Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse

The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse is one of a range of measures introduced by the Irish Government to investigate the extent and effects of abuse on children in institutions from 1936 onwards. It is generally known in Ireland as "the Ryan Commission" (previously "the Laffoy Commission"), after its presiding judge. The Commission's work started in 1999 and it published its public report on 20th May 2009.

The Commission's report said testimony had demonstrated beyond a doubt that the entire system treated children more like prison inmates and slaves than people, that church officials encouraged ritual beatings and consistently shielded their orders' paedophiles from arrest amid a "culture of self-serving secrecy", and that government inspectors failed to stop the chronic beatings, rapes and humiliation.

Establishment and functions

It was first established on an administrative basis in May 1999, under Judge Mary Laffoy. The first objective set for the Commission was to consider the broad terms of reference then provided to it, determine if these needed refining and recommend to Government the powers and protections it would need to do its work effectively. The Commission reported to the Government in September and October, 1999. The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act, 2000 (the Act) was enacted on 26 April 2000. The 2000 Act followed closely the recommendations in the reports of the non-statutory Commission, and was extended by the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Amendment) Act, 2005.

The Statutory Commission established under the 2000-2005 Acts had four primary functions:-

• to listen to victims of childhood abuse who want to recount their experiences to a sympathetic forum;
• to fully investigate all allegations of abuse made to it, except where the victim does not wish for an investigation;
• to consider whether the way institutions were managed, administered, supervised and regulated contributed to the occurrence of abuse and
• to publish a report on its findings to the general public, with recommendations to address the effects of abuse on those who suffered and to prevent future abuse of children in institutions.

A "child" was defined to be anyone under the age of 18, an "institution" was any place where children were cared for other than as members of their families, and four types of abuse were included in the Commission's mandate:

• Physical abuse – infliction of, or failure to prevent, physical injury to the child.
• Sexual abuse – the use of the child for sexual arousal or sexual gratification.
• Neglect – failure to care for the child which risks or causes serious impairment or serious adverse effects.
• Emotional abuse – any other acts or omissions towards the child which risk or cause serious impairment or serious adverse effects.

The Commission worked through two complementary teams. The "Confidential Committee" provided a private forum for witnesses to "recount in full the abuse suffered by them in an atmosphere that is sympathetic to, and understanding of, them, and as informally as is possible in the circumstances." [§4 (b) of the 2005 Act]. This committee’s report was not permitted to identify witnesses, or persons against whom they made allegations, or the institutions in which they alleged they were abused. There was "no opportunity for anyone involved to challenge the veracity of the statements made."

The "Investigation Committee" on the other hand heard evidence from witnesses who wished to have their allegations investigated. For this reason, respondents from Religious Orders and others could also give evidence and might be compelled to attend and/or produce documents required by the Committee. All parties had entitlement to legal representation and to cross examine. 26 public hearings were held in 2005 and transcripts published, but most hearings were held in private.

Public report

The Commission's report was published on 20th May, 2009 in five volumes with an executive summary containing 43 conclusions and 20 recommendations. Conclusions included:

Overall. Physical and emotional abuse and neglect were features of the institutions. Sexual abuse occurred in many of them, particularly boys’ institutions. Schools were run in a severe, regimented manner that imposed unreasonable and oppressive discipline on children and even on staff.

Physical abuse. The Reformatory and Industrial Schools depended on rigid control by means of severe corporal punishment and the fear of such punishment. A climate of fear, created by pervasive, excessive and arbitrary punishment, permeated most of the institutions and all those run for boys. Children lived with the daily terror of not knowing where the next beating was coming from.

Sexual abuse. Sexual abuse was endemic in boys’ institutions. The schools investigated revealed a substantial level of sexual abuse of boys in care that extended over a range from improper touching and fondling to rape with violence. Perpetrators of abuse were able to operate undetected for long periods at the core of institutions. When confronted with evidence of sexual abuse, the response of the religious authorities was to transfer the offender to another location where, in many instances, he was free to abuse again. The safety of children in general was not a consideration. The situation in girls’ institutions was different. Although girls were subjected to predatory sexual abuse by male employees or visitors or in outside placements, sexual abuse was not systemic in girls’ schools.

Neglect. Poor standards of physical care were reported by most male and female complainants. Children were frequently hungry and food was inadequate, inedible and badly prepared in many schools. Accommodation was cold, spartan and bleak. Sanitary provision was primitive in most boys’ schools and general hygiene facilities were poor.

Emotional abuse. Witnesses spoke of being belittled and ridiculed on a daily basis. Private matters such as bodily functions and personal hygiene were used as opportunities for degradation and humiliation. Personal and family denigration was widespread. There was constant criticism and verbal abuse and children were told they were worthless.

Supervision by the Department of Education. The system of inspection by the Department was fundamentally flawed and incapable of being effective. Complaints by parents and others made to the Department were not properly investigated. The Department did not apply the standards in the rules and their own guidelines when investigating complaints but sought to protect and defend the religious Congregations and the schools. The Department dealt inadequately with complaints about sexual abuse, which were generally dismissed or ignored.

Reactions to the report

The Irish Times called the report "a devastating indictment of Church and State authorities," "the map of an Irish hell." "The sheer scale and longevity of the torment inflected on defenceless children – over 800 known abusers in over 200 institutions during a period of 35 years – should alone make it clear that it was not accidental or opportunistic but systematic. Abuse was not a failure of the system. It was the system"

Cardinal Seán Brady (leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland) said he was "profoundly sorry and deeply ashamed that children suffered in such awful ways in these institutions. This report makes it clear that great wrong and hurt were caused to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. It documents a shameful catalogue of cruelty: neglect, physical, sexual and emotional abuse, perpetrated against children." He declared that anyone responsible for abusing children in Catholic-run institutions should be held to account. This was echoed by Most Reverend Vincent Nichols (leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales) "no matter how long ago it happened."

Father Michael Mernagh, the 70-year-old Augustinian priest who recently made a 272 km pilgrimage from Cobh to Dublin in atonement for the church's response to clerical child sex abuse said he was appalled at the extent and longevity of the abuse "particularly at the role of the state and the government that seem to have colluded in actually encouraging children to be brought into these institutions to keep up the numbers."

The report itself cannot be used for criminal proceedings (in part because the Christian Brothers successfully sued the commission prevent its members from being named in the report) and victims say they feel "cheated and deceived" by the lack of prosecutions, and "because of that this inquiry is deeply flawed, it's incomplete and many might call it a whitewash."

Counselling services reported a significant rise in calls following release of the report, with some centres being inundated despite bringing in extra volunteers. Callers included people who had never spoken of their abuse before, publication of the report having re-opened their old wounds.

External links

• The Commission's website, complete report and summary, individual chapters of report
• The National Office for Victims of Abuse - for adults who have experienced childhood abuse