second entrance into the
institution from Kilmore Road, not far from the point where it meets Skellys Lane and where the
Artane Castle Shopping Centre has now been constructed. There are two further buildings which
remain on the site and these are also coloured purple and located in this general area. The first
of these is the chapel which is closest to the original main building while beyond this and also
marked school is what was the refectory and is now the base for the Artane Music School.
The location of the school is also shown in map 2, which is an extract from the Ordnance Survey
map prepared originally in 1936. It is possible to make out the Malahide Road in the lower right
hand corner of the map and this intersects with Collins Avenue just before Donnycarney Bridge,
which at that time was the city boundary. Map 3 is a blow-up of the earlier one and it shows the
layout of the buildings with an indication of the use of each one imprinted in red. The main access
from the Malahide Road is clearly visible as is the connection onto the Kilmore Road which passes
through the farmyard.
2.2 Foundation
Artane Industrial School was founded in 1870 and consequently served as a replacement for a
separate institution, St Mary’s at Inchicore which opened in 1869 but whose licence was withdrawn
in March 1870. In June 1870, a proposed management committee wrote to the Chief Secretary
for Ireland to the effect that Artane Castle plus 23 hectares of land had been purchased for the
purpose of setting up an industrial school. Subsequent to this, the Inspector of Industrial Schools
visited the site on 24th June 1870 and found the premises to be well suited. The premises is
described as consisting of a ‘large dwelling house with extensive out offices, garden, farmyard all
standing on 56 statute acres (23 hectares) of rich arable land, well watered, sheltered by fine
trees and enclosed on the north and east by a good wall’. The lands were purchased for £7,000
on 19th July 1870 and it was proposed that additional buildings for dormitories, classrooms, etc.,
should be erected for a further £1,600.
The Christian Brothers had originally been looking for a Novitiate and had raised £2,000 for that
purpose. Their search led them to the Artane site but by the time it was purchased its intended
use had been changed. According to the 1927 report, the Christian Brothers used the £2,000 to
fund the purchase with the balance of £5,000 as well as the cost of building being raised by
public subscription.
The school was to be operated by the Christian Brothers under a management committee which
was to include six of the committee of St Mary’s Industrial School, Inchicore and also another five
members including Cardinal Cullen. The proposal was obviously successful and the school was
licensed to accommodate 825 boys on 9th July 1870.
The founder of Artane was Br T A Hoope who was its Manager from 1870 until 1890. The 1904
Annual speaks of Br Hoope initially providing for some 70 boys, ‘in a modest dwelling house and
a partially dilapidated farmyard’. However, by the time the Annual was published in 1905, it speaks
of buildings which cost over £60,000 having been erected at Artane.
2.3 Subsequent History

It is clear that from the outset that Artane developed rapidly and the number of boys built up to
approximately 800. The 1927 report says that the number of boys in the school had grown to 450
by 1873 and to 700 by 1880. There was a very good public response to the new institution and,
for example, in 1873, the Lord Mayor held a public meeting to encourage contributions. In 1878,
it appears the main building was well advanced and indeed partially occupied and at that time the
farm consisted of some 40 hectares (100 acres). This also expanded rapidly and in 1884, at the
time of the visit to the school by the Prince and Princess of Wales the farm consisted of some
140 hectares (350 acres). This arose from the purchase of adjoining farms by Br Hoope and the
1927 report refers to ‘Woodville, on the north-east, Kilmore, Thorndale and Verbena on the west
and north of the old demesne’.
The 1904 Annual speaks of the first industrial schools in Ireland being certified in 1869 in the year
following the Irish Industrial Schools Act. By the time the Annual was written there were 68
industrial schools in the country of which 21 were for boys. Industrial schools were divided on a
denominational basis with three of the total given above for Protestant boys and three for
Protestant girls.
In 1904, the Annual lists 102 staff working in the school of which 26 were Christian Brothers
including a Manager, a sub-Manager and two secretaries. The other 76 staff comprised:
• A nurse and assistant nurse.
• Nine assistant teachers.
• Four professors of music.
• A gymnastic/gym instructor.
• A clerk of works.
• A town agent and storekeeper.

• 14 foremen and 14 assistants for the various trades.
• A gardener and an assistant.
• Four stewards.
• 18 farm and other labourers.
• Two indoor and one outdoor night watch men.
• A coachman and butcher.
In addition to the above, the Annual lists a chaplain and medical attendant who apparently called
to the school regularly.
By the 1950s the number of boys in the school had started to decline and was noted as 500 in
1957. By 1962, the number of boys was down to 413 while the number of religious staff was 25
and the number of lay staff was 43. By 1965, the number of boys had fallen to 301 and in 1968
the year before the school closed the number was down to 198.
3.0 Details
3.1 General
As stated previously, Artane Industrial School was founded on a site of 23 hectares plus some
buildings purchased in 1870. It is clear the main buildings of the institution were commenced very
shortly afterwards in the 1870s and, in addition, it appears the land associated with the institution
reached about 140 hectares by 1884 and remained close to this figure until the 1940s at least. It
appears that some time in the late 1950s some of the land was sold for residential development
and this policy continued, so that by the time the school closed in 1969/1970 more than half of
the land had been disposed of.
All of the buildings of the institution were located between the Malahide Road and the Kilmore
Road at the location shown in map no. 2, which is the 1936 survey. This area has been blown-up
in map 3 and this shows the arrangement of the buildings and also their use. This same map
shows access into the site from the Malahide Road with a gate lodge located at the entrance.
There was a sweeping avenue leading up to a point between the monastery or residence and the
main house. The monastery was in fact two separate houses constructed at different times and
behind this was the Chapel. The main building at that time was in fact T-shaped consisting of a
long rectangular section more or less parallel to the Malahide Road with an annexe or extension
to the rear. Just to the left of the main building were the workshops and it will be seen from the
map that there was a laneway which ran from the back of these down towards the Malahide Road.
The two circular markings on either side of this apparently represent old quarries.
The other entrance into the site was from the Kilmore Road and it will be seen there was also a
lodge at that entrance. There was an access roadway running from this which crossed the
farmyard and ran towards the main building between the Chapel and the monastery. The infirmary
was located along the side of this road and close to the Kilmore Road entrance and south of the
farmyard there were plots associated with farming activities and also the hen runs.
Behind or north of the Chapel there was a further series of buildings. There was a long rectangular
building which contained the classrooms and also a recreation area known as the long hall directly
behind these. At right angles to the classrooms was the refectory with the kitchen located behind
that and adjoining this and connecting it with the classroom block was the laundry with the boiler
house apparently located behind this again. This area is shown in archive photograph 9, which
shows the situation as it was in 1904. Clearly, the area enclosed between the classrooms, the
refectory and also the Chapel was used as a playing pitch and in addition, one end of this, opposite
the refectory, was provided with what is described as the gymnasium. This was obviously a roofed
structure open at the sides as can be seen in archive photograph no 9.
The arrangement of the buildings is also clearly shown in archive photograph 1 which was taken
from the front of the 1904 Annual and gives a bird’s eye view. This shows the main building with
the workshops to its left and the annexe or theatre at the rear while the Chapel is to the right. The
photograph or sketch also shows the position of the refectory and the classrooms referred to as
the schools with an enclosed area between these and the gymnasium. The layout can be
compared with aerial photograph 2 as well as aerial photographs 3 and 4, which were simply
derived from this. It will be seen the arrangement has not changed from 1904, except that the
monastery has been extended by the addition of a second larger building adjacent to the original
one which had been built by 1904. This photograph also clearly shows a handball alley behind
the main building which is possibly best seen in photograph 3. This is also referred to in archive
photograph 1 taken from the 1904 Annual and its position is shown in map 3. It appears there
was a high wall in this area extending from the classrooms and the area between this and the
rear of the main house appears to have been paved probably with concrete. In addition, there
was a toilet block behind the handball alley. Finally, aerial photograph 2 shows a small changing
room or sports pavilion at the side of the pitches behind the handball alley and the classrooms.
The same photograph in the foreground shows the plots behind the farmyard as well as what seem
to be the hen runs with some form of sump or tank to one side and finally, a further handball alley.
3.2 Farm
The land associated with the school rapidly increased from 23 hectares (about 56 acres) in 1870
to 140 hectares in 1884 and appears to have remained constant at about that figure since it is
recorded as 143 hectares (about 353 acres) in the early 1940s. The land obviously increased by
means of the purchase of adjoining farms and this appears to have continued since the 1938
Annals state approximately 20 hectares (49 acres) were purchased from O’Neills of Rockfield in
December 1938 at a price of £33 per acre. The 1943 Annals record that the O’Neill farm of 26
hectares (about 65 acres) just across the road from the infirmary was for sale at £100 per acre
but there is no record of any subsequent purchase. The same 1943 Annals give the total area of
land as 143 hectares (353 acres) and states that 32 hectares (about 80 acres) was about five km
from the school. The Visitation Reports for 1943 and 1949 give the total acreage as 143 hectares
referred to previously and this apparently was broken into a number of different farms, the largest
of which was the home farm presumably contiguous to the school buildings and which contained
74 hectares (182 acres). The other farms were Belcamp with 13 hectares (32 acres), Woodville
26 hectares (63 acres) and Kilmore 31 hectares (76 acres).
From the late 1950s land associated with the school was sold for house building and there is
reference in the Visitation Reports to the proceeds of this being used to fund the operations of
the school. There is a reference to an earlier sale of land in the 1938 Annals, to a Mr P Belton
but this was only a very small area of approximately one acre. There is a reference to 7.5 acres
(about 3 hectares) being sold in 1961 with the proceeds being used to meet part of the cost of 12
classrooms on the ground floor of the main building. In all, about 32 hectares (80 acres) was sold
up to 1965 and there is also reference to an out farm at Bonnybrook being sold in the mid-1960s.
The 1966 Visitation Report states that about 81 hectares (200 acres) was left at that time, while
the 1968 Visitation Report says that negotiations were in train to sell a further 40 hectares retaining
about 40 hectares in the immediate vicinity of the school. However, there is reference in the
documentation to a further 51 hectares (125 acres) being sold in 1969.
There is no precise record of the land associated with the school when it was at its maximum in the
mid to late 1940s, but it seems to have comprised much of the block shown in map 1, contained by
the Malahide Road, Kilmore Road, Skellys Lane, Beaumont Road and Collins Avenue. The 1936
Survey shows, that this area was largely undeveloped and presumably in use as farmland. It will
be noted that on the eastern side of this block there is a veterinary research laboratory and also
what looks like a large private house, Thorndale House which presumably did not form part of the
school’s land. Equally however, it is clear that the school had significant areas of land which did
not immediately adjoin the school and it seems likely the Christian Brothers had land on the other
side of Kilmore Road/Skellys Lane.
3.3 Main Building

The most important single building on the site was the main building which was constructed shortly
after 1870 and which still remains today. The front façade which faces towards the Malahide Road
is shown in the current photograph 1 and it will be seen that the building consists of three storeys
with four storeys in the central section and in addition to this, there is a basement on the left hand
side as one looks at the building. This can be seen in photograph 2 which shows the western end
and also in photograph 3. Photograph 4 shows a view looking towards the left of the main building
where the workshops used to be. These have now been replaced by what appears to be a modern
gym or sports hall. Photographs 5 and 6 show the eastern end of the building, with the Chapel
and refectory behind this. Photograph 7 shows a view of the current entrance into St David’s CBS
School, which runs beside the Chapel along the line of the original route through the farmyard
from the Kilmore Road entrance. Photograph 10 shows a view of the main building from the
refectory, while photographs 11 to 15 inclusive, show the rear of the main building. It is understood
that some works have taken place at the end on the right hand side of photograph 12 and
photographs 11, 12 and 14 in particular, show the remains of the annexe or extension that ran
away from the main building and which was destroyed by fire in February 1969.
The main building in about 1900 is shown in archive photographs 1 and 2 and it will be noted that
the only apparent change is the addition of a pedestal and cross at the top of the central four
storey section. Archive photograph 4 shows the relationship of the main building with the Chapel
and the residence or monastery and this apparently was taken about 1950. Photograph 7 on the
other hand shows the rear of the main building with the extension at the rear clearly visible on the
left hand side of this photograph, which was obviously taken from the playing fields, which in turn
were separated from the buildings by a high wall. Photograph 8 shows the rear annexe after the
fire in 1969, when the damaged section was obviously demolished and removed. Finally, the main
building is clearly visible in aerial photograph 1 and also in aerial photograph 2. Both of these
were taken prior to the destruction of the rear section but aerial photograph 1 was taken after the
removal of the classrooms which apparently occurred in the early 1960s.
The overall dimensions of the main building and in particular the front rectangular section was
113m x 15m. While it has been possible to obtain some drawings showing the arrangement of
the building in 1990 the most informative sketch is the one included at map 4 which was prepared
in 1944. This does not show the basement which apparently consisted of five storerooms but it
does show the layout of the other three floors above it together with the fourth storey above the
central section. It will be seen that the projecting block at the rear was in fact two storeys and
interconnected with the main building at both levels. The lower section of this contained a theatre,
while the upper floor was dormitory five. There were four other dormitories and these were all
located at the first and second floor of the front section of the main building and in all cases these
extended from the front to the back of the block. At ground floor level there was what is referred
to as the long hall or exhibition hall at the rear of the section running the full length of the building
and in front of this on the left hand side was the concert room, while on the right hand side was
the knitting school which was also known as the juvenile workshop.
It will be seen from the sketch that access into the building was via a stairs located towards the
rear of the main section where it met the projecting block. It appears there were two flights of
stairs at this location and these were carried up via a landing at first floor level between dormitories
three and four to the second floor and from there, the stairs continued up to the third floor which
according to the sketch contained seven individual bedrooms for Christian Brothers. It should be
noted, that there was another main stairs within the building located at the right hand end but this
was not used by the boys, probably because its location, at one end of the building was far
removed from what must have been the main thoroughfare through the building.
The sketch also shows various storerooms and boot rooms at the upper level as well as some
smaller rooms at ground floor level described as classroom, band room and book room. There is
no reference to bathroom facilities on the sketch but it is understood there were some at either
end of the building on the upper two floors. In a questionnaire apparently completed in 1947, there
is reference to ten lavatories, 251 washbasins and four baths as well as 50 shower baths.
The dimensions of various rooms and areas within the main building have been given in various
documentation and are summarised in table 1 below.
Table 1 – Areas in Main Building
Location Dimensions L x W x H Comments
Exhibition hall 90 x 6
Concert room 30 x 9
Knitting school 30 x 9
Theatre 37 x 13 x 12 Capacity for 1300 persons.
Dormitories 1 to 4 30 x 15 x 6 172 boys in each dormitory.
2.6m2 per boy.
Dormitory 5 25 x 13 x 6 Younger boys’ dormitory. 142
boys or 2.1m2 per boy. Solid fuel
central heating
Two of the dormitories are shown in the archive photographs 23 and 24. Photograph 23 almost
certainly shows either dormitory one or two. However, this is unlikely in that the window shape is
much more consistent with the front section of the main building. The roof structure consists of
steel trusses, which appear to have been widely used in all of the Artane buildings. The other
feature in this photograph is what appears to be a room in the left rear corner which presumably
was for the Christian Brother who slept in the dormitory. Photograph 24 shows one of the
dormitories at first floor level and thus is either three or four. The photograph shows a series of
cast-iron columns running the length of the room and these are slightly closer to the left hand wall
rather than the right hand one. From looking at the drawings prepared in 1990 this would imply
that the wall on the right hand side is the front and that this photograph is of dormitory three.
Photograph 23 is similar to the one in the 1904 Annual and dates from that period. There is no
date on photograph 24 but it may also date from the turn of the century. In each case it will be
seen that similar beds have been used and these are arranged in ten rows.
Archive photograph 25 shows the juvenile room or knitting school. The light appears to be coming
from the left which would imply that the windows on the right give on to the exhibition hall and it
also seems likely that this photograph dates from the 1904 Annual. The concert hall or music
room is shown in photograph 41 and is a large rectangular room ornately decorated with an organ
on a raised platform at one end and a number of grand pianos around the walls. It appears the
organ was no longer there in the 1950/1960s. Finally, photograph 42 shows the exhibition hall or
museum hall showing a long, wide hallway with glass exhibition cases on either side.
3.4 Classrooms/Refectory/Gymnasium
Both the classrooms and the refectory had been constructed at the time the 1904 Annual was
published. The boys’ kitchen was located behind the refectory and in 1905, when the Annual was
apparently published a new laundry was under construction. In addition to the above, the Annual
speaks of a bathroom which apparently contained 52 shower cubicles and which was located
close to the laundry and the classrooms.
The 1904 Annual describes 11 classrooms and these were constructed in a single storey building
with access into each one from the outside with an indication of this given in archive photograph
no 9. Immediately behind the classrooms, was what is sometimes referred to as the long hall or
alternatively the recreation hall and which appears to have been a single storey pitched roof
building. The 1947 Form A, questionnaire speaks of 12 classrooms and gives the size of ten of
them as 12m x 9m x about 3.5m high while there were two smaller rooms. That document says
that there was central heating provided and each of the ten big rooms accommodated 70 boys
with 40 in the smaller of the other two rooms and 60 in the final room. No further information is
available on the construction of the classrooms but interestingly, the 1904 Annual says ‘the
building itself is not in keeping with most of the other departments of the Institution. In fact it was
hurriedly erected to meet a pressing want’. The Annual then goes on to say ‘further Classrooms
are required and are to be constructed as soon as funds are available’.
The original classrooms appear to have continued in existence until they were demolished in the
early 1960s when classrooms were arranged in the main building. There were proposals advanced
in the 1940s to replace the classrooms and in the mid-1950s both the Christian Brothers and the
Department of Education recognised that the classrooms were in very poor condition. Writing in
May 1955, the Christian Brothers stated that it was imperative to provide 20 new classrooms as
the old school building was in a ‘dangerous condition’ and had been condemned some 40 years
previously. Writing in January 1956, the Department of Education described the classrooms as
unsuitable and structurally unsound with ‘the main walls are bulging badly, the roof leaks and the
woodwork with the exception of the floors is in poor condition’. The letter goes on to describe
each of the classrooms as being entered directly from the playground without corridors or porches
and the ventilation by means of the south facing windows as unsuitable with the only secondary
ventilation being provided by high level windows opening into what is described as ‘an old derelict
building which adjoins the school on the north side’. This is obviously the long hall or recreation
hall described previously and which presumably had fallen into disuse by that time.
The refectory was also located in a single storey rectangular shaped building and it was placed
at right angles to the classrooms. The building still exists as shown in the current series of
photographs no. 8 while it is also shown in the archive photographs 9 and 11. Its dimensions are
given as 61m x 15m and the interior of it is shown in photographs 17 and 18 both of which predate
1960 with the latter showing the open truss roof. The 1904 Annual speaks of the room being
arranged with 40 tables each to accommodate 20 boys with a passage of approximately 2m at
the side walls and 2.4m in the centre of the room as shown in photograph 17. The refectory
continued in use over the life of the institution and in May 1955, the Christian Brothers described
the kitchen and dining hall as ‘very antiquated’ and in need of improvement. The kitchen and the
dining hall were refurbished in the early 1960s and this included a new roof/ceiling in the dining
hall. In addition, the dining hall was provided with a new floor in 1941 and central heating in 1949.
The 1904 Annual describes a new laundry approaching completion beside the boys’ kitchen and
the bathroom and it goes on to speak of the location being economical because of the one set of
boilers being used to supply steam for baths, cooking and laundry. No further information is
available on the laundry but presumably this continued in existence at this location over the life of
the institution. The bathroom or shower room is described in the 1904 Annual as being 22.5m x
6m and it apparently contained 52 shower cubicles. Apparently adjoining the bathroom there was
a large clothes store. In addition, the entrance to the bathroom is described as two doors through
the recreation hall or long hall.
Archive photograph 4 shows that by 1904 there was an open sided structure in the yard to facilitate
physical exercise out of the elements. This is also shown in archive photograph 1 and it was
replaced in 1950 by a similar open sided structure shown in aerial photograph no. 3. This in turn
was replaced about 1964 by the games hall shown in aerial photograph no. 1 and also in archive
photograph no. 10. This building comprised of a large play area enclosed on three sides as well
as a large indoor games room.
3.5 Farm Buildings/Infirmary

The farm buildings are described in the 1904 Annual and are shown to some extent in the right
hand side of aerial photograph 2 and in somewhat further detail in aerial photograph 4. In essence,
the buildings consisted of a quadrangle divided in two by means of the rear access roadway
leading to the Kilmore Road, as can be seen in the archive photograph 1. It will be seen that there
were a number of hay sheds on one side and in addition, this area contained a potato house and
a tractor shed while the other side shown in archive photograph no. 13 contained a cattle shed,
a piggery, stables and a garage. There was also a store for lawnmowers and an apple house.
The 1904 Annual says the farm buildings were high quality and very up-to-date and the cattle
shed was capable of accommodating 40 cows who supplied milk to the institution. The Annual
also refers to a slaughter house as well as a piggery on an out farm capable of holding over 100
pigs. The approach to the farm yard from the main building heading towards the Kilmore Road is
shown in photograph 39.
The 1904 Annual also refers to a poultry farm which had been installed to the most modern design
prepared by a firm Fletcher and Phillipson. It appears the poultry farm was just south of the
infirmary and covered about three to four acres (about 1.5 hectares). The hen runs are shown in
photograph 40.
The infirmary is shown in archive photograph 12 and was located close to the Kilmore Road
entrance. Photographs 19, 20 and 21 show some detail of the interior of the building with the latter
of these being taken in the late 1960s. The earlier two photographs were both described as about
1930 but in fact 19 is very similar to the one in the 1904 Annual and in any event appears to show
the same room as in photograph 20. It will be noted that photographs 19 and 20 show the same
type of bed in use in the dormitories and shown in photographs 23 and 24. The beds have
obviously been changed in photograph 21.
3.6 Chapel/Monastery
The Chapel and monastery or residence were grouped together but on opposite sides of the
access leading from the Kilmore Road entrance. The Chapel is still in existence as shown in the
current photographs 6 and 7, although disused and in poor condition. The interior of the Chapel
in 1904 is shown in archive photograph 15 and the Annual speaks of it having a capacity for 900.
The Chapel was heated by hot air and the internal decorations were carried out by the school’s
pupils under the direction of the foreman.
The monastery or residence consisted of two separate but adjacent buildings. The arrangement
of these two buildings and the position relative to the Chapel is shown quite clearly in aerial
photograph 1 and they are also shown to some extent in the archive photographs 4, 5, and 6. It
appears that the two buildings taken together provided living accommodation, dining facilities,
bedroom and washroom facilities for the religious Community as well as offices for the senior staff
of the school. It is clear from the 1904 Annual that the building on the right hand side of aerial
photograph 1 was constructed during the initial development of the school, while the larger building
to the left was added later. It is in existence in the Ordnance Survey map of 1936. As far as can
be ascertained, this is the only significant new building provided on the site after 1904.
3.7 Workshops
The workshops were located to the left hand side of the main building as shown in map 3 and
they consisted of a string or terrace of buildings both one and two storeys high running alongside
the laneway leading down to the Malahide Road. This arrangement is shown in archive
photograph 1 taken from the 1904 Annual and also in photograph 38. The building on the southern
side or that nearest to the Malahide Road was originally the power house but was subsequently
converted into a fitter’s workshop or general maintenance shop in the early 1950s. At the far end
nearest to the main building there were stores for coal and timber and working down from that
the next building was originally the bakery but was subsequently converted to a store. In addition
to this, the workshops provided for the weavers in the single storey buildings in photograph 38.
After that the two storey terraced building in the same photograph contained the carpenters, the
tailors, the boot makers, the painters and tinsmiths. The series of archive photographs 26 to 37
inclusive shows various trade shops with many of these photographs going back to the early years
of the 20th Century.
The 1904 Annual gives the numbers involved in the various trades as follows:
Cabinet making 14
Painting/Decoration 8 to 10
Carpentry 10 to 12
Weaving 8
Cart and wheelwrights 10 to 12
Tinsmiths/Plumbing 12
Tailoring 50 to 60
Fitters 6
Shoemaking 45 to 50
Flour mill/Bakery 20
Harness making 12
Forge 10
Farm work 80
Gardening 12
In addition, the numbers working in the juvenile workroom were 140.
In October 1946, when the Department Inspector, Mr Hackett visited to discuss the education of
the boys the numbers involved in the various trades and the tradesmen instructing them were
noted as follows:
Boys Tradesmen
Weaving 24 2
Tailoring 54 2
Bootmaking 41 2
Baking and milling 9 2

Boys Tradesmen
Carpentry 6 1
Cartwrights 14 2
Smith work 5 1
Fitters 7 1
Tinsmiths 7 1
Painting/Decoration 10 1
Hairdressing 3 1
Gardening 12 1
Farm work 60 7
3.8 Services
The school apparently was connected to the ESB grid in 1936 but for more than 20 years prior to
that it had its own electricity generation plant located at one end of the workshops. After
connection to the ESB grid in 1936 one of the two engines in this was retained to provide stand by
power in the event of failure. In 1952 the old power house was converted into a fitter’s workshop.
It appears the institution was connected to Dublin Corporation water mains from early on in its
life, since the 1904 Annual refers to water being taken from the Vartry mains.
It appears the school was only connected to the Dublin Corporation main sewer in the late 1940s.
In the 1947 questionnaire it is stated that there were 60 lavatories (dry) and 60 urinals and these
were located behind the handball alley shown in aerial photograph 3. In the same questionnaire
there is a comment in capital letters to the effect ‘no change for the past 70 years’. These toilet
facilities gave rise to correspondence between the Christian Brothers and the Department in the
1940s and in addition, a former pupil wrote a number of letters of complaint. Eventually, in the
late 1940s these toilets were replaced with what is described in the January 1956 letter from the
Department of Education as an ‘open air sanitary block in the playground’.
Survey reports carried out in 1944 and in 1947 refer to central heating based on coke in the
smaller dormitory, number five but not it appears in the other four dormitories. There was also
central heating at that time in the classrooms. In 1949 central heating was provided in the refectory
while in 1954 storage heaters were provided in the dormitories. In 1962/63 it appears central
heating was provided throughout the main building and replaced the storage heaters in the
dormitories. At the same time it also served the new classrooms as well as the theatre and
band room.

Appendix No 1: Maps/Drawings
Map No 1: Extract from current Ordnance Survey Dublin Street Map. This shows the general
location with the main building now marked with the word ‘School’ located between Rockfield Park
and St David’s Wood.

Map No 2: This is an extract from the 1936 Ordnance Survey maps. It shows the Artane buildings
to the west of the Malahide Road which runs diagonally across the lower right hand corner of the
map. The site is bounded by Kilmore Road which turns and runs due north and which also
continues more or less west as Skellys Lane. It is also possible to make out Collins Avenue with
very little development along it and in addition it will be noted Beaumont Road runs from Collins
Avenue at Puckstown Cottages and heads generally towards Beaumont Convalescent Home at
the top of the map which is now the Site of Beaumont Hospital. It will be noted that Beaumont
Road does not connect with Skellys Lane.

Map No 3: This is a blow-up of the previous map with the main buildings being identified by the
names added.

Map No 4: This is a sketch of the main building and annexe at the rear prepared in 1944, showing
the layout and arrangement of the main rooms.

Appendix No 2: Aerial Photographs
Photograph No 1: This is an aerial photograph showing the main building together with the
Chapel and the Community House to the right of this. The date of the photograph is unknown but
the fact that the annexe at the rear of the main building is still present means it was taken before
1969. It is possible to make out some of the workshops immediately to the left of the main building
while the playing fields to the rear of it are also visible as the changing rooms along the hedge.
The Chapel is also clearly visible to the right of the main building and just in front of this are the
two buildings making up the Community House. Behind the Chapel the classroom block has
obviously been demolished and replaced with a more modern structure. Finally, the layout of the
school yard and paths running to a central point is clearly visible. This pattern was apparently
referred to by the pupils as the ‘Union Jack’.

Photograph No 2; The date of this photograph is also unknown but it is clearly of an earlier
vintage than the previous one. The photograph again clearly shows the main building with the
Community House/Chapel to the right of this and it is possible to make out some of the workshops
to the left of the main building. The playing fields and the changing room are again clearly visible
but the classroom block was in position when the photograph was taken. In addition, it is possible
to make out the handball alley as well as the open shed running from the classroom block to the
Chapel. Finally, it is possible to make out the farmyard on the right edge of the photograph.

Photograph No 3: This is a blow-up of the previous photograph showing details of the main
building together with the Community House and the Chapel to the right of this and the school-
yard and playing pitches behind this.

Appendix No 3: Current Photographs
This is a series of photographs taken during the visit to the school on 2nd September 2005. Each
of the photographs is described and referred to in the text and thus the detail need not be repeated
at this point. The photographs show the three remaining buildings on the site, namely, the main
building, the Chapel shown in photographs 6, 7 and 10 and, finally, the refectory which is shown
in photograph no. 8. This has been converted and modernised and is now used for the teaching
of music and it also serves as a base for the Artane Boys Band.

Appendix No 4: Archive Photographs
This series of 42 photographs was chosen from a set of digital photographs provided by the
Christian Brothers. The age of the photographs varies with some dating back to the 1904 Annual
while others are much more recent. In several cases the photographs were actually used in the
1904 Annual and this is signified by the date given in the description. It is not intended to repeat
the description of each of the photographs at this point since they are referred to in further detail
in the text. In general, the photographs have been arranged to show the outside of the buildings
initially as in photographs 1 to 14 inclusive. Finally, the photographs from 25 to 42 are intended
to show the use of various rooms and in particular the trades shops.

Chapter 8
Letterfrack Industrial School

(‘Letterfrack’), 1885–1974
Introduction
Establishment of Letterfrack
8.01 Letterfrack is a village situated in Connemara, Co Galway, more than 84 kilometres from Galway
city. A wealthy Quaker couple moved to Letterfrack from England in 1849 and bought a large tract
of land that they developed. Amongst the various improvements they made were the construction
of a large residence and a school for the children from the locality. In 1884 the property was sold
to the Archbishop of Tuam, Dr John McEvilly, who applied the proceeds of a legacy bequeathed
for charitable purposes.
8.02 The Archbishop wrote to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Earl Spencer, shortly after the purchase,
suggesting that the property was ‘admirably suited for a boys’ industrial school so sadly needed
in that district’.
8.03 The Lord Lieutenant sought advice from his officials on the matter and the feedback was
universally against the proposal. The general view can be summed up in the following extract
from a memorandum from one of his officials:
In a wild remote district like Letterfrack it is very improbable that there would be any
genuine cases for committal, the children there do not beg. There is no one to beg from.
They all have settled places of abode – they live with their parents; are not found
wandering, and though no doubt very poor, are not destitute: they do not frequent the
company of thieves – there are no thieves in districts like Letterfrack in Ireland – the
people are very poor but very honest.
8.04 Furthermore, the Lord Lieutenant was advised that the number of national schools in the area
amply provided for the educational needs of the children.
8.05 Despite support from the Inspector of Industrial Schools, Sir John Lentaigne, the Archbishop’s
application for the establishment of an industrial school in Letterfrack was refused by the Lord
Lieutenant.
8.06 However, the Archbishop was not to be dissuaded and he continued to lobby the Lord Lieutenant.
His efforts eventually bore fruit, and a letter from the Vice Regal Lodge dated 11th August 1885
stated:
There are no doubt technical objections to the establishment of an Industrial School at
Letterfrack: but after reading the papers through carefully I am satisfied that the general
and moral reasons far outweigh the objections.
8.07 On 14th November 1885 the Chief Secretary’s Office confirmed its sanction for the establishment
of an industrial school in Letterfrack certified for the reception of 75 boys to open ‘so soon after
the 1st April next as the promoters of the school are in a position to satisfy the Inspector that the
buildings intended for the purpose are fit for the reception of children within the meaning of the
Industrial School Act’. With Sir John Lentaigne already on board, this latter stipulation did not
prove to be a stumbling block.
8.08 The Archbishop entered into negotiations with the Christian Brothers regarding the management
of the School. There were fears that the low certification limit would discourage the Brothers from
agreeing to run the School. Incentives were offered to enhance the proposal. A lease of the lands
and premises was drawn up for a term of 999 years subject to an annual rent of £82.10s and
included ‘about 45 statute acres of good land in the village of Letterfrack on which the new
mansion house, extensive farm buildings, and about 12 or 14 well constructed cottages, large
schools, police barracks and dispensary now stand’. A sizeable sum of money had been expended
on modernising the buildings, and the new Manager of the School would also be given extensive
grazing rights on adjoining land. Funds were also made available from the Archbishop to fund the
purchase of furniture, trades appliances and the construction of workshops.
8.09 The Christian Brothers agreed to manage the Institution, and extensive plans were made to
develop the property into an industrial school. Included in their plans was the purchase of the
adjacent land over which the Archbishop had promised grazing rights. The Government was
concerned when it became aware of these plans and an internal memorandum dated 24th March
1886 stated that Sir Lentaigne should be officially notified that ‘the Government does not see its
way to any future extension to the numbers in the Letterfrack School’ and that the Brothers should
therefore be discouraged from expending large sums of money on the School.
8.10 Whether or not these concerns were communicated to the Christian Brothers, the proposed
developments proceeded. The Chief Secretary signed the certificate for St Joseph’s Industrial
School for the reception of 75 boys on 1st April 1886. Building and refurbishment of the Institution
was completed in August 1887, and the school opened its doors on 12th October 1887.
8.11 In March 1889 the Resident Manager, Br Flood, applied for an increase in the certified number,
and any unease the Government previously had regarding the expansion of the School seemed
to have dissipated over the intervening three years, as a revised certificate was granted on 1st
April 1889 doubling the certified number to 150.
8.12 Once again, in 1895, an application was made for an increase in numbers. Br Slattery, the
Manager, wrote in support of his application ‘the main building, shops and other accessories were
erected to accommodate 200 children to meet the requirements of this large populous district –
the poorest in all Ireland’. He was supported in his application by B. McAndrew, P.P., who also
wrote to the Chief Secretary:
The outlay on the Building for 200 boys, partly made with borrowed money, has much
crippled the resources of the Brothers, as they have not as yet been allowed the full
number for which they provided accommodation, and which would, in some measure,
recoup them.
8.13 He went on to say that:

the restriction of the number to just 150, bears no adequate proportion to the extent and
intensity of the chronic destitution that prevails throughout Connemara. Surely, it will be
a matter of great gratification and grateful remembrance if one of your first public acts of
well-doing amongst us, will secure the blessing of a safe and salutary home for 50 more
of the destitute little ones in the poorest part of Ireland.
8.14 The Chief Secretary was not willing to oblige, and refused to increase the certified number.
8.15 In November 1912 the accommodation limit was increased to 190, with the certified number
remaining at 150 boys. This latter figure was increased in July 1931 to 165, with the
accommodation limit remaining at 190.
8.16 What is particularly noteworthy about the inception of Letterfrack Industrial School is that, despite
the prevailing view that, first, there was no demand for an industrial school in this part of the
country and, secondly, that the location was entirely unsuitable, the Archbishop brought sufficient
pressure to bear that these persuasive grounds for objection were reduced to mere technical
difficulties. However, the reasons against establishing an industrial school in Letterfrack haunted
the School throughout its life and eventually contributed to its closure in 1974.
8.17 St Joseph’s Industrial School, like all other residential schools of that time, provided care for ‘large
numbers of children living together’. The main building was an inverted L-shaped structure. The
ground floor housed the classrooms, the boys’ dining room, their kitchen, scullery, laundry and
bathroom. There were two large dormitories for the boys on the first floor, each holding at least
80 beds. There was a third dormitory for a brief period when numbers were particularly high. By
the 1960s, with falling numbers, only one dormitory was utilised. The Brothers lived in a separate
monastery – the original manor house – beside the School.
Photographs and Plan of Letterfrack

8.18 The following photographs and plan of Letterfrack have been made available to the Committee:
Source: Lawrence Collection, National Photographic Archive,Temple Bar, Dublin (taken between
1870 and 1914).
Source: Congregation of Christian Brothers (taken in the early 1970s).
Source: Congregation of Christian Brothers (1972)

8.19 The physical location of Letterfrack in remote Connemara created a very real sense of isolation,
felt by both the boys and the Brothers in the School. The surrounding region could not supply the
number of boys needed for the School, and most of the children sent there came from many miles
away. This created obvious difficulties for families wishing to visit their children.
8.20 The isolated environment in Letterfrack nurtured an institutionalised culture separate from society
and other institutions. It also led to another unforeseen problem: those people who chose to abuse
boys physically and sexually were able to do so for longer periods of time, because they could
escape detection and punishment by reason of the isolated environment in which they operated.
These matters will be dealt with in detail in the sections that follow.
Management and administration

8.21 2,819 boys passed through the doors of Letterfrack from its opening in 1887 to its closure in 1974.
Between 1940 and 1974, 1,356 boys were resident there. This figure excludes voluntary
admissions which totalled 52 between 1935 and 1954. The following table shows the number of
children detained for each year between 1937 and 1973:
Year Number of children Year Number of children

under detention under detention
1937 125 1955 91
1938 130 1956 86
1939 122 1957 101
1940 140 1958 98
1941 160 1959 108
1942 171 1960 111
1943 150 1961 115
1944 159 1962 128
1945 168 1963 112
1946 166 1964 114
1947 151 1965 100
1948 142 1966 111
1949 154 1967 129
1950 184 1968 111
1951 157 1969 93
1952 158 1970–71 101
1953 144 1971–72 73
1954 147 1972–73 41
8.22 From the outset, there was pressure to increase the certified numbers of boys in Letterfrack in
order to make it a financially viable project. The Institution was large and the Brothers needed the
maximum number of boys in residence. As noted above, the certified number was very quickly
doubled, from the original certified limit of 75 in 1886, to 150 in 1889. The School could officially
accommodate 190 from 1912.
8.23 The authorities struggled to meet this number throughout the years. Even during the emergency
years of World War II, numbers did not reach the accommodation limit. There was an increase in
numbers during these years in all industrial schools, largely due to the more difficult social
conditions, combined with a policy of removing potentially problematic children from the streets.
8.24 The Christian Brothers stated in their Opening Statement to the Commission:
At local level the day to day management of Letterfrack institution, in accordance with the
Rules and Regulations for Industrial Schools was the responsibility of the Resident
Manager. The Resident Manager was appointed by the Irish Provincial Council up to 1956
and by the Provincial Council of St. Mary’s Province, Ireland from 1956–1974. The period
1938 to 1974 saw nine Resident Managers in Letterfrack, the terms of office ranging from
one to six years with an average term of office of five years. During the relevant period
each Resident Manager had between seven and ten Brothers under his control. Between
3 and 5 Brothers were on the teaching staff and there was a Brother who acted as bursar,
an office Brother, a kitchen Brother and a Brother who worked on the farm. For most of
the relevant period there were between fourteen and twenty lay staff employed in the
various trade shops, on the farm or as domestic staff.
8.25 The Resident Manager was also the Superior of the Community and had to perform these dual
roles without any training or guidance.
8.26 In his report on Letterfrack commissioned by the Congregation in 2001, Mr Dunleavy BL identified
the lack of any management structure:
In the course of interviews with Christian Brothers who had previously worked in the
school, the evidence was that the Brother acting as Resident Manager of the school had
complete powers with regard to the running of the school. There appears to have been a
weekly Community conference in the school but this seems to have been an occasion
when directions were given to the Community, rather than any proper discussion taking
place regarding the running of the school.1
The changing face of Letterfrack

8.27 Until 1954, Letterfrack was home to three categories of boys: those who were committed through
the courts because they were homeless, without proper guardianship, destitute, in breach of the
School Attendance Act or guilty of criminal offences; those sent by the Local Authorities pursuant
to the Public Assistance Act 1949; and boys who were voluntarily admitted by parents or
guardians.
8.28 On 12th January 1954 the Provincial Council, led by Br O’Hanlon,2 met with the six Resident
Managers of the Christian Brothers’ schools. A decision was taken to close one of their schools
because of the deteriorating financial position of the industrial schools, mainly attributed to falling
numbers, which had resulted in a decline in income. Carriglea, situated in Dun Laoghaire, Co
Dublin, was nominated for closure because it was the most suitable for use as a juniorate for the
Congregation. A unanimous decision was also taken at the meeting to segregate ‘juvenile
delinquents’ from other categories of boys and locate them all at Letterfrack, and it was felt that
the closure of Carriglea would provide an ideal opportunity to put this plan into effect.
8.29 There was opposition to this proposal from the Departments of Justice and Education and the
Judiciary. A meeting was convened on 14th May 1954, attended by Br O’Hanlon, District Justice
McCarthy, who presided over the Dublin Metropolitan Children’s Court, and representatives of the
Department of Education. District Justice McCarthy indicated that he had grave concerns about
the isolated location of Letterfrack, which made it unsuitable, in his view, as a school for young
offenders. However, his protest fell on deaf ears. So, too, did a protest from District Justice
Gleeson, who also pointed out the difficulties that would be caused by Letterfrack’s remoteness.
8.30 The majority of the children in Letterfrack were from Dublin and Leinster. The percentage rose
from 56% in the 1950s to 76% in the 1960s. These children would have been better served by
the retention of Carriglea as an industrial school, where they could have had more access to
parents and siblings.
1
Letterfrack Industrial School, Report on archival material held at Cluain Mhuire, by Bernard Dunleavy BL (2001).
2

8.31 The Provincial Council decided that all of the Public Assistance cases and ‘as many of the other
boys who are in the school through no fault of their own as would leave the number of non-
transferred boys at 85’ should be relocated from Letterfrack. This number represented the lowest
number of boys that would enable the school to remain economically viable.
8.32 The Department of Education wrote to the relevant authorities, including the Departments of
Health and Justice, District Justice McCarthy and the NSPCC, informing them of the decision of
the Christian Brothers. They were informed that boys who had been convicted of offences would
no longer be accepted in Artane, Salthill, Tralee or Glin.
8.33 On 30th June 1954 there were 179 boys resident in Letterfrack. On 2nd September 1954, 80 boys
were transferred to other industrial schools, and 14 were released on supervision certificate. The
80 boys were distributed to Salthill, Artane and Kilkenny. On 30th September 1954 the Department
of Education records show there were 87 boys resident in Letterfrack.
8.34 The Christian Brothers submitted in their Opening Statement that the Brothers were prepared to
make this proposal, even though it meant a significant drop in numbers in Letterfrack and,
consequently, an appreciable loss of income because of the decreased per capita payment. They
felt the separation was in the best interests of the boys, even though the School would suffer
economically.
8.35 There may have been other reasons apart from the best interests of the boys for making this
decision. As the scourge of tuberculosis came under control, and the health of the nation
improved, there were fewer orphans. Increasingly, neglected children were being sent to foster-
parents or relatives, and fewer were being placed in institutions. Also, the birth rate was beginning
to fall and fewer children were becoming destitute. On the other hand, more children were being
convicted of larceny, housebreaking, malicious damage, arson, burglary, theft and assault, an
increase already evident by 1953. With numbers in general dropping, it made sense to have a
specialist institution for the one area of the child population that was increasing. Despite the very
real concerns expressed by Judges who presided over the Children’s Court in Dublin and Limerick,
and the slightly more defeatist attempts at opposition demonstrated by the Departments of Justice
and Education, there was no evidence to suggest that the Christian Brothers gave any
consideration to the impact their decision had on the children in their care.
8.36 What this scenario also demonstrated was that, while the Department of Education funded the
industrial and reformatory schools and carried out periodic inspections of schools, these schools
were in reality controlled by the Congregations that ran them, and it mattered little the level of
opposition, or indeed who might be opposing any changes the Congregation proposed – their
decision in the matter was final.
8.37 This decision had serious consequences for the boys in Letterfrack. The School had been reduced
to a number that was not economically viable and this impacted on the level of care these boys
received until Letterfrack closed in 1974. To survive, Letterfrack had to continue taking children
who were destitute or in breach of the School Attendance Act, but these were now in a minority
in the School.
8.38 The full implications of this decision are discussed below.
Closure of Letterfrack
8.39 On 28th September 1965 the Minister for Education met the Provincials from St Mary’s and St
Helen’s Provinces, Br Mulholland and Br O Muimhneachain, together with representatives from
Upton and Clonmel Industrial Schools. The meeting was convened to discuss the closure of some
of the industrial schools. Br Mulholland stated that he would prefer to close Letterfrack rather than
Salthill, as the latter comprised property held in trust, whereas the Brothers were free to put the
premises at Letterfrack to other use. In addition, he pointed out that, if another place of detention
was opened, this would act to further deplete numbers in Letterfrack.
8.40 The Department received written confirmation in November 1965 from the Provincials of their
agreement to close Letterfrack.
8.41 The Archbishop of Tuam, Reverend Joseph Walsh, when he was made aware of these plans by
the Department of Education, wrote an indignant letter dated 17th March 1966 to Br Mulholland
registering his shock and disappointment at the news. He noted that the Christian Brothers had
spent at least £30,000 on the Institution between 1958 and 1966, and considered the decision to
close the School as unjust in the circumstances. In his view, Letterfrack was one school that
should not be closed. It was an excellent school for delinquent boys, as they could not escape
easily because of its isolated location. He continued, ‘in fact I know that the boys like the place.
For many of them it is a pleasant change, and they are very happy’. He stated that he believed
that the Brothers were being treated most unfairly and were not receiving the recognition they
deserved for their work.
8.42 The Archbishop was clearly under the impression that Letterfrack was being closed against the
wishes of the Brothers, and it seems that no attempt was made to rectify this misapprehension.
8.43 The Provincials met the representatives of the Department of Education on 28th March 1966. They
explained that the Archbishop was against the closure of the school and that they did not want to
go against his wishes.
8.44 From 1st July 1972, Letterfrack was recognised as a ‘special school’ by the Department of
Education, which resulted in an increase in the grant payable by the Department of Education.
8.45 In 1973 the Provincial Council decided to close Letterfrack. The only information available
regarding the reasons for the decision was found in a letter dated 27th August 1974, from the
Secretary of the Department of Education to the Provincial of St Mary’s Province, thanking the
Brothers for their devoted work in Letterfrack. In the course of the letter he stated, ‘we well
understand also the reasons behind the decision of the Brothers to close the school – reasons
that emanated from the difficulties of employing professional services in a place so remote as
Letterfrack together with the doubt arising from having city boys in a school so far from home’.
Letterfrack closed on 30th June 1974.
Investigation
8.46 The Investigation Committee conducted hearings in public and private sessions into abuse in
Letterfrack. Br David Gibson, Provincial Leader of St Mary’s Province, gave evidence in a public
session on 16th June 2005. His evidence was based on a detailed Opening Statement submitted
to the Commission in advance of the hearing.
8.47 The Investigation Committee then proceeded to hear evidence from complainants and
respondents in private hearings, which ran from 17th June 2005 to 20th July 2005. Forty
complainants were invited to give evidence to the Committee, and 25 did so. Fourteen respondent
witnesses gave evidence at the private sessions.
8.48 In the third stage of the Investigation Committee’s inquiry into Letterfrack, a public hearing was
convened on 22nd May 2006, and Br Gibson once again gave evidence on behalf of the
Congregation. This session focused on issues that arose as a result of the private hearings into
Letterfrack and the documentary material furnished to the Commission.
8.49 In addition to oral evidence, the Committee considered documentary discovery material received
from the Christian Brothers, the Department of Education and Science, An Garda Sı́ochána, the
Director of Public Prosecutions, the Archbishop of Tuam and the Health Service Executive
(formerly the Western Health Board).
8.50 The Investigation Committee received Submissions from the Christian Brothers and also received
written Submissions on behalf of a number of complainants and individual respondents. These
Submissions were made following the oral hearings and in light of this evidence and the
documentary evidence which emerged during the course of the inquiry.
8.51 The Christian Brothers made similar Submissions regarding Letterfrack as they made in relation
to other institutions. They made the following qualified concessions regarding the main areas of
contention that arose in relation to the investigation into Letterfrack:
It is accepted that, unfortunately, instances of abuse did occur but it is submitted that the
level of abuse was not in any way as extensive or as widespread as the allegations and
much of the surrounding publicity initially would have suggested. The question of the
nature, extent and responsibility for the abuse is a very complex one and not subject to
easy determination. However, it is submitted that the evidence does not support a finding
that the Congregation itself is responsible for abuse.
It is further submitted that the occurrence of instances of sexual abuse should be viewed
in the context of the secretive circumstances in which such abuse was perpetrated and
the lack of contemporary insight into the recidivistic nature of paedophilia.
Physical abuse
Introduction
8.52 This part of the report comprises three sections based on the sources of evidence. First, the
documentary material obtained by the Investigation Committee pursuant to the legal process of
discovery of documents was analysed, and instances of physical abuse were catalogued,
generally in chronological order, together with relevant evidence of complainant witnesses.
Second, the evidence at the Phase II hearings given by Brothers and former Brothers who served
in Letterfrack is detailed, again with complainant testimony. The third section sets out further
reliable evidence of former residents.
Documented cases with evidence of victims and respondents

8.53 The Committee received documentary evidence in respect of seven cases that dealt with
allegations of physical abuse by Brothers in Letterfrack. These cases gave an insight into how
allegations were dealt with by the Congregation.
Use of a horse whip (1940)

8.54 On 8th April 1940, the Sub-Superior of Letterfrack, Br Vernay,3 by-passed the Superior and wrote
a letter to the Provincial complaining about punishment in the School.
The punishment of the boys in Letterfrack has for some time past been of such a character
that without going into detail I feel constrained to call your attention to the matter. The
thing has now become public property and the rehearsal of the acts are not creditable to
the school nor to those concerned. The instruments used and the punishments inflicted
are now obsolete even in criminal establishments. Were it not for the frequency of the
acts I should not have troubled you. I expect that an insistence on the prescriptions of the
Rule without further ado will go far towards putting matters right. I may mention that there
3
This is a pseudonym

are differences of opinion in the Community at the moment in respect of these punishment
in which I do not wish to become involved.
8.55 A member of the Provincial Council made a handwritten note on the letter that the Superior was
queried on 10th April 1940 on the practices complained of, but there is no record of what the
Superior said. Neither was the nature of the offensive punishments specified.
8.56 It is clear from the letter that the Sub-Superior was concerned as follows: first, as to the fact that
the excessive and offensive punishments had been going on ‘for some time past’; secondly, the
matter was being discussed in public and thus causing discredit to the School and the Brothers;
thirdly, the instruments used and the punishments inflicted were, he thought, wholly inappropriate;
fourthly, he drew attention to divisions in the Community of Brothers about these punishments;
and fifthly, and most importantly, it was the frequency of the acts that had impelled him to write.
8.57 A senior Brother in the Provincial team carried out the annual Visitation of the School in May. He
found that there was a cleavage between the Brothers in the Community, in which most of them
lined up on one side or the other and two sought to remain neutral. The source of the disharmony
was the punishment of a number of boys who were guilty of improper conduct. The Superior
commissioned two Brothers to punish them and they did this as the boys were going to bed ‘using
a horsewhip rather freely’. Two Brothers and a teacher witnessed the punishment from a distance,
and one of the Brothers later characterised it as brutal and others agreed. The report went on:
The severe punishment was a subject of gossip in the workshops and village. The
Superior realises that he acted imprudently in the matter and that the consequences might
have been serious. The estrangement that followed these incidents made life in the
Community unpleasant. Reconciliations have been effected and let us hope they will be
lasting.
8.58 Notwithstanding the reference in Br Vernay’s letter to the Provincial to the frequency of this
punishment, later in the report the Visitor said:
Boys appear to be happy and contented and I was assured that outside the case of severe
punishment alluded to above there has been no excessive punishment.
8.59 Following the Visitation, Br Corben,4 the Provincial, wrote to the Superior outlining some of the
salient features of the report. He informed Br Troyes5 that the Superior General had written to the
Provincial on the subject, stating:
One item of the Report is so serious that I confine my remarks to it. The Superior who
permitted the punishment which the Law of the Congregation (Act 65 of Acts of General
Chapter) forbids and humanity abhors should get more than a mere reprimand ... The
reputation of the Congregation is at stake. A less offence in Prior Park6 was punished by
fines, imprisonment, dismissal of the Head of the School, and an order from the
Government to close the School or to put it under new management.
4
5
6
Prior Park was a residential school run by the Christian Brothers near Bath, England.

8.60 The part of the Superior General’s letter that the Provincial omitted was:
a secular body who would continue an official in office after allowing a law to be set aside
to permit an offence which the common law punishes does not merit public confidence. I
wish you to discuss in Council what is to be done in this case with the Superior of
Letterfrack. I think the offence should not be passed over.
8.61 There was no record of any action being taken against the Superior of Letterfrack on the strength
of this suggestion, and he remained as Manager until the following year when his six-year
tenure expired.
8.62 • The Congregation was aware that excessive punishment of children could be unlawful.
• The Visitor accepted an assurance that this case was the only case of excessive
punishment, although the Sub-Superior’s letter, written less than a month before the
Visitation, stressed that his reason for writing was the frequency of the acts.
• The Visitor did not look into the other matters of concern in the Sub-Superior’s letter,
namely the duration, public knowledge, instruments used and nature of punishments.
• The recommendation that the Brother Superior should receive ‘more than a mere
reprimand’ appears to have been ignored.
• The condition of the children who had been brutally horse-whipped was not given
consideration in the correspondence.
Br Leveret7 (1940)
8.63 The Resident Manager had occasion later in the same year to return to the subject of excessive
corporal punishment with reference to one of the Brothers involved in the horsewhipping incident,
which had happened in April. He wrote to the Br Provincial in November 1940 and stated:
At a Conference on the resumption of school business, I quoted Rules re Corp
Punishment, Sup Gen’s reference to my authorising “brutal punishment” during last term
and in plain words I forbade certain types of punishment. I stated that, in future, in
presence of a third party, I would punish for any serious offence amongst the boys. Br
Leveret has not adhered to the regulations.
8.64 He referred to this Brother again in a subsequent letter:

Punishment: a stick is the general instrument used and even with this he goes beyond
the rule. I have seen recently a boy with swollen hand, palm and thumb, the steward on
farm remarked he was not able to milk for some days. A boy was stripped and beaten in
(Br Leveret’s) room. He has put boys across his bed in room and even in unbecoming
postures to beat them behind. The boys are absolutely afraid to divulge who punished
them and won’t even answer questions truthfully, through fear of being punished again.
Only this week I got two little fellows crying and I asked them what happened. They would
not tell me.
8.65 The subject of this Brother’s severity with the boys arose in correspondence concerning his
removal from the position of Disciplinarian. In a letter written in November 1940 to the Provincial,
the Brother said:
Since I came to this house I have never punished a single boy severely except on the
one occasion when I was ordered to do so by my Superior. This was the occasion when
a number of big boys were involved in immorality. I explained the matter to [the Visitor]
and he said that I did right in obeying my Superior.
7

Since this Conference you referred to and for months before it I have not punished a
single boy severely. I have, except on just a few occasions, used the leather at all times.
On these few occasions when I had to give a slight punishment to a boy it was outside of
school altogether and I had not got a leather on my person. Even then I never gave more
than two slaps with an old piece of cane. In fact I have made it a rule for a long time back
never to give more than one slap to a boy. I would be a most unreasonable Br were I to
be severe to these poor boys who have obeyed and worked hard for me at all times. I
know I have vexed the Superior a good many times because I did not punish the boys
severely enough for his taste. He told me hundreds of times never to spare them. I will
give you his own words in brackets. What are they but “illegitimates and pure dirt”.
8.66 The Provincial’s reply, if any, is not available but he appears to have sided against him, as Br
Leveret was transferred to Salthill. The records of that Institution show that he was criticised for
using excessive punishment in that school, in 1949 and 1950. In 1950, his Superior complained
that he ‘had injured at least two boys when inflicting corporal punishment’.
8.67 The Congregation’s comment was as follows:

The above incident demonstrates well how the Brothers generally did not approve of
severe corporal punishment. Those who did not approve were courageous enough to
speak out even though it meant having to live with the person against whom they spoke.
The contention that those religious who did not abuse were culpable because they did
not “stand in the way” of abuse they witnessed does not stand up to scrutiny. When
abuse was known to a Brother, the documentation indicates that he made it known to
the authorities.
8.68 • This case is evidence of a particular feature of congregational life, namely, that
complaints were more likely to be made when relations were poor in the Community
or where some other issue was present.
• The management saw the problem in this case, not in terms of the cruel and
unauthorised punishment of the boys but rather the combination of insubordination
by Br Leveret and poor inter-Community relations.
• Transferring Br Leveret to Salthill, which was the way in which the problem was dealt
with, did nothing to reduce his propensity for violence in his dealings with boys.
• The Rules and Regulations of the Congregation and of the Department of Education
on corporal punishment were disregarded by Br Leveret, but the Superior did not
enforce them, even in the knowledge that the Brother had frightened boys to the point
where they would not truthfully answer questions about him.
• A matter deserving of investigation in itself was whether the Superior had described
the boys as ‘illegitimates and pure dirt’, and the outcome ought to have been censure
either of the Superior for what he said or of the Brother for his false attribution of
offensive words.
Br Perryn8 (1941)
8.69 Br Perryn was in Letterfrack for two periods totalling 19 years between 1913 and the early 1940s.
In 1941 he was discovered to have been sexually abusing the boys in his charge. The Visitor
noted:
Boys whom I interviewed told me that they were afraid to reveal the malpractices through
fear of Br Perryn. It is alleged that he beats them, kicks them, catches them by the throat
etc. and uses them for immoral ends.
8

8.70 This was not the first complaint that had been made against Br Perryn in respect of his use of
excessive corporal punishment. In April 1917, the Sub-Superior of Letterfrack, Br Gardiner,9 wrote
to the Superior complaining of Br Perryn’s ‘notorious’ severity towards the boys:
Last Autumn I complained of Br Perryn’s harsh and cruel treatment, and now he still
continues along the same lines. About a month ago he took a boy out of bed at near 10
o’clock at night and punished him in the lavatory in his night-shirt, and that because the
boy took a pinch of salt out of the salt box on the table in the boy’s kitchen. About a week
after he did the same to another boy who took a potato off the table in the boy’s kitchen
and on last Thursday night, about 10 o’clock, he did the same to another boy for calling
him names! In each case he acted on the report of another boy ... I stood and counted
27 slaps given in the space of about five minutes to some juniors in the knitting room. He
uses a rod also and strikes them on the legs and I have been told uses it wildly and
wantonly as if for sport sometimes ... His severity in the knitting room is notorious – and
the more so to be deplored as many of the young children are delicate and their hands
are sore, chilblains being prevalent among them.
8.71 Br Perryn remained in Letterfrack for two years after this letter was written and returned eight
years later, where he continued his reign of terror until he was finally removed in 1941 because
of sexual abuse of boys.
8.72 Noah Kitterick,10 who was detained in the school from 1924 to 1932, named this Brother in a letter
of complaint sent to the Superior in 1953, which is considered in more detail in the later section
on sexual abuse.
8.73 The Congregation in its Opening Statement commented:
It is difficult to explain how Br Perryn was reappointed to Letterfrack when he had been
found to have been physically abusive during his first period in Letterfrack ...
8.74 • Br Perryn spent 14 years in Letterfrack on his second assignment there and, in addition
to sexual abuse of boys, he was also violent and frightening to them.
• If the Brothers considered what Br Perryn had done to the boys to be a serious
infraction, they would have responded effectively to this complaint at the time and
thereby spared other children.
A black eye explained (1943)

8.75 A Department of Education General Inspection was carried out on 31st August 1943. The report
noted that the health of the boys was very good and that the Resident Manager, Br Marcel11 was
kind and good to the boys. The Inspector did notice one case of a boy with a black eye and, on
inquiring as to the cause, was informed that it was the result of a blow from a Brother. The
Department of Education took the matter up with the Resident Manager:
It appears, however, that she found one boy suffering from a black eye and was informed
that it was the result of a blow from one of the Brothers for talking in class. The Minister
would be glad to learn whether, this in fact, was the case and if so, I am to request you
to forbid correction of this kind in future as it is both extremely dangerous and undesirable.
9
10
11

8.76 Br Marcel replied that the black eye was the result of an accident. He explained the matter as
follows:
The Resident Manager regrets the occurrence indicated and he has no doubt that there
shall not be a recurrence of a like nature. The Brother while remonstrating with his class
happened accidentally to strike the boy who stood behind him with his elbow in the face.
8.77 In Phase III, Br Gibson was asked whether this seemed like a plausible explanation and he said:
Well, it doesn’t, but I’m not going to judge. I mean you are talking about 60 years ago, so
I just don’t know. It doesn’t sound plausible no, it doesn’t.
8.78 • The Department of Education properly sought an explanation for the injury but
accepted without further question a manifestly implausible account that was
inconsistent with what the Inspector had been told. This was one of many instances
where the Department allowed the Institution itself to investigate complaints. The boy
does not appear to have been questioned in the course of the investigation.
Br Maslin:12 Br Aubin’s13 complaint (1945)

8.79 As the Visitor prepared to leave Letterfrack after his four-day inspection in April 1945, Br Aubin
wrote a hurried note to him. There had probably been a conversation between the Visitor and the
Brother, in which it was proposed that the complaint which Br Aubin wished to make should be put
in writing. The note described a serious disagreement between the writer and the Disciplinarian, Br
Maslin, concerning severe punishments that the latter had inflicted on boys. The circumstances
outlined to the Visitor were revealing of different aspects of life in the Institution. The case is
therefore important for a number of reasons.
8.80 By way of background, the Visitation Report for the previous year recorded disharmony between
the two Brothers involved in this episode and also involving, to a lesser extent, other members of
the Letterfrack Community.
8.81 The events related in the note are best listed in sequence:
• Br Aubin learned that a boy who was in charge of 15 or more other boys working on
the farm ill-treated them by beating them severely with a leather. The boy had done
this on three occasions.
• The Brother reported the matter to the Disciplinarian, Br Maslin, who knew about it
already. They decided that the boy should be punished ‘as he had not been allowed
or told to punish these boys’.
• Br Aubin suggested informing the Superior but his colleague dismissed this. Br Maslin
said that there was more than punishment wrong between this boy and the others,
meaning sexual activity. On this the Brothers disagreed.
• A few days passed during which Br Aubin questioned the boy in charge and 13 of the
others who were on the farm. He was satisfied that nothing more than the unauthorised
punishment had taken place.
• On the next Sunday, Br Maslin meted out punishment to a boy, which left him with a
swollen cheek, for allegedly allowing another boy into his bed or going into the other’s
bed. The boy emphatically denied the charge.
• Later on that day, Br Maslin punished the farm boy in the surgery off the school, in the
presence of Br Aubin who believed that the boy was innocent of immorality and that
his only wrongdoing was unauthorised beatings of other boys. During the punishment,
12
This is a pseudonym. See also the Tralee chapter.
13
This is a pseudonym

Br Maslin accused the boy of carrying on immorally with the boys on the farm and he
confessed – out of fear, as Br Aubin believed – and gave some 15 names of those
with whom he had offended, including among them the 13 previously interviewed by
Br Aubin and found innocent. Before he finished punishing the boy, the Disciplinarian
sent Br Aubin to bring back the boy who suffered the swollen cheek in the earlier
beating and who was also on the farm at the material time.
• This boy was then accused of having oral sex with the boy in charge, which he denied,
but he was nevertheless punished severely.
• The next day, Br Aubin spoke once more to the boy in charge on the farm, who assured
him that none of what he had told Br Maslin was true and that he said what the Brother
wanted him to say for fear of further punishment.
• Br Aubin went back to the farm boys he had previously interviewed and confirmed his
view that there had been no immorality.
• Br Maslin remained convinced that he was right and refused to accompany Br Aubin
to speak to the boys again. He declared his intention to punish all the boys who had
not already been punished and, in addition, to punish the boy in charge for going back
on his confession.
• Br Aubin told the Brothers who were in charge of the farm boys in the School and the
dormitory, and they in turn inquired into the sexual allegations and rejected them. The
Superior was informed at last.
• One of the School and dormitory Brothers recalled another previous unsubstantiated
allegation by the Disciplinarian of sexual misconduct by a boy.
• The Visitor left a typewritten list of 22 recommendations with the Superior, including
no. 9 with the underlined words added in handwriting:
Manager to be present when punishment beyond the ordinary is being administered.
8.82 Some other points in Br Aubin’s letter should be mentioned.
8.83 Firstly, Br Aubin and the Disciplinarian were agreed that the boy temporarily in charge on the farm
was wrong because ‘he had not been allowed or told to punish’ the other boys. The implication
was that there could have been circumstances in which he would be authorised to do so. It may
be that too much should not be read into this, taking account of the rushed nature of the letter,
but the distinct impression remains that it was not the fact of punishment in itself but the
punishment not having been authorised that was the real offence committed by the boy in charge.
8.84 Secondly, when the two Brothers were discussing the sexual allegation involving the boy in
charge, Br Aubin defended him by pointing out that ‘through all the morbid cases in the past his
name was never mentioned’. This was recognition of the scale of the problem of sexual activity
between boys in Letterfrack.
8.85 Thirdly, the Disciplinarian turned down the suggestion that the Superior should be informed and
gave as one of his reasons that, when he took a case on a previous occasion to the Superior, the
latter did not believe the witnesses, and the boy accused of sexual misconduct went unpunished.
8.86 Finally, the letter acknowledged that the Disciplinarian ‘can inflict terrible punishment on children
and the boys have a terrible dread of his anger’.
8.87 Br Maslin was transferred to another industrial school, Carriglea, in January 1946.
8.88 The Congregation’s Opening Statement commented on this case as follows:

Once again, the complaints were acted upon and the offending person taken out of the
situation. Why he was transferred to Carriglea in 1946 for 4 years, and later to day
schools, is not known.
8.89 Br Maslin was sent to Carriglea at a time when it had deteriorated into near anarchy due to the
ineffectiveness and incompetence of successive Resident Managers. The Congregation realised
that drastic measures were called for. Br Maslin continued his abusive practices in Carriglea when
he was transferred there. He was described by one complainant in Carriglea as the most feared
of the Brothers there.
8.90 • The problem that the Congregation dealt with in this case was the dispute between
two Brothers; it did not deal with the cruel or unjust treatment of the boys or the failure
of management to protect them.
• The contents of Br Aubin’s letter should have caused alarm to the Leadership of the
Christian Brothers. If what he said was true, it disclosed a very serious episode of
cruelty and injustice in Letterfrack. If what he said was not true, severe disciplinary
action was called for against him.
• There should have been an immediate investigation into Br Maslin’s extreme violence
against children for alleged offences that were denied by the boys and were
disbelieved by other Brothers.
• The case illustrates how management was unable to deal with disputes between
Brothers, even though they had a knock-on effect throughout the Institution and could
lead to boys becoming victims of these disputes.
• Recommendation no. 9, as typed by the Visitor before he left Letterfrack, read ‘Manager
to be present when punishment is being administered’. This was, in effect, a re-
statement of the requirements of the Rules and Regulations governing industrial
schools. The insertion of the words ‘beyond the ordinary’ amounted to a qualification.
The amendment was highly significant because its effect was to render the injunction
meaningless. It was a matter of individual interpretation what constituted punishment
for which the Manager’s presence was required. The addition of these three words
illustrated that keeping corporal punishment as an option for all Brothers was deemed
essential to the running of the Institution.
Br Percival14 (1949)
8.91 The Visitation Report for 1949 was critical of Br Percival for being over-severe in the administration
of discipline in the classroom. He was in Letterfrack for six years during the late 1940s and
mid-1950s.
8.92 The 1949 Report stated:

Discipline in the school is good, and is maintained without undue severity. Br Percival has
been over severe at times. The Superior has spoken to him about the matter, and I also
made mention of it. He seems to be sincerely determined to have no relapse.
8.93 Br Sorel15 worked in Letterfrack during the same period and he gave evidence to the Investigation
Committee. He had a vivid recollection of Br Percival who arrived in Letterfrack at the same time
as him. Br Sorel remembered him as very harsh and as someone who punished severely. He
tended to overdo it and would hurt the boys. He said that he could hear Br Percival in the
classroom overdoing it with the strap. He would hear the noise of the strap on the hand. Br
Percival was noisier than anyone else. Br Sorel said that there was a rule that they were not
14
15

allowed to punish for lessons. However, Br Percival punished boys for minor misdemeanours. He
recalled that, one night at tea, one of the Brothers, Br Noell,16 reprimanded Br Percival for being
overly severe. A number of boys reported Br Percival to the Superior for his severity in the
dormitories and, as a result, he was removed from dormitory duty and was replaced by Br Sorel,
who was asked by the Superior to take over.
8.94 There was evidence from former residents as to the severity of this Brother. He seems to have
been immature and vicious and perhaps somewhat unstable. If his county did badly in a GAA
match, he would react extremely angrily and take it out on the boys in the classroom and in the
School the following day.
8.95 A complainant who was resident in the late 1940s said that he treated all the boys badly and was
always picking on his brother. He used to put his brother at the back of the class and beat him.
The witness also described how Br Percival beat him for failure at lessons.
8.96 The Congregation in its response to these allegations confirmed that there was a Br Percival in
Letterfrack but that he had since left the Christian Brothers and therefore the Congregation was
not in a position to either accept or reject the specific allegation. The response statement went on:
It should be noted however that the Congregation has no contemporaneous record of any
complaint having been made against Br Percival. Further, the allegation does not accord
with what is recorded of Br Percival in the Visitation report of 1950. It notes that Br Percival
is “sympathetic to the poor children ... in this institution”.
8.97 It was regrettable that in its response the Congregation chose to quote from the 1950 Visitation
Report, but ignored the 1949 one which is quoted above and which referred to Br Percival being
‘over severe at times’. The complainant in this case came to give evidence in the belief that his
allegations were regarded as ill-founded. The Congregation’s failure to address these allegations
properly was all the more regrettable in circumstances where a serving member of the
Congregation, Br Sorel, could have given a first-hand account of his experience of Br Percival.
Fortunately, Br Sorel was available to give evidence.
8.98 A complainant who was resident from the late 1940s to the mid-1950s said that Br Percival was
fanatical about sports and if the boys were not playing well he would hit them with his hurley. He
also said that, if Br Percival’s team lost at hurling, he would be violent towards the boys for the
following week. However, he stressed that Br Percival’s bad temper was not limited to the sports
field. He said that Br Percival was very severe in the classroom as well. He used to beat the boys
for talking or failure at lessons. He described one particular incident where Br Percival beat a boy,
who had to wear callipers, for talking in class:
This day he took this lad who was talking in the class, and he said, “get out there”. [The
boy], had callipers on his legs, he could hardly walk. When he got out he just gave him a
dig with his fist, knocked him to the floor and jumped on him like he was a bag of potatoes.
That lad was in callipers.
8.99 Another complainant confirmed that Br Percival would be in a bad temper and mistreat the boys
if his team lost at hurling.
8.100 The Congregation’s response was the same for this case, and so the complainant came to the
Commission in the belief that his allegations were viewed with suspicion by the Congregation. No
effort was made to investigate the allegations, but the Congregation adopted a position of
scepticism as a default position that was not helpful to the individual complainant.
16

8.101 A complainant who was resident in the late 1940s, who did not identify Br Percival in his original
statement, gave evidence that he was quite good at handball and that one evening Br Percival
told him to play with him against the cobbler and the tailor. They lost and Br Percival slapped him
across the mouth. He later offered him a glass of lemonade but he couldn’t drink it as he was
too sore.
8.102 Br Percival spent a total of six years in Letterfrack. Having completed his teacher training he
returned to Letterfrack for a year before being transferred to a day school in Dublin. He applied
for and was granted secularisation in the late 1950s.
8.103 The Congregation did not address the allegations against this Brother in its Closing Submissions.
8.104 • Br Percival was an unstable man who should not have been teaching or caring for
children, particularly in a residential school like Letterfrack where his propensity for
violence could extend beyond the classroom and where the children had no parental
protection.
• Br Percival’s irrational and unpredictable behaviour generated fear and insecurity in
the boys, who found it impossible to avoid punishment.
• Br Percival’s violence was known to the authorities in Letterfrack, and the fact that he
was allowed to remain for so long is evidence that preventing this kind of abuse of
power and trust was not a priority.
• The Congregation’s attempt to defend Br Percival by reference to a favourable
Visitation Report was not balanced, as it should have been, by making reference to
the other, unfavourable Report.
Complaint by Noah Kitterick

8.105 Noah Kitterick was a resident of Letterfrack from 1924 to 1932, which is outside the relevant
period of this investigation. The reason why his story appears here is because of the response of
the Congregation to his private and public complaints about Letterfrack. These began with two
letters to the Superior of Letterfrack in 1953, and concluded with a visit to the Superior General
in 1957. Mr Kitterick died tragically when he set fire to himself in London in 1967.
8.106 Mr Kitterick wrote two letters in 1953 to the Superior of Letterfrack, in which he complained about
three named Brothers in Letterfrack. He claimed that they were tyrannical and sadistic:
Bros Piperel,17 Corvax18 and Perryn ... these men were a disgrace to the Christian
Brothers. Piperel and Corvax were tyrants. Br Perryn who was in the cook-house and
refectory took great pleasure in beating boys for no reason, he was a sadist, for beating
us he used a piece of rubber motor tyre.
Almost daily we were flogged by one or other of these Bros. Dozens of times I left the
dining room with my hands bleeding ...
On several occasions after a meal, I was taken to the pantry ... by Br Perryn. He would
lock the door and make me undress he would then sit on a stool and would put me across
his knee and then flog me savagely he would then pinch me until I was unconscious.
8.107 Mr Kitterick followed up this letter with another, two days later, in which he said that he wished to
see Letterfrack closed until improvements could be made there and the perpetrators of abuse
brought to justice.
8.108 His letters were not replied to.

17
18

8.109 The Brothers he identified were all members of the Community in Letterfrack during his time there,
although the presence of one Brother, Br Corvax, was only verified by the Congregation in 2007.
Mr Kitterick made a spelling mistake in one of the names but that did not prevent easy identification
of the person.
8.110 The Christian Brothers knew that the principal culprit named by Mr Kitterick, Br Perryn, had a
history of serious physical and sexual abuse of boys, as recorded in the Congregation’s
documents.
8.111 The third Brother, Br Piperel had, to the Congregation’s knowledge as recorded in their
documents, a history of sexually improper and suggestive behaviour which had necessitated his
urgent removal from a day school. Notwithstanding this information, the Congregation maintained
complete silence in the face of Mr Kitterick’s letters.
8.112 Mr Kitterick met with the Provincial of the Congregation in 1957. In a letter to the Congregation’s
solicitors, the Provincial said that he thought Mr Kitterick was on a ‘blackmail ticket’:
This evening I had a “gentleman” named Kitterick ex-British army to see me. He said he
was an ex-pupil of our industrial school in Letterfrack and that the doctors had said that
all his troubles were due to the hardship he got whilst in Letterfrack. I took it that he was
working on the blackmail ticket and after listening to him for some time I gave him your
name and address as our solicitor. I know you will know how to deal with him if he
approaches.
8.113 Mr Kitterick continued his campaign:

During the last ten years I have reported about conditions in Letterfrack, which I have no
reason to think have changed very much, to the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr McQuaid, and
Dr Browne Bishop of Galway, as well as President de Valera, and to the Superiors of
many industrial schools. I have yet to receive a reply.19
8.114 In the public hearing on Letterfrack, Br Gibson explained the silence of the Congregation on
this issue:
I think it was a totally inadequate response. We have been dealing with allegations of
abuse over the last 10 years and certainly one of the things we would always do is listen
to the person who has the complaint and pay great attention to it. We would assure them
that we would investigate it and we would look to see is there any veracity in it. I think
there was certainly in the past, and say 10 years ago when the issue of child abuse came
to the fore, there was general disbelief that this could happen. I think generally people
were saying this couldn’t happen in the Brothers and I think there was general horror,
disbelief, denial. I think with time we have discovered that it has happened in the past.
Certainly the Leadership of the time, it was probably one or two cases that they were
dealing with and probably saw it, particularly when he was mentioning a Brother who
wasn’t in Letterfrack amongst those three, they were probably holding on to that idea it’s
not all true, therefore, can’t any of it be true. I think that was unfortunate.
8.115 The explanation that allegations of child abuse would have been met with ‘general horror, disbelief,
denial’, even in 1957, is difficult to sustain in view of the number of cases of sexual and physical
mistreatment of boys that the Congregation had dealt with. Brothers had been dismissed, moved
or been given Canonical Warnings for such activities. All of the industrial schools run by the
Congregation had experienced abuse, and so it was not correct to claim ignorance of this
problem.
19
This document is undated, although the date ‘6th November 1964’ is crossed out.

8.116 When the first complaint was received from Mr Kitterick in 1953, even the most cursory
investigation of the files would have disclosed that Br Perryn had been reprimanded for his severity
in 1917 and, in 1941, just 12 years previously, had been removed for physical and sexual abuse
after the Visitor to Letterfrack received complaints from the boys there: ‘They are so shockingly
obscene, revolting and abominable that it is hard to believe them’.
8.117 Br Piperel had been the subject of a serious allegation of sexual abuse in Letterfrack that was
documented in the Congregation’s records, which also implied that he had a previous history of
interference with boys. He worked in industrial schools until the 1950s and then moved to a day
school. He was removed from a day school in Cork for sexually inappropriate behaviour towards
a young girl just a few months prior to Mr Kitterick’s first letter.
8.118 The information recently provided by the Congregation confirmed that the third Brother named by
Mr Kitterick was in Letterfrack during his time. It follows that, if the Brothers who dealt with this
correspondence decided to ignore it because he had named a Brother who was not present, they
were entirely wrong. The Brothers at the time could have established whether the third Brother
was there if there was any doubt about the matter. The possibility that the Congregation decided
its response on this basis was not grounded in any document but was an interpretation advanced
by Br Gibson on behalf of the current Congregation.
8.119 • The Congregation’s refusal to respond to Noah Kitterick’s complaints was indicative
of an organisation that chose not to investigate criticism or admit failings.
• The Congregation sought to protect itself from the allegations rather than seeking to
ascertain the truth.
• The Christian Brothers’ records contained potential corroborative material, and the
complaints warranted full investigation.
• The Congregation’s current position is that allegations of abuse, both physical and
sexual, came as a shock to the Congregation, but such allegations had been dealt with
for many years.
Br Verrill20
8.120 Br Verrill worked in Letterfrack in the early 1960s, having been transferred from Artane. He was
the subject of written complaints about his treatment of boys in Artane in the late 1950s which are
dealt with in full in the Artane chapter.
Evidence of individual respondents

8.121 Fourteen former members of staff, 13 Brothers or ex-Brothers and one lay-man, gave evidence
about corporal punishment. They were in Letterfrack between 1948 and 1974.
Br Sorel
8.122 Br Sorel was a teacher in Letterfrack from the late 1940s until the late 1950s. He also worked in
the dormitories. He said that Letterfrack was a harsh place:
The whole experience. I cannot justify it. It was too strict and the lads were great that they
were able to accept it and come through it ...
8.123 The need for strictness had been impressed upon him at an early stage:
I was as strict as anybody else. The system was strict and we were told at the very
beginning that unless we had discipline, that there would be chaos, there would be chaos.
20

8.124 He was told by senior Brothers never to let his guard down and to maintain an aloof and stern
visage. He did so even though he was fearful inside:
One of the Brothers said to me, “Whatever you do don’t smile, walk along with a very
serious face”, and I was shivering. Nobody knew that. I was shivering in my boots. Quite
a number of the lads there were big strong lads, ... huge guys there, I was shivering in
my shoes because I never had this experience.
8.125 These same Brothers also told him that, by being strict, he would be better able to keep control,
which resulted in his punishing boys unnecessarily.
8.126 According to Br Sorel, absconders were treated particularly harshly. Their heads were shaved
and they were often forced to march around the yard in silence during recreation periods. They
were also forced to sit with their backs to the screen during the weekly cinema performance. He
described this as a fierce punishment because the weekly film was so eagerly anticipated by
everybody in the School.
8.127 He found the work very difficult. He taught three classes and had responsibility for one of the
dormitories. He would get up at 5:45am, attend morning prayers, wake the boys, bring them to
Mass, take them to the refectory, have his own breakfast, supervise the morning chores, bring
them to school, and teach until lunchtime. The boys would then go to the various trade shops for
industrial training. This was his first break. He would supervise them again and bring them to bed.
8.128 Br Sorel made the shocking admission that he forced a boy to eat his own excrement. The boy
was not a complainant to the Investigation Committee but the incident was recounted by a
complainant who had witnessed it. The Brother in his written response to the Investigation
Committee accepted that the allegation was true. In evidence he told the Committee:
Well the ... thing has haunted me all my life. It should never have happened. Actually he
didn’t eat the excrement, he spat it into the basin, that doesn’t matter, it was wrong, totally
wrong, and I accept that. I accept full responsibility for it. It was cruel.
8.129 When asked by the Committee why he did it, he said that he was stressed by having to cope with
boys who soiled themselves, particularly during the night. He asked colleagues what he should
do about one particular boy:
A few days before I mentioned this to some of the staff, “what will I do”, I couldn’t get any
help from anybody. One of them quite cynically said, “make him eat his own shit”. When
I think now on this particular morning, he did it right out in the floor in front of everybody
and I saw red, I saw anger, I thought he was doing it purposefully to ridicule me. I think
that was the reason.
8.130 He added that as soon as he had calmed down he knew he had gone too far and he subsequently
apologised to the boy in question.
8.131 • The stresses of working in Letterfrack as teacher and carer caused this young,
untrained and inexperienced Brother to behave in a shameful manner towards a
troubled child.
• This disgusting incident was not unique: another example is reported in the Artane
chapter.
• With hindsight the Brother was able to recognise the severity of the regime in
Letterfrack and the damage it could do to both Brothers and boys.
Br Dax21
8.132 Br Dax was in Letterfrack from the late 1950s to mid-1970s, except for one year. In 2003, he was
convicted of 25 counts of sexual abuse committed during this period. His evidence is dealt with
in detail in the section on sexual abuse.
8.133 His evidence is also relevant in this section. He admitted using violence and the threat of violence
to prevent boys he sexually abused from reporting him. He also admitted to being a generally
cruel and violent person. He agreed that he was an angry man with a bizarre prejudice against
boys from County Limerick. He admitted that if he lost his temper he hit boys with whatever he
had in his hands and that he could have drawn blood on such occasions. He also accepted in
cross-examination that it was possible that he would have walked up behind them and struck
them on the back of the head just to get their attention.
8.134 • How Br Dax could have continued unchecked for such a long period of time is a
question that arises acutely in regard to sexual abuse of boys.
• His use of premeditated violence in some circumstances, and capricious violence in

others, should of itself have triggered an investigation that might have uncovered the
full extent of his abusive activities.
Br Francois22
8.135 This Brother, who served there for two years from the late 1950s to the early 1960s, made a
number of important concessions in relation to Letterfrack. He confirmed that he was not given
any specific instruction on punishment and that the use of the leather strap, which some Brothers
carried around with them all the time, was totally discretionary. He also said he had no recollection
of a punishment book during his time there.
8.136 He said that boys would only be referred to the Disciplinarian for serious breaches of the rules
such as fighting. The individual Brother dealt with minor infractions on the spot.
8.137 Boys who were caught near another boy’s bed at night were slapped on the buttocks. This
punishment was administered in the dormitory or in the washroom attached to it. He said that he
frequently administered punishment on the hands, but that slapping boys on the buttocks was a
rare occurrence.
8.138 He remembered one incident where a number of boys who had absconded were lined up and
slapped by the Disciplinarian in front of the rest of the school.
8.139 He said absconders also had their heads shaved as punishment.
Br Michel23
8.140 Br Michel was in Letterfrack in the 1960s during which time he was the Disciplinarian. He accepted
that Letterfrack was a strict place but he stressed that it had to be:
21
22
23
This is a pseudonym

Well, it was a pretty strict place and I think that the children who came had a carefree life
before coming. It was necessary to discipline them and unfortunately they had to be
disciplined otherwise we couldn’t run the place.
8.141 He also confirmed that all the Brothers who worked in the school carried straps and that discipline
was administered at the total discretion of the individual Brother.
8.142 He described the punishment of forcing boys to run around the yard. He beat boys on the buttocks
with a leather, but said he was unsure whether he beat on the bare buttocks. He acknowledged
that it occurred and accepted that he may have punished in that way.
8.143 He admitted to an allegation of physical abuse made against him by a complainant and apologised
for the incident. The complainant, who was resident in the early 1960s, described how the Brother
was asking him questions about his absence from the school grounds. When the boy repeated a
question that the Brother asked, the latter lost his temper and jumped on the boy and started
beating him up in front of the whole refectory. In his evidence to the Committee, the Brother
accepted that he had been ‘over-robust’ in his punishment of the witness. He said that it was one
of his bad days and he sincerely regretted it because the witness was generally a good boy.
8.144 He also spoke about the relationship between overwork and excessive punishment. He stated
that the Brothers worked under considerable strain. The number working with the boys was small
and the hours were ‘desperately long’. He sometimes took his stress out on the boys and he did
not always comply with the rules governing corporal punishment.
8.145 When asked by the Committee whether he thought that corporal punishment was used more in
Letterfrack than in other schools elsewhere, he said:
Regretfully, I think it was more simply because most schools were day schools and they
wouldn’t have the same problems as a boarding situation. Regretfully, the times that were
in it unfortunately.
Br Telfour24
8.146 Br Telfour served in Letterfrack in the mid to late 1960s. He was a teacher and was Disciplinarian
for a year. He told the Committee that Letterfrack was a regulated place and that he had no
difficulty managing the boys. A Visitation Report stated:
The disciplinarian ... understands his charges very well and realises that harsh methods
do not produce lasting results. He is most patient and has good control.
8.147 He did not like corporal punishment but he did recall one incident when he snapped and beat a
boy out of frustration. He said that he did not carry a strap, although he conceded that there were
straps available in the school. Absconding was a problem and he heard that boys who absconded
‘got it on the bare’, which he understood to mean that they were beaten on their bare buttocks.
8.148 He told the Committee that when he was appointed Disciplinarian he told the Manager that he
refused to administer this form of corporal punishment. He was asked to explain the circumstances
of this conversation:
24
This is a pseudonym

It was in the yard and a boy had been brought back early that morning from absconding,
I knew the punishment previously had been the beating on the buttocks but I had my own
mind made up I wasn’t going to inflict it and I told him that I didn’t want to beat them
that way.
8.149 He explained the reasons for his dislike of corporal punishment:

It was based on the fact that after a little while there I felt that these young people had
suffered enough, they had been taken from their parents and from growing up with their
brothers and sisters. The more I thought of that the bigger the influence it had on me in
coming to that decision, that none of them would be slapped in my classroom and none
of them would be slapped in this way.
8.150 He admitted using running as a punishment on the recommendation of the Sub-Superior. The
circumstances of one such incident were that he was waiting in the yard for the boys to return
from the farm. A boy came into the yard and asked him whether the farmhand was allowed to
beat him. The boy was bleeding and he told him to go and clean up. The farmhand and the farm
Brother came to the yard and told him that some of the boys tried to attack Br Deverelle25 and
that the farmhand tried to stop them. He told the farmhand that he had no business beating the
boys. He was at a loss as to what to do, since a large number of boys were involved and so he
put them running around the yard as a punishment, which they had to do for periods on two
nights. The boys contended that they had attacked Br Deverelle because he had been severe
on them.
8.151 This Brother was sympathetic towards the boys and tried to avoid using corporal punishment, but
in these respects he was unusual. The Committee was left with the impression that his refusal to
impose such punishment did not stop it and he had no influence on the behaviour of other
Brothers.
Br Rainger26
8.152 Br Rainger was a teacher in Letterfrack in the late 1960s. He said that he was wholly unprepared
for life there and found that he simply could not apply the teaching methods he had learned in
Marino to the boys at Letterfrack. His duties also included supervision and he would often be
required to supervise a group of over 100 boys because staffing levels did not allow smaller
groups. This meant that a military-style discipline was necessary to keep order. He accepted that,
as a result of this, Letterfrack was a harsh place but he stressed it was harsh for the Brothers too.
Initially, he said he was quite aloof as an aid to maintaining discipline, although he mellowed after
a while. However, he never trusted the boys:
No, I wouldn’t trust them, I had been told that the boys had come to Letterfrack through
the court.
8.153 He said he carried and used a leather strap, as did every Brother working in the School. He
received no training in its use and administered it on an ad hoc basis whenever he saw fit to do
so. He did not require any sanction to do this and he punished both inside and outside the
classroom. He admitted to beating children on the buttocks, although not the bare buttocks, with
the strap. He thought that discipline was not too bad, although he conceded that he punished
boys for failure at lessons and for misbehaving generally.
25
26

8.154 He was never aware of the presence of a punishment book, and on the issue of discipline he said:
Generally speaking, you know, it wasn’t too bad. Discipline wasn’t too bad, but now and
again, yes, fights broke out, arguments broke out. I had a leather and I used it, not that I
am proud of it now but I did use it, yes.
8.155 Br Rainger admitted that he did not confine himself to the strap when he punished children but
also used his hands. He denied that bed-wetters were physically chastised. He recalled that they
tied knots at the ends of their beds to identify themselves to the night watchman:
Just to clarify the thing on the bed-wetters, when I would take over the dormitory in the
morning from the night watchman the custom at that time was if they were bed-wetters
they tied a towel over the end of the bed and the bed was stripped so that it could dry out
during the day. There was definitely no verbal humiliation or even physical punishment
for bed-wetting. That is not true.
Br Anatole27
8.156 Br Anatole was convicted in 2003 of sexual abuse of boys in Letterfrack when he was a Brother
there during the late 1960s.
8.157 He gave evidence that the Brothers worked 16 to 18 hour days, and that their only method of
maintaining order was by means of corporal punishment, the constant threat of which permeated
the atmosphere of the Institution. Before he came to the School, he had heard rumours about the
need to maintain strict discipline in the School. The attitude was that breaches of discipline had
to be dealt with swiftly and harshly, otherwise law and order would break down.
8.158 Br Anatole described his arrival at Letterfrack with two other young, inexperienced teachers, Br
Dondre28 and Br Iven.29 They were all in their early 20s and they had little more than one year’s
teaching experience.
8.159 The bulk of the supervisory work in Letterfrack fell on these three young men, and Br Anatole
testified to the strain he felt – a breach of the rules by a boy under the control of one of them was
regarded as a reflection on the Brother. This put a lot of pressure on the younger Brothers, who
were often intimidated by the boys and they tried to counteract this by being excessively strict.
8.160 Br Anatole said that pupils attacked him on a number of occasions:

I was attacked on a couple of occasions: Once in the dining room a boy ran at me with a
chair; once in the yard; and once in the Brother’s monastery when I went up – I opened
the door and one of the boys was in the monastery which they weren’t allowed to do and
he punched me trying to get out the door before I could get in. That was three incidents
in two years which was not a lot. There was always the possibility of that happening and
I was a little bit fearful of what might be done to me if it happened.
8.161 The children were often difficult to deal with, according to Br Anatole, and many had psychological
problems that the Brothers had no special training to deal with.
8.162 Difficulties manifested themselves in conduct such as fighting and bullying, which were constant
and worrying features of life in Letterfrack. Sometimes, the children absconded and that was also
a constant worry. The children would run away at night but they would usually be apprehended,
sometimes by local people, and returned to the School soon after.
27
28
29

8.163 He said that the threat of punishment hung like a cloud over the boys. It was arbitrarily
administered without any supervision either inside or outside the classroom. Br Anatole was given
a leather strap on arrival but he got no instruction on its use. He did not confine himself to the
use of the strap; he would punish boys with a slap of his open palm, his fist, a stick, or indeed
a kick.
8.164 Although the Brothers were given no guidance regarding corporal punishment, Br Malleville,30 the
Resident Manager, often complained about the excessive use of corporal punishment and was
quite strict on such matters when boys complained to him about excessive beatings. Br Anatole
recalled one incident in particular, when Br Malleville approached him and told him he had
received a complaint that a boy had been punished for the wrong reasons and he wanted an
explanation. Br Anatole described how the boy had been beaten about the legs with a leather
strap and made to run around the yard. The boy complained to Br Malleville, who reprimanded
him, Br Anatole.
8.165 Br Anatole described another particularly savage beating, when a boy was beaten on the bare
buttocks with a leather. The boy was placed over a chair on the stage and beaten in front of other
boys by Br Iven. Br Anatole did not himself administer the beating but he was present during it. A
former resident who recalled the boy being stripped and beaten recollected that the handle of a
sweeping brush had been used to administer the beating.
8.166 Br Anatole said that Br Malleville heard about the beating and, that evening, convened a meeting
of the three junior Brothers who had been involved and reprimanded them for what had occurred.
8.167 The other two Brothers implicated, Br Iven and Br Dondre, denied to the Investigation Committee
in evidence that this incident ever took place or that they were involved in it.
8.168 Br Anatole informed the Committee that he and his colleagues had inherited from some of the
older Brothers the practice of making the boys run around the yard. It was a punishment generally
administered by the senior dormitory Brother for absconding. The Brother would stand in the
centre, and the boys would form a circle around him and they would be made to run around the
yard and would be beaten if they started to tire or to lag behind. In a Garda statement, Br Anatole
described it thus:
I can recall the heavy silence punctuated by the rhythm of the boots pounding on the
concrete yard as the boys ran around and around, eyes cast down as they ran ... Their
faces were cold and emotionless, unsmiling and blank of any recognition. I carry this
memory with me still, as I do all the other punishments meted out to boys in our care.
8.169 He described its operation as follows:

Well, the dormitory leader was the man who dictated what was to be happening. I was
not a dormitory leader I was an assistant to Br Dondre so a decision to run around the
yard was never mine; but if it was done I might be called upon to stand in the corner of
the yard and be there to give moral support to the other Brother who was in charge – the
Brother stood in the centre of the circle rather like a ring master and the running was done
in silence. It was supposed to calm everybody down, I think it did have that effect actually
on recollection, there was a sort of a silent running. When it was over the boys usually
went off upstairs to bed, it was done late in the evening time.
8.170 As a punishment, however, he stated that he regarded it as pointless and ineffective, ‘It was
devoid of human dignity, it was humiliating, it was pointless and probably completely ineffective’.
30

8.171 Another way of punishing was for a boy to be seated in a chair near a football game and to be
treated as if he did not exist:
I don’t think the intention was to kick footballs directly at the boy it was more or less an act
of isolation to humiliate him, it was a form of punishment other than corporal punishment. If
somebody did kick a football at him, and that would happen, the ball would bounce off his
head or off his chest or something, there would be a big cheer or a bit of a laugh. That
again was part of the humiliation of the experience.
8.172 Another punishment was peculiar to the refectory. It involved making the offender kneel in silence
during meal times. He would not receive any dinner:
... if they were kneeling on the floor the withdrawal of food would be part of the punishment
as well. We learned these things from seeing them done, they were handed down like a
code of practice so to speak, which was never questioned or supervised in any way by
anybody else.
8.173 Br Anatole said that corporal punishment would be administered for a myriad of offences:
If you were walking behind somebody and they were talking you could take out your
leather strap and sort of give them a swipe on the back of the legs or a smack on the
backside.
8.174 He would also hit them for failure at lessons:

For example, you asked me for an example, maybe in the classroom I was under pressure
to get my Department of Education accreditation so I would be short-tempered at times
with pupils who didn’t spell words correctly or something. The traditional way at that time
was you would give somebody a smack to make sure so they learned it properly.. There
was a very crude connection between if you hit somebody they would learn better that
way, that was the basic thinking at the time. That was the way I was taught at primary
school and I repeated that myself later on as an adult in the Christian Brothers.
8.175 He also beat boys who attempted to jump out of the showers to avoid the sudden changes in
temperature, which could go from scalding hot to freezing cold in a matter of seconds. He thought
that beating boys for a natural reaction to extremes of temperature seemed particularly cruel.
8.176 He spoke of collective punishment and recalled one incident where a boy stole a Communion
wafer. Nobody owned up and the whole School was punished. Collective punishment could take
many forms, such as the deprivation of food or being made to run around the yard.
8.177 Yet another occasional punishment was using the fire hose to direct cold water on to boys who
had run away.
8.178 The knowledge that there was no parental presence made him feel he had carte blanche to punish
to a greater extent than he would have done in a national school with active parental involvement.
Being able to beat the boys gave him a sense of power. He said, ‘The opportunity for use of
corporal punishment was much greater in Letterfrack than it would be in the national school’.
8.179 He apologised for his use of corporal punishment in the School:

My first duty before the Commission is to put an unreserved apology in the record for
anyone who was hurt by me in any way. That was regrettably the state of the art at the
time in the 60s that these pupils had to be punished, they had to be made to pay for the
damage they did in society, reformed and sent back out as productive citizens.
8.180 The Christian Brothers disputed Br Anatole’s recollections of Letterfrack. They submitted that
written statements made by him following his arrest were inconsistent and contradictory when
compared with a document he produced while he was still working in the Institution. They also
contended that these statements were self-serving and coloured by his desire to present himself
to the court in a sympathetic light in seeking to avoid imprisonment. It suited his purpose, therefore,
to portray Letterfrack in the most hostile light. For his part, Br Anatole said that he was not
understating his case in his Garda statements. He described how he co-operated with the Gardaı́
in the investigation and that he was encouraged to write a full account of everything that he
thought might be relevant by way of mitigation. He had been through two years of therapy, and a
lot of memories had surfaced in the therapeutic situation, which the therapist had encouraged him
to keep in journal form.
8.181 Although the Congregation were able to demonstrate inconsistencies between written statements
and testimony given by this witness at different times spanning many years, his evidence was
generally credible and reliable about life in Letterfrack, and witnesses provided independent
confirmation.
Br Iven
8.182 Br Iven worked as a teacher in Letterfrack during the late 1960s and early 1970s. He found
Letterfrack to be a lonely place with stressful work and little free time. He told the Committee that
he carried a strap, as all Brothers did, but did not remember ever getting any training in its use.
Punishment was a matter for his discretion and he punished as the need arose and never felt the
need to refer matters up the chain of command. He accepted that the use of the strap was
unacceptable by today’s standards, but he did not think that it was excessive by the standards of
the day. Br Iven, however, qualified this view when he went on to say that Letterfrack was not a
normal school and its residents were not normal schoolchildren, implying that normal standards
did not apply to them and some excesses were justified.
8.183 He was asked whether he had any personal regrets about punishments he meted out to the boys:
I have regrets in many ways. I have regrets, first of all that I was sent there inadequately
trained for the job. Secondly, I didn’t know how to handle the situation I was put in. Thirdly,
I suppose that with corporal punishment, punishment by the strap – yes, I think with better
training, with better facilities, better staffing, we would not have had the need to use as
much discipline and corporal as we did. I do have regrets yes.
8.184 His perception that corporal punishment was not overly excessive was said in the context that the
level of discipline that was normal at the time in schools was the appropriate standard to apply
throughout the day:
You were there 24 hours, seven days a week, so yes, there was a lot more than you
would normally have as a teacher at the time, but it wouldn’t have been overly excessive.
8.185 He remembered one occasion when a boy attacked him and he just about got the better of him.
He felt that it was a test of strength. He was a new Brother and a small man, and the attack was
designed to see what the boys could get away with. It left him greatly shaken and showed him
that he was not dealing with ordinary 16-year-olds.
8.186 This Brother also confirmed what complainants and other Brothers had said about boys being
hosed down for absconding. One complainant had described an incident where two boys had
absconded at a time when there was heavy snowfall. They were captured and returned to the
school and, according to the witness, put up against a wall, hosed down with fire hoses and made
to stand in the freezing cold in their underpants as a form of punishment:
The incident happened during winter. There was snow on the ground. It was easy then
to find the pupil. The pupil was brought back to the school and then one particular Brother
decided that this was the way he would wash him down after it.
8.187 Br Iven was in his interim period of teacher training during his time in Letterfrack and was due
back in Marino to complete his qualification. He said that he did not feel he could report breaches
of discipline to the Resident Manager because of a combination of factors, but principally because
he was afraid that it could lead to his dismissal from the Congregation which would have meant
he could not become a teacher:
I am giving you my honest opinion, no, I didn’t feel that I was in a position to report this.
It would have been maybe thought as unseemly conduct for me as a Christian Brother to
defend myself, maybe turn the other cheek instead, unfortunately, I didn’t feel that
confident about saying anything.
8.188 This Brother did return to Marino after two and a half years in Letterfrack and a six-month posting
to a day school in Dublin; and immediately he had completed his final year of training, he left
the Congregation.
Br Dondre
8.189 Br Dondre worked as a teacher in Letterfrack from the 1960s to the early 1970s. He regarded
himself as a sort of gaoler who was hated by the inmates of the school. This sometimes bubbled
over in the form of attempted assaults on members of staff. The young Brothers were the front
line and, if challenged, they had to take decisive action for fear of losing control over the group
as a whole:
... we were the front line, we were the people responsible for keeping these kids in an
industrial school, in a contained situation, as they called themselves in prison. Some of
them would refer to the place as a prison. So we were the front line. We were the people
who were sort of the easy targets for all their unhappiness and frustration and the stress
and tension, and all the other things they were feeling.
8.190 He said that yard duty was particularly difficult, given the numbers involved and the rough nature
of the boys. Fighting, bullying and name calling were constant features of life in the yard, and the
Brother in charge would be expected to take action. He felt he was particularly vulnerable because
of his small stature.
8.191 Br Dondre said that he was physically assaulted on a number of occasions. On the first occasion,
when he was supervising a group of 90 pupils, one boy was cursing at another boy and he called
him over to chastise him. As the boy approached, he put up his two fists. Br Dondre put his own
fists up and the situation was defused.
8.192 The next occasion involved the same boy, in the dormitory, when he pinned Br Dondre up against
a wall and attempted to choke him. He flipped the boy over. Br Anatole came in and asked him if
everything was all right.
8.193 On a third occasion, he was threatened by a boy wielding a broken chair. He said he was able to
handle that situation because the boy was the same height as him and he removed the chair
from him.
8.194 Br Dondre described a fourth occasion as the most serious and upsetting incident. He was verbally
chastising a pupil when the boy attacked him with the leg of a chair. Br Dondre picked up a stick
and hit him on the head with it. The boy’s head was grazed from the blow. The boy dropped and
he caught him in a headlock. He got control of the boy and brought him to the nurse who
disinfected the wound on his head. He reported the matter to Br Malleville, who criticised Br
Dondre for his inability to keep control and letting the incident occur. He was asked whether he
understood Br Malleville’s criticism to relate to his loss of temper and he said:
No it wasn’t that. It was the fact that the incident happened at all. That I let him get out
of control.
8.195 He was never given any guidance or direction from Br Malleville or anyone else as to how that
control might be maintained. Br Dondre said that he deeply regretted his conduct on that day.
8.196 He was not issued with a strap on arrival, but he went to the cobbler and asked him to make one
for him because he thought he would need it. He received no guidance as to its use and so would
have used his own discretion. He was aware, however, of the Christian Brothers’ rules regarding
the administration of corporal punishment.
8.197 He explained the circumstances in which corporal punishment could be administered in the
classroom. The rulebook prohibited the administration of punishment for failure at lessons, but Br
Dondre drew a distinction between two types of failure at lessons: the first was failure due to a
lack of knowledge, the second was failure due to not having prepared the subject properly. In the
former, he would not administer punishment; in the latter, he would. There was a grey area in
which the second kind of failure could be regarded as a breach of discipline.
8.198 Br Dondre said that he often gave boys ‘a clatter’ for serious offences. He admitted to kicking
boys, beating them with a stick or with his open palm. He said that he regretted using corporal
punishment but stressed that it was essential for maintaining order. He felt that the boys had no
respect for teachers who did not use it.
8.199 Br Dondre agreed with other Brothers that absconding was regarded as a particularly serious
offence, and recalled an incident where absconders were punished with a fire hose. It was also
punishable by the withdrawal of home leave, head shaving and by being beaten with the strap. It
was usually dealt with directly by the Resident Manager.
Br Karel31
8.200 Br Karel worked in Letterfrack in the early 1970s and had been sent there because the school
was experiencing problems. Discipline was poor as a result of low staff levels, and the small
number of staff that was there was overworked. Shortly after he arrived, the boys staged a sit-
down protest and were only persuaded to go to bed with difficulty. The other Brothers working
there told him they were barely able to keep control and there had been assaults on two of them.
Bullying was a big problem, with bigger boys regularly trying to impose their will on smaller boys
and even on Brothers. He administered corporal punishment with a leather strap which was carried
by all of the Brothers and he also used his fists. He confirmed that there was no punishment book
in which punishments administered were recorded. He told the Committee that he used the threat
of three slaps on the buttocks to deter boys from absconding.
8.201 He instituted a number of schemes to try and control the boys and create a positive atmosphere
in the School. As a result, he was able to discontinue gradually the use of the leather strap:
The atmosphere changed gradually. Punishment was still there in the normal way,
corporal punishment didn’t go out until 1982 or 1983. I was able to discard that leather
which was the normal way of administering punishment in Letterfrack in that, somewhere
in the middle of that period I was there and I never again used it.
31

8.202 Br Karel worked in Letterfrack for the last two years of the Institution, during which time the
numbers reduced dramatically. When he arrived, there were 41 boys in the Institution, and when
he left in 1974, there were only 11 boys and the School was in the process of closing.32 Even
though numbers were that small, violence was still a serious problem in the School.
8.203 Main points arising from respondent evidence

• These witnesses confirmed that violence was a regular feature of life in Letterfrack. It
was a means of communication and was a way of gaining status and power. Fear
affected the way boys related to Brothers and impaired relationships among the boys
themselves.
• Many Brothers considered that the practice of carrying a leather all the time and using
it as and when required was normal for the times. They defended this level of corporal
punishment by saying that it was no more than was present in many national schools.
The crucial point was that Letterfrack was more than just a national school; it was
home to the boys who were there. Parents did not carry around leathers or sticks as
a matter of course, and that is the standard by which the Brothers should be judged.
The Brothers were trained, or were in the course of training, as teachers and it is as
teachers that they speak of levels of corporal punishment, not as carers in loco parentis
to these children. Even today, many of them are not able to see that subjecting children
to the constant threat of corporal punishment at the level it was administered in
Letterfrack was excessive and unreasonable.
• Brothers gave examples of corporal punishment that were clearly beyond what was
acceptable in national schools. Punishment was not confined to slapping on the hand.
Brothers used the strap on the buttocks and the bare buttocks. Some Brothers admitted
hitting boys with their hands or fists. Implements such as sticks were used.
Punishments included marching around the yard, isolation, head shaving and hosing
down with cold water.
• Brothers differed as to their knowledge of the rules on corporal punishment, in that
some recalled being aware of them whilst others did not. In reality, these Rules were
irrelevant in Letterfrack because they were breached so often and without any fear
of censure.
• All Brothers who spoke to the Committee confirmed that corporal punishment was a
matter of individual discretion and that they received no formal guidance or training on
its administration. They administered the punishment themselves and generally did not
involve the Resident Manager.
• Trainee Brothers who did so much of the day-to-day running of the School had a strong
incentive to maintain the status quo, because taking problems to the Resident Manager
might have had repercussions for gaining their qualifications. If they used excessive
punishment, the Resident Manager did no more than warn them to avoid recurrences.
Losing control of the boys, however, was seen as a serious failing by the Brothers.
• In the absence of accountability or control, either through supervision or the punishment
book, excessive and unfair corporal punishment was administered.
• Letterfrack was seen as a challenging and difficult posting by the Brothers and ex-
Brothers who testified. Some Brothers admitted that they took out their frustrations on
the boys in their care and punished excessively as a result. The system that placed
inexperienced or unsuitable Brothers in an environment that was so fundamentally
flawed was fraught with danger.
32
See table at paragraph 3.20.

Evidence of former residents
8.204 Complainant witnesses gave evidence from a perspective that was necessarily different from
respondents. Their testimony focused on some major themes as follows:
• Physical punishment was pervasive; there was no way of avoiding it and it was the
response of first resort for any problem that arose.
• There was an extraordinary variety of methods of inflicting pain and physical discomfort.
• The circumstances in which punishment was inflicted were many and varied, ranging
from serious offences to trivial matters and sometimes for no reason at all.
• Life in Letterfrack was lived in a climate of fear.
Public punishments
8.205 Complainant and respondent witnesses agreed that boys were sometimes punished in public,
when other boys were formally assembled to witness the event with the intention that they should
learn something from the occasion. Br Francois had a ‘vague recollection’ of one such incident:
I remember them being lined up, I don’t know what room, was it the refectory or
something, they were lined up in a line and slapped as far as I remember, in front of the
rest of the school.
8.206 A former resident described the circumstances of a public beating which was acknowledged as
having occurred by Br Anatole and which was dealt with in his evidence above:
This guy, the fellow I am talking about Alan33 what he done was a guy sitting on the top,
he was sitting on the chair and he was having a hair cut. The Brother left the thing for
cutting your hair down and when he went the guy went up and he shaved the back of the
guy’s head quickly as a joke, and your man had a big lump missing out of his hair. So
when the Brother came back he seen this and he was really mad, and he asked who
done it. Eventually through a lot of, you know, questions and threatening, battering him,
whatever, he said it was so and so that done it. That is how he come to be punished for
that ... I can’t remember if he said, “listen I done it”, but the guy said “it was Alan who
done it”. So he got done and his punishment was on the stage in front of everyone.
8.207 Br Anatole recalled that this incident came to the attention of the Superior, Br Malleville, who
severely reprimanded him and the other Brothers who took part:
It was around supper time. He brought us into the parlour, he was very angry and he said
that such a thing was never to happen again ... That any boy was to be beaten on the
backside over a chair, on the stage in the hall ... I think it was the sheer brutality of it and
the excessive nature of it, it was way outside the boundaries of what Br Malleville
considered legitimate corporal punishment. It was there in the collective consciousness
of us as Brothers in Letterfrack that these methods that you are putting to me one after
the other, that these were handed down progressively from one year to the next. When
new Brothers came on the scene that’s how we found out that this was the way things
were done here. We never discussed them in any way it was just here we go, run around
the yard, give somebody a kick in the backside or whatever. It was just done like that
depending on how you felt at that particular time.
8.208 There was no record in the Christian Brothers’ discovery of this reprimand or of the circumstances
that gave rise to it.
33

8.209 Another former resident remembered the occasion when this boy was beaten:
...[he] was called up for his punishment on the stage, and he was battered and beaten by
Br Iven in front of – we all had to sit in these chairs as if you were watching a play on the
stage and Br Iven battered him, beat him, lashed him, punched him and kicked him and
because he wasn’t getting any satisfaction, he couldn’t make him cry, he started to take
off his collar and take his habit down or whatever you call them, and he started to lash
him, you know, with his fists and stuff. It seemed like it went on for a long, long time and
we had to sit there and watch this.
8.210 The Brother who was identified as having given this extreme beating denied involvement. He said,
‘Not only do I not remember it but that certainly wouldn’t have happened’.
8.211 Notwithstanding the disapproving attitude of the Superior, there were other public beatings. One
witness said:
There was different Brothers that used to do it. It was a sort of – it wasn’t always on the
stage it could be just up in a corner and made to, everybody silent while somebody was
getting punished and you would be just staring ... We used to have a little TV up the front
and there was a stage, you know, there was chairs where we would just sit around. If it
was raining you would hang about here or if it was cold. This is where things used to
happen ... Sometimes they would have a list of people who had done things and the
punishment time was in the evening. Or, like, in the dormitory they’d have names, you
would be called out, so and so, come up here. At the end of the dormitory where a room
was they would carry out punishments there. It could be in the yard, there was a big yard
with four walls, you know. You were lined up like soldiers and your name was called out
... There was other Brothers who done a lot of punishments too, but this is a guy I have
in my mind who I seen doing things and has done things to me. There was another guy
Telfour, I seen him using the special branches or sticks that bend.
8.212 Although boys might not always be formally assembled, the public nature of beatings administered
where all the boys were assembled had a similar effect. This was particularly true at night time,
when boys were punished in the washroom adjacent to the dormitories. One witness described a
severe beating he received for absconding. The Manager turned off the radio that was playing in
the dormitory and invited the rest of the boys who were in their beds to ‘now listen to some music’
as he brought the boy out to be beaten. His screams were heard throughout the dormitory.
8.213 It was disturbing to hear other boys being beaten. As one witness said, ‘you nearly preferred to
get it yourself because listening to somebody getting bashed, in a sense it is worse than getting
it yourself’.
8.214 • Public punishment increased the ordeal for the person being punished and had a
frightening impact on the boys watching or listening. Such spectacles should have
had no place in a facility dedicated to the care of children.
Varieties of punishment
8.215 On one occasion, a boy trying to escape was caught in one of the fields belonging to the School
and brought back. He was given a severe beating and was then subjected to two extra
punishments that required considerable ingenuity. He first described the beating:
I was told to take down my pants and bend over. Well, I didn’t actually get to bend over
myself, he just grabbed the back of my neck and pulled me down and started to lay into
me ... All the rest of the boys had gone off to work in the afternoon and there was just me
and him. Now I have a vague recollection of another Brother being around, but I couldn’t
swear to it.
8.216 He then said that he was brought to the boot-makers and was given extra large boots:
At the time I was pretty small. The boots, it was like having two barges on your feet. Then
he frog-marched me up to the farmyard where some of the boys were up there. They
were piling silage, at the time I thought it was only grass, but I got the technical term later;
into this big silo pit and I was made to get into it and walk around in circles with these
boots. It would have been bad enough walking around with ordinary boots, because every
time you stepped, you would go down, but the big boots, and when the boys had a rest,
I had to keep going.
8.217 Finally, he described how he was isolated by being made to stand at the refectory wall while boys
played football around him and where he could be struck by the ball:
Up close to the wall, but I wasn’t allowed to lift my hands up. If I lifted my hands up – I
didn’t realise he could run so fast in skirts – the boys would hit the ball. Some hit me on
the leg, the backside, the back, quite a few on the head, the back of the head and bang
and that went on for about two weeks. Exactly how long, I don’t know. I didn’t play at all,
after church in the morning, before we went to school, before lunch and after lunch, before
dinner, after dinner, I was there all the time.
8.218 This treatment went on for a number of weeks until he was relieved of the obligation by another
Brother:
Shortly afterwards, the boys came back from – the ones that were on holidays came back,
and I don’t know this Brother’s name, but he came back around the same time, so I
assumed that he had been on holidays too, but he actually left the school shortly
afterwards. He saw me standing there in my extra large boots and I was always bleeding
when I was at the wall and he asked me what I was doing? I said, oh, I ran away. He
took me down between the refectory and the stairway and the library, there is a little
alcove that they used for first aid. He took me in there and cleaned me up and looked at
my boots. He said, they are a bit big for you and sent me up to the bootmakers to get a
normal size. I couldn’t believe it I could actually lift my feet off the ground. But Br Noreis,34
well, he more or less asked me, you know, what are you doing and I pointed to the other
Brother and said, that Brother told me to leave the wall. He wasn’t too pleased, but I got
the impression that there wasn’t anything he could do about it.
8.219 The same witness described how he was accused of causing damage by failing to turn off an iron
while he was working in the tailor shop. He had not been the last person to use the iron because
he had given it to another boy when he had finished his work. Subsequently, smoke was seen to
be coming out of the shop because the iron had been left turned on and burned through the
ironing cover. That evening, instead of going to the cinema, the boys were summoned by the
Disciplinarian to ascertain who had left the iron on. Because the witness had been ironing, he was
the prime suspect, and the Disciplinarian organised a mock trial in which he was the defendant
and the Brother the Judge. The Brother appointed counsel for the defence and prosecution. He
told the boys that the witness would not be punished if found guilty. The trial went on for a
couple of hours and the witness found the questioning so hurtful that he broke down crying. The
Disciplinarian took this as an indication of guilt and the witness was severely beaten. He said:
That was enough for him to convict me; I was guilty. If I wasn’t guilty, why was I crying?
Everyone went off to bed. I was going off to bed and I was called back and flogged.
Before he did it, I said, “but you promised I wouldn’t get flogged for the fire”. He said,“
you are not being flogged for the fire. You are being punished because you told a lie”..
So heads he wins, tails I lose.
34

8.220 Another variety of punishment which was confirmed by individual respondents was that boys were
required to run around the yard as punishment. Br Michel described it thus:
That did happen. What I can remember was if a boy, if a mature chap ran away,
absconded, the Manager would say “give him a while running around the yard.” It
happened during break times it didn’t go on for terribly long, a few days maybe ... it would
be during play time and there was always a Brother in the yard during playtime, therefore
he would be supervised. The rest of the students would be there as well.
8.221 A witness described how one Brother imposed a punishment on a group of boys, who were due
to go swimming, because one misbehaved:
On the way across the yard somebody booed and when we all got to the door to lead up
to the dormitory he asked who booed, nobody would own up to who booed so he sent us
across to the boot room, which was on the other side of the yard and we had to take off
our sandals at the time, because it was the summertime, and put on our Wellingtons. We
were made to run around the yard, everybody ran around the yard until we could run no
more. That was it we just left – no swimming.
8.222 Another witness described how Br Noreis directed boys to write down the names of those who
engaged in sexual activity, and punished them as a group, if sufficient information was not given,
by depriving them of the Saturday night film:
Everyone got a sheet of paper and a pencil and we were told to write down if we knew of
any boys who had been, shall we say, sexually active with any other boy. Well, I always
wrote the same thing down; I don’t know what you mean. This always went on a Saturday
night. You always missed out on the cinema, because that was the one day that we had
a movie. After all these boys had done whatever writing they were doing the paper was
collected and we were all sent off to the dormitories, and for the rest of the night you
could hear the screaming where boys who had misbehaved were dragged down in their
night clothes and flogged by Br Noreis. That went on quite often.
8.223 Another witness had his head shaved and was ‘sent to Coventry’ for a period that was to end
when his hair grew back:
what they decided to do instead of giving me a beating, they decided to cut all my hair off
and keep all the other kids from speaking to me until it was grown back, and that is the
way I remember Letterfrack.
8.224 The witness described how the other boys treated him:
They weren’t allowed to speak to me, as I say, until my hair grew back, and then when I
would be walking around the yard and that, the ball would be kicked – if they were playing
football, the ball would be kicked at me, I would be ducking. I was never hurt by a ball or
anything like that.
8.225 This lasted until his hair grew: ‘I don’t know how long but it felt like an awful long time’.
8.226 Another former resident explained:

There was two things down there that you had to be aware of, was the bare and the
baldier. The baldier was getting your hair cut off and getting it on the bare was getting it
on the bare bum.
8.227 Punishments included beating with a leather on the bare buttocks. Brothers acknowledged that
this happened, as is detailed in the section on respondent evidence. One respondent who gave
evidence, however, did not recall beating boys on the bare buttocks, and conceded only that when
he was beating a boy in a dormitory the latter’s nightshirt might have ridden up, but the beating
‘wasn’t on his bare buttocks to my knowledge’. He was referred to a statement he made to the
Gardaı́, in which he referred to his use of the leather:
Yes, I did in class and in the yard. I used it mostly on the hand. I used it twice on the bare
backside of a fella that I caught going into another fella’s bed at nights. I did not feel great
about this beating it was part of the reason I left because I felt I was becoming brutalised.
8.228 The Brother denied that he used the word ‘bare’ in the statement he made to the Gardaı́, stating
that he did not read back over his statement before signing it.
8.229 Another witness expanded:

Out to the wash hall that was a dreaded thing. There was a term there; you could get it
on the bare. What it meant was you would have to pull your nightshirt up, bend over and
it would be a cane or the leather strap and you would get it heftily on the bottom. You
would suffer from it and it would be violent, there is no other way you could describe it.
That’s what happened to me. I got it on the bare out there. You expected it once you got
out there, lights out and into the wash hall. This is what you are going to get and this is
what I got. I got it pretty violent out there.
8.230 Beating on the bare buttocks was not confined to the most serious offences, and one witness said
it happened to him because he was talking in the dormitory at night.
8.231 Residents remembered head shaving and isolation as part of the punishment for absconding.
One said:
They didn’t get very far. One chap ... he got to Athlone. The police arrested him and
brought him back. When you were brought back they cut all the hair off you and isolated
you.
8.232 Another said:

For instance, if the boys ran away they stood them up against the wall, cut all their hair
off, shaved it and nobody could talk to them.
8.233 Respondent witnesses confirmed this. Br Dondre said that it was a recognised punishment and it
was done in order to stigmatise them. Br Francois had a similar recollection. He saw it done and
presumed it was a ‘badge of disgrace’.
8.234 In its Submission, the Congregation accepted that boys’ heads were shaved as a punishment:
It would appear that this was a punishment which was confined to absconders though the
Congregation acknowledges that it was an unacceptable form of punishment and deeply
regrets that any boy’s head was shaved in this way.
8.235 Another form of punishment that was not in dispute was hosing boys with cold water. A resident
in the 1950s said that Br Sorel punished bed-wetters by hosing them down. A similar punishment
was described in the late 1960s for boys who had tried to abscond. Respondents confirmed this
evidence. Br Sorel said that he did so for hygiene reasons, but he accepted that other Brothers
used it as a punishment and that it was totally wrong. Responding to the suggestion that people
were brought down and hosed as a punishment, not for the purposes of hygiene but as a specific
punishment, he said:
I think that was true in other case with some other Brothers, I think that was done as a
punishment. I think it was totally wrong ... Looking back, the whole thing was horrific for
me and I am sure it was for the boys.
8.236 Br Anatole accepted that absconders were still being hosed down in his time, the late 1960s:
If a boy ran away. It hasn’t come up so far in the question. It was one of the routine
punishments; if a boy ran away he might be hosed down in the shower room. There was
a fire hose rolled up against the wall.
8.237 Br Dondre saw it happen once and did not approve of its use:
The fire hose, I only ever saw it being used once. There were a couple of boys absconded
and they were brought back. That night Br Anatole came to the dormitory and he took the
two boys from the dormitory and put them into their bathing togs, they were taken from
the dormitory and I went with them. I didn’t know what he was going to do; I didn’t know
where he was bringing them. I followed them down to the yard, down the side of the
kitchen and he took the fire hose off the wall and he hosed the two boys down with the
fire hose. Then he gave it to me to continue on and I turned it off.
8.238 Br Iven also recalled an incident when absconders were hosed down when they were brought
back to Letterfrack.
The inevitability of punishment
8.239 It was impossible to avoid punishment. One witness said, ‘If one of these guys got in a bad humour
that was it. You were standing in the roadway, that was it’. Another resident was asked whether
a boy could avoid beatings. He replied, ‘Not really, you couldn’t. Not in Letterfrack, you couldn’t.
Not from certain Brothers, you could not’.
8.240 A witness who was resident from the late 1940s to the early 1950s described a severe beating
he received. He worked in the generator room, helping the lay operator. One of his jobs was to
go down to the generator room in the early hours to divert the electrical energy created by the
turbine to the battery. The night watchman used to wake him for this purpose but on this occasion
he was late in doing so, as a result of which the electricity was not diverted at the right time. The
Brother in charge of the generator discovered the situation and punished the boy, who did not
blame the night watchman because he did not want to get him into trouble. The Brother gave him
a severe beating with a stick. When the lay operator saw the boy’s condition after the beating he
brought him up to the Manager in the monastery and told him that if it ever happened again he
would go to the Gardaı́:
He said first of all he’d inform the local police and then he’d get the cruelty man in if it
ever happened again. It never happened again from Br Lafayette35 ... He said he would
see to it, he’d take it in hand.
Absconding
8.241 Brothers and complainants confirmed that boys who ran away from the Institution were dealt with
severely once caught. Absconding had to be reported to the Department of Education, and the
Gardaı́ were often called on to assist in finding the child.
8.242 A research paper commissioned by the Congregation in 2001 contains an analysis of the number
of abscondings between 1959 and 1972 and the ages of the boys when they absconded.
35

8.243 The following table illustrates the number of pupils, their ages and when they absconded:36
Year Number of pupils absconding Age(s)

1959 1 11
1960 1 13
1961 1 12
1963 2 10; 12
1964 1 12
1965 1 11
1966 5 8; 10; 12; 13; 14
1967 6 13; 13; 13; 13; 13; 14
1968 4 10; 11; 12; 14
1969 2 14; 14
1970 4 11; 12; 12; 13
1971 2 9; 10
1972 2 13; 14
Total 32
8.244 The detail contained in this list does not match the information in the Department of Education’s
Annual Report entries. In 1959, six boys absconded from the School and did a considerable
amount of damage to property and were removed after special court on 10th January 1959 to
Daingean Reformatory. In 1959, the Visitor noted that ‘Since Christmas, 11 boys ran away at
different times. Br Malleville has to take the car and follow them or that he got word from the
Guards that they had been captured and that he had to collect them and sometimes was not
home with them until 1.30 a.m’. What is very evident is the increasing level of absconding,
particularly from the mid-1960s onwards.
8.245 What was clear from this analysis was that the official records did not reflect the actual number
of boys who ran away from Letterfrack and who were severely punished for so doing.
8.246 In 1967, the Visitor noted that, although conditions had improved in Letterfrack, absconding was
a serious problem:
The boys can never be left on their own for despite the efforts to make the school a home
for them the boys always regard the school as a place of detention and are liable to run
away at any time.
8.247 This Visitor recognised the fundamental problem of removing boys from their home and friends
and expecting them to adjust to a completely alien lifestyle and environment. The response of the
authorities was punitive and never addressed the reasons why the boys had run away in the
first place.
8.248 The high level of absconding should have alerted the management to question the way in which
Letterfrack provided care to the children sent there, but this does not appear to have happened.
36
This information is taken from a report compiled for the Christian Brothers by Michael Bruton in relation to Letterfrack
in 2001.

Bed-wetting
8.249 In its Opening Statement, the Congregation stated:
Unfortunately, the boys could have been the objects of ridicule by their peers being
labelled “slashers” ... No living Brother who was in Letterfrack in the period under review
recalls that there was ever any punishment meted out to a boy for bed-wetting.
8.250 However, during the private hearings, Br Sorel, who was present during the 1940s and 1950s,
admitted to punishing boys for bed-wetting. He stated that:
That was one of the worst and soiling the bed. This is the thing that used to break my
heart in the morning when I came down to the dormitory, they had Macintosh sheets,
large ones on the bed, and then they had the ordinary sheets over the Macintosh sheet,
you would find three or four of the lads would not alone wet the bed but soil the bed. I
was really tearing my hair out at that stage.
8.251 He continued:
It was a problem every morning and I used to detest it. I felt like running away myself
several times, having to face it coming down in the morning. It was terrible, the stench
and the smell.
8.252 He used to try and deal with the problem himself, but if it was not possible the boys had to take
their mattress down to the yard, or take their sheets to the laundry.
8.253 As a result of this evidence in its Final Submission the Congregation stated:
It is accepted that boys were, on isolated occasions during this period, punished for this
problem though it does not appear that such punishment was a regular or routine practice
within Letterfrack.
8.254 They also accept that bed-wetters could have been dealt with more sensitively and that boys were
required to organise the cleaning of their sheets themselves.
8.255 Complainants testified that there was a practice of punishing boys who wet their beds. A former
resident, who was in Letterfrack in the late 1960s, described how he was slapped for wetting
the bed:
And if you wet the bed, you got a smack. They would know the bed-wetters from the rest
of them. They would check their beds all the time. They would just walk by and they would
whip your blankets off, and if the bed was stained you would get a smack.
8.256 A number of former residents told the Investigation Committee how they started to wet the bed in
Letterfrack. One pupil described how he started to wet the bed in the School, a problem that
continued well into adult life. He said that, in the mornings, his sheets and mattress would be
thrown on the floor. He recounted how he was sometimes made to wrap the sheets around him
in order, as he saw it, to degrade him. He would be made to take the sheets to the yard while all
the while the other boys would be laughing at him. Although he received the odd slap for bed-
wetting he said there was no punishment as such, and what he feared most was the humiliation.
8.257 One former pupil said:

lads that wet the bed as well they were made take the mattress down in the morning,
carry them around the yard on their back and then put them on the rails in front of the
shops they had in the school. There was a row of shops all the way along; the bakers,
the cobblers and the tailors, and there was big railings and they had to put the mattresses
up there to dry out. It was embarrassing like, you know.
8.258 • Bed-wetting and soiling showed the extreme emotional disturbance suffered by many
children in Letterfrack. Evidence from complainants about this problem was that it
developed after they had come to Letterfrack and was not a pre-existing condition.
• Although much of the complainants’ evidence was confirmed in general terms by
respondents’ evidence, the particular cruelty of the punishment emerged in the
testimony of individual complainants. Punishments described by Brothers or ex-
Brothers, often in exculpatory or limiting terms, failed to reflect the pain, fear,
helplessness and vulnerability that resulted.
The Congregation’s response to allegations of physical abuse in Letterfrack

8.259 In its Opening Statement, the Congregation accepted that there had been lapses by individual
Brothers and that children had been physically abused in Letterfrack. They pointed out, however,
that corporal punishment was an accepted teaching tool during the period under investigation,
and that the children who were sent to Letterfrack could not be regarded as a random sample of
the school-going population. They stated that many had been confined to the School by the courts
for breaches of the criminal law, and others were committed because their parents did not exercise
proper care. Many were unaccustomed to parental discipline. In circumstances where there were a
large number of children and a small number of staff, the maintenance of discipline was essential.
8.260 The Congregation stated that there are no surviving punishment books for the School, although
they believe that at one stage they did exist.
8.261 The Congregation argued that their records show that the rules governing punishment were
adhered to and that physical abusers were removed from the school when they were discovered.
They summarised their position as follows:
(a) The recommendation given was that each Brother was to reduce corporal
punishment to a minimum in his class.
(b) It was clearly stated that corporal punishment was not to be used for failure at
lessons or during the religious instruction class.
(c) Constant emphasis was laid on ensuring that proper comportment, gravity, and
propriety were observed in the administration of corporal punishment.
(d) Other forms of disapproval, from sarcasm to pushing a child away, were
forbidden.
(e) The only instrument of punishment authorised was the leather strap, and
punishment could only be administered on the hand.
(f) The authorized leather strap was to be kept in the teacher’s desk in the
classroom.
8.262 In its Closing Submission, the Congregation stated:

In light of all of the evidence, including the evidence of the respondents, it is accepted by
the Congregation that, unfortunately there were incidents of excessive physical
punishment.
However it would appear that these were isolated incidents and it is submitted that the
evidence does not support a finding that excessive severe punishment was routine or
prevalent during the relevant period. However it is accepted that the evidence suggested
that the regime of physical punishment in the 1940s was somewhat more severe than in
the period subsequent to that when there were improvements in the general regime.

8.263 • The evidence of former residents about the punishment regime in Letterfrack was
substantially confirmed by respondent witnesses, and there was little dispute as to
the punishments that were administered.
• There were fewer areas of dispute as between complainant and respondent witnesses
than there were between complainants and the Congregation of the Christian Brothers.
The Congregation acknowledged that there had been breaches of the rules as to
corporal punishment, in respect of which they were apologetic, but adhered to the
position that excesses were not the norm and that the regime, when considered in the
proper historical context, was not an abusive one.
• Punishment that was excessive, arbitrary, uncontrolled and pervasive had an impact
that was not limited to the particular incident or the particular recipient, but created a
climate of fear and distrust throughout the Institution. The Congregation failed to
consider the full extent and long-term impact of the corporal punishment regime in
Letterfrack when coming to the conclusion outlined in its Final Submission.
8.264 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.

Sexual abuse in Letterfrack
Introduction
8.265 The recorded information about sexual abuse in Letterfrack during the relevant period can be
outlined as follows.
8.266 Br Dax spent 14 years working in Letterfrack over two periods between the early 1960s and the
mid-1970s. He pleaded guilty to sample charges of indecent assault and buggery of boys in
Letterfrack. He was sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Four of the victims for the criminal
prosecutions also gave evidence to this Committee. Br Dax remains a member of the
Congregation.
8.267 Br Anatole was a member of the Congregation for over 20 years, until he applied for and was
granted a dispensation from his vows in the early 1980s. He pleaded guilty to sample counts of
indecent assault in respect of three boys during his period in Letterfrack. He received a
suspended sentence.
Documented cases
Br Piperel
8.268 The disclosed documents record allegations in the 1930s that a Brother was engaging in sexual
misconduct with boys and is an example of how such a complaint was handled.
8.269 The Provincial received an anonymous letter of accusation from ‘a friend of the school’. How he
responded is not recorded but, as appears below, he may have passed it to a deputy to follow
up. A second letter from the same source galvanised him into action. On the day he received it,
he sent the Brother against whom the allegations had been made a typewritten transcript and
requested an urgent response. The letter writer asked the Provincial to change this Brother for
the sake of the morals of the boys:
I wrote just two weeks ago telling you that something was happening in the school with
the Brother ... it has come to my notice that some of the boys were looking through the
partition ... and saw a boy on his lap, etc. which has caused a great comment. I would
not like it to get around outside. I believe this is not the first time.
8.270 The Provincial did not conceal his disquiet. Having set out a transcription of the anonymous letter,
he wrote to Br Piperel:
These recurring warnings are causing me grave anxiety. Taken in connection with what
did happen between you and boys on a previous occasion there is quite justifiable cause
for all my anxiety.
Has anything wrong, such as is described in the above letter, taken place between you
and a boy, or boys? The matter is so grave, and is fraught with such serious
consequences to you, to the Institution and to the Congregation, that I require you to be
very open and candid with me. Please let me have a letter from you by return.
8.271 In the course of a three-page, handwritten letter, Br Piperel set out his defence. He began by
recalling that a Visitor had mentioned the matter to him previously and that it was only when the
Visitor had left that he remembered the occasion. The inference was that, following receipt of the
first letter, the Provincial asked the Visitor to raise the matter with Br Piperel in Letterfrack, and
the latter had denied any knowledge of it.
8.272 His explanation was that, three weeks previously, one of the boys in the School brought him a
message from the Gardaı́ in Letterfrack village:
While I was wording a reply the boy remained in the room, and as I wanted him to
understand the message he was quite close to me while I was writing. After finishing I
told the boy to re-arrange the desks, which were out of order after the Drawing. All this
took only about seven or eight minutes ...
After dinner I met this same boy and he brought with him another boy whom he stated
was calling him names because he was doing messages for me to-day. Although the door
of the schoolroom was open the boy looked through the partition while I was writing the
message. I asked him why he called the boy names and he stated he only did that to get
the other boy into a row. He then stated that he had been quite mistaken and I punished
him. Both boys were emphatic about anything having happened. I can understand other
boys exaggerating on this and probably making some statement to some individual in
the premises.
8.273 Br Piperel claimed that one of the lay staff in the School had a motive for having him removed
from the Institution and would have been pleased to get him into trouble, thereby implying that he
was the anonymous friend of the School who had written to the Provincial.
8.274 The Brother’s reply should have given rise to even greater concern on the part of the Provincial,
but instead it seems to have been taken as a complete refutation of the charges of impropriety.
The mystery in the case was how the letter of response could have given any reassurance.
8.275 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 three further industrial
schools over a 10-year period. The records contained complaints about the Brother’s work and
attitude in these institutions but did not record incidents of sexual impropriety. His last posting was
to a day school in Cork in the 1950s, where his career as a teacher came to a dramatic end as a
result of a complaint.
8.276 This matter came to the attention of the School when an influential medical specialist told the
Superior that a colleague was troubled because his nine-year-old daughter was being
accompanied home from school by Br Piperel, who would wait near the School for her. The girl’s
father had spoken to the Brother but he maintained that he was not doing anything wrong. The
nuns in the School, a local teacher and parents were also concerned about the situation, which
was not confined to this particular child. The doctor told the Superior that the girl’s father was
going to report the matter to the Gardaı́ if the situation continued, and the Superior sought an
immediate transfer, which was granted. Br Piperel remained in the Congregation until his death
nine years later.
8.277 In their Opening Statement, the Christian Brothers recorded the facts about this Brother in
summary form, noting that he ‘was given the opportunity to explain himself and give his
interpretation of what happened’. They commented:
It is not clear why Br Piperel was moved around from institution to institution despite being
a danger to the boys. There is no detailed account to indicate what discussion took place
about the matter, nor any indication as to why such a decision was taken.
8.278 This Brother had a history of improper behaviour towards boys. The Provincial took the
anonymous complaint seriously and he behaved appropriately in expressing his anxiety and
urgently seeking a response from the Brother. The records did not indicate whether the Provincial
notified the manager of any school to which he was subsequently posted.
8.279 Br Piperel was one of three Brothers mentioned by an ex-resident of Letterfrack, Noah Kitterick,
who wrote to the Provincial of the Order in 1953 alleging serious sexual and physical abuse.
Notwithstanding the information the Congregation had, which should have alerted them that the
allegations of Mr Kitterick were consistent with this Brother’s history, no acknowledgement or
investigation of Mr Kitterick’s complaints was made. It was asserted by the Congregation that the
failure to deal with Mr Kitterick’s allegations was because of ignorance that such behaviour could
possibly have occurred. However, the documented records make such an assertion implausible.
8.280 It is significant that this anonymous letter writer did not feel able to speak to the Resident Manager,
Br Troyes, who was in charge during two other serious episodes of sexual abuse in Letterfrack.
8.281 • The explanation offered by the Brother was entirely unsatisfactory.

