Summer colour
Use your imagination
posted by The Knitter at
2:45 AM
|
0 comments
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Friday, May 05, 2006
EXAMINATION of BR. DENIS MINIHANE (one)
BR. DENIS MINIHANE WAS THEN EXAMINED, AS FOLLOWS, BY MR. O'LEARY
Q. MR. O'LEARY: Yes, Chairman. Hello, Br. Minihane, how are you? My name is Tim O'Leary and I am here instructed by Mr. Eugene Murphy for Murphy English & Company solicitors, who the Commission have nominated to act on behalf of those who may have made various complaints to the Commission. I think you understand that.
A. I do.
Q. I think you also understand that it is not envisaged that I am going to mention any names of individual people who may have made complaints in the private Phase II part of the Inquiry. You understand that as well?
A. I do.
Q. I am also not going to mention any individual Brothers by name, I think it is not envisaged in that regard either. Although, I think maybe from time to time it will become clear during our conversation that there are individuals involved. You understand that as well?
A. Yes.
Q. I have read your opening statement, which effectively can be taken as the phase I statement in this Commission; isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. I just want to ask you a few personal questions in terms of your own, shall we say, involvement. You were actually attached to Greenmount Industrial School, were you simply residing there for that period of five months you mentioned?
A. Yes, I was residing there, I was teaching in another school in Cork City and I just did some supervision, a very small amount.
Q. Oh, I see. Yes. I had understood that you weren't involved in the running of the school, but you say you may have been involved in supervision in a general sense?
A. Yes.
Q. You are aware that there have been -- that evidence has been given of both physical and sexual abuse taking place at that time, and certainly leading up to that time and, indeed, after that time, maybe not specifically that particular period of time. I presume you were actually in the Commission when that evidence was given?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. First of all, to separate the two, would you accept that there was unwarranted physical abuse in Greenmount Industrial School?
A. Yes, by today's standards there certainly was, especially at a period during the 1940's, our research would show that there was certainly excess corporal punishment.
Q. Yes. As you know, that may have arisen for discipline reasons, it even may have existed without good disciplinary reasons. It is very hard to be precise in relation the that, but you would accept that it was excessive?
A. I would accept that certainly by today's standards it was excessive.
Q. Yes. Well it is very hard for me, as you can imagine, and indeed hard for yourself to go back into that time, as to what was acceptable then. But you may have heard evidence in relation to the use of, let's say, canes or I think what was described as bamboo sticks, in terms of certain corporal punishment. Would you think that's ever acceptable, even at the time?
A. There was mention by one of the contributors that there was a strap that had coins embedded in it, or something. I don't accept that. Any research I have done, or anything I could do to find out whether that happened or not has been negative.
Q. Oh I see. So just for the avoidance of doubt, you don't accept that happened is what you are saying?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Can I put it this way, because we won't be able to resolve it, I think, in this particular forum, it might be a matter for the Commission ultimately, in their report. Would you accept that if that did take place that it was unacceptable even at the time?
A. Oh yes.
Q. In relation to discipline generally, there doesn't appear to be any record, or a discipline log, or a discipline book, isn't that correct?
A. That's true.
Q. Do you know was there a discipline book kept at the time, or is it the fact that it has been lost, or is the case that in fact there was never any discipline book?
A. All I can tell you about a discipline book is that it is mentioned in the rules and constitutions of industrial schools.
Q. Yes.
A. Apart from the fact that it was there, I have never heard from any inspection that it was complained it was missing. We have no evidence whatever that a Punishment Book, as it was called, existed.
Q. Existed, yes.
A. Yes. As you know, there were frequent inspections of all the other books and there were reports made.
Q. Yes.
A. And at no time did we find a mention of the absence of a Punishment Book.
Q. Yes. Of the absence of it?
A. Yes.
Q. Or, indeed, the existence of it?
A. Exactly, yes.
Q. Did you have personal knowledge of the existence of such a book?
A. No.
Q. I presume you'd accept that if there wasn't such a book there should have been one?
A. Oh absolutely, it was in the rules. But what puzzles us is that it was never adverted to in any of the reports from visiting people from the Department.
Q. Either the presence or absence of same?
A. Exactly.
Q. In your time there, I know you weren't involved and you may take it, Br. Minihane, that I am not going to be asking you personal questions of that sense to in anyway lead you down any road you don't want to go down, but you can be helpful given that you were there during the 50's, even for a short period. Were you aware, even in your very vague supervisory duties there from time to time, of, shall we say, beatings or over discipline in the industrial school?
A. Never. I cannot remember any case of excess corporal punishment during my five months there.
Q. Again with the same, shall we say, preface to my question, do you understand, it is not about your involvement as such but, perhaps, what you could shed light on, how regularly did you supervise when you were in the school? :
A. My memory is -- and again I would have to say that it is 53, 54 years ago - all I can remember is that at weekends I had a slot of yard duty.
Q. I see.
A. That's my memory of it.
Q. I see. Whilst they might be outside exercising or something of that nature?
A. Yes.
Q. So it wouldn't have been during the school term as such, or during school hours? :
A. Well, I was teaching in another school so it wasn't during school hours.
Q. It couldn't have been that?
A. Yes.
Q. I understand. That answers that particular question. At the time were you still a novitiate or were you actually --
A. I was temporary professed.
Q. Temporary professed. Had you qualified as a teacher at that stage? :
A. No.
Q. You were qualifying as it were, you were training?
A. Yes, exactly.
Q. Had you received any training from the order at that stage yourself in relation to how you should deal with children in that environment, even in a supervisory capacity?
A. I would have got such training for the work I was doing in the other school, but nothing for what you are asking about.
Q. Yes. Would you be aware whether or not there was any particular training, do you understand, leaving aside teaching as a vocational training, but particular training for the Brothers -- who again shall remain nameless for the time being -- who were there at the time? Were you aware had they been trained?
A. Some of them would have had experience in similar schools in England as younger people.
Q. Yes. :
A. But apart from that I am not aware of any courses or seminars or anything that were available from our own Department of Education, or in this country even.
Q. Well, indeed, from the Department of Education I suppose they will have to ask that themselves. But within the Order itself was there any particular training?
A. I wouldn't think so, no.
Q. Yes. I think it is implicit in your statement, but, please, if you disagree with me feel free to do so, that you feel there should have been training for the people who were involved in running the institutions on a daily basis?
A. Absolutely. In today's experience, if there were boys from the ages of 6 to 16 in a given institution there probably would be 100 people looking after them, and rightly so. But the needs were not seen, the needs of the young people were not adverted to, they were not cared for and, particularly, I would have to advert to the fact that it was an all male institution, there was a complete absence of anything that would provide a mother's care for those children.
Q. Or a female perspective on things?
A. Exactly, yes.
Q. MR. O'LEARY: Yes, Chairman. Hello, Br. Minihane, how are you? My name is Tim O'Leary and I am here instructed by Mr. Eugene Murphy for Murphy English & Company solicitors, who the Commission have nominated to act on behalf of those who may have made various complaints to the Commission. I think you understand that.
A. I do.
Q. I think you also understand that it is not envisaged that I am going to mention any names of individual people who may have made complaints in the private Phase II part of the Inquiry. You understand that as well?
A. I do.
Q. I am also not going to mention any individual Brothers by name, I think it is not envisaged in that regard either. Although, I think maybe from time to time it will become clear during our conversation that there are individuals involved. You understand that as well?
A. Yes.
Q. I have read your opening statement, which effectively can be taken as the phase I statement in this Commission; isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. I just want to ask you a few personal questions in terms of your own, shall we say, involvement. You were actually attached to Greenmount Industrial School, were you simply residing there for that period of five months you mentioned?
A. Yes, I was residing there, I was teaching in another school in Cork City and I just did some supervision, a very small amount.
Q. Oh, I see. Yes. I had understood that you weren't involved in the running of the school, but you say you may have been involved in supervision in a general sense?
A. Yes.
Q. You are aware that there have been -- that evidence has been given of both physical and sexual abuse taking place at that time, and certainly leading up to that time and, indeed, after that time, maybe not specifically that particular period of time. I presume you were actually in the Commission when that evidence was given?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. First of all, to separate the two, would you accept that there was unwarranted physical abuse in Greenmount Industrial School?
A. Yes, by today's standards there certainly was, especially at a period during the 1940's, our research would show that there was certainly excess corporal punishment.