• The Provincial’s conduct put the interests of the Congregation, the Institution and the
Brother ahead of the welfare of the boys, which demanded that the issue of sexual
abuse be confronted.
• The Congregation’s submission that ‘it is not clear why Br Piperel was moved around
from institution to institution despite being a danger to boys’ was an inadequate
response to a serious lapse on the part of the Leadership at the time. Br Piperel was
not the only Brother transferred in such manner and circumstances.
Mr Russel37
8.282 In 1939 the Provincial again had to deal with a case of sexual misconduct, this time involving an
ex-pupil who was subsequently employed in the School and was in charge of some of the boys.
On 20th July 1939, Br Leveret, the Disciplinarian in Letterfrack, wrote to the Provincial, Br Corben,
complaining about the sexual activities of Mr Russel:
You may remember when you called to Letterfrack some time ago my drawing your
attention to improper conduct carried on between the young man ... Since your visit, the
individual concerned has repeated this misconduct and the attention of the Superior was
directed to the matter by the Sub Superior. The latter incident happened towards the end
of May. Since then no action has been taken to have the fellow removed.
I am now relieving my conscience by again bringing the matter under your notice. If there
be a repetition of the misconduct I shall feel that I did my part in trying to have things put
right. I now consider that I am no longer obliged to make any further representation on
the matter.
8.283 The Provincial wrote to the Resident Manager, Br Troyes, on 23rd July 1939 to ascertain what was
going on:
You will remember that when you were here some months ago I spoke to you about the
undesirability of keeping [Mr Russel]–in your employment. You told me that though he
had been admittedly implicated in immoral practices with the boys he was now reformed.
I have quite recently been informed that he has since reverted to his immoral conduct and
that a complaint to this effect was made to you last May. I shall be thankful if you will
kindly let me have the particulars of the charge that was made against Russel and to what
extent, if any, you found he was guilty.
8.284 The Sub-Superior, Br Vernay, replied on behalf of the Superior on 25th July 1939:
I have known Russel for upwards of seven years and I know that whilst he was in the
school as a pupil and that whilst he was out he bore an unblemished character all the
time. He has possibly been guilty of a misdemeanour in his contact with the boys but this
lapse would be due to an inadvertence rather than any serious notion of guilt on his part
or on the part of the boys. The whole thing seems much exaggerated and points to a
37

campaign against Russel rather than to a desire to correct an evil. Russel since being
warned of the seriousness of the position, has become a member of the Sodality and was
at Holy Communion on the first Sunday of the present month, Sodality Sunday.
8.285 The Provincial replied to the Resident Manager on 25th July 1939:
I am glad to hear that you investigated the charge that was made against Russel, and
that you have given him a serious warning with the threat of dismissal in case that
misconduct would be proved against him. I dare say the action you have taken will have
a salutary effect upon him. It is good that he is in the Men’s Sodality and frequents the
Sacraments. Let us hope that with such safeguards and with the grace of God he will not
again commit himself. We cannot be too particular about the character and conduct of the
people we have in our employment, especially in our institutions.
8.286 The Russel episode became known outside the School, and the Auxiliary Bishop of Tuam, Dr
Walsh, wrote to the Provincial, Br Corben, suggesting a Visitation. The complaint was brought to
the attention of Br Troyes, the Superior, who wrote to Br Corben on 25th September 1939:
The matter you refer to was inquired into and vehemently denied. At the inquiry Mr Russel
was told, that if ever again, there was a complaint and that it was proved to have
foundation, it would mean instant dismissal for him. He goes to the Sacraments and is a
member of the Men’s Sodality. I am satisfied that there has been no cause of complaint.
His conduct and the company he keeps about the locality give no cause for anxiety.
I was pained to get the complaint in the manner I got it and annoyed that you should get
this trouble. The complainant did not mention it to the Superior but talked about it to
others. After all if it were a serious breach of conduct, it is not a matter for public talk. I
have never failed to investigate a charge made against an employee or a boy. I am afraid
the accuser has an axe to grind in this affair. If he had a difference, as he had with [Mr
Russel] and the latter said things to him or of him, he ought not to keep up deliberately
showing his spleen as this has been done in many ways. I am afraid the rules of charity
and justice have been out stepped. I am satisfied, [Mr Russel] is conducting himself in a
proper manner.
8.287 On the same day, 25th September 1939, a member of the Christian Brothers Provincialate had a
meeting with Bishop Walsh and noted in a memorandum:
He told me that he had complaints about some immoral practices carried on by [Russel]
in Letterfrack with some of the boys in the institution. This he said was reported to him by
outsiders and was talked of freely by people who lived in the vicinity of Letterfrack. He
(the Bishop) was very disturbed by this information and wished to have it investigated
at once.
I told his Lordship that we had already investigated these regrettable incidents and I
showed him the correspondence, which passed between the Superior of Letterfrack and
the Br Provincial on the subject. He was satisfied that the matter was already taken up
and thanked me for attending so promptly to the matter. He however expressed a desire
that the Visitation should be held in Letterfrack as soon as possible and asked me when
it could be done. I promised him that it would be done before the end of October. This
satisfied him... he wished however that this question should be thoroughly gone into at
the Visitation, and that if there was evidence of Russel having reverted to his malpractices
that he be sent away. I promised that this should be done.
8.288 The Provincial, Br Corben, carried out the Visitation between 12th and 16th October 1939. He
investigated the allegations against Mr Russel and satisfied himself that they were true. He
directed the Resident Manager to dismiss Mr Russel and the latter did so with the greatest
reluctance. His Visitation Report stated:
A short time before the Visitation the Auxiliary Bishop, Most Rev. Dr. Walsh had written
to me to say that he had been informed that [Mr Russel] had been carrying on immoral
practices with some of the boys. On investigation I found that such was the case, and
that this man, who is an ex-pupil of the school, was not only corrupting the morals of the
boys but was trying to undermine their Faith. I had on two previous occasions within the
past six months told the Superior of complaints of this nature that reached me from the
Brothers but he still kept him in his employment. Even now it is with reluctance he carries
out my direction to dismiss this man. The Superior adopts a very stupid attitude in matters
of this kind.
8.289 The Superior was extremely reluctant to dismiss the employee, notwithstanding the volume of
complaints or indeed the weight of evidence against him. The Superior was holding to the view
that, although the employee had been guilty of certain previous misconduct, nevertheless he was
a reformed character and was not guilty of further wrong.
8.290 In its Opening Statement the Congregation cited this incident for the purpose of showing that this
and two other cases involving lay workers were dealt with in an appropriate manner:
These cases demonstrate that the management was very aware of the need to protect
the young people from sexual exploitation. It should be noted that such complaints seem
to refer solely to the late 1930s and it does not seem that such complaints were
widespread.
8.291 • The Superior maintained an obstinate refusal to acknowledge the misconduct of the
employee, even when faced with strong findings of guilt made by the Provincial. The
protection of the employee was placed ahead of the interests of the children.
• Immediate action to remove the employee was required, and the inadequate response
was an indictment not only of the Resident Manager but of senior management in
the Congregation.
• The Superior’s refusal to deal with these allegations properly at the outset and his
continued reluctance to remove the employee should have raised serious concerns
as to his suitability for the position of Resident Manager. While the Visitor criticised
the Superior for his ‘stupidity’, he did not comment on the consequences for the
Institution of having a man in charge who was incapable of dealing with such a
fundamental problem involving the safety of children. The Superior continued in office
until the end of his term some years later.
Br Perryn
8.292 Br Perryn was discussed in the earlier section on physical abuse, but his eventual removal from
Letterfrack was as a result of sexual abuse there.
8.293 The Visitation Report of 1941 revealed a very serious case of sexual abuse by Br Perryn who
was in Letterfrack since 1927 and also from 1913 to 1919. The Report did not contain details of the
allegations but they were shocking enough to alarm the Visitor and to demand immediate action:
Br Perryn has charge of the boy’s kitchen. He is dirty, untidy, almost repulsive. He is
never present for Morning Prayers, but usually present for Mass, and Night prayers, but
never or very rarely at any other exercise. The Brothers tell me that they have never seen
him going to Confession, though he told me that he goes regularly to the local priests in
the chapel. I don’t believe him. Superior tells me that his word can’t be relied on, and that
he frequently lies. It is alleged that his relations with the boys are immoral, and if the
statements that I have got from the boys and which I now submit to the Br Provincial are
true, he has been living a most depraved, unclean, and gravely immoral life for years. So
bad are the charges that I could not conscientiously allow him to remain with boys any
longer, and availed of the fact that he got a fit on the day that I arrived to send him to the
O’Brien Institute for a “Rest”. I think he suspects that it was only a ruse to get him out.
8.294 The Visitor got statements from the boys involved which were ‘so shockingly obscene, revolting
and abominable that it is hard to believe them’. The boys said that they were afraid to reveal the
malpractices through fear of the Brother. In addition to sexual abuse he was also violent towards
the boys.
8.295 The Visitation Report continued:
Unfortunately, for years there has been much immorality among the boys. Onanism and
Sodomy have been frequent, and these practices take place wherever the boys
congregate, in the play field, lavatories, schools, kitchen and in the grounds. Formerly the
boys were allowed to go out by themselves and then these practices were frequent. Boys
wandered away among the fields and roads and mountain and immoral practices were
carried on. Accusations have been made against Br Perryn in this respect also, and my
investigations seem to confirm the charges. I have got statements from the boys with
whom he is alleged to have had immoral relations. They are so shockingly obscene,
revolting and abominable that it is hard to believe them. I have sent him to the O’Brien on
the plea of ill health as I could not conscientiously leave him in charge of the boys until
the matter is dealt with. Boys got a Retreat last Christmas and since then things seem to
have somewhat improved. I fear that the boys have been making bad confessions, and
would recommend that Fr. C Counihan be requested to give them a Retreat at once, so
that the boys may get a chance now that Br Perryn is away. Boys whom I interviewed
told me that they were afraid to reveal the malpractices through fear of Br Perryn. It is
alleged that he beats them, kicks them, catches them by the throat etc. and uses them
for immoral ends. I found superintendence of the boys at times very slack. For instance,
on many mornings there is only an old man ... in charge when the boys are getting up
and dressing and washing. Many mornings there is no Br present when the boys are
saying their prayers. [The man] says the prayers with them. Boys get up at 7 and attend
mass at 7.30 Dublin time. House time is one hour later. The boys in the Junior Dormitory
do not get up until 7.30. There is no Br with these either at that time. A monitor is in
charge though one of these monitors was recently carrying on immoral conduct with some
of the juniors in the dormitory. The Superior has now arranged that a Brother takes charge
of both dormitories when the children are getting up. I also found that no Br was in charge
of the boys between 2.30 and 3.00 this is one of the times when it is alleged that Br
Perryn was most active with his vile practices. The night watchman has no “punch clock”
so there is no guarantee that he is doing his work of superintendence at night properly.
He leaves each morning at 6.30.
8.296 The Visitor also found out that the Superior, Br Troyes, had not been informed of the alleged
immorality between the boys and Br Perryn. Br Jourdan,38 who was a teaching Brother, discovered
what was happening with Br Perryn from the statement from one of Br Perryn’s victims. Br Jourdan
told the Visitor that he did not tell the Superior as the Superior would not have believed him; he
does, however, appear to have confided in another young Brother. When asked why he did not
report it directly to the Br Provincial he explained that he only found out towards the end of March
and expected the annual Visitation to take place any week thereafter. The Visitor left a list of 17
directions with the Superior, some of which were designed to improve the supervision of the boys.
38

8.297 The Superior General later commented on this matter in a letter to the Provincial:
Br Jourdan’s handling of the Perryn revelations appears to me very indiscreet; he omitted
reference to the Superior and took the young inexperienced lay Brother into his
confidence.
8.298 Br Perryn spent 20 years in Letterfrack and a three-year period in Cork. He spent short periods
in nine other institutions. During his earlier period of service in Letterfrack the Sub-Superior
complained of this Brother’s ‘notorious’ severity toward the boys. A Visitation Report from 1919
commented:
Owing to some trouble, which Br Director attributed chiefly to the woman cook at the
monastery Br Perryn was freed from all duties connected with the boys kitchen and
refectory, and is now in charge of the monastery kitchen ... Br Perryn does not associate
much with the Brs of the Community and does not according to my information, care for
his personal duties as contrasted with his charge of the boys refectory. My own impression
is that a change to a non-residential school would be very desirable.
8.299 Br Perryn was described as being stern and distant and notoriously severe by Br Gardiner, another
Brother in the Letterfrack Community, in a letter to the Br Superior dated 3rd April 1917.
8.300 Br Perryn was moved to Baldoyle in July 1919, a month after a Visitor had recommended that a
move to a non-residential school ‘would be very desirable’.
8.301 The Christian Brothers in their Submission commented:

It is difficult to explain how Br Perryn was reappointed to Letterfrack when he had been
found to have been physically abusive during his first period in Letterfrack from
1913–1919.
8.302 A number of reasons were suggested by the Congregation for the return of Br Perryn:
• The authorities dealing with the case in 1919 were the General Council while
subsequent to 1922 appointments were assigned by the Provincial Council which was
established in 1922.
• The Provincial Council that came into existence in 1922 may not have been aware of
complaints made against Br Perryn.
• No member of the General Council was appointed to the Provincial Council in 1922
and hence Brother Perryn was returned to Letterfrack in 1927 by authorities who had
no knowledge of the problem.
8.303 Then they concluded:

Although this incident of the abuse was dealt with as soon as it came to the attention of
the Congregation Leadership, it is most unfortunate that the early warning signs had not
been acted upon adequately.
8.304 • When the Visitor was presented with information by one of the Brothers in Letterfrack,
he investigated at once. He took statements from the boys involved, and was so
horrified about the information that he took immediate action to remove the Brother.
• The Congregation described in the Opening Statement how a trial of this Brother had
been arranged in 1941 which would have led to his dismissal if he was found guilty.
The trial did not proceed because the Brother was permitted to apply for a
dispensation from his vows which was granted.
• It is significant that the same Resident Manager was in charge during Br Perryn’s and
Mr Russel’s time, namely, Br Troyes, who was in the School from 1935 to 1941.
• Br Perryn was the second Brother referred to by Noah Kitterick in his letter to the
Provincialate in 1953. Noah Kitterick alleged sexual and physical abuse by this man
when he was in Letterfrack from 1924 to 1932, which was during Br Perryn’s second
period there. The Congregation must have been aware of this man’s history and yet
they refused to engage with Mr Kitterick or to acknowledge his complaint in any way.
• The Congregation’s comment that ‘it is most unfortunate that the early warning signs
had not been acted upon adequately’ failed to address the fundamental questions
raised by this case.
• The fact that this Brother was able to abuse boys undetected and unreported for such
a long period is indicative of a serious failing in the management of the school.
• To compound the seriousness of this case, even the Brother who discovered the abuse
felt unable to report it to his Superior, waiting instead for the annual Visitation to
disclose what he had heard. If a member of the Congregation felt that the Superior
would not believe him, it is hardly surprising that the boys felt unable to speak up.
This Superior was the same man who had refused to acknowledge the case of Mr
Russel, referred to above. He was also the Resident Manager when an anonymous
letter was sent to the Provincial regarding Br Piperel.
• The fact that the Brother had felt unable to report the matter to the Superior and had
to go through the Visitor was not addressed. Instead, the Brother was criticised for
his indiscretion in mentioning the matter to another Brother in the School.
• The documents do not record the 14 years of abuse by this man, which indicates
that there was a higher level of sexual abuse in the Institution than was revealed by
the evidence.
Br Leandre39
8.305 Br Leandre, who served in Letterfrack during the mid-1940s, was unhappy in religious life from
before taking his final vows but feared ‘eternal damnation’ if he left. He had been reprimanded by
the Provincialate for ‘deliberately making contact with seculars’ and informed that there was no
good reason why he should be freed from his vows. His Superior ‘implored me not to leave’ and
so he continued with his vocation and worked as a Christian Brother for 16 years.
8.306 Br Leandre first applied for dispensation in 1950, having sought advice from a Confessor who
helped him prepare his case; he was refused, and he applied again in 1951 and in 1952, but was
refused on each occasion. In his 1954 application, he spelled out the position more clearly and
this had the desired effect:
Furthermore I find it impossible to live up to the obligations of my vow of chastity.
Repeated exhortation by confessors, despite my earnest cooperation, fail to rid me of this
vice. They seemed to think that married life would provide the best cure, and personally
I feel or rather have found out by experience that that would be the best thing for me. A
virtuous female friend has more than once saved me from breaking my vow of chastity.
Men friends, e.g. my confreres, have no influence over me; rather I am essentially a
husband.
For conscience reasons, I intend when I leave the brothers, to take up some other
occupation other than teaching. However, I am leaving this decision, in the hands of the
confessor, who prompted me to write this petition. He is of the opinion that when I will be
no longer bound to celibacy, this matter will right itself, though personally I am scared of
having to deal with innocent boys and be the cause of their committing sin ...
39

I should mention, that, though I always wanted to leave, I always feared doing so, because
during my formative years, I was often told that terrible calamities overtook those who
returned to the world, followed by eternal damnation, in consequence of their “betrayal”.
In proof of this, a quotation from Sacred Scripture was often recited “he that puts his hand
to the plough and looks back is not fit for the kingdom of Heaven” thus it was I was
convinced that I should not leave, no matter how I felt about it.
I should mention that when I presented my case to the Sacred Congregation in 1950, it
was a case that had been considerably watered down by a confessor, so as not to, as he
said, incriminate myself unduly.
I have now stated the reasons, which before God, prompt me to seek a dispensation.
8.307 The Congregation pointed out in its Submission that there were no contemporaneous complaints
against this Brother while he was in Letterfrack. However, he and another Brother were criticised
in a Visitation Report in 1945 for spending ‘most of their time down about the Boys’ Dormitories,
in their rooms and away from the House’ His letter suggested that this man had a strong attraction
towards boys from before his profession as a Brother and it may be suspected that he had sexual
relations with boys during his time in Letterfrack. The Brother said in his letter that he was on the
point of not taking final vows, but a lack of courage prevented him from refusing, indicating that
the problem he had with the vow of chastity was of long standing.
8.308 This Brother continued to teach in national schools for boys in Dublin until the mid-1980s. He left
the employ of the Christian Brothers in the same month as he received his dispensation and took
up a teaching position in a boys’ school in another county. He continued teaching in boys’ schools
for the rest of his career but not in any Christian Brothers’ schools, although he had declared that
it was his intention to take up another occupation instead of teaching because ‘I am scared of
having to deal with innocent boys and be the cause of their committing sin’.
8.309 • Br Leandre should not have been in a position to continue his teaching career after
his dispensation. He openly acknowledged to the Congregation that he was a danger
to boys, and the Department of Education should have been alerted to this danger by
the Provincialate. No record of any such warning appeared in the Christian Brothers
or the Department of Education files.
• He was appointed to a teaching post in 1954. The question arises whether a reference
was given by the Christian Brothers or no reference was sought by the new school
when this appointment was made. In either case, safety of children was disregarded
and the Brother’s position was protected.
Br Destan40
8.310 Br Destan served in Letterfrack for one year in the 1940s. He was then transferred to three
different day schools in four years and stayed in his final school for four years. He was dispensed
from his vows in the late 1950s.
8.311 Although the correspondence on file referred to the existence of other letters, the relevant
available information was contained in a letter from one of the management team in St Helen’s
Province to the Superior General. The writer enclosed two letters (which have not survived) from
the Brother seeking a dispensation. The senior Brother who passed on the request told the
Superior General:
He seeks a dispensation from his vows and for the present I am not sure whether we
should recommend it or not. He is by no means quite normal and as you will see from the
correspondence had been in trouble with boys and got a canonical warning. He now
40

seeks a dispensation for conscientious reasons but does not say what these reasons are.
It is quite possible that he is in trouble again but I do not know.
8.312 The fact that this Brother was moved around so much and spent such short periods in the different
schools, gives rise to suspicion. As noted in the above letter, he had a history of ‘trouble with
boys’ and had received a Canonical Warning. On the occasion of a transfer to a school in County
Wicklow, the Provincial warned the Superior ‘in strictest confidence’ to exercise vigilance, so that
‘with this vigilance perhaps the danger is more remote’.
8.313 • This was one of the few examples where the Christian Brothers acknowledged in
writing that a Brother who interfered with boys was dangerous and required vigilance.
It is difficult to reconcile this awareness with cases that were documented in their own
records. Men who were known to abuse boys were frequently sent to industrial
schools where the opportunities for offending were greatly increased and the
possibility of detection much reduced.
Br Avenall41
8.314 Br Avenall served in Letterfrack in the late 1940s. His period in Letterfrack seems to have been
in the interim between the first and second years of his teacher training. He served in a number
of institutions, most notably in a day school from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s. In or about
1974, a complaint was made that he had been involved in improper conduct with a boy. When he
was informed about this by the Provincial, he denied that there was any truth in the accusation.
Some years previously, there had been a similar complaint and the matter was investigated by a
previous Provincial. On that occasion also, the Brother denied that there was any truth in the
allegation. Some time after the second of the above complaints, a Visitation took place in the day
school where he was teaching, during which the Brother made a confession to the Visitor who
described what happened in an appendix to his report:
During his interview with the Visitor, Brother introduced this matter on his own initiative.
He was very upset because he had not been candid with the Provincial, when the latter
informed him of the complaint. He was too shocked to admit his problem, and requested
the Visitor to let the Provincial know the real position.
Brother said that this problem had a very long history. Some years ago there was a similar
complaint made by a parent, and he was interviewed by the previous Provincial. On that
occasion also he denied there was any truth in the accusation made against him. He now
realised that he could [not] continue in his present state, and he asked the visitor for
advice and help. He was anxious to have whatever medical and spiritual aid there was
available. He would be grateful if the Provincial would arrange an interview with a suitable
doctor and priest psychologist ...
Though Brother had failed to face up to his problem for many years, he was at last
prepared to do so now. He was concerned about the harm he has done to the real mission
of the Brothers in the area, to the boys, to the Community; he was particularly concerned
about the superior who would be so hurt if he knew Brother’s real position.
8.315 There were no complaints from witnesses about sexual abuse by this Brother during his time in
Letterfrack, but again there must be grave suspicion in view of the information given to the Visitor
years later and particularly the Brother’s failure ‘to face up to his problem for many years’.
41

Br Jean42
8.316 In 1954 the Superior discovered that one of his Brothers had been sexually abusing children in
the School. The complaint from one boy was that the Brother was ‘fiddling with him in his private
parts’ and he described a number of incidents. A second boy gave somewhat similar information
about the abuse carried out on him.
8.317 The matter was referred to the Provincial who interviewed the offender, who admitted to ‘immoral
dealings’ with boys over a period of three months. Br Jean43 was removed from Letterfrack. The
Provincial reported that it appeared that the Brother had been initiated into this type of activity
whilst he was a student in the Christian Brothers’ Novitiate. The Superior of the College had at
that time carried out an inquiry into homosexual activity there that resulted in a number of the
boys being sent away. This offending Brother was one of a number who were allowed to remain
and who went on to become Brothers.
8.318 This Brother was sent to Letterfrack in the knowledge that he had a history of sexual activity. The
Superior in Letterfrack should have been notified of relevant history once it was decided to assign
the Brother, but there is no evidence that this was done.
8.319 The Congregation commented in its Opening Statement that the way this matter was dealt with
‘demonstrated how quickly the authorities acted when a complaint was brought to their attention’.
8.320 The Superior did not reveal to the other Brothers the reason for Br Jean’s sudden departure. Br
Sorel who served in Letterfrack at the time was angry:
At the end of the year we were told that he was fired home, we were only told then by
the Manager that he had been abusing two boys ... who used to go to the sacristy every
night to prepare for the Mass for the next day for the Priest. I didn’t know at the time,
none of us knew at the time what had been going on between himself and the two boys,
... the then Manager had said it was his duty to keep it secret and confidential. I was
surprised last week when I heard somebody saying that everybody knew it, they didn’t.
The boys didn’t know it because I would have found out easily from a number of the lads
if that had happened.
8.321 While this witness believed that nobody knew the reason the Brother left, the evidence of former
residents was that boys did know about Br Jean’s activities. One recalled hearing that Br Jean
would take boys up to his room at night to give them extra lessons:
Now, you hear rumours, but we knew that Br Jean left Letterfrack because he was abusing
boys. We knew that. I knew some boys in particular who – they didn’t tell us, you just
knew. How do I know? Okay, in the School we talked amongst ourselves, “why is he
gone, why was he taking such a boy to his room at night pretending to be giving extra
school lessons?” Now this is where I think it came from. It was fairly common knowledge
amongst the boys that Br Jean was dismissed from the School because he was sexually
abusing boys.
8.322 Another resident in the School from the late 1940s to the mid-1950s stated that he heard rumours
concerning Br Jean’s removal, in particular that he had been removed for abusing boys in the
sacristy.
8.323 A complainant who was resident during the 1950s gave evidence to the Committee that he was
sexually abused by Br Jean during his time in Letterfrack. He said that Br Jean would remove him
42
43

from his bed at night and take him to his own bedroom, where Br Jean would kiss and fondle him
and do “various acts that should not be done”. He said that it was part of Br Jean’s duties to act
as night watchman and that enabled him to do this. The complainant stated that this occurred on
average twice a week for a number of weeks, but that he was constantly in fear of Br Jean coming
for him at night and as a result began to wet the bed. He further stated that he never informed
anyone of the abuse at the time, as Br Jean told him that he would never be allowed to leave the
Institution were he to do so. Br Jean, he stated, would also give him sweets and toys to ensure
his silence. The complainant stated that he never heard any talk amongst the boys in respect of
Br Jean engaging in sexual abuse. He said that he never spoke to them about it nor did anyone
ever mention anything to him. Although he had no recollection of Br Jean leaving Letterfrack, he
was in fact removed some weeks before the complainant’s own discharge.
8.324 There was no Visitation Report for 1954 and there was no mention of his departure from
Letterfrack in the annals of the Community. This was surprising, as the annals documented all the
movements of Brothers in the Community, including those on short visits to Letterfrack and any
vacations or retreats taken by permanent members of staff.
8.325 In its response to the statement submitted to the Investigation Committee by the witness cited
above, the Congregation said as follows:
[The complainant] makes serious allegations of sexual abuse against a “Brother Jean”
which he says began “after about a week in the school”. This abuse is said to have
occurred at night in Brother Jean’s bedroom. It has been very difficult for the Congregation
to properly investigate this particular aspect of [this] complaint. Brother Jean left the
Christian Brothers in 1954 and the Congregation is unaware of his present whereabouts.
If the abuse claimed by [the complainant] did occur it is a matter of sincere regret for the
Congregation. However, I do believe that if [the complainant] had made a complaint at
the time, appropriate action would have been taken. The Congregation does not and
would not have condoned abuse of the kind alleged by [the complainant] in his statement.
8.326 As was customary with all such responding statements, this one was signed by a Christian
Brother, in this case Br Sorel, who was quoted above as having been angry that he was not
informed earlier of the reason why Br Jean was removed and that he found out only at the end of
the year. Br Sorel also stated that in preparing the response he had liaised with members of the
Leadership Team, who furnished him with relevant information from the Congregation’s records.
The Brother who was the Superior of Letterfrack at the time of the departure of Br Jean was
available for consultation when the response was prepared. It was unfortunate in these
circumstances that the response statement did not give the reason for the departure of Br Jean.
In the result, the Committee was given an inaccurate statement by the Congregation, and the
victim of Br Jean’s activities was given the impression that his account was not believed.
8.327 In its Final Submission to the Committee following the investigation into Letterfrack the
Congregation stated:
On the basis of its own records and of the evidence of [the complainant], the Congregation
accepts that Br Jean was involved in some level of sexual abuse. The documentation that
the Congregation has in respect of Br Jean is extremely limited, (and all of it has been
given to the Commission) but it is clear that Br Jean was removed once the abuse was
detected.
8.328 • The assertion by the Congregation that the boy should have reported the abuse at the
time ignored the difficulties that boys and even Brothers had in reporting sexual abuse
and tended to place responsibility on the victim.
Br Adrien44
8.329 Br Adrien served in Letterfrack for one year in the late 1950s. A proposal by the Provincial to
revoke the Brother’s transfer away from Letterfrack provoked an extraordinary plea from the
Resident Manager:
Your letter cancelling Br Adrien’s change came as a great surprise and shock to me.
I hope you will forgive my candour in saying that I would prefer to have no one at all for
the boys’ kitchen than to have the constant strain of watching and worrying about him.
It is impossible to keep one’s eye on him. Every time he gets my back turned he is in the
kitchen and goodness knows, there are enough difficulties and worries to contend with,
without having to think of him every minute and hour of the day.
The position regard the Monastery kitchen is regrettable but unfortunately he has not got
proper control in the boys’ department either. In my opinion he is not suitable at all to
handle young boys and it is positively dangerous, especially in these times, to have him
looking after them. A weakness in discipline in this important department will have a very
detrimental effect on the boys’ behaviour and will add to everyone’s difficulties and will
seriously affect the tone of the school.
Taking the above considerations into account and also your own personal knowledge of
Br Adrien, I ask you seriously to reflect on the harmful effect his staying here is bound to
have, and I entreat you to permit the transfer to go through as originally arranged.
8.330 The Provincial replied that the letter was very distressing, and he thought Br Adrien deserved a
Canonical Warning for his disobedience and acceded to the request that his transfer should go
ahead. Br Adrien was transferred to St Joseph’s School for Deaf Boys in Cabra, and was
subsequently transferred to a number of different schools, including Artane. He was back in
Letterfrack in the late 1960s for a short period.
8.331 Whilst the nature of the conduct that made this Brother ‘dangerous’ and ‘having a detrimental
effect on the behaviour of the boys’ was not set out, the implication was clear. No witnesses
complained of being abused by him in Letterfrack but, during his subsequent career in Artane, he
was accused of sexual abuse of boys. He was urgently removed from Artane when the Chaplain
reported complaints by a boy to the management. He appears to have received no Canonical
Warning for his behaviour in Artane. Following a period of work in St Joseph’s School for Deaf
Boys in Cabra, he was once again dispatched to Letterfrack. After leaving Letterfrack for the
second time in 1968, Br Adrien worked in a number of locations before he returned to Baldoyle in
the late 1990s.
8.332 In view of the history of this Brother in Letterfrack, he should not have been transferred to a
school for deaf children. Following the discovery of serious sexual abuse in Artane, his subsequent
transfers to the place where his behaviour was first recorded was indicative of the Congregation’s
priorities. If protection of children had been even a remote consideration, these transfers would
not have occurred.
Br Didier45
8.333 Br Didier taught in Letterfrack for 10 months in the late 1950s, and was then transferred to St
Patrick’s in Marino. A year and half later, he left Marino under a cloud and was transferred to
Colaiste Mhuire. He was given a Canonical Warning in 1960 on account of his “interfering
incorrectly” with boys who had been in his class. He was advised that the object of the warning
was so that he would not fall into that fault again:
44
45

After consultation with the Provincial Council I have decided to give you a canonical
warning on account of your interfering incorrectly with boys who had been in your class.
The object of this warning is that you will not fall into this fault again.
8.334 There was no explanation for the short duration of his service in Letterfrack notwithstanding his
position as teacher. He taught in five more schools.
Br Dax
8.335 Br Dax was convicted of sexually abusing 25 former pupils, some of whom gave evidence to the
8.336 During the course of Br Dax’s evidence to the Investigation Committee, counsel for Br Dax told
the Committee that Br Dax accepted that he was guilty in respect of further charges.
8.337 Br Dax worked in Letterfrack for two periods, from the late 1950s to the mid-1970s, having
previously spent over five years in St Joseph’s School for Deaf Boys, Cabra. He was in charge of
the kitchen and the poultry farm and also did relief work for other Brothers from time to time, which
sometimes involved supervising the dormitories. For the first two years of his time in the School,
he slept in a room adjacent to the dormitory. He accepted that, with one exception, his abusive
activity spanned nearly the entirety of his period in the school. This exception was for a period of
two years, and was due to the influence of his Confessor, who made clear to him the sinfulness
of his conduct. However, he relapsed as soon as this priest was transferred.
8.338 Br Dax told the Committee that he started sexually abusing children approximately six months
after his arrival in the School. He said it started ‘with immodest touching and eventually leading
to buggery’.
8.339 The abuse generally took place in the kitchen area, the poultry farm or the boiler room. He
accepted during cross-examination that it could also have taken place in the room adjacent to the
dormitory or in the incubator room in the monastery.
8.340 Although he admitted raping and fondling boys, he preferred to reserve his position on whether
he masturbated them, forced them to masturbate him or engaged in oral sex.
8.341 He said that he would abuse the same children regularly and that, at any one period in his career
in the School, he could have been abusing a number of children at the same time. The abuse
would often continue until the particular boy left the School. He accepted that he would often keep
boys behind after work for the express purpose of abusing them. As to the frequency of his
assaults, he accepted the suggestion that he would have raped some boys once or maybe twice
a week for a prolonged period of time.
8.342 Br Dax described how he would select his victims. He said that he did not have a favourite type
of boy who he would be more likely to abuse. Indeed, he was unable to tell the Committee why
he picked on some boys rather than others, other than to say that it was simply a matter of
convenience for him. He did not appear to have engaged in a policy of risk assessment. He simply
abused the children that he had regular contact with.
8.343 He said that he had nothing to do with the allocation of the boys to their chores as this was done
by the Disciplinarian. He was asked whether the boys ever objected to him and he replied that
they did not, although he did recall a number of boys who asked him to stop. He said that, when
this happened, he would stop. On further questioning, however, he admitted that the main reason
for stopping was the boys’ leaving Letterfrack or moving to a different trade.
8.344 Br Dax was asked about the extent to which other people knew of his activities. He said that, as
far as he was aware, no adults other than his Confessor were aware of his activities, although he
accepted that the children who worked in the kitchen would have known about them. He also
accepted that it was possible that a wider pool of children would have been aware of his
inclinations. He was also asked about his awareness of the risk of detection. He said he could
not recall taking any specific steps to avoid detection. He was asked how he avoided being caught
and told the Committee that he could not put his finger on the reason but he thought the fact that
he worked alone in the kitchen was a factor. He was also isolated from other members of the
Community due to the nature of his work. By virtue of the fact that he cooked for the boys, he
himself never attended a Community meal in the 15 years he spent in Letterfrack.
8.345 He accepted during cross-examination by counsel for a number of complainants that he used
threats to prevent the boys from informing on him. He also accepted that the boys would cry and
be upset after he abused them and that he would not release them until they had calmed down.
8.346 It was put to him during cross-examination that it was astounding that he was able to abuse
children for 15 years without detection and that nobody other than the boys or himself knew about
it. Br Dax accepted that it was astounding but stressed that nobody ever spoke to him on the
subject or suspected him until he was arrested during the course of the police investigation into
Letterfrack.
8.347 He said that he remembered that Br Vallois46 left suddenly but stated that he did not discover that
this was because he was sexually abusing children until many years later. Similarly, he said that
he had no idea why Mr Albaric47 left. He speculated that, if there had been an investigation into
the activities of Br Vallois, he might have been frightened into stopping his own activities.
8.348 Br Dax was cross-examined at length by the Congregation about what motivated or led him to
sexually abuse children. He attributed his abusive activities to overwork and a feeling of isolation.
Counsel for the Congregation put it to him that these were feelings that would have been shared
by many members of staff in Letterfrack, yet they did not all resort to the sexual abuse of children
for release. Br Dax later contended that his actions were due to a mix of isolation, loneliness and
his own ‘human weakness’. Earlier in his evidence, Br Dax accepted that he could be described
as a ‘loner’ and tended not to engage or socialise with the other Brothers in Letterfrack.
8.349 Br Dax confirmed that in his ‘human weakness’ his way of dealing with loneliness was to engage
in sexual abuse of boys. When asked how he would go about satisfying that human weakness,
Br Dax simply stated ‘Touching, embracing’. Br Dax could not explain why he behaved differently
to other Brothers who were equally isolated from their families.
8.350 During cross-examination by counsel for a number of complainants, Br Dax said that the abuse
was primarily about release for him. This was reiterated during his questioning by the Committee,
when he stated that he never formed any emotional relationships with the boys.
8.351 While Br Dax admitted committing sexual offences against 25 boys in Letterfrack, only four of
these gave evidence to the Investigation Committee. It follows that the full extent of this Brother’s
sexual activity was not put before the Committee, even with regard to the crimes for which he
was convicted.
8.352 One of the boys in respect of whom Br Dax pleaded guilty to having abused told the Committee
that Br Dax selected him to work in the kitchen because the other kitchen boy had run away. At
the time, he thought he was on the ‘pig’s back’, because working in the kitchen would give him
46
47

access to extra food and warmth. He knew that Br Dax could be bad tempered but soon learned
to adjust to his moods. He was alone in the kitchen the first time he was abused by Br Dax,
and initially he did not realise anything bad was happening. He just thought that Br Dax was
being affectionate.
8.353 However, matters soon deteriorated:

Well it started off I was helping, I was doing little odd jobs before I actually went in as
kitchen boy and suddenly there was nobody there except Br Dax. But I didn’t really, to
me there was nothing wrong with it. He was being nice, you know. He used to call me
[Robert].48 Never grown to hate a name so much. Anyway, we ended up in the back
kitchen and I don’t know how he got up behind me, I never really thought about it, but
suddenly his hands going up and down my tummy, and then his hands are inside my
clothes and it is, “you are all right, [Robert], you are all right [Robert]”. He actually touched
the top of my penis. Now, I didn’t know what sex was and suddenly he shivered and as I
turned around, well, I know now what he was doing, he was ejaculating, but at the time,
well, to be quite truthful, I thought he was deformed. You know, what the hell is this
coming out of you? You want to go and see a doctor, and he actually gave me a cigarette
but I didn’t smoke at the time. I gave it to one of the other boys for some Cleeves. Things
like that went on ... One time when I was trying to stop it, he actually said, I would be
paying a visit to the courthouse and I knew exactly what that meant ... That he would be
taking me up to the courthouse and have me transferred to Daingean. That is the only
possible reason you would go to the courthouse ... Do what he says or else. Yes. I mean,
Letterfrack was bad. Daingean was worse. You know, I would commit suicide ...
8.354 He recalled the first time he was raped:

Sex, my introduction to sex was in the back kitchen of Letterfrack, jammed up against a
boiler, getting my leg burnt and getting raped by Br Dax.
8.355 He continued:
... we had showers every Saturday, Saturday afternoon. So, yes. He ended up behind me
again, but it was different. He started to open my clothes and I am “stop it” and he jammed
me between two boilers. Well, one boiler really. He was at the other, and I was at this
one. He started trying to put something into me, and at the time, I honestly didn’t know
what it was, and suddenly I got this unmerciful pain and – well, I went off into a different
world. I don’t know, but when I actually, I won’t say came back – he was on his knees in
front of me, buttoning up my fly. “Are you are all right?” Every time I moved I had this
pain, and I went out to the boys toilets and I sat there. I was sobbing my heart out.
Somebody shouted in “showers”. We all had to go to our dormitories for showers, and I
still couldn’t understand what he had done with me.
I mean anyway, we used to go down to the showers wearing a pair of swimming trunks
that were made by the School, and I think it was 20 at a time, I am not sure. There was
a line here and a line there and a handle at the end. I was at the end. Br Guillaume49 took
showers. I was sobbing my heart out. Now Br Guillaume was the type of man that if I
broke wind in the farmyard, he knew about it in the play yard. He had his finger on it, it
didn’t matter what went on in the school, I don’t know how, we used to wonder how he
knew, but he never asked me what happened. The only thing I can think of is he knew
what happened.
Anyway, that night, the cinemas, and the boys sat on the seats here. It was a projection
room behind and the Brothers used to sit there or around the potbelly fire. Br Dax came
48
49

in, and I was in the middle and he called up my line, “[Robert, Robert] here” . Was a half
slab of Cleeves. Well, I took it and I just slung it, I want nothing off the – and that is
something that isn’t often done – well, it wasn’t to my experience, and Br Guillaume was
behind, he had to see. Why am I getting this preferential treatment? I won’t say I find it
hard to believe, I find it impossible to believe that he didn’t know, not only what went on,
but what was going on. There is no way, what happened to me over that period of time,
that they didn’t know. All of them. Every single one of them, and I hope they all rot in hell.
8.356 The witness said that he knew that the same was happening to other boys, because of the way
Br Dax behaved towards them, which would now be called grooming:
Yes, I knew how he behaved with me and I could see the way he was behaving with
them, and it was identical ... “Come and help me with the chickens”, that was regarded
as a little perk. Or “let’s go down to the orchard, I want to get some apples. I am going to
make apple jam”, or something or other. You knew damn well he wasn’t making apple
jam. The man couldn’t boil an egg. I done most of the bloody cooking, but you knew, you
seen all the signs.
8.357 He said that the boys reacted in different ways: some went very quiet, whilst others became
aggressive, but the change in them was very noticeable. He identified two individuals whom he
was convinced Br Dax was abusing, although they never said anything to him.
8.358 He was cross-examined on his assertion that the Congregation knew about Br Dax’s activities:
To say that they didn’t know would be to say that the sun doesn’t shine tomorrow because
in a school like that, there is 120 boys, they all know what is going on. Everyone knew
what was going on, there were very few that didn’t know, the only thing was we didn’t
speak about it because we were ashamed of it. I am still ashamed of it, I should have cut
his bloody throat. He didn’t know? Br Guillaume didn’t know? I sat down and sobbed my
heart out, that man knew and he never answered. He should have turned around and
said to me “what was going on, why are you crying?” but what did he do he continued on
with the shower and sent me up to dry off – he didn’t know? ... If I was to stand in front
of my maker tomorrow I would have the same position, they knew what went on. Some
of them were doing it, some of them were covering it ... The ones that were covering are
twice as guilty as the ones that didn’t because they could have stopped it.
8.359 Counsel for Br Dax stated that he had no questions for the complainant. Br Dax was asked during
his own evidence whether he had any recollection of the complainant and replied that he did not,
even though the complainant was one of the individuals in respect of whom he pleaded guilty to
sexually abusing. In his response statement, Br Dax adopted a Garda Statement in which he
stated that he remembered the complainant and that he worked in the kitchen. He accepted that
he would have caught and pulled him towards him on several occasions, and that he would have
touched his private parts and ejaculated at the same time. He also accepted the allegation that
he came up behind the complainant while the latter was cleaning the kitchen, undressed him and
raped him. He could not recall how often this type of activity occurred but he accepted that it did
happen on several occasions, either in the kitchen or the storeroom. The complainant was about
15 at the time. He said that he was ‘deeply sorry for the hurt caused and I apologise’.
8.360 Another witness who gave evidence was also one of the individuals Br Dax admitted sexually
abusing. Br Dax pleaded guilty to indecently assaulting this witness. The witness’s evidence was
that the abuse occurred during milking time, but this was strongly disputed by the Congregation
in cross-examination who pointed out that the records proved that Br Dax did not have farming
duties, and that his duties in the kitchen would have made it impossible for him to have been
around the milking sheds during milking. Br Dax did not dispute the witness’s evidence at the
hearing, and the issue of whether Br Dax had duties other than the kitchen was raised only by
the Congregation.
8.361 The evidence of this witness was that Br Dax would ask him to stay behind after the milking was
done. He said that Br Dax started kissing and fondling him and then he had to ‘touch him up’.
This happened about three times a week until he was released. On one occasion, the witness
attempted to stop Br Dax by cutting himself with a knife. Br Dax panicked and, when the Resident
Manager asked what happened, he told him that the witness had slipped. The witness said that,
following his discharge from Letterfrack, Br Dax visited him at home and attempted to abuse him
there but he was able to resist.
8.362 During Br Dax’s own hearing before the Committee, he stated that he was in charge of the poultry
farm and went there daily to attend the chickens and hens. He also stated that he abused boys
in the poultry shed, as he was fairly safe from detection there.
8.363 He said that he did not have anything to do with the cows or sheep, but the poultry operation was
in the same area and boys would occasionally come after their milking duties to help him.
8.364 Br Dax was not questioned by the Congregation on this issue at his hearing.
8.365 The Congregation in its final Submission to the Investigation Committee said that the conviction
of Br Dax spoke for itself and they did not wish to make any submissions on the extent of the
sexual abuse committed by him. They did, however, express reservations about the evidence of
this complainant, which they believed showed how a false allegation could be made on the basis
of information obtained from sources other than the witness’s own experience.
8.366 The Congregation maintained this position even after it heard the evidence of Br Dax and in
circumstances where it did not examine him on the extent of his duties outside of the kitchen. It
appears that the Congregation relied on their own records to dispute the evidence of this
complainant, even when those records were disproved by the respondent himself.
8.367 Another complainant who was resident for two years in the early 1960s was also one of the
individuals Br Dax admitted sexually abusing. Br Dax pleaded guilty to indecently assaulting this
man. The complainant gave evidence that he worked in the kitchen and that Br Dax fondled him
and pushed up against him while masturbating himself. The abuse was carried out by Br Dax
under the guise of his wiping something off the complainant’s ‘cowman’s coat’, during which time
Br Dax pushed up against him and fondled his chest and grabbed his shoulders and masturbated.
The boys would put on this coat when requested by Br Dax to fetch milk. The complainant stated
that putting on the coat ‘meant at the time he wanted to masturbate’.
8.368 Another ex-resident, who was there in the late 1960s and who worked in the kitchen, said that Br
Dax was prone to violent mood swings, one moment he would be nice and give the boys cake
and sweets, the next he would beat them unmercifully. He recalled one incident of sexual abuse
which occurred in the back kitchen, where Br Dax attempted to abuse him but which the
complainant fought off by throwing boiling water at him.
8.369 Counsel for Br Dax did not ask any questions of this witness. In his response to the Committee
he adopted his Garda Statement in which he stated, ‘I honestly can’t remember the incident ... or
the boy himself’.
8.370 Another man who worked in the kitchen as a tea boy in the late 1960s said that, when everybody
was gone from the refectory, the tea boys would wash the pots before leaving. On one occasion,
Br Dax asked him to stay back after everybody else had left. Br Dax calmly poured a cup of tea,
then took his penis out and forced the boy to give him oral sex:
He sat me down, made me a cup of tea, well, poured a cup of tea, and then he took his
penis out ... And he pushed my head down on to his lap, and I had to give him oral sex
... I got back up, sat up straight and he started opening my trousers then, but I wouldn’t,
so I resisted him. He got angry with me then and he smacked me with a teapot. There
was a teapot and he just hit me on the head.
8.371 The complainant never went back to the kitchen again.
8.372 Another ex-resident in respect of whom Br Dax pleaded guilty was too upset to go into detail
about the abuse suffered at the hands of Br Dax and asked that the Committee accept his Garda
statement and the response to that statement as his evidence, which the Committee agreed to do.
8.373 In his statement the complainant said that he worked in the kitchen in Letterfrack alongside two
other boys. He said that Br Dax would get him on his own and that he would ask the complainant
to masturbate him with his hand first to get him an erection and then he would try to rape him. He
recalled two specific instances where Br Dax penetrated him. He said that the abuse always took
place on Saturday evenings before tea.
8.374 Br Dax would organise matters so that there would be just one boy there at that time of the
evening. He suspected that Br Dax was abusing other boys, because there were a number of
boys who refused to work in the kitchen. However, he said that he never discussed the abuse
with anyone because he was afraid of Br Dax. Br Dax would beat and hit him, often for no reason,
and the boys were terrified of him.
8.375 After he was raped the second time he refused to work in the kitchen. He ran away and as
punishment he was banned from working in the kitchen:
To work in the kitchen was thought to be a privilege although in fact it was the worse
possible place to be if you were sexually abused by Br Dax.
8.376 In his response statement, Br Dax adopted a Garda Statement in which he admitted fondling the
complainant and forcing him to engage in masturbation. He accepted that he might also have
asked the complainant to ‘kiss his penis’. He also accepted that he raped him although he could
not recall how many times this had occurred. He did not recall digitally penetrating the complainant
but accepted that it might have occurred, and he accepted that the abuse could have happened
in a room off the kitchen.
8.377 The Congregation’s response to the statement of this complainant did not focus on the admitted
facts of the abuse, but instead concentrated on the areas of minor inconsistencies, such as the
discrepancies in the age of the complainant at the time of the alleged abuse and details about his
work in the kitchen.
8.378 Another ex-pupil who gave evidence worked on the poultry farm with Br Dax. He said he enjoyed
the work there because he had a great deal of freedom as Br Dax also worked in the kitchen. He
got on well with Br Dax to a point but he was sexually abused by him.
8.379 He said that Br Dax slept in a room next to his dormitory and on Saturday mornings he would be
required to clean this room.
8.380 The complainant stated that for about 10 weeks he was abused by Br Dax on Saturday mornings
while he cleaned the room. He stated that Br Dax would rub talcum powder around his neck whilst
‘kissing you like you were a girl’. The complainant recalled that:
... he’d lie on top of me and sexually ... he would have his penis between your buttocks
and moving himself about and ejaculated and that’s it.
8.381 He said that Br Dax also abused him in a room in the monastery, which was used for incubating
the chicks. On one occasion when Br Dax was abusing him he said that a Brother, he thinks it
was Br Noreis, knocked at the window to get Br Dax to stop:
Br Dax is kind of loving me, like, arms around me, loving me inside in the room and I
think it was Br Noreis, knocks at the window. It was like a mild reprimand, a little joke and
it stopped ... Nothing serious, like, but what he was doing you would have some
explaining. Like, if I got a child now or I got a young fellow. I keep saying a child because
we were children down there.
8.382 The abuse continued until the complainant threatened to tell a local priest. Br Dax did not react in
any way other than to stop his abuse. The complainant could never bring himself to tell the priest
of what had happened to him. The Investigation Committee found the complainant’s account of
sitting in a shed outside the priest’s house, trying to work up the courage to tell somebody, moving:
I would be fearful of saying it, of the consequences. I would be fearful of the

consequences. Even if he believed me about what was taking place, there is no reason
for me to suspect that he is going to act on it. Like, who is going to challenge – like, what
is he going to do? Who am I, as a child, am I – am I going to put this particular Christian
Brother and the good name of the Christian Brothers in jeopardy by what this man is
doing to me of a Saturday in his room? I have the good sense to know that. But at the
same time I used to get excited. Now, I went down there about five times down to his
house but I never went to the door. But I feel that if he had probably come out to the door
I might have gone over and said something and blurted it out and lived with it or whatever.
It didn’t happen. It stopped with Br Dax and I worked with Br Dax after that until I left.
8.383 He would not have been able to complain to the Superior:
I got on very well with Br Guillaume. No, I would have been embarrassed to go to Br
Guillaume . I would have been embarrassed to go to Br Guillaume . None of us lads ever
spoke about these things. They don’t actually talk about it now, believe it or not. They
only talk in general ways. People don’t go into detail about it. Br Guillaume, no, I never
did. I liked Br Guillaume.
8.384 During cross-examination, counsel for the Congregation made much of the fact that Br Dax never
slept in a room adjacent to the dormitory. However, in his own evidence, Br Dax stated that he
spent the first two years in such a room. Br Dax admitted that he possibly did abuse the
complainant on the poultry farm and in the room adjacent to the dormitory. It is inexplicable why
the Congregation would seek to undermine a bona fide witness by challenging evidence that was
subsequently confirmed by the respondent himself.
8.385 None of the individual respondents who gave evidence to the Committee of having worked
alongside Br Dax suspected that he was an abuser.

8.386 Br Dondre described Br Dax as follows:
He was a sort of a witty sort of person, he liked having a laugh. He liked joking. He took
his job; he took the kitchen thing very serious. He invited me in a couple of times to test
the food, to taste it and that, yes. Didn’t see much of him because when he was on duty,
when he was doing the kitchen work, I was doing something else. As a Community man,
well, as a Community, the Brothers saw very little of each other in Letterfrack.
8.387 Br Anatole described Br Dax as a friendly individual who worked very hard and who was good at
his job. He also said he saw no evidence of any abuse by Br Dax in Letterfrack.
8.388 Br Karel, who had been the Superior of Letterfrack for two years, said that he had an argument
with Br Dax over the manner in which the refectory was run. He said that he told Br Dax to give
the boys more food and that he supervised a meal to ensure that the bigger boys were not stealing
food from the smaller boys.
8.389 Br Telfour was asked whether there was anything from his recollection of Br Dax’s behaviour at
the time that ‘clicked’ when he heard Br Dax had been imprisoned. He replied that there was not.
8.390 • Br Dax perpetrated sexual abuse, often with violence, on boys in Letterfrack over a
period of 14 years. The Congregation has failed to address the question as to how it
was possible for him to continue undetected for so long.
• There are two possibilities: either the Brothers or some of them were aware of Br Dax’s
activities but did nothing or they were not aware, in which case it must be asked why
none of his many victims disclosed the abuse. Neither scenario reflects credit on the
Institution or on the Brothers who worked there.
• Many of the accounts of abuse would not have been verifiable but for the admissions
of the Brother, and only four of those who were named in criminal charges came to
the Investigation, which implies that the incidence of such behaviour is substantially
more than could be established in evidence.
• The Christian Brothers have accepted that Br Dax sexually abused boys in Letterfrack
and have expressed their regret for this, but their approach to many of the witnesses
was adversarial and even confrontational – calling into question evidence that the
accused himself did not challenge or contradict. This approach was unnecessarily
distressing for complainants.
Br Vallois
8.391 In the early 1960s, Br Vallois left Letterfrack because of a complaint of sexual abuse of a boy.
There is no documentary evidence of this incident and the only information came from a Brother
who had served in Letterfrack and who gave evidence to the Committee. Br Vallois was sent to
Letterfrack as a temporarily professed Brother. The witness was in charge of the senior boys’
dormitory and Br Vallois, who seemed keen and enthusiastic, asked the witness to allow him to
take the boys to bed. A boy reported to a Brother that Br Vallois used to sit on the edge of his
bed and touch him inappropriately. The complaint was passed on to the Superior, who informed
the Provincial, and Br Vallois was brought to the Provincialate for questioning. He did not renew
his vows.
8.392 Br Michel described the incident as follows:

The young man’s name was Vallois, Br Vallois. He was sent to Letterfrack as a very
promising young man, as a teacher and so on. He was very keen and very anxious to
work. A few times he asked me – I was in charge of the senior dormitory at the time and
he said to me once or twice, “could I take the boys to bed tonight because I would like to
learn the ropes?” So I said yes, I was probably glad of the break. It transpires that there
was touching going on in the dormitory. Now, I am not perfectly clear who reported it, I
presume it was the boy himself. I can’t remember his name, but it went as far as I
remember to the Disciplinarian first and it went from the Disciplinarian to the Manager
who was Br Guillaume and within a day or two that young man was transported by car to
Dublin. I am not certain if the boy concerned was brought also, I have an idea he was.
So the Provincial interviewed them and I am not again certain if the offender was let back
for a short time to collect his stuff, I can’t recall fully. At any rate at the end of that year
that young man left the Congregation. I don’t know whether he was dismissed or whether
he decided to discontinue as a Brother. That’s the story in brief.
8.393 The Congregation’s Submission stated that ‘the Congregation accepts, on the basis of the
evidence of Br Michel and on the basis of its own records, that Br Vallois was involved in some
level of sexual abuse’.
8.394 This case suggests that prompt action could be taken if the authorities decided to do so.
Mr Albaric
8.395 In 1960s, a member of the lay staff, Mr Albaric, was removed from the School for sexually abusing
children. A number of boys complained to Br Telfour: ‘Mr Albaric puts his thing against us when
we are going to the toilet’. The Brother told the boys to report the matter to the Resident Manager.
The Resident Manager subsequently confirmed that the boys had complained and gave Br Telfour
a letter to give to Mr Albaric informing him of his dismissal.
8.396 A number of complainants alleged that Mr Albaric sexually abused them. One said that one night
he went to the toilet and Mr Albaric followed him in. There was a serious outbreak of scabies in
the school at the time and Mr Albaric told the witness that he wanted to check him for infection.
He then attempted to rape the witness and, in order to prevent the rape, the witness masturbated
Mr Albaric. He was in a state of shock afterwards and he felt quite sick. He said that he was afraid
to go to the toilet after the incident and that, as a result, he started wetting the bed for which he
was punished. He heard rumours that Mr Albaric was abusing other boys as well. Apparently, the
bigger boys found out what was happening and reported the matter to the authorities. The next
thing they knew, Mr Albaric was gone.
8.397 Another complainant told a similar story. He said that he was a bed-wetter and that Mr Albaric,
the night watchman, would abuse him in the dormitory. He said that the abuse continued until Mr
Albaric left the School: ‘He was finally sacked some time for abusing other kids’.
8.398 It is significant that Br Telfour did not go to the Resident Manager with this complaint himself but
left it for the boys to do so. If the boys had not acted, it is possible that Mr Albaric could have
continued his activities notwithstanding the complaint that had been made.
Br Curtis50
8.399 Br Telfour described another occasion when the same two boys as had reported Mr Albaric came
to him and made what he called a very vague allegation against another Brother. The allegation,
as recalled by the witness, was not that the Brother had engaged in any sexual misconduct with
the two boys, but that other boys were saying that the Brother ‘did things’ to them. He said that
he pursued the matter with the boys who were reporting to him and tried to get something definite
by way of a name or an activity, but:
50

I was just getting the same – the boys – just the boys – shrug of the shoulders, as if – I
didn’t know how to take it. The boys say, that is all I was getting, ah just things, things.
So I couldn’t pursue it any further.
8.400 He felt that, because he had not got any specifics or details of the names of boys involved or
what was going on or where or when it was going on, he was unable to take the complaint either
to the Superior or to the Brother who was accused. Nothing further happened on the strength of
that information.
8.401 Two complainants alleged that Br Curtis sexually abused them. One alleged that he and other
boys were sexually abused by Br Curtis in the classroom. He described Br Curtis as ‘an absolute
thug ... a pure thug, a paedophile thug’. He stated that:
The man would be there doing it in the classroom, staring at the classroom and then he
would be doing it with various kids. He would take you out of the desk, get one arm, put
it behind your back, your buttocks would be there leaned against the desk and he would
be there pushing you back and he would be going into you.
8.402 Another witness described Br Curtis as a nice man but stated that he was regularly abused by
him. Br Curtis got him a job in the laundry, which was perceived as a ‘soft job’. He started by
being nice to the complainant, who welcomed the attention, although he was conscious that it
was wrong. Br Curtis would take him from his bed in the mornings four or five times a week in
order to abuse him. Normally, Br Curtis was gentle with him but, on one occasion during his first
year in the school, he was rough and raped him. He said that Br Curtis made him feel special
until he was raped:
Yes, he would make me play with him and he would – nearly every morning – as I said,
there was that little room at the top of the dormitories. There was two, there was one each
side, I remember, there was more than two little ones, but Br Curtis when he stayed there,
when he – the first thing in the morning he would come and take me from my bed, just
after our prayers, and in the pretence – and then he would take me into the little room
and then he would make me either play with him or he would play with himself. ... On one
occasion, he just took me in the room and he seemed very excited and he was quite
rough, generally – normally, he wasn’t as rough, but he just seemed to be very rough that
morning and I don’t know whether he inserted his penis, or, as I said – but in my anus,
and I felt a lot of pain and I asked him to stop on many occasions and he didn’t ... That
was just the one occasion.
8.403 He said that he was too confused to report what had happened to him to anyone.
8.404 This witness described feelings of guilt mixed with an awareness of being special. He got special
privileges and favours from the Brother that were resented by other boys and which led to his
being bullied ‘slightly’. The Brother was good to him at times but he was still troubled:
I said at the beginning I felt special, that I was getting special treatment ... And until it got
rough on that occasion, I still felt I was quite special.
8.405 The other boys noticed the special treatment he was receiving and called him a teacher’s pet.
8.406 He went to Confession after he was raped and he told the Priest what had happened. He believed
that the priest may have said something because, soon after, he was changed from the laundry.
He did not know whether that change related to this but he thought it was a possibility.

8.407 • Even though it was hearsay and vague, this complaint was obviously serious and
should have been followed up, especially when it came from two boys who had
previously reported a case of abuse that was subsequently confirmed.
• In this case, Br Telfour did nothing about a complaint of sexual abuse that he received.
He did not even tell the boys to report it to the Superior. In the earlier case, which he
had regarded as sufficiently grounded in fact, the Brother did not himself go to the
Superior but sent the boys to make the report.
Br Algrenon51
8.408 Br Telfour cited an incident he witnessed soon after his arrival in the school and which involved
Br Algrenon, a member of staff during the mid-1960s. He wanted to speak to Br Algrenon so he
went up to his [Br Algrenon’s] room. However, instead of finding Br Algrenon he found a boy
washing his penis at Br Algrenon’s wash basin. Br Telfour did not ask the boy why he was doing
it. He told the Committee: ‘I presumed he was injured and maybe too embarrassed to go into the
nurse or whatever’. The boy told him he was washing it on Br Algrenon’s instruction. Br Telfour
acted as if nothing strange had happened and did not enquire any further into the matter.
8.409 It is hard to understand how the sight that met Br Telfour when he opened the door of a fellow
Brother’s private bedroom did not make him suspicious. It is, of course, possible that this incident
may not be related to sexual activity between the Brother and the boy but it should have
undoubtedly raised a concern. He testified to the Committee that he did not check with Br
Algrenon, as it was his first year in the place and he did not know how to handle the situation:
‘No, I didn’t. I didn’t know how to handle this. It was my first year there. I wasn’t long into the place‘.
8.410 Br Telfour told the Committee that he should have brought the complaints he got from the two
boys about Br Curtis, and the incident in Br Algrenon’s room, to the Superior’s attention. He said
that at that time he knew nothing about such activity, although he did acknowledge that he had
encountered an allegation of sexual abuse whilst he was a student in Marino.
8.411 In Letterfrack, he was able to deal with the allegation against the lay worker by sending the
complaining boys to the Superior but he failed, to his later regret, to deal with the complaints that
were reported to him about one Brother and the incident in the other Brother’s bedroom.
8.412 • Br Telfour’s explanation for his failure to act appropriately in any of the instances of
sexual abuse reported to him was his inexperience and lack of knowledge in how to
deal with such a situation. However, it points to a moral and ethical ambivalence about
this issue. An adult encountering sexual abuse of a child, even in the 1960s, should
have had no hesitation in acting to stop it. This Brother was wracked with indecision
when a fellow Brother was involved although he did make some effort, albeit indirect,
in the case of the lay worker.
• Responses to sexual abuse were influenced by loyalty to the Congregation and to the
individual Brother rather than the need to protect children in care.
• The preceding four incidents all occurred during Br Dax’s time there, and indicate
ignorance and incompetence in relation to this issue.
• These Brothers recalled complaints about sexual abuse that were not recorded
anywhere in the documentation, which reveals the difficulty of measuring the full
extent of sexual abuse in Letterfrack.
51

Br Anatole
8.413 Br Anatole, a former Christian Brother who worked in Letterfrack during the late 1960s and early
1970s, was convicted of abusing three boys in Letterfrack. None of the victims gave evidence.
8.414 The Congregation files show that he was accused of sexual abuse in another school in which he
worked after his period in Letterfrack. In 1977 a boy in a Christian Brothers day school alleged
that Br Anatole had asked him to rub oil on his back and brought him to a room where he exposed
himself and gave the boy 20 pence. The boy told his mother who told a Brother in the School. He
promised to look into the matter. Time passed and, when the mother enquired as to the position,
she discovered that nothing had been done. She was very angry and called to see the Superior,
who interviewed the boy in the presence of his mother and, having elicited the details, he
contacted his own authorities immediately.
8.415 The allegations were investigated in early September 1977. Br Anatole flatly denied the charge,
and even wrote to the parents of the boy setting out details of how it could not have been him.
The investigating Brother, however, did not believe him. He stated: ‘To me the evidence seems
convincing’.
8.416 In August 1977, Br Anatole was transferred to a different secondary school in Dublin where he
taught for one academic year. He had previously requested a dispensation in 1977 and was
granted exclaustration in May 1978.
8.417 After exclaustration, he taught for one academic in a rural secondary school year run by a
Congregation of nuns before commencing studies for the priesthood. It should be noted that in
1978 the Provincial of St Mary’s Province told the President of Holy Cross College, Clonliffe, that
he could not ‘unreservedly recommend Br Anatole as a suitable candidate for the priesthood’. He
was accordingly not accepted as a candidate.
8.418 Br Anatole joined the Servite Community in September 1980. He was granted transitus to the
Servites of Mary in February 1981 and a dispensation in June 1982, processed by the Servites of
Mary. This was done at his request after counselling.
8.419 In August 1982, he joined the staff of a Dublin secondary school where he taught for 10 years.
This was in two stages, with a two-year break in the middle to work on an academic text. He was
convicted in 2002 in respect of abuse perpetrated in Letterfrack.
8.420 Br Anatole told the Committee how his abusive activities began:
I suppose it arose out of need for intimacy, my sexuality was very very juvenile, very
immature and I had no experience of women of any kind, no experience of contact with
women. Out of my need for intimacy and of sexual experience, it gradually developed ...
8.421 He said that the abuse generally took place in his bedroom or the wash hall, as he was careful to
avoid detection and generally abused children when the other Brothers were away or unlikely to
discover him in the act. He regularly used the guise of wrestling with the boys in order to disguise
the actual nature of what he was engaged in. He said that he would often initiate the abuse by
asking the boys whether they wanted to wrestle. He said that boys would often come to him and
ask to wrestle because they wanted the treats he would give them after he had abused them.
During these wrestling matches, both he and the boy would be in swimming togs and he would
press up against the boy until he, Br Anatole, ejaculated. He felt that the pretence of a wrestling
match ‘was an innocuous way of getting some kind of physical contact with another human being’,
which would result in an ejaculation.
8.422 He told the Committee that he believed that if anyone had discovered him they would not have
thought anything untoward was going on: the sight of a Brother and a boy dressed only in their
swimming togs wrestling together in a room on their own would not, he thought, have raised any
particular concern.
8.423 He selected boys mainly on the basis of physical attraction. However, he stated that he had a
particular affection for one boy, and that he used to single him out more than the rest. He viewed
his relationship with this boy as akin to an affair.
8.424 He said that some of the boys were really keen on the wrestling and he would award prizes such
as cigarettes and sweets. He tried to dress the activity up as something else but he was certain
that the boys knew what he was doing.
8.425 He told the Committee that he sexually abused the three boys during the same period, although
he doubted whether they were aware of each other’s involvement with him. He accepted that the
other boys in the School must have known something amiss was going on.
8.426 The abuse did not always take the form of a surreptitious wrestling bout. He used to take one
boy, who was 13 or 14 at the time, to his room at night, ostensibly to teach him to read but really
to abuse him. He said that the dormitory Brother always gave permission, a matter that Br Iven
denied in his evidence. Br Anatole said that he would push up against the boy from behind until
he ejaculated. It would normally take between five and ten minutes and, when he was finished
with him, he would send him back alone.
8.427 Two colleagues of Br Anatole’s gave evidence.
8.428 Br Iven served during the late 1960s and early 1970s. He said that he never thought that there
was the remotest possibility of Brothers abusing boys. He denied giving Br Anatole permission to
take a boy to his room. However, he did say that, if he had been asked, he would not have
suspected an ulterior motive.
8.429 Br Dondre said that he was not aware of Br Anatole’s activities at the time.
8.430 The Congregation did not make any submission on the extent of the abuse committed by Br
Anatole. They took issue in their Final Submissions with his evidence, which they described as
inherently inconsistent and, ultimately, completely unreliable. Br Anatole had referred to his need
for ‘intimacy and sexual experience’ as part of the reason he engaged in sexual abuse of children.
The Congregation stated:
It is submitted that the personal factors which cause a person to abuse are probably
considerably more complex than this evidence would suggest and that the evidence of
these individuals does not add a great deal to the overall knowledge of the Committee on
this issue.
8.431 Although Br Anatole pleaded guilty to indecently assaulting three named individuals, he stated
that it took a relatively innocuous form and was adamant that he did not abuse these children in
any other way and that he did not abuse any other children. No complainants gave evidence
against him during the private hearings, and the Investigation Committee heard no evidence to
contest these assertions.
8.432 • Br Anatole had unsupervised access to boys at most times. Where other Brothers were
engaged in sexual activity with boys, it is hardly surprising that he was able to operate
without fear of detection.
Br Benoit52
8.433 Br Benoit was working in the O’Brien Institute in the early 1960s when two boys made written
statements to the Superior complaining of sexual abuse. The Superior forwarded the statements
to the Provincial, requesting that Br Benoit be changed to a day school and that was done. He
was subsequently sent to Letterfrack to serve in a senior position in the 1970s.
8.434 To explain his being sent to Letterfrack, the Christian Brothers’ Opening Statement commented
that the Leadership Team that dealt with the complaints had been replaced in 1966, and only one
member of the original team remained on the new team which made the appointment to
Letterfrack. The Brother’s personal file ‘appears not to have been consulted when his appointment
in Letterfrack was decided upon’. Finally, it says that there were no records on file of complaints
in Letterfrack.
Br Karel
8.435 Br Karel was the subject of a complaint of sexual abuse of boys when he was in Artane in the
early 1960s. It was alleged that he had put his hand under the boys’ bedclothes and touched
them in the genital area. The Resident Manager investigated the allegation and referred the matter
to the Provincial. The Provincial interviewed Br Karel, who denied the allegations. Br Karel
remained in Artane for some time after these allegations were made, and he was then transferred
to a day school outside Dublin. Br Karel testified that he had previously sought a transfer and he
did not know whether he was transferred because of the allegation or because of his request.
8.436 The matter was never pursued by the Provincial and so the situation remained that Br Karel was
either guilty of serious offences or that a number of boys had made the gravest false allegations.
This was a situation that urgently needed to be resolved but the matter went no further.
8.437 Br Karel was later moved to Letterfrack.
8.438 The Christian Brothers explained his appointment on the fact that the Provincial Leadership of
1960 to 1966 had been totally replaced in 1972, and no search in his personal files had been
made: ‘Consequently, no memory of the original offence existed’. The Congregation noted that,
while there were allegations against this man in respect of his time in Letterfrack, there were no
contemporary complaints of abuse there.
8.439 • The Congregation responded to allegations of sexual abuse by transferring Brs Benoit
and Karel to day schools and after a period of 10 years they were sent to Letterfrack.
The explanation offered in the Brothers’ Submission was that it was an
administrative accident.
• The suggestion that the Congregation would make an appointment to a senior position
in an industrial school without reference to the Brother’s recent history or to his
personal file is incomprehensible.
• Failure in all these respects by the senior management of the Congregation ignored
the safety of the children and the requirement of good management in the institution.
A record of sexual abuse would have precluded appointment to a residential school if
protecting the boys was the priority.
Br Dacian53
8.440 Br Dacian was a similar case to the two cited above and the consequences of the Congregation’s
failure to act to protect children when the first allegation arose were felt for many years by children
52
53

in different schools. An account of his activities is set out in full in the chapter of this report dealing
with St Joseph’s Industrial School, Salthill.
8.441 Br Dacian was the subject of a complaint of sexual abuse in the early 1960s in Salthill. He was
transferred from Galway to a day school in Dublin and was later sent to serve in Letterfrack in
the 1970s.
8.442 In a letter to the Superior General, the Provincial in Salthill elaborated on the allegation. A child
awoke to find someone with his hand inside his pyjamas. Although it was dark the boy identified
the person as Br Dacian by his voice and size. Br Dacian admitted doing this, but offered the
defence that he was checking to see if the child, who was a known bed-wetter, had wet his bed.
The Provincial continued, ‘It is apparent that this does not explain everything’. A letter sent three
days later to the Superior of the School noted that he was sorry for the lapse of Br Dacian and
that all the members of the Council thought that a change was necessary for him, as ‘no doubt
some of the boys know of this lapse’.
8.443 Br Dacian was moved to a school in Dublin less than five months later. He stayed there for nearly
10 years before being moved to Letterfrack.
8.444 He spent a year in Letterfrack before moving to another day school in Dublin where he taught for
over 10 years. Br Dacian admitted sexually assaulting a boy in this day school and he had to be
transferred out of it in the early 1980s. Although it did not emerge until some five years later,
another allegation that abuse had occurred at the same time was made by a pupil in an Irish
College where Br Dacian was working during that summer.
8.445 After his removal from the Dublin day school, he received counselling from a Jesuit priest. This
priest gave a somewhat qualified reassurance to the Leadership of the Congregation. He stated
that he ‘was confident that there is no risk of a recurrence of such an event in the near future by
which I mean over the next few years he has had a severe shock’.
8.446 Br Dacian was appointed Principal of a rural school in 1984 less than a year after his removal
from the Dublin school but, once again, he had to be removed from his position because of his
sexual abuse of a young boy in 1987.
8.447 He moved to England and, although he continued as a member of the Congregation, he was,
according to a letter written in 1994 by Br Travis,54 the Provincial, to a concerned teacher from
the Dublin school, no longer involved in any ministry that brought him into contact with children.
8.448 The Christian Brothers’ Opening Statement once more offered the explanation that the Provincial
Council from 1960 to 1966 had been totally replaced by a new Council who had no knowledge of
the original complaint when the transfer to Letterfrack was made, ‘Hence, Br Dacian was sent to
Letterfrack without any knowledge of the previous complaint on the part of the new council’.
8.449 The Opening Statement made no reference to the fact that this Brother was transferred on at least
two subsequent occasions because of sexual abuse of children in his school.
8.450 • Brothers with prior records or allegations of sexual abuse against them were
transferred to Letterfrack in the early 1970s.
54

• The Submission by the Congregation that the Leadership, when deciding to send them
to Letterfrack, did not consult the personal files of these Brothers is somewhat
speculative and not based on evidence.
• Assigning these Brothers to Letterfrack was indicative of an attitude that sexual abuse
was something that happened from time to time, which was unfortunate and
potentially embarrassing for the Congregation and the Institution and which had to be
handled in a way that lessened the risk of publicity and even prosecution of the
offender.
Oral evidence
8.451 Much of the complainants’ evidence relating to sexual abuse has been set out above in the
sections dealing with documented cases and respondent evidence. In addition to the two Brothers
who were convicted of serious sexual crimes, the cases where sexual abuse was documented or
which were confirmed by Brothers and former Brothers can also be regarded as indisputable.
Where the evidence of complainants referred to sexual abuse by any of these Brothers, it has
been incorporated in the earlier sections dealing with those cases. It does not follow that, where
a Brother was found to have committed sexual abuse of boys, every allegation against him was
true, and the evidence that is set out relating to these Brothers was given by witnesses whom the
Committee considered to be credible and reliable in this respect.
8.452 The locations in which sexual abuse took place, as described by complainants, were mainly the
kitchens (where Br Dax worked), the dormitories, the classrooms, and the farm. Br Dax was in
sole charge of the kitchens, and the other Brothers did not tend to have business or other occasion
to be there. The dormitories were also isolated. This point was highlighted by the evidence of Br
Iven concerning an attack which was made on him by a senior boy who made his way to the
junior dormitory where this Brother was in charge. Br Iven said that there was nobody else around
who might have heard the commotion. It follows that, if a Brother in charge of a dormitory engaged
in sexual activity with a boy, he was unlikely to be discovered. These features were conducive to
the occurrence of abuse and indicate that it was unlikely that other Brothers would be aware of
abuse occurring.
8.453 One witness made allegations against a Br Francois who was in charge of a dormitory in
Letterfrack. He described getting a severe beating from this Brother after being ordered out of bed
and into the wash hall. He was required to lift his night shirt and ‘get it on the bare ... You would
suffer from it and it would be violent ... I got it pretty violent down there ... I think I was bleeding’.
8.454 After the beating he was brought into the Brother’s bedroom:
He didn’t let me into my dormitory so he took me through the other dormitory down to his
room ... The room where he slept, yes. The best way to describe it is he treated my sore
bottom, dressed it or whatever.
8.455 When asked whether anything else happened, he stated:
He fondled me, made me put my hand down his pants or in, around his privates and
made me masturbate him ... He was getting excited and I had my nightshirt and he came
up behind me and ejaculated around my back. Not around my bottom but up around my
back. He held me in close to him and ejaculated around my back.

8.456 The witness said that Br Francois made a gesture with his fist as he dismissed him back to
the dormitory:
It was meant like (indicating), it’s fists for you, just go back and just be quiet about it. I
took it like that anyway. That’s what I did. I just went back. I was in dread of this man.
8.457 This witness also alleged fondling and touching by this Brother in the classroom and during singing
class when the boys would all be standing:
... and lots of times it happened up in the choir, he would be passing along and hand
under the leg of your pants and feel your penis or that. Rubbing against you and holding
you while you are still singing “all eyes up to the front”. That’s the way it went.
8.458 The Brother in question denied that this abuse ever took place, both to the Gardaı́ who
investigated allegations against him and to the Committee.
8.459 This witness also made allegations against Br Andre.55 He said that Br Andre would question boys
individually whether they had any impure thoughts. He said that, while being questioned by Br
Andre, he was also fondled by him:
Impure thoughts, that was the key thing, impure thoughts. That covered everything. “Do
you have impure thoughts at night?” I said, “No, I don’t have anything like that”. . I probably
said something like that. He was talking away and friendly enough. He is sitting down like
this and he has you standing next to him there (indicating). In the course of the
conversation with him, in the talking with him, he is feeling down towards my penis and
that. The conversation is kept going and he said, “Are you telling me the truth, are you
telling me the truth, what’s happening to you now?” I was getting stiff and hard around
the penis so he said, “There is the proof now, you are not telling me the whole truth”. That
was proof that I wasn’t telling the truth and you would have to recant and say, well you
did get some kind of impure thoughts at night or whatever, something along those lines.
He told me then to, “Remove your pants down, take down your pants, now”. I done that.
I took off my pants. Then he would have me leaning over his lap, give me a little few slaps
on the bottom. He would be talking to me about impure thoughts and asking me what kind
of impure thoughts and he was probing my bottom with his finger, probing me internally in
the bottom. I was aware also that while he was doing some of this he was playing – what
I accept now that what he was doing was he was playing with himself under his cassock
or under his clothes. And that’s what happened there.
8.460 The witness was certain that this Brother’s name was Andre, but he was unsure whether he was
a full-time Brother or a relief Brother. Br Sorel said that this Brother was well known for
approaching boys and asking them about sex:
He had that reputation, Br Andre, of doing that particular thing, of talking about the facts
of life, so I presume that the lads themselves must have told him ...
It was a normal thing even before he came to Letterfrack, he was well known amongst
the Brothers in Scoil Mhuire, Marino for doing the same thing in class ... Talking about
the facts of life. It was a kind of a joke amongst us, “he is at it again” ... We thought it was
unnecessary. That’s what we thought, we thought it was unnecessary. Fellows – normal
fellow going to school get these facts of life from their parents. That’s how we looked
upon it and as a result we were maybe cynical about it.
55

Incidence
8.461 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.
Peer abuse and sexual activity between boys
8.462 The management of the School was under an obligation to ensure that children lived in a safe
and secure environment. The failure to detect and prevent physical and sexual abuse constituted
a clear failure to provide children with a safe and secure environment in which to live. In addition,
the failure to prevent peer abuse by way of sexual bullying also represented a management
failure.
8.463 The Brothers inadequately understood the distinction between consensual sex and bullying,
predatory sexual acts by bigger boys on smaller. This behaviour could be overtly violent and non-
consensual, or implicitly non-consensual in the nature of assault because of the age difference or
physical difference between the boys. Failure to protect boys from sexual assault constituted a
serious management failure where it occurred.
8.464 According to the Christian Brothers, a number of Brothers who taught in the School remembered
occasions when sexual activity between the boys was discovered. The phenomenon of sexual
activity of one kind or another amongst pupils in industrial schools was a feature of life in
Letterfrack. The documentary material disclosed a number of instances of sexual activity in the
1930s and 1940s.
8.465 In 1940, the Visitation Report referred to the fact that a number of boys were punished for improper
conduct. This appears to have been discovered during the course of the investigation into Br
Perryn. In 1941, the Visitation Report refers to the fact that:
Unfortunately for years there has been much immorality among the boys. Onanism and
Sodomy have been frequent, and these practices take place wherever the boys
congregate, in the play field, lavatories, schools, kitchen and in the grounds. Formerly,
the boys were allowed to go out by themselves and then the practices were frequent.
Boys wandered away among the fields and roads and immoral practices were carried on.
8.466 The Visitor stressed the importance of tight supervision as the only means of curtailing this activity.
He noted that:
A monitor is in charge though one of the monitors was recently carrying on immoral
conduct with some of these juniors in the dormitory.
8.467 He noted that the Superior had arranged that a Brother should take charge of the boys at all times.
8.468 The issue arose again in 1945, in correspondence between Br Aubin and the Provincial, in which
Br Aubin criticised the Disciplinarian, Br Maslin, in being overly severe in his punishment of the
boys. This case has been discussed above and was a clear indication that sexual activity between
boys was a persistent problem in Letterfrack at that time.
8.469 One Brother told the Committee that, as Disciplinarian, he was aware of the problem of sexual
activity. He said that he was instructed to guard the moral welfare of the boys and to prevent such
behaviour. He understood that this was a danger to be guarded against in every boarding school.
He came across a number of incidents of sex while in Letterfrack. One day, he saw the tailor
leave his shop, so he went in and discovered two boys engaging in sexual activity.
8.470 He said that the Disciplinarian would be more aware of the sexual behaviour of the boys. The
Resident Manager might have been informed by the Disciplinarian, but this knowledge was not
often shared with the rest of the staff. The witness was philosophical in retrospect: ‘It is the fairly
human failing boys, you could just expect that it would occur again and you just hoped it wouldn’t’.
8.471 Another Brother said that, while he never actually witnessed any sexual contact between the boys,
he did recall hearing Br Anatole giving the boys a lecture about the Devil’s work, which he
presumed was peer abuse. He said that he often saw beds pulled together when he came in to
wake the boys up but he never suspected anything untoward. He remembered Br Malleville telling
him to be careful of one boy who was coming from Artane because he was a homosexual. He
thinks in retrospect that he was telling him to make sure that boy wouldn’t be at the other boys.
He did recall an incident where a boy approached him and told him that two boys were engaging
in sexual activity.
8.472 Br Sorel said that he was aware of the possibility of peer abuse. He recalled one incident where
one boy tried to anally rape another boy. That boy reported the matter to Br Guillaume, who
punished the offender in front of the other boys in the washroom. He feels that this beating ensured
that the message got through to the boys that they were not to engage in such activity.
8.473 Br Karel stated that, although the Brothers were aware of the possibility of sexual activity between
boys occurring, he had not witnessed it:
Interfering with each other. Never in my time there did I see or did any of us observe an
instance of that. It seemed to me, in my opinion, that that just didn’t happen there. If it
did, I wasn’t aware of it and nobody else ever mentioned it to me.
8.474 One complainant said that another 14-year-old boy sexually abused him. He was a big boy and
he abused the witness on a regular basis for four years. The complainant said that he could do
nothing except cry and let it happen. He never complained. The abuse only stopped when the
other boy left the school. A number of other boys abused him as well, and he stated that he had
a number of relationships with other boys when he got older:
I didn’t do what he did. I didn’t go around and attack and ambush kids or abuse them or
rape them ... But what I am saying is I did have one or two – somebody I could talk or sit
or read comics and we did have some sort of a – sort of a relationship ... I don’t know if
I was 13, 14, 15, I don’t know. It is just, you know, there was one or two that you would
play ball or games or roll around in the hay, you know, just things like that.
8.475 Another witness said that Br Noreis would ask the boys to write down on a piece of paper the
names of any boys who were engaging in sexual activity:
He would bring them and sit them down on their desks. Everyone got a sheet of paper
and a pencil and we were told to write down if we knew of any boys who had been, shall
we say, sexually active with any other boy. Well, I always wrote the same thing down, I
don’t know what you mean. This always went on a Saturday night. You always missed
out on the cinema, because that was the one day that we had a movie. After all these
boys had done whatever writing they were doing the paper was collected and we were all
sent off to the dormitories, and for the rest of the night you could hear the screaming
where boys who had misbehaved were dragged down in their night clothes and flogged
by Br Noreis. That went on quite often.
8.476 • Peer sexual abuse was an element of the bullying and intimidation that were prevalent
in Letterfrack and the Brothers failed to recognise it as a persistent problem.
• They punished boys for sexual activity without recognising that younger boys might
have been victims of abuse. Because they knew they faced punishment these victims
did not report.

Neglect
8.477 As in other industrial schools, the Christian Brothers contend that there was no physical neglect
of children in their care in Letterfrack. They concede that the emotional needs of children were
not properly provided for but they put this down to ignorance rather than deliberate policy.
8.478 In the Introduction to their Opening Statement delivered on 16th June 2005 the Congregation
stated that:
A study of the financial support provided by the State will show that St. Joseph’s Industrial
School, Letterfrack, was grossly under-funded by the State and that the Christian Brothers
had to go to enormous lengths to provide adequately for the needs of the pupils. They
ran a farm to provide the necessary food for the institution and sold what remained of the
crops to provide for the material and scholastic requirements of the boys.
The presentation will demonstrate that the boys were well provided for. Nourishing food,
good clothing, and adequate shelter replaced the experience of many boys who would
have come from conditions of abject poverty.
... The Congregation believes that the allegations of neglect are exaggerated and
inaccurate and do not reflect the reality that pertained in Letterfrack over the years.
8.479 The number of children in Letterfrack was an important part of the story in Letterfrack, as the
Congregation have time and again pointed to the low numbers and lack of financial support as
the reason why they could not do more for the boys.
8.480 Until 1954, the numbers in Letterfrack were reasonably high. From 1937 to 1955, the average
number of boys in the Institution being paid for by the Department of Education was about 150.
In addition, there were Health Board and voluntary admissions. For example, in 1954, Letterfrack
received State grants for 147 boys, although there were 181 boys recorded in the School by the
Visitor for that year. Those additional boys were paid for by the Health Boards and by voluntary
contributions.
8.481 The Congregation in its Opening Statement dealt with the entire period under review (1936–1974)
and went into detail in addressing the standard of physical care provided.
8.482 With regard to food, the Congregation stated:

It is quite normal for students to complain of the quality of food served in boarding schools.
Letterfrack is no exception to this. However, it must be said that honest efforts were made
over the decades to provide balanced fare in sufficient supply.
The diet in Letterfrack was balanced and healthy. Some of the boys arriving in Letterfrack
may not have been used to the regular meals that were served in St. Joseph’s, but for
most the experience of regular meals could only have been of real benefit. In the course
of the history of Letterfrack there were times when the dietary provision was not uniformly
good but action was taken in the wake of complaints and the overall judgement of
inspectors was that the food was satisfactory.
The Christian Brothers during their annual Visitation carried out the most vigorous and
substantial inspection of the dietary requirements in Letterfrack. Although the Visitor’s
reports were usually favourable, some reports showed occasional dissatisfaction with the
boy’s diet and the Visitors were quite forthright in demanding improvement. The quality of
the dietary arrangements depended on the competence of the Brother in charge of the
kitchen area. Some were less successful than others, and their shortcomings led to them
being replaced by a Brother of proven competence.
8.483 On the issue of clothing, the Congregation submitted:
Generally, when the Visitors advert to the boys’ clothing, usually in the context of ‘smart
appearance’, their remarks are positive ... The only criticisms appear to concern the need
for a change of footwear for farm boy on wet days (1940) and boys going direct to class
from manual work without changing (1953) ... The inspectors’ reports on clothing point to
years when clothing was not good and when improvements were made ... The Tuarim
Report (Jan 1966) was very impressed with the way the boys were dressed.
8.484 They submitted that by the mid-1960s the boys were well supplied with clothes, boots and shoes,
and in the 1970s were fully equipped with modern clothing (walking out suits, overcoats, shirts,
and games and football gear).
8.485 In regard to accommodation, the Opening Statement described the layout of the Institution in
Letterfrack and this is dealt with in the introduction to this chapter. There were two dormitories
each capable of accommodating 80 or more beds. Each boy had his own bed, and bed linen was
changed regularly. There was a washroom located at the end of each dormitory where the boys
washed their face and hands. Showers were taken on Saturday morning in the shower room that
was located on the ground floor near the laundry area. The showers were hot initially and then,
according to the Congregation, cold water was introduced to close the pores and prevent the boys
getting colds. The Congregation submits that some of the boys may not have understood the
reason for alternating hot and cold, and some have made complaints that this was a form of
torture and this was not the case. After the showers, clean clothes were distributed.
8.486 The main toilets were outside the building on the northern side of the playground. There were
only two indoor toilets, situated between the two dormitories. The Congregation stated that, after
continued complaints at the annual Visitation, this situation was greatly improved in 1961 with the
building of additional toilets through the work of the Brothers and the boys.
8.487 In its Closing Submissions to the Investigation Committee the Congregation accepted that there
were criticisms in a number of Visitation Reports about the standard of the buildings and the
quality of accommodation generally but, as the Investigation Committee had heard no complaints
about the general quality of the accommodation apart from some complaints about the showers,
it was submitted that accommodation was not a matter which seemed to have been of material
concern to complainants. They also noted that, in the early 1960s, significant improvements were
made to the buildings.
8.488 They submitted that the Investigation Committee had no basis for a finding that boys were given
food of a poor quality or that it was of an insufficient quantity.
8.489 The Investigation Committee has divided the investigation into the provision of care for the boys
in Letterfrack into two periods – pre and post 1954.
8.490 Letterfrack was not one of the biggest industrial schools but, even during the 1930s and 1940s,
the numbers rarely fell below 150 boys and, until 1954, the number under detention was
reasonably steady. However, it was smaller than many other institutions and this had implications
for the level of funding available. Early Visitation Reports showed the constant struggle needed
to make ends meet. Until the mid-1940s, the School incurred losses in each year of its operation.
From 1943, things improved and, for the next 10 years, the School managed reasonably
successfully.
8.491 From 1943 the Visitation Reports show that separate accounts were kept for the House and the
School. The House accounts that dealt with the monastery and Brothers’ expenses showed that
every Brother in Letterfrack received a salary from the industrial school income (ie mainly the
capitation grants). For example, in 1943 when there were 10 Brothers resident in the monastery,
£1,000 was paid by way of stipend in respect of Brothers’ services. The Brothers did not of course
have to pay for accommodation or food out of their salary. The House made contributions to the
Christian Brothers’ Building Fund during the 1940s – £500 in 1946, and £1,200 in 1948.
8.492 The financial position up to 1953 was summed up by a Visitor in 1953:

Financially you are solvent but it is evident that there is not a whole lot of money to spare
when one considers the need there is for expenditure.
8.493 It was not quite as bleak as that, however. In 1954/1955, there was a credit balance of £3,573
and, with the increased funding that had been made available since 1952, the outlook for the
Institution was not too bad.
Food, clothing and accommodation pre-1954

8.494 It is noteworthy that the most critical comments about food come from the Visitor and not from
the Department Inspector. The Visitor often cited complaints made to him, as opposed to relying
on what he witnessed being served. The Inspector could only judge on what she herself witnessed,
as the Brothers would not have complained to her and the boys were not given an opportunity to
do so. The one area of the Institution that one would expect to see improved for the purposes of
an inspection was the food served on the day, and therefore a more complete picture can often
be gleaned from the Congregation’s own Visitor. Serious concerns were expressed by these
Visitors over the quantity and quality of food provided to the boys.
8.495 In 1939 the Congregation Visitor noted that the boys looked frail, under-nourished and pale. The
Visitor commented on this fact to the Manager, but was told that the Department Inspector had
examined the dietary scale and expressed herself satisfied with it. Later in the same year, the
Disciplinarian, Br Leveret, wrote to the Provincial complaining, inter alia, about the fact that the
boys were not getting enough bread, butter or milk. At this time, farm produce and tea, sugar,
bacon, meal and wheat were being sold locally, and milk was being supplied to local people.
8.496 In 1940, the Provincial received a written complaint from a Christian Brother in Cabra to the effect
that one of the boys there, a former resident of Letterfrack, had told him that there was never
enough to eat in Letterfrack and that he used to be so hungry that he had resorted to eating
turnips and vegetables from the field.
8.497 Later in the year, the farm Brother complained that the boys of the School were the ‘worst catered
for of any of the five institutions’.
8.498 In 1941, the Visitor reported that many of the staff complained about the manner in which the food
was served. They complained that the cabbage was cold, minced meat was served all the time,
and the tea was served cold in unwashed cups. The Visitor accepted that this was all true but
reported that the quantities served were reasonable. He further noted that the boys would not eat
the cabbage because the kitchen Brother used the water trough, which was used for washing the
cabbage, as a urinal. The Brother in question, Br Perryn, was a Domestic Brother and had been
working in the kitchen in Letterfrack since the late 1920s. The Visitor described him as dirty, untidy
and almost repulsive. The kitchen Brother was dismissed as a result of the discovery that he had
been sexually abusing boys for many years.
8.499 The Visitor noted that there were 17 milch cows yielding only 14 gallons of milk per day. The boys
got around seven gallons, the monastery around three, and three were sold to the village. In 1941,
there were 160 boys in Letterfrack and nine Brothers, and yet the boys got barely more than
double the allocation of milk for the Brothers, less than a third of a pint per day. Up to 50 of the
boys were under nine years of age.
8.500 The Department Inspector does not seem to have engaged on the issue of food at all. She made
no reference to the quantity of milk served, although this was an issue she raised in other schools.
In 1943, she described the food as ‘an ample, well balanced and varied diet’.
8.501 In 1945 the Visitor remarked that the 10 Brothers in the monastery were catered for by two female
cooks, whilst the boys, who numbered upwards of 165, were catered for by ‘an old man in the
place of Br Lafayette who should be in the kitchen’ – Br Lafayette was ill for most of that year.
8.502 Practically all of the clothing worn by the boys was made in the tailor and knitting shops. In the
1940s and 1950s, the Department Inspector made frequent complaints about the quality of the
boys’ clothing.
8.503 From 1943 until 1947, the clothing of the boys was described as fairly good but very patched and
torn. She was told that boots were difficult to obtain and the boys wore wooden clogs attached to
leather uppers. In 1948 the Inspector noted that the quality of the clothing was ‘fairly good’ but
that it required a lot of improvement and that the Manager had promised to provide new coats.
She did not inspect the School again until 1951. Any improvement in the clothing was not evident,
as she again commented ‘a lot of the clothing is patched – I asked the Manager to provide new
material for clothes’. Later that year, she found the ‘clothing had improved on the whole’. Clothing
was described by the Inspector as ‘fairly good’ in the early 1950s, with no other comments.
8.504 One former resident in Letterfrack in the late 1940s complained that he did not have proper work
clothes when he worked on the farm. He was dressed in short pants in freezing weather, working
in a bog with no shelter. After his day’s work, there was no possibility of a change of clothes and
he had to stay in wet, dirty clothes until the following Friday evening.
8.505 The dampness in the building was regularly commented on by the Visitors in the early 1940s.
Neither the School nor the dormitories were centrally heated and, as a result, dampness was a
major problem for the Institution. There was a plentiful supply of turf and this provided a heat
source, albeit an inadequate one, in the monastery. However, there was not even this basic
heating facility in the large, institutional dormitories or recreation areas.
8.506 A major problem that continued for over 20 years was the inadequate sanitary facilities for the
boys. In a Visitation Report of 1942 the Visitor noted that:
The lavatory accommodation in the dormitories is very inadequate. There are only two
lavatories for the three dormitories. No provision is made for the Brothers or the two
foremen who have also rooms off the dormitories. There are at present 170 boys in the
Institution.
8.507 In 1948 the Visitor pointed out that the monastery had only two lavatories situated in the upper
storey, with no provision for the kitchen and lay staff. The situation was worse in the School:
Far more inadequate is the poor provision made for the boys of the institution. There are
only two lavatories in the upper storey for the 153 boys and the three brothers and three
laymen who sleep there at night. This is the only accommodation afforded in the whole
institution apart from those situated in the schoolyard. This matter required immediate
rectification. With slight modification which I discussed with the Br Superior, six or even
eight apartments might be supplied in the positions occupied by the present two.

8.508 In 1950 the Visitor again commented on the need for more than two lavatories for 180 boys and
four workmen in the dormitories. He was told that the Superior had bought the fittings for four
more and they were soon to be erected.
8.509 Whatever happened to the four fittings bought in 1950 remains a mystery because, in 1953, once
again the Visitor remarked that the night toilet accommodation for the boys was entirely
inadequate. ‘Two W.C’s for the whole institution. It would not be very difficult or expensive to
increase this to at least half a dozen and the Superior intends to do so in the near future’.
8.510 The Superior was written to in 1953 and told to get quotes for new toilets for the boys. It was
1961 before the new toilets were put into the Institution, almost 20 years after the Visitor described
the sanitary accommodation as very inadequate.
8.511 The absence of adequate fire precautions and the slow response to criticism in the Visitor’s report
about the fire escape was another problem.
8.512 In 1943, 35 children and one adult died in a fire in St Joseph’s Industrial School, Cavan and, as
a result, fire prevention became a high priority for the Department. Between 1943 and 1952,
however, the Inspector consistently described the School fire precautions as follows: ‘Fire drill
practised regularly, adequate indoor fire exits, night watchman always on duty’. She was clearly
incorrect in her assessment.
8.513 In 1948 the Visitor noted:

The fire-escape that leads from the children’s dormitory is in my opinion both unsuitable
and dangerous. It is a wooden structure put there by some handy-man. It leads straight
down from a considerable height and at such a steep angle that should the emergency
occur and should there be a rush of children I believe that those who escaped the fire
would most probably be dashed to death on the stairs, that is if the stairs were not
previously on fire.
8.514 Three years later, in 1951, the fire escape in the building again came in for serious criticism and
was described as unfit for use and, even if repaired, would be dangerous in an emergency. In
1952 the Department Inspector added one extra piece of information to her usual comments, to
the effect that another fire exit has been added to the boys’ dormitory.
8.515 The funding provided by the State from 1936 to 1954 was sufficient to provide a reasonable level
of physical care for the boys. The inadequacies in the care provided were more a matter of bad
management than funding.
Food, clothing and accommodation post-1954

8.516 Until 1954, Letterfrack was home to three categories of boys: those who were committed through
the courts because they were homeless, without proper guardianship, destitute, in breach of the
School Attendance Act or guilty of criminal offences; those sent by the local authorities pursuant to
the Public Assistance Act, 1949; and boys who were voluntarily admitted by parents or guardians.
8.517 On 12th January 1954 the Provincial Council, led by Br O’Hanlon, met with the six Resident
Managers of the Christian Brothers’ schools. A decision was taken to close one of their schools
because of the deteriorating financial position of the industrial schools generally, partly attributed
to falling numbers, which had resulted in a decline in income. Carriglea was nominated for closure.
A unanimous decision was also taken to segregate juvenile delinquents from other categories of
boys, and it was felt that the closure of Carriglea would provide an ideal opportunity to put this
plan into effect.
8.518 In his letter to the Superior General, seeking the approval of the Superior Council for these
proposals, Br O’Hanlon pointed out that ‘the Government does not seem to have any power to
prevent us from giving effect to both proposals’. The General Council approved of the plans, and
Letterfrack was nominated as the school which in future would house only juvenile offenders. The
Department of Education was informed of these decisions by way of letter from Br O’Hanlon on
19th March 1954:
The financial position of the Industrial Schools conducted by the Christian Brothers has
been deteriorating over a number of years. One of the reasons for this deterioration is the
continuous decline in number of boys being sent to these schools with consequent decline
in income.
I have examined the whole position of these schools with my Council and with the six
Resident Managers, and I have decided that one of the six schools we control should be
closed as an Industrial School. Carriglea Park School is the school which has been
chosen for closing ...
I wish, at the same time, to inform you that we have decided to introduce henceforth into
our Industrial Schools a certain measure of segregation. We have decided to inform the
Resident Managers of Artane, Glin, Tralee and Salthill (Galway) Industrial Schools that
they are to take no more boys of the category, “charged with an offence punishable in the
case of an adult with penal servitude”, but to refer the authorities to the Resident Manager
of Letterfrack Industrial School in such cases. Likewise, the Resident Manager of
Letterfrack will be directed to take boys of this category only, and to refer the authorities
to the other four Resident Managers in the case of boys of other categories.
8.519 A meeting was convened by the senior officials in the Department on 13th April 1954 with Br
O’Hanlon and District Justice McCarthy, who presided over the Children’s Court in Dublin, to
discuss the intended closure of Carriglea and the intention of the Christian Brothers to decline in
future to receive boys who were committed for offences liable to penal servitude (if committed by
an adult) in any institution other than Letterfrack.
8.520 The Department and the District Justice objected strongly to the plan for Letterfrack, as it would
essentially turn it into a reformatory. They argued it was too far from Dublin, where most of the
boys came from, and their families, who were often a good influence on them, would find it very
difficult and expensive to visit them.
8.521 Br O’Hanlon held the view that it was unfair on boys who had committed no offence to be put in
with boys who had, and the Christian Brothers’ experience was that one bad apple could ruin 10
good, and that the reverse happened less frequently. He said, by way of compromise with the
Department, that they would be prepared to exempt, from classification as offenders, boys guilty
of mitching or begging, neglected boys, and boys who were found uncontrollable.
8.522 Br O’Hanlon told the District Justice that it was open to him to send ‘offenders’ to either Letterfrack,
Greenmount or Upton, since the last two were not under the Christian Brothers, and the Judge
declared himself satisfied once he had this choice of three schools.
8.523 The Department felt that the only real objection to the proposal was the distance of Letterfrack,
Greenmount and Upton from Dublin, and the meeting concluded with a decision to take all possible
steps to have non-delinquent children removed from Letterfrack before the majority in the school
were delinquents.

8.524 In April 1954 the Department sent District Justice McCarthy a breakdown of the committals to
Letterfrack:
According to the figures in this office the total number of boys in the school is 171 of
whom 149 are cases committed by the Courts the remaining 22 being 18 Public
Assistance cases and 4 voluntaries. Of the 149 committed cases 71 were committed on
the grounds of destitution, 48 parent or guardian not exercising proper guardianship; 5
under the school attendance act; 10 for being uncontrollable; 13 larceny cases and 2 for
receiving alms.
8.525 Only 13 children were in Letterfrack under the category of an offence punishable by penal
servitude if committed by an adult.
8.526 A second meeting was convened by the Department on 14th May 1954 with senior Department
officials, Br O’Hanlon and District Justice McCarthy. The meeting was convened because Judge
McCarthy had intimated that he would not be prepared to send to Letterfrack the type of boy for
whom the School was to be reserved until the non-offenders had been transferred. Again, the
Judge pointed out that he was unhappy about the isolated location of Letterfrack, and felt it was
unsuitable for the rehabilitation of boys from Dublin city. Br O’Hanlon informed him that this had
been fully considered but the Congregation had decided on Letterfrack.
8.527 District Justice Gleeson, based in Limerick, also communicated his concerns to the Minister for
Justice in a letter from his court clerk dated 30th July 1954. It stated:
... this arrangement will cause very serious difficulties in administering the Children’s Court
in Limerick. Hitherto all cases in which committals were made in offence cases were dealt
with by committing the boys concerned to Glin, which is near Limerick or Tralee, which is
also convenient. It was possible also for the parents of the children to visit them
conveniently in these schools, and for the Gardai to take them there quickly and
inexpensively. Moreover, the boys in most cases were allowed home to their parents for
summer holidays. With Letterfrack over 100 miles away from Limerick all these
advantages will cease and serious difficulties will be encountered.
8.528 The Minister for Justice requested the Minister for Education to make representations to the
Christian Brothers in line with the Judge’s concerns. The Secretary of the Department of Education
responded, stating that strong representations had been made to the Provincial Council, but to no
avail. The matter was clearly out of the Government’s hands.
8.529 The Department of Education wrote to the relevant authorities, including the Departments of
Health and Justice, District Justice McCarthy and the NSPCC, informing them of the decision in
the following terms:
As you are aware it has been decided by the Provincial of the Irish Christian Brothers that
the Industrial School at Letterfrack is to be reserved in future for the boys brought before
the Court and found guilty of an offence which in the case of an adult, would be punishable
by penal servitude and also for boys against whom there is a police record of such an
offence even though they have not been charged with it, but with some other offence
such as irregular school attendance, begging, etc.
8.530 They were informed that boys who fell into these categories would no longer be accepted in
Artane, Salthill, Tralee or Glin.
8.531 District Justice McCarthy, in a memorandum dated 8th October 1954, recommended a number of
changes to the Children Acts, 1908–1949. Amongst his recommendations was that, in cases
where a child had not been granted leave of absence during a 12-month period from an industrial
or reformatory school, financial provision should be made to the child’s parent or guardian to
enable them to visit the child at least once a year.
8.532 He referred to the decision of the Christian Brothers to limit committals to Letterfrack to a particular
category and noted that:
this means that the Dublin School [Artane] is now closed to the large number of city boys
who come before the Courts for these offences, or in certain circumstances for bad school
attendances, begging, etc and they will have to be sent to Letterfrack, to Clonmel Upton,
or Greenmount. Week after week parents are calling to the Children’s Court at Dublin
Castle seeking financial assistance to enable them to visit their children in country districts,
children whom they have not seen for very considerable periods because they are unable
to pay the necessary fares.
8.533 At the meeting in the Department on 14th May 1954, the number of boy ‘offenders’ to be left in
Letterfrack was also discussed, and Br O’Hanlon said that 85 was the lowest number stated by
the School Resident Manager to be required to run the School on anything like an economic basis.
It was agreed at the meeting to transfer to Salthill and to Artane and other schools all the Public
Assistance cases in the School, together with as many of the other boys as would leave the
number of non-transferred boys at 85 and this was to be done by the end of June.
8.534 On 30th June 1954, 179 boys were resident in Letterfrack. Between June and September 1954,
94 boys were transferred to other industrial schools or were released on supervision certificate.
8.535 On 30th September 1954 the Department of Education records showed there were 87 boys
resident in Letterfrack. The vast majority of these boys who remained in Letterfrack were there
through no fault of their own, but they found themselves in what was effectively a junior reformatory
from 1954 onwards. This situation continued until the Kennedy Committee (1970) stated at Section
6.12 of its Report:
No junior reformatory exists for the detention of youthful offenders under twelve these, on
conviction, being normally sent to Industrial Schools. As the bulk of boys in this age group
are however, sent to the Industrial School at Letterfrack, Co. Galway, it was decided to
treat this institution as a junior reformatory.
8.536 At Section 6.15 the Report went on to state that the young offenders who were sent to Letterfrack
were not segregated from the non-offenders.
8.537 Some 15 years after the policy had been enunciated by the Provincial, the position in Letterfrack
was still unresolved. The Kennedy Report noted that in 1969/1970, 64 of the boys in Letterfrack
had been convicted of indictable offences, 15 for non-attendance at school, and 13 were non-
offenders. Of those 64, most were incarcerated for offences that would not in fact have incurred
imprisonment if committed by an adult, for example trespassing or theft of very small items.
8.538 The policy adopted by the Congregation was to seriously prejudice the boys who were in
Letterfrack through neglect or poverty. They were now in a minority in the Institution, but were
retained there to provide economic ballast to a system that was incapable of delivering even a
basic level of care.
8.539 The fate of these boys in Letterfrack was one of the most shameful episodes in the history of
industrial schools. Their individual needs were completely disregarded by the Congregation and
the Department of Education. The perceived problem of having offenders and non-offenders in
the same institution was never remedied and was actually programmed to continue for the
foreseeable future.
8.540 The one positive outcome of the 1954 decision was the removal from Letterfrack of the very young
boys who were there. The fate of these children had been a matter of concern to Visitors over the
years. Infants under six years of age were taken into Letterfrack: there were 20 in 1941, 18 in
1943, and 12 in 1949. The infirmary nurse did not look after these boys, who were under the care
of a Brother. The Visitor remarked in 1949 that, unless the nurse undertook the care of such small
children, the Institution should not accept them in the future.
8.541 In his report on Letterfrack for the Congregation, Mr Bernard Dunleavy was very critical of the
practice of taking very young children into the School. He quoted a Christian Brothers’ document:
The official capacity of the school was 172 pupils. Children who were committed to the
school were age 6 to 16 years. That continued to be the case until 1950 when it was
perceived by the Christian Brothers that falling numbers in those being admitted to the
school would eventually lead to a diminution in the total numbers at the school. In the
light of this the Brother Superior, Br Nicolas,56 decided to accept a group of children below
the minimum age level, the youngest being a mere 4 and a half years old.
8.542 Mr Dunleavy went on to say:

These children were accepted from a County Home, though there is no record of which
Home they were accepted from. It is clear that not only was the admission of pupils to
Letterfrack not properly monitored, but also that in an effort to maintain the numbers at
the school the Christian Brothers were prepared to accept pupils who were far too young
to be properly cared for by an institution such as Letterfrack.
8.543 This matter was again raised in 1951, when the Visitor noted:
Some of the children are extremely young when admitted to the institution and Br Sorel
has frequently to perform duties which properly speaking should be done by the Matron
... I was given to understand that the Matron was unwilling to look after the very young
children.
8.544 Br Sorel who had charge of these infants spoke to the Committee of the strain he was under in
caring for them, which he described as ‘over-challenging and over-frustrating’. He said that ‘There
was many a night I went into bed and cried my heart out inside in bed for various reasons’.
8.545 He went on to explain:

In the training college I was trained to teach. When I went to Letterfrack I found out that I
had to perform the function of a father, mother, nurse and teacher. I found it impossible.
8.546 Br Sorel said that, when he told the Manager about the difficulty he was having, the Manager
said: ‘we can’t do anything about it, do the best you can. That’s what I was told, “just do the best
you can.” That was as much sympathy as I got’.
8.547 The smaller boys were occupied repairing mattresses or darning and, according to Br Sorel, they
were ‘happy doing anything’.
8.548 The biggest problem faced was bed-wetting and soiling:

That was one of the worst and soiling the bed. This is the thing that used to break my
heart in the morning when I came down to the dormitory ... you would find three or four
of the lads would not alone wet the bed but soil the bed. I was really tearing my hair out
at that stage ... It was a problem every morning and I used to detest it. I felt like running
56

away myself several times, having to face it coming down in the morning. It was terrible,
the stench and the smell.
8.549 Br Sorel received no training or guidance for the task allotted to him in Letterfrack. It was not
possible for one young, untrained Brother to care for over 20 very small boys and a further 30 or
so boys aged between six and 10 years. The despair and frustration experienced by Br Sorel is
indicative of the systemic failure of Letterfrack to deliver even a rudimentary level of care to the
small children placed there.
8.550 In 1955 the matter was resolved:

There are now no boys in the establishment under seven years of age. Until last year
there were boys of four and three, and there was one of two years six months! The nurse
refused to take over their management and she was within her rights in refusing. The
departure of the infants to junior orphanages is a great relief to the Brothers and to the
infants.
8.551 In a series of interviews conducted by the Christian Brothers in 2001 with Brothers who had served
in a number of industrial schools, Br Ruffe57 who served as Resident Manager in Letterfrack from
1953 to 1959 described much more starkly the impact the decision to introduce ‘segregation’ had
on Letterfrack.
8.552 He described the reasoning behind the decision by the new Provincial to segregate different
categories of boys. He confirmed that the Department of Education and the Justices were not in
favour, but the Provincial eventually prevailed upon them that this was to be the future of the
industrial schools:
So the Provincial sent me word that in due course I should send off any boys in the school
who were not guilty of indictable offences and I should receive only into the school those
boys who were indicted. So, on the 4th September, 1954 (‘twas I think) I sent off 99 boys
from Letterfrack out of the 184. We were left with 85. Now, that immediately left us in a
crippling position because the finances in ordinary circumstances were miserably small
and we had at least 12 employees. We had a carpenter, a shoemaker, a tailor, a baker,
a knitter. We had a laundress. We had three at least, if not four men working on the farm
and all of these had to be paid a weekly wage. Now, where it was to come from was your
guess as well as mine, but I had to face it. I was promised that the end of the year,
Christmas, that I’d get a subvention from the other schools to help out of the difficulty.
When I applied for a subvention at Christmas, I was told it was impossible, there was
nothing doing. So you can see the position was worrying. It was either close all the shops,
dismiss all the employees, but what were we going to do. The boys had no occupation,
boys that had no trade, nothing to recommend them when they left the schools. Nothing
to help them for a future life when they left school, nothing. So we had to make some
attempt to struggle on.
8.553 He went on to describe how a predecessor of his had come up with a ‘brainwave’ to get extra
cash for the School, by chartering a ship and getting a cargo of coal delivered to a small bay near
the School, and he sold some of this to the locals and used the rest to run the furnaces. Later,
the furnaces were converted to oil but Br Ruffe had to re-convert them back to coal ‘... and that
gave us some form of subsistence. That was the only way we got a little alleviation’. He said the
money from the Department was miserably low and it was not possible to keep a living, pay 12
employees, feed, clothe and educate the boys, and provide a trade for them, including purchasing
materials and maintaining machinery.
57

8.554 Br Ruffe did not get the promised help from the Congregation to support the school after the 1954
decision. The Congregation had sufficient funds to meet the needs of the boys in Letterfrack but
it did not make them available.
8.555 As outlined in the general chapter on the Christian Brothers, the Christian Brothers’ Building Fund
accounts for 1954 showed a £300,000 credit balance for the year ending 31st December 1954.
There was a balance of £30,000 from Artane and £16,000 from Carriglea, as well as smaller
amounts from other industrial schools. According to the Congregation, this represented ‘excess
funds’ from these Communities.
8.556 When Br Paget O’Hanlon met the Department he had told the Department that 85 boys was the
minimum needed to run Letterfrack. Clearly, this was not the situation and it appears unlikely that
the Resident Manager would have told him this.
8.557 In his interview, Br Ruffe described the financial difficulties he faced in Letterfrack and the
difficulties caused by the Provincial’s decision. The farm rarely made a profit, and everything it
produced was put back into the school. Similarly, the shops produced little or no income. They
generated their own electricity until the ESB58 came along, and the cost of switching to the ESB
was covered by selling the rights back to the ESB.
8.558 The drop in numbers from 184 to 85 was a big financial loss to the school. After the changeover,
there was a small trickle of boys, very small in the beginning. Justice McCarthy in Dublin stopped
sending them altogether and these were the boys that Br Ruffe was relying on getting and they
were not being sent. Other Christian Brothers’ industrial schools which were also in financial
difficulties, although in his view not as difficult as Letterfrack, were taking in boys that they were
not supposed to be taking under the new regime, so he arranged to meet Justice McCarthy. They
had a robust discussion in which Justice McCarthy flatly told him he would not send boys so far
away from their parents. Br Ruffe explained to the Justice that he thought it could be good for
boys to be removed from sources of temptation that landed them in industrial schools in the first
place. He felt that Letterfrack had a lot to offer despite its distance, lots of fresh air and country life,
giving them an opportunity to re-orientate themselves by means of work, school and education. He
pointed out that he himself during his training as a Christian Brother was only allowed one visit
per year from his family. He also promised to facilitate parents as much as possible by putting
them up overnight or taking the boys into Galway to meet their families when they travelled. He
said that the Justice took his views on board and began to send boys to Letterfrack. Unfortunately,
Justice McCarthy did not live for too long after this and he had the same problems with his
successor. This required another visit to explain the position to him and, following on Justice Ryan
visiting Letterfrack to see for himself, he also began to send boys there.
8.559 The average number of boys between 1955 and 1969 was 107 and this was not an economically
viable number. This number dropped even more dramatically between 1970 and 1973, and there
were only 4159 boys in Letterfrack shortly before it closed with Br Karel stating that the number
had dropped to 11 by the time he left in 1974.
8.560 The impact of the 1954 decision, taken by the Congregation in the face of opposition from all
other quarters, was felt throughout the subsequent life of the Institution.
8.561 In 1954, the Inspector reported that the food was fairly good but was to be improved. She noted
that the boys only received bread and tea at lunch. She reported that she had told that Manager
to rectify this and to get some modern equipment.
58
Electricity Supply Board.
59
See table at paragraph 8.21.

8.562 In 1955, the Congregational Visitor reported that the boys’ diet had improved considerably. The
Department Inspector made a number of suggestions regarding the diet to the Resident Manager
and noted the food had improved.
8.563 By 1956 the effect of the change in finances in the Institution began to become more clear in the
reports from Dr McCabe, the Department of Education Inspector, when she noted that ‘my
suggestions have been brought into operation but still the “old system” is used for cooking – no
other facilities’. She made the following general observation:
Well conducted school on the whole – Of course, there are many improvements I would
like to see – better clothes, better living conditions – better cooking facilities – but as usual
when I mention these things I am always told – “we have no money” “it can’t be done”
“get into debt” – so while I realise that expense comes into the argument so long as the
boys are reasonably well clothed and fed there is very little else I can do.
8.564 The Resident Manager blamed the lack of funds for the poor conditions in Letterfrack and she
was in no position to disagree with him. The fact that the financial crisis was caused by the actions
of the Congregation itself does not appear to have been appreciated by the Inspector.
8.565 Dr McCabe reported that the food was slightly improved in 1957 although ‘much remains to be
done – old archaic system still in use for cooking – very poor facilities, no modern equipment’.
Again she made a general observation:
Well conducted school on the whole – I would really like to see a number of improvements
here – clothing, living conditions and cooking arrangements. I have often made
suggestions but each time I feel up against a stone wall as always I am told – increase
the grant – give more money and of course I realise their difficulties – but all the same I
will have to insist on better conditions for the boys. Br Ruffe the Resident Manager is very
argumentative and difficult to persuade.
8.566 In 1957 and 1958 the Congregation Visitor reported that the boys’ food had improved since Br
Delmont,60 who was interested in his work and did his best to provide good meals to the boys,
had taken over the kitchen. Dr McCabe was pleased to see in 1958 that an Aga and new steam
boiler had been installed in the kitchen.
8.567 The situation in Letterfrack had reached an all-time low by 1959. Br Ruffe, the Resident Manager,
had been hospitalised for 18 months and, to use his own description in 2001, ‘was practically
an invalid’.
8.568 Br Adrien had taken over the kitchen, and the Visitor in his Report of 1959 stated that the boys’
diet needed to be looked into. He highlighted that they received bread and tea for dinner three
days a week, and that they got very little meat, ‘never getting anything in the nature of an Irish
stew’. He further stated that the cooking and serving of the boys’ food was not satisfactory. As
regards breakfast he stated the boys received an egg one day a week, with porridge served five
days per week. However, he noted that the quantity served was insufficient, with each boy
receiving only a saucer full. He highlighted that the Sunday food was ‘the worst of the week’. He
stated that the only redeeming feature was that twice a week the boys were served two sausages
each in the evenings. He noted that Br Adrien was wholly unsuccessful in his running of the
kitchen, and that Br Adrien placed the blame on the Superior whom Br Adrien said restricted his
budget. On enquiring into the matter, however, the Visitor discovered that Br Adrien was running
the kitchen in a most expensive manner, buying meals from shops as opposed to preparing them
in the kitchen. The Visitor concluded by noting that, in order for the boys to be happy at Letterfrack,
‘the food must be improved’.
60
This is a pseudonym

8.569 In 1959, the Provincial wrote to the acting Manager and told him that he had visited the Resident
Manager who was convalescing, and complained to him about the small quantities of porridge
which the boys were provided with, and the fact that the boys had three meatless days in a week.
Br Ruffe told the Provincial that he believed it to be only two days a week without meat. The
Provincial asked Br Malleville, who was Disciplinarian in Letterfrack, to inquire into this discreetly
and discover whether the boys had been having three dinners of bread and tea over a long period.
He also said that the issue of the meat was one that required an immediate remedy. This internal
inquiry found that the boys received meat every day, and the only days they would not have meat
was during Easter and fasting days.
8.570 Br Malleville’s word appears to have been taken and no further enquiries were made about the
extremely serious situation described by the Visitor.
8.571 The 1959 Visitation Report that criticised the boys’ food said of the Brothers’ diet:
The Brothers food is very well cooked and neatly served. It is also ample. The Brothers
were all very satisfied.
8.572 In that same year a complaint was received from a parent about the quality of food and clothing
in Letterfrack. A letter was sent on 5th August 1959 from a TD to the Minister for Education
describing how the woman’s son was one of five boys who had absconded from Letterfrack,
broken into two other schools and stolen food from one of them. The boys were recaptured,
charged and sent to Daingean. The mother said the boys complained about the food they were
getting in Letterfrack. The Resident Manager was written to on 20th August and he responded on
25th August 1959:
The food supplied to the boys in the school is always plentiful, fresh and wholesome; [The
boy’s mother] visited the school on a number of occasions while her son was here and
made no complaints ... Dr McCabe visits the school, unannounced, periodically and she
always sees the boys at their meals and she has never made any complaint about the
food served. The boys’ menu is:–
Breakfast: Porridge or luncheon roll, tea, bread and butter or margarine Eggs one morning
each week.
Lunch: Tea, Bread and Jam
Dinner: Fresh beef or mutton, potatoes vegetables (cabbage, turnip, parsnips, carrots,)
soup and dessert (3 times weekly)
Tea: Tea , bread and butter or margarine
With regard to butter and margarine the boys have their choice. At tea also the boys have
sausages (fresh) twice a week.
8.573 Dr McCabe was in complete agreement with the Resident Manager that the food was ‘plentiful,
fresh and wholesome’ and, in a handwritten note to the Inspector, she stated that she did not
agree with the statement made by the mother about the food served.
8.574 Also in 1959, an Englishman visited the School and noticed that the boys were playing football in
their bare feet. This gave rise to a critical article in a Sunday newspaper, which identified
inadequate funding of industrial schools as an issue of some concern. Representatives of the
Congregation met with Department officials who were anxious to refute the article. The Christian
Brothers sent a letter to the paper, explaining the lack of footwear as being due to an exceptionally
hot day and stating that ordinarily boys wore boots or sandals.

8.575 The Congregation did not avail themselves of the public interest in the matter to confirm their own
view that industrial schools were inadequately funded but rather went to some trouble to support
the Department of Education’s contention that funding was adequate.
8.576 The Department received another complaint in August 1959. (Details of this complaint are dealt
with above in connection with food as the main complaint related to food.) The mother concerned
also complained, inter alia, about the clothing supplied to the boys. The Resident Manager
responded to that portion of the complaint in the following terms:
The boys’ clothes are kept clean as far as is humanly possible. The boys’ day shirts,
singlets and trunks are washed weekly and inspected in the dormitory each morning.
Clothing for the year 1958 totalled £1,235 – 17 – 4, which gives an average of over £12
per boy for the year.
8.577 Again, the Congregation defended the clothing provided instead of taking the opportunity to further
advance their case for increased funding.
8.578 In 1961, the Congregation Visitor noted that the boys’ food had improved markedly of late and
that it was now ‘well up to the standard of similar Institutions’. The Congregation Visitor noted that
a good variety was served and that the boys were better fed than in the past. He also noted in
the Visitation letter that there would be greater variety when the funding improved.
8.579 Later in the year the Department Inspector noted that the boys’ food had improved, stating that
better cooking facilities were now in place. She made a general observation that the boys were
well cared for, despite the adverse conditions. The Brothers were doing their best in very difficult
circumstances and in very primitive conditions. There were 111 boys in the Institution at this time.
8.580 Throughout the 1960s, the report about food continued to record that the food had improved
in Letterfrack.
8.581 The Interdepartmental Committee on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders visited
Letterfrack in December 1962. Rather surprisingly, the Working Party did not see a meal being
served but was prepared to accept the Resident Manager’s word that the food was good.
8.582 The Committee Secretary described the clothes and footwear provided as sufficient, although he
criticised the absence of overcoats for the boys, which he saw as a serious deficiency. However,
the Committee accepted that additional income would be necessary if adequate clothing and
footwear were to be provided.
8.583 Following the Committee’s visit the Resident Manager wrote to Mr McDevitt in the Department of
Education on 31st December 1962, saying that a new oven had been purchased and that ‘I have
already purchased about 50 tweed and gabardine overcoats for the boys and I hope to have one
for each boy in the very near future’.
8.584 He went on to say:

I hope we will soon get an increase in the Maintenance Grant it would help to pull down
my overdraft, and if I had about 20 more pupils I should then be in a position to do more
for the boys. We get several applications for vacancies but very few are committed.
8.585 There were 128 boys in Letterfrack in 1962.
8.586 Department Inspectors continued to stress the need for improvements in the quality of clothing
provided well into the 1960s and conditions did improve slowly.
8.587 In 1966, Dr C.E. Lysaght carried out the general inspection. He stated that the School menu
provided a ‘well balanced diet and variety’. He noted that the dinners, which he witnessed during
his inspection, were ‘ample’, ‘satisfactory’ and that ‘little food was left behind’.
8.588 In 1970, the Congregation Visitor reported that the boys now had modern clothing and sporting
gear.
8.589 In the second Visitation carried out in 1970, Br Dax was singled out for further praise. The Visitor
noted that Br Dax who had taken over the kitchen had a different menu each day of the week and
that the meals served to the boys were ‘very ample and tastefully served’.
8.590 The 1972 Visitation Report stated that the food was satisfactory and commended Br Dax for his
efficiency: ‘it would be impossible to equal his dedication and efficiency’. In the 1973 Visitation
Report the Visitor stated:
Br Dax the Sub-Superior, lives an almost eremetical life since he supervises all the boys’
meals seven days a week and consequently must eat by himself. He is regular and his
meals keep the boys contented. He does not cook but does the ordering and supervising.
His only other duty is to supervise the boys’ showers. He maintains good discipline though
his methods may be a little crude at times. He seems ripe for a total change of
environment and the visitor suggests that he might be a suitable candidate for the
international tertianship next August.
8.591 A number of former residents complained about the clothing they received. Some of these
complaints related to the absence of proper work clothes. Boys who worked part-time on the farm
(up to 40 at any time) had no work clothes. They wore their school clothes on the bog and in the
fields in all weather and, no matter how wet or mucky they got, they had to stay in the same
clothes until the end of the week.
8.592 One former resident said that he occasionally worked on the farm. Although he had Wellington
boots he did not have proper work clothes like the boys who worked there full time. He wore his
normal school clothes.
8.593 Another resident present in the Institution in the late 1950s and early 1960s said that he received
so little food that he was reduced to eating swedes out of the fields. He contrasted the food the
boys received with that of the staff. He said that:
I actually seen the table in the monastery one time and there was enough food on that
table to feed the 120 lads that were in that school. We never got food, anything like that.
There was so much sheep and cattle and vegetables that were in that school, we should
have been all little barrels.
8.594 One resident from the early 1960s said that the quality of the food was awful and that there was
never enough of it. Another resident from the late 1950s said that there was never a lot of it and
that boys would trade food they did not like. One resident in the late 1960s said that, of all the
institutions he was in, Upton, Daingean and Letterfrack, the food in Letterfrack was the worst.
8.595 Another resident present in the late 1960s and early 1970s stated:
The food wasn’t good food ... I remember kids breaking out in scabies and all sorts of
stuff, weak and pale. It was very cheap food from Galway City, I don’t know where they
got it from. The porridge, on many occasions it was very weak stuff and we used to pick
little worms out with the spoons. The bread used to come in at the time, we used to be
picking bits of green mould out of it and stuff, fighting for a small piece of margarine on
the table to spread on it. It was just like animals, dog eat dog stuff, but I don’t remember
any healthy food.
8.596 Br Dax was employed as the cook in Letterfrack from the late 1950s until it closed in 1974. In his
evidence to the Investigation Committee he stated that:
I would say quite honestly as far as I am concerned the food was reasonably good.
8.597 • The 1954 decision of the Provincial, taken in the face of opposition by both the
Department of Education and District Justice McCarthy, was ill-considered and
detrimental to the welfare of the boys in Letterfrack.
• If it was desirable to restrict admission to Letterfrack to a specific category of boys, it
was unreasonable and contrary to policy to retain a substantial number of boys from
previous intakes who were outside that category.
• By insisting that increases in grants had to be applied equally to all schools, smaller
institutions like Letterfrack were at a serious disadvantage. It required extra funding
to compensate for the low numbers after 1954 but no special case was made.
• It was an indictment of the Congregation that extra funding promised to the Resident
Manager to compensate for the removal of up to 100 pupils was refused at a time
when funds were available. The deprivation of funds caused hardship to the boys
in Letterfrack.
• The decision to close Carriglea as an industrial school and to keep Letterfrack open
was not taken in the interests of the children in Letterfrack. The unsuitability of
Letterfrack as an industrial school was apparent from the start and was strongly
reiterated by District Justices and by the Department of Education. The will of the
Provincial prevailed, however, and it is an example of the power the Christian Brothers
had in determining the direction the industrial school system took.
• From the comments in her Inspection Reports, Dr McCabe believed that low standards
were the inevitable consequences of inadequate funding. However, when this issue
was raised in public in 1959, neither the Department nor the Congregation
acknowledged the difficulties but were at pains to paint a rosy picture of life in
Letterfrack.
• The argument put forward by the Congregation in its Opening Statement, that the care
the boys received in Letterfrack was better than they would have received if they had
remained in their families, misses the point. The Congregation was paid by the State
to care for these boys to a standard set down by law, and failed to do so.
Education pre-1954
8.598 All industrial schools were required to provide a basic national school education for all boys under
14 and an appropriate level of industrial training for the older boys. Letterfrack was recognised as
a national school in 1941 and was required to follow the national school curriculum. All boys under
14 attended classes for five hours per day, and those over 14 years old who had completed the
6th class course were put full-time to a trade. Those still in 6th class and who could be expected
to benefit from it remained on to complete the year, and the others who were put into a trade
received evening classes in the ‘three R’s’.
8.599 In their Final Submission the Congregation submitted that the evidence heard by the Investigation
Committee confirmed that teaching in Letterfrack was extremely difficult, principally because the
boys had received little or no education before arriving in Letterfrack and because they were not
interested in education. This difficulty, they submit, was compounded by the State’s failure to
recognise this, in not providing extra teaching staff and not allowing the Congregation to pursue
a modified curriculum which was more suitable for the boys. The Congregation even provided for
one extra teacher from their own resources at one stage. Despite the difficulties, they submit that
the Congregation brought a high proportion of boys to Primary Certificate level and, for a period,
organised for some boys to attend secondary school.
8.600 They accept that some boys did not benefit from an education but submit that part of the reason
for this was their own lack of interest in education. They submit that there was no basis for a
finding that the Congregation was guilty of any shortcoming in respect of the provision of education
to boys within its care.
8.601 These assertions can be tested against the documentary evidence, the evidence of former
Brothers, and the evidence of former pupils of the School.
8.602 The Visitation Reports up to 1954 do not support the contention that the boys were backward or
unwilling to receive education. Although some Brothers were criticised from time to time as being
poor teachers, on the whole the standard as recorded by the Visitors was good. In 1938 the Visitor
made an important observation:
poor children of our institutions have first claim on our really good teachers, as their school
time is short indeed, and we were founded mainly to look after the education of poor boys.
8.603 The School was staffed mainly by Christian Brothers. The size of the teaching staff varied. For
much of the 1940s and 1950s, there were three to four teachers in the School. Some of these
individuals taught two classes together. As regards qualifications, the Congregation’s teachers
were trained in its own teaching college. Some former members of staff complained of the lack of
training they received in remedial or special needs teaching. This, they said, was a significant
handicap in Letterfrack, as many of the methods that they had learned were designed to be utilised
in mainstream schools and were of little use in a school of such mixed ability as Letterfrack.
8.604 In 1945, the Visitor criticised the practice of removing weaker students from school to work on
the farm. He suggested that the permission of the Superior be secured before this was allowed
to happen.
8.605 Br Sorel, who taught in Letterfrack for four years from the late 1940s, said that the job was difficult
as many of the children suffered from educational disabilities:
It was a tremendous experience in one way, but it was very frustrating in another because
a lot of the kids in the classes, as pointed out last week, were bordering on the mentally
handicapped.
8.606 There was no evidence that, during Br Sorel’s time there, Letterfrack had a large number of
mentally handicapped children. Educationally deprived they undoubtedly were, and for many the
trauma of being locked away from family and friends would have been deeply disturbing, but
judging by the complainants who attended the oral hearings, they were not mentally handicapped.
8.607 There was not a great deal of evidence about the standard of education in Letterfrack prior to
1954, when the School changed its enrolment policy. The only contemporaneous records, the
Visitation Reports, were generally positive about the School.
8.608 Complainants to the Committee did not share the Visitor’s views, and described a regime of
corporal punishment in the classroom that was harsh and pervasive.
Education post-1954
8.609 From 1954, Letterfrack was directed by the Provincial of the Congregation to receive only those
children who had been found guilty of a criminal offence. The negative impact that this decision
had on the care of the boys has already been outlined. It had a considerable impact on the
education of the boys in Letterfrack. The position was succinctly put in 1956 by the Resident
Manager, who wrote to the Provincial informing him of the low level of educational ability of the
students:
The change in condition in our school brought about two years ago has altered all that
radically. The old hands, if I may call them so, have become the ‘intelligentia’ and the new
pupils are in a state of ignorance that has to be experienced to be realised. Of the 41
boys, still here who have been admitted in the last two years, 35 are still in school. This
is more than half the number of boys on the rolls (61). These boys, in the main do not
even know the letters of the alphabet.
8.610 He noted that there were three classes in the school: 3rd, 4th and 5th class. He said that 4th class
was divided into three groups: 1. Boys who did not know the letters of the alphabet; 2. Boys who
did know the letters of the alphabet; and 3. Boys who had begun to realise the simplest of words.
He stated that these groupings were absolutely necessary and that the age groups threw further
light on the state of affairs. Those in the so-called 4th class had an average age of 11 years 9
months, and those in 5th, 13 years and 1 month. He stated that it was abundantly clear from the
above facts that specialised teaching was an absolute necessity if these boys were to get even
the most rudimentary education. He said that the services of the three Brothers with the best of
qualifications were therefore vitally needed in the school.
8.611 The Congregation presented a table of the number of boys who sat for and passed the Primary
Certificate. This table does not tally with the Visitation Reports for a number of years and cannot
therefore be relied on.
8.612 In 1956, seven out of 10 boys in 6th class were presented for examination and obtained their
Primary Certificate.
8.613 In 1957 the teachers had been reduced to three, as numbers were falling in the school. There
were 71 boys in school that year, 14 of whom were in 6th class; 10 were presented for Primary
Certificate, and one boy obtained a scholarship. Both the Visitor for that year and the Provincial
believed that the effort of getting one or two boys to pass the scholarship exam was not worth it
and so the practice was discontinued. Boys were still sent to Clifden CBS for secondary education,
but no more than a dozen attended at any time.
8.614 As in all industrial schools, the Christian Brothers selected the boys who would be presented for
the Primary Certificate from 6th standard. Only those boys who were deemed capable of passing
were put forward and, therefore, the pass rate was artificially high. For example, in 1958 there
were 16 boys in 6th class, and 11 sat the exam. Therefore, although the results were good as a
percentage pass rate, this cannot be taken to be representative of the school as a whole.
8.615 Two important factors were significant in education in Letterfrack: first, children did not progress
through the various classes in Letterfrack as they did in other national schools. The criterion for
advancement in this school was ability. Children who were educationally disadvantaged were
placed in a class appropriate to their standard and were allowed to progress to an age-appropriate
class at their own pace. Consequently, class sizes decreased in the higher classes.
8.616 Br Dondre, who was in Letterfrack in the late 1960s and early 1970s, described this process to
the Committee. He said that he taught the weakest group, and classes were allocated by the
school Principal, who determined the boys’ ability on entry:
I taught the weakest class and I can only go on my own experience in the classroom
situation. The weakest boys were very weak. I did two remedial courses when I was there
... to improve my knowledge about weaker kids and the methodology of teaching these
weaker children. I was quite happy with my results I could pass kids through my
classroom, from 3rd class. There was a great mobility as I said before, I could get kids
from my classroom into the next class inside three or four months because they were
intelligent, all they needed was regular schooling. There were some kids that never
graduated from the bottom two classes, some of them were educationally backward and
some of them would be bordered on being mildly mentally handicapped.
8.617 The second factor that had a significant impact was that class sizes were comparatively small –
smaller than those in outside national schools.
8.618 In 1960, the Visitor noted that the average class size was uneconomic, ‘but that nothing could be
done about it until such time as the numbers rise’. He further stated that the present staff of three
should, ordinarily, be teaching double the number of pupils.
8.619 In 1961, Br Guillaume wrote to the Department informing it that the boys admitted to Letterfrack
were educationally challenged in that most of them, on admission, were unable to read or write.
He stated that the Brothers in the school were doing their utmost to ensure these boys, at the
very least, were able to read and write, add and subtract before they left the Institution and, to
this end, had appointed an extra teacher to the school which he asked the Department to sanction.
The Department recognised the extra teacher as a classroom assistant, but did not sanction two
further classroom assistants as requested.
8.620 In 1962, the Interdepartmental Committee on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders
visited the school. The Working Party reported that, as boys entering Letterfrack were below the
normal educational standard for their age, they required more individual attention than their
national school counterparts. The Committee recommended smaller class sizes and more
intensive instruction in English and arithmetic.
8.621 A Department of Education official followed up on the Interdepartmental Committee, with a more
thorough investigation into the education provided in Letterfrack, and reported in 1963.
8.622 His report identified the uneven age profile in the classes as ‘a most unsatisfactory state of affairs’
although, by the time the boys reached 6th form, the age disparity with outside national schools
had been reduced from two and a half years in 3rd form to 6 months. In June 1962, 34 of the 91
pupils who had reached the age of 14 had not moved on to 6th class. The report noted that the
prevailing standard at the time was rated as ‘satisfactory’. It noted that, in former years,
‘allowances had to be made ... for adverse circumstances’. These included inadequate buildings,
equipment and teachers and the ‘depressing surroundings’, as well as the priority given to work
in the Institution over classes.
8.623 The report went on to say that ‘If any of the above factors still operate there would be a lowering
of educational attainments’. Each of the factors listed above could be readily identified by the
Inspector and it is not clear why the report was phrased in this way. What is clear is that each of
these suggestions was within the remit of the management of the School and was deemed to be
‘desirable’ if not ‘essential’.
8.624 The report noted the possibility that the Christian Brothers had ‘not made the best possible staff
available in Letterfrack’, and highlighted the fact that many Brothers seemed not to care to work
there. Of particular concern was the fact that there was a very frequent turnover of teaching staff
which, it stated, would ‘militate against achieving good educational results’. Also of concern was
the lack of experience of some of the teachers in the School. The report highlighted that the
youngest of the teachers had only been at the School for six months. The report expressed
concern that this teacher had not yet received his diploma, and questioned whether such an
inexperienced teacher should have been sent to a school where so many educational problems
had to be faced in his daily interactions with the pupils.61
8.625 Significantly, the Inspector noted that the Manager had reported to the Interdepartmental
Committee that ‘only 2 out of 114 boys (were) below average intelligence’ and he agreed with this
assessment. The problem, therefore, was not the intelligence of the boys but their lack of
educational opportunity before being sent to Letterfrack.
8.626 Throughout the 1960s the Visitors noted the difficulty of teaching the boys who were coming to
Letterfrack because of their severe educational disadvantage prior to coming there. One of a
number of Reports compiled in the 1970s was highly critical of the standard of teaching in the
School. Of the five teachers there, only one was qualified, three had completed one year of training
in Marino, and a fifth had no qualifications at all.
8.627 The 1972 Visitation Report criticised the Principal. It stated that his abilities fell ‘short of the very
high standard required to deal with the disturbed children’ that were admitted. It also noted that
‘most of the boys are very much retarded’. The Visitor expressed concerns at the class sizes,
suggesting that an extra teacher would be required to cater for the needs of the boys. He further
reported that many of the boys were in need of remedial teaching, something that was impossible
to provide with the structure in place. He stated that this problem was further compounded by the
fact that ‘neither Br Thibaud62 nor Br Arnaud63 are very efficient teachers, at least for boys of
this kind’.
8.628 In the same year, three members of staff wrote to the Provincial complaining about the education
provided. They stated that the educational set-up that prevailed in the Institution was ‘grossly
inadequate to meet the educational requirements’ of the type of boy found there. They concluded
by stating that, were the staff shortages not remedied, the Province would be ‘failing in the real
work of Edmund Rice’, and further expressed their view that ‘the school should be closed
immediately if the ... situation is to prevail’.
8.629 A Department of Education report later in the year made a number of recommendations to remedy
the problems facing the staff in Letterfrack, including having the children professionally assessed.
Importantly, this report recognised the need to compensate children in industrial schools for the
fact that they were there. Among its many recommendations it stated:
It would be necessary to provide children in care with more than the normal educational
facilities. It would, in other words, be necessary to overcompensate for deprivation.
8.630 It also recommended specialised training and a more holistic approach to the care of these
children. Thinking had at last begun to move on.
8.631 The fundamental problems of maintaining a school like Letterfrack were confronted in the 1973
Visitation Report. It noted that many of the boys in the School were ‘emotionally disturbed’, some
of them were ‘mentally retarded’, with others being ‘backward’ on entering Letterfrack. It reported
that the Brothers were conscious of the fact that they lacked the professional training required to
deal with such boys’ schooling, and that the remoteness of the Institution rendered it impossible
to get the professional help that the boys required.
61
Cross-reference to CB General Chapter where notes that this arrangement was with the agreement of the
62
63

8.632 Another concern was the need to provide higher education to the boys aged 14 to 16, which one
Visitor in the 1960s stated could not be done without ‘special concessions’ being granted by the
Education Office.
Evidence from complainants

8.633 One witness present in the early 1970s stated that he attended school but never sat his Primary
Certificate. He said that some of the older boys got the opportunity to attend the vocational school
in Clifden, but he never got the opportunity to go as this arrangement ceased for no apparent
reason.
8.634 By comparison, some pupils felt they received a good education and liked school. One boy said
that he had received a good education prior to being sent to Letterfrack. He said that he got on
all right in the school. The experience of members of the same family was not always the same.
The Committee heard from three siblings, one of whom felt that the education he received in the
school was all right, and whose brothers did not feel they received an adequate education.
Evidence from respondents

8.635 A number of the individual respondents who gave evidence taught in the national school and they
were all agreed that the standard of education in the school was bad.
8.636 Br Francois described it as pretty poor:

The standard of education? It was pretty poor compared to a group on the outside that
were of the same age would have been much more advanced.
8.637 Br Michel confirmed that teaching in the school was very difficult:
Well progress was very slow. The boys came to us and they were assessed for a class
that best suited and then they went up as they progressed. I assure you it was a slog in
the classroom, they didn’t want to learn most of them, they weren’t used to being in school
they weren’t used to sitting at a desk all day long.
8.638 He also felt that the curriculum was not appropriate. He said that one aspect was that the
Department Inspector:
made no effort to give us a little programme for these boys who were educationally
neglected in the past. We had to slog at the full programme of a primary school even so
far as getting the boys to say the words in Irish as they would in the western dialect.
8.639 Br Telfour, who was there from the mid to late 1960s, also stressed the low educational standard
of the boys upon entry into the school. He said that, over time, some of the boys would improve
and progress through the classes, eventually ending up at secondary school in Clifden. Other
boys might make little or no progress.
8.640 Br Rainger, who was there around the same time, said that he found teaching in the school quite
frustrating as he was unable to apply the methods he had been taught in training college because
of the low standard of education possessed by the boys:
Probably one of my frustrations in Letterfrack was frustration in the classroom, that I
couldn’t apply the teaching methods that would have been applied, if you don’t mind me
using the phrase, to normal children, because a lot of these people would have been
educationally deprived, lack of reading ability and so on and so forth, and I found teaching
in Letterfrack challenging, to say the least.
8.641 He said that many of the boys made little progress:
I would personally describe it as minimal. It was a real slog and a real challenge just to
get across even the basic concepts. Now having said that, that is across the board. There
could have been exceptions.
8.642 Br Dondre described the disturbed nature of the boys:

The boys in Letterfrack were disturbed. How will I say this? If they weren’t disturbed before
they got to Letterfrack, they were disturbed when they got there. The fact of taking a boy
from his home and sending him to an industrial school in some cases, and dragging
him through criminal proceedings, through court, and being sentenced by a Justice to
four/five/six, in some cases seven years, away from their home, was enough to disturb
anybody. Some of them were disturbed, they came from disturbed backgrounds and they
were there because they were disturbed. They were there because they were in trouble.
Some of them were no trouble at all. The very fact of sending them there, they did become
disturbed, they became sort of unhappy and quiet – not quiet – into themselves,
introverted. Generally unhappy.
8.643 Br Blaise64 said that teaching in the school was difficult, as the constant arrival and departure of
boys all the year round made it difficult to teach the curriculum.
8.644 The Congregation was cognisant of the difficulties faced in teaching children in the school, and
the documentary material was replete with examples of this. However, this is not to totally
exculpate the Congregation. The Congregation did not send its best teachers to the school. Many
of the teachers came straight from teacher training college with little experience of teaching in a
normal school, not to mention a school like that in Letterfrack. It is interesting to compare two
documents from the discovered material, one from the start of the period of investigation and one
from near the end.
8.645 In 1938, the Congregation Visitor noted that the:

poor children of our institutions have first claim on our really good teachers, as their school
time is short indeed, and we are founded mainly to look after the education of poor boys.
8.646 The Congregational response to this plea was poor. The 1963 Report on education noted that:
• The Brothers had not made the best possible staff available in Letterfrack.
• They lacked experience.
• There was a very high turnover of teaching staff.
• Many Brothers seemed not to care to work in Letterfrack.
8.647 • The submission by the Congregation, that it was not to be faulted for any shortcoming
in respect of educating the boys in its care, was not supported by the evidence.
• Smaller class sizes and grading according to ability should have formed the basis for
real educational opportunity for boys who had missed out on schooling in their early
years. However, the poor quality of the staff sent to Letterfrack, particularly in the later
years, made progress in this area virtually impossible. The reports from the 1960s and
1970s, indicate how far thinking had developed in the care of these children, but
similar advances were not made in the training or guidance offered to young
Christian Brothers.
64

• Children who are badly fed, badly clothed, cold and lonely cannot thrive in any school
environment. The ‘overcompensation’ mentioned in the 1970 Department of Education
report was never applied in Letterfrack.
• The assertion by some ex-Brothers, that most of the residents in Letterfrack were of
impaired mental capacity, was not borne out by the complainants who attended the
Investigation Committee. They were capable men for the most part who could have
progressed in the right environment. The resentment and regret felt by many of them
at the loss of opportunity were palpable even 50 years later. Teachers tended to
confuse poor education with mental incapacity and that had a negative impact on the
education provided in Letterfrack.
Training and trades

8.648 The Congregation accepted that the level of industrial training provided was not sufficient:
It would be fair to say that the training in the various trades was not really satisfactory for
a number of reasons. Because of the remoteness of the institution, it was almost
impossible to attract trade teachers to work there ... Then many of the trades were not
accessible to boys who had not come through the normal apprenticeship. In addition,
vacancies for the various trades were not readily available in the local area, and Dublin
probably had its own supply of tradesmen. Moreover many of the techniques for the trades
were outdated and consequently did not prepare the young people adequately to enter
into a trade ... and finally, in response to the criticism that the workshops and the farm
did not give adequate instruction in the trade as well as giving practical experience, it
should be stated that the normal practice in the training of any trade was to have the
young people do the most simple of tasks initially and then to learn by “doing the job”.
8.649 It continued:
By far the largest percentage of the boys who over 14 years of age, worked on the farm,
seasonally augmented after school hours by a large number of senior school boys ... The
reason given for this labour intensiveness was the nature of the land (mostly mountain),
which is poor and can be tilled only with the spade ... in a report on the occupational
training provided ... it was pointed out that farming was “the most natural and suitable
employment for the boys”... The Report expressed disappointment with most of the
residential school farms because they generally failed to teach farm management to the
boys. They did not train the boys in farming but simply considered them as “juvenile
labourers”. It would seem that the reason for this was the lack of people knowledgeable
in the theory of farm management.
8.650 Trades were determined by the needs of the Institution and, for a small minority of boys who were
lucky enough to be employed in an area of the School that offered future job prospects, this was
an undoubted benefit. For example, one ex-resident who was in Letterfrack in the late 1950s
spoke of the valuable experience he got working in the gardens and looking after the glasshouse.
He said it opened up a ‘terrific kind of a job for me’. He had great freedom and he loved the work.
Later on, he was put on the poultry farm with Br Dax. He said he learned everything to do with
poultry farming, he liked it and he was good at it because he was interested in it.
8.651 Gardening could have provided a reasonable prospect of work for trained boys but, because
the Institution only needed one or two gardeners, that is all that were trained. only that number
received training.
8.652 Another complainant, who was resident from the late 1940s to the mid-1950s, said he worked in
the bakery for a year or so and, following his discharge, he finished up working in a bakery in a
neighbouring county. He said he got a basic grounding in the bakery and that jobs were arranged
for him by the Brothers.
8.653 There were no more than three or four boys working in the bakery and this number was even
further reduced in the 1960s. The bakery was run by an ex-pupil who would not have been in a
position to offer any real training to the boys outside of the basic bread-making. Here again was
a missed opportunity. Baking was a skill that could have ensured employment, but only those
boys needed to serve the needs of the Institution worked in this area, and even they did not
receive proper training.
8.654 The tailors did little more than make and repair the boys’ clothing. One ex-pupil from the early
1960s said he was in the tailor shop and learned how to use a needle and thread, but he did not
feel he learned tailoring to the extent that he could consider it as a career option. He said he was
removed from tailoring as he was not considered good enough.
8.655 Visitation Reports from the 1940s and 1950s made it clear that trades were expected to pay their
way or to make a profit for the School. In 1947, the Visitor was critical of the fact that the tailor
and shoemaker did little else than meet the necessities of the School. He noted that there was
very good work being done in the various departments. He noted that the bread that was produced
by the baker was very good, and there was a steady trade carried on with surrounding districts
by the smiths and cartwrights.
8.656 Other potentially valuable trades were carpentry and painting but, again, the needs of the
institution determined the way in which trades were taught and the number of boys engaged
in them.
8.657 Although Visitors commented positively about trades between 1960 and 1964, it was noted that,
by the end of 1964, trades had all but ceased in the School, with the exception of tailoring.
8.658 As mentioned above, In 1962, the Interdepartmental Committee on the Prevention of Crime and
Treatment of Offenders visited the School. The Working Group noted that the boys received some
instruction in carpentry and tailoring from the tradesmen. However, it was noted that there were
no qualified instructors in the School, nor was there any course to prepare the boys to sit for the
Group Certificate of the Vocational Schools. It was highlighted that the main occupational work
carried on by the boys was farming.
The farm
8.659 The farm was an essential part of life in Letterfrack. The Congregation stated:
The land under the care of the Brothers comprised 837 acres, but most of this was poor
land consisting of bog and mountain. Nevertheless on the available 70 acres of arable
ground the Brothers, farm workers and boys worked the land to provide for the needs of
the institution.
8.660 Until 1954, the farm was under the charge of one Brother, Br Aubin, who was consistently praised
for his farming skills by Visitors to the school: ‘a good religious Brother and a capable farmer, a
very useful devoted Brother’. The farm was, however, very labour intensive, and large numbers
of boys were used as workers to keep it going. In 1942, the Visitor remarked that the rough nature
of the ground, that did not allow for the use of a plough, meant that most of the tillage had to be
done by spade. It was a significant source of income to the Institution and it provided the basic
food requirements of the entire establishment. Even with the large numbers of boys assigned to
the farm, it was hard, gruelling work. Full-time workers were assigned to the farm from 14 years
of age, but all the children were engaged on a part-time basis after school and during holidays
and weekends. Turf-cutting, sea-weed harvesting and saving the hay were some of the jobs
undertaken by the younger children.
8.661 One complainant described how a field of hay was raked by hand by up to 50 boys who worked
in a line the length of the field. He also described crushing the silage in the winter:
they would fill it up and it went right up to the top, but it had to keep getting crushed ...
any day it was raining, they would put us all in there walking around like that, (indicating)
dancing, jumping on it and all that, and then go around and around and they would get it
down a certain amount of inches every day until eventually they couldn’t get anymore
into it’.
8.662 In 1944, the Visitor noted that Br Aubin had 40 of the bigger boys under his control at farm work.
The Visitor criticised the fact that Br Aubin was frequently not with the boys when they were out
working and they were left with a workman whose suitability for such a charge was very doubtful.
8.663 In 1950, the Visitor commented on the large number of boys (46) on the farm, noting the ‘large
number compared with the number in the establishment. As all the work is spade work, that
number is required’.
8.664 The Interdepartmental Committee reported that the main occupational work carried on by the boys
was farming. It stated that ‘a fully qualified instructor should be available to give vocational training
in woodwork and carpentry, particularly to the large number of inmates from town and city areas
who [were] unlikely to seek farm work on discharge’.
8.665 Ex-residents who spoke to the Committee were critical of the work they were required to do on a
daily basis in Letterfrack, and were dismissive of the idea that it could ever be described as
‘training’.
8.666 One former resident present in the late 1960s, when asked whether he learned a trade in
Letterfrack, said ‘if you call dragging a bag of turf around a bog or going around stamping silage’.
8.667 Another resident from the late 1960s said that he did not learn a trade, he spent his time either
darning socks or working in the fields and bogs. He said his work on the farm was all labour,
pulling turnips, planting, digging etc. He was never involved with the cows or the pigs or anything
like that.
8.668 The farm made a healthy profit almost every year, which was paid into the school accounts. It is
not possible to determine how the farm income or profits were calculated or whether the School
received the full benefit of the income generated. It did benefit to a significant extent, however,
and the money from the farm kept the School solvent for much of the 1940s and 1950s.
8.669 Letterfrack was an industrial school and its avowed purpose was to provide industrial training and,
if it was incapable of doing that, its function should have been re-assessed.
8.670 The majority of children were assigned to the farm at some time. The conditions in which the
children worked and the tasks they were expected to perform were far in excess of what could be
described as ‘helping out’ on the farm and could not be described as training. Complainants spoke
of being used as slave-labour on the farm.
Health
8.671 In their Opening Statement for Letterfrack the Christian Brothers stated that the most common
health problems in the School were outbreaks of measles and the ‘flu. There was a nurse
employed and she resided in the infirmary which was located on the hillside above the School.
There was a large proportion of very young boys in Letterfrack until 1954, and they would have
required greater medical care than the boys in senior schools such as Artane.
8.672 The presence of a nurse appears to have ensured a higher standard of care than that available
in other institutions.
8.673 In their Opening Statement the Christian Brothers provided details of deaths that had occurred in
the school from 1940 to 1970. This showed a total of 15 deaths of boys during the relevant period.
A peak occurred in 1941/1942, when seven of these deaths were recorded. The cause of death
was stated to be consumption (tuberculosis) in five of these cases, and tuberculosis and
pneumonia in the other two.
Recreation
8.674 The annals for Letterfrack showed that there was a strong musical tradition in the School
throughout the 1940s and 1950s, which appeared to decline from the mid-1960s. Plays, concerts
and musicals were performed annually and were well attended by the local people. These
performances were also used to raise funds for the School.
8.675 Team games did not appear to have been a significant feature of life in Letterfrack although, from
the late 1950s, there were occasional references to boys entering handball and boxing
competitions.
8.676 A film projector was installed in the school hall in 1948. From that year onwards, films were
shown, although one Visitor expressed reservations at temporarily professed Brothers attending
such performances:
Whatever about the desirability of providing such entertainment for the boys and the
people of the district, I think that the young brothers of T[emporary] P[rofession] should
not be allowed to attend.
8.677 Despite the injunction against interaction with seculars, the local people appeared to be quite an
important part of the life of the School, and attended functions there regularly.
Aftercare
8.678 According to the Opening Statement from the Congregation, when the time came for the boys to
be released, they were either sent to parents or relatives, or to employers in a variety of trades
and occupations. The Congregation submit that the work secured was usually directly related to
the range of trades taught in the Institution.
8.679 1,356 boys were admitted and discharged between 1940 and 1974: 869 were discharged to
relatives, 3 to hospital and 38 absconded; 131 were transferred to other institutions; and the
balance of 318 to employment. Almost one-third of those went as farm workers.
8.680 The Congregation submitted that the provision of aftercare was a continual source of concern to
the Provincial and Resident Managers over the years but, despite the suggestions and solutions
put forward, all foundered on the twin rocks of lack of funding and manpower.
8.681 In its Final Submission the Congregation contended that aftercare, like trades, was another matter
which the complainants did not wish to focus on. They submitted that there was no evidence to
support a finding that the Congregation routinely placed boys in unsuitable or inappropriate
employment.
8.682 The Children Act, 1908 specified that children committed to an industrial school remained up to
the age of 18 under the supervision of the managers of the School. Children who were returned
to parents or relatives no longer remained the responsibility of the Resident Manager. In the case
of Letterfrack, therefore, over a 34-year period, the numbers for whom aftercare was required
were relatively small – they averaged out at between nine and 10 per year. While in Artane and
Glin a Brother undertook the work of visiting former pupils on a regular basis, in Letterfrack the
position appears to have been that the Superior assumed the responsibility for aftercare, as there
was no particular member of staff assigned to this task. The system was that application was
made to the School by tradesmen or farmers who, if deemed suitable, would be assigned a boy
for employment. The School did not actively seek employment for the boys. This would explain
why the vast majority of boys ended up as farm workers, houseboys, or hotel staff. This was
confirmed by ex-staff members in their interviews with Mr Bernard Dunleavy, who identified the
lack of a dedicated staff member to look after past pupils as a serious flaw in the system.
8.683 The Congregation acknowledged that ‘without the allocation of a Brother to look after this aspect
of the Institution’s duties, Letterfrack could not have been as effective in this area as other
schools were’.
8.684 • The boys of Letterfrack were especially vulnerable because they had been uprooted
from their backgrounds and had spent years in a remote, inhospitable part of Ireland.
Many were then returned to a city environment and were left without any support to
help them make the adjustment.
Emotional abuse
Position of the Congregation

8.685 The Congregation accepted that, for much of its existence, the School failed to cater for the
emotional development of the child:
They (the staff) were doing their best, thinking that this is the best, and in fact it says often
there, they did the best they could under the circumstances but didn’t realise all the
emotional needs that were there at the time and that they couldn’t fulfill them given the
structure.
8.686 The Congregation submits that the emphasis of the School was on the physical care and well-
being of the children. There was little understanding of the emotional impact of residential care
on children, in particular the effect of separation from home and family. Staff did not receive
childcare training. Indeed, the Congregation noted that, for much of the period under review, no
such training was available. It was not until the late 1960s that the emotional needs of the children
began to be understood and catered for. They accepted that the Cussen Report had highlighted
the need for appropriate emotional care in the 1930s. However, they stated that this was
impossible to achieve in Letterfrack. The high pupil-staff ratio and the necessity of maintaining a
high level of discipline to ensure order meant that the individual needs of the children could not
be catered for. However, they stressed that this state of affairs was due to a lack of resources
and, therefore, was the fault of the State not the Congregation.
Physical location
8.687 The physical location of the School was not conducive to ensuring that the emotional needs of
the children were met. In the 1940s and 1950s, travelling to the School was difficult and out of
the financial reach of most of the parents whose children were committed to the school. It was
understandable, therefore, that small children with little understanding of these difficulties could
feel abandoned. One complainant summarised the feeling of isolation well:
The only contact we had was a letter and every letter sent home had to be a good letter.
Every letter that was sent home you had to be having a great time, they were learning
you how to swim, they were learning you how to play football, they were learning you how
to play this. Everything had to be good before you got the letter sent out. If you sent a
wrong letter, that you were after hurting yourself, they would tell you out straight you
wouldn’t be able to send another letter home for two months because you shouldn’t have
put that in the letter.
8.688 Br Francois, who was present in the late 1950s and early 1960s, described it as an isolating,
frightening place with poor facilities for the boys.
8.689 Br Telfour said its location was bleak and isolated, and he felt he was transferred there because
he had missed some of his early morning calls in another school.
8.690 Letterfrack was seen as a tough posting, according to Br Anatole:

... it would be a tough job, a tough station, something you would not particularly choose,
on account of what I have said, that it is isolated.
8.691 Br Dax said that he suffered isolation and loneliness in Letterfrack, and he claimed that this
loneliness was a factor which led to his abuse of the boys.
8.692 Br Iven said he felt isolated from the friends he had made in his training of the previous five years,
and another said he found it a lonely, isolating place:
Then in many ways I suppose that just went with the job, in the sense I was isolated in a
room at the end of the dormitory, away from the Community.
8.693 In his interview with the Christian Brothers that was dealt with above, Br Ruffe described his
reaction on being told that he was being sent to Letterfrack:
Well now, when I went to Letterfrack and don’t mind admitting it and when I was told I
was going to Letterfrack I shed bitter tears because I had paid a passing visit there when
I was on holidays some years previously and when we went into the school that day, the
fact that it was so far away from every place it affected me more I’d say than it would
affect a boy and the fact that when I go in there at all was an upset in itself but I soon got
used to that, after all it was my vocation.
8.694 • The remote location of Letterfrack was a problem from the first days of the Institution
in the 1880s, and it continued to be a problem for the rest of its history. It was identified
in the early 1950s by the Department of Education and District Justices, when they
cited it as the primary reason against turning Letterfrack into a reformatory-type
institution. The Congregation, on the other hand, saw the remoteness and distance as
advantages in dealing with so-called ‘delinquents’, because it removed the boys from
what they saw as corrupting influences. The importance of family contact was not
considered.
Parental contact and applications for early discharge

8.695 The parent or guardian of a child detained in an industrial school had the right to apply to the
Minister for Education for the release of the child pursuant to Section 69(3) of the Children Act,
1908 which allowed the Minister to exercise his discretion to release a child or young person
committed. Pursuant to the Children (Amendment) Act, 1957 the position with regard to children
who were non-offenders or those committed for non-attendance at school was different, in that
the release was mandatory if the Minister was satisfied that the circumstances which led to the
committal had changed or ceased and the parents were able to support the child.
8.696 An examination of the records of the Department of Education reveals that, invariably, applications
for early release were initiated by the parents, very often through the offices of a local public
representative. There does not appear to have been a system whereby a child’s case or sentence
was automatically reviewed to establish if any of the criteria for an early release were present.65
8.697 Once a letter from a parent or public representative was received, the Department wrote to the
School and sought observations on the character and ability of the child, together with his
proficiency in education and trade (if any). The local Gardaı́/ISPCC were contacted, and their
recommendation was sought as to the financial and other family circumstances, including an
assessment of the suitability of the parent/guardian to have custody of the child.
8.698 There are no records concerning application for early release prior to the late 1950s in the
Letterfrack discovery from the Department of Education.
8.699 A number of examples from the Departmental records illustrated the factors that were taken into
consideration by the Department in deciding whether or not to release the child:
Keeping the family together

8.700 The mother of a boy committed to Letterfrack for three and a half years for housebreaking applied
for his early release six months into his sentence, as the family had emigrated to the UK. The
school was not in favour on the grounds that the boy was getting on well in school and trade. The
Department sought a reference from the police in the UK, who were satisfied that the family were
in a financial position to support the boy and had not come to the notice of the police. The
Department official, in coming to his decision, noted that, although the family had failed to exercise
parental control in the past and despite the view of the School:
the emigration of the family to England is an important factor in this case and, lest the
boy should feel he had been abandoned, perhaps it would be better to release him from
detention and such action is recommended for the Minister’s consideration.
8.701 The boy was released.
The suitability of the parents

8.702 The mother of a boy sentenced to two years in Letterfrack made representations through her local
TD to have her son allowed home for Christmas and also sought a remission of his sentence.
The boy had served two months when the application was made. The Garda report stated that,
although the financial circumstances were adequate and the father was of good character, the
mother was deemed unsuitable as she frequented pubs late at night and two of her other children
were in detention for criminal activity. The School reported that he was progressing well at school,
had settled and they did not recommend his release ‘at present’.
8.703 The application was refused.
Proximity of the School to home

8.704 The parents of a boy detained in Letterfrack from 1970 to 1974 approached a number of public
representatives one month after his detention to request their son be transferred to a school
nearer his home. The School was not in favour and stated he had settled down and it would
disrupt his education to transfer him. The Manager offered to facilitate a visit by the parents by
bringing the boy to Galway.
65
Gateways Chapter 3 goes into this in detail.