Q. Yes. As you know, that may have arisen for discipline reasons, it even may have existed without good disciplinary reasons. It is very hard to be precise in relation the that, but you would accept that it was excessive?
A. I would accept that certainly by today's standards it was excessive.
Q. Yes. Well it is very hard for me, as you can imagine, and indeed hard for yourself to go back into that time, as to what was acceptable then. But you may have heard evidence in relation to the use of, let's say, canes or I think what was described as bamboo sticks, in terms of certain corporal punishment. Would you think that's ever acceptable, even at the time?
A. There was mention by one of the contributors that there was a strap that had coins embedded in it, or something. I don't accept that. Any research I have done, or anything I could do to find out whether that happened or not has been negative.
Q. Oh I see. So just for the avoidance of doubt, you don't accept that happened is what you are saying?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Can I put it this way, because we won't be able to resolve it, I think, in this particular forum, it might be a matter for the Commission ultimately, in their report. Would you accept that if that did take place that it was unacceptable even at the time?
A. Oh yes.
Q. In relation to discipline generally, there doesn't appear to be any record, or a discipline log, or a discipline book, isn't that correct?
A. That's true.
Q. Do you know was there a discipline book kept at the time, or is it the fact that it has been lost, or is the case that in fact there was never any discipline book?
A. All I can tell you about a discipline book is that it is mentioned in the rules and constitutions of industrial schools.
Q. Yes.
A. Apart from the fact that it was there, I have never heard from any inspection that it was complained it was missing. We have no evidence whatever that a Punishment Book, as it was called, existed.
Q. Existed, yes.
A. Yes. As you know, there were frequent inspections of all the other books and there were reports made.
Q. Yes.
A. And at no time did we find a mention of the absence of a Punishment Book.
Q. Yes. Of the absence of it?
A. Yes.
Q. Or, indeed, the existence of it?
A. Exactly, yes.
Q. Did you have personal knowledge of the existence of such a book?
A. No.
Q. I presume you'd accept that if there wasn't such a book there should have been one?
A. Oh absolutely, it was in the rules. But what puzzles us is that it was never adverted to in any of the reports from visiting people from the Department.
Q. Either the presence or absence of same?
A. Exactly.
Q. In your time there, I know you weren't involved and you may take it, Br. Minihane, that I am not going to be asking you personal questions of that sense to in anyway lead you down any road you don't want to go down, but you can be helpful given that you were there during the 50's, even for a short period. Were you aware, even in your very vague supervisory duties there from time to time, of, shall we say, beatings or over discipline in the industrial school?
A. Never. I cannot remember any case of excess corporal punishment during my five months there.
Q. Again with the same, shall we say, preface to my question, do you understand, it is not about your involvement as such but, perhaps, what you could shed light on, how regularly did you supervise when you were in the school? :
A. My memory is -- and again I would have to say that it is 53, 54 years ago - all I can remember is that at weekends I had a slot of yard duty.
Q. I see.
A. That's my memory of it.
Q. I see. Whilst they might be outside exercising or something of that nature?
A. Yes.
Q. So it wouldn't have been during the school term as such, or during school hours? :
A. Well, I was teaching in another school so it wasn't during school hours.
Q. It couldn't have been that?
A. Yes.
Q. I understand. That answers that particular question. At the time were you still a novitiate or were you actually --
A. I was temporary professed.
Q. Temporary professed. Had you qualified as a teacher at that stage? :
A. No.
Q. You were qualifying as it were, you were training?
A. Yes, exactly.
Q. Had you received any training from the order at that stage yourself in relation to how you should deal with children in that environment, even in a supervisory capacity?
A. I would have got such training for the work I was doing in the other school, but nothing for what you are asking about.
Q. Yes. Would you be aware whether or not there was any particular training, do you understand, leaving aside teaching as a vocational training, but particular training for the Brothers -- who again shall remain nameless for the time being -- who were there at the time? Were you aware had they been trained?
A. Some of them would have had experience in similar schools in England as younger people.
Q. Yes. :
A. But apart from that I am not aware of any courses or seminars or anything that were available from our own Department of Education, or in this country even.
Q. Well, indeed, from the Department of Education I suppose they will have to ask that themselves. But within the Order itself was there any particular training?