8.705 One year later, the parents made further representations and the School was contacted to assess
whether there was a change in circumstances. The Manager stated that he had no objection to a
transfer to Ferryhouse if there was a vacancy there. The authorities in Ferryhouse were
approached by the Department and they refused to take the transfer.
8.706 The boy was not allowed home that summer, as he had failed to return on two previous occasions
and a Brother from Letterfrack had had to be sent to fetch him.
8.707 The parents persisted and, in late 1971, they again sought a transfer for the boy. The parents
were informed that they could now avail of a free travel scheme to see their son more regularly.
This, however, did not prove helpful, as the journey to Letterfrack could not be achieved in a
single day.
8.708 In 1972, the parents again approached the Department who asked the School to allow him home
on supervision. This was rejected by the School Manager who was ‘certain the release of this boy
would not be for his good’. A Garda report in mid-1972 stated that the family had a nice
comfortable home and could afford to maintain and support their son, although it did not
recommend his release due to the failure by the father to exercise control of his son in the past.
The boy was allowed home for a month’s holiday in 1972.
8.709 In 1973, the mother again wrote to the Minister, complaining about the length of time her son was
incarcerated and his punishment for not returning to the School following his earlier holidays:
... I think it a bit much revenge to take on a child, after all Mr. Minister you will agree with
me the way I feel about by poor child locked away for so long and others can hold up
banks and kill all before them and get away with it.
8.710 She pleaded for his release and stated she was in a position to get him a job locally and wanted
him home for Christmas.
8.711 Towards the end of 1973, the Resident Manager of the School stated that the boy was strong,
sturdy and willing to work and was a most satisfactory pupil. He recommended that the boy be
released to work with a responsible adult. The 1973 Garda report was not favourable, stating that
the family home was overcrowded and in the opinion of the Garda ‘the boy would be better off
physically at Letterfrack, of course the psychological aspect is another matter. It is only natural for
the mother to want all the family around her for Xmas’.
8.712 The boy was allowed home for Christmas but was not released until a further letter was sent in
early 1974 by his mother to say she had a job waiting for him and wanted his release. The job
offer checked out and the boy was finally released in March 1974, four months prior to his due
date of discharge.
The age of the child, a first offence

8.713 In 1962, a 10-year-old boy was committed to Letterfrack until his 16th birthday for stealing a purse
from a parked car. He gave the purse and its contents to his mother. She received a three-month
suspended sentence. It was the child’s first offence. Solicitors for the child and his father lodged
an appeal against the severity of the sentence, and the boy was released pending the hearing of
the appeal in mid-1962. The appeal was not successful and, in 1963, the boy’s father wrote a
number of letters to public representatives explaining why the appeal had failed. It appeared that,
during the time when he was at home pending appeal, he was playing football with some friends
and the ball went into a neighbour’s garden, who reported the matter to the police and the boy
was implicated in this incident. When the matter came before the court on appeal, the Garda
Sergeant told the court that they had received a complaint but did not tell the Judge the nature of
the complaint. In his letter to Mr Haughey, the Minister for Education, the father explained why he
wanted his son home:
I should think that after 6 years he will be a complete stranger in the family, as the rest
of his brothers and sisters will probably have gone away from home to some employment,
what chance has he of becoming acquainted with them ... I give you a guarantee he will
never get into any kind of trouble again, as that 12 months has learned him a lesson, it
would mean a lot to me if he were released, it is for his mothers sake I took the opportunity
of writing to you, as she is constantly crying and talking about him, it grieves me so much
to see her in such a state for the past 12 months.
8.714 The application was refused by the Department on the grounds that parental control in the family
was poor, as manifested by the boy in question and by two other members of the family. It was
felt that the mother had given a poor example in the past, and the boy’s school attendance was
only fair. He was making good progress with his studies in Letterfrack and it would not be in his
best interests to release him.
8.715 The father wrote to the President of Ireland in September 1963, pleading with him to have his son
released. He stated that the boy had developed psoriasis from worry and anxiety that had required
hospitalisation. He stated that the boy was medically fit going to Letterfrack and ‘as God forgave
us all our transgressions why should there not be forgiveness for a child’. The letter was passed
to the Department of Education by the Office of the President. The boy remained in Letterfrack.
8.716 Three years later, in 1966, his mother wrote to the Minister for Education, stating that her son had
now served four and a half years of a six-year sentence and requested his release so that he
could assist his father in his newly started timber business.
8.717 The School report recommended his release on a supervision certificate.
8.718 A Garda report was sought, which stated that the family were in poor circumstances and the father
and mother were not suitable persons to be entrusted with the custody of their son. The
Department official reviewing the case stated:
In the boy’s favour it must be said that he was committed for his first offence, he was only
10 years of age at committal, has spent 412 years in the school and his conduct there has
been satisfactory. He has completed the primary school programme. Even though his
parents are not to be recommended I think it would be only fair to the boy to let him take
his chance and release him.
8.719 A more senior official recommended to the Secretary of the Department that the mother be
informed that, if she could get him a job other than working with his father, they would be prepared
to discharge him, having stated that:
this boy has undoubtedly been detained too long for a single offence. In addition he is
evidently of good intelligence and well conducted.
8.720 It took his mother another eight months to get him a suitable job and, following another letter of
representation, he was released in December 1967, three months before his due date in 1968.
Change in family circumstances

8.721 A boy was sentenced to three years in Letterfrack in 1963. He was only five years old when his
mother died, and he was taken to reside with his grandmother who was too old to care for him.
As a result, he fell into bad company and was convicted of stealing from a local grocery shop. His
father subsequently remarried and made representations to his local TD to secure his son’s
release, as he had a promise of a job for the boy aboard an Irish Flag Ship. The School reported
his conduct was good but he was frail and not suitable for a seafaring life. The Garda report was
favourable, and the Department decided to release him, with the comment regarding his health
that ‘such a life might improve his health’.
8.722 • It is clear from the Department of Education files that parents initiated the efforts to
secure release of their children. Once this process started, there was a system in place
whereby reports were sought by the Department from the School and the Gardaı́. No
particular weight was attached to any report, and the Department occasionally
overrode the views of both the School and the Gardaı́.
• Children whose parents did not take steps to have them released do not appear to
have been considered for discharge, as there is no evidence from the files that cases
were reviewed by the Department other than in the manner outlined above.
• The fundamental unfairness of incarcerating a child for six years or more was never
addressed by the Department of Education or by the Congregation. Applications by
parents were dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and those children whose parents
did not take this initiative were left to serve out their full sentence without remission.
• If this was a child-centred service, there would have been on-going assessment by
the Resident Manager as to whether the child’s best interests were being served by
continuing in the school. No such assessment took place.
Climate of fear
8.723 The climate of fear has been described earlier in this chapter, in the context of punishment and
bed-wetting, but it also had consequences for the emotional well-being of the children.
8.724 It was well illustrated by a number of the former residents. One resident present in the late 1950s
and early 1960s said:
From the time you went into that you lived in fear, you were just constantly terrified. You
lived in fear all the time in that school, you didn’t know when you were going to get it,
what Brother was going to give it to you, you just lived in fear in that school.
8.725 Another former resident described the sense of fear:

What happened was when I went down there first I was a nervous wreck, as any child
would be. You are going down here and I have never experienced a regime like it that
was going on in the place. It was awful, it was very very cold, it was very very lonely, but
the worst thing about it all, it was so scary.
8.726 This sense of fear was often heightened by the manner in which punishment could be deferred
by the Brothers. One resident present in the late 1960s described it as follows:
I think one of the worst things in a sense, in one way it would be as well if they were to
give you a beating and get it over there and then, but you had the thing of various times,
“I’ll see you after” ... Sometimes they would leave this for days and you think they were
after forgetting and then they would pounce on you.
8.727 Another complainant present in the late 1950s remembered one particular Brother who often
deferred punishment:
Br Noreis was his own judge, jury and executioner. His favourite thing would be “I will see
you later”. Sometimes you were lucky and he meant shortly later and it was over and
done with, sometimes you were unlucky and it could be a week later and during that week
you walked around terrified you never knew when that – well, for want of a better word,
when the hand was going to come down and grab you, then you were brought into the
library ... we were in a home where the children there were put in for various reasons,
criminal or because they had no one to look after then. We got sent there to be educated
and looked after, fed nourished, I won’t say loved, but looked after; we got none of that.
8.728 Violence was a feature of life and was reflected in bullying. This ranged from schoolyard bullying
to bullying at meal times and, at the extreme end of the spectrum, peer sexual abuse. One resident
from the late 1960s described the bullying:
... you had to fight for survival because there was a lot of bullying and a lot of stuff going
on. You had to be on your guard all the time because there was bigger kids and stronger
kids, different kids and different types. Rough kids and bad kids; there was all different
types.
Yes, it was dog eat dog. It was survival, you had to do everything to survive, you know.
You had to fight, scratch, you had to do everything for survival. There was no love or
affection or caring from anyone, you know. And there was no one to talk to, you just had
to form your own way of survival.
8.729 Another resident from the early 1960s told the Investigation Committee:
when I got down to Letterfrack, needless to say, I was very very scared. Now I am not
going to ... I am no angel, never have been, I was a scamp, if you like on the streets at
the time, so my father always called it to me anyway, black sheep of the family, but I know
in my heart and soul this is not about what I had done. It was the way I was treated in
there and I was treated awful, I was starved, I was in rags. I felt I was bullied from the
moment I went down until a couple of months, or a couple of weeks before I went out.
8.730 There was a lot of bullying over food. For many years the system of food allocation was that a
number of boys would be seated at each table. Food would be delivered to the table, and the
boys themselves would divide it up. This had the unfortunate consequence that younger, smaller
or more inexperienced boys received less than other boys. One former resident from the early
1960s described his experiences in this regard as follows:
Well, you will always get a bully like, even to this day and age you will always have a
bully in school. You will always have one boy that would be that bit more dominant over
certain young fellows. You’d get a certain thing on your plate, a hard boiled egg might be
on your plate or vice versa, that was a luxury to get a hard boiled egg and he would just
take it off you, something like that.
8.731 Two Brothers, Brs Dondre and Karel, who were present in the early 1970s, told the Investigation
Committee that there was a lot of bullying by bigger boys on the younger boys during their time
in Letterfrack.
Other factors contributing to emotional abuse

8.732 The remoteness of the School, the high pupil-staff ratio, the failure of Managers and staff to care
for the individual needs of the children, the high levels of discipline and punishment as well as the
consequent atmosphere of fear meant that Letterfrack was for many children a very lonely place.
Despite all the hustle and bustle, many boys lived in fear, both of staff and each other. This meant
that they were reluctant to form close friendships out of fear of being seen as weak or giving
another boy a hold over them. A recurring theme in the evidence was this lack of friendships. A
number of individuals told how they carried this fear of forming personal attachments with them
into adult life.
8.733 One former resident stated, ‘I have no male friends in the world, I am frightened of them – what
do they want off me?’
8.734 As already stated, a number of Brothers were unhappy and isolated in Letterfrack. The burden of
work fell on the shoulders of a few, and this had its own implications for how they treated the
children. Some former residents described how some members of staff were kind to them at times
but the mood could change in an instant. One former resident described this as follows:
When they took the humour, they would show you, what do you call it, an act of kindness
and you got kind of swallowed by this in some ways and you thought – you could get the
off day like Telfour or Curtis would show you some act of kindness and next of all they
just turn. There was a lot of Jeckyl and Hyde with them.
8.735 Another former resident made a similar point:

Some of them they would like you one minute and you would be getting on, and the next
minute, they would just bring you down. You put a curtain up in front of them.
8.736 Br Dondre described how younger boys could cling to him for protection. However, this natural
yearning for love and attention was something that was taken advantage of by a number of sexual
abusers. One such acknowledged abuser (Br Anatole) testified that he viewed his relationship
with one of his victims as one of affection and closeness.
8.737 This Brother was not alone in using these tactics. One complainant who had been abused by Br
Jean said that this Brother took advantage of his need for love and attention in order to buy
his silence:
He was kind to me in that way, but it was sweets and a toy at the time I thought was kind
to me but he must have been just softening me up for his own benefits. As I get older, I
was innocent and I didn’t know if everybody had toys or not. Some of the boys I suppose
had more toys.
8.738 Another former resident told a similar story. He described how Br Curtis was nice to him and how
he welcomed the attention. However, Br Curtis went on to sexually abuse him:
But Br Curtis, on many occasions, I didn’t know at the beginning – and I welcomed a little
bit of attention, because as I sort of outlined, you know, I had been taken away from
home, and Br Curtis, I didn’t realise that it was wrong, what he was doing.
8.739 • The boys lived in a hostile environment isolated from their families, and often faced
bullying and sexual abuse by their peers. The Brothers, far from offering protection,
added to the fear by being punitive figures who were remote and unapproachable. One
Brother described little boys following him in the playground, because proximity to
him provided the sole deterrent to bullies.
• Brothers had to be both teachers and warders. Most Brothers had little respect for
boys in their care, which was particularly evident in the way punishments were
administered, and also in some of the more cruel punishments that were calculated to
cause humiliation as well as pain.
• The Congregation did not accept that there was an ‘atmosphere of fear’ within
Letterfrack during the relevant period. It has, however, accepted that there were
physical and sexual abusers present in the School for significant periods of the years
under review. In addition, a number of individual respondent witnesses have accepted
that they administered discipline in an excessive and capricious manner. It is
impossible to deny the impact that cruel punishments would have had on bystanders.
Into this mix may be put the prevalence of bullying and peer sexual abuse in the
Institution. It is difficult to see how any conclusion could be reached other than that
there was a climate of fear in the school.
• The School was run on the harshest of lines because it was deemed appropriate for
the kind of children sent there, yet the Congregation concede that Letterfrack was
particularly harsh in the 1940s when the children were mostly orphans, abandoned
or neglected.

General conclusions
8.740 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.

Chapter 9
St Joseph’s Industrial School, Tralee

(‘Tralee’), 1862–1970
Introduction
History of the School

9.01 St Joseph’s Industrial School, Tralee, was situated on the road to Ardfert on the western outskirts
of Tralee town.
9.02 In May 1859, John Mulchinock, a Tralee draper, gave six acres of land to the Christian Brothers
for the establishment of a boys’ national school. The building commenced immediately at a cost
of £4,500, paid for by Mr Mulchinock. It was opened on 28th April 1862, with 160 day pupils and
two teaching Brothers.
9.03 In 1870, the parish priest, Dean Mawe, asked the Superior at that time, Br Vincent Hayes, to open
an industrial school in Tralee, and it was decided to build it on the site of the existing national
school. To make way for the industrial school pupils, the two classes from the day school were
transferred to the Christian Brothers’ School in Edward Street, Tralee. A building programme, part-
funded by public contribution, was then undertaken to provide additional accommodation. A further
34 acres of land were acquired, and the School was subsequently certified for 100 pupils.
9.04 Within a year, in March 1871, that number had been increased to an accommodation limit of 150
and a certified limit of 145. A series of land acquisitions throughout the late nineteenth century
and early twentieth century, culminating in the purchase of 16 acres in 1951, increased the size
of the land available to 76 acres. A Visitation Report for 1970 recorded that, of the total 76 acres,
9 acres were Diocesan property and the remaining 67 were Congregation property. The buildings
stood on the Diocesan property. The property was sold by the Christian Brothers to the Urban
Council for what it was hoped was a ‘realistic price’, apart from 15 acres which were retained as
playing pitches for the Green Secondary School.
Discovered documents and Investigation Committee hearings

9.05 The Investigation Committee obtained discovery of documents from the Christian Brothers, the
Department of Education and Science, the Archdiocese of Kerry, An Garda Sı́ochána, and the
Health Service Executive (Southern Area). In addition, former members of staff and former
residents furnished documentation and statements.
9.06 In preparation for the hearings, the Committee sent letters to 42 former residents listed on its
database as having been resident in Tralee and wishing to proceed with their complaint as of
September 2005. Of those, seven confirmed that they were not proceeding with their complaint,
and replies were not received from a further 14 former residents.
9.07 The Investigation Committee heard evidence in three phases. In Phase I, which took place in
public in January 2006, the Congregation of Christian Brothers outlined their submissions in
respect of St Joseph’s, Tralee. In Phase II, the Committee heard the evidence of 15 former
residents and eight former members of staff. 21 complainants were listed for hearing, of whom
six did not attend. The 15 hearings took place in private over five weeks. In Phase III, in May 2006,
the Congregation gave its response to the evidence heard in the second phase. The Congregation
furnished a final written Submission to the Committee in March 2007.
Photograph
9.08 The Committee has received the following photograph of Tralee:
Source: Congregation of Christian Brothers
Numbers in the School

9.09 During the years 1940 to 1969, the numbers in the School varied between a high of 152 in
1942 and a low of 35 in late 1969 when the School was closing. In 1968, the School had 94
pupils enrolled.
9.10 In 1944, in response to a request by the Department of Justice (via the Department of Education),
the Resident Manager followed up an earlier request of 1941 by writing to the Department of
Education confirming his willingness to have the school registered as a place of detention for
youthful offenders. He agreed to accept eight boys without an increase in certification, and the
Department subsequently confirmed this.
9.11 The problem of falling numbers remained and, as early as 1955, the Visitor discussed the
uncertain future of industrial schools such as Tralee. The follow-up letter to the Visitation Report
noted that the boys’ apartments needed a ‘bit of a clean up’, but added that it was hard to ‘forecast
the future for such schools’.
9.12 The decrease in the numbers of children being committed to industrial schools was referred to in
what appears to be an addendum to the 1961 Visitation Report:
The numbers in St. Joseph’s, Tralee, are at present quite adequate for the economic
running of the establishment. This is due to [the Resident Manager], it is said, who secured
some thirty pupils from St. Philomena’s Home Stillorgan for Tralee when that school
closed down last year ... Both Glin and Tralee it seems, depend chiefly now on the junior
Industrial School in Killarney for their supply. Local Councils and Boards of Assistance
send a small number of cases each year. The number of children committed to these
schools by the District Justices is said to be declining. Both District Justice in the Limerick
and Kerry area are said to be antagonistic towards Industrial School education. Fosterage,
boarding-out and adoption are now considered preferable as the children are not
segregated from society and it is said that pupils from Industrial Schools find it difficult to
adjust themselves to ordinary life. Neither Superior would agree that this is the case and
they have statistics to prove it.
Both Superiors are of the opinion that heavy financial loss will be sustained if an
amalgamation scheme is not prepared and effected at the beginning of the school year
1962–63 ...
Unless there is a change of policy on the part of District Justices and social workers it
seems that the future of our Industrial Schools is rather uncertain.
9.13 The Resident Manager expressed his concern about the falling numbers to the Department of
Education Inspector, Dr Anna McCabe1, who noted the matter in her reports for 1960, 1961 and
1962.2
9.14 A meeting was held by the Department on 28th September 1965, attended by representatives from
the Rosminian Order that ran the industrial schools at Upton and Ferryhouse, as well as the
Provincials of both the St Helen’s and St Mary’s Provinces of the Christian Brothers. The Minister
made the position clear:
the accommodation available in the schools was greater than the number of pupils and
he wished to know whether the representatives would agree in principle to close some of
the schools and thereby utilise the others more fully.
9.15 The Minister ‘suggested tentatively’ that Ferryhouse, Tralee, Salthill and Glin should be closed.
The two Christian Brother Provincials agreed to the closure of Glin and Tralee, but no clear
decision was made. The debate continued until 1966, when it was agreed that Upton and Glin
would be closed, and Tralee kept open. In August 1966, the Minister signed Orders directing that
10 boys be transferred from Upton and 28 boys be transferred from Glin to Tralee. In fact, Tralee
only stayed open for another three to four years after that, the last group of boys having left by
30th June 1970.3
9.16 Notwithstanding the temporary increase in numbers brought about by these transfers, the numbers
continued to fall. The Kennedy Committee had been established and it was widely anticipated
that it would recommend a gradual closure of industrial schools. A decision was made by the
Provincial Council of St Helen’s Province, to which Tralee belonged, that there would be no further
admissions from August 1968 and that Tralee would close in 1969.
1
Dr Anna McCabe was the Department of Education Inspector for most of the relevant period. See Department of
Education chapter, Vol. IV.
2
The Visitation Report for February 1960 records the total number in the primary school as being 119 and the Visitation
Report for May 1961 gave the total number of boys in Tralee as 130, with 107 boys on the roll in the primary school.
3
The 1969 Visitation Report refers to 35 boys being still in the School, and the Opening Statement says that by 30th
June 1970, the School had closed.

Where the boys came from
9.17 According to the Opening Statement of the Congregation, between 1940 and 1969 the courts
committed 700 boys to Tralee. Between 1948 and 1967, a further 122 boys were referred to
Tralee by the Boards of Health. Of those, approximately two-thirds came from Dublin. A third
‘minimal’ category of boys was those who were placed in the Institution on a voluntary basis and
they were known as ‘voluntaries’.
9.18 These 700 boys were committed because of destitution, homelessness, receiving alms and
wandering. They were also committed because of improper guardianship and non-attendance at
school. Because Tralee was a registered place of detention, a small number of boys were also
sent there for criminal offences, such as larceny, house-breaking and malicious damage.
The daily routine

9.19 Numerous daily timetables for both the boys and the Brothers were set out in the Visitation
Reports. The boys’ day started at 7.00am and ended at 9.00pm, and the daily routine was the
same as in all other industrial schools run by the Christian Brothers. The Saturday programme
allowed some extra time for household chores and showers, distribution of bedclothes and
additional recreation. A film was usually shown in the evening. On Sundays there was a talk from
the chaplain or Resident Manager and a walk or, occasionally, attendance at local matches,
although one Brother said that boys were not as a rule encouraged to attend them.
9.20 The Brothers’ day started earlier, at 6.10am, and ended with Conference and night prayers at
9.20pm.
Resident Managers
9.21 As with other institutions, the Resident Manager affected the overall atmosphere of the Institution.
There were seven Resident Managers in Tralee throughout the period of this inquiry. Five served
for approximately six years, another served for two years, and a further Brother served for a matter
of weeks in the late 1960s. The system of Visitation Reports was used to monitor the performance
of Resident Managers, and the Brothers in the School could give their opinion on his work. The
Visitor appeared not to speak to the boys and, therefore, their experiences and views were not
taken into account.
9.22 In the 1950s, there were two Resident Managers who appeared to take a genuine interest in the
School and who tried to improve conditions there. The first of these, however, was criticised by
‘senior Brothers’ who found him too interfering. The follow-up letter after one Visitation implied
that he should place more reliance on his Brothers and recommended he refrain from interference,
since it ‘may produce much better results’ in the Community. In the late 1950s, a Resident
Manager was appointed who was noted for his kindness to the boys and the Brothers. A Visitation
Report remarked that he was regarded as a ‘kind father and guide’ by the boys and the Brothers.
9.23 By contrast, a Resident Manager who was appointed in the 1960s was clearly unsuited to the
role. This was recognised by the Visitor who came to Tralee six months after his appointment.
That Visitor said that he was somewhat slow mentally and would require the advice and guidance
of an alert senior Brother:
Owing to his deafness, the present Sub-Superior leads a life somewhat apart but is always
ready and willing to help. Nobody else on the present staff would be a good substitute.
9.24 The next Visitor said that the Resident Manager was ‘inclined to remain too much in his office and
it is said that he does not visit the school’. Much of this Resident Manager’s work was left to the
Brothers. The Report stated:
The Superior is kind and considerate with the community but it would seem that more
generosity on his part towards the boys would have a very wholesome effect ... It has
been pointed out to the Superior that it is necessary for him to assert his authority more.
I can see that he has a good deal of office work to do between phone calls and callers
and this perhaps distracts him from what should be his chief concern – the boys.
9.25 Subsequent reports criticise his lack of support of the Brothers and his lack of engagement with
the School. In the final year of his appointment, the Visitor commented:
There would seem to have been a general neglect in the upkeep of the premises and
rightly or wrongly I place this at the responsibility of the Superior ... I have the impression
that the Superior is a lazy man; he has no school work and, as far as I can find out, very
little supervision duty. This puts much extra work on the staff. In short the place has
needed a leader.4
9.26 The Visitor described the School as a ‘most depressing establishment’.
9.27 During the years of this Resident Manager’s tenure, a number of serious allegations came to light
and were poorly handled by him. These are dealt with in more detail later..
9.28 The post of Resident Manager was central to the functioning of the School. Brothers and boys
benefited from a better quality of life under good ones, and conditions deteriorated under those
who were incompetent.
Physical abuse
9.29 In their Opening Statement, the Christian Brothers addressed the question of physical punishment
of the boys. Under the heading ‘Corporal Punishment’ they discussed in general terms its use in
their schools, and under ‘Records of Abuse in St Joseph’s Tralee – Physical Abuse’ they detailed
the cases of documented abuse in their records.
9.30 In the section under ‘Corporal Punishment’ they submitted that the system in use in the primary
school in St Joseph’s, Tralee was the same as that used in all national schools at the time. They
conceded that there were lapses when severe punishment was used, and they cited two examples
from the Visitation Reports, one in the 1940s and one in the 1960s. Apart from these concessions,
however, the Christian Brothers submitted that the corporal punishment administered was
acceptable by the standards of the time. If it was not, they insisted, appropriate action was taken:
Assuredly, there were occasional lapses in the administration of punishment, and the
records show that when a serious breach of standards occurred, the matter was reported
at the annual visitation when the Congregation authority visited the institution and reported
on its functioning. On some occasions, the records show that the Resident Manager of
the day secured the transfer of a brother from the staff of the institution because he, the
Resident Manager, was dissatisfied with the manner in which the particular Brother in
question disciplined the pupils.
9.31 Under the heading ‘Records of Abuse’, the Congregation identified two former members of staff
as documented and acknowledged physical abusers of boys whilst they were in Tralee. Two other
Brothers were ‘instructed to temper their teaching as there had been some reports of severity
about them’. This instruction was given to the Brothers by letter at the same time as the
4
Prior to leaving, the Visitor gave the Resident Manager directions as to certain matters that should be attended to
without delay including cleaning the entrance path and flowerbeds, employing a woman to take over the care of the
laundry, teaching the boys table manners and providing them with washing facilities before dinner and tea time. These
were reiterated in a follow-up letter to the Resident Manager, without the reference to the paths and flowerbeds.

Congregation accepted their application for Final Vows. They were later on the teaching staff of
Tralee but there were ‘no records to show that they did not comply with the advice given them’.
9.32 As a further example of how complaints were dealt with, they cited a case in the late 1960s when
allegations were made that a boy had been severely punished. The Opening Statement further
stated that the Department of Education had taken the case very seriously and, following an
investigation, it had accepted the explanation given on behalf of the Resident Manager.
9.33 Although the Congregation reiterated its apology of 29th March 1998 in its Opening Statement, the
only concessions it made with regard to physical abuse in Tralee were that occasional lapses in
the administration of punishment did occur and that there were five documented cases of severe
punishment in the records. In four out of the five documented cases, the Congregation suggested
that the matters were dealt with appropriately. Only in the case of Br Marceau, dealt with below,
did the Congregation concede that his withdrawal from the School ‘was long overdue when it
occurred’ and ‘the delay in taking firm action casts a shadow over the good work accomplished’
by the Brothers in Tralee.
9.34 All 15 former residents who gave evidence in Phase II made allegations of physical abuse. Some
former members of staff in their evidence admitted that the rules for corporal punishment were
broken in Tralee, either by themselves or by others, and that excessive punishment of children
did occur.
Documented cases of physical abuse: Br Eriq

9.35 Br Eriq was in Tralee in the late 1930s. Three Visitation Reports referred to difficulties with this
Brother. The first Report said that he was ‘an open mouthed man and seems to be lacking in
good sense’. It went on to say he was ‘harsh with the boys’, and that he ‘punishes them in ways
contrary to Rule and has the unhappy knack of setting them against him’. It found him ‘the least
suitable member of the staff’ on account of, amongst other things, his poor handling of the boys
and his severity and his clashes with the older boys.
9.36 Despite the very clear concerns expressed in the first Report about his severity, in a follow-up
letter to the Resident Manager it was recommended that Br Eriq be appointed to a teaching post
and that the services of a lay teacher could be dispensed with. The lay teacher had left before
the next Visitation.
9.37 The next Visitor noted that ‘instances of harsh treatment and severe punishment of boys’ by Br
Eriq had been brought to his attention and that he, along with Br Beaufort, had been warned of
the ‘possible evil consequences to the reputation of the school and to themselves personally of
immoderate punishment of the boys’. Both expressed regret and promised to be ‘more watchful
over themselves in their necessary correction of the boys’.
9.38 The following Visitation Report again singled out Br Eriq for criticism of his excessive use of
punishment:
[He] gives way rather often to outbursts of ill temper and inflicts immoderate corporal on
the dull children in his class. I had abundant evidence that the charge against Br Eriq
is true.
The Superior makes a strong appeal to have [him] changed at some future date and to
get an additional Brother for the staff.
9.39 Br Eriq was subsequently moved in the early 1940s to another school. He served in Artane for a
period of less than a year in the late 1940s. He left in April, not August, which was the usual time
for Brothers to be moved.
9.40 During the course of the Phase I hearing, when asked whether he had any comment to make on
the fact that this Brother was removed for immoderate corporal punishment and was then sent to
another school, Br Seamus Nolan said:
Well, he went to another school with a warning to behave himself and to control that
failure so there was a chance. He didn’t lapse again apparently.
9.41 The Opening Statement stated that the request by the Resident Manager to have Br Eriq removed
was a ‘practiced way of dealing with irregularities but in cases where the fault was a major one
the reason for the transfer was made clear to the perpetrator and was in effect a warning and
punishment for severity in school’.
9.42 One complainant, appearing before the Investigation Committee, said of this man:
Yeah, he would hit you, he would hit you in a temper. He wasn’t a cold, sadistic sort of
man. He would hit you in a temper. He would lash out at you in a temper. But if you met
him the next day he would talk to you quite okay like. What you done with Br Eriq is the
best thing, try and keep out of his way in case he was in a bad mood ... He was just a
hot tempered man from what I could see of him.
9.43 He added that Br Eriq was ‘a bit of hard man...but he wasn’t consistently hard. He could actually
be quite reasonable’.
9.44 In their Statement to the Committee responding to the allegations of this complainant, the Christian
Brothers said that they were in no position to respond to the allegations by the complainant, but
the Brother was ‘known to be over severe in class and was transferred at the end of the school
year at the Superior’s request’.
9.45 • Three Visitation Reports revealed that Br Eriq had failed to heed warnings about
excessive punishments. There was no reason to believe that moving him to another
school would have had any effect on his violent outbursts. A Brother with a known
propensity for violent behaviour should not have been sent to another industrial
school where he could inflict such punishment on other children.
Documented cases of physical abuse: Br Marceau

9.46 Br Marceau was acknowledged by the Christian Brothers as having been ‘in serious difficulty’
regarding excessive corporal punishment before being assigned to Tralee in the early 1960s. He
had had a long history of inflicting excessive corporal punishment and had even received a
Canonical Warning because of it before arriving in Tralee. Although he was not a trained teacher,
he taught in several schools, both day and industrial, between the late 1940s and the late 1960s.
His extraordinary progress from one Christian Brothers’ school to another, despite his severe
problems, was an illuminating one, and can be accurately followed because of the rare amount
of explicit detail and criticism found in the correspondence about him.
9.47 After Br Marceau was professed, his first posting was to a day school in Dublin, where he taught
the infant class for seven years from the late 1940s.
9.48 One Visitation Report for that school noted that he was ‘doing most efficient work’ and without
‘any apparent severity’. When he left this school, the annals noted that he had given ‘wonderful
service to the College having been in charge of the Infant dept. during his period here’.
9.49 He was then transferred to a school in the Midlands. A Visitation Report for that school in the late
1950s gave the first indication of a potential problem about his over-severe use of punishment:
Br Marceau is a most energetic teacher and his pupils have made unusually good
progress, nevertheless, the parents do not seem to have sufficient confidence in him. He
was a little too severe, but he has overcome that difficulty and realises the ill-effects
severity could have in a school of that kind.
9.50 The next Visitor, 10 months later, found further fault with him. He wrote:
The Superior considers him as lacking in common-sense and to be unpredictable. He has
been slack in carrying out directions given by the Superior. In this he does not seem to
act through malice but through lack of understanding ... It is difficult to persuade Br
Marceau that he is at fault in any way. He has, however, promised to do his best to comply
in every way with the Superior’s wishes.
9.51 A letter written in the early 1960s to the Superior followed up these criticisms by offering advice
on how to deal with him:
In the case of Br Marceau we consider that encouragement from time to time will help
him. He feels isolated in the sense that he is not a qualified teacher. He does useful work
but it seems he has not much common-sense. While encouraging him and being kind to
him, which you are, it will be always necessary to be watchful lest he act foolishly. Insist
on his carrying out your directions and curb his tendency to excessive interest in matters
outside the scope of his own duties.
9.52 These criticisms were vague, but the unease about his behaviour, his lack of common sense, his
lack of understanding and his inability to accept that he was at fault, was a persistent theme.
9.53 This advice, however, had been overtaken by events, as the Superior had written to the Provincial
about Br Marceau the previous month and, in this letter, more specific complaints were made.
The letter referred to two complaints by parents about excessive corporal punishment of their
children, and went on to express the belief that the Brother would not change, and therefore
should not be in charge of boys at all. The details contained in the letter were so explicit and
disturbing that it merits being quoted in full:
My v dear Br. Provincial
I regret to have to report to you a case of excessive corporal punishment by Br Marceau.
The mother of one of his pupils, aged 8 years came to me to-day and showed me the
back of the child’s hand with lumps on it caused by a stick. She had already brought him
to the Doctor for a certificate. The Doctor, she said, told her it was not the first case he
had come across of excessive punishment administered by this Brother. The mother also
told me she was awaiting the return of her husband from Dublin, before taking action, I
presume - legal action.
Last year, I had the humiliating experience of seeing the father of another boy, whom Br
Marceau marked, take down his son’s pants in our parlour and show me the weals on the
buttocks and legs. I did not report to you at that time as the father said he would let the
matter end there and through charity, I gave Br Marceau a severe lecture and he promised
me it wouldn’t happen again. On the present occasion, to-day, I have again spoken in no
uncertain manner to the Brother. He told me he was sorry and that it wouldn’t happen
again! I fear this Brother won’t be taught a lesson until he finds himself in Court. I don’t
think he is fit to be in charge of boys at all, much less boys of five to nine years of age.
I shall be grateful if you will advise me on this matter.
9.54 The evidence against Br Marceau was mounting. Not just parents but the local doctor had also
come across cases of severe beatings by him. The Provincial’s response was immediate. In a
letter dated the next day, he wrote:
My very dear Br. Superior,
I very much regret the trouble that you are having over Br Marceau. There is little excuse
for treating children as he has done. I sincerely hope that the parents will not bring on a
court case. You must prevent that at all costs. We shall have to deal with this case as it
deserves. This is the third such case that we had to deal with in recent times, and any
one of them could have done very considerable harm to the Congregation if publicised.
Please send Br Marceau here on Friday evening and if in the meantime anything further
transpires you can let us know.
9.55 The main concern expressed was not the severity of the punishment inflicted on the children but
the considerable harm that publicity would do to the Congregation. A court case was an outcome
to be avoided ‘at all costs’.
9.56 The Superior arranged for Br Marceau to report to the Provincial, but also sent the Provincial a
letter the following day to warn him that Br Marceau would try to minimise the whole thing. It
pointed out that Br Marceau had deliberately cut his cane in half to make it appear it was a light
cane, and again reiterated that the Brother ignored instructions and remained a danger to boys.
Again, the detailed nature of the criticism warrants the letter being quoted extensively:
My very dear Br Provincial,
I thank you for your letter received to-day. I shall send Br Marceau on the train, leaving
here at 3pm. He should be in Dublin at 6.30pm. I have not heard anything further from ...
the mother of the boy in question. She told me that her husband ... was in Dublin and
would not be back until Friday. Meanwhile the boy has been kept from School.
I should like to point out that Br Marceau will probably try to minimise the whole thing,
with you. He has always adopted this attitude with me. “I only gave him a tip”. I
consequently insisted on his coming to the parlour on each occasion and seeing the
results of the “tip”. If I didn’t, he would say I exaggerated the whole thing. I assure you, I
saw the weals on the body of the Solicitor’s son and now on the hand of [this boy] I
demanded the stick from Br Marceau and when I received it, it had been cut in two. I got
half a stick. I may be wrong in thinking he deliberately cut it to make it appear it was a
light cane. Finally, Br Marceau has not much sense or judgment and is capable of doing
the most foolish things. As I stated in my last letter, he is a danger to boys. He will tell
you he is sorry as he told me, but it happens “again”. Br Cheyne (ex novice master) told
me of another case of a boy here in [name of town] who was severely punished by Br
Marceau. He asked me not to say anything to Br Marceau about it but warned me to be
careful in watching Br Marceau in this respect. I have forbidden Br Marceau on more than
one occasion, to use a stick or leather. He ignores my directions completely.
9.57 The Provincial saw Br Marceau and informed the Superior of the precise outcome in his letter:
My very dear Br. Superior,
We had Br Marceau before the Council this morning, and we have given him a Canonical
warning in writing which is a very serious thing for him but there was nothing else that
would be of any use and that the position had become serious. We explored every avenue
to see if we could transfer him somewhere else but we just did not find it possible as he
has no qualification for the ordinary schools and we had upset the others so much.
Waterpark was a possibility but on account of the precarious position there in finance and
in numbers we could not risk putting him in charge of the young children there just now.
I expect however that he will do well with you now as he has been made to fully realise
the seriousness of his position. I hope that the matter will end without court proceedings.
If you can, get the child back to school.
9.58 Despite warnings that the Brother would not change or heed advice, the Provincial was willing to
put the young children of the School at risk again by keeping the Brother there.
9.59 The Christian Brothers no longer have a copy of the Canonical Warning issued to this Brother,
but its ineffectiveness soon became apparent. Less than nine months after the Canonical Warning,
the Superior had to report further transgression. He wrote to the Brother Consultor:
My v dear Brother Consultor,
Br Marceau is again in trouble. Last night, a [parent] called on me. He charged Br Marceau
with pulling hair out of his son’s head. I brought Br Marceau to see the son and hear the
charge. Br Marceau denied it and [the parent] called him a “liar”, and said he believes his
son, who on being questioned would not admit the Brother did it until he was assured
there would be no fear of consequences on telling the truth! [The parent] said on leaving,
he would take his own action next time it happened – he would not go to the Superior or
[text illegible] into Br Marceau’s room and deal with him, not with “Kid gloves” either.
I intended investigating this matter to-day (Sat), but had not time, as Monsignor O’Byrne
called in. I am inclined to believe [the parent]. I may be wrong, of course. Anyway Br
Marceau told me to-day the two ... boys in his class should be put out until such time as
their father apologises! I had reason a month or so ago to talk to Br Marceau on another
matter and he accused me rather passionately of exaggerating things last year to you
and the Br Provincial. In all, he is the “innocent” one, and we are all against him. He
believes this and though he has zeal and works hard, he has no common sense.
I mentioned some time ago when writing you, that I have still to face angry parents and
submit to insults. I am not going to interview another parent who comes to complain about
Br Marceau. I am sick and tired of it all. Please do not write to him on the matter. He will
deny everything. And I shall appear a “greater” enemy in his eyes.
9.60 There is a note of despair in the letter. The Superior’s many pleas for action to be taken had come
to nothing and now Br Marceau was shifting the blame onto him. His apparent helplessness is
puzzling: faced with continued violence against his pupils, he seemed to have no power to do
anything but complain. It seemed he did not even have the power to suspend Br Marceau.
9.61 He had also seen a young boy too frightened to blame Br Marceau for fear of punishment for
telling the truth, yet his major concern was not for the boy. His letter was above all about his own
dilemma of how to cope with Br Marceau and other potentially irate parents.
9.62 The Brother Consultor’s reply was also despondent and gave no expectation of prompt action.
He wrote:
My very dear Brother Superior,
We are indeed sorry to learn that Br Marceau has occasioned more trouble for you. At
your request, I shall not write to Br Marceau about the matter for the present. You are
requested, however, to try to get, if possible, the correct version of the incident that caused
the complaint. The matter can then be raised at Visitation time or before then if necessary.
9.63 Unable to deal with Br Marceau, the Superior’s one hope was to get the Visitor to take action. By
return of post, he protested that he had already got the truth of the matter, and he gave further
details. He went on to implore the Brother Consultor to remove Br Marceau from the School:
My v. dear Brother Consultor,
I thank you for your letter received to-day. I was indeed sorry to have to write you again
about Br Marceau, but I could not help it. He will never learn his lesson. I interviewed this
young boy ... aged nine, today. He states Br Marceau pulled hair out of his head, for doing
the wrong sums. I asked him about other boys probably seeing it and he said that they
may have. I don’t want to question other boys in Br Marceau’s class. I asked this young
boy too if he was asked since Friday – the day it happened, about the matter. He told me
Br Marceau said that he [the boy] was telling lies and he admitted it, but it was true that
Br Marceau pulled his hair out, as he did in June, when his mother complained. Why
should this boy make up the story or why should his father come here in such a violent
temper? Br Marceau still maintains he did not pull his hair out, and wants me to take some
action against the father of the boy for his “threats”! Incidentally, I warned Br Marceau not
to talk to the boy about the incident and yet I have it from the boy as also from Br Marceau
that he questioned him again yesterday. After this incident of punishing last year, the then
Br. Provincial wrote me that he contemplated sending Br Marceau to Waterpark but there
were difficulties. In view of the past history; I expected Br Marceau would be transferred
in Summer. I wrote you on this matter since Summer. Believe me, there is nothing
personal in this. I am writing in the interests of the School, as well as in Br Marceau’s
interest. He would not make a good impression if there was a Court Case. I have forbidden
Br Marceau to use a leather and it possible he is using his hands now. I heard him at
times shouting at these unfortunate children. He has done a lot of harm to the School by
his severity. He really is not responsible; for, his IQ is that of a young child.
In conclusion; this is the fourth complaint and I hope the last here; but I doubt it. If there
is another, I am not meeting the people concerned. They may go where they like with the
complaint. I suggest transferring Br Marceau at Christmas; it may be easier then. If you
have no Brother, I could try and get a lady teacher. Please do not take me as dictating to
you, but I see no Solution except a transfer. You could ask Br Reymond or any Brother
here about Br Marceau. Br Reymond also agrees with me that this Brother is not
responsible. He is a bit mental. As I stated already, your writing Br Marceau will not help.
He is denying everything; so it is his word against a boy’s. As regards the mark in the
head of [the boy]. I examined it and it is about the size of a sixpenny piece. It is not
noticeable with the rest of the hair pulled over it.
9.64 The letter was unrelenting in its criticism of Br Marceau. The Superior made it clear that the
violence would continue, and that he had seen the physical evidence of the violence – the bald
patch on the boy’s head where the hair had been pulled out. The facts were overwhelming. He
implored that the Brother be speedily transferred. The Brother Consultor’s reply offered no quick
solution:
My very dear Br Superior,
Thanks for your letter re. Br Marceau, received this morning. The whole matter will have
to come before this Council in due time. There are only two here at present, Br Tavin and
myself. Br Marceau did get a canonical warning early in the year and apparently there
has been a recurrence of the fault.
I suggest that for the present you should point out to Br Marceau the seriousness of his
position at present. That may be a restraint on him.
You mentioned his being removed at Christmas. You ought to investigate the possibility
of getting a lady-teacher for the junior classes. Would Miss O’Neill5 be able for that work?
When you learn of a satisfactory solution to the difficulty – without, however, making any
definite arrangement – please communicate with us and there may then be the possibility
of changing Br Marceau.
... I am hoping that you will be able to get a suitable person to look after the young
children. That seems to be the best solution to the trouble.
9.65 The Brother Consultor could not remove a physically abusive teacher without having replacement
staff. This fact suggested the harm and injury being inflicted on young children was secondary to
5

the staffing problem. The dilemma of where to put Br Marceau, to avoid the wrath of parents and
the threat of litigation, was solved when he was moved to an industrial school. Br Marceau was
transferred to Tralee less than two months after the Brother Consultor wrote the above letter.
There was no evidence to suggest that the Superior there was warned about him before he
arrived.
Br Marceau in Tralee
9.66 Within weeks, it became apparent that the move to Tralee made no difference to the behaviour
of Br Marceau. The Visitation Report soon after his arrival stated that Br Marceau did not seem
to be ‘quite normal and would appear to be deteriorating mentally’. He was evidently ‘lacking in
good sense’. This precisely echoed the criticism made several times by his previous school.
9.67 The follow-up letter to the Resident Manager noted that this Brother ‘may perhaps be inclined to
be rather too exacting’ and, accordingly, the Resident Manager would have to ensure that his
‘zeal’ for the children’s progress did not get the better of him. The diplomatic choice of words
reiterated the criticism that the Brother was too strict and would have to be watched to prevent
him doling out excessive punishment to boys for not learning quickly enough.
9.68 Seven months later, Br Marceau was transferred to Glin, where he remained for over a year and
a half, when he was transferred back to Tralee. The reason for the transfer, according to the
Christian Brothers, was a staffing problem. They then suggested that it may have been to assist
an elderly Brother, who also arrived in Glin at the same time. There remains uncertainty about
the matter.
Br Marceau in Glin
9.69 A full account of Br Marceau’s behaviour at Glin is covered in the chapter on that institution Briefly,
he was involved in an incident where a boy called him a ‘Madman’ and, by his own account, he
ended up hitting the boy ‘a few slaps on the hands’. That evening a swelling was noticed on the
boy’s jaw, and he accused Br Marceau of hitting him on the jaw with his fist. An X-ray revealed
the right mandible was cracked. Br Marceau was moved, within a matter of days, back to Tralee.
He did not receive another Canonical Warning. The letter notifying him of his impending move
warned him about his behaviour. It stated that he was wrong to repeatedly question a boy to force
him to reveal the names of other boys who used the nickname ‘Madman’. His disregard for the
Superior’s authority was ‘most reprehensible’. And he had made ‘a mockery of the Superior’s
position of authority in regard to the boys’. The letter continued:
I hope you will do good work in training the poor boys of Tralee and in making their lives
happy. Certainly your supervision must be keen but let it not be too obvious or prying.
Pray for patience to put up with annoyance without losing your temper --- a Christian
Brother who has not trained himself to do that is a failure. And respect the Superior’s
authority.
9.70 It appears that an inquiry was then carried out by the Department of Education into this incident,
as there was a letter sent by Br Marceau denying that he struck the boy in the face and saying
that he had nothing to add to the recent conversation (presumably with a Department official)
in Tralee.
9.71 Br Seamus Nolan confirmed at the Phase I hearing that an inspector had been sent by the
Department of Education to investigate this matter. He also said:
The upshot I think for peace sake he was removed and I think the Department eased off,
they didn’t really press the matter once they felt that he was no longer in that particular
school.
Br Marceau’s return to Tralee
9.72 Br Marceau arrived back in Tralee almost 18 months after having left. There was no indication on
any of the material discovered to the Committee that the Resident Manager in Tralee was told
why Br Marceau was being transferred there. One Visitation Report noted that Br Marceau was
‘doing well at present and the answering of his class in Irish was good’. He was teaching fourth
standard at the time.
9.73 A later Visitation Report, however, expressed concern about him. It mentioned he was not on the
‘official staff’:
[Br Marceau] is a problem and a constant source of worry and anxiety to the Superior. He
has a persecution complex, among others, and is unpredictable. At the moment his chief
preoccupation is trying to recover a set of tools which he believes the Superior has taken
and his enquiries have extended to the men in the Shops. He has several tea chests and
cases of nondescript “property” stored away under lock and key and is constantly adding
to his store. The Superior has a big job in keeping him under surveillance ...
Br Marceau has a class of eleven boys but his stock of visual aids would supply several
classes. I counted seventeen blackboards in his classroom. Most of his charts deal with
Irish – lists of verbs, nouns, etc. – and he maintains that much time is saved. The children
are tense and answer mechanically and are “encouraged” to use the time before class
and other recess periods for learning off these lists and other lessons. He has beaten one
of these boys severely, with the usual “black eye” result and boxed the ears of the
youngest boy in the place, who attends the Convent School, but, as always, he denies
everything when challenged and convinces himself that he is telling the truth. He made a
strong appeal to the Visitor to have the Canonical Warning he received for such an offence
annulled and he has consulted priests about this. It is preying on his mind.
9.74 This Visitation Report contained all the criticisms that the Superior of the school in the Midlands
had made some years before: Br Marceau was using excessive corporal punishment, he was
causing actual bodily harm to the boys, and could not be disciplined as he could see no wrong in
himself. In the follow-up letter to the Resident Manager, he was advised:
It appears that it is still necessary to keep Br Marceau under surveillance and that his
indiscretions are liable to give rise to embarrassing situations ... he must be absolutely
forbidden to punish the children.
9.75 The next year, the Visitor observed that Br Marceau, ‘who has a small class (10), seems to
have steered clear of trouble (corporal punishment) during the year. He is very painstaking in the
preparation of his work but lacks prudence’. He was teaching second and third standards, and
one class in fourth standard.
9.76 Subsequently, however, the problem recurred. The next Visitor found him ‘most devoted’ but he
still criticised his behaviour and his potential for being a ‘danger’. He wrote:
[He] had a few breaks re punishment, not TOO serious, but he is always a potential
danger, and difficult to convince. I have warned of this danger and told him that there is
to be no punishment except in the approved method and that as little as possible. He is
inclined to lose control of himself and then anything could happen.
9.77 Br Seamus Nolan, at the Phase I hearing, commented on this situation:

It was perfectly obvious that there was to be no more of this. He would have told the local
person, the Provincial Superior, that [Br Marceau] would have to be removed from
teaching. In the meantime I think the Provincial Superior already had that power and it
wasn’t exercised unfortunately.
9.78 Contrary to Br Nolan’s interpretation of Br Marceau’s removal, there is no evidence that Br
Marceau was prevented from finishing the academic year as a teacher. At the end of the school
year, the internal national school closed down anyway. He was not removed from the Institution
and still had access to the children for over a year after the Visitation Report mentioned above.
9.79 A later Visitor wrote that Br Marceau was ‘completely useless as an efficient staff member. He is
not teaching and while the boys are at school he is free all day. He cannot be given any
responsibility even in the evening time with the boys’.
9.80 Br Marceau was transferred from Tralee to St Helen’s, Booterstown in the late 1960s. According
to the Christian Brothers, he did not teach again.
9.81 The inadequacy of the Resident Manager appointed to Tralee in the 1960s was discussed above.
He was considered by the Visitors to be lazy, disengaged and mentally slow. Such a man was
clearly unable to protect the children in his care from the unpredictable violence of a man like
Br Marceau.
Attitude of the Christian Brothers to Br Marceau’s excesses and the action taken
9.82 This Brother continued to teach and inflict extreme punishment on boys for 10 years. His behaviour
was severe and excessive and was known at the time to the Leadership of the Congregation.
9.83 The Opening Statement said that the Brother’s ‘withdrawal from a teaching and supervisory
capacity in the school was long overdue when it occurred’. At the Phase I hearing, Br Seamus
Nolan acknowledged that this Brother should not have been sent to Tralee after what happened
in Glin. He could not explain it. He accepted that Br Marceau should have been removed before
leaving the school in the Midlands. At the Phase III hearing, he also acknowledged that it was
‘absolutely indefensible and extremely difficult to understand, impossible to understand how it
[was] allowed to go on for so long’. He claimed the Brother was there ‘essentially as a
supernumerary to help out, not in an official capacity, and maybe the idea was that perhaps some
supervision would be enough for him. But he had also failed on that in other occasions’.
9.84 In short, no explanation could be proffered by the Christian Brothers as to why this individual was
permitted to continue to have control over children in several different schools.
9.85 Br Nolan also stated during the Phase I hearing that he believed that Brothers in Tralee would
have complained about Br Marceau, but that there were no written reports apart from the
Visitation Reports.
9.86 Br Nolan confirmed that transferring a Brother was a mark of disapproval, but he was still unable
to explain the leniency shown towards Br Marceau.
9.87 In their Final Submissions to the Committee, the Christian Brothers accepted that:
• there had been a failing in how the Congregation dealt with this Brother;
• his removal from teaching should have taken place earlier; and
• the response of the Congregation to the problem had been ‘inadequate’, possibly
partially due to the view of Brothers that it was not appropriate for them to interfere
with the work of another Brother.
Evidence of Other Members of Staff

9.88 Four former members of staff at Tralee were asked about Br Marceau in evidence. The first
Brother, Br Bevis, had no comment to make on him. He did not recollect ever seeing him punish
a boy.
9.89 The second Brother, Br Aribert, noted that Br Marceau had problems with the boys. He and the
other Brothers did not agree with Br Marceau’s methods of teaching and punishment. He said he
could be a bit severe at times. He also said that he should have been able to complain to someone
about this Brother, but could not. He accepted that Br Bevis would have had the authority to
discipline Brothers, but that did not seem to happen.
9.90 The third Brother, Br Mahieu, said that Br Marceau would never have been asked to supervise a
dormitory, as he would have caused trouble. In his view, he should never have been a teacher or
put into a teaching situation, ‘He just hadn’t got a clue about controlling kids’. He described Br
Marceau as a religious fanatic who also had difficulty in controlling himself.6 He accepted that Br
Marceau was violent but he did not, however, remember any specific incidents other than
shouting. He said he seemed a little strange.
9.91 A fourth Brother, Br Lisle, said Br Marceau was ‘very, very strict’ and a ‘little bit eccentric’. He had
no time for the pupils at all. He could not, however, say what went on in the classroom because
he was not there. He said Br Marceau thought everyone was against him. He did not remember
a boy with a black eye, but did name the youngest boy in the school, who was four or five at the
time, whose ears were boxed by Br Marceau. He said he never challenged Br Marceau about what
he did because he, Br Lisle, had nothing to do with the school. That was the job of the Principal.
What Br Marceau himself said of his disciplinary methods

9.92 The Christian Brothers at one point sent questionnaires to various Brothers for response. These
dealt with the running of the industrial schools. A questionnaire was sent to Br Marceau, and in it
he said of his disciplinary methods:
You were expected to handle your own discipline problems. I was humane in my treatment
but I also used the lamh laidir.7 I also used competition among the pupils, and rewards.
9.93 He went on to say that he thought that most of the allegations made against the Christian Brothers,
including those made against him, were false.
Oral evidence given by complainants

9.94 Br Marceau was in Tralee for eight months in the early 1960s, and for six and a half years later
that decade. The Investigation Committee heard a number of serious complaints of physical abuse
against this individual. A number of these complainants also alleged sexual abuse against him,
and these are outlined in the section dealing with sexual abuse in Tralee.
9.95 A former resident said he thought Br Marceau was ‘the worst’ of all the Brothers. The boys knew
when to avoid him. His moods could change at any time and he would turn on them both in and
out of the classroom. He recounted an incident when the boys were playing under an alleyway
and Br Marceau swung a hurley at them. The boy in front of him ducked and the hurley hit the
complainant on the back of the head. Bleeding from his nose, he was taken to the nurse to be
cleaned up and then he went to bed. Not long after this incident, he was taken to an ophthalmic
surgeon in Tralee, who put a patch on his good eye, telling him he had a lazy eye. He was
prescribed glasses and put the patch over the good eye but a week later he had to remove the
patch because he could not see with the ‘eye going bad’. The other boys were also laughing at
him. The complainant stated that, years later, an eye specialist told him he had a detached retina,
which he, the complainant, believed had occurred as a result of the blow by Br Marceau.
6
He said that he thought it was probably another Brother (Br Cheney, the Principal at that time) who made the decision
that he was to be kept away from the dormitories but he ‘would totally agree with that’.
7
‘Strong hand’ in Irish.

9.96 He also told a story about a swimming trip where the water was freezing. Nobody wanted to get
into the water but Br Marceau had a ‘set’ against one particular boy and tried to make him get in.
All the boys started to throw small pebbles at the Brother and it caused a riot. The boys all ran
back to Tralee, breaking windows and glass on the way.
9.97 Another witness recalled that a boy had received a package at Little Christmas (6th January) and
the gift inside was a broken cap gun. The boy told Br Marceau it was broken, and he called him
‘an ungrateful wretch’ and gave him a black eye and swollen face.
9.98 Another complainant recalled Br Marceau and one of the boys getting into a fight about the boy
being late for church. That night the complainant saw Br Marceau coming to the dormitory with a
hammer up his sleeve. The next day he saw the boy who had been involved in the fight with Br
Marceau and his face was ‘all swollen, one eye was closed and the other one was only half open’.
The complainant asked the boy what had occurred, and he told him that Br Marceau had hit him
with a hammer.
9.99 This complainant also said that Br Marceau would give the boys in first and second class charts
to learn at night and, if they did not know them in the morning, ‘they were in for a hammering’. He
was in third class next door at the time and would ‘hear all the lads screaming and shouting’. The
second time Br Marceau was in Tralee, two other Brothers (including the school Principal) would
wander through to keep an eye on him and to see he was not giving the young boys a hard time.8
This level of supervision is consistent with the Visitation Reports and the oral evidence of other
Christian Brothers.
9.100 This complainant also referred to Br Marceau’s habit of urinating in the classroom, saying that he
used to have a bucket in the class that he ‘used as a loo’.
9.101 Another witness, who made allegations of being beaten several times by Br Marceau, alleged that
Br Marceau used to lock the classroom door during classes. He was very strict in class:
One minute he was talking to you and the next minute he could turn around and hit you
with something, whatever it was. The nearest thing to his hand, he would hit you with ...
It could be anything. It could be a bunch of keys he had in his pocket. He would take out
the biggest key, which was the key to the classroom door, and he would hit you in the
head with that. Or he would take the duster which had a wooden back, he would throw it
at you. He would bang your head off the wall. Sometimes he would give you the edge of
the ruler down the back of your hand. He would lift the top of the desk, he would put your
fingers in the desk and slam the desk down on top of your fingers ... If you dropped a
pencil while he was doing something he would call you up to the front of the classroom
and he would given you a beating for it because you disturbed him. He was just a violent
tempered man.
9.102 On one occasion in the band room, Br Marceau had one of the older boys on the ground and he
was ‘giving [him] the heel of his boot down on the back of the head’. He said that this Brother
was the type of person who would ‘just turn. He got violent for no reason, he just had a very
bad temper’.
Discovery to the Committee of documentation regarding Br Marceau by the Christian

Brothers
9.103 Given the seriousness of Br Marceau’s history with the Congregation, it was a matter of
considerable concern that significant correspondence was not discovered to the Investigation
Committee until 12th January 2006, two days after the public hearing in respect of this Institution.
8
The two Brothers referred to were Br Mahieu and Br Cheney.

The solicitors for the Christian Brothers explained that this, and other material furnished at the
same time, came to light as a result of further searches of archival material in the possession of
the Congregation and ‘new collections’ being acquired by the archive since the main discovery
had been made. The majority of the letters quoted above and in the Glin chapter regarding the
‘cracked jaw’ incident were not furnished to the Investigation Committee with the original
discovered documents in relation to Tralee or Glin by the Christian Brothers. Although additional
material was uncovered by the Congregation’s archivist and forwarded to their solicitors in
December 2005, the Christian Brothers said:
Unfortunately due to the ongoing hearing of the end of the Artane modules these were
not looked at and their true significance noted by the writer until the 12/01/06. The delay
furnishing these documents is very much regretted.
9.104 The importance of these documents, recording as they do a serious incident of physical abuse
concerning a Brother in an institution that was about to be the subject matter of a public hearing,
should have been apparent..
9.105 • Br Marceau was violent and dangerous and known to be a risk to children, but the
Congregation did nothing to protect them.
• This Brother’s understanding was deficient, he was irresponsible, he was out of
control, he did not respond to warnings or advice, he could not be disciplined, he
was manifestly in denial about his behaviour and he was unqualified to teach. The
Congregation moved this man from one institution to another in disregard of the
interests of the children.
• It was particularly irresponsible to move this Brother to an industrial school, where his
unpredictable and uncontrollable violence was unlikely to lead to parental complaints
or litigation.
• The Congregation said in their Submission, ‘His withdrawal from a teaching and
supervisory capacity in the school was long overdue when it occurred’, but they did
not explain why the full range of sanctions open to them was not used. Despite a
succession of physically abusive incidents that made it clear he was a danger to
children, he was only once given a Canonical Warning, and that was before he began
his periods of teaching in industrial schools.
• The failures of the Congregation led to a great deal of unnecessary suffering and fear
in vulnerable children in their care.
Documented cases of physical abuse: Br Jules

9.106 The letters referred to in the Opening Statement by the Congregation, in which two Brothers were
instructed to ‘temper their teaching’ before taking their Final Vows, were amongst a number of
letters written in the 1930s by the Superior General of the Congregation to newly professed
Brothers who went on to serve in Tralee and other industrial schools throughout the period of
this Investigation.
9.107 These letters were contained in the Rome Documents discovered to the Investigation Committee
in 2004. Three of these letters had also been held in the Irish archives.9
9.108 The first of these letters was written in the mid-1930s. Br Jules was sent a letter congratulating
him on being admitted to perpetual vows. The letter also stated:
9
The letters to Br Sebastien, Br Millard and Br Beaufort mentioned below.

9.109 This letter was sent to Br Jules whilst he was in Artane. He had previously worked in Tralee for
a number of years, where his behaviour had also come to the attention of the Provincial and
a Visitor.10
9.110 While in Tralee, Br Jules wrote to the Provincial in response to an inquiry made relating to ‘a
special physical training’ given to a boy whose ‘bodily structure’ was ‘abnormal’. The Brother
explained that the Industrial School Inspector had advised him to give the boy in question special
physical training. The boy failed to perform the exercise on this occasion, though formerly he had
been capable of doing so. He went on to say in the letter to the Provincial:
Appealing to him several times I found that there was no improvement whatsoever. Not
understanding what was wrong with the boy I gave him a few slaps whilst he was in this
bent position (about four slaps).
After this punishment I again asked him to perform the exercise. He then started to cry
and said it hurt him to bend as his back was sore.
On further inquiry he told me that he had been beaten on the back by the teacher, and
that he got a kick from one of the boys whilst at play. He received this injury on the hip.
Had I known that this boy was suffering in this way I would have not asked him to perform
this drill exercise much less punish him.
9.111 Less than a month later, the Visitor commented on Br Jules’s methods of discipline:
Br Jules has his boys in a state of terror. He maintains a harsh, unnatural discipline. His
boys show this. At times he has been very severe and has treated individual boys in a
cruel manner ... Were it not for the occasional outbreaks of severity on the part of Br Jules
and his general harsh manner in dealing with them, the school would hold a high place
amongst our Institutions.
9.112 This Brother had been due to take his perpetual vows that year but was rejected. The following
year, it was noted that he had been ‘too exacting in school’. He showed ‘little devotedness to
study’ and was ‘troublesome, crossgrained’. It was concluded that he ‘has not had good record –
doubtful candidate’. He was, however, ultimately allowed to take his vows a year later.
9.113 Br Jules moved from Tralee to Artane, where he stayed for over 15 years. He later worked as
Resident Manager in Glin in the 1950s. Br Jules is considered in the reports on Artane and Glin.
His tenure in Glin as Resident Manager was marked by a less harsh disciplinary regime than had
previously been in place.
Documented cases of physical abuse: Br Sebastien

9.114 In a letter to Br Sebastien written in the late 1930s, confirming that he had been admitted to
perpetual vows, there was a reference to ‘two rather serious faults’. One was his ‘severity to the
boys’, which was described as ‘indefensible’ and ‘in every way against the canons of the teaching
profession’. It went on to state that ‘Punishment in a moderate way is allowed; but severity is
altogether to be avoided. It injures the boy’s feelings and never produces real improvement’.
9.115 This Brother worked in Artane in the 1930s and in Salthill in the early 1940s, followed by Tralee
for two years. He did not teach in any industrial schools after leaving Tralee. He did, however,
continue to teach in day schools until the late 1960s.
10
He had also worked in Carriglea in the early 1930s.

Documented cases of physical abuse: Br Beaufort
9.116 A letter, written in the late 1930s, confirming to Br Beaufort his admission to perpetual vows,
warned him about his temper:
A still more dangerous weakness in you was mentioned in the suffrages. You are
passionate in your dealings with the boys. In fact at times you show so little control of
your temper that you are in danger of inflicting serious bodily harm on the boys by your
manner of correcting them. Watch yourself and pray to God to give you some of His
meekness and forbearance. Never punish a boy in any way except what is permitted by
Rule. Forgive easily the small failings of your pupils and in this way more good will be
done than by harsh treatment.
9.117 This Brother was in Tralee from the mid to late 1930s, having previously worked in Carriglea in
the early 1930s. One Visitation Report during that time made the following reference to him:
The main defect in Br Beaufort is his violent temper which on some occasions vented
itself on the boys, but he is sorry afterwards and I am satisfied that he is on his guard
against this defect and is striving to correct it.
9.118 The letter warning Br Beaufort about his temper was sent to him less than three months later.
Notwithstanding that warning, his temper was again mentioned by the Visitor less than six months
later. The Visitor referred to him as having at times ‘an uncontrolled temper’. The Visitor also noted
that both he and Br Eriq (mentioned above) had been warned of the ‘possible evil consequences to
the reputation of the school and to themselves personally’. Both had expressed regret about
their behaviour.
9.119 Br Beaufort moved to Artane after leaving Tralee. He stayed there for 15 years, and the Committee
heard complaints from ex-pupils of Artane about severe and abusive physical punishment by him.
Documented cases of physical abuse: Br Millard

9.120 In the late 1930s, in a letter to Br Millard confirming admission to his sixth annual vows, there was
reference to his being ‘unduly severe’ with his pupils:
You are most devoted in school, but unduly severe with your pupils. You give them too
much home-work and this necessitates much punishment when it is not completely done
next day. The slapping starts, so it is stated, very early in the morning and often the time
for recreation due to the boys is curtailed. Now, we ought to practice moderation in all
things and not allow the great virtue of zeal to degenerate into a fault by overdoing our
duty. I appeal to your own good sense to remedy what is complained of. With God’s help
you can do it.
9.121 Br Millard worked in Glin in the 1960s and returned to Tralee for the last few years of its existence
as an industrial school. During this time in Tralee, he responded to a complaint made by a TD in
relation to punishment meted out by him to a boy.
9.122 In the late 1960s a boy, William,11 absconded from Tralee, and was apprehended and severely
punished by Br Millard. He informed his parents who complained to their local TD, who in turn
wrote to the school and the Department of Education.
9.123 In his letter to the Resident Manager, this TD outlined how the father of a boy in Tralee had made
‘rather startling allegations against your community which I am inclined to take with the greatest
reserve and, indeed, disbelief’.
11

9.124 He went on to say that the father claimed that a strap had been put around his son’s neck and
was ‘pulled tightly so that his neck “was in an awful condition”’. The father claimed two other boys
saw the condition of his son’s neck and that one Brother put the boy’s head between his (the
Brother’s) legs whilst another Brother held his hands behind his back and he was punished whilst
in this position. The father also said the boy had a black eye when he came home from the School.
A copy of this letter was also sent to the Secretary of the Department.
9.125 Br Millard had been appointed as Resident Manager as successor to Br Sinclair. He only lasted
a number of weeks in that position, and was recorded as having resigned ‘due to ill-health’, days
before the incident with the boy.
9.126 The appointment of his successor, Br Roy, as Superior dated from four days before William
absconded. Br Millard had been Superior for a total of 18 days. Although the letter was addressed
to the Resident Manager, who by then was Br Roy, it was Br Millard, the perpetrator of the alleged
abuse, who dealt with the matter. He wrote:
Dear [TD],
Unfortunately Br Sinclair, to whom you addressed your letters has been absent from St
Joseph’s since the beginning of the month. As Brother-in-Charge when the incidents
mentioned by you were supposed to have taken place, I take the liberty of replying in
his stead.
It alleged by [William’s father], that his son received excessive punishment, in fact what
could be termed brutal punishment, from certain members of the Staff, when he was
returned to the School after absconding on the morning of the 10th of this month. I
categorically denigh this charge because it was I personally, who took him into custody
from the Gardaı́ at mid-night on the same day on which he absconded. It was I also who
administered the punishment which was meted out to him on that occasion, in the
presence of another Brother who happened to be with me at the time.
It is true, I used a leather strap as the instrument of correction. I used it on his bottom
because I maintain that that is where nature intended it should be used in such
circumstances. There is no ... question of the strap having been put round his neck or
anywhere near his neck for that matter. I might add here, that since the arrival of your
letters, I have examined the boy’s neck and can find not the slightest sign of any mark or
bruise which would indicate that he suffered the treatment that he complained about.
Neither have I any knowledge of the black eye he is supposed to have received.
One would imagine, that following such alleged treatment, the boy would be slow to take
to the roads again. Still, on the 18th inst., he and a companion again made off and this
time persuaded another lad to join them. Believe me, Sir, that is not the normal behaviour
of a boy who had been excessively punished for previous misdemeanours ...
... Since his coming here he has absconded on five separate occasions ...
Since this last episode, they took to the roads once more. It was on this occasion that
they succeeded in reaching Cork and painting the picture of excessive punishment and
of brutal treatment in which we are ... supposed to have indulged.
Just half an hour before the arrival of your letter on yesterday morning, I received a ’phone
call from Inspector ... of [town] seeking advice as to the advisability of having young
William committed to Daingean on account of his persistent thieving and general
misconduct. I advised against it because of his age and asked the Inspector to do
everything in his power to keep the case out of the Court for the lad’s sake. In view of the
cruel allegations brought against us by his father, I am beginning to wonder if I acted
wisely in asking the Inspector to be lenient with the offender. Maybe I should have allowed
the law to take its course.
I fully appreciate your position in this matter and hope the above account will help to
clarify a nasty situation.
9.127 The letter turned around the allegation that the Brother had excessively punished the boy, by
arguing that he had in fact been too ‘lenient with the offender’. It also justified Br Millard replying
to the criticism by saying that he was ‘the Brother-in-Charge’ at the time of the incident. The
Congregation records showed that this was not the case.
9.128 The TD sent the same letter of complaint to the Department of Education, and it was replied to
with an undertaking to look into the matter.
9.129 Seven weeks later, the Department wrote to the TD as follows:

Dear Deputy ...
I refer again to your representations regarding William ... who is detained in St. Joseph’s
School, Tralee.
The Matter has in the meantime been investigated by an inspector of my Department,
who interviewed Br [Millard] who inflicted the punishment and Br ... who witnessed it and
also young William himself.
The inspector’s investigation has established that the facts of the case are substantially
as stated in Br Millard’s reply ... to you and that account was confirmed by young William
and his companion in absconding, who bear no resentment to the Brothers for their
treatment.
9.130 No documents, such as interview notes relating to the investigation conducted by the Department
Inspector, were discovered to the Committee. Notwithstanding the fact that the punishment meted
out was clearly in contravention of the Department’s own rules (in that it was not punishment on
the hand but on the buttocks), there was no evidence of any action being taken against the school
for breaking these rules and regulations.
9.131 Although the Department of Education addressed this incident in its Phase III Submission, it did
not clarify the nature of the investigation that resulted in the exoneration of the Brother.
9.132 It was accepted by Br Seamus Nolan during the Phase III hearing that the punishment meted out
to this boy was an impermissible punishment. He did, however, point out that it was partly within
the rule, insofar as the punishment was administered in the presence of a witness.
9.133 The question was also raised at the hearing as to why the person entrusted with the investigation
of the matter was the person against whom the accusation had been made. Br Seamus Nolan
said that the matter may have been dealt with by him so as not to leave a ‘nasty job’ for his
‘successor’. In fact, the ‘successor’ had been in office at the time of the incident. Br Nolan further
said that this individual had been appointed Resident Manager and after a short while resigned,
and it ‘could well be on account of this, that he resigned from that appointment, though he
remained on in the staff as assistant manager’.12 Again, this explanation does not accord with the
dates in the documentation.
9.134 There has been no documentation furnished to the Committee by the Christian Brothers that
would shed light on whether there was any investigation within the Christian Brothers into the
matter. Br Nolan acknowledged that it was a pity that the allegation did not go directly to the
Provincial, to be dealt with as a ‘completely outside matter’. He said that it was clear that the
School at the time felt that it was satisfactory to deal with the matter in this way.
12
The school annals note that the Brother resigned from the post due to ill-health.

9.135 The boy at the centre of this allegation was transferred to another industrial school early the
following year.
9.136 • The correspondence was dealt with by Br Millard, who was the Sub-Superior and the
person who had inflicted the punishment. The Department should have questioned
the propriety of such a response because of conflict of interest.
• The Department did not question the unapologetic response of the Brother about his
flagrant breach of their regulations. He showed no concern about confessing to such
a breach. Where rules for the protection of children in care could be flouted, it is not
surprising that abuses occurred.
• This incident illustrated the difficulty in making complaints about corporal punishment.
When regulations were ignored, there was no objective standard by which harshness
could be judged and so no behaviour could be criticised or condemned.
Documented cases of physical abuse: Br Raynard

9.137 In the late 1940s, the Department’s Inspector made the following comment:
Generally well run school ... I also stressed the necessity for just corporal punishment and
told him of the complaint in the Remand House and the boy who had been whacked with
a shovel in the turnip field.
9.138 It is not clear what this reference was and it did not appear to give rise to any follow-up letter from
the Department. It was similar to an incident described by a complainant who also told of being
hit with a spade across the back by a Brother in the mid-1940s. The farm Brother at the time was
Br Raynard. This complainant explained that he was hit with the spade when he was working on
the farm. He was untacking a horse and forgot to open one side. The horse got a bit flighty and
did some damage to the cart. The farm Brother lost his temper and hit him with the spade. He
said that he did not hold it against the Brother, however, because he should have been a bit more
careful with the horse. This same complainant said that this farm Brother and the two other farm
Brothers, Br Madelon and Br Sauville, could be quite severe but fair as well.
9.139 Br Raynard was granted a dispensation in the mid-1950s, although it was not clear why this
was granted.
9.140 • The letters from the mid to late 1930s to the newly professed Brothers indicate a
concern on the part of the Provincial at the time to ensure that excessive punishment
would be avoided, but it was not a systematic approach and does not appear to have
been continued by his successors.
• Restraint could have been achieved by the application of the Rules and Regulations
for Industrial Schools, including use of the punishment book. The Congregation’s own
Rules set down clear guidelines for the use of corporal punishment, and a proper
adherence to these would also have controlled excesses.
• The Brothers referred to in these letters were unsuitable for work in an industrial school
where the duties and responsibilities of caring for the children were more onerous
than in a day school.
Punishment book
9.141 Contrary to the Department’s regulations, no punishment book was maintained in Tralee. To
explain this fact, Br Seamus Nolan told the Investigation Committee during the Phase I public
hearing:
There was an understanding that a punishment book was for special punishments where
the so called crime was very severe and it needed a special punishment, but for whatever
the reason there wasn’t a punishment book.
9.142 He acknowledged that it was a requirement but, he said, it was one that ‘went into disuse I am
sorry to say’.
9.143 In the Phase III hearing, Br Nolan accepted that there was no record of a punishment book ever
having existed in Tralee. He added that, if the Department had brought up the question of a
punishment book, it would have ‘got a result’. He said, ‘apparently the impetus just didn’t arrive,
to undo the situation that was there’.
9.144 It was clear from the 1937 Visitation Report that no punishment book existed at that stage. The
Visitor appended a list of points given to the Resident Manager that included the following:
Get a punishment book and enter therein punishment given ... If a boy misconducts
himself he should be punished by the Sup. or the Br. in charge of the discipline and the
punishment recorded in the punishment book.
9.145 This comment made it clear that the punishment book was not just a requirement of the
Department. The Visitor felt the need of a record of what punishments were given, and for what
reason. He wanted to check whether punishments met with the regulations governing them. Even
though their Visitor had requested one, there was no documentary evidence of any attempt to
comply with his recommendation. The Visitation Reports for subsequent years did not record
whether a punishment book existed or not, suggesting the issue just died away.
9.146 There was no evidence that the Department asked to see the School’s punishment book, or
complained about the fact that one did not exist. Without it, the Department had no way of ensuring
that the rules and regulations to restrict the use of corporal punishment were being complied with.
Complainant evidence regarding Br Ansel, Disciplinarian

9.147 A Visitation Report in the early 1940s referred to a complaint by the Resident Manager that the
existing Disciplinarian, Br Piperel, was ‘not sufficiently strict as disciplinarian’ and making a ‘strong
appeal’ to have him changed. He left in the early 1940s and, 12 months later, Br Ansel was sent
from Artane to take over the role.
9.148 The Committee heard from two witnesses who gave detailed evidence about Br Ansel’s harshness
during his time as Disciplinarian.
9.149 The first witness, referring to Br Ansel, told the Investigation Committee:
He was absolutely terrible, that man. That man put the fear of God in me. Rather than
meet that man I would hide. If I saw that man or I thought that man was going to come
into the schoolyard I would disappear. That man was unbelievable ... He absolutely
frightened me. Whenever you would meet him it was always a beating. It was always a
clip across the side of the head with the baton. He just seemed to – as you look back on
it in later years he didn’t like me for some reason or another, I don’t know what.
9.150 The ‘baton’ was different to the leather. He explained that it was ‘made of several pieces of leather
stitched together as they would stitch leather in a shoe’. It was shorter and stiffer than the leather.
He said that they used to say that there was a lump of lead in the end of it, but he had no direct
knowledge of that.
9.151 He also recalled being beaten on his feet by Br Ansel with this ‘baton’, after Br Ansel asked him
to put his feet out from under the sheets. This happened to him one night when a boil on his
bottom burst and his sheets were covered in blood. He was not given any explanation for the
punishment and, although he had difficulty walking afterwards, no Brother asked him what was
wrong with him. He never discussed it with anyone.
9.152 This same witness recalled one night when between 15 and 20 boys were called into the kitchen
and locked in, along with three Brothers, one of whom was Br Ansel.13 They were ordered one by
one to take off their nightshirts, and to tie the shirts around their waists, fold their arms and bend
forward. Br Rayce said how many strokes each boy was to have. The witness was ordered to
have six strokes of the cat-o’-nine-tails. He was never told why.
9.153 The implement he called the ‘cat-o’-nine-tails’ was made in the School. When he was marching
around the school yard, he had seen the Disciplinarian at the end of the yard threading leather
thongs through holes in a piece of wood shaped as a handle. This was the implement that was
used on them. After the beating, he was ‘covered in blood’ and some of the strokes went around
his neck. It was the only time this implement was used. He did not recall other boys being punished
with it, and he did not recall the matter being discussed afterwards. He added that he thought Br
Ansel enjoyed the beatings.
9.154 The second witness said that, until Br Ansel arrived from Artane in the early 1940s, ‘I would say
the place was reasonable’. He said that, when Br Ansel introduced himself to the boys as the new
Disciplinarian, he told them, ‘you will learn what a disciplinarian is by the time I finish with you’.
From that time he imposed a really ruthless rule. The witness went on to explain:
Then he proceeded from there, he became an absolute tyrant. I knew real fear. He went
on from there inventing punishments, like the holding out the hand wasn’t enough. The
sole of the foot was one at night. Your name would be called and you just automatically
stuck your leg out and you got three lashes of a leather ... You would get three lashes for
every item or whatever; if you were talking in the dormitory, whatever it might be. Then
he went on from there, he created monitors, twelve monitors but we didn’t know what they
were. Whatever you do, step out of bounds, they were certain areas you weren’t allowed
to go. Talking to another boy in the toilet, that was an offence, things like that, your name
would be put down. He created a pay night, Friday night ... It was punishment but he
called it pay nights. In Ireland in them days payday was mostly in all jobs I believe on a
Friday. So, he called this Friday night rather than punishment night “pay night”. We all
lined up in the hall and he would come up the stairs, I don’t know what it was about me
but I always got the job of speaking. My job was to stand up, he had his table out and a
book and an ash plant put on the table, and the gymnasium horse, the vaulting horse in
the front. He would stand up and come up the stairs and he’d said good evening. I used
to speak first and say “Good evening, sir”, the rest of the school would reply “Good
evening, sir”. Then he’d say “What night is it [Name of witness]?” I would say “it is Friday
night, sir.” “What does that mean, [name of witness]?” “That means it’s pay night, sir and
we are glad it’s come.” Then I would sit down. Then he would proceed to look at the book
and call out the names ... of whatever you’d be accused of, what was down on the book.
The monitors wrote whatever offence you committed during the week or, offences, it might
be two or three. Your name would be called out and you marched up, dropped your
trousers, jumped over the horse and you got three lashes of an ash plant on the bare
backside for every item. The problem was that if you got it all at once your name might
not appear again until way down the list then you would get it on other side, and you
wouldn’t be able to sit down for a few days.
13
One of the others was Br Rayce. The complainant did not know who the third one was.

We had a sort of unwritten code there, that you took it ... no matter what punishment you
got you took it like a man, you didn’t squeal so you just took it. You went away in a quiet
corner and cried later when you got away from the crowd or something. You might have
wished your father and mother were there, or something like that.
9.155 This complainant also explained that there was a ‘monitor’s book’ that the monitors used to write
in. Br Ansel did not tell the boys who the monitors were and the boys did not know. This meant
that on Friday night you did not know whether your name was in the book or not. He did not know
how the monitors were chosen or changed. He thought it would be out of fear of receiving a
beating. ‘Pay night’ lasted as long as Br Ansel remained in Tralee.
9.156 Br Ansel used other forms of punishment. These included ‘square bashing on the double, thumbs
up’ and running around the field. Running produced greater discomfort because the boys had
chafing tweed clothes, no underwear and boots that ‘wouldn’t be very clever fitting’. He explained,
‘They’d just keep you running until you dropped, which I found was probably the hardest
punishment of all really on a hot day’.
9.157 He said that Br Ansel was trying to make young soldiers out of the boys and, on one occasion,
had them lined up as a ‘human rake’, raking the hay on Tralee racecourse because the Christian
Brothers had bought the hay on that site. Their bottoms had to be in line, military style, and Br
Ansel would whip the bottom of any boy not in line. He recalled, ‘You daren’t take thistles out of
your fingers or anything like that. You just kept raking’.
9.158 He also described a Saturday morning art class and how Br Ansel had a cane that could be bent.
He explained that, while the boys were drawing, he would swish the cane by their ears while
asking them questions that they had to get correct to avoid being hit on the ears. Br Ansel, he
said, ‘had no problem where he’d hit you or when he’d hit you’.
9.159 A translation of a Department of Education memorandum to the Secretary, Office of National

Education, stated that Br Ansel ‘controls with authority but without being harsh. He succeeds in
exercising a kind discipline in the school’.
9.160 The Visitor in the same year noted that he was ‘a very satisfactory man’ and, if the Resident
Manager placed more confidence in him, the ‘Community would be happier and the boys better
disciplined’. Another Visitation Report noted he was a ‘very efficient’ Disciplinarian.
9.161 According to the second complainant, Br Ansel got booed on his last day in Tralee. Everybody
was happy that he was leaving.
9.162 Br Octave, who responded to an internal Christian Brothers questionnaire relating to various
issues regarding the management of Tralee, said that Br Ansel:
was the best Principal and disciplinarian. He didn’t tolerate disobedience in word or act.
Returned runaways had to “walk the line” for longish periods until they were broken.
9.163 Br Ansel left Tralee in 1945 and went to Carriglea at a time when it was known to the Congregation
authorities that there were considerable disciplinary problems there, and his time there is
discussed in the chapter on Carriglea. Br Ansel received a Canonical Warning in the mid-1950s
because of an involvement with a woman, and he was granted a dispensation some 10 years
later.
9.164 • Br Octave described this colleague as being intolerant of any kind of disobedience ‘in
word or act’ it is significant that this attitude is perceived, even today, by a member
of the Congregation as being the mark of a good Principal and Disciplinarian.
Complainant evidence regarding Br Maslin
9.165 The Investigation Committee heard complaints about Br Maslin, who served in Tralee at the same
time as Br Ansel. A witness said that Br Maslin ‘just enjoyed beating me and beating a lot of the
boys’. He was only beaten by him for ‘lessons in school’. The beatings were ‘severe ... regularly
the cane, regularly the strap’ and he was ‘walloped across the backside’.
9.166 On one occasion when Br Maslin asked him a question he could not answer, Br Maslin ‘kept on
hitting me here in the middle of the forehead. Eventually I had a big bump here’.
9.167 On another occasion, Br Maslin made the boys stand around the class and instructed them to hit
the boy in front of them ‘across the face with the open hand’. When he hesitated in doing this, Br
Maslin said, ‘This is the way that you do it’, and hit him, the witness, knocking him to the floor.
When he got up again, he had to hit the other boy. However, ‘the beatings with the canes of
course and the strap went on a lot longer than that’. He said that the strap was made at the
cobblers, of several layers of leather about an inch thick and was more like a baton than a strap.
9.168 Br Maslin was moved from Tralee to Letterfrack in the early 1940s. It is not clear why he left
Tralee in January and not August, the usual time for Brothers to move schools. He became the
Disciplinarian in Letterfrack and, in the mid-1940s, one of his colleagues in Letterfrack wrote to
the Visitor that Br Maslin, the Disciplinarian, ‘can inflict terrible punishment on children and the
boys seem to have a awful dread of his anger’. The incident which gave rise to this complaint is
discussed in detail in the chapter on Letterfrack. He was then moved from Letterfrack to Carriglea
in January 1946, at a time when it was known to the Congregation authorities that there were
considerable disciplinary problems in Carriglea.
Complainant evidence regarding Br Dumont

9.169 This senior Brother was the subject of two complaints to the Investigation Committee.
9.170 The first witness said that he was punished by this Brother ‘but his was more the cane once or
twice but nothing really to bother me’. The Brother would, however, give instructions for them to
go and run around the field until he told them to stop, then he would forget, and the boys would
run around the field until it got dark.
9.171 The other complainant said he was ‘a very dangerous man to get involved with ... very quick
to punish’.
Complainant evidence regarding Br Sevrin

9.172 One witness gave evidence against Br Sevrin who served for a short time in Tralee. He recounted
an incident in which he had not heard instructions forbidding boys to approach a statue. He did
so and Br Sevrin refused to accept his apologies or the excuse that he had not heard the
instruction. He told him to get across a chair. When he refused, Br Sevrin ordered six of the other
boys to get him across the chair. The witness then got into a corner and was ready to fight the
boys if they approached him. When the other boys backed off, the Brother tried to put him across
the chair himself and beat him all the time with the strap. A struggle ensued and he said, ‘I fell on
the floor and he was astride me on the floor, he was over me and he was trying to belt hell out of
me with this thing’. The Brother then suddenly ‘seemed to come over funny and he got very pale’
and backed away. Later that evening, he woke the complainant and gave him a bag of sweets.
Complainant and respondent evidence regarding Br Lafayette

9.173 Br Lafayette was in charge of the refectory for a period of nine years during the 1950s and
1960s. One Visitation Report referred to him as being ‘somewhat independent and headstrong
and somewhat difficult to manage at times’.14 Another Visitation Report criticised his inclination to
interfere in charges other than his own, particularly on the farm.
9.174 The Investigation Committee heard from a number of former members of staff and ex-residents
who remembered him in Tralee.
9.175 Br Aribert felt that Br Lafayette was ‘strict ... harsh maybe on occasions’ and ‘ran a very tight ship’.
He recalled a day when he was given the task of supervising the boys during a meal. He was
‘nearly terrified going out there’, but a boy whom he described as Br Lafayette’s ‘right-hand man’
made him ‘completely redundant’ and ran the whole show. He could not say, however, whether
this was due to Br Lafayette’s good organisational skills or an element of fear. However, he did
recall one particular act of kindness, when Br Lafayette procured apples and biscuits for the boys.
9.176 A second Brother, Br Chapin, said he was a ‘stickler for a job’ and could have given ‘a few clatters
if he found that the job wasn’t done’. Br Chapin recalled the boys talking about Br Lafayette
occasionally. He said he did not hear the other Brothers speak about him, but put that down to
the fact that Br Lafayette worked in the refectory where the other Brothers would rarely go. This
Brother stated that he knew that, if Br Lafayette gave a job to the boys to do, they did it or else
they paid for it.
9.177 Br Bevis, when asked whether Br Lafayette was excessively severe towards the boys, said that
he did not know, as he was not there when he punished the boys. One boy did, however, tell him
he was ‘punished severely’ by Br Lafayette.
9.178 A number of former residents gave evidence about Br Lafayette.
9.179 One complainant stated that he ‘would have been great in the Nazis. He was the coldest,
coldhearted person I ever came across ... He was cruel beyond belief’.
9.180 By way of an example, he explained that he had a job of bringing dinner to sick boys. One boy
had refused his food and it was returned uneaten to Br Lafayette in the kitchen. When handing
over the dinner to Br Lafayette, he told him that the boy ‘wouldn’t be having any dinner’. Later,
the Brother called him out of his class and had him repeat what he said about the boy. After tea,
Br Lafayette called him aside again, this time put him against the wall and asking him to repeat
what he had said earlier. Once again, he repeated that the boy ‘won’t be having any dinner’. Br
Lafayette then produced the leather and gave him six hard slaps on the hands. Again, Br Lafayette
asked him to repeat the message, and he was given six more hard slaps with the leather.
9.181 This cycle continued until, after about 30 slaps, Br Lafayette said to him ‘You left him [the boy]
having a fit on the floor, didn’t you?’, to which the boy responded ‘yes’. He was now willing to say
‘anything to stop him from hitting me’. Br Lafayette then ‘fisted’ him in the face. He was left
pumping blood, and Br Lafayette told him that that would ‘teach you to tell me lies’. The witness
said he still had no idea why he was being punished in this way, but could only presume that the
sick boy must have had a fit after he left him. He did not make a complaint about his treatment
because, if you complained, you would get into ‘deeper trouble’.
9.182 This same former resident told the Investigation Committee that, apart from Br Lafayette and two
other Brothers,15 ‘it was a lovely school’. He felt the rest of the Brothers did the best with what
they had.
14
Br Aribert accepted that this was a fair summary of Br Lafayette.
15
Brs Archard and Kalle.

9.183 He also stated that Br Lafayette regularly interrogated him and other boys about sex and matters
relating to it in his back room. In particular, he was asked to name other boys who were involved
in sexual activity:
The first time it came on, he asked me, I didn’t have a clue what he was talking about.
And of course I got six of the best for basically telling lies.
9.184 After being punished for not being able to answer, he gave another boy’s name:
I can still think of that man to this day, because I put him through the same trouble that I
was in. And someone else probably put me in the same trouble because of what was
going on.
9.185 Another former resident said that, because he was working in the kitchen and was under Br
Lafayette’s care, he was protected from beatings from other Brothers. On one occasion, Br
Lafayette intervened to stop a severe beating from Br Bevis. He said that Br Lafayette went ‘out
of his way to ensure that nobody else laid a finger on me’. While Br Lafayette was in Tralee,
‘nobody really beat me up or anything at all like that. But after he left then there were threats
coming in from all sides’. He added that Br Lafayette had the reputation for being the ‘hardest
Brother’ in the school. ‘If he said “Jump”, you said “How high?”.’
9.186 Br Lafayette had spent two periods in Letterfrack in the 1940s and 1950s and also served in
Artane. He transferred from Tralee to Glin in the 1960s.
The death of Robert Moore16 in late 1950s

9.187 In the late 1950s, Robert Moore, a pupil in the Industrial School, died in Tralee County Hospital.
His death certificate recorded that he died from ‘Bilateral Pleural Effusion. Senility. Certified’.17 He
was 16 years of age at the time.
9.188 He had been transferred from St Philomena’s in Stillorgan when he was seven, and had spent
the next 10 years in Tralee. He was due for discharge some 10 months prior to his death, but had
stayed on until a suitable placement was found for him as an apprentice shoemaker.
9.189 There has been considerable controversy and media speculation about the circumstances
surrounding his death, and the Investigation Committee heard evidence from a number of
witnesses who were in the School at the time and recalled his death.
9.190 This controversy first began to emerge in 1995, when former pupils made allegations in the media
that Robert Moore had received a severe beating from Br Lafayette in the refectory for refusing
to eat his food, and that he had died some days later in hospital.
9.191 Br Bevis, who served as a teacher in Tralee for almost 10 years from the mid-1950s, told the
Investigation Committee that one morning he was waking the boys when he noticed that Robert
Moore had been sick during the night and that his vomit was blood stained. He summoned help
from another Brother who used to look after the boys. The next time Br Bevis saw the boy was
when he visited him in hospital. He recalled that it must have been on a Saturday as this was the
only day he could go. He took the boy a copy of The Kerryman newspaper. He remembered that
Robert Moore clung to his hand and, with hindsight, he realised that Robert appeared to have
some sense that he was going to die. Br Bevis tried to console him by telling him he was not as
ill as others in the hospital, as he did not realise at the time that the boy was near death. Robert
Moore died on a Sunday and, although Br Bevis thought it was some days after his visit, it is more
likely that he died the next day.
16
17
‘Senility’ was subsequently changed to ‘septicaemia’.

9.192 Br Bevis was asked whether he knew why the boy had gone into hospital, and he recalled that
he did have a boil on his neck at that time. He later thought he had leukaemia, and only found
out in more recent times that the cause of death was recorded as septicaemia.
9.193 He told the Investigation Committee that he did not recall any discussion at the time about Robert
Moore being beaten by Br Lafayette, the Brother in charge of the refectory, and he did not know
at the time that this beating had happened.
9.194 Br Chapin also told the Investigation Committee about going to see Robert Moore in hospital, he
thought about a week before he died. The boy was ‘not very lively’ but did not appear to be
frightened. He did not think the boy had any insight into how ill he was. He said he did not hear
any talk at the time about an incident between the boy and Br Lafayette. He did, however,
remember one of the boys saying that Robert Moore was hurt. He thought that Robert Moore had
something wrong with his lungs.
9.195 An internal report prepared in recent years and disclosed to the Committee by the Congregation
entitled ‘Information relating to Robert Moore’ detailed the stories and allegations that began to
emerge in 1995 surrounding the boy’s death and the steps that were taken by the Congregation
to enquire into the matter. The following extracts are of particular interest:
As part of an internal enquiry, the Provincial Council approached a number of brothers
who had been in Tralee in or around the time of the Moore incident. Br Bevis remembered
Robert Moore well and visited him several times in hospital. He was able to recall the
incident of the beating in the dining room but did not link it to the death of Robert Moore.
Br Bevis was of the opinion that Robert Moore died from some form of cancer. It would
appear that the time between the beating and the death of Robert Moore was at most a
few weeks.
The Provincial Council also went in search of Robert Moore’s Death Certificate. On the
Death Certificate, the cause of death is given as a “Bi-lateral Pleural Effusion”. As an
addendum to this cause of death, the phrase “senility certified” appears on the certificate.
This seemed a rather strange addendum given Robert Moore’s age, and a medical doctor
was asked to explain the matter. The medical opinion was that pneumonia was the likely
cause of death and that a beating would not cause a bi-lateral effusion, even a severe
beating.
Further enquiry unearthed a story that Robert Moore had an abscess on his neck, and
that in the course of the beating he received, the abscess may have burst. There was no
hard medical evidence for this story of the abscess, but it appeared to be part of the
folklore around the event. The possibility of a flu epidemic in St. Joseph’s at the time also
surfaced. It was the month of February and flu epidemics were not an unlikely occurrences
in institutions such as St. Joseph’s at that time of year. A heavy dose of flu could lead to
the bi-lateral effusion reported on the Death Certificate.
9.196 The report concluded with some recent information about the death certificate:
The Gardai were aware of the “senility” addendum and reported back some time ago to
St. Helen’s saying that the Death Certificate had been officially changed and the word
“septicaemia” substituted for the word “senility”.
9.197 The recollection of Br Bevis in 1995, as described in this document, is in conflict with the evidence
he gave the Committee concerning the beating from Br Lafayette.
9.198 In their Opening Statement the Christian Brothers gave the following account of what Br Bevis
had recalled to them:
A former staff member, writing in 2001, recalls the occasion of Robert Moore’s death: “I
recall the morning I called the boys. As they arise and dressed I walked up and down the
dormitory. Noticing that Robert had not arisen I went over to see him. As I neared the bed
– situated nearest the wall and about mid-way down the dormitory – I noticed he had
been sick during the night and there was blood in his vomit. I asked him how he felt and
on telling me that he had been sick during the night I told him to stay in bed and that I
would inform Br G – he usually looked after the sick. I did so and the doctor, Dr Walsh,18
was called. Later that day I learned that Robert was taken to hospital. A few days after I
visited Robert in hospital, bringing him the local paper. As I sat beside the bed he caught
hold of my hand and asked me if he was going to get better. This surprised me – the
question and the fact that he held on to my hand during the visit. I had no idea that he
was seriously ill. I told him that he would be out soon and told him that another boy had
gone to the fever hospital ... that was a worse situation than his. I learned of his (Robert’s)
death shortly afterwards – not sure if it was the next day or a few days afterwards. Since
then I have been wondering if Robert himself knew of his impending death – the fact of
him holding my hand during the visit leads me to think that he did. I was always glad that
I was there and tried to console him. May he rest in peace”.
9.199 The Congregation concluded with the following observation:

The Brother’s recollections show the caring attitude of the staff towards the boys and the
reciprocal friendliness of the boy himself. The same caring attention would have been
shown to all the boys in the school and every effort would have been made to sympathise
with the other boys who had lost a companion and would have been shocked by a death
within their small community. Modern counselling has methods of helping people cope
with bereavement and though the efforts of the staff in the 1950’s would not have been
enlightened by present-day terms it would have been none the less sincere.
9.200 The Congregation did not allude to the incident in the dining room involving Br Lafayette in this
section of their Opening Statement.
9.201 A three-day Visitation Report conducted one month after the death of Robert Moore made no
mention of the death of a pupil in the previous month and described the boys as ‘exceedingly
happy’.
9.202 Br Lafayette was interviewed by the Gardaı́. The following exchange was recorded:
A number of former pupils have stated that you assaulted Robert Moore and he died a
few days later. What do you have to say about this.
I gave him a few slaps, but the medical evidence from the hospital would suggest that he
died from some sort of lung trouble ...
Is there any reason why different pupils would make these allegations against you?
I don’t know.
9.203 The Congregation have admitted that Robert Moore received a beating from Br Lafayette, but the
severity of the beating was stated to be unknown.
9.204 A number of former residents gave evidence to the Investigation Committee about the incident.
9.205 One former resident said that Robert Moore had a boil on his neck and that Br Lafayette, who he
said did not mean to hurt anybody, was hurrying the boys to finish their meal. He therefore hit the
18

boys, including the complainant, on the back. He said that it was a ‘mild beating’, not one that
would ‘kill you’. He said that Robert Moore got sick from that beating, as the boil was hit. He said:
Because he hit him in the neck where the boil was. He had a boil in the back of the neck
which never healed and he went to bed that evening and he told me he was sick and the
following morning he couldn't get out of bed because he was sick. The doctor came and
the nurse was there and they were dressing him for a few days. The doctor decided to
take him to St. Catharine's hospital when he was not recovering so quick.
9.206 He praised the Brother in charge of the infirmary for the way in which he tried to look after Robert
Moore, but felt that he did not know how to do it properly as he was ‘doctor and nurse and
everything’. He thought that about a week or two passed before Robert Moore was eventually
brought to hospital. He said that this was ‘an accident that went wrong, a beating that went wrong’.
Robert Moore was ‘not murdered’.
9.207 Another former resident stated he was in bed sick when Robert Moore was being helped up the
stairs into bed. He was ‘whimpering feverishly’ and the boy helping him told this witness that Br
Lafayette was ‘after killing him’. He dozed off and, when he woke up, Robert Moore’s bed was
empty. He died some days later in hospital.
9.208 • At this remove, it is not possible to state whether the beating Robert Moore received
at the hands of Br Lafayette had anything to do with his death. What this story tells
us about the general atmosphere in Tralee is significant. It is accepted that the Brother
in charge of the refectory struck Robert Moore because he was not eating or because
he was not eating quickly enough. It seems particularly cruel that the children could
not even eat their meals without violence or the threat of violence.
• It is clear from the evidence of individual Brothers that Br Lafayette’s harshness to the
boys was known about in Tralee but nothing was done to stop it. This incident in the
refectory fits into a pattern of behaviour in the institution whereby violence was used
to enforce discipline on the boys.
• The fact that this boy died after being hit was sufficient reason to warrant a full inquiry,
no matter what the cause of death on the death certificate. Only an immediate
independent inquiry could have sorted out the issues arising out of this case. If the
boy was already seriously ill, the inquiry could have investigated why he did not
receive care earlier. If the beating contributed to his death, it could have established
why that information did not come to be generally known and investigated as a
possible causative factor.
• This case has become controversial and subject to speculation because the
circumstances of the boys death were never properly investigated.

Complainant evidence of physical abuse by Brothers in Tralee
Severity of punishment
9.209 Complainants used the word ‘flogging’ to describe particularly severe punishment in Tralee.
9.210 A complainant accused one Brother, Br Boyce, of flogging him. He got a flogging from this Brother
and half an hour later got one from another Brother, Br Cheney. He did not know why. Br Boyce
hit him with a ‘leather’. ‘These leathers weren’t just light pieces of string, they were severe actually’.
The complainant stated that the attack was a painful moment for him as Br Boyce was ‘a very
nice lad actually and I was surprised to be attacked like that’. It was uncharacteristic of the Brother.
Br Boyce, who gave evidence to the Committee, denied flogging the boy.
9.211 Another witness said that Br Bevis:

flogged a young boy ... [The boy] was a classmate of mine and he actually done something
wrong with the bandmaster, I don’t know, and he was reported to Br Bevis who flogged
him. That’s all I know. He put the boy’s head in between his legs and he flogged him
ferociously, beat him very badly. This boy actually eventually ended up in the mental
hospital in Killarney.
9.212 Br Bevis denied beating this boy.
9.213 Another witness also recalled an occasion when about 12 boys were ‘picked up’ for masturbating
in the dormitory and lined up and bent over the beds with their nightshirts up. Br Bevis and another
Brother took turns in giving the boys ‘the hop’, i.e. pulling up the nightshirt and hitting them straight
across the bare bottom, six to a dozen times. The witness stated that this happened quite a lot
and the boys were all ‘frightened to death’.
9.214 Another former resident claimed that Br Cheney would ask him to stay back after class and to
drop his pants. Br Cheney would then ‘leather’ his bottom. This happened ‘many times’ until he
was 16. The complainant thought Br Cheney did it because of ‘madness’. This also happened to
other boys in the class. He said that he also had to receive hospital treatment after Br Cheney hit
him. He thought he hit some part of his brain. This same complainant said that Br Cheney gave
him the second of two floggings half an hour apart from each other and that he ‘feared’ this man.
9.215 One witness made allegations of physical abuse against a Br Roland. He said that the boys were
playing in the schoolroom one day, and one boy got hit in the eye. Br Roland asked who did it
but no one answered. The Brother then pointed to him. Later that day, Br Roland took him into
an empty classroom and asked him if he was the culprit. He said no. The Brother got a strap out
of a glass cupboard containing different straps and told him to get on his knees and put his hands
out. He continued to deny his involvement in the incident but Br Roland said he was telling lies.
He said he received 44 strokes on each hand, the second 44 so that he would not lie again. He
remembers waking in the dormitory some days later with bandaged hands. They were very painful.
9.216 Br Bevis in his evidence said he was aware of one occasion when Br Cheney and Br Chaunce
punished a boy in a dormitory when he was caught abusing a younger boy. He acknowledged
that he had heard that it was a particularly severe punishment.
Pervasiveness of punishment
9.217 Witnesses gave evidence that punishment was unpredictable and unavoidable. Punishment was
a feature both inside and outside the classroom. Even Brothers with whom they had a reasonably
good relationship could suddenly turn and lash out with the leather or their fists.
9.218 One former resident recalled an incident where a boy in the farmyard had an argument with Br
Toussnint who then picked up a pitchfork and threw it at the boy, pinning his jacket to the cowshed
door. The boy ran up to the yard and the boys hid him when the Brother came looking for him.
This was a Brother who was not regarded as severe in his dealings with the boys as a rule.
9.219 Brothers against whom there were few complaints could flare up and lose their tempers, and in
such situations were not restrained. The culture of the school allowed them to lash out against
boys.
9.220 One complainant gave evidence about Br Archard who taught boys in second class who would,
if the boys did not know an answer, ‘give you the knuckles on the head. It was very, very sore’.
He did not know if other people got the same treatment, although he did not regard it as out of the
ordinary: ‘corporal punishment was there anyway so they were only doing what was being done’.
9.221 One witness said Br Bevis physically assaulted him in the classroom, schoolyard and recreation
hall. He was slapped with the strap that Br Bevis carried, not just on the hands. He does not know
which classroom this was in, but it could have been any as he did chores for the Brothers. Br
Bevis did not teach him. Br Bevis acknowledged that he may have slapped this boy, but denied
beating any boy over the body or head or breaking bones. He only punished boys on the hands
or maybe gave a clip on the bottom, on the trousers.
9.222 Br Bevis said that he never hit any boy on the bare bottom and never saw any other Brother do so.
9.223 One other witness confirmed that Br Kalle ‘often used the leather and his fists’ and that he received
both forms of punishment on a lot of occasions, mostly in class but once outside class. Boys were
punished for getting questions wrong.19 It was done routinely, in second and third class. Once,
he was punched for talking and his nose bled. He did not remember seeing the Brother punch
other boys.
9.224 Another witness said that Br Cheney would ask him a difficult question that he was unable to
answer, and then he would call him to the blackboard. He would be too frightened to answer and
Br Cheney would then get his head and beat it across the blackboard. He also beat him on the
legs. This happened ‘quite often’. He urinated with fear on the way up to the blackboard and Br
Cheney called him in front of the class about it and made him clean it up. This has remained in
his mind over the years.
9.225 On another occasion, this witness stated that he and two other boys went to the cinema without
permission. He busked for the money. When they returned, a Brother lined up all the boys in the
yard and asked the three of them where they got the money for the cinema. One said the
complainant had sung for it. Then the Brother said that there would be no film for the school that
Sunday as a result. For the rest of the weekend, he and the other boys with whom he went into
town were beaten quite badly by the other pupils. The Brothers watched the beatings.
9.226 He went on to say that this Brother was a ‘very dominant person’ and a ‘very large man’. A lot of
his experiences with him ‘were never very good; very, very brutal’.
9.227 Br Bevis and Br Cheney were described in a Visitation Report as zealous, devoted to their work
and quite happy at it, and they and other Brothers were ‘excellent men’ carrying ‘the lion’s share
of the supervision of the boys’ and only ever having the welfare of the boys as their interest. Br
Bevis was described as ‘an ideal Brother for Industrial School work’ and another Visitation Report
noted that an inspector to the school had commended Br Bevis for his work.
19
He confirmed also that it was not the general rule that you would be punished if you failed in your homework or
schoolwork at class.

The use of the strap
9.228 It was usual for Brothers to carry straps at all times. According to one witness, one Brother used
a strap that had been stiffened with coins. He said that he saw a Brother flogging a boy with a
belt, and suddenly coins came flying out of the belt when the stitching on the belt had come
undone. He said that he knew that it was a ‘continued practice’ of putting coins in the leather
strap, because another boy who worked in the shoe shop said that it was his job to put the coins
into the belts.
9.229 Another witness recalled how he was in the cobbler’s shop one day and somebody who worked
there pointed out Br Cheney’s leather strap to him. He told the Committee, ‘The whole front of it
was all loaded down with washers. That was Br Cheney’s leather strap. We used to wonder why
it was so hard’.
9.230 He said that Br Cheney used the strap on him once only, but he would use it on other boys ‘quite
frequently’ on the hands.
9.231 The leather could be used at any time of the day or in any place. It was used first thing in the
morning, during classes, during recreation, during meal times, and in the dormitory at night.
Brothers carried the strap around with them at all times and therefore could use it instantly without
accountability and without a cooling off period. This led to frequent excessive punishments and to
the boys having a pervasive expectation of receiving punishment.
9.232 The regulations and guidelines issued by the Department of Education and the Christian Brothers
for the protection of boys in the care of these institutions were not followed. Punishment was not
just inflicted on the hands, but was inflicted all over the body, including the bare bottom and even
the feet.
9.233 For boys who ran away the punishment was more severe, A documented incident occurred in
1943 when several boys were punished for absconding by having their food rationed for a week
in addition to being given six or nine strokes depending on their age.
9.234 There were no sanctions for Brothers who perpetrated excessive punishments.
9.235 As with all other Christian Brothers’ institutions, Tralee had no punishment book, notwithstanding
an instruction from the Visitor in 1937 to procure one.
Climate of fear
9.236 Although none of the respondents spoke of a climate of fear in Tralee, Professor Tom Dunne, a
former Brother, referred in an article he wrote to such an atmosphere:
It was 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.20
9.237 A number of former residents who gave evidence spoke of the fear they lived under while in
the School, which was caused by some individual Brothers and the atmosphere of the School
in general.
20
Professor Tom Dunne, ‘Seven Years in the Brothers’ Dublin Review (Spring 2002).

9.238 One witness, resident in the school in the 1940s, spoke particularly about the climate of fear in
the school. He said:
No, it was a constant fear of them really. It was a constant fear. There was no “how do
you do, well met” kind of thing. There was no “how do you do, how are you this morning?”
whatever, there was never a kind word.
9.239 Another witness said that the environment was one ‘of constant fear and that fear overrode
everything else for me’. He said that it was a ‘frightening’ place and that he was ‘terrified of the
place’. This witness was in the school from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s and had spent all of
his earlier life in other institutions.
Lay staff
9.240 Former residents made allegations of physical abuse against some lay staff. One witness, who
was in the school in the 1940s, told the Committee that the night watchman would give him a
‘wallop’ for having wet the bed.
9.241 Another witness made a number of complaints against lay staff. First, he mentioned a lay teacher
who tried to get him to march properly and threw chairs at him and hit him. He said that one of
the lay teachers would be ‘on the prowl’ where the boys went to darn socks with the nurse or to
the tailor to get measured. ‘If he saw you you were dead unlucky because he would grab you by
the knackers and squeeze you until you scream for mercy’. If he could not catch you, ‘he would
chuck a chisel at you or something’.
Admissions and acknowledgements of excessive punishments

9.242 Brothers who gave evidence made some admissions regarding the extent of corporal punishment
in Tralee.
9.243 Br Bevis was Principal in the primary school from the mid-1950s to early 1960s. In his evidence
to the Committee, he said he accepted that he may have given a boy a clip on the bottom with
the leather strap or on the ear. He also said that he never saw marks on any boy from abuse or
excessive corporal punishment by any other teacher. He would have noticed marks ‘when they
were coming up to be examined before going to bed’ if the marks were on the upper body or, if
they were wearing short pants, on their legs.
9.244 Br Aribert told the Committee that it was never addressed when a Brother acted in breach of the
guidelines on corporal punishment that were set down in their Acts of Chapter. He acknowledged
that some Brothers probably overstepped them at times.
9.245 Br Mahieu acknowledged that from time to time he would have used a strap on the boys in Tralee,
in particular for bed-wetting:
I had my six hours teaching day job to do. I was then put in charge of the dormitory ... I
now discover that there is such a thing as bedwetting, persistent bedwetting. I was not
able to cope with that. Partly the reason I wasn’t able to cope with that was that there
wasn’t sufficient back-up facilities or persons to help me with that ... sheets are wet. How
do you dry them? There was some kind of a laundry there, to me it was very old fashioned
looking, just full of steam and things like that ... I found it very difficult ... The result with
not coping with it would be that it was a headache. It was something which wore me down
after a while. It would mean that I could hit somebody, beat somebody ... using the strap
didn’t work either. But I would just physically at times get tired, get frustrated and would
use the strap and I bitterly regret that. I have always said that and admitted that a way
back. I regret it, that that’s the way I tried to cope. But it was putting me into almost an
impossible situation.
9.246 He regretted using the leather, he regretted overusing it, but only recalled one occasion when he
used it excessively, i.e. unduly severely.
9.247 Br Bevis told the Committee that he never discussed the carrying out of corporal punishment with
other Brothers. He said:
No, I never discussed it, because if I was I was in charge that particular time. If the other
Brother was in charge that was their duty.
Bullying by other boys

9.248 Bullying amongst the boys occurred in Tralee and, although this bullying involved physical
beatings and sexual assaults, there was no procedure for reporting such behaviour to the Brothers
in charge.
9.249 One complainant referred to boys who left at age 16 but returned ‘because things didn’t work out
for them’. They beat and bullied the smaller boys. When asked whether he could go to the Brothers
for protection, he said no, that there was no system for protecting boys from that kind of bullying.
9.250 Another complainant, reiterating this, said that the Brothers never asked him questions about
bullying. He said that the Brothers:
were always standoffish, you did what you’re told and that was it. They didn’t make you
feel like you could come to them with a complaint because you were frightened to go near
them in case you got a beating for making a complaint.
9.251 This complainant also said that, if an older boy beat a younger boy, a Brother would not ask what
happened. Such beatings happened ‘on several occasions’.
9.252 Another man explained that a group of boys had told him that they would protect him if he would
be their ‘boyfriend’. This meant that if he masturbated them they would stop the other boys bullying
him. He said that his failure to co-operate led to him being beaten by ‘some of the school bullies’.
9.253 One complainant who was in the school in the 1940s said that he was bullied by other boys
and had:
many the thick lip and many the black eye for no reason whatsoever. But I wasn’t one to
fight back, I never was. I was bullied by the boys I think because, you know, I was different.
I wasn’t brought in from the country for some mischief or something or another.
9.254 Another complainant said that he was beaten up for being a ‘pet’. He described the situation
as follows:
When I say a pet, a pet would be the kind of person that would be hanging on to a Brother
and, the other boys, especially the bigger boys, would perceive that you were telling them
everything that was going on. Now, there was incidents where boys used to rebel and like
– at one time they went downtown, a lot of boys from the school went downtown and
raided Woolworths downtown and, took a lot of stuff out of Woolworths, a lot of boys now.
Obviously, like, the Brothers wanted to know where the stuff was. So we were the pets
like and, of course, we would tell them everything. Where the stuff was ... You were picked
on then because you were small and you were trying to get protection from the Brother.
But in actual fact, like, the Brother couldn't protect you because you were out amongst all
the boys and the boys would beat you up. If they said to you “if you tell a Brother, we’ll
beat you, you are going to be killed the next time again”.
9.255 He went on to say that they would get you:
Anywhere in the school. The school is only a small place that you can go in, it is one
square little area like. You couldn't go far unless you ran away ... you wouldn't get a bad
beating, like, in a sense you wouldn't need hospitalisation or anything like that, no. You
got a belt across the head, a kick that kind of a way. “If you say anything like, we will beat
you up again”. It wasn't that the Brothers could protect you it was that kind of an
environment.
9.256 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.
9.257 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.
9.258 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.
9.259 • 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.

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.
Sexual abuse
Christian Brothers’ Statement

9.260 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 Piperel21
9.261 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.
Br Garon
9.262 The Christian Brothers have acknowledged that one Brother, Br Garon, ‘behaved in an
inappropriate manner in the boys’ showers’.
9.263 Br Garon was almost 60 years old when he arrived in Tralee, where he worked for almost 20
years from the early 1950s.
9.264 Three witnesses recalled inappropriate behaviour on the part of Br Garon.
9.265 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.
9.266 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’.
21

9.267 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’.
Observations on Br Garon’s behaviour by two separate Brothers

9.268 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.
9.269 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.
9.270 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.
9.271 Br Lisle went on to state that he had relayed the complaints to three Resident Managers,23 and
he had assumed they had reported them to the ‘relevant people’. He now realised that that was
not the case, and that was why he was bringing the matter to the Commission’s attention.
9.272 When giving evidence to the Committee, Br Lisle said that the allegations against Br Garon had
not come as a great shock to him, as Br Garon himself used to take boys off the yard, telling him
that he had to ‘bring this boy for a shower’.
9.273 When this happened, he reported it to Br Sinclair,24 the first of the three Resident Managers. His
complaint was dismissed and he was told, ‘Oh don’t mind that man, sure, he was in China for
years’. He could not remember the word used by the first boy when complaining to him, but he
believed it was something like ‘fiddling’. He did not recall if he went to Br Sinclair with complaints
more than once, but it is possible that he did, since several boys would be talking about it. His
view at the time was that he had done enough by telling Br Sinclair because he would ‘let him look
after it’. He did not go back to the boy to follow up on it. Br Garon, however, kept giving showers.
9.274 When that Resident Manager was replaced, Br Lisle reported the matter to his successor, Br
Millard, who was only Resident Manager for a matter of weeks. He cannot remember what that
Resident Manager said to him, but he accepted that he must not have been happy with his
predecessor’s response. Br Lisle also told the Committee that he was with Br Millard on one
occasion when a boy came up and said that Br Garon wanted him for a shower. He turned to Br
Millard and told him that he thought there was more than just showering going on. It was crystal
22
This Brother worked in Tralee from the mid-1960s to 1970.
23
There were three Resident Managers during Br Lisle’s time in Tralee: Brs Sinclair, Millard and Roy.
24
Br Sinclair was Resident Manager for a period of six years in the 1960s.

clear what was being alleged, but, according to Br Lisle, the boy probably still went for the shower.
He said that his understanding was that the boys did not ‘like it and that they were trying to have
it stopped, they didn’t want to be interfered with, as they said’. He thought Br Garon took these
showers with the boys when they were taken from the yard, as opposed to during the normal
Saturday night showers.
9.275 When the third Resident Manager, Br Roy, took over, Br Lisle again reported the boys’ complaints
about Br Garon’s activity in the showers. He did not know if Br Roy did anything, but he now
knows that the information did not go to ‘headquarters’.
9.276 Br Lisle said that it never occurred to him to tell the Brothers who were carrying out the Visitations,
as he thought other Brothers would have reported it. He thought all the others knew about it. He
was just the ‘junior member of staff’ and he did not think it was his place to confront Br Garon.
He said that there were ‘more senior men there than me to confront him’.
9.277 He told the Committee that the boys were not embarrassed or awkward when they were
complaining to him, and had no difficulty articulating the complaint. He believed they would have
been talking about it amongst themselves.
9.278 He had told the Deputy Provincial in January 2006 that Br Garon was abusing the boys ‘most of
the time’. He had not talked about it to anyone between 1970 and 2006. His understanding had
been that ‘headquarters’ knew all about Br Garon, because he had told every Resident Manager.
What the documents said about Br Garon

9.279 None of the Visitation Reports over the 20-year period that Br Garon spent in Tralee refers to any
complaints of this nature being made against him, so there is very little in the documentation to
assist the Committee in the consideration of this case.
9.280 One Visitation Report in the early 1950s noted Br Garon was ill. In fact, he was absent from the
School for approximately eight months that year. Br Garon became Sub-Superior in the mid-
1950s. In a Visitation Report compiled over a year after his appointment, he is described as being
‘fairly well; he rises late and retires early; he has no school work but takes the boys for morning
and evening prayers and gives a hand in the games and supervision during the out of class hours’.
Later Visitation Reports both noted his poor health, and the latter noted that his Superior had ‘the
utmost confidence in him’. His poor health was again noted in the Visitation Reports in the early
1960s. In the 1962 Visitation Report the following extract is of interest:
The Superior says that the Sub-Superior, Br Garon, is the most useful man in the place.
Despite his deafness and indifferent health he is on the go all the time, doing endless little
jobs that are most essential to a place such as St. Joseph’s. He acts as Infirmarian,
supervises the play yard, takes the boys for basketball in the yard, checks on all kinds of
odds and ends and is generally most useful. He is in charge of the baths also and
supervises the health of the boys generally.
9.281 His health was deteriorating by the mid-1960s and, in the 1966 Visitation Report, he was described
as ‘almost totally deaf but continued to do good work’. By 1967 he was as ‘deaf as a stone’. The
following year, it was noted that he was unable to take part in any Community conversations but
busied himself as sacristan.
The evidence of other former members of staff

9.282 In addition to Br Lisle, four other former members of staff who had been in the School when Br
Garon was there gave evidence to the Committee about him.
9.283 Br Bevis said that he never heard any mention of Br Garon’s being naked in the showers with the
boys nor had he heard allegations of his acting inappropriately. He said that he never heard it
discussed among the Brothers that he might have been in the showers with the boys, although
he did acknowledge that it may in fact have been so discussed after his time.
9.284 Another member of staff, Br Mahieu, told the Committee that he was placed in charge of the
showers, taking over from Br Garon, in approximately 1966. He did not know why this change
took place, but said it was possibly because the Resident Manager, Br Sinclair, had asked him.
When he took over, he insisted on the showers being upgraded and that was done. He knew
‘absolutely nothing’ about allegations that Br Garon took boys for individual showers on days other
than Saturdays when he might not have been in charge. At such times the water would have been
cold. He had never heard anything about Br Garon interfering with the boys in the showers,
washing them or requiring them to wash him. He had ‘never heard it discussed’.
9.285 Br Aribert stated that he did not recall the subject of Br Garon’s showering with the boys being
discussed. He told the Committee, however, that he did recall some of the boys not wanting to go
to the showers but they never told him why. He felt it was because boys of that age did not like
to shower in the middle of winter. He added, ‘it wasn’t for the reason that they were being abused
that came across to me’. He never heard any boy complain about the ‘supposed carry on’ with
the Brother. If Br Garon was abusing boys, he did not know how a tiny community could not be
aware of it. He also told the Committee that he believed someone else was in charge of the
showers when Br Garon was still there. He did not know why Br Garon was taken off that job.
9.286 Another Brother, Br Chapin, said that he never heard any discussion among the Brothers about
Br Garon in the showers with the boys, or anything of that nature.
What the Christian Brothers said

9.287 Br Garon was not mentioned in either the Opening Statement furnished by the Christian Brothers
or in the Phase I or Phase III evidence.
9.288 In their Final Submission to the Investigation Committee, the Christian Brothers accepted that the
evidence relating to Br Garon suggested that he ‘did behave in an inappropriate manner in the
boys’ showers’. They stated that the extent to which he engaged in inappropriate conduct was
obviously a matter for the Committee and said that it was worth noting that there was a ‘broad
spectrum of evidence on this issue’. They believed that some allegations against Br Garon were
‘exaggerated’ but accepted that, even if his ‘activities went no further than requiring the boys to
wash him ... this was totally inappropriate’. They also accepted that ‘from today’s perspective, it
would seem to be unwise to allow one adult to supervise showers on a continual and consistent
basis without any monitoring of that adult. This appears to have been what happened’.
9.289 The Submission conceded that the decision to place Br Garon in charge of the showers ‘was
an error which was compounded by a lack of appreciation of the risks that might arise in such
a situation’.
9.290 The Submission also stated that Br Garon’s activities in the showers took place when there was
group showering and that ‘he did not have the authority, nor was it the practice, that he would
take individual boys for showers’. This is not, however, borne out by the evidence of Br Lisle who
made the statement in January 2006. The Congregation repeated its puzzlement at the evidence
of Br Lisle that he had informed three Resident Managers of his ‘suspicions/complaints’. The
Submissions also stated that the Congregation believed that the Resident Managers in question
would not have ignored ‘complaints of this nature’.
9.291 • Br Garon’s behaviour went on for many years, and was known to three Superiors, but
they did nothing about it.
• The Brother who reported the complaints of boys and who confirmed that Br Garon
was taking them into the showers was a very junior member of the Congregation in
Tralee, and he felt that his conscience was clear when he complained and left it to the
Superior to deal with the problem. Br Lisle, who made these repeated complaints to
the Superiors did not pursue the matter further, for example by mentioning it to the
Visitors. Neither did he make a written complaint to the Provincial. This reflects on the
sense of discipline that was inculcated and which would have operated particularly on
a junior Brother in the Institution.
• It is likely that over such a long period other Brothers in Tralee knew about Br
Garon’s behaviour.
• Nothing is recorded about these complaints in the discovered material. Superiors
chose to keep matters to themselves and did not report on to the Provincial or the
Visitor. If they did, the Visitors did not to make a note of it or do anything about it.
This is an example of the under-recording and under-reporting of sexual abuse.
• The Brothers would have dealt severely with boys behaving in the showers in the way
that Br Garon did. The moral issues or the corrupting effect of the Brother’s behaviour
was not dealt with.
• The fact that Br Garon behaved openly in this way is evidence of his confidence that
he would not be challenged. Br Lisle recalled how Br Garon would select a particular
boy to bring to the shower. The audacity of Br Garon is striking and is another reason
why this case is a very serious one for the Congregation.
Br Marceau
9.292 Br Marceau was moved to Tralee for the second time after cracking a boy’s jaw in Glin. One
witness told the Committee that, during class, Br Marceau would stand him between his knees
and put his arms around him and hug him into him. Sometimes he put his face on his shoulder,
up against his face. Eventually, he would start putting his hand down the back of his trousers and
fondling his bottom. This went on for ‘a period of time’. Br Marceau would call him up to the front
of the classroom where this would happen. The other boys could not see what was happening
and this happened to him a dozen times, maybe more.
9.293 This same complainant also said that, on one occasion, Br Marceau told him to stay behind after
class and called him to his desk, after the others had left. He put him between his knees and put
his arms around him. He told him to read his book and then he put one of his hands down the
back of the complainant’s trousers and the other hand down the front. When he then started to
open the buttons on the front, the complainant began to struggle. Br Marceau pulled him tighter
but he got loose and ran to the door. Br Marceau caught him as he got to the door and pulled him
away from the door. The complainant banged into a desk, hurting himself. He was crying at this
stage and shouted at Br Marceau to leave him alone. Br Marceau started to hit the complainant
over the head and told him to shut up. The classroom door opened, and Br Millard came in and
told Br Marceau to leave the boy alone. He did not ask the complainant about it. After that,
he was never called up to the front of the class again. The beatings did, however, continue in
the classroom.
9.294 The witness was asked whether there were any Brothers to whom he felt he could speak about
difficulties such as the way he was being treated by Br Marceau in class. He said no there were
not, ‘you never went to a Christian Brother and told him your problem’. More specifically, he could
not complain about what Br Marceau was doing because he did not know if the other Brother
would believe him. If he did not, he might get ‘a hiding’, and then Br Marceau would be told and
he would get a ‘worse hiding’ from him for telling lies.
9.295 He had no recollection or sense of this Brother being supervised or watched after the Brother
intervened in the classroom on the occasion mentioned above.
Sexual activity among the boys

9.296 One complainant, who was in Tralee in the 1940s, told the Investigation Committee that he knew
there was ‘a lot of shenanigans’ going on between the boys in toilets and out in fields. They would
be ‘playing with each other’ but he kept clear of that. The Resident Manager would call the boys
in and question them on whether they were involved in sexual activities amongst themselves. He
also said, however, that there was no talk between the boys and the Brothers about this ‘sex
thing’, but the stigma was there and the boys would use it against each other in an argument,
saying ‘at least I wasn’t called in for Question Time’.25 No boy wanted to let anybody know that
they had been called in for ‘Question Time’.
9.297 Another complainant referred to abusive sexual activity among the boys. A witness from the late
1960s told the Committee that older boys would congregate around the toilet in the yard, and that
the younger boys would be afraid of going in there for fear of being beaten or molested by them.
The younger boys used go in to the toilet in threes and fours in order to be protected from the
older boys:
We didn't know what was going to happen in there, whether we were getting a hiding from
the older boys or what else they would do to you. It was just that thing in there and, if you
did get a hiding you didn't go speak about it you kept it to yourself ... There was a fear of
being sexually abused as well, yes ... It was supposed to happen to the younger lads but
I can't say definitely whether it did or not.
9.298 This witness said at night the older boys would try to get into the smaller boys’ beds. They
terrorised them. He said this happened to him on a number of occasions with different boys and
he would just shout out. He explained:
So every time you’d start roaring they would get up, they would give you a slap in the
head and they would threaten that if you opened your mouth they would get you the
next day.
9.299 He also confirmed, however, that the boys kept the peer abuse to themselves. The Brothers would
not have known what was going on in the toilets unless they saw it themselves. To his knowledge,
this never happened. He acknowledged that it was a continuous problem for the younger boys
but it was not spoken about. You kept to yourself because you did not know whom to trust, ‘so
you managed to stay on your own’.
9.300 He also told of one occasion when an older boy told him to climb a ladder on the farm one day if
he wanted to see some kittens. When he was climbing the ladder the older boy put his hands up
his pants and started fondling him. He kicked him away and ran.
9.301 Another complainant said that he had been abused by other boys of around the same age on
more than one occasion. This complainant said that he had told Br Mahieu the names of the boys
who were abusing him but nothing came of his complaint. During the course of his evidence, Br
Mahieu said that he would try to get younger boys to give him a name but they never would.
25
Question Time was a radio programme

9.302 Another former resident also referred to Br Lafayette as being a Brother who regularly interrogated
the boys about sex and matters relating to it. He did this in the back room. ‘The first time it came
on, he asked me, I didn’t have a clue what he was talking about. And of course I got six of the
best for basically telling lies’. After being punished for not being able to answer, the former resident
then gave another boy’s name. He regretted that he had told on another boy, but said he was
being severely beaten at the time.
What the respondents had to say about peer abuse

9.303 Of all the former members of staff who gave evidence, only one, Br Mahieu, said complaints about
peer abuse had been made to him. He said that younger boys would complain that they were
being bullied or molested by other boys. He tried to get them to give a name but they never did.
He said that he did suspect that there was sexual abuse going on between the boys but he never
‘actually became aware of it’, or of an incident or perpetrator. In response to the complaints, he
would try to be as vigilant as he could be while on yard duty. He would change his pattern of
patrolling the yard. He never checked for sexual abuse in the dormitories because he was never
aware that it went on there. He would check to see if everything was ‘okay’, that ‘the majority of
them would be asleep’. He never found sexual activity there.
9.304 He named other Brothers, including Br Cheney, whom he said were aware of the boys’ complaints
in that regard. He concluded that they must have spoken to one another about it.
9.305 Of the other former members of staff who gave evidence, only two acknowledged being aware of
particular instances of peer sexual abuse.
9.306 The first of these Brothers, Br Aribert, said that there was only one case while he was there of a
boy complaining of being sexually abused by another boy. He said that it was dealt with, but did
not give any further details. Br Bevis recalled an occasion when a boy was punished by two
Brothers for abusing a younger boy.
9.307 The other respondent witnesses claimed to have never encountered peer abuse. This included
Br Boyce, who acknowledged that the boys were very clever and he would not know if it was
going on. He also said that no boy ever told him he was being bullied or preyed on. He also said
that, if you thought it was happening and asked a boy, ‘he wouldn’t tell you anyway’ because the
‘others would give out to him’. Br Chapin said that, although he was aware of the possibility of
sexual activity among the boys, he never came across it. He said that the Brothers were warned
to keep an eye out for ‘bullying and for anything else’. He disagreed that there was an obsession
in uncovering that kind of activity in Tralee. Another respondent, Br Lisle, was not aware of sexual
activity between the boys.
9.308 • An inadequate and indifferent regime of supervision allowed older boys to prey on
younger boys .
• Bullying and intimidation occurred unchecked, which was frightening and

demoralising, especially for younger children who did not feel the Brothers would
protect them.
• The evidence of a boy being beaten by a Brother, in order to get names of other boys
involved in sexual activity, describes a practice in Tralee that was common to other
Christian Brother institutions. It resulted in unreliable information being given under
duress, and often initiated a cycle of further beatings and revelations.

Neglect
9.309 The Congregation acknowledged that the emotional needs of children in its care were not properly
provided for. The reason for this failure was, it was claimed, a lack of awareness of what these
emotional needs were, rather than any deliberate policy on the part of the Congregation to ignore
them. In the General Chapter on the Christian Brothers, the position of the Congregation on the
issue of emotional and physical care is outlined.
9.310 Physical care and education, they claimed, were the main concern. The question remains whether
the quality of ‘physical care’ in Tralee was of the required standard for the time.
Physical care: financial matters
Payment of monies to St Mary’s, Tralee

9.311 In the 1940 Visitation Report, the Visitor noted that, when the St Mary’s and St Joseph’s
Communities in Tralee were separated, it was arranged that St Joseph’s should contribute £600
per annum to St Mary’s ‘to help towards liquidating the debt on the new Secondary School’. It
was noted that this sum had been paid regularly up to 1938 but, as of 14th January 1940, it had
not been paid for 1939.26
9.312 An undated document stated that the accounts of St Mary’s and St Joseph’s were to be separated
on 1st July 1932, and that a separate account was opened on 11th August 1932 for St. Joseph’s.
This document also referred to various accounting matters and stated:
In view of these uncertainties but chiefly in view of the fact that St. Joseph’s will have to
pay £600 a year for the next ten years to lessen St. Mary’s debt it may be just to decide
that St. Mary’s should forego any claim it may have for a refund of part of this sum of £802.
9.313 In 1940, there were 120 boys in Tralee. As of 4th January 1939, the capitation grant payable by
the Department in respect of boys over six years of age to industrial schools was seven shillings
and six pence. This amounted to a total of £19.10.00 per child per annum. The sum of £600,
therefore, amounted to the annual capitation grant for 25% of the school population.
9.314 The capitation grant was paid to these schools for the care and welfare of the children, not to fund
private secondary schools for the Congregation. Siphoning off 25% of the school income for the
benefit of the Congregation was wrong, particularly where conditions in Tralee were barely
adequate. The Congregation did not address this issue in its Opening Statement or its Final
Submission.
Building fund
9.315 As early as 1935, there were references in the Visitation Reports and annals to money being
paid into a building fund/Baldoyle extension fund. The annals for 1946 referred to the payment
as follows:
It is also arranged to give ... one shilling per week, per pupil towards the Building Fund to
enable Managers of Industrial Schools to effect improvements in the establishments. This
Grant will be a help. It is hoped that it may be increased later.
9.316 At least £13,600 was paid by the school into the Building Fund, including £2,000 as late as
February 1966. It is not known how much of this sum or the rest of the monies in the Fund were
used for the purposes of effecting improvements in Tralee or for the benefit of the pupils there.
26
The annals refer to ‘this tax’ ceasing to be paid when Br Dareau came as Resident Manager.

Dealings on the farm
9.317 The annals disclosed certain irregularities that took place on the farm in relation to the disposal
of produce and the ‘irregular use’ of income, which occurred during a period of severe deprivation
for the boys. The annals report that the farm ‘appears to have been run on the lines of a Limited
Company – between the Brother-in-Charge thereof, [a local businessman and a workman] – but
with the liability on the Monastery’.
9.318 The annals go on to report that:

• In November 1950, about half of the livestock, valued at about £1,000, housed on the
farm, belonged to [a local business man and a workman], from whom only £566 was
received for them.
• ‘When a beast was killed neither the cutlets nor the offals was cooked for the boys.
These portions appear to have been taken by the butcher and the plates (of beef) or
the boney inferior parts of another beast (presumably the butcher’s) substituted. Even
the first fruits of the vegetable garden were sold or rather given free at the butchers
(greengrocers) shop while the boys could not be supplied’.
• The income on the vegetables for the six months ending 31st December 1949 was
almost £53. The income for the six months ending 31st December 1950 was £200,
which was spent on potatoes, which should have been retained, making the real
income ‘nil’. The income for the six months to 31st December 1951, immediately after
the Superior Resident Manager took control, was over £700.
• Monies were recovered, following the threat of legal proceedings.
• About one-third of the money taken in the sale of vegetables went to the boys. The
farmyard was a ‘semi-hucksters shop’ and the boys were unable to weigh the potatoes
and ‘gave bargains for a “tip”’. This state of affairs was being continued under two farm
Brothers, until the Superior was compelled to intervene and have the second Brother
removed, the first having already sought a change ‘before the improper transactions
were known’.
• The Superior felt that it was an understatement to say that hundreds of pounds were
lost over a period of three to four years, and wondered whether it could be counted in
thousands. He noted that the boys were under-fed and denied vegetables whilst, at
the same time, vegetables were on sale in the market and shops.
• The medical officer had noted that the vegetables were obtainable in town, but the
boys could not get any.
9.319 The Visitation Report for 1951 refers to a want of agreement on the question of running the farm.
The Report noted:
It would appear that Br Christien’s predecessor on the farm was allowed a great deal of
freedom in the handling of money and in the buying and selling of stock etc. There also
appeared to be a lot of uncontrolled selling of vegetables both by boys and employees
on the farm nor was there any proper check on the man that brought vegetables to the
market or delivered them to various customers in the town. There was undoubtedly great
need for a tightening up of these matters.
9.320 At the Visitor’s suggestion, a procedure was agreed between the Resident Manager, the bursar
and the farm Brother that would rectify these matters. This plan did not work out as well as
anticipated, but the farm Brother’s removal enabled the Resident Manager and the bursar to get
proper control of the farm finances.
Physical care: food
9.321 Some complainants who gave evidence to the Committee said that the food in Tralee was very
bad, both in terms of quality and quantity. The 1940s was a period of food shortages everywhere,
and Tralee would have had some difficulty in meeting all the dietary requirements of the boys,
although it had the advantage of a farm that could have provided fresh vegetables and meat, and
it had a bakery that provided all the bread consumed by the boys.
9.322 In this regard, the Resident Manager’s comments in the early 1950s regarding dealings on the
farm and the disposal of produce were of particular interest. The Resident Manager felt that it was
an understatement to say that hundreds of pounds were lost over a period of three to four years,
and wondered whether it could be counted in thousands. He noted that the boys were underfed,
and were denied vegetables whilst at the same time vegetables were on sale in the market and
shops. According to the annals, the Medical Officer had noted that the vegetables were obtainable
in town but the boys could not get any. The level of deprivation emerged in the evidence heard
by the Committee: two of the boys who were in the school in the 1940s spoke of taking food
prepared for the pigs.
9.323 As was confirmed by one complainant, the situation improved in the mid-1950s with the
appointment of a new Brother to the kitchens, Br Lafayette, and the Visitors and Department of
Education Inspector were generally satisfied with the quantity of food provided.27 As the Committee
has seen in other institutions, the Inspector who visited industrial schools in the 1940s and 1950s
was not slow to criticise the diet if she felt that the food was inadequate. Similarly, the Visitation
Reports have also commented on inadequate food when they found standards were low. For
example, the 1953 Visitation Report recorded complaints by Br Kalle and Br Montaine that the
boys were not getting enough to eat. The Resident Manager denied this was so.
9.324 Br Lisle, who was in charge of the kitchen in the mid to late 1960s, told the Committee that he did
not get a budget for the kitchen, and he had to make the best of what he got. He did not order
what came in, but instead he cooked whatever food was there.
9.325 The lack of proper cooking facilities was criticised in the 1940s and into the 1950s. In the mid-
1950s the Visitor referred to the kitchen Brother succeeding in feeding the boys ‘very well’ despite
‘wretchedly poor facilities in his kitchen’.28
9.326 It was not until 1957 that the Visitor recorded any improvement. Even after that date, the dining
room and kitchen equipment were identified as inadequate.
9.327 Complainants who appeared before the Committee spoke of eating food from the farm to stave
off hunger. This was alleged by former residents who were in the Institution throughout the period
under investigation.
9.328 Two witnesses said the food that they got during Christmas was good.
Physical care: the boys’ clothing

9.329 The state of the boys’ clothing varied greatly between 1940 and 1970. The poor quality of clothing
was criticised by the Department of Education Inspector throughout most of the 1940s.29
27
This is borne out by the Department Inspector’s Reports, which until 1950 categorised the food and diet as
‘satisfactory’. The 1953 Report said that food and diet was ‘much improved’ and, from then on, was always described
by this inspector as very good.
28
A later Visitation Report noted that there was no evidence of the pilfering of food that had taken place before this
Brother arrived in Tralee.
29
The 1940s Visitation Reports only commented on the standard of the boys’ clothing in 1940, 1941 and 1943, and
then only in positive terms.