A. I wouldn't think so, no.
Q. Yes. I think it is implicit in your statement, but, please, if you disagree with me feel free to do so, that you feel there should have been training for the people who were involved in running the institutions on a daily basis?
A. Absolutely. In today's experience, if there were boys from the ages of 6 to 16 in a given institution there probably would be 100 people looking after them, and rightly so. But the needs were not seen, the needs of the young people were not adverted to, they were not cared for and, particularly, I would have to advert to the fact that it was an all male institution, there was a complete absence of anything that would provide a mother's care for those children.
Q. Or a female perspective on things?
A. Exactly, yes.
posted by The Knitter at
2:55 PM
|
0 comments
Intro Br. Denis Minihane
THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning Mr. O'Leary. Just give us a minute while we go through the little photo opportunities.
MR. O'LEARY: Indeed.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Good morning everybody. This morning we are conducting the Phase III hearings into St. Joseph's Industrial School, Greenmount in Cork and just to indicated the order in which things will happen this morning. The Presentation Brothers are here and represented by Mr. Collins. I think he's here. Thank you, Mr. Collins. The witness, I understand, is Br. Denis Minihane; is that correct? Very good . Good morning Br. Minihane. The first thing is that our counsel, Mr. McGovern, will just introduce the witness very briefly. Following that Mr. O'Leary, counsel for the nominated legal firm, Murphy English, will examine Br. Minihane. Mr. McGovern will then conduct such examination as he thinks fit on our behalf, that is the Investigation Committee.
Then the Presentation Brothers counsel Mr. Collins will be able to examine in relation to any matters that he wishes to elucidate at that stage. I should, perhaps, say to people who are here that while we have sought to involve everybody in the process by inviting them, through their lawyers, to contact the nominated legal team with any points they wish to raise, that if people have issues or points that they want to make, or corrections, or whatever, they can write them down, we'll supply writing materials if people need them, and submit them to our legal team.
Our legal team are sitting here on my left-hand side of the front table here. So, if anybody wants to they can submit that. Or they can speak to the legal team and we will undertake to examine those and see whether they ought to be followed up in writing subsequently, or followed up in whatever fashion subsequently. So that's the way it will go. Very good. Now, Mr. McGovern, perhaps you would introduce us to Br. Minihane. Br. Minihane, could you come forward please.
BR. DENIS MINIHANE, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED BY THE COMMISSION, AS FOLLOWS:
THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, Br. Minihane. Will you sit down there and make yourself as comfortable as you can.
Q. MR. McGOVERN: Good morning, Br. Minihane. Have you got all the documents there that you think you'll need?
A. Yes.
Q. I am one of the counsel for the Commission and I just want to introduce you to the hearing. I don't have many questions to ask you at this stage and, indeed, I may be asking you questions later but I don't think I will be detaining you at any great length. You prepared an opening statement on behalf of the Presentation Brothers in relation to institution we are investigating here, Greenmount, in Cork, isn't that right, St. Joseph's?
A. That's right.
Q. Did you spend some time there yourself as a Brother?
A. I spent about five months there in 1953
Q. Yes. What is your position in the Order of the Presentation Brothers now?
A. I am just representing them. I don't have any title.
Q. I see. :
A. Thank God.
Q. Can I just ask you what was the source of your information in preparing the opening statement on behalf of the Presentation Brothers?
A. All the documents that exist, and we have pretty good documents.
Q. Yes. There were some additional documents produced to the Commission after the hearings had taken place, or the bulk of them had taken place, can you tell the Commission why they were produced at that stage and not earlier? Do you know?
A. What have you in mind?
Q. There was a book of additional documents, they contained items such as the manager's annual report tothe Department, and things of that nature?
A. They were always available. I have no reason to believe that they weren't.
Q. I see, very good. Can you tell the Commission when did the school finally close down?
A. The school closed in 31st March, 1959
Q. What happened to the premises then?
A. It became a juniorate for our own aspirants for some time and eventually was demolished.
Q. What happened the land, was the land kept by the Order or sold off?
A. No, the land was sold off in bit and pieces.
Q. When was that?
A. It was in the 80's I would say.
Q. Yes. I think you understand the purpose of today's hearing, that we have had lengthy hearings of this institution and other institutions, at which evidence was given in private, and there may be some questions that parties would want to ask you arising out of what might be seen as unresolved issues, or issues giving rise to certain queries at this point. You know, I think, that you are here to deal with those questions that you will be asked by different parties?