9.330 It was not until 1954 that the Inspector described the standard of clothing as ‘v. good’. She noted
that the quality had improved and that there were no patches. That year the Visitor reported that
the boys were ‘especially well clothed’ and ‘appeared neat, tidy and clean’.
9.331 The clothing continued to improve in 1955, 1956 and 1957 and was reported by the Inspector as
being either good or very good until 1963. However, by 1964 the Visitor noted that many boys
were poorly dressed and wearing torn clothes. He noted two boys were left in charge of the
laundry and ‘it seems to be a wholetime job’.
9.332 In 1968 the Visitor recommended that a woman should be employed to oversee the laundry, and
that worn-out clothes should be disposed of and replaced.
9.333 The Christian Brothers were paid to make proper provision for food and clothing. They were two
of the items covered by the capitation grant. In addition, the addendum to the 1961 Visitation
Report indicated that Tralee was financially viable at that time. Despite this fact, it seems clear
from the documentation and the oral evidence that food and clothing were not adequate in Tralee
for substantial periods between 1940 and 1969.
9.334 Food and clothing improved in the mid-1950s, not because of significantly improved finances but
because of the appointment of Br Sauville as Resident Manager. A Visitor to Tralee in the early
1950s remarked on his ‘unsparing efforts’ to improve the welfare and material well-being of the
boys. The quality of care improved with better management of the Institution.
Physical care: accommodation and facilities

9.335 Over the years, the quality of the accommodation and facilities varied greatly, depending on the
Resident Manager at the time.
9.336 The 1937 Visitation Report described the School as being in an appalling state. The Visitor wrote:
The parts of the Institution inhabited by the boys is very badly kept. The dining room has
been painted within the past month and looks now fairly well, but the table cloths on the
dining table are a positive disgrace. They are torn and in a filthy condition – wet and dirty.
The tin and aluminium mugs are only fit for the scrapheap, and it is a shame for the
Superior to have them seem about. The knives, spoons and all things pertaining to the
meals are in a very bad condition. New sets of table linen, delph, knives, spoons, plates
etc. are badly needed. The bed linen is also in a dirty condition, and fleas abound. Old
rags, old jerseys and discarded stockings are under the mattresses, and some of the Wire
mattresses are broken. The boys Lavatories are dirty and the tiles in the boys’ bath room
are broken and missing. Some parts of the bath room also requires painting. Mr Whelan
reports very adversely on all these at his last inspection, and since then little has been
done. All these have been again pointed out to the Superior and he has been instructed
to have all put into order without delay. A detailed copy of all has been left with him. The
Institution is no credit to the Congregation.
9.337 A new Resident Manager was appointed in the late 1930s, and the Visitor recorded a month after
his appointment that:
this school suffered in reputation with Govt Inspectors and with the public. The boys were
badly clothed, the standard of cleanliness was low and the food especially the dinner of
the boys was poor. The name of the Scho did not stand high in Tralee and district and
this militated against the influx of boys to the school. The new Superior, Br Dareau has
done wonders in the short time he is here to improve the clothing, food and training of
the boys and to raise the standard of cleanliness.
9.338 The Department Inspector recorded in 1939 that a lot of improvements and redecoration were
being done in the school and that it was in a ‘progressing state and promises to be very
satisfactory’. The dormitories and refectory had been painted, and both appeared clean and well
kept. She also recorded that the Resident Manager appeared to be ‘very capable and progressive’.
9.339 In 1941, the Visitor commented on the improvement. He stated that the Resident Manager had:
done a great deal to improve the buildings. Every part of the establishment is now clean
and orderly and in good repair. Plans are being prepared for reconstruction and alterations
so as to provide a domestic chapel for the Community and School, a Sanitary annexe for
the Community, and additional washing facilities and lavatories in the Boys’ dormitories.
9.340 During the 1940s, the reports of both the Department of Education Inspector and the Visitors
found things largely satisfactory. Apart from the completion of a chapel in the early 1940s, no
major construction work was carried out in Tralee, although renovations and maintenance were
carried out from time to time. One Visitor described the basic premises, which had been
constructed in 1859, as ‘naturally dark and cheerless’. The main building was a typical Victorian
institutional structure.
9.341 Throughout the 1950s, improvements were made to the dormitories, the refectory, the chapel and
the boys’ kitchen. The Resident Manager in the early 1950s, Br Sauville, was active in improving
the buildings and facilities, and was praised by the Department’s Inspector for his efforts in this
regard.30
9.342 By 1968, the Visitor had commented on the general neglect in the upkeep of the premises. The
boys themselves were doing the general cleaning work under the supervision of a Brother, while
workmen did the general maintenance work.
9.343 What might have been deemed adequate in the 1940s and 1950s was less so in the 1960s. The
new Resident Manager in the early 1960s, Br Sinclair, was less competent than the man who had
effected such improvement in the 1950s. Although the School continued to be described as well-
run, basic facilities, in particular toilets and washrooms, were singled out for criticism.
9.344 From the 1960s, however, strong criticism was made of the condition of the schoolrooms. They
were described as ‘very drab and dirty’ in 1960 and, in 1963, were described as being ‘very badly
in need of repair – the atmosphere is depressing’.
9.345 The Department of Education Inspector, Dr C. E. Lysaght, who inspected the School in March
1966, found that the dormitories ‘gave an impression of the bleakness of an old style institution’.
He also referred to a ‘general drabness’ and went on to state:
I have reservations however that increased money made available would solve all
problems here and bring it up to the standard of the schools operated by nuns which I
have seen so far.
9.346 In 1967, the Visitor recommended the renewal and re-planning of the boys’ toilets, because they
were in ‘a bad state’.
9.347 In May 1968, the Visitor commented that the infirmary department was ‘one of the bright lights of
an otherwise most depressing establishment’. The house, although somewhat drab and in need
of painting and many modern improvements, was ‘reasonably satisfactory’. There were still no
facilities for the boys to wash themselves during the day. It noted that the toilets were clean but
30
‘The School has improved out of all recognition’ and ‘excellent manager’.

‘primitive in the extreme’. The premises had been neglected, and the Resident Manager of the
time was blamed for this deterioration.
9.348 Just before the School closed, things had improved somewhat. The Visitation Report for April
1969 noted that one of the dormitories had been fitted out as a study hall, and that two other
rooms had been set up as television and recreation rooms. One dormitory catered for all boys
and this had been painted, remodelled and looked very presentable. The shower room had
cubicles fitted and was working very satisfactorily.
9.349 • The negative impact of bad Resident Managers was clearly seen in Tralee, not only in
terms of the physical care of the boys, but in every aspect of life there.
• The quality of the food improved in the 1950s with the improvements in the kitchen
and the arrival of Br Lafayette.
• The Christian Brothers’ Opening Statement mentioned that Visitation Reports gave the
impression that clothing and footwear were generally satisfactory but, in fact, there
were numerous Inspector’s Reports indicating that clothing was below standard.
• Boys should not have gone hungry whilst produce from the farm was sold for private
profit. This situation continued for a number of years before being stopped by a newly
appointed Resident Manager.
Health of the boys

9.350 The Department of Education inspections almost invariably referred to the health of the boys in
positive terms. Only on one occasion, in 1944, did the Inspector comment on the fact that ‘In this
school numbers of children much below average height and weight for age. Many of the children
under weight’. In spite of this observation, the Inspector also noted that the children were medically
well cared for. Eighteen months later, the Inspector noted that the ‘Boys look healthy and have
put on weight regularly’ and that the children were medically ‘well cared’. Throughout the period,
the Inspector described the boys as being ‘well cared’ or ‘very well cared’ and her description of
their health varied from ‘satisfactory’ to ‘excellent’. The documentation also refers to the doctor
attending regularly and as required. However, two complainants made allegations of the failure to
treat them medically for specific conditions, and one in particular said that he had only seen a
doctor once during his six years in Tralee. Neither of these complainants was in Tralee in the
1950s when conditions appear to have improved.
Education
9.351 The children committed to an industrial school were entitled to a full primary education and an
industrial training to equip them for employment when they left. A full primary education could be
measured by the attainment of a Primary Certificate at the end of the national school cycle. The
Christian Brothers maintain that the statistics show that the pass rate for those pupils who were
present for the Primary Certificate examination was good, averaging 76%.
9.352 The Committee has Primary Certificate records for 10 of the 15 complainants heard. Of the 10,
eight passed and two failed.
Visitation Reports
9.353 Visitors’ comments on the standard of education in Tralee were generally positive. For example,
in 1941, the Visitor noted that the Department Inspector had given a ‘very flattering report on the
vast improvement which he stated was discernible in the manners appearance and proficiency of
the pupils’. In 1944, the Visitor noted that the boys could ‘give a good account of the instruction
they have received’. The following year, the Visitor noted that they were ‘making satisfactory
progress in all classes but the standard of proficiency is not as high as in the ordinary schools’.
9.354 In both 1954 and 1963, the Visitor noted that the frequent changes of staff had had an adverse
effect on the standards. By contrast, in 1958 the Visitor said that quite a good standard was
reached by the boys. Although the ‘uneven’ standard was mentioned in 1954, 1960 and 1961, the
Visitor in 1960 noted that most of the boys had ‘the essentials’. The large numbers of weak pupils
were mentioned in the 1964 and 1968 Reports and, in 1968, the Visitor noted that many of the
boys needed individual help, which they were being given ‘as well as possible’.
Department of Education Inspections

9.355 Only two Department of Education reports were available to the Committee. In 1942, the level of
education in most subjects was stated to be pitched at a lower standard than the official standard.
In 1952, the school was reported to be ‘satisfactory’.
Br Marceau
9.356 Witnesses who were taught by Br Marceau confirmed his brutality and eccentricity, which had
been commented on by Visitors.
9.357 Br Aribert, who was in the School in the early 1960s, told the Committee he disagreed with Br
Marceau’s teaching methods. He had charts ‘all over the walls’ and he made the boys go around
learning them. He felt that the boys did not like this system.
9.358 Because Br Marceau was not trained, he was not subject to normal Department of Education
Inspections, and therefore there was no control or supervision exercised by the Department over
his activities.
Oral evidence
9.359 Eight complainants spoke about the standard of education they got in Tralee. Three of these had
very positive comments to make. The first of these witnesses said that his time in Tralee gave
him a broader outlook. He emerged ‘appreciating some of even the finer things in life in the line
of music and literature and that kind of stuff’. He said that the practical education, the Maths,
English and the Irish (apart from Br Archard) stood him in good stead.31
9.360 Another witness told the Committee he received an education from the Christian Brothers. He
was educated in the three Rs and had the opportunity to go to secondary school but turned it
down and went to the technical school instead. He had been an ‘awful mitcher’ before he went to
Tralee. He acknowledged that he was better off in Tralee and would not have got an education
otherwise.
9.361 A third complainant who was sent to the technical college for an extra year’s education said he
received a ‘good education’. He also said that you could learn music in the band if you wanted to,
although he personally did not pursue this. He thought there were two more boys who attended
the tech with him.
9.362 By contrast, three complainants were very critical of the education received.
9.363 One complainant, who was in Tralee in the 1940s, said that he received a ‘very bad education,
really bad’. He reflected that it was perhaps his own fault, as he could not take things in. He
recalled how the nuns taught him how to read and write. In Tralee, the emphasis was not on his
education but rather on his work on the farm and in the laundry. His arithmetic was ‘right up the
creek really’. He could read but he could not spell. When asked to what extent his education
developed while in Tralee, he replied ‘very, very bad, very bad’.
31
This complainant was in Tralee from the mid-1950s to the early 1960s.

9.364 Another complainant recalled that, because he was working on the farm, he received education
only when the weather was inclement. He thinks he was about eight years of age when he was
sent to work on the farm. He also said that the education he got in Tralee was not better that what
he would otherwise have received. He said he went to school ‘the odd time’. He did, however,
recall Br Kalle as being a good teacher.
9.365 The third witness, who was in Tralee from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s, said, ‘I can’t remember
any education. It was terrible because of the climate of fear; I was so frightened all the time’. He
was able to read and write when he left Tralee but ‘not too well’. He did learn how to read music
while in Tralee. Apart from that, he said, he came out of Tralee with ‘no education’.
9.366 Two further complainants were ambivalent about the education they received, although in both
cases it would appear to have been reasonably good. The first of these was in Tralee in the 1940s
and he recalled that he passed the Primary Certificate. He thought that the whole class had sat
it, but learned that only two boys in his class had done so. He believed that he could have received
help during the exam from the Brother who supervised during the exam. The Department of
Education Primary Certificate results for the relevant year confirm that only two boys in Tralee sat
the examination that year. Three years later, 12 boys sat the examination, and two passed.
9.367 Another complainant, who attended the school in the 1950s, said that the education he received
was both ‘good and poor’. He noted that ‘education in Ireland at that time actually was non
existent’. Education, he believed:
would prepare you for when you leave the School, but it didn’t actually enhance my
situation because when I left the School I still needed help to further my education and
there was no actual aftercare.
9.368 His writing and spelling, he said, was weak. When he went into Tralee he was ‘okay, well
reasonable’ educationally. He failed a lot of exams and said that it may have been his own fault.
He was not a quick learner. This complainant later joined the Irish Army, where he failed every
one of his exams. He believed that Tralee had a bearing on that. Even though his records show
that he had passed the Primary Certificate, he believed he had only completed 5th class when he
left Tralee.
Evidence given by former members of staff

9.369 Six Brothers gave evidence to the Committee about the education given to the boys. One spoke
about the high standard of the education and another recalled the excellent Primary Certificate
results. A third told the Committee of the commitment to quality that they had. A fourth spoke
about the lack of teaching aids, and a fifth referred to the background of the children as mitigating
against a high standard. A sixth Brother spoke about how the boys were all in the same class,
regardless of ability. He told the Committee how this was different to Artane, where they were
streamed. None of the Brothers referred to the poor quality of the classrooms that was identified
by successive Visitors in the 1960s.
9.370 • The standard of education in Tralee was better than in some other industrial schools.
The smaller numbers, and two genuinely interested Resident Managers during the
1950s, led to improved standards, a fact borne out by some of the complainants.
Second level education

9.371 According to their Opening Statement, the earliest record the Christian Brothers have of a pupil
receiving second level education was an account from a Brother who taught in the school in the
1940s. He said that, towards the end of his time there, some of the pupils went to the Green
Secondary School in Tralee, which was also run by the Christian Brothers. There was a record of
one other pupil achieving his Intermediate and Leaving Certificates in the 1950s. It was not until
the 1960s that boys were sent to secondary school from Tralee on a consistent basis, although
the local secondary school was owned and operated by the Christian Brothers.
9.372 One of the items on the agenda for the meeting of the Christian Brothers’ Resident Managers’
Association, held on 31st April 1957, was whether ‘anything extra’ could be done for industrial
school pupils of outstanding ability when they reached the age of 16 years. The minutes recorded
the following:
The number of pupils of “outstanding ability” is apparently very small. The Department,
as intimated through its Inspector Mr Sugrue, is very interested in the progress of those
boys who are attending a Secondary School in Glin, and gives a maintenance grant for
an extra year for them. Br L. Hourigan said there was no trouble in having boys admitted
to the Army School of Music. The experiment was not a success in Tralee – boys sent to
attend the Brothers’ Sec. School proved unsatisfactory.
9.373 It is not clear in what respect this was ‘unsatisfactory’, as very few boys had attended secondary
school by 1957. In 1963, the Visitor stated:
Boys who have gone on to the Secondary School at St. Mary’s are doing very well – two
of them have the priesthood in mind – and about nine boys follow a course in Woodwork
and are taught by a member of the Technical School staff.
9.374 Only four of the complainants heard by the Committee had attended secondary/technical school.
Manual instruction classes

9.375 In July 1943, the Resident Manager wrote to the Secretary of the Department of Education, asking
that the boys in the primary school should be allowed to attend classes in woodwork and manual
training in the local technical college as part of their school week. An hour and a half or two hours
a week was proposed. This proposal was accepted by the Department of Education, but was not
implemented because of staff changes in Tralee and, accordingly, the scheme was abandoned.
9.376 The 1945 Visitation Report stated:

The Manual Instruction classes were discontinued some years ago, and none of the boys
now get instruction in Woodwork except the few who are engaged at carpentry. It is to be
feared that the interest of the boys was not considered when this change was made, as
there is no class of boys who would benefit more than these from Manual Instruction,
which should form an essential part of their education.
9.377 In January 1950, the Resident Manager notified the Department of Education of his intention to
set up a class in Manual Instruction – Woodwork. Correspondence ensued regarding the syllabus,
qualification of the teachers, etc. Approval was granted and the class started in September 1950.
The Inspector’s reports on Manual Instruction in primary schools for 1951, 1952 and 1953 reported
the instruction to be excellent.
9.378 In 1954, the Resident Manager sought recognition for the course from the Department for the
purposes of a grant.
9.379 An internal Departmental memorandum dated 1st November 1954 set out the reasons why the
Resident Manager sought recognition from the Department for the course. One of these reasons
was that, as a result of following a two-year course, the students were in a position to qualify for
the Group Certificate, a qualification that the trade unions accepted. The Department employee
noted that the Resident Manager was a Manager ‘who has the best interests of his special
students at heart and who strives to accomplish for them whatever is to their benefit’. The author
recommended that the Department recognise the course.
9.380 Another internal Departmental memorandum noted that the Manager put great confidence in the
boys under his care, and the Inspector said that it would be worthwhile recognising the course. A
decision was made that the Inspector’s recommendation be accepted.
9.381 • The enthusiasm of the Resident Manager for this project is striking. It is an example
of an individual Christian Brother looking to the best interests of the boys and offering
innovative ideas. It is further evidence that a good and committed Resident Manager
could make changes that benefited both the school and the boys.
Training
9.382 As in all of the industrial schools examined by the Committee, the trades offered to the boys in
Tralee were largely dictated by the needs of the Institution. They never varied throughout the
period of the investigation and consisted of shoemaking, tailoring, carpentry, baking and kitchen
work, laundry and farm work. In the 1960s, the demands being put on the one or two boys who
ran the laundry for the School was commented on by Visitors, one of whom recommended that a
woman should be employed to assist with this work.
9.383 Up to a half of the total of boys in trade were engaged in farm work. In 1960, a two-hour per week
agricultural training course was established. Boys were readily employable as farm workers after
they left, although at very low wages. The Christian Brothers admitted that many farmers were
only prepared to take the boys until they became entitled to an adult wage, at which time they let
them go. Whilst working as juveniles, they had their board and keep deducted, which left them
with a bare pittance. Although there was undoubtedly an element of exploitation, there was,
according to Br Nolan, at least the prospect of a job that was hard to come by in rural Ireland at
that time.
9.384 Trades such as farming, carpentry, tailoring, boot-making and baking all directly contributed to the
Institution. Clothing was made and repaired on the premises, and boots were repaired. In addition,
in the 1947 Visitation Report it was stated that the tailors and shoemakers had a steadily growing
clientele. There were about four older boys permanently in each shop. After school hours the
number was raised to 16. The Committee does not have complete records, but the 1953 Visitation
Report stated that income exceeded expenditure for the carpenters, tailors and boot-makers. The
figures do not include the value of what was supplied to the Brothers or boys.
9.385 The carpenter’s shop was the most popular trade for the boys. According to the Christian Brothers’
Opening Statement, there were two excellent carpenters in Tralee. They carried out most of the
renovations and innovations that were completed between 1940 and 1970 with the assistance of
the boys. The men who taught the carpentry made the new chapel.32 They helped to build the
handball alley and did a lot of renovation work. The furniture they made was sold in the nearby
towns and was valued for the quality of the workmanship. It was recorded in 1937, 1951 and 1953
as having an income exceeding expenditure.33
9.386 Of the 431 boys who were discharged into trades between 1940 and 1969, 151 went into farming,
and 112 went into service as a ‘houseboy’. Only 23 went into carpentry, and 20 into tailoring, 51
worked in hotels, and 24 worked as boot-makers.
32
One complainant told the Committee about how the boys had to creosote the floor in hot weather, and without any
gloves or goggles. ‘It was a very nasty job because it would get into your eyes and all over your hands and
everywhere else’.
33
There was a profit of £98 mentioned in the 1937 Visitation Report, and a profit of approximately £395 mentioned in
the 1953 Visitation Report.

9.387 • Only trades of direct benefit to the school were offered and those that were provided,
with the exception of farming, offered very limited employment opportunities. As the
years went by, the trades became more and more irrelevant and outdated, but no
changes were made to reflect this fact. Boys were prepared for a lifetime of labouring
and menial tasks.
Aftercare
9.388 The Christian Brothers argued that the Resident Managers were left to deal with the matter of
aftercare on a zero budget, with no resources, no transport and no relief from the existing burden
of the work to be done in the school. It acknowledged that the result was that the ‘Aftercare
Programme was unsatisfactory, and very much a hit and miss affair’.
9.389 In Tralee, contact with former residents and their employers was mainly by post. A letter was
written to the employers, who effectively evaluated themselves. It was obviously ineffective as an
assessment of the progress of the boy. This also meant that the boy was not in a position to
communicate his situation to the Resident Manager. The Opening Statement explained that, in
the early 1960s, a printed form was sent to employers once a year. No equivalent contact was
made with the boys, however. In the Committee’s view, this was a substantial failing in the system.
9.390 According to the Christian Brothers, many of the boys emigrated soon after leaving Tralee, which
impeded the implementation of a satisfactory aftercare programme for them.
9.391 In 1965, the Visitor said:

The after care of the boys cannot be termed satisfactory. A number of boys go out to
farmers but after a few years make their way to England. Some farmers keep them till
they are 19 years of age and then let them off as they would be obliged to pay them a
man’s wage.
9.392 In the follow-up letter to the Resident Manager, he was asked to give as much attention as
possible to the aftercare of the boys.
9.393 Four of the 15 complainants heard by the Committee were followed up for the prescribed period
of two years, according to the Register. Two of these complainants left the School in the 1940s,
one in the early 1950s, and one in the late 1950s. There was no two-year follow-up for another
nine of them, and follow-up was not applicable in respect of two boys as they did not go into
employment on leaving Tralee.
9.394 • Aftercare was inadequate, as was acknowledged by the Congregation.
Emotional abuse
9.395 In its Submission on St Joseph’s, Tralee, the Congregation wrote:
The philosophy of care in industrial schools was one of physical care and emphasis was
placed on hygiene, order, neatness, discipline and physical education.
9.396 It also emphasised that ‘the use of corporal punishment was accepted in both home and school
and certain aspects of diet, clothing, heating and furnishing were different from our present
standards’.
9.397 Throughout the relevant period, Tralee had Brothers who were unduly severe and harsh with the
boys. Where physical punishment is perpetrated arbitrarily and excessively, a climate of fear builds
up which can impact on every aspect of life in the institution. The boys lived in fear, and many
complainants spoke of this undercurrent of fear in their everyday life in Tralee.
9.398 Added to this climate of fear was the bullying by older boys of younger boys. It was a feature in
this Institution. It was not properly addressed, either because of a shortage of staff engaged in a
supervisory capacity or because of a failure to understand the seriousness of the problem. This
increased the sense of insecurity and fear for the majority of children growing up there.
9.399 Tralee also had one acknowledged sexual abuser on the staff for a period of 20 years. Fear of
speaking out, and lack of confidence in the willingness of Brothers to listen to them and protect
them, left the children particularly vulnerable to sexual predators. The fact that this Brother could
operate a bizarre ritual of bathing boys and being bathed personally by them leaves no doubt that
the boys in Tralee were not adequately protected by the system and complaints were not properly
dealt with.
9.400 The physical care that was provided was at best a minimum standard. The children were not well
fed and were not dressed properly for a significant part of the period under review. The buildings
were cold and drab and badly maintained, and there appeared to be very little in the way of
recreation for the children. Indeed, when writing closing comments about Tralee in the annals, the
final Resident Manager, Br Roy, commented that ‘recreation facilities hardly existed’.34
9.401 Tralee did not present a particularly edifying picture, but even with all of these shortcomings, it
could still have offered a measure of comfort and security to the children, as was shown when
one Resident Manager took an interest in the needs and welfare of the boys. When the
atmosphere was right, the Brothers and boys could interact in a positive and supportive way.
Oral evidence
9.402 Both complainants and former members of staff gave evidence as to the nature of the relations
between the boys and the Brothers. Complainants spoke of instances of gratuitous cruelty that
indicated a generally negative attitude towards the boys on the part of the Brothers.
9.403 One complainant, who was in the school in the 1940s, described how he was treated by the
Brothers:
There was no such thing as being good to you, there was no such thing as being good
to you. You were there, you were just there to be worked and looked after. I couldn’t say
I ever had a kind word from a Brother.
9.404 Another complainant told the Committee that he wet the bed until he was almost 16 and he got
‘some atrocious abuse over that’. He spoke of how the Brothers, but mostly one particular Brother,
Br Ansel, would hold up the sheet after he wet the bed and show it to the rest of the School,
mocking him. This led to him being labelled a bed-wetter by the other boys. This was, at the time,
‘the lowest you could be’.
9.405 Another former resident said that you never went to a Brother and told him your problem. He was
being severely abused by Br Marceau, who was well known to the Congregation for his excessive
punishment of boys in his care, but he could not speak to the Brothers about it because he did
not know if he would be believed. If he was not believed, he could get a ‘hiding’ from the Brother
he told. Then Br Marceau would be told and he would get a ‘worse hiding’ from him for telling lies.
‘That’s the way it was, you didn’t go to a Christian Brother because you didn’t expect any help
from him’.
34
According to the Opening Statement, the main recreational facilities were the hall, schoolyard, football playing pitch
and the band room. When the primary school closed, the classrooms were converted into sitting rooms, with TV etc.

9.406 He also said that, if two boys had an argument, the Brothers would put them into a boxing ring
and ‘let them settle it that way’, regardless of whether one boy was older than the other. Br Bevis
confirmed that boxing matches were organised, although he maintained that boys of unequal size
were not pitted against each other.
9.407 A fourth complainant, who worked in the laundry, recounted what occurred when smaller boys
were brought to the laundry with wet sheets from their beds. He said:
Yes, I can remember it quite vividly. Any of the boys – it depended on who the Brother
was. They would parade the boy with his sheets in his hands, his wet sheets, the sheets
he wetted in, and this little boy would be woken up there. As I said, I was between 14 and
15, I was old enough to get a job there, and I was able to see who is able to come in the
door. Quite often the boys would walk in and the Brother would follow to humiliate the boy
with his wet sheets, all the other children would follow the Christian Brother laid on to
humiliate this little boy there. They would all be giggling, like kind of kids would be doing,
giggling there, not understanding what the nature of that was. Here is this little boy there,
standing with his wet sheets and he’s terrified. The Brother would turn around and say
“right, ... he has wet his sheets, you have now got to wash his sheets. Now there’s the
belt, give it to him so he won’t do it again”. To look at that little boy’s eyes, to look at that
little boy’s eyes ... I wouldn’t punish him, the boy was too frightened. I understood what
he was going through because I was frightened that way so often. If I didn’t flog that little
boy I got the flogging.
9.408 This complainant recalled that, on the day of his departure from Tralee, two Brothers stood at the
gate and told him he was going to a job in Co Cork. When he asked them whether they knew
where his mother was, they ‘kind of sniggered’ and told him that his mother did not want to know
him, that he had been a failure in Tralee and that he would always be a failure.
9.409 Another complainant remembered that he was always crying and so was given a nickname by Br
Bevis. The Brothers and the boys referred to him by that name throughout his entire time in Tralee
until he was 16. He was beaten on a regular basis, mostly for crying. Older boys picked on him
and it was humiliating. Br Bevis laughed at him while calling him this name. Br Bevis did not
remember a boy with that nickname but admitted that it was possible he could have called him that
name. Br Bevis apologised if it caused him any hurt, but he denied being complicit in the taunts.
9.410 The witness also explained how he had been put into the small dormitory and that the boys who
were put into this small dormitory were perceived as ‘pets’, i.e. the Brothers’ favourites:
Being the pets you were really the worst treated because the other boys used to hate
you. They used to think that you were spoiled and you were telling them information and
things like that. So both ways you were caught like, you know.
9.411 One ex-Brother, Professor Tom Dunne, who left the Congregation after seven years and has
written articles on his experience of being a Christian Brother, spent a short period in Tralee doing
holiday relief work in 1963. He said in one of these articles that he had been shocked, while
watching ‘States of Fear’, by the testimony of one man who claimed to have suffered appalling
abuse whilst in Tralee. Professor Dunne said that he had spent several weeks on relief duty there
in the summer of 1963, but had subsequently suppressed all memory of that time. He told the
Committee he believed that he had psychologically wiped the memories of his time there from his
mind because it was such a distressing experience.
9.412 He said in evidence that his memory of Tralee related mainly to the demeanour of the boys. He
said that he did not beat any of the boys when he was there but, not knowing the culture that was
there, he talked to them. He said that the culture in Tralee was ‘essentially you didn’t talk to them
on an individual basis because that would encourage them to – that was too soft and I was going
in very soft on lots of levels’.
9.413 Professor Dunne went on to identify what particularly bothered him about the boys in Tralee. He
said that ‘they were pathetically grateful and almost tried to form some kind of ... bond with you’.
He said that the boys in Tralee were ‘very ... surprised to be talked to in a way that wasn’t simply
authoritarian and they were almost pathetic in their response. I think it affected me a lot. That
I remember’.
9.414 He went on to say that he recalled it as a place where he intensely disliked the way the boys were
talked about by the staff. He added, ‘I think there was a sense of them, you know, as being just
simply a problem. I remember it as harsh in its general atmosphere’.
9.415 He said that he had no specific memories of Tralee and was not a reliable witness as to what it
was actually like for individual boys there. He explained:
The memory is simply of atmosphere and what it was like to interact with the boys ... I
suppose they lived in a certain kind of fear of authority that was far in excess of what I
was used to in schools.
9.416 In his article published in the Dublin Review, Professor Dunne was even more explicit:
At this remove, I can only recall that it was a profoundly upsetting experience, not because
I was witness to any particular horror, but because of the atmosphere of meanness,
bleakness and fear. This was a different world from the excellent school less than a mile
away ... and even more from our comfortable, normal life in community ... My clearest
memory is of embarrassment at the harsh demeanour of staff and the cowed servility of
the boys, so overwhelmingly grateful for any hint of kindness. Perhaps I put it out of my
mind as soon as I could because of the overwhelming sense of human misery and my
own inadequacy in the face of it ... It was 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.
9.417 Professor Dunne went on to say in the article that the Brothers ‘often left the far more needy boys
of their industrial schools to the inadequate or the troubled, who were given no special training
and little supervision’.
9.418 This disturbing view of Tralee was partially echoed by Br Mahieu. He stated that, when he first
went to Tralee in the early 1960s, he noticed that the children ‘seemed to be crying out for a bit
of love and a bit of attention and a bit of care’. He said that he felt sorry for the boys. They were
a nice, decent bunch and seemed reasonably happy.
9.419 During Br Mahieu’s time, small but significant improvements to the quality of life of the boys in
Tralee were introduced: a tape-recorder for music was acquired, and a projector was donated for
the showing of a weekly film. There were books, comics and magazines available to the boys in
the dormitory.
9.420 He said that, when he went out into the yard, 20 or 30 of the boys would immediately surround
him and ‘link out’ of him. Looking back on it now, he would say that this linking was possibly a
sign of emotional instability. He thought that they ‘needed somebody’, ‘they wanted somebody to
cling on to’.
9.421 Br Aribert, whilst accepting only that one of the Brothers was maybe harsh ‘on occasions’ towards
the boys, also identified a loneliness in them. He did not know if the emotional needs of the boys
were adequately catered for. He said that, whenever he or any Brother was on yard duty, the
boys came and linked with them (three or four on each side of the Brother) and he felt it meant a
lot to them, ‘that at least they had someone literally to hang on to’. He felt that there was an
element of the boys feeling rejection and loneliness, even though they did not say so in so many
words.
9.422 Whilst these three Brothers were clearly identifying an emotional need in the children in Tralee,
they were not able to say what might have been done to offer a greater degree of comfort to the
boys there. The witnesses who spoke to the Committee were quite clear that it was not possible
to report or complain to any other Brother about mistreatment or abuse.
9.423 Other Brothers who were in Tralee did not identify emotional deprivation in the boys there. One
Brother who was in the School in the mid to late 1940s stated that, as far as he knew, the Brothers
and the boys got on well. He did not know if the boys were afraid of the Brothers but said that
they had more respect for the Principal than the rest, as he had power.
9.424 Another Brother, Br Boyce, who had also worked in Artane, said that Tralee was more relaxed
than Artane, for both the Brothers and the boys. He said that the small numbers there meant that
they could deal with the boys easily. He was able to talk to the boys more easily. The boys were
the same kind as in Artane, although he thought the boys were more relaxed in Tralee. He felt
that the boys were helped, i.e. emotionally supported, by the smaller numbers in the School.
9.425 Br Bevis said that he did not think that there were many boys who found it difficult to cope. He
accepted that they had their own fears and that there were tears for being rejected by their parents,
tears of loneliness and tears from probably being taunted by the other boys, but they could tell
‘most of the Brothers’. For his own part, he said that boys would come to him and tell him that
someone was bullying them or jeering at them. He did not accept that the atmosphere was cold
and indifferent to their plight. He said the boys could complain to the Brothers about excessive
corporal punishment being meted out by other Brothers, but accepted that there was no system
for making complaints and that no investigations into complaints took place.
9.426 Two Brothers, Brs Aribert and Chapin, stated that they felt that they had a good relationship
personally with the boys, and both said that generally the relationship between the Brothers and
the boys was very good. Br Aribert referred to the boys needing someone to literally hang onto,
and also said that the staff who were there in his time were ‘very caring people’. He mentioned
one particular Brother, Br Reve, who was like a father figure.
9.427 Br Octave, in a reply to a Christian Brothers’ questionnaire, said that some of the Brothers were
very tough on the boys and punished them severely. Others were more equable. He said it was
important that all staff established their own discipline.
9.428 Some complainants gave evidence of kindness shown to them by different Brothers. However,
one Brother described a failing in the Institution, when he said that the boys became
institutionalised. He said that the ‘personal touch wasn’t there. Well, I suppose from men that is
what you would kind of expect ... that the personal touch wasn’t really there’. He also pointed out
that, when the boys left the School and ‘went out on their own’, they could not cope. ‘They lost
the back-up of routine that they were used to’.
9.429 In 1947 the Visitation Report commented that, while the Resident Manager’s ‘intercourse with the
boys is kindly ... it never sacrifices the distance that inspires respect’. In 1953 the Visitation Report
stressed contact rather than a relationship. It wrote that the Resident Manager’s:
main contacts with the boys ... are: Inspection every morning, the Store and distribution
of clothing, etc. when necessary, and giving the boys a Religious Instruction on Sundays.
9.430 In 1957 the Report remarked on the quality of emotional support. It noted the Brothers were
generally ‘sympathetic and considerate in their dealings with the boys and hence the Institution
does, as far as possible, resemble a home’ and there was no attempt to run away.
9.431 The relationship between the boys and the Brothers in charge was very rarely described in positive
terms by ex-residents of industrial schools, but many Brothers had a different understanding. Even
today, some Brothers looking back at their time in schools such as Tralee do not appear to
appreciate how the School impacted on the children who were sent there.
Daily workload of the Brothers

9.432 The Brothers who appeared before the Investigation Committee spoke of their daily routine and
the stresses of working in Tralee. Four of the seven Brothers who worked in Tralee for other than
holiday relief spoke about the busy days they had in the School, and one of them spoke about
the stress it placed him under. This respondent, Br Mahieu, stated that he had a lot of supervision
to do. It was generally the two or three teaching Brothers who organised and took responsibility
for the daily activity, the timetables and the routines in the School. He also spoke about the arrival
of boys from Glin and Upton in 1966 as causing a difficulty in terms of looking after them and
trying to cope with them. He said it caused ‘an awful lot of extra vigilance’. He became less happy
with his work there until they had ‘got to grips with the situation’. Other Brothers also spoke about
the long hours.
9.433 Br Mahieu spoke of the difficulty of dealing with bed-wetters. He had nobody to help him, and
trying to cope with it wore him down. The only resource available was an old-fashioned laundry.
He acknowledged that he would get frustrated and would use the strap, which he bitterly regretted.
He felt he was put into an almost impossible situation. There could be six or eight bed-wetters
and soilers in a dormitory.
9.434 The 1966 Visitation Report noted that a number of older Brothers resided in Tralee, and advised
that every member of staff should be able to take his share of duties and help to lighten the
burden of the others, and this was going to be all the more necessary when the boys from Glin
arrived. In the circumstances, the Visitor felt Tralee was not a suitable place for the old Brothers.
With these older, more infirm Brothers unable to work, the burden of work fell unfairly on the
younger Brothers. The evidence of Br Lisle confirmed that in 1966 there were only four Brothers,
including himself, available to run the School, out of a total of 11 Brothers in the Community. He
pointed out he was not trained as a teacher. Br Mahieu claimed that one of the remaining Brothers,
Br Marceau, was not someone to whom supervision duties could be given.
9.435 Like those in other Christian Brothers institutions, Brothers in Tralee did not receive any training
in childcare. According to the Opening Statement of the Christian Brothers, newcomers had to
rely on the example and advice of senior colleagues. They also relied on the support of established
routines and procedures. Six of the seven former permanent staff members who gave evidence
to the Investigation Committee had all entered the novitiate at 14 or 15, and were no more than
18 years old after completing their first year in St Helen’s. All seven were aged between 24 and
28 when they arrived in Tralee. Br Bevis said that he did not believe early entry into the seminary
affected his ability to cope with the boys emotionally, but he did concede that he needed more
experience and that, if he had the chance to go back, he would do things differently.
9.436 Br Mahieu, when referring to the difficulties experienced when the boys from Glin and Upton
arrived in Tralee, stated:
Now, that made it extremely difficult for us. Like, when I was sent to Tralee ... I got no
training whatsoever, not even one single word. All I was given was, I was given a leather
strap. Nobody thought it worthwhile to give me training for residential care.
9.437 He said that they badly needed training when they had the mix of boys from Upton, Glin and
Tralee. He was never given any direction in relation to the type of discipline he could administer
to the boys, either by the Department of Education or the Christian Brothers. In their Final
Submissions, the Christian Brothers said that a review of the entire transcript of this respondent’s
evidence indicated that these comments were not intended as a criticism of the Congregation but
were, with the benefit of hindsight, expressing regret that specialist training was not provided for
persons in his position at that time.
9.438 Brothers were not given any induction course or training on arrival in Tralee.
Visitation Reports, Department Inspections and the issue of emotional abuse

9.439 The Visitation Reports invariably described the boys as happy, and no comments were made
about any emotional needs. They referred frequently to the good atmosphere in Tralee and the
good relations between the boys and the Brothers.
9.440 The 1959 Visitation Report commented that the discipline was ‘satisfactory. The boys are at their
ease and a spirit of cooperation and good-will prevails’.
9.441 There was little evidence that the Visitors or the Department’s Inspectors ever spoke to the boys
in the schools.35 These failures to consult with the boys were flaws in both the management of
the school and supervision by the Department.
9.442 The Investigation Committee did hear some positive comments from the former pupils who
attended oral hearings. Two complainants identified two different Brothers in charge of the farm
as being kind and good to the boys.
9.443 One witness said that one of these two Brothers, Br Reve, knew what was going on in Tralee at
the time. He was living under the stairs in the School, not in the Brothers’ quarters because,
according to the witness, he was dirty from farm work and he was regarded by the other Brothers
as a ‘dirty little man’. The boys were able to talk to him about being hurt and he always said to
them ‘There is nothing I can do about it’.
9.444 Another complainant said he did not mind going to work on the farm as the Brother there, Br
Avery, was ‘brilliant’ and ‘nice to everyone’. He said that this particular Brother took the shotgun
to Br Marceau36 once or twice because of his cruelty to the boys and ‘told him to stop it once and
for all’.
9.445 Another former resident, when asked if there was an environment of fear in the School, stated
that he was only in fear of one particular Brother, Br Lafayette. He felt the rest of the Brothers did
their best with what they had and were getting ‘a raw deal’ in the media. He named four individuals,
including one lay person, who had been either good or kind to him. These included Brs Bevis and
Cheney.37 He said that he had very fond memories of Br Bevis and still exchanged Christmas
cards with him.
9.446 • Professor Dunne said that boys showed extreme gratitude for any act of kindness,
which he thought was one of the most disturbing aspects of life in Tralee. Complainant
evidence tended to confirm his observation. Even if the kindness shown was no more
35
The 1949 annals referred to Mr Sugrue, the Department’s Inspector, having made his first visit to the School and
having spoken freely to staff and boys.
36
This Brother to whom the shotgun was taken was the Brother who had the long history of physically abusing boys
and spent two separate periods in Tralee.
37
He also said this of Br Toussnint and of a lay teacher.

than ordinary human respect or consideration, it made an impact on the children who
received it, and they remembered it with gratitude some 50 years later.
• Some complainants contrasted the harshness of some Brothers with the kinder
treatment by others. Individual Brothers could have an impact on the lives of these
children but they were powerless to protect them from the excesses of their
colleagues. Although Brothers could not change the system, they could ameliorate its
effects through individual acts of kindness.
Contact with the outside world

9.447 An important element in the emotional well-being of children in institutions, which was recognised
by the Cussen Report, was their contact with the outside world. For the majority of children in
Tralee this was not a significant feature of their time there. It was not until 1968, some 32 years
after it was recommended by Justice Cussen, that the primary schooling of the children in Tralee
was integrated with that of the children in the town. This was all the more regrettable because the
outside schools, both national and secondary, were run by the Christian Brothers, which should
have facilitated an easier and speedier transition. Professor Dunne wrote of the isolation of the
Industrial School from the other Christian Brothers establishment in Tralee. He said that although
‘The Monastery’, as the Industrial School was called, was less than a mile away from the school
in which he taught, he was only dimly aware of its existence before being assigned to help out
there for the summer. He said that the Monastery and the Brothers who staffed it lived apart from
the other Brothers who staffed the day school in Tralee town, who enjoyed a ‘comfortable, normal
life in community’. In 1960 the Visitation Report noted that ‘the townspeople are very good to the
boys and interested in their welfare – this is especially evident at Christmas time. There is no
undue familiarity with outsiders’.
9.448 In 1963 the Visitation Report referred to the School band and dancing troupe rehearsing for the
St Patrick’s Day concert. The Visitor mentioned that the School had some good friends among
the townspeople but remarked, not disapprovingly, that otherwise the Brothers had little or no
connection with the town.
9.449 In response to the questionnaire he received, Br Octave, who was in Tralee in the 1940s, said that
the local people did not like them, that they regarded the School as a place of no consequence. He
said that one local man promoted visits to the cinema and games with local football teams, but
that ‘Booterstown took a dim view of this’.38
9.450 When well-trained, the band was a source of great pride. One complainant recalled that the band
members were the only boys allowed out of the School, other than to go on the school walk on
Sundays. The band was in many respects the public face of the Institution, and it would have
presented a reassurance to the local people that the children in St Joseph’s were receiving a very
high standard of care. A follow-up letter to the Resident Manager after the 1963 Visitation
remarked that the band and the dancing troupe were:
a credit to their school. Their public appearance should be sufficient answer to those who
make disparaging references to Industrial Schools.
9.451 For boys who were sent to Tralee from Dublin, contact with families would have been very difficult,
particularly in the 1940s and 1950s. Even boys who were from Kerry had limited contact with
family members, although there was no evidence before the Committee that such contact was
discouraged. In fact, one witness told the Committee how he used to visit his sisters in the local
girls’ industrial school across the road. This happened when he got to about 12 years of age and,
when he reached 14, he was allowed over almost every Sunday.
38
St Helen’s was in Booterstown.

9.452 The School annals record in various years that boys went home to their families for holidays.39
9.453 The fact that boys were separated from their families created major problems and had an
emotional effect on the boys. They felt alienated from their roots, their family and friends, and
suffered a loss of personal identity. For example, one witness told the Committee:
The biggest abuse really is being denied any information about my family. Outside, the
abuse I suffered, that has gone. You have your abuse, you have your beatings, you take
it and you go. But the abuse that stays with me, and it stays with me to this day, I am
now 76 years of age, is that I can never prove ... I don’t suppose there is one here in this
room who doesn’t know who their mother was, right? I never knew who my mother was
and why take me away from my mother, take me away from my brother or my sister and
my friends and, take me and put me away? I had done no wrong to anybody and I have
been put away, sentenced to all those years for nothing.
9.454 This complainant explained how he never got to know his parents, having been put into a school
in Kilkenny when he was three. He was 20 before he found out he had a brother and sister. All of
the birth certificates that they had been given were wrong. This complainant told about the
difficulties in meeting new people and not having a medical history. It was submitted by the
Christian Brothers that these factors were the ones that have had the most impact on the former
residents of industrial schools during their lives.
9.455 The Resident Manager was central to the efficient running of the School. A poor manager affected
every aspect of life for the boys: the quality of food, clothing, and care deteriorated rapidly if the
Manager was inadequate.
9.456 Brothers were their own arbiters as to when, where and how to punish. There were no systematic
restraints on them to prevent excess. Rules and guidelines, whether provided by the State or their
own Congregation, were blatantly flouted and there were no sanctions imposed on those who
broke them.
9.457 Control was mainly through corporal punishment. Brothers imposed their will on the boys, and the
bigger boys in turn imposed their will on the smaller ones.
9.458 Children in Tralee were susceptible to harsher treatment because they did not have parents to
protect them. Troublesome Brothers, some known to be a danger to children, were posted to
Tralee.
9.459 There should have been more able teachers, trained for the job of dealing with educational
disadvantage, and care staff trained to look after needy children. Some complainants did,
however, express their appreciation for the education they received in Tralee and, in the latter
years, efforts were made to give some children second level education.
9.460 Trades offered limited opportunities and became more irrelevant and obsolete over the years.
Boys worked for the school, and in the process learned little or nothing to improve their prospects
in life.
9.461 Boys recalled acts of kindness very vividly, because they stood out in a world where they were
not the norm. Brothers were expected to keep their distance, and boys learned to hide their
distress, loneliness, fear and unhappiness.
39
67 in 1945, 70 in 1946, 90 in 1947, 90 in 1949, and 45 in 1952. In 1960, the annals note that families were willing to
take boys for three to four weeks, but there was no evidence of this actually happening that year. 68 boys went on
home leave in 1968.

General conclusions
9.462 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.

Chapter 10
Carriglea Park Industrial School, Dun

Laoghaire (‘Carriglea’), 1894–1954
Introduction
Establishment of Carriglea Industrial School

10.01 Carriglea Park Industrial School, Dun Laoghaire (‘Carriglea’) was first certified as an industrial
school in 1894. It began operating in 1896 and continued until its closure in 1954. Carriglea Park
Industrial School, Dun Laoghaire (‘Carriglea’) was first certified as an industrial school in 1894. It
began operating in 1896 and continued until its closure in 1954.
10.02 It was originally intended to operate as a junior industrial school for boys under 12 years of age.
However, when it was certified it was on the basis that it would function as a full-scale industrial
school, catering for boys up to 16 years of age from the south Dublin and County Wicklow areas.
Source: The Stolen Child: A Memoir by Joe Dunne (Marino Books 2003)

Source: Bartholomew Street Map of Dublin, undated.
10.03 The rationale behind the purchase of Carriglea was to replicate the success of Artane Industrial
School and its rapidly increasing numbers. Artane had been in operation since 1870 and had its

own junior school by 1883. The idea of setting up a similar institution on the south side of Dublin
was mooted and, with the approval of the Chief Inspector of Industrial Schools, Carriglea was
purchased in 1893 by the Christian Brothers to fulfil this need. It was expected to be ‘Artane on a
small scale’.
10.04 The school was situated about 112 miles south west of Dun Laoghaire at Kill of the Grange. The
property was bordered by what is now Kill Avenue, Rochestown Avenue and the former site of
Dun Laoghaire Golf Course.
10.05 When the Christian Brothers purchased the property, it comprised a mansion house and 40 acres
of land. By 1896 the purchase of a nearby farm increased the lands to 60 acres. In 1946 the
property was extended further with the purchase of land originally intended for the construction of
a secondary school, the building of which did not commence until the late 1950s. This additional
land was utilised to extend the farm, thereby increasing the acreage to 115.
10.06 The mansion was used as the Brothers’ residence, and an L-shaped, two-storey building was
erected to the rear to accommodate the boys. This building consisted of a dining room, kitchen
and classrooms on the ground floor, and two dormitories above that accommodated approximately
130 to 140 beds each.
10.07 The Rules and Regulations for the Certified Industrial Schools in Saorstát Éireann, which were
approved by the Minister for Education, were signed by the Resident Manager of Carriglea on
23rd January 1933.
Management and administration

10.08 Initially, Carriglea was certified for 260 pupils, later reduced to 150, a figure lower than anticipated
by the Christian Brothers. Over subsequent years, they sought to increase the certification limit
and, by 1925, they had succeeded in increasing this figure to 250, with a further increase of 10
places in 1944 bringing the final certification limit to 260.
10.09 The average number of pupils in the School over the period of this investigation was 225, and
ranged from a high of 260, in 1939 and 1945, to a low of 180 in 1952. Carriglea was a large
institution, comparable with Letterfrack and bigger than Tralee, Salthill or Glin. The large numbers
led to problems of overcrowding in the School during the 1930s.
10.10 As stated above, Carriglea was envisaged as being ‘Artane on a small scale’. However, for much
of the period under review, it was a far cry from its highly regimented and disciplined sister school
on the north side of the city.
10.11 The documents show Carriglea to have been an unruly, chaotic and disorganised place from 1936
until 1945. Discipline was lacking, and sexual activity among the boys was widespread. The
Visitation Reports for those years corroborate this fact. The conditions that led to such indiscipline
and unruliness,were mainly attributable to weak, uninterested staff, poor control of the boys, and
a lack of recreational or occupational activities for them. Few boys were engaged in any trades
training, which left over 200 of them unoccupied for large parts of the afternoon. The situation was
addressed to some extent in 1945, with the assignment of new Brothers to the School, but the
regime introduced by these Brothers created its own problems.
10.12 The chronic mismanagement was exemplified by the number of Brothers who passed through
Carriglea from 1935 until 1954. This 19-year period saw 65 different Brothers pass through the
Institution. A boy arriving in Carriglea in 1945 at seven years of age, and leaving in 1954 at the
age of 16, would have had 40 different Brothers caring for him during that time, most of whom
stayed for two years or less. It would have been impossible for these boys to form any lasting
bond with Brothers who came and went so frequently, and this would have had a serious impact
on their sense of security and safety. The Brothers who stayed longer than two years were there
in the post-1945 period, when discipline and management had improved.
Closure of the school

10.13 Carriglea officially closed on 30th June 1954. Numbers in all of the industrial schools run by the
Christian Brothers were steadily declining, a fact which had a corresponding impact on the income
of the schools. The Provincial Council decided to close one of its industrial schools, and at the
same time implement a policy of segregation, whereby delinquent boys would be segregated from
non-delinquents. It was decided to close Carriglea and use the building as a juniorate for the
training of Christian Brothers. June 1954. Numbers in all of the industrial schools run by the
Christian Brothers were steadily declining, a fact which had a corresponding impact on the income
of the schools. The Provincial Council decided to close one of its industrial schools, and at the
same time implement a policy of segregation, whereby delinquent boys would be segregated from
non-delinquents. It was decided to close Carriglea and use the building as a juniorate for the
training of Christian Brothers.
10.14 In 1954, there were 176 boys resident in Carriglea. They were transferred to other industrial
schools as follows: 122 boys were transferred to Artane, eight went to Upton, seven to
Greenmount, 20 to Tralee, and 19 to Glin. These transfers took place on 21st June 1954.1
10.15 At the same time as the decision to close Carriglea was made, the decision was also made to
confine admissions to Letterfrack to boys convicted of offences that would incur imprisonment if
committed by an adult. This decision is discussed in full in the Letterfrack chapter. It met with
strong opposition from the Department of Education, the Department of Justice and members of
the Judiciary. The objections all focused on the unsuitability of Letterfrack because of its isolation
and distance from Dublin, from where most of these children came. The Christian Brothers were
adamant, however, and Letterfrack was designated in 1954 as the Christian Brothers’ industrial
school for all convicted children under 14.
10.16 Clearly, it would have been a better decision for the children in care to close Letterfrack and keep
Carriglea open. There was no record of such a suggestion being put to the Provincialate by either
the relevant Departments or by District Judges. The fact that the Brothers owned the schools
meant they were entitled to do what they liked with their own property. Irrespective of whether the
property had been donated2 for a particular purpose, or had been purchased through fund-raising,
once the legal title was vested in the Congregation, the Department of Education was powerless
to influence the decision.
Finance
10.17 The accounts in Carriglea were not well kept for much of the period because the Brothers’ house
accounts and the Institution accounts were not maintained separately until the mid-1940s. Instead,
the various items of income and expenditure for the Institution and the Brothers’ residence were
maintained in the one account. The poor state of book-keeping was criticised by Congregation
Visitors, one of whom remarked in 1940:
Should a Government Auditor ever come to audit the Carriglea Accounts there would not
only be confusion but a very bad showing up of our methods of keeping Accounts.
1
121 boys in Carriglea who had been committed through the courts were transferred to Artane (106), Upton (8) and
Greenmount (7). There were 55 voluntary admissions and they were transferred to Artane (16), Tralee (20) and Glin
(19).
2
As in the case of Letterfrack .

10.18 A few Visitation Reports looked in detail at the issue of finance and, from them, some important
information may be gleaned.
10.19 In 1938, the Visitor made a number of observations about the financial position of the Institution.
There were 258 boys in the School in that year, and the total income from all sources including
capitation grants was £8,256. A total of £1,600 was paid to the seven Brothers in the Carriglea
Community by way of salary, which represented approximately £228 per Brother. Out of this, £500
was paid to the Baldoyle Building Fund and £320 in Visitation Dues. The salary paid to the
Brothers did not cover housing expenses or food, which was paid for out of the overall budget of
the Institution. Thus, £820, approximately 10% of the School income, was paid to the use of
the Congregation.
10.20 The Visitor strongly recommended that separate House and School accounts should be kept, and
this system was eventually put in place. A surplus of about £900 was recorded in 1943.
10.21 A loss in the running expenses of the Institution was recorded in 1947 and 1948, but it began
making a profit again in 1949, and it continued to make a profit until its closure in 1954. In fact,
by 1953, Carriglea had managed to accumulate £11,000 in its school bank account and had a
further £4,000 in the Building Fund. The Visitor for that year recommended that:
By some judicious method this £11,000 should be transferred to the Building Fund. To
transfer it all by one cheque might not be desirable, as the Government – and possibly
other parties also – seem to be anxious to probe into the financial position of industrial
schools.
10.22 A ‘judicious method’ was obviously found because the total of money in the Building Fund for
1954 was recorded as £16,000, together with bank credits of approximately £8,000. It does not
appear that Carriglea benefited from this Building Fund over the years. Basic maintenance was
paid for out of current income and, although major improvements were undertaken by the Resident
Manager in 1953/1954, these were of limited value to the boys, as the School closed within months
of these improvements. It continued as a residential institution and, in 1956, opened as a juniorate
for young boys wishing to join the Congregation.
10.23 The Congregation have acknowledged that, at the time of its closure, the surplus funds in Carriglea
amounted to £25,255. The Christian Brothers in their Submission gave a number of explanations
for this surplus. First, they said that the building was not old and therefore not in need of major
renovation while the school operated. It is difficult to reconcile this explanation with the fact that
Carriglea Park Industrial School was a 19th century building requiring the same level of
maintenance as other Christian Brothers’ schools, and the condition of the buildings was
consistently criticised by Visitors from the Congregation. Secondly, they pointed to the figure for
repairs and maintenance for the period 1940 to 1954 which amounted to £4,798 and was, they
said, a low sum. Thirdly, the Christian Brothers pointed to the fact that the maintenance grants
increased in 1947 and 1948, and this factor they attributed to the accounts moving from the red
into the black. Fourthly, they said that the purchase of additional farmland at Clonkeen
considerably increased the farm in Carriglea and contributed to the surplus.
10.24 • Sufficient funding was provided to meet the basic needs of the children in Carriglea,
but it was not entirely devoted to that purpose.
• The Christian Brothers spent money on Carriglea just before it closed as an industrial
school and opened as a juniorate for the Order.

Investigation
10.25 Br Seamus Nolan, a member of the leadership team of St Helen’s Province of the Congregation
of Christian Brothers, provided the Investigation Committee with an Opening Statement in regard
to Carriglea. In his statement he described life in the Institution and outlined the Congregation’s
view as to how the Institution operated. Br Nolan submitted that Carriglea remained in the shadow
of Artane for a significant part of its existence and was compared unfairly to Artane. He added:
the strength and individuality of Carriglea Park lay in the fact that it was small by
comparison with its supposed parent, and while it practiced the same type of control, the
staff, mainly Brothers, were accessible to the boys, befriended many of them and
remained their mentors long after their stay in Carriglea Park.
10.26 Br Nolan referred to the various inspections carried out by the Congregation and the State, which
‘brought every aspect of life under scrutiny’. He stated that Carriglea fared well in these inspections
and that ‘general provision for the pupils, medical care and especially education were highly
praised’. Br Nolan referred to the annual Visitations to the School by members of the Provincial
Council, which he believed were the most thorough and insightful of the inspections. He stated:
‘here again satisfaction and praise were the most common outcomes of the visits but censure and
demands for improvement were not spared if failures were noticed’.
10.27 Br Nolan repeated the Congregation’s apology to any person who had experienced abuse by a
Christian Brother in one of their institutions, but cautioned that it was important not to forget those
who did not fail in their duty and gave generously of their time and service for the children
committed to their care.
10.28 The Investigation Committee heard evidence from five complainants and one respondent in private
hearings held over two days on 13th and 14th March 2006.
10.29 Br Nolan gave evidence to the Investigation Committee on behalf of the Congregation at a public
hearing which took place on 24th May 2006. It focused on issues that arose as a result of the
private hearings into Carriglea and the documentary material furnished to the Commission.
10.30 In addition to oral evidence, the Investigation Committee considered documents received from the
Christian Brothers, the Department of Education and Science, An Garda Sı́ochána and the
Archbishop of Dublin.
10.31 The Investigation Committee received a submission from the Christian Brothers on 4th April 2007,
in which they adopted the General Submissions made regarding other Christian Brothers’
institutions.
Physical abuse
Management issues
10.32 In any large institution, discipline and control are intrinsically linked with the quality of leadership
and management. For most of the period under review, Carriglea was badly managed, with too
few Brothers accepting the mantle of responsibility for running this large industrial school. Four
Brothers held the position of Superior throughout the 1940s. Two of these Brothers were elderly,
Brs Pryor3 and Bryant4, and should not have been appointed to manage a school of over 250 boys.
3
4

10.33 Throughout the 1940s, numbers in Carriglea exceeded the certified limit of 250 boys. Boys were
admitted from the age of six and, between 1940 and 1954, 76% of the children were between
nine and 12 years old.
10.34 Added to this mix of ineffectual management and the high proportion of young children was the
fact that there was simply nothing for these children to do outside school hours. There were no
organised games and nowhere for them to play. The gymnasium was converted to a fuel store in
the late 1930s. The only trades operating in Carriglea were tailoring and boot-making, with only a
small proportion of the boys involved in trades training. Woodwork training had been abandoned
in the early 1940s, despite the presence of qualified teachers and a fully equipped room. Until the
1930s the School had an admirable band, consisting of some 30 boys, but by 1938 the band was
no longer operating. Also around this time, the practice of sending the brighter boys to the local
Christian Brothers’ secondary school, to further their education, ceased. This system had
previously worked well, with the industrial school boys outshining their peers from the outside
national schools, and the Congregation could not explain why this practice was discontinued.
10.35 The Visitation Report of 1936 gave an early indication of the problems that were to dog the School
until its closure. The Report spoke highly of the Superior, Br Rene5, but expressed concern that
he was over-burdened, as he appeared to be running the School single-handedly. Br Rene
asserted that, out of a Community of seven Brothers, only two were ‘active members’. The Brother
appointed as Disciplinarian was entirely ineffective and was unfit for the task. As a result, it fell to
the Superior or one of the lay staff to perform this function. On the few occasions on which it fell
to the Disciplinarian to perform his role, the result had been ‘incidents and acts of insubordination
on the part of the boys’, which the Visitor attributed to lack of tact on the part of the Brother.
Despite the lack of involvement by the majority of Brothers in the Institution, they took umbrage
when the Superior appeared to attach more weight to the opinions of the secular staff.
10.36 Matters improved somewhat the following year with the arrival of a new Sub-Superior, Br Vachel6,
who relieved the waning Superior of some of the daily burdens involved in running the Institution.
10.37 The Visitation Report for 1938 again referred to the weak and ineffective staff and, in particular,
identified some of them who were able and capable but were just too lazy to assist in teaching. It
referred to the fact that only one Brother was engaged in teaching, whilst two of the Brothers, who
replaced the lay teachers, took a half-hour class of religious instruction three days a week and
did no further work in the School.
10.38 In 1939, Br Pryor was appointed Superior, and Br Rene assumed the role of Sub-Superior. The
new Superior was 72 years old. He was described in a Visitation Report as being ‘an out and out
industrial school man’. He had spent a number of years in Artane, Tralee and three separate
periods in Carriglea. He had previously held the position of Superior in Carriglea in the late 1920s.
10.39 Relations between the two senior figures were strained. The Sub-Superior was ‘of a hasty and
unstable temperament and somewhat erratic’. He had strong ideas on how the School should be
run, which did not always coincide with the Superior’s plans.
10.40 The Visitation Report for 1939 noted that the new Superior had ‘done much to restore the discipline
which had become relaxed. Good order and good conduct among the boys have been re-
established’. This was attributed in part to the fact that he had changed the class schedule back
to three school sessions per day. The previous schedule based on the one in ordinary national
schools meant the School closed at 3pm. The 1936 Cussen Report had recommended that
teaching in the evenings cease. However, teaching in the evening was now re-introduced. The
5
6

latter was an initiative introduced by the previous Superior. The fact that the teachers left at 3pm
every day had only served to weaken discipline. The Visitor once again criticised the calibre of
staff in the School:
The staff on the Brothers side is neither a strong or capable one. The Superior who is in
his 73rd year has found it necessary to keep charge of the discipline and general
supervision of the boys in dormitories and playground. None of the Brothers are capable
or assertive enough to act as disciplinarian. Br Rene’s nerves have got a bad shake and
he had lost confidence in his powers to control the boys.
10.41 This theme was repeated in the Visitation Report of the following year. The Visitor noted that only
the Superior and Sub-Superior were capable of supervising the older boys in the dormitories. This
meant that a disproportionate burden of duties fell to them, and the Superior, in view of his age,
was not fit for his many responsibilities. The Visitor noted:
The boys make a very good impression and I was told that the standard of goodness
among them is high. At the same time there are always some with weak characters and
these will avail of any opportunity that presents itself to act wrongly.
10.42 With only two Brothers in a position to supervise the older boys’ dormitories these opportunities
presented themselves all too often.
10.43 The Superior established a system of appointing monitors from amongst the senior boys as part
of the solution to this problem. They helped with supervision in the refectory, playground and
dormitories. However, as the Visitor noted in 1941, ‘the success of such an arrangement depends
entirely upon the selection of reliable boys to act as Monitors’. The new system failed to prevent
a number of boys from absconding in 1942.
10.44 Br Jolie7 was appointed Superior in 1942, with the outgoing Superior being appointed Councillor.
The dynamic between the Sub-Superior and Councillor continued to affect relations within the
Community, with the new Superior having to abandon Council meetings and confer separately
with his two senior colleagues.
10.45 The Visitation Report for 1942 queried the discontinuance of training in woodwork, despite the
presence of two Brothers qualified to teach the subject and a fully equipped trades room. The
reason given was a difficulty in obtaining timber, which even at the time was regarded as spurious.
Only 37 boys out of a total of 257 were engaged in trades. The Visitor also criticised the
disbandment of the band, and noted that the instruments had been left to gather dust. The play
hall was in a hazardous condition. He urged the School to organise games for the boys, he even
suggested card games, in an effort to occupy them and avoid ‘danger to morals’.
10.46 Similar criticisms were made during the Visitation the following year, in terms of the lack of suitable
activities for the boys. The Visitor was disturbed to see the boys ‘sitting or lying on the concrete
yard for long periods when they could be playing in the field if games were organised for them’.
Supervision of the boys was too lax and they could slip away all too easily with the result that ‘a
few were caught acting immorally some time back in the garden’. The Visitor suggested that
monitors be placed in the toilet area and that a tighter rein be kept on the boys. It seemed the
task of supervision was left entirely to one Brother, namely the Sub-Superior, Br Rene, who was
at this stage under considerable pressure. The Visitor was oblivious to the toll this was taking on
Br Rene, as he noted that Br Rene ‘seems to enjoy it and does not ask for any relief’. It was also
clear that Br Rene exercised a favourable influence over the boys, as ‘the nice, friendly spirit of
the boys is attributed mainly to his influence on them. The ex-pupils appeal to him too when they
need a friend’.
7

10.47 In fact, the Visitation Report of 1943 painted an extraordinarily grim picture of the ability of many
of the Brothers in Carriglea to carry out any duties at all. In a Community of eight Brothers and
two Coadjutor Brothers, five Brothers were identified as too old or unwell to regularly carry out
their religious observances. Of the remaining five Brothers, the Superior was identified as being
unwell and was replaced the following year because of ill-health. The long-suffering Br Rene was
indeed almost alone in running this large Institution.
10.48 The one area of the School that appeared to work well was the farm, which was consistently
praised by Visitors and which was in the charge of Br Destry8 from the mid-1930s until the mid-
1940s. He did not offer training in farm work, except for 10 to 12 boys who were needed for the
efficient running of the farm. In this respect, Carriglea differed from many other industrial schools,
as it did not use the farm as a means of keeping boys occupied.
10.49 In 1944, Br Bryant was appointed Superior. He was 67 years of age. The same complaint
regarding the lack of purposeful activities for the boys was once more repeated in the Visitation
Report of 1944. The problems had been identified before and yet nobody, either in the Institution
or in the Provincial Council, was prepared to address them. In the meantime, the Institution was
heading for a complete breakdown in order.
10.50 By 1945, Br Rene had spent 24 years in Carriglea, holding the position of Superior for three years
and Sub-Superior for a further six years. He requested a transfer to a day school, and was moved
to a school outside Dublin.
10.51 Br Rene was deeply unhappy in the Congregation and requested dispensations on a number of
occasions, all of which were refused.
10.52 It would appear from the documents that a request for a dispensation precipitated his transfer
from Carriglea, and that the transfer was regarded as a solution to the problem. Whilst still in his
next post after leaving Carriglea, Br Rene made a heartfelt plea for a dispensation in October
1946. He was at this stage almost 50 years old and had spent over 30 years with the Christian
Brothers. Having spent most of his life with the Congregation, this could not have been an easy
decision for him. He stated in a letter to the Br Superior that he had remained with the
Congregation for so long to comply with his late mother’s wishes. He wrote:
Success in striving towards our salvation is incompatible with unbroken unhappiness and
agony of mind. This has been my condition so long that I can’t endure it any more and I
am convinced that a complete mental breakdown is not far off. The strain is unbearable.
Your reference to my work in Carriglea is kind. It is true that charitable people give me
credit for what I can lay no claim to. I spent years at a work for which I was as qualified
as a dock labourer – in fact probably less so. It is well known that only the useless ones
of the Congregation found a place in the industrial schools. Therefore I can make no claim
to merit because of the time I was there. In fact the years I spent there are an additional
cause of regret to me due to my total unsuitability for a work requiring very special qualities
of mind and character. Despite the opinions of at least some kindly people I know myself
to have been a hopeless failure and one who should never have been placed over such
unfortunate boys for whom only the best is good enough.
10.53 The Brother Provincial wrote to the Superior General on receipt of this letter. He believed that Br
Rene was suffering from depression and that this was the impetus behind his application. He
indicated that it was not the first time Br Rene had submitted an application and that, in the past,
the matter had been defused by writing to him or meeting with him. He suggested that either a
friend within the Congregation be requested to have a sympathetic talk with him, or that his
8

application be forwarded to Rome in the likelihood that it would be refused. Br Rene’s application
was unsuccessful.
10.54 Not to be deterred, Br Rene submitted a further application in May 1947. On this occasion, the
Superior General of the General Council forwarded the application to Rome. In the covering letter,
the Superior General stated that Br Rene was not a very well-educated man but that he had
worked hard in industrial schools. He wrote that Br Rene suffered from depression and had taken
to applying for dispensations when feeling gloomy. A sympathetic ear usually brought him around.
The Superior General suggested that, if Br Rene was advised by the powers in Rome to remain
in his vocation, he would abide by that decision.
10.55 As anticipated, the application was refused but the ploy did not have the desired effect. Br Rene
was resolute in his determination to leave the Congregation. He wrote to the Superior General in
June 1947 on receipt of the refusal of his application. He blamed his inability to articulate
convincingly his reasons for seeking the dispensation for the refusal. He made a further poignant
attempt to set out his reasons for making the request. He stated that he was profoundly unhappy
and was in a constant state of anxiety and worry. He feared that he was on the brink of a nervous
breakdown, having lived with this torturous state of mind for over 30 years. He argued that he
was and always had been a hopeless failure at his work and that he lacked the ability to teach.
He described himself as ‘a misfit in life’, becoming increasingly reclusive. He added:
To my years in Carriglea I attribute my broken health principally and any thought of
renewing contact with residential school work would only hasten the breakdown which I
so much dread. Tis not that I despise such work, though this is the all too common attitude
of the would-be snobs of the Congregation who regard such work and the men who do it
as beneath them.
10.56 He was fully aware of the hardship he would face on leaving the Congregation, having spent most
of his life there, but had no doubt whatsoever that it was the lesser of two evils. He literally begged
the Superior General to accede to his request. His plea fell on deaf ears and, once more, his
request was refused.
10.57 Br Rene accepted the decision of the General Council but his personal torment and anguish did
not subside. He made a further plea five years later, at the age of 55. He referred to a previous
letter from the Vicar General of the General Council and wrote:
My devotion to duty to which you so kindly refer actually did much harm. Lacking every
qualification for the work in Carriglea I had recourse to harshness and severity. As a result
many of the past pupils have lost the faith and some are active, capable and influential
communists. When these become sufficiently vocal it may be some help to the Brothers
if they can say concerning me and in defence of the Congregation he is not in the Order
now. I recall the relief it was to the Brothers to be able to say this about another ... years
ago when a Dáil deputy spoke bitterly of the punishment he received in school from the
man concerned. My utter failure in Carriglea caused me great remorse. Having no fitness
for the work it was only to be expected that my efforts would result in failure and harm.
10.58 He received a reply from the Vicar General, a copy of which is not available, but it is clear from
the subsequent letter of Br Rene that he was advised to discuss the matter with a priest. In Br
Rene’s final appeal, dated 12th June 1952, he stated that he had first sought the advice of a priest
on the matter some 30 years previously, even before he had taken his final vows, and had
frequently sought the counsel of priests since. He stated:
I have been told I am not normal and the attitude of others convinces me that there is
considerable support for this opinion. It may account to some extent for my perplexity and
unhappiness as it may be the consequence of years of effort to deal with work for which
I was not fitted.
10.59 The Vicar General responded on 24th June 1952, informing Br Rene that his application had been
submitted to the Sacred Congregation of Religious in Rome and that they had decided that he
should remain in the Congregation. He commended Br Rene on his splendid work within the
Congregation. The Vicar General conceded that ‘the nervous tension from which you have been
suffering is admittedly a sore trial’, but assured him that such anguish was not confined to those
within the religious community. He concluded that Br Rene should
accept with resignation the decision made by his representatives. In doing so you will find
your peace of mind restored and your happiness here as well as hereafter assured. Do
not attempt becoming a judge of your own case. That would be the height of folly.
10.60 At this stage, Br Rene seems to have accepted his fate, and there is no record of any further
applications seeking a dispensation. He remained with the Congregation until his death in the
1970s.
10.61 The stress and anxiety Br Rene endured whilst managing Carriglea were described in a letter he
wrote to the Department of Education, responding to criticisms made by Dr Anna McCabe9
following her inspection of the School in 1939.
10.62 • Br Rene confirmed that he was severe on the boys in Carriglea. He was one of the few
Brothers in the Community who could exercise control over the boys and he
shouldered a large amount of responsibility in the day-to-day running of the School.
In an environment where he had little or no support, it is not surprising that a heavy-
handed approach to discipline was adopted at times.
• This case revealed the misery of a member of the Community who sought release by
way of dispensation. However, the Councils both in Ireland and Rome decided that
they knew his interests better than he did.
• The case also revealed how this Brother perceived himself and his colleagues in
industrial schools. Br Rene was regarded by the authorities as badly educated, and
by his own estimation he was hopelessly unqualified for his work. This deficiency in
training and qualification caused him great personal anguish. Despite this fact, he held
a senior position in Carriglea for 12 years.
10.63 By 1945, there was ‘a notable lack of union and harmony in the Community’. The new Superior
did not fit in. He was aloof and odd in his behaviour. He had ‘little or no contact with Brothers or
boys and ... generally disregards any representations made for the better working of the
institution’. In an already troubled environment this was a recipe for disaster. Matters were not
helped by the transfer of Br Rene, who had exerted a positive influence and exercised firm
discipline over the boys. In his absence the burden of supervision fell to a disproportionately small
number of Brothers, with the result that they were involved from dawn to dusk with the boys, with
little or no respite. This strain left them ‘discouraged and dissatisfied’. To add to their stress, there
was a particularly quarrelsome and disruptive Brother who exerted undue influence over others.
10.64 The result of this poisoned atmosphere between the Brothers was borderline anarchy among the
boys. The Visitation Report for 1945 described the situation:
The boys were very much out of hand during the past year and showed a very rebellious
spirit. Boohing the Brothers was not uncommon and they refused, more than once, to
9
Education chapter for a discussion of her role and performance.

submit to control. They made a determined attempt on one occasion to burn down the
place and had actually got a fire going in one of the dormitories before they were
discovered.
10.65 Furthermore, the Visitation Report noted that not only were the boys rebellious, but there was
widescale sexual activity amongst them. It was recorded that ‘immoral practices were rife’ to such
an extent that even ‘boys of eleven years of age have been discovered practising immorality with
one another’.
10.66 The Visitor was in no doubt as to the root of this insubordination:

This unfortunate state of affairs has been brought about by weak discipline, lack of
suitable occupation and an insufficiency of games and other amusements.
10.67 Less than 50 boys were involved in trades training, and more than half of these were engaged on
a part-time basis. Over 200 boys were left to spend their time outside school hours ‘lolling about
the yard where they pick up most of their vicious habits’. The Visitor concluded that:
the morals of the boys cannot be expected to improve until they are provided with more
games and amusements and a much bigger number kept occupied at trades.
10.68 In his 1945 Report, the Visitor alluded to an even more sinister development. He noted that four
workmen employed in the School received bed and board as part of their remuneration. Their
sleeping cubicles were in or near the boys’ dormitories. The Visitor was informed by one of the
Brothers that boys had been observed going into one of the workmen’s rooms several times. The
Visitor was as much concerned by the fact that these workmen caused trouble in the kitchen,
partaking in gossip and criticising their meals, as he was about the danger this man posed to the
boys. A member of the General Council wrote to the Brother Provincial on 22nd October 1945,
following receipt of the Visitation Report on Carriglea. He noted the ‘low standards in every
department’ and blamed the elderly age profile of the staff. In his view, the staff required a
complete overhaul. He surmised, ‘sin prevails in the school’.
10.69 The proposed staff overhaul took place and, by November 1946, only two of the 11 members of
the previous year’s Community remained: the much criticised Superior, and another Brother, Br
Durrant,10 whose only duty was to take care of the sacristy. Seven Brothers were transferred into
Carriglea, and nine Brothers were transferred out of the Institution.11
10.70 Amongst the Brothers transferred to Carriglea was Br Maslin12, who had spent the previous five
years in Letterfrack. He had also spent over a year in Tralee prior to that. He had a ferocious
reputation as Disciplinarian in Letterfrack, to the extent that a Brother felt compelled to complain
to a Visitor from the Provincial Council during an annual Visitation. In a letter outlining his
concerns, he wrote that the Disciplinarian ‘can inflict terrible punishment on children and the boys
have a awful dread of his anger’. The nub of the Brother’s concern, which he shared with other
members of the Letterfrack Community, was that the Disciplinarian was happy to mete out severe
punishment on the flimsiest of evidence, particularly if the alleged crime was sexual activity
amongst boys.
10.71 The Investigation Committee heard evidence from an ex-resident of Carriglea who described this
Brother as ‘an animal’. He alleged that Br Maslin was random and indiscriminate in his use of
corporal punishment. He stated, ‘He would go behind you and he would just give you a whack. A
10
11
Br Ansel was also sent there for a few months around the end of 1945.
12

whack of the leather on the head or the ears’. He used a leather strap to inflict punishment and
he carried a cat-o’-nine-tails around with him, which was terrifying for the children.
10.72 Br Maslin supervised the washroom in the evening time and would beat the boys with a strap if
they were too slow. This former resident described the daily scene in the washroom as follows:
In the evenings if you had to go up to the washroom, there was a big washroom with all
the taps and all that, and everything was cold, it was all cold, there was water in them.
What you used to do was the kids used line up in two, one and then one behind him, and
what you had to do was he just roared first ‘right leg’, you put your right leg in and you
got the soap and you washed it and then he would say ‘wash off the soap’. Then you had
the stand back and the next kid would go in and he would put his right foot up on the thing.
10.73 The Investigation Committee also heard evidence from Br Hardouin,13 who was in Carriglea at the
same time as Br Maslin. He stated in evidence that Br Maslin was the most feared by the boys of
all the Brothers in the Community. He described him as ‘very very severe’ in terms of his
demeanour and manner. Even the Brothers in the Community regarded him as unfriendly and
standoffish.
10.74 In their response to the complainant’s allegation, the Congregation stated that, as Br Maslin was
now deceased, it was impossible for them to confirm or deny that any such abuse took place. No
reference was made to this Brother’s record in Letterfrack or the reservations expressed by his
colleague on his use of physical punishment.
10.75 Br Ansel14 was transferred to Carriglea from Tralee in December 1945. He spent less than three
months in Carriglea, holding the post of Disciplinarian before being transferred to a day school.
Br Ansel had a reputation for being strict. He had spent five years in Artane. When the Resident
Manager in Tralee had complained that his current Disciplinarian was not sufficiently strict, the
Disciplinarian in question was replaced and, 12 months after that replacement, Br Ansel was
transferred there. He later sought and was granted a dispensation in the mid-1960s. Br Octave,15
who was in Tralee at the same time as Br Ansel, described him as the best Disciplinarian and
Principal. ‘He didn’t tolerate disobedience in word or act. Returned runaways had to “walk the
line” for longish periods until they were broken’.
10.76 Br Eliot,16 another Brother with a tough reputation, was drafted into Carriglea in March 1946,
replacing Br Ansel as Disciplinarian. He had spent 11 years in Artane and held the position of
Disciplinarian for most of this time. Br Hardouin stated in his evidence to the Investigation
Committee that he understood that Br Eliot ‘was brought in purposely to restore law and order’.
He went about establishing a strict regime of discipline which Br Hardouin found at times was ‘a
little bit over severe on some individuals’.
10.77 This changing of the guard and introduction of Brothers who had records of enforcing discipline
brought immediate results. In the Visitation Report of 1946, the Visitor noted ‘a marked
improvement in the moral tone and outlook of the pupils’. However, he also commented on the
fact that there had been no additions to the trades taught as previously recommended, nor had
the band been resurrected.
10.78 Br Tavin17 was appointed Superior in 1947. Improvements continued to be noted by the Visitor
that year and were attributed to the new Disciplinarian, Br Eliot.
13
14
15
16
17

10.79 By 1948, the band had finally been fully restored, a fact which had done much to ‘enliven the
general atmosphere of the institution’. A knitting shop was now in operation, to keep the younger
boys occupied. The key areas of manual trades and organised games were not addressed,
however.
10.80 While the remaining Visitation Reports did not comment adversely on the boys, it was telling as
regards the general atmosphere of the Institution that the Visitor noted in 1953 that ‘none of the
Brothers speaks very highly of the boys. They are said to be “tough” and secretive and to require
a firm hand but discipline on the whole is good’.
10.81 The Christian Brothers in their Opening Statement referred to the crisis that came to a head in
1945. On the one hand, they conceded that:
When a strengthened staff was put in place in 1945 it may be assumed that the reform
brought about by the new arrivals involved a certain amount of firm measures that would
have been viewed with reluctance by the boys.
10.82 They elaborated on this statement by adding:

As the Brothers concerned may be said to have ended a situation regarded by the boys
as one of freedom they would have been unpopular and their actions likely to have
been exaggerated.
10.83 During Phase III of the Investigation Committee’s inquiry into Carriglea, Br Nolan referred to events
that culminated in 1945. He stated, ‘the regime that followed was very like Artane, it was quite
regimented and staff taking responsibility rather than monitors’. He conceded that ‘certainly, strong
measures were to be taken after 1946. There is some evidence that that did happen’.
Allegations of physical abuse

10.84 The Investigation Committee heard evidence from four witnesses who made allegations of
physical abuse. According to their testimony, physical abuse was pervasive and was used as a
response to a wide range of misdemeanours.
10.85 A witness, who was in the School from the mid-1930s to the early 1940s, recalled being beaten
with a leather strap embedded with metal. He also gave evidence that boys were hit over their
fingertips with a wooden stick for not knowing their schoolwork.
10.86 Another complainant who was in Carriglea in the late 1940s and early 1950s gave evidence that
he was regularly punished for not knowing his schoolwork. This practice was specifically prohibited
by the Christian Brothers’ and the Department of Education’s Rules.
10.87 This complainant also alleged that Br Vic18 inflicted severe punishment on the boys while he
supervised them in the washroom. This Brother was one of seven Brothers transferred to Carriglea
in 1946, in an attempt to restore law and order. The witness stated:
When we used go up to the wash house at night-time in the young dormitory, we used
go up to the washroom and he used to have a whistle thing. It was like a military thing.
“Everybody go to the sinks, wash their hair”. When he blew the thing he said stop. And if
you were last to come back into line again he gave you a good walloping. He was physical
with anybody who was there, he would get you back in line again. Between the two
dormitories there was an alcove there and if he was giving a young lad a good slapping,
the young lad would be screaming and we would be all standing in the wash house saying,
“we hope he doesn't come back in for us”.
18

10.88 The leather strap was normally used to inflict punishment but a witness who was in Carriglea from
the mid-1940s to the early 1950s alleged that a T-square was also used. He described how Br
Luc19 inflicted punishment with this implement:
He would tell him to bend over the stool. He used get the T-square, T-square that you
had on the thing. Then he would pick out a match that was played that particular weekend,
and it would always be the hurling, always the high scoring games used to with in the
hurling in them days with the Tipperarys and the Corks and the Wexfords and all that,
what he would do he would take the T-square out and he would ask the class what was
the score of the game yesterday. It was 2-3 to 1-15 or whatever it would be where you
got – he used to – I don't mean just tap you, he used to just swing it like a hurley stick at
the boy's backside and he would give him a smack for every point and three for a goal.
Now, that's what it was.
10.89 This complainant absconded, and recalled that, when he was eventually caught, he was beaten
severely and his head was shaved. Part of his punishment also entailed having to stand outside
in the bandstand for an hour each day and read the catechism. It was winter and particularly cold.
He said that he suffered this penance for three weeks.
Conclusion on physical abuse

10.90 1. When discipline became a real problem, the Congregation sanctioned the appointment
of men with a known propensity for excessive corporal punishment, who instilled fear
into the children and the result was a more easily managed institution. The
Congregation saw this as a legitimate means of controlling the large number of
children in Carriglea.
Sexual abuse
Attitude of Christian Brothers to sexual abuse
10.91 The Christian Brothers submitted in their Opening Statement that ‘sexual abuse of a child was a
rare occurrence and one that was sure to initiate an immediate response from the authorities once
they became aware of it’.
10.92 They outlined the procedure for dealing with reported cases of sexual abuse, as has been
discussed in the General Chapter on the Christian Brothers. This procedure led ultimately to the
dismissal of a Brother who was known to be a sexual abuser.
10.93 This procedure remained in place until the 1970s. The Christian Brothers accepted that, judged
by present-day standards, their approach was ‘seriously inadequate’ and did not take account of
the impact of the abuse on the child. However, they argued that the approach was in keeping with
the level of awareness at the time on issues such as recidivism, paedophilia and the serious
damage caused by abuse. They submitted that the inadequacy arose through lack of awareness
and knowledge, rather than through neglect. The moral failure of the Brother and the danger of
scandal were regarded as the primary matters to be addressed when cases of abuse arose. If a
Brother was found to have abused a child, he was ‘adjudged unworthy of being in charge of
children and if dismissed was not given a reference for a teaching position’.
19

Br Tristan20
10.94 Br Tristan spent over 10 years in Dublin before being transferred to Carriglea in the early 1940s
under a cloud. The reason for his transfer is unknown, except that the matter was sufficiently
serious to warrant being brought to the attention of the General Council in Rome.
10.95 It was not long before Br Tristan once again came to the attention of the General Council. Less
than a year after his arrival in Carriglea, he was issued with a Canonical Warning and was swiftly
transferred to Artane. Once again, details of this incident are not available.
10.96 In 1944, Br Tristan was implicated in sexual abuse of boys, along with three other Brothers in
Artane. The abuse came to light after ‘a series of accusations by boys of the school indicating
criminal or indecent assault’. The written complaints made by the boys and investigated by the
Superior of Artane revealed ‘long continuance and frequency of wrongdoing on the part of Br
Tristan’. He was tried by the General Council in Rome on 16th October 1944, where he denied
‘some of the matter of each charge’. Br Tristan was found guilty, and the unanimous vote was in
favour of expulsion.
10.97 Br Tristan requested an interview with the Apostolic Visitor and one was granted. After their
discussion, Br Tristan decided to apply for a dispensation from his vows. The dispensation was
granted immediately by the Apostolic Visitor ‘whose powers enabled him to do so where he
deemed it wise’.
10.98 • There is a strong indication that Br Tristan was known by the General Council to be
an abuser. He was that he was probably abusing boys throughout his 15-year career
in the Congregation. Their solution to the problem was to move him on and to keep
him within the industrial school system.
• The record of his trial by the General Council made it clear that the allegations
amounted in their view to ‘criminal or indecent assault’. This was at odds with the
submission made by the Christian Brothers to the effect that there was no appreciation
at the time of the gravity of sexual abuse, and that the moral failure of the Brother
and danger of scandal to the Congregation were regarded as the most significant
repercussions of sexual abuse.
• The Christian Brothers referred to this incident in their Opening Statement and
submitted that ‘it transpired, later, ... that he had also offended while in Carriglea Park’.
This implied that the Carriglea incident only came to light some time later. This was
not the case, as the minutes of the General Council meeting revealed that Br Tristan
was reminded at his trial of the reason for his removal from both Marino and Carriglea.
Br Lancelin21
10.99 Br Lancelin spent a short time in Artane in the early 1940s and was transferred to Carriglea in
1944. It would appear that he was transferred from Artane as ‘suspicion had been aroused by a
tendency to particular friendship with a boy in Artane’. The Christian Brothers added in their
Opening Statement that the evidence against him was inconclusive and he was cautioned before
being transferred to Carriglea. It wasn’t long before he once again came under suspicion. A
number of boys submitted written statements accusing Br Lancelin of ‘immoral conduct’. His record
noted ‘one offence occurred on Xmas day 1944, though he made vows on Xmas morning’. The
matter was investigated by the Provincial. He had previously given Br Lancelin ‘advice and caution’
regarding his dealings with boys, but the circumstances of this earlier episode are not known. The
20
21

statements were read to Br Lancelin at a hearing before the General Council on 19th January
1945, and he admitted the substance of the allegations. As he was still on temporary vows, a
dispensation from final vows was not necessary and he was dismissed from the Congregation.
10.100 • In this serious case of sexual abuse, boys made written statements of complaint, which
would have been an unusual course in the 1940s.
• The language used in the records included reference to ‘offences’, ‘charges’ and ‘guilt’.
It is clear from these references and the nature of the hearing before the General
Council that there was an awareness at the time of the criminal nature of the
allegations and that their significance extended beyond moral failing of a Brother.
Sexual activity between boys

10.101 The documents revealed a high level of sexual activity between the boys. These records have
been dealt with in the section ‘Management Issues’ The Christian Brothers submitted in their
Opening Statement:
The phenomenon of sexual activity of one kind or another among the pupils in industrial
schools and indeed in boarding schools generally seems to have been a feature of life in
these institutions and called for constant vigilance on the part of the staff.
10.102 Although some of this activity may have been consensual, children as young as 11 were engaged
in this, and they were in all probability victims of predatory behaviour. In failing to supervise,
management failed to protect younger or weaker boys from sexual abuse by their peers.
10.103 The Visitation Reports of 1943 and 1945 referred to sexual activity amongst boys, and the latter
report revealed that such activity was ‘rife’. In an institution where over 70% of the boys were
under 12 years of age, this was a serious problem.
10.104 There was an absence of recreational activity for the boys, who were left to spend their time
outside school hours ‘lolling about the yard’, which had been identified as a problem as far back
as the late 1930s.
10.105 • The staff did not provide the ‘constant vigilance’ identified by the Christian Brothers
as being necessary to counter sexual activity between boys when it became a major
problem in the mid-1940s.
Allegations of sexual abuse

10.106 The Investigation Committee heard evidence from two complainants alleging sexual abuse. One
complaint related to sexual abuse by a Brother, and the other related to sexual abuse by an
older boy.
10.107 A complainant, who was resident in the School in the early 1950s, alleged that he was sexually
abused on two occasions by Br Vic, one of the Brothers who had been sent into the School in
1946 to restore order and discipline. The alleged abuse took place at night, when the Brother
would take the boy out of his bed and bring him to a room downstairs. He made the complainant
perform oral sex. When asked by counsel whether he was in a position to resist, he stated, ‘No,
you were never in a position to resist, they owned you body and soul once you were inside
them walls’.
10.108 The complainant confided in a priest and, somehow, the allegation made its way back to Br Vic,
who punished the boy for telling the priest. While the sexual abuse never occurred again, the boy
lived in permanent fear of it recurring: ‘It wasn't the fact that it didn't happen again, it was the fear
that it might. And when you live with that fear it is worse really than the act itself’.
10.109 The second complaint was made by a former resident who was present in Carriglea from the late
1940s to the mid-1950s. He was 10 years old when he was sent to Carriglea, and the abuse,
which involved masturbation, began shortly after he arrived there. He alleged that he was sexually
abused on three or four occasions by an older boy aged approximately 15 years. When the
perpetrator left the School, the abuse stopped. The witness stated, ‘I just kept it quiet. When you
are institutionalised you don't tell anybody, you keep it quiet’. It was significant that the alleged
abuse occurred during a time when Visitation Reports indicated that immoral practices had been
stamped out in the School.

10.110 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.
Emotional abuse and neglect

10.111 Carriglea, with up to 260 pupils, was a large industrial school but was allowed to deteriorate to an
alarming extent until strong management was put in place in 1945, nine years before its eventual
closure. From 1936 until 1945, successive Resident Managers were put in place who were unable
to run the Institution properly. This failure of management led to an anarchic and lawless situation,
where the boys were effectively out of control. Such an institution offered no protection to younger
or weaker boys, and even the Visitation Reports acknowledged that sexual abuse amongst the
boys was rife.
10.112 The large number of very young children who had been detained in the School had been
effectively left in the charge of one or two Brothers. The emotional deprivations of such a situation
need hardly be elaborated upon. Boys as young as six years of age were put into a situation of
lawlessness and anarchy caused by management incompetence.
Neglect
10.113 Two main sources of information provide a contemporary account of the general conditions
prevailing in Carriglea during the relevant period.
10.114 The first source of contemporary records was the General and Medical Inspection Reports of the
Department of Education, dating from 1939 until the closure of the School. There were, however,
a number of gaps for some years in these records.
10.115 The second source of contemporary records was the Visitation Reports of the Christian Brothers.
The Visitation Reports furnished to the Investigation Committee dated from 1936 until the closure
of the School in 1954. The House annals, which were usually another source of information
concerning the everyday activities of the Christian Brothers’ schools, were not properly kept in
Carriglea. The information provided was sparse and incomplete.
Food, clothing and accommodation
10.116 As a large institution with a good working farm, the Mazars report22 would indicate that Carriglea
was adequately funded by the State until its closure in 1954.
10.117 The Department of Education Inspections, both General and Medical, were carried out by Dr Anna
McCabe, and she was consistently guarded in her assessment of the School. Food, clothing and
accommodation were generally categorised as ‘fair’ or ‘satisfactory’ throughout the 1940s. She
was particularly critical of the condition of the boys’ patched clothing and the habit of allowing the
boys to go barefoot in the summer. This practice was recalled by a complainant to the Committee,
who said that this caused cut and injured feet.
10.118 Dr McCabe’s first report was in 1939 when she criticised the general condition of parts of the
School which she found ‘were none too clean’. ‘The food appeared to me to be rather below
standard’. Her comments were forwarded to the Resident Manager, Br Rene, by the Department
of Education and evoked a nine-page letter of protest from him. His letter painted a picture of
relentless overwork and exhaustion, but failed to acknowledge the impact of such a system on
the boys in his care. He sat down to write the letter late at night:
... At this hour all sensible people – including our fair medical inspector – have put several
hours restful leisure over them. Not so this unfortunate however, as it is only now that I
find time to sit down to write my “observations” on this extract from her report. I roused
the boys this morning at 6.30. I bade them farewell when lights were lowered half an hour
ago and all the day between ... has been cram-full of tiring, wearying, slavish work ... And
now as a reward for the unfortunate folly of accepting this dreadful responsibility I have
to set out to convince you that black is white – that our school is not all as bad as painted.
10.119 Br Rene then proceeded to defend the way he was running the School. He said that he prioritised
literary studies over everything else and that domestic ‘charges’ suffered as a result. He defended
this by saying that a shiny dormitory floor achieved at the cost of the boys’ schooling or leisure
time would not be appreciated by them. He pointed to the success the School had achieved in
open examinations that year for the Post Office, and to one pupil who was applying for a University
scholarship: then proceeded to defend the way he was running the School. He said that he
prioritised literary studies over everything else and that domestic ‘charges’ suffered as a result.
He defended this by saying that a shiny dormitory floor achieved at the cost of the boys’ schooling
or leisure time would not be appreciated by them. He pointed to the success the School had
achieved in open examinations that year for the Post Office, and to one pupil who was applying
for a University scholarship:
It has meant grave financial embarrassment for me, but I am still – like a few Managers
in other schools – living in hopes of the Minister’s many promises to us being fulfilled. So
far his only contribution that I am aware of is the worry and trouble in hand at the moment.
10.120 He appended menus of food served in the School, adding, ‘I wish to know if it meets with your
approval’.
10.121 • Br Rene’s stress in coping with life in Carriglea was outlined earlier in this chapter and
much of it could be attributed to the poor management systems in the school. The
fact that Br Rene was obviously operating under severe strain was unfair on him, but
it was equally unfair on the children who depended on him for their care. The blame
must be borne by the Christian Brothers’ Provincialate, who allowed an impossible
situation to develop and who failed to address it until it had reached crisis
proportions.
22
Review of Financial Matters Relating to the System of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and a Number of
Individual Institutions 1939 to 1969.

10.122 The witnesses who gave evidence to the Investigation Committee said that the food was
inadequate and that they were hungry in Carriglea.
10.123 One witness, who had been resident in Carriglea from the mid-1940s to the early 1950s,
complained of hunger, saying that he was ‘starving’ when in the School. He detailed the type and
quality of food that he received. For breakfast, he stated that they got a quarter of a loaf of bread,
which amounted to two slices, together with dripping or margarine. This was also the staple diet
in the evening. This witness also spoke about the dinners consisting of black potatoes with meat
and cabbage. He informed the Committee that they received an egg at Easter only.
10.124 This witness recounted how the boys ate the pig swill. The left-over food from the Brothers’ kitchen
was put into a bucket, which was brought down to the pigs for them to eat. One of the boys was
entrusted with the task of bringing the swill bucket down to the pigs, and the other boys would
intercept him on his journey and ‘dive on the bucket’. He recalled that ‘there would be rice in
it and tea leaves in and you would put your hand in and take two handfuls out and eat the
thing there’.
10.125 Another witness who was resident in Carriglea in the early 1950s spoke of the food as being
‘absolutely horrible’. This witness recalled only receiving three meals a day, and not four as stated
in the Visitation Reports. His description of the food served was very similar to the above witness.
He also complained of not receiving enough food during his time in Carriglea and, consequently,
having to resort to the pig swill to supplement his diet.
10.126 A third witness also complained of not receiving enough food in Carriglea during the period of his
residence from the late 1940s to the mid-1950s. He recalled that breakfast consisted of a loaf of
bread known as ‘Boland’s loaf’, divided between four boys, together with hot dripping. He
recounted to the Committee the manner in which the loaf of bread was divided between the
four boys:
On our table sometimes if you had four fellows you had to spin a knife and whoever the
knife pointed at he cut the bread up and if I didn’t like you I would only give you a quarter
of it but it worked vice versa so that’s the way we worked it.
10.127 According to this witness, dinner consisted of mincemeat and potatoes, which he described as
being like ‘hospital food’. In the evening time, he said that they received bread and butter. This
witness never recalled receiving milk.
10.128 Visitors were generally uncritical of the food provided, and one Visitor in 1944 described the food
supplied to the boys as being ‘sufficient and suitable’. The report stated that they got tea, bread
and dripping for breakfast, meat four times a week, soup twice a week, with vegetables served at
dinner. On Fridays, the dinner consisted of bread, jam and cocoa. Supper was served each
evening to the boys, which consisted of bread, jam and cocoa. The report also stated that a lunch
of milk and bread was supplied to the smaller and more delicate boys at midday.
10.129 The Visitor’s account of the food was not dissimilar to that of the boys, except that the boys were
quite clear that the food was not ‘sufficient’ for their needs.
10.130 Overcrowding, lack of cleanliness and hygiene were major criticisms in the 1930s and 1940s, as
well as the dilapidated and run-down condition of the buildings.
10.131 Bad management was identified by Visitors throughout the mid-1930s and early 1940s, and in
particular the unwillingness of the majority of the Brothers who were living in the School to engage
with it. One Superior General suggested that, if these Brothers could be employed in cleaning up
the School, ‘The work will do them good as well as the apartments cleaned by their exertions’.
10.132 Furthermore, the Superior General, whilst pleased with the physical condition of the boys, felt that
more could be done to improve their social skills by introducing them to music, drama, dancing or
elocution classes, and suggested that these be introduced into the School.
10.133 The depiction of Carriglea in the early 1940s was of a very run-down and dilapidated place. The
main issues centred on the deterioration of the l buildings of the Institution itself, the lack of
cleanliness and hygiene, both of the School and the boys, and the poor-quality clothing of the
children. From the various reports, there was a divergence of views on the issue of clothing.
Throughout the 1940s, the Department of Education Inspector, Dr Anna McCabe, commented on
the fact that the boys were in patched clothing, whereas the Visitation Reports only referred to
this on one occasion. Despite its being wartime, the care of the boys was praised by the Visitors
throughout the 1940s, although Dr McCabe only rated the food, clothing and accommodation as
‘fair’ or ‘satisfactory’. The only direct criticism with regard to food was in 1946, when Dr McCabe
felt that the children were not receiving adequate supplies of milk and butter.
10.134 Another criticism was the inadequate sanitation facilities for the boys. Many of the toilets were not
in working condition, and the low water pressure in Carriglea was blamed for the plumbing
problems. Deterioration in the outbuildings was evident, particularly around the trade shops, with
fences missing and paintwork peeling off in the chapel and sanctuary, and general decay in the
farmyard.
10.135 When the Visitor called on Carriglea in 1943, he noticed that the wire fences near the trade shops
were down and a little boy was sitting at a gap in the fence to keep the cows from trespassing.
The Visitor was not impressed with this state of affairs, as he felt that the young boy should have
been with his companions in class, at work or at play. He further commented that serious efforts
should be made to keep the fences in a state of repair. Using a small boy to keep cows in because
of a broken fence was a serious indictment of the way the School was run.
10.136 By 1947, the Visitor recorded that the Superior had undertaken a comprehensive scheme of
renovation, in particular the painting of the walls and the restoration of the woodwork. The result
of this upgrading was exemplified by the following remark that ‘the dining hall would now do credit
to any flourishing College’. The dormitories were found to be clean, bright and well ventilated. The
main criticism was the inadequacy in the number of baths provided.
10.137 In 1948 and 1949, the Visitation Reports considered the School to be generally well cared for,
requiring just a few minor repairs. The farm was said to be working well and had enough cows to
supply milk. It also had sufficient poultry to supply eggs for the Brothers but there was no mention
of supplying eggs to the boys.
10.138 In the 1953 Visitation Report, the views of the Brothers were recorded and noted that none of
them spoke highly of the boys. The boys were recorded as being ‘tough’ and ‘secretive and to
require a firm hand’. However, discipline was generally perceived as good. The Visitor found all
departments of the School clean and well maintained.
10.139 The final inspection of the School by Dr McCabe took place in January 1954, as the school closed
in June of that year. On her last visit to the School, Dr McCabe spoke highly of the new Resident
Manager and, in particular, of the improvements he had made. She commented that he had spent
£2,000 on these. She noted that additional indoor games had been introduced, electric lights were
added to the dormitories, and all mattresses and beds were restored and re-sprung. Food, diet
and sanitation were found to be very good. Again, whilst noting that the clothing had improved,
Dr McCabe was of the opinion that more needed to be done in that area.
10.140 • For much of the review period, Carriglea was a dilapidated and run-down institution,
with poor sanitary conditions and a lack of hygiene and cleanliness, both of the boys
themselves and the premises.
• The boys were not properly clothed and went barefoot during the summer, despite the
availability of adequate funds.
• The improvements noted by Dr McCabe took place within months of the Institution
closing as an industrial school and reopening as a juniorate. The boys in care did not
enjoy the benefit of these improvements.
Education and trades

10.141 The Christian Brothers in their Submission asserted that the standard of primary education in
Carriglea was ‘very good considering the standard of the pupils at intake which was very weak’.
Primary education
10.142 The primary school was located in the grounds of Carriglea. Even after the Cussen Report, the
boys did not attend the local national school, as recommended. All boys under 14 years of age
attended the internal primary school for five hours each day. There were six classes taught by
three Brothers and three lay teachers. The primary classes ranged from infants to 7th class. The
classes ranged in size from 38 to 61 pupils, with an average of 52. The school followed the
national syllabus and curriculum that pertained nationwide in all primary schools. From the
documents furnished, the school was rated very highly in terms of its primary education.
10.143 One witness said he had received a good primary education in Carriglea. Another said he could
not read when he left but he conceded that he had been academically backward when he went
to the School.
10.144 Br Rene, who held the positions of Superior and Sub-Superior during the 1930s until the mid-
1940s, laid great emphasis on literary education, and this was reflected in the standard of
education in Carriglea.
10.145 In 1938 the Visitor stated that the boys ‘... give evidence of good teaching and would I believe
compare favourably with corresponding classes in our day schools’. However, he pointed out that
the training of the boys on the cultural side was weak, particularly as no music was taught, or
dancing or drama.
10.146 There was a report from a three-day general Inspection of the school by Mr Teegan, the Inspector
of Schools of the Department of Education dated March 1941:
This is a pleasing school to inspect. The behaviour of the boys leaves nothing to be
desired and they have been trained to use their intelligence and to be self-reliant.
10.147 He added:
The satisfactory standard of proficiency noted previously is more than maintained and
there is every indication that a still higher level will be soon attained.
10.148 In 1944, the Visitor commented that the education was:

... too academic for boys that will at least in most cases have to depend on manual
capability for their livelihood. There is no physical drill, no manual instruction, no band, no
dancing and only an indifferent interest in singing. One would look for most, if not all,
these activities in a school such as this. The alleged reason for dropping the manual
instruction is based on the difficulty of getting timber.
10.149 In 1948 and 1949, 29 boys sat the Primary Certificate examination and all passed. Likewise in
1950, 28 boys sat the examination and all passed.
10.150 During the 1930s, manual instruction and drawing classes were taught by one Brother. These
were taught to the senior boys, and the classes were marked as excellent in the 1936 Visitation
Report. In 1941, drawing and manual instruction were removed as subjects for the senior boys,
as they were eating into the literary subjects curriculum, as laid down by the Department.
10.151 These subjects were not taught from 1942 to 1947 in the School, much to the dismay of the
Congregation Visitors. The Visitor in 1942 was critical that woodwork was not taught in the School,
as he considered it to be of ‘great educational value’. He highlighted the fact that one of the
Brothers in the Community was qualified to teach woodwork, and recommended its immediate re-
introduction. He was also of the view that such work ‘offered most valuable training to boys who
have to take up manual work as a means of livelihood’. Again, in 1943, the Visitor criticised the
fact that manual instruction was not taught:
The Manual Instruction Room is still locked up and there is no Manual Instruction given
these boys to whom it would be so helpful later on. The excuse offered was that Br Durrant
could not get wood in Dublin.
10.152 However, these subjects were re-introduced into the School in 1948 and continued until its closure
in 1954.
Post Office examinations

10.153 A unique feature of Carriglea was that it prepared some of the senior boys in 7th class to sit the
examination for positions as Post Office messengers and telegraph operators, and for Guinness
and C.I.E.23 clerkships. This was something that does not appear to have been offered in other
industrial schools run by the Christian Brothers. The preparation for these examinations was given
by an elderly Brother for some years and was then continued by a lay teacher.
10.154 The earliest record of boys sitting these examinations is to be found in the Visitation Report of
1936. It referred to a Brother of 74 years of age who ‘conducts a small class for the more advanced
boys and prepares them for the Boy Messengers, Sorters and other elementary examinations at
which they have been very successful’. Reference was made in the 1937 Visitation Report to
seven of the ‘more advanced boys’ being taught by this Brother in preparation for the Post Office
and other civil service examinations. The 1938 Visitation Report mentioned that this particular
Brother spent four or five hours a day preparing a small group of boys for these examinations.
The report went on to say that, ‘Within a period of five years some 15 boys have got into the Post
Office, first as messengers and have later become postmen’.
10.155 The Visitation Report for 1943 recorded that most of the boys in 7th class took the Post Office
examinations. The 1944 Visitation Report noted that ‘five boys secured appointments as telegraph
messengers during the previous year’.
10.156 No reference was made in the Visitation Reports to boys sitting these examinations after 1944
but, from the Opening Statement of the Christian Brothers, it appears that boys were employed
in the Post Office and C.I.E. clerkships until 1950.
10.157 One witness, who was resident in Carriglea from the mid-1930s to the early 1940s, recalled sitting
two examinations to get into the Post Office as a messenger. He did the examinations two years
running, as he was too young the first year when he passed the examination and so did it the
following year and passed again. He went on to have a successful career in the Post Office.
23
Córas Iompair Éireann was a State-owned public transport company.

Secondary education
10.158 In 1936, some boys from Carriglea were given the opportunity of attending the Christian Brothers’
secondary school in Dun Laoghaire. This came about shortly after the Cussen Report, when
the Resident Manager of Carriglea approached the secondary school with a view to having his
boys admitted.
10.159 The request was initially turned down but, upon the intervention of the Brother Provincial, the
‘experiment’ went ahead.
10.160 In 1936, the Visitation Report noted that:

Two boys of the Institution have this year undertaken Secondary work at the Dun
Laoghaire Schools and were found sufficiently advanced to join the Third Year of the
Intermediate Certificate Course.
10.161 In 1937, the number of boys from Carriglea attending the secondary school had increased to five.
Three of them were in first year and two in second year and were preparing to sit the Intermediate
Certificate examination. The Visitation Report for 1937 commented that these two boys were
sitting the examination ‘after 2 years preparation, and are considered the 2 best in the class’.
10.162 The Visitation Report for 1938 also recorded that five boys were attending the secondary school,
with three of them in first year and two of them in the class preparing for the Intermediate
Certificate examination.
10.163 By 1939, the practice of sending boys to the secondary school was discontinued. According to
the Christian Brothers in their Opening Statement, it was terminated on the basis that the host
school found the practice unsatisfactory. No further explanation was provided as to the basis for
this dissatisfaction, which was inconsistent with the fact that, in 1937, the two Carriglea boys who
were sitting the Intermediate Certificate examination were considered the best in the class. The
Visitation Report for 1939 shed no further light and merely recorded the discontinuation of this
practice, ‘The practice of sending a few of the more talented boys to the secondary school in Dun
Laoghaire has been discontinued’.
10.164 In a report compiled by Br Donal Blake cfc for the Christian Brothers in February 2001, he referred
to this and provided the following quote from the annals of the secondary school:
In August 1936 an application was made by the Superior of Carriglea Industrial School to
allow some of the senior boys of the School to join our Intermediate Classes. For obvious
reasons, the application was turned down, but the Provincial over-ruled the decision. The
experiment was very unsatisfactory and was the cause of a great deal of trouble and
annoyance in the School, so much so that in August 1939 applications for admission had
to be refused.
10.165 When questioned on the reason for the discontinuation of sending boys to the secondary school,
Br Seamus Nolan who gave evidence at the Phase III public hearing, stated:
We have not got any reason for it. There are suggestions that the social gap was a bit
much for the school to take, because they withdrew. I think it was at that time that an
alternative method of doing something for them after primary school, in a school sense,
opened up the possibility of the post office exams. That’s the boy messengers that in the
long term could lead to permanent, pensionable employment.

10.166 In fact, the Post Office examinations had operated side by side with the secondary school
placements and were not introduced as an alternative to them.
10.167 Another scheme in which the School became involved was the provision of secondary technical
education onsite. This appears to have arisen out of a proposal by the Department, which was,
according to the agenda for the meeting of Christian Brothers Managers dated 23rd April 1949, ‘to
have the instruction in the upper classes in Industrial Schools given a technical bias by the
inclusion of Woodwork and Drawing’. It is not clear when the scheme was implemented in the
School, but the minutes of the Christian Brothers’ Resident Managers’ meeting held on 12th
January recorded that boys in Carriglea were at that time being prepared for the ‘Junior Tech.
Examinations’. The teaching staff was supplied by the Vocational Education Committee, and the
Resident Manager was supplying ‘everything else’.
10.168 One witness, who had been in the School from the mid-1940s to the early 1950s, recounted in
evidence that he could read and write when he left Carriglea and that he did the Primary
Certificate. He conceded that the education he received ‘was passable’. In fact, he went further
and added, ‘In actual fact, I was a little above, when I went over to the army a few years later I
was kind of more educated than, like my English counterparts ...’
10.169 Another witness recalled being in class from 9.30 in the morning until 2.30 in the afternoon. He
learnt classical poems, which he did not consider very beneficial, ‘I learnt some very classical
poems, for what good they did me, I could quote them now if you want me to’.
10.170 Another witness stated that he did not get a good education. However, he admitted that he was
a bit behind educationally when he first arrived in Carriglea and, as a result, he never went beyond
second class and so did not do his Primary Certificate.
10.171 • The national school education provided at Carriglea appears to have been of a
comparatively high standard.
• The initiative of preparing boys for the Post Office examination was a useful practical
measure to take advantage of an employment opportunity. If this was School policy,
the Superior and management are to be commended. If it was the enterprise of a
particular Brother, which appears to be more likely, it shows what could be achieved
by one motivated teacher by way of practical assistance. The practice continued when
a lay teacher took on the task in succession to the original Brother.
• It is regrettable that the practice of sending brighter boys to the Christian Brothers’
secondary school was discontinued. It greatly enhanced the chances of securing
employment and was in accordance with the recommendations of the Cussen Report.
The school failed those pupils who could have taken advantage of further academic
education.
Trades
10.172 Unlike Artane, there were only two trades available in Carriglea: boot-making and tailoring. In
addition, there was an extensive farm and, latterly, a band. The practice, as with all industrial
schools, was that from the age of 14, boys who had finished their formal education were put to
learn a trade that would enable them to gain employment upon their discharge from the School.
These boys were also given literary and religious classes for an hour and a half each day.
10.173 Although the two trades of boot-making and tailoring appear to have been well run, very few boys
were engaged in them at any time.
10.174 In 1944, when there were 255 boys in the Institution, the situation was as follows:
Farm – 4;
Tailor’s shop – 15; and
Bootmaker’s – 15.
10.175 The Visitor in 1944 was critical of the fact that the number of boys working on the farm had
dropped to four, considering that this was the occupation that ‘most of them will follow’. The
Visitor commented:
These trades are essential for the school as all the clothing and boots required by the
boys are made here under the direction of two capable foremen. Many of the boys reach
a good stage of proficiency in these two trades before leaving the school.
10.176 In 1946, the Visitor gave the following numbers working in the trades:
Farm – about 15;
Tailor’s shop – 20;
Bootmaker’s – about 20.
10.177 The 1946 Visitation Report stated:

As the Institution should be vocational it is desirable that the Trades should be restored
... Laundry and knitting are the immediate requirements. Carpentry and painting could be
introduced later.
10.178 The Visitor in that year also felt that:

The Band should also be restored as it would give a tone to the Institution and give the
pupils an interest in Music and culture.
10.179 The band had been discontinued at the end of the 1930s. However, in 1947 a retired Garda
superintendent, a former past pupil and former director of the Garda Band, was engaged to direct
musical training.
10.180 By 1948, apart from the re-establishment of the band, there were three trade shops in operation,
with the addition of the knitting school, which was for the occupation of the younger boys. The
farm, consisting of 115 acres (62 acres of which had been recently purchased), supplied the
Industrial School with plenty of milk and vegetables.
10.181 One witness, who was resident in the School from the mid-1940s to the early 1950s, said that he
had worked in the tailor’s shop in Carriglea after completing his Primary Certificate, and this had
enabled him to obtain employment in a tailor’s shop upon his discharge.
10.182 Another witness who resided in the School in the early 1950s spoke of working in the knitting shop:
First of all they took me on darning socks and I became an expert darner. They taught
me to knit on four needles and I could knit socks and taper toes at the age of nine and
a half.
10.183 This witness was of the view that these skills were taught so as to clothe the children in the
Institution.
10.184 • The Visitation Reports made it clear that trades were offered for the benefit of the
Institution and not the boys.
• Apart from farming, only two trades were on offer in Carriglea and a handful of boys
were engaged in them.
• The boys in Carriglea were not equipped with suitable skills for working after they left
the School.
Recreation facilities
10.185 The Visitation Reports noted that there was no dancing, no manual instruction, no physical drill
and no organised games for the boys. There was no band, as it had ceased to operate at the end
of the 1930s. The Congregation were unable to give any explanation as to the reason for its
cessation. There was a gymnasium in the School but, in or about 1938, the Superior decided to
use the hall as a lumber-room, and it was used to stockpile fuel and timber which was particularly
useful during the war years.
10.186 The Superior General wrote to the Resident Manager on 3rd April 1938, expressing his concern
at this initiative in the following terms:
The Gymnasium is a lumber-room. This is strange in an age that is endeavouring to
improve the physique of the rising generation.
10.187 The Visitation Reports for the first 10 years of the period under review catalogue a serious failure
on the part of the School to provide occupation and recreation for the boys. Visitors noted that
large numbers of boys had nothing to occupy them for long periods during the day, and went on
to say that no organised games or activities were provided, which led ultimately to the complete
degeneration of the behaviour of the boys who, out of boredom, resorted to immoral practices.
10.188 After the new regime was introduced in 1945, an attempt was made to remedy this problem.
Although a number of bands were established, which did occupy up to half of the boys in the
Institution, organised games do not appear to have ever been a feature. It is clear from successive
Visitation Reports that there was a lack of willingness on the part of many of the Brothers living
in Carriglea to take on any supervisory duties. In such circumstances, recreation could only
operate at the level of ‘crowd control’.
10.189 Recreational facilities were almost non-existent. The indoor gym was out of commission for long
periods of the Institution’s existence.
Aftercare
10.190 The Christian Brothers said in their Opening Statement that the Superior of Carriglea was the main
person responsible for aftercare in the School. Very little documentary information was available
concerning the provision of aftercare of boys in Carriglea. There were, however, some references
to this in the Visitation Reports.
10.191 Visitation Reports indicated that past pupils returned to Carriglea for a visit or if their employment
placement was unsatisfactory. The 1937 Visitation Report noted that:
There is a tendency for boys to return to the Institution as they are undoubtedly well
treated and perhaps too softly brought up with the result that when they leave and have
to face the realities of life they are unable to stand up to them.
10.192 The Visitation Report of 1938 referred to this issue: ‘Recently, aftercare has begun to receive
more attention’. This was due to the fact that a lay teacher was appointed to provide an aftercare
service for boys upon their discharge. The 1938 Visitation Report noted that this lay teacher had
visited 80 past pupils and had written a report on the condition of each of them. No reference was
made to this practice of visiting ex-pupils in the Visitation Reports after 1938. It is, therefore,
unclear whether this practice was continued.
10.193 In 1939, the Visitor commented on the financial expenses involved in the provision of aftercare:
‘Aftercare has become a problem and cost the Institution last year £112’. This Visitor also noted
that a large number of past pupils had been involved in crime: ‘In recent times the number of the
ex-pupils who are being arraigned before the courts is disturbing’.
10.194 The types of employment secured by the boys upon leaving Carriglea ranged from farm boys to
factory boys, messengers, tailoring, waiters etc. Between the years 1940 and 1954, there were
181 boys placed directly into employment, which was approximately 12 boys per year.
10.195 • Serious efforts were made after the Cussen Report to improve aftercare, but there is
no evidence that this continued into the 1940s.
Closure of Carriglea
10.196 An issue that arose during the course of the oral hearings into Carriglea was how the boys were
dealt with when the School closed down in June 1954. As stated above, the boys were transferred
to a number of other industrial schools on 21st June 1954. However, evidence from a number of
witnesses referred to the fact that they were given no prior notice of their transfer. Instead, they
were informed of the decision to transfer them on the morning that they were due to leave, and
no explanation was provided.
10.197 One witness recalled that none of the boys received prior warning about the transfer to Artane.
On the day that he was transferred, he, along with the other boys, was told to get his belongings
and go down to the schoolyard and then he was put on a bus. He eloquently summed up the
effect of this lack of preparation and forewarning on him:
It was just total bewilderment. It was totally distressing. I was already distressed being
sent away from home at a young age. I was just starting to settle in there when I was
uprooted and sent to Artane.
10.198 Another witness who was also transferred to Artane recounted a similar experience. He also said
in evidence that the boys were not informed about the move prior to the transfer and, further,
were not even told which school they were being sent to. He recalled that there was no discussion
or talk whatsoever about the closure of Carriglea; it was kept very quiet. He described the events
of the morning of the transfer:
Buses came in, we were bussed off ... Some went all over different parts of Ireland. They
were friends I had for five years and I never seen them again.
10.199 • The children’s feelings were disregarded on the occasion of being moved from the
home that they knew and where their friends and companions were.
General conclusions
10.200 1. The Christian Brothers had adequate funding to provide a reasonable standard of care
to the boys who were sent to Carriglea. They did not deliver this in terms of food,
clothing or accommodation.
2. Chronic mismanagement, followed by a harsh and punitive regime, caused abuse of
the children.
3. Discipline was enforced by harsh and severe corporal punishment. Measures taken to
restore order in the School included the appointment of staff who had been severely
criticised in other institutions for excessive physical punishment. Transferring these
Brothers to Carriglea introduced a level of violence, in the interests of order, at the
expense of the boys’ welfare.
4. The Congregation made a considerable profit from the closure of Carriglea, which
could have been used for the benefit of the children while it was operating as an
industrial school.
5. Carriglea provided a good standard of national school education to the boys, although
it is regrettable that, from 1940, no boy was given the opportunity of secondary
education.
6. There were some positive elements in education and preparation for employment, but
trades training was poor.
7. There was evidence of the success of one Brother’s practical approach to preparation
for future careers.
8. Documentary evidence records sexual abuse by two Brothers who served in Carriglea.
Assigning these Brothers to Carriglea showed disregard of the danger the Brothers
presented.
9. Emotional abuse was brought about by: the unruly and chaotic manner in which the
School was run for a period; the subsequent introduction of violent Brothers to restore
order; the predatory sexual behaviour and bullying by boys on other more vulnerable
boys; the high turnover of staff; and the absence of recreation facilities.
10. For much of the period of inquiry, the School was dilapidated and run-down, with poor
sanitary conditions.

Chapter 11
St Joseph’s Industrial School, Glin,

Co Limerick (‘Glin’), 1872–1966
Introduction
11.01 The inquiry into St Joseph’s Industrial School, Glin consisted of an analysis of the documentary
material from various sources, namely the Christian Brothers, the Department of Education and
Science, and the Bishop of Limerick.
11.02 The Congregation supplied extra material between March 2007 and June 2008, pursuant to a
decision to waive legal privilege that would, if it was applicable to the documents, have protected
them from disclosure. Two reports on Glin gave information on the management and structure,
and they have been used in compiling this report, particularly with respect to historical data and
statistics. Mr Bernard Dunleavy BL was asked to report on the archival material on Glin that was
in the Provincial House, Cluain Mhuire, and he asked Brothers who had been in Glin to write
memoirs of their experiences there. Following this report, Br John McCormack also researched
the documentation and spoke to Brothers who were in Glin when it operated as an industrial
school. The McCormack report was made available to the Committee in March 2007, and the
Dunleavy report in June 2008.
11.03 St Joseph’s Industrial School began in a large purpose-built block in Sexton Street, Limerick, in
1872. It was established under the Industrial Schools Act (Ireland), 1868, to care for and educate
neglected, orphaned and abandoned Roman Catholic boys who were at risk of becoming
delinquents and entering a life of crime. The underlying philosophy was that giving such boys a
basic education and a trade would make them useful citizens by preparing them for work in
industry or farming.
11.04 The School remained on this site until 1928 when it transferred to the former Glin District School
in west County Limerick, where the School continued until it closed in 1966.
The move to Glin

11.05 In 1894, Bishop Dwyer of Limerick proposed to the Local Government Board that children currently
residing in workhouses of Counties Limerick and north Kerry should be gathered into a District
School under the management of the Christian Brothers and the Sisters of Mercy. This District
School was housed in the old workhouse buildings at Glin. In 1920, workhouses throughout Ireland
closed and, in 1924, the Board of Health decided to close Glin District School. By 1926, the School
ceased to exist.
11.06 The Christian Brothers petitioned the Department of Education that St Joseph’s Industrial School
be transferred to this site from the now-overcrowded building in Sexton Street. The Minister for
Education recommended the transfer to Glin, subject to a satisfactory report by the Inspector of
Schools on the suitability of the buildings, and provided certain alterations and improvements were
made to the existing buildings. Renovation and improvement works costing £15,000 were carried
out. It involved the installation of a new hot water heating system, dining hall, infirmary, chapel,
new floors in the dormitories, new windows and doors, new steam presses and new cookers.
11.07 In June 1928, the staff and boys of St Joseph’s Industrial School moved to their new premises at
Glin, some 50 kilometres from Limerick City. Despite the alterations, it was never a suitable
building for a boys’ residential school. A letter from the Brother Provincial on 14th November 1961
suggested it did not become the property of the Christian Brothers. He wrote, ‘Glin was the only
workhouse that was handed over to us and hence the only Industrial School for which we are
paying rent to the Department of Health’. Correspondence with the Christian Brothers confirmed
that Glin never became the property of the Christian Brothers, but was leased at a yearly rent of
£40 from Limerick Health Authority. In 1970, the premises were returned to the Authority.
11.08 The majority of boys who were committed to Glin through the courts came from impoverished and
dysfunctional backgrounds. Some were committed for criminal offences. Court orders and School
registers retained by the Christian Brothers show that, during the period 1940 to 1966, a total of
759 boys, of whom 131 were illegitimate, were committed to the School.
11.09 The number of children in Glin grew during the 1930s and 1940s, reaching a peak of 212 in 1949
and 1950. There was a steady decline in numbers during the 1950s and 1960s, and the School
was closed in 1966, at which stage there were 48 boys in residence. The following table sets out
the numbers of boys in the School:
Year Number under detention

1937 172
1938 154
1939 158
1940 158
1941 187
1942 200
1943 208
1944 200
1945 206
1946 208
1947 211
1948 211
1949 212
1950 212
1951 203
1952 187
1953 182
1954 190
1955 160
1956 142
1957 133
1958 123
1959 120
1960 103
1961 91
1962 90
1963 82
1964 80
1965 68
1966 48

11.10 The average age of boys committed to Glin was nine years and 10 months, and the average stay
of these boys was five years and eight months.
11.11 Mr Dunleavy BL, in his report on Glin Industrial School, examined the reasons for boys being
admitted. During the period 1940 to 1947, he tabulated his findings as follows:
Reason for admission Number

Destitution 111
Larceny 62
Not attending school 61
Wandering 49
Having a parent not a proper guardian 38
Parents unable to control child 12
Receiving alms 10
Being under the care of a parent with criminal habits 6
Homelessness 5
Fraudulent conversion 2
Housebreaking 2
Assault 2
Malicious damage 2
Total 362
11.12 His examination of the data revealed that, apart from one 12-year-old boy who was sentenced for
a period of one and a half years, ‘not one of the boys above was committed for less than the
maximum period allowed by law’. In short, no boy was to leave the School before the age of 16.
11.13 He went on to note:

Even if crimes such as larceny, truanting and housebreaking, which may well have been
motivated by poverty are excluded from the list of offences directly attributable to poverty
– it is clear that over 48% of the boys were committed to Glin as a direct consequence of
their impoverished backgrounds.
11.14 Mr Dunleavy stated that, between 1947 and 1966, the reasons for admissions were as follows:
Reason for admission Number

Having a parent not a proper guardian 218
Destitution 95
Larceny 35
Not attending school 12
Housebreaking 7
Wandering 6
Homelessness 4
Parents unable to control child 3
Receiving Alms 2
Parent unable to support child 2
Fraud 1
Being under the care of a parent with criminal habits 1
Total 386
Management in Glin
11.15 The Industrial Schools Act (Ireland), 1868 had envisaged that each school be under the control
of a Manager and Management Committee, with the day-to-day running of the school under the
supervision of a Resident Manager. In Glin, however, as in all Christian Brothers’ industrial
schools, the role of Resident Manager was assumed by the local Superior of the Community. The
House Council, consisting of the Superior, Sub-Superior, and one or more Councillors, served as
a form of Management Committee.
11.16 The numbers in the primary school in Glin varied from a maximum of 212 boys, in the late 1940s,
to 48 when the School closed in 1966. The average number of teachers who served on the staff
was five.
The role of Resident Manager
11.17 The Resident Manager was responsible for the overall management of Glin on a day-to-day basis.
The duties of the Resident Manager included the health and welfare of the boys, admission and
discharge, staff, management of buildings and property, and interaction with Government
Departments and other agencies. He was also the Superior of the Community and Manager of
the Primary School. In this role the Resident Manager had the responsibilities now carried out by
a Board of Management. The Resident Manager had responsibility for the educational life of the
School, the lay teachers and the finance.
11.18 From 1936 until 1966, Glin had eight Resident Managers, three of whom served terms of six
years.
11.19 Br Jules1 was appointed Resident Manager in the early 1950s. He abolished the separate post of
Disciplinarian and assumed the duties himself. In an internal Christian Brothers interview that he
gave, he recalled in relation to discipline:
There were no written rules. There was a general understanding of rules, passed on from
year to year. I never saw the “Rules and Regulations for the Industrial Schools”.
11.20 Br Coyan,2 speaking about his experiences in Glin, recalled Br Jules and his attitude to corporal
punishment in the School:
Well we had strict and firm orders from Br Jules, he was the boss and the principal. We
were not to punish a young fella, if any young fella became troublesome, he was to be
sent to him. I remember that occasion when I had the run in with [a boy], it was reported
to him and he met me the next morning and he ate me for dead and I said sorry I lost my
temper and that’s that.
11.21 In 1955, the Visitor remarked, ‘There is a homely spirit prevailing in our Glin Industrial School that
could hardly be attained in a very large school’. The post of Disciplinarian was never reinstated
in Glin, and subsequent Resident Managers continued with this regime. Br Hugues3 replaced Br
Jules as Resident Manager in the late 1950s and was considered kind and considerate towards
the boys. A Visitor’s Report stated:
when the Superior came last Summer a number of boys took to running away although
they had been kindly treated. It appears that this phase is rather common at change of
Superior. Now all have settled down again ... The Superior is kind and considerate
towards the boys and the boys respond well and seem to be quite happy and friendly.
The Superior is not a believer in rigorous discipline.
1
2
3

11.22 Br Hugues continued to be viewed as a successful Resident Manager in Glin and, in 1961, the
Visitor reported that he was:
a man of happy disposition, gentle, kind and self-sacrificing and not easily perturbed. He
seems to possess the qualities which contribute to the efficient running of the school and
the happiness of the Brothers and boys.
11.23 The Visitor in 1962 remarked that the Superior was:

very highly appreciated by each and every member of the community for his evenness of
disposition, his sense of fairness to the boys and to the Brothers ... He is very kind to the
boys and they appreciate this as shown by the good spirit in the place.
11.24 In 1964, the Visitor singled out Br Hugues for his ‘efficiency, self-sacrifice, kindness to all and
devotedness to duty ...’.
11.25 It would appear that from the early 1950s the regime was less strict in Glin than in some other
Christian Brothers’ schools, and the influence of a kinder and more efficient Resident Manager
had a lasting effect on the ethos of the School. However, the accommodation of the School in a
former Victorian workhouse meant that what improvements were effected were offset by the
unsuitability of the building for its purpose.
11.26 The personnel created the management system and, while that had the advantage of the system
changing with the style and personality of the man assigned the role of Resident Manager, it also
meant an inefficient Manager could seriously affect the working conditions and quality of life in
the School.
11.27 Mr Dunleavy in his report on Glin stated:

I encountered very little evidence of what one might term proper systems and methods in
Glin Industrial School. There is no indication either in the archives or from the memoirs of
Christian Brothers who formerly worked at Glin that any proper staff or community
meetings were held in the school.
11.28 He also added:

While the Brother Superior was ultimately obliged to take responsibility for the pupils at
Glin, there is no evidence of any formal management structures at the School.
Finance
11.29 In his report on Glin, Br McCormack stated that from the mid-1960s the grant paid by the State
was insufficient to meet the needs of the Institution. He concluded:
That this was the state of the School’s finances in the last two years of its existence
speaks volumes for the inadequacy of Government funding over the years.
11.30 By 1963, numbers in Glin had fallen dramatically: in 1966 when it closed, there were only 48 boys
in residence. Because State grants were paid on a per capita basis, a fall in numbers had an
inevitable impact on finances, and the Brothers were left with no alternative but to close down
schools once they became uneconomical to run.
11.31 Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, however, numbers were sufficiently high to ensure an
adequate income for the Institution, and this was particularly so after 1944 when the State grants
were made payable on the accommodation limit of the School rather than the certified limit. For
Glin, this meant an increase of per capita payments from 140 to 214. During this period,
conditions for the boys in Glin were poor and in no respect reflected the funding that was available
to the Institution.
11.32 The Visitation Reports for the period were not consistent in respect of financial information. The
1941 Report recorded a payment of £330 to the Manager, £200 to the Sub-Manager, and £120
to each of the five other Brothers working in the School. This represented approximately 25% of
the State funding, which amounted to £5,014. It reflected a pattern seen in other industrial schools,
where substantial sums were paid to the Community account for the maintenance of Brothers and
of the Congregation. The figures for 1940 were unusually high and there is no explanation as to
why. Subsequent Visitation Reports recorded sums paid into the Building Fund and, by the time
the School closed, it had £7,000 invested in the Building Fund and a credit balance of £2,427 in
the bank. The sums invested in the Building Fund were ‘excess funds’ from the Institution.
Physical abuse
11.33 The basic stance of the Christian Brothers is that their institutions were not abusive and provided
a positive experience for the boys who lived in them. They concede that, at certain times, some
Brothers may have overstepped the mark and used excessive corporal punishment but, in the
main, they contend that rules and regulations were complied with..
11.34 The Christian Brothers also contend that, where serious breaches of the rules occurred, the matter
was dealt with promptly and appropriately by the authorities.
11.35 There are eight cases, within the documentation provided, where excessive corporal punishment
was used. Not all of the Brothers mentioned below were working in Glin at the time the allegation
against them was made. They are considered in detail below.
11.36 As in all the institutions run by the Christian Brothers, no punishment book was maintained.
Without a written record of the nature of the punishments given, and the reasons for giving them,
it is impossible to write about the extent of its use. The records that do exist are about clear
excesses.
11.37 As set out in the General Chapter on the Christian Brothers, there were two sets of regulations
governing the use of corporal punishment: the Department of Education regulations and the Rules
and Acts of General Chapter.
11.38 With regard to the Rules and Acts of General Chapter, Mr Dunleavy found that ‘none of the
Brothers who wrote a memoir have any recollection of the existence of such rules’. There were
no written rules on the use of corporal punishment available to the Brothers within the School.
They learnt how and when to punish from older, more experienced Brothers, who told them or
showed them what to do.
11.39 By contrast, Br Gaston,4 when interviewed by Br McCormack for his report, stated, ‘There was no
written code of discipline, but all were familiar with the rules laid down in the Acts of Chapter and
the injunctions of the Directory concerning punishment of pupils’.
11.40 This informal approach to the regulation of corporal punishment increased the risk of abuses
occurring.
4

The Blake case (1945)
11.41 This case concerned a boy Paul Blake,5 who escaped from Glin following a severe punishment
and went home to his mother. The story is recounted in a letter from a local councillor to the
Minister for Education and the Minister for Justice:
It is my distasteful duty to draw your attention to what I consider is a matter of paramount
public importance. [A boy’s mother] called upon me on Wednesday last the 1st instant
together with her son ... whom she stated was committed to Glin Industrial School. She
further stated that the boy had escaped from the institution on the previous day, Tuesday
31st ultimo. She stated that he had received a flogging on Monday the 30th ultimo. She
invited me to examine her son’s back which bore numerous dark stripes. There were also
sores visible on the boy’s back.
I issued a dispensary ticket to [a doctor] to have the youth examined at William Street
Garda Station, Limerick, on the evening of Wednesday the 1st instant, three days after
the alleged flogging had taken place. He (the doctor) informed me that the boy’s back
bore evidence of having received a flogging.
On questioning the boy, prior to his agreeing to surrender himself to the Garda authorities,
he informed me that, as a result of his having not returned to the Industrial School at the
end of the holiday period he was stripped of his clothes and flogged with a whip which
had a number of leather thongs attached thereto.
1. Will you please state:- If a form of punishment so described by this boy is prescribed
by law in certain cases in Industrial Schools and Borstal Institutions.
2. If the recipient of such treatment is compelled to be stripped or partly stripped of his
clothing.
3. If it is compulsory for the Superior or other authorized person of an Industrial School
or Borstal Institution to inflict such treatment in certain circumstances.
4. If the use of a whip with a number of leather thongs is prescribed and permitted.
5. If the report from Glin Industrial School agrees with the statement made to me by
[the boy].
6. If it does not in what respect does it differ.
I may mention in conclusion that on Wednesday night this boy who handed himself over
to the Garda authorities, later escaped from the members of the Glin Institution who had
been sent to collect him at Limerick.
11.42 He received an acknowledgement on 8th August. On 25th August he sent a copy of the medical
report which read:
[The boy] was examined by me at William St. Barracks on August 1st 1945. Examination
revealed on posterior surface of right upper arm, on right forearm and on back – wheals
– about 2 to 3” long. The wheals were not tender or sore and was such as would be
produced by a leather thong.
11.43 This medical report showed that the boy was severely beaten in a way that was against the
regulations at that time.
11.44 Six weeks later, on 19th September, the Councillor had not received a reply from the Minister so
he wrote again. He wrote, ‘As this matter is now long outstanding I would like to have a full reply
to my letter. Will you kindly facilitate me in this connection at your earliest convenience’.
5

11.45 The Councillor was sent a brief note from the Secretary of the Department of Education dated
29th September 1945. The note said:
I am directed by the Minister for Education to say that he has had full enquiries made into
the circumstances of the case and has taken appropriate action in connection therewith.
11.46 The Councillor immediately wrote back on 1st October to demand answers to his questions, and
to ask what ‘appropriate action’ had been taken. He wrote:
In view of the grave public importance of the case before us I would ask you to kindly
answer the questions as enumerated in my communication of August 3rd. I would also
want to be informed under what law and the date thereof that a youth could be submitted
to punishment so described in my communication.
I would further want to know what appropriate action has been taken in this case at the
direction of the Minister of Education.
11.47 This time he did receive a prompt reply, designed to put him in his place:
the Minister for Education desires me to inform you that he does not feel called upon to
give you the information you have asked for in the matter unless he is supplied with
evidence as to your right to obtain that information and is given an assurance as to the
purpose for which it is required.
11.48 The Councillor asserted his right to be answered. He wrote:

my position as a Public representative entitles me to the information requested ... for the
purpose of confirming the allegations made to me which if correct should be ventilated in
the interests of the public.
11.49 He finally received a reply on 5th January 1946, but it was on condition that it should not be made
known to anyone else. He inserted the following note into his file of correspondence:
Letter of 5th January 1946 withheld from this file as the contents were given to me at the
direction of the Minister for Education for my confidential information.
11.50 The letter has never been found.
11.51 On 15th April 1946 he wrote again to the Minister. He asked for a general inquiry to be set up into
the running of industrial schools, and for a specific inquiry into this case. He wrote:
I am now fully convinced that nothing short of a sworn inquiry into this case will satisfy
the public conscience, and I suggest to the Minister, that early steps be taken to set the
necessary machinery in motion towards this end. I further suggest that the time is now
opportune for an inquiry into the entire Industrial School and Borstal Institution system,
and under these circumstances I would ask that consideration be given to extending this
enquiry to cover every aspect of these institutions.
I shall deem it my duty to lay the relevant information in my possession before a Tribunal
set up by the Minister to inquire into the matters referred to herein.
11.52 On 26th April he received a reply from the Secretary of the Department:
The Minister is satisfied ... that he is in possession of all the facts concerning the
punishment inflicted, and in these circumstances he considers that a sworn inquiry as
suggested by you is unnecessary and would serve no useful purpose.
In regard to your further suggestion for an inquiry into the Industrial School system and
the Borstal Institution system I am to point out that the Industrial and Reformatory School
system was the subject of an exhaustive inquiry in the years 1934 to 1936 by a
commission appointed by the Minister for Education ... This report is now out of print, but
you may be able to see a copy in a Public Library.
11.53 On 9th May the Councillor replied, giving vent to his anger at the secrecy about the case:
In my opinion, the useful purpose of an enquiry would be to put the public in the
possession of the facts which the Minister and his officials and a few others only now
possess.
As the Minister refuses to give the necessary publicity, I am compelled to take other steps
so that it may be procured.
In your letter of the 5th January you extended to me, under the direction of the Minister,
an explanation for my confidential information. As the contents of this letter were conveyed
to me in substance through other sources than that of the Minister, I feel that under the
circumstances I would not be justified in with-holding the information contained in this
letter from the public or their representatives.
11.54 The Councillor wrote to the manager of the Theatre Royal in Dublin, who had contact with Fr
Flanagan6 of Boys Town in the USA. He told him:
You have knowledge of this case, and I recall you saying to me some time ago, that you
were approached by a prominent public man, who asked you to use your influence with
me to drop this case. To your credit you used no such influence with me.
11.55 The case, he said, was ‘this most degrading reflection on our system of detention of juveniles ...
These conditions will exist as long as Industrial Schools ... remain closed boroughs to the public’.
11.56 He apparently handed all the documents, except the confidential letter sent on 5th January, to the
manager of the Theatre Royal for forwarding to Fr Flanagan. They were found in Fr Flanagan’s
archives, and are the sole remaining record of the case. No record of this case was found in the
files of the Department of Education.
11.57 While this correspondence was going on, there were other developments. On 12th October 1945,
the boy’s mother received a letter saying:
The Minister for Education has informed me that he has granted the discharge of your
son ... Hoping he will be a success and give you complete satisfaction.
11.58 He was discharged, despite being still only 15. In 1946, the Resident Manager was transferred to
Salthill, again as Resident Manager. Br McCormack’s research paper noted:
However it is also open to the interpretation that, following the publicity of October 1946,
during Fr Flanagan’s visit to Ireland, the Provincial was using the first available opportunity
to remove Br Delaine7 from Glin. This would have been at the New Year, a time when
changes were common and would not attract gossip.
11.59 Commenting on this case in a recent communication the Christian Brothers wrote:
Without contemporary evidence other than the [the councillor] /Department
correspondence it is difficult to piece together the full story of this incident. There is no
doubt that a serious breach of regulations did take place but the identity of the Brother
mentioned in the account of the beating is not clear. The account mentions the “Head
Brother” but since no name is given...Boys in industrial schools could confuse the
6
Fr Flanagan was an Irish priest who lived and worked in the United States. He opened his first boys’ home in 1917,
which later moved to another location and became known as ‘Boys Town’. He became an acknowledged expert in the
field of childcare. He visited Ireland in 1946.
7

functions of responsible staff such as Resident Manager (a rather aloof figure), the
Disciplinarian, who was in charge of general discipline, and the Principal, who was in
charge of the primary school and classroom discipline.
Fr Flanagan’s intervention
11.60 Fr Flanagan made no mention of the Blake case while he was in Ireland, although his attacks
against the punishment regime in Irish penal institutions which received widespread publicity. In
a public lecture in Cork’s Savoy Cinema he told his audience, ‘You are the people who permit
your children and the children of your communities to go into these institutions of punishment.
You can do something about it’. He called Ireland’s penal institutions ‘a disgrace to the nation’
and then issued a public statement saying ‘I do not believe that a child can be reformed by lock
and key and bars, or that fear can ever develop a child’s character’.8 His resolute and vociferous
stand against the corporal punishment of children led him to speak out against the Glin case when
he received a letter from one of his contacts in Ireland, Walter Mahon Smith.9 It stated, ‘As regards
the Glin case none of the Daily papers would investigate or publish this for me’.
11.61 When he got back to America, Fr Flanagan spoke about it to the American Press. The matter was
raised in the Dáil in a debate on 23rd July 1946.
11.62 Mr Seán Brady TD asked the Minister for Justice, Mr Boland:

whether his attention has been drawn to criticisms of the prison and Borstal systems in
this country reported to have been made by Monsignor Flanagan during his recent visit
and published in the Irish newspapers, and to similar criticisms made on his return to the
United States which were published in the New York Press on the 17th July, 1946 and
whether he has any statement to make.
11.63 Mr Boland replied:

My attention has been drawn to the criticisms referred to. During his recent stay in this
country Monsignor Flanagan did not see and did not ask to see any of the prisons or the
Borstal institutions. I am surprised that in these circumstances an ecclesiastic of his
standing should have thought it proper to describe in such offensive and intemperate
language conditions about which he has no firsthand knowledge.
11.64 Mr Flanagan TD asked if the Minister was ‘... aware of the fact that Monsignor Flanagan did not
make these statements without very good foundation and very good reason for them’.
11.65 Mr Brady TD asked ‘if his attention has been drawn to a statement made by Monsignor Flanagan
and published in the American Press, that physical punishment, including the cat o' nine tails, the
rod, and the fist, is used in reform schools both here and in Northern Ireland’.
11.66 The Minister replied:

I have a cutting from a paper which contains a statement to that effect. I was not disposed
to take any notice of what Monsignor Flanagan said while he was in this country, because
his statements were so exaggerated that I did not think people would attach any
importance to them. When, however, on his return to America he continues to make use
of statements of this kind, I feel it is time that somebody should reply ...
11.67 After an interruption, he continued:

8
For a full discussion of Father Flanagan’s visit to Ireland see Dáire Keogh ‘There’s no such thing as a bad boy’: Fr
Flanagan’s visit to Ireland, 1946, History IRELAND, 12, 1 (Spring 2004) 29-32 and the discussion of his article by Eoin
O’Sullivan and Mary Raftery in the letters section of History IRELAND 12,4 (Winter 2004)
9
Fr Flanagan was influenced by Walter Mahon-Smith’s book, I did penal servitude, published anonymously.

All I have got to say is that these schools are under the management of religious Orders,
who are self-effacing people, and who do not require any commendation from me.
11.68 • The Minister chose to attack the man who had attacked the system. His support for
the religious Orders closed the debate.
Br Serge10
11.69 Br Serge was sent to Glin in the mid-1940s and spent two years in total there, with a break in
service to complete his teacher training. A letter was apparently sent to Dr McCabe, the Medical
Inspector of Industrial Schools,11 complaining about the punishments he had inflicted on the boys.
The Visitation Report of May 1947 goes into the affair in some detail. The Visitor wrote:
For some time back certain members of the Limerick Corporation have been seeking
interviews with boys from the school to provide information for certain members of the
Dáil whose ambition seem to be the providing of trouble for the Government. The reaction
of the situation on the boys of the school gave serious trouble to the Brothers in the
execution of their duty. A letter was sent to Dr McCabe, medical inspector of Industrial
Schools, giving information on punishments inflicted on some of the boys recently. She
came along and held an inquiry which was strictly confined to the boys; she interviewed
no member of the staff in connection with the matter. It is the unbiased opinion of three
senior members of the community that from the information they got from boys interviewed
by Dr McCabe the information supplied to her in the above letter was substantially true.
The Brother implicated in these charges was Br Serge, who is due to make Final Vows
next Christmas. His method of punishment as far as I can make out varied, once at least,
from the recognised use of the strap. He had no discretion as to the number of slaps that
should be apportioned to offences. Br Serge has also been charged with acting as the
leader of the troubles in the Training College towards the close of last year. I have met
several Brothers who were there at the time and all are agreed as to his guilt ... I would
not resent Dr McCabe’s attitude because if she succeeds in securing information from the
boys the work of the politicians will be short circuited and danger of publicity eliminated.
11.70 The letter of complaint to Dr McCabe has not been discovered. Nor is there a report on her visit
to the School, even though her interviews with the boys apparently uncovered allegations of
serious physical abuse.
11.71 The Visitation Report cited above made several criticisms of a serious nature. It alleged, first, that
Br Serge had punished ‘some of the boys’ excessively. Second, it alleged that Br Serge could
give an excessive number of slaps, and he could do so even if the offence did not merit a severe
punishment. Thirdly, it alleged his method of punishment ‘varied once at least from the recognised
use of the strap’. The recognised use was usually a slap on the hand with a leather and, clearly,
Br Serge had departed from these guidelines.
11.72 The Visitor sent his report to the Provincial, who responded that:
It is a pity that the school has not a better reputation for kindness and consideration for
the poor boys. Nothing should be left undone to secure kinder treatment of the boys and
a happier and brighter feeling among them. This is not only possible but easy to secure
if the Brothers have the correct feeling for them.
11.73 This reply was significant. The Provincial regretted that the School had not a better reputation ‘for
kindness and consideration’ for the boys in its care. He did not only criticise Br Serge, but all the
10
11

Brothers for not having ‘the correct feeling’ for the children. It expressed unease about how boys
in general were treated in Glin.
11.74 Five Brothers referred to Br Serge in internal Christian Brothers interviews. Their comments on
him were illuminating. One Brother, (Br Coyan) who went to Glin in the early 1950s and who was
clearly referring to Br Serge, said:
... there was one there before I went there and he was very cruel. He left the Brothers.
There was a big inquisition from either the Department or the Health Board his name
won’t come to me just now. He was sent out of Glin and the kids were complaining about
them continually and you daren’t mention his name. They hated the thought of him but
he was sent down to the Brothers and he was sent down to the place but we followed his
career afterwards, he became a principal outside and a parish priest was in trouble but
that’s the only case and that was before my time.
11.75 He then added:

I have often heard it from the lads themselves about this man. He could be dead by now
for all I know, he was a bastard as they say and the kids hated the sight of him and he
was a man who should never have been sent to Glin. To be sent to a place like that you
have to have great rapport with the kids like. You are living with them as much as you
would if you were in a family at home and you have to coax them along ... You are the
only one that they can rely on ...
11.76 Br Hardouin,12 who was in Glin in the 1940s, also recalled the man:
I can recall when the Department Inspector called to Glin to investigate a complaint made
by a retired Brother against a member of the teaching staff who was accused of being
too severe. The Brother accused was removed to a day school and the following
Christmas was expelled from the Order. I imagine that the complaint may have been a
contributory factor in his expulsion although he had previous problems during second
year training.
11.77 Br Zacharie,13 who replaced Br Serge, said:

I came there from Monaghan to replace a Brother who had been moved out because he
was over severe ... I was advised to be nice to the kids and not to worry about
examination results.
11.78 Br Gaston, who was resident in Glin during the 1950s, recalled talk about this Brother being
investigated. He said:
I cannot recall any situation where a formal complaint against the school was investigated
by an outside group or individual, though I believe that there was such a situation in the
School within three or four years prior to my coming.
11.79 A contemporary of Br Serge, Br Amaury,14 gave more details:

The procedure for dealing with complaints would be that if any staff member or child in
the school had a complaint he could bring that problem to the Superior/Manager, the sub
superior, the school principal, the disciplinarian, or to the provincial or any one of his
council. One such complaint was made during my year in Glin. It was made against one
of the Brothers on the school staff. I do not know to what outside group or individual the
complaint was made but the nature of it was that the man in question was over severe in
12
13
14

having recourse to corporal punishment. None of the details of this complaint were made
available to the community or staff in Glin. The boy who was named as the one who made
the complaint was personally known to me and my impression of him was that he was a
boy who would be very unlikely to do anything serious enough to merit severe corporal
punishment. He was known to have been a close friend – a “masters pet” – one of the
men who regularly did supervision in the school yard during recreation time. This does
add more than a little likelihood to an opinion circulating at the time; that it was the
“master” and not really the “pet” who caused the complaint to be made.
11.80 There are no grounds to suggest these recollections are unreliable. They all recall similar details
and they provide an important illustration of how a violent man was dealt with by the management
of the Congregation in the 1940s.
11.81 First, there did not seem to be a standard reporting procedure for either boys or Brothers when
violent or abusive behaviour did occur. Br Hardouin summed up the situation as he saw it:
Generally speaking there was no redress for any child who had a complaint against a
staff member. Again as a younger brother, I certainly was not fully informed of problems
that were the responsibility of management.
11.82 The procedure referred to by Br Amaury, ‘that if any staff member or child in the school had a
complaint he could bring that problem to the Superior/Manager, the sub-superior, the school
principal, the disciplinarian, or to the provincial or any one of his council’, was not used in this
case of extreme violence. Instead, a letter of complaint was sent to an outsider, the School
Inspector. There was no explanation in the documentation as to why this route was taken, but it
was clearly deemed necessary or politic to avoid the Congregation’s management structures.
11.83 Br Serge was removed promptly during the Visitation, and was sent to a day school. Some of the
Brothers in Glin informally kept an eye on his later career. As stated above, one of them believed
that he had got into trouble elsewhere. He said, ‘we followed his career afterwards, he became a
principal outside and a parish priest was in trouble’, but no details are available about such an
episode. Given the seriousness of his behaviour, and the excessive violence he was known to
have used, this simple expedient of removing him to a day school could not have guaranteed the
protection of other children. Br Serge’s career continued as a national school teacher in a number
of schools. He left the Christian Brothers in the late 1940s. He subsequently spent many years
as a principal of a national school.
Br Amaury
11.84 Br Amaury worked in St Joseph’s School for Deaf Boys, Cabra before moving to Glin where he
spent a year during the 1940s. He made a bad impression during his brief period in Glin. During
an annual Visitation, the Visitor was very critical of Br Amaury and recommended his transfer. Br
Amaury was moved a few months later to a day school and did not teach in a residential school
again. The Visitor made insightful observations on the vulnerability of boys in residential care:
With the exception of Br Amaury all the other members of staff are capable and reliable.
In punishing boys he sometimes loses control of himself. I would recommend his change
in view of circumstances in the school. It would be better if Br Amaury was sent to a day
school where boys would have a parent or relative to interpose between themselves and
a cruel teacher. The industrial school boy has no redress but suffer on.
11.85 The fact that two Brothers in one year were accused of excessive violence. There is evidence
that Br Jules, who subsequently became Resident Manager, made efforts to change attitudes in
the School. But it is not clear if he was able to eliminate abuses by Brothers during his period of
management. Br Coyan, who was there at that time, remembered the rules laid down by him.
Br Jesper15
11.86 Br Jesper spent over 11 years in Glin from the late 1940s. He held the position of Councillor for
his first seven years, before taking over as Sub-Superior in the mid-1950s. The Visitation Reports
reveal that he could be a difficult person to get along with and was acknowledged as being odd.
The Visitor noted that relations between him and a number of Brothers were bad and, when
questioned on the matter, his colleagues accused him of having a very bad temper. The Visitor
subsequently remarked that Br Jesper was ‘not quite normal’. He was suspicious and aloof. By
the late 1950s, his doctors recommended that he be transferred from Glin immediately, because
he was in danger of having a nervous breakdown if he had to stay there.
11.87 There were reservations about Br Jesper from his early days in the Congregation. The Superior
General wrote to him in the mid-1930s and drew his attention to a trait that cast doubt on his
suitability to take perpetual vows. He reprimanded him for being:
altogether too strict and harsh in your dealings with your pupils. It would appear that you
are subject to moods, being at the one time rather depressed and gloomy and at others
jubilant and vivacious ... Possibly in class these variations are manifested by a want of
uniformity in your dealings with the boys, treating them indulgently at one time and again
with great severity ... Harshness towards pupils is out of date. A good educator is never
severe towards those he is training. Severity alienates the sympathy of the pupils with their
teacher and loses to him their cooperation, the most powerful means he has for success.
11.88 Nevertheless, Br Jesper took his final vows shortly after this reprimand.
11.89 Br Jesper completed an internal Christian Brothers’ questionnaire in 2001 regarding life in Glin.
He stated that there was ‘strong discipline’ in the School but that it was not as tough as discipline
in day schools, ‘It certainly was not hard’. He denied that the boys were beaten regularly and ‘it
would have been an exception arising out of a grave infringement of the rules that they would be
in any way chastised’. He conceded that the leather was used, but asserted that he had dispensed
with its use shortly after his arrival in Glin. He denied any allegations of physical abuse made
against him, and indicated that he would be surprised if similar allegations against his colleagues
were true.
Br Jeannot16
11.90 Br Jeannot was sent to Glin as a young Brother in the late 1940s where he remained for more
than five years. In the early 1950s, the mother of two boys resident in Glin made a complaint
regarding severe punishments her sons had received at the hands of Br Jeannot. There was no
proper investigation.
11.91 The two brothers had been committed to Glin a number of years previously, following the
separation of their parents. The older of the two, described by the Superior as ‘a big hefty fellow’,
was regarded as troublesome. On one occasion when his mother came to visit, he complained to
her that he had been punished excessively by Br Jeannot. He alleged that he had been beaten
with a stick and kicked by him. The mother demanded that her boys be released into her care,
15
16

alleging that both had been ill-treated by Br Jeannot. The Superior explained to her that the
Minister for Education would have to make an order for their release. She then wrote to the
Superior General, perhaps thinking that he could direct the releases, and the Provincial Council
therefore became aware of the matter. The Provincial wrote to the Superior of Glin, seeking
information on the incident.
11.92 The Superior responded by letter and explained that, one evening, Br Jeannot was in charge and
reprimanded the boy for misconduct but he still continued to be impertinent. Br Jeannot then called
him into the play hall and struck him on the cheek before administering the leather. The Superior
was convinced, as a result of his investigation, that Br Jeannot had not beaten the boy with a
stick or kicked him. He was also satisfied that the younger brother of the boy had never been
punished by Br Jeannot. He chastised Br Jeannot for not bringing the boy to him to be dealt with.
The Superior was suspicious that the mother had exaggerated the incident so that she could
secure the release of her sons. The Provincial was satisfied, as a result of the information provided
by the Superior of Glin, that ‘it is quite clear the chief difficulty in the case concerns the home
circumstances of the children. It is well however that the Brothers gave no serious reason for
complaint in connection with their treatment of the boy’.
11.93 It would appear that he reached this conclusion without the parents or boys being interviewed,
and was quite happy to accept at face value the version proffered by Br Jeannot and the Superior.
Complaint by Mr Dubois,17 night watchman

11.94 Mr Dubois was employed as a night watchman in Glin in the early 1950s. He held the position for
six months and stated that he left for health reasons. He wrote to the Department of Education
shortly after leaving Glin, setting out a number of serious concerns he had for the boys resident
there:
Dear Sir,
May I respectfully direct your kind attention “in Confidence” to the following and I am
confident that by doing so that I shall be doing a great work of charity.
For the past six months, I was employed as “night-watch man” at St Joseph’s Industrial
School Glin Co Limerick, and having had close contact with the “Boys” and with the
running of the school in general, I am in the position to be able to make the enclosed
observations and respectfully request that the Inspectors of this department see after the
matter and do their best to remedy the state of affairs existing there.
The Boys are discontented with the existing state of things due to the following defects.
Poor food and clothing. The cook in Boys Kitchen has no knowledge of cooking being an
ex pupil working for 15/- per week and has never got any training for this work.
Everyone employed at this school are free to have a smack at the Boys including the
Brothers who appear to be indifferent to all this. The Boys beds and sleeping quarters are
very poor and during the cold winter months are never heated, neither do the Boys get
any kind of winter clothing to keep them warm. The Boys shirts are very poor quality and
very badly washed the whole place and system is very-very bad.
The Infirmary is just the same. The nurse goes off duty pretty often and the children are
left to the mercy of one of the boys. I know the Brothers can scrape out of any difficulty
but I write from personal experience. and if you could arrange surprise visits. night and
day. you could see for yourself. I could never have believed that such could exist in a
Catholic Country. I know there is a good deal of window dressing to deceive the eye of
17

the visiting official but I learn that the Boys are warned not to complain May God help the
poor children.
There are only two trades men in this school, a shoe maker and a tailor, no carpenter
employed. How can we expect such Boys to become an asset to the state. They shall
treat the state as the state treats them. Pay a surprise visit to this school some cold night
and see for yourself. The former night watch man a common farm labourer. carried a
heavy leather when on duty and beat up the poor children as he pleased. please Sir
remedy this. and you will have the blessing of God and the prayers of the poor children
God bless you.
Yours respectfully
Mr Dubois
In confidence
11.95 The Inspector of Industrial and Reformatory Schools, Mr Sugrue,18 requested Dr Anna McCabe
to investigate the serious complaints contained in the letter, which he specified as food, clothing,
bedding, laundering of clothes and heating of the School in winter. Dr McCabe visited Glin for this
purpose, and she also took the opportunity to carry out a General Inspection. Her brief report on
the complaints stated:
Mr Sugrue,
I visited Glin Industrial School and had a long talk with the Manager. I told him about the
letter we had received and which it was my duty to investigate.
I really could find no ground for complaint in the school. It is well run and the boys appear
well and happy.
I asked the manager if there could be any spiteful reason why the letter should have been
written and he told me that the man had been dismissed for insubordination and had
vowed to injure the school ... Apparently he thought that writing this note he would cast
reflection on the school.
Many improvements have been made in this school and in my opinion there are no
grounds for complaint against the management.
11.96 Given the very specific complaints made in the letter, this investigation was cursory and the report
vague and unsatisfactory.
11.97 Dr McCabe’s visit was not only to investigate the complaint. She carried out a General Inspection
on the same day, and her report gave little indication of the serious problems that she was
investigating, and which were acknowledged by her superiors in the Department as needing
special investigation.
11.98 Mr Dubois then wrote a letter to the Minister for Justice, elaborating on the contents of his letter
to the Department of Education:
Dear Sir,
May I respectfully direct your kind attention “in confidence” to the following hoping that
you Sir will do something to help the poor unfortunate children concerned.
For a period of six months, I took up a position of night watchman in one of our Industrial
Schools “for Boys” namely, St Joseph’s School Glin Co Limerick and I may tell you Sir,
18
This is the English version of Mr O Siochfhradha

that I never expected to find in a Catholic Country like ours, the awful bad conditions in
so far as the poor Boys were concerned, only that I had spent six months and seen for
myself I never could have believed that such conditions could exist especially as this
Institution is under the care of our Irish Christian Brothers who are so reputed for
teaching etc.
When I took up employment there last March, I found the poor children in a very nervous
state, due to harsh treatment at the hands of the former night man (a local labourer) rough
and cruel, who was allowed a free hand to beat up the children as he pleased, and was
permitted to carry a heavy leather for this purpose. The children were called out of their
sleep every hour to use the W.C. and any poor child who had the misfortune to wet his
bed, was very roughly treated by this night-man, who also reported the matter to the
Brothers in the morning, and a further punishment was then administered to the poor
child by the Brothers concerned. The children have no redress whatsoever and are just
like convicts.
With regards the food its very-very poor and the person in charge of the cooking is a
young boy aged about 17 years an ex-pupil of the school, who at the age of 16 years was
discharged, and sent to a job ... but did not get on well and was sent back to the school,
and the Superior ... appointed him boys cook, but he knows nothing whatever about
cooking and what he cooks for the poor children isn’t fit for pigs to eat and I often felt
sorry for the poor children especially the young and helpless ones. The Children gets very
little butter. their bread is served almost dry they are allowed 2 slices of bread each with
a little scraping of butter or marge, and an extra slice dry the tea, or cocoa is very light
and badly made. The Bro. who is supposed to supervise the Kitchen (Br Warrane19) never
bothers to do so, as he is a jack of all trades and never has much time to look after any
job properly apart from the motor car which he drives. This Br Warrane is a sour kind of
person and never speaks a kind word to any of the children, and is very severe with the
leather which he is very fond of using. All the employees are allowed to beat the children
especially the plough-man (Mr Prewitt) is very hard on the children working on the farm
and very fond of using the boot, and his fist.
The children are very badly clothed. They are not supplied with any winter under clothing,
neither are the sleeping quarters heated in winter and the poor children told me that they
felt very cold at night and if they complained the Brothers would only laugh at them. I
have experienced some cold nights at the school and what must it be in the winter!
I respectfully beg to hope Sir that you will look into the matter. I sent a confidential report
to the Dept of Education but not enough to cover all I have observed during my six months
at the School. The Infirmary part of the school needs overhaul and the present nurse is
very fond of been away as she is local. She appears to have no love or sympathy for the
children and the children will suffer much before they report sick as they don’t like the
nurse. In my humble opinion Sir the whole school needs a good honest overhaul and a
few night surprise visits, There appears to be a good deal of window dressing and outward
appearances. No one has seen the meals served out to the poor children but I have Sir
and all I have to say Sir, is may God help the poor little ones, they are a pity.
The position of night man in such schools is a very important one, and I respectfully
suggest Sir that you should interest yourself in the type of person employed, and draw up
rules and regulations to fit the job. The children are at the mercy of the night man during
the night and it’s important that such a man should be a sober man and have patience
and charity in his dealings with the children, and Glin school can tell some queer tales
19

about night-men. One thing I found most lacking in St Joseph’ Glin was charity. The only
place I’ve seen real charity was with the Good Brothers of St John of God in St Augustine’s
Blackrock Dublin, and what a pity these fine men cannot have charge of our Industrial
Schools for they have at heart the real love of God, and in the poor children they see
Christ Himself.
I feel now Sir, that I can feel at ease as I was worried when I had to leave the children as
my health would not permit me to continue the work, as I never smoke or drink I suited
the job and I had the full confidence of the boys, who regretted my leaving and I promised
them I would look after their interests. Do your best Sir, and look out for window dressing
and bear in mind that the children are afraid to complain to any visiting official and you
cannot expect much help from them.
God bless you Sir,
Your obedient Servant
Mr Dubois
Confidently
11.99 The Minister for Justice wrote to the Minister for Education commenting that Mr Dubois appeared
to be an intelligent, well-meaning person and, if what he said was true, it revealed a very serious
state of affairs. He asked to be kept informed of the results of any investigation.
11.100 Mr Sugrue of the Department of Education visited Glin and wrote a memorandum in Irish recording
what happened. A translation is as follows:
Glin School
I visited this school ... and had a long conversation with the Resident Manager about the
complaint made by Mr Dubois in relation to school matters. I read the letters written by
Mr Dubois to certain boys in the school, to a maid in the school and to men employed in
the school. The Resident Manager had all these letters. According to the letters, it would
appear that Mr Dubois took a keen interest in the care of the boys at the school in the
matter of food, clothes, etc. The Resident Manager told me that Mr Dubois was wont to
come downstairs at night and carry bread from the Brothers’ refectory to the boys in the
dormitories. From their appearance it would seem that the school shows great kindness
and consideration to the boys.
11.101 Despite the fact that Mr Sugrue had previously drawn Dr McCabe’s attention to the specifics of
the complaints made in Mr Dubois’s letter to the Department of Education, and that more detail
had been furnished in the letter to the Department of Justice that preceded his visit to the School,
no detail is provided as to the quality of care given to the boys.
11.102 When a reminder was sent from the Minister’s secretary, asking whether a report was yet
available, the matter was taken in hand by a senior official, who reported to the Secretary of
the Department:
Runai,
Glin Industrial School.
Complaint from Mr Dubois, ex-night watchman there, to Minister and to Minister for
Justice, re treatment of boys.
The charges made by Mr Dubois may be listed as follows: —
(1) The boys are poorly clothed, and have no winter underwear.
(2) The food is meagre, poor and badly cooked.
(3) The sleeping quarters are ill-equipped and unheated.
(4) Employees are permitted to beat the children with straps and even to strike and kick
them and to treat them otherwise cruelly, and even some of the Brothers are careless
or unkind or given to beating the children with small cause.
Dr MacCabe and Mr O Siochfhradha20 have both visited the school and their findings,
herewith, may be summed up thus:-
The facts reported under charges (1), (2) and (3) are true in the main of many Industrial
Schools, but they are, of course, not matters of deliberate intent and so the light in which
they have been put by Mr Dubois is false.
As may be seen from the File, Dr MacCabe has been pressing the Manager on these
very matters for some years, and he has made efforts at improvement as far as his
resources permit.
With regard to charge (3), viz. that the sleeping quarters are ill-equipped and unheated,
Mr O Siochfhradha informs me that it is a moot point among present day experts whether
heating of sleeping quarters is desirable. He, for his part, however, is gradually prevailing
on the authorities of the Girls’ Schools to provide heating for the dormitories, but many
Boys’ Schools, including Artane, do not provide it.
Mr O Siochfhradha considers the sleeping equipment at Glin fairly good.
The inspectors found no evidence of harshness or cruelty on the part of the staff or
employees, and Mr O Siochfhradha has stated to me that he is absolutely satisfied that
it would not be in character for Br Warrane or any other of the Brothers to treat the
children unkindly.
Dr MacCabe reports that the Manager has informed her that Mr Dubois was dismissed
from the post of night watchman in the school for insubordination.
The impression given to me by Mr Dubois’s letters and the Inspectors’ Reports is

(1) that Mr Dubois grew to like the boys very much and to resent their being administered
an occasional slap or cuff,
(2) that there may be some slight grounds for a charge of occasional severity, but that as
regards clothing, food, etc. Mr Dubois is probably unaware that the sole and entire
income of the School was up to the present only 19s. capitation grant per week. Our
Inspectors are perfectly satisfied that that sum is stretched to its utter limit, and as far
as they could see, the boys are happy and cheerful,
(3) that Mr Dubois is a confirmed letter writer, as is evidenced by the number of letters
he has written to the boys in the School and by the fact that his turn of English is
unusual in a night watchman. Incidentally, such phrases as “in the poor children they
see Christ himself” seem, to me at least, too glib for their not particularly charitable
context.
I would guess that Mr Dubois is a well-meaning person of rather unreserved character,
and would advise taking no further notice of any missives he may forward. The Inspectors,
however, intend to visit the school for some time more frequently than is customary, and
it would seem well to do this.
20
This is the Irish version of Mr Sugrue

11.103 Senior civil servants drafted and approved a letter to be sent by the Minister in reply to his
colleague, who had moved in the meantime from the Department of Justice to the Department of
Defence. Consideration was given as to whether it was more appropriate for the Minister to write
directly to his colleague or for the respective private secretaries to communicate. It is not clear
which course was adopted. The draft as prepared said:
that the Minister has had searching inquiries made and can find no convincing evidence
to support the accusations made by Mr Dubois.
The fact that the financial resources of our industrial schools are in general rather limited
makes it impossible for the authorities to supply other than plain food and clothing or to
install equipment of the most up to date quality.
With regard to the charge of harshness, unkindness and ill treatment of the boys, the
Minister is assured that it would not be in character for the Brothers to permit such to
occur, much less to be guilty of it themselves.
It has been arranged, however, to inspect the school more frequently for some time to
come.
11.104 The Christian Brothers’ Submissions on this matter comment that the length of the investigation
(approximately eight months) and ‘the number and seniority of the officers involved indicates that
complaints were taken seriously by the State and that final decisions were not made lightly’. They
contend that the first letter sent by Mr Dubois ‘set in motion a typical investigation by the
Department involving unannounced visits by Dr McCabe and the local school inspector’. The letter
to the Minister for Justice, they maintain, ‘lent urgency to the investigation’ which eventually
involved the secretary of the Department, the Minister’s secretary and the Minister for Education.
11.105 There was nothing to suggest that the visits of Dr McCabe and Mr Sugrue were unannounced.
Neither was it correct to say that the investigation was protracted. In the case of each visit, it
followed reasonably promptly on the receipt of the letter from Mr Dubois. What was delayed was
the response in the form of any action by the senior officials of the Department of Education,
which only came about when a reminder was sent from the Minister.
11.106 The Department did not interview Mr Dubois as part of their investigation. They did not investigate
further whether Mr Dubois retired due to health reasons, as stated by him, or was dismissed for
insubordination, as asserted by the Manager. It does not appear that they conducted any spot
checks, as suggested by Mr Dubois. The Department acknowledged internally that Mr Dubois’s
criticisms of the clothing, food and sleeping accommodation were ‘true in the main of many
industrial schools’. Mr Dubois’s concerns regarding the inexperienced chef and the often absent
nurse could quite easily have been addressed and rectified. Neither were enquiries made about
Mr Dubois’s predecessor who, it was alleged, regularly wielded a heavy leather strap and terrified
the boys.
11.107 • The Department wrote off Mr Dubois’s complaints as the outpourings of a man with a
personal grievance. As a result, no thorough investigation was carried out.
• A proper investigation of the complaints required that Mr Dubois should have been
interviewed. Such an interview was needed, not least because the Resident Manager
had suggested a malicious motive for writing the letter and Dr McCabe should have
established whether this was the case.
• Even when the Department did make findings, it did not explain where the facts came
from. For example, there was no information as to how the Department concluded that
‘there may be some slight grounds for a charge of occasional severity’ and, similarly,
what investigations led them to the conclusion that the boys were administered ‘an
occasional slap or cuff’.
• The Department acknowledged internally that three of the four charges he made were
‘true in the main of many industrial schools’ and, by implication, they were true in
respect of Glin. In other words, the boys were poorly clothed, and had no winter
underwear, the food was meagre, poor and badly cooked, and the sleeping quarters
were ill-equipped and unheated. They seemed to believe nothing needed to be done
simply because such conditions were not peculiar to Glin but were quite widespread
in such schools.
• Despite the cursory nature of their inquiries, the Department was nevertheless
prepared to inform another Minister in the Government that the Minister for Education
‘has had searching inquiries made’ and that there was ‘no convincing evidence to
support the accusations made by Mr Dubois’.
Br Jules
11.108 Br Jules taught in a number of industrial schools: Carriglea, Artane, Tralee and Glin, where he
held the post of Superior for five years during the 1950s.
11.109 At an early stage, Br Jules developed a reputation for being tough on his pupils. In the early
1930s, he came to the attention of the Provincial Council because of his harsh treatment of a
pupil in Tralee who had a physical disability. This incident has been dealt with in the Tralee
chapter. He was initially rejected from taking his perpetual vows. He was, however, allowed to
take his vows the following year by a vote of three to one, notwithstanding a report describing
him as:
too exacting in school: little devotedness to study: “troublesome, crossgrained”; has not
had good record – doubtful candidate.
11.110 The Superior General, Br Noonan, wrote to Br Jules congratulating him on taking his perpetual
vows. In the course of the letter he stated:
11.111 During Br Jules’s tenure as Superior of Glin in the 1950s, the visiting Brothers consistently
complimented him on his management and dedication to the boys, and Brothers who were
interviewed by Br McCormack for his report confirmed that a kinder regime was introduced
following his appointment.
11.112 In his questionnaire for the Congregation, completed in 1999, Br Jules stated that, ‘There were
no written rules regarding discipline. There was simply a general understanding of rules passed
on from year to year’. Despite holding the positions of Superior, School Manager and
Disciplinarian, he conceded that he had never seen the Rules and Regulations for Industrial
Schools. He had no recollection of pupils being severely beaten. He dealt with absconders by
making them feel ashamed of what they had done. He did not punish them.

11.113 He explained how he introduced new boys to the School:
when a new pupil came he would often be very upset. We had to point out to him that he
was not wanted at home and convince him that life had not been that good at home; that
we had taken him in, that he would be better off here.
11.114 Br Coyan, in an interview with Br McCormack, recalled that Br Jules did punish absconders by
giving them a ‘baldy haircut and the kids didn’t give a damn or they might be deprived of some
privilege or other for a week or so’.
Br Marceau21
11.115 Br Marceau already had a bad record of violence towards boys when he was assigned to Glin in
the early 1960s. He worked there for almost two years, between periods of service in Tralee
Industrial School. Investigations have revealed a paper trail of documented cases of physical
abuse by Br Marceau in day and residential schools in which he taught. Accounts of Br Marceau’s
conduct in the other institutions is dealt with in the Tralee chapter.
11.116 Prior to his time in Glin, Br Marceau worked in Tralee and, before that, in a day school in Clonmel.
During his four and a half years in Clonmel, there were four serious allegations of physical abuse
against him. Three of the incidents resulted in the parents of the children complaining to the
Superior, and the fourth incident was witnessed by another Brother, who was so concerned over
what he had seen that he warned the Superior to keep a close eye on Br Marceau. When
confronted in respect of complaints, Br Marceau either minimised the seriousness of the incidents
or emphatically denied that they had happened. He was issued with a Canonical Warning in the
early 1960s. When the Superior of the Community received the fourth complaint from a parent
later that year, he wrote that he was simply not prepared to deal with any more irate parents
complaining about the ill-treatment of their children at the hands of Br Marceau. He regarded Br
Marceau as a danger to the boys and simply unfit to be in charge of them. He begged for Br
Marceau to be removed from his school. Br Marceau was transferred to St Joseph’s Industrial
School, Tralee.
11.117 The first Visitation Report following his transfer to Tralee recorded that this Brother did not seem
to be ‘quite normal and would appear to be deteriorating mentally’. He was ‘lacking in good sense’.
The follow-up letter to the Resident Manager noted that he ‘may perhaps be inclined to be rather
too exacting’ and, accordingly, the Manager would have to ensure that his ‘zeal’ for the children’s
progress did not get the better of him. The Brother was transferred to Glin later that year, where
he remained for approximately two years, after which he was sent back to Tralee.
11.118 In the year following Br Marceau’s arrival in Glin, the Visitor remarked that Br Marceau was still
upset over the Canonical Warning he had received. Br Marceau was convinced that there was a
vendetta against him and had tried to have the Canonical Warning rescinded, but to no avail. The
Visitor noted that, in Br Marceau’s view, the warning was ‘too severe a penalty for faults that were
grossly exaggerated by a Superior who was prejudiced against him and in fact was out to get
him, as he put it’. He was bolstered in his opinion, having sought the advice of three priests on
the matter, who unanimously agreed that the punishment did not fit the crime. The Visitor urged
him to accept the situation and concentrate on his work in the School. He surmised that he was
‘not a vindictive type of man’ and noted that Br Marceau was very well regarded in the Community.
11.119 It was not long before Br Marceau once again came to the attention of the Provincial Council.
Almost two years later, the Resident Manager wrote to the Provincial notifying him of an incident
that had recently taken place. Br Marceau learned that a pupil had referred to him as ‘madman’.
21

He took the pupil to the Superior and the boy admitted the offence. The Superior slapped him on
the palm of the hand in punishment.
11.120 Later that day, the boy reported to the infirmary with a pain in his jaw. His face was noticeably
swollen and, when questioned by the Brother in charge of the infirmary, the boy reluctantly
admitted that Br Marceau had struck him on the face before he had brought him before the
Superior. Br Marceau denied the allegation. A week later, the swelling had not subsided and the
local doctor examined the boy on his weekly visit. He recommended an x-ray as a precautionary
measure, and it was discovered that the boy had a fractured jaw. He was detained in hospital
for observation.
11.121 The Provincial wrote to Br Marceau and requested an account of the incident. He responded the
following day with a detailed version of events. He stated that he was aware that he was referred
to by the nickname ‘madman’ by the boys, because he was considered over-vigilant in his
supervision of the dormitories, playgrounds and toilets. On the day in question, he was made
aware of the fact that a boy had referred to him by this name. He informed the boy’s teacher of
the matter and the two Brothers questioned the boy. He admitted the allegation and, after being
interrogated by Br Marceau, he reluctantly disclosed the names of two other culprits. Br Marceau
accompanied him to the Superior’s office and back to the classroom where he stated that he ‘got
him to apologise. Then I gave the boy a few slaps on the hands, but at no time during the incident
did I beat him anywhere else’.
11.122 The Provincial replied, admonishing Br Marceau on his handling of the whole affair and, in
particular, the manner in which he disregarded the Superior’s authority. He warned, ‘you
understand I hope that you have made a very bad mistake and that you are fortunate the
consequences have not been more serious. (I am praying they will not be.)’. He informed Br
Marceau that he would be transferred immediately to Tralee.
11.123 There is no mention in the letter from the Provincial that Br Marceau had a history of serious
physical assaults on pupils in other schools, including Tralee, the School to which he was being
sent for the second time. Three days after Br Marceau’s untimely departure from Glin, a member
of the Provincial Council conducted the annual Visitation of Glin. There was only a veiled reference
to the incident which resulted in Br Marceau’s transfer. The Visitor noted that Br Marceau and
another Brother had encouraged tale telling amongst the younger children and this had resulted
in ‘the recent incident’.
11.124 However, that was not the end of the matter. The Christian Brothers were obliged to notify the
Department of Education of the fact that a boy had been hospitalised. A routine enquiry issued,
requesting information on the manner in which the injury was sustained. The reply stated ‘facial
injury accidentally caused in the administration of punishment’. The Resident Manager feared that
the enquiry was the result of a Dáil question, and he asked a member of the Provincial Council
to meet with a Department official. Br Moynihan met Mr MacUaid of the Department to discuss
‘the affair in Glin’, and Mr MacUaid made a note that, ‘Brother Moynihan was not sure whether
the injury was a result of a blow from the strap or from collision during punishment, as the
Consultor, whom he had sent down to investigate the matter, was vague on this point’.22 He
declined to divulge the name of the Brother, only revealing that he had been transferred
elsewhere. Mr MacUaid noted that:
The Resident Manager of Glin is a kindly man and I understand that there is a good
atmosphere in the school. Yet, there is the possibility that the coincidence of the official
22
Note there is no indication from the correspondence dealing with the matter that anyone was sent down to investigate
the matter. The discovery indicates that the matter was dealt with entirely by correspondence.

query and the Bundoran inquiry may have flushed a bird which otherwise might have
lain concealed.
11.125 The Department was somehow informed of the identity of the perpetrator, as the next letter was
from Br Marceau to the Department, in which he referred to a recent interview in Tralee with a
Department official. He was outraged that such an allegation could have been made and stated:
I emphatically deny that I struck this boy on the face for a very insulting remark he made
about me.
I fail to understand how this false charge has been made against me.
Therefore I have nothing to add to our recent conversation in St Joseph’s Tralee ...
11.126 Despite the gaps in the documents it is clear that:

(1) The Department was aware that a boy in Glin was injured so severely that his jaw
was fractured and he was hospitalised.
(2) Br Marceau was the most likely perpetrator of the injury, despite his denial.
(3) The Provincial Council saw fit to have him transferred from the School as a result of
the incident to another residential school.
(4) Br Marceau’s violence was documented in Congregation records.
(5) The Congregation was in dereliction of its duty of care by sending Br Marceau to Glin,
and then transferring him back to Tralee, despite his violent treatment of boys.
(6) The Department was also in dereliction of duty, as it did not voice any concerns
regarding the incident and was content to let the matter lie.
11.127 The Congregation asked surviving Brothers who had worked in residential institutions to complete
questionnaires in relation to their views of life in industrial schools. Br Marceau completed one
such questionnaire in 1999. In it, he stated that it was more difficult to mould industrial schoolboys
because they lacked character. There was no written code of discipline; there was instead a code
of practice which was passed from one Brother to another. His mentor advised him not to become
too friendly with the boys. Each Brother was expected to handle his own discipline problems. He
stated that he was humane in his treatment of the boys, but accepted that he also used the ‘lamh
laidir’.23 In addition, he used competition between the boys and a rewards system to maintain
control.
11.128 In his view, most of the allegations of abuse made against Brothers were false. He thought that
there were too many Brothers accused for the matter to make sense. He denied all allegations of
abuse made against him.
1. Glin had a severe, systemic regime of corporal punishment.
2. Brothers with a known propensity for physically abusive behaviour were sent
to Glin.
Sexual abuse
Br Buiron24
11.129 Br Buiron spent almost seven years in Glin in the early 1940s. Prior to this, while resident in
Artane, he confessed to the Superior that he had sexually abused a boy in the infirmary, where
he was working. It appears from minutes of a General Council Meeting held at that time that there
23
‘Strong hand’ in Irish.
24

was a number of incidents. Br Buiron was called before the Superior General and admitted the
offences. The Superior General wrote to the Provincial:
I sent for Br B today and told him of the risk we ran in retaining him in the Congregation
and gave him until tomorrow morning at ten o’clock to consider if he would apply for a
dispensation or stand trial. I will let you know the result. He is a great danger to us. Two
Brothers were hanged in Canada within the past two years for murder of their victims after
such offence. A Brother of a community in charge of an industrial school in Rome awaits
his trial for the murder of a boy in the school who told of his offence to his Superior. The
school is closed and the community disbanded.
11.130 Br Buiron refused to apply for a dispensation and appeared before the General Council. A vote
was taken but, instead of sending him for trial as predicted by the Superior General, it was
unanimously agreed that Br Buiron should be retained in the Congregation. He was given ‘... the
first canonical warning, threatened with expulsion and given a penance. The daily recital of the
Miserere’. The Superior General wrote to the Provincial informing him of the outcome of the vote,
which was taken ’after very mature deliberation’. He continued:
I told him that you would send him the official warning when writing to him and giving him
his location (which will be very difficult I fear.) He shows signs of the greatest repentance.
He told us he was not sure [of the boy’s name] and that he told him after the first offence
that he (Br B) would now have to leave the Brothers.
11.131 Br Buiron was immediately moved to Cork, where he remained until he was transferred to Glin.
Br Piperel25
11.132 Br Piperel taught in Glin for six years during the 1940s. He had previously served in Letterfrack
and Tralee. Following his time in Glin, he was transferred to Salthill.In Letterfrack, he was the
subject of a serious complaint that he was sexually interfering with boys. A full account of the
case is contained in the chapter on Letterfrack. An allegation against him was investigated, but
only to the extent that he was asked about it by a Visitor, and subsequently gave a lengthy written
account by way of letter. The explanation offered by the Brother ought to have given rise to
increased unease rather than to have allayed suspicion. He later taught in Cork, where his conduct
in relation to young girls caused him to be removed urgently and relocated in retirement in the
Midlands.
11.133 • These Brothers were sent to Glin after complaints or suspicions of sexual abuse in
other industrial schools. Given the risk of such behaviour being repeated, it was
reckless to transfer them to a residential school, where the children were particularly
vulnerable as they had no recourse to their families.
Neglect and emotional abuse
Visitation Reports and Department of Education Inspection Reports

11.134 In 1938, the Visitor commented on the boys’ appearance:
Nobody can fail to remark the contrast between an Industrial School boy in his everyday
rig and the appearance of even the poorest boys attending our Day Schools. The
Industrial School boy seems to have no appreciation of personal cleanliness and tidiness
of dress.
25

11.135 The following year, the Visitor recorded that the School had received a favourable report from the
Department Inspector, but he found the top class weak in arithmetic, handwriting and letter writing.
In addition, the Brother in charge of this class had unilaterally decided to abandon the teaching of
Irish. The Visitor remarked that he ‘ought show more zeal for their welfare’. He noted that one of
the other two teaching Brothers was also a poor teacher. The Visitor was critical of the boys’
clothing, some of which was simply unfit for use and should be discarded. He complained about
the heavy boots the boys wore, which were badly repaired, making them ‘unsightly, unwieldy
things’. He was pleased to see that the boys now had good shoes for Sunday.
11.136 In June 1940, the Visitor said that the yard was surfaced in coarse gravel which made it unsuitable
as a play area. He found only one of the teachers, out of a complement of five, satisfactory. He
observed, ‘the teaching staff here, as in the other industrial schools I visited this year, is weak.
The type of boy in the industrial schools needs to have devoted, zealous and self-sacrificing
teachers’. The treacherous condition of the schoolyard continued to receive mention in the
Visitation Reports and Department Inspection Reports, but it was not until 1955 that the necessary
work was undertaken.
11.137 The 1941 Visitation Report listed repairs and improvements that were necessary, including the
faulty hot water and heating system, the play hall was ‘cold, unsightly and dilapidated’ and needed
to be replaced. The teachers, once again, came in for criticism, with only one of them regarded
as satisfactory. Br Young was not impressed by the standard of work in the two trades being
taught, namely boot-making and tailoring. The workshops were unsuitable and, in some
instances, dangerous.
11.138 In 1942, the Visitor approved of the new spacious play hall which had been built for the boys.
Water pipes continued to present problems, resulting in an insufficiency of water to the boys’
lavatories. The teacher in charge of the two junior classes had 59 pupils in his class, which made
it very difficult to teach effectively.
11.139 Two years later, the Visitor found that ‘the literary side of the boys’ education is somewhat over
emphasised to the neglect of practical work’. He drew attention to the fact that the only trades
taught were tailoring and shoemaking. He noted that the boys’ sanitary facilities were ‘entirely
inadequate’ and he was also critical of the laundry which required renovations.
11.140 The boys’ lavatories came in for criticism once again during the Visitation in 1945. The Visitor
noted that the ‘Boys lavatories and bathroom are very primitive; there are no cisterns in the
lavatories and boys have to carry water three times a day to flush them; I found a bad smell from
them, they had not been flushed the morning I saw them; it was about 11am. It would be advisable
to attend to both lavatories and bathroom in the near future’. Of the overall population of 214 boys,
there were 190 on the School register. The remaining 24 boys were employed for more than six
hours each day on the farm or in the workshops. This group received 30 minutes of instruction in
religious doctrine daily. He advised:
It is desirable that an hour a day extra should be afforded these boys to continue their
education, especially as some of them had very little at the age of 14 years when they
left off school work. Subjects such as English, Private Reading, Arithmetic, etc should
interest and be useful to such boys.
11.141 In May 1946, the Visitor observed that the premises were badly laid out for the purposes of an
industrial school, and that many repairs and alterations were necessary. The boys’ bathroom
came in for particular criticism, as it was too small and badly fitted. The yards and approaches to
the Institution were in very bad condition and posed a hazard. Some of the wire mattresses
required overhauling, although he appreciated the difficulty in obtaining wire. He predicted that a
sizeable sum of money would have to be expended on the School before long. The recurring
theme of the inadequacy of trades training and education was once again aired. He observed:
It is very difficult to place boys in the trades when they have to go out and many who
have been trained to shoemaking or tailoring have to go to farm work. These are much
handicapped and are not a success. The trades or farm boys do not receive any education
when once they begin their respective trades. This is unfortunate, as they soon forget
much of what they have learnt.
11.142 He noted complaints that the School was understaffed, and recommended that a Brother who
could undertake some school work would be useful.
11.143 In December 1946, Dr McCabe visited the School and recorded that the premises were clean and
in good condition and that the children were well cared for and happy.
11.144 However, she noted a major deficiency which was subsequently set out in a follow-up letter from
the Department to the Superior in December:
It is reported, however, that a number of the boys have not gained in weight and that a
few have actually lost 2 or 3 lbs during the year. These boys who do not put on weight
normally should be specially watched and they should be given such additional or special
food as the School Medical Officer may prescribe.
1. Porridge should be served at breakfast. Each boy should be allowed at least a quarter
of a pound of meat at each meal at which meat is served.
2. The boys everyday clothing should be improved.
3. The sanitary annexe should be kept in better order.
4. Rubber aprons and wellington boots should be provided for the boys in the laundry.
5. There is need for the provision of a new bathing annexe.
6. The dampness in the walls of the dormitories should be attended to. It is understood
that you will arrange to have this matter attended to during the summer of 1947.
11.145 Additional points in her original report were that the dormitory walls had not been re-plastered as
promised and remained damp, and there also remained room for improvement in boys’ clothing.
She noted that the outdoor sanitation annexe was better kept than previously. Overall, she noted
a general improvement in all departments.
11.146 In May 1948, the Visitor noted that the damp walls in the boys’ dormitories remained untreated,
as did the play yard:
The surface of the playground is completely gone and the rough stone foundation
revealed and in dirty weather the surface must be something approaching a morass and
as in this establishment, owing to the fact that the various sections are completely cut off
from one another and that the boys have to go out into the open air when passing from
one to the other this mud is carried on their boots into all departments and particularly
the chapel.
11.147 He drew attention to a pattern he had noticed from visiting other institutions, which was the lack
of facilities for the boys’ recreation:
During the recreations there seems to be a universal tendency to just turn the boys loose
in the playing field or to herd them into an empty hall and then to let them fend for
themselves. A lot of them seemed to just loll around. Obviously such boys should be kept
well occupied in an interesting manner. There seems to be a very great need for a much
more generous supply of apparatus for games both outdoor and indoor. Very little seems
to be done in the matter of supplying suitable reading material for them. Physical training
is only carried out in a rather haphazard manner if at all.
11.148 Although the deteriorating condition of the premises was noted in various reports, the
Congregation was reluctant to invest in repairs and renovations when the viability of the School
was very much in question.
11.149 Dr McCabe remarked, in Medical Inspection Reports completed during the 1950s, that she was
satisfied with improvements to the boys’ diet. During an inspection in February 1954, she noted
many improvements in the School. A new boiler had been installed, the dormitories painted, a
carpenter’s shop added, new equipment introduced to the kitchen, and new blankets and
bedspreads acquired for the beds. The Visitation Report in May 1954 was not quite so positive.
The Report noted that the boys’ play hall was small and ‘somewhat depressing’, but the Superior
asserted that the boys had plenty to amuse themselves with during the frequent rainy periods.
The Visitor found the shower facilities rather primitive, although the Superior assured him that
improvements had been made. He was glad to see that the boys had new boots and sandals ‘so
that there was none of the heavy clattering of boots that is such an undesirable feature of some
of our industrial schools’.
11.150 The Visitor in 1958 expressed concern at the standard of trades training in Glin. Tailoring and
shoe mending were still the only trades but, in the previous five years, only one boy had directly
benefited from the training he received. Practically all of the boys upon leaving Glin went to work
on farms, and many did not have an aptitude for it. He was satisfied with the boys’ diet and
clothing, although he was critical of their footwear.
11.151 The Visitor made similar findings as regards trades training in his Report the following year. He
recorded that, despite the existence of a carpentry shop, that trade was not taught. He believed
that machines rather than people were used in the trades in which the boys were instructed and
jobs could not be secured for them. Boys tended to work on farms before drifting off to England
or into the Army. He supported the Superior’s suggestion that a Brother who could teach arts and
crafts be drafted onto the staff in order to ‘take some of the dullness out of their lives’. He added,
‘the evening is long here and occupation for the boys is necessary’.
11.152 In 1959 the Visitor expressed concern at the state of disrepair of the School during his Visitation,
although he noted that ‘repairs are out of the question owing to falling numbers and meagre
government grants’. However he advised that the fire escape, which was in a dangerous condition,
be attended to as it presented a danger and ‘could scarcely be used in an emergency’. He queried
the unusually high level of failure at the Primary Certificate examinations, and noted that the
children were weak at arithmetic.
11.153 The Visitor in 1961 made the customary remarks about the state of disrepair of the premises. He
also commented that, when the boys left Glin, they often seemed very lost in the world:
Some of them do not easily fit into their new surroundings especially those who have
never known what family life should be. Many drift from job to job and eventually emigrate.
The general impression of the visitor would be, I think, that the institution fulfils a useful
purpose and many pupils who have been the victims of circumstances and brought up
under sordid conditions are given a fresh start and are well prepared for life.
11.154 The Visitor in 1964 stated:

The boys’ toilets are bad and require to be completely renovated. Being in the open and
uncovered they are exposed and in wintertime this is severe on the boys. They would
require to be replaced by new toilets but owing to the uncertainty with regard to the future
of industrial schools this is scarcely to be recommended. The boys’ kitchen is in the same
bad condition as it has always been.
11.155 The following year, the Visitor acknowledged that a substantial sum had been spent on updating
the boys’ kitchen, but additional renovations had been put on hold pending a decision on the
future of the School. The School closed in 1966.
Home leave
11.156 Home leave was first granted in 1924 and was for a maximum of seven days per annum. It was
extended in 1935 to 14 days, following an unofficial suggestion by the Cussen Commission prior
to its final report. Following publication of this Report, the period was once again extended to 21
days per year, and the discretion regarding who went on home leave was transferred to the
Resident Manager, who was thus allowed a certain degree of latitude in determining the length of
a child’s leave.
11.157 In 1948, a further 10 days were allocated, thus increasing the total to 31 days.
11.158 Some figures for home leave from Glin between 1942 and 1966 were compiled by Br McCormack
in his report. These are available primarily from the Christian Brother Annals and are set out
below:26
1942: In July about 80 of the boys spent three weeks with their parents or friends (Annals).
1944: 75 boys went on home leave (Annals).
1945: 110 boys went home for a three weeks holiday in July (Annals).
1953: In August all but three of the boys returned from holidays in their homes. One of
these had been taken to England by his mother, but after negotiation he was returned to
the school (Annals).
1955: About 50 boys went home on holidays (Annals).
1958: About 50 boys went home on holidays (Annals).
1961: About 40 of the boys got a fortnights holiday with families who offered to take them
(VR 19.4).
1962: In July, 36 boys went home for a months holidays (Annals).
1965: In July some boys went home for their holidays. In August, 36 boys went to Carne,
Co. Wexford for 3 weeks holiday. Transport was provided by the Limerick Lions Club
(Annals).
1966: In July, 20 boys went home on holiday and 30 went to Knockadoon. All returned
on 1 August (Annals).
11.159 These figures are not absolute and are provided without context, and even contradicted on
occasion by Department of Education figures; for example, in 1942, 70 not 80 boys went on home
leave and, in 1944, 74 boys went on leave out of a total of 207. Some years are also missing, but
can be found in records provided by the Department of Education; for instance, in 1948, the
Department recorded that just 28 boys returned home that summer.
11.160 The Department’s desire to extend home leave to a wider number of children, for a greater period
of time, met with resistance from a number of Resident Managers, Glin included. On 22nd
November 1944, the Manager of Glin wrote to the Industrial Schools Branch of the Department
26
Provided in the research paper produced by John McCormack cfc.

of Education, defending the decision to send only 74 children out of a total of 207 on home leave.
The Manager stated, ‘I kept them in the school because I had no guarantee that their friends
would be able to maintain and take care of them’. He also stated in this letter that every boy in
the School wrote to relatives regarding the home leave, with 74 positive replies, six negative
replies and no replies in the remaining cases. Closing the letter, he remarked, ‘I did not consider
it advisable to send boys on holidays to parents and relatives who did not reply’.
11.161 This hostility to home leave emerged most strongly when, in 1949, the Department of Education
proposed to extend the maximum period to six weeks in a calendar year. Just seven schools were
in favour of the proposal and 37 were against it, including Glin. The Resident Managers, in a letter
dated 7th June 1949, stated their reasons in very clear terms:
It was pointed out that when the children return from Home Leave there is always a
marked disimprovement in manners and conduct; they are often very discontented,
impatient of control, and physically and morally upset. All this is highly detrimental to the
general spirit of the School, and it takes children quite a long time to settle down again to
the ordinary routine.
Numbers of them return ill-fed and sickly, in an unkempt condition, with clothes in a filthy
condition. It takes weeks to get rid of the vermin. Sometimes their language is vile, having
picked it up in undesirable quarters. And for some such considerations some Managers
suggested that instead of extending the Home Leave period, it should be shortened.
Industrial School children generally belong to the poorest families and the home conditions
are often most unsuitable and undesirable. It was mentioned where a family of eight lived
and slept in one room; also where a father, two girls and a boy slept in the one bed, while
the mother, dying of T.B. was in a corner in a bed supplied by the Corporation.
A high percentage of these children are illegitimate and their mothers are not just what
they should be; others have been the victims of circumstances getting into trouble
because parents or guardians failed to exercise proper control. And as it was by order of
the Court that these children were committed to the Schools, it stands to reason it would
not be for their betterment to allow them to return to such undesirable conditions for
protracted periods.
It was also said that children who could with safety be allowed six weeks’ Home Leave
should not be in any Industrial School; they should be discharged to their homes and not
be allowed to be parasites living on public moneys.
11.162 While many of these points may have been true, the tone of the letter shows very little
understanding of the need for family contact. In Submissions, the Christian Brothers commented:
The general unsuitability of the children’s homes on account of poverty, overcrowding,
and lack of parental control also figured among the reasons for opposing the proposal
and some Managers (number not given) even suggested that shortening of home leave
would be a better option.
11.163 They added there was ‘genuine concern for the children in the opposition to extending home
leave’.
Aftercare
11.164 761 boys passed through the School between 1940 and 1966. Forty percent (308) of these boys
were discharged to members of their family. According to the Dunleavy Report, the School
Register showed that the boys were discharged to the following relatives:

1940–1947 1947–1966 Total
Discharged to father 50 79 129
Discharged to mother 35 60 95
Discharged to parents 20 7 27
Discharged to aunt 7 11 18
Discharged to grandmother 5 5 10
Discharged to uncle 4 10 14
Discharged to sister 4 4
Discharged to grandfather 4 4
Discharged to brother 2 5 7
SUBTOTAL 131 177 308
11.165 As can be seen, 81% of those discharged to a relative went to a parent or parents.
11.166 According to the Dunleavy Report, aftercare beyond one year was provided to boys as follows:
Years Boys receiving more than 1 %

year aftercare
1940–1947 68 18%
1947–1966 61 15%
11.167 It is likely that most of these boys were discharged to places of employment, and had no relatives
to look after them. The Brother in charge of aftercare made notes on pay, living conditions and
contentedness of the boy.
11.168 Records were kept of the kinds of employment found for the boys. The following table taken from
the Dunleavy Report covers the period:
Employment 1940–1947 1947–1966 Total

Farm boy 87 76 163
House boy 21 43 64
Hotel worker 10 16 26
Boot maker* 7 3 10
Shop boy 5 1 6
Tailor* 4 1 5
Religious order* 3 3
Cook* 2 2
Builders labourer 1 1 2
Blacksmith* 1 1
Monumental sculptor* 1 1
Subtotal 136 147 283
* Skilled or semi-skilled work.
11.169 89% of the boys went into unskilled work on farms, or as houseboys or hotel workers. 16 boys
between 1947 and 1966 went on to join the Army. A further 14 were charged with criminal
offences.
11.170 The Congregation in its Submissions made the point that trade unions had made it difficult for
boys to enter trades. However, a number of Visitation Reports pointed out that the limited trades
taught were effectively useless to the boys upon leaving the Institution, as they were dictated
by the requirements of the School rather than the kind of training that would prepare the boys
for work.
Submissions of the Christian Brothers

11.171 The Submissions made by the Congregation on issues of neglect of the boys in Glin drew attention
first to the General Inspection Reports of the Department of Education, which it stated were
generally very favourable. It said that the process of inspection as carried out by Dr Anna McCabe
was thorough and had good follow-up. At the end of each inspection, Dr McCabe made
recommendations orally to the Manager of the School, which were then followed up by a letter
from the Department, formally listing the recommendations. The process came to a close with a
letter of confirmation from the Manager that the required alterations and improvements had been
made. The Congregation contend that the Resident Manager responded promptly to the
Department’s requirements, following both General Inspection Reports and Medical Inspection
Reports. The reality, however, is that the Department Inspections were a good deal less effective
than the Congregation’s description would suggest.
11.172 The Congregation also drew attention to favourable entries in the Visitation Reports. They included
the statement in 1946 that the boys were well clothed and fed, and in 1949 and 1950 there were
favourable comments about the variety and quantity of food.
11.173 The Submissions pointed out that Inspection Reports recorded improvements in recreational and
cultural facilities, as well as holiday arrangements, from the end of the 1940s. Visitation Reports
and Community annals also reported the provision of a variety of facilities. As against that, the
Reports which were quoted at paras 1.147 and 1.149 above drew attention to the lack of recreation
for the boys in Glin and that life was tedious for them.
11.174 The Brothers cited documentary records, indicating the availability of cultural and sporting
activities. These included a choir, dancing classes, an orchestra, drama and boxing.
11.175 In respect of education, it was pointed out that, from 1952 onwards, small numbers of boys in
each year attended outside secondary school or vocational school.
11.176 The Congregation conceded in regard to vocational training:

As regards the standards reached in the Shops, it is doubtful if it went much beyond
repairs and mending ... However, judging by the very poor record of placement of boys
in boot-making and tailoring the skills most of the boys had to offer were not very
considerable.
11.177 The Congregation contended that the Medical Inspection Reports were also favourable, that the
medical records were well kept, and that the local doctor visited the School regularly. On the
subject of dental treatment, they suggested that the number of boys referred for treatment was
quite low. Quoting the Medical Reports, therefore, the general picture was one of compliance with
the standards set out by Dr McCabe, who was satisfied when the School met with her
requirements and was also very appreciative of Managers’ efforts to improve conditions for the
residents. Healthcare was satisfactory, as recorded in the documents that are available. Similarly,
hygiene was satisfactory. There are, however, very critical entries in the reports, particularly the
Visitation Reports as disclosed.
11.178 • The Congregation Submission was selective when referring to the available
documentation, making no reference, for example, to significant criticisms in its own
Visitation Reports.
Differences between Visitation Reports and Inspection Reports
11.179 There was a marked contrast between the Christian Brothers’ Visitation Reports and the
Department of Education Inspection Reports. The former were more in-depth and thorough,
whereas the latter tended to be more cursory. The Visitation Reports were consistently critical of
the dilapidated state of the School, and concerns about the damp walls in the dormitories, the
atrocious state of the lavatories and the treacherous state of the schoolyard were expressed. Dr
McCabe also made reference to these issues but not with the same sense of urgency. She did
not make any reference to the effect that such sub-standard facilities might have on the children.
11.180 In some Visitation Reports, when the Brothers noted the shabby state of the boys’ clothing, no
corresponding comment was made by Dr McCabe. When she did note that the boys’ clothing was
tattered and patched, she did not press the matter or make suggestions as to how shortages in
supplies could be addressed.
11.181 The Brothers conceded in the Visitation Report of 1948 that there was little in the way of
stimulating recreational facilities for the boys, but this was not an issue raised by Dr McCabe.
11.182 The standard of education was another area where there were conflicting reports. The Visitation
Reports were very negative about the standard of education and trades training in the School. It
was not an issue that came within Dr McCabe’s remit, but the Department’s Education Inspector
made a favourable report on the School and did not pick up on the criticisms of the Visitors.
11.183 The limited trades available were dictated by the requirements of the School, rather than the kind
of training needed to prepare the boys for work. A number of Visitation Reports pointed out that
these trades were effectively useless to the boys upon leaving the Institution. Boys were ill-
prepared for the outside world: they did not fare well after being discharged and often tended to
drift from job to job before ending up in England or joining the Army.
11.184 Dr McCabe’s Inspection Reports, particularly in later years, would suggest that the inspections
were not particularly probing, and were, in many respects, superficial. In areas where she did
make criticisms, she did not tend to suggest practical solutions to the problems.
11.185 A comparison of both the Department and Visitation Reports suggests that the Visitation Reports
provided a more reliable source of information about conditions in the School.
General conclusions
11.186 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.

Chapter 12
St Joseph’s Industrial School,

Salthill (‘Salthill’), 1870–1995
Introduction
12.01 Oral hearings were not held into Salthill, and this chapter is based on an analysis of relevant
documents, including those obtained by the discovery process from the Christian Brothers, the
Department of Education and Science, the Bishop of Galway and the Health Service Executive
(formerly the Western Health Board) and submissions from the Christian Brothers.
Establishment
12.02 St Joseph’s Industrial School, Salthill (‘Salthill’) traced its history back to 1870, when a public
meeting in the Town Hall in Galway approved a proposal to establish an industrial school for boys
and appointed a committee to implement the project. Land and premises were acquired in Salthill
in June 1871 and were adapted to accommodate 50 boys.
12.03 The Patrician Brothers agreed to manage the School under a committee of laymen and religious.
The purpose of the School was to take in ‘neglected, orphaned, and abandoned Roman Catholic
boys, in order to safeguard them from developing criminal tendencies and to prepare them for the
world of industry’. According to the School annals, on 25th September 1871, ‘twenty-one poor boys
were admitted to the School, most of them in the lowest state of destitution and misery’.
12.04 The School got off to a difficult start, and initial reports from the Inspector for Industrial and
Reformatory Schools were negative. There were problems with management in the School which
caused the Patrician Brothers to withdraw. The Government Inspector, Mr John Lentaigne, called
to the Superior General of the Christian Brothers in July 1876 and asked him to take over the
running of Salthill.
12.05 The Christian Brothers inspected the premises and set out the terms upon which they would
undertake the management of the School, and these were agreed with the Bishop. By the terms
of this agreement, the Congregation held the property with the Bishop of Galway under a trust, of
which the Bishop and two members of the Congregation were the perpetual trustees.
12.06 All existing debts and liabilities were paid by the committee that had originally set up the School,
and an overdraft facility was set up in the local bank.
12.07 The Brother in charge was designated the Resident Manager and it was agreed, ‘That he shall
not be obliged to furnish any other accounts to the Committee, or sub-managers, than those
annually presented to government’.

12.08 Although this agreement clearly envisaged that the School would be run under the supervision of
a management committee, as required by the Industrial Schools Act (Ireland), 1868, such a
committee was never put in place by the Congregation and it ran the School in the same way as
it ran all its industrial schools.
12.09 The population of the School rose rapidly in the early years, with the certified number increasing
to 150 in 1879 and 200 in 1886. Through fund-raising activities the School facilities were extended
to accommodate the growing numbers, for example, a chapel and dining room were built from the
profits of a three-day bazaar held in 1879. Workshops were built shortly after the Christian
Brothers took over. It was part of the agreement entered into with the Bishop that the diocese
would support fund-raising activity on behalf of the Brothers.
12.10 The annals from these early years showed a great interest in the School from political and religious
leaders. The Duke of Edinburgh visited with a dozen army officers in attendance and, in 1895,
both the Archbishop of Melbourne and Lord Carnarvon, the Lord Lieutenant, visited within a month
of each other. In 1887, the Papal Legate paid tribute to ‘this admirable institution and excellent
establishment’.
12.11 After 1925, Salthill, like all industrial schools, came under the control of the Department of
Education, and political interest in the School appeared to wane. There was no record in the
annals of any leading politician visiting Salthill in the years following 1925.
12.12 Renovations and redecoration of the premises took place in the 1940s as they had fallen into
disrepair. In 1943, Salthill was recognised by the Department of Education as a primary school
which continued in existence until the early 1970s, when the remaining boys transferred to the
local primary school.
12.13 The Institution underwent a radical change in the early 1970s. The Kennedy Report, published in
1970, had identified the problems inherent in the old institutionalised methods of childcare, and
had given the existing institutions no alternative but to change their structures radically. All
institutions either responded to this need for change or, like Artane, Tralee and Letterfrack,
closed down.
12.14 In 1973, a new Manager was appointed and he worked with the Department in bringing about the
changes that established the group home structure. The new Manager was more sensitive to the
needs of the boys, and had the assistance of a trained and experienced Brother who had taken
a special interest in childcare and had attended the Kilkenny course shortly after it commenced
in the early 1970s.
12.15 The transformation of St Joseph’s was completed in accordance with plans that were drawn up
in 1987. Most of the land on which the School was located was sold for development and the
money was used to build a new complex planned on modern childcare principles. The Brothers
ceased to have an association with St Joseph’s in 1995. The centre now consists of two units,
each catering for six young people with a staffing ratio of 1:1 and operated by the Health
Service Executive.

12.16 The Committee received the following photograph and plan of Salthill:
Source: The Morgan Collection, National Photographic Archive, Temple Bar, Dublin.
Source: Congregation of Christian Brothers.

Physical abuse
12.17 The documents that are discussed below contain a record of general complaints about violent
behaviour by Brothers, as well as some cases that took place specifically in Salthill. They reveal
that one Brother, who was found to have engaged in harsh and cruel treatment of boys in
Letterfrack, was again the subject of complaints about 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. Another Brother was warned by the Superior General about
his conduct towards boys, and it was said of another that he should not be put in charge of boys.
They also record some specific instances of severe punishment.
12.18 The information and comment in these contemporary documents were made at times when
corporal punishment was permitted by law and was an everyday reality for many children. The
fact that they were recorded suggests that the severity of the punishment was deemed excessive
at that time.
12.19 A general observation in the Visitation Report of 1967 on conditions in the School suggested that
some incidents of unacceptable corporal punishment were inevitable in Salthill:
The boys are under constant supervision from the moment of rising to the time for retiring.
This imposes a heavy round of duties on those immediately concerned with the boys. It
is therefore almost impossible to maintain that evenness of temper that is essential for
this work. A man on duty all day is bound to feel irritable ...
12.20 In the course of reflections on life in Salthill which he gave to the Congregation, a Brother, Br
Burdette,1 who taught there in the 1950s, acknowledged ‘a certain severity in attitude’ towards
the boys:
We worked all day, every day, an unfortunate indiscretion which should not have been
allowed and which, undoubtedly, I think, was reflected in our treatment of the almost 200
boys confided to our care.
Nevertheless, despite a certain severity in attitude towards them, due partly to the
hardship of our own lives and partly to an inherited system of discipline which, even in
my time, had begun to be discarded, my earlier comment holds true: no children ever
meant – could mean – as much to me as they did; for, of course, they were orphans,
every one.
12.21 Br Burdette was not correct. The majority of the boys in Salthill were not orphans, but had been
sent there by the courts for non-attendance at school or because of a lack of parental control
often in the context of poverty.
12.22 Br Burdette described his time in the Institution as ‘the happiest, hardest, most demanding, and
most memorable three years of my life’. He was not able, even at this remove, to appreciate the
impact of a harsh and severe routine of discipline on the children in Salthill. He did not see it as
affecting the overall atmosphere in the School, but it has been found in other schools examined
by the Committee that such a regime created a climate of fear that permeated life in an institution.
12.23 In his report on Salthill, which was commissioned by the Congregation in March 2002, Br John
McCormack cfc interviewed a past pupil who was there in the 1960s. This ex-resident
acknowledged that ‘we had happy times as well as the sad times’ and recalled with pride
participating in the band and the medal he won for hurling. He also asserted that he had received
a good education in Salthill, as had most of the boys who were there with him. He arrived at the
age of seven, and was fortunate to have an older brother there who could watch out for him. He
1

mentioned one Brother, Br Michel,2 as being very humane but had no such praise for any of the
other Brothers there:
I was not terribly gone on the rest of the Brothers in St Joseph’s in my time. They were
strict and always made you toe the line. Some of them never smiled that I remember, but
they must have ... Even though the Brothers were strict, there was none of them vicious
or cruel. They must have had a tough time too.
12.24 It is a sad reflection on Salthill that even a past pupil who had reasonably positive memories of
his time there could find so little to say in praise of the Brothers. He was in their care from the
age of seven.
12.25 There follows an analysis of Brothers who were in Salthill and against whom allegations of physical
abuse were made.
Br Chappell3
12.26 A Visitor in the late 1930s remarked that there was a greater sense of harmony in the Community
since this Brother’s departure and that:
By all the accounts I got it would seem to me that Br Chappell should never be put
in charge of boys: his violent, vengeful disposition render him quite unsuitable for such
a charge.
12.27 According to the records, he had been in Salthill for almost six years when he was transferred.
Although he had served in a number of industrial schools prior to that, he did not work in any
residential school after 1937 but worked as a domestic Brother in a Community house.
Br Leveret4
12.28 Br Leveret was transferred to Salthill in the early 1940s after a history of serious and violent abuse
in Letterfrack. In the year before his transfer to Salthill, a Brother on the staff of Letterfrack wrote
to the Provincial about the use of a horse whip on the boys. Br Leveret was one of the perpetrators
of this brutal punishment. The Resident Manager forbade such punishments and directed that, in
future, all punishments for serious offences would be administered by him, the Manager, in the
presence of a third party. Br Leveret, however, did not comply with this direction, and the Resident
Manager had to write to the Provincial to report that ‘Br Leveret has not adhered to the
regulations’.
12.29 He referred to Br Leveret in a subsequent letter:

Punishment: a stick is the general instrument used and even with this he goes beyond
the rule. I have seen recently a boy with swollen hand, palm and thumb, the steward on
farm remarked he was not able to milk for some days. A boy was stripped and beaten in
his (Br Leveret’s) room. He has put boys across his bed in room and even in unbecoming
postures to beat them behind. The boys are absolutely afraid to divulge who punished
them and won’t even answer questions truthfully, through fear of being punished again.
Only this week I got two little fellows crying and I asked them what happened they would
not tell me.
12.30 Although Br Leveret wrote a letter in defence of his behaviour, the Provincial did not believe him
and he was removed from Letterfrack that year.
2
3
4

12.31 He was transferred to Salthill where he remained for almost 10 years. His proclivity for violence
emerged again. A Visitation Report in the late 1940s noted that Br Leveret ‘is said to be too severe
in school’. A year later, the Superior informed the Visitor of serious misgivings he had regarding
Br Leveret’s suitability as a teacher in an industrial school. The Visitation Report noted that:
The Superior complained that Br Leveret was very severe on the boys and had injured at
least two boys when inflicting corporal punishment. I spoke to Br Leveret and he said that
on each occasion it was on account of boys giving him impertinence. He said one boy
called him a tinker before the other boys in the class. It seems the Superior made some
statement in the chapel when speaking to all the boys to the effect that he was against
corporal punishment and that he was the responsible person in the place for inflicting
such. The Brother Superior thinks that Br Leveret is not a right individual to have in an
industrial school and would like to have him changed. He has rather light work here and
is unwilling, according to the Superior to take extra duties.
12.32 Br Leveret was transferred to Cork and did not teach in an industrial school again.
12.33 Br Leveret should never have been transferred to Salthill after his behaviour in Letterfrack. The
Congregation commented on the use of the horse whip in Letterfrack but made no reference to
his subsequent move to Salthill. They stated:
The above incident demonstrates well how the Brothers generally did not approve of
severe corporal punishment. Those who did not approve were courageous enough to
speak out even though it meant having to live with the person against whom they spoke.
The contention that those religious who did not abuse were culpable because they did
not “stand in the way” of abuse they witnessed does not stand up to scrutiny. When
abuse was known to a Brother, the documentation indicates that he made it known to
the authorities.
12.34 • Notwithstanding the warnings and reprimands he had received in Letterfrack, this
Brother was transferred to Salthill where he continued his aggressive behaviour. It
was an example of serious management failure on the part of the Provincial to have
transferred such a man to another residential school.
Br Sebastien5
12.35 Br Sebastien served in Salthill in the early 1940s. Some three years prior to his posting to Salthill,
when being given permission to take his final vows, Br Noonan, the Superior General, drew his
attention to a fault which would require correcting, namely his severity towards boys. Br Noonan
wrote of his excesses:
This is indefensible; it is in every way against the canons of the teaching profession.
Punishment in a moderate way is allowed; but severity is altogether to be avoided. It
injures the boy’s feelings and never produces real improvement.
12.36 • No written record was kept of this Brother’s performance in Salthill. Given his earlier
history, such a record would have been expected.
• It was a persistent management failure on the part of the Leadership of the

Congregation that violent men were so often posted to residential schools.
5

Beating by an employee named Orvelle6
12.37 The Bishop of Galway wrote to the Superior in July 1950, complaining about the violent behaviour
of an employee of the Industrial School. The letter said:
Dear Br Rousskin,7
On Thursday last, my attention was drawn to the fact that one of your employees, Orvelle,
was beating some of the boys severely and in a very harsh manner. When I bade him
desist he answered back very roughly indeed. I do not think that fellows like Orvelle should
have such power and should exercise it so harshly and so publicly that they can be seen
and heard from so many houses all around. If the boys are recalcitrant, they should be
punished by a Brother, but Orvelle’s methods would evoke indignation if they were
directed against brute animals. I feel sure that you will be able to apply the proper remedy
once your attention has been called to the matter.
12.38 The Bishop’s letter records a disturbing and serious complaint, and it is surprising that neither the
letter nor any response to it has survived in the records of Salthill. A copy of the letter was obtained
from the diocesan archive but the original was not found in the Christian Brothers’ discovery in
relation to Salthill. Neither was there any information as to what action followed the receipt of the
letter. It was a surprising example of indifference by a layman to an order coming from a Bishop.
The Bishop’s outrage that the man should be in a position to treat boys in a way that would have
been cruel if directed at ‘brute animals’, should have caused the School embarrassment at the
very least, and should have led to an investigation and serious sanction for the employee. No
mention was made of this man in the annals, and all that is known is that he was not a member
of the teaching staff, as he was not listed in any of the Visitation Reports for the period.
Br Delano8
12.39 There were no documented complaints about Br Delano’s treatment of boys in Salthill during his
service there in the early 1950s but his subsequent career in other schools, shortly after leaving
Salthill, gave cause for concern.
12.40 The Brother came to the notice of the Provincial and General Councils because of repeated
complaints of ‘immoderate punishment’ of his pupils in successive schools. The authorities were
worried that he ‘could become a very serious liability’ and noted that he had narrowly escaped
prosecution.
12.41 The Provincial wrote that there was no doubt about most of the complaints. Another Brother had
witnessed the latest incident, when, in the course of a plain chant class, the Brother injured a boy
by striking him on the nose and face, making his nose bleed.
12.42 The Brother’s response to the disciplinary inquiries was to apply for a dispensation, which was
rejected. Instead, he was ordered to remain in his vocation and was given a ‘maneat’ (an order
to stay).
12.43 The Provincial Council did not recommend the dispensation because it thought that the way he
administered punishment was something that the Brother ‘can correct as some Brothers have
done in the past’. The Provincial did not think the situation merited a Canonical Warning, even
though the Brother had been given a previous, informal caution. The General Council considered
the matter and ultimately agreed to issue the ‘maneat’. The Provincial wrote to the Brother
informing him of the position. He said that, by complying with his religious duties with meekness
6
7
8

and humility, the Brother would find that his ‘difficulties with the pupils will lessen and that in time
you will acquire that patience and kindness with children so necessary for us all as Other Christs
in the school room’.
12.44 • The manner in which this case was handled suggested that the first concern was for
the Congregation, for which the Brother ‘could become a very serious liability’. The
next consideration was for the Brother himself, who, it was hoped, would acquire the
necessary teaching skills in time. The children who were likely to suffer at the hands
of this man whilst he acquired these skills were not considered at all.
Br Marque9
12.45 Br Marque was transferred to Salthill in the early 1970s, where he remained for 15 years. One
Visitor was very critical of Br Marque who held a senior position in the Community at that time.
He noted:
Unfortunately he has a problem with drink and when under its influence he can deal
harshly with erring boys. The boys are aware of this weakness and the irrational
motivation behind these punishments. This does not increase their respect for their staff
nor their confidence in it.
12.46 The following year, the Visitor noted that Br Marque ‘still has a drink problem but the Superior’s
good sense and vigilance have helped to lessen the gravity of the situation’.
12.47 The situation remained unresolved into the mid-1970s. The Visitor remarked that Br Marque gave
the impression that he was not too happy in Galway and repeated, verbatim, the comment of the
previous year: ‘He still has a drink problem but the Superior’s good sense and vigilance have
helped to lessen the gravity of the situation’.
12.48 • The real problem was not just that this Brother drank but that, under the influence of
drink, he administered harsh and irrational punishments to the boys. While ‘the gravity
of the situation’ had been lessened by the Superior’s monitoring, the question of
whether children should have been under the care of such a man was not addressed.
He should have been seen as an unacceptable risk to the children in the School and
removed once this problem was identified.
Br Remi10
12.49 An incident was recorded in the Manager’s diary during the mid-1970s, concerning the behaviour
of Br Remi. He spent most of his teaching career working in residential schools.
12.50 The diary entry from the mid-1970s stated ‘Br Remi struck [Michael].11 deformed his teeth’. The
entry the following day noted that the boy attended the dentist.
12.51 He was mentioned by the Visitor as having difficulty in adapting to the new regime that was being
introduced to Salthill at that time. He wrote:
despite his overt yearning for the good old days when boys were made toe the line in
quasi-military fashion one senses that deep down he is slowly and reluctantly coming to
appreciate that the new approach has something to recommend it.
9
10
11

12.52 • While the Visitor recorded his approval of the new, less rigid approach to controlling
children as having something to recommend it, he was not nearly critical enough
about Br Remi’s yearning for the ‘good old days’ of a harsher regime. Br Remi should
have been left in no doubt that violence was completely unacceptable, and incidents
such as that recorded in the diary should have been avoided.
• By the mid-1970s, there should have been a more formal procedure for recording and
responding to physical abuse of children. There was no record that this incident was
ever investigated, or that any disciplinary action was taken against Br Remi. Such an
event, which was tantamount to criminal assault, was not considered to be sufficiently
grave to warrant disciplinary action. It suggested that, notwithstanding the changes
that had been effected in the regime, the underlying philosophy had not altered.
Diary entry 1981

12.53 A diary entry in 1981 read:
[John]12 Back. 6.30. Had a chat with him and gave him a few clatters.
12.54 A casual approach to physical punishment was revealed in this entry. It suggested that giving a
boy ‘a few clatters’ was acceptable when it should have had no place in childcare practices in
the 1980s.
Sexual abuse
12.55 The documents revealed cases of actual and suspected sexual abuse in Salthill. They implicated
five Brothers, one care worker who was a former resident, and another ex-resident who came
back years after he had been discharged and got into the building on a number of occasions.
12.56 The documents covered the period from the 1930s to the 1980s. Three of the Brothers came
under suspicion when they were in the Institution, while the other two came to notice in industrial
schools other than Salthill. One Brother explicitly admitted that he had been guilty of immorality
with boys for years, but he later withdrew the confession, and his subsequent dismissal was for
unconnected reasons. In another case, the Brother tried to put an innocent interpretation on his
conduct but the Provincial was clear that it was a ‘lapse’. This Brother went on to abuse for over
20 years after leaving Salthill. The last Salthill case involving a Christian Brother was more
equivocal, and concerned inappropriate behaviour for which he gave a somewhat odd
explanation.
Br Emile13
12.57 Br Emile was working in Salthill in the early 1950s, when he wrote directly to the Sacred
Congregation of Religious in Rome requesting a dispensation. He said that he never had a
vocation and only took his final vows to avoid disappointing his mother. He confessed:
Since 1945 with the exception of two years back at College I have been interfering
immorally and unchastely with boys under my care. I tried to give it up but failed. I realised
that I was doing great harm to the boys, to the Congregation and damning my own soul.
12.58 He said that he had consulted two Jesuit priests on the matter and they strongly advised him to
leave the Congregation.
12.59 The Monsignor dealing with the case sent a copy of the letter to Br Clancy, the Superior General,
commenting, ‘I think it is a clear case of letting him go’. The Brother then withdrew his application,
12
13

asserting that he was depressed at the time he made the application and that what he had stated
with regard to abusing boys was false. The General Council accepted Br Emile’s retraction and
his explanation for it, but felt it necessary to issue him with a maneat in February 1953.
12.60 Less than two years later Br Emile was accused of new, unrelated charges of repeated, serious
disregard of religious obligations, including rebelling with others against the strictures of religious
life. The General Council ultimately decided that it had ample evidence regarding Br Emile’s
unsuitability for the Congregation and that ‘it will be in the interest of the...Community and of the
Irish Province to have Br Emile’s case disposed of as quickly as Canon Law permits.’
12.61 Two Canonical Warnings were then issued to Br Emile and were swiftly followed by a Decree of
Dismissal, which was accepted by Br Emile. He subsequently got married and continued to teach
in a national school until the early 1990s.
12.62 • There was no record of any inquiries into the confessions made by Br Emile in his
abortive application for a dispensation in the early 1950s which he made directly to
Rome. It was not clear why he was issued with a maneat. To accept the retraction
of such a serious confession without further investigation was a risk to children in
his care.
Br Dacian14
12.63 This complicated and difficult story of repeated sexual abuse is recounted here because the
perpetrator’s behaviour was first recorded in the Christian Brothers’ records relating to Salthill.
The Brother’s history reveals a pattern of abuse extending over a period of 25 years in different
schools. It illustrates the recidivist nature of sexual abuse, and the difficulties of reporting it.
12.64 Br Dacian had spent only four months in Salthill in the early 1960s when he was transferred in
great haste to a day school in Dublin. A Visitor at that time noted:
Br Dacian has been guilty of a grave indiscretion with one of the boys and I’m afraid he
will have to be changed. He was otherwise most suited to this place and an ardent worker.
12.65 In a letter to the Superior General following his Visitation, the Visitor elaborated on Br Dacian’s
indiscretion. A pupil reported to the Superior that one night he had been awakened by somebody
who had his hand inside his pyjamas touching his genitals. He could only make out an outline of
the man but, by his shape and the sound of his voice, he recognised him as Br Dacian. When
the boy awoke, the man had said to him that this was a serious matter and that he should not
tell anyone.
12.66 The Visitor confronted Br Dacian about the allegation and he confessed that he was the person
involved. However, he offered the explanation that he had merely been checking to see whether
the boy had wet the bed, as he was a regular bed-wetter. But, as the Visitor noted, ‘it is apparent
that this does not explain everything’. Br Dacian assured the Visitor that he did not have any
‘inclination this way’ and that this was the first time anything like that had happened. The Visitor
was ‘inclined to believe him’ but thought that a transfer was necessary, as other boys were aware
of Br Dacian’s lapse. The Visitor lamented that this change was necessary as ‘he was a very good
choice for that school where self-sacrificing men are so necessary’.
12.67 This experienced Visitor described the incident as a lapse and an indiscretion, and he was not
satisfied with the Brother’s explanation. Nevertheless, he left the matter unresolved and uncertain,
which implied that he did not consider the allegation to be very grave.
14

12.68 The Brother later spent a year in Letterfrack in the early 1970s, where a Visitation Report noted
that he slept adjacent to the boys’ dormitory and was involved in a good deal of supervision.
Late 1980s
12.69 The next occasion of a documented complaint against Br Dacian was some 25 years later, when
he was Principal of a primary school in the west of Ireland.
12.70 The Archbishop of the area sent for Br Tyeis,15 the Superior of Br Dacian’s Community, and told
him that he had received a formal complaint that Br Dacian was interfering sexually with a boy in
the School. The prelate gave the boy’s Christian name but said that he could not remember the
surname. The Superior undertook to investigate the matter.
12.71 Br Tyeis did not have enough information so he telephoned the Archbishop’s secretary for more
details. The boy was Tom Murphy,16 a first year pupil in the secondary school, and his parents
had gone some days previously to the Vice-Principal of the primary school to report what had
happened. He sent them to the school chaplain because, as he later explained, he was too
shocked by the allegations to do anything about them. The chaplain was unavailable so they
spoke to another Curate, who in turn referred them to the Archbishop’s secretary. They made
their complaint to him that Br Dacian was sexually interfering with their son and that they believed
that Br Dacian had also interfered with other boys whom they named.
12.72 The Superior, Br Tyeis, now had the details of the complaint against Br Dacian. He went to him
on the same day as he had met the Archbishop and spoken to the secretary. Br Dacian admitted
that he had interfered with Tom Murphy and said that ‘the relationship’ had been going on for
two years.
12.73 Br Tyeis spoke to the Vice-Principal, who confirmed the parents’ visit to him at his home on the
previous Sunday. Br Tyeis met the Provincial, Br Travis,17 and reported what had happened.
12.74 Br Tyeis met the parents shortly afterwards in the Brothers’ residence. Mr Murphy was angry, and
he and his wife were seeking an apology in writing from Br Dacian. They did not propose to take
legal action because they feared that the publicity would not be good for their son. They were
unclear as to the details of the abuse but they suspected that anal intercourse might have taken
place.
12.75 The Superior talked the matter over in confidence with two Brothers in the Community, and
decided that Br Dacian would have to leave the Community ‘for the present’. Br Dacian agreed
and went the Cistercian Monastery in Roscrea.
12.76 The Superior reported to the Provincial that Br Dacian told him that he (Br Dacian) would have to
leave the Congregation and that the Superior had responded that that might seem like the easy
way out, i.e. to flee, but that there was no reason why he should have to leave. He also reported
that a Brother (Br Peppin18), a friend of the Murphys who stayed with them when he was in the
West, had recounted to him that the Murphys had recently said that they were suspicious that
something in the nature of sexual interference was going on and that Br Dacian was involved, but
Br Peppin said he had discounted the possibility.
12.77 The Provincial then visited Br Dacian in Roscrea and had a full discussion with him. There is no
record of this conversation in the discovered documentation. Two weeks later, another meeting
15
16
17
18

took place at Cluain Mhuire, the provincial house for the St Mary’s Province in Dublin, when Br
Dacian maintained that he had nothing new to tell.
12.78 The Provincial did not meet the Murphys until some five weeks after the matter was originally
reported. At this meeting with the Provincial, Br Travis, and the Superior, Br Tyeis, Mr Murphy
complained about the delay, and expressed his annoyance at Br Travis’s failure to contact them.
He had found it very hard to get the Provincial’s phone number. Br Travis explained that the
Provincial headquarters in Marino was undergoing major renovations, which was why they had
got no response from someone who could help them. He then explained that he himself had not
contacted them because he had been told that Mr Murphy had stated that he did not trust the
Brothers and was certain that they would want to cover up for Br Dacian and do nothing about
the allegations.
12.79 Br Travis told the Murphys that he appreciated that they were very upset, as were the Brothers.
They were shocked by the allegations. He said that Br Dacian was very upset. Mrs Murphy
became angry at the mention of Br Dacian being upset and said that he was ‘cute and intelligent’
in the way he operated. The Provincial pointed out that he had interrupted his schedule and
postponed appointments to come to the meeting and that he wanted to hear the allegations from
them first hand. The Brothers questioned the Murphys about the origins of rumours in the locality
and also about media coverage, following which the Provincial sought details about the
complaints. The Murphys related how the matter came to their attention. They said that they still
did not have an admission from Tom that Br Dacian had had anal intercourse with him, and they
explained why they were suspicious that that had happened.
12.80 The Provincial expressed his concern regarding the allegations and said that he had full trust in
the inquiries that the Superior was making. He said that he himself had taken the allegations most
seriously and was carrying out a thorough, professional, private investigation. He said that he was
aware that there was an independent inquiry being conducted by the Health Board. He could not
reveal who he had been contacting, and the Murphys appreciated this. He said he wanted to get
the truth regarding Tom and Br Dacian. In the light of his findings and those of the Health Board,
he would take whatever action was required, ‘but we must have the truth first’.
12.81 Mr Murphy said that he and his wife wanted three things immediately and they did not want the
inquiry dragging on. They were: (1) a written apology from Br Dacian; (2) an assurance that Br
Dacian would not return to the area and would not be in a position to deal with children; and (3)
payment for psychological and psychiatric treatment for Tom. Mr Murphy proposed to send the
bills to the Brothers, mentioning that he was at that time out of pocket in the amount of £100. The
Provincial reiterated that the investigation would have to move to its conclusion before these points
could be considered.
12.82 Neither Brother mentioned to the Murphys that Br Dacian had admitted sexually interfering with
Tom over a period of two years. Nor did they give any indication that they were aware of his past
record or even that they were investigating it, although they had had ample opportunity to do so
during the preceding five weeks.
12.83 The meeting as recorded in the Provincial’s memorandum was entirely directed to getting
information from the family and seeking admissions from them to bolster suspicions by the
Brothers that the Murphys were involved in publicising the allegations. The memorandum did not
indicate any sympathy having been expressed or any expression of regret or responsibility by the
Congregation for what had happened. Although the precise nature of the abuse was uncertain at
that point, the essential facts had, as the Brothers knew already, been established, namely, that
Br Dacian had, by his own admission, been sexually abusing the pupil over a period of two years.
12.84 Two days later, Mr Murphy had another conversation with Br Tyeis, at which he reported
information that he had received from a friend in Dublin, that there was a serious complaint about
Br Dacian’s involvement with a boy at a primary school where the Brother had previously been
Principal. He also referred to other suspicions. The Superior elicited from Mr Murphy his evaluation
of the meeting two days previously. Mr Murphy repeated that he did not want to make a formal
complaint to the Gardaı́. The Superior emphasised that the Brothers wished justice to be done for
both Tom and Br Dacian, and that there would not be a cover-up. He commented that the
investigations would take time to complete. Mr Murphy asked whether Br Dacian would be back
in the School and the Superior replied that, while it was not for him to say, ‘Given the serious
nature of the rumours and allegations I didn’t think that the Provincial would ask him to return’.
Again, the Superior withheld the information about Br Dacian’s admissions, and treated the case
as involving ‘rumours and allegations’.
12.85 The Superior recorded his general observations. He thought it was obvious that the Murphys were
being tutored, but not necessarily by legal people. He claimed to have detected anxiety on the
Murphys’ part about the possible revelations that might emerge from the investigations. He
wondered whether a desire to claim monetary compensation might explain Mr Murphy’s
unwillingness to press charges. He recommended that communities and individual Brothers in
them where Br Dacian had taught should be instructed not to comment on this matter in any way.
This recommendation showed that Br Tyeis was aware of how a proper investigation should
proceed, namely by inquiry in the schools where Br Dacian had worked previously.
12.86 The Superior’s record of this meeting concluded with a note directed to the Provincial, in which
he made three points. He referred to one of the Brothers in his Community whom he had consulted
on the day that he received the complaint, and recorded that that Brother confirmed that Br Dacian
frequently inquired about Tom Murphy’s attendance at school. The other points recorded a
teacher’s denial that he had spoken about Br Dacian’s activities, as Mr Murphy had alleged, and
the Primary School Vice-Principal’s statement that the Murphys were out to get money.
12.87 Br Tyeis had a later meeting on the same day with the Gardaı́ who were endeavouring to
investigate, notwithstanding the reluctance of the Murphys to press formal charges. They gave
him a report of the progress of their investigation, which he noted and supplied to the Provincial.
Early 1970s to early 1980s

12.88 Some months after the incident involving Tom Murphy, a Brother in the Community, Br Rique,19
was able to give some further information about Br Dacian’s time in the Dublin school, which he
recorded in a note entitled ‘To Whom It May Concern’. There had been press publicity about the
case, which was of great concern to the Christian Brothers and to the Murphys. When the story
was published, Br Rique’s sister appeared to know more about it than he did. Her source was
another relation, Patrick Walsh,20 a teacher in the Dublin school where Br Dacian had been
Principal. This teacher had expressed surprise to the Brother’s sister some two years previously,
on learning that Br Dacian had been appointed Principal of a primary school, because of
allegations made against him in Dublin that he had molested a boy and also because of other
rumours about him. Br Rique asked Mr Walsh about these allegations. He said that the Vice-
Principal of that school had spoken to each of the teachers individually about the matter. One of
the teachers became aware of allegations against Br Dacian, who admitted to the teacher and
one boy’s mother that he had sexually abused the boy. Had he not done so, they told him, the
matter would go public. Confirmation of what happened at the time appeared in a letter written by
the teacher in the mid-1990s, seeking reassurance that the Brother was no longer involved with
children. He wrote:
19
20

A few years ago [Br Dacian] was involved in an assault of a sexual nature on a child. As
a result of this he was taken out for treatment etc. This was done with the agreement of
the family.
12.89 Br Dacian’s personnel card recorded a break in service of approximately 10 months between his
time in the Dublin school and his appointment to the school where he abused Tom Murphy.
12.90 During this intermission, Br Dacian spent time in the Cistercian Abbey in Roscrea, the retreat
centre to which he again moved when the events regarding Tom Murphy came to light. He had in
fact spent time on retreat there even before this, although the circumstances of that first retreat
are not known.
12.91 During his second stay in the Cistercian Abbey (after leaving the Dublin school), he was referred
to a Jesuit Priest for assistance with his problems and, it would seem, for assessment on behalf
of the Congregation. The senior Brother who arranged the referral included in his letter to the
Priest some background information about Br Dacian:
I believe his present problem may have had a bit of a history. There certainly was an
incident some twenty years ago. What has happened in the intervening years I just don’t
know. I just fear that there may be more than two isolated incidents separated by twenty
years or more. Perhaps my fears and feelings arise from being too long in office!
12.92 The Jesuit Priest gave a reassuring opinion about Br Dacian in a letter to Br Agrican21 at Cluain
Mhuire:
I am confident that there is no risk of a recurrence of such an event in the near future –
by which I mean over the next few years – he has had a severe shock. If the measures
suggested are taken I am confident that there is no serious danger of a recurrence
especially as a Director would enable him to recognise warning signs and take remedial
action.
12.93 There is no record available of the measures that were suggested or of what the ‘Director’ was
to do.
Early 1980s – incident in Gaelteacht

12.94 Further information about Br Dacian had emerged some four months before the Murphys made
their complaint about his conduct. A memorandum in the records of the Brothers contains an
account of information given by a father as to Br Dacian’s offensive sexual activities with his son,
Peter Brady,22 when the boy was in the Gaelteacht one summer in the mid-1980s. The matter
came to light when the Principal of a Christian Brothers primary school in Dublin contacted Br
Agrican and then another senior Brother, whose note recorded the information. The Principal
heard the allegations from Mr Brady and thought it was important to notify the Congregation at
senior level. He said that he was concerned about recommending groups of boys to go to the
Gaelteacht in view of what Mr Brady had reported to him. He arranged for a meeting between Mr
Brady and the senior Brother at Cluain Mhuire.
12.95 Mr Brady complained that, after Peter’s first two days in the Gaelteacht, Br Dacian, who was
teaching there, brought him to his room every night and sat him on his lap and fondled and kissed
him and stroked his penis. Br Dacian would arrive when all were asleep and shine a torch in
Peter’s face and bring him to his room. One night, Peter tried to evade him by going to another
bunk, but he was located by Br Dacian and brought away. Peter said that he was ‘scared stiff’ all
during the holiday. Mr Brady had suggested to Peter that Br Dacian was very friendly and maybe
21
22

that Peter was exaggerating, but Peter insisted on the details as described, and recalled another
particular incident when boys were waiting for presents they had ordered and Peter asked Br
Dacian when they were coming. The Brother brought him outside and asked him if he really
wanted to see him about the presents or did he want to see him himself. Mr Brady said that Peter
had written to the family saying that he wanted to go home. The Bradys visited him on two
weekends and found Br Dacian very helpful and friendly, and Mr Brady brought cigarettes as a
present for Br Dacian but Peter objected, which struck Mr Brady as strange, but he did not follow
it up.
12.96 When Peter came home, he received a letter from Br Dacian inviting him to visit the Brother at
his Dublin school, enclosing a map showing how to get there. His parents thought that Peter
should accept the invitation, but he would only go if he was accompanied, and his mother went
with him but Br Dacian was not there.
12.97 Mr Brady did not wish to press charges, nor did he want Br Dacian to know the details or the
source of the information. He was concerned that other boys might have been affected. Mr Brady
made a favourable impression on the senior Brother who made the record.
12.98 After his second time on retreat in the monastery (following the allegations made in respect of
Tom Murphy), Br Dacian went to a Residential Therapy Centre for Religious Clergy in England.
The Provincial, Br Travis, wrote to him there with information about the progress of the
investigations. Br Travis apologised for the delay in writing and expressed the hope that Br Dacian
was finding his stay helpful and looked forward to visiting in a few weeks’ time when ‘I will be able
to have a chat with you then’. He went on to describe the state of the inquiries:
I have had two further meetings with the Western Health Board and they have now
concluded the investigations. They will not be following through with any proceedings,
thank God. I have now to meet Mr and Mrs Murphy ... I hope this will be the final meeting.
They still require an apology in writing which, on reading, they will immediately destroy in
my presence. It should be brief and to the point. On the basis of legal advice I enclose a
draft. I also enclose some of our own Cluain Mhuire notepaper on which you can write
the apology in your own handwriting. However, write this apology only if you feel you
should. I would need it to hand by Wednesday, [two days prior to my meeting with the
Murphys] at the latest. When I meet you on ... I will bring you up to date on what has
happened at all of these meetings. I am confident that it will all die down now with the
help of God.
12.99 Br Dacian wrote the apology as requested by Br Travis:

Dear Mr and Mrs Murphy,
My purpose in writing to you is to apologise for my behaviour with Tom and any upset I
may have caused to you, his parents. I regret it sincerely.
I am pleased to hear that Tom is back at school and faring well.
Yours sincerely,
12.100 Br Dacian wrote to the Provincial expressing his gratitude and appreciation that ‘the whole affair
is coming to a satisfactory conclusion’, which he thought was due to the Provincial’s ‘delicate
dealing of the matter’.
12.101 The documents in this case revealed, incidentally, other unrelated instances of sexual abuse by
religious and lay teachers.
12.102 In his first meeting with the Provincial and the Superior, Mr Murphy stated that interference with
boys was going on in the School for many years, going back 25 or 30 years, and mentioned a Br
Nathaniel.23 The Provincial recorded that he and the Superior said they knew nothing about it, and
noted that Br Nathaniel was a Christian Brother in the Community in the early 1950s who had
later left the Congregation. The story of Br Nathaniel, as revealed in the Congregation’s Rome
Files, was that, in the mid-1960s, he sought and obtained a dispensation from his vows because
of his trouble with the vow of chastity, although the record did not confirm that his sexual interest
was in boys. The Brother had informed his Superiors that he had not been able to keep the vow
of chastity for years. He was proposing to seek a job as a teacher in England. The authorities
were keen to facilitate the Brother and, because ‘it would make matters too pointed if he was now
taken off’ a course that he was to do, it was proposed to move him to the O’Brien Institute and
have the dispensation executed from there.
12.103 The psychologist whom the Murphy family consulted reported to a senior social worker that the
father of another child with whom he was dealing had himself, when he was a schoolboy,
witnessed his Principal teacher, a religious Brother, sexually abusing a boy in front of the class
on frequent occasions.
12.104 The story of Peter Brady emerged for the first time in that family when Peter’s brother had an
unpleasant experience of a sexual nature with a teacher in his school and warned Peter about
him, whereupon Peter revealed to his mother and brother the abuse that he had suffered at Br
Dacian’s hands.
12.105 In none of the Br Dacian cases was there a prosecution or even a formal report to the Gardaı́.
None of the victims wished to pursue the matter by way of Garda investigation. In the Murphy
case, the parents were fearful of the damage that might be done to their son by the publicity. The
same was almost certainly true for the incidental cases mentioned above. These features of the
responses of victims and their families to cases of abuse have important implications for abuse
and the investigation of abuse, and often make it easier for perpetrators to avoid being required
to answer for their actions.
12.106 The teacher who confronted Br Dacian in the Dublin school was the Principal, in the mid-1990s,
when he wrote to Br Travis seeking confirmation that Br Dacian was no longer working with
children. He wrote:
We have to be absolutely certain that no other children are at risk. If we do not get that
guarantee we will have to get legal advice.
12.107 Br Travis furnished the required confirmation in his reply:

I wish to confirm that he is engaged in ministry with adults in England. His work does not
entail any involvement or contact with children or young people.
12.108 In its Opening Statement on Letterfrack, the Congregation dealt with Br Dacian, who is referred
to as Br R, as follows:
8. In ... Brother R, during his appointment to Salthill Industrial School was accused of
touching a boy’s private parts in the dormitory.
(a) He admitted that there was some truth in the allegation.
(b) Unfortunately, he was subsequently sent to Letterfrack [in the early 1970s],
having spent the previous years in day schools.
23

Comment:
• Details of the complaint were found in the Generalate Archives, which had been
transferred to Rome in the mid-60s while only a short reference was made in the
Salthill visitation report ...
• The Provincial Council who had been in office [at that time] were replaced by a new
Council who had no knowledge of the original complaint when R was sent to
Letterfrack.
• Hence, Brother R was sent to Letterfrack without any knowledge of the previous
complaint on the part of the new Council.
12.109 These Submissions are included here for completeness. The Christian Brothers did not address
the issues raised by the fuller account of Br Dacian’s career of abuse contained in other parts of
their own extensive documentation.
12.110 The case of Br Dacian is recounted in detail because it has significance beyond the story of sexual
abuse in Salthill and other industrial schools. The later episodes illustrate some of the difficulties
that confront persons reporting abuse and why they might be reluctant to prosecute it. These
events happened relatively recently, at a time thought to be enlightened and in conditions that
should have been conducive to proper investigation and sensitive treatment of victims and their
families. It must be remembered that this account only contains what is recorded in documents
and that there may be other instances that did not come to light.
• 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.
Br Gautier24
12.112 A matter concerning Br Gautier was brought to the Provincial Council’s attention in the early
1950s. The Superior wrote to the Provincial setting out the matter. He explained that there were
occasions when Br Gautier had stripped small boys who were in care in Salthill in order to apply
a medical lotion. This was not an uncommon practice, in that boys suffering from various ailments,
such as scabies, were usually treated with a medical lotion. The Superior questioned Br Gautier,
24

who denied emphatically that anything improper had occurred and volunteered to attend at the
Provincialate in Booterstown to defend his actions.
12.113 The Superior wrote that Br Gautier had acted ‘indiscreetly’ and should have brought to his attention
the fact that the boys required treatment so that he could deal with it as he thought appropriate.
He warned that there were ‘boys in our midst who have told lies about their companions with a
view to having such punished’. The Superior remarked that he had intended to warn Br Gautier
to be careful but that the matter lapsed from his memory. He added that Br Gautier ‘is severe – I
mean stern’. He accepted Br Gautier’s explanation of the matter.
12.114 Br Gautier also wrote to the Provincial and explained what had led him to strip boys. It had been
reported to him that two boys were suffering from a disease. He said that he had sought the
advice of a priest on the matter. The priest gave him permission to strip the boys, to see whether
they were in fact suffering from a disease. Br Gautier swore that nothing improper had taken place.
12.115 A Visitation Report later that year noted that Br Gautier was an untiring worker with no difficulty
handling the large number of boys in the School. However, the Report noted that ’he resents
direction or interference in his work. He has had difficulties with his Superiors, both in Glin and in
Galway on this point’. The writer also noted that Br Gautier was below average intelligence.
12.116 Br Ryan of the General Council wrote to Br Rice of the Provincial Council six months later:
I think it would be well to give Br Gautier a transfer from there on the first opportunity. I
got a hint of that some time ago. I do not imply great urgency, but merely for the young
Brother’s own sake.
12.117 Br Gautier was duly transferred to Limerick three months later. He never taught in an industrial
school again.
12.118 • Br Ryan clearly had previous suspicions regarding Br Gautier and, in the light of these
suspicions, his behaviour with the boys in Salthill should have given rise to urgent
action.
• The issue that should have been investigated was whether there was a sexual motive
to what the Brother did. Relevant matters included whether it was his function to
examine boys, what records he had kept of his inspections, where and when the
examinations took place and in whose presence, why the Brother consulted the priest,
and how many boys were involved. Before the topic was closed and suspicion
dispelled, the boys should have been interviewed. In the result, no clear decision was
made, but the Superior thought that the Brother acted ‘indiscreetly’ and he was
transferred subsequently ‘for his own sake’.
Former pupil Brian Dunne25

12.119 During the mid-1970s, the Resident Manager’s diary recorded that, at 2am, a former pupil, Brian
Dunne, who had been discharged some 10 years previously, ‘broke in and interfered with boys’.
The following night, at 1.30am, he again broke into the School and sexually assaulted five boys.
On this occasion, he was caught by Br Marque. Eight months later, he once again broke into the
School. No further details of these incidents are available. The former pupil had been in Salthill
for six years during the 1960s.
25

Patrick Nolan,26 trainee childcare worker
12.120 A number of staff approached Br Burcet27 in the late 1980s, expressing concerns they had in
relation to a care worker who held a temporary position with the Christian Brothers and who had
himself been a resident of the home during the 1970s. They recounted an allegation, made by a
boy residing in the School, that Mr Nolan had attempted a serious sexual assault on him the
previous summer. The boy alleged that Mr Nolan targeted loners and used bribery as part of his
modus operandi. Another staff member also recounted a recent incident when she discovered Mr
Nolan and a pupil alone in a room, supposedly practising for the school concert. When she entered
the room, the boy was sitting on the care worker’s knee and immediately jumped up. She also
expressed concerns for another child who was close to Mr Nolan.
12.121 The Board of Management conducted an inquiry and suspended Mr Nolan, who denied the
allegations. Approximately two months later, Mr Nolan was informed that the investigation was
complete, that there were serious doubts regarding his professional trust, and the Board of
Management felt it had no option but to terminate his employment with the School. He was given
a lump sum to help him financially.
12.122 Mr Nolan brought proceedings against the School under the unfair dismissal legislation. In
correspondence regarding this litigation, Br Burcet noted that ‘it is most likely that Patrick Nolan
in his defence will point out that he himself was sexually abused while he was in St Joseph’s’. Br
Burcet expressed concern regarding the potential damage that publicity surrounding the court
case could do the School. The case settled on the day of the hearing. In the mid-1990s, Mr Nolan
made a statement to the Gardaı́ alleging sexual abuse by three Brothers whilst he was a pupil
in Salthill.
• 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.
Br Julien28
12.124 Brother Julien spent seven years in Salthill during the 1930s. During service in his next posting,
Artane, he was accused of misconduct. A personnel sheet in relation to Br Julien provided the
information that: ‘clear evidence came to light of serious, long, continued misconduct with boys in
Artane. He asked for dispensation from his vows and left the Congregation [in] 1944’. Br Julien
was implicated, along with three other Brothers, according to the Visitation Report, which noted:
In our Institution it should be considered a very grave offence for a Br to take a boy to his
room on any pretext, or to be seen alone with a boy on any occasion. Unfortunately the
Rule forbidding such was not observed in Artane. Boys were also taken out of the shops
and off the parade by Brothers for various reasons. These have now been prohibited. The
26
27
28

superior should have access to all rooms and stores in the institutions at all reasonable
times and keys should be provided to enable him to have such access.
12.125 • There was no documentary evidence as to any sexual activity by this Brother in Salthill
but, given the recidivist nature of this crime, there must be serious concern regarding
his time there.
Br Piperel29
12.126 Br Piperel taught in Salthill for two years in the mid-1940s. He had earlier worked in Letterfrack,
where he had been the subject of a serious complaint that he was sexually interfering with boys.
A full account of the case is contained in the chapter on Letterfrack but a brief outline of it is
included here.
12.127 The Provincial received an anonymous letter of accusation from ‘a friend of the school’ in relation
to concerns about Br Piperel’s behaviour in Letterfrack. The letter-writer asked the Provincial to
change Br Piperel for the morals of the boys.
12.128 The Provincial did not conceal his disquiet. Having set out a transcription of the anonymous letter,
he wrote to Br Piperel:
These recurring warnings are causing me grave anxiety. Taken in connection with what
did happen between you and boys on a previous occasion there is quite justifiable cause
for all my anxiety.
Has anything wrong, such as is described in the above letter, taken place between you
and a boy, or boys? The matter is so grave, and is fraught with such serious
consequences to you, to the Institution and to the Congregation, that I require you to be
very open and candid with me. Please let me have a letter from you by return.
12.129 Br Piperel wrote a three-page letter defending his behaviour and alleging that another member of
staff had made malicious allegations against him.
12.130 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 Salthill, Tralee and Glin
for almost 10 years, including two years in Salthill. The records contained complaints about the
Brother’s work and attitude in these institutions, but did not record incidents of sexual impropriety.
12.131 His last posting was to a school in Cork in the 1950s, where his career as a teacher came to a
dramatic end as a result of a complaint by a local doctor about his inappropriate behaviour with a
young girl.
12.132 In their Opening Statement for Letterfrack, the Christian Brothers recorded the facts about this
Brother in summary form, noting that he ‘was given the opportunity to explain himself and give
his interpretation of what happened’. They commented:
It is not clear why Br X was moved around from institution to institution despite being a
danger to the boys. There is no detailed account to indicate what discussion took place
about the matter, nor any indication as to why such a decision was taken.
12.133 • This Brother was transferred to Salthill, notwithstanding the history of concern about
his conduct with boys. Again, there was no evidence that he interfered with boys there,
and it must also be borne in mind that no case was proved against him in Letterfrack.
However, the documents indicated that the Brother Provincial had a serious concern
29

about his propensities, and that alone should have ensured that he was not appointed
to another residential school.
Conclusions on sexual abuse in Salthill

12.134 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.
Neglect and emotional abuse

12.135 In the 1940s and 1950s, there were around 200 boys in Salthill. Unlike the position in Artane,
many of these children were under eight years of age. In 1955, for example, over 80 of the 165
boys registered for the national school were in second class or lower. Despite the large numbers
of very small children, staffing was no higher than in other industrial schools.
12.136 In Salthill, the absence of any childcare training had more serious consequences because of the
age profile of so many of the children.
12.137 Although conditions improved in the mid-1970s, for the previous 40 years of its existence, Salthill
did not deliver an adequate level of physical care to the children who were sent there. A picture
of the Institution emerged from the Visitation Reports and the Department of Education reports
for the period.
12.138 As in other Christian Brothers’ schools, both the children and the Community were supported out
of the capitation grants. Very little information was available in the Visitation Reports but, in one
year, the figures were set out in detail. In 1943, £1,600 was allocated to the nine Brothers in the
School by way of stipend. In that same year, the three teaching Brothers received £214, or £71
each, by way of salary from the Department of Education.
12.139 The financial position depended on the number of children, and in 1960 the Visitor noted that, ‘As
the numbers are being maintained the finances are satisfactory’.
12.140 In each of the succeeding years, stipends were paid into the House accounts, although no other
breakdown of the figures was available. By the 1970s, the House account had a large credit
balance in the bank, but this was accounted for, in part at least, by the sale of land.
12.141 In 1947, the Visitor observed that: ‘Apart from Government grants ..., rent, shops and farm
contributed substantially to the funds’. Notwithstanding this, in 1951, the Visitor referred to the
serious disadvantage caused by the lack of a farm. There was insufficient land attached to the
Institution to allow it to be self-sufficient in terms of food.
12.142 During the relevant period, funding for the boys in Salthill was adequate to meet their basic needs.
12.143 The early Visitation Reports from the 1940s were very critical of the lack of hygiene in the School.
12.144 In 1938, the Visitor’s Report painted a rather dismal picture of life in the Institution. The Visitor
noted that the workshops were very old and dilapidated. He advised that they be replaced
immediately, as they presented a potential hazard.
12.145 He suggested that the chapel be heated during the months of rain, not only to preserve the timber
but also as the children must be cold. Similarly, he noted that the recreation hall presented as
drab, dark and cold, although ‘a few expressed the view that the breaths of the large number of
boys made the room quite endurable’. He recommended that a good heating system would be
desirable for maintenance purposes. An indication of how cold the School must have been was
gleaned from the fact that the Brothers tended to wear their cloaks at all times up to the month of
April. The boys did not possess cloaks.
12.146 The Visitor was critical of the overall cleanliness of the boys’ clothing and of the dormitories.
12.147 In 1939, Dr Anna McCabe30 conducted her first general inspection of Salthill. She noted that the
School looked untidy, as did the children. Otherwise, she found the boys were healthy.
12.148 The following year, the Visitor remarked that, ‘this is the one of our institutions that has impressed
me least’. The Institution gave a dirty, drab impression and ‘tidiness is not a feature of the place’.
12.149 The boys’ kitchen was renovated in 1942, as it was in a particularly offensive condition because
of rats’ nests, a fact that was not commented on by the Department of Education Inspector.
12.150 Dr McCabe wrote to the Resident Manager, after her inspection in July 1942, complaining about:
the unsatisfactory conditions in which I found the beds and bedding, dormitories and
corridors, in the matter of general cleanliness, also the need for painting and plastering
of some of the walls.
12.151 Br Vachel,31 the Manager, defended the condition of the Institution, and blamed Dr McCabe’s poor
impression on the bad timing of her visit.
12.152 The Visitor in May 1943 was shocked at the state of disrepair and low standard of cleanliness of
the premises, which he put down to wartime conditions, low finances, and a certain lack of energy
on the part of the Superior due to his ill-health. The Report noted a lack of cleanliness in the boys’
bedclothes, but reserved its main criticism for their eating facilities and implements:
The boys’ refectory is the part of the institution most lacking in cleanliness. The floor is in
a bad condition. The oil cloth covering the tables is old dirty and in places ragged. The
forms are dirty and badly need scrubbing. The plates and mugs are of aluminium and
have the undersides dirty and greasy. Some of the mugs are of tin showing signs of rust.
The plates that were once enamelled have a wretched appearance. The Brother in charge
has too little to do but he is dirty and lazy ... The impression produced is that St. Joseph’s
is a neglected place inhabited by people devoid of a sense of cleanliness. Some cleanup
may have been done in preparation for the visitor and the ordinary condition may be
worse that what I describe so that if a Government Inspector came unannounced and
made a close inspection his report would be very damaging and would bring shame
upon us.
12.153 The Visitor was of the view that the situation in Salthill was so serious that a visit from the Brother
Provincial would be necessary in order to drive home the gravity of the matter to the Superior.
30
Dr Anna McCabe was the Department of Education Inspector for most of the relevant period. See the Department of
31

12.154 A similar theme pervaded the Visitation Reports of the 1940s, and the shocking state of the
Institution was referred to again and again.
12.155 The 1944 Visitation Report noted the shabby state of the boys’ refectory and dilapidated condition
of the outbuildings.
12.156 Dr McCabe conducted a General Inspection of the School in June 1944 and, once again, noted
the tattered and patched state of the children’s clothing and footwear. The Resident Manager
complained about the difficulty in obtaining supplies and the prohibitive cost of material. He
criticised the practice under which children were discharged into the care of their parents after
spending only a short time in the Institution. This had a destabilising effect on the other children.
He also regarded it as unfair that the Brothers fit these children out with new clothes, only for
them to leave a short time later. Dr McCabe also noted that the premises were badly in need
of repair.
12.157 In 1946, the Visitor expressed concern at the dangerous state of the workshops. He noted that
there were seven boys employed in the bakery, which supplied the needs of the School. This
workshop was dirty, with cobwebs everywhere. Five boys were employed in the laundry. He was
critical of the laundry facilities, the torn bedclothes and the clothing of the boys.
12.158 The Visitor in 1947 noted that a series of long overdue renovations were underway.
12.159 The following year, the Visitor noted a number of improvements to the premises, including the
dormitories, infirmary, bathroom, recreation hall and dining hall.
12.160 Despite the improvements introduced at the end of the 1940s, the Visitation Report for 1950 was
still critical of the conditions for the boys and the Brothers. The Visitor observed that there was
little in the way of recreation for the boys and that ‘life is rather drab here for boys and Brothers.
The boys can have little healthy to talk about’. He noted that the schoolyard was in a deplorable
condition, the concrete being badly broken. He suggested the introduction of two young Brothers
to the Community to inject some life into the Institution.
12.161 The Visitation Report for 1950 stated that ‘a wave of immorality’ had been discovered, which was
dealt with by means of a four-day retreat for the boys.
12.162 In 1951, the Visitor drew attention to the unsuitability of the boys’ dormitories. They were housed
in two reconstructed old mills and were badly ventilated. He did not notice any improvement the
following year: ‘Conditions are just tolerable but no effort is made to put the touch of finality on
either cleanliness or good order’. Tailoring and shoemaking were the only trades catered for in
the School, and he recommended that a carpenter’s shop be opened.
12.163 Dr McCabe conducted an Inspection of the School in June 1953 and, while she accepted that the
School was well run, she noted that many improvements were required. She suggested a new
washing machine and colander for the laundry.
12.164 In March 1954, the Visitor observed some improvements in the appearance of the premises. He
criticised the boys’ kitchen with its out-dated cooking equipment and only one functioning boiler
that provided for all of the needs of the School. The pantry was damp, covered in cobwebs, and
unsuitable for the storage of food. He noted that the bread supplied by the in-house bakery was
anything but appetising. In October of the same year, Dr McCabe reported that a newly appointed
Resident Manager had plans for many improvements, including installation of a new kitchen unit,
new sanitary annex with showers and a new heating system, as well as resurfacing the yard.
12.165 By the time of the Visitation in February 1956, many renovations and improvements had been
made to the boys’ kitchen, bathrooms, dining hall, school rooms and workshops. New equipment
was introduced to the kitchen and an immersion heater installed. Improvements were again
acknowledged in the Report of 1957, particularly to the dormitories and kitchen.
12.166 The 1958 Visitation Report noted that hot water was now available in the dormitories and that the
boys had baths every fortnight.
12.167 Major repair works took place during the early 1960s, which saw a new block constructed housing
a dormitory and bathroom facilities. The primary school building was updated and new furniture
purchased. A central heating system was installed.
12.168 Fr Henry Moore, who wrote a critical report on Artane in the early 1960, was complimentary about
Salthill. He said that he had visited a number of industrial schools at that time, including Salthill.
He knew the Manager in Salthill, as they had been raised in the same orphanage:
Now, albeit it was a very small school in comparison to Artane, I was very impressed by
his management and by the way he treated the boys. They looked very well, they were
very well dressed and I was quite happy with my experience there ... I thought Salthill
was more civilised and more happier.
12.169 A more critical approach was adopted by the Visitor in 1967, who noted:
The boys here range from infants to young men at work in the town or attending the
technical school. All perforce are treated alike – young and old. The same type of
discipline is used from the time he enters the school until he leaves it. Older boys resent
this. None of the men with the exception of the Superior has any special training for this
work. This is acknowledged by the staff and lamented. Each child is a problem and
requires special treatment – perhaps individual would be a better word than special – until
he becomes stabilised.: The young Brothers know little or nothing about the previous
history of their boys – there are no record cards available.
12.170 He thought that, once the boys reached the age of 12, they should be transferred to Artane. The
Visitor did not agree with the writer of the previous year’s Visitation Report that the Brothers were
doing a good job in Salthill. However, he did not blame the staff, as they were doing the best they
could with the resources they had at their disposal. He criticised the frequent change in staff, as
just when they had established a relationship with the boys, invariably they would be moved on.
He added:
Perhaps we put too much stress on academic training – lessons in hygiene in personal
cleaniness – in care of clothes – in polishing of shoes – in using of laces in their shoes –
in combing of hair of walking without slouching are all of great importance for these boys.
I thought the boys were badly clad and untidy. If we were inspected by an outside authority
we would not be pleased with the report ... We need two things for this school 1) more
money 2) more trained staff. We need a few nuns more so than in Artane – the boys here
seem more helpless.
12.171 Six years later, little seemed to have changed.
12.172 In 1973, the Visitor was extremely condemnatory of the School. He noted that the boys in Salthill
were generally more disturbed than the boys in Letterfrack and that, by comparison, the School
was understaffed. This was a disturbing comparison because Letterfrack was operated as a junior
remand home for boys who had committed criminal offences. Both the age and the number of
staff were concerns in this regard. He noted, ‘The lack of female assistance is apparent as well
as the need for such evidenced by the way the boys flock around the assistant cook when she is
cleaning around the home’.
12.173 He expressed concern at the fate of boys leaving the School:

The traditional practice has been to place the boys in ‘digs’ when they become
apprentices, but recently this has not worked out satisfactorily. For some reason, possibly
because more disturbed boys are being admitted, they are not emotionally prepared for
such independence and rather startling reactions have occurred when they have been so
placed. Consequently more of them are remaining at the home and the problem of how
to deal with them is becoming acute. For any boy, of course, to be sent into the world on
his own with no family or friends at the age of 15 and with very little earning ability can
be a shattering experience and perhaps the policy needs to be reconsidered.
12.174 The Brother noted the plan to instigate a group home system with the 50 boys in residence and
welcomed this initiative. He was critical of the lack of recreational facilities available for the boys,
watching TV being the main pastime.
12.175 He feared that ‘The present policy would seem to be to let [the School] run on (or perhaps run
down) with a view to its ultimate demise’.
12.176 He warned that:

The present situation whereby the boys end up after ten years with us frightened,
immature, resentful with little prospect for their self support is unfair both to them and to
the Brothers concerned as well as harmful to the good name of the Congregation.
12.177 The Visitor proposed a number of recommendations for the future sustainability of the School
which included:
i. that a suitable Brother be appointed to accept responsibility for the Senior boys ...
His main duties would be to assist them in the transition from institutional to normal
social life, to teach them the social graces e.g. behaviour at social affairs (none of
the apprentices can now attend a dance – they must be in by 10pm) to support
them in their apprenticeship difficulties, to help them to accept personal
responsibility for their life as they enter the adult world. Such a Brother therefore
should not have the institutional mentality or be engrossed in the child-care
approach. An example of a suitable person is Brother ... presently studying at the
hostel though it would hardly be fair to interfere with his studies at the present
time ...
ii. that the plans proposed by the Manager of renovating the former infirmary as a
group home for the apprentices is approved in principle. However, the visitor felt
that, if this plan of providing a separate home is accepted, it should be done
thoroughly and not on a patch-work basis since a large factor in the success of
making these boys self-respecting and socially acceptable will be the home
environment in which they find themselves and of which they can be proud. Hot
and cold water, central heating, suitable and adequate showering facilities and
pleasant rooms for sleeping and recreation are important even though they will
obviously be rather expensive.
iii. that the further plans of the Manager for dividing the boys into groups with their
own home-areas be examined sympathetically.
iv. that the assistant cook (or other lady) be employed to take care of the dormitory
of the younger boys and of their clothing. In general the bed linen of the boys
is not changed frequently enough, they get changes of underclothing only once
a week.
v. that a suitable ‘dig’ be rented by the school and used to train the apprentices in
social behaviour. This could be done by placing each apprentice there for a two
or three-week period and making arrangements with the landlady for reports on
their behaviour. Since the boys would know that they would be shortly returning
to the Home, they would not experience the feeling of panic at the prospect as
they do now and they would not be completely on their own.
vi. that financial arrangements be made to assist the apprentices in their digs until
their income is adequate for their own support ...
vii. ... Perhaps the greatest need of the boys is to achieve some sense of individuality,
the very nature of an institution militates against this.
12.178 The remainder of the Visitation Reports for the 1970s noted the changing face of the School. A
group home-style system was put in place and female staff hired. The type of boy resident in the
School also subtly changed over time so that, by the late 1970s, it mainly provided shelter for
boys from broken homes who had emotional or psychological needs.
12.179 The problems were still acute, however, and two groups of local people were sufficiently
concerned to write letters setting out their concerns.
Letters of concern
12.180 Following the publication of the Kennedy Report in 1970, the Secretary of the Galway Godparents
Association wrote to the Department of Education on 9th January 1971 about two industrial
schools, including St Joseph’s, Salthill, in which the organisation had taken particular interest. She
described the work the Association was doing:
The Committee of our Association organised classes in Art, Crafts, Music, Physical
Education, Games & Elocution in both ... & St. Josephs. The classes were conducted by
qualified teachers who gave their time free of charge & our Association bore all expenses
for equipment & materials. The classes were a remarkable success and the children were
benefiting immensely from them.
12.181 Regarding Salthill, the Association made three complaints:

The Manager of St. Joseph’s is elderly and has no training in Child Care. He was
appointed to his present post in August 1970 and it is his first experience of working in
an Industrial School. Since his appointment he has discouraged the Godparent idea and
has refused any additional Godparents, even though many of the boys have no family to
take them out for regular visits. We get the impression that he is unaware of the great
difficulties which the boys face when they leave the institution – serious difficulties which
we are coming across continuously. The boys in primary school do not go out to school.
St. Josephs is an all male institution ... We fully agree with the Reports’ Assessment of
the disadvantage of this sex segregation.
There is no question of any of the children in ... St. Josephs ... being educated to the
ultimate of their capacity. There is a crying need ... for specialised teaching and provision
for third level education.
After Care is simply non-existent. ... boys are unable to find suitable digs, are unable to
manage in flats and have no place to go for holidays or days off, no one to care for them
if they are sick or unemployed. Their extreme loneliness often drives them to do the very
things for which they are branded. Not alone is there a need for pre-release Hostels and
trained social workers & After Care agents but that these trained people should be working
with the children during the years prior to their discharge, thus being well-acquainted with
them & gaining their confidence.
12.182 The letter went on:

We feel that there is no justification for the continued existence of either ... or St Josephs’
in their present form. The damage being done to the children in both institutions can only
be halted by an immediate change in the system.
12.183 In the summer of 1972, a representative of the Godparents Association wrote, on its behalf, to
the Provincial Council expressing deep concern for the boys in Salthill. She did not elaborate on
what these concerns were, but requested a meeting with members of the Council to discuss the
problems. She received short shrift from the Council, who informed her in no uncertain terms that
they saw little purpose in convening such a meeting and suggested that she discuss any issues
with the Resident Manager who, she was assured, would be ‘very sympathetic and
accommodating’. The true sentiments of the Provincial Council to the approach by the Association
were reflected in an undated memorandum which stated:
They wrote a highly critical and uncomplimentary letter to the Galway Advertiser about
the Nuns in Lenaboy. Are in the bad books of the Bishop. Went to the Minister. Are
interfering and seek notoriety.
12.184 The Christian Brothers were quite happy to dismiss the Association rather than seek elaboration
on the substance of their concerns.
12.185 A year later, the Irish Countrywomen’s Association wrote a strong report to the Department of
Education, calling for urgent action to deal with the plight of children in industrial schools. They
identified the key aim of childcare as being to prevent family breakdown and saw residential care
as a last resort. They were particularly critical of the single-sex policy that operated in Galway,
which led to the inevitable break-up of families:
We have witnessed the heartbreak of these deprived children on arrival at the institutions;
the added heartbreak when they are separated, brothers from sisters. Our own doctors
have treated the children for lice, scabies and contagious impetigo and are willing to bear
testimony to this.
12.186 They were also critical of the aftercare provided in Galway:

Many of the boys leave at sixteen with only a very poor primary education and go from
one menial job to another. It is not unusual for one boy to have been in nine jobs in the
space of two years.
For some time there has been a pattern of boys from St Josephs sleeping out because
they have nowhere to go. Some boys who have left Galway within the past three years
are now in Limerick jail. What becomes of those who emigrate?
Reminiscences of a former Manager

12.187 Conditions in Salthill in 1973 were described by a former manager, Br Ames,32 who took up office
in that year. He described his experiences there in an interview he gave for Congregation
purposes. When he arrived in August 1973, there were about 47 boys in the School. He found
that there was no trust with the older boys but it was possible to communicate with the younger
ones. There was some bullying going on by the bigger boys, and they were able to intimidate the
younger ones from relating to the Brothers. He said the boys were violent and cruel.
32

12.188 It was clear to Br Ames that big changes had to be made, and he decided that the place should
be changed into residential homes. He stated that he failed to get funding for the work from the
Department of Education and so went to the bank and borrowed £15,000. The Department of
Education discovery, however, indicated that, in 1974, ‘The Home was remodelled interiorly at a
cost of £8,000 £6,000 of a grant was given by the Dep. of Education’.
12.189 Br Ames said that he and his colleagues tried different schemes, and eventually installed 15
bedrooms with living/dining areas attached, so as to replicate a family environment as far as
possible.
12.190 Other changes were made whereby staff were increased and engaged full-time in care work rather
than having to teach. Older boys who were going out to work used the School as a residential
facility to help them with the transition from institutional life to that in the outside world. The other
boys went out to school instead of being taught in the Institution. They were able to make friends
and acquaintances outside, and sometimes visitors came back to the School. Members of a family
could live together in one unit. If a parent visited, he or she could be welcomed and treated
with respect.
12.191 The whole system, in short, was organised on civilised and sensitive lines, with a view to making
the lives of the boys as close to normal as possible. Br Ames acknowledged that what he did
could not have been achieved with larger numbers, but he did point out that another Brother had
had considerable success in Artane when he reduced the number of boys in a unit to 30.
12.192 Br Ames was proud of his achievements in Salthill. The need for change was driven by the
rejection by society generally of the institutionalised childcare that had been the hallmark of
Christian Brother involvement in this area. As was clear from the letters quoted above, thinking
had moved on and regimes such as Salthill were no longer acceptable.
12.193 According to Br Ames, the results were remarkable. The boys were happier. Their behaviour in
the Institution improved enormously. They were more sociable. They were more comfortable than
before in dealing with animals, which Br Ames had begun to introduce into the School. Relations
with the staff were greatly improved, and there was much less friction between the different groups
of boys.
12.194 Br Ames and Br Burcet were also responsible for introducing professional childcare workers and
male and female house parents in the Institution. They adopted modern methods to meet the
different needs of the children. The Brothers revitalised the Managers’ Association, which brought
together the Resident Managers from all industrial schools and reformatories in the country, using
it to meet regularly and to discuss the work that they were doing with the children in their care. Br
Ames worked on a draft Charter of Rights for children in care. The Association organised an
international conference that was held in Ireland in 1979.
12.195 The development of the thinking of the Brothers in this School showed what could have been
achieved in other industrial schools under their care. By the time these changes were brought
about, Artane, Letterfrack, Tralee, Carriglea and Glin had all been closed. Only Salthill remained,
and the need for control of the system by the Congregation was gone.
12.196 The impact of this professional approach to the work in Salthill was reflected in the 1974 Visitation
Report, which was entirely different in tone from those that had preceded it. In particular, the
Visitor noted the effect of Br Burcet’s arrival:
His [Br Burcet’s] coming to St Joseph’s last August has been a tremendous boon and
blessing. He is the Manager’s guide, philosopher and friend in creating an improved
atmosphere of care and relationship between the children and the Brothers. His Kilkenny
Course in Child Care has brought a new dimension and an added empathy to his work
and, slowly but surely, the communication barriers are being removed, the children are
becoming much more friendly, open and amenable and are relating much better with one
another and with the staff.
12.197 The Visitor remarked:

The ending of ‘the old order’, to which Remi was accustomed for so long, has caused him
some upset and paradoxically this may well be a blessing in disguise for him. He is now
doing a much more taxing round of duty than was his wont for quite some years and
despite his overt yearning for the good old days when boys were made toe the line in
quasi-military fashion one senses that deep down he is slowly and reluctantly coming to
appreciate that the new approach has something to recommen it.
12.198 It was difficult to completely remove the decades of institutionalisation that had operated in Salthill.
In 1978, Mr Graham Granville noted in an Inspection Report for the Department of Education that,
despite the group home units, the nature of the accommodation made for a very institutional feel,
lacking in a homely atmosphere. He complimented the staff on their efforts despite the obstacles.
He reiterated his concerns in his Inspection Reports of the early 1980s. He found many facilities
requiring modernisation and saw the construction of new custom-made group homes as the way
forward.
Education
12.199 The Visitation Reports touched on this aspect of the work of the Institution throughout the four
decades that an internal primary school operated in Salthill. In general, the Visitor seemed
satisfied with the standard of education provided in the 1940s, although from year to year a
particular Visitor voiced a concern.
12.200 In 1940, a Visitor remarked, ‘The boys are on the whole docile and easily managed and show
average intelligence in class’.
12.201 The payment of salaries to the internal national school teachers saw the number of Brothers
assigned to the School increase by two, and a marked improvement in the standard of education
was noted in 1941.
12.202 However, the 1943 Visitation Report was critical of the standard of education in the higher classes.
The Visitor found that the boys in 3rd, 4th and 5th standards were ‘quite unable to read the lessons
in our Readers which are in use’ and he cautioned that ‘if proper steps are not taken some of
these boys may leave the school in a semi-illiterate condition’.
12.203 The 1958 Report offered what was probably the explanation for the poor standard in the senior
classes. It observed that the teacher in charge of infants and first standard was not efficient. The
Visitor noted:
He is partially paralysed and his writing on Blackboard is nearly illegible for an adult to
read and hence it must make no impression on the boys of the age group he has. I
examined these boys in Christian Doctrine, English Reading, and tables. It could not be
said that the boys were hopeless but they were certainly retarded for boys 7 years of age.
It would also seem that the poor teaching they get in this class tells on the whole Primary
School. According to age groups they would all be retarded by one year.
12.204 He recommended that the teacher be asked to retire, even if this meant that the Brothers had to
supplement the difference in his pension due to his early retirement.
12.205 In March 1959, the Visitor noted that the teacher mentioned in the 1958 Report was still in the
School: ‘The poor man is physically unfit to take charge and teach boys’. As he was a registered
teacher, the Brothers had difficulty removing him. The Visitor believed that the boys’ schooling got
off to a bad start under this man’s tutelage.
12.206 During the Visitation of March 1961, the Principal pointed out that on average, one-third of boys
in each class were below the normal standard and said that the majority of boys who fell into this
category came from County Homes. The Visitor noted that the Brothers had still not succeeded
in getting rid of the teacher in charge of the younger boys..
12.207 In 1973, due to dwindling numbers, the boys were transferred to the local primary school.
12.208 It is difficult to see how a teacher with the disabilities as outlined above could have given the boys
in Salthill any kind of basic education. He was listed as a teacher in the School for 25 years.
12.209 In their 1972 report to the Department of Education, the Irish Countrywomen’s Association were
critical of the education offered in Salthill:
2.6 We recognise that education is one of the most important formative influences on the
children with whome we are concerned, whether they are deprived or delinquent. All
children in Residential Care or otherwise in care, should be educated to the ultimate of
their capacities ... In the past five years no boy in St Joseph’s, Salthill ... has got either
Intermediate or Leaving Certificate. As far as we know, no child ever got this far ...
Contact with home

12.210 Although contact with families was recognised as essential as far back as 1936 when the Cussen
Report was published, Salthill, like many other industrial schools, was reluctant to allow children
home for the full period recommended by the Department, which had been extended to 31 days
in 1943.
12.211 In 1944, the Resident Manager was asked to explain why 126 children out of the School population
of 207 had not been allowed home during the Summer. The Resident Manager expressed his
view that:
I believe the homes were unsuitable but one does not like saying so to a boy. Even though
parental unsuitability is cited in only 17% of committals, in my opinion a much higher
percentage could be got under this heading but guards33 and NSPCC inspectors often, or
sometimes, when they are sure of a committal, take proceedings under a less obnoxious
heading such as School attendance.
12.212 There was no evidence that the Resident Manager made any enquiries about the home situation
of the boys, but the letter quoted above indicated a reluctance to encourage parental contact.
12.213 It was not until 1959 that efforts were made to ensure that all boys spent time in an ordinary home
environment. An appeal for holiday homes was made in the local Catholic newspapers, and
families came forward and took the boys for five weeks during the summer. From then onwards,
all of the boys were sent on holidays either to their own family or to a host family.
Christian Brothers’ submissions

12.214 The Brothers relied on Dr McCabe’s reports in defending the School from criticism. While they
acknowledged her adverse comments on such matters as clothing and dental care, they
contended that the ‘individual reports from Dr McCabe are uniformly good stating that the school
33
This is a reference to the Gardaı́.

is well managed, that the Resident Manager is kind and has the interests of the boys at heart’.
They concluded that the ’standard of care provided in St Joseph’s Salthill from the documentations
furnished shows that it was continually high. Faults and deficiencies were pointed out where they
arose and were quickly rectified’.
12.215 The Submissions did not comment on the very different assessments in their own Visitation
Reports. It is to the credit of the Congregation that their inspection system gave rise to such
candid appraisals. These reports by senior members of the Congregation, which were compiled
for internal use, cannot be ignored. Where they conflict with more neutral Department
observations, they are to be preferred in point of accuracy and specificity.
Analysis
12.216 When the Visitation Reports are compared with the Department of Education Inspection Reports,
it is clear that the Visitors’ criticisms were much more severe than any corresponding comments
by Dr McCabe.
12.217 The 1943 Visitation Report was scathing. The Visitor criticised most aspects of the Institution and,
in particular, the filth of the School. He concluded that, should a Department Inspector conduct
an unannounced visit to the School, their report would surely be damning. Dr McCabe did inspect
the School three months later but the Brothers had little to fear. Her report was not in any way as
critical as the Visitation Report for the same year.
12.218 Dr McCabe made repeated criticisms of the boys’ clothing, particularly during the 1940s, to no
avail. She had no suggestions or recommendations to make when the Superior explained that he
had difficulty in obtaining supplies.
12.219 In 1967, a thorough and critical Report was written following the Visitation. The Visitor stated that
he did not agree with the writer of the previous year’s Report that the Brothers were doing a good
job in Salthill. In short, he believed that Salthill was unsuitable, particularly for the older boys. He
felt that a more personalised and childcare-focused approach should be adopted and was critical
of the fact that little was known by the staff of the individual backgrounds of the boys. He remarked
that, should an outside authority inspect the School, the Brothers might not be happy with the
contents of any consequential report. However, less than a year previously, Dr Lysaght had
conducted an in-depth inspection of the School on behalf of the Department, which was
complimentary of all aspects of the School. This demonstrates a different focus by the Department
in their reporting procedure.
12.220 The Visitation Reports were often critical of the standard of education and the quality of trades
training available in the School.
12.221 The Brothers acknowledged that the trades taught met the needs of the School and did not cater
well for the needs of the boys after they left the Institution. The Brothers also acknowledged that
there was a stigma attaching to the industrial school boy after he left the School, although little
seems to have been done to address this.
12.222 Dr McCabe often commented in general terms that improvements were made without identifying
any particular deficiency in preceding Reports. Her Reports appear more cursory than probing.
Where criticisms are noted, there are often no corresponding suggestions for how conditions might
be improved.

General conclusions
12.223 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.

Chapter 13
St Joseph’s School for Deaf Boys,

Cabra (‘Cabra’), 1857–1999
Introduction
Background
13.01 St Joseph’s School for Deaf Boys, Cabra (‘Cabra’) was founded in 1856 by the Catholic Institute
for the Deaf as a residential school for deaf Catholic boys. The Catholic Institute invited the
Christian Brothers to manage the School and, after some persuasion, they agreed. The School
opened in 1857, and the Christian Brothers managed it until 2000. The School today is under the
trusteeship of the Catholic Institute for Deaf People, formerly the Catholic Institute for the Deaf.
The Archbishop of Dublin is the Patron of the School.
13.02 St Joseph’s, Cabra was not like any other residential school run by the Christian Brothers. They
stated in their Opening Submission:
St Joseph’s was first and foremost a school for deaf children from all parts of Ireland. It
had a residential component for those children who could not travel on a daily basis to
the school. All children who came to school did so voluntarily and it is this feature of
electing to come to school that differentiates it from any other residential service that the
Congregation ran for children such as the Industrial Schools in Artane and Letterfrack.
13.03 A number of Brothers who had experience in industrial schools were appointed to Cabra and
served there at some point during their careers.
13.04 In 1929 the School at Cabra was recognised by the Department of Education as a national school
and, in 1952, as a special national school. In 1986, a secondary school was opened on the
premises. Both the national and secondary school are administered by a Board of Management
and one school Principal. In 1986, six residential houses were built, and these are managed by a
Director of Residential Care. The move was designed to change the School from an institutional
character to a smaller ‘family’ unit facility, and it introduced lay staff with responsibility for the care
of the boys. It was a well-equipped and impressive facility that offered education and care to
children who might otherwise not have benefited from the ordinary national school system.