A. Yeah.
Q. As the Chairman has already said, some of the other parties will proceed. I think Mr. O'Leary will be asking you question, he is representing complainants.Then there will be questions from Mr. Collins, and myself perhaps. Is that your understanding of what you are here to do?
A. Yes.
Q. You feel you have all the documentation that you need for that purpose?
A. Yes.
Q. I see. Chairman, I don't think there is anything else I need to do at this stage?
THE CHAIRPERSON: No, that's it Mr. McGovern.
MR. McGOVERN: I can ask what questions I wish to do at a later point.
END OF QUESTIONING OF BR. DENIS MINIHANE BY THE COMMISSION
MR. O'LEARY: Indeed.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Good morning everybody. This morning we are conducting the Phase III hearings into St. Joseph's Industrial School, Greenmount in Cork and just to indicated the order in which things will happen this morning. The Presentation Brothers are here and represented by Mr. Collins. I think he's here. Thank you, Mr. Collins. The witness, I understand, is Br. Denis Minihane; is that correct? Very good . Good morning Br. Minihane. The first thing is that our counsel, Mr. McGovern, will just introduce the witness very briefly. Following that Mr. O'Leary, counsel for the nominated legal firm, Murphy English, will examine Br. Minihane. Mr. McGovern will then conduct such examination as he thinks fit on our behalf, that is the Investigation Committee.
Then the Presentation Brothers counsel Mr. Collins will be able to examine in relation to any matters that he wishes to elucidate at that stage. I should, perhaps, say to people who are here that while we have sought to involve everybody in the process by inviting them, through their lawyers, to contact the nominated legal team with any points they wish to raise, that if people have issues or points that they want to make, or corrections, or whatever, they can write them down, we'll supply writing materials if people need them, and submit them to our legal team.
Our legal team are sitting here on my left-hand side of the front table here. So, if anybody wants to they can submit that. Or they can speak to the legal team and we will undertake to examine those and see whether they ought to be followed up in writing subsequently, or followed up in whatever fashion subsequently. So that's the way it will go. Very good. Now, Mr. McGovern, perhaps you would introduce us to Br. Minihane. Br. Minihane, could you come forward please.
BR. DENIS MINIHANE, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED BY THE COMMISSION, AS FOLLOWS:
THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, Br. Minihane. Will you sit down there and make yourself as comfortable as you can.
Q. MR. McGOVERN: Good morning, Br. Minihane. Have you got all the documents there that you think you'll need?
A. Yes.
Q. I am one of the counsel for the Commission and I just want to introduce you to the hearing. I don't have many questions to ask you at this stage and, indeed, I may be asking you questions later but I don't think I will be detaining you at any great length. You prepared an opening statement on behalf of the Presentation Brothers in relation to institution we are investigating here, Greenmount, in Cork, isn't that right, St. Joseph's?
A. That's right.
Q. Did you spend some time there yourself as a Brother?
A. I spent about five months there in 1953
Q. Yes. What is your position in the Order of the Presentation Brothers now?
A. I am just representing them. I don't have any title.
Q. I see. :
A. Thank God.
Q. Can I just ask you what was the source of your information in preparing the opening statement on behalf of the Presentation Brothers?
A. All the documents that exist, and we have pretty good documents.
Q. Yes. There were some additional documents produced to the Commission after the hearings had taken place, or the bulk of them had taken place, can you tell the Commission why they were produced at that stage and not earlier? Do you know?
A. What have you in mind?
Q. There was a book of additional documents, they contained items such as the manager's annual report tothe Department, and things of that nature?
A. They were always available. I have no reason to believe that they weren't.
Q. I see, very good. Can you tell the Commission when did the school finally close down?
A. The school closed in 31st March, 1959
Q. What happened to the premises then?
A. It became a juniorate for our own aspirants for some time and eventually was demolished.
Q. What happened the land, was the land kept by the Order or sold off?
A. No, the land was sold off in bit and pieces.
Q. When was that?
A. It was in the 80's I would say.
Q. Yes. I think you understand the purpose of today's hearing, that we have had lengthy hearings of this institution and other institutions, at which evidence was given in private, and there may be some questions that parties would want to ask you arising out of what might be seen as unresolved issues, or issues giving rise to certain queries at this point. You know, I think, that you are here to deal with those questions that you will be asked by different parties?
A. Yeah.
Q. As the Chairman has already said, some of the other parties will proceed. I think Mr. O'Leary will be asking you question, he is representing complainants.Then there will be questions from Mr. Collins, and myself perhaps. Is that your understanding of what you are here to do?
A. Yes.
Q. You feel you have all the documentation that you need for that purpose?
A. Yes.
Q. I see. Chairman, I don't think there is anything else I need to do at this stage?
THE CHAIRPERSON: No, that's it Mr. McGovern.
MR. McGOVERN: I can ask what questions I wish to do at a later point.
END OF QUESTIONING OF BR. DENIS MINIHANE BY THE COMMISSION
posted by The Knitter at
2:00 PM
|
0 comments
'No knowledge' of abuse at Cork school
Olivia Kelly 05/05/2006
The Presentation order of brothers has "no knowledge" that sexual abuse of children took place in its industrial school at Greenmount in Cork city, the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse has heard. An allegation of sexual abuse at the school in 1955 and a subsequent inquiry led to the resignation of one brother and another moving to a different post.
Gardaí were called following another incident in 1956. The school was closed in 1959.
Br Dennis Minihan, representing the order, said there was no record of any inquiry and it appeared none had been kept. The order had no information about any other abuse, he said. "If sexual abuse did occur in Greenmount we have no knowledge that it did. If it was done it was done in secret." Seven former pupils of the school have given evidence alleging abuse during the private phase of the inquiry.
Br Minihan worked for five months in the mid-1950s as a supervisor at the school which catered for about 230 boys from the ages of six to 16. When asked if he was aware of sexual abuse in his time there, he replied "absolutely not". He said he had not been aware of the 1955 inquiry at the time, but knew one brother had left the order "of his own volition" and one changed jobs. Little was said about it and any information he was given was "couched in language that was difficult to understand". He said he did not accept that the school's closure related to abuse allegations, rather it was winding down because of a fall in numbers.
Br Minihan did not remember any case of excessive corporal punishment during his time there, but said he was not teaching and his work was mainly confined to yard duties. Research had shown there was "certainly excessive corporal punishment by today's standards", he said. However, he did not accept evidence given during the private session of the hearings that a strap with coins embedded was used to beat the boys. The rules governing industrial schools required the keeping of a "punishment book" to record discipline meted out to the children, but Br Minihan said no copies of any of those books could be found.
Reports made by the school to the Department of Education in 1940-44 suggested corporal punishment had been all but abolished and discipline was based on the forfeit of treats.
Counsel for the inquiry Brian McGovern put it to Br Minihan that these were totally inaccurate. Br Minihan replied he "would have to accept" that they were not true. An internal report by the order in the 1950s described one brother as a "menace" and a "danger". Br Minihan said the man in question was a maverick and had a tendency to raid the fridge in the middle of the night but there was no suggestion of abuse of boys. Br Minihan reiterated the apology of the order to "anybody who experienced hurt or abuse under our care".
© The Irish Times
The Presentation order of brothers has "no knowledge" that sexual abuse of children took place in its industrial school at Greenmount in Cork city, the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse has heard. An allegation of sexual abuse at the school in 1955 and a subsequent inquiry led to the resignation of one brother and another moving to a different post.
Gardaí were called following another incident in 1956. The school was closed in 1959.
Br Dennis Minihan, representing the order, said there was no record of any inquiry and it appeared none had been kept. The order had no information about any other abuse, he said. "If sexual abuse did occur in Greenmount we have no knowledge that it did. If it was done it was done in secret." Seven former pupils of the school have given evidence alleging abuse during the private phase of the inquiry.
Br Minihan worked for five months in the mid-1950s as a supervisor at the school which catered for about 230 boys from the ages of six to 16. When asked if he was aware of sexual abuse in his time there, he replied "absolutely not". He said he had not been aware of the 1955 inquiry at the time, but knew one brother had left the order "of his own volition" and one changed jobs. Little was said about it and any information he was given was "couched in language that was difficult to understand". He said he did not accept that the school's closure related to abuse allegations, rather it was winding down because of a fall in numbers.
Br Minihan did not remember any case of excessive corporal punishment during his time there, but said he was not teaching and his work was mainly confined to yard duties. Research had shown there was "certainly excessive corporal punishment by today's standards", he said. However, he did not accept evidence given during the private session of the hearings that a strap with coins embedded was used to beat the boys. The rules governing industrial schools required the keeping of a "punishment book" to record discipline meted out to the children, but Br Minihan said no copies of any of those books could be found.
Reports made by the school to the Department of Education in 1940-44 suggested corporal punishment had been all but abolished and discipline was based on the forfeit of treats.
Counsel for the inquiry Brian McGovern put it to Br Minihan that these were totally inaccurate. Br Minihan replied he "would have to accept" that they were not true. An internal report by the order in the 1950s described one brother as a "menace" and a "danger". Br Minihan said the man in question was a maverick and had a tendency to raid the fridge in the middle of the night but there was no suggestion of abuse of boys. Br Minihan reiterated the apology of the order to "anybody who experienced hurt or abuse under our care".
© The Irish Times
posted by The Knitter at
2:57 AM
|
0 comments
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
400 give evidence to abuse inquiry
Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs Correspondent
08/03/2006
To date 400 former residents of industrial schools and orphanages have given evidence to the investigation committee of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. The committee is investigating allegations of abuse in the institutions and now hopes to complete the hearing of evidence by the end of May. Meanwhile, more than 1,100 former residents of the institutions have spoken to the commission's confidential committee about their experiences.
That committee is preparing its final report for submission to the commission board. The commission has two committees: the confidential committee, where people choose to go to tell their story, and the investigation committee, where former residents and members of religious congregations which ran the institutions give evidence in the presence of lawyers, and allegations of abuse are fully inquired into. The investigation committee is continuing to hear evidence from former residents and members of the religious orders, but is due to complete this by May 30th.
According to a progress report from the committee, it is expected that by then everyone wishing to take part in an investigation committee inquiry will have testified at a hearing or have been interviewed by it. Since the investigation committee first began hearing evidence in connection with individual institutions in September 2004, it has interviewed former residents from 12 orphanages and industrial schools and representatives of the religious congregation which ran them.
The institutions concerned are Artane, Daingean, Letterfrack, Ferryhouse, Goldenbridge, Newtownforbes, Upton, St Joseph's Industrial Schools in Clifden, Dundalk, Kilkenny, Tralee, and St Patrick's in Kilkenny. Preliminary hearings, this month and next month, are planned for five more institutions, but these will not be in public as was the case with the previous 12.
The five institutions are St Joseph's Industrial School, Greenmount, Co Cork; Carriglea Park Industrial School, Dún Laoghaire; Marlborough House Industrial School, Glasnevin, Dublin; St Michael's Industrial School, Cappoquin, Co Waterford; and Mount St Joseph's Industrial School, Passage West, Co Cork.
© The Irish Times
To date 400 former residents of industrial schools and orphanages have given evidence to the investigation committee of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. The committee is investigating allegations of abuse in the institutions and now hopes to complete the hearing of evidence by the end of May. Meanwhile, more than 1,100 former residents of the institutions have spoken to the commission's confidential committee about their experiences.
That committee is preparing its final report for submission to the commission board. The commission has two committees: the confidential committee, where people choose to go to tell their story, and the investigation committee, where former residents and members of religious congregations which ran the institutions give evidence in the presence of lawyers, and allegations of abuse are fully inquired into. The investigation committee is continuing to hear evidence from former residents and members of the religious orders, but is due to complete this by May 30th.
According to a progress report from the committee, it is expected that by then everyone wishing to take part in an investigation committee inquiry will have testified at a hearing or have been interviewed by it. Since the investigation committee first began hearing evidence in connection with individual institutions in September 2004, it has interviewed former residents from 12 orphanages and industrial schools and representatives of the religious congregation which ran them.
The institutions concerned are Artane, Daingean, Letterfrack, Ferryhouse, Goldenbridge, Newtownforbes, Upton, St Joseph's Industrial Schools in Clifden, Dundalk, Kilkenny, Tralee, and St Patrick's in Kilkenny. Preliminary hearings, this month and next month, are planned for five more institutions, but these will not be in public as was the case with the previous 12.
The five institutions are St Joseph's Industrial School, Greenmount, Co Cork; Carriglea Park Industrial School, Dún Laoghaire; Marlborough House Industrial School, Glasnevin, Dublin; St Michael's Industrial School, Cappoquin, Co Waterford; and Mount St Joseph's Industrial School, Passage West, Co Cork.
© The Irish Times
posted by The Knitter at
1:55 AM
|
0 comments
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Religious orders tell committee allegations came to light later
Patsy McGarry 02/07/2004
From 1940 until their residential institutions closed, 1,735 children were under the care of the Good Shepherd sisters. They have received 422 queries and complaints, including redress applications from former residents. Sister Claire O'Sullivan, delegated by the congregation to deal with the child abuse issue, told the investigation committee "an awful lot" of what came to light about abuse in their institutions emerged after the institutions had closed.
They had been aware of two isolated incidents in one institution. Both had been dealt with locally. A majority of allegations were in statements to the commission by former residents, she said. "Where we definitely know it happened, we admit it. Where we definitely know it didn't happen, we deny it, and there is a grey area in between where we are not sure," she said. She accepted the system was "inadequate and placed an impossible burden on individual sisters"
Brother Dennis Minihan, vice provincial of the Irish province of the Presentation Brothers, said they faced over 60 complaints from residents at the former industrial school at Greenmount in Cork which closed in 1959. Just two Brothers who had worked there were alive, and neither was in a position to help investigations, he said. He accepted there had been "a harsh regime" there, but had "not formed a view that systematic abuse took place".
As with Sister O'Sullivan earlier, he quoted figures showing the number of complaints against his congregation rose following the Taoiseach's apology in 1999, again following an announcement that compensation was being considered and when the Redress Board was set up.
Between 1940 and closure in 1959 the congregation had dealt with 900 boys at Greenmount. The emergence of abuse as an issue for the congregation began in 1994, following media attention to the topic. In the 1950s there had been a canonical investigation into a Brother at Greenmount, but Brother Minihan was unaware of details. In 1936 and 1956 incidents of sexual abuse by boys of other boys were dealt with there, he said.
All three congregations contributed to the State redress scheme to avoid years of litigation and get funds more speedily to former residents, the hearing was told by representatives yesterday.
From 1940 until their residential institutions closed, 1,735 children were under the care of the Good Shepherd sisters. They have received 422 queries and complaints, including redress applications from former residents. Sister Claire O'Sullivan, delegated by the congregation to deal with the child abuse issue, told the investigation committee "an awful lot" of what came to light about abuse in their institutions emerged after the institutions had closed.
They had been aware of two isolated incidents in one institution. Both had been dealt with locally. A majority of allegations were in statements to the commission by former residents, she said. "Where we definitely know it happened, we admit it. Where we definitely know it didn't happen, we deny it, and there is a grey area in between where we are not sure," she said. She accepted the system was "inadequate and placed an impossible burden on individual sisters"
Brother Dennis Minihan, vice provincial of the Irish province of the Presentation Brothers, said they faced over 60 complaints from residents at the former industrial school at Greenmount in Cork which closed in 1959. Just two Brothers who had worked there were alive, and neither was in a position to help investigations, he said. He accepted there had been "a harsh regime" there, but had "not formed a view that systematic abuse took place".
As with Sister O'Sullivan earlier, he quoted figures showing the number of complaints against his congregation rose following the Taoiseach's apology in 1999, again following an announcement that compensation was being considered and when the Redress Board was set up.
Between 1940 and closure in 1959 the congregation had dealt with 900 boys at Greenmount. The emergence of abuse as an issue for the congregation began in 1994, following media attention to the topic. In the 1950s there had been a canonical investigation into a Brother at Greenmount, but Brother Minihan was unaware of details. In 1936 and 1956 incidents of sexual abuse by boys of other boys were dealt with there, he said.
All three congregations contributed to the State redress scheme to avoid years of litigation and get funds more speedily to former residents, the hearing was told by representatives yesterday.
posted by The Knitter at
2:59 AM
|
0 comments