13.05 The following photograph has been made available to the Committee:
Source: Congregation of the Christian Brothers
Population
13.06 Boys were admitted to the School on the basis of direct application by parents or a referral by a
doctor, priest or an education inspector. The School also accepted boys from Northern Ireland
who were referred by the Education Board there. Others progressed from Mary Immaculate School
for Deaf Boys in Beechpark, Stillorgan, County Dublin which accepted boys up to the age of 10.
That school closed in 1998.
13.07 In the 1930s and 1940s, boys as young as four years of age were admitted, as the prevailing
view at that time was that it was in the interests of children with hearing loss to admit them as
young as possible. These trends changed over time, and the age of admission rose to six or
seven. The boys remained in the School until 18 years of age.
13.08 Cabra was both a boarding school and a day school, but the majority of children who attended
were boarders. They came from all parts of the country including Northern Ireland. The numbers
of children boarding fell from almost 100% in 1938 to less than half in 1998. In the mid-1970s,
funding was made available which made it easier for pupils to travel home at weekends. Prior to
that, boarders would generally only go home during the school holidays. The authorities in
Northern Ireland organised escorts for the children on their journey home, but the same facility
was not available for children from the State.
13.09 Between 1930 and 2003, approximately 2,018 pupils attended St Joseph’s. In 1938, there were
164 pupils in the School. In 1948, there were 154 and, in 1958, this had increased to 206. Numbers
peaked in 1979, when there were 314 boys in attendance. By 1998, numbers had fallen to 164.
The number of admissions from Northern Ireland peaked in 1949, when 29 were admitted.
13.10 The head of the Institution was the Superior, and the primary and secondary schools were
managed by a Principal who was usually the Sub-Superior.
13.11 Between 1935 and 2000, the total number of Brothers who had served in the School was 103.
There were 13 Superiors during the period 1935 and 1991, seven of whom served a six-year
term. Between 1935 and 1991, eight Brothers served as Principal. Because the pupils were either
totally or partially deaf, a lower pupil-teacher ratio applied than in ordinary schools. In 1950, this
was 14 to 1 and, by November 1955, it improved to 10 to 1 and, by 1987, to 6 to 1.
13.12 In 1986, a new management structure came into being with the opening of the post primary school
with a Board of Management with a Chairperson. In 1987, a lay Director of Residential Care was
appointed to manage the day-to-day running and supervision of the residences. In 2000 the
Christian Brothers relinquished the management of the School.
Inspections
13.13 The primary and, secondary school were inspected by officials of the Department of Education.
However, no inspection of the residential areas was conducted by the Department. The Provincial
and General Councils of the Christian Brothers carried out annual inspections of the School, which
included the residential quarters of the boys and the school premises in general. Details of these
annual inspections are contained in the Christian Brothers’ Visitation Reports. Officials from
Northern Ireland also regularly visited the School in respect of children admitted from the
Education Board in Northern Ireland. The Hospital Trust Fund Committee was also entitled to
inspect the School. There is a reference in the Visitation Reports of the Christian Brothers to a
visit by this Committee in October 1942.
13.14 The only detailed reports available to the Investigation Committee were the annual inspections
carried out by the Christian Brother Visitors from 1938 to 1989.
Funding
13.15 Although some parents did pay fees for their children in Cabra, most of the costs were covered
either by the State or by the Catholic Institute for the Deaf. The Hospitals Act, 1939 made provision
for deaf schools to get funding from the Hospitals Commission, subject to a number of conditions,
one of which was the entitlement of officials in the Department of Health to inspect the School.
Annual capitation grants were provided by the Department of Education and the equivalent
department in Northern Ireland. The School today receives some funding from the Department of
Education and the Catholic Institute.
13.16 The Visitation Report of 1945 set out the position:

The income is derived from Farm, Capitation grants and a grant from the Committee. A
new arrangement has now been entered into between the Brothers and the Governing
Committee as to method of payment. By this agreement the Brothers are to get £44 per
head for each boy in the school. They are to meet all expenses from this source, along
with this they may also retain the Capitation grant and the net income from the farm. The
Pro-Rata last year was £50. Two accounts are kept. No1 for school. No2 for house. In
the former there is an overdraft of £612 at the end of Dec. last. In No.2 there was a
surplus of £3,015. With judicious management the new arrangement should provide
sufficient funds to support the Institution.
13.17 This proved to be a correct prediction. The following year, the Visitor commented:
The financial state of the Institution is very sound and the funds are carefully disbursed.
13.18 The healthy state of the House accounts continued and, in 1954, the Visitor noted:
Finances are simple from the Community point of view. The Committee feeds, clothes
and lodges the Brothers even to the extent of buying their cigarettes. Vacation, travel,
alms and Provincial dues are paid out of the Brothers’ salaries as National Teachers. One
Brother is recognised for every 14 pupils ... The balance is considerable, and the question
is what is to be done with this balance. The committee should certainly get some of it.
13.19 In 1958, the Visitor stated:

The Financial position of the establishment is sound and with the increased Capitation
Grant there should be a marked improvement in the surplus income even in this present
year.
13.20 This position continued into the early 1960s and, in 1962, the Visitor noted that, between the
capitation grants and the salaries paid to the Brothers, ‘there is a considerable income to the
school’.
13.21 From 1959, the Congregation developed a new secondary school for boys in Cabra West, St
Declan’s, and for the first number of years this school was directly and indirectly supported by the
Community in St Joseph’s, Cabra.
13.22 Indirect support came in the form of accommodation to the Brothers working in St Declan’s, who
did not acquire their own separate monastery until the 1970s.
13.23 The situation was summed up by a letter from the Provincial Council in 1963:
Your finances are sound throughout the school for the Deaf but all monies should be well
spent as there might be a change over-night. St Declan’s could not support a Community
on what is over from the Secondary Balance.
You could probably send us £3000 from the Brothers’ account in payment of loan due to
Building Fund on St Declan’s.
13.24 By 1970, St Declan’s had become a viable separate institution, and a monastery for the Brothers
teaching there was recommended. In 1970, the Visitor noted: ‘To date St Joseph’s carried the
expenses incurred in the building of St Declan’s’.
13.25 Numbers in Cabra continued to be high into the 1970s. In 1973, there were 160 boarders and
120 day pupils. Although the Institution showed a loss of £3,361, the House accounts for the same
year showed a credit balance in the bank of over £47,500.
13.26 The premises were not owned by the Congregation, and the maintenance costs were paid by the
Committee. In 1954, the Visitor noted:
The property belongs to the Committee which finances the establishment. The Superior
keeps the place in repair and submits the accounts to the Committee. He is expected to
keep expenditure within certain limits, but he need not get the Committee’s approval for
minor repairs in advance. In general the place is in good repair, and the boys keep it neat
and clean.
13.27 Although Visitors were in general positive about conditions in Cabra, criticism was made of some
matters that directly affected the boys. The boys’ dormitories, kitchen and refectory all came in for
criticism in 1949. In 1954, the Visitor commented:
Many of the faces seemed pinched in contrast to the rosy, chubby faces of the Artane
boys. This could be partly explained by the serious illness of some in the past ... but I
think some of the blame lies in the feeding ... The boys never get milk except what partly
colours the tea. Indeed half the farm milk supply goes to the boys, the other half to the
Community! In general the quality, quantity, variety and service of the food could be
improved. They have aluminium dishes and no knives at dinner. The main trouble is £.s.d.
The grants are £61 per boy (except for boys from Northern Ireland who get £84). In
contrast 30/- per week is paid on Industrial School boys in Eire, and even the authorities
admit that this is not sufficient.
13.28 According to the Visitor, the Committee was loath to increase the funding to the School and
stressed that ‘the school is a charitable institution’. This Visitor was the same Brother who also
commented in the 1954 report on how the surplus funds in the House accounts could best be
used.
13.29 The Visitation Report for 1948 would indicate that different standards applied to boys whose
parents paid fees to the School:
There are two distinct kitchens in the establishment. The larger one is for boys only and
in the second one adjacent to the Brothers’ refectory cooking is done for the Brothers,
teachers, workmen, and about a dozen boys whose parents pay the whole fee for them.
The Brothers get clean wholesome food and a plentiful supply of same. For meat the
boys get puddings and sausages never beef or mutton.
The investigation
13.30 The Investigation Committee was unable to conduct a full hearing into this Institution. The principal
difficulty was in obtaining statements of complainant witnesses. Protracted correspondence and
discussion failed to produce agreement as to arrangements for taking statements. The result was
that the investigation into the School was confined to a review of the discovered material produced
by the Department of Education and Science, the Christian Brothers, the Catholic Institute for the
Deaf, the Archdiocese of Dublin and the Garda Sı́ochana. The Committee was, however, able to
make its own arrangement for all complainants to be interviewed by its lawyers. A total of 44
complainants attended for interview, out of 65 who were invited to attend.
13.31 At the Emergence hearings held in public, when the investigation recommenced in 2004, Mr Kevin
Stanley of the Irish Deaf Society highlighted an issue that was of major concern to his members,
namely the policy that was imposed by the Department of Education on deaf schools of preferring
oralism over signing as a method of communication. The contention was that this policy was ill-
considered and unjustified. It made communication difficult between children educated under the
new system and their families, who were used to sign language. It was also argued that the
methods employed to implement the policy were abusive, because the school authorities used
corporal punishment for that purpose. This last point could be examined in the general context of
physical abuse in the School, but the policy issue was a different matter. The discovery material
and Submissions make it clear that there was a real question of principle that had to be decided
as to the method of communication to be taught in schools. There were arguments on each side
as between oralism and signing, with advantages and disadvantages accompanying whichever
was chosen. The decision that was made can be rationally justified. In those circumstances, it
was not the function of an investigation into abuse to try to determine whether the policy choice
was the best available, even if it could be argued that a different option would have been
preferable. Another problem about this issue is that the policy does not appear to have been
applied in more recent times. This complaint, accordingly had to be excluded, subject to the point
about the implementation of the policy by means that constituted physical abuse.
13.32 This School is of particular interest because it had to deal with abuse that occurred in recent
times, compared with other institutions, and the chapter concentrates on these modern cases and
summarises the records of earlier allegations.
Physical abuse
Attitude of the Christian Brothers
13.33 The Christian Brothers in their 2006 Submission stated that their approach to corporal punishment
in St Joseph’s was similar to that in primary schools throughout the country at the time, in which
corporal punishment was permitted until 1982. Apart from the Departmental regulation of corporal
punishment, the Christian Brothers were also bound by their own Constitution Rules and Acts of
Chapter, which sought to reduce corporal punishment to a minimum. These provisions also
emphasised that it was not to be used for failure at lessons, and that the sole authorised
instrument of punishment was the leather strap, to be used only on the hand. In a letter written in
1958, the Provincial wrote to the Superior of Cabra, advising that ‘There must be no punishment
except as permitted by rule and that is to be applied as seldom as possible’.
Documented cases of physical abuse by staff

13.34 The documents furnished by the Congregation revealed instances of physical abuse by Brothers
and lay staff from as early as 1955. The Brothers in their Submission asserted that known incidents
of physical abuse ‘were dealt with in a responsible and appropriate manner’. A case that is more
fully documented is set out first, followed by information about other episodes gleaned from
records.
Allegations against a teacher, Mr Ashe1

13.35 The allegations against Mr Ashe span a period of five years, beginning in the 1980s. In the year
following the commencement of his employment at St Joseph’s, the first complaint about him was
made at a Parent-Teacher meeting in the School. A parent complained to the Chairman of the
Board, Br Noyes,2 that Mr Ashe had struck her son. Br Noyes responded by defending the teacher
and ‘eventually smoothed over the situation’. In March of the following year, the parents of a boy
wrote to the Principal, Br Ames,3 complaining about the aggressive and arrogant manner in which
Mr Ashe had spoken to them. The Principal pointed out to Mr Ashe that such behaviour was
unacceptable, but the teacher was unresponsive and Br Ames noted that he ‘got so little
satisfaction from talking’ to him that he did not reply to the letter of complaint.
13.36 Following a number of subsequent incidents involving this teacher’s aggressive and threatening
behaviour towards pupils and staff, the Board of Management met and the minutes of this meeting
recorded their view that:
He was an excellent teacher ... but he appeared to lack understanding of a deaf child’s
problems. He would appear to be more suited to a teaching position outside a school for
the deaf.
13.37 The Chairman conveyed the Board’s views to Mr Ashe who undertook to seek alternative
employment. He was given a reference by Br Noyes, but was apparently unable to get another
teaching position, and instead sought leave of absence. However, he did not take leave of
absence and continued teaching at the School. Further complaints of physical abuse and
threatening behaviour were made against him the following year.
13.38 Parents of a boy wrote to Br Ames, alleging that Mr Ashe had struck their son and had used foul
language. Six months after this complaint, a boy complained that Mr Ashe had struck him on the
nose causing it to bleed; and, one month after that, four boys wrote letters to the Principal
complaining that Mr Ashe ‘thumped’ them. Furthermore, he had threatened and tried to intimidate
the school Principal.
1
2
3

13.39 The Department of Education withheld Mr Ashe’s teaching diploma, pending investigation of
complaints by parents and pupils. The Department sought a comprehensive report from the Board
of Management. The Board decided that an investigation would have to be undertaken and a
report was prepared and submitted to the Department, which set out the allegations that had been
made against Mr Ashe over the previous three years.
13.40 Two members of the Board of Management had a formal meeting with Mr Ashe, at which the
Chairman outlined a series of complaints and invited the teacher to respond. The first item was
an allegation that he had struck a pupil in the face and made his nose bleed. Mr Ashe denied the
allegation, claiming that, while he had snatched a pen from the boy’s mouth, he had not hit him
and that the boy’s nose bled for some other reason. He also denied showing disrespect to the
Principal, and rejected a charge of setting excessive homework and hitting boys for failure at
lessons.
13.41 The final allegation put to Mr Ashe at the meeting was that he threatened and tried to intimidate
the Principal, Br Ames, by words and gestures. In reply, he described an angry meeting when he
accused the Principal of trying to set him up and of being hypocritical. The minutes of the meeting
include the following comments that Mr Ashe made to Br Ames:
Are you up to your old tricks again or what? You have some neck to try to set anybody
up with all the beatings and spankings and all the other stuff you have been up to lately.
The Guards never come down to me over hammering. Remember, in case you forget it,
that it was to you, yes you, the Guards came, after the daylights being kicked out of
a pupil.
13.42 The Board was conscious of potential difficulty and embarrassment. Other teachers could be
expected to support Mr Ashe, notwithstanding the history of complaints and incidents. There was
also the matter of the Principal’s own history, which is dealt with below:
There are some points that could be made to look awkward for Br Ames, eg. that a pupil
went to the Garda station to complain about Br Ames, and the Gardai came down to
meet him.
13.43 The Board’s solicitors advised that Mr Ashe should be dismissed, and approved a proposal to
terminate his employment at the end of the school year. The Chairman, Br Noyes, wrote to Mr
Ashe, stating that the allegations of physical abuse were ‘well founded’ and therefore justified his
dismissal from the School. However, he urged Mr Ashe to take the option of resigning:
This should help you in your future career. A reference could be furnished as I am sure
you could get on well in another type of school. I just do not think you are suitable to a
special school such as St. Joseph’s.
13.44 Br Noyes also wrote to the Patron of the School, the Archbishop of Dublin, seeking his permission
to dismiss Mr Ashe, but the Archbishop refused. In a letter he said:
The matter was investigated on my behalf by [the parish priest]. [The parish priest] has
given me a full report on the case. Having studied the documentation and report, I am not
prepared to give my permission to the Board of Management to give notice of dismissal
to Mr Ashe at the present time.
13.45 The Priest appointed by the Archbishop held meetings with Mr Ashe and the Board of
Management separately. He advised the Archbishop as follows:
Having consulted with the Education Secretariat and [a Solicitor], I have come to the
conclusion that the permission sought by the Board of Management of St. Joseph’s to
dismiss Mr. Ashe should not be granted. The case made against Mr. Ashe does not
warrant dismissal and would probably not stand up to testing in court.
It is generally agreed, however, that Mr. Ashe would be better suited to teaching in an
ordinary second-level school or at third level. In view of this and of the poor relationship
between Mr. Ashe and the Principal of the school, every effort should be made to assist
Mr. Ashe in finding alternative employment as soon as possible. The attempt should be
also made to establish better relations between Mr. Ashe and Brother Ames for as long
as Mr. Ashe is in the school. That might be for some considerable time due to the general
employment situation for teachers.
13.46 In a replying letter, the Chairman of the Board of Management stated that the Board, whilst
accepting the decision of the Archbishop, was concerned about this teacher remaining on in
the School.
13.47 As a result of the Archbishop’s decision, Mr Ashe remained in the School. However, the concerns
of the Board of Management were justified, as two further allegations of physical abuse were made
against Mr Ashe the following year. A parent wrote to the Chairman of the Board of Management
complaining that Mr Ashe had punched his son twice in the stomach. A month later, another
teacher witnessed Mr Ashe physically assaulting a boy in a classroom. Both incidents were
reported to the Principal, Br Ames, who carried out an investigation by interviewing relevant
witnesses. He received no co-operation from Mr Ashe. Following his investigation, Br Ames
informed Mr Ashe in a letter that he would be dismissed if he again breached the rules of the
Department.
13.48 Br Ames wrote to a Priest in the Education Secretariat of Archbishop’s House recalling the
representations that had been made the previous year and reporting ‘a repetition of the same kind
of behaviour this year’. He enclosed documentation ‘on this years crop’ and commented: ‘Once
again the Board are powerless’. Although he had written to Mr Ashe, he had received no response,
and on the advice of the FUE [an employers’ organisation], that the case would not stand up in
court, he said that:
We are wondering if this is to go on for ever with no come back? We think that the Patron
must issue a final warning to this man as it is he will have to consent to the dismissal. Is
this kind of behaviour acceptable to the Patron?
13.49 The Priest replied on behalf of the Archbishop and expressed his dismay with the continuing
problems with Mr Ashe. He pointed out: ‘The Patron becomes involved directly in the situation
only if the Board of Management wishes to proceed with dismissal. Although he would be
concerned that proper professional standards be maintained by all teachers, it would not be proper
for him to communicate with an individual teacher.’ He noted that Mr Ashe had been issued with
a formal warning and added: ‘I am sure you will continue to look for his explanation of the incidents
in the school. I would be glad to be kept informed of any developments’.
13.50 Around this time, Br Ames wrote to the Secretary of the Department of Education informing him
of these incidents. He also sought advice from the Department in dealing with Mr Ashe, as the
Board of Management ‘find that they are helpless’. Within the Department, Br Ames’s letter was
referred from the Special Education section to the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Branch for
the following reason:
as your section has a file regarding this case, perhaps, R and I could examine this whole
issue with a view to arriving at a solution acceptable to all concerned.
13.51 There is no information on the file regarding the solution reached, if any.
13.52 The Commission sought records from the Department of Education and any report which arose
out of an investigation of complaints into Mr Ashe during the 1980s, as no such records had been
furnished in discovery. The Department stated that these records were contained in a numbered
file but ‘the file cannot be located’. They added that ‘the earliest records of complaints held by this
Department regarding Mr Ashe relate to incidents in 1985’, but this file does not contain any
information as to the action taken by the Department. The Christian Brothers in their Submission
claimed that ‘management clearly sought’ to have Mr Ashe ‘removed from his employment but
this was not possible as the Patron of the school did not give his consent’.
13.53 Mr Ashe taught for over 20 years in the School. As to the circumstances in which he came to St
Joseph’s, a Board minute in the 1980s noted that he was taken on by Br Noyes and that ‘Later
he found out that he was unsatisfactory in two other schools although he was satisfactory for one
year in St Joseph’s’, which implies that references were not obtained prior to his engagement.
13.54 This case is disturbing, particularly the handling of it by the Department and the Archbishop. The
Department’s investigation file on this teacher is missing. There is no information available as to
the outcome of the Department’s investigation, or indeed if the Department even conducted an
investigation. Despite numerous complaints of physical abuse, Mr Ashe continued teaching in the
School for an additional 15 years. The decision of the Board of Management to dismiss him
was overridden by the Archbishop of Dublin, and the Department of Education, it seems, took
no action.
Allegations against Br Ames

13.55 It appears from correspondence in the early 1980s that Br Ames believed he and other school
staff were entitled to resort to physical chastisement when occasion required. In the course of a
reply to a parent’s letter complaining about physical abuse by another Brother, Br Ames admitted
hitting the boy himself for what he thought was good reason: ‘We must look at the case
realistically’. He said that the boy was ‘by no means an easy boy to manage’ and at times he
‘found it necessary to give him a good “clip” and I make no apology for this as I have been put to
the end of my tether with him’.
13.56 The unfortunate boy who was treated in this fashion by the staff fared no better with his fellow
pupils. The boy’s father complained again to Br Ames, some two years later, that his son was
being bullied by other boys in the School because of his religion, displaying acceptance of a
prejudice that should have been wholly unacceptable to the management of the School:
As [the boy] has been the only boarder of his religion; it is understandable that certain
pupils would give him a hard time. He has had his hair torn out by the root, his clothes
taken from his locker and his head battered against a wall necessitating us taking him to
[hospital] for a brain scan to ascertain any permanent damage to his skull.
13.57 It appears from the Visitation Reports that Br Ames was not very popular with the staff at the
School, but it is not apparent whether this had anything to do with his treatment of the boys. The
Visitor in the late 1980s said:
Brother Ames has made an enormous contribution to the development at Cabra. It is most
regrettable that relationships with the staff have broken down. I do not believe that he has
any adequate realisation of the impact of some of his behaviour on those for whom he is
responsible. For his own sake and that of others, he ought not to remain in Cabra.
13.58 Br Ames did in fact leave the School in the late 1980s. The Christian Brothers in their Submission
of 2006 said:
The fact of a manager being of a dour disposition does not of itself support the veracity
of any allegation of physical abuse made against him. Before being posted to Cabra, Br
Ames had been appointed as Manager in [an] Industrial School where he introduced many
changes and innovations.
Allegation against an Assistant House Parent, Mr O’Sullivan4
13.59 In the mid-1990s, a pupil made a number of allegations of physical abuse against his Assistant
House Parent, Mr O’Sullivan, who had worked in the School for many years. The allegations,
which were made to an Eastern Health Board social worker, were that Mr O’Sullivan hit him with
a fish slice, caught him under the chin and attempted to lift him off the ground, had kicked him
and twisted his arm. He also alleged that Mr O’Sullivan was rough with the boys, would twist their
arms and was cruel to the younger boys and had thrown a cup at a boy. The boy who made the
complaints had been resident in the School for a period of three years but, at the time of making
the allegations, was a day pupil.
13.60 The social worker informed the Director of Residential Care, Mr Gallagher,5 who requested that
the allegations be put in writing, which was duly done by letter. The Principal, Br Grissel,6 and Mr
Gallagher interviewed the boy who made the allegations and Mr O’Sullivan, who denied the
allegations. They decided to suspend Mr O’Sullivan on full pay, pending further investigation and
inquiries into the allegations. It was intended that he would be suspended for a period of one
week; however, this suspension continued for approximately one month. During the internal
investigation, six staff members and 13 boys were interviewed.
13.61 A meeting was held in which the findings of the internal investigation were revealed to Mr
O’Sullivan. The findings were: (1) Mr O’Sullivan was rough and cruel with the smaller boys; (2) he
shouted at them and twisted their arms; (3) several boys had witnessed him hitting the boy with
a fish slice; (4) he had a habit of grabbing children under the chin and lifting them up; and (5) he
had a habit of throwing cups at children expecting them to catch them during wash up. In addition,
Management was of the view that:
Generally there were certain underlying themes coming forward some in relation to
roughness with smaller boys and a kind of mocking, teasing attitude which in some cases
was seen as cruel.
13.62 Mr O’Sullivan was given two weeks to respond to these findings, and he was informed that a final
decision would then be taken. He responded by denying the allegations in a letter, and was
informed shortly afterwards that the Management had reached their final decision, which was to
transfer him to another residential house at the School. They also decided that he should be
psychologically assessed by a doctor from the Granada Institute in order to assess his suitability
as an Assistant House Parent. However, he was reinstated, despite the absence of a
psychological assessment. Four weeks later, Mr O’Sullivan had still not been psychologically
assessed, but arrangements were being put in place for that to be done. It is uncertain whether
he was ever psychologically assessed, as no such report was furnished in discovery.
Other incidents
13.63 In a Visitation Report from the mid-1950s, the Visitor commented that Br Mason7 had ‘on a few
occasions ... struck boys with his fist’. By the following year, Br Mason had ceased to be a member
of the Community at St Joseph’s but no reason is recorded for his departure.
13.64 In the mid-1960s, a report by an Inspector in the Department of Education observed that Br
Hamlin8 ‘... besides having very defective speech, was very cross with the boys and was hitting
them’. The Visitor the following year noted that Br Hamlin was ‘a bit hasty in his manner of dealing
with the boys but with some experience he should be able to control himself’. Br Hamlin remained
4
5
6
7
8

in the School until the early 1970s, when he was dispensed from his vows on the grounds that he
did not like teaching and was not happy at it.
13.65 Br Odil,9 who taught in the School during the 1990s, had been the subject of a complaint of
‘excessive punishment’ when he was teaching in another school in Dublin, which he left to attend
a course of studies for two years in university. However, no allegations were made against him
concerning his time at St Joseph’s.
13.66 A report by Dr Byrne,10 Consultant Psychiatrist, in the early 1970s on an eight-year-old boy from
St Joseph’s who had been referred to him for assessment, referred to comments made by a nurse
at St Joseph’s when she had attended with the boy. The report stated that:
She was able to control his behaviour by giving him work to do but has found that slapping
and isolation methods have not worked.
13.67 In the early 1980s the school Principal, Br Noyes, received what he regarded as ‘minor complaints’
from boys that a lay supervisor, Mr Lynch,11 ‘was too harsh, cross and slapped them’ and was very
strict. Mr Lynch was the subject of an allegation of sexual abuse, which resulted in his resignation.
13.68 A few years later, a parent wrote a letter of complaint to the Principal, Br Ames, alleging that Br
Seaton12 had punched his son in the stomach and slapped him around the face when he was
wearing his hearing aids. Br Ames wrote a very unsympathetic letter in response, stating that the
boy was ‘by no means an easy boy to manage’ and, as stated above, admitted that he had found
it necessary to give him a good ‘clip’ and made no apology for it. Br Ames also alleged that the
boy had been sedated in his former school, which was the reason he had had no problems there,
a fact denied by the boy’s father who had spoken with staff at that school. It would appear that
no action was taken against Br Seaton on foot of these allegations.
13.69 Br Seymour,13 who taught in the School from the late 1950s to the mid-1970s, was the subject of
an allegation of physical abuse when he was teaching in another school in the late 1980s. A pupil
there alleged that Br Seymour had hit him on the back of the head, which caused his head to
shoot forward and his mouth to hit the desk, thus damaging his teeth. Legal proceedings were
instituted and the matter was settled without admission of liability. Br Seymour was transferred to
a school in Galway following this allegation.
13.70 In the mid-1990s, a number of the boys stated that their House Parent, Mr Moore14 was rough
and cruel and slapped them. These allegations were made in the course of an investigation into
allegations of sexual abuse against Mr Moore.

13.71 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
9
10
11
12
13
14

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.
Sexual abuse
Attitude of the Christian Brothers
13.72 The Christian Brothers in their Submission dated October 2006 acknowledged that individual
Brothers had sexually abused boys in their care, but argued that there was ‘no evidence that it
was a systemic phenomenon’. They defended the manner in which the Congregation dealt with
such allegations, saying that there was no cover up and that:
Each incident was investigated thoroughly as soon as it came to the attention of the
relevant authorities, and action was promptly taken. There was no cover up.
13.73 They admitted that their approach to allegations of sexual abuse at the time was ‘seriously
inadequate’, but added that this arose ‘through lack of awareness or knowledge rather than
through neglect’. They cited the lack of clinical research into child abuse and the recidivist nature
of such abuse in support of their approach. They submitted that there was little or no
understanding or regard given to the effect of such abuse on the child concerned. Sexual abuse,
they argued, was seen as a moral failing on the part of the Brother in question, and this and ‘the
danger of scandal arising out of that moral failure were seen as the primary matters to be
addressed when a case of child sexual abuse presented itself’.
13.74 They also conceded that complaints of sexual abuse were not reported to the Gardaı́. This they
justified on the basis that at the time ‘an incident of sexual abuse was considered more of a failure
in morality than a criminal act and therefore the idea of reporting to the Garda was not considered
to be usual practice’.
13.75 The Christian Brothers referred in detail to the documented complaints of sexual abuse against
various Brothers. Based on these cases, they asserted that the Congregation of Christian Brothers
‘sought to protect children who were under their care. As soon as an allegation or incident of
abuse came to their notice, the authorities took action’.

Documented cases of sexual abuse by staff
Allegations against a care worker, Mr Moore

13.76 In the early 1990s, a pupil, Brian15 complained to a pastoral care teacher, Sr Clarke16 about his
House Parent Mr Moore, who was in charge of one of the residential homes at St Joseph’s Cabra.
Brian also complained to Mr Hogan,17 Assistant House Parent, that Mr Moore showed ‘blue
movies’ to the boys, and was constantly engaging in sex talk. Mr Hogan noted these complaints
and reported them to Mr Gallagher, Director of Residential Care.
13.77 Later that year, Brian described how he had gone into his Mr Moore’s room in one of the residential
houses, and discovered him engaged in sexual activity with another of the boys, Fergal,18 who
was in his teens.
13.78 Brian reported this incident to the same staff member he had spoken to earlier that year, Sr Clarke
The following morning, she reported the allegation to the Principal Br Grissel. That afternoon, she
met with both Br Grissel and the Director of Residential Care, Mr Gallagher, and repeated the
allegations to them. She also set out the allegations in a report. That day, Br Grissel and Mr
Gallagher interviewed Fergal. A member of staff acted as interpreter during the interview. During
this interview, Fergal outlined the events of the night, and confirmed Brian’s account.
13.79 Br Grissel and Mr Gallagher held two meetings with Mr Moore, who denied the allegations. He
was suspended on full pay, pending the outcome of an investigation.
13.80 Br Grissel and Mr Gallagher met two Eastern Health Board workers at their offices the following
day and briefed them on the situation. Over a week later, Br Grissel had a meeting with a social
worker from the Eastern Health Board to discuss informing the boy’s parents, contacting the
Gardaı́ and setting up an internal inquiry. Br Grissel then contacted the School’s solicitor.
13.81 Br Grissel informed Fergal’s parents who were very anxious and were particularly worried about
the possibility of AIDS. It was stressed to them that what took place ‘was of a masturbatory
nature’.
13.82 Fergal was assessed two months later by a team from the St Clare’s Unit, an assessment unit
attached to Temple Street Children’s Hospital. It was concluded that he had been abused in the
manner he described.
13.83 Brian, who had witnessed the incident, was also seen by the assessment team. He informed them
that Mr Moore had shown him on many occasions how to masturbate, and he named two other
boys who had been similarly instructed. He also informed the team that Mr Moore used to show
adult-blue movies to the boys. A case conference took place between the St Clare’s team,
members of the Eastern Health Board and Br Grissel, where it was decided that an initial screening
process should be undertaken of all children in both residential houses where Mr Moore had
worked. In addition, staff of St Joseph’s were to be informed of the situation, and the parents of
the boys named were to be contacted with a view to having their children assessed.
13.84 Arrangements were for the screening and assessment of pupils at St Joseph’s who it was felt
could have been the subject of sexual abuse by Mr Moore. This was a slow and lengthy process.
At the same time, the Eastern Health Board conducted an inquiry into the allegations, and a Garda
15
16
17
18

investigation was also underway which continued early into the next year. Approximately two
months after the investigations commenced, Mr Moore was dismissed from his employment.
13.85 There was a delay in actually commencing the screening process of past and present pupils at
St Joseph’s, which was to be conducted by the social workers of the Eastern Health Board
together with a member of staff at Cabra. The St Clare’s team had stressed the need to begin the
screening process quickly. However, the minutes of a case conference held following the dismissal
of Mr Moore noted that the screening process had not begun and parents had not even been
informed at that stage, some five months after the initial complaint of sexual abuse had been
made. The screening process began shortly after this case conference. Initially, 17 boys were
screened. However, further screenings took place and were expanded to include past and present
pupils of the School, which resulted in 70 boys being screened.
13.86 There were communication problems and poor organisation. There was a lack of co-operation
between the Eastern Health Board, the Gardaı́, St Clare’s and the authorities at Cabra. At one
point, criticisms were levelled against the management of Cabra by the Eastern Health Board on
these grounds. It was stated that the senior social worker and his assistant and the St Clare’s
Unit were ‘not getting full co-operation from St Joseph’s, Cabra, especially from the Principal’.
This was challenged by the Congregation at a subsequent meeting, and it was acknowledged that
there had been co-operation from management, but that there had been difficulties and differences
of opinion. It was raised at a meeting that there had been a lack of communication with the parents
and the setting-up of an independent inquiry was discussed. Some parents were upset by the
delays in informing them and there was a lack of clarity as to who should inform them. The issue
of peer abuse and its prevalence in the School was raised and it was stated that ‘there was
evidence of a kind of culture of abuse having developed in St Joseph’s among the boys
themselves’ which had to be dealt with. Br Grissel wrote a letter defending his actions in the
handling of the investigation, stating that there had been full co-operation from him and his staff.
13.87 The case was reported in the media and the investigations then took on a more urgent role; two
teams worked in tandem at St Clare’s to assess the boys, extra staff were involved at St Joseph’s
in carrying out the screening process, and extra Gardaı́ were recruited to assist in conducting the
interviews with staff and pupils of the School. A treatment programme was also devised by the
Eastern Health Board for pupils affected. Staff training was also mooted and there was counselling
for staff affected by the issues. A total of 11 case conferences were held over a 12-month period.
Allegations against Br Farber19

13.88 In the course of the investigation into Mr Moore, allegations were made against a Christian
Brother, Br Farber, who had been on the staff of Cabra since the late 1950s, by one of the boys
who had been assessed. Allegations were also made by an ex-pupil who wished to remain
anonymous.
13.89 Sr Clarke reported that she had met with the past pupil who was prepared to ‘come forward in
relation to allegations against Br Farber’. In the report of the Health Board, two allegations of
sexual abuse were recorded against Br Farber. Br Farber did not return to Cabra.
13.90 Given that the allegations against Br Farber arose in the course of the investigation into Mr Moore,
it seems extraordinary that no similar investigation was conducted into Br Farber by either the
Congregation or the State agencies.
19

13.91 In 1994, the Christian Brothers commissioned a review of the management structures, care
practices, care programmes, administrative practices, staff selection, training, deployment,
supervision and liaison with teaching staff and parents. An interim report was issued followed this
review. One of the issues identified in the report was the lack of reporting and communication
structure between teachers in the School and the care staff of the residential units regarding each
child. Problems were also noted in communicating information to parents. It was recommended
that the Director of Residential Care should be the conduit for liaising and communicating
information regarding children. The report said that there was a lack of information about children
on admission to the School. It was also recommended that care staff should have professional
qualifications, which was something that had previously been recommended in a 1977 report by
the Department of Education on the Education of Physically Handicapped Children. The
unsuitability of mixing younger children with older children in residences was also raised. Other
recommendations included staff training programmes, care programmes geared towards the
particular needs of younger children, and staff counselling. The issue of sexual abuse was not
addressed in this report.
Reports of the Eastern Health Board

13.92 A few months later, the Eastern Health Board produced two reports. The first dealt with complaints
about staff at the School, and the second with observations on the management and operation of
the residential units. The first report catalogued complaints against members of staff that came to
light during the course of the investigation, but it did not come to any findings. The second report
identified three main issues of concern: (1) matters of sexuality; (2) communication; and (3) child
care issues. With regard to matters of sexuality, the Health Board identified that there was a lack
of a clear policy in this area, which they felt could ‘only have contributed to the likelihood of sexual
abuse occurring in the units’. This was stated, in particular, with regard to sexual abuse amongst
the boys. The report noted that there was a ‘sexualised culture within the school in general’ which
they felt could only ‘be shifted by radical and ongoing management and training’. They concluded
that institutional abuse had occurred in the School.
13.93 The report found that there was a ‘tendency to discredit complainants by, for example, alluding to
their personal characteristics or family history’ and continued:
Even at the highest level there does not seem to be the skills, or the inclination, to suspend
judgement, or even to think it possible that the complainants might be telling the truth. A
protocol is required whereby guidelines can be followed in a standard way, regardless of
the opinions of the staff, or their line management.
13.94 The report pointed out the need for sex education and that a modified version of the ‘Stay Safe
Programme’ was also needed. Moreover:
As is obvious to everyone by now a guideline for identifying and reporting sexual abuse
needs to be implemented and should include the teaching as well as care staff.
13.95 The investigators commented that the School was a ‘total institution’, in that it was self-sufficient
and divorced from its immediate community, but suggested that much could be done to integrate
pupils with the local community. The residential units were completely independent of each other,
with no sense of integration between them, which resulted in a ‘hierarchy of deafness where one
house can feel superior to another house in which the level of disability may not be equal’.
13.96 An added complication with the pupils was that some of them, in addition to being deaf, were also
mentally handicapped. The report recognised this as an issue and felt that ‘consideration also
needs to be given to the separation of “deafness” from “mental handicapped”’.

13.97 The report found communication with parents was poor and liaison with them slow and incomplete.
Communication between childcare staff and the Director of Care was also unsatisfactory, because
it was ‘formalised on an administrative, rather than a professional basis for instance, rosters, leave
etc. will be organised efficiently but there is little evidence of professional supervision or
professional accountability’. A problem with communication between management and staff was
noted, and staff complained of being ‘kept in the dark’. Lack of communication between one shift
of staff and another was found. The relationship between the residential and teaching staff was
poor. The Eastern Health Board felt that a formal liaison system needed to be established between
both staff groups to discuss matters of mutual concern.
13.98 Another disturbing problem of poor communication was the high number of staff members,
including those at management level, who did not have sign language. The report commented ‘it
seems incredible that so few members of staff can use the language of their clients. There ought
to be an in-service training programme for staff’. Even senior management did not have training
in sign language and needed to use interpreters.
13.99 As to childcare generally, the report found that the residential units were very institutional in
character, where staff were referred to as supervisors and there was a lack of trust on the part of
the boys. The boys perceived the system in the School as unresponsive. There were examples
of boys going to senior staff and feeling dismissed. Each unit operated completely independently
in terms of discipline, and there was a need for a co-ordinated and harmonised system throughout
the School.
13.100 It is significant that the review commissioned by the Congregation of management structures and
care practices in Cabra failed to address the urgent issue of sexual abuse and sexualised
behaviour of children in the School. The Christian Brothers review was conducted during a period
of intense investigation, by both the Gardaı́ and Health Board, of the activities of at least one care
worker in the School, which in turn led to the uncovering of a high level of sexual abuse and
sexual activity amongst the boys. The Health Board review considered this to be the most
important problem facing the Institution. The Health Board blamed a failure on the part of
management to ‘suspend judgement’ and even allow for the possibility that complainants could
be telling the truth. The failure of the Congregation to address the issue at all would indicate that
the Health Board assessment was correct.
Conclusions
13.101 • In a climate of scepticism and undermining of complainants, sexual abuse will remain
undetected. Children were not encouraged to make complaints, and those who did
were not dealt with properly. It could not be claimed that there was a lack of
understanding of the seriousness of this abuse on the subsequent development of
victims or that the matter was seen as simply a moral issue.
• The allegations against Mr Moore and subsequent investigations highlight numerous
problems at that time in the area of reporting and investigating child sexual abuse
allegations.
• When a pupil made a complaint to a staff member about the sexualised behaviour of
his House Parent, no action was taken. Steps were only taken when another boy
reported an actual incident of sexual abuse that he had witnessed.
• This case demonstrates failings in communication and co-operation between the
various State agencies. When all official bodies had eventually been notified, there
was further confusion and delay in dealing with the complaint.
• There was delay in notifying the parents of the boy who was assaulted and of the boys
who were screened.
• Staff at St Joseph’s were not properly informed.
• The serious extent of the abuse perpetrated by Mr Moore only came to light when a
full investigation was conducted. In the past, Congregations handled allegations by
dealing with perpetrators without ascertaining the extent or prevalence of their abuse.
When an investigation screened possible victims of abuse, as in this case, it revealed
a level of sexual abuse by this man that should have caused deep concern for the
system of care in operation. This case has implications for all the allegations of sexual
abuse that were so inadequately dealt with over the years.
Allegation against Br Boucher20

13.102 In the mid-1980s, an allegation of sexual abuse was made against Br Boucher, who had worked
in the School from the early 1980s. The allegation was made separately to a care worker and to
a teacher by a pupil. These two staff members reported the matter to the school Principal, Br
Ames, who in turn informed the Provincial, Br Sandler.21 The pupil told the care worker, Mr
Kennedy,22 that Br Boucher had fondled his genitals.
13.103 The Provincial interviewed the two staff members and Br Ames concerning the allegations. The
care worker, Mr Kennedy, stated that he regularly saw Br Boucher go into the boy’s room at
night, and vice versa, when the Brother would give the boy biscuits and sweets. The teacher, Ms
O’Connor,23 reported that the pupil had told her in class that this Brother had power over him and
‘made him do things of a sexual nature which he did not want to do’.
13.104 The Provincial, Br Sandler, held separate meetings with Mr Kennedy, Ms O’Connor and Br Ames.
Br Sandler also interviewed Br Boucher, who denied the allegations and appeared confused and
unable to recall details. Br Boucher then went on his summer holidays, during which time he was
taken seriously ill and was transferred to a nursing home. No further action was taken despite
other meetings being held with the Brother. He applied for a dispensation, which was granted
approximately two years later.
13.105 Six months after the reporting of the alleged abuse, it was decided by the school authorities that
the boy should be sent to a psychiatrist, Dr Byrne, for counselling. A few weeks later, the school
authorities received legal advice regarding the setting-up of an internal inquiry to investigate the
allegations. It was mooted that Dr Byrne should head up this inquiry, but he declined to do so on
the basis that he had a conflict of interest. Dr Byrne had had two counselling sessions with the
boy and he felt that it was not necessary for him to see the boy again.
13.106 Br Sandler informed Dr Byrne that progress had been made in establishing a small committee of
inquiry. However, no inquiry took place and no reasons were given for not proceeding with it.
13.107 The Christian Brothers in their Submission claimed that ‘following this allegation immediate steps
were taken to undertake a full and formal investigation by outside experts in this matter’. The
documents revealed that this was not the case. Contrary to what the Brothers say, ‘immediate
steps’ were not taken to undertake ‘a full and formal investigation by outside experts’. Six months
elapsed before the idea of convening a small committee of inquiry was even mooted. It was then
decided not to proceed with the inquiry without any clear reasons given. No decisive action was
taken regarding the setting-up of an inquiry, as a letter stated ‘things were in an “on-off” situation
for a long time’. It may have been due to the fact that Dr Byrne felt that the boy had improved and
there was no need to pursue the matter further. The Christian Brothers in their Submission stated
that ‘the investigation did not proceed because of the lack of any further information’.
20
21
22
23

13.108 The proper course would have been to report the matter to the Gardaı́ and to co-operate fully with
the Garda investigation. The school authorities did not report the matter to the Gardaı́ at the time.
The Christian Brothers defended their actions on the basis that the complaint was unclear:
The reason why the Gardaı́ were not informed of the nature of [the person’s] complaint
of [Br Boucher] allegedly interfering with him was because the complaint was not very
clear and we were waiting on clarity.
13.109 The allegation did not lack clarity. It was alleged that Br Boucher had fondled the boy’s private
parts, and this was plainly a matter for the Gardaı́ to pursue.
13.110 There is no evidence that any attempt was made to identify other children who might have been
victims of this Brother, or to establish the extent of his activities.
13.111 Allegations against this Brother arose again in the course of the Garda and Health Board
investigations that had been triggered by the Moore affair. At that time, an investigation by the
State agencies could have taken place but there is no record of this occurring. Neither is there
any evidence of an investigation on the part of the Congregation. As in the case of Br Farber, it
is inexplicable that this matter was not fully investigated, given the amount of information that
emerged in the Mr Moore investigation.
Allegation against a staff supervisor, Mr Lynch24

13.112 In the early 1980s, the school Principal, Br Noyes, was informed of an allegation that staff
supervisor, Mr Lynch, sexually abused a boy in the School The boy complained to Br Ramond25
that Mr Lynch, while on night duty, had shown ‘dirty books’ to him and had abused him. Br Ramond
reported the matter to Br Noyes, the Principal.
13.113 Br Noyes interviewed the boy and six other boys who slept near him in the dormitory. Some of
them verified what the boy had alleged, but others claimed it was a conspiracy against Mr Lynch,
as he was supposed to be very strict. Br Noyes then interviewed Mr Lynch, who was ‘completely
astonished’ and denied the allegation and ‘claimed that it was part of the ongoing conspiracy to
have him fired’. However, later on the same day, Mr Lynch tendered his resignation to Br Noyes,
as he felt that his name would be ruined if some boys and staff believed the allegation. Br Noyes
accepted his resignation, and Mr Lynch left the School later that evening. In a document recording
the resignation, Br Noyes stated that he could not locate any file or background information on
Mr Lynch.
13.114 In this instance, the school authorities acted swiftly when an allegation of sexual abuse was made.
That was considered to be the end of the matter. There was no review of recruitment procedures,
despite the fact that no background information was found regarding this person, there was no
internal review of procedures in the School, nor any meetings or guidelines issued. It might have
been considered a satisfactory outcome that the staff member accused of abuse had resigned
and left the Institution, but it was not proper practice. There was no attempt to resolve the issue
of whether the man committed sexual abuse or not. The Gardaı́ were not informed, so there was
no criminal investigation. The employee was able to seek work with children in a different facility.
If he was innocent, he deserved to be cleared. If guilty, he should have been the subject of Garda
inquiries and possible prosecution. Leaving the matter unresolved once the man resigned was the
easy but irresponsible option.
24
25

Other cases
13.115 In the mid-1980s, an ex-pupil who had left St Joseph’s in 1961 told Br Sumner26 that he had been
sexually abused by three Brothers and a priest whilst at the School. The allegations were disclosed
to Br Sumner when he went to visit this ex-pupil in jail, where he was waiting to stand trial on
charges of incest. In an internal memorandum, the three Brothers were identified only by their
initials. The Christian Brothers have suggested that the three Brothers could be Br Dax,27 Br
Sydney28 and either Br Alain29 or Br Philippe.30 The priest in question was Fr O’Neill.31 The
memorandum also stated that this was the first time that allegations of this nature were made
against two of the Brothers. The documents do not indicate what further action was taken on foot
of these allegations, and it would appear that nothing further occurred. With regard to one of the
Brothers, whom the Christian Brothers say could be Br Alain, it is clear from the Visitation Reports
in the 1970s that it was well known within the Community that he had a drink problem. This
Brother spent over 20 years in the School.
13.116 A Br Baron32 was a source of concern to the Congregation. There is no actual allegation of sexual
abuse against him and none in relation to his time in Cabra. However, Br Baron, who was
stationed in another school in the mid-1950s, wrote to the Provincial seeking a transfer on health
grounds. He considered himself a misfit in the School and that at no other period had he had ‘so
many temptations’ against his vocation. His request was acceded to, and he was transferred to a
school in Dublin, and two years later to Cabra. There is no explanation for his transfer to Cabra.
While he was in Cabra, the school chaplain, Fr Doyle,33 wrote to the Provincial, informing him that
he had advised Br Baron to seek ‘a change away from residential boys’. Br Baron had told Fr Doyle
that this had been suggested to him before. Fr Doyle emphasised in his letter to the Provincial that
he felt that a change on conscientious grounds was a necessity and the Provincial agreed to the
request and he was immediately transferred out of Cabra to a day school in Dublin.
13.117 In the early 1960s, Br Baron applied for a dispensation. In a letter to the Provincial, he stated that
he had his ‘old troubles’ again. It is clear from the correspondence at this time that the Christian
Brothers were very keen to have him removed from the Congregation. The Provincial wrote to the
Superior of Cabra and said that ‘one thing is certain we could not employ him in school again’.
The Provincial was anxious to be rid of Br Baron quickly, with as little contact as possible with the
Congregation. He asked the Superior to arrange for Br Baron to travel to Dublin, where another
Brother would meet him at Clerys in order to provide him with a set of clothes and £30 in cash.
The Provincial wrote: ‘Let him arrive in Dublin in time so that it will not be necessary for him to
spend a night in a Brothers’ House but if he has to well and good’. He added that he had sent Br
Baron a reference and stated ‘I hope I have now covered all points in this ugly matter’. Br Baron
was dispensed from his vows two years after his departure from Cabra.
13.118 Allegations of sexual abuse in St Joseph’s were made against two Brothers who committed sexual
abuse in other institutions. Both served in Letterfrack Industrial School, and one also served in
Artane Industrial School. In a case of documented abuse, Br Dax was sent from Cabra to
Letterfrack, where he abused numerous boys in a long career of sexual misconduct, but he denied
abuse in Cabra. Br Dax pleaded guilty to sample charges of indecent assault and buggery of boys
in Letterfrack and was sentenced to terms of imprisonment. As for Br Adrien,34 the Superior of
Letterfrack had previously appealed to have him moved in circumstances that clearly implied that
26
27
29
29
30
31
32
33
34

he was sexually abusing boys. He was sent to Cabra for two years, which demonstrated complete
indifference to the risk he posed to children there.

13.119 1. There was a lack of follow-up by staff to whom complaints were made. There were no
clear reporting systems or guidelines once an allegation of abuse was made.
2. Brothers who were the subject of complaints in the course of the Moore investigation
were not investigated by the State agencies or the Congregation.
3. There was delay by management in informing the parents of children who had
allegedly been sexually abused.
4. Sexual abuse was not reported to the Gardaı́ until the 1990s.
5. As late as 1986, when Br Boucher was under suspicion, no proper inquiry took place.
6. Management at the School paid no heed to the early indicators of abuse, particularly
with regard to boys who were highly sexualised with each other.
7. Br Baron was clearly unsuitable for work with young boys. He was granted a
dispensation and given a reference to facilitate future employment. This showed
disregard for the safety of children and prioritising of the interests of the
Congregation.
8. There was a failure on the part of management to recognise that children with special
needs demanded a high standard of care, and that all staff needed to be informed and
trained appropriately.
Peer sexual abuse
Documented cases
Eastern Health Board

13.120 One of the Eastern Health Board reports made a very serious finding against the management in
Cabra. It stated that:
There is a history of staff ambivalence regarding what might be considered normal or
abnormal sexual interaction between the boys. For example, some boys who abused
other boys were suspended or expelled. Others remained in the same unit as their victim.
A lack of clear policy in this area can only have contributed to the likelihood of sexual
abuse occurring in the units.
13.121 The report concluded that the information about sexual abuse in the form of direct allegations,
stories and rumours ‘all add up to produce a sexualised culture within the School in general. Such
a culture can only be shifted by radical and ongoing management and training’.
13.122 The report faulted the school management for a number of failures. They were slow about
informing parents when children were involved in sexual activity, and the information they gave
was inadequate. They misinterpreted incidents between boys and singled out individuals in cases
where they should have identified patterns of group behaviour. They were insensitive: ‘there have
been examples of quite a judgmental approach to boys who were acting out sexually due to having
been abused themselves in the centre’.
13.123 The report also found that there ‘is a tendency to discredit complainants by, for example, alluding
to their personal characteristics or family history. Even at the highest level there does not seem
to be the skills, or the inclination, to suspend judgement, or even to think it possible that the
complainants might be telling the truth. A protocol is required whereby guidelines can be followed
in a standard way, regardless of the opinions of the staff, or their line management’.
General comment
13.124 The documented cases of sexual activity between boys afford confirmation of some of these
points. The information in the records is often vague as to the conduct of the boys and fails to
distinguish between different categories of prohibited behaviour. In particular, the records do not
distinguish between consensual activity engaged in by boys of equivalent status, and peer abuse
consisting of predatory behaviour perpetrated by stronger and usually older boys on vulnerable
and usually younger boys.
13.125 Despite the fact that these cases came repeatedly to the attention of the school management,
they were dealt with individually and there was no appreciation that they were part of a pattern of
behaviour or of an issue that should be approached on a more general level. It was necessary for
the School to deal with individual offenders, but they did not address the issue as a problem for
the management of the school, despite the large number of cases that they had to deal with. The
records document cases going back to the 1970s and, for the reasons identified in the Eastern
Health Board Report, there may have been many other cases of that kind. Nevertheless, the
management never devised a policy for dealing with the issue, by way of education of the boys
or of the teachers or of the care staff.
Mid-1980s
13.126 In the mid-1980s, a 16-year-old pupil was a cause of concern to the school authorities and he
was referred to Dr Byrne because of his ‘anti-social behaviour, which has included outbursts of
temper and violence, and more important, because of attacks of a homo-sexual nature on peers’.
Dr Byrne advised that his behaviour should be monitored daily. Some months later, the boy was
involved in a ‘homosexual/assault episode’ and he was again referred to Dr Byrne, who advised
Br Ames not to let the boy return to School until he ‘had satisfied himself that he posed no
homosexual risk to the school population’. But it is not clear how the Brother was to achieve this
state of knowledge.
13.127 In a separate incident, a staff member, Mr Williams,35 saw an older boy holding the hand of a
younger boy and bringing him into a dark room. He followed them and found the two boys in a
corner of the room with the lights off. When questioned by school management, it transpired that
the older boy had attempted to sexually assault the other boy. He had asked him to pull down his
trousers and, when the boy refused, he then ‘rubbed his penis up and down his backside’ while
both were fully clothed.
13.128 The parents of the older boy were notified immediately by telephone of the incident by the
Superior, Br Porteur.36 The following day, Br Porteur wrote to the boy’s parents telling them that
their son needed help and, until he was willing to accept such help, he was suspended. The boy
was allowed to return to school once he agreed he had a problem and required help. His mother
was of the view that he needed to see a priest. The school management agreed to offer him
assistance with his problem, but from the file it does not appear that this boy was referred to Dr
Byrne for assessment. Management was aware of this boy’s ‘deviant behaviour’ in the mid-1980s.
13.129 The parents of the younger boy were not informed of the incident. The victim in this case also
features in other recorded episodes, in one as the alleged victim in the early 1990s, and in another
case as the perpetrator of abuse.
35
36

Early 1970s to late 1980s
13.130 The mother of a boy, who had been resident in St Joseph’s from the early 1970s to the early
1980s, contacted a Bishop in the late 1980s to complain about sexual abuse that her son had
suffered in the School. She subsequently met the Provincial, Br Sandler, and informed him that
the sexual abuse by older boys had begun shortly after her son’s arrival in St Joseph’s. She said
that he had reported the abuse and that the offenders were expelled. But some of them were re-
admitted and they again sexually abused him, until he left the School. The boy attempted suicide
in the late 1980s, which resulted in him attending a psychiatrist, and that is how details of the
abuse came to light. Br Sandler assured the woman that the matter would be investigated and he
would report back to her. From the file furnished, no action appears to have been taken by Br
Sandler, nor are there any documents concerning the abuse that led to the boys’ being expelled
in the early 1970s.
Late 1980s
13.131 In the late 1980s, an Assistant House Parent, Mr Smith,37 found that a boy was upset and ‘had
problems’, and had written down details of many instances of sexual abuse perpetrated on him
by boys in his class over a period of seven years, including fondling, masturbation, anal
penetration and oral sex. Mr Smith informed the Principal, Br Grissel, of the allegations, and the
Principal with another teacher spoke to the boy and decided to allow him home early due to his
agitated state.
13.132 The Principal, Br Grissel, and the Superior, Br Sumner, visited the boy’s mother at her home.
They had been advised by Dr Byrne to inform her of the sexual abuse of her son and the urgent
need for counselling and therapy. The mother’s response was that the family doctor was a lady
and she would seek her advice. She also informed them that she was taking her son out of the
School because she did not feel he had the ability to pass the Leaving Certificate. There is no
record of any follow-up in the School by way of internal investigation, and the matter appears to
have been considered closed once the boy was gone.
Early 1990s
13.133 During an investigation in the early 1990s, it was discovered that two boys were forcing another
boy to engage in sexual acts with them. The victim, at the request of his mother, was transferred
to another residential unit. When the mother spoke to her son, the full details emerged that there
were five boys sexually bullying him over the course of the year. The two boys who perpetrated
the sexual abuse were suspended from the School, but one was allowed to return to school to
complete his studies.
13.134 A letter dated one year later reveals the dissatisfaction felt by the father of the boy who was the
victim of Fergal’s predatory behaviour. He complained that he was given inconsistent information
whether such incidents had happened. In relation to the particular episode involving his son, the
father stated that he and his wife:
would in the ordinary way be upset and sad that such a thing should happen, but if it were
an isolated incident which was then handled appropriately, we would accept that it is
impossible to guard completely against such a thing. In this case, however, it appears on
the information available at present to have been part of a series of events which should
have put you on guard to take appropriate precautions ...
13.135 He expressed surprise that there was not an immediate investigation of the incident, and was
unable to understand why he and his wife had not been immediately informed. He went on to
protest that ‘no apparent effort was made to assess and monitor in a professional way the impact
37

of the incident on [his son]’. He said that failure to take action to prevent a re-occurrence ‘appears
totally irresponsible’.
13.136 The father questioned the adequacy of arrangements to protect other boys in St Joseph’s, and
wondered if there was a sex education programme in existence. Although he had been impressed
by the calibre of the staff that he had met, he nevertheless could not ‘understand why there is not
a specific course of instruction in sign language for them’. Neither was there any professional
counselling service available which would be accessible to boys using sign language.
13.137 The boy’s father protested that the Principal of the School had neglected the matter totally and
for so long, and that his concern at that stage one year on ‘appeared to be to minimise the
significance of what happened and the shortcomings’ which he had described. He found Br
Grissel’s suggestion that what the boy was doing with his son might be described as ‘horseplay’
to be offensive and ridiculous, and thought that attempted rape would be more appropriate. The
writer went on to claim that the way this and other similar events had been handled was unfair to
the boys engaged in predatory behaviour as well as to their victims.
13.138 The letter as a whole constituted a major list of serious failings on the part of the Institution and
its management, and it called for a considered and comprehensive response. There is a dearth
of documented material relating to the case in question.
13.139 The discovery of two nine-year-old boys in bed together, engaged in sexual activity in the early
1990s, gave rise to concern about the ringleader because his interest in and knowledge of sex
was beyond that of a nine-year-old boy. However, although the sexualised behaviour was
suspicious, no investigation into practices in the house where the boy was living was carried out.
13.140 A note on the file about this incident makes the following observation:
Mr Moore the Senior Houseparent submitted a document to Mr Gallagher which in
hindsight we now realise that he was covering up some kind of inappropriate activity.
13.141 The only action by the school management was to decide that staff would monitor the situation
closely. The parents of the boys were notified six weeks after the incident had taken place. Both
boys, during the screening process which came about as a result of the mid-1990s investigation
were referred for assessment to the St Clare’s unit. The boy who was the instigator in this incident
was himself the victim of abuse in another case, which may alone or with other episodes have
accounted for his sexualised behaviour at such a young age. The case is another illustration of
the cycle of abuse that sometimes occurred, whereby a victim copied what had happened to him
by doing it to another child.
Peer abuse notified to St Clare’s Unit

13.142 During the investigation of the mid-1990s by the Eastern Health Board into allegations against the
care worker, Mr Moore, many allegations of peer sexual abuse came to the attention of the
assessment team in St Clare’s. The extent of the abuse uncovered by this investigation was
alarming. Although some of the cases could have been regarded as sexual activity between boys
of a similar age, much of what was disclosed involved predatory sexual abuse of older boys on
younger boys. In one case, a child as young as nine was involved with a much older boy, who
had himself been abused by the care worker, Mr Moore.
13.143 Over 20 boys were interviewed, and many had either direct or indirect experience of sexual abuse
by other boys. In some cases, the boy interviewed named multiple offenders, up to five boys in
one case.
13.144 The allegations ranged from lewd conversations to masturbation and anal rape.
13.145 The Health Board’s conclusions on peer abuse in Cabra have been outlined above, and it was
uncompromising in its criticism of management in Cabra for its failure to address this issue.
Conclusions on peer abuse

13.146 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.
General conclusions
13.147 1. St Joseph’s School for Deaf Boys in Cabra was a well-equipped school that promised
the best possible care and education to boys who were deaf or who had hearing
difficulties.
2. Cabra did not deliver on its promises. It failed to provide a safe or secure environment
for the children it purported to protect. It operated a system of corporal punishment
that was excessive and capricious and reliant on the discretion of individual teachers.
Some of these teachers were harsh and cruel towards the boys, and there was no
mechanism for addressing complaints. Children were fearful and helpless in the face
of management failure to put controls in place.
3. The management in Cabra failed to protect children from sexual abuse by staff. When
complaints were made, they were not believed or ignored or dealt with inadequately.
The level and extent of abuse perpetrated by one lay worker, as late as the 1990s, was
an indication of the lack of any proper safeguards.
4. Cabra offered little protection to younger boys from sexual abuse by older boys. The
level of peer abuse uncovered by the Health Board investigation in the mid-1990s was
disturbing. The investigation also revealed a pattern of physical and emotional bullying
that made Cabra a very frightening place for children who were learning to overcome
hearing difficulties.
5. In caring for children, the provision of good facilities is no substitute for an
environment that protects and cherishes the individual child. Swimming pools and
recreation halls are of little value if children are frightened, bullied and abused. Many
of the problems in Cabra could have been alleviated by a change in attitude towards
the children. Although professional training would have undoubtedly helped, a truly
self-critical approach by management that was not defensive in the face of criticism
would have brought about many of the necessary changes.

Chapter 14
John Brander1
Introduction
14.01 This is the account of a teacher whose sexual and physical abuse of children over a period of
more than 40 years came to the attention of many different persons in authority. This abuse
consisted of the sexual abuse of young boys and the excessive corporal punishment and
emotionally degrading treatment of both girls and boys in his classes. Despite being repeatedly
removed from schools because of sexual abuse of children under his care, he was able to secure
new positions, often at a senior level, in different schools in a pattern which continued until his
retirement.
14.02 Firstly, the importance of this career of abuse is that it happened. Secondly, Mr Brander was able
to continue teaching despite complaints to school authorities and subsequent investigations.
Thirdly, his conduct was also known to other persons and agencies including the parish priest
who was the manager of one school, the bishop of the diocese in which that school was located
and the Department of Education. Yet another important element is the manner in which reports
about the teacher were handled by the Department of Education. The elements of the events
discussed here include: the teacher’s career of abuse; how the various school authorities
responded to complaints about him; the other agencies that were notified or had knowledge of
the abuse; the conduct of the Department of Education and its officials; and the contrast between
theory and practice in official handling of complaints.
14.03 In the mid-1990s, Mr Brander, a former Christian Brother and teacher, was fined and placed on
probation for the sexual assault of a boy to whom he had been giving private tuition. Almost two
years after this trial, he pleaded guilty to numerous sample charges of indecent assault
perpetrated at one particular national school, Naomh Mhuire NS, Walsh Island, Co Offaly during
the 1960s. In the period between conviction and sentencing, more individuals came forward to
recount their own experiences of being assaulted by Mr Brander. In sentencing him to a term of
imprisonment, the court took into account further assaults perpetrated while he was teaching at a
secondary school Presentation Convent Castlecomer Co Kilkenny. Following a third trial, Mr
Brander received a further conviction in respect of the abuse of another pupil at in the same
school.
Early career/Christian Brothers

14.04 Having joined the Congregation of Christian Brothers in the 1930s, Mr Brander began his teaching
career in the Christian Brothers, primary school St Mary’s CBS Marino in Dublin in the early 1940s.
From then until the late 1950s, when he sought and was granted a dispensation from his vows,
he taught in three more Christian Brothers schools, Mullingar CBS Co Westmeath, St Michael’s
CBS Inchicore Dublin and James’s Street CBS Dublin. In that period, the records reveal that he
came to the attention of his superiors on account of sexual interference with boys in his schools
on three occasions.
1

14.05 His career in the Christian Brothers is summarised in a letter from the Provincial to the Superior
General of the Christian Brothers:
My most dear Br. Superior General,
On Friday April 5th Br [Lessard],2 Principal of our Primary School CBS James’ St came to
St. Helen’s and gave me in his own handwriting the following charges of improper conduct
on the part of Br. [Brander] with boys of his own class. Br [Lessard] interviewed the boys
and wrote down what they had to say. I enclose the statements of the boys concerned.
I called Br. [Brander] to St. Helen’s on Saturday and read for him the charges made. At
first he would not admit the charges. Then I gave him the names of the boys concerned
and again read for him each charge. He again denied them in general but admitted those
made by [two boys]. He said that [three other boys] formed a clique from the slum district.
Br. [Lessard] stated that those boys were told by their confessor to report the matter to
him. Br [Brander] then fell back on the excuse that he did not think it was harmful to touch
boys in the manner complained of, externally and that he did not think that the boys
noticed it. I told him that he would have to get a canonical warning and that we could not
allow him in future to have any contact with boys as it would be dangerous for himself
and for the boys. I recommended him to look for a dispensation and this he eventually
agreed to do. He asked what work could he do if he were not allowed to teach and he
was told it was difficult to say what kind of work might be available except perhaps working
in a garden. I allowed him to walk about for an hour to ponder over the matter. He was
then satisfied to seek for a dispensation and said that he should have gone long ago. He
asked me were there any complaints from the secondary boys and also wished to know
if [Father Brian]3 had written to me about five months ago to request that he, Br [Brander]
be allowed to teach the bigger boys. He is and has been teaching sixth standard. He said
that his attraction is towards smaller boys and not towards those of the other sex. This is
the third occasion on which such charges have been made against Br. [Brander] but on
the first occasion [in the 1940s] he did not get a canonical warning. He got one on the
last occasion which was in [the early 1950s]4 when he was in Mullingar CBS To-day,
Sunday April 8th I had a phone call from Br [Brander] to say that he had seen [Fr. Brian]
and that he is seeking a dispensation. He will send it to me in an enclosed envelope so
that it may be forwarded to Rome. I have transferred him from CBS James’ St to [a
Community residence] where he will await the dispensation. I told him that if he wishes
he could state that he was seeking the dispensation on account of moral dangers to
himself and to the boys.
With kindest regards and all good wishes ...
Br [Derbec]5
PS The Council agreed by 3 votes to 0 that Br [Brander] be recommended to seek a
dispensation.
14.06 One of the boys who is referred to in this letter made a statement to the Gardaı́ around the time
of Mr Brander’s most recent conviction:
In my last year in CBS James’ St it was common knowledge that Brother [Brander] was
interfering with other boys. I personally was never touched by Brother [Brander]. Back
then ... it was a common thing for Brother [Brander] to keep one of the boys back after
class.
2
3
4
He was again transferred to another primary school St Michael’s CBS Inchicore. He remained here for one month and
then moved to CBS James’ St.
5

14.07 He mentioned two boys as coming to mind and continued:
but I cannot be sure if Brother [Brander] interfered with them or not. I remember the talk
about Brother [Brander] at that time was that he would come up behind the boy he’d keep
back after school and touch him and ask the boy if he had any marbles. I remember soon
after I left CBS James’ St a group of us boys that had finished school went to see the
head Brother. I can’t remember the head brothers name at that time, it may have been
Brother [Lessard]. I remember we told the head brother about imoral things Brother
[Brander] was doing. The head Brother brought us into a room and I remember he gave
us cigarettes. He took us very seriously and told us that we may have to repeat what we
had told him and that he would check out what we told him. I never heard anything from
that head brother afterwards.
14.08 When it was confirmed that Br Brander would seek a dispensation, he was transferred to a
Community residence in the west of Ireland to await completion of the formal process of
dispensation. Br Gibson, giving evidence on behalf of the Congregation, said that he could not
shed light on the reason for his transfer to this Community or say whether this was an unusual
occurrence. He said that it might perhaps have been to get him out of his environment or to keep
him away from his ministry.
14.09 The application for dispensation was ultimately granted by a bishop, in whose episcopal
jurisdiction Br Brander was now resident. By this means, Br Brander was able to leave the
Congregation apparently of his own volition and with an unblemished teaching record.
14.10 Mr Brander took up the position of principal of Lanesboro NS, Co Longford on a Monday, having
been dispensed from his vows the previous Friday. The question arises as to how he was able to
secure this position, and who aided him in obtaining it. No documentary evidence was available
to the Investigation Committee, in the form of a written reference or otherwise, to throw light on
this disturbing matter.
14.11 • The Congregation was aware of the criminal nature of such assaults and that the
Christian Brothers ‘could not allow him in future to have any contact with boys’, but
did nothing to prevent him doing so and continuing to teach. Neither the Department
of Education nor the Gardaı́ were informed of Mr Brander’s sexual abuse of children.
By not informing the relevant authorities, the Congregation facilitated his access to
more children.
Lanesboro NS, Lanesboro, Co Longford , May 1957 – September

1960
14.12 Mr Brander remained principal of Lanesboro NS for over three years, until he moved to take up a
position in Ballyfermot NS, Dublin. No documentary material is available to explain the
circumstances of his departure from Lanesboro NS but, at his sentencing following his second
trial, Mr Brander admitted abusing boys in this school. In addition, a Garda statement made by a
former pupil contains allegations of physical and sexual abuse against Mr Brander while a teacher
in this school.
Ballyfermot NS/ Banrion na nAingeal, Ballyfermot, Dublin, September

1960 – January 1964
14.13 Mr Brander was appointed to Ballyfermot NS initially as third assistant teacher and, later, as vice-
principal. In a letter to the Department of Education, Fr Harry,6 the school manager, sought
6

approval for the recruitment of additional teachers, and advised that Mr Brander had the highest
qualifications and would be an excellent vice-principal when the numbers justified such an
appointment. Mr Brander left the school in the mid-1960s, having been absent due to illness for
two months.
14.14 A letter from solicitors acting for a former pupil, some years following Mr Brander’s last conviction
and addressed to the Board of Governors of the School, complained that while this man was a
pupil in this School in the 1960s he suffered an indecent assault by Mr Brander. The letter stated
that a complaint was made to the school authorities at that time, and no action was taken other
than Mr Brander was moved from his class. The solicitors were advised that there was no record
of this complaint or of any investigation.
14.15 An affidavit of discovery sworn on behalf of the Board of Management for the purposes of this
Inquiry states that there were no documents recording any contemporaneous complaint.
Rath Mixed NS, Ballybrittas, Portlaoise, Co Laois, January 1964 –

June 1966
14.16 Mr Brander took up the position of principal at this national school in the mid-1960s. A parent
complained to the Department of Education about Mr Brander’s excessive corporal punishment
of her children:
Dear Sir,
I received a letter from your office ... accompanied by the regulations concerning corporal
punishment in primary schools.
I did not at the time send you any more details regarding the infliction of unnecessary
punishment on schoolchildren as I really thought that matters would improve after the
Manager ... had spoken to the principal concerned.
Now I regret to say I have reached the end of my patience [I have five children attending
Rath NS] their ages ranging from 13 yrs to 5 yrs.
The three oldest aged 13 yrs, 11 yrs & 9 yrs are at present in the classroom attended by
Mr [Brander] (Principal) and I do not hesitate in saying that my heart is broken simply
trying to get them to go to school at all.
This state of nerves on their part has been brought about through fear.
Last week my eldest son ... returned to school after being absent 8 days as a result of
severe flu when his temperature reached 104 degrees. Against my better judgment and
the advice of our family doctor I sent him back to school and on his second day back he
was subject to a severe beating on the head, and to day he has come home from school
with the top of his small finger on the left hand showing definite bruising after being given
6 slaps with a hazel stick.
Last week I made a complaint to the manager and he promised to talk it over with the
teacher. All I can think now is that he hasn’t honoured his promise.
During the end of last year it would be roughly around early December my little girl
received 19 slaps from Thurs to Tues inclusive and also the side of her neck had severe
bruising after which I wrote a letter to Mr [Brander] asking him not to have it happen again,
however this request also seems to have been ignored and in my opinion it is time
something was done to improve conditions for the pupils at Rath NS.
It is not one of my principals to make trouble for anyone and I regret very much having to
set down those complaints at all, but as I have already said something will have to be
done about the aforesaid conditions.
To conclude I can safely say that I am not the only mother who is having the same trouble,
however it is up to the others to make their own complaints.
Thanking you in anticipation and trusting there can be some amiable agreement reached
on the subject.
Yours ...
[P.S. May I add that all this punishment is being given for mere failure at lessons which
to me seems most unnecessary as I myself spend almost every evening from tea-time to
bed-time helping the children in every way possible and I always make sure that all
homework is duly done by them.]
14.17 She included in the letter the name and address of the local doctor.
14.18 Her complaint was acknowledged by the Department and forwarded to the School Manager, who
was the parish priest, for comment:
I am directed to enclose for your information extracts from a letter received from [the
mother] ... regarding the treatment of her children pupils in the above-named school, by
Mr. [Brander] principal teacher in the school. It appears that [she] has already brought the
complainant to your notice. Please say if [she] has presented her complaint to you, and
if so, please state what action, if any, you have taken or propose to take in the matter. I
am also to request you to be so good as to obtain from Mr. [Brander] a written statement
in regard to the matters referred to in [her] letter and to forward the statement, together
with your own observations thereon, to the Department.
Mise, le meas,
14.19 The School Manager responded as follows:

Dear Sir,
I am forwarding Mr. [Brander’s] report on the case of complaint by [the mother] of cruelty
to her children. I think her complaint is very much exaggerated & Mr [Brander] is a very
good and conscientious teacher.
Signed
....
14.20 Notably, he failed to make any comment as to whether he had previously been approached about
the matter or whether other parents had similar complaints.
14.21 In Mr Brander’s report he said that the letter was:

the first I heard of 19 slaps and as it happened last December I cannot recall. But it is
typical of the atmosphere of that house that they are being counted and questioned. At
that time I had a rod, 9 12 inches long, still have it. It was a joke that each slap was only a
quarter. So 19 divided by 4 would be more honestly accurate. However I did receive a
letter from [the mother], 15th December last, saying that the side of her child’s face showed
blue marks and that her hands were swollen. I looked the very moment I received the
letter, but saw no trace of any blue marks and I said “show me your sore hand”. “They
are not sore” was her reply.
Her remark “this request seems to have been ignored” is typical. I have not punished this
child unduly since (even though she admitted often not learning her exercise). If I did, her
mother would have facts, figures and relevant data. She intimated in that letter too that
she had “the address of the Department” – had even told other parents that she would
give it to them – and “that I was not allowed to give corporal punishment for mere failure
at lessons”. I have therefore been especially careful not to violate regulations re her P.S.
where I am wrongfully accused. With such a mother’s attitude how could children co-
operate or how could one believe “that she always made sure that all home work is duly
done by them”.
Regarding [her eldest son] and the “severe beating”. Firstly I state that “severe beating”
is not defined – because she could not. Else she would. On the morning in question, as
customary, between 9.25 and 9.45 I was correcting scholarship sums (homework). I was
sitting at my table with two girls on my right and two boys on my left, [her son] being
nearest to me. I was thus able to see the three copies, as [her son] had no sums done.
He was not punished for this. But I asked him some question. Answer was merely
“multiply” and when he failed I remarked “if I had known you were such an ass at
arithmetic, I’d never had entered you for the Scholarship”. All I did was to give him a few,
not more than four, little raps with my knuckles (left arm not even extended as he was
close beside me) on the back of the head. No rod used at all. This was the “severe
beating”. There was no trace of ill effect during the day and as I heard before 9.30am the
following morning of [the mother] reporting the matter and of her going into neighbours’
houses “to back her up”. I could distinctly recall [her son’s] very vigorous football playing
during lunch hour on that very day. I’m thoroughly convinced that the acquired pain in the
evening was for exercise evasion. [The mother] did not state that [her son] did not get half
a dozen slaps from January to March and I’d swear, not even a dozen from September to
December. “Today” referred to, is the follow up of the above incident. I distinctly recall the
day’s happenings as I had heard of the “severe beating” being reported to the Rev.
Manager and that she had informed neighbours that she was writing to the Department.
A day or two after [her son’s] return (kept away as a reprisal for my severe beating) I gave
three sums for exercise. He had one done wrong; one half attempted and one not done.
I had often and often not given him punishment deserved due to exercises not done,
“forgot”, down right carelessness, inattention and lies re exercises, but I gave two this
morning as he expected “no more slaps”. Two more during the day on the same hand. In
the evening for cod-acting during spellings he got two more. He held out the same hand
but I said “other hand” – the left. Lucky for me. I’m convinced he would have been glad
to have had other hand sore going home. Those were the only two slaps on his left hand.
How two ordinary slaps from a light 14” rod could have caused a bruise beats me. Those
were the first slaps he had got for weeks – for his own good (only 1212 years) as I seldom
or ever punish 6th or 7th class.
Every tittle tattle is reported at home on encouragement I’d say. There was one in 6th, 5th,
4th, 3rd Class when I came and I could see that each was boss in his/her domain ...
Due to the... family being gifted I was especially interested in them. I have treated them
more fairly than any other family. No family gets less of the rod. She has mentioned these
two isolated cases. Rest assured that if she had more concrete evidence it would be
produced. Her’s is a personal vendetta. [The mother’s] letter has certainly done an
injustice not only to me but to her own family.
14.22 An inspector from the Department of Education visited the school as a result of the complaint.
While effectively dismissing the complaint, he noted that the Manager had advised him:
that the teacher tended to be somewhat hot-tempered, that he had spoken to him about
this and that he had promised not to be impatient in future. He also said that he was very
satisfied with the teacher’s work in the school.
14.23 The author thought Mr Brander had a very pleasant personality and said:
He fulfils the spirit of Rule 95(3) exactly even if he falls down from time to time regarding
Rule 96(1).
I do not think that this complaint should be taken too seriously in the Department but since
Rule 96(1) was breached, the terms of this Rule should be brought to his attention.
14.24 The series of correspondence concluded with the Department writing to Mr Brander, and copied
to the School Manager, advising that he was expected to comply with rule 96(1) and (3) in future.
14.25 Rule 96(1) provided that:
Corporal punishment should be administered only for grave transgression. In no

14.26 Rule 96(3) provided that:
Only a light cane or rod may be used for the purpose of corporal punishment which should
be inflicted only on the open hand. The boxing of children’s ears, the pulling of their hair
or similar ill-treatment is absolutely forbidden and will be visited with severe penalties.
14.27 The School Manger advised the Department in the following year of the appointment of a new
principal. The document noted that Mr Brander had taken up a new appointment but gave no
further information.
Naomh Mhuire NS, Walsh Island, Geisill, Co Offaly, July 1966 –

September 1969
14.28 His next posting was at Walsh Island NS near Portarlington. Mr Brander pleaded guilty to
numerous charges of indecent assault on pupils in this school. Four former pupils made
statements to the Investigation Committee alleging abuse against Mr Brander.
14.29 In addition, the Investigation Committee was furnished with statements made by former pupils of
Mr Brander and two of their parents in the course of the Garda investigation. The statements
contained allegations of severe physical abuse of girls, and sexual and physical abuse of boys.
14.30 The pattern of physical abuse of girls that was described in letter of complaint from the boy’s
mother to the Department of Education continued in Walsh Island NS. Eleven women who had
been pupils of Mr Brander in this school made statements to the Gardaı́. All describe violent daily
punishment for failure at lessons and minor transgressions. They describe girls being punched
about the head and other parts of the body, in many instances receiving injuries as a result. Many
described how their parents felt helpless given Mr Brander’s standing in the community. One girl
described how he would open letters of complaint at the front of the class, laugh and put them on
a spike. Many recalled him openly fondling boys’ genitals at the front of the class. They described
how he would sit on a high stool at the head of the class, a boy would be called to read and he
was made stand between Mr Brander’s legs. Mr Brander would then put his hands in the boy’s
pocket and fondle him.
14.31 Two former pupils of Walsh Island NS gave evidence before the Committee of the abuse they
suffered while pupils of Mr Brander.

Mr Rothe7
14.32 Mr Rothe, a former pupil of Mr Brander’s, gave evidence that rumours of Mr Brander’s behaviour
preceded his arrival in Walsh Island NS. He recalled:
It was said before he arrived that he was extremely tough and it was also rumoured that
he had been thrown out of St Michael’s CBS Inchicore.
14.33 Within a week of his arrival, the rumours were proved well founded. On the surface, Mr Brander
was very religious, very conscientious and hardworking. However, he administered extreme
physical punishment. Mr Rothe described the type of punishment Mr Brander would use:
One of the punishments he had was to hit you with his knuckles on the top of the head
which caused headaches ... [another was] being slapped on the hands and ending up
with swollen hands ... On many days he would, before he left in the evenings at three o’
clock he would actually count the number of slaps he gave out that day. Everything
revolved around physical punishment.
14.34 Mr Rothe also gave evidence of the regular sexual abuse the children suffered and said:
if it wasn’t happening to me it was happening to someone else ... His MO was that he
had a stool, a high stool that he used to sit on, he wouldn’t have the book so he would
ask the child to come up, the child would stand, me in some instances, between his legs
and he would have you reading from the book while he was holding your shoulder and
masturbating against you ... It wasn’t the only place he abused ... I can remember one
day a group of us around the blackboard ... and he was putting his hands inside my
clothes and rubbing himself on me while other children were standing literally beside me.
14.35 He had witnessed the same thing happening to a number of other boys.
14.36 At the time he found the physical punishment more painful than the sexual abuse. Parents were
happy because Mr Brander was getting great results, both academically and in sport.
14.37 Subsequently, when the witness was in secondary school, he heard that Mr Brander had been
removed from the school for homosexual behaviour. He said that it was common knowledge that
Mr Brander went to a psychiatric hospital for three weeks after this happened. The discovery
furnished by the Director of Public Prosecutions contains a medical report from the late 1990s,
which referred to Mr Brander being treated for depression in 1969.
Anja 8
14.38 In the course of the Garda investigation in the late 1990s into allegations of sexual abuse in Walsh
Island NS, a number of former pupils named a girl named Anja in particular as having suffered at
his hands. The Gardaı́ then contacted her with a view to taking a statement from her.
14.39 Anja was taught by Mr Brander in her final year in primary school. She was 12 at the time. In the
course of her evidence, she described a terrifying atmosphere in the classroom. She said that for
failure at lessons she would receive six or seven slaps on each hand. She also described how he
would strike her on the head, resulting in loss of balance. She described how her head or hands
could be bruised following a beating. He was more severe in the administration of corporal
punishment to girls than to boys. At the time, she felt that the boys were fortunate as she didn’t
understand that they were being abused sexually. She described how the boys would stand at
the front of the class, reading between Mr Brander’s legs, but she was not aware that he was
fondling them.
7
8

14.40 After one particularly severe beating, her father wrote a letter of complaint to Mr Brander. The
following day he slapped her again and commented: ‘Are you going to tell your daddy now were
you slapped today?’ She replied that she would not.
14.41 She said that one reason why parents were reluctant to complain was that Mr Brander’s brother-
in-law was a foreman or manager in a large local business where some of the fathers worked.
Mr Brander’s departure from Walsh Island NS

14.42 The Garda discovery furnished to the Investigation Committee outlined the sequence of events
leading to Mr Brander’s removal from the School.
14.43 Rumours were circulating in the locality that Mr Brander was molesting boys and being cruel to
girls in his class. The mothers of two pupils approached the parish priest, Fr Colm,9 in an effort to
have the parents’ concerns addressed. In their Garda statements, both said that he took a note
of what they had said and indicated that he would look into the matter.
14.44 Mr Rothe gave evidence that Fr Derek10 (the local curate at the time) advised him in the early
1980s that Fr Colm had consulted with The Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin about the problem.
14.45 One mother stated that she learned about a week later that Mr Brander was to be transferred.
The other mother stated that Fr Colm visited her and advised her that Mr Brander was suspended.
Both stated that Fr Derek, the local curate, was annoyed at the manner in which the matter was
handled, and said that he would have handled it quietly had they approached him. Around this
time, both women were contacted by the Gardaı́ but neither wanted their children to make
statements.
14.46 In the course of the Garda investigation in the mid-1990s, Fr Derek was interviewed. He said that
no parent approached him about Mr Brander’s conduct, and the memorandum of that interview
continued:
The first he knew about problems in Walsh Island NS was when Fr. [Colm] told him that
he was going to the school to get Mr [Brander] to resign due to ill treatment of a boy. He,
Fr. [Colm], had a document prepared for Mr [Brander] to sign. Mr. [Brander] was gone
from the school overnight. Nobody in Walsh Island NS wanted to talk about the situation.
I.N.T.O.11 came down to see Fr [Colm] ...
14.47 Despite the circumstances of his removal, Fr Colm, the parish priest and School Manager,
furnished Mr Brander with a glowing reference:
Mr [Brander] B.A. H. Dip in Ed. has been Principal Teacher in a four teacher school in
this parish for the past three years. I would find it impossible to speak or write too highly
of Mr [Brander’s] complete dedication to his professional duties. To visit his classes was
a refreshing experience and his splendid qualities of head and heart were reflected in
pupils, parents and the people of the community.
His attention to even the tiniest detail was indicative of his love for and devotion to his
work ... [He] engaged in extra curricular activities of inestimable value to the pupils, the
youth, and the parish in general.
Mr. [Brander] at his own request and greatly to my personal regret leaves to devote his
wonderful gifts to the Secondary branch of Education. He brings with him my gratitude for
9
10
11
Irish National Teachers’ Organisation.

his wonderful service to the pupils and ... the parish, my best wishes for his continued
success in the higher branch of education ...
14.48 Fr Colm ended his letter with an expression of his willingness to be of any further assistance to
Mr Brander if he should need it.
14.49 It has been suggested by a number of people that a Garda file opened at the time of the
investigation in the late 1960s has disappeared. The Committee has been furnished with an
affidavit of discovery sworn by a Detective Superintendent as to the extensive efforts made to
locate any documents regarding this investigation. He concluded that any such documents would
have been destroyed in the normal course pertaining at that time.
Presentation Convent Castlecomer Co Kilkenny, September 1969 –

July 1975
14.50 Following his removal from Walsh Island NS and armed with his reference, Mr Brander took up
his first secondary teaching position in Castlecomer.
14.51 Three witnesses gave evidence of his behaviour while in this school: Sr Giuliana,12 former school
principal; Mr Stegar,13 a young teacher who was very involved with Mr Brander in organising the
games; and Mr Gadd,14 a junior teacher at the time.
14.52 Sr Giuliana in evidence described how, with the introduction of free education in the late 1960s,
gradually more boys enrolled in the school. Mr Brander was employed by her predecessor, Sr
Donata.15 She was not aware whether he furnished a reference for the position.
14.53 Sr Giuliana became principal of the School soon after and at some point after that appointed Mr
Brander as vice-principal.
Physical abuse
14.54 Mr Brander was regarded as an excellent teacher, the students in his classes got good results. In
fact, a lot of pupils were anxious to get into his class. He was well respected by the other staff
and by the members of the Congregation. He was very charming and came across as a genuinely
nice person. He also cultivated his status in the wider community.
14.55 However, he had extraordinary methods of discipline and often assaulted children. He was
particularly harsh with girls to whom he gave excessive and unusual punishments..
14.56 Mr Gadd said that he gradually became angry at Mr Brander’s behaviour:

What I recollect most clearly about that is that his attitude towards girls in the School left
much to be desired and one heard stories that he was prone to give physical beatings to
the girls, that he was prone to beat girls about the face ... I came into a classroom one
day and I found that he had a senior student on her knees at the front of the class. I am
not sure if he hit her though about the face, I think that he possibly had.
14.57 He added, ‘he certainly... mistreated girls in the School’. He described how his hostility towards
Mr Brander grew as he became aware of his use of force and beatings against students, male
and female.
12
13
14
15

14.58 In his statement to the Investigation Committee Mr Stegar stated that Mr Brander ‘believed in the
power of the fist for boys and girls’. In evidence he further described how, if a girl misbehaved in
the classroom, Mr Brander would make her kneel outside the classroom for the duration of the
class. When Mr Stegar raised the inappropriateness of this punishment with him, he was told to
mind his own business.
14.59 Physical assaults were committed openly and in public settings. Sr Giuliana gave evidence that:
well it was mostly at the games as far as I can recollect. I do know a few instances, well,
now I can keep two in mind, where a couple of boys got black eyes because he was strict
with them on the games field.
14.60 On the second occasion that she heard he had given a child a black eye, she decided to ‘bring it
to his attention’ and registered her displeasure. She took no further action. The parents of the
children concerned do not appear to have complained and she did not contact them to advise
them of what had transpired.
14.61 Mr Stegar described one of these assaults which occurred at the sports day and involved a tug
of war. One of the boys challenged Mr Brander about favouring the other side. In response, Mr
Brander punched him to the ground. This occurred in front of other teachers and pupils, including
some primary school classes. The religious and lay teachers present ushered their pupils out of
the field following the assault. Two days later, Mr Brander gave the boy concerned a medal for
bravery as his parents had not complained. Mr Gadd also recalled the event and said that he was
particularly incensed by it.
14.62 Mr Stegar described another occasion when Mr Brander struck a referee during a match. On yet
another occasion, Mr Stegar said that he had to stand between Mr Brander and a boy to prevent
Mr Brander striking him.
14.63 Mr Gadd said that Mr Brander instilled a ‘mini reign of fear’. Some people he spoke to in recent
years told him they used to be in dread of going to school.
14.64 In a statement to the Commission, Mr Stegar said that parents would come to the School to
complain about the assaults. However, Sr Giuliana, in a Garda statement made in the mid-1990s,
said that while she was principal of the School, ‘no allegations of any nature were made against
Mr. Brander’.
14.65 When Mr Stegar’s evidence was put to her, she qualified her own statement to a certain extent
when she said that she could not recollect parents coming to her, but conceded that it might have
happened. She said, ‘parents might have said he was very strict but I can’t recall them making
any complaints specifically to me’. She further said that if parents had complained, she would not
have recorded the fact
Sexual abuse
14.66 A complaint by a father, that his son was being sexually molested by Mr Brander gave rise to an
investigation by Mr Stegar and Mr Gadd, which resulted in his departure to take up a teaching
position in another school. There was divergence between the evidence of the teachers and Sr
Giuliana, the former Principal of the School as to the latter’s knowledge of the allegations against
Mr Brander but the basic facts were not in dispute.
14.67 Mr Stegar said that the boy’s father called to his house one night and advised him that two days
previously his son had been molested by Mr Brander. The child had returned from school in an
extremely distressed condition, and had given his father the names of three other boys who had
similarly been abused. The father made it clear that he wanted Mr Brander removed from the
School and from the town. He wanted Mr Stegar to deal with the matter and did not want to make
a complaint to the Gardaı́.
14.68 That evening, Mr Stegar and Mr Gadd devised a series of questions to put to the three boys
concerned:
(a) did they understand the meaning of the word ‘molested’?
(b) were they ever molested?
(c) was it a member of staff?
(d) would they name the person?
(e) did they know of any other boys in the school who had been molested?
14.69 Mr Stegar and Mr Gadd spoke to a number of students in an upstairs classroom. The general
response of the students was that it was very much common knowledge that Mr Brander had
been really out of control in this area for quite some time and that nearly every pupil in the school
knew that. Mr Gadd stated:
we certainly were left with the impression that he certainly had been abusing students,
that the allegation which this student’s parent was making certainly was probably true.
Five boys named Mr Brander as having molested them. Mr Gadd then suggested that they contact
a local barrister.
14.70 The barrister was extremely disturbed by what he heard and drafted a letter to be given to Mr
Brander but the two teachers decided to adopt a more gentle approach.
The barrister advised the two men to go straight to Sr Giuliana, which Mr Stegar said they did the
following day. He said they advised her of the questions they had asked the boys and their
findings. They gave her the names of the five boys concerned. Mr Stegar said there was no
misunderstanding as to the nature of the allegations being made.
14.71 Sr Giuliana said that she did not know what to do and the matter rested there for some time. Mr
Stegar and Mr Gadd were conscious of the fact that Mr Brander was a very strong and influential
member of staff. During the next four to five weeks, word of the complaint and Mr Stegar’s actions
slipped out.
14.72 Some time later, the boy’s father contacted him again. He said that if nothing was done about Mr
Brander he would contact the Gardaı́. The following day, Mr Stegar went to Sr Giuliana. She told
him that she found it difficult to even discuss the matter with the manager, Sr Donata, who was
20 years her senior. She advised him that she had got a book on understanding homosexuality.
Sr Giuliana, denied this in evidence and said ‘I had never heard of homosexuality at the time’.
Some time after this, she asked if he and Mr Gadd would speak to Mr Brander about the
allegations.
14.73 Sr Giuliana arranged that they would meet Mr Brander after school. The meeting took place on
the Monday or Tuesday of Holy Week. At the meeting, Mr Stegar advised Mr Brander that there
were widespread allegations that he was sexually interfering with boys in the School, and that the
allegations were also out in the wider community. His immediate reaction was to deny the
allegations, saying that he might have given them a few clatters. They advised him that Sr Giuliana
knew of the allegations. Mr Brander said that, once allegations of this nature were made about
you, there was no future in the community. Mr Stegar had the impression at the end of the meeting
that Mr Brander would leave the school.
14.74 On the Wednesday, when the school was to close for Easter holidays, Mr Stegar told Sr Giuliana
how the meeting had gone. After the Easter break, Sr Giuliana came to the staff room and advised
them that Mr Brander would be leaving at the end of the term.
14.75 Mr Gadd recalled the meeting in the parlour with Mr Brander: ‘I remember that we put the situation
to him that there was a complaint, at least one, being made by a parent of a very serious nature’.
14.76 Mr Stegar and Mr Gadd were two young teachers in their twenties confronting the vice-principal
who was in his fifties and who had been there for a number of years. Mr Gadd said that this was
why the events stayed in his mind while most other events from the time were a blur. He recalled
Mr Brander being pained by what he heard and not making much comment. Mr Gadd said to him
that ‘given the seriousness of the allegations ... it was in his own interest that he should come out
and that he should deny them forthrightly, in public’. He put this suggestion to Mr Brander because,
having spoken to the pupils concerned, he knew that Mr Brander would do no such thing.
14.77 When asked what he did next, Mr Gadd said that he had no clear recollection but he presumed
or thought ‘we must have passed on, if we had met him in the parlour and we met him, I think, at
the behest of Sr Giuliana, I think we must have reported to her. But I have no picture in my mind
of that meeting’. In a previous Garda statement, he had been more specific:
We reported our findings to Sister [Giuliana]. It was decided that Mr [Stegar] and I would
discuss the matter with Mr [Brander].
He confirmed that this statement was correct.
14.78 Mr Gadd was careful to qualify the extent to which Sr Giuliana could have known of the abuse.
He said that their understanding of what had happened was different back then:
if people like Sr Giuliana and so on had been told about this, I just think their
understanding of what was going on at the time would have been very, very narrow indeed
... it was a very different moral world ... People’s knowledge of these matters would have
been extremely minimal, that they mightn’t even know about them at all ... one has to put
these things into context and one has to understand that the people who were being
asked to deal with them would have been very ill prepared to deal with them I think.
It was only much, much later on that we understood the enormity of what he had been at
... much later on that we understood that on days perhaps the School would have had a
function in the local church, in the local Roman Catholic church, that Mr Brander might
have lurked behind and might have accosted the boys in the School, who belonged to
[other religious communities] ...
14.79 When asked specifically what he thought Sr Giuliana knew, his response was vague. Later, he
said that nobody wanted to know about the matter. However, he also said that he remembered
Sr Giuliana at some later point making the comment that Mr Brander was the last person she
would doubt.
14.80 As to whether they reported the result of their questioning of the boys to Sr Giuliana he said, ‘We
probably did, but I can’t be anymore definite on that’. When asked specifically whether he and Mr
Stegar had reported the outcome of their interview with Mr Brander to Sr Giuliana, he replied, ‘I
would think that in all likelihood [we] did yes’.
14.81 Sr Giuliana gave evidence that one morning she was in the cloakroom as the children were
arriving to school. The boy’s mother had arrived and asked for Mr Stegar. Sr Giuliana sent a child
to fetch him. She later enquired of Mr Stegar as to how the meeting went, and he advised her
that the mother had complained about Mr Brander and that he and Mr Gadd had dealt with the
matter. That was the end of the matter as far as she was concerned.
14.82 She had no recollection of being given any specific details of the complaint by Mr Stegar. She
said, ‘I feel that if he said anything about sexual abuse that I would remember it. But I have no
recollection of that whatsoever’. She did not move from this position throughout the course of
her evidence.
14.83 Sr Giuliana confirmed that she gave Mr Brander a good reference on his departure. In it, she
described him as a strict disciplinarian, ‘good and strict’.
14.84 It is extraordinary that such a serious turn of events was not recorded or reported to the authorities.
The absence of explicit recorded information has resulted in almost exclusive reliance on
recollected events, and unfortunately the memories of the three participants differ.
14.85 It is unlikely that neither of the two teachers in Castlecomer who had been so thorough in dealing
with the complaint would not have notified the School Superior about it.
14.86 Whether or not Sr Giuliana knew the full details and implications of the sexual abuse, she knew
he was leaving under a cloud, yet she gave him a good reference as she considered that he was
a good teacher.
Further incidents of sexual abuse at Presentation Convent, Castlecomer, Co Kilkenny

14.87 Since the events of the mid-1970s, other complaints came to light, some of which led to
prosecution.
14.88 Firstly, Mr Brander was convicted of the sexual abuse of Niko.16 The Garda discovery contained
a statement from Niko, in which he stated that he had complained to Sr Giuliana at the time about
the sexual abuse by Mr Brander, but that she did not believe him. In evidence and in a Garda
statement, Sr Giuliana denied that he had made such a complaint to her. The Garda who
conducted the investigation into the allegations made by Niko spoke to Sr Giuliana who said that
she did not recall any complaint.
14.89 Secondly, Marco17 made a statement to the Gardaı́ in the mid-1990s in which he alleged that he
was sexually abused by Mr Brander while a pupil in the school.
14.90 Mr Stegar in a statement to the Commission supported his allegations. Marco had contacted him
in the mid-1990s and advised him that he was going to the Gardaı́ to complain about Mr Brander.
Mr Stegar recalled visiting Marco when he was a schoolboy and was ill in hospital with suspected
meningitis. He discovered at the time that the boy was hospitalised following a beating around the
head from Mr Brander. He advised the boy to complain to Sr Giuliana. Mr Stegar acknowledged
in evidence that he should have brought it to her attention himself. At the meeting, Marco said
that he had tried to tell him about being sexually abused by Mr Brander. Mr Stegar recalled another
occasion when Marco and another boy told him that Mr Brander was a homosexual, but that he
did not pursue the matter.
14.91 Marco gave evidence at Mr Brander’s trial for offences committed while he was teaching at Walsh
Island NS.
16
17

Sacred Heart, Convent of Mercy Secondary School, Tullamore, Co
Offaly, August 1975 – July 1985
14.92 Following his departure from Castlecomer, Mr Brander took up a teaching post in the all-girls
secondary school in Tullamore. Sr Ines18 was principal at the time. She is now elderly and gave
evidence to the Committee of her recollection of Mr Brander. In a letter to the Department of
Education in the mid-1970s, she advised of the appointment of Mr Brander as a teacher in the
School and stated that he was moving to the School for family reasons.
14.93 In evidence she said that ‘there was a gap for an Irish and geography teacher and it was in the
middle of the school year. So I had to advertise for the job and Mr Brander– so far as I can
remember, all of that is not in my head at all except that he applied and seem to be a very suitable
and I took him on’. She said that he was taken on effectively there and then, as the students had
no teacher. This is inconsistent with evidence from the staff at Castlecomer, who said that he left
at the end of the school year, and with his Departmental record showing that he commenced on
1st August.
14.94 As before, he built up a relationship with his employers. She told the Committee, ‘He was always
a perfect gentleman to me and was very good friends with all the Sisters’. He continued to secure
good results for his pupils.
14.95 Again, allegations of physical assault emerged. He appeared to have been a constant source of
concern for Sr Ines. She reprimanded him numerous times regarding his discipline and said that
he was always very apologetic. She gave evidence that she would hear him shouting from her
office. He continued his policy of disciplining girls by making them kneel, sometimes making them
kneel on their hands. The students complained to her about this treatment ‘maybe once or twice,
not very much, but I got the message and I talked to him’.
14.96 While she said that she believed he never struck a pupil, she appears to have warned him against
it: ‘When I was speaking to Mr Brander about striking students I said “Just be very careful, we
cannot strike children, it is not our policy for the discipline in the School”’. She added, ‘I suppose
I would be afraid he might strike a child ... [he came across] as very strong person’.
14.97 A statement was issued by the School, following his sentencing in respect of the charges relating
to Walsh Island NS, as follows:
Sr. [Ines], who was Principal for his years of service, recollects complaints from time to
time from parents and students. While these complaints are unrecorded, nevertheless,
she recollects that they related to discipline incidents in the classroom but none of the
complaints were of sexually inappropriate conduct. In one specific incident a senior
member of staff recollects an accusation of Mr [Brander] having struck a student.
It has been widely reported that contact was made with the School in ... alerting the
authorities to [Mr Brander’s] previous history. We have examined our files and interviewed
the Principal of the day, Sr. [Ines], who has no record or recollection of receiving such
information.
14.98 However, in evidence before the Investigation Committee, when asked whether she recalled pupils
complaining about his discipline, Sr Ines replied: ‘Not really no, I never got serious complaints’.
She further said that she did not recall any parents coming to the School to complain. Sr Ines
accepted that the statement quoted above must be correct but she had no recollection of the
matters stated therein. She could not recollect recording complaints made by parents or whether
she would have done so:
18

It was a very busy school. You couldn’t be taking complaints all day. I just did what I was
expected to do and did the best I could in a big school.
14.99 When pressed as to why, given her experience, she did not record the complaints, she repeated
that she did not know why.
Garda investigation in the 1980s

14.100 In the early 1980s a Garda investigation was commenced following allegations made by a
pupil,Taina,19 that she had been assaulted by Mr Brander. In the course of this investigation,
students and teachers were interviewed and made statements to the Gardaı́. The circumstances
surrounding these allegations are as follows.
14.101 A room in the School was set aside to operate as a shop. Mr Brander supervised the shop during
break time. On the occasion in question, he arrived late and a large number of children had
congregated in the room. There appears to have been a regulation that only a set number of
children could be in the room at one time. He shouted at the children to get out of the room and
form a queue outside.Taina appears not to have departed as instructed. At this point the
statements made by the various witnesses diverge. What is clear is that there was an altercation
between Mr Brander and Taina. The school principal, Sr Ines, was absent at the time. The vice-
principal, in her Garda statement described how she met Taina in the corridor. Taina was very
upset. She said that Mr Brander had struck her twice in the chest.
14.102 The vice-principal fetched Mr Brander to have him deal with the matter. There was a further
altercation between Mr Brander and Taina. A male teacher, arrived on the scene and appears to
have warned them that other people could hear. This teacher, on the advice of his union, the
Association of Secondary Teachers of Ireland, later declined to make a statement to the Gardaı́.
Taina’s mother was called to the School at the request of her daughter. The mother, Mr Brander
and Sr Edita,20 the School Manager, had a meeting in the course of which Mr Brander explained
that he had merely brushed her arms down and that he was sorry that it had occurred. Sr Edita
and Mr Brander appear to have thought that was the end of the matter. However, the mother
made a Garda complaint that day.
14.103 The Gardaı́ took statements from the complainant, her mother and another student. The statement
of this pupil was witnessed by a Garda. She said that, while she had not witnessed the incident
complained of, she was herself pushed out of the room by Mr Brander. Initially, statements were
taken from the vice-principal, Sr Edita and Sr Trista,21 who was in the room at the time of the
alleged assault. Sr Trista was of the view that Taina had adopted a defiant attitude. She saw Mr
Brander slap her arms down from the folded position twice but did not regard this as an assault.
Sr Edita also seemed to have questioned the bona fides of the complaint, commenting that she
was ‘roaring crying’ with no tears.
14.104 Some days later, Mr Brander and 12 further students made statements. Mr Brander denied the
allegations entirely. He made no mention of her adopting a particular attitude or of slapping her
arms down. He merely said that she was one of a group of children he ushered from the room.
The first he knew that anything was wrong was when the vice-principal came to him. He was most
surprised when he heard that Taina was crying, and stated that he had never used corporal
punishment in the last 14 years and that ‘it was beyond my comprehension how I could be
implicated with making any girl cry’. He said he had made an apology only in relation to the girl’s
mother having to come to the school and not because he had done anything to warrant a
19
20
21

complaint. He commented on his good relations with the family. Surprisingly, he was not
questioned further regarding the inconsistencies between his statement and that of the other
adults who had witnessed the events.
14.105 One of the students from whom a statement was taken on the later date, supported the allegations
and was described as ‘collaborating the injured party’s account’. Each of the statements taken
from pupils on the later date was witnessed by one of two teachers at the School. Three pupils
described Mr Brander slapping her arms down, and specifically stated that they did not regard it
as an assault. Two others referred to him putting his hand on her shoulder and ushering her out
of the room. A number referred to her as having adopted a defiant attitude.
14.106 In the statement issued by the School quoted above, no mention was made of a Garda
investigation in the early 1980s. The Investigation Committee learned of this investigation through
Garda discovery and not through the School or the Congregation.
14.107 Despite Sr Ines’ concerns about Mr Brander’s behaviour, she did not consider dismissing him.
When asked whether she was ever concerned that she might have to dismiss him, she replied
that ‘well he was due to be retiring the next year or something’. She also said ‘he was a good
teacher as regards teaching a subject ... I would have given a stiff talk to him ... There was never
anything that serious to my mind that you could sack him’.
14.108 She said ‘He was ... a bit different to the other teachers, a little different, strict or whatever’. When
asked by the Chairman was he a worry for her she replied, ‘Oh yes, he was in the end, but what
could I do? In the end [I could] only talk to him and try and fix the situation, which I thought we
did very well’.
14.109 At no point, either during his employment or after his conviction, did Sr Ines make contact with
his previous employers to learn what they might have known of his behaviour.
14.110 The School’s public statement quoted above refers to reports that contact was made with the
school in the early 1980s, alerting the authorities there about Mr Brander’s previous history. Sr
Ines denied any record or recollection of receiving such information. She testified that she learned
about this after her retirement in the mid-1980s, when she was advised by a senior teacher that
Mr Brander was a paedophile.
Attempts to expose Mr Brander during the early 1980s

14.111 Following the revelations of the sexual abuse of children resident in the Kincora Boys’ Home in
Belfast, Mr Rothe, who had been abused while a pupil of Mr Brander in Walsh Island NS in the
1960s, decided to make efforts to expose Mr Brander’s behaviour. At this point, he ‘began to
realise that I wasn’t the only person that this had ever happened to’. In considering how to go
about exposing Mr Brander, he was worried about the advisability of revealing that he had been
sexually abused. As he was a teacher himself, he thought that it might give rise to comment that
he himself was unsuitable to be a teacher. This man furnished documentation and gave evidence
to the Investigation Committee.
14.112 He approached a number of individuals whom he felt might be in a position to assist him.
Members of the clergy

14.113 Mr Rothe made an appointment to meet with the Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin, in whose diocese
Walsh Island NS was located. At the meeting, they discussed the circumstances of Mr Brander’s
departure from Walsh Island NS. The Bishop told him that Mr Brander was an urgent problem at
the time and it was dealt with quickly. He made the point that, if they had waited for the Department
of Education to act, it could have taken years.
14.114 The purpose of the meeting, from Mr Rothe’s point of view, was to find out how it was possible that:
a person who had been removed from a school for sexual abuse of a large number of
pupils could still be working as a teacher especially so close to where he had abused.
14.115 Mr Rothe said that the Bishop appeared to be surprised to learn that Mr Brander was teaching in
Tullamore. He was very critical of the manner in which the Department of Education dealt with
this sort of problem.
14.116 Following their meeting, Mr Rothe and the Bishop entered into correspondence on the matter,
commencing with a letter from Mr Rothe:
Dear [Bishop]
Further to our meeting of April 30th I think it fair to clarify my position. I have made a
written complaint to the Department of Education with the objective of finding out why the
management of Sacred Heart Secondary School were not informed of Mr. [Brander’s]
behaviour in Walsh Island NS.
I now know that managers are not obliged to report such matters to the Department. The
school manager has ultimate responsibility. It would have saved me time and expense
had you told me that when I asked you. As one who has suffered greatly because of this
I have the right to know the truth, a right which many people do not seem to recognise. I
believe that you made an unwise judgement in allowing Mr. [Brander] an opportunity to
get back into teaching. I also believe that other people had the right to information about
Mr [Brander] if he was to be prevented from coming into contact with children in any
capacity.
During my enquiries I have found that what happened to me in school is not at all
uncommon. I now know that there have been and continue to be numerous similar cases.
It appears that each year the Dept. removes the right to teach from a number of persons.
I would think this number to be between three and six. This does not take into account
the number of teachers sacked by individual managers or Bishops. I know from
Department sources that complaints are frequently lost and are dealt with only when they
are accompanied by an avalanche of similar complaints. In one case I know of this took
five years. I would also like to point out that the teachers sacked by the Department go
out on full salary or pension which is of course tax-payers money. I find this a little hard
to accept as it seems unlikely as I will get medical or legal expenses or payment for time
lost from work through illness.
It is clear to me that there are many thousands of people who have some knowledge of
the problem of sexual abuse in schools. Every person I have spoken to connected with
education recognises that there is a problem. It is undoubtedly something which many
people do not forget and which many never talk about.
I recognise of course the problems of getting proof in such cases. However there is an
unwillingness to deal with cases even when sufficient proof exists. The people who then
suffer are the children who are left at risk. It is the children I am concerned about. I do
not believe that the action taken in the [Brander] case was of any help to me either [at
the time of the abuse] or now. The attitude of clergy I have been in contact with is to say
the least regrettable. To an outsider it would seem like an attempt to cover up the facts
rather than deal with them. If society is now more informed and enlightened on such
problems as homosexuality it is no credit to the clergy in my opinion.
I ask you to consider the plight of many children who are sexually abused in their own
homes by members of their families. Who are they to turn to for help. Various bodies try
to help while society in general continues to ignore the realities. The point I wish to make
is that society will never deal with that abuse or alleviate some of the suffering that
accompanies it until it first deals effectively with cases of sexual abuse in schools.
I now find myself interested in not one case of sexual abuse but many. I believe that the
number of such cases can be greatly reduced if the relevant authorities are prepared to
take action. I am therefore asking that an investigation be made to find out the extent of
the problem and how it can best be dealt with.
I have made it quite clear at all times that I am interested in seeing that what happened
to me in Walsh Island NS will not continue to happen to others. In anything that I have
done I believe I have acted responsibly. Trying to do that can be frustrating if others do
not accept their responsibilities. I am not saying that anyone would deliberately allow an
unhealthy situation to continue. Somebody must show courage and leadership in tackling
a problem which most are unable to even discuss.
I look forward to any early reply.
14.117 The Bishop replied:

I have your letter ...
I was under the impression that you had already been in touch with the Department prior
to your visit to me.
I would query your reference to “numerous similar cases” – in fourteen years only three
such cases were brought to my notice, and this is one of the most populous dioceses in
the country.
In each case the families concerned were unwilling to testify publicly and the teacher
concerned had to be allowed to resign. The question of another appointment to a National
School should be covered by the fact that a reference from his last school is always
sought in the case of a teacher–applicant, and no manager would conceal the facts in
such cases. It does look as there is a loophole where post primary schools are concerned.
Subsequent to your visit I alerted the PP of Tullamore so that he will be aware of the
dangers, but one also has to take in consideration the possibility of a man genuinely
leaving his past behind him.
I can fully understand your feelings and your concern.
With every good wish.
14.118 Mr Rothe pursued the matter in a further letter:

Dear [Bishop]
In reply to your question on other cases I have been informed that during the seven
months of the last Coalition Government two persons had the right to teach removed from
them by the Minister Mr. Boland.
You did not in your letter give any answer on the question of an investigation or
compensation for me personally.
I do not agree with your reasoning on the Tullamore case but do realise that it was the
result of an oversight.
If my attempts to achieve an improvement through the proper channels fail I will use any
other means available. What happens in our schools is everybody’s concern. The first
time parents hear of the problem is after it has happened when it is too late. It is no
consolation to know how many cases there have been. How many are necessary before
action is taken.
14.119 Mr Rothe wrote a further letter, but there is no evidence that the bishop replied to either.
14.120 Mr Rothe also contacted Fr Derek, former curate in the Walsh Island parish, whose parish priest
had been Fr Colm. Mr Rothe had approached Fr Derek, as he felt that his meeting with the Bishop
had been unsatisfactory. He gave evidence of a meeting he had with Fr Derek, with whom he had
a good relationship. Fr Derek advised him that, when Mr Brander was sacked, a Department of
Education Inspector and an Irish National Teachers’ Organisation official were involved. He did
not learn their names.
14.121 Fr Derek advised him of the circumstances surrounding Mr Brander’s removal:

He did tell me the sequence of how Fr [Colm] heard about it on Sunday and he went to
the Bishop on the Monday and consulted with the Bishop and then he came back the
next day and ... confronted Mr [Brander] about it and how quickly it was done.
14.122 Fr Derek said that, if Mr Brander was still teaching, it was the Department’s fault.
14.123 There is a Garda memorandum of an interview with Fr Derek in the mid-1990s. Fr Derek said
that, following Mr Rothe’s visit in the early 1980s, he consulted with the Bishop and visited the
school curate of Tullamore to warn him about Mr Brander who was then teaching in the School.
14.124 Mr Rothe wrote to Cardinal Archbishop of Armagh. He discussed the problem of child abuse in
general terms and said that he had been abused in a small rural primary school. He mentioned
that had contacted the Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin and John Boland TD. The Diocesan
secretary replied as follows: ‘In the absence of [the] Cardinal I wish to acknowledge your letter ...
As you have already consulted your own bishop concerning the matter you can be assured that
[the] Bishop will bring it to the attention of the bishops if he deems it right that the bishops should
be informed’.
14.125 The discovery from the diocese contained a further letter from Mr Rothe, which commenced:
I have again asked [the Bishop] what action is to be taken to establish an investigation
into cases of sexual abuse in schools whether or not I am to be compensated for medical
expenses etc. and what the position is regarding the employment of Mr. [Brander] in
Sacred Heart Secondary School, Tullamore, Co Offaly.
14.126 In this letter, he continued to express his frustration at the lack of will to tackle the problem of the
sexual abuse of children in public schools.
14.127 He received no reply to this letter.
14.128 Mr Rothe said that he spoke to the curate in the parish of Tullamore. He felt he was more likely
to listen to him than the parish priest:
I made an appointment to see him, I went to see him and told him the whole story, he
suggested that he would check out the story and that I would phone him a week later,
which I did. He was very abrupt and very emphatic that he would do nothing, that he
would not be a part of a witch hunt and that you could not drag a man’s past after him
like an albatross around his neck.
Department of Education
14.129 In light of Fr Derek’s information about a Department of Education inspector being involved, Mr
Rothe decided to approach a national school inspector with whom he was professionally
acquainted.
14.130 Mr Rothe spoke about Mr Brander’s sexual abuse of his male pupils and physical abuse of both
male and female students. Mr Rothe also spoke of the sexual abuse he had himself suffered while
a pupil at Walsh Island NS. Mr Rothe testified to the Committee that he had expected his
acquaintance to pursue his complaint officially with the Department, even though he was not in a
position of authority over Mr Brander. However, the national school inspector gave evidence that
he believed that the meeting was private and that it was not intended that he should follow up
with action on his part.
14.131 While there is disagreement between the two men in relation to the number of meetings, what
was said and what each understood to be the purpose of the meeting, the essential fact that Mr
Rothe gave information regarding serious sexual and physical abuse by Mr Brander, a serving
teacher, is not in dispute. The national school inspector did not follow up this complaint by passing
on the information to the Department.
14.132 Mr Rothe gave evidence that his efforts thus far were an attempt to avoid having to write a formal
letter of complaint to the Department of Education. He had no idea how to go about this task, and
felt that there were implications for him professionally in so doing. Despite this fact, he wrote:
Dear Sir,
I wish to make the following points concerning Mr. [Brander] who is presently teaching in
Sacred Heart School, Tullamore. Mr. [Brander] taught in Walsh Island NS, Geashill, Co
Offaly from 1965 to 70. He was then sacked because it was found that he was sexually
abusing boys in his classes. He was the principal teacher in Walsh Island.
The manager of the school, Fr. [Colm] reported the matter to [the Bishop]... Mr. [Brander]
was then barred from teaching in primary schools. He then taught in Presentation
Convent, Castlecomer before taking up his present post in Tullamore.
I have been in touch with the authorities in Sacred Heart, Tullamore and they informed
me that they were not informed of Mr. [Brander’s] behaviour in Walsh Island either by the
Department or [the Bishop].
Many parents in Tullamore are unhappy with Mr. [Brander’s] teaching and methods of
maintaining discipline etc...
I am sure that [the Bishop] will verify anything I have said here regarding Mr. [Brander’s]
conduct in Walsh Island
I am myself a teacher and fully realise the seriousness of the charges I make against
another teacher, I would not make any charge that I could not prove. I will expect the
matter to be fully investigated and appropriate action taken.
Yours sincerely
14.133 This letter was received in the Secondary branch of the Department of Education. He followed
the letter with a telephone call to an employee in the Primary Branch. She advised him that there
was no record of any complaint. He received no reply to this letter. However, the letter did receive
some consideration within the Department.
14.134 Mr Rothe’s letter was passed between various sections of the Department before a decision to
take no action was ultimately made. Two sections within the Department were mainly involved in
the consideration of the complaint:
(a) Post Primary Financial Section
(b) Secondary Salaries Section
14.135 The letter from Mr Rothe quoted in full above raises the following points about Mr Brander:
• He is presently teaching in Sacred Heart Convent, Tullamore ;
• He taught in Walsh Island NS in the late 1960s;
• He was sacked from Walsh Island for sexually abusing boys;
• The manager in Walsh Island reported this to the Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin;
• Mr Brander was barred from teaching in primary schools;
• He taught in Presentation Convent, Castlecomer;
• Mr Rothe said that he had been in touch with authorities in Tullamore who advised him
that they were not informed of Mr Brander’s past behaviour by either the Bishop or the
Department of Education;
• Many parents in Tullamore were unhappy with his teaching/discipline;
• The Bishop could verify the above information.
14.136 The following memorandum was sent from an official in Post Primary Financial to an official in
Secondary Salaries:
Letter ... from Mr. [Rothe], N.T.
Essentially this letter is a complaint about a teacher’s misbehaviour and it seems to imply
that the writer considers that that misbehaviour was of such a serious nature that it
indicates the unfitness of the teacher for employment in any capacity as a teacher.
Inspection Section does not deal with such complaints unless they involve also allegations
of actual offences against pupils and seek investigation of such offences. This case does
not have that dimension. What it essentially raises, in the Department’s terminology, is
the question whether the Dept. can properly continue to recognise the teacher as a
“recognised teacher” and pay him Incremental Salary. If, however, the teacher is not a
recognised teacher and is not in receipt of Incr. Sal., then the allegation still raises a
question: can the Dept. properly aid the school out of public funds while it employs this
teacher to impart instruction?
Perhaps you wd. deal with the complaint from the “recognised teacher” and Incremental
Salary aspects. Presumably Primary Branch have a file about the alleged misbehaviour
in a primary school on this teacher’s part.
(Signed)
14.137 The matter proceeded through another exchange of memoranda between officials:
Re: Mr [Brander]
Mr [Brander] has been on incremental salary as a member of the staff of Convent of
Mercy, Tullamore since ...
Previously he was in Presentation Convent, Castlecomer...
He served as a primary teacher from [the early 1940s until the late 1960s] with a number
of very short breaks – almost a year in [the mid-1940s] and again [in the early 1960s] but
otherwise very short.
He is now [in his early sixties].
The recruitment and employment of teachers in Secondary schools is a matter for
management. Our concern is to ensure that they are properly qualified, that they are
authorised quota and that they are properly timetabled.
If this man’s work has been inspected and reported on during his years as a secondary
teacher, then the records will be available in Inspection Section. If not, perhaps one could
be arranged. Teachers Section would not call for the inspection of any particular teacher.
“Recognised teacher” has a particular meaning ascribed to it in the Rules for the Payment
of Incremental Salary to Secondary Teachers and we cannot go beyond that.
I would see the same limitations in relation to the payment of grants but this is essentially
a matter for your own area.
Mr [Rothe] has, according to his letter, brought the matter to the attention of school
management and I would say that the problem now rests there.
It would not be for the Department to give character references to a school in relation to
a teacher which it proposes to employ. If Mr. [Brander] has served for the last 13 years
as a secondary teacher – in girls’ schools – without coming under notice, is it correct to
rake up the past now? I have not attempted to trace any report in relation to his N.T.
service.
Signed
14.138 The procedures allowed complaints to the Department of Education, but, as this memorandum
points out, the problem now rested with the management of the school.
14.139 Further internal memoranda on the problem of Mr Brander were exchanged:

Convent of Mercy, Sec.school, Tullamore
[To] PO [in Post Primary Section]
(1) This school caters for girls only according to the ... October Lists.
(2) There is no adverse report on the teacher Mr [Brander] in the reports on this area’s
Inspection File for the school.
[Signed]
R/Cig (Inspection Section)
...
[To] PO [in Secondary Salaries Section]
We discussed this case on the telephone earlier today. As you will note from above, the
teacher who is the subject of complaint is at present employed in a Girls School: the
inference seems to be that he is not, therefore, a risk to the pupils even if he was guilty
of the offence or offences complained about by Mr [Rothe].
As you will note also from above minute, there is no adverse report of any Inspector on
file here in respect of Mr [Brander]. On the contrary, the last Inspector’s report in which
he was mentioned – one dated [two and a half years earlier] ... – praises the teacher’s
work in the phrase
“Oide an-mhaith é seo: cailı́ochtaı́ sa Ghaeilge aige.”22
Copy of that Report is attached.
The fact remains, however, that the Department has received Mr. [Rothe’s] very serious
complaint and that the whole context of the complaining letter might well appear to imply
that Mr. [Rothe] considers the nature of the offence to be such as to indicate unfitness for
employment as a teacher by reason of conduct unbefitting a teacher.
As you are no doubt aware, the relevant statutory regulations [viz. Regulation 4 of the
Regulations for the Register of the Intermediate School Teachers] empower the Minister
(not the Registration Council) to “remove from the register the name of any teacher who
shall be shown to his satisfaction to have been guilty of conduct which is, in the opinion
of the Minister, unbefitting a teacher.” Before doing so (i.e removing a name), the Minister
is required by the regulations to give the teacher an opportunity of being heard.
Having regard to the complaint and to the statutory provisions which I cite and which are
obviously designed to cover the kind of offence or offences complained of I consider that
22
Irish for ‘This is a very good teacher: he has qualifications in Irish’.

the papers should be submitted for the Department’s decision as to whether any action
beyond consideration of the complaint should at this stage – 13 years post eventum – be
put in train.
I note that the complainant offers no explanation whatever of the lateness of his complaint;
such explanation might well be considered reasonably necessary, however, in view of the
implications of the lateness for the availability of evidence at this juncture. If, however,
evidence was made available to the Department about the offence or offences at or
around the time of their occurrence, then the question arises,: from the nature of the
present complaint, why did the Dept. not act earlier.
I do not express any opinion on the bona fides of the complaint or on whether any action
should be taken on it beyond considering it carefully – and in the light of any other
evidence available on the matter in the Primary Branch – if there is any such evidence –
and that a Departmental decision should be obtained. For the complainant may have the
matter raised elsewhere presently and seek to blame the Dept. for alleged negligence.
[Signed]
[PO Post Primary Financial Section]
14.140 Some time passed before the matter was considered again. The following memo was sent by an
official in the Secondary Salaries Section to a colleague:
I will have a word with you about this after the holidays D.V.
I understand from Primary branch that staff had no knowledge of the allegation made
during the [teacher’s] period of service as a N.T. Accordingly Minister had no knowledge
of the alleged offence at time of registration. Do you think any action should be taken –
I don’t!
[Signed]
14.141 This memo was sent to HEO in Registration and Pensions, who noted:
• query out re primary
• no problem with Registration
[Signed]
14.142 On the same day, the HEO in Registration and Pension wrote to a HEO in Primary Payments
Section:
[To] HEO
1. We have had a complaint about Mr. [Brander] currently a secondary teacher, but who
taught in Walsh Island NS, Geashill, Co Offaly.
Could you ascertain whether there is any record of a complaint against this teacher on
the primary side? Are there any indications on why he left Primary teaching.
2. Please also confirm that Mr [Rothe] teaches in ...
Thanks.
[Signed]
Registration [and Pension]

14.143 She in turn wrote to a colleague in Pensions:
Offaly 176/6 Walsh Island NS
[To] Pensions
Re: Mr [Brander] – Sec Branch –[HEO]– Registration has asked if we have any record of
a complaint against this teacher – he transferred to Secondary Teaching some years ago
and served as Principal Teacher in Walsh Island NS according to our school records [in
the late 1960s]. His own cards are missing also the file ... for apt. of Principals in this
school is missing so I cannot trace his details at all. (Taken up [late 1970s]). Perhaps you
would have something on him in Pensions. I’d be thankful to get a reply if so.
[Signed] HEO
14.144 The official in the Pensions section replied setting out Mr Brander’s service history which showed
numerous changes of post.
14.145 The frequency of Mr Brander’s changes of post, as evident from this document, and the nature of
the complaint being made by Mr Rothe, should have raised questions and/or prompted a more
detailed investigation.
14.146 The HEO in Primary Payments was then in a position to reply to the HEO in Registration and
Pensions:
Mr [Rothe] apptd. as Asst. on ... and still serving.
1. We have no records unfortunately re Mr [Brander] – his cards and apt. file are missing
– the file ... apt. of Principal is noted in Registry “Up” [late 1970s] but Records Section
do not have it. All I have is a record of his past Primary Service. See copy obtained
from T.P.O.
[Signed]
14.147 The HEO in Registration and Pensions then sent a memorandum to the official in the Secondary
Salaries Section and this communication concluded the Department’s consideration of the
complaint made by Mr Rothe
[To] Uas P.O.
You are familiar with the background to this case. You will note from Primary Payments
that neither the file nor the teachers cards are available. The General Section tell me that
they cannot trace any papers either.
Perhaps the following points might help in reaching a decision:
the complaint refers to alleged incidents over 10 years ago;
the management of his current school are aware (per Mr [Rothe]) of the position;
the Inspectors report ... is satisfactory;
he is due to retire ...
as far as this section is concerned his registration papers are in order.
My feeling is that the Department (and in particular the Registration Section) does not
now have a sufficient basis to proceed with any action against the teacher.
However, I do propose that we submit a file through [Principal Officer], and [Chief
Inspector] for their agreement or observations. It might also be no harm to inform Mr
[Rothe] that we have “noted” the contents of his letter. However, it does not seem
appropriate for Registration Section to issue such a letter. Perhaps Inspection, or Primary
Branch would be more suitable.
[Signed]
HEO Registration
14.148 The official in Secondary Salaries simply wrote his comments on the suggestions in the last two
paragraphs and initialled and dated them. He wrote ‘Agreed’ next to the contention that the
Department did not have ‘sufficient basis to proceed with any action against the teacher’, and
against the suggestion that Inspection Section or Primary Branch should issue a letter to Mr Rothe
he wrote ‘Not necessary’.
14.149 The Department of Education has acknowledged that the manner in which Mr Rothe’s complaint
was handled was inadequate. Counsel for the Department of Education, pointed out in the course
of his cross-examination of Mr Rothe that, on a current affairs programme in the late 1990s:
... Minister Michael Martin acknowledged that even by the standards of the time the
Department’s handling of your written complaint was impossible to stand over.
14.150 In the Department of Education and Science’s Statement to Commission to Inquire into Child
Abuse, made in the advance of its Phase III hearing, the Department wrote:
Mr [Brander’s] conviction subsequently led to many parliamentary questions and
ministerial representations on the apparent inaction by the Department of Education to
deal with Mr [Brander] in [the early 1980s]. The letter appeared to cause no sense of
alarm in the Department and effectively was not acted upon. This view was expressed by
the Minister for Education in [the late 1990s], Michael Martin, when he stated that
“following my review of the papers, I am firmly of the view that the Department’s response
to this complaint was seriously lacking and that there can be absolutely no excuse by
reference to the standards of the time”.
Rule 4 of the 1967 Regulations for the registration of secondary school teachers provide
for the removal of a name from the Register of Secondary School teachers by the Minister
if warranted – “The Minister may, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard,
refuse to register him on the grounds that, in the opinion of the Minister, his moral
character renders him unfit to be employed as a teacher” and “the Minister may, after a
similar opportunity of being heard, remove from the Register the name of any teacher
who shall have been shown to his satisfaction to have been guilty of conduct which is,
in the opinion of the Minister, unbefitting a teacher”. The Regulations allowed for legal
representation. While the Department’s papers on this case indicate that withdrawal of
recognition as a teacher was identified as possible course of action, this was not pursued.
14.151 The memoranda set out above between civil servants seem to have been more concerned with
procedural niceties in dealing with the complaint rather than actually investigating it. At no stage
were the past, present or potential future victims of Mr Brander considered. The fact that the
complaints related to a period 10 years previously and that Mr Brander was due to retire in the
near future were used to justify taking no action.
14.152 A proper approach would have taken into account the following:
• There were serious allegations dating back at least 10 years of sexual and physical
abuse of children.
• The alleged abuser was a vice-principal with power over children.
• At the time the complaint was made, Mr Brander had three years before he was due
to retire and so could do much more harm.
• A full investigation was required.
14.153 The process took over a year and a half to come to the decision to do nothing. Another feature
of the handling of this case by the Department was the dismissive attitude that was adopted in
regard to Mr Rothe, who was not even given the courtesy of a reply to his letter. The debate
was not about how to investigate his complaint but about what to do about a troublemaker who
had complained.
Events post Mr Brander’s retirement

14.154 Mr Brander retired in the mid-1980s. He was subsequently convicted of abusing a boy to whom
he was giving grinds. The publicity following this conviction led a former pupil of Walsh Island NS
to come forward and make a statement to the Gardaı́, which resulted in a full-scale investigation
into Mr Brander’s period of service there.
14.155 Around the time of his third trial, Mr Brander wrote to the Christian Brothers saying that he himself
had been a victim of sexual interference during his time in the Christian Brothers after he joined
the Congregation in the 1930s. He described several occasions over a period of 10 years during
his education and training in the Brothers when he was sexually abused by a number of named
persons. The latest of the incidents happened in the 1940s. One of the offenders he named was
a Brother who was expelled from the Congregation because of sexual abuse. In the letter Mr
Brander said:
I was very innocent when joining, and I look upon those incidents as having a profound
influence on my teaching years.
14.156 Mr Rothe continued his quest to have his concerns, namely the exposure of Mr Brander and a
general inquiry into the abuse of children, dealt with, in contacts with a number of politicians, some
of whom raised the issues with Ministers for Education.
Conclusions
14.157 1. By permitting Mr Brander to be eased out of the Congregation, the Christian Brothers
did nothing to prevent him continuing in a career of teaching, despite his repeated
sexual interference with children and knowledge as to the danger he represented to
them. The Provincial at the time of his dispensation said that ‘we could not allow him
in future to have any contact with boys as it would be dangerous for himself and for
the boys’.
2. Within days of leaving the Congregation, Mr Brander took up a position as Principal
of a National School, which would have necessitated some form of application process
to the School Manager, who was most likely the parish priest of the area. It is scarcely
credible that an accurate reference could have been furnished, so the possibilities are
that a favourable reference was given which satisfied the employer or that the latter
did not seek a reference. In either case, there is ground for suspicion.
3. During the course of his subsequent career, Mr Brander’s sexual and/or physical
abuse of children came to the knowledge of his employers, including a parish priest
and senior members of two separate communities of nuns, a Bishop, members of the
clergy, the Gardaı́, the Department of Education and an Inspector thereof, and
colleague teachers, but on each occasion he was able to continue his career.
4. By choosing to take the easy way out, the persons and bodies with knowledge of Mr
Brander’s activities must bear heavy responsibility for the damage he did to children
throughout his career and following his retirement.

Chapter 15
St Conleth’s Reformatory School,

Daingean, County Offaly
(‘Daingean’), 1940–1973
Introduction
15.01 St Conleth’s Reformatory School in Daingean, County Offaly was different from all the other
institutions inquired into by the Commission. It was a reformatory and, unlike the children in
industrial schools, most of those in a reformatory had been convicted by the courts of criminal
offences that would in the case of adults have been punishable by imprisonment or penal
servitude. At the time of conviction, boys were aged between 12 and 17, and were committed for
between two and four years, but the period of detention could not extend beyond their 19th
birthday.
History of St Conleth’s, Daingean
Background to the establishment of reformatory schools

15.02 The need for a secure institution for children under 16 emerged in the first half of the Victorian
era, when there was a huge increase in the numbers of such children indicted for felonies,
particularly in the rapidly growing cities. The prison population had risen dramatically, partly
because crimes such as theft that had once incurred the death penalty had been made non-
capital offences, and partly because poverty drove people to petty crime to survive. As more and
more children were sent to adult prisons, there was a growing concern that these children,
convicted mostly for petty crimes, were being corrupted, exploited and abused by the hardened
criminals within the system.
15.03 As early as 1816, in London, the Committee for Investigating the Alarming Increases of Juvenile
Crime published a report on the need for action to address the matter. Four of its seven findings
became central to the policy reforms over the decades that followed. These were:
• the improper conduct of parents;
• the want of education;
• the want of suitable employment; and
• the violation of the Sabbath (and lack of religion).
15.04 The Juvenile Offenders Act, 1847 began the process of treating children who were criminals in a
different way from adults. This Act allowed children under 14 (this was raised in 1850 to 16) to be
tried in a special juvenile court. However, the problem remained as to where they should be sent,
and the solution to this problem became crucial because the practice of deporting juvenile
criminals was shortly to come to an end. A committee was set up in the House of Lords to advise
on the matter. The Scottish reformer, Dr Thomas Guthrie, who had been advocating establishing
boarding schools to educate children before they became criminals, and separate reformatory
schools for children who had already committed crimes, helped to convince the committee to
legislate for such schools.
15.05 In 1854, the Reformation of Youthful Offenders Act, set up such reformatory schools. They were
to be run by voluntary bodies but, for the first time, they were to be funded out of public funds. It
initially applied only to Scotland, but its provisions were extended to England and Wales in 1857.
15.06 Social reformers in Britain and Europe had already set up schools run by charity for such children,
but many of their ideas went further than the government was prepared to go. Mary Carpenter,
for example, who opened a ‘ragged school’ in a Bristol slum, advocated six main principles:
(1) Treatment should be founded on the love of the child.
(2) Change required the co-operation of the child.
(3) Work was to be a means to an end and not an end in itself.
(4) Recreation was as important as work.
(5) Corporal punishment was to be reduced to a minimum. (In Switzerland, one of the
men whose work inspired her, Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746–1827), abolished
flogging in his schools and astonished everyone by so doing.)
(6) The approach should be educational, founded on Christian moral teaching.
15.07 These ideas clashed with the prevailing view that the criminal should be made to take
responsibility for his deeds as illustrated by Parkhurst, on the Isle of Wight, which trained boys
who were to be transported to the colonies.
15.08 Very rapidly, these kinds of school were established all over Britain. By 1888, there were 46
reformatories in England and 10 in Scotland.
15.09 Initially, attempts to introduce the system into Ireland were blocked by Roman Catholic members
of the House of Commons as they feared Catholic children would be educated by Protestants but,
on 2nd August 1858, an ‘Act to Promote Reformatory Schools for Juvenile Offenders in Ireland’,
which made provision for the child’s religion, was passed. In the four years following the passing
of this Act, seven schools were founded and 754 children were committed to them. Within 12
years, there were 10 reformatories, five for each sex, throughout the island of Ireland.
15.10 The 1858 Act was repealed by another in 1868, and further amending Acts were passed, until the
Children Act, 1908 came into force and endured as the overarching piece of legislation in this
area for decades to come.
A brief history of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate (OMI)

15.11 Father Charles Joseph Eugène de Mazenod gathered round him a group of priests in Southern
France to preach the Gospel to the poor workers of the region. They became known as
‘Missionaries of Provence’ and other priests, attracted by their work, joined the group. In 1826
they received the title of Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate (Oblates) and approbation as a
Congregation under simple vows in a Brief of Leo XII dated 17th February 1826.
15.12 In 1854 the Founder was invited by several Irish Bishops to establish an Oblate Mission in Ireland.
Archbishop Cullen met with Fr Robert Cooke, who was on a mission to Dublin. He was an Irishman
who had studied theology in Marseilles, and had then been ordained by the now Bishop Mazenod.
He agreed to set up a base to enable the Oblates to work with the poor people of Kilmainham
and, in 1856, the Oblates bought a farm in Inchicore as their base. Just one year later, the Founder
was saying Mass in a church built on the site. Two years later, in 1858, the Oblates were asked
to set up a reformatory school in Glencree.
15.13 The Oblates are a Congregation of priests and lay brothers, the latter being the temporal
coadjutors, instructors, teachers and catechists within the missions. They have a regional structure
of management The areas in which they carry out their mission are divided into provinces and
mission vicariates. Each of these has a local Superior and a team of assessors and bursar are
appointed by him. These local houses or provinces report to a Superior General, who is elected
for life by the General Chapter, and who has a team of four assistants and a bursar-general. The
General Chapter, which meets every six years, comprises the Provincials, the Vicars of Mission,
and delegates from each province.
15.14 Recruiting into the Oblates is done through Juniorates or Apostolic Schools, Novitiates, which are
fed from the Juniorates and colleges, and Scholasticates, which receive novices who have been
admitted to temporal vows at the end of a year’s probation.
St Kevin’s Reformatory in Glencree

15.15 Lord Powerscourt, who owned the land at Glencree, offered the Dublin Catholic Reformatory
Committee the abandoned barracks at Glencree for use as a reformatory. They accepted the offer
and approached the Oblates and asked them to run the School. The Oblates had no experience
of such work, but were known to be concerned for the poor. Having taken on the responsibility of
caring for juvenile offenders, the Oblates tried to educate themselves about the running of
reformatories, and went to France and Belgium to study models for such a school. They looked
at the penal settlement at Mettray, created in 1840 by Frédéric-Auguste Demetz, based upon
Rousseau’s concept that man could be improved through contact with the land. Boys there were
in ‘families’, with each family having an adult head of household who imposed a regime of hard
work and severe punishments for lapses in the boys. The Oblates decided this system of dividing
the boys up into smaller groups could not be used because of the nature of the buildings at
Glencree, which would not allow the small family unit approach. The old barracks, in short,
determined the nature of the regime.
15.16 The Oblates moved into the barracks at Glencree in 1858. It was in need of much repair and its
first Superior set about using the boys to reclaim and cultivate the land of more than 100 acres.
The aim was to make the Institution self-sufficient. Its isolation, and the poor roads and transport,
made this objective a pressing one. For years, supplies had to be brought in over the difficult
mountain road that could become impassable in winter. In a very short space of time, it soon
reached full capacity.
15.17 Just 12 years later the Oblates opened a second reformatory. It was certified on 22nd December
1870, and became known as Daingean.
15.18 The Oblates worked in St Kevin’s, Glencree from 1857 until 1940, with a break between 1927
until 1934, and in St Conleth’s, Daingean from 1870 until 1973, with a break between 1934 until
1940, when it was an Oblate Scholasticate. They worked at Scoil Ard Mhuire, Oberstown, which
was opened after the closure of Daingean from 1973 until 1984. The Oblates withdrew from the
management of the School in 1984.
15.19 Provincial Archivist, Fr Michael Hughes in his evidence to the Investigation Committee at Phase
I stated:
The place where we parted company with the State in Scoil Ard Mhuire was that ultimately
they would not—they were not prepared to sanction a sufficient number of staff members
to cover all the responsibilities and we felt at that stage that we should withdraw.
15.20 The Department of Education appointed a Board of Management to run the School from that
date onwards.
The philosophy of the reformatory school system as outlined by the Oblates of Mary
Immaculate
15.21 The Oblates, in their General Statement given to the Investigation Committee, asserted that they
had high ideals. They ‘brought a vision of their own’ to the work, ‘arising from their long experience
in this work and their nature as a religious order. The work was accepted as a mission: the
Christian welfare of the boys, their rehabilitation in so far as they were wayward, and their
preparation to earn their livelihood so far as possible. They developed a tradition going back
to 1857’.
15.22 The Oblate General Statement described the characteristics of this tradition as it was put into
practice in Daingean:
• A substantial staff, mostly religious brothers and priests, but lay staff too
• A well-established administrative structure
• A remedial education programme
• Vocational training in various trades and occupations
• A routine of instruction and work
• The assignment of the boys to a Brother in a school/training group whose task it was
to integrate the newcomer into the life of the School
• The separation of juniors from seniors
• A sacramental religious framework
• An insistence on discipline
• Encouragement of sporting activities, and other leisure activities such as drama and
music
• Many external contacts
• Help in finding a job
• An aftercare programme.
The re-establishment of Daingean

15.23 The conditions that led to the re-establishment of Daingean was not a decision that was taken
without considerable debate, since the move involved taking some 200 boys under Garda escort
to a new residence nearly 60 miles away, and much further from the boys’ own homes.
15.24 Glencree was in a state of disrepair from the beginning. An internal memorandum written by Mr
Derrig,1 the Minister for Education, dated 10th July 1939 began:
I visited this place recently and was very disappointed to find it in such a bad state of
repair. I have come to the conclusion that it is very doubtful whether, even with large
expenditure, the present buildings can be brought up to a satisfactory standard.
15.25 Within the same memorandum he suggested that substantial reforms needed to be made in the
area of teacher training, provision of practical training and the setting up of a visiting committee.
1
This is the English version of Tomás O Deirg.

15.26 A subsequent memorandum elaborated on this theme. Mr Derrig asserted:
the basis of the present system is defective and possibly will continue so, so long as
maintenance and improvements as well as payments to staff have to be made out of the
capitation payment. ... My personal view is that if we are going to make a change from
Glencree we shall have to face up to the question of providing a new institution properly
equipped, and we may also have to provide special aid for staffing.
15.27 At this time the thinking within the Department of Education was for drastic change, with the need
for such measures an urgent priority. The Minister for Education, Mr Derrig, had paid a visit to
Glencree and had ‘formed the opinion that it would be difficult to make the buildings suitable for
their purpose’. Moreover, the memorandum added, ‘The management did not impress the Minister
as being efficient or satisfactory’.
15.28 The Department had gone so far as to consult the Presentation Brothers about the matter, but
the urgent need for economy forced the Department to ‘defer consideration of the proposal to
change the Reformatory to new accommodation and management, and to try to get the premises
at Glencree improved as much as possible’.
15.29 The outbreak of war in 1939 meant all plans had to be suspended. The Resident Manager of
Glencree wrote to the Department, acknowledging the appalling conditions there and the debts
owed by the School to the parishes and to the Oblate Congregation totalling over £3,200.
15.30 These appalling conditions were confirmed by an inspection carried out for the Department, which
made it quite clear that remaining at Glencree was not an option, and that it would be more
economical in the long run to provide suitable accommodation elsewhere: roofs, staircases and
floors required replacing; the roofs of the workshops leaked and one section of the first floor was
too dangerous to be in use; walls were falling outwards and would have to be rebuilt; the bake
house was ‘dark, dirty, and thoroughly unhygienic’; washbasins had only cold water supplied ‘from
a small hole in the water pipe placed above the basins’; the only plunge bath was an old iron one
in the corner of the building; the whole ‘ablution system’ was obsolete, unhygienic and a danger
to health; and the lavatory accommodation was described as ‘appalling’.
15.31 With the necessity of finding a replacement for Glencree, various options were investigated and,
finally, a meeting was held on 17th November 1939, attended by the Taoiseach, Eamon De Valera
(who was also the Minister for Education), the Provincial of the Oblates, the Manager of Glencree
and the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education. Fr Giancarlo,2 the Resident Manager
of Glencree, put a temporary solution forward that was to become a permanent one, which was
that accommodation might be found at Daingean, if other provision could be made for the students
there at present. Daingean was held by the Oblates on a 99-year lease from the Government.
The surrounding farm was owned outright by the Congregation. Fr Giancarlo explained that the
buildings at Daingean had been considerably improved and the former dormitory accommodation
remained. Since the premises at present housed about 170 students and staff, he thought that
should be sufficient for the Reformatory for a time.
15.32 The question of accommodating the Reformatory permanently at Daingean was considered and
a number of difficulties were discussed, such as the distance from Dublin and the complications
that arose because additional buildings would need to be erected by the Government on land that
it did not own.
15.33 As regards the objection of the distance from Dublin and the difficulty for parents visiting the boys,
Fr Giancarlo contended that this would have the advantage of preventing undesirable visits (from
2

boys’ former companions) which took place at present at Glencree. He also asserted that parents
would not mind travelling by bus to Daingean occasionally, and suggested that a system of permits
might be arranged which would possibly entitle them to reduced bus fares. There is no evidence
that such a system was ever established.
15.34 Additional buildings were necessary for the permanent accommodation of the Reformatory at
Daingean. There was a problem for the Government in erecting these, because they did not own
the farm, and the Provincial suggested that his Congregation might dispose of the farm to the
Government in order to overcome this. The other difficulty mentioned involved the provision of
alternative accommodation for the Oblate students at present at Daingean, and the Provincial
undertook to make enquiries and consult his Council to see what could be done.
15.35 Mr Eamon de Valera, who was both An Taoiseach and Minister for Education from September
1939 to June 1940, visited the buildings in November 1939, and the decision to move from
Glencree to Daingean was made.
15.36 On Tuesday 6th August 1940, Garda Transport Authorities transported 205 boys from Glencree to
Daingean. The Garda escort was in civilian clothes. The mattresses and bedclothes were
transported in a large open truck on the same day. Fr Giancarlo had sought tarpaulin covers from
the Gardaı́ to cover the trucks but this could not be provided. We are not told if the sun shone
down on this unusual convoy.
15.37 Far from being what the Department of Education wanted, ‘a new institution, properly equipped’,
offering ‘... better accommodation and under different management’, the Reformatory moved from
one old barracks that was always in need of extensive repairs to another old barracks in need of
extensive building and upkeep, and under the same management.
The financial arrangements

15.38 Daingean had a different financial arrangement from other residential institutions. The summary
of this arrangement was as follows:
1. The Government was to purchase from the Oblate Fathers the farm and its buildings
for £4,500.
2. The Government would pay the Oblate Fathers for the additions and improvements
they had made while Daingean was in use as a college. The sum agreed was £6,000.
3. The managers of the Reformatory would pay an annual rent for the farm and premises
of £350.
4. The Government would make a special grant of £2,500 towards the debts incurred by
the Reformatory at Glencree.
15.39 The most novel aspect of these proposals was the fact that the Department was now responsible
for new buildings and for repairs, with day-to-day maintenance the responsibility of the
Congregation. Because they no longer owned the premises the Oblates did not have to find the
money themselves for capital expenses but could submit estimates for the work needed, and the
State would pay provided it was done within budget. The rent agreed, at point three above, took
this fact into account, ‘since the present grants to Reformatories are intended to defray the full
cost of maintenance,’ this rent was to return to Government coffers some of the additional
maintenance costs agreed. It also had ‘regard to the fact that it [the farm] will represent a
substantial contribution towards the maintenance of the inmates and staff of the institution’.
15.40 When the terms of this agreement were put to the Department of Finance, strong objections were
raised. The letter sent by Mr J. E. Hanna, Assistant Secretary at the Department of Finance, is
worth quoting in full:
Dear O’Dubhthaigh,
I have read your letter of the 25th ultimo regarding the question of new accommodation
for the Boys’ Reformatory School. The information contained therein raises a number of
points which, I think, it would be well to have clarified before even tentative approval is
given to the proposals outlined in your letter.
1. As you are aware, the Daingean premises are State property but the Oblate Order
were given a 99-year lease of them, with the option to determine the lease at 7-
year intervals. If the Daingean premises are to be used for the purposes of a
reformatory, will it be necessary to determine the existing lease? That lease
provides that any improvements effected during the term of the lease will enure to
the State on the surrender of the lease. In the circumstances, there would seem
to be a case for not making any grant to the Order in respect of improvements
effected since 1932. Apart from this question, the responsibility of the Order in
regard to maintenance, improvement, etc., of the premises in the future would
have to be clearly defined. When the Reformatory was situated previously at
Daingean the Oblate Order were responsible for repairs, maintenance, etc. I
assume that a similar responsibility will devolve upon them in the future, if
Daingean is again used as a boys’ reformatory. If not, it may be necessary to
consider a reduction of the State grants.
2. I cannot say that I can see any convincing reason for the proposal that the State
should purchase the Oblates’ farm. It may be that you contemplate that, in the
event of the lease of the buildings being surrendered so as to allow their reversion
to the State, the State should assume ownership of the farm as well, the Oblate
Order standing in the position of agents of the Minister for Education in regard to
the conduct of the Reformatory. If that should be the position and the State should
purchase the farm, it would seem reasonable that any profit arising on the farm
should accrue to the State. In this connection I note that, in 1927, £567 was
realised from the sale of farm produce, after the needs of the Institution had been
met. Unless the annual surplus on the farm were to accrue to the State it would
seem that the State would be paying twice over for the farm. As the grants should
enable the Reformatory to be conducted in a satisfactory manner, the profits on
the farm should not be diverted to the Order.
3. As regards the debts on Glencree, it is possibly the case that they have mainly
arisen in consequence of the inadequacy of the State and local grants in the past.
To the extent, however, that they may be due to improvements at Glencree, the
benefit of which will accrue to the Order, I think it only fair that the State should
be relieved of that portion of the debt.
4. Have you considered what the position of the State in relation to the Reformatory
premises, etc., will be in the event of the Order deciding at any time in the future
to discontinue the work? I assume that, if such a contingency should arise, the
buildings, with the furniture, equipment, etc., which have been bought from State
Funds would revert to the State, free of all claim by the Order.
5. It seems to me that the Oblate Order see considerable advantage to themselves
in the transfer of their Novitiate to Kilkenny. I assume that the proposal that
Daingean should be used as a reformatory in the future came from the Order.
6. In furnishing these observations, I am at the disadvantage that I do not know what
you intend should be the position of the State vis a vis the Order in regard to the
Reformatory premises, and the farm. The position does not seem to be quite clear,
and my observations are directed mainly with the object of anticipating difficulties
in the matter, which may arise at a later stage. I shall be glad to hear further from
you at your convenience.
Yours sincerely,
J.E. Hanna
15.41 In fact, many of Mr Hanna’s assumptions had been negotiated away. The Oblates were no longer
to be responsible for anything other than day-to-day upkeep and maintenance, as they had been
when the Reformatory was situated previously at Daingean, and the State was going to buy the
farm but was going to get an annual rent in return, which at £350 was considerably less than the
profit made from the sale of farm produce in 1927. He was accurate in his conclusion that ‘the
Oblate Order see considerable advantage to themselves in the transfer of their Novitiate to
Kilkenny’, and was also correct in his assumption ‘... that the proposal that Daingean should be
used as a reformatory in the future came from the Order’. By the time this letter was written,
however, matters had progressed too far. The need to get the new Daingean up and running as
soon as possible meant that many of his concerns had to be shelved.
15.42 The need expressed earlier, for new methods and a change of management for the reformatory
schools system, also seems to have been shelved. A memorandum dated 25th July 1940
contained a note of resignation about how things were going. The Department official wrote:
... Father Ricardo3 informs us that his Provincial Council has decided to appoint Father
Neron4 as Manager of the Reformatory at Daingean, and it is necessary to consider what
reply should be sent to this. We do not know if Father Neron has any experience of the
work of a Reformatory or similar institution, or what special qualifications he has for the
position. At the same time, I fear it might merely annoy the Oblate Authorities to raise any
questions regarding the appointment they have made, and I suggest that we merely say
in reply that the appointment is noted.
15.43 Mr O’Dubhthaigh simply wrote underneath, ‘Agreed’.
The premises
15.44 The original buildings at Daingean were built as a military barracks in the middle of the eighteenth
century. For a while, it served as a training ground for the Irish Constabulary and then became a
prison for adult criminals. From 1871 to 1934, it became a reformatory school run by the Oblates.
15.45 Fr Luca,5 who was Resident Manager of Daingean from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s, in a
memoir about his time in Daingean described the former barracks as ‘pretty stark’, apart from a
few very nice rooms that might have been officers’ quarters. Behind this old building was the
building erected in the 1940s that housed the two large dormitories, one for seniors and the other
for the juniors. Underneath were the woodwork and metalwork classrooms. On the opposite side
of the yard was the large recreation hall, and across from that were the washrooms, again
separate ones for senior and junior boys. There were also classrooms, a piggery and a poultry
house, and the scullery and storerooms. Only the dormitory block had any form of heating. The
boys and the staff had to wash in cold water.
15.46 In 1940, however, only the buildings of the old barracks were there, so the boys had to be housed
in the wings of the barracks, and the staff used the old gaol and a building near the entrance.
3
4
5

Figure 1: St. Conleth’s Reformatory, Daingean
(Shaded areas were part of original barracks)
Legend:
1. Main block, formerly officers’ quarters
2. Main block East Wing, used as boys’ dormitory until 1951/2
3. Main block West Wing, used as boys’ dormitory until 1948/9
4. Chapel
5. Printing and tailoring shop
6. Kitchen, scullery and stores
7. Laundry
8. Slaughterhouse
9. Poultry
10. Piggery
11. Stores (Potatoes and grain)
12. New residence for Brothers, built 1957
13. Old residence for Brothers/convent housing nuns in later years
14. New block West Wing, built 1948/9
15. New block East Wing, built 1951/2
16. Sanitary Annexe, built 1940/1
17. Sanitary Annexe
18. New ball alleys
19. Shop and play hall/theatre built 1944
20. Site of St. Joseph’s, formerly the old gaol
The buildings in the early years

Source: Martin Reynolds
The School staff
15.47 In July 1945, Mr Ó Sı́ochfhradha,6 the Department of Education Inspector, listed the staff at the
School:
The school staff consists of the Manager together with the Chaplain, 16 Brothers, 2 lay
teachers, 1 tailor, 1 shoemaker, 3 farm workers, 1 teacher of Physical Education (part-
time). Each Brother has his own responsibility – one in the kitchen, one in the shoemaker
room, one in the woodwork room, two in the bog, one in charge of the cattle, two or three
on the farm and so on, each in charge of a group of boys.
15.48 There were 126 boys in the School at the time.
15.49 In their Opening Statement, the Oblates stated that, by the 1960s, many of the staff were ‘growing
old and falling sick’. In January 1966, in a report for the General Chapter, the Provincial noted
6
This is the Irish version of Sugrue.

that only nine active members of staff were expected to cater at all times, from 7:00 in the morning
until 10:30 at night, seven days a week. The average age of these men was over 40, and the
strain was evident by the fact that six Brothers in five years had suffered nervous breakdowns.
The population of Daingean

15.50 In their Opening Statement, the Oblates set out the categories of boy who came to be sent to
Daingean. The overwhelming majority of the pupils were ‘young offenders’, whose ages ranged
from 12 to 18 years.
15.51 Daingean was also used as a place of remand but there were only 12 remand places at any time.
Unlike industrial schools, Daingean had insignificant numbers of ‘voluntary’ pupils admitted who
were not supported by the State. The Oblates provided statistics relating to the pupils in the School
and the following figures for the age spread and numbers of pupils in the School in Daingean:
Period Total presences at end of Average per annum

school year
1941–1949 = 9 years 1,947 216.3
1950–1959 = 10 years 1,589 158.9
1960–1969 = 10 years 1,550 155.0
1970–1973 = 4 years 189 47.2
Total = 33 years 5,275 159.8
15.52 Age spread in a sample year in the 1960s was:
% Age
6% 13 years +
11% 14 years +
31% 15 years +
35% 16 years +
15% 17 years +
2% 18 years +
15.53 The following Table is based on Department of Education Records and shows the offences
committed by a total of 87 pupils, which led to their detention in Daingean in 1955–1956:
Grounds for committal Number committed

Larceny and receiving 28
Shop/House breaking 49
Arson 1
Indecent assault 2
Burglary 2
Common assault 2
Others 3

15.54 The Oblates stated that the typical social class of the pupil in their school was urban working
class. The boys were mainly from the larger Irish cities of Dublin, Cork and Limerick. The levels
of literacy among the boys committed were significantly lower in a sample of boys compared with
a normal national school. Of the complainants who gave evidence to the Committee, many ended
up in Daingean for trivial offences that owed more to poverty than criminality, particularly those
admitted under the first two categories set out above.
The urban-rural divide

15.55 In an article entitled ‘The Juvenile Offender’ written in 1963 the author, James O’Connor, wrote:
The offences which merit committal to Daingean vary from court to court, but more
particularly from city to country. In Dublin a boy might have eight or nine previous
convictions before he receives a reformatory sentence, whereas in the country he may
have committed his first offence.
15.56 Fr Luca also wrote about the urban-rural divide in the School and the differences and difficulties
this presented to the school authorities. Most of the boys in the School came from an urban
background. Fr Luca stated that the rural boys were more difficult to deal with than even the
toughest boy from the city. He stated that, for a rural boy to be sent to Daingean, he must have
done something ‘very radically wrong’:
A boy or girl who seriously offended would be regarded as sort of social outcasts, they
would be marked as people not fit to be in that area.
15.57 He also stated, somewhat contradictorily, that the District Justices in the country wanted to stamp
out crime problems in their area and therefore if a country boy offended he was sent straight to
Daingean immediately. The city court Judges tended to avail of the Probation Act more often and
gave the offenders numerous chances.
15.58 Daingean did not receive boys who were guilty of non-attendance at school.
The special needs pupils

15.59 In their Opening Statement the Oblates referred to a particular issue, which they considered
especially relevant to this inquiry. The issue was how the system failed to meet the special needs
of some of the pupils.
15.60 The Oblates identified two types of pupils: those who ‘... were in no frame of mind to respond to
its programme for whatever reasons. These had needs that were not compatible with the School’s
ethos’, and those who ‘should not have been sent to the school because their capacity to respond
was limited through psychological or educational difficulties that called for a specialist approach
that the school did not have’.
15.61 The Oblates, in other words, acknowledged that the Institution failed to provide for the special
needs of the vast majority of its pupils.
15.62 The Resident Manager in the 1960s explicitly referred to the situation he was faced with as ‘unjust’
to the pupils, but it was clear that the regime in Daingean was incapable of responding to
individual needs.
15.63 Severely psychiatrically disturbed children also ended up in Daingean, and these children could
not have been properly looked after by the reformatory system. The Oblates were correct in stating
that these children were let down by the State, which failed to provide specialist facilities.
15.64 The Oblates maintained that they acted responsibly, and drew attention to these problems without
succeeding in having them addressed until very late in the day.
Conclusions
15.65 • From its re-establishment as a Reformatory in 1940, Daingean was a poor solution to
a problem that had been allowed to escalate to crisis proportions. The interests of the
boys were not prioritised in the discussions leading up to the opening of Daingean.
• Daingean’s isolation, clearly identified as a problem by Government officials, was
regarded as an advantage by the Congregation. Isolating boys from family and friends
was part of the ethos of the Institution.
• The lack of clarity with regard to responsibility for maintenance of the buildings in
Daingean, identified in the Department of Finance letter, proved to be an on-going
problem which contributed to the appalling living conditions of the boys.
• The complainants who gave evidence mainly came from backgrounds of poverty and
neglect. Although they all came through the court system, very few of them were
hardened criminals. Daingean did not address the special needs and disadvantages
of these boys.
Investigation
15.66 Fr Murphy, Provincial of the Oblate Congregation, presented evidence to the Investigation
Committee at the Emergence hearing on 23rd July 2004. Fr Michael Hughes, the Provincial
Archivist, gave evidence at the Phase I public hearing into Daingean on 9th May 2005. Complainant
and respondent witnesses were heard in private between 10th May and 2nd June 2005 at the
Commission’s offices. Finally, a public hearing in Phase III was held on 6th June 2006, and
evidence was again given by Fr Hughes.
15.67 In the private hearings, 25 complainant witnesses testified out of a total of 34. A further 44
attended for interview, out of a total of 86 who were invited to attend for interview. Two respondent
witnesses gave evidence.
15.68 In addition to oral evidence, the Investigation Committee considered documents received from the
Oblates, the Department of Education and Science, An Garda Sı́ochana, the Department of
Justice, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin.
Physical abuse
Corporal punishment
15.69 In the Emergence hearing into Daingean, the Oblate Congregation did not apologise for any
excessive corporal punishment, but they did refer to the press statement which was issued after
the broadcast of ‘States of Fear’ in 1999 in which they stated:
We would firstly say that the abuse of young people is always abhorrent and abuse of
young people in confinement is doubly so. The Oblates of Mary Immaculate deeply regret
that any young man was mistreated while in their care and offer sincerest apologies.
15.70 In response to a question from the Investigation Committee, the Oblates stated that that press
statement:
was in the nature of an expression of concern after the TV documentary ‘States of Fear’
in which one of the reformatories was mentioned. It was thought that such a statement
was required in view of the public interest in the programme. In their statement the Oblates
also indicated that further research was needed. No further statements of this kind have
been made ...
15.71 In their Opening Statement the Oblates submitted the following:

Allegations of physical abuse have also been made. The Oblate Management file shows
two complaints of excessive corporal punishment in the lifetime of the school. The school
files show five complaints in the lifetime of the school of pupils being struck by staff
members: two of these are also found in the DES discovery documents. The Oblates do
not seek to defend the use of excessive corporal punishment. However the use of corporal
punishment in the period must be judged in the context of a society where it was
acceptable in itself and in the context of an institution where
• numbers were large,
• facilities were very limited,
• and there was little or no psychological assessment to exclude violent or unmanageable
boys or any resources to deal with them.
As a result it was a very difficult task to maintain order in the reformatory and eliminate
violence among the boys themselves. It should be mentioned that evidence of support
from parents can also be found in the files, and also letters from boys which reveal a good
relationship between pupils and staff.
15.72 In their Submission, the Oblates summarised their position and acknowledged that the corporal
punishment described by some of the complainants was ‘unreasonably severe’. They also
acknowledged that ‘the punishment for certain infringements such as absconding and attempting
to escape was in itself ‘over severe’. They conceded that such punishment had serious
consequences for the boys, and they apologised unreservedly for that, but they denied that it was
abusive or administered randomly.
15.73 They asked the Commission to examine the issue in the context of the times and the type of
institution that operated in Daingean. They also suggested that the question to be examined by
the Commission was summed up by the Chairman when he pointed out that the issue was not
simply whether boys were beaten in institutions but whether they were abused by being beaten.
How corporal punishment was used in Daingean

15.74 From the evidence, it emerged that corporal punishment was administered in three different ways,
all of which breached the rules and regulations for corporal punishment in residential schools.
These were:
1. The form of punishment known as a flogging.
2. Punches, slaps, kicks or blows with an available implement such as a hurley, a stick
or, in the case of one particular Brother, a garden hose and a spade. These blows
were given as immediate chastisement for aberrant behaviour or for disobedience and
minor insolence. Some staff members were singled out as resorting to such
punishment more frequently and harshly than others.
3. Blows with a strap for behaviour warranting less serious punishment.
Flogging
15.75 At a conference held in the Department of Education on 30th June 1952, with Fr Pedro,7 the
Resident Manager of Daingean, District Justice McCarthy and the Minister for Education and his
7

officials present, issues relating to Daingean and Marlborough House were discussed. The
minutes at one point revealed the following:
Justice MacCarthy asked whether corporal punishment had often to be inflicted. Father
Pedro said no. Occasionally a caning on the hand, but no more.
15.76 The policy of administering an occasional caning on the hand and no more did not conform to the
reality of corporal punishment in Daingean. More than the other institutions, Daingean had a
system of administering corporal punishment in a formal, almost ritualised way. It meant more
than just being beaten with a strap or cane. If a boy was put ‘on report’ by a Brother for breach of
discipline, the Disciplinarian would administer corporal punishment in a way known as a ‘flogging’.
15.77 Just a year later, in 1953, Fr Pedro explained in a letter to the Inspector of Reformatory and
Industrial Schools exactly what a ‘flogging’ meant in Daingean:
“Flogging” means that a boy is put on his knees receiving a few (5 or 6) light strokes of a
light strap on the back. This is not done except for serious offences such as a)
insubordination (b) deliberate destruction of property (c) public immoral conduct (d)
inciting others to riotous conduct (e) absconding. Absconding must be regarded as a
serious offence otherwise it would be impossible to keep those type of boys in the School.
The usual punishment for ordinary breaches of rule is a few slaps on the hand or
deprivation of re-creation for 15 or 20 minutes.
15.78 The use of the strap on the hand as permitted by the rules was not a ‘flogging’. According to the
Resident Manager, who had the responsibility for enforcing the rules, a flogging was specifically
the administration of blows to the back of a boy who was made to kneel at the time.
15.79 In the same year, Dr McCabe, the Department of Education’s Medical Inspector, wrote about the
use of flogging in Daingean:
“Flogging” ... consists in taking the offender into a small room, removing his pants and
administering 5 or 6 strokes on the bare posterior with a leather strap which is quite
flexible about 1” wide and 1 yard long (It resembles a strap used to put around a suitcase)
The punishment is administered by the disciplinarian ... who is a very understanding
patient man and always offers an excuse in defence of a boy if at all possible.
15.80 Br Abran,8 who was himself identified as harsh and cruel by complainants and who gave evidence
before the Committee, described a flogging that he had been asked to witness in the 1960s. He
recalled standing 15 feet away from the boy on the stairs on the ground floor. The boy had his
hands on the steps and his nightshirt was lifted up.
15.81 He described how the boy, who received around six strokes, was screaming and shouting: ‘... he
was only a small chap. I was horrified myself’. He recalled that there was another Brother present
with the Prefect. He was asked by the Superior to witness the beating. He said ‘... I don’t know
the circumstances, possibly rumours of a type of cruelty was in vogue and I was there to – acting
as a witness or just to be there ...’.
15.82 When questioned further, he added:

I said that the boy in question was a small boy who should not have been punished in
that certain way anywhere, firstly ... I had never seen such an incident like that before. It
was the first and last time.
8

15.83 He later explained that normally such a punishment took place in the office but, on that occasion,
the Superior had requested that he be present as a witness:
I think there was some kind of trouble, you had boys up in the roof and some trying to
abscond. It was a weak era during that period apparently and because of that I was asked
to attend this particular one, to ensure that things were sort of semi-okay ...
15.84 This Brother was a valuable independent witness, because he gave an account of a flogging
separate from the version given by the boys and by the records. His account was not in conflict
with the written descriptions in the discovered documents as outlined above. Both agreed on
the following:
(1) Blows were with a leather strap on the bare back or buttocks.
(2) The boy would be kneeling.
(3) The disciplinarian would administer the blows.
(4) On some occasions, at least two Brothers were present.
(5) The office, or a small room, or the stairs by the dormitory were used.
(6) The procedure engendered fear. Although this Brother had been in Daingean ‘a few
years’, he found the sight of the boy being flogged an experience that ‘horrified’ him.
15.85 Fr Luca, who was Resident Manager from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s, added to this picture.
He wrote in his Statement to the Committee:
I know you have heard it said at times that they were stripped, well there weren’t stripped
but they might have to let down their pants and get it on the backside ...
... I would have to say I don’t know how many slaps they had. I never saw the boys being
punished while I was there. I didn’t regard it as part of my duty to supervise that. I know
that the boys were punished and I know it was left to the prefect to decide what the
punishment would be for the particular, well I don’t like to call it crime, misdemeanour.
It was generally at the end of the day, there would always have to be two there, never
one. I suppose, there would have to be a person available. It seemed to be the tradition
which was never questioned. It was never done during the day as far as I know. Nobody
ever punished any boy except the prefect ...
The place wasn’t in view. As far as I know, the punishment was always performed in the
washroom. The stairs went from the washroom up to the dormitory. Now, I am sure they
could hear the boys, they would know anyway, they knew what the score was.
15.86 He added:
I was never present, but my understanding was that they had to let down their pants, lean
over the form they sat on in the wash-up room and it was administered there.
15.87 He further stated:

On the corporal punishment, I don’t think it was excessive. But any corporal punishment,
I think, I would regard it as an excess. It was something which I don’t think it was achieving
the purpose for which it was intended, to be a control and an aid to discipline. Because it
was degrading ... you were attacking a boy’s human dignity.
15.88 In effect, Fr Luca confirmed all the other testimony: the Prefect with another Brother present
administered corporal punishment, and it was administered at the end of the day in the washroom,
near the dormitory, and could be heard by the other boys.
The strap
15.89 The Investigation Committee was shown the strap used by the Prefect in Daingean. It was about
three feet long, with a narrower section at one end for use as a handle. It was half an inch thick
and about two inches wide. It was not as flexible as a belt described by Dr McCabe, or ‘light’ as
described by Fr Pedro, but heavy and stiff and bendable and, when administered with force by
an adult on a child, it caused extreme pain.
Evidence on floggings given by complainants

15.90 The Investigation Committee heard testimony from several complainant witnesses about their
experience of floggings.
15.91 One witness, who was there in the early 1940s, gave the following graphic account:
this Br [Jaime9] was the man that did the flogging. He had a title of a prefect or something
... What flogged meant was that you got down – you took off your trousers and you
got down on your knees and you went forward on the front and he flogged you on the
bare buttocks.
15.92 He remembered that this happened to him on four occasions ‘in a room near the toilet and near
the dormitory’. He also said that ‘... on two occasions I was taken from the dormitory and on two
occasions I was taken from the yard to be flogged in this same room ...’.
15.93 He went on:

I was flogged four times and the first time was when I was three or four months there and
a chap ... tried to bully me. I hit back, it was only about two punches. I was reported and
got flogged.
15.94 This witness recalled another occasion when he received a flogging because he removed his
trousers before getting into bed, which he was not supposed to do as it was associated with ‘being
immodest’. He took his trousers off before getting into bed as they ‘were always dirty with either
cement and the blankets weren’t changed only every two or three months anyway or the sheets’.
He added that ‘there wasn’t any kind of display’, and for that he got four lashes of the strap.
15.95 He spoke of another flogging:

at the table there was some kind of a clothy thing on the table, not a tablecloth, you would
scrape it off with your knife onto the plate, you would scrape the knife and my knife broke,
it was that type of knife that the handle would fall off it. I was flogged for that. That could
happen to anybody. That wasn’t a terrible thing, that wasn’t going to upset the run of the
school or anything like that.
15.96 He recalled the fourth time he was flogged:

the man that I was labouring to, he was spreading hard wall plaster and we were supplying
him with the plaster. We weren’t very good builders labourers, we weren’t good at mixing
the plaster ... it would get hard and he threw the thing down on top of me. There was a
bit of blood from my head. I called him a name, he reported me and I got flogged for that.
15.97 This witness was complaining not only about the ferocity of the beatings, but also about their
unfairness in his case. The description of the offences for which he was flogged could hardly be
categorised as serious offences. His description of the flogging given in the 1940s is exactly like
those described in the 1950s and 1960s.
9

15.98 Another witness, there in the late 1960s, gave the following account:
[The Brothers], they had me on the steps, I got into a fight or something, they had this
belt which was about a metre long ... You would go to bed and then you were called out
of bed, you wore of flimsy sort of nighty which was down to your ankles. You weren’t
allowed to wear anything else underneath that. You were brought to the bottom of the
stairs where the dormitory was, marble stairs. You would kneel on the stairs. There was
me and another fellow ... I remember him wetting on the floor because he was – there
were three of us actually ... While they were doing this other guy, you would stand and
watch them doing the guy in front of you. He would be on all fours. [One Brother] would
stand on your hands and you would be kneeling down and as flimsy as the cotton night
thing was that was lifted ... Up to your waist ... Then you would get – I think I had about
six on that occasion ... I am almost sure after you had been done, you came back, (to
bed) it was like a rota, like a line. I remember [ ... ] wetting himself on the floor next to
me, I can remember it, it was steamy and smelly, I was concentrating more on that, I
don’t know why. These things stick in your mind when you are a kid.
15.99 He described how the punishment was administered:

[One Brother] would stand on your hands and [the other Brother] – it was peculiar the
way he used to bring the strap in that he would bring it this way (indicating), under his left
arm ... he would bring it underneath (indicating) and it would come right around like a golf
club and he would bring it that way ... It was peculiar how he would always get at least
one into your balls.
15.100 He also described the physical effects on him:

Difficulty walking for a while and the marks would stay for months ... It was a thing like
you would get guys, “Give us a look. Let’s have a look at your strap marks”. It was like a
badge of honour ...
15.101 He said that the boys in the dormitory ‘could hear what was going on’ but they ‘couldn’t see it’.
15.102 Another witness said:

They used to slap at the end of the stairs in the evening, you would be in the dormitory,
if you were to be punished that’s where they punished you, they bring you down to the
stairs and the echo of the screams would be for the benefit of everybody in the
dormitories.
15.103 He later added:

You just had a fear. You were going down to the office, you were called down, you knew
what was going to happen to you. It was the whole ritual of it ... You were so scared
before you even got a slap ...
15.104 Another witness, there in the early 1950s, described getting a ‘flogging’, or ‘stripes on your arse’.
He told the Committee the Brother would get the boy to drop his pants and bend over the bed to
be punished:
The first time it happened to me he had to show you sometimes to put your hand over
your penis, your private – just in case the strap did go around you it would hurt you, it
would catch you there.
15.105 One complainant was able to distinguish between the ordinary corporal punishment he received
at home from that administered in Daingean:
My dad sometimes smacked us, gave us a clout of a belt, a whack across the arse. What
I got [in Daingean] was I got a searing pain, I will never forget it in all my life, never. The
first of it was the shock. It was shock first of all. Then the second one I got and it wasn't
across my buttocks, it wasn't across my buttocks, it was right between my buttocks with
this strap. I don't know where they got these straps from but it was specially designed for
this, it wasn't a belt. When they say you got a strap, it wasn't a like a trouser strap, it was
a specially made strap. It was very thick and it was about that length (indicating) and it
was shaped for gripping with the hand for hitting you with. The way they used to hit you
was they used to hit you between the buttocks and pull it up (indicating). The reason he
had the other Brother there was to stop you going forward. He used to put his foot on the
back of your shoulder, on the back of your neck and your shoulders. He would put his
foot there and hold you so that when you got hit with the strap you couldn't jump forward
with the belt. That strap sometimes, they were expert with it, if he wanted that could come
around and hit you in the testicles. If ever you got hit in the testicles, that gives you cramp
in your stomach, you double up, you couldn't even move. I passed out.
15.106 He went on to say that it happened to him on a number of occasions and that he also recalled it
happening to other boys.
15.107 Witnesses said that the traumatic effect of flogging stayed with them. One said:
It was shame more than anything. Being a teenager, like you say, especially with Christian
Brothers. When I was in Artane, I was younger, I didn't understand. But in Daingean I
was practically a teenager. I wasn't very big or anything like that but I was streetwise. Put
it this way, if someone had done that to me outside the thing I probably would have ended
up killing them or they would have killed me, one or the other. Being in Daingean, I
accepted it. That's all I would say.
15.108 Floggings were mainly but not exclusively administered at night-time in the washroom. A witness
described the impact of being beaten in the yard in front of the other boys:
When you are being beaten and you are feeling pain your torment is excruciating. “I will
get you, you F– ing so and so, I will come back for you”; that's the train of thought. And
then it stays with you for months at a time. It will haunt you.
15.109 The description given by these witnesses confirmed the account given by the documents and
other testimony of the way a flogging was administered. It differed, however in two ways. First, a
wider range of offences was punished by flogging. The Oblates had listed the following five
offences as warranting the severe punishment:
(a) insubordination;
(b) deliberate destruction of property;
(c) public immoral conduct;
(d) inciting others to riotous conduct; and
(e) absconding.
15.110 In the light of the evidence heard, it is clear that floggings were also administered for many
other misbehaviours. It was also clear that the way in which staff interpreted what amounted to
insubordination or deliberate destruction of property was so wide, that minor offences and even
accidents could result in the most severe punishment.
15.111 Second, the degree of fear engendered by these floggings was not apparent from the unemotional
official description. Several of the complainants described the screams they heard as horrifying
and fear inducing. One witness conveyed the effect that such screams had on him: ‘I remember
one chap that ran away’. He said, ‘I remember hearing him screaming ... I said it to him afterwards
that it was terrible. He said to me, “Sure, I heard you screaming as well”’.
15.112 The evidence of the dreadful effect of these screams was most graphically brought home to the
Committee by the evidence of Fr Luca himself. He was the penultimate Resident Manager of
Daingean. He told the Committee:
we had an oratory which was just on the other side of the square from – the square was
a small one, maybe not much wider than this room, and I was there saying my office in
the evening and I heard the leather being used on some boy at that time. I thought it was
a most revolting thing and said here am I inside to praise God and Christ himself is being
punished now right beside me. It sunk into me as a kind of a horror, that it was such a
contradiction to all that we were working about.
15.113 He was asked if this had left a big impression on him and he said ‘To this day it still does. When
I hear of anybody being beaten up, we say in the north it annoys me, but it is much deeper than
annoyance’. He added:
it shook me. It confirmed my determination as soon as possible and when possible I would
try to get rid of it ... It seemed to me to be an awful contradiction to what my life was
about and what our life as religious was about to have this thing happening within this
house ... In my mind any punishment is brutal as far as the recipient is concerned. I would
have a feeling for the recipient of the punishment. I certainly wouldn’t advocate it at all.
15.114 He also said:

I was never in favour of it because I always had an abhorrence of that kind people using
this kind of domination over another person by beating them ...
15.115 He was asked, ‘Would it be fair to say that you delegated the role of punishment and thereafter you
didn’t really know exactly what was happening, you left it to the people who were your delegates to
get on with it, is that fair or not?’
15.116 Fr Luca replied:

That’s fair. When I went in there the School was in action, as it were, there was movement.
I acquainted myself with what each person’s function was within the School. I didn’t
change them from the different jobs or that, I took it that they knew what they were about
... I didn’t involve myself in it, I think only twice I asked the Brother to punish a boy.
15.117 He added:
when I moved in there in 1964 the School had been going for over 100 years at that
stage. There were things, there was a certain structure in place. What would need to be
changed I gradually tried to change it. There were certain things I had to accept when I
went in there because I had no previous experience of running the School.
15.118 Despite his assertion that the practice revolted him, Fr Luca did nothing to stop the ritualistic
flogging of boys in Daingean. This punishment was stopped in Daingean, after vigorous
intervention by a Department of Justice official, and not because of any initiative on the part of
the management. The banning of all corporal punishment followed in 1970. A full account of
events at that time is given later in this chapter.
15.119 • The open and frank discussion between the Oblates and the Department of Education
throughout the 1940s and 1950s, on the way in which flogging was administered,
revealed indifference by the Department to a flagrant breach of the rules.
• Flogging was administered in Daingean in a cruel, sadistic and excessive manner
designed to maximise the terror of all the boys.
• It was used in Daingean for a wide range of offences, including those which even at
the time would have been considered trivial.
• The pain caused by the punishment was intense, and victims graphically described to
the Committee the physical impact on their bodies. Bruising and scars remained long
after the beating was administered.
• Fr Luca’s stated revulsion to the practice of flogging was contradictory. It was within
his power as Manager to put a stop to it and he chose not to do so.
• The Oblates did not condemn the practice of flogging in their Submission to the
Investigation Committee. They contended that it was used only for a breach of the
school rules and was administered by the Prefect. They did, however, acknowledge
that punishment for absconding was ‘over severe’ but not abusive.
Informal corporal punishment
Unfair blows
15.120 One complainant gave an account of his first day in Daingean, when he got ‘clattered’ unfairly:
The first day I got there we were saying the rosary ... when you are brought up to the
dormitory, you put on your nightshirt, you stand at your bed, the whole dormitory stands
by their beds and [Brother] would stay down in the middle. It was an L shaped dormitory
... he said the rosary and you answered the rosary to him. You kneel at your bed. I fell
asleep, I dozed off. I was woke up with a clatter on the back of the head ... He made me
stand for a long time after the lads went to bed for falling asleep at the rosary. That was
the first day I was actually down there.
15.121 When asked why he fell asleep, he explained:

I was just tired. I was anxious. I know that I was anxious because I was in Marlborough
House, I was in court the first day. Then I got sentenced, then I was brought back to
Marlborough House. Then I was waiting on the police to come to collect me to bring me
down to Daingean. It is a fairly long journey in them days, it’s not far now. I was kind of
tired and I was anxious. It was all kind of new, I remember it quite clear, the day that I
went there. The two years, the sentence I got looked like a lifetime to me, that was all on
top of me.
15.122 A witness described how his name was put down to play Gaelic football but, because he could
not play it, he never went out: ‘About a half an hour later the Brother came into the playground
and he had a hurling stick and he beat me with he hurling stick ... On my head’. He also indicated
that he was hit on the lip with the hurling stick and he ‘... carried the scar for nearly 50 years’.
15.123 The same man described another occasion when he was talking in the washroom, ‘... and from
nowhere he came behind me and gave me the flat of his hand right across my ear ... It was full
force ... I was just thrown across ... a few feet’. This left him with a buzzing or ringing in his ear
to this day.
15.124 Another complainant made light of many of the blows he had received by saying, ‘I got smacks
on the hand and things like that, nothing to cry about ... It was probably something I deserved ...’.
He described one beating that he felt was very unfair. He explained:
I was having a friendly argument with [Brother], we would always contradict him about
football and various things. We were arguing one afternoon ... about soccer. We just
contradicted one another. Before I knew it ... [another Brother] ... grabbed me by the
shoulders, back of the hair and turned me round and gave me one or two unmerciful
thumps in the stomach. I was doubled over. I was sick for a week afterwards or more.
[Brother] explained to him about what happened, we were only arguing about football and
said “apologise to the man” but he said something under his breath and walked out the
same way he came in. That was it.
Excessively violent blows

15.125 One complainant gave an account of being kneed in the groin by a Brother:
It was just before we said the Angelus. We were in our ranks ready to go to the refectory
... It was about the beginning of the prayers and I was speaking to someone else next to
me and then he come up and got me talking. He got so angry and just kneed me ... He
just came up with his knee ... There was a couple of fellows held me up ... I was in pain
... I couldn’t eat or couldn’t drink or anything. Shortly after that I was taken away in a car.
15.126 Records show that the complainant was admitted to Tullamore Hospital for two weeks, and was
operated on for a hernia. He said: ‘I never got a visit’. He added. ‘I was just left there on my own
for two weeks and my parents weren’t told about it’.
15.127 Another witness recounted an incident by the handball alley: ‘I was playing handball one day in
the alley and the ball got caught in the wire’. He said he had to jump up onto a shed to ‘hit the
ball down’. A Brother saw him getting down off the shed and told him that he should have sought
permission. The witness said that the Brother then ‘started punching me in the face’ which resulted
in him receiving a black eye and a split lip.
15.128 A further witness told of another incident which took place in the yard where he ‘... and another
chap were going to box over a game of handball’. The Brother on duty in the yard that day
punched him on the side of the head. He said ‘I hit the ground and then he started kicking me
and he said, “In future don’t start any trouble here”. I was made facing the wall for the rest of the
period of the time that we were out on recreation’.
15.129 A boy who was suspected of stealing was dealt with summarily by a Brother when he was brought
to Daingean by two Gardaı́:
I was met as I walked on the front lawn right near the office doors, I was met by a Prefect
... He looked a very religious, sincere man and a crucifix in his cassock down here and
he had his hands behind his back ... I said, “Hello Father”. He said, “They are a nice pair
of boots you are wearing, they must have cost a lot of money”. I said, “About three pounds
10 shillings”. I remember getting a clout to the side of my head, a punch to the side of my
head ... It knocked me. It wasn’t a slap, it was a punch. My ear was turned blue for a
couple of days after, maybe a week after. The two Gardaı́ was there standing watching.
They were within six feet of him when he done this and I was knocked to the ground, I
was knocked quite a distance away with the punch he hit me in the side of the head.
15.130 The Brother thought he was telling lies and told him to take the boots off, which he did, and the
Brother then handed them to the Gardaı́ and said: ‘He took them from Marlborough House’.
15.131 Another boy described being questioned about some stolen car keys:
It was in the spud shed. The spud shed was actually at the back of the kitchen, at the
back of the boot shop ... I had stolen some keys from a technical teacher in an attempt
to abscond in his Volkswagen Beetle car and [the Brother] was told that I was the one
who had the keys or had stolen the keys ... He was asking me where the keys were and
I said I didn’t have them. He just choked me unconscious, he got me on the pile of
potatoes and I thought this is it ... He got both his hands around my throat ... I was gone,
I thought I was dead. I felt myself go.
15.132 He recalled that when he regained consciousness he was cold, and he remembered ‘waking up
shaking, maybe it was from fear, I don’t know ...’.
15.133 Another complainant told of a beating he received after an accident:

there is one occasion where I was painting up a ladder. Now, I had to carry the paint in
one hand, and the brush in my other hand and climb the ladder. I think I was about twelve
foot high when I missed my footing and fell off the ladder ... I got an unmerciful beating
for that ... there was no rhyme or reason to beat me for that.
15.134 He added:
Now, how can you hit somebody if they fall off a ladder? The first normal reaction of
anybody would be to go to their side and say “are you all right” not go and knock hell out
of them.
15.135 Br Abran who appeared before the Committee talked about this policy of hitting children. He said
that there were times when staff would have to administer punishment on an ad hoc basis:
if there was a fight going on or some weapons being used or if somebody got head butted
... In many cases the boys preferred to be punished in those circumstances rather than
be sent to the disciplinarian because they would be deprived of films which was more
important in their life than ordinary things. I know that sounds weird, that was their
mentality.
15.136 He explained he used a strap, which was made in the boot shop and was issued to him, until a
boy stole it from him and threw it down the toilet. He didn’t bother to get another in case it
happened again, and also because he was no longer on duty in the square. From then on, he
said, ‘If such a situation did arise I might have given a slap or something like that for whatever
serious infringement would be involved’.
15.137 Under questioning he added:

I might have used the hands occasionally sometimes it might be instead of using a fist, it
would be on the shoulders, never on the face ... The occasion demanded immediate
action at that point in time.
15.138 When asked if he denied punching a boy in the face he said:

I could say – I could deny that, normally it would be an open hander or a back hander ...
it was purely on the shoulders or chest. If I had to, that would only happen twice a year
or three times a years, never frequently.
15.139 He was again pressed if he was talking about fists. He replied, ‘Yes’.
15.140 This Brother was named by a number of complainants as being excessively harsh and violent.
He denied some of the specific allegations, such as giving an uppercut that led to a boy’s nose
pumping blood, or that he had boxed and kicked a boy in the handball alley, but he nonetheless
confirmed the policy of ad hoc punishments giving slaps or punches, believing that boys preferred
to be dealt with in this way rather than being put on report.
15.141 The Oblates referred to this practice of ‘on-the-spot’ punishments and asserted that it was no
more than that which occurred in schools around the country. Complainants, however, made a
clear distinction between what could be described as ‘normal’ corporal punishment and the ill-
tempered and violent outbursts described above.
15.142 The Oblates went further. They stated:

In the context of a reformatory where fights and altercations did break out, it was
sometimes the only efficient means of keeping control on unruly boys.
15.143 In each of the incidents described above, none of which would come within the description of a
fight or altercation, the violence was an inappropriate and unnecessary response.
15.144 • Corporal punishment was a first response by many of the staff in Daingean for even
minor transgressions. It was often violent and black eyes, split lips and bruising were
reported by complainants.
• Violence was not the ‘only efficient means of keeping control on unruly boys’ but,
because management was inept and staffing inadequate, it was undoubtedly
convenient.
The extent of the problem

15.145 Several complainants, in the evidence they gave to the Committee, were careful to make it clear
that not all of the staff were brutal or excessively violent.
15.146 Witnesses drew the distinction between a Brother who punished fairly and another who did not:
He was more humane about it ... He didn’t beat you until you submitted ... you got six of
the best on the hand or backside ... And that was it. He didn’t lose it and start kicking you
from one end of the office to the other.
15.147 Some witnesses singled out particular men as ‘nice’, but stressed that there were also a few
people who did terrible things: ‘There was a ring of them, there was a handful of them and they
done what they liked’. The consistent complaint was that these ‘nice’ men on the staff did nothing
to curb the activities of the men who were harsh and excessive. These men could not protect
them from the others.
15.148 As one witness said:

There was no recourse. There was no safe haven. There was no hole you could climb
into. There was nobody you could talk to. You were on your own.
15.149 The Brothers who were more violent created the pervasive atmosphere of threat: ‘Inside the
institution I had to keep my head down because I didn’t want to be beaten,’ said one witness.
The punishment book

15.150 In his report of July 1945, Mr Ó Siochfhradha, the Department of Education Inspector, wrote:
I looked at the corporal punishment book. There was no entry from the beginning of this
year because for the past half-year the stick has been dispensed with as a means of
punishment and in its place is a system of allocating marks for good behaviour and marks
for bad behaviour and the bestowing or withdrawing of little priviledges as a result. The
Resident Manager is very happy that this method is much more efficient in getting across
to the boys that they should practice the good and avoid the evil.
15.151 This paragraph confirms there was a punishment book that has since been lost. It asserts that
corporal punishment was no longer in use, when it is now known it was still in use over 20 years
later. It also shows an awareness of techniques to control behaviour that did not become
widespread until decades later. In fact, corporal punishment remained in use as the main system
of discipline until 1970, when the Resident Manager was told to stop using it.
15.152 Fr Hughes said in the Phase I hearing that he was sure a punishment book would have been
used but that, when he asked ex-staff members, there were ‘always very vague responses’.
15.153 • In a regime that was admittedly heavily dependent on corporal punishment, the need
for a proper system of administering it was fundamental, and keeping the record was
part of a proper regime, as well as being required by law.
• The information given to the Department Inspector in 1945 about the punishment
regime in Daingean was entirely misleading.
Complaints about corporal punishment in the discovered documents

15.154 Contemporary complaints about excessive use of corporal punishment revealed how complaints
were dealt with by both the Department of Education and the management of Daingean, and the
kinds of investigation carried out once a complaint was made.
15.155 The standard procedure followed was that, once the Department of Education received a
complaint, the Resident Manager was contacted for his comments and observations on the
substance of the complaint. If the allegation was of physical abuse or neglect, the Department
would often send in its Medical Inspector, who would then report back on the matter.
1953 complaint
15.156 In 1953, a father wrote a letter of complaint to the Department of Education, in which he
complained that his son was flogged several times in the School.
15.157 The Resident Manager responded to the query raised by the Department. The issue of 'flogging’
was dealt with by describing the procedure. He said that ‘flogging’ meant that a boy was ‘put on
his knees receiving a few (5 or 6) light strokes of a light strap on the back’. This was not done
‘except for serious offences such as (a) insubordination (b) deliberate destruction of property (c)
public immoral conduct (d) inciting others to riotous conduct (e) absconding’.
15.158 The Medical Inspector, Dr McCabe, was sent in to investigate. She described the ‘flogging’
process as stated earlier in this chapter:
“Flogging” ... consists in taking the offender into a small room, removing his pants and
administering 5 or 6 strokes on the bare posterior with a leather strap which is quite
flexible, about 1” wide and 1 yard long (It resembles a strap used to put around a suitcase)
The punishment is administered by the disciplinarian who is a very understanding patient
man and always offers an excuse in defence of the boy if at all possible.
15.159 She then described her examination of the boys. ‘At the Medical Examination’, she wrote:
I failed to find a single mark on any boy’s body that indicated he had been punished.
When I questioned the boys about the so-called “flogging” each and every one admitted
that if they had been punished they had deserved it. I cannot see how discipline can be
kept in this Reformatory unless the Manager has some deterrent.
15.160 She went on to state:

the type of boy now being sent in is much tougher than in former years – housebreakers,
stealers of large sums of money, car stealing and crashing.
15.161 She then asserted:
It is the opinion of all that these boys are sent in far too late for the Manager and his Staff
to make much impression on them.
15.162 With regard to one boy she examined, he ‘... admitted running away several times and on the last
occasion arrived home. He is an unpleasant type of boy and very prone to lying’.
15.163 Having received her report, Mr Ó Sı́ochfhradha, the Department Inspector, submitted his own
memorandum on the complaints. He wrote:
Dr. McCabe is satisfied, and I agree with her, that the punishment inflicted in these
extreme cases is not excessive and is resorted to only when absolutely necessary. This
form of punishment was administered when necessary during [Fr. Neron’s] period of office
as Resident Manager (1940s). As a matter of interest the salutary effect of the leather
strap when applied on the proper place is referred to in an Article (Page 80) in the June
1953 issue of the “Approved Schools Gazette” – copy attached to file cover.
15.164 This is in marked contrast to the circular prepared by Mr Ó Sı́ochfhradha in 1946, in which he gave
more detailed guidelines as to the permissible administration of corporal punishment in residential
schools. In this circular he impressed on the Resident Managers that corporal punishment should
only be used as a last resort and ‘only for grave transgressions’.
15.165 Given the tone of the 1946 circular, the response by him and Dr McCabe is puzzling. It is even
more absurd that Mr Ó Sı́ochfhradha should then write to the Minister recommending ‘... the
salutary effect of the leather strap when applied on the proper place’, when he himself had ruled
the only proper place was on the hand.
15.166 The Department of Education referred to this matter in its Submission to the Investigation
Committee:
While the punishment of boys in this instance appeared to contravene Department
regulations, the Inspector is not recorded as having challenged the Resident Manager
and it is possible that Dr. McCabe considered reformatories requiring a different approach
in regard to discipline and the use of corporal punishment. There is no evidence that she
offered advice on how the troublesome boys could have been treated differently; the
1946 circular stated that principals could draw on the advice of the Department’s Medical
Inspector “regarding any children who are specially troublesome of difficult to control”.
15.167 This statement itself revealed the problem. The Inspectors were the only persons who could,
through their regular visits, ensure that the rules for corporal punishment were being followed. If
Dr McCabe believed that the rules and regulations relating to corporal punishment did not apply
to reformatories, this was a fact that should have been recorded in the Department records. It is
a measure of the inadequacy of the Department’s supervision that it did not know what standards
its own Inspector applied. In this case, the Inspector reported back and received Departmental
approval for her approach.
15.168 • Dr McCabe’s acceptance of the blatant breach of the rules and regulations governing
corporal punishment is significant. No attempt was made to disguise the regime in
operation. The Department of Education knew its rules were being breached in a
fundamental way and condoned it.
• As a result, management in Daingean could and did operate a system of punishment
in breach of the rules laid down by the Department, in the knowledge that the
Department would not interfere.
1964 complaint
15.169 The Department received another complaint, in 1964, contained in a letter from a solicitor on
behalf of the parents of a boy, in which it was alleged that the boy had sustained injuries on his
first day in Daingean in November 1963. His mother complained that, when she visited him in
February 1964, she saw that his face was injured and her son told her that he had ‘received
violence’ from one of the Brothers in the School. The solicitors requested that the Department
investigate the matter, as the parents had not been informed by the School of their son’s injuries.
15.170 There was a short, handwritten note on the letter by a Department official, ‘please send copy to
Mgr and ask him for his observations’.
15.171 The next letter on file is a letter from the Department of Education to the solicitors:
I am directed to inform you that the allegations made by the parents of the boy have been
investigated by the Manager of the school. He is satisfied that the allegations made by
the parents are without foundation and that none of the Brothers in St. Conleth’s treated
the boy with violence of any kind.
I am to add that the boy’s mother visited him [in June, 1964] and is reported as having
expressed her pleasure at her son’s progress and well-being.
15.172 There is no record of what investigations the Resident Manager made and no written record of
what he told the Department.
June 1969 complaint

15.173 During a visit to Daingean in early June, a father noticed that his son had a black eye. The boy’s
explanation was that he had been kneed in the face by a Brother, who took bread from him.
Another boy gave him a slice of his bread, and that boy in turn was beaten.
15.174 On 13th June 1969, the boy’s mother called to the Department of Education to apply for the
discharge of her son, and had a conversation with an official who recorded what she said. She
complained that he had been ill-treated in Daingean. She alleged that he had a black eye inflicted
by one of the Brothers, and she also recounted the incident with the bread, which she claimed took
place in the presence of another Brother, whom she named. The note of the meeting prepared by
the Department official stated that this Brother denied having seen the incident. She was also
annoyed that she had not received any letters from her son, as promised by the School.
15.175 After this visit to the Department, the mother wrote to the authorities in Daingean, informing them
in an undated letter that she had lodged a complaint with the Department against the Brother who
had injured her son. She was worried that he would be further injured for having spoken about
his ill-treatment to his father, ‘... probably his arms and legs are broken for tell his Daddy as you
don’t like squealers’. She also complained that her son was bullied and terrorised by other boys
in the School, and she asked that her complaints be investigated.
15.176 The Department official was sufficiently concerned by what he heard that he phoned Fr Luca the
same day, requesting a school report as soon as possible. Fr Luca said he would investigate the
matter but assured the Department official that boys were not prevented from writing home, quite
the contrary.
15.177 The boy absconded from Daingean in January 1970 and, as there were no further records relating
to him, it would appear that he was never brought back and that he remained at large. Neither
was there any account of the investigation of the complaint.
15.178 The discovered documents reveal an unexplained anomaly. The Department’s system for
processing requests for early discharge was to send a standard communication form, requesting
the Manager to indicate whether discharge was recommended by him. That occurred in this case,
but the form sent by the Department was dated one month prior to the mother’s visit to the
Department – 12th May 1969. Fr Luca filled in this form but did not make clear whether he
recommended a discharge or not, although he did state that he thought there was little hope for
lasting or radical improvement in the boy. There was no reference in that document to the
complaint by his mother. The document signed by Fr Luca is dated 13th June 1969 and is stamped
as received by the Department on 16th June 1969.
15.179 • Irrespective of the whereabouts of the boy, the mother’s complaints were serious but
they went uninvestigated.
• The complaint that the boy had been bullied and terrorised in the Institution was similar
to the evidence of many witnesses at the private hearings.
• The circumstances of the meeting in the Department, the boy’s escape and the lack of
follow-up are not easy to reconcile with good administration.
September 1969 complaint

15.180 The next documented complaint came in September 1969, when the Department of Education
was visited by the mother of a boy admitted to Daingean two months previously. She came into
the Department personally, the day after her visit to Daingean, with another son and complained
of ill-treatment of her son on two occasions.
15.181 The first occasion was when she visited him, shortly after he had arrived in Daingean, and she
said his face was black and blue from a beating that Br Enrico10 had given him. The boy had
asked his mother not to say anything about it at the time.
15.182 The second occasion was when she visited him a month later. His face was swollen and
discoloured as a result of a further beating he had received at the hands of the same Brother.
She described the state of agitation her son was in when telling her, and how he wanted to run
away there and then. The mother told the official that she did not object to her son being disciplined
with a strap, but she did object to him being beaten with a fist and with a portion of a plastic hose.
She said she could provide a witness to the state of her son’s face, and gave the name and
address of another visitor present at the time. She also complained that she was not getting letters
from her son, who said he had written to her on a number of occasions. On the day of the visit,
she spoke to a Brother about this, and he said he had posted two letters on behalf of her son to
her. She did not bring up the beating with this Brother on the day of the visit.
15.183 The Department official promised the mother that the matter would be investigated, and an official
was sent to Daingean. Clearly, the Department was becoming alarmed because of these very
similar complaints coming in quick succession. An unusually detailed investigation was carried
out, and the full text of the report is given below:
Daingean
Admitted 1969 – stealing
Runaı́ Cunta
As instructed I visited Daingean to investigate Mrs. [Walsh’s]11 complaint about the ill-
treatment of her son in Daingean and interviewed Brother [Macario],12 Acting Manager,
10
11
12

and John Walsh.13 Brother [Enrico], who was alleged to have beaten the boy was on
annual leave and called to this Office ... by arrangement where the investigations were
completed. In the interim I visited the boy’s mother ... and also spoke to Father
[Salamon],14 S.J. and Mr. [Carlos]15 who had experience of [John] in [a boy’s] Club where
he was a member for a number of years.
Though [John] had been described by the authorities in Daingean as being a bit of a ‘pup’
his mentors in the [boys’] Club would not agree with this opinion. They did say that he
could be difficult at times. Brother [Macario] did not deny that on one occasion ... the boy
had got ‘cuffed’ but did not know of any previous assault on the boy by a member of the
Staff. Members of the [Walsh] family had arrived in Daingean ... and seeing the condition
of [John’s] face had created an incident.
When interviewed [John] admitted that he had absconded six times since [he arrived] and
after an unsuccessful attempt to escape on ... had been brought back by Brother [Enrico]
who counselled him on the futility of his intention and gave him a couple of apples. [John]
admitted that he liked Brother [Enrico].
When he called to the Office, Brother [Enrico] described the incident. Having brought
[John Walsh] back to St. Conleth’s as described above, Brother [Enrico] was on his way
to organise the milking of the 100 cows kept on the farm in Daingean which [Walsh’s]
earlier absconding had interrupted. The usual supervisory staff were being helped out by
students from the Oblate Noviciate in Athy and word was sent to him that [Walsh] had
again absconded and was threatening a young Clerical student who was attempting to
restrain him. When Brother [Enrico] arrived on the scene [Walsh] was already half way
across the canal which bounds the Reformatory. With assistance, Brother [Enrico] was
able to shepherd him out of the canal and once on the bank he gave him a backhander
on the face and then seizing a length of plastic hose, which was the nearest thing to his
hand he gave [Walsh] three strokes on his wet jeans. He admitted that at that stage his
patience with the boy was exhausted. He admitted that the boy’s face had swelled up as
a result of the backhander and that because of his jeans being wet he had left weals on
[John’s] legs with the plastic hose ...
Control of delinquents in Daingean is a difficult task calling for endless patience and
understanding but the one unjustifiable feature of the present case, notwithstanding the
provocation given by the boy, is that while [John] is fifteen years old and weighs 8 12 st.
Brother [Enrico] is a giant of a man, weighing 17 sts. whose backhander could cause
considerable damage in the circumstances.
The best way of finishing this case would, I suggest be a talk with the Manager, Father
[Luca], O.M.I. on his next call to the Office and if you agree this will be done.
15.184 There is a handwritten note on the report to say that the matter will await Fr Luca’s next visit, and
this is dated 18th November 1969.
15.185 • This case again illustrates the Department’s ambivalence to the use of violence in
Daingean, even as late as 1969.
• The fact that the boy did not confirm to the Inspector that he had been beaten should
have made the Department concerned and suspicious.
• The beating the Brother admitted giving the boy was an example of uncontrolled
violence on the part of ‘a giant of a man’ on a boy of 15 years. The Inspector, however,
identified the disparity in size as ‘the one unjustifiable feature’, and did not address
the issue of unregulated and uncontrolled punishment in his report.
13
14
15

Complainant evidence in relation to Br Enrico
15.186 The Investigation Committee heard allegations from six witnesses as to the severity and violence
of this Brother.
15.187 One witness present in the late 1960s described this Brother as ‘... a very big, tall, stocky Brother
who worked on the farm’. He described an incident where six pupils were taken from the dormitory
and beaten in turn by this Brother with a leather. They were accused of plotting an escape and
he was going to make sure it did not happen. He said that this Brother:
had some lad there standing and each one of us in turn—he made us lie across the stairs
had him stand on our hands and he whipped us with a leather ... I had only a nightshirt
and he pulled up our nightshirts over our heads.
15.188 Another witness present in the late 1950s and early 1960s stated that he worked on the farm:
Br. Enrico was in charge of the farm. He was nicknamed the Bull, he was a big strong
man, he was over six foot. He didn’t like being called the Bull ... On one occasion I got a
bang of a shovel or a spade, I don’t know which, I was brought to hospital and I got
stitched.
15.189 The infirmary records for this pupil confirmed the injury complained of: ‘12.7.60 Accident, Cut face,
Dentures smashed’.
15.190 The witness recalled that the incident centred round him calling the Brother by his nickname and
stated, ‘In fairness to the man I don’t think he didn’t mean to hurt me as seriously as he did’. He
said he lost three or four teeth in the incident and, contrary to the medical record, did not have
dentures at the time. He stated that his teeth were not repaired in Daingean. He got the dentures
at a later date when he left Daingean and joined the British Army.
15.191 Another witness present in the 1960s said Br Enrico was in charge of the farm and was a ‘Big tall
man about 21/22 stone he was. He was over six foot, a big giant of a man’.
15.192 He recalled the second winter he spent in Daingean as being very cold, and the boys were told
to go out and pick potatoes in November. He refused, and Br Enrico ‘went ballistic’. He described
how this Brother kicked him around the yard. He was asked about the severity of the beating and
he summed it up simply as ‘A grown man beating a young child, that’s what it was’.
15.193 Another witness present in the late 1950s recalled Br Enrico working on the farm, and remembered
an incident where he witnessed another pupil being boxed on the side of his head by this Brother.
There was blood coming out his ear and he remembered the boy being brought in and cleaned
up afterwards.
15.194 A further witness present in the late 1950s said that he worked at the ‘horse batch’, ie he was
assigned to look after the horses with three others. He said that Br Enrico and another Brother
would hold them over the ‘shaft of the ponies’, and Br Enrico would hit them across the back with
a rope while the other Brother used his fists.
15.195 Another witness present in the early 1960s recalled an incident when a farmer hit him, and the
farmer complained to Br Enrico that he had given him cheek. Br Enrico used a hosepipe to beat
him. He described Br Enrico as ‘... a big man, He was big, he was six foot odd and weighed about
28 stone. He was about in his 40’s ...’.

15.196 He also remembered an incident when he was accused of leaving a gate open, and a dog got in
and killed some sheep. Br Enrico called him into the dairy and hit him with a box that broke his
nose and the blood went everywhere.
15.197 • Some of these complaints arose during Fr Luca’s period as Resident Manager, and
clearly the giving of beatings was not confined to the Prefect, as stated by him. Br
Enrico administered severe ad hoc punishments, as well as the more ritualistic
floggings, although he was not the Prefect but the farm Brother.
• Br Enrico was brutal and unpredictable.
• Fr Luca’s comments that ‘On the corporal punishment, I don’t think it was excessive’
was contradicted by the facts.
Corporal punishment: tradition and practice rather than regulation

15.198 As the above cases illustrate, rules and regulations about corporal punishment were, until the
Kennedy Report in 1970, mostly a matter for the personal discretion of the Resident Manager and
his staff. If the official rules and regulations were known to the management in Daingean and, in
particular, if the 1946 circular was known to them, they were disregarded in the application of
punishment in Daingean.
15.199 When asked by the Committee, ‘Were there rules and if so how were they known?’, Fr Murphy
who spoke on behalf of the Oblates at the Emergence hearing said:
There were rules and basically they were passed on from person to person within the
body. So in a sense it became a tradition, if you like, of rules and regulations within the
reformatory itself ... there was a Prefect in charge and he was the only one who could
inflict corporal punishment for serious offences ... The other Brothers had the permission,
had the right or permission, to inflict punishment on the hands only. So it was sort of a
tradition, if you like, of corporal punishment for which there is though written protocol.
15.200 The circulars on corporal punishment, in short, did not alter tradition and practice, and it was only
when Fr Luca was told that he could be prosecuted for corporal punishment that the management
of the School began to realise their practices were in breach of regulations. In fact, the issue
of corporal punishment had emerged as a serious problem a year before, with the visit of the
Kennedy Committee.
15.201 • This statement of Fr Murphy on behalf of the Oblates, as a representation of corporal

punishment practice in Daingean, is completely at odds with the documented cases
outlined above.
The Kennedy Committee and Daingean

15.202 In 1967, the Government set up ‘The Committee on Reformatory and Industrial Schools’ under
the Chairmanship of District Justice Eileen Kennedy to carry out a survey of reformatory and
industrial schools. The terms of reference of the Committee were ‘To survey the Reformatory and
Industrial Schools systems and to make a report and recommendations to the Minister for
Education’.
15.203 The Departments of Education, Health and Justice each had to nominate a person to the
Committee. The Department of Justice nominated Mr Risteard MacConchradha.16 In their Opening
Statement during the Phase III hearings, the Department of Justice stated that it appeared from
the documents that Mr Crowe17 was chosen because of his interest in child and youth welfare. He
16
This is the Irish version of Richard Crowe.
17
This is the English version of Mr MacConchradha.

also had a working background in the prison administration section of the Department. His concern
for the children caught in the system was obvious from the beginning. He wrote:
The lot of the children, especially the boys, is very sad and there is an unbelievably
entrenched “status quo” to be overcome, not least in the Department of Education, if there
is to be any change for the better.
15.204 The Statement of the Department of Justice stated in relation to Mr Crowe:

it would be fair to say that Mr MacConchradha sought to advance his views with a vigour
which was atypical of the civil service culture in which he found himself at the time.
15.205 The full Committee visited Daingean on 28th February 1968. They spent the day in the School
completing the inspection. They spoke to Fr Luca, the Resident Manager, and his staff, but not, it
would appear, the residents.
15.206 In a letter written during the course of their deliberations, they gave a lengthy account of numerous
aspects of the School, including staffing levels, food, aftercare, health issues and numbers
detained in the School. It was clear that the Committee had a number of concerns about Daingean,
and met with Mr Thomas O’Floinn, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education. At the
conclusion of this meeting, Mr O’Floinn suggested that the matter should be conveyed in writing
to the Department for it to be sympathetically considered.
15.207 This letter was sent in June 1968. Justice Kennedy stated that the Committee had not formulated
final views on Daingean, but felt that immediate interim action should be undertaken to improve
conditions, and detailed the following as requiring attention:
(1) The premises gave a general impression of grubbiness and required a thorough
cleaning.
(2) The buildings were cold and interim heating should be provided.
(3) The boys were dirty, unwashed with ingrained dirt and verminous hair and their
clothing was ill fitting, old and dirty.
(4) That the recognition of this School as a special school for the handicapped be given
early consideration.
15.208 In relation to corporal punishment in Daingean, Justice Kennedy wrote:

In the course of discussion with the Committee as a whole, the Resident Manager
disclosed that punishment was administered with a leather on the buttocks, when the
boys were attired in their night shirts and that at times a boy might be undressed for
punishment. At this juncture, the Committee does not wish to elaborate on corporal
punishment as such but would urge that the practice of undressing boys for punishment
be discontinued. In this regard, attention is invited to the amendment in recent times
following the Court Lees18 incident of the British Home Office regulations regarding
corporal punishment in Approved Schools which specifies that punishment, if administered
on the buttocks, should be applied through the boys’ normal clothing.
15.209 Despite numerous reminders, the Department of Education did not reply to this letter until almost
a year later, on 22nd May 1969, when they dealt with a number of general matters, but failed to
18
Allegations of brutal beatings in Court Lees Approved School were made in a letter to The Guardian, and this led to
an investigation which reported in 1967 (see Administration of Punishment at Court Lees Approved School (Cmnd
3367, HMSO)) – Known as ‘The Gibbens Report’, it found many of the allegations proven, and in particular that
canings of excessive severity did take place on certain occasions, breaking the regulation that caning on the buttocks
should be through normal clothing. Some boys had been caned wearing pyjamas. Following this finding, the School
was summarily closed down.

address the corporal punishment issue as raised by the correspondence. Mr Crowe saw this
omission and prepared two memoranda concerning corporal punishment in Daingean for the
Secretary of the Department of Justice.
The first memorandum

15.210 Mr Crowe pointed out that Mr O’Floinn, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education, had
attended a meeting with the Kennedy Committee that had visited Daingean. During that meeting,
Mr O’Floinn remarked ‘... that punishment of the sort disclosed by Fr [Luca] would be regarded
as irregular by the Department of Education’. He also said ‘that the complaints of irregular corporal
punishment were investigated by his Department but he said that frequently these complaints
could not be substantiated’.
15.211 Mr Crowe stated at this meeting:

I said at this stage and I was supported by other members that what was being brought
to his attention in relation to corporal punishment in Daingean did not arise by way of
complaint but derived from an open avowal by the Resident Manager of the way in which
corporal punishment was administered in the reformatory school.
15.212 Mr Crowe stated that Mr O’Floinn invited the Committee to include this matter in the letter to the
Department of Education, which was forwarded on 14th June 1968 (as detailed above). This letter
did not receive a reply despite numerous reminders until almost a year later, and Mr Crowe
expressed concern that the reply ‘... made no reference whatsoever to the particular matter of
boys being corporally punished while they were stripped naked’.
The second memorandum

15.213 The other internal memorandum prepared by Mr Crowe stated that Justice Kennedy, accompanied
by most members of the Committee including himself, visited Daingean on 28th February 1968.
They made a tour of the buildings and the surroundings, and the Committee members had a
general discussion with the Resident Manager of the School, Fr Luca, along with other members
of the staff. In the course of this discussion, one of the members enquired about corporal
punishment. Fr Luca replied that corporal punishment was administered by one particular member
of the staff to whom he assigned disciplinary duties (ie the Prefect). He stated that both doctors
on the Committee put a number of questions to Fr Luca about the circumstances of corporal
punishment being administered to boys.
15.214 According to Mr Crowe, Fr Luca replied ‘openly and without embarrassment that ordinarily the
boys were called out of the dormitories after they had retired and that they were punished on one
of the stairway landings. The boys wore nightshirts as their sleeping attire and, when called for
punishment, would be in their nightshirts only. Punishment was applied on the buttocks with a
leather’.
15.215 Mr Crowe continued:

I put the only question that I asked in respect of corporal punishment at this juncture. I
asked if the boys were undressed of their nightshirts when they were punished and Fr.
[Luca] replied that at times they were. He elaborated by some further remarks to the
effect that the nightshirts were pulled up when this was done. This additional remark was
subsequently commented upon by the committee members in private discussion. The
point was made that a boy so punished with a leather could hardly be expected to remain
still, his struggles were likely to enlarge the extent of his undress and the likelihood that
a struggling boy might be struck anywhere on the naked body could not be excluded.
Some other committee member asked why he allowed boys to be stripped naked for
punishment and he replied, in a matter of fact manner, that he considered punishment to
be more humiliating when it was administered in that way.
15.216 On 16th April 1970, Mr Berry, the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, sent a letter to
the Secretary General of the Department of Education. He stated that Mr Crowe had reluctantly
signed the ‘Report of the Committee on Reformatory and Industrial Schools’ on 13th April 1970.
He then gave Mr Crowe’s reasons for his reservations in signing the report:
To sign a report which made no reference to the situation about punishment in Daingean
would, in the absence of evidence that the practice had ceased, be to appear to acquiesce
in a practice which is indefensible and for the continuance of which the Minister for Justice
could not avoid some official responsibility arising out of his having registered Daingean
as a suitable place of detention under the Children Acts. On the other hand, to make any
reference, however oblique, to this particular method of punishment in Daingean would
be likely to lead to a disclosure of the situation and, in this way, to cause a grave public
scandal.
When the problem was explained by telephone to your Department, it appeared that the
request of the Committee about punishment had been overlooked. It was confirmed that
punishment of this kind is contrary to the policy of the Minister for Education and an
assurance was given that – subject of course to any limitation there may be on the
Minister’s powers – action would be taken to stop it in Daingean. In view of this, Mr. Mac
Conchradha signed the Report.
The Minister is also concerned lest a similar method of punishment may exist in other
schools to which children and young persons are sent by the courts and he would be glad
if your Department would take whatever steps are open to it to ensure that this is not
the case.
15.217 The Department of Education replied to the above by letter on 30th April 1970. The letter stated:
following on the letter from the Chairman of the Committee of the 14 June, 1968, the
Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools had a discussion with the Resident
Manager, Rev. [Luca] O.M.I., at which the manager was told that the boys should not be
undressed for corporal punishment and that the aim of the management should be to
phase out corporal punishment in the institution. At a special meeting with Fr. [Luca] on
21 April, 1970, the manager stated firmly that boys were no longer undressed for corporal
punishment and that corporal punishment was being phased out in Daingean ... The
omission of reference to the Inspector’s discussion with Father [Luca] from the letter to
District Justice Kennedy of 22 May, 1969, is a matter for regret ...
15.218 The letter then added:

There is one further point to which it is felt reference should be made. Father [Luca] took
grave exception to the last sentence of Mr. MacConchradha’s account of his visit to
Daingean in which it is alleged that the Manager considered corporal punishment to be
more humiliating when administered on the naked body. Father [Luca] has no recollection
of making such a remark, the theory of which he asserts is neither in his philosophy nor
in his character, nor would he have answered any question by a member of the Committee
“in a matter of fact manner” on such an important occasion.
15.219 This argument over what had been said became a matter of some lengthy controversy, including
letters in the press in attempts to elucidate the matter.
15.220 Fr Luca gave evidence before the Investigation Committee on 1st June 2005. He recalled the
Kennedy Committee’s visit to Daingean, and said that it was a very bad day for them to arrive as
it was Ash Wednesday. The Secretary of the Committee did not come with the others on the visit.
He made them as welcome as he could and he did know the reason for their visit. He remembered
that he got two days’ notice of their visit and they did not just ‘... land on the doorstep
unannounced ...’.
15.221 His intention was to be open and forthright with them. He was anxious that the Kennedy
Committee would bring about the changes they had been looking for. He recalled that previous
committees had visited and nothing had ever happened as a result. Their reports just gathered
dust. He saw the visit as an opportunity to lay all his cards on the table and let them know
everything. He had no intention of gilding the lily or giving a false impression. He recalled going
into a fair amount of detail about the various departments of the School. He said the Committee
members had accepted that the Oblates were trying to bring about certain changes, but they also
pointed out all the cracks, and they thought the Oblates were not doing everything right.
15.222 Fr Luca said the members of the Committee went around the School, inspected buildings, spoke
to staff and then afterwards had a meeting with him. He was asked to comment on the second
memorandum prepared by Mr Crowe, and he made the following points:
(1) He agreed that one particular member of the staff to whom he assigned disciplinary
duties administered corporal punishment. He did not remember telling them but he
agreed ‘it must be so’.
(2) He remembered the Prefect carrying a strap but did not know if the other Brothers
carried one. He did not think it was a common thing for them all to have straps.
(3) He could not remember telling the Committee members that boys were called out of
the dormitories after they had retired and that they were punished on one of the
stairway landings ‘... because my own perception of what had happened was that they
were brought to the washroom which was a room at the bottom of the stairs. I didn’t
know about it being done on the stairs’.
(4) It was news to him to hear that evidence was given that boys described punishments
on the stairs. He stated that he did not know this occurred.
(5) When asked if it was the case, therefore, that he could not have told the Kennedy
Committee members what was recorded in the memorandum, he stated, ‘I was
certainly stretching things a bit if I were to say that and I don’t think I did’.
(6) He did not remember saying how the punishment was applied to the buttocks, or what
the boys wore when this occurred: ‘Honestly I don’t remember saying it. I am not
doubting Mr. MacConchradha’s word but I can’t remember it’.
(7) When asked to comment on the now infamous remark about boys being stripped
naked for punishments as it would be more humiliating that way, he stated:
I certainly don’t remember. Another thing I would say it would be totally a contradiction
of what my own philosophy was about, the treatment of the boys. To say a thing like
that, I don’t think it’s something that I would have said.
(8) Fr Luca concluded by agreeing that, in his dealing with this topic over the years,
including in the newspapers, at all times he had said, including today, that he had no
recollection of saying that.
15.223 Fr Luca then recalled his meeting in April 1970 in the Department of Education with Mr McDevitt,
the Department’s Inspector, when Mr McDevitt said, ‘Father, did you know that you could be
prosecuted for administering punishment‘. He again confirmed that he took the message, and the
following morning called in his staff and told them, ‘From now on no more corporal punishment
because you could be liable to answer for it in the courts‘.
15.224 What becomes apparent from the Crowe controversy is that change was forced upon the
Department of Education by the correspondence that followed the visit of the Kennedy Committee.
Circulars generated by the Department of Education on the rules and regulations for the
administration of corporal punishment produced little change, but the criticism by the Kennedy
Committee, an independent body, did eventually enforce change. Two years after their visit, the
traditional ‘floggings’ of Daingean came to an end.
15.225 In their Opening Statement, the Oblates stated that, following a request from the Department of
Education to cease the practice of removing clothing when administering corporal punishment, Fr
Luca took steps to phase out corporal punishment altogether. This was some 13 years before it
was forbidden by law in schools in Ireland. They further stated that it gave rise to a grave
disciplinary problem in the School.
15.226 It is clear, from the following accounts of riots in Daingean, that the School had grave disciplinary
problems long before the phasing-out of corporal punishment.
15.227 • Fr Luca did not fear censure about the practice of floggings in Daingean. This practice
was well known to the Department of Education and had not attracted criticism in
the past. He was clearly unprepared for the revulsion of the Department of Justice
representative to it. There was no reason for Fr Luca to be anything other than ‘matter
of fact’ about it, as it was accepted by Dr McCabe as early as 1953.
• The investigation into Br Enrico, as outlined above, shows a regime in which Brothers
other than the Prefect administered severe corporal punishment.
• Only the intervention of the Kennedy Committee brought about the end of floggings in
Daingean after two years of correspondence. It is hard to reconcile this with the stated
position of Fr Luca, that he abhorred the practice of flogging and resolved to do away
with it when he became Resident Manager.
The Daingean riots

15.228 There were three riots in Daingean, recorded in the documents furnished, that occurred during
the relevant period. The two principal riots occurred in 1956 and 1958. Both of these riots were
largely brought under control by the authorities within the School, and charges were successfully
brought against the ringleaders. There was a third, earlier, less well-documented riot, which is
referred to in the extensive Garda Report on the 1956 riot.
The 1956 riot

15.229 The first riot occurred in Daingean on 13th April 1956. The next day, Fr Salvador,19 the Resident
Manager, wrote to Mr Sugrue20 of the Department of Education:
We had some trouble yesterday which could have had very serious results if the organised
disturbance or mutiny as the boys called it, had not been nipped in the bud. The display
of dangerous weapons they concealed on their persons was formidable, including
slashers, an axe and all kinds of iron bars. They smashed a number of windows and
intended doing more widespread damage. I have sent on the names of the ringleaders.
These I had to have taken over by the Guards. They include [a boy] who came here last
month, just a few days before his 17th birthday. He and the other four are as far as I can
see and judge beyond the reach of the best efforts of a reform school.
15.230 The alleged ringleaders were handed over to the Gardaı́ on 13th April 1956. They were to be
charged ‘with having taken part in an organised disturbance’.
19
20
This is the English version of Ó Sı́ochfhradha.

15.231 The Department of Justice wrote to the Secretary General of the Department of Education on 23rd
April 1956, enclosing a Garda Sı́ochana Preliminary Crime Report on the incidents in Daingean,
that outlined the disturbance that had taken place involving about 40 inmates who had
endeavoured to start a riot. The Gardaı́ prepared a more extensive report some two weeks later.
15.232 According to the Gardaı́, they were informed by telephone of the trouble and were asked for their
assistance by the Brothers. The Gardaı́ went immediately to the School, where they learned that
the disturbances and insubordination had arisen while the boys were at tea in the dining hall. The
staff had succeeded in rounding up the ringleaders, and these were taken to the washhouse and
searched, and an array of weapons was found in both their clothes and around the School. These
included a hatchet, iron bars, spikes, a cosh, stones wrapped in hankies and a boot-maker’s knife.
The staff were made aware of the mutiny by more ‘loyal members of the Institution’.
15.233 One of the ringleaders had been involved in a previous attempt to commit a riot in the School a
couple of years previously, when the school authorities had effectively dealt with the incident. The
boys gave the shortage of reasonable food as their reason for the riot, but this, according to the
Gardaı́, was only an excuse, and the real reason was an organised attempt to break out. The
Gardaı́ took statements from other boys, who revealed that the intention was to overpower those
in charge, to cut the telephone wires, seize a lorry that was on the premises and make a breakout
for Dublin. The five accused were remanded in custody to Portarlington District Court on 18th April
1956. All five were convicted and sentenced to terms in St. Patrick’s Institution.
The 1958 riot

15.234 The second riot was two years later. The Garda Primary Crime Report outlined the events. In the
week commencing 7th September 1958, it became known that there was a conspiracy to effect a
riot in the School. The three ringleaders were all over the age of 17. On 3rd September 1958, the
father of a boy in Daingean handed a letter into Store Street Garda Station. His son, who was an
inmate of Daingean, had written the letter to his other son. The letter asked that he should arrange
a car to be sent from Dublin to assist in the escape. The letter read:
I write a few lines to asked you will you be able to get a car or van for Sunday 7 for me
and a few lads are going to start a Mutiny and are going to run away. I wrote to a lad
who was here before and he is getting me a car or van to for Sunday 7 and don’t let
mammy know.
15.235 The letter was handed over to the Gardaı́ by their father. On receipt of the letter the station
sergeant contacted the Reformatory to warn the authorities of possible trouble. With this
information, the school authorities took extra precautionary measures within the School, and made
further enquiries. Some of the boys involved in the plan gave information to the school authorities.
They revealed that a conspiracy was afoot involving about 20 inmates. It was planned to attack
the night watchman. Numerous searches were conducted in the School, and a large iron file was
found under a bed. One boy handed over a butcher’s knife, two iron bars and a knuckle-duster
from the dump to a Brother. Another boy had a large iron bar and a knuckle-duster concealed in
his clothes.
15.236 On 12th September, the three ringleaders were arrested on warrants and brought before the
District Court in Tullamore. They were charged with conspiracy to cause a riot and incitement to
commit a riot, along with breaches of the school rules and conduct likely to cause breach of the
peace. All three pleaded guilty to breaching the school rules and not guilty to the other charges.
The judge convicted them on this count and did not send them forward for trial in respect of the
other charges. Each was sentenced to two years in St Patrick’s Institution.

The School rules in Daingean
15.237 During the hearings of the charges of rioting in Daingean in 1956, the Justice had asked whether
there were any written rules governing the conduct and discipline of the boys. He was informed
in the course of the evidence that there were no written rules.
15.238 Two years later, the issue of the school rules arose again. Two weeks before the trial of the
ringleaders in the 1958 conspiracy to riot in Daingean, Br Jaime forwarded a copy of the school
rules to the Department of Education. The local Gardaı́ were interested in the Department’s views
on the rules, and anticipated the matter arising in the imminent court case. Br Jaime asserted that
he had drawn up the rules in July 1958, displayed them on the notice board in the School and,
for the benefit of those who could not read, he arranged lectures for them. He had intended
forwarding them to the Department for approval at that time.
15.239 The Department responded on 23rd September 1958, and made the following observations:
(1) that there was little likelihood of his (the Manager) being questioned as to the breach
of the rules as this would not appear to be among the charges which would be
preferred,
(2) If the question did arise he should say that the Department is aware of the rules and
have offered no objection to them,
(3) in view of the nearness of the trial 25th September, 1958 the Department did not
consider it desirable to have a letter issued bearing the date 24th September, 1958
offering no objection to the rules.
15.240 In a letter dated 3rd October 1958, Br Jaime wrote to Mr Sugrue of the Department of Education,
informing him how the case had progressed. He wrote:
I stated in court that they (the rules) were always in practice here, and that the Dept. of
Education knew about them, and had no objection to them. I also stated that I had, with
the Superior’s sanction, decided to put them in writing, and post them up for the boys to
read. This was on June 20th. of this year. I also stated in the court that I had explained
some of the rules in question to all the boys, and that I had cautioned two of the boys
concerned in the case about certain rules, and that it would be impossible for any boy not
to know them.
15.241 The rules that had been prepared and posted up by Br Jaime were in manuscript form, and must
have been a lengthy document, given that the typed version of the Major rules alone ran to seven
pages. The school authorities later had them printed up and sent to the Department for approval.
These were examined by a Departmental official and, in a memorandum to the Secretary of the
Department, he said they appeared adequate for the requirements of St Conleth’s. The importance
of having these rules can be gleaned from the final paragraph in his memorandum:
Where written rules exist it is comparatively easy to arrange for the committal to Borstal
of a Reformatory School pupil. This may be done before a Court of summary jurisdiction
and the charge may consist of a breach of the rules of the school or of inciting to such
a breach.
15.242 The Assistant Secretary to the Department, in a handwritten note in Irish on the above
memorandum, stated that (1) the Rules would be better understood if the English version was
improved, and (2) there would be the danger that the Manager and the Department would be
made a laughing stock by virtue of its contents if the present version were read out in open court.
15.243 The Assistant Secretary’s concerns were well founded. Prior to the changes and amendments
suggested by the Department, some of these rules were so ill-thought out and badly worded that
they would confuse an adult, let alone a poorly educated child.
15.244 To illustrate the point:
RULE 8. Good manners should not be used only towards those whom we like. Not
everyone may like one of us, yet each of us expects good treatment at the hands of others.
Therefore; selfishness and unfairness in regard to the rights of others is absolutely wrong.
This applies especially to meal-times when some boys may deprive others of their fair
share. The school authorities will see to it that each boy gets his rights and that offenders
are punished.
RULE 10. Immoral or impure conduct is forbidden by God Himself and so is no mere
school rule. Therefore to warn boys against it is absolutely for their own good. The school
authorities must strictly forbid it and will be helpful and watchful in preventing any such
conduct.
RULE 17. Any intercourse between Senior and Junior Sections is an offence against the
school rules.
The forming of particular friendships between Senior and Junior boys is a more serious
offence and merits a severe penalty.
15.245 The school rules were divided into two sections: MAJOR rules and MINOR rules. The major rules
ran to seven typed pages containing 21 rules. The rules stated: ‘To break a major rule is serious
and merits serious penalties’
15.246 It was two years before these rules were finally approved by the Department, in November 1960.
The evidence heard by the Investigation Committee

15.247 One of the boys accused of involvement in the 1958 riot gave evidence. As a result of the
conviction in respect of the riot, he received a two-year sentence in St. Patrick’s Institution. He
was asked whether he remembered the school rules. He said, ‘I don’t remember anything because
I’d never seen the school rules’. Neither did he recall being lectured on the school rules.
15.248 He stated that he was punished severely by the Prefect for his part in the riot. He was taken out
of the hall where the film was being shown, and brought to a hallway were he received the lashes
from the Brother. There was no other Brother involved. He stated that he received blows on his
arms, back and backside. He claimed that he had received over 100 blows, and then stood up
and hit the Brother with his head, accidentally, resulting in more blows being given to him. He
believed that this amounted to 140 blows in total.
15.249 • This boy’s conviction and sentence to two years in a Borstal was facilitated by the
Resident Manager’s evidence in court that the school rules had been in place from 20th
June 1958 and had been specifically brought to the attention of two of the accused.
• The Department was uncomfortable with the Resident Manager’s history regarding the
rules. It feared exposure of the fact that they had been submitted to the Department
so recently, ie just before the trial and after the riot.
• The Department of Education knew that its acceptance of the Manager’s word that the
rules had been in place prior to the riot was important for the case.
Attempted arson 1968

15.250 In 1968, a number of residents in the School attempted to set fire to part of the building. The
Garda report on the incident stated that the trouble started on 25th August 1968, when a fight took
place between rival gangs in the School. On the 26th, senior and junior sections were separated
and confined to separate parts of the School. At this stage, the junior section boys decided not to
fight amongst themselves and came up with a proposal that they all should join together to burn
down the buildings. It was decided to attempt to burn down the junior dormitory at 11pm when
the lights went off. Four boys obtained bottles of diesel oil. At 11pm that night, one boy sprinkled
three vacant beds and part of the floor with the diesel. As he was about to strike the match, the
night watchman sounded the alarm and more staff arrived. Order was restored.
15.251 On 27th August, the local Garda Sergeant was informed that a fire may be started in a number of
workshops, and that four o’clock in the afternoon was fixed as the start time. The local fire brigade
were alerted. However, the staff had restored order and no Garda assistance was required. The
Manager separated the ringleaders and had them confined in a separate room. These boys were
interrogated by a Garda Sergeant at Daingean, and it became evident that a full-scale conspiracy
to burn down sections of the Reformatory was in existence. The four boys mentioned above were
charged with attempted arson and conspiracy.
15.252 • The severe regime of corporal punishment in Daingean did not prevent trouble in the
institution.
• There are no recorded instances of riots in Daingean after the abolition of corporal
punishment in 1970.
• The riots as described by the Gardaı́ suggest that the institution that was seriously out
of control. This was a consequence of bad management and Daingean was a
frightening and threatening environment as a result.
Absconding
15.253 During Fr Luca’s time as Resident Manager of Daingean, it appeared that there was a serious
problem with pupils absconding from the School. Examining the pupil files available, between
1963 and 1972, 35 children absconded on 46 different occasions (some pupils absconding more
than once). As instances of absconding were not always recorded officially in pupil files, these
figures are not accurate and are likely to be much higher. It does, however, give a strong indication
of the magnitude of the problem.
15.254 During Fr Luca’s time, absconding became such a problem that, in 1966, it drew the attention of
the media, which resulted in a petition being sent by the mothers of four boys to the Minister for
Education, enquiring into conditions in the School. The mothers concerned stated in their letter to
the Minister:
When we visit our sons we feel that they are not free to speak their minds. They always
seem to be in a state of tension.
15.255 In an article in The People newspaper in October 1966, it was highlighted that 18 boys had
absconded between July and October in that year alone. Fr Luca was quoted in the article :
Occasionally boys do wrong and they have to be punished. They may get a slap or a
leather strap across their hands. But there is no brutality ... The stiffest punishment I have
had to give in two years here has been to stop a boy’s holidays ... We try to run the school
like a big family. We have our own farm ; we produce our own vegetables and bread. In
fact we are almost self sufficient ... We care for more than 100 of the toughest boys in
the country. Discipline sometimes has to be enforced. But nothing happens at St.
Conleth’s that could remotely be described as cruel.
15.256 In response to the article, a memorandum was sent to the Minister for Education, where it was
noted that the Industrial Schools Branch of the Department was satisfied that the discipline in the
Reformatory was maintained in ‘a kindly manner’, and that the Resident Manager was devoted to
the task with ‘a genuine interest in the welfare of the boys’. A similar comment was made by T.
O’Raifeartaigh, Secretary of the Department of Education, in a report in 1969:
Fr. [Luca] in particular is not only a man dedicated, but a man of vast common sense and
goodness. A remark of his which struck me particularly was that indiscipline (e.g. running
away) should not call for additional restrictions, as it is to be expected of these or any
boys in such circumstances that they will occasionally kick over the traces.
15.257 • Although the boys knew that a flogging by the Prefect was the punishment for
absconding, large numbers of them still took the risk of running away to escape the
severity of the regime.
• Fr Luca offered no explanation as to why the boys were absconding, but defended the
regime to the Department of Education and to the media although, according to his
evidence to this Committee, he was revolted and horrified by flogging.
Conclusions
15.258 1. Flogging was an inhumane and cruel form of corporal punishment.
2. There was no proper system for recording physical punishment administered in
Daingean, and it was extensively used by staff members.
3. The staff resorted to corporal punishment and violence as the primary means of
maintaining control.
4. There was no control of staff in the infliction of punishment.
5. Corporal punishment was often excessive and was administered by staff using a wide
range of weapons. Relatively minor offences gave rise to severe punishment.
6. The severity of punishments, its widespread use, and its unpredictability led to a
climate of fear.
7. Serious complaints were not properly investigated.
8. Despite its rules and regulations on corporal punishment the Department had an
unambiguous policy of supporting the authorities there.
Sexual abuse
15.259 After complaints about corporal punishment, the next most common kind of complaint was about
sexual conduct within the School. The evidence described:
(1) sexual abuse perpetrated by members of the Congregation and by other members
of staff;
(2) sexual abuse perpetrated by other boys; and
(3) other sexual behaviour among boys within the Institution.
15.260 The stance taken by the Oblates on the issue of sexual abuse by staff was to insist that no
meaningful investigation could be carried out. In their Submission, they stated unequivocally ‘there
is insufficient evidence before the Commission to make a finding that such abuse did occur’. They
gave their reasons for this assertion as follows:
1. All living Oblates who were accused have denied the allegations.
2. The lay members of staff against whom allegations have been made are either dead
or untraceable.
3. All complainants conceded they did not make any contemporaneous complaints to
anyone in the school or to the Gardaı́.
4. The documentary evidence from all sources during the lifetime of the School shows
only one complaint by a pupil of sexual abuse against a staff member. It was made in
1967 by a pupil in Garda custody. This allegation was investigated separately by the
Gardaı́ and by the Oblates with the assistance of Senior Counsel. The allegations were
deemed to be unfounded.
5. In another incident detailed in discovered documents from the Department of
Education, a local man, in 1960, who had himself been accused of abuse, made
hearsay allegations against a lay member of staff. The matter was investigated by the
Resident Manager, the Department of Education, and was referred to the Gardaı́ who
did not take the matter further.
15.261 The Oblates then went further:

The Oblates also strenuously contend that to make any general finding of sexual abuse
in the circumstances of this investigation is potentially more damaging than a specific
finding against a named individual and would be a clear breach of the right of the persons
who worked in the school (approximately 136) to maintain their reputation.
15.262 The response of the Oblates to individual complainants’ allegations was to maintain this position.
They submitted:
it is impossible to fairly adjudicate on the complaints in these circumstances. The passage
of 40 years, the deaths of many persons against whom allegations have been made or
who might have cast light on these matters, the dimming of memories, and the absence
of documents directly relating to the allegations make it difficult to develop a response to
the allegations. The incidents ... require a careful investigation, the materials for which
are not available in the records held by the Oblates ...
The conviction of Br Ramon21

15.263 Br Ramon was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment on being found guilty of indecently assaulting
10 boys. All the offences took place between the mid-1980s and the early 1990s at a college in
Wales. He was on the staff of Daingean for 17 years from the mid-1950s.
15.264 From the time of his arrest, a record of the unfolding events was kept by Fr Benicio,22 the local
Oblate Parish Priest. A decision was made to enquire about Br Ramon in his various postings,
because of a rumour that he had been asked to move on a previous occasion for inappropriate
behaviour.
15.265 Br Ramon had worked in a hostel for homeless emigrants in London. He was employed as an
assistant. According to Fr Benicio, the Director of the hostel, Declan Rafferty,23 reported that he
had had concerns about Br Ramon:
He said he wasn’t happy about the way [Ramon] related to the residents – he either liked
them or he didn’t like them, there was no in-between. Twice it was brought to his attention
that [Ramon] was in the rooms of residents after 1.00 am when they should have been
asleep. He tackled him about this. He became particularly friendly with younger boys
when they came. [Declan] had no concrete evidence of inappropriate behaviour but felt
he was unsuitable to be working with young people. He said he told [Pierre]24 at the time
that he should not be sent to a place where there were young people.
15.266 On foot of the rumour that he had been removed from a previous posting for inappropriate
behaviour, it was decided that senior Oblates would enquire from Fr Luca about Br Ramon’s time
in Daingean, and this is dealt with below.
21
22
23
24

15.267 Br Ramon left Daingean in the early 1970s, and he wrote a letter of protest about his transfer to
a Scholasticate:
For close on 20 years I have devoted my life to helping in my own humble way the
unfortunant boys that passed through St Conleths, it is a way of life that I have grown to
love and I find it difficult to believe it has come to an end. My involvement with the boys
in our care is now, as it has always been. Total ... I do however find it difficult to understand
my new role ... I would like to think that you would reconsider my obedience, If after giving
it a fair trail I am still not happy.
15.268 Four years later, he moved to a hostel for homeless emigrants in London, for a period of 10 years,
before going to a college in Wales where he remained for six years. He was appointed as a
Housemaster there.
15.269 Fr Luca, who was then Provincial of the Congregation, wrote to him, just before his appointment
as Housemaster to the boys’ dormitory, recommending that this new appointment would be less
onerous than his work at the hostel, which he was clearly finding challenging. It was here that his
behaviour led to his being found guilty of indecently assaulting 10 boys.
15.270 He would have done well to heed the warning and timely advice that Fr Luca sent him in a letter
just after his appointment to the post:
It is an Apostolate where example and kindness will do a lot to help these young ment to
grow up as loyal members of the Church and good citizens. Many of them are very clever
and from good upright familites . They expect a high standard from us and we have the
obligation to respond to that expectation in a positive way. Like all youth they will judge
us and pay attention to us not merely from our words but how these words are backed
up with authentic living of our gospel message.
15.271 Some witnesses appearing before the Committee gave evidence that this Brother had sexually
abused them during his 17 years in Daingean. In its response to these complainants, the
Congregation made no reference to the fact that Br Ramon had been convicted of serious offences
against young boys in Wales, but simply averred that the Brother was now deceased. The
Congregation cross-examined complainants on the minutiae of their allegations, and was
dismissive of any allegation that was inconsistent or mistaken in even unimportant detail. One
witness said:
Br. Ramon, he used to work in the bakery. There was one morning I was sent over to get
the bread to put it out for the breakfast. I went over and he was there and he started
tickling me and messing about, that kind of thing. Then he opened my trousers and put
his hand in ... and he touched me. I was pushing him away, trying to get away from him
and he grabbed me by the hand and he tried to force my hand onto his private part. I
managed to struggle and then he just let it go at that. I got the bread and brought it back
over to the recreation room ...
15.272 He was then asked if it had happened again:

Oh yeah, masturbating about five or six times after that. He would give me brylcreme,
sweets, toothpaste, toothbrushes and things like that ... where I was working in the
kitchen. He started groping me again and then I gave in, I masturbated him about probably
four to six times.
15.273 He was asked why he had not told the Gardaı́ about this abuse when making a statement to
them, or why it had not been included in the statement made for his solicitor. He replied, ‘I didn’t
want to tell anyone. I felt like I was giving something for something’. He said he felt like ‘A rent
person’.
15.274 Various inconsistencies were pointed out, such as the fact that Br Ramon did not have duties in
the bakery. However, the witness was adamant he had not got the identification of the person
wrong, and said that Br Ramon was often in the bakery. The Congregation made no reference to
Br Ramon’s conviction, and treated the witness with incredulity and disbelief.
15.275 Another witness told the Committee that, although he personally had no experiences of a sexual
nature with Br Ramon, he recalled that the Brother had a nickname ‘Br. Sexpert Ramon’.
15.276 Another witness told the Committee, ‘There was five or six Brothers that did abuse kids’, and he
named Br Ramon as one of these: ‘Br. Ramon was an evil man’. He added, ‘There were other
good Brothers there, they weren’t all paedophiles’.
15.277 He was then questioned about his allegations. He insisted, ‘Br. Ramon tried to abuse me. I took
the beatings rather than let them abuse me ... He got a hold of you and he groped you. I never
let him go all the way with me, if you know what I mean’. Under cross-examination he added:
You would be in a room and he grab you by the private parts and pull you into it and he
tried to grope you ... I would knock him away and take a slap.
15.278 The cross-examination ended with a simple statement:

I don’t have any more questions. I should just point out, as I have done, that the Brothers
concerned are dead. Br. Ramon is long time dead ...
15.279 One complainant was asked whether he or anybody else had been shown kindness or fairness.
He replied that he had never received any kindness, but identified the boys who worked for Br
Ramon in the laundry as receiving special treatment:
Maybe to one or two of the people that was working in the laundry. Br. Ramon was over
the laundry and if you said anything to any of the boys that worked in the laundry Br.
Ramon would give you a hiding for it because he didn't like his boys to be abused or
given out.
15.280 • In circumstances where a Brother had such long service in Daingean, his conviction
for sexual abuse was a relevant piece of information that should have been revealed
to the complainants who made allegations against him.
The allegation made in 1967 – the O’Brien25 case

15.281 On 20th June 1967, a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of a former pupil of Daingean wrote to the
Secretary of the Department of Justice about a matter that had caused them deep concern. A 15-
year-old boy had recently been discharged from Daingean after being in the Institution for over
two years. They were writing, they explained, ‘as Officers of the Court and indeed as responsible
citizens to bring immediately to the notice of the Department’ a serious allegation of sexual
misconduct. They wrote:
We are instructed and we have no reason to doubt our instructions that this boy, who was
mentally retarded when sent to Daingean, was sexually assaulted and perverted while an
in-mate of the Reformatory and his unfortunate lapse into criminality immediately on his
release is due solely to what occurred while he was there.
We feel that the best course for us to adopt in this case is to have the boy medically
examined by a competent psychiatrist who can elicit from him the full circumstances of
his perversion and we feel that the Department might like to have him examined by their
own medical advisor in view of the circumstances.
25

15.282 The alleged abuser was not named in the letter, although it is now known that it was Br Ramon.
It seems that this letter was forwarded to the Department of Education, because the next letter
on file is a letter of 14th December 1967, written by the solicitors acting for the Resident Manager
of Daingean, Fr Luca. It was addressed to the Secretary of the Department of Education. It stated:
We understand that a firm of Solicitors, acting on behalf of ... a former detainee at
Daingean, wrote to you making serious allegations concerning occurrences in the School
involving a member of the staff ...
We are writing to advise you that following the allegations our client, The Reverend
Superior, investigated the allegation and it was also investigated, with the full co-operation
of our client, by the Garda Authorities.
Following their enquiries the Garda Authorities were satisfied that there was no evidence
of any improper conduct by any member of the Staff ...
In view of the serious allegation made in the letter to your Department based on the story
of this unfortunate boy our client wishes this unequivocable denial of the allegations
placed on your file.
15.283 Again, the name of the member of staff against whom the allegations were made was not
disclosed and no record was kept of any action taken.
15.284 The boy who made the allegations appeared in court and pleaded guilty. The Central Criminal
Court imposed a suspended sentence of 12 months, expressing its dismay that there was no in-
patient unit available for the treatment of disturbed psychiatric adolescents.
15.285 In his letter to the Provincial at Christmas 1967, Fr Luca wrote:

Well the ... case is ended as far as we are ... but not very satisfactorily from the Guards
point of view. Mr Johnston is writing a letter now to the Department of Education to be
placed in the Files beside the other Document and so I hope will be closed for good and
all a rather nasty case. In the last stages of the case I had a call from the Dept. Inspector,
Mr McDevitt about it and in passing he referred to the “Document of Accusation”. And
then as a by the way he said he didn’t believe it. To which I replied “neither did I” but to
make assurance doubly sure we had the allegation investigated by the Gardaı́. And they
were satisfied, without even a shadow of a doubt, that the whole thing was a malicious
concoction. And furthermore, the Attorney General was even stronger in his condemnation
of the affair. This took the Inspector a little by surprise for he never dreamt that we would
have had it investigated. But he was very pleased to hear that we did take that course of
action lest it should ever be brought up again. So when he gets the letter from Mr Johnston
he will see that we meant to have every avenue checked & sealed.
15.286 Fr Luca was inaccurate in stating that ‘we had the allegation investigated by the Gardaı́’. But, in
fact, the Gardaı́ had brought the allegations to Fr Luca and they investigated them as part of the
preparation for the criminal trial.
15.287 Similarly, when Fr Murphy, who represented the Oblates at the Emergence hearing, told the
Commission, ‘... we only find in the records one complaint of sexual abuse. It was brought to the
attention of the Gardaı́’, he was not correct, as it was the Gardaı́ who approached the Resident
Manager about the matter.
15.288 Some light was thrown on the matter by Fr Luca. He wrote in his Statement that the boy’s defence
was that he had learned the sexual behaviour in Daingean:
When that came to me from the Gardaı́ it was no longer a school matter, it was outside,
the boy was outside and those who brought the story were outside, the Gardaı́. So I
immediately went to the Provincial and told him what had been said ... Then the Garda
who was in charge of the investigation in Dublin got in touch with me to say that he wanted
to see this Brother on a particular day, at a particular time.
15.289 Following further consultations with the Provincial, a meeting was arranged between Br Ramon
and senior counsel, after which counsel told Fr Luca, ‘You needn’t be worried, it’s a false
accusation and we have no doubt about that’. At the Garda Station, Fr Luca was shown the file
on the case, which he described as ‘putrid’. He added:
I would not have thought the Brother had a chance because when you read something
and looked at the detail of it you would ask yourself how anyone could compose it ... the
minute descriptions and the detail of the thing ...
It was a different Brother to the accusation about the 14 year old.26 There had never been
any accusations against the second Brother before that, at least I had never heard
anything against him.
The Gardaı́ were satisfied, anyway, that it wasn’t true.
15.290 Br Ramon’s departure from Daingean in the early 1970s was, it was claimed, in the context of
staff changes in preparation for the transfer to Lusk. Older Brothers and those who did not want
to continue in the work were gradually moved to new placements.
15.291 Br Ramon was neither an older Brother (he was 48 at the time) and, as evidenced by his
memorandum to Fr Luca referred to above, he wanted to continue to work in Daingean with ‘the
unfortunant boys that passed through St. Conleth’s’. In the light of what is now known about Br
Ramon and his time in Daingean, the reason for his transfer to a Scholasticate must be
questioned.
15.292 When statements of complaint about this Brother were received by the Committee and forwarded
to the Oblates, they should have considered these complaints in the light of the information they
had about Br Ramon. There was a chance to investigate the behaviour of this Brother as soon as
his activities became known in Britain. The allegations surfaced in the mid-1990s, and the Brother
is now deceased.
15.293 Br Ramon ‘was charged with two specimen offences of “attempted buggery” and “indecent assault”
and 16 other offences ...’. After that, he was admitted into the Stroud centre for a full assessment
and treatment programme.27 A report on Br Ramon was prepared by his psychiatrists in Stroud
and senior members of the Oblate Congregation were consulted in connection with that report.
15.294 There is no information about this report, and so it is not known if it covered his time in Daingean,
although it would seem extraordinary that a man charged with indecent assault on boys in a
residential institution would not have been questioned about the 17 years he spent in a reformatory
in Ireland. This is particularly the case when it is now known that an investigation was carried out
in Daingean in the late 1960s, by Fr Luca and the Gardaı́, into allegations of sexual abuse against
Br Ramon.
15.295 Following Br Ramon’s conviction on charges of sexually abusing boys, the obvious question arose
in the Congregation as to whether he had engaged in such activities in his previous postings,
including Daingean. Before he was assigned to a boys’ college in Wales, he had served for 10
years in an emigrants’ hostel in London, where he came under suspicion. In response to a query
26
This was Br Abran.
27
Organisation that offers therapy to priests and other religious who have developed sexual or drink problems run by
The Servants of the Paraclete.

as to whether any investigation into Br Ramon’s activities in Daingean had taken place in 1997,
the Oblates stated in a letter dated 8th May 2008 to the Committee:
Fr [Benicio] himself followed up the inquiry referred to in the note of 6 March 1997. He
did so by speaking with Fr [Luca]. Fr [Luca] indicated to him that there were no
accusations against Br [Ramon], apart for an accusation that had been discounted at the
time it occurred as being unfounded Fr [Arador]28 has no recollection of the matter being
raised with him. Fr [Javier]29 has no specific recollection of being asked to enquire into
the matter, however he is now aware that in [the mid-1960s] an allegation was made
against Br [Ramon] which was fully investigated by both An Garda Siochana and the
Oblates at the time and was dismissed as unfounded. With that exception, Br [Ramon]
had a clean record at St Conleth’s. At the time of our letter dated the 21st of December
2006 we understood that Fr [Javier], as Provincial, did not know of the incident the basis
of the accusation in [the mid-1960s], but it appears that he learnt of it around the time of
the trial in [the late 1990s].
15.296 On the issue of whether Br Ramon ever admitted abusing boys in Daingean, the Congregation
stated:
We are instructed that Br [Ramon] never admitted nor acknowledged that he had abused
boys at St Conleth’s Reformatory at Daingean.
15.297 • Having regard to the sexual abuse that Br Ramon committed in Wales, the reservations
expressed about his time in London, the complainant evidence received by this
Committee, together with the investigation in the late 1960s and the recidivist nature
of sexual abuse, there must be serious misgivings about Br Ramon’s behaviour in
Daingean during his 17 years there.
Br Abran
15.298 In his detailed Statement about his time at Daingean, Fr Luca told of another accusation made
against a Brother in the late 1960s. He wrote:
The boy made the accusation to the priest who was the Chaplain and the Chaplain said
to the boy that if he didn’t mind he would call the Superior in on the matter because it
needed to be looked into or, he told the boy, he could go to the Superior himself, but the
Chaplain said he would have to have the boy’s permission to bring the matter up to a
higher authority. The boy said he didn’t want to do it himself but didn’t mind if the Chaplain
brought the Superior into it. Then we met together and went through the details of it and,
in order to get the details straight, there had to be a bit of cross questioning, because you
couldn’t just take the story exactly as it was told, there would be more to it than that.
Eventually, he broke down and said it wasn’t true that he was asked by the bigger boys
to make the accusation.
15.299 It was also strange that Fr Luca did not appear to have taken any action against the boys who
initiated the alleged malicious report. If the boy in this case had not retracted his allegation early
on, ‘... the next thing would have been that the Brother would have to have been brought into it’.
15.300 There remain some puzzling aspects of this case that were not explained by the investigation. If
the bigger boys asked this boy to make the allegation for malicious reasons, it was odd that he
went to the Chaplain, who could not pass the information on unless the boy allowed him to do so.
It was an extraordinarily indirect way to make a malicious allegation.
28
29

15.301 Also, it would seem that the Resident Manager did not interview the Brother involved. Everything
depended on the judgement of the Resident Manager. He wrote in his Statement:
It was a likely scenario that a Brother could have kept a boy back after class ... That would
be an opportunity. Again, there had to be a certain amount of trust because otherwise if
you couldn’t do these ordinary things ... then it was really uncommon these accusations.
The Provincial ultimately was responsible because he was the Manager and I was, as it
were, his Deputy although I was called the Resident Manager. It would have been very
necessary then to let him know, seek advice from him and then proceed from that.
I don’t think there was a record kept of it because of the way it ended up. Had it gone
further, hindsight is dangerous, you might do a thing differently today, but then there just
didn’t seem to be the need for it ... you just didn’t have time to do all the things you would
have liked to do.
15.302 He nonetheless said he set up a system for dealing with complaints about staff members. He
wrote:
When the boys made any accusation about any of the Brothers or any of the staff, they =
the staff member had to be present ... I made this clear to the staff that if a boy was going
to make a complaint against any of them that the person in question should be there and
should hear the person saying it. One good thing about that, too, was that a person would
have to be more careful about making accusations.
15.303 In his Statement, Fr Luca wrote:

A strange thing was that never once in all the time did any boy come along and say to
me that he had been abused either sexually or physically, never once. I don’t know why
because I felt that I was open enough to receive any boy that would come along ...
15.304 Clearly, Fr Luca did not appreciate, even at this remove, that the system he set up made it virtually
impossible for any boy to come to him with complaints of sexual abuse. The system he described
was actually more likely to ensure that sexual abuse was not uncovered.
15.305 There was no written record of the allegation that came from the chaplain and the boy. The
absence of documentary evidence of abuse was a result of the system. The exact nature of the
allegations and the names of the people involved were only recorded in the memory of the
Resident Manager, not the Institution or the Congregation. The way this incident was dealt with
shows how failure to record complaints led to evidence about possible repetition of allegations
being lost.
15.306 Fr Luca referred to this incident in his Statement to the Committee although, again, he did not
identify Br Abran as the Brother in question:
It was a different Brother to the accusation about the 14 year old. There had never been
any accusations against the second Brother [Ramon] before that, at least I had never
heard anything against him.
15.307 • As the Oblates pointed out in their Submission, ‘The incidents ... require a careful
investigation, the materials for which are not available in the records held by the
Oblates’. This particular case illustrates one of the reasons why the records on
allegations of sexual abuse do not exist: the system inhibited disclosure and the type
of thorough investigation that would lead to meaningful and useful records.
• Fr Luca’s procedure would have tended to suppress rather than encourage allegations
of sexual abuse in Daingean. He appeared unable to appreciate the difficulty his
procedure would have caused the boys in Daingean, even during the evidence to the
Committee.
Complainant evidence
15.308 Most of the staff members accused of sexual abuse were not available to give evidence, and the
Committee was presented with allegations of sexual abuse made by credible witnesses, but
without the possibility of hearing the contrary side and generally in the absence of documentary
evidence and independent corroboration.
15.309 One witness described his seduction by a lay teacher:

He would take me out fishing. The outer walls of Daingean ran alongside the grand canal
... Things happened there ... he used to use a newspaper and he would start off by
reading the newspaper and I would have the fishing rod and then he would put the
newspaper down on his lap, it was a slow process that went on for 10 or 15 minutes, then
it would be spread out on his lap and then half of it would go on to my lap. He would say
to me, “Oh, look at this.” He would point to something in the newspaper. Then he would
point at something which was just directly above my crotch ... Then he would put his hand
under the newspaper and attempt to masturbate me ... I remember on a few occasions
he tried to suck my penis. On another occasion he tried to – we were in some grass and
I can remember that he had a handkerchief in his hand and he got on top of me from
behind – I was laying flat, he got on top of me from behind and he tried to bugger me ...
I just clenched and kept my legs closed. He ejaculated sort of somewhere in that region
and I remember him using a handkerchief to wipe up ... I can only remember one occasion
that happened but several instances of him trying to suck my penis.
15.310 He said this teacher ‘... wasn’t an aggressive person at all. He was a very effeminate type of
person. He was a really nice man’. He explained that, despite disliking the sexual activity, he
continued to go out with the teacher because he was given treats such as sweets.
15.311 Another witness described being sexually assaulted on two occasions by a member of staff while
he was in Daingean. He alleged that he complained to a Brother and the matron about the abuse,
and they just fobbed him off. He also alleged that he was physically abused by the Brother to
whom he reported the assault. He stated that his mother became aware of this physical abuse,
and she complained to the school authorities. The correspondence between his mother and the
school authorities was available to the Committee, and it supported the witness’s contention that
his mother did in fact complain that she had been told by a couple of boys who had recently
absconded from Daingean that her son had received 16 lashes. This complaint was dealt with by
Fr Luca personally, who assured her that her son was in perfect health.
15.312 His letter concentrated on calming the parent rather than investigating the allegations:
As regards the other matters you mention; namely that [your son] has been ill treated
here. That is not true and I know before Easter [he] had asked a member of the staff to
call and see you about this and to assure you that what you had been told was not true.
Naturally you could expect an exaggerated story from your source of information. In fact,
such a boy would not ask better than to upset you and cause as much trouble as possible.
If you come down next visiting Sunday you may talk it over with Br. [Mateo]30 and I hope
the matron will also be available that day too. In fact it was the matron whom [your son]
asked to contact you.
30

15.313 Another witness alleged that he was forced to perform oral sex with one of the Brothers on a
number of occasions:
About three different times ... You just accepted it. There was no one you could report it
to. There was no one whatsoever. There was no telephones. I think it was every fortnight
you were allowed to write to your mother. There was no one. You don’t see anyone from
outside. I never seen anyone from outside for two years.
15.314 One complainant described being beaten by two Brothers on the bare backside, which led to a
sexual assault:
I remember Br. [Mateo] came in, before I knew it he had my hands pins behind my back,
he had me over a school desk the trousers were practically ripped off me and I got
probably half a dozen smacks. One of them, I think the two of them were feeling my
private parts, my arse and penis. This went on for probably eight or ten minutes.
15.315 The boy went back to his friends, but was too ashamed to tell them about the sexual abuse:
I didn't tell them actually what happened but I said I got a smack on the arse. I didn't tell
them that I was after being felt up. I was ashamed actually. That's nothing new, getting
the cane, ... That was that. I think I was more embarrassed than anything else.
15.316 One witness told the Committee that he had been in Artane before Daingean and he compared
Daingean favourably. He found the regime strict but fair. Boys were only punished for wrongdoing
in Daingean, whereas in Artane boys were beaten and struck for no reason. He also told the
Committee that he was befriended by Br Macario in Daingean. He said this Brother was very kind
to him and he felt he was protected by him. However, Br Macario took him to his room on a
number of occasions and discussed how he was developing physically. He used to ask him to
remove his clothes and lie on the bed. Br Macario then proceeded to measure him with a tape.
The witness was adamant that nothing else took place. Some time later, he inadvertently told
another Brother that he was being measured by Br Macario. Soon after, Br Macario came up to
him and told him not to tell anyone but to keep it secret that he was measured by him. Years
later, he again met Br Macario, who asked him whether he was still keeping their secret. The
witness realised that perhaps this Brother had an ulterior motive. This disappointed him because
he trusted him.
The Congregation’s Submission

15.317 Although they conceded that some allegations of sexual abuse were ‘prima facie honest and
coherent’, the Oblates contended that, in the absence of corroboration, the only way to safeguard
the rights of their members was to make no general finding of abuse. The Oblates also asserted
that there was ‘insufficient evidence before the Commission to make a finding that such abuse
did occur’. They further contended that to make a general finding of abuse ‘casts a cloud over the
reputation of every person who has worked in Daingean and irrevocably damages their good
name and the good name of the Oblate Order’.
15.318 • Sexual abuse of boys by staff took place in Daingean, as testified by complainant
witnesses.
• The full extent is impossible to quantify because of the absence of a proper system of
receiving and handling complaints.
• The system that was put in place tended to suppress complaints rather than to reveal
abuse or even to bring about investigations.
• The conviction of Br Ramon warrants a re-evaluation of the late 1960s episode.
1960 Garda investigation
15.319 In 1960, the criminal trial of a man who lived beside the Reformatory gave rise to concerns about
the supervision of the boys and to enquiries by the Department. Patrick O’Reilly 31 was found not
guilty on charges of buggery, attempted buggery and indecent assault, but was convicted of
assisting in an escape from the Reformatory and harbouring an escapee. He was given a two-
month suspended sentence. An outstanding charge of indecent assault was not proceeded with
by the State.
15.320 A file entitled ‘Alleged Acts of Gross Indecency Committed Against [sic] Inmate of St Conleth’s
Reformatory School, Daingean,’ was included in the discovered documents of the Department of
Education, and it dealt with the Garda investigation that led to the prosecution. No documents
about the matter were contained in the Congregation’s documentation.
15.321 Michael32 had been sentenced to two years in Daingean in the late 1950s for house-breaking. He
was aged 17 at the time. He absconded from the School seven months later, and was
subsequently arrested and charged with house-breaking in Dublin. He was remanded in Mountjoy
jail and, following his conviction, was sentenced to two years in St Patrick’s Institution.
15.322 When he was on remand in Mountjoy, he asked the Governor of the prison to allow him to speak
to a Garda about events that he alleged had occurred whilst he was in Daingean. He told the
Garda that a lay teacher, Mr Murphy,33 often took a group of boys down to the canal for swimming
when the weather was fine, and that Mr O’Reilly befriended the teacher, who allowed the boys to
visit the man’s house. This continued throughout that summer.
15.323 The boy alleged that the man sexually abused him and other boys during these visits, on one of
which he was given alcohol by Mr O’Reilly and claimed that he passed out and did not come to
until the next morning. He absconded from Daingean and went to Mr O’Reilly’s house where, he
alleged, Mr O’Reilly forced him to hide until Christmas. He was locked in during the day and
subjected to sexual assaults at night. Eventually, he escaped by breaking down the door and ran
away to Dublin, where he remained at large until his arrest a month later on house-breaking
charges. Whether the boy was imprisoned, as he claimed, or stayed willingly in the house, there
is no doubt that he was there for a time and ultimately made good his escape from the
Reformatory, because the owner was convicted of harbouring him and assisting his escape.
15.324 On hearing this story, the Garda investigated further and questioned five boys. Their interviews
were conducted in the presence of Br Jaime, the Prefect of Daingean. Some of these boys, who
were aged between 15 and 16, alleged that Mr O’Reilly had exposed himself to them, and some
of them said that they had exposed themselves in turn. The Garda also interviewed neighbours
of Mr O’Reilly, who confirmed that the reformatory boys were often in the house and that the lay
teacher would leave them there and then come back for them later.
15.325 The investigating Garda observed in his report to his Superintendent:

The facts of this case disclose a certain amount of laxity in the disciplinary supervision of
the inmates of the Reformatory. The Superior of the School has informed the local
Sergeant that he was unaware of the boys habit of frequenting [O’Reilly’s] house ... It will
be noted that on most, if not all, of the occasions in which the boys visited [O’Reilly’s]
house, they were in charge of Mr. [Murphy], the Music Master ... It is not suggested that
Mr. [Murphy] was in actual collusion with [O’Reilly] but it would appear that he displayed
an attitude of indifference to the moral welfare of his charges.
31
32
33

15.326 The Garda thought that a prosecution was warranted, but he was not offered much
encouragement by the Resident Manager, who told him that Michael was ‘not of very good
character, capable of imagining things, and not to be relied upon’.
15.327 When the trial was over, the matter was brought to the attention of the Department of Education,
who requested in a memorandum of May 1960 that the Resident Manager be asked to comment
on the circumstances under which the boys were allowed to gather in Mr O’Reilly’s house,
‘supervision was undoubtedly lax here’ and to establish whether there was any suspicion as to
the teacher’s misconduct with the boys.
15.328 In his response to the Department’s queries, Fr Salvador, the Resident Manager, revealed an
attitude to this matter that was both dismissive and self-serving, and displayed no concern for the
boys who were involved in the investigation. He first denigrated the complainant but did not refer
to the other boys who had been interviewed in the Prefect’s presence:
His conduct while here was not satisfactory. I would say he is a mentally disturbed boy
with a leaning towards depravity.
15.329 He then went on to make the revealing comment:

In fact, a short time previously, [Brady] had been punished for breaking bounds and
warned against going to [O’Reilly’s]. This punishment and warning was given to [Brady]
by the Prefect, Bro. [Jaime]. Besides, [Brady] himself admitted to me that he had been
in [O’Reilly’s].
15.330 He said that he had told Br Jaime to tell Mr Murphy ‘to be vigilant and more strict in his supervision
of the boys in his charge’. He then proceeded to dismiss the complaint:
Later, when I saw the statement made by [Brady] ... it struck me as being fantastic. His
record and mentality inclined me towards that way of thinking ... We do not claim a 100%
and sometimes we meet boys who are so vitiated and lacking in co-operation that their
removal becomes a necessity in the interests of the other boys. [Brady] falls under that
category. His statement strikes me as being fantastic and rather like the projection of a
depraved mind with little if any bearing on reality. Still, because of the little bearing there
might be on reality, I favoured a full investigation.
15.331 On the question of the master who had recently been appointed, he said:
He is credulous and up to recently, appeared to believe that a boy couldn’t tell a lie; but
he is willing to learn and as it is rather difficult to replace him, I am inclined to give him
every chance. I have no reason to doubt his moral integrity.
15.332 In conclusion, Fr Salvador emphasised the difficult work that they were doing in Daingean and
the encouragement they gave to the boys to reform.
15.333 • The Resident Manager knew that Michael Brady had been punished for going to Mr
O’Reilly’s on a previous occasion but it appears that the Gardaı́ were not informed
about that; otherwise, Mr O’Reilly’s house would have been searched.
• The Resident Manager actually gave the Gardaı́ an entirely different impression by
telling the Sergeant that he was unaware of the boys’ habit of visiting the house.
• The Resident Manager undermined the possibility of prosecution of Mr O’Reilly by
denigrating the boy in this case, in the full knowledge that the most serious allegations
had been made by five other boys against this man.
• The circumstances in which a group of boys could visit this man’s house on numerous
occasions over a period of five months, in the words of the contemporary comment
of the investigating Garda, ‘displayed an attitude of indifference to the moral welfare’
of the boys in care.
• The Resident Manager’s readiness to dismiss complaints of serious misconduct in
respect of boys in his care, which were under investigation by the Gardaı́, indicated
an irrational scepticism that cannot be ignored when considering how other reports
of abuse might have been received.
• Notwithstanding the gravity of this episode involving: a criminal investigation in which
boys and staff up to the Resident Manager were interviewed; a subsequent trial on
indictment with a conviction on escape-related charges; and embarrassing and
potentially damaging queries from the Department, no records of this appeared in the
files of the Institution or the Congregation, and no information existed as to what was
done for the other boys who were involved and who were still detained in the
Reformatory.
Sexual abuse perpetrated by other boys

15.334 Complainants testified about serious sexual assaults by other boys. One witness, who was in
Daingean during the 1960s, described how he was singled out for a sexual approach on the very
first evening. He explained:
In Daingean from day one I was abused ... I think the first evening I was there was the
first sexual contact that I had.
15.335 He described what went on in the hall when films were being shown:
It looked like it was random but it wasn’t ... You would see a group of boys coming into a
room ... you would think that everybody was sitting down randomly but there was a set
pattern because boys would sit next to boys who they wanted to be with and things went
on when the lights went out ... There was a boy sat next to me ... I don’t know whether
he put his hand on me or whether he took my hand ... masturbation occurred.
15.336 He said that this occurred ‘all the time’. Some of the boys, according to this complainant, had a
well-rehearsed routine during the showing of films. They calculated where to sit, and whom to
target, and, once the lights were out, sexual contact was initiated. He described how he was raped
by the leader of an established gang within Daingean who picked on him:
There was a wall and a railing which divided the playground, I can’t remember what we
used to call it. When I was in the small sections this guy ... He was an aggressive guy
with a horrible sort of personality. He had a group of guys and he was the sort of leader
of these group of guys ... On a weekly basis whenever the opportunity would – I would
be dragged off into a pig shed, hay shed, wherever, and buggered ... he was leader of a
group of guys, they could make your life hell ... You are living with these people, you can’t
get away from them, you are there.
15.337 While the other boy was his age and size, the power he had from his gang status allowed him to
do what he liked.
15.338 A complainant who was in Daingean 20 years earlier, in the 1940s, described a similar experience.
It happened only once, but three boys buggered him in a sudden attack:
I would be coming up to the 16 ... You are all down in this big yard and it’s divided by a
wall but you could go through. At that time if you wanted to go to the toilet you went up
to the man in the top, “Permission to go to the toilet” ... It was between 6:30 and maybe
8:30 ... In the evening ... there was a toilet that you went to out off this square. I asked to
go there. Maybe the man in charge, whoever it was, there used to be about four of them
in charge at different times, he might have forgotten that I had gone up there and when
the other three big fellows went up, they was just allowed up ... They followed me ... They
pulled me to the ground and stripped me. The strange part about it, axle grease was used.
15.339 He said that he was raped by these three boys. He said that he was in pain and that he ‘felt
helpless’. He added:
If you went and told anybody anything like that you would be in trouble from several
different quarters. You would be in trouble and you would be punished and you would be
in trouble on account of getting other fellows punished as well ... I never went up to that
toilet ever again after that.
15.340 In the late 1960s, another complainant described being in an animal shed with two other boys,
one of whom was ‘the biggest bully down there’. The incident began when this boy held a pitchfork
up to the complainant’s neck:
He said to me, “I want to ride you” ... The other fella was with him was his sidekick ... He
was pulling at my trousers and he said, “I want a gobble”. I didn’t even know what it meant
... I said, “Leave me”. The bullying was heavy and I was afraid of that pitchfork ...
Eventually they let me alone for a few minutes and I burst through them ... I got over the
gateway and I ran off.
15.341 When he was brought back to the School, he told Br Enrico why he had run away, and Br Enrico
comforted him and believed him. This witness described seeing this boy abusing a younger boy:
‘He pulled him out of the small section in the middle of the day and brought him down to the toilets
... That’s what they were known for, sexually abusing anybody they could’.
15.342 The predatory behaviour of the bigger boys towards the smaller boys was a constant theme. A
complainant from the 1940s said:
In the evenings, especially in the dusty evenings – the way the yard was built, there was
one entrance into it, the bigger fellows went up to one end and we remained at the
entrance, the end that we went into. There was a wall ... The big fellows were on the far
side. There used to be things happening that were new and strange to me. You see, there
would be bigger fellows saying to you that they wanted to be all one with you. That was
the expression.
Evidence within the discovered documents of sexual abuse by boys

15.343 The kinds of sexually abusive behaviour described to the Committee by complainant witnesses
also emerged from the documentation. During a Garda investigation into the riots of 2nd May 1956,
which has been dealt with earlier in this chapter, a resident of Daingean made a complaint to the
Gardaı́ about two boys who had subjected him to sexually abusive acts. In the presence of the
Prefect of the School, Br Jaime, he made the following statement:
I remember one day in the month of March last. [two boys] asked me to put my hand on
[one of the boy’s] private part and feel it. I refused them, and ran away, but they followed
me and caught me, and brought me back to the wall in the yard. [One of them] forced my
hand on to [the other’s] private part, and told me to feel it. I did it because I was afraid of
them. [He] was helping [the other] to force my hand onto [his] private part. I felt [his]
private part, and I kept it there for a few seconds. I took my hand out then. [the other boy]
hit me on the arm because I refused to put my hand on his ... private part. I saw the front
of [his] trousers opened, and when I had my hand on his private part. I saw he got a thrill
from it. I saw fluid coming from [his] private part. I often saw [another boy] and [these two
boys] feel each others private part in turn.
15.344 As a result of the above statement, additional charges were brought against the two boys, who
were found guilty of gross indecency and sentenced to two years in Borstal.
15.345 As stated above, if boys were discovered by the staff to be indulging in ‘immoral conduct’, it was
normally dealt with by the strap being administered by the Prefect, but in the absence of a
punishment book, it is impossible to say how often this occurred. Had it not been for the riot, the
incident described above would not have come to the notice of the Gardaı́.
Sexual behaviour between boys

15.346 The kind of relationships that formed between older and younger boys was a characteristic of
Daingean. The behaviour was so institutionalised that a vocabulary evolved that seemed to be
current only among the boys in Daingean.
15.347 One complainant from the 1950s experienced the nature of the relationship, but denied that there
was a sexual element:
most of the older boys had a hag ... It was more or less a status thing. When you were
there twelve months you knew all the ropes and it was kind of like a girlfriend more or
less but there was nothing sexual about it. It was like you were kind of protected. You see
it was in the small sections and when all the fellows in the small sections knew that he
was your hag they wouldn’t go near him.
15.348 A ‘hag’, then, was a young boy who was befriended by an older boy, such that a protective
relationship developed.
15.349 Another complainant also from the 1950s, who was frank about the sexual nature of such
relationships, used the same term: ‘... the bigger fellows would come back on the smaller fellows
what they used to call hags. Call them their girlfriend or whatever you like’. A lot of it was going
on, but, he explained, ‘it would have to be done as quiet as possible but at the same time like it
wasn’t something that any one of the Brothers had a blind eye for. They could see it happening’.
He went on to describe what happened at the pictures on a Saturday night:
All the smaller fellows would sit at one end and behind them the bigger fellows, the bigger
fellows would be passing down the sweets and cigarettes and whatever else to give the
smaller fellows down the other side’.
15.350 He added that, later on, in the exercise yard:

you would have the smaller fellows one side and the bigger fellows the other side but you
would only have one Brother supervising so there was no problem for a smaller fellow to
mingle his way into the bigger crowd and there was no problem for the bigger crowd just
to cover whatever act was going on ... I could give you three or four or five or six out of
the smaller section that would have been mixing with the fellows from the bigger section.
15.351 Another complainant from the same era, the 1950s, used a different term to describe the same
behaviours and relationships:
it’s like having a girlfriend or something like that, we called them wan dolls, it’s like a pal
... I am not saying you wouldn’t have sexual abuse with them or something like that, I am
sure you would ... you would masturbate them and they would masturbate you ...
15.352 He said that, if boys got caught, the ‘purity strap’ would be used on them. The ‘purity strap’ was
the use of the strap to beat boys found engaged in sexual activity. He went on to explain that
contact with the younger boys could be in the shop, which was common to both the bigger and
younger boys. Once the older boy had found a ‘wan doll’, a relationship would develop during the
periods the boys were in the Institution. Yet, he added, ‘When everybody leaves that place,
Daingean, nobody says another word about it, blocked, nobody opens their mouth about it’.
15.353 When asked what proportion of boys were involved in this relationship culture, he answered:
I think most of them was in it because it’s well known. We could ask, “Who is your wan
doll”, that was the phrase ... All my mates in the big section, they all had wan dolls.
15.354 It came as a surprise to him when he left to discover the practice was not spoken of outside the
walls of Daingean. When he met a former inmate, he casually asked, while reminiscing, ‘Who was
your wan doll?’ The man ‘never said another word, he got up and walked away ... Nobody talks
about it’.
15.355 The opportunities were there, as one witness explained:

The reason that a lot of the sexual stuff went on was because there would be – if you
could imagine in the yard there was a square like this (indicating) and this was the small
section and this was the big section and a Brother would stand in this corner (indicating)
so he was strategically placed to be able to see in both directions. You had the toilet block
over there and over here you had an entrance into some inside toilets which is where
most of the sexual abuse went on ... So all it needed was some individual to distract one
Brother and all sorts would go on.
15.356 As another witness explained, ‘It was like you were kind of protected. You see it was in the small
sections and when all the fellows in the small sections knew that he was your hag they wouldn’t
go near him’.
15.357 While on one level, within a subculture in Daingean, this sexualised behaviour was taken for
granted, at another level it could lead to bullying and ostracism. Boys who were known to offer
oral sex were excluded, especially at meal times. As one witness explained:
there was some boys that no-one went near. The fellows that were sexually abused down
there. The other boys wouldn’t have anything to do with them really. They had to mark
their teacups with a knife. There wasn’t delft down there ... The saucers, the cups, the
plates were Bakelite, that was kind of plastic, I remember. If a young fellow was sexually
abused ... after gobbling somebody, they had to mark their cup (indicating) with a knife
and they could only drink out of that cup ... No one else could drink out of them.
15.358 Fr Luca, in his Statement, gave his account of this relationship culture within Daingean. He wrote:
There were boys that were under pressure from maybe a few bigger boys. Strangely to
say it wasn’t always from the bigger boys. Some of the most astute or hardened at that
particular time were small boys who had a kind of power over bigger boys and it was they
who were calling the tune. I think they would have used that as a grip ... something to
use over another boy. And, again, they would have something for sale, there would be
an ulterior motive in the friendship ... The older ones would prey on the younger ones and
some of the younger ones could have a hold on the bigger boys. Knowing what they
wanted, prepared to give it to them and then at a price. There would have been awareness
of that. We would have known that some of these boys had been quite involved in boy
prostitution in the city.
15.359 The Oblates stated in their Submission that no evidence was tendered to support a finding that
such abuse was systemic or widespread in the School, or that such behaviour was in any way
tolerated.
Conclusions
15.360 1. The Oblates acknowledged that they were aware of the issue of peer abuse, and they
accepted that incidents of peer abuse did take place. They contended, however, that
they did not condone it and took steps at all times to prevent it. However, the evidence
would indicate that no distinction was made by the authorities between victims and
perpetrators of sexual abuse. Victims were punished as severely as the perpetrators
and, therefore, the problem was not fully reported to management.
2. Sexual behaviour between boys in Daingean was systemic and widespread. It was
often abusive and was not seriously addressed by management.
3. These institutionalised sexual relationships developed to such a degree in Daingean
because of the chronic lack of supervision throughout the institution, particularly
during recreation.
4. Lack of supervision led to an unsafe environment. Some younger boys may have had
control over older boys, as Fr Luca suggested, but the younger boys needed
protection. They resorted to such relationships in order to survive in an unsafe world.
5. Such sexual behaviour was accepted within a subculture in Daingean.
6. Boys in Daingean ranged between 13 and 18 years, an older profile than in industrial
schools, which contributed to the higher level of sexual activity there.

Emotional abuse
15.361 Numerous complainant witnesses recounted the loneliness and deprivation they felt on being
suddenly removed from their families. Central to their accounts was the belief that they were on
their own, with no one they could turn to for help or comfort.
15.362 One witness described this isolation. He explained he had to put on ‘a façade’ to hide his distress:
I cried in bed at night missing my mother and father just the same as anybody else
would. But if you showed weakness at all to anybody, including a psychologist ... it was
jumped on.
15.363 There were, he went on, many staff members who were good men, good to him and to the boys,
but when asked if he could go to them about the beatings or the sexual abuse he had experienced,
he replied:
No. There was no recourse. There was no safe haven. There was no hole you could climb
into. There was nobody you could talk to. You were on your own.
15.364 Another witness described a similar sense of isolation. He said:

There was very few people that did much talking in that place at all, very, very few ... you
could sit beside them for hours, they wouldn’t say a word to you. There wasn’t very many
garrulous people there. We didn’t have a book, a paper, a radio, we didn’t have a watch
or a calendar.
15.365 Yet, another witness described a similar experience. He said:

there was no camaraderie as such. Everybody was there to get their time done and to
get out and there was no interest in anything else ... You didn’t make lifelong friends ...
There was one young chap and he was from somewhere in east Cork. After I hardened
a little bit to the situation he used to come to me and tell me what was on his mind and I
used to talk to him. Now, the reason he was there times weren’t good. Poverty abounded,
his mother happened to get a loaf of bread, but they didn’t have any butter. So he went
out and stole a pound of butter. He got four years for it. Instead of being looked after and
given some sympathy and understanding he got four years in Daingean. What kind of
society were we? It might be different now, but in those times that is what happened.
Those were the facts of life. The people like the Oblates took advantage, they really took
advantage and used people like that as child labour.
15.366 He added:
there was no real friends in Daingean ... that’s why I felt detached ... If you are lonesome,
if you are alone, and you are at that vulnerable age you don’t feel over the moon, do you?
15.367 He recounted how he had tried to abscond because, ‘... the general situation ... really depressed
me to a point of being suicidal ... In this feeling of depression I could never imagine this sort of
torture ending’.
15.368 He then went on to make an impassioned plea to the Committee:

I am here today because I feel duty bound to be here and to make my best endeavours
to see that history does not repeat itself ... I have no feeling of anger ... I do not seek
revenge, I think that would be self-defeating ... the people that made me and the others
suffer, I think were suffering more themselves. I had two years behind those walls, those
misfortunate individuals are spending their lives behind walls, and life for life means life
for them.
15.369 This particular witness had a deep resentment that his confinement in Daingean was unjust in the
first place. He was in Daingean in the early 1950s. He had been sent there originally after he had
helped a friend to spend some money that had in fact been stolen. His friend was charged and
he was charged with him, and he was ‘found guilty by association’. He came from a good home.
His father, disabled from active service in the war, was very sick, and his mother was not coping,
so he faced the court on his own. He was sent to Daingean for two years. Within three weeks he
ran home, but was picked up after spending approximately six weeks at home over the Christmas
period. He recounted what was done to him on his return to Daingean:
I had my hair shaved, my head shaved, right down (indicating) and I received a beating
... This was the removal of my shirt, my upper clothes to a bare back. I was beaten across
my back with a leather strap to the effect that my back was bleeding. It took me a number
of weeks to recuperate ... my back had blistered and the marks on my back were quite
clear (indicating).
15.370 The unfairness of being sent unjustly to endure such a harsh regime emerged in the story of
another witness. His troubles began with the death of his mother. He told the Committee:
It was a terrible time. There was a terrible sadness in the house. I had five sisters and
that we were showing it more than we were supposed to be able to, not maybe cry as
much or things like that.
15.371 Shortly after that, he got involved in catching pigeons which annoyed his father, as there were too
many pigeons in the house and so he ran away. He explained that he had taken 40 pennies from
the gas meter at home before running away, and had fed himself on chips until the pennies ran
out after about 10 days. He explained:
I was found sleeping in an air raid shelter by a Garda ... I, like the young fellow I was,
told him all my troubles. That I was after running away from home, I was in trouble with
me father and it was after me catching pigeons. He said to me “don’t worry about that,
sure I will see your father, sure that’s nothing.” Well, what he did is not alone not see my
father but he added another, gave me another record of an offence, and had me up in
court, and within two or three weeks I was down in Daingean.
15.372 He protested that ‘the whole total of what I did wouldn’t have come to a pound’. He was sent to
Daingean for two years in the early 1940s. He felt isolated and alone. He said, ‘You could feel
that there was no kind of friendliness ... you could feel that you were being looked at as if you
were another heap of dirt that had arrived ...’. Of the Brothers he said, ‘A lot of them were harsh,
but none of them ever got close for the right reasons. They never spoke to you like a human being’.
15.373 In Daingean, he was raped by three boys and was flogged four times and endured a desolate
isolation. He told the Committee:
for a year and eight months when I was in Daingean I used to pray that I would die in the
night-time. It wasn’t until the last two months that I decided I am going to survive this.
15.374 He summed up the dreadful isolation he felt by saying, ‘... they didn’t talk to us, they didn’t have
conversations, it was a terrible slip-up that they didn’t have conversations’.

15.375 The isolation he felt due to this lack of communication was perhaps best illustrated when he
recalled a good time in Daingean:
That’s one thing that I would like to say that there was one retreat down in Daingean ... I
remember it, I think it was three or five days, it was a few days. There was some strange
priest came down and he gave it. He gave some very good sermons, it frightened the life
out of most of us ... One thing about him, I will always remember him, he had a stutter
and he used ‘A.’ If a certain word was getting him, he would just say, ‘Three a days.’ ... I
enjoyed those few days ... The fellows in the church, they were enjoying the sermon, it
was in out of the cold.
15.376 This simple recollection of a preacher whose sermons and stammer brought the boys in out of
the cold illustrates the desperate need the boys felt for human interaction. As this witness put it,
‘it was a terrible slip-up they didn’t have conversations’.
Them and us
15.377 Fr Luca attempted to explain the disruption of relationships between the Brothers and the boys.
Fr Luca wrote in his Statement to the Committee:
Now I was coming to a place where there was nothing but opposition ... By opposition I
mean there was always a danger of the boys regarding “them” and “us”.
15.378 He was aware, in other words, of a hostility, an alienation, that created a ‘them and us’ divide with
the boys. In a document written in March 1972, he wrote:
In this frustrating situation brothers were merely warders without the physical supports of
a prison which led on a conflict of roles in the brother and a reluctant confusion in the
mind of the boys, is he a brother or is he a screw. The large numbers in such custodial
situations with declining staff numbers not only rendered meaningful relationships
between staff and boys unattainable but repressive measures for the purpose of
containment were the order of the day.
15.379 In his evidence to the Committee, he elaborated on this observation:

When they would be at play a Brother would be on duty in the playground and looking
after 120 boys. There was no opportunity to have any kind of personal relationship or
personal contact with individuals ... it was a containment kind of situation ... it was kind of
too much like a prison situation.
15.380 Br Abran, who gave evidence to the Committee, explained the relationship in more detail. He said:
I think that was forced upon us by the boys themselves ... the boys would not allow us to
use their first names. If we called boys by their first names they were beaten up by other
boys because they were treated as being too familiar with the staff. In fact in the square
boys would not talk to you for more than two or three minutes. They would walk up and
down with you but they would have to leave after a definite period of time, otherwise they
would be accused of snitching, to use their description, telling tales about somebody else
and they would be beaten up when that particular person left the square.
15.381 At this point, he was asked if he was saying there was an alternative underground government in
Daingean run by the boys. Br Abran replied, ‘I would say there would be to a certain extent, yes’.
15.382 The result of this ‘them and us’ divide was an extremely serious one. The boys were treated as
frangible objects, one being as good or as bad as the other, and the boys who came from
hardened families, many of whom had a couple of generations going through the reformatory
school system, set the tone for staff relations. One witness, who had also been in Artane and
knew the system, described how he coped with Daingean:
At the end of the day you went in there, you sussed the situation out. I wasn’t ... a walking
angel but I knew what to do. I didn’t want to be knocked about. When I was in Artane I
was a monitor in charge of other boys. I was, as I say, street wise, I taught myself. If I go
down the wrong road I paid the penalty. I was already being punished by being sent to
these places. Why should I add to it?
15.383 Those boys, who could look after themselves, could cope with the two alternative governments
within the School. They quickly moved up from being a ‘fish’ (a new boy) to being a bully. In the
world of Daingean, one witness explained, ‘... it’s an unfortunate fact that if you don’t bully you
are bullied’. As another witness put it, ‘... if you were a loner you got picked on, if you are on your
own you are going to get slaughtered’.
15.384 Fr Luca estimated that 50 percent of the boys were recidivists who would fall back into crime. The
other 50 percent did not appear in court again, but according to him, amongst them would be the
boys who were broken by the system. It was a harsh world, where identity became obliterated. Fr
Luca explained:
Every boy who came into the School in those days would get a nickname, straightaway.
He might not even be asked what his first name was. If he was from the country he be
called the name of wherever he was from, and they would not know his name.
15.385 This system of nomenclature was confirmed to the Committee by a witness who was in Daingean
in the late 1950s. When asked, ‘What was this boy’s name?’ he replied:
I haven’t a clue. You never knew people’s surnames. Sometimes there was that many
and you wouldn’t even know their first names, it was either Dub, Corky or Jack. Unless
you knew somebody personally they used to keep their ethnic groups.
15.386 Fr Luca recognised the depersonalising effect of this loss of individual identity, and set about
trying to change it. He wrote:
So when I went to the School the first thing I did was to interview each boy and record
his own name, but also the name of his father, mother, brother, sisters, set him into a
family and talked to him about the importance of family, and the importance of his name.
There is no name in the language as beautiful to you as your own name, so let us
respect it.
15.387 Fr Luca went to Daingean in the mid-1960s. From 1940 to that time, it seems that these basic
details were not automatically recorded and nurtured. It is not surprising so many witnesses before
the Committee complained about being depersonalised and lonely.
15.388 This scenario was confirmed by testimony heard by the Committee. The more fragile children felt
trapped, on one side being bullied by the tougher boys, and on the other living in fear of falling
foul of the Brothers. For these boys, Daingean was not an experience that toughened them up
and hardened them for more crime. For them, they felt like victims of the system. Having endured
such a system, these boys felt different, alienated from their families and friends. One witness
told the Committee of how he felt when he returned home from Daingean:
My father was in 1916 and he spent a year in prison in England ... The one thing he said
to me they were treated humanely, the jailors treated them humanely. I couldn’t say ...
back to him that I wasn’t treated humanely because I didn’t want anybody else to suffer
my agony. I didn’t want to talk or do anything ... Nobody would know what to do.
15.389 Another witness told the Committee:

... it’s like men at war who experience things cannot bring these things back to people in
the street because people would not understand the situation that they were in. They
dehumanised themselves. They dehumanise their enemy in order to be able to
psychologically deal with killing them. The same is true when I came out of Daingean and
I am looking at all of these people in the street and I am thinking they don’t know where
I have been and they couldn’t understand me and you feel different to them and that’s
why I went to England. I tried to escape.
15.390 Fr Murphy in his evidence told the Committee that, in the early 1960s, Fr Pablo,34 who was a
trained psychologist, ‘... was suggesting changes ... trying to bring forward a better method of
assessment and of treatment of these boys rather than the punitive, repressive thing’. It does not
need training in psychology to recognise that a boy whose mother has recently died needs
protection and guidance, while a boy from a criminal background needs containment. The system,
as it evolved in Daingean, treated them both the same, offering only what Fr Murphy called ‘the
punitive, repressive thing’.
15.391 In his evidence to the Committee, Fr Luca acknowledged one effect of institutional life on the
children:
... that was one of the biggest punishments that you could give them, to take them from
their own native place wherever it was and put them into a place where they didn’t want
to be and to keep them there.
Conclusions
15.392 1. Daingean was a Reformatory and was run on penal lines, where repressive measures
were the order of day. Many complainants who gave evidence to the Committee had
been convicted of minor offences whose sentences seem disproportionate and would
not have been given to adults for similar crimes. A basically unjust system was
compounded by the way the Institution was run. Hardened criminals in prisons were
not subjected to the violence or deprivation experienced by these boys. Prisons were
regulated and subject to rules and to the law, but these constraints were not enforced
in Daingean.
2. Management had a duty to ensure that all boys were protected but this was not done.
Boys were isolated, frightened and bullied by both staff and inmates.
3. The boys had an alternative underground government which victimised those who
engaged with Brothers. Management did nothing to break this system and appeared
to have acquiesced in it.
4. The acknowledged failure of the staff to offer emotional support was not caused by
the boys but by inadequate management.
Neglect
The staff ratio of Daingean

15.393 In the period 1940 to 1973, a total of 77 Oblates were attached to the School. On average, there
would be 19 Brothers and five priests in the school community. However, not all of the Brothers
or priests in the school community worked in the School itself. It is clear from the oral evidence
and documents that the staff to pupil ratio was a fundamental problem at Daingean. Many of the
Brothers assigned to the School were old and infirm, and played an inactive role in the day-to-
day running of the School.
34

15.394 Fr Luca wrote in 1966:
At present there are only nine active members of the Staff who are expected to cater at
all times from seven in the morning to half-past ten at night, come what may, seven days
a week.
15.395 The Oblate records for staffing in the School in 1969 listed seven priests and 17 Brothers, but Fr
Luca could only rely on nine out of 24 listed staff to work in the care of the boys in Daingean.
15.396 Fr Hughes gave evidence about staff ratios operating in Daingean:

I give you two examples there, we have a staff list of 1944 which shows the presence of
a population, a school population, of 236. They were 24 Oblates in the school ... That
would indicate there was a staff ratio of one member of staff to 10 inmates.
15.397 He also stated:

Similarly in 1968, the population, the school population, of 104 shows the presence of 18
Oblates ...
15.398 However, as noted above, during this period Fr Luca wrote that ‘there are only nine active
members of staff’. The problem clearly was worse than the records indicate.
15.399 One witness stated:

There was probably not enough individuals to look after the amount of boys that were
there, which is why so much went on there.
15.400 Another witness, when asked about supervision in the small section at night, replied:
You asked me about the supervision over boys by priests, there was no supervision over
them as far as I could see ... looking at it now – there was some young men down there,
some young priests in it that could handle the situations that were down there probably,
but then there was a lot of older men down there, they really didn't do any work; I am
talking about supervising.
Effects on the Brothers of inadequate staff to pupil ratio

15.401 In their Opening Statement, the Oblates stated that staff members were over-extended in their
responsibilities. During the last decade of the School’s existence, the Brothers were clearly getting
older and suffering ill-health more often. This was a result of the Oblate policy of appointing
members of their Community to the School for long, indefinite periods. In fact, some Oblate
Brothers served periods of up to 50 years in the School. Fr Luca in his evidence agreed with
counsel for the Investigation Committee that the Brothers would more or less stay in Daingean for
their entire working lives. Some of the Brothers even remained in the School after retirement
rather than leave. These Brothers played no contributory role in the caring of the boys.
15.402 Fr Luca, throughout his period as Resident Manager of Daingean, had serious concerns about
his staff and the pressure they were placed under while working at this School. In his evidence
and in contemporary documentation this was evident. His concerns about lack of staff numbers
and the effect this was having can be seen in a letter he wrote in 1966. In it he protested:
At present there are only nine active members of the Staff who are expected to cater at
all times from seven in the morning to half-past ten at night, come what may, seven days
a week ... Br X is not named as he is full time on the farm. The average age of these men
is over 40, and obviously increasing. The staff as a whole feels that under the present
circumstances they are unable to continue much longer with the present system. The
strain is regarded as far too severe, and unless something tangible is done in the
immediate future, they feel that they will be fit subjects for special institution themselves.
That the strain is evident is obvious by the fact that six brothers in five years are sent
from here with nervous breakdowns. This in itself should be a raw reminder of the
seriousness of the situation of the already seriously understaffed school ... At present the
Staff feel that they are being treated very unfairly.
15.403 Fr Luca’s letter of concern for the stress placed on the staff of Daingean is illuminating. At no time
was similar concern expressed for the unfortunate boys who were there. The consequences of
having overworked and overstressed staff in Daingean were examined during the Phase I hearing.
Fr Hughes was asked about the content of the letter of Fr Luca and about the problems that could
result from stressed staff. When asked if this kind of strain carried with it any risks for the people
in the care of those under that type of strain, he replied, ‘I suppose the men under stress might
snap and become abusive, it is a possibility’. He accepted that it was an undesirable situation,
where people working in a position of responsibility over young people were under extreme stress.
On the basis of this evidence, there was never an adequate staff at Daingean.
The administrative structure

15.404 The Provincial was the person in the Congregation who was in charge of the School and its
Community. However, he discharged his duties through the Resident Manager who was also the
Superior of the Community in Daingean. He held office for a term of three years, but this period
would usually be extended for further terms. Resident Managers were appointed by the Provincial
with the consent of his Council.
15.405 The Resident Manager had numerous responsibilities both inside and outside the School. His
responsibilities within the School extended not only to the boys resident there but also to his fellow
Oblates and staff. He was responsible for the administration of the complex of buildings that made
up Daingean, as well as a large farm at the School. Externally, the Resident Manager would liaise
with other Resident Managers, primarily through the Resident Managers Association, which was
chaired for considerable periods of time by the Manager of Daingean.
15.406 In relation to the post of Resident Manager, the Oblates stated:

while they had no special training for reformatory work, it would be wrong to describe
these men as unprepared for the task. They all had personal experience of living in
communities with a pattern of education, manual work, including farm work, and
pastoral activity.
15.407 A designated priest or Brother, who maintained an office in the School, assisted the Resident
Manager in his duties. He would keep records, accounts and numerous records required for the
individual files on the boys. There was also a Brother Prefect who was responsible for dealing
with serious breaches of discipline. As Fr Luca stated:
It was always a man who ... was healthy, strong and who could bear the brunt of that
responsibility and the work that it entailed, because it meant that he would have to be on
the line at anytime if there was trouble of any description.
15.408 The Brother Prefect also had numerous other time-consuming duties. He would organise
supervision of the boys outside school and work hours, and he was responsible for the boys’
correspondence and any monies sent to them. In practice, the Resident Manager left matters of
discipline entirely to the Brother Prefect. As Fr Luca stated:
I would have to say I don’t know how many slaps they had. I never saw the boys being
punished while I was there. I didn’t regard it as part of my duty to supervise that. I know
that the boys were punished and I know it was left to the prefect to decide what the
punishment would be for the particular, well I don’t like to call it crime, misdemeanour.
Buildings and accommodation
15.409 In their Submission, the Oblates stated that there were criticisms of the standard of the buildings
and accommodation in Daingean, and they stressed that the buildings were owned by and were
the responsibility of the State, which, despite the protestations of the Congregation, allowed the
facilities to deteriorate and fall into an unsuitable condition. While the lease under which the
Oblates held Daingean placed responsibility for day-to-day care and maintenance of the premises
on the Congregation, allowing the boys to live in filthy conditions as described by the Kennedy
Committee was not the responsibility of the State.
15.410 A report compiled by Ciaran Fahy on Daingean is appended.
Criticism of buildings at Daingean by Dr McCabe

15.411 From the description of the premises, it is clear that material comforts were not provided for the
inmates of Daingean. They lived in cold, damp, gloomy conditions, had to wash in cold water, and
were crowded together in unhealthy dormitories, with a laundry that could not even provide them
with an adequate supply of clean shirts and bed linen.
15.412 Dr McCabe’s reports revealed many concerns about the buildings at Daingean. Her first visit to
the School, after the move from Glencree, was in January 1941. She wrote:
At present premises will need a lot of repairing and painting.
Dormitory acc. rather congested now but this will have to do until new wing built. Wash-
house is being organised - Recreation hall not very suitable – old building.
Equipment – fair – to be improved.
Bedding to be improved – proper sheeting and blankets.
Floor in refectory very defective.
The water supply. There is a tank indoor which is unsuitable for drinking – warned the
manager against using this supply unless it has been boiled previously.
15.413 She stated, ‘conditions under which boys live great improvement to Glencree’. Even in this early
report, it is clear that the promise of a new wing, which made the existing conditions something
to be tolerated on a temporary basis, was a major reason for accepting the state of the School as
she found it.
15.414 She visited again in October 1941, and reported a ‘gradual improvement’. But again the promise
of new buildings persuaded her to accept existing conditions. ‘Work-shops and Recreation Hall
are small’, she wrote, ‘and not suitable, but pending the new building must do’.
15.415 By her next visit in April 1942, she found some improvement but listed very many faults:
Still much can be done -
Floor of refectory needs repair. Recommended for immediate action.
Dormitories overcrowded – but only as a temporary measure till new Building established.
Drew manager’s attention to sheets and bedclothes which could be cleaner.
Lavatory Annexe ... general cleanliness is not good – drew manager’s attention to this.
Clothing to be improved ... suggested lumber jackets.
Farm boys very untidy looking, especially about legs – suggested small gaiters ... to be
worn to keep ends of trousers dry.
Suggested rubber aprons to be worn by boys in the laundry because of wet conditions
their clothes were in.
Manager hopes that new building will soon be started.
15.416 Over a year later, in July 1943, she visited again. There was no sign of the promised new building
but she remained optimistic. She wrote:
At present, as a purely temporary arrangement, the dormitories are over-crowded -
Recreation Hall is a condemned building – this must be till the new Building is erected.
Sheets on beds unsatisfactory – not clean – clothing for everyday wear could be improved.
The Manager has been only too eager to carry out any recommendations previously made
by me - i.e. new floor in refectory – lumber.
I suggest that some impetus should be given to the starting of the New Building – The
dormitories are very overcrowded and the no. of boys is yearly increasing. Classrooms
are small and the recreation and wash-house are just makeshift.
15.417 Three years later, in May 1946, there was more concern than optimism about the promised
building. ‘The Manager’, wrote Dr McCabe, ‘is very keen to get on with the New Building and he
has asked me if possible to get at B/W35 and ask them to expedite matters ... I am most anxious
for the new buildings to be started as soon as possible’.
15.418 It was in November that year that the new building began to be built. She wrote, ‘It will be most
welcome when completed’. By 1948, the new sanitary annexe had been added, but still she was
writing, ‘... at present dormitory accommodation is not sufficient. All this will be improved with
New Building’.
15.419 The new building had become the promised land that made tolerable the overcrowded, dirty and
squalid conditions that were the reality of life in Daingean, where neither boys nor Brothers had
the simple material comforts needed in a residential school. Other documents revealed an even
worse picture.
35
Board of Works.

The Dormitories
The state of the premises as revealed in discovered documents

15.420 On 7th July 1948, the Resident Manager wrote in desperation to the Inspector of Industrial Schools,
when he learned that the second half of the ‘New Dormitory and Ablution Room’ was to be
deferred. He pleaded:
This decision is so upsetting to our work for the boys here, that I would venture to ask
that our case be re-considered.
(1) When we moved from Glencree to Daingean in 1940, our present Dormitories were
only approved by the Department Medical Inspector as a purely temporary arrangement.
The buildings where our boys sleep were never meant for dormitories. They are
overcrowded, and badly ventilated.
15.421 The West Wing, he pointed out, was nearing completion, but the drainage scheme was for both
wings and could not be constructed for only one. This led to his second point:
(2) I would point out, also, that the temporary ablution room (where all the boys wash at
present) is very unsafe. The walls are leaning outwards at more than six inches from the
perpendicular. The Board of Works Architect ... will confirm that this ablution room is
definitely unsafe and should be demolished as soon as possible.
15.422 The boys were accommodated in what was always the Brothers’ sleeping quarters, and the
Brothers were badly accommodated in different parts of the building. Nobody, in short, was
properly accommodated in Daingean.
15.423 On receipt of this letter, a flurry of correspondence ensued between the Department of Education
and the Department of Finance and, in June 1949, the Department of Finance sanctioned the
building of the East Wing on the condition that the Department of Education were willing ‘to defer
some other building project involving approximately the like amount’ of money (£26,500) which
they would have been seeking in the 1950/1951 Estimates.
15.424 The building of the East Wing created a new problem, as explained in a Department of Education
memorandum of 10th April 1953. It stated:
As regards the new Recreation ground; this has become necessary because the new
wings have taken up a big part of the space formerly available to the boys and has left
the present recreation ground inadequate and unsuitable from the point of view of
supervision. The old bootshop cuts right across the ground now available and makes it
impossible to supervise these boys. One portion of this remaining ground is several feet
below the other portion ...
15.425 Furthermore, in a letter of October 1953 to the Resident Manager, the Inspector, Mr Ó
Sı́ochfhradha, criticised the state of the laundry. He said:
the Department is not satisfied that a change of shirts every second week and a change
of sheets every six weeks is sufficient for the cleanliness and hygiene of the boys. They
should have a change of shirt every week and sheets should be changed at least every
three weeks. The boys should also have special night attire, either pyjamas or night shirts.
15.426 He added, ‘The school laundry is far from being sufficient to meet the needs of the school’. The
remodelling of this laundry was first proposed in April 1940, over 13 years previously.
15.427 The condition of the building is further considered in connection with the factors leading to the
closure of the School. It is clear from these accounts that the state of the building, from its opening
in 1940 to the middle of the 1950s, was far from adequate. The boys were crowded together in
the dormitories, and it became impossible to supervise them effectively. The implications of this,
on the behaviour of the boys in Daingean, was quite apparent from the documentary evidence
and the evidence heard at the hearings.
15.428 When the Kennedy Report was published in 1970, one of its major recommendations as regards
Daingean was the following:
We find the present Reformatory system completely inadequate. St. Conleth’s
Reformatory, Daingean, should be closed at the earliest possible opportunity and replaced
by modern Special Schools conducted by trained staff.
15.429 Chapter 6, paragraph 6.29 of the Report outlined the factors that had led to this recommendation.
It is quoted here in full:
St Conleth’s, Daingean
6.29 This Reformatory is housed in a 200 year old former military barracks. An additional
wing was built in the post-war period but the building is basically old and completely
unsuitable for the purpose for which it is being used. The kitchen and refectory are situated
in what were formally the stables and are depressing and decayed. On inspection, the
toilets were dirty and insanitary. The showers were corroded through lack of use and the
hot water system was so inadequate that the boys seldom if ever washed in hot water.
When it was first inspected the boys were ill-dressed and dirty and there was a general
air of neglect about the place. To be fair, the Committee would point out again that the
capitation rate paid was completely inadequate.
The Committee members were so perturbed about conditions at St. Conleth’s that they
sent a request to the Minister for Education asking that immediate specific steps be taken
to ameliorate conditions there. It is understood that certain of these recommendations are
in hand.
These, however, are only short-term measures. We feel strongly that no alterations can
bring St. Conleth’s into line with modern thought on Reformatories.
In the first place it is much too institutional in lay-out, secondly it is badly situated, being
40 miles from Dublin in a spot which is poorly served by transport. Most of the children in
St. Conleth’s come from Dublin and, as suggested elsewhere in this chapter, a reformatory
would be much more effective if sited close to a large centre of population where the
ancillary services required would be available. The Oblate Fathers, who are in charge of
St. Conleth’s, have themselves recommended such a move.
It is recommended that St. Conleth’s be closed at the earliest possible moment.
15.430 It is of interest to note that Kennedy’s opinion, that ‘a reformatory would be much more effective
if sited close to a large centre of population where the ancillary services required would be
available’, actually repeated a recommendation made in the Cussen Report, published in 1936.
That Report had recommended, ‘Whenever practicable, and at the discretion of the Justice,
children should be sent to Industrial Schools as near as possible to their homes’.
15.431 When Daingean was being considered as an alternative to Glencree, in 1939, this
recommendation was ignored. It was then argued that: the distance would have the advantage of
preventing undesirable visits (from boys’ former companions) which were taking place at present
at Glencree; parents would not mind travelling by bus to Daingean occasionally; and that a system
of permits might be arranged, which would possibly entitle them to reduced bus fares.
15.432 Neither Kennedy nor Cussen would have shared this opinion.
15.433 A few of the documents written by some of the members of the Kennedy Committee have survived,
and they remain the best objective account of the conditions at Daingean at the time. The most
important document is the letter sent by the Committee to the Department of Education, which is
mentioned within the report itself. It contained some of the most trenchant criticisms ever made
about a school. There were five main problems that needed to be addressed immediately:
1. The building was grubby, with open drains and dirty yards disturbingly near the kitchen.
2. The building was cold with an inadequate heating system.
3. The boys were unwashed with ingrained dirt on their bodies, and were seemingly
verminous.
4. Their clothing was extremely ill-fitting, oddly matched, old, dirty and rather tattered.
5. The beds had discoloured bed linen and threadbare blankets.

15.434 In view of the extremely serious nature of the criticisms made, the text of this letter is given in full:
Dear Secretary,
Following the Committee’s visit to St. Conleth’s Reformatory School in Daingean on 28th
February, Mr. Tomás Ó Floinn, Assistant Secretary, attended the meeting of the
Committee on 19th April so that the members might outline certain features of the present
situation in Daingean, which they considered to require immediate amelioration.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Ó Floinn suggested that the matters discussed
should be conveyed in writing to the Department, so that they might be sympathetically
considered and I am now doing as he suggested.
The Committee has not yet formulated final views on St. Conleth’s and consequently feel
precluded at present from advocating any sweeping steps involving heavy expenditure
which in time could prove nugatory. They do feel, however, that some immediate interim
action is very necessary to improve conditions there.
The premises gave a general appearance of grubbiness and, while allowances must be
made for the older sector of the buildings, even the newer portion was not very
presentable. In particular the kitchen/refectory area, with its open drains and dirty yards
adjacent, was very disturbing and the ware used for the boys meals was in particularly
poor condition. In regard to the buildings, we are not advocating any expensive
redecoration, but a thorough cleaning of the premises and its maintenance in that
condition would seem to be in order.
The buildings were noticeably cold. The visitors wore overcoats throughout and were still
conscious of the prevailing low temperature. The Resident Manager freely admitted that
the heating system was inadequate. This is a feature which should not be allowed to
continue and some effective interim auxiliary heating should be provided.
The boys presented a dirty, unwashed appearance – even to the extent of ingrained dirt
and seemingly verminous hair. It was admitted that they were disinclined to wash and the
lack of hot water was mentioned as a contributory factor. It was obvious to the visitors
that the showers were hardly used. The vocational teachers drew attention to the lack of
facilities for the boys to wash up after work in the shops and to the absence of proper
protective clothing. The formative value of high standards of personal cleanliness is
obvious and immediate action should be undertaken to correct the prevailing neglect in
this respect and to provide the facilities which would encourage an improvement.
The boys were attired in extremely ill-fitting, oddly matched, old, dirty and rather tattered
clothes. We do not overlook the difficulties there in providing clothing, nor the extent to
which clothing provided is subject to abuse, but in the interests of fostering the boys’
personal dignity, the present situation should be radically improved. It is suggested that
the boys be outfitted in a more modern idiom and a “jeans and pullover” outfit, such as
we have seen widely used in Britain, might well merit consideration. Underclothing and
the substitution of pyjamas for night shirts might also be considered. Discoloured bed
linen and the thread-bare condition of the blankets gives cause for concern.
On the basis of one visit, we hesitate to comment on diet, beyond stating that on Ash
Wednesday – the day of our visit – the boys main meal consisted of chipped potatoes,
bread and tea and they were universally vocal that the quantity of food served to them on
the occasion of our visit was far in excess of what would normally be in the case.
Committee members commented on the absence of eggs from the menu, although they
had been shown an extensive “egg-battery” adjacent.
Early consideration to recognising the school as a special school for the handicapped
would cater more realistically for the needs of the boys receiving instruction. It would also
afford the higher teacher-pupil ratio, which the educational condition of the boys so
urgently needs. The vocational teachers complained that their equipment was not alone
inadequate but dangerous and there would appear to be considerable scope for
immediate improvement in this field.
In the course of discussion with the Committee as a whole, the Resident Manager
disclosed that punishment was administered with a leather on the buttocks, when the
boys were attired in their night shirts and that at times a boy might be undressed for
punishment. At this juncture, the Committee does not wish to elaborate on corporal
punishment as such but would urge that the practice of undressing boys for punishment
be discontinued. In this regard, attention is invited to the amendment in recent times
following the Court Lees incident of the British Home Office regulations regarding corporal
punishment in Approved Schools which specifies that punishment, if administered on the
buttocks, should be applied through the boys’ normal clothing.
It will be greatly appreciated if you will look into the question of providing these
improvements listed at the earliest possible moment. It is felt that they are the minimum
necessary to render the school reasonably acceptable as a Reformatory.
Yours sincerely,
EILEEN KENNEDY
Chairman.
15.435 There is another document dated 10th March 1968, written by one of the Committee members, Mr
H. B. Early, from the Department of Justice. His notes add detail and further criticisms to those
voiced in the letter. Under the sub-heading, ‘Some thoughts on Daingean’ he wrote:
1. STAFF: Appears to have lost interest in their work – on duty 24 hours per day 7 days
a week – living in isolation – little or no contact with the local community or with modern
thinking in the field of child care. Religious staff sent to school for 5 years and there they
remain except for a short annual holiday (?). Not sufficient to maintain proper supervision.
Religious staff: did not appear to be suitable.
Lay staff – teaching – tend to change annually except for woodworking teacher – teachers
tend to come directly from training college – takes months to adjust themselves to dealing
with difficult children and bad equipment.
Lay staff – non-teaching – elderly – unsuitable.
2. BUILDINGS: Property of the Board of Works: - they appear to have no interest in
the place.
Old – difficult if not impossible to adapt. Little or nothing can be done with them.
3. EQUIPMENT: Poor and insufficient.
4. RECORDS: Inadequate – not kept up to date – staff too busy. Good filing system but
little in the files.
5. BOYS: Very forward – proud and boastful of their past activities. Surprised that over
50% never get into any more trouble considering the environment of the school.
6. FOOD: Not sufficient – wrong kind.
7. CLOTHING: Poor but it is expensive to keep growing boys adequately dressed.
8. CLEANNESS: Boys dirty due to lack of supervision and hot water. School leaves much
to be desired. It needs to be properly cleaned/ scrubbed from top to bottom particularly
the toilets and kitchen area. The present condition is not due to lack of finance but to an
attitude of mind – they are used to dirt – they cannot see dirt. A woman’s influence
is necessary.
Immediate action is necessary to deal with waste disposal from the kitchen. The present
method is most unhealthy. A new (hot) water system is essential.
9. GENERAL: The school appears to offer little to the boys who appear to have little
respect for the staff.
The boys arrive – little is known about them when they do arrive – they are kept for an
average stay of 18 months – they leave – little or nothing is done for them to face the
outside world. They seem to leave, as they have entered, with the same complaint against
society. What society had done is to get them out of sight and mind for 18 months. Society
has not solved the boys’ problems but has put them on the long finger. The only difference
is that after 18 months we have a greater problem on our hands.
15.436 What he adds to the Kennedy Report is his opinion that the dirt and squalor were not due to lack
of finance, but to ‘lack of supervision’ and ‘an attitude of mind’. He also identified the poor quality
of the staff and the inadequate aftercare provided.
15.437 In the Emergence hearing, Fr Murphy said, ‘The Kennedy Report in 1970 mentioned St. Conleth’s.
They highlighted two things in that report: The state of the buildings and the clothing of the
children’. His colleague, Fr Hughes, when questioned about the Kennedy Committee’s criticism
that the showers were rusty through lack of use, rejected the Committee’s criticism, saying:
There is no evidence that the Kennedy Committee did a very thorough examination of the
premises, they descended on it as a group, there is no evidence that they made a very
careful examination of everything ...
15.438 Fr Luca, who was Resident Manager at the time, gave a different version. He said in evidence
that he got two day’s notice of the visit and that they did not ‘land on the doorstep unannounced’.
Fr Hughes urged the Investigation Committee to read instead the ‘much more careful report’ of
Dr Lysaght who ‘made a report there in 1966 after a very careful investigation, it is a very nuanced
report and I think one would accept his observations as being fair and just’. He went on to explain
that Dr Lysaght:
went there specifically to do an investigation. He did a very careful and very honest and
objective report which is far from being totally favourable but at the same time it has its
nuances. I think one would have to accept it.
Dr Lysaght’s report on St Conleth’s, Daingean, 1966
15.439 Given that Dr Lysaght’s report has the imprimatur of the Oblates, it is worth looking at it in some
detail. It is a comprehensive document, involving 16 pages of tightly written manuscript. Dr Lysaght
replaced Dr McCabe as the Medical Inspector in the Department of Education. He visited
Daingean on 3rd June 1966. In his conclusion, Dr Lysaght summarised his views as follows:
I have indicated in this report by my comments where I regard the faults in this institution
are to be found. Broadly they are in connection with food and clothing. In this latter
connection I am seeking to avoid, but with difficulty, comparison with senior boys industrial
schools. It is probably the case that the same care for clothes cannot be expected from
the type of boy here. In any event they are untidy, poorly dressed, unkempt by comparison
with the four senior boys industrial schools I have so far seen. The kitchen, food storage,
wash up and dining room are unsuitable in regard to structure, decoration & equipment.
15.440 He reported that the School was authorised for 250 boys. There were 122 present on the date
of inspection.

15.441 He then very simply described the equipment as, on the whole, poor. He found that the
infrastructure of the dormitories, which had been recently built, was fine, but the beds, sheets and
blankets were often substandard, and grubby. The junior toilets were smelly and messy. The items
that needed regular supervision, cleaning and laundering, in other words, were showing neglect.
15.442 The kitchens received a close examination. Dr Lysaght summarised his findings:
Altogether the kitchen section is a poor effort – it is unsuitable in its structure, inadequate
in its equipment and while it is impossible to be critical of personnel forced to work under
such conditions I would feel that the brother cook would benefit by instruction and
experience of other kitchens.
Dining Room Poorly lighted, low ceiling room adjoining kitchen. While it is also in an old
building & suffers from the disadvantage of poor lighting and low ceiling I feel its general
air of dinginess & old work house atmosphere could be improved by an intelligent use of
decoration and paint on the room and furniture. The one thing it has is plenty of wall
space and it is capable of taking many more tables.
15.443 Then Dr Lysaght turned his attention to the food itself, and was in general critical of the diet
provided, for example:
As regards breakfast with the exception of Sunday it is just tea and B & B36 – it seems
unusual that porridge & milk is not provided on any morning. Another unusual feature is
that despite having their own farm and a battery egg system eggs only appear on the
menu once i.e. Sunday morning breakfast. In contrast to industrial schools fruit in season
does not appear on the menu at all. Cheese a most valuable and cheap form of protein
food only appears once for Friday tea. I see no reason why it should not be made available
on the one other evening when meat is not served for tea viz – Sunday.
It would seem to me that the whole question of food, cooking, service, kitchen and dining
room facilities etc call for consideration and efforts to improve the present position. As in
most male religious institutions the food departments lag behind those in most institutions
run by nuns. – they are operated in a rough and ready style & do not approach in any
way kitchen departments under the control of women, whether nuns or lay.
15.444 Turning his attention to the state of the boys’ clothing, he found much to be desired:
Clothing - I was not impressed by their general appearance.
15.445 When he looked at the medical records, it was the paucity of information that drew his criticism.
He did not know whether the absence of information was due to the School having healthy children
or due to omission. In particular, the lack of any record of inoculations or measures against
infectious diseases concerned him. There was no nurse in the Institution at the time of Dr
Lysaght’s inspection, but it was hoped to employ one in the near future, and this he hoped would
bring about an improvement in the recording of information on the boys’ medical cards.
15.446 Finally, Dr Lysaght was very critical of the lack of hot water in the washroom and showers and,
although he inspected during the summer, the heating was inadequate.
36
Bread and butter.

Washroom
15.447 All of the criticisms made by the members of the Kennedy Committee are to be found in Dr
Lysaght’s report. They both found that:
• The boys were grubby and unkempt.
• Clothing was poor and torn, worse than in other schools.
• Showers were inadequate.
• The building was cold and poorly heated.
• Food was adequate in quantity but mostly carbohydrate. Despite having a battery farm
producing eggs they were infrequently served to the boys.
• Most of the building was dingy and dark.
• Beds and sheets were poorly kept, and many were dirty and had threadbare blankets.
15.448 Dr Lysaght has criticisms not found in Kennedy, for example the inadequacy of medical records.
The only criticism in Kennedy not also found in Lysaght is the condemnation of corporal
punishment. Yet, the Oblates found Lysaght careful and balanced and ‘one would have to
accept it’.
15.449 Apart from the issue of corporal punishment, they appear to have found the same things but
reached a different conclusion about whether the School was fit to remain open. The Department
of Education had enough information from their Inspector to reach a decision on the matter in
1966. What we do learn from comparing the two reports is that between 1966 and 1968 no
improvements were made, and possibly matters had deteriorated.
Education
15.450 The lack of teaching staff and teaching Brothers affected the level of education offered to the
boys. Daingean, for the majority of its existence, never had an adequate teaching regime to cater
for the requirements and needs of its pupils. The issue of education given to the boys in Daingean
had always been a contentious and problematic one. The Department of Education wrote in 1967:
the educational aspects of this reformatory school for boys in Daingean, Co. Offaly, has
been shamefully neglected over many years. The boys were illiterate on entering the
school and were given very little education during their two years of normal time in the
institute. As a result of financial restrictions, the directors had to make use of them as
labourers. It is proposed now to put an end this neglect.
15.451 The Oblates in their Opening Statement stated that the Brothers and other members of staff
always provided certain classroom education in the usual subjects of the primary school
programme. There was also vocational training in various trades and occupations given by
Brothers of the staff, for example, carpentry, tailoring, shoemaking, printing, and farm and
garden work.
15.452 For the majority of the School’s history, however, Daingean had only one or two lay teachers,
paid for by the Oblates, to cater for the primary educational needs of its entire population of boys.
Two lay technical teachers were supplied and paid for in 1946 by Offaly Vocational Education
Committee. These taught the manual subjects in the School. A 1966 report, written in order to
seek the establishment of a primary school in Daingean, gave the figures relating to the education
of the boys:
• 30 boys received metal or woodwork instruction.
• 25 boys received secular instruction in a lay teacher’s class.
• The School had 112 residents in residence at this time. The remainder of the boys (60
in number) who do not receive technical or primary education spend their time working.
• This report concluded that every boy resident in the School was in need of a primary
education, and a primary school for Daingean was justified.
15.453 Therefore, up to 50 percent of the boys in Daingean were not receiving any formal education in
Daingean in 1966. This is reflected in the evidence given to the Investigation Committee, with
numerous witnesses stating that the education they received in Daingean was poor to non-
existent. Throughout the 1960s in Daingean, and in particular during Fr Luca’s period as Resident
Manager, attempts were made to improve this situation.
15.454 Change in the school subjects developed on a modest level, and extra classes were provided. The
Oblates said that this was done at the request of the boys to stop the boredom of the playground. A
prolonged debate between the Department of Education and the Oblate authorities led to the
recognition of a special national school in Daingean. However, it would close three years later.
With the advent of the national school, the teaching numbers were increased, and it was proposed
to recognise the School under the national school grouping and to pay the teachers. This was
implemented on 5th January 1970, and Daingean was recognised as a special national school,
with four teachers under the management of Fr Luca.
15.455 Fr Hughes blamed the State for this neglect of education:

It did not supply any funds for teachers or for anything else, it was just left entirely to the
school to find its resources from the capitation grant.
15.456 The boys sent to Daingean were older than the upper age-limit for national school education and,
therefore, it did not receive a national school grant from the Department of Education until 1967.
Many priests and Brothers lived in the community in Daingean, and were supported by the
capitation grant, who did not contribute to the care of the boys, and it would not have added
greatly to the costs of the School for them to have helped with the basic schooling of these
deprived boys.
Vocational training in various trades and occupations

15.457 In his 1966 report, Dr Lysaght listed the following teaching staff:
2 lay teachers for technical subjects
1 lay teacher i/c Primary School.
2 part time teachers include
Art drawing Mrs K...;
Arts & Craft & Cookery Miss M....
The introduction of these women to the teaching staff has had I was told a very good
effect on the boys.
15.458 Boys were in Daingean usually for two years and would be available for only one full school year,
and, as a result, Fr Hughes told the Committee: ‘The boys did not have a great success in getting
certificates’. Moreover, he added:
the equipment was rather poor. The equipment of course had to be supplied by the school,
again out of the capitation grant, it was never funded by the State ... Another big reason
... was the difficult of attracting good teachers. The teachers for the technical school were
provided by the Offaly Vocations Committee ... That was the only element of the
educational programme that was paid for ...
15.459 Fr Hughes agreed with counsel for the Investigation Committee that it would be fair to suggest
that the educational aspect of the boys’ time in Daingean was not particularly enlightening. He
continued:
Yes. Again you have to remember the capacity of the boys too, it would be naı̈ve to think
one could achieve a great deal in that context.
15.460 By their own assessment, then, the Oblates did not provide vocational training in various trades
and occupations. Over half the boys spent their time working on the farm and bog.
Finance
15.461 Integral to the whole issue of neglect is the question of finance. Financial Consultants, Mazars,
were asked to analyse the financial position of Daingean, and their report and the Oblates’
submission on this issue, in addition to other relevant documents and a commentary, appear in
Part IV. What can be stated is that the numbers in Daingean, right up until the late 1960s, were
adequate to ensure that the capitation grant could provide a basic standard of care for the boys
there. Taking into account the income from the large and productive farm and the work of the
boys, especially on the bog, it is clear that lack of funding was not an excuse for the very poor
standard of care provided.
Conclusions
15.462 • The conditions of neglect and squalor described by Dr Lysaght and the Kennedy
Committee were the responsibility of the management of the School. Inadequate
buildings and the consequent overcrowding would undoubtedly have taxed the most
efficient Manager, but dirt, hunger, shabbiness and lack of supervision were
management issues, and these were all present at Daingean.
• Daingean represented a failure of the Department of Education to carry out its statutory
function of supervision and inspection.
The closure of Daingean and the move to Scoil Ard Mhuire, Lusk
15.463 In his Statement, Fr Luca stated that, some time before his term as Manager in Daingean was
completed, plans were being made to move from the School in Daingean to a new school in
Lusk (Oberstown). Unlike Daingean, the new school was to have a board of management with
representatives from the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and the Department
of Education.
15.464 The School was run on a day-to-day basis by the Oblate Order on behalf of the Department of
Education. A Director was appointed to manage the School, and he officially acted as School
Manager. The School had a maximum of 45 boys.
15.465 The site at Lusk was sold to the Department of Education by the Oblates. The new school was
named Scoil Ard Mhuire. The vast majority of the Oblate staff, according to Fr Luca, did not want
to work at Oberstown. Furthermore, it was felt by the Oblate Provincial Council that ‘if many of
these brothers went to Oberstown it would be just more of the same old pattern’, as they would
not take well to the new system the School was developing in childcare.
The transfer of the boys from Daingean to Scoil Ard Mhuire

15.466 Daingean officially closed on 16th November 1973, and the boys were mostly transferred to Scoil
Ard Mhuire, Lusk. Daingean Reformatory was handed back to the Board of Works on 30th
November 1973. However, an Oblate community continued to live in the convent building at the
gate, which was transferred to the Oblates against the surrender of their lease in the main
property. According to figures from the Oblates, the total number of boys in the Reformatory in
1973 was 25.
On the impossibility of change

15.467 In November 1958, Dr McCabe wrote:
This reformatory has greatly improved now that B/W37 have given the necessary facilities
for dividing up the Play Yard into proper supervision ... The Rector ... has only recently
returned from America where he made a Study of Juvenile Delinquency and was
impressed by all he saw there and hopes to incorporate it in his work at Daingean. He is
anxious to divide up the school into smaller units. He saw several improvements he could
incorporate in operation of his own scheme in the dining room in self-service hatches. He
is quite refreshed and anxious to make further improvements in Daingean. He considers
that on the whole Daingean compares very favourably with such institutions in America
37
Board of Works.

and considers that the type of boy he deals with is not as vicious or depraved as the
American youth - no drug addicts.
15.468 As early as 1958, the idea of dividing up the large institutions into groups was being talked about.
When Fr Luca was in Daingean in the early 1960s, he raised the issue again. He wrote in his
Statement:
I had a whole lot of ideas for Daingean and what should be done with it. How to break up
the large group, there were a 120 or 150 boys in this group at the time and I thought it
would be much better to build units out around the various fields and break them up.
15.469 Fr Luca blamed the Departments of Education and Justice for the inability to introduce change.
He wrote:
The State was quite happy as long as we kept the lid on Daingean – took in all the boys
who went through the courts, said nothing, and kept them there ... There was no public
interest at that time ... There was nothing about the treatment of those boys and, in a
way, whatever treatment they got was good enough for them, that was the attitude.
15.470 He made more precise criticisms in the same submission. He wrote:

there was a mirage in the distance of a whole re-modelled Daingean. They built the
dormitories and washrooms and the two practical classes for woodwork and metalwork
and there it halted ... my view was that it wasn’t so much buildings that had to be change
although it would be helpful, but it was the attitudes that had to be changed. Because if
the attitude of the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Justice ... then underneath that the
Gardaı́ and the Courts, if these were going to remain the same there wasn’t much use in
looking for a change ...
... I felt that a different less institutional model might be acceptable and that wasn’t
acceptable either to the Department or to the Commission for the hierarchy.
15.471 In the discovery from the Department of Education, an interesting document emerged in
correspondence written after a deputation from Daingean had gone to see the Minister for
Education. During the war, large numbers of boys had been sent to Daingean, filling the School
to its capacity of 250 boys. When the war ended, numbers began to fall dramatically and, on 2nd
March 1950, Fr Ricardo, Superior General of the Oblate Congregation, and Fr Pedro, Resident
Manager of Daingean, met with the Minister for Education and his team to discuss the problem of
reduced numbers in Daingean. The Oblates made the following points:
1. The chances of a boy’s reform are in inverse proportion to the number of chances
given to the boy by the District Justice. Every new offence contributes to habit, and
boys are now under the impression they have a right to be let off three times under
the First Offenders Act. They wanted the Department of Justice to be brought into
discussions to make the District Justice aware of an agreed plan, and make him
“inclined to commit the boys for a period that would suit the course”.
2. The falling numbers meant falling income under the capitation system. They wanted a
grant on a sliding scale once the numbers fell below 200.
3. Father Ricardo stated he would like to be able to appoint a special priest to deal with
the children during their recreation period.
4. Father Pedro stated that the two-year period of detention is scarcely long enough to
train boys properly in preparation for trades.
15.472 On 29th April 1950, the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools drafted a reply to all these
points to his colleague in the Department. The letter contained forthright criticism of the
reformatory school system, which can be summarised as follows:
(1) Reformatory schools did not fulfil the purpose for which they were established. There
was something wrong in the system.
(2) The need for a special priest in a reformatory was not even worth discussing, as such
a man did not fit the bill.
(3) Boys should not be retained longer for the type of training they receive at Daingean,
as it was not going to prepare them for trades. Such a suggestion, he opined, might
have been made to increase the income of the Institution.
(4) Vocational school training was more appropriate to the needs of the boys, and more
teachers of woodwork and metalwork were needed.
(5) The Oblates needed to be educated as much as the boys, as they knew little about
the value of practical subjects or the training of boys.
(6) The authorities of the industrial schools were no better, and they would only be
convinced of the need for change by example, and changing the Reformatory may
do that.
15.473 These criticisms were made in 1950, yet the industrial and reformatory schools continued to
function as they had always done, until the Kennedy Report in 1970 forced them to change or
close down. A key question is why the Department of Education was unable to adopt this approach
as its policy.
15.474 It is clear from this memorandum that the Department felt it was the Orders that were resisting
change, while in the 1960s Fr Luca believed the Government Departments were to blame for
stifling innovative thinking.
15.475 In their General Statement, the Oblates quoted from Patrick Clancy’s article, ‘Education Policy’,
on this matter.38 He wrote:
Perhaps the most distinctive feature of the Irish education system is the level of church
involvement and control. Church control of education is rooted in the ownership and
management of schools. After independence in 1922, the new state institutionalized the
denominational school system which it inherited. Successive ministers of education
adopted the view that the role of the state in education was a subsidiary one of aiding
agencies such as the churches in the provision of educational facilities. The classic
expression of this position is outlined in Minister of Education, Richard Mulcahy’s speech
to Dáil Éireann in 1956:
‘Deputy Moylan has asked me to philosophise, to give my views on educational
technique or educational practice. I do not regard that as my function in the Department
of Education in the circumstances of the educational set-up in this country. You have
your teachers, your managers and your Churches and I regard the position as Minister
in the Department of Education as a kind of dungaree man, the plumber who will make
the satisfactory communications and streamline the forces and potentialities of
educational workers and educational management in this country. He will take the
knock out of the pipes and will link up everything’. (Dáil Debates, 159: 1494).
15.476 The State left the management of the School to the Oblates but, under the special agreement
made when the Oblates moved the Reformatory from Glencree to Daingean, the Department of
Education owned the building, and had to pay for large-scale maintenance and any new buildings
erected on the site. Thus, the Oblates could claim, in their General Statement, ‘It would be unreal
therefore to see the State as distanced from direct responsibility for the school’.
38
Patrick Clancy, ‘Education Policy’, in Suzanne Quinn, Patricia Kennedy, Anne Matthews, Gabriel Kiely (eds),
Contemporary Irish Social Policy (Dublin: University College Dublin Press, 2005), p 79.

15.477 The Oblates also asserted:
Given the nature of the work, the fact of State ownership of the property, the fact that
the school depended on State funding, and the many appeals for help from the school
administration, responsibility for the state of the living conditions in the school and its lack
of facilities as described must lie primarily with the State.
15.478 It was true that the State had made the unprecedented decision to take responsibility for the
buildings and maintenance, but general upkeep, cleanliness, clothing, bedding and supervision of
the boys were the responsibility of the Oblates. As Dr Lysaght observed, the boys were dirtier,
their clothes were more tattered, and the beds were less satisfactory than in other institutions. It
was this kind of neglect that also struck the members of the Kennedy Committee. Both the State
and the Oblates had allowed conditions to deteriorate so far that closure of the School was
inevitable. With neither side taking responsibility for policy, or indeed for the care of the boys sent
to Daingean, matters had just drifted until the Kennedy Report forced a decision to be made. The
General Statement submitted by the Oblates described the characteristics of the care offered in
Daingean. Each of the 13 points [see list at 11.24 above] raised by them can now be examined
in the light of the information received by the Committee.
1. A substantial staff, mostly religious Brothers and priests but lay staff too
15.479 Staff numbers were inadequate in Daingean, and this placed serious strains on the Brothers and
priests actively engaged in the work there.
2. A well-established administrative structure

15.480 An inadequate level of staffing led to an inadequate administrative structure. Resident Managers
and Prefects had numerous time-consuming duties.
15.481 There were, in short, delegated responsibilities, but no supervision, no checks to ensure that
regulations were being adhered to.
3. A remedial educational programme

15.482 There was effectively no primary school education for the boys in Daingean. One or two lay
teachers catered for the primary educational needs of the entire population of boys for most of
the period under review. Up to 50 percent of the boys in Daingean were not receiving any formal
education right up until the late 1960s, but instead were engaged in hard manual labour on the
farm and bog.
4. Vocational training in various trades and occupations

15.483 By their own assessment, the Oblates did not provide vocational training in various trades and
occupations. Over half the boys spent their time working on the farm and bog.
5. A routine of instruction and work

15.484 As pointed out, there was very little instruction because of shortage of staff. There was a work
routine: the boys would rise at 6.45, wash and go to Mass, have 15 minutes for recreation and
then eat breakfast. At 9.30am, they would fall in, split up into their respective groups and then go
to work. Over half went to work on the farm; others went to the bog, or the garden; others to the
boot-makers, carpenters, printers, refectory, kitchen and laundry. There was also the band,
spoken of by one witness. Another witness told the Committee it was ‘child labour’. None of them
saw it as a daily routine of instruction.

6. The assignment of the boys to a Brother in a school/training group and whose
task it was to integrate the newcomer into the life of the School
15.485 Not one witness spoke of being assigned to a Brother. Most of them spoke of being on their own.
7. The separation of juniors from seniors

15.486 There was never adequate separation of juniors from seniors. The playground was eventually
segregated in the 1950s, but by then sexual exploitation and sexual liaisons had become part of
the Daingean way of life, and the separating wall proved useless. Bullying was institutionalised,
and younger boys sought protectors from older boys, and became their ‘hags’ in return.
Newcomers were dehumanised, and a simple signal, an open hand with the thumb raised
swimming through an imaginary sea, told them they were ‘fish’, newcomers with no rights. As they
moved up the hierarchy, they perpetuated the system.
8. A sacramental religious framework

15.487 The School was a reformatory for Roman Catholics and ‘Religious practice was therefore an
intrinsic part of the school’s life’. The Oblates stated that the School organised Christian Doctrine
classes, retreats and special religious activities. Fr Luca made attendance at Mass optional in the
1960s, to encourage a more personalised faith commitment.
9. An insistence on discipline
15.488 Discipline in Daingean depended on corporal punishment. The Oblates have asserted that, as
soon as corporal punishment was stopped in 1970, there was defiance and rebellion. The records
show, however, that even when corporal punishment was at its most extreme in Daingean,
defiance and rebellion were a way of life there. Serious riots occurred and the Gardaı́ had to be
called in on three occasions. Abandoning corporal punishment without making any provision for an
alternative regime, as occurred in 1970, was irresponsible and reckless. The inability to distinguish
discipline from corporal punishment caused unnecessary hardship in Daingean.
10. Encouragement of sporting activities and other leisure activities such as

drama and music
15.489 There was evidence of sport, music and drama, and many complainants recalled events such as
school plays as being some of the good aspects of the School.
11. Many external contacts

15.490 Some external contacts with girls from local schools began in the 1960s. There was nothing before
that initiative.
12. Help in finding a job

15.491 The Committee found no evidence of a structured approach to job finding.
13. An aftercare programme

15.492 The Committee heard no evidence of an aftercare programme. Most boys seemed to return home,
but a surprising number went to Britain, where they finished up sleeping rough and declining
into alcoholism. A large proportion went into other places of detention in Ireland or Britain. The
memorandum by Mr H. B. Early of the Kennedy Committee, which was quoted earlier, was
particularly critical of that aspect of care.
15.493 The Oblates failed to achieve almost all of the objectives that they set themselves in running
Daingean. They never had the staff, the training or the resources to run the Institution in a way
that would have made these objectives realistic ones. As Fr Luca wrote:
... The large numbers in such custodial situations with declining staff numbers not only
rendered meaningful relationships between staff and boys unattainable but repressive
measures for the purpose of containment were the order of the day.
General conclusions
15.494 1. Daingean was not a suitable location or building for a reformatory. The refusal by
management to accept any responsibility for even day-to-day maintenance led to its
complete disintegration over the years.
2. Daingean did not provide a safe environment. Management failed in its duty to ensure
that all boys were protected. They lived in a climate of fear in which they were isolated,
frightened and bullied by both staff and inmates.
3. Gangs of boys operated as a form of alternative government, victimising those who
did not obey them, while the Brothers did nothing to break the system but acquiesced
in it.
4. Flogging was an inhumane and cruel form of punishment. A senior management
respondent described it as ‘a most revolting thing’ and ‘a kind of a horror’, and another
respondent said that he was ‘horrified’ when he witnessed it, but the management did
nothing to stop it and discussed the practice freely with the Department of Education
and the Kennedy Committee.
5. Corporal punishment was a means of maintaining control and discipline, and it was
the first response by many of the staff in Daingean for even minor transgressions.
Black eyes, split lips, and bruising were reported by complainants. There was no
control of staff in the infliction of punishment.
6. A punishment book was part of a proper regime, as well as being required by law.
7. The Department of Education knew that its rules were being breached in a fundamental
way and management in Daingean operated the system of punishment in the
knowledge that the Department would not interfere.
8. Sexual abuse of boys by staff took place in Daingean, as complainant witnesses
testified.
9. The full extent of this abuse is impossible to quantify because of the absence of a
proper system of receiving, handling and recording complaints and investigations.
10. The system that was put in place tended to suppress complaints rather than to reveal
abuse or even to bring about investigations.
11. The Congregation in their Submission and Statements have not admitted that sexual
abuse took place or even considered the possibility, but instead have directed their
efforts to contending that it is impossible to find that such abuse actually occurred.
12. Having regard to the extent of the abuse of which Br Ramon was found guilty in Wales,
the reservations expressed about his time in London, the known recidivist nature of
sexual abuse and the complainant evidence received by the Investigation Committee,
there must be serious misgivings about this Brother’s behaviour in Daingean during
his long service there.
13. The Oblates acknowledged that they were aware of peer abuse and accepted that such
incidents did take place.
14. Sexual behaviour between boys, which was often abusive, was a major issue that
developed to such a degree because of the lack of effective supervision throughout
the Institution and particularly during recreation.
15. The unsafe environment caused some boys to seek protection through sexual
relationships with other boys in order to survive.
16. The conditions of neglect and squalor described by Dr Lysaght and the Kennedy
Committee were primarily the responsibility of the management of the School.
Inadequate buildings and the consequent overcrowding would undoubtedly have
taxed the most efficient Manager, but dirt, hunger, shabbiness and lack of supervision
were management issues and these were all present at Daingean.
17. The staff in Daingean was inadequate, ill-equipped and untrained.
18. The failure to offer emotional support was acknowledged by Fr Luca in 1972 when
he wrote:
The large numbers in such custodial situations with declining staff numbers not
only rendered meaningful relationships between staff and boys unattainable but
repressive measures for the purpose of containment were the order of the day.
19. The Department of Education neglected its regulatory and supervisory roles in
Daingean and failed to condemn serious abuses, including the practice of flogging.
20. Daingean did not in practice have a remedial function, as a reformatory was intended
to have, but operated as a custodial institution whose purpose was punishment by
deprivation of liberty. Periods of detention were longer because of the supposed
therapeutic value of a reformatory, a feature that was emphasised by the statutory
minimum of two years. Because it was not officially a prison, there was an absence
of legal and administrative protections for detainees.

Appendix
Report by Ciaran Fahy (6th February 2007)
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this report is to describe the physical surroundings of Daingean Reformatory
School with particular reference to the buildings. It is based on research carried out by Ciaran
Fahy during the course of which, all the relevant documentation in the possession of the CICA
was examined. On 1st February 2006, Ciaran Fahy had a meeting with Fr Michael Hughes and Fr
Luca39 of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate and subsequent to this on 3rd February 2006, he visited
Daingean to examine the buildings and met with the following:
• Mr Greg Kelly, National Museum of Ireland
• Ms Sharon Quinn, National Museum of Ireland
• Ms Melissa Broderick, National Museum of Ireland.
On the same day there was a meeting in Tullamore with Mr John Kearney of the Offaly Historical
Society and on 22nd February 2006 there was a brief meeting in Dublin with Mr Ciaran O’Connor
of the Office of Public Works.
All of the persons listed above were extremely helpful both with their time and the provision of old
photographs and maps. This information is gathered together in four separate appendices and it
also includes some maps obtained from the Ordnance Survey. Briefly, the appendices include
the following:
— Appendix No 1: Ordnance Survey Maps

This appendix contains two current maps no 1 and no 2 showing the general location of
Daingean. Map no 3, is an extract from the 1910 Ordnance Survey sheet showing the
Reformatory School at the northern end of what was then Philipstown. Finally, map no 4
shows the current version of the same location surveyed in 2003.
— Appendix No 2: Aerial Photographs

This appendix contains two aerial photographs and probably gives the best overall view of
the site. Photograph no 1 was taken from the southern side of the site apparently in the
1960s and appears to have been made into a postcard. Photograph no 2 was taken from
the northern side looking south apparently in 2005 by a local photographer from a helicopter.
Photographs 3 to 7 consist of partial blow ups of photograph no 2, to show various parts of
the site in greater detail.
— Appendix No 3: Historical Photographs

This is a series of old photographs supplied by John Kearney of the Offaly Historical Society.
— Appendix No 4: OPW Photographs

This consists mainly of photographs taken by the OPW in recent years. However, it also
contains some older material as well as a series of sketches showing the evolution of the
site over a 200 year period from 1776 to 1973.
39

2.0 Background
2.1 Location
St Conleth’s Reformatory School was certified on 22nd December 1870 and was set up in existing
buildings in what was then Philipstown in Co Offaly, then known as King’s County. It was operated
by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate who also had another reformatory in Glencree, Co Wicklow
that had been set up in 1858. St Conleth’s continued in use until September 1934, when it was
closed and the boys were moved to Glencree. The buildings and site were used by the Oblates
as a seminary known as St Mary’s Scholasticate and this continued until August 1940, when the
reformatory in Glencree was closed and all of the boys were transferred to St Conleth’s, now
better known as Daingean Reformatory School. This continued in existence until it closed in
November 1973.
The general location of Daingean is shown in the Ordnance Survey sheets, maps no 1 and 2 in
Appendix No 1. The first of these, map no 1 was taken from the OS Ireland East series at a scale
of 1:250000, while map no 2 was taken from a more detailed sheet at a scale of 1:50000. Map
no 1 shows Daingean located between Tullamore and Edenderry and approximately 14km to the
east of the former. It is located south of the N6 and is almost due south of Mullingar and due
north of Portlaoise. It will be seen from the two maps that it is served by the Grand Canal but in
modern times the only access to it was by road since the railway passed either north through
Mullingar or south through Portarlington and then Tullamore/Portlaoise. Finally, it will be evident
from the two maps that Daingean is located in a low lying part of the country and is typically
approximately 80m above sea level. It is served generally by the Philipstown River and just to the
north of it is Raheenmore Bog.
The Grand Canal at Philipstown was constructed in 1796 and this was extended on to Tullamore
in 1798. The route of the canal passed towards the northern end of the town and in fact, between
the town proper and the buildings which were subsequently used to house the Reformatory
School.
2.2 History
The site of the Reformatory School was first used for an army barracks which appears to have
been constructed about the middle of the eighteenth century. The barracks was constructed as a
two storey building in a distinctive ‘U’ shape and apparently comprised of officers’ quarters,
general soldiers’ quarters, stables and support facilities and this entire area was enclosed by
extensive walls in 1776 and is shown in the attached sketch taken from documentation prepared
by the OPW.

The main central section of the barracks was more elaborate and as a consequence it is believed
this section was used by the officers while the simpler wings were used as dormitories for the
soldiers at first floor level and the ground floor level of each wing was used as stables. There
were some small outbuildings along the boundary but it is impossible to identify their precise
function at this point in time. At the entrance into the barracks there was a small one storey house
called the guard house which is still in existence and is now called the gate lodge and is in private
ownership. Inside this, there was a large parade area used for drill exercises by the soldiers, while
behind the ‘U’ shaped barracks there was a smaller rectangular area possibly also used as a
parade ground.
By the mid-nineteenth century the use of the site as a barracks appears to have decreased and
from 1824 to approximately 1842 it was used by the Royal Irish Constabulary for the training of
recruits and also apparently as its Leinster headquarters. However, this arrangement ceased when
the new Phoenix Park Depot was opened in 1842.
The OPW sketch of the site in 1852 shows that the boundary walls had been extended at the
rear, i.e. to the northern side and in addition a watch tower had been provided at each end. In
addition, the boundary wall alongside Molesworth Street had been continued so that the entire
complex was now surrounded by a high wall with the only point of access being alongside the
guard house/gate lodge close to Molesworth Bridge across the canal leading to the town itself.
It appears the convict prison closed in 1862 and from then to 1870 the complex was disused,
although there is a suggestion that for some period at least it was used as a seminary.
2.3 Use as a Reformatory School

Between 1868 and 1870, the numbers committed to reformatories more than doubled and as a
consequence St Kevin’s Reformatory in Glencree, run by the Oblates, became overcrowded. They
sought another institution and the Government decided to offer them the buildings at Philipstown
which by then were disused.
St Conleth’s Reformatory in Philipstown was officially opened on 22nd December 1870 and the
first boys were admitted in January 1871. The general arrangement is shown in the attached OPW
1870 sketch which shows the site enclosed by high walls approximately 6m high just north of the
Grand Canal. On the south western corner it is possible to make out in dashed form the site of
the farmyard while the distinctive ‘U’ shaped barracks in the centre of the site is clearly visible.
Just north of this within the north eastern boundary of the site is the old gaol, while the entrance
into the complex is close to the bridge over the canal on the northern extremity of the town. Just
outside the gate there was the old gatehouse built about the same time as the barracks and to
the right was a larger two storey house known as the Convent and which is shown in the
photographs in Appendix No 3. In front of this there was a landscaped area which was known as
St Michael’s Park.
No information is available on buildings erected on the site at that time but it seems clear the
Chapel was built in front of an existing building, which apparently was the magazine and which
was converted into a printing shop while the same building also contained the tailoring shop.
Outhouses were added around the complex to serve the various trades.
In 1888, representatives from a number of newspapers including the Irish Times and the King’s
County Chronicle were invited to visit the Reformatory by Fr James Quested, then Resident
Manager. John Kearney, in an Article ‘A Brief History of Daingean Reformatory and its Former
Uses’ published in 2005 in the Journal of the Offaly Historical and Archaeological Society, quotes
extensively from the newspaper reports of this visit. At that time there were about 250 boys in the
institution and they were housed in a very large iron construction located just to the west of the
Chapel which can be seen on the left hand side of photographs 2 and 4 in Appendix No 1. This
iron structure apparently was intended to be used as the inside of a gaol to be built on the site in
1826 and it was known as the ‘Ship’. At that time, the area in front of the original barracks was
laid out as a garden and to the right of this there was a lake used as a reservoir. It appears the
premises at that time was lit by gas made on the site and in addition, there was a windmill used
to draw water from a well just to the west of the original barracks building. The staff at the time
consisted of the Manager, an Assistant Manager, Chaplain, 16 Brothers (three of whom taught in
the school), two School Masters, a Band Master, five tradesmen and five farm assistants. There
is reference in the account of that time to a farm of 136 acres together with an area of bog used
to provide fuel for the institution.
The school appears to have been largely self-sufficient at this time and there is reference to the
usual trades including carpentry shop, forge, boot makers, tailors shop, laundry, print shop and
the farm. Interestingly, at that time there was a significant number of young boys in the institution
and in particular there is a reference to approximately 50 young boys not more than eight years
old who were involved in knitting and stitching cloth.
John Kearney in his article quotes from an 1892 report which suggests there were 337 boys on
the books, while in 1893 this had changed to 287. In 1896, there is a reference to an adjoining
farm of 190 acres and apparently there was another large farm at Rathfeston in nearby Geashill,
located due south of Daingean and shown in map no 2 in Appendix No 1. Mr Kearney also quotes
from the 1901 and 1911 Census, when there were 260 and 207 boys respectively in the institution.
However, by this time the age profile had changed and by 1911 the age range was 12 to 18 with
only 24 boys under 14 years.
It appears that the numbers increased again in the period 1914 to 1918 and went up to over 300.
However, a significant number of the boys were recruited by the British Army with the result that
the numbers declined significantly and this appears to have continued into the mid-1920s. In
1925, 40 boys were transferred from Daingean to Glencree Reformatory and in September 1934,
Daingean was closed and all of the remaining boys were transferred to Glencree.
In the latter half of 1934, the institution became St Mary’s Scholasticate, to train students for the
priesthood of the Oblate Congregation and it continued in this role until August 1940, when it was
closed and its training function was transferred to another premises at Piltown, Co Kilkenny.
The premises re-opened as a Reformatory on 6th August 1940, with 226 boys moved from
Glencree. It continued in existence until it closed on 31st October 1973, with the last boy being
admitted to the institution on 31st May 1973. It appears that once the institution was closed the
premises were returned to the State and since then it has been in the care of the OPW. It is
currently used for the storage of artefacts. Some renovation works have been carried out by the
OPW over the years but generally the buildings are in relatively poor condition.
3.0 Details
3.1 General
The arrangement of the buildings in the Daingean complex is seen in the aerial photographs in
Appendix No 2. The first of these, no 1, was taken looking north in about 1960 and it shows the
complex arranged in a ‘V’ formed by the Grand Canal on the left hand side and Molesworth Street
on the right hand side. It is possible to make out the perimeter wall, while at the rear left hand
corner attached to this is the farmyard. To the north of the complex there appears to be a goalpost
presumably part of a playing pitch and to the right of this, there is a building which has not
been identified.
Photograph no 2, was taken looking north and it is believed this was taken in 2005. It shows the
current situation on the site and the old farmyard in the lower right hand corner has been disposed
of and is now used for industrial/commercial purposes. This photograph shows the view looking
towards the front or main entrance and again it is possible to make out Molesworth Street, now
on the left hand side and the Grand Canal on the right hand side. The photograph shows two
watchtowers on the northern side of the perimeter wall and it is also possible to make out one
pedestrian point of access on the eastern side. However, the only two main access points into
the complex were via the front entrance and a second point now visible on the lower right hand
side which gave access into the farmyard. This photograph shows the main old barracks with its
distinctive ‘U’ shape while behind this there is the more modern block also in a ‘U’ shape
constructed between 1948 and 1952. Behind this there are two yards separated now by means
of a block wall.
The other photographs 3 to 7 inclusive are part blow ups of the original photograph no 2, where
the use of the various buildings has been marked for identification purposes. These photographs
give the best overall impression of the complex and will be widely referred to later in the text.
There is extensive correspondence on the files from Resident Managers and they all appear to
have been actively involved in attempting to upgrade the facilities at the school. The
documentation shows the first proposal for work at the school was prepared by the OPW in April
1940, at a projected cost of £32,600 and it was to accommodate 200 to 250 boys with a staff of
15. It envisaged retention and refurbishment of the existing block together with the construction
of some new buildings and the demolition of some old buildings of little value. One of the first
items to be carried out was a new sanitary block at the south western corner behind the main
building and this in fact is shown in aerial photograph no 7 in Appendix No 2.
The original scheme was modified with extensive input from [the Resident Manager] in 1940/1941
and out of this grew the concept of the new ‘U’ shaped block behind the original one. This idea
was originally put forward by [the Resident Manager] in November 1940 and he discussed it with
an architect from the OPW and a representative of the Department of Education at a meeting
which took place on 23rd January 1941. After further discussions it was decided to build this in
two stages with the west wing going first. This plan ran into considerable difficulties mainly due to
lack of materials in the war years, with the result the west wing was only constructed in 1948/1949,
while the east wing followed in 1951/1952.
The next phase of building activity occurred in the mid-1950s when the play hall shown in
photograph no 5 was constructed about 1954 and after this in 1956/1957 the old gaol together
with some ancillary buildings were demolished and this allowed for the construction of what is
referred to as the lower yard, which is shown in photograph no 5. In addition, at the same time
the Brothers’ residence shown in photograph no 4 was constructed close to the front entrance
and apparently was designed to be linked into the convent which is outside the walls close to the
main gate.
Any proposal for new works had to be submitted to the OPW and also to the Department of
Education who in turn passed it on to the Department of Finance to sanction the expenditure. It
appears that any work carried out on site was done by a contractor to a design prepared and
supervised by the OPW. This bureaucratic arrangement gave rise to lengthy correspondence
between the parties and a particular example of this occurred in 1956 when the then Resident
Manager wanted to make a minor variation to the construction of the handball alleys. He wrote to
an Inspector of the Department of Education suggesting this on 22nd June 1956 and this in turn
was passed on by the Inspector to the OPW on 25th June 1956. On 12th July, the OPW wrote to
the Department of Education saying that the variation would cost £25 and suggested they obtain
sanction from the Department of Finance. This resulted in a request from the Department of
Education for the £25 on 14th July 1956 and this was sanctioned by the Department of Finance
on 2nd February 1957.
The general attitude of the Department of Finance can be gauged from a letter of 30th November
1954, written in Irish to the Department of Education, in which there was reference to general
difficulties in public spending and expressing concern and disappointment at the number and
frequency of requests from Daingean for extra funding. This matter was taken up with the Resident
Manager by the Department of Education so they were able to write back on 14th December 1954,
to assure the Department of Finance that no further demands for money would be made with
regard to extra work on the school.
It is clear from the documentation that the buildings at Daingean in the period 1940 to 1973 were
in poor condition. The clearest indication of this is probably contained in a report from the Chief
Fire Officer of Offaly County Council dated 10th September 1964. When considering the old main
block their report concluded that the entire building should be demolished and replaced, but in
any event it recommended certain minimum works to be carried out immediately. While the main
emphasis in the report was on the fire risk and dealt with the main block it also stated that the
carpenters and boot shop were unsatisfactory, while it said the kitchen and scullery were in a
deplorable condition. It also suggested that consideration be given to a new tailoring shop and a
main boiler house.
There is a further report dated 31st December 1965, prepared by a Mr Madden, an Inspector from
the Department of Education who stated: ‘from personal knowledge I can confirm that these
buildings are older and in worse condition than those of any other reformatory or industrial school
in the country. General conditions therein are substandard and unhygienic while the natural
lighting, central heating, and electrical systems are poor’. The conclusion was that while the newer
buildings constructed from the 1940s could be used with minor improvements the reality was that
the older main block had reached the end of its useful life and thus the question of its demolition
and renewal would have to be considered as a matter of the highest priority. There is also a report
on the heating system prepared in 1965, which concluded the boiler power was insufficient to
heat the institution. This makes reference to three boilers within the complex, two of which were
fired with anthracite while the third used turf and wood but was rarely used. The report made the
point that the existing boiler house was very cramped and incapable of extension with the result
that a new boiler house would be needed. The report recommended as an interim measure that
anthracite be replaced with oil which on the basis of an ample supply of fuel would improve the
heating within the institution.
Following on from the original report of 31st December 1965, prepared by Mr Madden, the buildings
were examined by an architect from a structural point of view on 24th March 1966. He concluded
‘these old buildings are in very poor structural condition’ so that they ‘could not be repaired or
adapted in an economic manner. The general layout is unsatisfactory and the planning of
important areas in constant use such as the kitchen and reformatory block is particular inept’.
In 1967, Offaly County Council became concerned with the situation and wrote on 23rd August
1967 to the effect that unless there was confirmation that the requirements of the Chief Fire Officer
were carried out, the County Council would serve a Fire Precaution Notice requiring the school to
cease using the building. This was dealt with by the Department of Education writing to the County
Council to say that some works had been undertaken and that steps were being taken for the
immediate implementation of the remainder. In September 1967, the Department of Finance
sanctioned a sum of £6000 for this work.
There was a serious disturbance in the school in August 1968, when a number of boys attempted
to set it on fire. About the same time there were ongoing discussions between the various parties
about the future of the school and in November 1968, the Provincial of the Oblates prepared a
detailed report essentially recommending the school be rebuilt on the same site. In July 1969, the
Department of Finance sanctioned a figure of £85,000 to cover the following works:
• Prefabricated classes and dining-cum-kitchen accommodation
• New boiler house
• Heating and electrical installation including kitchen equipment.
These works were to be designed by the OPW and it was to have the work done in 1971. However,
it appears this work was not done because of a general reluctance on the part of the Department
of Education and also the specific recommendation in the Kennedy Report of 1970 that the
institution be closed ‘at the earliest possible moment’.
3.2 1944 Survey

The school completed a fire survey in 1944 as did all of the other institutions in the State, following
a tragic fire at an institution in Cavan and the answers provide useful information in relation to the
organisation and use of the buildings in the school at that time. In 1944, there were 246 boys in
the school and 27 on the staff with the average age of boys being 15 years. They were housed
in the main block at ground floor level in the east wing, which had a capacity for 110 boys and
also at first floor level in the west wing, which had a capacity for 126 boys. The staff at the time
were mainly housed in the old gaol, then known as St Joseph’s and which was located in what
subsequently became the lower yard and also in the convent located at the front entrance outside
the walls. In addition, there were four staff rooms in the centre of the main block at first floor level.
It appears that the ‘Ship’ which is visible in photographs 2 and 4 of Appendix No 3 was demolished
after the school was closed in 1934 and this required the boys to be moved into the main block.
The 1944 survey speaks of the Chapel being located behind the main block and connected to it
by means of a corridor. It will be seem from photograph no 2 of Appendix No 3 that this corridor
was not in position in 1914 and this is confirmed in the 1910 Ordnance Survey sheet shown in
map no 3 of Appendix No 1. The 1944 survey speaks of this block as containing the Chapel, the
dairy and the tailors’ shop without any reference to the printing shop. Later documentation
suggests the dairy was located in the laundry block and it is possible that the use of various
buildings changed at different times. The survey also speaks of a carpenter’s shop at ground floor
level on the west wing but not communicating with the other rooms. The bootmaker’s shop is
described as being in a one storey building parallel to and at some distance from the east wing.
This building seems to have been located along the line between the lower and the upper yards
as shown in photograph no 4 of Appendix No 2. It should be noted these yards were at different
levels and the level in the lower yard was raised in 1956/1957 using material from buildings
demolished at that time including St Joseph’s and also the boot makers shop. However, even
after this work there remained a difference in level between the yards although obviously not
as pronounced.
The 1944 report also speaks of a block containing the laundry, the bakery and a linen room,
presumably at the location shown at photograph no 7 in Appendix No 2. Finally, it speaks of a
long narrow single storey building parallel to the east wing of the main block, in other words,
somewhere near where the ball alleys are in photograph no 5 of Appendix No 2. This apparently
was a recreational hall.
The main block is described as having six rooms at ground level and a further six rooms at first
floor level in the centre of the block. At first floor these rooms appear to have been used as four
living rooms for the staff together with an oratory/library and what is referred to as a boys’ hospital
or infirmary. However, this was used only for check-up purposes and there was no capacity to
keep sick boys there for any period. At ground floor level there was a recreation room for the staff,
an office, a parlour, a storeroom for the kitchen, a dining room for the staff and a staff kitchen.
The east wing had one large room at ground floor level used as a dormitory and three rooms at
first floor level apparently used as study halls while the largest of these was sometimes used as
a theatre. The west wing had three rooms at ground floor level and one large room at first floor
level used as a dormitory. The rooms at ground floor level were used as the boys’ refectory, a
band room and also stores for the nearby kitchen.
3.3 Farm
The position as regards the farm has been set out earlier in this report. What is known is that from
early days the Oblates appeared to have purchased farmland not only contiguous to the
Reformatory but also at some distance from it. At its largest this landholding amounted to about
220 acres and there is reference to 190 acres in 1896, with another out farm at Geashill. As part
of the negotiations for the 1941 lease, all of the land was sold to the State before being included
in the 50 year lease granted by the OPW in 1941.
The farmyard was located just outside the walled complex on the north western corner or the top
left hand corner of photograph no 1 in Appendix No 2. The farmyard itself was arranged in a
quadrangular form around an enclosed farmyard. One of the sketches shows this consisting of
stables together with a milking house, cattle bars, a tool house and a car shed. As stated
previously, the access into the farmyard was via a gate beside one of the watchtowers which is
clearly visible on the right hand side of photograph no 2 in Appendix No 2 and which is also shown
in photograph no 7 in the same Appendix. In addition to the buildings in the farmyard, it must be
remembered that there were also associated buildings located inside the walls and close to this
entrance and these consisted of the piggeries, the fowl house and also the slaughterhouse.
In 1967, the Reformatory applied to the Department of Agriculture for a grant under the Farm
Improvement Scheme and as part of that the Agricultural Instructor prepared a report in which he
described the area as 230 acres of which 200 acres could be regarded as ‘top quality inorganic
land’. The recommendation at that time was to upgrade the buildings to carry a herd of 100 milking
cows and in addition to this the land was used to be used for some tillage. Two reasons were
advanced for these proposals, the first being that there were a reduced number of boys available
to work on the farm because of declining numbers and the increasing emphasis on education
while the second reason was to maximise the farm’s contribution to the running of the school.
3.4 Eighteenth Century Barracks

The original eighteenth century barracks in its distinctive ‘U’ shape is shown in the aerial
photographs nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Appendix No 2 and also shown to some extent in the OPW
photographs in Appendix No 4.
3.5 1940/1950s Buildings

The main addition to the site after 1940 was the two storey ‘U’ shaped block constructed to the
rear of the original eighteenth century barracks and which is shown most clearly in photograph no
3 of Appendix No 2. This was constructed in two parts as shown in the photograph with the west
wing being constructed first in 1948/1949 while the east wing followed in 1951/1952. After
completion of this block the dormitory location was located at the first floor level and consisted of
two ‘L’ shaped dormitories. Washing facilities were provided at ground floor level in the central
section of the block and this was divided in two by the passageway leading from the Chapel to
the original main block. At ground floor level in the west wing there were classrooms dedicated to
technical subjects while on the east wing at ground floor level there was a play hall. It will be
noted in photograph no 3, that there was access to the outside to both the east and west wing at
ground floor level with the one on the east wing leading out into the yard area. Directly inside this
there was a main stairs leading up to the respective dormitory at first floor level.
Up until 1957, the bulk of Oblate Brothers lived in the old gaol also known as St Joseph’s which
was a three storey building. In 1957, the new residence shown in photograph no 4 of Appendix
No 2 was finished and at that stage the gaol was demolished and the material used as filling in
the lower yard shown in photograph no 5 in Appendix No 2. The new residence was located just
inside the main gate and contained 12 rooms occupied apparently by 11 Brothers and one priest.
The convent located close by just outside the main gate was also occupied by two or three
Brothers as well as occasional visitors. In later years when nuns joined the staff they were
accommodated in the convent.
The play hall shown in photograph no 5 of Appendix No 2 was constructed apparently in 1954 as
part of the developments at that time. In some documentation this appears to be described as the
dance hall or theatre and the year of construction is also somewhat uncertain.
3.6 Outbuildings
Photograph no 4 of Appendix No 2, shows the buildings towards the front of the site consisting of
the convent, gate lodge and what appears to be an old garage located just inside the entrance.
To the right of this in the area where it is now grass, old drawings show a greenhouse and there
was another smaller greenhouse attached to what has been marked as the fuel store. This was
a pitched roofed building constructed in a ‘U’ shape and is still visible. Just behind this was the
carpentry shop, and the battery room attached to the end of the west wing of the original main
block. At one end of the carpentry shop the old drawings show a vegetable store while there was
a yard between the battery room and the kitchen which has now been demolished. This extended
out from the west wing of the old block and interconnected with the boys’ reformatory at ground
floor level. The smithy or forge is still in existence as shown in photograph no 7 and behind this
was the bakery and behind that again was the laundry/dairy.
Photograph no 6 of Appendix No 2 shows the Chapel constructed some time about the start of
the use of Daingean as a Reformatory and this is interconnected with a building which was the
original magazine.
There were additional buildings located against the rear wall of the premises as shown in
photograph no 6. There was a slaughterhouse located close to the point where the wall turns,
while to the right of this there was a fowl house and to the right of this there was a piggery.
Up until 1957, the old gaol was located in what is now described as the lower yard in photograph
no 5 of Appendix No 2. This building was separated from the others and seems to have adjoined
the handball alleys shown in this photograph. In addition, there was an old unused recreation hall
running parallel to the east wing of the old barracks but separated from it so that it was close to
the handball alleys. In addition to this, along the line between the upper and the lower yard there
was the boot shop which seems to be a long rectangular building running along the line of the
joint between the two yards but located in the upper one. Out beside this but located in the lower
yard was a somewhat smaller building described as a shelter.
3.7 Services
In 1888, when the premises was visited by the media the institution was described as being lit
from gas made on the premises. By the time of the 1944 survey however, some but not all of the
buildings were lit by ESB mains and this included the main building, the kitchen the sanitary
annexes and St Joseph’s, i.e. the staff quarters. At that time the Chapel, the laundry and the
farmyard were described as lit using electricity from the institution’s own 110 volt plant. It is not
known how long this continued in existence but in 1964 the Offaly County Council Chief Fire
Officer reported that the electrical installation was ‘very old’ and ‘not satisfactory’. In December
1956, the situation remained unchanged with a significant portion of the premises operating on
the 110 volts DC from the old generating plant and battery which by that time was no longer
serviceable due to its age, with the result that at that in time those sections of the premises were
without light.
In 1888, the water supply for the complex came from a well located within the grounds with the
water being lifted by a windmill. In 1944, the school had two water supplies consisting of a supply
from the County Council main serving Daingean. This was used as drinking water by the school
while the second supply continued to be a well within the boundary wall driven by an electrically
operated pump. The County Council main appears to have been relatively recent at that time and
it was also used by the school for fire fighting purposes and it was fed to two hydrants within
the site.
Initially, the school was almost certainly served by some form of septic tank but in 1947, a new
sewerage scheme was being constructed in Daingean and the intention at that time was to
connect the school to this. There is no record of this having been done but the work carried out
in the 1950s was obviously intended to be connected to it.
One issue which generated a good deal of correspondence over the full period of 1940 to 1973
concerned the heating of the school, which appears to have been generally considered inadequate
at all times. The 1944 questionnaire reports that all of the boys’ quarters were centrally heated
from one furnace located under the tailor shop. The heating was described as being on night and
day from November to April, with coke and turf being used as fuel. In addition, the same report
speaks of fireplaces in the central section of the main building and also in St Joseph’s, the staff
quarters, while there were stoves in the boot shop and also the tailor shop.
In the mid-1950s there was a proposal to change the fuel used to heat the premises from turf to
oil on the basis that this would be more efficient and get over the problems associated with the
lack of space in the boiler house. However, this appears to have come to nothing, to some extent
at least because of the oil crisis about that time. In late 1967, however, in a report there is
reference to three boilers, two of them fired with anthracite while the third used turf and wood but
was rarely used. The report stated that the anthracite burners were in poor condition and the
problems associated with the existing boiler would call for a new more centrally located boiler
house. As an interim proposal it was recommended that the anthracite burners be replaced with
oil burners. It is not known if this was done but the conclusion of the report prepared in 1967 was,
‘basically the boiler power installed is insufficient to meet the requirements of the heating
installation as it exists and this installation is “thin” in the old buildings’. In a report dated May
1966 the Provincial of the Oblates, wrote: ‘St. Conleth’s fuel is mainly turf. During the summer
months some forty boys with a number of brothers spend their days winning turf in the traditional
method and in the traditional weather. It is not a satisfactory means of fuel supply. The weather
mitigates against the boys doing their work well and is generally found to be a frustrating
occupation for them’.

Appendix No 1
Ordnance Survey Maps

Appendix No 2
Aerial Photographs
(Courtesy John Kearney, Offaly Historical Society)

Appendix No 3
Historical Photographs
(Courtesy John Kearney, Offaly Historical Society)

Appendix No 4
OPW Photographs
Above: 1838 Map of Philipstown.

Note: Daingean Reformatory was housed in the distinctive ‘C’-shaped original Barracks (1776)
building.

St. Conleth’s Reformatory 1888
“These buildings forming three sides of a quadrangle contain the offices, dining rooms, bedrooms,
etc. of the Reverend brothers who manage the Schools; and also a Theatre, or Concert-room
fitted up with a large stage. The workshops which don’t come here within view, are behind.”
Above: View from Daingean Bridge looking west along Grand Canal.
High Reformatory Wall forms a very prominent and dominant feature above waterway and tow-
paths.

Main entrance gates viewed from within reformatory courtyard.
Two-storey building on left is in private ownership.
Access to Main entrance gates passes between privately-owned two-storey house and gate lodge.
(Protected structure)

Original Barracks (1776) Officer’s Quarters Central range on left and eastern range for
men’s quarters.
Central range of original 1776 barracks building with later central porch addition.

Outbuilding dating prior 1838.
Derelict outbuildings. (Old stabling and fuel store)

Derelict (1941) Lavatory annex abutting original 18th c. Barracks building
Derelict two-storey Carpentry building with old battery room in foreground.

Derelict ‘Smithy’ building with good stonework.
Derelict Turf Shed. Cut-Stone Pier is part of earlier 18thc. wall enclosing barracks. Walled area
was increased when building changed into convict prison in mid 1800’s.

Derelict Laundry building with Dairy under.
West Corner tower in stone wall. (Mid 1800’s). Access to old farm yard (now Joinery firm)
blocked up.

Chapel (late 19th.c) and Manual Room/Dormitory Building (1954)
Manual room, part scaffolded in left foreground and Lavatory annex (1941) centre.

Above: Manual room (1954). Derelict bakery and Laundry buildings on right.
Derelict Printing and Tailoring Shop at end of Chapel.

Derelict Fowl House (in foreground) and Slaughter House at Northern corner of walled enclosure
Concrete Sanitary Block, with covered water tanks on roof, abutting high stone wall. Wall raised
to prevent escape. Sanitary block built in 1941.

Open play shelter with Chapel behind.
Concrete Play Yard with Play Hall (1954) on right. Corrugated iron storage building presently
housing large folk exhibits. Handball alleys visible behind wall.

Interior of Original Barracks main building. Excessive Moisture ingress and decay of building
fabric.

Lean-to structure addition to form back corridor to Central range of Original Barracks building.
Interior of original Barracks structure. Ground floor used as Folk-exhibit storage area.

Interior of Play Hall. (Constructed 1954)
Interior of Chapel. Fittings removed and space used for Museum folk-exhibit storage.

Interior of Recreation Hall: Concrete portal frame building with insulated corrugated asbestos
cement roofing.
Interior of Original Barracks/Reformatory Building damaged flooring.

Interior of Original Barracks/Reformatory Building collapsed ceiling.

Chapter 16
Marlborough House, 1944–1972
Introduction
Establishment
16.01 Marlborough House in Glasnevin, Dublin was registered as a detention centre for up to 50 boys
on 24th March 1944, pursuant to Part V of the Children Act, 1908. It had four purposes:
(a) It was used to accommodate boys sent on remand pending the hearing of their court
cases,
(b) It was used as a substitute to imprisonment, at the discretion of the court, for periods of
detention not exceeding one month,
(c) It provided temporary accommodation for boys who had been committed to industrial
schools awaiting transport/escort, and
(d) It was used by the Gardaı́ or NSPCC1 to lodge boys in for safe custody, pending disposal
of their cases, where the boys had no fixed abode, or had parents who had refused to
provide bail.
Departments responsible for Marlborough House

16.02 Throughout its existence, from 1944 to 1972, Marlborough House was an anomaly. The
Department of Justice certified it, but was not responsible for its management, or for the children
within it. That responsibility fell to the Minister of Education. Under the Children Act 1908,
Adaptation Order 1928, he was made responsible for the inspection of places of detention for
children and young persons.
16.03 The Department of Justice did run some facilities for older children. It certified and administered
St Patrick’s Institution, which housed young male offenders between the ages of 16 and 21 years,
and Shanganagh Castle, bought by the Department of Justice in 1968 to serve as an open prison
for juveniles. It opened in 1969 with a bed capacity of 60.2
16.04 This left Marlborough House in a unique position. The Department of Justice certified it as a
suitable place of detention, but, pursuant to section 109(3), the Department of Education was
responsible for its administration.
16.05 It came under the remit of the Department’s Reformatory and Industrial School Branch, whose
Inspector had the duty to carry out inspections relating ‘to all the children and the entire
accommodation in the school at the time of his/her visit’.3 ‘All the children’ meant the responsibility
1
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. It later changed its name to the Irish Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Children. (ISPCC)
2
The average cost of keeping a prisoner in Shanganagh Castle in 2002 was \169,450, the second highest in the state
outside of Portlaoise
3
Department of Education & Science Statement to Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse 19th May 2006, p 220.

extended to children on short term remand as well as those committed by the Courts to be
detained in the school.
16.06 With responsibilities disputed between these two Government Departments, it is not surprising
there were chronic problems. The Department of Education did not regard Marlborough House as
being rightfully in its remit. Tarlach O’Raifeartaigh, Assistant Secretary of the Department of
Education, wrote a letter on 19th March 1952, to the Department of Justice making his
Department’s position clear. The Department of Education, he wrote:
...had absolutely no power whatever regarding the entry, removal, transfer and disposal
of the inmates in the Institution. All these powers are exercised by the Minister for Justice.
16.07 Moreover, he went on:

This Place of Detention cannot in fact be regarded as anything more than a Prison for
Juveniles, whether used as a place of remand or as a place of detention, and should
accordingly be administered by the Department of Justice.
16.08 In reply, on 24th April 1952, Mr Costigan, of the Department of Justice, conceded that the
administration of Marlborough House might well be more appropriate for his Department, but
nonetheless argued that ‘the transfer would be bound to be criticised as a retrograde step’ as it
would be seen as running the place ‘as a prison rather than a Juvenile Remand Home’. He then
rejected the argument made by O’Raifeartaigh that it would be more cost effectively run by Justice,
as it ‘would be unlikely to result in the Place of Detention being run more satisfactory or more
cheaply than at present’. 4
16.09 Rivalry, often amounting to hostility, marked the relations between the two Departments. The
Minister for Justice, in the 1960s and afterwards, on a number of occasions, indicated disquiet at
the Department of Education’s performance or made an attempt to urge that Department into
reforms. For example, a letter dated October 1963, addressed to the Minister for Education,
Patrick Hillery, was drafted for the Minister for Justice, Charles J Haughey. It stated:
...I hope that the Inter-Departmental Committee’s recommendations in relation to
Marlborough House and the Industrial School system will find ready acceptance, the more
so as the recommendations are subscribed to by the expert from Education on the
Committee. In particular I should like to see some action taken to establish Visiting
Committees and After-care Committees for the Industrial Schools. Contrary to views held
earlier in your Department it has now become apparent that the Managers of schools,
such as Artane, are not opposed to such a development.
16.10 A civil servant had written at the top of this letter ‘Minister, Unless somebody prods the Department
of Education the Committee’s work will go for nought, to a large extent.’ A second copy of the
letter is scored through and endorsed: ‘Letter need not issue – I have spoken to Dr Hillery’.
16.11 The Department of Education failed in its many attempts to get The Department of Justice to take
over Marlborough House, which remained under its control until its closure on 1st August 1972.
Inspections
16.12 Despite being legally responsible for inspecting all the children and the entire accommodation in
the school, the Department of Education did not carry out its supervisory role. In its submission
it wrote:
Records indicate that there were no formal or regular inspections of Marlborough House.
With the exception of Departmental Officials accompanying visiting dignitaries on
4
Correspondence cited in Department of Education submission, p 223.

walkabout inspections of the facilities or Departmental Officials calling to the centre to
report on urgent matters such as the investigation of a serious complaint, records indicate
that Departmental officials did not inspect the facilities in Marlborough House as a matter
of routine.
In the absence of a formal or routine inspection system, contact with Marlborough House
was mainly in the form of written correspondence between the Superintendant of
Marlborough House and the Inspector of the Reformatory and Industrial School Branch
when dealing with issues such as the investigation of complaints and incidents, staffing,
funding, requisitions, etc.
16.13 The children in Marlborough House, then, were afforded even less protection than the children in
Industrial and Reformatory Schools, where the Department did set up a regular inspection system.
The Department relied almost exclusively on responding to complaints as its means of monitoring
the running of the institution.
The complaints procedure

16.14 The Department’s submission to the Commission explained the complaints system by quoting
from a letter dated 17th May 1971 from the Secretary of the Department of Education to the
Minister for Education.
All complaints from parents, guardians or other sources about the treatment of children in
Marlborough House are investigated by the Department. The Attendant-in-charge is
furnished with a copy of the complaint and his observations are requested. Should the
seriousness of the complaint warrant it, an Officer of the Department will also interview
the child and the Attendant-in-charge and/or the attendant against whom the allegations
are made and the Department takes appropriate action where necessary. No complete
record of all complaints received is available since many of the complaints received are
of a trivial nature.
16.15 The procedure was largely the same as that set up for the Industrial Schools, except that these
schools would have been visited by the Department’s Inspector, who would have regular contact
with the school.
16.16 It is unclear from this account how the seriousness of a complaint was judged, since this
judgement was made before the child and Attendant-in-charge were interviewed.
Background
16.17 Marlborough House was acquired by the Department of Education in 1944, to replace Summerhill
Police Barracks that had been used as a place of detention since 1912. The premises at
Summerhill had been condemned the Cussen Commission in 1936, who said of it:
The building itself we regard as entirely unsuitable as a Place of Detention. It is situated
in a densely populated district and its structure is such that it might prove a death-trap in
the event of fire. The play-ground is merely a moderately-sized yard, and is altogether too
small to afford the boys anything like sufficient space for exercise.
16.18 The Cussen Commission advocated a move as soon as possible to better accommodation. It
wrote:
We strongly recommend that suitable premises with sufficient space for adequate
playground and recreation rooms should be acquired at the earliest possible moment.
16.19 The responsibility for implementing this change fell to the Department of Education and it took
eight years to find a replacement. The lack of urgency was partly because of the falling numbers
of boys under detention, which made it a considerably less urgent matter, although it was also
because the Department was reluctant to take responsibility for this facility, which it believed
properly came within the remit of the Department of Justice.
16.20 In September 1936, on foot of the Cussen Report, the Department of Education instructed the
Office of Public Works (OPW) to make inquiries about alternative premises, and to assess, in
particular, the suitability of the Infirmary Buildings at the Royal Hospital Kilmainham, but these
however, had been assigned to the Garda Sı́ochána. In November 1936, the Department of
Education again asked the OPW to ‘make immediate inquiries’ about alternative premises. There
were no developments for six months, and the Department contacted the OPW again in March
1937. It suggested using a part of the Royal Hibernian Military School, but this proposal was
dismissed as too costly.
16.21 Meanwhile, falling numbers in Summerhill raised questions about the need for a separate place
of detention. In 1938, the maximum number of boys detained in Summerhill was four and at times
there were none. District Judge Little of the Children’s Court took the view that ‘As the Law in this
country stands the accommodation of Summerhill is sufficient’.
16.22 The Department of Education recommended suspension of the search for alternative premises.
The decrease in numbers prompted the Department of Finance, in March 1938, to ask the
Department of Education whether there was a real need for a special place of detention, to which
the Department of Education replied that there was ‘no immediate urgency’ to look for alternative
accommodation. In this letter of 19th March 1938 to the Department of Finance, the Department
of Education made clear the Department’s position on having to run a remand centre:
This institution has been the source of much bother to our Department which is all the
more annoying when it is remembered that the provision of Places of Detention is the
business of the Police Authorities and not a proper function of our Department. However,
since we have accepted the responsibility, we can hardly rid ourselves of it now: we tried
unsuccessfully to do so a few years ago and Summerhill is one of the many troublesome
“babies” that we must continue to hold.
16.23 The Department of Education informed the OPW that there was ‘no immediate urgency’ to acquire
alternative premises but, if one was found at a reasonable cost, it should be acquired.
16.24 The small number of admissions was raised again by the Department of Education which found
that, in the year from September 1937 to September 1938, there were 116 days when only one
boy was admitted, and 115 when there were no admissions, giving a daily average for the year
of 1.4. This prompted them to state that the existing facilities at Summerhill ‘should suffice until
more suitable premises have been secured’.
16.25 In November 1939, the Department of Education inspected Marlborough House. Although it was
considered too large, it was deemed to be suitable for adaptation as an alternative premises, and
the thinking at that time was not to take immediate possession of it but to put a lien on it for future
use. However, the onset of the Second World War expedited matters and, from 1941 onwards,
the acquisition of Marlborough House became a matter of priority, because Summerhill was
considered to ‘be unsafe in the event of serial bombardment’ as it had no air raid shelter and
there were no plans to build one. Such was the urgency of finding alternative premises that the
Department enlisted the services of an estate agent in February 1942. All but one of the premises
he found were deemed unsuitable, and there is no record as to why the one suitable was not
purchased.
16.26 In March 1942, the Department asked the Christian Brothers if Artane and Carriglea Industrial
Schools might ‘take charge of the boys on remand so that the Place of Detention might be
discontinued’, but they declined. It was only then, in October 1942, that the OPW inspected
Marlborough House to assess its suitability. At the time of inspection, it was around 100 years old
and was being used for the storage of furniture.
16.27 Marlborough House was a large domestic dwelling which had been used as a teacher training
college. It was situated in Glasnevin in Dublin and it consisted of three floors, containing 18 rooms,
with kitchens, larders and five bathrooms, and a garden of half an acre. A large extension had
been built to the rear of the building which was of more recent vintage. The OPW reported:
The condition of the front, that is, the older portion of the premises, is rather poor; the
roof is bad and some of the walls are secured by iron tie bars.
16.28 As a result, the OPW concluded, ‘A considerable amount of repair work will be necessary to this
portion of the premises in the course of years’. In contrast, the rear of the building was in good
condition and required ‘little work other than ordinary routine maintenance’. Overall, they advised
the Department ‘that the premises lend themselves fairly readily to adaptation as a Place of
Detention’. This they felt could be achieved by initially utilising the ground and first floors, which
would involve the division of a large room on the ground floor to form a refectory, a day room and
the installation of a range in the kitchen. A large room on the first floor was to be divided up to
provide dormitories, with two heating stoves and the provision of a protected playground space.
Provision was not made for new fire escape stairs or for an ‘escape-proof’ garden separate from
the playground. The cost of these alterations was estimated between £900 and £1,000. It was
also proposed to operate a medical clinic on the premises for young offenders.
16.29 The changes met neither the criticisms of Summerhill outlined in the Cussen Report, nor the
needs of the wartime emergency. There was no secure outdoor recreation yard and there was
inadequate provision of indoor recreation accommodation geared towards keeping the boys
secure and occupied during their incarceration. In addition, no provision was made for an air raid
shelter, which had been the impetus for its urgent acquisition.
16.30 Further delays ensued in the acquisition of Marlborough House, as sanction was required by the
Department of Finance, and a complication arose when the Department of Defence also sought
possession of the house for use as a food and rest centre during the war. Matters were further
complicated, as legal objections were raised by the lessor of Marlborough House who objected to
its use as a detention centre.
16.31 In June 1943, the Chief of the Dublin Fire Brigade inspected Summerhill and ‘condemned’ it and
wanted its immediate closure, but he was unwilling to take such action ‘against a Government
department’. The Department of Education informed the Department of Finance of this
development, but sanction was still not forthcoming. The Department of Education resorted to
making a submission to Government on 19th July 1943 on the issue. Finally, on 12th August 1943,
the Department of Finance sanctioned the proposed alterations and finally made possible the use
of Marlborough House as a place of detention for young boys.
Population
16.32 The Minister for Justice registered Marlborough House as a place of detention for up to 50 male
children under 17 years of age, to be administered by the Department of Justice. While in
Summerhill children aged 4 years and upwards had been detained, in Marlborough House the
lower age limit was 7 or 8. Between 1944 and 1972, there were approximately 21,500 admissions
to Marlborough House. In 1943 the daily average number of boys detained in the School was 10.
The daily average number in 1960 was 15. On 1st August 1972, when it closed, records show that
there were 16 boys detained there.
16.33 Whilst the Department of Education had sole managerial responsibility for the Institution, the role
of the Department of Justice pursuant to section 108(3) of the Children Act, 1908, was to satisfy
itself as to the ‘suitability of the accommodation’ at Marlborough House. The Department of Justice
in their Statement to this Committee wrote:
The files in the Department of Justice (“the Departmental files”) reveal that the practice
was that the administration and operation of Marlborough House was dealt with by the
Department of Education and that this position was maintained by officials of the
Department of Justice in dealings with the Department of Education ...
16.34 The management and administration of Marlborough House remained, therefore, the responsibility
of the Department of Education, and the day-to-day administration was undertaken by lay persons
who were employed by the Department of Education. Staffing levels increased over the years,
rising from six staff in 1944 to 24 in 1972.
16.35 In 1944, the staff consisted of one Superintendent who was in charge of the overall administration
of the Institution, one house mistress, one male attendant, two residential attendants, and one
servant girl. The Superintendent and his wife, who was the matron, lived in the house with the
boys. At that time, the average number of boys detained in one month was 8, and the highest in
that year was 15.
16.36 By January 1963, staff levels had increased, and the Superintendent and his wife, were assisted
by five attendants. There was one vacancy at that time.
16.37 By February 1972, the staff numbered 24, comprising one attendant in charge, one matron, 20
attendants and 2 female assistants. At that time, there were seven boys in detention. One
Superintendent, a former Garda, held the position for over a decade. His wife, who was a trained
nurse, was appointed matron. They lived on the premises. A part-time medical officer was
employed to examine each child on admission and to attend as required.
16.38 The calibre of the staff was problematic from the very beginning, as they were recruited from the
local Unemployment Exchange. Potential candidates were interviewed by the Superintendent,
who then made a recommendation to the Department of Education for the appointment of the staff
member. It is not clear what criteria the Superintendent applied in making these appointments. The
staff were mainly male and had no childcare experience as this was not a requirement for the job
at the time.
16.39 An Inter-Departmental memorandum of 15th March 1944 from the Department of Education to the
Assistant Secretary of the Department of Finance, written two weeks before Marlborough House
opened, indicated a high level of awareness as to the problems in Marlborough House:
This circumstance has again set me thinking of the unsatisfactory nature of the present
management of the Place of Detention. It is staffed by the lowest paid labour known to
the Civil Service ... To speak with brutal candour, I view with alarm the impression they
will make on visitors to the New Place of Detention.
16.40 He added:
A direct result of the low calibre of the staff is that practically nothing is done for boys
committed to the Place of Detention except to feed them and ensure that they do not
escape. When one remembers that the Institution is run directly by this Department of
State, that is an inexcusably low standard to be content with.
16.41 The memorandum concluded with the suggestion that the Department entrust the day-to-day
management of Marlborough House to a religious Order, in particular the Hospitaller Order of St
John of God. It calculated that the cost to the State of such a move would be the same as the
present running costs, but the service provided would be better:
The advantages are obvious. The whole tone of the establishment would be raised to a
very high level. At the worst the boys’ would be catered for, both spiritually and physically,
in a far better manner than at present. At the best, the Order might send one of its trained
Psychiatrists to take charge.
16.42 The Department memorandum added:

The Department would have disposed satisfactorily of responsibilities which, in my opinion
it should never have undertaken and is, in the nature of things, unable to discharge
satisfactorily.
16.43 In a subsequent letter to the Department of Finance dated 30th March 1944, the Department of
Education referred again to the poor quality of staff:
I am directed by the Minister for Education to inform you that the method of running the
Place of Detention, formerly located at Summerhill and recently transferred to
Marlborough House, Glasnevin, has never been regarded as satisfactory. The
management is in the hands of a Superintendent (£50 per annum plus quarters) a Matron,
the Superintendent’s wife, (£30 per annum) and three Attendants who receive,
approximately, the same pay as messengers in Government Offices. With a staff of this
calibre the maximum that can be expected is that the fundamental human needs of the
youths detained there should be attended to and that they should be prevented from
escaping.
No personal reflection is intended on the present staff who are the best we have been
able to get for the wages and conditions of service offered ... The Minister for Education
is satisfied that this standard is inexcusably low for an Institution of its type which is
managed directly by this Department. Public interest in juvenile delinquency and its
associated problems has shown a marked increase in recent years. In England and
elsewhere young offenders are subjected to observation and treatment by Psychiatrists
in special clinics. There is in this country an ever-growing interest in this method of dealing
with the problem. The growth of enlightened public interest has thrown into stark relief the
already well known shortcomings of the Place of Detention and the Minister is satisfied
that the present system cannot be allowed to continue any longer.
16.44 They sought sanction from the Department of Finance on 30th March 1944 for their proposal,
citing that:
After a careful examination of all aspects of the problem it has been decided that the best
solution would be to hand the Place of Detention over to a suitably qualified Religious
Order.
16.45 The Department of Finance, in a replying letter of 12th May 1944, stated there was no justification
for transferring the management to a religious Order, as the only criticism against the place of
detention was its location:
That defect has been remedied by the transfer to Marlborough House, and until you have
some experience of the system in new surroundings it seems to be somewhat premature
to suggest a change in the manner of management which must, I feel, inevitably entail
additional cost to the State.
16.46 The Department of Finance believed such an arrangement, could only be economical ‘... if the
Place of Detention were grafted on to a larger institution’.
16.47 Not to be deterred, the Department of Education wrote again to the Department of Finance on
31st May 1944, setting out detailed reasons for their proposal. In particular, they asserted that ‘The
chief consideration is that the Institution should have the best possible influence for reform on the
young people who are detained there’. In this regard, they felt that, ‘a few days detention under
the right guidance might prevent a subsequent career of law breaking’, which they felt could only
be achieved by a religious Order, such as the Hospitaller Order of St John of God. They went on:
Regarding your suggestion of grafting the place of detention onto an existing institution
for boys conducted by a religious order the only suitable institutions of the kind are the
industrial schools at Artane and Carriglea. We have tried repeatedly in the past ten years
to get the managers of these schools to take charge of boys under detention or to set
aside a small section of their premises for the purpose, but they definitely refuse to do so.
I understand that Artane did make an arrangement of the kind many years ago and their
experience of the difficulties and trouble involved has decided them against ever touching
the matter again.
16.48 They concluded that ‘... it is a general experience that for an institution of the kind management
by a religious order is more economical than lay management’. On 15th June 1944, the Department
of Finance sanctioned ‘in principle’ the proposal to entrust the management of the Institution to a
religious Order, but no commitment was to be entered into without the approval of the Department.
The Minister of Education wrote to the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr McQuaid, on 4th July 1944, seeking
his advice and approval for the proposal:
I feel that the time the boys spend in this institution could be turned to much greater
advantage if its management could be entrusted to a religious community, whose training
could enable them to face the problem presented by the juvenile delinquent.
16.49 Archbishop McQuaid replied on 5th July 1944:

I shall have the matter examined at once, but you will readily understand that some time
will be required, especially at this season, when many persons are absent from the City,
before I can give you a completely helpful answer.
16.50 No reply was received from the Archbishop, and the Department decided against sending a written
reminder to him ‘as it was felt that it would be better to raise the matter verbally with His Grace if
opportunity offered’.
16.51 It took a decade for the opportunity to present itself again.
16.52 On 19th March 1952, the Department of Education again approached the Department of Justice
and proposed transferring responsibility for the Institution to it. The Department of Justice rejected
the proposal as it would be seen as ‘a retrograde step’ because ‘its transfer to the Department
from the Department of Education would result it its being run as a prison rather than as a Juvenile
Remand Home’.
16.53 In 1955, the proposal to transfer the management to a religious Order was resurrected again. The
Department of Education wrote to the Archbishop of Dublin on 8th January 1955, on the basis that
the Superintendent was due to retire and the future of the Institution was uncertain and that ‘Your
Grace has expressed a desire that the institution should be in the hands of some Religious Order’
and seeking his suggestions. This letter was followed up by a personal visit to the Archbishop on
20th January 1955, by the Minister for Education and the Secretary of the Department, to discuss
the proposal and, in particular, the possibility of using Artane Industrial School as a place of
detention. However, the Archbishop considered that Artane was unsuitable for this purpose.
16.54 The Secretary and the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education continued in their
efforts. They met with District Judge MacCarthy of the Children’s Court on 13th June 1955, and
explained ‘that Marlborough House had been more or less condemned as a building and the
question now arose as to whether a new building should be found or whether some other means
of catering for boys on remand should be considered’. It was agreed ‘that Artane seemed to be
the only possible potential House of Detention’, but Judge MacCarthy said that the Christian
Brothers had decided that Artane should only accept ‘boys of a non-criminal type’, and so it was
unlikely that they would allow Artane to be used as a place of detention.
16.55 On 9th July 1955, the Superior General of the Christian Brothers and the Superior of Artane met
with the Minister for Education to discuss the issue, as the Archbishop had contacted them. The
Christian Brothers were not in favour of the proposal for the following reasons:
(1) Artane now housed only orphans and boys who had been before the courts on minor
charges.
(2) All boys convicted of crimes of an indictable nature were sent to Letterfrack.
(3) They were anxious that nothing should be done which would take away from the good
name which they had been endeavouring to build up for Artane or which would result
in any stigma attaching to a boy who had been in that Institution.
(4) The layout of the lands and premises in Artane would not lend itself to separate quarters
being provided for a house of detention.
16.56 That was the end of the negotiations between the Department and the Christian Brothers. As
there seemed to be no prospect of any religious Order taking on the task, and as the Marlborough
House building was in such a perilous condition, the Department of Education sought sanction
from the Department of Finance for an alternative venue for a place of detention. The Minister for
Finance, in a letter of 30th January 1956, said:
I do not fully understand why none of the religious communities in Dublin devoted to the
correction of juvenile delinquency in its various degrees and manifestations appears
willing to receive the type here in question into one or other of their existing institutions ...
I suggest then that you would be justified in seeking to reopen the matter with the
appropriate ecclesiastical authorities.
16.57 On 22nd July 1957, the Department of Education wrote to Archbishop McQuaid about the
dangerous condition of the Institution:
... Marlborough House, the building used as a House of Detention, is in so dangerous a
state as to make it necessary shortly to look for an alternative building.
I have mentioned to the Minister that your Grace has been so good as to have expressed
on several occasions a particular interest in the question of the House of Detention and the
Minister has asked me to request your Grace to favour me with an interview on the matter.
16.58 The Archbishop replied the following day and said:

I am very glad to learn that Marlborough House is at last falling down. I have spoken so
often to successive Ministers about this Institution, but to no avail whatever. The collapse
of the building is now achieving what I had failed to achieve, for the souls and bodies of
the boys.
16.59 Officials from the Department met with the Archbishop on 24th July 1957. The Archbishop
reiterated his view that he was glad the building was in a bad state and told the officials that:
At present the boys are idle while there except for a little teaching in Christian Doctrine
given by an old Christian Brother. The priests who look after clubs in Dublin will tell you
there is nothing worse for boys of that type than idleness. Learning bad behaviour from
each other is what they are doing while there ... the first necessity is to find an Order of
Brothers to run the place
16.60 He felt that the De La Salle Order would be suitable, as they ‘had much experience in such
matters’. The Archbishop inquired if the Minister would ‘have any objection to a scheme like St.
Anne’s in Kilmacud where the Order itself bought the house and the land and where the
Department made arrangements about grants’. The Department official assured the Archbishop
that the Minister would be more than satisfied with such an arrangement. The meeting ended and,
as the officials took their leave, the Archbishop said:
... the Detention Centre was the root of all good and bad in the Dublin boys who get into
trouble and that nothing was more urgent than that the Centre be well conducted.
16.61 In January 1958, the Archbishop informed the Department that the De La Salle Order had
identified a site at Johnstown House, Ballyfermot for the new place of detention and they would
manage it. The Provincial of the De La Salle Order met with senior Department of Education
officials on 16th January 1958 to discuss the proposals and, the following day, they inspected the
site which was a ‘fine sturdy building’ originally owned by the manager of Guinness. Its only
drawback was that it was not large enough. The Department felt this was a ‘golden opportunity’
to transfer the management of the remand facility to a religious order.
16.62 However, the transfer of the place of detention to the De La Salle Order at Johnstown House,
Ballyfermot never happened. No explanation is provided by the Department and none can be
found in their records.
16.63 The question of transferring the management and administration of Marlborough House to the
Department of Justice arose again in 1963. The Inter-Departmental Committee on the Prevention
of Crime and Treatment of Offenders noted in one of its meetings:
The chairman mentioned in passing that even though Marlborough House would be
replaced within three years by the new detention centre at Finglas the question of its
transfer to the Department of Justice might have to be raised as the pressure in the Dail
to have improvements made there, for example, by the provision of facilities for psychiatric
treatment, would have to evoke a positive response and if such response was not
forthcoming from the Department of Education, the Department of Justice would have to
take over direct responsibility for the running of the institution.
16.64 However, until its closure in 1972, the administration of Marlborough House remained the
responsibility of the Department of Education.
Inspections
16.65 As stated above, there were no formal or regular inspections of Marlborough House by the
16.66 At a Minister’s Conference on 23rd April 1951 attended by the Department of Education and the
President and Secretary of the Industrial and Reformatory School Managers Association, the
subject of Marlborough House was raised at the end of the meeting:
Fr. [Y] then introduced the question of the House of Detention. He said that there was no
Chaplain there, no instruction, no training, and that younger boys mixed with senior boys
who might have an evil influence on them. Boys might often be left there for 9 or 10
weeks. He had been shocked by certain events that had occurred recently in the House
of Detention, especially when had seen the evidence given by the boys concerned and
had become acquainted with the boys in the Reformatory. He understood that there had
been some difficulty, from the point of view of the Archbishop, with regard to appointing
a Chaplain. The Minister promised to have the matter inquired into fully at the earliest
possible moment.
16.67 The following day, the Minister for Education wrote to the Minister for Justice:
In the course of a talk with Father [Y] and Brother [V], representing the Managers of
Industrial Schools and Reformatories, matters were discussed in relation to the House of
Detention at Marlborough House.
I think a situation exists there which would dictate that at once we would have an inter-
Departmental conference with a view to seeing what type of examination should be carried
out there for the purpose of securing that the boys there were adequately looked after
and all danger of scandal or criticism eliminated.
I feel we have to satisfy ourselves that arrangement are made adequately dealing with
the spiritual interest, the occupational interest, health and education of these boys.
16.68 In an internal memorandum prepared for the Minister for Justice, it was noted:
We have not received any complaints about the conditions in Marlborough House. I
assume, however, that the Minister will be prepared to discuss this matter with the Minister
for Education and I enclose a draft reply to this effect. I propose, subject to the Minister’s
approval, to speak to District Justice MacCarthy of the Children’s Court telling him that it
has been suggested that the arrangements in Marlborough House should be looked into
and asking him whether he has any comments to make and would be willing to sit in at
any discussions.
16.69 The Assistant Secretary issued an invitation to Judge MacCarthy on 3rd May 1951, and also asked
him if he had heard any criticisms about the place.
16.70 Judge MacCarthy accepted the invitation and, in a letter dated 5th May 1951, he listed his concerns
about the Institution:
For some considerable time past I have been very uneasy about conditions in this
institution. I am only too conscious of the fact that, from time to time, particularly during
the past six months, some of the boys detained there were consummate young
blackguards who gave the Superintendent, and his attendants, a great deal of trouble
and annoyance. Nevertheless, the repeated escapes from the Institution, and repeated
allegations by the boys of ill-treatment – culminating in the incidents which gave rise to
the recent prosecution in the Criminal Courts – have convinced me that the conditions
under which boys are detained at Marlborough House call for immediate inquiry and
amelioration.
I note that you point out in your letter that the Department of Justice have not received
any complaints about this institution. You would most assuredly have received them from
me were I not aware that, in practice, Marlborough House comes under the supervision
and care of the Department of Education, to which Department I have complained on
several occasions.
16.71 He recommended that the Minister should empower the judge of the Children’s Courts to visit and
inspect the Institution:
I pointed out to [two Senior Official in the Department of Education] that, as far as I was
aware, no persons had ever been appointed, pursuant to section 109. sub.sec.(3). of the
Children’s Act, 1908, to visit from time to time, children and young persons detained in
Detention Homes, and I requested them to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister.
For my own part, I feel that the Minister should, under that Section, empower the Justice
of the Children’s Court to pay such visits, alone, to these institutions, or, failing that, that
he should, at least, be one of the persons so authorised by Section 109.
16.72 It is not known whether this conference ever took place, and the Department of Justice in their
Statement said: ‘The departmental files do not reveal if such a conference did take place’. In any
event, the suggestion of Judge MacCarthy that District Judges undertake inspections of
Marlborough House was not implemented and the lack of inspections continued until its closure.
16.73 One of the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Prevention of Crime
and Treatment of Offenders in 1963 was that the industrial schools and Marlborough House should
be ‘inspected more frequently’ and that ‘Visiting Committees’ should be established. A draft letter
dated October 1963 from the Minister for Justice to the Minister for Education stated: ‘I hope
that the Inter-Departmental Committee’s recommendations in relation to Marlboro House and the
Industrial school system will find ready acceptance ...’. A handwritten note appended to the top of
this letter read:
Minister
Unless somebody prods the Department of Education the Committee’s work will go for
naught to a large extent.
16.74 The letter was not sent, as a note on a draft said: ‘Letter need not issue – I have spoken to Dr
Hillery’, who was the Minister for Education.
Closure
16.75 The Kennedy Committee, in July 1969 and in November 1970, recommended that Marlborough
House ‘should be closed forthwith and replaced by a more suitable building with trained child
care staff’.
16.76 The Department of Education produced a memorandum on the closing of the Institution. It
announced the closure of Marlborough House on 1st August 1972. In the first step towards its
closure, the Department decided that boys on remand were not to be sent there from 22nd May
1972. From that date, only short-term committals under section 106 of the Children Act, 1908
were accepted. It was decided not to provide a place of detention to replace Marlborough House,
‘as the Minister for Education is satisfied that the concept of the committal of young offenders to
an institution such as Marlborough House for a period of detention up to one month is not in
accordance with present-day attitudes as to the appropriate treatment for children under care ...’.
The Minister for Justice removed Marlborough House from the Register of Places of Detention for
the purposes of Part V of the Children Act, 1908 on 28th July 1972.
16.77 A remand and assessment centre managed by the De La Salle Order was constructed in Finglas,
Dublin, The building at Marlborough House was demolished in January 1973.
The investigation
16.78 The Investigation Committee heard evidence in private from three witnesses at the Commission’s
offices on 31st March 2006. The Department of Education and Science and the Department of
Justice, Equality and Law Reform were legally represented at these hearings. In addition to oral
evidence, the Investigation Committee considered documents received from both of these
Departments as part of the discovery process. Statements were also furnished by these two
Departments for the Phase III hearings. The Secretary General of the Department of Education
and Science, Ms Brigid McManus, gave evidence at a two-day public hearing on 12th and 13th
June 2006. These hearings focused on the role of the Department of Education in the regulation
of industrial schools and its management of Marlborough House. The Assistant Secretary of the
Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr James Martin, gave evidence in public on
19th June 2006.
The premises: a condemned building
16.79 When Marlborough House was acquired by the Department of Education, the OPW advised that
it required considerable repair but that it could easily be adapted for use as a detention centre.
The front of the building was in very poor condition, particularly the roof and the walls. These
repairs were not undertaken because, in February 1952, eight years after taking possession of it,
the Department was informed by the OPW of the ‘bad state of repair’ of the roof and top storey
of the front part of the building. This part of the building was very precarious, and they advised
that the top storey would have to be reconstructed by taking it down to ‘put a reinforced band
around the whole building, lay a new second floor in concrete if required, rebuild the walls, stacks
and parapets and put on a new roof’. An internal Department of Education memorandum in 1952
stated: ‘This place should never have been used to cater for children ...’.
16.80 In August 1952, the OPW again wrote to the Department of Education, seeking permission to go
ahead with the re-construction of the front of the building, without delay, because of the dangerous
condition of the roof and top storey. On 7th September 1955, the OPW stressed again the
‘dangerous condition’ of the front of the building and stated: ‘It is imperative that there be no
further delay whatsoever on the question of reaching a decision about its demolition and
reconstruction’. In another letter, dated 28th November 1955, they stated:
... we have to inform you that the premises have reached such an extreme state of
dilapidation that we cannot guarantee that any measures which we may take will serve to
render them safe for occupation for even a short period.
16.81 The reticence on the part of the Department to acquiesce to these vital repair works resulted from
the anticipated transfer of the management to a religious Order. By December 1957, the
Department thought this would take place within the year, and so the OPW were asked to find
suitable temporary premises in the meantime, as ‘the Minister feels that he could not be
responsible for having the children concerned detained in the present House of Detention a
moment longer than is absolutely essential’. The Department of Education were unsuccessful in
their attempts to transfer management of it to a religious Order.
16.82 Stormy weather in November 1959 resulted in further deterioration to the front structure, and
immediate remedial work was undertaken, in that wooden shorings were placed against planks
fixed to the walls in a vertical position to prevent the wall from falling. On 30th January 1960, the
OPW wrote that ‘it is now considered desirable that steps be taken to have the premises vacated
as soon as possible’.
16.83 Almost 10 years later, in July, a member of the Kennedy Committee, Mr MacConchradha, who
was a civil servant with the Department of Justice, said that when a Sub-Committee of the
Committee visited Marlborough House ‘they nearly lost their lives’. He added: ‘The building is
tottering, there is virtually no activity, educational or recreational, and the staff are totally
unsuitable’. The Kennedy Committee in July 1969, a year before it published its final report, made
a special interim submission to the Minister of Education that Marlborough House should be closed
‘forthwith’, as the building was in ‘an extremely bad state of repair and, indeed, appears to be in
imminent danger of collapse’.
16.84 An Assistant Secretary with the Department of Education wrote to the Department of Justice on
23rd July 1969, seeking to transfer the place of detention at Marlborough House temporarily to a
prefabricated building at the open prison at Shanganagh Castle, pending the completion of the
remand centre in Finglas. The Department of Justice rejected this proposal outright.
16.85 The building was not vacated, and conditions deteriorated even further. A photograph of
Marlborough House in early 1971 is inserted below:
On 20th June 1971, nine attendants resigned without warning, in protest against the poor
conditions. Staff from both the Department of Education and the Department of Justice were
drafted in temporarily. A week later, it was reported in both the Sunday Independent and Sunday
Press newspapers that a riot had occurred at Marlborough House on 26th June 1971, when 17
boys went on a two-hour rampage, smashing windows and breaking furniture. The Gardaı́ were
called, and eventually the situation was brought under control.

16.86 A Garda Superintendent who had been called to the premises stated: ‘The conditions are bad and
are in my opinion such as to cause discontent and unrest among the inmates’. A Garda who
attended after the incident reported that the problem lay with the ageing attendants not being able
to control the boys and ‘that all the boys are kept in a large detention room with no form of
amusement, with the exception of a T.V., for the most part of the day and they have nothing to
do except fight with the attendants and each other’.
16.87 Three days later, the Evening Herald newspaper reported that another riot had taken place when
two boys escaped. Again, the Gardaı́ were called in to restore order.
16.88 Throughout 1971, senior officials from the Department of Education and the Department of Justice
held meetings to discuss the closure of Marlborough House, the finding of alternative premises
and, the opening of the centre at Finglas. At each meeting, it was agreed that Marlborough House
should be closed, but there were delays in completing the construction of the centre at Finglas,
which was compounded by the fact that the De La Salle Order did not want to take remand cases,
all of which resulted in no action, and Marlborough House remained open.
16.89 A conference was held in Leinster House on 8th July 1971 which was attended by both the
Ministers for Education and Justice, together with their officials. The Minister for Justice was very
critical of the Department of Education’s handling of Marlborough House: ‘... there had been total
neglect of the Marlboro House establishment: staffing had been obtained from among Labour
Exchange undesirables: young children were left in their care when it was known that they
indulged in brutality: he himself had inspected the place and had been appalled at conditions ...’.
He added: ‘... it was very late in the day for the Department of Education to look for any sharing
of responsibility in the operation of the establishment’. Following this conference, an official in the
Department of Education contacted the Department of Justice with a view to setting up a Working
Party in relation to Marlborough House. An internal Department of Justice memorandum informed
the Department of Education unequivocally that there would be no Working Party and that
‘Marlborough House is not a matter for the Minister for Justice nor one in which he can be
involved’. He added: ‘I felt that I should make it plain to him that in this Department it is believed
that the Department of Education is endeavouring to involve this Department in something which
is not its concern’. Mr James Martin, Assistant Secretary with the Department of Justice, at the
Phase III hearing, said: ‘... they had views that the Department of Education should be more active
but they were not going to take over that role themselves’.
16.90 The Minister for Education then wrote to the Minister for Justice on 5th August 1971, and pointed
out that:
In accordance with the terms of the Children Act the provision of places of detention is
the responsibility of the Minister for Justice and your Department must be involved in any
alternative arrangements to be made consequent on Marlborough House ceasing to exist.
It is necessary that the relevant discussions in this regard take place and that some
satisfactory solution is found to get us out of the present impasse.
16.91 Matters reached a critical level when, on 6th September 1971, the OPW informed the Department
of Education, the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance that Marlborough House
was on the verge of collapsing:
Our Architect has inspected these premises and reports a possibility of imminent collapse
of the building, due to dry rot and defective floors. It is imperative that the building be
vacated immediately.

16.92 On the same day, the Office of Public Works issued another warning letter:
... the building has been inspected today by our Principal Architect who agrees that there
is danger of collapse and advises that the premises be evacuated without delay.
16.93 A meeting was held four days later, on 10th September 1971, with officials from the Departments
of Education and Justice and the Office of Public Works. An architect from the Office of Public
Works informed them that: ‘the dangerous part of Marlborough House is the front portion where
floors are in danger of giving way. The building might last for years but then again it might come
down in a gale’. The decision was taken to immediately seek alternative accommodation for the
boys. However, the boys remained there until the closure of the Institution some 11 months later,
on 1st August 1972.
16.94 A retired High Court Judge, Mr Justice Kingsmill-Moore, visited Marlborough House in October
1971. Initially, the Department of Education were reluctant to allow this, as they thought ‘that no
useful purpose would be served by his visit’. They re-considered the matter and gave him
permission, but felt that ‘an officer of the Department should accompany him to explain matters.
It would not be wise that he should get his explanations from the people now in charge of
Marlborough House’. Mr Justice Kingsmill-Moore reported his observations on Marlborough House
to the Minister for Education in a letter of 27th October 1971. He said:
... Marlborough House is frankly, appalling.
If you could spare ten minutes of your time to visit it, I am sure you would be deeply
shocked. For the moment I will only say that owing to the covering of the windows by
various materials, including a kind of brown glaze, and quite inadequate electrical lighting,
the boys are in an atmosphere of gloom which must be physically and psychologically
damaging; that their only seating accommodation is forms, of which there are not enough
to provide seats for all the boys; and that there is no form of occupation except watching
television in the evening. The general condition of the place can only be appreciated by
a personal inspection.
16.95 He had also visited the new, unoccupied remand centre at Finglas, which was built in 1970, and
praised it and asked the Minister to ‘expedite’ the move from Marlborough House.
16.96 He followed up this letter by calling personally to the Department with his wife on 24th November
1971, to explain the situation. He did not let the matter drop and followed with a letter to the Irish
Times two months later, on 27th January 1972, which elaborated further the poor conditions. His
description was of a desolate, Dickensian house where the boys spent the day in a large hall
which was the ‘only living accommodation in the building for “an average of 26 and on occasion
up to 36 boys of all ages”, summer and winter’. This room he described as:
... a single enormous hall comparable only to a disused garage. The walls were rough
plaster, some falling from damp, exposing the bricks behind. At each end was a small
black stove, each with a few red embers at the bottom. The sole furniture consisted of
two tables and a few backless forms ... to seat the number of boys incarcerated. Each tall
window was blocked by brownish material and covered with wire-netting, a little light
coming through part of the upper panes. Hanging from the high ceilings were three or
four low-wattage bulbs, one broken.
16.97 He went on to point out that the boys had no recreation facilities there. The upstairs comprised a
similar room, used as a dormitory, where the ‘blankets were thin and insufficient for winter: again
half the windows were blocked’. The only outside facility was a yard which was ‘part rough grass,
part earth, where a ball can be kicked about; there is no room for organised football and no
equipment for anything else’. In comparison, he found the building at Finglas a ‘triumph of
planning, flooded with light and filled with colour ...’.
16.98 His fear for the boys in Marlborough House was ‘the possibility of worse injury, physical, mental
and moral, in a community so composed, kept in the conditions we saw, without occupation’. The
following month, on 21st February 1972, Mr Justice Kingsmill-Moore wrote an article in the Irish
Independent decrying the conditions and seeking the transfer of boys to Finglas or, in the
alternative, alterations to the physical accommodation.
16.99 An RTE television programme, entitled ‘Encounter’ was made with Mr Justice Kingsmill-Moore
and his wife about Marlborough House, which had the effect of raising its appalling conditions in
the Dail on 1st March 1972, in which Deputy O’Donovan described the Institution as consisting of
‘two rooms, a great barrack of a room underneath and one general dormitory above...there are
boys from seven years of age to 17’. Another member of the Dail, Mr Fitzpatrick, said the
description of the place by the judge ‘was horrifying. It appears there are two large uncomfortable
rooms in which small and big boys are kept. While they were at the house they saw two little boys
huddled like little rabbits in a playground’. He added: ‘I am asking the Minister for the good name
of the country and in the interests of the unfortunate children to close Marlborough House
immediately’. Despite the mounting criticism, it was another six months before Marlborough House
was closed down.
Conclusions on the running of Marlborough House
16.100 • There seems to have been no educational purpose to Marlborough House as a

detention centre. Neither was there any attempt made to give the children any
education while they were there. Although it seems obvious that a child who was
sentenced to detention for one month would still need to have some education, that
evidently did not happen in Marlborough House.
• The discovered documents even in the latter stages of the existence of Marlborough
House disclose an enormous problem that there was nothing for the children to do.
There were no recreational facilities, although there was apparently a television. The
children moped around in compete boredom and frustration during the period of their
detention in the institution.
• The Department of Justice certified Marlborough House originally but did not have any
function in inspecting it.
• The Department of Education was in charge of it but did not want it because its
functions were related to the courts and the administration of Justice.
• The age range of boys in Marlborough House was 7 years to 17 years; even in the
1960s there was a boy there aged 8 and a half years.
• The inmates all lived as one group, unseparated by age or circumstance.
• The numbers varied, and could go up as high as 38 according to the discovered
documents.
• There was a lot of bullying and assaults by boys on other boys.
• According to contemporary documents, the staff were untrained and often completely
unsuitable for work with children : they were in fact recruited as needed from the local
labour exchange.
• Over 21,000 boys passed through this Institution, and it should have been used as a
means of assessment and early intervention to prevent boys entering a lifetime of
crime. The Department had neither the vision nor the willingness to effect the
necessary changes to make Marlborough House functional.
• Marlborough House was a chaotic facility, housed in an inappropriate and delapidated
building with poor management and inadequate staff. The dispute between the
Department of Education and the Department of Justice allowed this situation to go
on for years.
• There is no evidence that the personnel in the Department who had charge of this
section had any regard or concern for the boys who were incarcerated in Marlborough
House. Changes were recommended in order to avoid scandal and criticism of the
Minister and the Department, and not because of the needs of the boys in care.
• It was logical that Marlborough House should have been the responsibility of the
Department of Justice. To insist that because Marlborough House dealt with children
only the Department of Education should run it was irrational because in every respect
it operated to serve the courts and the administration of Justice.
• The Department of Justice refused to take it over and denied responsibility, but never
the less became a critical commentator on the failures on the Department of
Education.
• The Department of Education’s behaviour in respect of Marlborough House was
indefensible. Even accepting all the arguments about administrative jurisdiction, the
fact remained that it was a facility that needed to be run well to help the young boys
sent there. That meant installing proper management and staff, and carrying out
supervision to ensure that whatever plan was put in place was implemented. None of
that happened, and the institution was allowed to drift further into neglect, with the
Department of Education, and indeed the Department of Justice, doing nothing, not
even observing its appalling decline.
Physical abuse
Attitude of the Department of Education

16.101 The Department of Education in their Statement referred to the procedure in Marlborough House
for dealing with complaints of physical abuse, which was outlined in a letter dated 17th May 1971:
... all complaints from parents, guardians or other sources about the treatment of children
in Marlborough House are investigated by the Department. The Attendant-in-charge is
furnished with a copy of the complaint and his observations are requested. Should the
seriousness of the complaint warrant it, an Officer of the Department will also interview
the child and the attendant-in-charge and/or the attendant against whom the allegations
are made and the Department takes appropriate action where necessary. No complete
record of all complaints received is available since many of the complaints received are
of a trivial nature.
16.102 As will be seen from a discussion of such complaints, this was not in fact the approach taken by
the Department.
Documented cases of physical abuse
1956 complaints
16.103 In 1956, two boys appeared before Judge MacCarthy in the Children’s Court. The two boys, aged
11 and 12, had been remanded in Marlborough House for a week in 1956. It was reported in a
number of evening papers that one of the boys during the course of the hearing told the judge:
I do not like Marlborough House ... I had to march around a field bigger than the room
and, if I tripped over the sticks on the ground they would make me get up and they would
start hitting me with a stick.
16.104 When questioned by the Justice about the allegations he had made, the boy named two officials.
Judge MacCarthy then asked for the two officials to be brought before the court. The garda in
charge of the case was reported to have said, ‘I don’t imagine that the punishment was very
severe’; to which the Judge responded, ‘You don’t imagine, but you were not there’.
16.105 The Judge then turned to the other boy and asked him whether he had got enough to eat in
Marlborough House, to which the boy replied ‘Yes, Sir’. He then asked him whether he was
punished. The boy replied that he had been punished with a stick for tripping. The officer in charge
expressed his surprise that there was any punishment for boys in Marlborough House. The two
were remanded on bail for 14 days, and Judge MacCarthy stated that he wanted the
Superintendent of Marlborough House to be present at that time.
16.106 The Superintendent, Mr Grange,5 who had taken up his appointment two weeks before this, was
informed of the events by the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools Branch, and Mr
Grange made contact with the officer in charge of the case. He was told by the detective that the
boys had made no allegations before the court hearing.
16.107 In a report prepared for the Inspector by Mr Grange, he stated that he had investigated the matter
thoroughly within the Institution and was ‘quite satisfied that no such incidents as alleged took
place’. He further stated:
... during the period these boys were detained here, I had on an average of thirty-four to
thirty-eight boys here, as well as a number of workmen who were employed by Messrs
Dockrell renovating the Boy’s Quarters. Due to the number of boys who were within full
view of these tradesmen and that myself and the Attendants had to be on the alert all the
time I wish to point out that these incidents could not have happened without being
noticed.
16.108 He provided statements from four older boys, signed by the boys and witnessed by Mr Grange.
All the statements are dated on the same date in 1956 and are similarly worded. They each
maintained that they never saw either boy being ill-treated in any way by any of the attendants.
They were allowed to walk around the recreation grounds and were treated well by the attendants.
They stated that they got plenty to eat in Marlborough House.
16.109 Statements were also given by two permanent attendants and two temporary attendants. These
statements were also taken on the same date in 1956 and witnessed by Mr Grange. In the case
of the permanent attendants, each of these had been employed in Marlborough House for six
years, and they claimed the allegations were untrue. They were assisted in their duty rota by a
temporary attendant. Statements were provided by the temporary attendants, both of whom were
in their first week of employment in Marlborough House when the alleged incidents occurred. They
denied that they saw anything untoward during their duty periods with the senior attendants.
16.110 It is not clear from either Mr Grange’s report, or the statements taken from the four staff members,
whether any of these were the persons alleged to have beaten the boys, but it is likely that Mr
Grange would have been in a position to ascertain who was on duty during the week that the
boys were detained.
16.111 A few weeks later, the Evening Press reported that Mr Grange attended court, where the boys
again repeated their statements and named two attendants. Mr Grange told the court that he had
made inquiries and believed the charges made by the boys were unfounded. He also told the
court that he had since questioned another boy in the centre, who told him that he had overheard
5

the boys the night before their original hearing planning to tell the Judge that they had been beaten
in order to be dealt with leniently.
16.112 The boys were remanded on bail for two weeks, to see if their school attendance and behaviour
improved, and no further action was taken on the allegations made by them.
Complaints against Mr Lombard6
1969 complaints
16.113 Towards the end of 1968, a Probation Welfare Officer reported two incidents of physical abuse of
boys in Marlborough House to the Department of Education. The first incident, which he witnessed
in September 1968, was ‘a brutal beating of one of the inmates’ by an attendant, Mr Lombard.
He stated:
This beating consisted of numerous punches with his clenched fist, which reduced the
boy to a whimpering mass. The concluding portion of this incident was witnessed by Mrs
Grange,7 the matron and the complete incident took place in the presence of all the
inmates at the time. May I say that I considered this a savage, uncontrolled beating,
accompanied by expressions from the attendant, of which I could plainly hear “dirtbird”
being mentioned on quite a few occasions.
16.114 The second incident was reported to him by a former detainee in November 1968, who alleged
that he was ‘hit by a lamp on the lips, arms and other parts of the body’ by the same attendant,
Mr Lombard. The boy did not make a complaint to the authorities at the time as ‘he was afraid of
Mr Lombard and because he was convinced that he would not succeed in any complaint he would
make’. The following day, the Probation Officer informed Ms Justice Eileen Kennedy, who
instructed him to get the Probation Administration Officer of the Department of Justice to contact
the Department of Education to have the matter investigated. He spoke to the Probation
Administration Officer on 11th November, and was requested to submit a report on the two
incidents, which he did on 13th February 1969. Mr MacConchradha, the Probation Administration
Officer, referred the matter to the Secretary of the Department of Education on 28th February 1969.
16.115 An official from the Department of Education investigated both of these complaints, and filed a
report on 6th March 1969.
16.116 With regard to the first complaint, he reported that the boy had been a ‘troublesome detainee in
[two other industrial schools] and Marlborough House and is considered to be an unfit subject for
all three places’, but did not make any finding as to the veracity of the allegation.
16.117 In respect of the second complaint, he stated that he believed that the boy ‘was assaulted on the
night in question, but I feel that he has exaggerated in his account’. He also referred to the fact
that the Gardaı́ in [the boy’s local Garda Station] had told him the boy and his mother ‘are notorious
liars’ and that ‘[he] is pretty violent and is frequently in brawls’. The official from the Department
concluded that the attendant, Mr Lombard, ‘should be advised to exercise restraint when
provoked, but deserves praise for his interest in and kindness to the boys’. He also pointed out
that the work of the attendants ‘would be much simpler if indoor games and suitable reading
material were provided’.
16.118 The Department considered the matter and, in a letter to the Kennedy Committee of 22nd May
1969, which had sought information relating to complaints generally in institutions, it referred to
these two incidents and stated that:
6
7

The attendant undoubtedly contravened the regulations governing the treatment of the
detainees in Marlboro House and the fact that both these boys proved violent and
provocative under detention cannot be accepted as a defence of his conduct in these
cases. The reports furnished in regard to the incidents in question are still under
consideration ...
16.119 Mr MacConchradha, Probation Administration Officer at the Department of Justice, was informed
by memorandum dated 3rd June 1969 that:
There is no doubt but that a Supervisor, on two occasions, infringed the regulations which
are laid down. The reports that the Officer of the Department provided are still being
considered but the matter must be researched further.
16.120 A further complaint was made against the same attendant. In early 1969, a welfare officer reported
that a boy who was resident in Marlborough House had received ‘a walloping’ from this attendant.
16.121 Despite these complaints, the attendant continued to be employed, and was promoted to attendant
in charge of Marlborough House in 1970, less than one year after the findings of the internal
Department of Education investigation into his behaviour. According to an internal memorandum
from the Department of Education, he sustained injuries when he was attacked by boys in May
1970, which necessitated a spell of sick leave, and that ended his tenure as attendant in charge.
He was eventually removed in 1971 because ‘it was felt that he was a source of tension amongst
the boys, due to a temperament aggravated by high blood pressure’.
16.122 Each of the witnesses that gave evidence to the Investigation Committee made allegations of
physical abuse, particularly against this attendant [Mr Lombard]. One witness recounted being hit
randomly with his walking stick for no reason. He said Mr Lombard would take him out of bed in
the early hours of the morning and would ‘wallop you, strip you, hit you with the stick’. This
happened on two or three occasions where he was taken out of bed ‘and just walloped for no
reason whatsoever’. He recalled a particular occasion when Mr Lombard took a boy out of the
bed next to him and ‘hit him so hard and where he missed him there was holes in the walls from
the top of his walking stick were he actually missed him with a few blows’. The atmosphere he
felt was one of fear:
It was degrading there, there was tension there all the time, a terrible atmosphere. If you
were hit you actually felt better because you were not going to be hit for a day or two.
You never knew when it was going to happen to you.
16.123 He added: ‘You weren’t treated as a human being at all in there, you had no control over anything
there, none’.
16.124 Another witness referred to the early-morning beatings by this same attendant, which he first
received on arrival:
... it was perhaps about 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning, I can’t remember exactly what time
it was, when the bedclothes were taken back off me. This man, whom I now knew to be
Lombard, held me down with his left hand on the back of my neck here, he had the
blankets back and he beat me half a dozen times with the walking stick, across the back,
the buttocks and the back of my legs. Full force. This was the first night I was there.
16.125 This happened on four occasions within the first month that he was there, where Mr Lombard
would beat him with his walking stick: ‘He would always give you half a dozen whacks of it’. He
also said that Mr Lombard beat the boys for no reason, and he pointed out that there ‘was always
a smell of alcohol from his breath’.
16.126 A third witness complained of being beaten by this attendant who ‘would hit you whatever way he
wanted to’. He would punch with his hands, ‘Around your body, you could be in your bed and he
would come in and punch you’. He referred to the atmosphere created by this man: ‘when he was
in your presence you would have fear. He’d have that about him, he brought fear’.
Assault by Matron
16.127 In May 1969, a Probation Officer reported an assault on a boy at Marlborough House to Judge
Eileen Kennedy. The boy had been hit in the eye with an aluminium mug by the Matron, Mrs
Grange, which resulted in a black eye, and he was slapped twice on the left-hand side of his face
by her. He was seen by a doctor the following evening but he ‘was afraid to say anything against
Mrs Grange, as she was present while the doctor saw him, and he was afraid he would get a
beating that night’. He had been a week in custody and, when brought before Judge Kennedy on
remand, he had a black eye. Judge Kennedy brought the matter to the attention of the Secretary
of the Department of Education on the same day, and said that she was of the view that the
‘complaint is one deserving of investigation’.
16.128 The Department of Education replied within a week that ‘The matter will be investigated and a
further communication sent to you in due course’. No such communication was found in discovery.
The General Statement of the Department of Education stated that there are ‘no further records
in relation to this complaint’.
16.129 The Investigation Committee heard evidence from a complainant who was the individual subjected
to the alleged assault by the Matron, Mrs Grange. He recalled that, when he appeared before her,
Judge Kennedy asked how he had received a black eye, to which he replied ‘the madame gave
me bang with a belt or something’.
16.130 This witness complained of getting ‘a few clatters on a few occasions’ from the Matron, Mrs
Grange, and he explained that the black eye which Judge Kennedy had asked him about, was in
fact the result of a blow with a ladle.
1970 complaints
16.131 In January 1971, Rosita Sweetman, a journalist with the Irish Press, wrote a series of articles on
the ill-treatment of boys and the poor conditions in Marlborough House. Her information came
from an existing member of staff, Mr Jacob,8 who also provided her with unofficial access to the
building and documents. It was reported that:
... one of the wardens boasted ... how he’d “beaten the lard out of that itinerant kid.” The
itinerant kid was 13. ‘Jacob’ protested and was told “These young lads aren’t juvenile
delinquents – they’re criminals. They are here to be corrected and we’ll correct them.”
16.132 The events surrounding the escape by a boy, Emmet Crosbie,9 on St Stephen’s Day 1970
prompted these newspaper articles and, in particular, Mr Jacob to contact the press. An attendant
who was intoxicated gave the boy keys to escape, which he did, and went to the West where he
surrendered himself to the Gardaı́ who brought him back to Marlborough House. The
Superintendent of Marlborough House, Mr Carnoy,10 obtained statements from both attendants
regarding the circumstances of the boy’s escape. He wrote to the Department of Education in
January 1971, stating that he believed the boy’s version of events and was satisfied that both
attendants were under the influence of drink on the nights in question, and he considered that it
was a case of neglect of duty on the part of one of the attendants, Mr Lombard. As was outlined
8
9
10

above, Mr Lombard was eventually removed from his position in July 1971, as he was considered
a source of tension amongst the boys.
16.133 The Department became aware that Mr Jacob was supplying the information to the press.
Following publication of these articles, officials from the Department of Education interviewed a
number of staff at Marlborough House, including the Superintendent, Mr Carnoy, the matron, Mrs
Grange, and Mr Jacob. In his interview, Mr Jacob admitted that he contacted Ms Sweetman and
gave her access to the building, and he re-asserted his allegations that the boys were ill-treated
by certain attendants. He was initially suspended from work, and then was sacked at the end of
January 1971, following an internal Department investigation into complaints made against him.
16.134 In mid January 1971, the Superintendent of Marlborough House sent a report entitled ‘Report Re-
Dismissal Mr Jacob. (Attendant)’ to the Department of Education, in which he detailed a number
of complaints against Mr Jacob. He alleged that Mr Jacob, on one occasion, had ‘very little interest’
in the ‘safe custody’ of the boys and, on another occasion, he ‘reported for duty as rostered, he
did not appear to be inclined to exercise control or work’.
16.135 It is clear from this report that the Superintendent had been asked to answer some questions from
the Department of Education, and there is some sense of a little discomfort in the final paragraphs
to his report:
... With reference to Mr Jacob’s report to the Press, I have no knowledge that he did same
for financial gain, or that he did gain financially from it.
Before, during and after Mr Jacob’s press report, he at no time threatened me with the
press. I had no fault to find with Mr Jacob, as an Attendant here up to the time he gave
the report to the press, from then on he fell below the required standard.
16.136 Mr Jacob was interviewed at the Department’s offices, at the end of January 1971, where the
complaints about his performance contained in the Superintendent’s report to the Department
were put to him. He denied each allegation and put his own version of events to the Department.
He also asserted that ‘Since the incidents relating to the Press Mr Carnoy had subjected him to
extreme pressure’. He offered to provide a number of witnesses to support his case, and asked
that he be given the complaints in writing.
16.137 The Department wrote to Mr Jacob three days later, informing him ‘having fully considered the
facts of the case, the Minister has decided to terminate your employment as Attendant in
Marlborough House’. The reason given by the Department was that ‘the explanations given by
you in the matter cannot be accepted’.
16.138 The dismissal of Mr Jacob sparked another round of newspaper articles, and it was even raised
in the Dail. The Minister for Education stated that he ‘certainly was not dismissed because of the
fact that he made allegations in relation to this home’, but was dismissed ‘because of
unsatisfactory performance of his duties’.
16.139 An injury to a boy in 1971 highlighted problems in Marlborough House that had been present for
many years. The 12-year-old boy was attacked by two 15-year-old residents. He was severely
kicked in the course of the assault, as a result of which he began passing blood and had to be
removed to hospital, where he received treatment for a considerable period of time. In response
to complaints made by Free Legal Advice Centres, a member of staff who reported on the incident
commented that the staff had done their best to keep these unruly boys out of Marlborough House
‘but the courts still sent them to us’. The report concluded:

We have no way of keeping the boys apart here, and young and old have to stay in the
one recreation room and dormitory. In my opinion and with experience over the years this
building is no longer suitable for the detention of boys or for staff to work in.
Blows by torch
16.140 In early 1972 there was an incident that resulted in an attendant striking a boy with a torch. It
became the subject of a Garda investigation that resulted in a recommendation that no further
action be taken. It involved a confrontation between attendants and a number of the 25 boys who
were resident at the time. The Garda investigation revealed two conflicting accounts of the events
that night. The boy who was struck described how an attendant shouted at him to keep quiet in
the dormitory and then hit him with his hand, at which the boy got out of bed and hit the attendant
back. Another attendant struck him on the head with a flash lamp a number of times. The
attendants’ version was that the boys were troublesome and one of them was put into a cell. The
others demanded his release and about eight or nine jumped out of bed and attacked the
attendants. In order to prevent the boy getting a poker which he might use as a weapon one of
the attendants struck him with a torch. Although it was never resolved and did not give rise to any
prosecution, the incident revealed the tense atmosphere that prevailed in the institution. Violence
could erupt quickly with little provocation.
Department of Justice memorandum

16.141 An internal memorandum of the Department of Justice dated 23rd July 1969 referred to the attitude
of the Department of Education when these allegations of physical abuse were reported:
It will be recalled that the Probation Officers had complained of boys being beaten in their
presence in Marlboro House. While I was in Ormond Quay I transmitted complaints of this
nature to Education. Justice Kennedy had also complained about boys from Marlboro
House coming before her with obvious signs of ill-treatment. It took the best part of six
months for [the Assistant Secretary] to reply to the Justice. Apparently [the Inspector of
Industrial and Reformatory Schools] simply ignored complaints of this kind. [The Assistant
Secretary] admitted that there was ill-treatment by the staff and investigations are still
going on. Some of the ill-treatment was however between the boys themselves.
Peer abuse
1956 complaint
16.142 In April 1956, the Department of Education received a letter from the father of an eight and a half
year-old boy who was detained in Marlborough House for one month for stealing ‘Sweets
Lemonade & Cigarettes, from the [a local club], this is his first offence’.
16.143 The father wrote that he had visited his son on the previous Sunday and had noticed he was pale.
He asked him what was the matter, and was told by another boy that he had been hit on the head
by another detainee. His son then told him that he had also had his head stuck in a wash basin
and the water turned on by the same boy. The father lodged a complaint with the Superintendent,
and wrote to the Department noting in this letter that the ‘young man who Ill Treated my Child is
No other than the one who stabbed his Brother to death with a knife’. He requested that his child
should be returned to his custody.
16.144 The boy’s father also complained in person to the Minister for Agriculture on the same day as he
wrote the letter. The Minister for Agriculture telephoned the Department of Education that
afternoon. The Department official who took the call informed Mr Grange, the Superintendent in
Marlborough House, immediately and he undertook to enquire fully into the alleged ill-treatment.
16.145 Mr Grange investigated the matter by taking statements from the attendant on duty on the day,
and from the mother of another boy involved in the same incident, and from the boy accused of
the ill-treatment. The attendant on duty, and the woman who witnessed the visit of the father with
his son, both alleged that the father was intoxicated on the day and had become violent when he
discovered that his son was in the same place as a boy who was accused of fatally stabbing
his brother.
16.146 The boy who was alleged to have been responsible for the incident wrote a two-page statement,
in which he did not deny that either incident took place, but instead gave an innocent explanation
for the blow on the head and the washbasin incident.
16.147 The day after the letter of complaint was received, the boy at the centre of the allegation was
examined by a medical officer, who found ‘no evidence ... of any injury to his head or any other
part of his body’.
16.148 The Probation Officer was also contacted by the father at the request of the Minister for
Agriculture. He, in turn, wrote to the Department of Education, informing them that, in his view,
the father was ‘just using the incident to force the discharge of his son from the punishment the
court has seen fit to administer’.
16.149 Mr Grange and his wife, the matron, both gave statements that they recalled the scene made by
the father of the boy during the visit to his son. Mr Grange believed that the father came that day
with a view to causing a scene, because he was aggrieved that all the boys involved in the club
break-in and theft had not received similar punishment. He stated that, the following week, the
rest of the boys received similar detention periods, and the parents of the boys had calmed down.
He did not address the issue as to whether the allegations were true or not.
16.150 A few days later, the father wrote to the Department of Education and withdrew his complaint. On
the same day, he called into Marlborough House and apologised to the Superintendent for the
‘trouble caused’.
16.151 The Department were happy that ‘no harm came to the boy. All that was involved was the usual
argy bargy between young boys’. No further action was necessary, as the father ‘wishes to
withdraw his complaint and to forget the matter’.

16.152 1. Complaints of physical abuse in Marlborough House were not independently
investigated but were usually investigated by the Superintendent in charge of the
detention centre.
2. Senior officials in the Department of Education either ignored complaints or delayed
in responding to criticism which was coming from independent sources and not just
from the boys themselves.
3. Witnesses spoke of multiple severe beatings in the course of relatively short periods
of detention. One attendant was particularly brutal, and yet was promoted by the
Department even after complaints were made.
4. The wide age differences between the boys and the lack of any segregation made
bullying and peer abuse inevitable. There is no evidence that this was regarded as a
problem by the authorities.
5. There were many complaints about assaults by staff and at least one was witnessed
by another staff member who reported it.
Sexual abuse

16.153 On 31st January 1951, an attendant at Marlborough House was convicted of indecently assaulting
two boys detained in the Institution. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. The
complaints of sexual abuse emerged in a separate hearing concerning the two juveniles. The two
boys made their complaints to Mr Justice MacCarthy in the Children’s Court. He, in turn, must
have passed the information on to the proper authorities, as a successful prosecution ensued.
There is no record of this in the discovery from the Department of Justice or the Department
of Education.
16.154 The only reference to the affair has been outlined above in the correspondence between District
Judge MacCarthy and the Assistant Secretary in the Department of Education (see para 10.060),
and when it was raised at a meeting between the Department of Education and members of the
Resident Managers’ Association.
16.155 The conviction of an attendant for sexually abusing boys in Marlborough House in 1951
should have generated a record of some kind. There is no information available on the
background to this incident, and this makes it impossible to estimate the extent of the
abuse by this man or others in the Institution.
Allegations of sexual abuse

16.156 Two of the witnesses who gave evidence to the Investigation Committee complained of sexual
abuse by staff.
16.157 One witness, who was in Marlborough House in the early 1970s, alleged that two members of
staff (Mr Lombard and Mr Hugot)11 used a walking stick to beat him. The beatings were random
and for no particular reason. He also complained of being fondled and, when asked to describe
this, he said:
What they would actually do, they would strip you and I remember, I can see him now ...
he would come in and shove the stick between your buttocks or whatever else and stand
in the doorway and watch him push you and feel you or whatever.
Neglect
Living conditions
16.158 From the documents furnished, the boys’ living quarters at the rear of the house consisted of one
large room, where they ate and spent the day, and another separate room used as a dormitory.
The boys lived in dreadful conditions. In 1951, Judge MacCarthy in a letter to the Department of
Education referred to evidence that had come to light that ‘the blankets were not cleaned or
disinfected in any way except every six years’.
16.159 However, a Working Party of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Prevention of Crime and
Treatment of Offenders visited Marlborough House on 4th January 1963, and their views were
quite positive. They reported that the boys’ accommodation at the rear of the building was ‘in very
good condition’ and that ‘Both the dormitory which is in use and the refectory cum recreation room
were well heated, the beds appeared comfortable and there was a plentiful supply of bed clothes’.
They also reported that the boys got a bath twice a week, and that ‘English school readers and
history books are also provided and the Superintendent said that either he himself or an attendant
11
This is pseudonym.

is always available to help a boy with his reading’. The Committee recommended hiring a teacher
part-time to teach elementary subjects and to introduce manual occupations or handicrafts, neither
of which was implemented.
16.160 As stated earlier, staff in Marlborough House were recruited from the local Unemployment
Exchange. In 1963, the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment
of Offenders recommended changing this recruitment policy. They recommended: increasing the
salaries of the Superintendent and matron; and terminating the system of recruiting staff through
the Unemployment Exchange and instead hiring Garda pensioners, ex-prison officers and ex-
Army personnel. To recruit retired Gardaı́ required repealing the abatement of Garda Pensions,
and an Order was made on 17th October 1966 and approved by the Dail at the end of the year.
The Department reported that: ‘The recruitment of attendants is now satisfactory. Of the five
existing attendants two are ex-Gardaı́ and the repeal of the pension abatement clause will facilitate
the recruitment of Garda pensioners in the future’. Despite this, the Kennedy Report of 1970
referred to attendants recruited through the Unemployment Exchange, which made them
unsuitable as ‘their function at present is purely custodial’.
16.161 In a series of newspaper articles which appeared in the Irish Press in 1970 one of the attendants
was reported to have said: ‘They’re half starved – the food is designed to just barely keep body
and soul together’. He described an ordinary day as:
Rise 8 a.m., breakfast around 9–9.30 a.m., consisting of Tea, Bread and Marg or Bread
and Jam. The boys then sit around in one room. At times they are supposed to sit facing
each other across a wooden table. If “Jacob” or a more lenient warden is on duty they
are allowed move around the room, play cards (there’s one pack), and if their parents
bring them comics they may be allowed read. Dinner: 1.30 p.m., consisting of (every day)
a coddle – sausages in soup with potatoes. No tea or beverages. They sit around again
till 5.30 p.m. when they get – Tea, Bread and Butter. Nothing more is served till 9.30 a.m.
next morning. If the warden on duty is in a good mood they may be allowed watch
television till 9.30 p.m. when they line up for inspection before bed. They all sleep in one,
locked dormitory.
Allegations of neglect
16.162 Each of the witnesses said they spent each day of their detention in this large room with nothing
to do. One witness, who spent time there in 1970, described this room as ‘painted smoky kind of
grey’ with a large stove at one end where ‘We would sit around the fire basically all day’. This
room, as described by the witness, was divided into two sections by a partition: one section
consisted of two tables for eating, and the other section was ‘where we would sit down at the fire
all day’. They had nothing to do except sit by the fire in this room, which he described as similar
to the room in the film, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, with ‘strong wire on every window’. He
recalled only being allowed out into the outside yard for one hour during the whole month of
his detention.
16.163 At that time, he said there were approximately 25 to 30 boys in the House. His daily routine
consisted of getting up in the morning, going to the bathroom to ‘put some water on your face’
and going downstairs for breakfast and then sitting by the fire for the day. His description of
breakfast was not particularly edifying. The boys would sit each side of the table, and one of the
attendants would stand at the top of the table:
Mr Lombard would stand at the top of the table, we would all have a mug of tea, it would
be ready for you, and he would stand at the top of the table and we would all be sitting
down. And he would say, “hey, you boy, catch”, and he would throw you the bread and
you had to catch it before the other guy got it. Jam and bread. Then the next boy. “Hey,
boy”, and he threw it to you and you had to catch it.
16.164 Another witness described the same routine in the same room as ‘... just one big room, when you
got up in the morning you stayed there for the day until you went to bed at night’. The day was
spent playing with the other children. He did recall board games:
I know we played draughts, there would be cards, there mightn’t even be a full deck of
cards, there would be a few cards missing here and there. They were basically the two. I
think if I remember right, even the draught board it used to be beer tops that we used
play on.
16.165 One witness who was in Marlborough House in 1970 described it as ‘... like walking into Dracula’s
castle, it was real Victorian, real dirt...’. He recounted the filthy conditions they were subjected to:
‘there was fleas walking in the towels you were given to dry yourself with. It was absolutely filthy
there’. The boys had to share everything even the towels:
I remember the Dublin fellow saying to me one day, “Use the corner of the towels because
nobody else does”. I can see now in my mind’s eye, the very corner the fleas walking up
and down, they were small white towels, well, they were supposed to be white ...
16.166 The staff, he also found, were filthy: ‘I remember most of the staff that were there most of them
were filthy in themselves, they were dirty themselves’. He recalled that he had to ask the matron,
who was referred to as ‘The Madame’, in a certain way for bread and jam, otherwise he would
not get any: ‘You had to say, “Madame, could I have bread and jam, please?” You would say
Madame at the end of the sentence as well or you wouldn’t get any’.
16.167 He added there was nothing to do all day: ‘We might be left out now and again for soccer, or walk
around or whatever’.
General conclusions
16.168 1. The Department of Education was negligent in the management and administration of
Marlborough House. Its unwillingness to accept responsibility for the Institution
caused neglect and suffering to the children there and resulted in a dangerous,
dilapidated environment for the children.
2. The employment of unsuitable, inadequate and unqualified staff resulted in a brutal,
harsh regime with punishment at its core.
3. There was no outside authority interested in the welfare of the children in Marlborough
House. No concern was expressed by Department officials at the appalling treatment
and care they knew the boys were receiving. The concern at all times was to protect
the Department from criticism.

Report of The (Irish) Commission To Inquire Into Child Abuse: Vol. 1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Report of The (Irish) Commission To Inquire Into Child Abuse: Vol. 1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Chapter 1

Establishment of the Commission to

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. I 1

1.06 The term ‘abuse’ was defined by the legislation:4

2 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. I

The structure of the Commission

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. I 3

1.12 The powers of the Investigation Committee10 were, inter alia:

1.13 The Investigation Committee also had the power:

4 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. I

1.18 The term ‘institution’ was defined by the legislation to include:

Appointment of new chairperson to the Commission

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. I 5

The work of the Investigation Committee post-2003

The Investigation Committee Policy Paper – May 2004

The Emergence hearings

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. I 9

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. I 13

Religious Congregations’ evidence

The Rosminian Institute of Charity

1.84 In 1999, the Rosminians issued a public statement:

1.91 The Dominicans did not make a formal apology:

The Sisters of Mercy

Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd

1.99 The Congregation did not issue a public apology:

The Presentation Brothers

1.104 The Congregation also contributed to the Redress Fund:

The Religious Sisters of Charity

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. I 19

The Christian Brothers

20 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. I

The Daughters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul

The Sisters of Our Lady of Charity of Refuge

1.121 She added that:

The Brothers of Charity

The Daughters of the Heart of Mary

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. I 23

The De La Salle Brothers

The Sisters of St Clare

The Presentation Sisters

The Sisters of St Louis

1.138 The Sisters of St Louis have not issued a public apology.

The Hospitaller Order of St John of God

The Sisters of Nazareth

1.144 The Sisters of Nazareth have not issued a public apology.

The Oblates of Mary Immaculate

Evidence from representatives of the survivor groups

The Irish Deaf Society

28 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. I

1.157 He said that it had a major impact on his members:

1.166 The organisation provides a psychotherapy programme and an advocacy programme. Mr

30 CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. I

Alliance Victim Support

Irish Survivors of Institutional Abuse International

CICA Investigation Committee Report Vol. I 31

The Aislinn Centre

1.178 The group receives some funding from the Government.

The London Irish Women’s Group

1.180 The organisation does not receive any Government funding.

Experts and their assignments

Physical surroundings – Ciaran Fahy

Health records – Professor Anthony Staines

1.191 Dr Ferriter set out to: