COMMISSION TO INQUIRE INTO CHILD ABUSE PUBLIC HEARING HELD AT HERBERT PARK HOTEL BALLSBRIDGE, DUBLIN 4 ON TUESDAY, 23ND MAY 2006 - DAY 220 EVIDENCE OF BR. MICHAEL REYNOLDS BEFORE: MR. JUSTICE SEÁN RYAN CHAIRPERSON OF THE INQUIRY and MS. MARIAN SHANLEY MR. FRED LOWE I hereby certify the following to be a true and accurate transcript of my shorthand notes of the evidence in the above-named action. ______________________ MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION PRESENT: REGISTRAR TO INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE: MR. B. REEDY COUNSEL FOR THE COMMISSION: MR. N. MacMAHON SC MS. K. FERGUS SC Instructed by: MS. E. McHUGH FOR THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: MR. P. HANRATTY SC MS. S. MOORHEAD BL Instructed by: MR. P. LANKFORD MAXWELL WELDON & DARLEY FOR THE DEPT. OF EDUCATION: MR. C. DIGNAM BL MR. M. DOWLING BL Instructed by: LAVELLE COLEMAN MR. D. McGRATH SC Instructed by: MICHAEL E. HANAHOE COPYRIGHT: Transcripts are the work of Gwen Malone Stenography Services and they must not be photocopied or reproduced in any manner or supplied or loaned by an appellant to a respondent or to by other party without written permission of Gwen Malone Stenography Services. INDEX WITNESS EXAMINATION QUESTION NO. BR. REYNOLDS CONTINUED - MR. McGRATH 1 - 275 FURTHER QUESTIONED - THE COMMISSION 276 - 499 RE-EXAMINED - MR. DOWLING 500 - 505 1 THE HEARING COMMENCED AS FOLLOWS ON TUESDAY, 23RD MAY, 2 2006: 3 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. Thank you 5 very much. Now, good 10:31 6 morning. Now, Mr. McGrath. 7 MR. McGRATH: Good morning, Chairman. 8 9 BR. MICHAEL REYNOLDS WAS CONTINUED EXAMINED, AS 10 FOLLOWS, BY MR. McGRATH: 10:31 11 12 1 Q. MR. McGRATH: I was dealing with the 13 question of teeth yesterday 14 and there is one final matter I want to deal with in 15 that. That is I was suggesting yesterday that I had 10:31 16 some surprise at the amount of, first of all, cavities 17 there were and; secondly, I was expressing surprise at 18 the number of extractions. I want to bring to your 19 attention and ask you about a medical -- a report on 20 the medical aspects of the school accommodation which 10:31 21 would appear to have been done by Dr. McCabe and the 22 date of visit is 8th September 1966. It is in folder 23 No. 2 of the Department of Education and Science 24 general discovery. It is document ART 0385-024/8. 25 A. That's a folder I don't seem to have. 10:32 26 2 Q. It is the Department of Education and Science general 27 discovery. 28 A. I beg your pardon. 29 3 Q. It is folder No. 2. 4 1 A. Yes, thank you. Sorry about that. Can you give me the 2 reference again. 3 4 Q. ART 0385-024/8 is the start of the document. 4 A. Yes. 5 5 Q. In fact, sorry, it may be in the middle of the 10:33 6 document. Have you got that document? 7 A. I have yes, it is handwritten. 8 6 Q. If you turn over to this next page. 9 A. Yes. 10 7 Q. The heading of this section is, looks like, "health, 10:33 11 hygiene," on the second page of it going down to the 12 third paragraph, it says as follows. I am going to do 13 my best to read it, it is very difficult to read the 14 writing of this particular document: 15 "A spot check of a small proportion of 10:33 the boys assembled for dinner revealed 16 quite a number of cases of dental decay in various stages. I was informed that 17 up to recently a dental surgeon visited the school but he only carried out 18 extractions. I gathered that in general they were not sorry to lose his 19 services. Those discovered at school medical service inspections to have 20 dental defects are brought when 10:34 summoned to the corporation dental 21 clinic. The brother in", something, "classes informed." 22 23 A. "In charge." 24 8 Q. 25 "In charge of classes informed me that 10:34 attendance at the clinic involves 26 spending most part of a day there between waiting for the boys to be seen 27 and then for their treatment to be completed." 28 29 It goes on to say: 5 1 "He had personal experience of this delay and the unsatisfactory position 2 in regard to dental treatment. He considered there was need for the 3 regular attendance of a dentist at the school who were prepared and equipped 4 to deal with fillings and not confined to extractions as the former was". 5 10:34 6 Now that would suggest that the situation with regard 7 to dental care, certainly in 1966 and for some years 8 before, was very less than satisfactory in Artane; 9 isn't that right. 10 A. But it would suggest that the fault isn't with the 10:35 11 institution, it is with the dental surgeon. 12 9 Q. Now even the institution wasn't happy with the manner 13 in which he was treating them, isn't that what that 14 particular section of the report says? 15 A. Am I not correct in saying they replaced him and they 10:35 16 were referred instead to whatever the particular clinic 17 happened to be. 18 10 Q. Well now: 19 "I was informed that up to recently a dental surgeon visited the school but 20 he only carried out extractions". 10:35 21 22 Now that doesn't sound like something that was only 23 happening for a month or two, it seems to have been 24 happening for a considerable number of years? 25 A. But I mean, who do you expect in the community, let's 10:35 26 say, in Artane was going to challenge, you know, the 27 dental deficiency or qualifications or whatever it 28 happened to be of the person in charge. 29 11 Q. It goes on to say: 6 1 "I gathered that in general they were not sorry to lose his services". 2 3 Now, if it was somebody in Artane who decided to take 4 that dentist on; it was somebody in Artane who decided 5 to dispense with his services and it was somebody in 10:36 6 Artane who decided they were not happy with his 7 services; isn't that right? 8 A. It was a sign of good management, I would suggest. 9 12 Q. It was also a sign that it was left in place for some 10 considerable time, even though there were concerns; 10:36 11 isn't that right? 12 A. I have no indication here as to the length of time I 13 think it is yourself, Mr. McGrath, that is introducing 14 the time element to it. 15 13 Q. If you go back to the documents I was opening to you 10:36 16 yesterday, the ones dealing with it, certainly we know 17 from the quarterly reports the extractions were taking 18 place big time back in the early 1960's, certainly 19 around 1960 and 1961 and into 62. So, this report is 20 1966, so there's a five or six year period and there is 10:37 21 nothing to suggest that it wasn't going on a lot longer 22 and it is consistent with the stories that have been 23 told by ex-pupils of Artane that they remember having 24 teeth extracted? 25 A. Yes, there is if you go back through Dr. McCabe's 10:37 26 reports, frequently it would appear, dental services 27 are well catered for. 28 14 Q. You will also see in the quarterly reports very large 29 numbers of teeth being extracted during 1961 and 1962, 7 1 which is exactly consistent with this report and the 2 story the children were recalling and it is quite clear 3 from this that somebody in Artane was concerned about 4 it? 5 A. But I am coming back to you on the very large numbers 10:37 6 issue and if the doctor, and it was Dr. Masterson at 7 that time, was simply putting that in his report he 8 obviously doesn't see a great deal -- have a great deal 9 of concern about it, if he had he would be saying 10 something about it, either to the Resident Manager or 10:38 11 to Dr. Anna McCabe who was there on a regular basis. 12 15 Q. But if you look at that again, the words 13 "unsatisfactory position" are used to describe what was 14 happening at that time, which wasn't that teeth were 15 being extracted? 10:38 16 A. Can you direct me to that, please? 17 16 Q. Yes. If you look down there, you are going down to 18 this one, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 14, 19 15, 16, about 17 lines down in that paragraph, starting 20 at "a spot check". 10:38 21 22 23 "He had personal experience of this delay and the unsatisfactory position 24 in regard to dental treatment". 25 10:38 26 A. That's a Brother in charge of class expressing his 27 opinion, I haven't any other opinion to express on it, 28 in all honesty. 29 17 Q. And that's the opinion being expressed about the dental 8 1 services that were being provided at the instigation of 2 the Brothers to the children? 3 A. But it doesn't seem to comply with either 4 Dr. Masterson's report on it or Dr. Anna McCabe's 5 report on it. But if you are asking me to 10:39 6 differentiate on which on balance, for what its worth, 7 which on balance I would take now. I think I would 8 tend to favour the view of a medical doctor and the 9 medical officer rather than a class teacher. 10 18 Q. Now, this is a report on medical aspects of school 10:39 11 accommodation, that I take it is filled in on the basis 12 of somebody trying to get as much information about the 13 medical situation, the hygiene situation in the school? 14 A. Yeah. Just let me see. I am not too sure whose report 15 it is. It is didn't Dr. McCabe's because I know her 10:39 16 handwriting, as I presume you do as well, and that 17 certainly isn't Dr. McCabe. 18 19 Q. I think it is signed CE Lyssot? 19 A. Yes, Lyssot. Who I presume is somebody from the 20 industrial school branch, I think it says at the top. 10:40 21 20 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: He was a doctor in the 22 Department of Health, as I 23 understand, Dr. Lyssot? 24 A. Yes. 25 21 Q. MR. McGRATH: So you are still sticking 10:40 26 to the idea that the dental 27 care in Artane was good? 28 A. Dr. Lyssot is reporting what is said to him. He is 29 coming around in an inspectorial capacity, I'm 9 1 presuming that if he comes along and says in this 2 report dental care or whatever it is, "I have been told 3 by a teacher or a Brother in the school that he thinks 4 dental care is not satisfactory, action was taken." I 5 haven't anything to indicate that it wasn't. 10:40 6 22 Q. He considered that there was: 7 "Need for the regular attendance of a dentist at the school, who was prepared 8 and equipped to deal with fillings, not confined to extractions". 9 10 A. Who was that, the doctor or the Brother? 10:41 11 23 Q. That seems to be what the Brother is saying. But there 12 is nothing in the report there that suggests that the 13 doctor thinks otherwise, is there? 14 A. No, neither are there any recommendations to management 15 as to what they should do about it. 10:41 16 24 Q. Why would he need to make a recommendation to 17 management when management is telling him what the 18 problem is and what the solution is? 19 A. Because he's a medical officer and it is his job, I 20 would suggest. 10:41 21 25 Q. If somebody says, "we are providing unsatisfactory 22 dental care to children, we think this is the way it 23 should be solved", and it is quite clearly and obvious 24 that is the way to be solved. Why would a doctor then 25 have to make those recommendations? Why would they be 10:41 26 able to just say, "that's sounds fair enough", and 27 leave it at that? Why would he have to then go and 28 make a report and say, "no, this is what you must do"? 29 A. Because that, I presume, is the purpose of a medical 10 1 visitation from somebody with a regulatory function as 2 part of the...(INTERJECTION) 3 26 Q. Are you able to see anything critical in any 4 document...(INTERJECTION)? 5 MR. HANRATTY: Sir, I take exception to 10:42 6 the aggressive and 7 inappropriate tone of the examination of this witness. 8 This witness is here in his capacity of a member of the 9 Congregation of Christian Brothers for the purpose of 10 assisting this Commission in establishing factual 10:42 11 matters. The witness has answered several times that 12 there are other reports from medical personnel which 13 seem to be at variance with the report given to this 14 inspector by this Brother. My Friend appears to 15 persist in not only continuing with this line of 10:42 16 examination, although it has been answered on several 17 occasions, but to do so, in what I would respectfully 18 submit, is an inappropriate tone. 19 27 Q. MR. McGRATH: I will attempt to moderate 20 my tone but I cannot 10:43 21 promise it will stay moderate for the whole morning. 22 Sorry, Chairman. 23 24 (To the witness) Can I move on to something else, and 25 that's the buildings in Artane? 10:43 26 A. Yes. 27 28 Q. In this regard it would appear from the documentation 28 that the buildings in Artane were, in fact, in need of 29 repair for a very considerable length of time, am I 11 1 correct in understanding that? 2 A. Some of them, particularly classrooms, yes. 3 29 Q. Now, bear with me for a second. If now, if you can 4 turn to folder No. 1 of the general discovery. I am 5 referring to you to ART 0380-036/1? 10:44 6 A. Sorry, folder No.? 7 30 Q. Folder No. 1 of the Department of Education and Science 8 general discovery? 9 A. Sorry, there are two folder No. 1's. Yeah. This is in 10 section two, I presume, is it? 10:44 11 31 Q. It is before section two, in fact, it is a little bit 12 before section two. It is towards the back of the 13 first section. 0380-036/1. 14 A. Yes. 15 32 Q. This is a letter from the Department of Education, 10:44 16 which is dated 14th January 1956? 17 A. Yes. 18 33 Q. It is to the Christian Brothers School, Artane and it 19 is indicates as follows: 20 "With reference to previous 10:45 correspondence I am to inform you that 21 the Commissioners of Public Works have furnished a report on the above named 22 school premises. The Commissioners state that the school is accommodated 23 in a long single storey block of classrooms, there is no ancillary 24 accommodation in the building but there is an open air sanitary block black in 25 the playground." 10:45 26 27 28 It goes on to say: 29 "The building is unsound structurally and the classrooms are generally 12 1 unsuitable. The main walls are bulging badly. The roof leaks and the 2 woodwork, with the exception of the floors, is in poor condition. Each 3 classroom is entered directly from the playground. There are no corridors or 4 porches. The large single leaf centre pivot windows in the south wall are 5 unsuitable and render control of 10:45 ventilation difficult. The only 6 secondary ventilation in most of the classrooms is provided by high level 7 windows opening into an old derelict building which adjoins the school on 8 the north side. The building is unsuitable for school purposes and the 9 Commissioners recommend it be replaced by a new school". 10 10:46 11 That's 1956 and it would appear from that description 12 of the school that it didn't happen overnight, it had 13 been like that for a considerable length of time. I 14 think if you go in the same booklet, if you go to 15 0384-031/1, it is in section two, about halfway back. 10:46 16 A. Sorry 03/1. 17 34 Q. -031/1. 18 A. Yes, it is handwritten. 19 35 Q. It is a handwritten letter. It is from Joseph O'Kelly, 20 is it, Joseph O'Kelly? 10:47 21 A. Yes, Joseph O'Kelly. 22 36 Q. Christian Brothers Artane, it is to Department of 23 Education? 24 A. Yes. 25 37 Q. It says as follows, this is on 27/9/1947, ten years or 10:47 26 so before the last letter and he said: 27 "As we find ourselves compelled to undertake the erection of new schools, 28 a play hall and a lavatory block for the 800 boys of Artane Industrial 29 School, we are now making application to you to the Department of Education 13 1 for a grant in aid of these buildings. Architects have placed a cost at about 2 £100,000." 3 4 He goes on to say, and this is bit that I want to 5 concentrate on: 10:47 6 "Our present school buildings were 7 accounted unsuitable over 30 years ago and have been condemned by three 8 architects. The lavatories are of the dry system and not only is the present 9 play hall entirely too small for the number of boys we have, but is not, by 10 any means, a safe building in which to 10:48 house young people." 11 12 13 A. Yes. 14 38 Q. It would appear that between that letter in 1947 and 15 1956 nothing happened and it would appear that this 10:48 16 letter indicates that these buildings had been 17 condemned 30 years before that. So that some time back 18 at almost the beginning of the century these buildings 19 were deemed unsuitable and yet here we have, 40, 50 20 years later, the same buildings being used. Now, any 10:48 21 comments to make about that? 22 A. First of all, I don't know what happened to them 23 earlier on. If you start with the 1947, I do accept 24 that as far as I know the pupils moved into the 25 building I think it was in 1962, but I may stand 10:48 26 corrected on that, be it was 1961/62, in that region 27 anyway. So you are talking from 1947 when they 28 applied. Joseph O'Kelly, who signed that, is the 29 Resident Manager in Artane writing to the Department 14 1 looking for funding for the new buildings. 2 3 Just to put it in a little bit of context, because it 4 is an area which I also have a little bit of experience 5 in, in the sense that I became principal of a secondary 10:49 6 school in 1984, at which stage I discovered the school 7 was at stage three of planning with the Department of 8 Education for a new school building and that 9 negotiations had begun somewhere around 1975. 10 Permission to plan came from the Department in 1979, we 10:49 11 cut the first sod on 1st December 1988 and we moved 12 into the new school in April 1990, which is about 15 13 years, so that type of planning unfortunately -- and 14 that was despite me beating a track up and down to the 15 Minister and to the Department and to everybody else 10:49 16 that I thought could assist in moving it forward. 17 18 But you are talking about a different era in which 19 money was more available and more plentiful. So again 20 by comparison you are talking about 1947 to 1962, you 10:50 21 are talking about 1975 to 1990. And the building, 22 incidentally, that I was dealing with that we were in 23 was built in 1858 as a single storey building and the 24 roof taken off in 1868 and the second storey added to 25 it. It was certainly was not in any better condition 10:50 26 than the one you are describing, going back 100 years. 27 39 Q. Do you think that when you look at those letters, it 28 would certainly that, taking the one in 1947 which 29 says the buildings weren't suitable from 30 years 15 1 before? 2 A. Yes, I agree...(INTERJECTION). 3 40 Q. That really is a question mark one arises as to whether 4 it should ever have been used as an industrial school 5 at all and the idea of housing up to 825 or 850 boys 10:50 6 seems almost unbelievable? 7 A. Be careful now, you ever talking about the primary 8 school, not the industrial school, you are talking 9 about the primary schools 11 classrooms, not the 10 industrial school. The industrial school was a three 10:50 11 or four storey building. 12 41 Q. But we have a situation where the primary school that 13 those young children are going to from some time in the 14 late 1910's, 1920's, something like that, from then on 15 that school is never suitable for those children to be 10:51 16 in? 17 A. I am saying to you on the evidence that is taken here 18 it took an inordinately long time to replace the 19 classrooms, yes. 20 42 Q. And the same with changing, do I understand, the 10:51 21 lavatory situation? 22 A. No, there were internal lavatories, as far as I could 23 make out, installed in and around the dormitories, I 24 think somewhere between 1948 and 1952. I can't off the 25 top of my head and I am not going to go looking for 10:51 26 them in documentation, but during that period anyway. 27 They were in a long list of refurbishments that were 28 carried out. The lavatories I think he's talking about 29 there, what he's saying is that there were no 16 1 lavatories attached directly to the primary school 2 building, but there were external lavatories that the 3 boys used use before they went into the dormitories, 4 when they assembled outside on the yard of the school. 5 My understanding is that there were external lavatories 10:52 6 and they went to those lavatories before they went 7 upstairs to the dormitories. There were also 8 lavatories in the dormitories going back to the 1950's. 9 There was a sanitary block in 1948. In 1953 there were 10 new toilets adjacent to the dormitories. 10:52 11 12 The classrooms, I think, I am not going to look for the 13 date, but the classrooms were the early 1960's. The 14 new classrooms were in the early 1960's. 15 43 Q. Certainly those letters seem to suggest that at those 10:52 16 times those letters were written that there were still 17 dry toilet system out behind the ...(INTERJECTION)? 18 A. There may have been in 1947. I am saying that there 19 was a sanitary -- 1948, I see a figure on the capital 20 expenditure of 21,289 for a sanitary block. 10:52 21 44 Q. If can I ask you about the situation on discipline in 22 Artane, I heard mention yesterday of the 23 disciplinarian. Now, the Commission have heard a 24 number of different schools and been given a certain 25 amount of information from different schools as to how 10:53 26 discipline was administered. As I understand it, and I 27 am open to correction by you, that in Artane the head 28 Brother at any given time would appoint a 29 disciplinarian and he was the person who administered 17 1 punishment? 2 A. Yes. 3 45 Q. Now, is it my understanding also that the various 4 Brothers who taught in the school would have been 5 entitled to administer punishment as well? 10:53 6 A. Yes. 7 46 Q. Am I correct in understanding that Brothers who would 8 have been out monitoring the yard, that they also would 9 have permission to administer punishment? 10 A. Yes. 10:54 11 47 Q. Am I correct in understanding that the Brother who was 12 in charge of a dormitory would have permission to give 13 punishment? 14 A. Yes. 15 48 Q. Am I correct, first of all, also that bedwetting was 10:54 16 punishable by being slapped? 17 A. No. I'm not saying that on occasion -- and I think 18 from the evidence it was very rare that people were 19 punished for bedwetting. What a lot of people gave 20 evidence of that, a lot of people gave evidence on the 10:54 21 other side saying that that wasn't the case. I think 22 where the area of agreement came, and ultimately it is 23 a matter that the Committee will decide, was that 24 certainly that was punishable was somebody who wet the 25 bed and on concealed the fact and the sheets remained 10:54 26 wet on the bed until that night. Both sets of evidence 27 as I have heard, and, as I say, it is matter for the 28 Committee to make their decision on that. 29 49 Q. All right. You have told and I think Br. Gibson also 18 1 told the Committee that everything that happened in 2 Artane or in Letterfrack or in any of the Christian 3 Brothers schools has to be put in the context of the 4 time; isn't that right? 5 A. Yes. 10:55 6 50 Q. It would appear that every other industrial school or 7 orphanage, or whatever at that particular time, we are 8 talking about the 1940's and into the 1950's and the 9 1960's, was administering corporal punishment for 10 bedwetting so why should the Commission believe that 10:55 11 Artane, Letterfrack or the other Christian Brother 12 schools were different? 13 A. Firstly, I have no knowledge of what was happening in 14 other industrial schools at the time nor anything on 15 which to base the assertion that you have just made. 10:55 16 So I am not sure where it is coming from. 17 51 Q. Well, you can take it as a given that that has been the 18 evidence that has been given to the Commission, and I 19 am subject to correction by the members of the 20 Committee at this stage if that's not correct, I am 10:55 21 sure they will tell me very, very quickly. But that 22 has been the evidence? 23 A. All I am saying is I am not commenting on what happened 24 in other institutions because I wasn't present at the 25 evidence and I have nothing to either contradict or to 10:56 26 agree with you on that. 27 52 Q. All right. But you believe that Artane was very 28 different from all those other institutions and was 29 almost unique in that nobody was punished for 19 1 bedwetting, except in the one circumstance of actually 2 concealing it? 3 A. First of all, let's come back a bit. I have no view on 4 what happened in other institutions, either one 5 direction or another and I am leaving that in the 10:56 6 hands's of the Committee. I have heard no evidence in 7 relation to those, not even in relation to Letterfrack. 8 I did not say there was never any punishment for 9 bedwetting. I am saying that I heard evidence from 10 both sides, some of the evidence saying that on 10:56 11 occasions out of frustration, or whatever it was, a 12 person was punished for bedwetting. But that that was 13 not by any means common and wasn't the norm. 14 53 Q. Can you give any explanation or any reason as to why 15 somebody might want to conceal the fact that their bed 10:57 16 was wet if there wasn't a consequence to that? 17 A. I could give several again for what they are worth. 18 One would be shame. Two, was it certainly was quite 19 clear that what happened was that the person who wet 20 the bed was required to bring his sheets down to 10:57 21 laundry that morning, I think, after breakfast and 22 collect dry sheets after four o'clock or some other 23 time in the afternoon. 24 54 Q. I think the explanation from the Brothers on that one 25 is that they folded up the sheets and they all walked 10:57 26 down together, some of the boys said they had to carry 27 them over their heads; so there is some dispute as to 28 what the format of that was? 29 A. Yeah. 20 1 55 Q. If the boys are correct in carrying it over their 2 heads, would you accept that that was a cruel form of 3 punishment for somebody who wet the bed? 4 A. I would. But I am not sure that I heard -- again it is 5 a matter for the Committee. I heard the evidence on 10:58 6 both sides, I heard people saying -- I am not saying 7 that never happened but I am saying, first of all, if 8 it did happen it shouldn't have happened. Secondly, it 9 wasn't policy. And thirdly, I don't think it was 10 common, but I may be wrong. 10:58 11 56 Q. Do you accept that given the level of boys in this 12 institution, and it was so far vast to everywhere else, 13 that certainly there was going to have to be a fairly 14 strict regime to keep that number of boys in line? 15 A. Yes. 10:58 16 57 Q. Now, under the rules and regulations of industrial 17 schools there is supposed to be a Punishment Book? 18 A. Yes. 19 58 Q. Going through all the records you have, were you able 20 to find one? 10:58 21 A. No, and my belief is that there wasn't one. 22 59 Q. The only school that so far has produced a Punishment 23 Book, as far as I am aware from the matters that I have 24 been involved in, is Upton and it would appear from 25 that particular book, that it confirmed that a lot of 10:59 26 the punishment dished out was outside the guidelines 27 and was excessive. Have you any reason or any 28 explanation as again as to why Artane would be likely 29 to be different from what was happening in other 21 1 schools? 2 A. In relation to a policy on the Punishment Book? 3 60 Q. In relation to a policy on punishment? 4 A. You just said it wasn't different, that the only other 5 industrial school that had one was Upton. 10:59 6 61 Q. The only one that produced a Punishment Book was Upton? 7 A. Are you suggesting that the Christian Brothers had one 8 and didn't produce it? 9 62 Q. No, I am suggesting to you that the Upton book 10 showed -- and it was admitted here in evidence, it 10:59 11 showed that the treatment of the children was brutal. 12 What I want to know is given the times, as the Brothers 13 are very anxious that everything be put into the 14 context of, why is there any reason for the Commission 15 to believe that Artane was any different from 11:00 16 the...(INTERJECTION)? 17 MR. HANRATTY: Sorry, sir, I really have 18 to object to that question, 19 it is an absurd question. We are told that there was 20 evidence in relation to a particular institution that 11:00 21 there was a Punishment Book, that the Punishment Book 22 indicated that the punishment that was administered in 23 that institution was brutal, ergo the witness is now 24 asked to accept that the punishment in Artane was 25 brutal. I don't see the connection, it is absurd, with 11:00 26 respect, it is a question which should not be 27 permitted. 28 MR. McGRATH: With respect Chairman, it 29 is not absurd. 22 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Why don't you explore why 2 there wasn't a Punishment 3 Book, Mr. McGrath. 4 MR. McGRATH: I was going go there in a 5 minute, but I want to deal 11:00 6 with this first. 7 8 As far as to situation is concerned, every time that 9 the Christian Brothers are asked a hard question about 10 the regime in any of their schools the answer is, 11:01 11 "well, you have to put it into the context of the 12 times. Times were tough for everybody. Times were 13 rough outside. What we did inside was no different." 14 Now, if they are going to do that, they don't have a 15 Punishment Book, we have no records, we have piles of 11:01 16 records on just about everything else, letter after 17 letter telling us about the happy families there are 18 in -- happy family atmosphere there is, but the most 19 important thing that could help in this particular area 20 is missing and they we are putting it in a context I 11:01 21 want to know why -- in the context of what was 22 happening in other industrial schools, why the 23 Commission should accept and believe that Artane was 24 almost -- and Letterfrack for that matter, was almost 25 unique in that discipline was only within the rules and 11:01 26 there was no abuse arising. 27 28 Because so far the evidence yesterday and the evidence 29 today and the manner in which it is being presented 23 1 would suggest that really all the children and all the 2 Brothers were the best of friends and really nobody 3 chastised anybody. I don't understand how that picture 4 can stand up, if you put it into the context of what's 5 happening. 11:02 6 7 I want an answer as to why you should accept this 8 contention that punishment was within the boundaries 9 and there wasn't anything abusive about it. 10 MR. HANRATTY: If I could just briefly 11:02 11 reply to that, sir. I 12 disagree with my Friend's conclusions as to a lot of 13 what was said in the evidence. But just in relation to 14 this particular question. In the end of the day, the 15 Commission will have to make findings of fact on the 11:02 16 basis of the evidence that it has heard. Under no 17 circumstances will -- I respectfully submit, will the 18 Commission ever going to be confronting a question of 19 will we make a finding that abusive physical punishment 20 was administered in Artane by reference to an inference 11:03 21 on the basis of what happened in Upton. That is 22 axiomatic, I would have thought. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: That does seem right, 24 Mr. McGrath. 25 MR. McGRATH: Except...(INTERJECTION). 11:03 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: I mean, there is nothing to 27 stop you exploring. 28 MR. McGRATH: The Brothers and 29 Mr. Hanratty is kind of 24 1 glossing over this, the Brothers can't have it both 2 ways. They can't defend themselves on the basis of 3 saying that "we only did things in the context of what 4 was happening in Ireland at the time, and really we did 5 nothing more than that." And equally go on and say 11:03 6 "yes, well, we were a bit different, in fact, because 7 when we administered punishment we kept within the 8 rules and that's what we say. Really now we were 9 unique in the country." I don't think that it really 10 -- they can't have it both ways. If they want to rely 11:04 11 on what was happening in Ireland then they have to deal 12 with what was happening elsewhere as well, since they 13 don't have a Punishment Book. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: We think, Mr. McGrath, that 15 if you have two 11:04 16 institutions and there is a book in one institution and 17 it shows something happening, it doesn't follow that 18 the same thing is happening in the other institution, 19 which doesn't have a book. However, that's a simple 20 matter of logic. Could we ever write a report to say 11:04 21 "look here, it says that these ten things happened in 22 Upton because it says it in the book. Therefore, the 23 same thing happened in Artane." Could we ever stand 24 over that? We think not. However, what's entirely, 25 legitimate to explore is the rules requiring a book, 11:05 26 the reasons for the absence of a book, the reason why a 27 book wasn't sought or produced at annual inspection 28 time. 29 25 1 I mean, there is a wealth of inference that you can 2 rely on and say to us, "look here, there is a very good 3 reason why anybody didn't keep a book, we may accept 4 it, we may not accept it." But surely that's the line, 5 rather than saying because it is in a book somewhere 11:05 6 else it must be the case here, do you know what I mean? 7 So, it is not a question of being what the law says, it 8 is a question of pure logic. 9 10 Certainly, from our point of view we would be very 11:05 11 interested to hear you explore the rules requiring a 12 Punishment Book and the absence of any book and that we 13 would regard as a matter of significant interest in the 14 evidence of this witness. 15 63 Q. MR. McGRATH: Very good, Chairman. I 11:06 16 will move on to that, I 17 have dealt with what I think is a matter that has to be 18 considered by the Committee in terms of the defence 19 that has been put up by the Brothers. It is on the 20 record and it is there, and if it is not going to be 11:06 21 dealt with any further that's fine. I will move on to 22 the rules and regulations which are to be found folder 23 1, general discovery, Department of Education and 24 Science at ART 0382 -- 003/1? 25 A. The reference is, sorry? 11:06 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. McGrath, while I'm 27 doing -- could I ask you 28 and Br. Reynolds, could you slow down a little bit 29 please. Especially if we have a long day's evidence. 26 1 Mr. McGrath, the temptation is -- I know it perfectly 2 well, the temptation is if you are referring to 3 something that is written down and you and the witness 4 are both looking at it the temptation is to rush, so it 5 just makes it a lot easier for Ms. McCarthy to take 11:07 6 everything down. 7 64 Q. MR. McGRATH: It is in section three and 8 it is 0382? 9 A. I think as it turns out, I just opened it all at the 10 one go. 11:07 11 65 Q. 0382. 12 A. 003/1, is it? 13 66 Q. That is the beginning of it. If we turn over, I think 14 there is a couple of pages. First of all, 12, and 15 these are the rules and regulations, so 12 is 11:07 16 discipline: 17 "The manager or his deputy shall be authorised to punish the children 18 detained in the school in case of misconduct. All serious misconduct and 19 the punishments inflicted for it shall be entered into a book to be kept for 20 that purpose, which shall be laid 11:08 before the inspector when he visits. 21 The manager must, however, remember that the more closely the school is 22 modelled on a principal of judicious family government the more salutary 23 will be its discipline. And fewer occasions will arise or resort to 24 punishment. 25 13. Punishments shall consist of (A) 11:08 forfeiture of rewards and privileges or 26 degradation from rank previously attained by good conduct. Moderate 27 childish punishment with the hand. (C) chastisement with the cane, strap or 28 birch. 29 Referring to (C) personal chastisement may be inflicted by the manager or in 27 1 his presence by an officer especially authorised by him and in no case shall 2 it be inflicted upon girls over 15 years of age. In the case of the girls 3 under 15, it shall not be inflicted except in cases of urgent necessity. 4 Each of which must be at once fully reported to the Inspector. Caning on 5 the hand is forbidden. 11:09 6 No punishment not mentioned above shall be inflicted". 7 8 Now, first of all, is there anything in all the records 9 that you have been able to find that suggests there was 10 a Punishment Book ever in Artane? 11:09 11 A. No, my belief is there wasn't. 12 67 Q. Have you any explanation as to why there wasn't? 13 A. I haven't, except that there wasn't and there should 14 have been. 15 68 Q. If you have a disciplinarian, do I take it that he's 11:09 16 the person who should have been keeping that book? 17 A. Yes, I think so. Either the disciplinarian or the 18 Resident Manager, I presume the disciplinarian is 19 correct. 20 69 Q. As far as to records in Artane are concerned, am I 11:09 21 correct in understanding that at some time in the late 22 1960's or early 1970's they were moved out of Artane to 23 somewhere else? Were they moved to Marino? 24 A. Who? 25 70 Q. The records, were the records moved from Artane to 11:10 26 Marino? 27 A. When it closed? 28 71 Q. Did they go to Marino? 29 A. I quite honestly don't know. I know where they are 28 1 now, but I have no idea. 2 72 Q. Where did they go at any stage? Do you know where they 3 were at any time? 4 A. I do. 5 73 Q. Where were they? 11:10 6 A. Since all time that I was in they were in our 7 headquarters in North Circular Road. 8 74 Q. Were they all there or did you have to get some of them 9 from abroad? 10 A. There is a difference, we didn't get any school records 11:10 11 in the sense of what would be kept in the school. What 12 we got from Rome were personnel files on Brothers, not 13 records in relation to an individual school. In other 14 words, anything in relation to Artane, children's 15 records. The Punishment Book, in that case it didn't 11:10 16 exist so there was nothing, but anything of that nature 17 was kept on the premises in Artane itself. When Artane 18 closed the building became, first of all, an ordinary 19 primary school and later a secondary school which it 20 still is, so obviously all the documents were moved out 11:11 21 of it. 22 75 Q. Can I take it then on the basis of your evidence this 23 non- existent Punishment Book couldn't have been 24 produced to any inspector coming to the school? 25 A. Of course it couldn't if it didn't exist. 11:11 26 76 Q. And there is nothing in any of the inspection reports 27 that are in discovery that ever refers to the 28 Punishment Book at all or its contents? 29 A. No. 29 1 77 Q. There is nothing in any of them complaining about the 2 fact that it doesn't exist? 3 A. There isn't, no. From either the Congregation or the 4 Department. 5 78 Q. Can we take it that either there was one that was being 11:11 6 produced and has been lost, or more than one that has 7 been lost, or none of the inspectors ever noted down 8 the fact that it wasn't available or wasn't produced? 9 A. It is one of the two, and my belief is that the latter 10 is correct, that there never was a Punishment Book in 11:11 11 Artane. 12 79 Q. Then it would suggest that there certainly was 13 something wrong with the inspection system or the 14 recording of the inspection system if the fact is that 15 no Punishment Book was ever picked up on? 11:12 16 A. Yes. 17 80 Q. Does it seem extraordinary to you that in the biggest 18 industrial school in the country for boys that firstly 19 there was no Punishment Book; and secondly, that no 20 queries ever arose from the Department or the 11:12 21 inspectors in relation to its non-existence or 22 non-production? 23 A. I am not sure what you mean extraordinary. But it was 24 incorrect that that should be the case. 25 81 Q. Well, given the wealth of records that we have, the 11:12 26 wealth of inspection reports that were carried out, do 27 you still not think that it is extraordinary that 28 something that is required by the rules and 29 regulations, a very important document such as a 30 1 discipline book, that nobody ever picked up on the fact 2 that this, the biggest of all the boys industrial 3 schools, didn't have one? 4 A. The question is? 5 82 Q. Do you not think it was extraordinary that a school of 11:13 6 this size, for the length of time that this school was 7 in existence didn't have a Punishment Book, do you not 8 think that's extraordinary? 9 A. I do. But if you go back on your own it seemed to be 10 ordinary enough on your own admission that it was only 11:13 11 in one other school. 12 83 Q. I said in only one other school was it produced, I 13 didn't say it didn't exist. 14 A. I haven't had -- all I can say to you in relation to 15 Artane my belief is there wasn't a Punishment Book. 11:13 16 Listening to all the evidence from boys who were there, 17 nobody ever said, "I was slapped and the Brother wrote 18 it down in a book." No Brother ever said "I was 19 slapped and I wrote it down in a book." The word 20 "punishment" I wouldn't expect the former residents to 11:14 21 have had the term Punishment Book, but I would expect 22 that if it was there and being used I would hear adults 23 saying, "when I was a child, not only did they beat me, 24 but they note that they beat me because they wrote it 25 down in a book." 11:14 26 84 Q. Do you actually think that the Punishment Book would be 27 written into if it did exist at the time that a boy was 28 punished, that he was finished punishing a boy and then 29 write it into the book in the presence of the boy? 31 1 A. Certainly that's what he's supposed to do, in my 2 understanding of it. 3 85 Q. If you have the situation as being described in other 4 schools and in relation to Artane, that boys might have 5 been lined up outside waiting to be punished and maybe 11:14 6 there were 10, 12 of them waiting to be punished, did 7 you expect that each time that the Brother was finished 8 punishing that boy that that he would, in the presence 9 of the boy, write into the Punishment Book what 10 punishment he just administered? 11:14 11 A. I want to make a distinction before we go ahead in case 12 there is any confusion. The Punishment Book would only 13 relate to the institution, in other words, hours 14 outside of school time. 15 86 Q. That's why I have referred to the disciplinarian? 11:15 16 A. Yes, but if you are talking about a situation in a yard 17 that's the schoolyard where the boys would have been or 18 in a classroom situation, it wouldn't have been used 19 there. But if a disciplinarian -- we have heard 20 evidence that, for instance, when a boy absconded he 11:15 21 was punished by the disciplinarian. I would have 22 expected that was recorded in the ...(INTERJECTION) 23 87 Q. There were also situations where boys would have been 24 sent to the disciplinarian to be punished; is that 25 right? 11:15 26 A. Yes. 27 88 Q. And on some of those occasions boys would talk about 28 being lined up, being wait -- maybe 9, 10, 11, 12 and 29 having to stand outside the room and listening to the 32 1 boys being beaten. Your suggestion is that if there 2 had been a Punishment Book you would have expected the 3 disciplinarian in the presence of the boy who was just 4 beaten to fill in the book in front of him, rather than 5 wait for all 12 were dealt with and then fill it in? 11:16 6 A. At the outset I must confess that I -- and I have 7 attended all the hearings, I have no recollection of 8 somebody saying that 9 or 10 of them were lined up 9 outside the disciplinarian's room and heard the 10 punishments going on outside there. I may be corrected 11:16 11 on that. All I am saying is I have no recollection of 12 that appearing in evidence. I may be wrong. 13 89 Q. MR. LOWE: Brother, are you saying 14 there was never a 15 Punishment Book? 11:16 16 A. I am, yes. Sorry, I am saying I believe there was 17 never a Punishment Book, I mean I can't categorically 18 say there was no Punishment Book. 19 90 Q. MR. LOWE: There is the visitation 20 report 31 October 1944 11:16 21 states: 22 "Punishment should be reduced to a minimum. No Brother should give more 23 punishment than is allowed by the rules. If more severe punishment is 24 considered necessary it is to be administered by the Brother in charge 25 of the discipline and in presence of 11:17 the Brother Superior . All such 26 punishment should be entered in the Punishment Book. " 27 28 And that's in the Visitation Report? 29 A. But he's quoting section 13, I am presuming, of the 33 1 Act. 2 91 Q. MR. LOWE: No, I am reading from the 3 Visitation Report done by 4 the Brothers? 5 A. Yes, I know you are, but it appears to me that what 11:17 6 he's quoting is almost verbatim from the Act. Is that 7 the Visitation Report or the letter back to 8 the...(INTERJECTION). 9 92 Q. MR. LOWE: I am just wondering why -- 10 if he is quoting, why he's 11:17 11 quoting that if there is no Punishment Book? 12 A. I presume he's quoting it because there is no 13 Punishment Book. 14 93 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Could you look at it in a 15 slightly different way, 11:17 16 Brother. What do you think were the consequences of 17 not having a Punishment Book? 18 A. Sorry? 19 94 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: We know there was a 20 requirement to have a 11:17 21 Punishment Book and there wasn't one, let's assume that 22 there wasn't one, looking back on this, what do you 23 think were the consequences of that? 24 A. Sorry, I don't understand what exactly you are asking. 25 Consequences for whom or from whom? 11:18 26 95 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm looking at this, first 27 of all, let's start at the 28 beginning what was the point of a Punishment Book? As 29 you understand it, obviously it is a matter for us 34 1 obviously in the end. 2 A. As I understand it, that it could be inspected by the 3 Department of Education primarily. But I would also 4 expect that the visitor would inspect it. 5 96 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but with a view to 11:18 6 what? 7 A. With a view to having a look at the standard of 8 punishment that was being -- the level of punishment 9 that was being administered and whether or not it was 10 within or without the rules. 11:18 11 97 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The consequence of 12 not having one? 13 A. Would be that -- I see what you mean. 14 98 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I am just trying to tease 15 out things. 11:18 16 A. I may have misunderstood you. The consequence of not 17 having one, of course...(INTERJECTION). 18 99 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Or the implication or 19 whatever it is? 20 A. Is the danger that excesses could have taken place and 11:18 21 there would be nobody for someone from outside in an 22 inspectorial capacity to come in and say, "you have to 23 stop this." I suppose on the other side, unfortunately 24 human nature being what it was, if there was somebody 25 that way inclined what was the likelihood that he would 11:19 26 put it into a Punishment Book if he knew somebody was 27 going to read it. 28 100 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I have something slightly 29 different in mind, I was 35 1 thinking that you could have a new disciplinarian, you 2 could have somebody who came new to the school, let's 3 say, and wanted some notion of what was the going rate, 4 or whatever it was, for let's say, the most serious 5 offence, you would get some idea from looking at the 11:19 6 Punishment Book? 7 A. Yes. 8 101 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Whereas, if you didn't, it 9 suggests that it was 10 entirely left to the imagination, the judgment of the 11:19 11 new arrival, let's take just something as simple as 12 that, which obviously has implications for how we might 13 look at the rationality of the regime. In other words, 14 certainly from one's own point of view, if you are 15 looking at a situation and saying "well, were the rules 11:20 16 affecting everyone, was it understood what the rules 17 were"? 18 A. Yes. I am not trying to defend that. 19 102 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: No, sorry, but since it is 20 a question that came up, 11:20 21 Mr. Lowe had one way of looking at it, I am looking at 22 it a slightly different way, to tease out what 23 implications or consequences it might have had. It 24 seems to me to make it more difficult for people who 25 are concerned with punishment in any way, if there 11:20 26 isn't a settled regime? 27 A. Yes, I agree with you. 28 103 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: It also means that if I am 29 going to give somebody 36 1 punishment, assuming I am authorised to do it, I might 2 hesitate as to the amount of punishment if I know I am 3 going to have to write it down. 4 A. Oh yes, correct. I agree with you. As I said, I am 5 not trying to defend it, I am just saying it was there 11:21 6 and it was a fault of the system that wasn't picked up 7 from the Resident Manager, it wasn't picked up by the 8 visitor, from the Congregation's point of view and it 9 wasn't picked up from the Department of Education's 10 point of view. Now, these are -- I may be wrong in the 11:21 11 fact, as Mr. Lowe suggested, maybe there wasn't a 12 Punishment Book. My firm belief, I must confess, is 13 that there wasn't. I may well be wrong. If that 14 passage suggests that at some stage there was, well so 15 be it. 11:21 16 104 Q. MR. LOWE: Either that or the 17 Visitation Reports -- I 18 mean this is under "suggestions re management of Artane 19 school", they are saying is that there should be a book 20 and then people ignored it? 11:21 21 A. Then I think I would revert to my -- if he's giving 22 suggestions, he is obviously quoting a rule or 23 summarising a rule from somewhere, which is what it 24 sounded like to me when I heard it first. 25 105 Q. MR. McGRATH: Or he has been there and 11:22 26 found there is no 27 Punishment Book and is now saying there must have been 28 one? 29 A. That's exactly what I'm saying. 37 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr. McGrath. 2 106 Q. MR. McGRATH: In relation to that, there 3 is one other possibility 4 and that is that there was one, it did show things that 5 weren't very pleasant and it has been lost? 11:22 6 A. Yes, that's a possibility but I have no evidence to 7 that effect. 8 107 Q. Now, dealing with the punishment, as I was asking you 9 there earlier, it would appear the situation is, as I 10 have outlined, the Brother in charge of the dormitory 11:22 11 could administer punishment? 12 A. Yes. 13 108 Q. The Brothers who were in charge of the yard could 14 administer punishment? 15 A. Yes. 11:22 16 109 Q. The Brothers who were in charge of the refectory at any 17 given time could administer punishment? 18 A. Yes. 19 110 Q. The disciplinarian could administer punishment? 20 A. Yes. 11:23 21 111 Q. The Brothers in charge of each classroom could 22 administer punishment? 23 A. Yes. 24 112 Q. So you have a situation where every child getting up in 25 Artane in the morning faced the possibility of 11:23 26 punishment after they got out of bed, when they were at 27 breakfast, when they were in the classroom, when they 28 were in the yard at play time, when they went to their 29 various meals during the day and then again when they 38 1 arrived back to their room that night? 2 A. Possibility, but I am not sure -- I don't want to get 3 into retrospective probability, but the only way we can 4 talk about the probability is by assessing the evidence 5 that was held at the Committee. 11:23 6 113 Q. Okay. At Letterfrack yesterday I opened a document 7 which is in the annals of the Christian Brothers, in 8 relation to the situation, vis-a-vis punishment at 9 night, and a specific instruction to stop punishment at 10 night either by the Brother in charge or by the night 11:24 11 watchman, which I suggested to Br. Gibson yesterday and 12 I am suggesting to you again, is that there was a 13 scenario that not only did the boys face the punishment 14 at all the times I have suggested to you, but there was 15 even another time that during the night they could be 11:24 16 woken up and punished as well? 17 A. Could you just bear with me for one second, I want to 18 get a reference here. I happen to know the provenance 19 of that particular letter but I just want to get the 20 reference here. Sorry for delaying on this. That's 11:24 21 physical punishment, yes, on page 112 of my submission 22 on 15th September. 23 114 Q. The document that I am referring to is Christian 24 Brothers discovery, folder four, 285/114, which is 25 "Direction For All of Our Residential Schools From 11:25 26 St. Mary's, Marino". 27 "My very dear Brother Superior, should it be a custom that Brothers, teachers 28 or night watchmen take boys out of bed at night-time and beat them, that 29 custom is to cease, I am now forbidding it. The Brother Superior is to call 39 1 the attention of the Brother disciplinarian, Brothers, teachers and 2 watchmen who may have to supervise boys in the dormitories to this 3 prohibition". 4 5 That, I think, is dated 4th March 1963? 11:26 6 A. I'm familiar with the documentation. I am not going 7 to... 8 115 Q. That would certainly seem to suggest that there was a 9 problem in relation to boys being taken out of their 10 bed at night? 11:26 11 A. There was a complaint made by the grandmother of one of 12 the pupils. It was investigated at a lot of levels and 13 by several people, as far as I can make out. Secondly, 14 I would add that the former resident in question had a 15 complaint in front of the Committee and withdrew it and 11:26 16 decided not to appear at the private hearings. 17 116 Q. So what? So what? 18 A. So in the sense that I have no -- further than what I 19 have in the documentation, I know that the complaints 20 were made by a grandmother, I know that it was 11:26 21 investigated at the time, I know that there were doubts 22 cast on it. And from my -- and if you see the way the 23 document is worded the Provincial decided, "what I am 24 going to do in relation to this, I am not going to make 25 judgment on it, I am going say, if that has happened it 11:27 26 is now to cease." Not only did they send it 27 ...(INTERJECTION). 28 117 Q. Your suggestion is that the Commission should take this 29 document to refer to the fact that there was one 40 1 complaint and because it may or may not have happened 2 this was outlawed? That there was no belief, good, bad 3 or indifferent in the Christian Brothers that this 4 might be happening on a regular basis, is that what the 5 Commission is supposed to believe? That this document 11:27 6 relates to one complaint and not to any knowledge on 7 the part of the Christian Brothers at that time in 1963 8 that this was a regular practice? 9 A. I am saying that if you go through that documentation 10 that you will find at the end of it that that decision 11:27 11 was taken. I have no -- and when I wrote this, I said 12 this yesterday, I have no documentary evidence to say 13 that there was any other reason for it. If there was 14 so be it. But I haven't got that evidence and again, 15 the Committee have all the documentation in relation to 11:28 16 that case, even though the hearing didn't go ahead. So 17 again I will leave it to the Committee to decide, to 18 make a finding in relation to that. 19 118 Q. Now, I outlined a scenario in relation to the day that 20 faced any boy who was in Artane school of all the day 11:28 21 and all the places that they faced the situation where 22 they could be subject to punishment. Is there any 23 surprise, if that is the situation, without even 24 describing what punishment during the day would be 25 like, is there any surprise that many of the children 11:28 26 have talked about their fear and living in an 27 atmosphere of fear and living in an atmosphere of 28 waiting for the next beating? 29 A. I think I remember a long discussion on that particular 41 1 question during the private hearings, Mr. McGrath, 2 between yourself and the Chairman in which the scenario 3 was put, when I was going to school I came from a 4 family that believed in corporal punishment, if I 5 committed an indiscretion at home I received corporal 11:29 6 punishment. I went to a school where corporal 7 punishment was administered, if I misbehaved in class 8 one I could be punished. If I misbehaved in class two 9 I could be punished and I could go through exactly the 10 same scenario and from that I could say therefore I 11:29 11 lived in fear as a youngster all my life, which is not 12 true. I didn't. 13 119 Q. With the greatest of respect to you, I went to a 14 Christian Brothers school as well, so I do know what it 15 was like to be in a Christian Brothers school, but 11:29 16 there is a big difference between going to a Christian 17 Brother school where you might be punished between nine 18 o'clock in the morning and four o'clock in the 19 afternoon and actually living 24 hours a day, seven 20 days a week in the same institution, facing punishments 11:29 21 not only between 9:00 and 4:00 but 24 hours a night if 22 we are to believe the idea that children were taken out 23 of their beds and punished during the night-time as 24 well? 25 A. But the parallel situation that I am putting to you is 11:30 26 that quite a large number of children lived in a family 27 where corporal punishment was administered and 28 therefore they faced -- outside at school, at home 29 rather than in an institution, they faced the same sort 42 1 of scenario and I would be very loathe to say as a 2 result of all the children of Ireland who lived in that 3 scenario lived in fear. 4 120 Q. So, are you seriously suggesting that the Commission 5 here should consider that everybody in Ireland where 11:30 6 they had corporal punishment at home was in the same 7 position as the children in Artane? Is that the 8 proposition you want them to accept? 9 A. No, I am not putting any proposition to the Commission. 10 I am just saying that I recall this discussion being 11:30 11 rehearsed at reasonable length, I was in the role of an 12 observer, I wasn't a participant, nor could I have 13 been, and I think at the end of it what was said was 14 that it was a very interesting and enlightening 15 discussion but I don't think anybody came down on any 11:31 16 side. I am not saying for a minute that there wasn't a 17 lot of regimentation in Artane, and that some students 18 may have -- some pupils may have been more intimidated 19 by that than others. But that was true right across 20 the society of the time. 11:31 21 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: The rest of society wasn't 22 held prisoner. 23 121 Q. MR. McGRATH: Now, as regards the story 24 that people have told in 25 terms of the way that punishment was administered, do 11:31 26 you accept that boys were ever punished in the 27 dormitories in the morning time? 28 A. Yes. I mean, I can't instance but I do 29 accept...(INTERJECTION). 43 1 122 Q. Do you accept that they were punished in the classroom? 2 A. Yes. 3 123 Q. Do you accept they were punished in the yard? 4 A. Yes. 5 124 Q. Do you accept they were punished in the dining hall? 11:32 6 A. Yes. 7 125 Q. Do you accept that there were punishments that involved 8 not just beatings but chastisements in relation to the 9 movies, the pictures that were shown? 10 A. The? 11:32 11 126 Q. There has been two different types of punishment in 12 regards to that; one is that a picture might be 13 cancelled if boys escaped? 14 A. I don't accept that. 15 127 Q. The second one was that boys would be made stand or -- 11:32 16 A. Sit. 17 128 Q. -- sit with their back to the movie? 18 A. Yeah, they weren't allowed to watch the film, yeah. 19 129 Q. Do you think that that was a suitable way to punish 20 people? 11:32 21 A. I don't think I would find it extraordinary if 22 somebody -- and I think all the references in relation 23 to that related to absconding, that a boy who absconded 24 was not permitted to watch the film on a Saturday 25 evening or a Sunday evening as a punishment, but he was 11:33 26 brought into the cinema, because if he wasn't somebody 27 would have to be supervising, he was brought with 28 everyone else but he wasn't allowed to watch the film. 29 I don't think that's a particularly harsh punishment, 44 1 if you are talking about absconding, which was looked 2 at as a very serious offence, I must say. 3 130 Q. You describe it as absconding, I think most of the boys 4 describe it as escaping? 5 A. I am not going to get into semantics, Mr. McGrath. 11:33 6 131 Q. Now, yesterday when I was asking Br. Gibson about the 7 situation, vis-a-vis the complaints, he outlined very 8 clearly the thinking that he had in relation to it, 9 that there was a question mark as to whether or not the 10 people coming forward with complaints was motivated by 11:33 11 the question of money, he has given his view on it, 12 what's your view in relation to that? 13 A. First of all, I am defending on secondhand versions of 14 it because I wasn't in the room when it was given. But 15 my understanding is that Br. Gibson outlined the 11:34 16 numbers of complaints and then at one point in the time 17 line there was a huge influx and he said that there was 18 concern at the time that some of the people coming may 19 have -- because of the influx, a huge influx and a huge 20 increase in the numbers that there was concern on the 11:34 21 part of the Brothers that not all of these were genuine 22 and some of them may have been motivated by money. 23 132 Q. What's your position? 24 A. My position is that I heard at least two complainants 25 state that very case in private hearings. 11:34 26 133 Q. Now, as far as the situation is here, a significant 27 number of people have turned up and given evidence 28 before this Commission, do you accept that? 29 A. Yes. 45 1 134 Q. Do you also accept that people who turned up here and 2 gave evidence here were not getting any sort of 3 compensation for turning up here to give their 4 evidence? 5 A. Yes. 11:35 6 135 Q. There was absolutely nothing in it for them to turn up 7 here to tell their stories, so far as compensation is 8 concerned? 9 A. No, are you talking about that -- in other words, that 10 the Commission was not entitled to disperse funds, is 11:35 11 that what you are saying? 12 136 Q. Yes. 13 A. Yes, I accept that. 14 137 Q. So there is no gain as far as financial reward is 15 concerned for anybody who comes and gives their 11:35 16 evidence to this Commission? 17 A. Yes, but could I push you back a number of years, 18 Mr. McGrath, and remind you that at one stage, in the 19 early stages of the setting up of the Commission, the 20 solicitors representing the complainants said that they 11:35 21 would refuse to cooperate with the Commission until a 22 Redress Scheme or a compensation scheme had been put in 23 place. 24 138 Q. Well, I think there may have been concerns in relation 25 to taking legal action before the courts because of the 11:36 26 statute of limitations and delay situations. So there 27 was a problem with regards that, wasn't there? 28 A. Well I will leave that to legal people, Mr. McGrath, in 29 all honesty. 46 1 139 Q. Are you actually telling the Commission here that you 2 are not aware of the fact that some of the Orders have 3 taken applications before the courts to stop actions 4 going ahead on the basis of delay, or the statute, and 5 have been successful on that basis? Have you not been 11:36 6 given that legal advice? 7 A. Actions, are you talking about civil actions? 8 140 Q. Yes. 9 A. I can only talk for our Congregation and our 10 Congregation has never acted for an individual Brother. 11:36 11 141 Q. No? 12 A. The individual Brother has his own representation, the 13 Congregation does not represent him. 14 142 Q. Have you not been told or advised by your legal 15 advisors that there have been successful applications 11:36 16 by Orders in civil cases to stop those cases on the 17 basis of delay? 18 A. No. 19 143 Q. You have not been give that legal advice at all? 20 A. No. I haven't been given any information in relation 11:37 21 to anything that other Orders did. My information in 22 relation to the Brothers is that if a Brother -- if an 23 action is initiated against a Brother, whatever it is, 24 whatever representation a Brother has -- are you 25 talking about civil action or are you talking about 11:37 26 criminal actions? 27 144 Q. No, I'm talking about civil actions. 28 A. Yeah. I must confess I am not aware -- well, first of 29 all, I am not aware that any of these actually -- the 47 1 complaints to the Committee on our behalf, I may be 2 wrong on this, has ended up in the civil courts. My 3 impression is that they didn't. I may be wrong on 4 that. As to what the Brothers did, really what other 5 Congregations did, I really can't comment on it because 11:37 6 I don't know. Just let's go back on this for a minute, 7 Mr. McGrath. Because my understanding of it is that 8 the law is there, the law is there to serve both sides 9 and if one side decides, "here is a section of the law 10 that protects me", why wouldn't it be entitled to use 11:38 11 the law the same as anybody else? 12 145 Q. Sorry, Brother, this came up in the context of you 13 indicating that the solicitors would not cooperate with 14 the Commission until a scheme was put in place? 15 A. Yes. 11:38 16 146 Q. And I have asked you...(INTERJECTION)? 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that historical 18 record? That's in the 19 third interim report, Judge Laffoy reported on all 20 that. There were two conditions, representation/costs, 11:38 21 and a compensation scheme. 22 MR. McGRATH: Yes. But what I want to 23 find out...(INTERJECTION). 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: There is it is. Judge 25 Laffoy recommended that 11:38 26 there should be one and that the Government should get 27 on with it. We all know the history after that. But 28 that's all in the third interim report, Mr. McGrath. 29 147 Q. MR. McGRATH: Very well, I will leave it 48 1 there. 2 3 (To the witness) Now, do I understand from your 4 evidence yesterday, and your evidence today that you 5 don't accept that there was any significant over 11:39 6 discipline in Artane? 7 A. I don't think I said that, yesterday, or said it today. 8 148 Q. No, I am asking you, am I correct in understanding that 9 the import of your evidence is to the effect that you 10 don't accept that there was significant over 11:39 11 disciplining or disciplining outside the rules and 12 regulations? 13 A. I do accept that there was disciplining outside the 14 rules and regulations. What I am saying specifically 15 in relation to excessive in the sense of overly severe, 11:39 16 I gave a spectrum yesterday on that and that's my 17 understanding of that. 18 19 If you are coming back to your scenario this morning in 20 relation to the fact that a lot of punishment was 11:40 21 possible, of course it was possible but I am leaving to 22 the Committee the decision on that, as to what findings 23 they arrive to in relation to that. 24 149 Q. So, as far as things are concerned, are you saying then 25 you are not prepared to disclose whether you believe or 11:40 26 don't believe that there was excessive punishment in 27 the morning, during school hours, in the afternoon in 28 the yard, or in the evening time? You are not prepared 29 to make any judgment call on that yourself? 49 1 A. No, that's not my position. My position is that I 2 heard Brothers and former Brothers say, "yes, I did on 3 occasions use excessive punishment." I heard Brothers 4 saying, "yes, on lots of occasions I did use excessive 5 punishments." They mightn't have said when it happened 11:41 6 but they did admit that. But what I am saying in the 7 overall, in the round, I would not categorise Artane as 8 a brutal regime, as a result of what I heard in the 9 written statement and from listening to the evidence. 10 150 Q. So again, you are leaving that decision to the 11:41 11 Committee, is that right? 12 A. But that's where it rests, yes. 13 151 Q. Okay. But your belief is that it wasn't a brutal 14 regime? 15 A. Yes. 11:41 16 152 Q. Now, can I ask you if that is so, why did the Christian 17 Brothers give an apology? 18 A. Because the Christian Brothers at that stage had a 19 number of complaints and they said, if people were hurt 20 -- and they apologised to people who were hurt in any 11:41 21 way in their institutions. Christian Brothers stand by 22 that. We have given -- I have given you documentary 23 evidence here, for instance, of verifiable cases of 24 sexual abuse, we have apologised for that. 25 153 Q. So anybody who has made a complaint of sexual abuse 11:42 26 that isn't verifiable to your satisfaction isn't 27 include in the apology; is that it? 28 A. That's not true, Mr. McGrath. 29 154 Q. Well why would you be apologising to those people? 50 1 A. We apologised to people who were abused, who were hurt 2 in any way. Now, that doesn't mean that you then can 3 have open season and that anybody who wants to can say, 4 you know, "A, B and C happened to me." That's why we 5 have a Committee sitting on it and taking evidence on 11:42 6 each side and happily the decision is not ours. We 7 have much wiser counsel making decision on it. 8 155 Q. Sorry, it may be just me, but how can anybody who is 9 sitting at the back of the room here today, who has 10 heard your apology, how can they know whether you are 11:42 11 apologising to them or not? 12 A. I am apologising to them if they were abused. 13 156 Q. How are they supposed to understand, because it has 14 been made quite clear by both yourself and Br. Gibson 15 that you have grave doubts about an awful lot of the 11:43 16 people who have come forward as to whether or not they 17 were abused or not? So, giving an apology but people 18 not knowing whether you are apologising to them or 19 not...(INTERJECTION)? 20 MR. HANRATTY: Sorry, sir, I think this is 11:43 21 an unfair line of 22 questioning. The premise of the question is that the 23 apology was confined to verified cases, that is 24 factually incorrect. 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. McGrath, the query I 11:43 26 would have is this; you say 27 that Br. Reynolds has cast out on a large number of the 28 cases, but I'm not sure that's what he said. Now you 29 can check. The mere fact that I say so doesn't mean 51 1 that is the case, we would have to look back on the 2 transcript. But I am not sure ...(INTERJECTION). 3 MR. McGRATH: What I am finding very 4 difficult 5 ...(INTERJECTION). 11:44 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just listen for a second. 7 I am sorry to come back. 8 He was much more guarded than that. He was much more 9 hesitant. 10 MR. McGRATH: The fact this he is so 11:44 11 guarded leaves us in a 12 situation where we don't actually know, that's my 13 problem. 14 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am not saying you can't 15 ask the question. 11:44 16 MR. McGRATH: I had it here last week as 17 well, in terms of trying to 18 understand how does anybody know that there are being 19 apologised to if they are being told, "well, it is up 20 to the Commission to decide." 11:44 21 22 (To the witness) Can I put it this way, is it a case 23 that anybody who has come before the Commission and 24 whose evidence is accepted by the Commission as 25 amounting to abuse, are those the people you are 11:44 26 prepared to ...(INTERJECTION). 27 A. Not only those. 28 157 Q. Is it then people who go to the Redress Board and are 29 given redress, if they get redress from the Redress 52 1 Board who are in Artane, are those people getting 2 apologies? 3 A. My understanding of redress is that it doesn't make any 4 findings in relation to abuse. 5 158 Q. Exactly. Well it has to decide if people were abused 11:45 6 because the Act makes it quite specific that you have 7 to have sexual abuse, which can be compensated for on 8 its own, or you have to have some form of physical or 9 psychiatric illness which has related to abuse that 10 occurred. So there has to be a finding of abuse, not a 11:45 11 finding of fault but there has to be a finding of 12 abuse? 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: There has to be a finding 14 of injury. 15 MR. McGRATH: There has to be a finding 11:45 16 of injury in 17 ...(INTERJECTION). 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is consistent. 19 MR. McGRATH: There are four categories 20 of abuse, one category 11:45 21 alone attracts redress without injury and that's sexual 22 abuse. The other three categories of abuse attract 23 damages only on proof of injury, that's the way it is, 24 that's the same definition as in your Act. 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. 11:46 26 159 Q. MR. McGRATH: From that point of view 27 there is a finding that 28 there was abuse and there is a finding that there was 29 injury and you only get redress? 53 1 A. Yes. 2 160 Q. So there is no finding of fault. But are you telling 3 us, therefore, that if a person didn't come here and 4 give their evidence and the Commission here doesn't 5 find that they were abused, that they fall outside the 11:46 6 apology, so the only people who are going to get the 7 apology are the verified cases you have and the cases 8 that are accepted by the Commission? 9 A. No, and anybody else who has been abused. But I can't 10 list them out for you. 11:46 11 161 Q. I am still none the wiser as to who's getting the 12 apology. I get the impression that you have doubts 13 about a lot of the people who have made claims and not 14 come here but gone to Redress Board? 15 A. I have never said that and I don't know where you got 11:46 16 the impression. 17 162 Q. The impression I got then from Br. Gibson yesterday was 18 that when the numbers changed from three to nine and 19 from nine to 449 that there was doubts being expressed 20 within the Brothers that they were genuine claims? 11:47 21 A. There was doubts expressed that they were all genuine 22 claims. 23 163 Q. That being so, are you entitled under the rules of the 24 Redress Scheme to go to the Redress Board and challenge 25 anyone you don't believe was abused in an institution? 11:47 26 A. My understanding of law, and I may be incorrect in 27 this, but I will be corrected if I am, is that the 28 Congregation may apply but that the permission may not 29 necessarily be granted. 54 1 164 Q. But you can apply? 2 A. Yes. 3 165 Q. How many cases have you applied in? 4 A. Two that I know of. 5 166 Q. Two? 11:47 6 A. Yeah. 7 167 Q. Out of how many? 8 A. I can't give you a figure but I know it is a large one. 9 168 Q. In all the institutions that the Christian Brothers 10 run, 1,000s? 11:48 11 A. Why do you want to -- the fact that we didn't challenge 12 them doesn't necessarily mean that -- there is a 13 difference. The application is for a personal 14 appearance. We have put in -- I can only talk for our 15 province, we have put in responses to them all. 11:48 16 169 Q. But you don't follow that up -- other than two cases 17 you have not followed that up with any evidence? 18 A. Our evidence is in the responses. 19 170 Q. Yeah. Now, there is another matter, Chairman, if you 20 just bear with me for a moment while I find my 11:48 21 reference. 22 23 Now, in relation to the education situation in Artane, 24 were the results in the Primary Certificate very good 25 in Artane? 11:49 26 A. Yes. 27 171 Q. Exceptionally good? 28 A. Yes. 29 172 Q. Not quite as high as Letterfrack? 55 1 A. Probably higher. 2 173 Q. Many of the children coming in to here, whilst they 3 weren't like the people were later in Letterfrack from 4 1954 on, sent for criminal reasons, many of them were 5 sent on the basis of non-attendance at school; isn't 11:49 6 that right? 7 A. Yes. 8 174 Q. In the overall scheme of things how did they get on 9 compared to boys who were in orphanages or is there any 10 way you can distinguish as to how various classes of 11:50 11 boys got on? 12 A. I can't compare it to other orphanages. I can compare 13 it to the national average. 14 175 Q. Are you aware, whether it be from hearings or from 15 general complaints over the last while and media 11:50 16 reports, are you aware of any suggestions by people 17 that they passed their Primary Certificate without ever 18 sitting it? 19 A. Absolutely none, I didn't hear that yesterday, I heard 20 it being challenged later on. Can I just finish on 11:50 21 that one? In relation to the Primary Certificate 22 examination in Artane, we have the actual original 23 results from the Department of Education, I am not sure 24 if they have been discovered to the Committee, the 25 Committee were certainly made aware of them when people 11:50 26 came out to look at the archive. If they read it they 27 would be there. That contains the number of the boy, 28 his registration number, his date of birth, his name 29 and the marks he got in each subject and it is signed 56 1 by the secretary of the Department of Education. 2 3 Might I say that the results attained are very much in 4 keeping with all the inspectors' reports, which we also 5 have. They included, I think it was, general 11:51 6 inspections where the inspector came in and spent a 7 long time and 100 individual inspections when the 8 inspector was inside in the classroom with the teacher, 9 watching teaching, or questioning and whatever else was 10 going on. And there is absolutely no question 11:51 11 whatsoever that the inspectors' reports verified the 12 high standard of education. 13 14 One inspector stating that Artane was the best school 15 in his area and another Department of Education 11:51 16 inspector suggesting that it was one of the best 17 schools in the country. 18 176 Q. Were you aware that many of the boys who have left have 19 indicated that they left not able to read and write? 20 A. Yes. 11:51 21 177 Q. Doesn't sound like the type of situation you would 22 expect from a school that was performing in the manner 23 as described? 24 A. Not if you take it without a comparator because if you 25 take -- in 1949, 1950, 56.1% of children who entered 11:52 26 into the primary school, nationally, I am not talking 27 about industrial schools, all children who entered into 28 national school, reached sixth class. 29 178 Q. Well, you were in a unique situation, given that these 57 1 children were there 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 2 Do you think there is something surprising in terms of 3 anybody leaving an establishment like that illiterate 4 or unable to read and write, or barely able to read and 5 write? 11:52 6 A. No, because in the Kennedy Report they had a survey 7 carried out on attainment on entry and we had the 8 figures for attainment on entry to Artane from 1st 9 August 1939 to 31st July 1958, unfortunately whether it 10 was discontinued or not we haven't them from there on 11:53 11 in. But I can give you -- they were divided up into 12 five categories: Illiterate; read and write 13 imperfectly; moderate proficiency in reading and 14 writing; read well; superior instruction. The figures 15 went as follows for that cohort: 42% on entry were 11:53 16 illiterate; 26% could read and write imperfectly; 19% 17 had moderate proficiency; 13% could read well; and none 18 had superior instruction. 19 20 What I want to stress the fact this somebody arrived 11:53 21 illiterate or hadn't been at school does not mean that 22 they were not capable of being taught, that they 23 weren't intelligent. If they were taught well, 24 obviously they were starting later, but having said 25 that, some of them start in 1st class at ten years of 11:54 26 age, some of them started in 1st class at nine years of 27 age and they were brought through and stayed at the 28 primary school until they reached 14. 29 58 1 Unfortunately when they reached 14, when they reached 2 6th class, if they hadn't done the Primary Cert by then 3 they went into continuation school, they didn't sit the 4 Primary Certificate. 5 11:54 6 As I said to you, the nationally -- the percentages, 7 the retention rate up to 6th class, that doesn't 8 necessarily mean that all of them sat the Primary Cert, 9 I have no figures on that. Even in 1970, that hadn't 10 reached 100%, it had reached 90.3%. 11:54 11 179 Q. Sorry, 90.3% doing what. 12 A. 90.3% nationally of pupils who entered primary schools 13 reached 6th class, it doesn't mean that 90% of them sat 14 their Primary Cert. I presume in 15 Ireland...(INTERJECTION) 11:54 16 180 Q. The Primary Cert was gone by 1970? 17 A. Correct, yeah. Well I will take you back to the year 18 in which the Primary Cert was there. 80.3% in 1964/65. 19 I think it went in 1966, in fact. 20 181 Q. Have you heard any allegations from former residents or 11:55 21 former pupils...(INTERJECTION)? 22 182 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr. McGrath. 23 24 (To the witness) Can you remind me, do we have similar 25 statistics for Artane, as to the percentage? 11:55 26 A. No, we don't. 27 183 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: In the national average, it 28 was something like 50%? 29 A. That was if you go back. 59 1 184 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: In 1949? 2 A. Yes. In 1949, that was the lowest year. Actually in 3 1939 it was 61, it dropped down in 1944/45 to 58. It 4 then dropped again to 56. From there on in there was a 5 gradual increase. 1954/55, 64%. 1959/60, 68%. 11:55 6 185 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: These are all in the 7 Kennedy Reports? 8 A. No, these are in Professor O'Buachalla "Educational 9 Policy in the 20th Century". 10 186 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry. Nationally 11:56 11 around 54%, at one point, 12 between 54 and 60%, ranging from that, started of all 13 the children in the country who started in national 14 school, that percentage reached 6th class? 15 A. Yes. 11:56 16 187 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: It didn't follow that that 17 percentage did the Primary 18 Cert? 19 A. Yes, but I have no figures to help you there. 20 188 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: No, but I am just trying 11:56 21 to work out the limits, it 22 didn't follow? 23 A. Yes. 24 189 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: And obviously we are not in 25 a position to say exactly 11:56 26 how many, but some would have fallen by the wayside 27 along that route by staying in -- they had to stay in 28 school until they were 14. 29 A. That's what happened, they were retained in some class, 60 1 they weren't promoted, in other words, from 4th to 5th. 2 They did two years in 4th, whatever it was. I am not 3 saying that they -- I would say, this is only a guess 4 off the top of my head, I would say that the 5 retention -- not the retention rate, but the percentage 11:57 6 who did the Primary Cert in Artane was lower. Now, the 7 difficulty was -- I wouldn't have finished 8 unfortunately by the time I had written this because 9 you had to try and trace them through and we haven't 10 sufficient roll books to try and do it and even if we 11:57 11 had it would be an extremely difficult job. But 12 my...(INTERJECTION). 13 190 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. But it would 14 be consistent with people 15 saying, "a lot of us fell through the net"? 11:57 16 A. Yes. 17 191 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I mean, that would be 18 consistent with it. 19 A. Yeah. 20 192 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: While you might say, 11:57 21 objectively the records are 22 good, or whatever it was, or from other indicators, but 23 it wouldn't -- I mean if somebody is saying, 24 "I and a lot of other people fell through the net", it 25 would still be reasonably -- I mean, it wouldn't be 11:57 26 discounted by that. 27 A. Oh not at all. All I am saying is the conversation 28 started out in relation to Primary Certificates. I am 29 not saying for a minute that everybody arrived in 61 1 Artane got his Primary Cert or anything remotely close 2 to that. That is not the case. 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: I see the point. 4 Mr. McGrath, that really 5 clarifies a good deal of what you are exploring. 11:58 6 MR. McGRATH: Yes, it does, but there is 7 something else. These are 8 just two things I have to put, I know they are not 9 going to be accepted but I have to put them anyway. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 11:58 11 193 Q. MR. McGRATH: In terms of the Primary 12 Certificate, I asked you 13 already as to whether or not you have any memory of 14 anybody at any stage, whether it be inside here or 15 outside, in the media or anywhere, are you aware of any 11:58 16 complaints by anybody of the fact that they say that 17 when they were sitting the Primary Certificate there 18 was a Brother standing beside them and telling them 19 what to put down on the paper? 20 A. No. 11:58 21 194 Q. Have you heard that ever before? 22 A. No. 23 195 Q. And you haven't heard allegations that people have 24 passed the Primary Certificate without ever having sat 25 it? 11:58 26 A. I have heard one saying he had no recollection of 27 sitting the Primary Cert. But the same person said he 28 had no recollection of ever being in the school in 29 Artane, so. 62 1 196 Q. And you haven't heard of anybody actually being 2 surprised to discover that they had passed or done well 3 in Irish in this Primary Certificate, when they 4 couldn't speak Irish at all? 5 A. But there are several who in sending in their 11:59 6 complaints listed their Primary Certificate results. 7 First of all, just to make this clear, the Primary 8 Certificate examination was run by the Department of 9 Education, there were external invigilators. I was 10 doubtful about that yesterday and I gathered from 11:59 11 looking at your expression, Chairman, 12 that...(INTERJECTION). 13 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: That's a lie. 14 A. I checked this morning. Not only that, there were 15 inspectors who went around and did spot checks during 11:59 16 the Primary Certificate. Obviously they didn't cover 17 all schools, I am presuming they didn't cover all 18 schools. The results were then sent to the Department 19 of Education, they were marked by teachers, as the 20 Inter Cert -- sorry not the Inter Cert, the Junior Cert 12:00 21 and Leaving Cert are now. And the results were issued 22 to the school. Now, I have no idea where you are 23 getting any evidence for the suggestions that you seem 24 to be making, Mr. McGrath. 25 197 Q. MR. McGRATH: What about one last one, 12:00 26 was there anything to stop, 27 say, David McGrath going in and sitting at the desk for 28 Noel MacMahon? 29 A. Why would he want to do that, why would Noel MacMahon 63 1 better still want him to do to it? 2 198 Q. Maybe Noel MacMahon might not know that it was 3 organised by a teacher? 4 A. I would have to say the same thing about the Leaving 5 Cert today. There is an external invigilator that 12:00 6 comes in. I was principal for secondary school for 10 7 years, external invigilator because -- I didn't go 8 around the hall, he wouldn't have known, I didn't go 9 around the hall to check that everyone had written down 10 his own name or somebody else's name. First of all, I 12:00 11 think it would be incredible but I find it preposterous 12 that that was happen. 13 199 Q. Could I ask you a little bit about the trade situation. 14 What trades, can you outline what trades were done in 15 Artane? 12:01 16 A. You will have to bear with me just one minute, please. 17 Farming, tailoring, weaving, baking, shoe making, 18 carpentry, blacksmithing and music. I can't tell you 19 what year that comes from. It is in my submission on 20 page 83 of my submission on 15th September. There may 12:01 21 have been others at other times. I can tell you 22 certainly at the end of the 1960's there was a cert 23 course organised in hotel catering. 24 200 Q. Can you tell us in relation to the trades and people 25 leaving, what was the general source of jobs that were 12:02 26 arranged for boys or were they arranged for boys when 27 they were leaving? 28 A. They were. I think again from -- I haven't the 29 documentary evidence in front of me in relation to 64 1 that, but my impression is that more people ended up 2 farming, that that was more successful than any other 3 one. I can't give you percentages. 4 201 Q. So we are talking about a situation where somebody may 5 have spent the time between 14 and 16 learning 12:02 6 something else, weaving or something else like that, 7 and ended up farming? 8 A. That's a possibility. But you had people -- now, that 9 I think indicates more than anything else that there 10 was a large number of people involved in the farming, a 12:02 11 larger number. I think tailoring was probably -- I 12 thought I had the tailor here, I probably have it but I 13 can't find it at the minute. There were large numbers 14 and tailoring was one of them, the end catering was one 15 of them. Farming was always one of them, I think. I 12:03 16 am sorry, I can't give you the statistics. 17 202 Q. Not exactly the job you would expect a Dublin boy to be 18 training for? 19 A. Well, I suppose it would be the same as -- I will take 20 my own county in case I offend anybody. And saying 12:03 21 that because I came from Leitrim I couldn't be a bus 22 conductor, we didn't have many buses. 23 203 Q. As far as the various trades are concerned do you 24 think, looking back on teaching somebody to weave or to 25 boot make, that really in the long term was it going to 12:03 26 really produce them a job, or would it have been better 27 to have got rid of them quicker or earlier, sooner? 28 A. I think I can take you through the movement on that 29 because the trades -- from internal came under scrutiny 65 1 and criticism from one of the Brothers in 1947 and 2 said -- this is from the Visitation Reports, said that 3 there was a lack in the technical aspects of education. 4 I think he was being a little bit kind. There was none 5 was the situation. The 1950 report, and this is by way 12:04 6 of follow up then by the Brothers within: 7 "Two rooms were equipped to accommodate lectures and technical aspects of 8 various trades and lectures on agriculture and farm work. In 1954 the 9 trades preparatory school was introduced". 10 12:04 11 The trades preparatory school was a programme run in 12 the VEC. Teachers from the local VEC and tailoring 13 were brought in. I haven't -- I just took those one in 14 relation to follow up in notes for myself in relation 15 follow up on Visitation Reports. The tailoring then 12:05 16 became quite important in the late 1950's and, in fact, 17 work from the tailors in Artane was put on display, I 18 think, in the Mansion House at a number of exhibitions. 19 And later on in the 1960's, a cert course was run in 20 which a large number of people were trained in hotel 12:05 21 and catering services. A lot of these got jobs and a 22 lot of tailors got jobs and a lot of them are still 23 enough around. The obvious one I left out was the 24 band. 25 204 Q. Sorry? 12:05 26 A. The Artane boys band was the other one I left out. I 27 think I heard somebody towards the end of the evidence 28 giving statistics on the percentage of people in the 29 Army School of Music who were former residents. I 66 1 remember the incident but I can't give you a figure. 2 205 Q. There may be an another aspect of that the institution 3 aspect of Artane may well have meant that people went 4 into the army because they couldn't deal with the 5 outside world, is that a possibility? 12:06 6 A. The Army School of Music, I think, was a very coveted 7 position at that stage and still is. I am certainly 8 not going to cast any aspirations on the Army School of 9 Music. 10 206 Q. We heard many stories of boys from Artane, I will move 12:06 11 on to deal with the institutional nature of Artane and 12 its regiment, who found it almost impossible to cope 13 with the outside world and many of them joined the army 14 because they needed that regimentation and discipline. 15 So it would have been one of the consequences of living 12:06 16 in an institution? 17 A. If that was the case, I don't think it would apply to 18 the Army School of Music, because they simply wouldn't 19 -- first of all, they would want to have a very high 20 standard of musicianship to get in and they wouldn't 12:06 21 last until that continued. 22 207 Q. But whatever their level of music skills are, they have 23 to join the army, they don't just go straight into the 24 band, you have to be a member of the Army? 25 A. You do actually. 12:07 26 208 Q. Now, I want to ask you there, in terms of the size of 27 Artane and the numbers there, and certainly there is 28 around the time that we were talking about the school 29 building being condemned, I think in or around the same 67 1 time there were proposals for and, in fact, extending 2 the number of children and extending them from 800 to 3 825. Now, that would seem to be an incredible number 4 of children for any one place and any one organisation. 5 I take it you would accept that really it wasn't a 12:07 6 suitable way to give any proper chance for these 7 children to have a normal childhood? 8 A. No, but it was the way at the time -- when the 9 Department of Education asked the religious Orders to 10 take on the running of industrial schools they knew 12:07 11 exactly what they were getting, they knew the numbers, 12 they knew the type of education, they had the authority 13 and did, to inspect it to some extent at least. I 14 can't come across any documentary evidence to say that 15 they were dissatisfied greatly with what they got. 12:08 16 209 Q. Well, it may be a case that they never said it, but 17 looking back on it now, it is not very difficult to say 18 it was not the system that should have been in place? 19 A. Oh correct, but if you are looking back from today's 20 standards that is correct. 12:08 21 210 Q. Not only looking back on it now, but did the Cussen 22 Report back in 1976 not advice that Artane should be 23 broken up into four and there should be no more than 24 200 pupils? 25 A. Yes. 12:08 26 211 Q. So it is not a question of looking back now, it is a 27 question of dealing with the time. I mean, 1936 a 28 suggestion was made that Artane be broken up? 29 A. Yes. 68 1 212 Q. And it shouldn't be and yet it is still there until 2 1969, getting bigger and bigger up to a certain point 3 and then dwindling away? 4 A. No, from the average in the 1940's I think was 802; the 5 1950's was 620 and the 1960's was 286. In fact, in 12:09 6 1959 it was broken into two and one person put in 7 charge of one group. There wasn't a new building 8 built. When the Cussen Report says break it up into 9 four, that would require a major resources, someone 10 would have to build four new buildings, or buy three 12:09 11 new campuses, have on one in Artane, and have the rest 12 elsewhere. That certainly wasn't forthcoming. 13 213 Q. Was it open to the Christian Brothers at any time to 14 say to the Department, "sorry, we cannot take anymore, 15 that is getting ridiculous, 825 boys in one school"? 12:09 16 A. It was, yeah. 17 214 Q. The Christian Brothers could have done that at any 18 given time and they could have pointed to the Cussen 19 Report from 1936 and say, "look, this isn't on"? 20 A. The Christian Brothers were operating under a licence 12:09 21 which stipulated the number they could take. 22 215 Q. But if you look through the documentation it is quite 23 clear the Department didn't, of its own volition, send 24 you out a form saying, "we have increased your 25 numberings willienillie, there was discussion about it 12:10 26 first; isn't that right? 27 A. I don't know what you are referring to. My 28 understanding is...(INTERJECTION). 29 216 Q. You are suggesting that the numbers of children in 69 1 Artane was controlled, it would appear, exclusively by 2 the Department. I have to suggest to you that that is 3 not the case, that the Christian Brothers did have some 4 input into it, they had to agree to increasing numbers? 5 A. Yes. 12:10 6 217 Q. Is that right? 7 A. Yeah. 8 218 Q. So it isn't just the Department comes along and says to 9 you, 2we are increasing your numbers by 100 boys, they 10 will be arriving tomorrow"? 12:10 11 A. No, they never increased the numbers by 100 boys. My 12 understanding is that the original license was for 800 13 and it was increased to 825. 14 219 Q. At any time the Christian Brothers could have gone to 15 the Department and said, "look, there are far too many, 12:11 16 we want the certification reduced." Even if it was 17 certified for 800, they could have said, "no, we do not 18 have the room", at any time? 19 A. They could, but there is another department you are 20 leaving out and that is the Department of Justice of 12:11 21 courts, who are committing these people there. The 22 school didn't have any say over that, as to who came or 23 didn't come. 24 220 Q. Except to the extent that a phone call had to be made 25 to find out was there room in the school, so the 12:11 26 manager could actually say, "no, I have no room"? 27 A. If he was certified for 825 and he had 600 how could he 28 possibly say he hadn't any room? 29 221 Q. Now, in terms of the training and the types of jobs 70 1 that the boys were doing, and the things they were 2 learning, was there also a criticism, am I correct, in 3 the Cussen Report that really the boys weren't being 4 trained, they were being made work, is that your 5 understanding of the way? 12:12 6 A. I don't remember, I will take your word for it, let's 7 put it that way. I mean, I can't quote that from the 8 Cussen Report, I don't know if anybody can help me or 9 not. If you say it is in the Cussen Report, I will 10 accept it. 12:12 11 222 Q. The quote, I think, is: 12 "Having viewed the needs of institution rather than the future of the boys". 13 14 A. Yes. 15 223 Q. That come from the fact that all the institutions 12:12 16 needed as many children in them as they could possibly 17 get for the capitation grant? 18 A. Yes, but there was constant reminders and constant 19 requests from the Association of Resident Managers of 20 industrial and reformatories school to the Department 12:12 21 to change from the capitation scheme to a budgetary or 22 a grant scheme. That's documented right through the 23 correspondence. 24 224 Q. I want to ask you something about what you have raised 25 and that is that in some of the reports there is a 12:13 26 suggestion in regard to Artane, that it was a nice 27 happy family atmosphere and it seems to be the view 28 that, as far as you are concerned, that is the 29 situation that was in Artane; is that right? 71 1 A. Just let me remind you, that was something that I 2 included in my report and that was the assessment of a 3 Department of Education Inspector from the industrial 4 schools branch. It is not my -- nor is it, in fact -- 5 well, it couldn't be mine because I was not there, but 12:13 6 not only is it -- that wasn't what the Brothers said, 7 that wasn't said by a Brother, that was said -- I don't 8 know which of them was anyway, by a Department of 9 Education Inspector. 10 225 Q. Now, I think there was an interdepartmental committee 12:13 11 on the prevention of crime and treatment of offenders 12 in the early 1960's and I think it had some situation 13 arose as to whether or not there were problems in 14 Artane and this arose from Fr. Moore being the chaplain 15 there, I think he made certain comments about it and I 12:14 16 think the interdepartmental committee...(INTERJECTION)? 17 A. I am so sorry, I need some direction as to whether -- 18 or unfortunately I meant to do this before a name was 19 mentioned and I am now -- it has caught up with me. I 20 am not too sure -- I am not too sure how to put this 12:14 21 without saying what I want to say. I am not too sure 22 how I am going to deal with this -- let's put it this 23 way, Mr. Chairman, you know what I am referring to. 24 What material I am allowed use in response to any 25 queries in relation to this issue. 12:14 26 226 Q. I think the problem that arises is in the public 27 domain. 28 A. Well, I think some of my concerns unfortunately -- or 29 some of the material that I would want to access are 72 1 not and I don't think I am in a position, without 2 getting myself into legal difficulties at least. 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: We would want to retain the 4 capacity to make a decision 5 as to how much of the surrounding factual area in 12:15 6 regard to this matter is relevant and is necessary for 7 us to explore. In one sense, the matter can be 8 regarded as being in the public domain, but unrelated 9 entirely to any activities of ours. In another area 10 evidence was explored in private hearings so it goes 12:16 11 beyond simply what the report says. We feel, 12 Mr. McGrath, that it should be possible to explore the 13 area without trespassing into an area that we want to 14 retain the right to make a decision about. 15 12:16 16 Now, as to the fact that there was a report that was 17 critical, obviously that's something you would want to 18 explore and put to Br. Reynolds. I suppose what we are 19 unclear on, what I am unclear on, is the extent to 20 which there may be a response to that, seeking to 12:17 21 undermine or invalidate the information by reference to 22 facts that occurred a long time later. 23 24 So, I can't give a direction on the blind in that 25 regard. I appreciate the position you are in and I 12:17 26 appreciate the position that Br. Reynolds is in, but at 27 this moment it is simply not possible. 28 29 My suggestion, Mr. McGrath, leave that, can you leave 73 1 that area for the moment. Let's revisit it. We are 2 going to have to find a way of enabling you to ask the 3 questions you want to ask and at the same time not 4 being unfair. 5 MR. McGRATH: I suppose without going 12:17 6 down into the specifics in 7 the documentation, I suppose to a certain extent what I 8 am actually -- I am flagging the fact that these 9 documents exist, there are there and if we don't 10 actually end up discussing it here, they are there and 12:18 11 you have to make up your minds about them one away or 12 another. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. We don't 14 want to spancil you 15 unreasonably. At the same time, we are in a situation 12:18 16 where we have to be fair to everybody and if it is a 17 legitimate matter. I should say, Mr. Hanratty, my 18 impression is that it wasn't suggested that there was 19 invalidating material, it wasn't suggested to the 20 witness that he was -- now, again, like Br. Reynolds 12:18 21 very reasonably says, I am subject to correction on 22 this. As I recall, it was suggested that Phase I, that 23 there was an agenda, that was the answer to 24 Mr. McGovern when he raised the matter with 25 Br. Reynolds, that's my recollection. You don't have 12:19 26 to agree or not, I am just stating my own recollection. 27 That there was an agenda. We went on to private 28 hearings. But specifically it wasn't suggested. I am 29 open to correction, that this evidence or the report 74 1 was undermined because of X, Y, Z. 2 MR. DOWLING: I think, Mr. Chairman, I 3 could probably assist 4 because I have the transcript here. It was said quite 5 explicitly. This is why we are dancing around 12:19 6 something that Mr. Hanratty himself said in the most 7 explicit terms ...(INTERJECTION). 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: He wasn't. He was going 9 the ...(INTERJECTION) 10 MR. DOWLING: I will read it out. 12:19 11 "The concern is the people may leave 12 the room today with the impression that we have a perspective from a genuinely 13 concerned observer which may well be the case. Then there is at least the 14 basis for a question mark as to the reliability of that report. I don't 15 put it any higher than that". 12:20 16 17 He goes on to say that the person was convicted of 18 sexual abuse, in quite explicit terms. So it is being 19 said very explicitly in Phase I. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: That was Phase I, we then 12:20 21 went to Phase II and we had 22 a hearing. What I am suggesting is, subject to 23 correction, that's why I am addressing Mr. Hanratty and 24 Ms. Moorhead. My recollection is -- because I think I 25 was waiting for it, was that it was not suggested that 12:20 26 because of events which occurred later the validity of 27 the material was undermined or removed; am I right 28 about that? 29 MR. HANRATTY: Essentially, sir, that is 75 1 part of the problem. If I 2 might just articulate it like this. Insofar as 3 anything is put to the witness premised on the veracity 4 of the assertions made by this person, then the witness 5 would disagree on a number of grounds, one the one that 12:20 6 has just been mentioned and on the basis of whatever 7 inference, which is ultimately matter for you, may or 8 may not be taken from that fact. Secondly on the 9 motivation of the person, which is primarily to do with 10 documentation and the nature of the process in which he 12:21 11 was engaged. Thirdly, with reference to the explicit 12 evidence that was given and in particular the 13 examination of the witness where there was an 14 exploration of his capacity to make these assertions of 15 the opportunity that he had. 12:21 16 17 So, certainly if something is put to the witness 18 premised on the veracity of any assertions by this 19 person, then it is not really possible for the Brother 20 to deal with it without transgressing the ruling of the 12:21 21 Commission. 22 23 The other thing I would say about it, it is something 24 obviously will be canvassed in the course of 25 submissions in due course and I don't necessarily think 12:21 26 that it is necessary for any particular purpose to be 27 canvassed at this point in time. 28 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. McGrath, it is 29 perfectly clear that this 76 1 is an important matter that we have to take into 2 account. If you say that it is important for you to be 3 able to explore it at this moment then obviously we 4 will have to try to devise a way of doing that that is 5 fair to everybody. The matter, it is fair to say, has 12:22 6 in fact been discussed by Mr. McGovern, and Mr. Dowling 7 reminded us of Mr. Hanratty's comments, with 8 Br. Reynolds on Phase I. My suggestion is -- it is not 9 a ruling, but my suggestion is that it is probably 10 unnecessary at this point to explore this matter. But, 12:22 11 as I say, if you are keen to do so then we will have 12 another look and see if there is some method we can 13 devise. But an obvious one isn't presenting itself. 14 MR. McGRATH: No. I will park it for a 15 moment and then I might ask 12:22 16 you to rise until I talk and decide what we want to do 17 with regard to that particular point. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Leave that until it is the 19 last item in your 20 examination. If that's convenient, Mr. McGrath, we can 12:23 21 give you an opportunity to have a think about that and 22 come back to us. 23 227 Q. MR. McGRATH: Okay. 24 25 (To the witness) Can I ask you something, it does 12:23 26 partially arise out of what is in some of these 27 documents here, but I wanted -- and something that in 28 some ways I was leaving over to this because it hit 29 upon the trades scenario. 77 1 2 Now, am I correct in understanding that a problem arose 3 in the 1960's in relation to trades and the 4 certification and non- certification as to whether or 5 not people could actually get jobs within, and it is a 12:23 6 matter that arose yesterday with Letterfrack, where 7 people couldn't get anything that they had done in the 8 industrial schools recognised by the unions, so to a 9 certain extent a lot of what they might have learned 10 wasn't considered of any value. I am not making that 12:24 11 as a criticism of the school but I am saying that was a 12 fact? 13 A. Oh that situation was there. My understanding of it 14 is, and again I may not be correct, that the trade 15 unions at the time did not, I think, recognise is the 12:24 16 word I am looking for, recognise the qualification. 17 That is why the trades preparatory was introduced, that 18 is why later on in the early to mid-1960's the day 19 group, what is now known or until recently known as the 20 Group Cert was introduced. It ran into technical 12:24 21 difficulties as well and then we tried to introduce the 22 Inter Cert. 23 228 Q. Was there a problem that arose -- a very significant 24 number of boys that ran into the problem with the Group 25 Cert at an early stage? 12:24 26 A. Yes, in one exam there was a very large failure rate. 27 229 Q. And there was obviously something very wrong with 28 either the way it was being taught or there was some 29 major problem? 78 1 A. There was. I know what the major problem is, I have 2 referred to it, and the Congregation took -- I want to 3 be very careful here, the Congregation took action, 4 because the person who was teaching in that particular 5 class, was not -- he was a qualified teacher but he 12:25 6 wasn't on the staff in Artane and complaints -- let's 7 put it this way, complaints were made to the correct 8 body in relation to it. 9 230 Q. Now, without going into the documentation here in the 10 1960's, you have taken from the reports, and you have 12:25 11 indicated this idea as I have indicated a short while 12 ago, abut the idea of Artane being a place of happy 13 families. The whole idea that everyone was very happy 14 there, etc., and there is a quotation I think in your 15 original submission,. But I want to refer you to a 12:25 16 particular letter, it is 3/1/1946, it is to be found in 17 Department of Education and Science general discovery, 18 folder 1. 19 A. Yes. 20 231 Q. It is ART 0380-020/1? 12:26 21 A. It is in section one, is it? Sorry, can you give me 22 that again, please? 23 232 Q. 0380-020/1. 24 A. Yes, 5th January 1946. I am at 0380021/1. 25 233 Q. 020/1. It is a letter to Dr. McCabe, is it? 12:26 26 A. No, I have the wrong one. Yes, this one here. 27 234 Q. It is a letter from, it looks like, signed JJ Kelly? 28 A. Yes. 29 235 Q. And it is to Dr. McCabe? 79 1 A. That's right. 2 236 Q. She says in this one: 3 "I am sure you will say there is something very serious the matter when 4 you receive a letter from me, but I am glad to say that the matter is not so 5 serious as that. I am writing on 12:27 behalf of Br. Blank, our 6 disciplinarian, he would like to know if you would be agreeable to have the 7 heights and weights of the boys taken every six months instead of every three 8 months". 9 A. Yeah. 10 237 Q. 12:27 11 "Apparently it is very troublesome here on account of the very large number of 12 boys and it affects the different departments of the institution. I told 13 Br. Blank that your instructions would have to be carried out but I promised 14 him I would place the matter before you for your kind and sympathetic 15 consideration." 12:28 16 A. Yes. 17 238 Q. Given that this particular disciplinarian, first of 18 all, wasn't particularly interested in filling in the 19 books he had to fil in relation to heights and 20 measures, it might not be terribly surprising that he 12:28 21 wasn't interested in filling in a discipline book 22 either; would it? 23 MR. HANRATTY: I do think it is 24 inappropriate to make 25 pejorative comments on the evidence, with respect. 12:28 26 239 Q. MR. McGRATH: We will go on to the next 27 paragraph, which is the I 28 wanted to discuss: 29 "We are all well here, thank God. The boys are splendid. A "picture" now and 80 1 again satisfies them." 2 3 It doesn't really sound like somebody who has a 4 particular interest in the boys, does it? 5 A. Well, I think all the evidence that was given in 12:28 6 relation to JJ Kelly, if you remember, was the Resident 7 Manager at the time, and was in fact the Resident 8 Manager at the time that the abuse cases that were 9 reported in 1944, it was the person that discovered 10 them by the boys coming along and making complaints to 12:29 11 him. So, I think maybe your judgment is a little bit 12 too harsh taken on this letter. Secondly, the 13 disciplinarian's difficulty was as follows -- and you 14 know Dr. Anna McCabe was a very severe one and said, 15 "the rule is the rule, tell your disciplinarian go and 12:29 16 keep it", which is what happened and which was exactly 17 what she should have done. 18 19 Looking at the documentation here, it is no surprise 20 because that's what she did on all occasions. What he 12:29 21 was saying, "I have 800 boys, I have to weigh them and 22 measure them every quarter, that entails me going and 23 disrupting the classes in the primary school, 24 disrupting the trades, disrupting everyone, is there 25 anyway we could reduce that to twice a year instead of 12:29 26 four times a year?" It was an organisation matter. 27 She said absolutely not. That was the end of the 28 story, as far as I am concerned. 29 240 Q. I am interested in this little -- 81 1 "A picture now and again satisfies them". 2 3 Not a very nice way to speak about the boys? 4 A. No, but you are talking about 1946 in which they had a 5 tiered seated cinema. How many schools primary 12:30 6 secondary, boarding or any other had that at that time? 7 241 Q. I think we had evidence at the closed hearings that the 8 projector was a present or was a donation to the 9 school? 10 A. I don't know where the projector came from. 12:30 11 242 Q. I think that is what the evidence was? 12 A. The cinema wasn't a donation to school so why you would 13 have one. They had concerts in it as well and they had 14 all kinds of public displays, in which the public were 15 in and they were reported, as you can see from my 12:30 16 submission, in the 1940's and the comments of public 17 personages quoted in the newspaper and the high 18 standard of performance and the high standard of 19 management was quoted. You will find the references in 20 my submission. 12:31 21 243 Q. But you don't find anything questionable about the 22 describing the boys in those terms: 23 "Satisfies them", "a picture now and again satisfies them". 24 25 A. I would look at it on a throwaway remark and which I 12:31 26 wouldn't put any major significance. 27 244 Q. Now, Mr. Hanratty has been relying on the documentation 28 in relation to the medical inspections because a 29 general observation, every one of them says, "well 82 1 conducted school or well run school." But I have to 2 suggest to you, when you read through them it would 3 appear that on any given occasion the medical 4 inspection or the inspection that is carried out, that 5 in the various headings: Condition of premises 12:31 6 accommodation, equipment, sanitation, health, food and 7 diet, clothing, recreation, precautions and fire. 8 There are various ways they can be described. The top 9 one seems to be excellent, the next one seems to be 10 very good. The next one seems to be good. The next 12:32 11 one seems to be fairly good. The next one seems to be 12 satisfactory. And then after that you are getting 13 negative reports. All right. 14 15 In that terms, I have to suggest to you, that it would 12:32 16 be wrong of the Commission just to take well conducted 17 school in general observations without having a look 18 and seeing what is said in each of the other 19 categories. In that regard, in the booklet you have 20 open there, if you go to 0380-024/1? 12:32 21 A. Yes. 22 245 Q. Those are in relation to inspections that appear to 23 have been carried out on 9/11/46, 11/11/46 and 2/12/46. 24 In those, I have to put it to you, that you got one, 25 two, three, satisfactories. Sanitation is good. 12:33 26 Health is satisfactory. Food and diet is satisfactory. 27 Clothing not so good. Recreation facilities good. And 28 then there is fire and precautions and I can't actually 29 read most of that. Then well conducted school? 83 1 A. Yes. 2 246 Q. But those would certainly seem to be a long way away 3 from high praise in relation to the various matters 4 that are covered in the inspection; isn't that right? 5 A. It depends on your view on it very much. The only 12:33 6 thing that is criticised is the clothing. 7 247 Q. Now, if you have, starting at the top, excellent, very 8 good, good, satisfactory -- sorry. Fairly good, 9 satisfactory and not so good and then I suppose, you 10 might have bad or you might have something in it, at 12:34 11 one, two, three, four, five satisfactories, two goods, 12 one not so good doesn't really paint a particularly 13 great picture, does it? 14 A. No, it...(INTERJECTION). 15 MR. HANRATTY: Sorry sir, again I have 12:34 16 to object to the premise of 17 the question. My understanding, and I stand subject to 18 correction on this, is that the author who used these 19 expressions used them as descriptive expressions, not 20 as a hierarchical marking structure like marks out of 12:34 21 ten. The premise of the question is that they were. 22 If I am correct in my understanding that they were not 23 used as a hierarchical marking structure, then the 24 premise of this question is unfair. 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: Is excellent not better 12:34 26 than fairly good? 27 MR. HANRATTY: I accept that entirely, of 28 course it is. 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am not sure what we can 84 1 deduce from it, looking at 2 it now. But as far as it goes, you would prefer to 3 see, you would prefer to see excellent and Mr. McGrath 4 would be...(INTERJECTION). 5 MR. HANRATTY: Yes, but the relativity is 12:35 6 different. If you are 7 using them merely as descriptive terms rather than as 8 marks out of ten, then marks out of ten has a 9 particular connotation. If you are merely using them 10 as descriptive terms you cannot say that merely because 12:35 11 something is described as, for example, satisfactory 12 that there was something wrong with it, that's all I am 13 saying. That is essentially the manner in which it is 14 being put. 15 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am sort of reading it as 12:35 16 graded, it may not be marks 17 out of ten, I am reading excellent as close to ten and 18 satisfactory is seven or eight and fairly good, you 19 know, going -- I have to say it sounds like that's what 20 is intended. But what the conclusions of that are, 12:36 21 what we can divine from all that in a discussion 22 between Mr. McGrath and Br. Reynolds I am not entirely 23 sure. 24 MR. HANRATTY: I can't put it any further 25 than that. 12:36 26 A. Can I respond to that? 27 MR. McGRATH: Sorry, Chairman, it is very 28 simple. The Brothers in 29 Letterfrack, the Brothers in Artane and Mr. Hanratty on 85 1 their behalf, particularly during that question was 2 jumping all over me because I was picking out certain 3 reports and I wasn't keeping reading the bits as well 4 conducted school or whatever and that he thinks that 5 you should take that one sentence there out of that 12:36 6 report and everything else is ignored. Now, I took the 7 view on reading these, exactly the view you did, that 8 she used excellent she obviously means that it is an 9 exception, she used very good that has a connotation in 10 my mind, if she used good it has a connotation fairly 12:37 11 good. When you get down to not so good and 12 satisfactory, they seem to have fallen way down from 13 the excellent standards or the other standards. If 14 that is so it would seem to me if Mr. Hanratty is 15 allowed take well conducted school, I am entitled to 12:37 16 ask you to look at these and say, you know, how does 17 all those square with the problem. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: I see your point. I am 19 inclined to read it in the 20 same way, as a grade. That's, for what it is worth, on 12:37 21 looking at it, that's my thinking, excellent is better 22 than satisfactory. 23 A. Can I come back to you on it? I have read them all, I 24 must confess some time back and I haven't them in my 25 head now, but my impression would be that in the round 12:37 26 Dr. Anna McCabe's reports were good. For instance, I 27 think I have lost my page. What page was that again? 28 248 Q. MR. McGRATH: We were 0380-024/1? 29 A. Just give me the year. 86 1 249 Q. It is 1946. 2 A. If you go then to 1953 you get very well kept, much 3 improved, good, excellent, very good, improved. If you 4 go on to -- I mean, they are there. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: They speak for themselves. 12:38 6 While I am with you, 7 Mr. McGrath, on the gradation and I think Br. Reynolds 8 is pointing to other ones, my feeling is that they 9 speak for themselves, really. We will have to make the 10 best of them. I see your point that you can't simply 12:38 11 take one thing and say that's the end of it, you have 12 to look at it in more detail. 13 MR. McGRATH: I was going to go on and 14 suggest that there are some 15 that say very good, good, excellent, very good. Even 12:38 16 there within the very goods she thinks that 17 improvements are still needed, even though it is very 18 good. So it is a question of you getting a sense of 19 what the reports mean. But I do think that you have to 20 look at all those aspects rather than take this two or 12:39 21 three lines? 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is a comment or a 23 submission, as much as 24 anything else. 25 MR. McGRATH: It is, but I am trying to 12:39 26 deal with the fact that my 27 Friend is relying on the particular and that's all I 28 wanted to deal with as far as that is concerned. 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. 87 1 MR. McGRATH: Chairman, I was just 2 wondering, it would seem to 3 me that given that there is a matter that I was going 4 to deal with, which is kind of hanging in the air for a 5 moment, if it might be a convenient time to break to 12:39 6 give me moment to discuss where I should go with this 7 and what I should do. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. McGrath, I can make 9 things easy because we have 10 had a quiet consultation here, it seems to us this 12:40 11 matter was discussed, first of all, at Phase I, it was 12 then gone into in detail in Phase II in private. There 13 is no way we can now revisit that and still be fair to 14 everybody involved, particularly the witness who gave 15 evidence to us. This is clearly an important matter, 12:40 16 the evidence is, clearly, relevant and important if 17 accepted. It is relevant and important if rejected 18 because of the reasons why it is rejected and obviously 19 that's something that we have to explore. So, having 20 thought about it we believe there is no way it can 12:40 21 fairly be done, and accordingly it is an area that we 22 think the only safe way is to say, "no, we will 23 consider it on the basis of the evidence in private." 24 If we could otherwise we would be very happy to do it 25 otherwise, no doubt there would be people who would 12:41 26 like to have it discussed. We are completely 27 sympathetic to that point of view, but there are 28 obligations and we don't want to spoil what is a later 29 stage by getting into a debate which is going to run us 88 1 into trouble we can foresee for certain, and I think 2 all of us would agree with that. So, we have had to 3 make a decision. Rather than invite you to reconsider 4 and not push us on it, we have actually make a 5 decision, Mr. McGrath. 12:41 6 MR. McGRATH: You know why I was going 7 open those documents, you 8 know where I was going with it, it is dealing with this 9 idea, as I would call it, the happy families, that 10 things weren't quite maybe like that. I will leave it 12:42 11 there. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is important and 13 relevant, Mr. McGrath. 14 There is no question about that. I don't think anybody 15 would suggest, could suggest that this wasn't 12:42 16 important. 17 MR. McGRATH: I need a moment to try and 18 realise where I was going 19 next. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. 12:42 21 250 Q. MR. McGRATH: This is a document I didn't 22 refer to you a few moments 23 ago, Brother, when we were discussing the question of 24 the numbers in Artane and it is just after No. 7 in 25 folder 2 of the Department of Education general 12:43 26 discovery. 27 A. I have the folder two of the ES, where are you 28 directing me, please. 29 251 Q. No. 7, if you go to tab 7. 89 1 A. Yes. I have a table of contents and I have 2 correspondence with the Committee. 3 252 Q. If you turn over the next page. It appears to be some 4 sort of a memo and it is signed MOS 14/3/55? 5 A. Yes. 12:44 6 253 Q. Now, it seems to be Mr. O'Sugrue considering some 7 things that have been said by something called the 8 Joint Committee of Women's Societies and Social 9 Workers, communication they got, and then some comments 10 he made of some things they put forward. It would 12:44 11 appear that one of the recommendations made by this 12 particular Committee, if you look down at the second 13 last page, the paragraph numbered 1? 14 A. Yes. 15 254 Q. It says just before that he says: 12:44 16 "With regard to the recommendation of the Women's Committee the following 17 comments are made in the order set forth in the Joint Committee's letter. 18 One - that the maximum number in any institution should not exceed 250. The 19 only school that accommodates any more than 250 is Artane. The question of 20 breaking up schools is recommended by 12:44 the Commission of Inquire 1934 to 1936. 21 Nothing came of it. Namely due to the opposition of the conductors and the 22 extra huge expenditure involved. I consider that in fact 250 is altogether 23 too big a number for a school and that 50 to 100 would be the ideal number." 24 25 That would be seem to be his own views on that, but 12:45 26 again he seems to be suggesting that it was the 27 Brothers who opposed the idea of the numbers being 28 reduced between 1934 to 36, after the report, from the 29 Cussen? 90 1 A. Yes, yes. 2 255 Q. Do you know whether that is factually correct or not? 3 A. I don't, but I am taking it -- I think it is Micheal 4 O'Sudrue is saying that, I haven't any reason to 5 disbelieve him. 12:45 6 256 Q. It would appear that it didn't happen after this in 7 1935 either? 8 A. No, I think it was 1960 by the time it happened. You 9 see, he does mention there the factor of cost. If you 10 were going to build a new institution, as it were, that 12:46 11 would have to be met by the State, and presuming the 12 cost of that. 13 257 Q. Can I ask you, this is the something that the Brothers 14 -- the idea of running the industrial schools was 15 something the Brothers took on having been asked to do 12:46 16 so? 17 A. Yes. 18 258 Q. What was the ethos of the Brothers so far as that was 19 concerned? Did they see that as their vocation in life 20 to do this or did they expect to get paid for it or was 12:46 21 it only on the basis that money was going to be paid 22 that they were going to do it? Had they any resources 23 or they felt they should be putting out of their own 24 pocket into it? 25 A. I will take those in stages. The ethos on the Brothers 12:46 26 was as follows, when they were approached a way back, 27 the reason the Congregation, not just the Brothers were 28 approached was because the Government at the time, or 29 the State at the time weren't able to resource it, the 91 1 local authorities were refusing to pay money, 2 Congregations were asked. I think the ethos in Artane 3 is well summed up by this, 300 acres in or about -- of 4 prime land in north county Dublin was put at the 5 disposal of the State for 100 years, plus the buildings 12:47 6 that were on it, all of which was held in fee simple by 7 the Congregation. If some group other than a charity 8 came along and said they were going to donate that to 9 the State, now there would be a lot of questions asked 10 about it. 12:47 11 259 Q. Now, again I want to move on to later in that 12 particular document and if you go to the second last 13 page in that particular document, that's 0411-002/3. 14 A. Yes. 15 260 Q. You see at No. 8 it says: 12:48 16 "Under the Children's Act 1908 the managers are required to supervise the 17 children discharged from industrial schools up to the age of 18 years, 19 18 years in the case of reformatories. Under the 1941 Act a period of 19 supervision at the request of the managers may be extended to the age of 20 21 years. This provision is being 12:48 availed of where necessary by the 21 school managers. Gathering social workers at the invitation of the school 22 managers assist in this work of supervision. With reference to the 23 suggestion of the Joint Committee that the Government should set up aftercare 24 Committee I consider that any such proposal would not be approved by the 25 school managers. They, after all, have 12:48 the real responsibility, both legal and 26 moral in this matter. May be well in this connection to quote from the 27 following, from the report of the Commission of Inquiry of 1934. 28 The quote is: "This work (aftercare) 29 should we consider be carried out by the manager of the school or by a 92 1 carefully selected and experienced assistant. It requires to be done 2 tactfully and unobtrusively so as to avoid any suggestion of ticket of leave 3 and possible resentment on the part of the child under supervision. " 4 5 Now, as far as that is concerned, are there records in 12:49 6 Artane which would suggest that all through the 1940's, 7 1950's and 1960's that there was constant contact with 8 people who had been sent out to jobs? 9 A. Yes, and they have been discovered to the Committee. 10 261 Q. And as far as you are concerned that each and every 12:49 11 child that was sent out to a job was being monitored up 12 to 18 years of age? 13 A. Yes, within the resources available. That 14 recommendation, in the Cussen Report, that is 1934/36 15 that was referred to there, Artane was criticised. 12:49 16 262 Q. Yes, it was. 17 A. One of the stipulations or one of the recommendations 18 of the Cussen Report was that a person should be given 19 that job as his or her responsibility. In fact, in 20 Artane two were appointed and they were assisted by the 12:50 21 Resident Manager. During the war years it was 22 difficult and you will find documented that they 23 enlisted the help of St. Vincent dePaul, the Gardaí and 24 I think it was the Legion of Mary, as always was 25 recommended in some report. That continued right 12:50 26 through the 1960's and I think there is extensive 27 documentation in relation to aftercare. I am not 28 saying it is was perfect. But I am saying the 29 resources -- the other stipulation that was in the 93 1 custody report, which is not mentioned, maybe it is, 2 but it is not mentioned in the sections of the letter 3 that you opened here, is that the report recommended 4 that the Department fund this independently. In 5 other -- what I mean by independently was that they 12:50 6 would fund that in addition to the maintenance grants. 7 263 Q. Can I take it that when you actually look at the 8 numbers of children who were in Artane two people 9 doesn't seem an awful lot given the extensive number of 10 boys who would have been coming and going? 12:51 11 A. Well, I will put it to you this way, I have reports, 12 Visitation Reports, I think, but I certainly recollect 13 the following figures, Br. X, Y and I think possibly Z 14 have visited 200 pupils within the last whatever it is, 15 that have left within the last X year and I have found 12:51 16 that only 18 of them are not still in employment. I 17 would refer you -- I can't give you the quote on it, 18 but I can quote you where it was stated. Br. X is 19 going to Athlone to visit so many. On the way down 20 he's visiting so many and on the way back he's visiting 12:51 21 so many. Now the documentation we have is the 22 documentation we have. I can't go back and say this 23 was adequate or was not adequate. 24 25 I can also refer you to recommendations and I would say 12:52 26 a leaflet of some description that was mentioned 27 yesterday in fact as well that was handed out to boys. 28 I'm not saying it was perfect but I am saying that we 29 have quite extensive documentation in relation to it. 94 1 264 Q. The first of those leaflets, the first half of it is 2 all religious rather than actual instructions on how to 3 get on after school; isn't that right? 4 A. Yes. 5 265 Q. It is very much a case of most of it deals with going 12:52 6 to mass, religious observance and things of that 7 nature; isn't that right? 8 A. Just hold on a second until I get it please. Have you 9 it open there? 10 MR. HANRATTY: 55. 12:52 11 A. Thanks. I have it divided up here and actually I have 12 those categories in the margin: 1 to 3 religion; 4 to 13 7 work; 8 to 10 relationships with others; 11 to 15, 14 personal life. That's my categorisation for what it's 15 worth. 12:53 16 266 Q. MR. McGRATH: Do you have a copy of the 17 actual document itself? 18 A. I have a typed out copy, not a photocopy. Can I ask 19 you do you find anything objectionable about having any 20 recommendations in relation to religion? 12:53 21 267 Q. I am wondering about someone who is leaving an 22 industrial school, who has spent their live regimented, 23 that the document handed out essentially deals with 24 religious matters, it deals very little with anything 25 about how you live outside, how you live, what to do 12:53 26 with your money, what money is needed for, how you pay 27 rent, how you pay for light, heating, anything like 28 that, those things don't seem to be covered in that 29 document at all? 95 1 A. Your first premise that most of it deals with religion 2 is incorrect. Three of the recommendations out of 15 3 deal with religion. 4 268 Q. The first one, "For your guidance." 5 "Don't miss mass on Sundays or holy 12:54 days of obligation. Be in good time. 6 Don't leave before the end. Don't walk around the door. Use your missal or 7 prayer book. Go right into confession and holy communion, they will keep you 8 straight and make you a man. Keep Our Lady on your side, you need her." 9 10 Now, that's the first three or four? 12:54 11 A. Yes, three. 12 269 Q. But within those there are at least four different 13 instructions in relation to it. The last one again is: 14 "The only one who can make a man of you is yourself and then only by God's help 15 by which you must pray daily and make 12:54 Our Lady of Refuge at all times." 16 17 The others deal with drinking, betting and things of 18 that nature. There is nothing there which essentially 19 equipped somebody who is leaving an institution and 20 institutionalised because everything has been organised 12:55 21 for him for years to deal with an outside world. I am 22 thinking particularly in terms of children who were 23 either in orphanages around the country with the nuns 24 and moved to Artane or were there for maybe five, six, 25 seven, eight, nine, ten years. There is nothing there 12:55 26 to equip them for dealing with the ordinary, simple 27 everyday things of life, living on their own, getting 28 paid, how they spend their money, how they have to 29 budget, how they have to try and save or anything of 96 1 that particular nature, would you accept that? 2 A. What I have written at the top of this for myself in 3 pencil, it is a type of vade mecum that was given out 4 to the person going out. 5 270 Q. You also have after that I think you have the outline 12:55 6 of a scheme for the aftercare of past pupils of the 7 schools under the charge of the Christian Brothers and 8 that sets out, what as I understand it, is what the 9 school should be doing for their past pupils? 10 A. What are we quoting from there? 12:56 11 271 Q. The following page, the pages we are looking at is "For 12 Your Guidance", I think it is attached to your opening 13 statement? It is appendix five. 14 A. I have not got the appendixes. What I have is written 15 is we are simply dealing with the same matter in the 12:56 16 two documents. 17 272 Q. Yes, it sets out what each school should do. No. 4 of 18 that says: 19 20 "Each boy shall ordinarily be visited 12:56 once a year for the first two years 21 after he has left school but should the correspondence referred to in two and 22 three show any circumstance that cause for investigation or other action on 23 the part of the school authorities a special visit shall be made to the boy 24 and his employer". 25 Now, the situation there is that it could be nine, ten, 12:56 26 eleven months before a boy could get a visit? 27 A. Yes. 28 273 Q. And it could be nearly year before you discovered that 29 somebody was being exploited by an employer? 97 1 A. Except, I think you will find somewhere else that they 2 were told that if they had difficulties and they need 3 to lose their job that they should write to the Brother 4 in question and not only that, boys did that and boys 5 actually came back to return to Artane and asked to be 12:57 6 kept there until a more suitable job was found for 7 them. 8 274 Q. Well, given that these children who were being sent out 9 to work knew absolutely nothing about the outside world 10 you would think that leaving it maybe nearly a year 12:57 11 before they were visited, do you think that might be 12 too long? 13 A. It was, but I am not sure it was left a year before 14 they were visited. 15 275 Q. Well in each individual case we have no idea. 12:57 16 A. Correct. That's why I am saying I don't know why you 17 are drawing that inference. 18 MR. McGRATH: Okay, Chairman, I think I 19 am finished. 20 12:58 21 END OF EXAMINATION OF BR. REYNOLDS BY MR. McGRATH 22 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, 24 Mr. McGrath. Thank you 25 very much. Have you much in the way of questions, 12:58 26 Mr. MacMahon? 27 MR. MacMAHON: I had a few questions. 28 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good, all right. 29 MR. MacMAHON: Should we proceed with them 98 1 at this stage? 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think we will proceed. 3 4 are you all right, 5 Br. Reynolds? 12:59 6 7 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Mr. Ryan, interjection 8 please. I have come from 9 England to attend this hearing, I spent six years in 10 Artane, you denied me and thousands of people, your 12:59 11 Committee denied me and thousands of people like me the 12 opportunity to give evidence. Yet I have to sit here 13 and listen to an individual who spent not one day in 14 Artane. I have to -- no court in the land would give 15 credence to this man's evidence. Thousands like me are 12:59 16 denied the opportunity to come and put our case to you. 17 We listen to this man. 18 19 The 1908 Children's Act, Mr. Ryan, Section 4, 20 subsection (54) to (57) states quite clearly who and 12:59 21 what authority the management of Artane had to issue 22 discipline. And I can tell you here and now that the 23 manager in Artane responsible for discipline didn't 24 exist. Every single Brother in Artane had the right to 25 administer punishment of brutality that you cannot even 13:00 26 imagine. And did so frequently. 27 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think we will take a 28 break now. 29 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: And I would ask one more 99 1 thing. When will you give 2 us the right in public? These people laughed 3 yesterday, when you shut this gentleman down, they 4 turned around and congratulated each other. Now, when 5 will you give us the opportunity to the survivors who 13:00 6 you refused to admit to your Commission, when will you 7 give us a public opportunity to throw questions to this 8 man. Because I can tell you something, I could 9 personally sit up there and throw so many questions at 10 him that he wouldn't even be able to answer. The 11th 13:01 11 November 1946 -- I will finish after this. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Please don't upset 13 yourself. We are taking a 14 break now. We are going to break now. 15 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: 11th November 1946, the 13:01 16 Congregation Agreement, why 17 wasn't it enacted? 18 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: It was even a public 19 parity. 20 13:01 21 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 100 1 THE HEARING RESUMED, AS FOLLOWS, AFTER A LUNCHEON 2 ADJOURNMENT 3 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Now 5 Mr. MacMahon. 14:03 6 7 BR. REYNOLDS WAS FURTHER QUESTIONED, AS FOLLOWS, BY THE 8 COMMISSION 9 10 276 Q. MR. MacMAHON: Brother, I wanted to ask 14:04 11 you a few questions about 12 records and recordkeeping. The Visitation Reports from 13 1944 record that three Brothers left the Order from 14 Artane in a number of weeks before 1944. It refers to 15 a fourth being transferred, and I think he departed 14:04 16 shortly after being transferred from that other school? 17 A. Yes. 18 277 Q. The Visitation Report from the 30th October, 1944 -- I 19 think you have a copy of it in front of you. 20 A. I have. 14:04 21 278 Q. It refers to the three Brothers by name. It says that: 22 "They applied for dispensation, which 23 were granted. They are no longer members of the Congregation." 24 25 It goes on to mention the fourth Brother: 14:04 26 "...who is also mentioned in this same 27 connection has been changed to another school. There were no others 28 involved." 29 It then later on, on the same page says: 101 1 2 3 "With the exception of the irregularities discovered some weeks 4 ago in the institution, as a result of which three perp..." 5 14:05 6 I think that means perpetually professed. 7 "...Brothers has taken their departure, 8 and one has been changed. There is nothing to be alarmed at. It does not 9 appear that any outside those directly concerned, and who have already been 10 dealt with were even aware of the 14:05 incidences that were taking place. 11 In our institutions it should be 12 considered a very grave offence for a Brother to take a boy to his room on 13 any pretext, or to be seen alone with a boy on any occasion. Unfortunately the 14 rule forbidding such was not observed in Artane. Boys were also taken out of 15 the shops, and off the parade by 14:05 Brothers for various reasons. These 16 have now been prohibited." 17 It then goes on to say that: 18 "The Superior shall have access to all 19 rooms and stores of the institution at all reasonable times and keys should be 20 provided to enable them to have such 14:06 access." 21 22 There is a cover letter dated 30th October, 1944, 23 addressed by the visitor, who I think is a Brother, his 24 name is given there, it may be Brother Young. The 25 letter is addressed by that Brother to the Superior 14:06 26 General. He refers to having: 27 "...spent a week in the above 28 institution and having come to the conclusion that there is very fine work 29 being done there. The boys are very open and intelligent and now that the 102 1 rotten bricks have been removed the structure will be more than safe for 2 the future." 3 4 It says: 5 "The Brothers who are outside the 14:06 circle were quite unaware of what was 6 going on and knew nothing about it until all was over. Thank God the 7 disease was discovered in time and that such a drastic remedy was applied. I 8 don't think there will be anymore dry rot for many a long year." 9 10 That refers to the four Brothers whom you have already 14:07 11 referred to in your evidence? 12 A. Yes. 13 279 Q. It doesn't refer to two other Brothers, both of whom 14 were in Artane at that time, and both of whom were 15 subsequently dismissed for the same kind of offences. 14:07 16 One was there from 1943 to 1944 and another one was 17 there from 1941 to 1945? 18 A. Can you give me the reference? 19 280 Q. Yes. 20 A. Is this in the folder you are referring to? 14:07 21 281 Q. It is, yes. 22 A. Thank you. 23 282 Q. You will see there is a collection of personal records? 24 A. Yes. 25 283 Q. If it helps you...(INTERJECTION) 14:07 26 THE CHAIRPERSON: What page are we on? 27 284 Q. MR. MacMAHON: I think it is the third 28 tab, or perhaps the fourth 29 tab. 103 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it is. 2 285 Q. MR. MacMAHON: One of the references to 3 the one who was there from 4 1943 to 1944 is ACB02-0016/1, his surname begins with 5 "W". 14:08 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 7 286 Q. MR. MacMAHON: The other one, whose 8 surname begins with "M", is 9 immediately before that in the little booklet, I think, 10 before you. Sorry, perhaps after it. 14:08 11 A. The first one is ACB00161; is that correct? 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: What's the number 13 Mr. MacMahon. 14 MR. MacMAHON: It ends 16/1. That's the 15 one whose surname begins 14:08 16 with "W". 17 A. No, the one I have at 16/1, the surname begins with 18 "M". 19 MR. MacMAHON: Yes, that's the second one 20 I was referring to. That 14:08 21 ends zero. It is CBART-097/1. There is also a 22 reference for that Brother, and I will be asking you 23 about this, ACB02-0053/1. 24 A. I have the "W" one. Am I correct in saying over in the 25 corner of that page there is No. 4274, up at personal 14:09 26 file? 4274, is that the surname? 27 287 Q. Yes. I have a couple of general questions, Brother, no 28 relation to the records which you are looking at now, 29 the personnel records. What was the purpose of the 104 1 personnel records that we are looking at there, they 2 contained the name of a Brother and the places where he 3 was whilst within the Brothers? 4 A. I presume that was -- you had a record of any Brother 5 who was a member of the Congregation, where he was, 14:09 6 where he taught, and so on. On the back of it, which 7 you probably haven't got, there were qualifications. 8 There is some of that down at the bottom. And any 9 other information that was useful was there, or that 10 was deemed useful was there, where you will see some 14:10 11 comments written, if he left, if he died in the 12 Congregation or if he was still a member of the 13 Congregation. 14 288 Q. What was the purpose of that record? 15 A. I presume they were just personnel files. Other than 14:10 16 that I don't know. 17 289 Q. Where were they kept? 18 A. There were two sets, as we discovered as well as 19 everybody else I think during the private hearings. 20 One set was kept in the Provincial headquarters and the 14:10 21 other was kept in Rome. That's why there was some 22 slight difference in relation to the numbers. It would 23 appear that the number that I quoted up at the top, 24 they had a different numbering system. But essentially 25 the same information should be kept on each. 14:10 26 290 Q. The Rome headquarters only commenced, I think, in the 27 1960's? 28 A. That's right. 29 291 Q. In the emergence hearings, I think in the early 60's? 105 1 A. Yes. 2 292 Q. It was indicate that files were transferred at that 3 time to Rome, which previously had been kept in the 4 headquarters in Ireland? 5 A. In Marino, yes. 14:11 6 293 Q. In Marino? 7 A. Yes. 8 294 Q. So is it the case that there were two sets of -- 9 duplicates were kept in Marino and sent on to Rome, or 10 what happened when Rome was set up? 14:11 11 A. They certainly weren't duplicates in the sense of being 12 photocopies, because they don't tally word for word. 13 My, and it is only a surmise on that my part, is that 14 one group was written out by whoever did that type of 15 work with the Provincial Council, and somebody else did 14:11 16 it with the General Council. The difficulty about it 17 is when that started. I don't know, because at one 18 stage the two of them were living in the same place, in 19 a big house in Marino. There was a set of offices at 20 one corner, in which you had the Provincial Council. 14:11 21 And there was a set of offices at the other corner in 22 another corner in which you had the General Council. 23 295 Q. So is it the case that even though both sides of the 24 house, so to speak, were living in the same place that 25 two sets were maintained at all times? 14:12 26 A. Well, I don't know, but that appears to be the case 27 from documentation. I think, like yourselves, and it 28 emerged -- it was brought to our notice during the 29 private hearings that, in fact, one personnel file that 106 1 we had provided didn't seem to tally exactly with one 2 that was provided later on. It was only at that stage 3 that we realised that we were dealing with two 4 different sets. So, I don't know is the answer as to 5 when the practice began of keeping them separately. 14:12 6 But they do exist. 7 296 Q. I think an examination of the files reveals that a 8 number of them don't tally. That for a particular 9 Brother -- that for a number of particular Brothers 10 there is two sets of files? 14:12 11 A. Yeah. 12 297 Q. And the files in relation to each of those Brothers 13 don't necessarily tally? 14 A. Yeah. I think the main discrepancy is this: If you 15 remember that people did one year training and then 14:13 16 returned to Marino, and then either returned to where 17 they were, let's say in Artane, or went elsewhere. If 18 they returned to Artane they were written down I think 19 in the General Council one as having been from Artane 20 to the beginning seamlessly, without the Marino piece 14:13 21 put in between. That is my reading of it at the time. 22 But I haven't gone into any great depth in examining 23 it. But from the few that I remember, I remember one 24 in particular and I remember at one stage I was being 25 asked about it and on examining the two the difference 14:13 26 was that the second year training in Marino was not in 27 the General Council one. 28 298 Q. Yes. And sometimes these documents, where a Brother 29 has been dispensed with, or has been given dispensation 107 1 rather, refers to that fact and gives the dates on 2 which the dispensation was granted? 3 A. Yes. 4 299 Q. And sometimes the document goes into a little bit of 5 detail as to the circumstances leading to that 14:14 6 dispensation? 7 A. Yes. 8 300 Q. The documents which you have in front of you, the 9 bundle of personnel files which are pinned together, I 10 think the first three sets of two relate to the three 14:14 11 Brothers who left Artane? 12 A. Yeah. 13 301 Q. At the end of 1944. And you have referred to them 14 already in your hearing. 15 A. That's correct, yes. 14:14 16 302 Q. If I could ask you to turn to the first of those three? 17 A. Yes. 18 303 Q. And ask you to take a look at how the circumstances of 19 that Brother's departure is described. We are looking 20 at document ACB01-0014/1? 14:15 21 A. Yes, that's the one I have, yes. 22 304 Q. Yes. The circumstances under which he departed. 23 A. 24 "Accused of misconduct with boys in Artane. He was advised to seek a 25 dispensation and did so. He left the 14:15 Congregation on 28/10/44." 26 27 305 Q. That identifies the Brother, gives his number and his 28 date of birth? 29 A. Yes. 108 1 306 Q. Then the next document that you have has a different 2 reference number, it is ACB02-009/1. 3 A. Yes. 4 307 Q. It relates to the same Brother, the same reference 5 number and date of birth? 14:15 6 A. Yes. 7 308 Q. Would you read the description? 8 A. 9 "Clear evidence came to light from boys at Artane re serious misconduct of 10 indecent character. He was tried by 14:15 General Council and unanimously judged 11 guilty. He appealed to the reverend apostolic visitor and was advised to 12 seek dispensation from vows. He did so and was dispensed by Fr. Hannon. He 13 left the Congregation in 28/10/." 14 15 I am presuming it is '44 as well, the last piece of it 14:16 16 is missing. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 18 309 Q. MR. MacMAHON: There would appear to be a 19 difference in the tone of 20 the circumstances described between the two documents. 14:16 21 Would you agree with me? 22 A. I would, yes. The first one is the Provincial Council 23 one, who then forward the complaint to the General 24 Council, and that's when what is described in the 25 second one took place. What happened in the case of a 14:16 26 Brother who was being dismissed was he was told he was 27 going to be dismissed and then told to apply for a 28 dispensation. That's the way the matter was handled. 29 310 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Just tell us that again, 109 1 Brother? The first one was the Provincial Council; is 2 that right? 3 A. Yes. My understanding is that when the complaints came 4 to light it was investigated and it, accompanied by 5 documentation, I think in relation to that one, if I am 14:17 6 correct, they were written complaints by boys, they 7 were sent in, or at that stage I think, if I am correct 8 in where they were living, they were simply forwarded 9 down the corridor and that was that. 10 311 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: But there was a Provincial 14:17 11 Council and there was a 12 General Council? 13 A. Yes. 14 312 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: The General Council over 15 all, overall the 14:17 16 Provincial, the province. 17 A. Over all provinces internationally. 18 313 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Wherever they existed. 19 A. The main difference in practical terms between the two 20 is that the Provincial Council was always there and was 14:17 21 always in Ireland, whereas the others, either all or 22 some, could be any place at all. 23 314 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: The General Council might 24 from time to time be 25 somewhere else, in some other province? 14:17 26 A. Yes, correct. Some were all. 27 315 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: But this man was accused of 28 sexual misconduct by the 29 boys in Artane? 110 1 A. Yes. 2 316 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, that complaint made 3 its way to the General 4 Council. 5 A. Yes. 14:18 6 317 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Where there was some form 7 of proceeding? 8 A. Yes. 9 318 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: He was tried. 10 A. I presume what that means -- and I think there is 14:18 11 documentation in reference to it that I have with me 12 but that you have. I think out of concern for making 13 sure that procedures were kept the allegations were put 14 to him. Now, in all of the three cases it would appear 15 that happened. In some of the cases there was a denial 14:18 16 or a partial denial. But in all cases th Council took 17 the word of the complainants and the person was 18 dismissed. 19 319 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And it was the 20 General Council that made 14:18 21 that decision? 22 A. Yes. 23 320 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: And the General Council 24 decided he was guilty? 25 A. Yes. 14:18 26 321 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: And they said "we are going 27 to dismiss you". 28 A. Yes. 29 322 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: But we will give you to 111 1 chance to go quietly. 2 A. Yeah. 3 323 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that right? 4 A. Yes. It may even be a little bit more complicated. 5 Because you see he appealed so on reading that, that 14:19 6 puts a complication into it which might lead me to 7 believe that initially he said "no, I don't agree with 8 you and I am going to appeal that to" -- I presume the 9 apostolic visitor is somebody in the Vatican, or he's 10 not a Brother, and somebody with authority in Canon 14:19 11 Law, or in ecclesiastical circles. 12 324 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It may be the 13 apostolic visitor said, 14 "listen, wise up here, you better apply for a 15 dispensation". 14:19 16 A. Yes. 17 325 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Or it may be that the 18 General Council said, 19 "okay, so you are appealing, look, the sensible thing 20 is to go"? That's what it looks like? 14:19 21 A. Yeah. 22 326 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Inevitably, I suppose it is 23 obvious that it was being 24 dealt with quietly rather than with any publicity or 25 reporting. A bit of a fudge really, I suppose. 14:20 26 A. Yes. 27 327 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Is what strikes me looking 28 at it, Brother. I don't 29 know whether you want to comment on it, agree with me 112 1 or not. 2 A. I am not sure in what sense you mean. 3 328 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: A bit of a fudge. In other 4 words, the General Council 5 said, look, he's guilty. 14:20 6 A. Yes. 7 329 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Guilty as charged. 8 A. Yes. 9 330 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: In whatever circumstances, 10 the next we hear of him 14:20 11 he's being allowed to seek a dispensation from his 12 vows, which is what would happen if somebody simply 13 said, look, without any stain on his character or any 14 accusation, listen, I am not for this life, I have been 15 here for ten years, I have tried it as best I can and I 14:21 16 am just really not suited to being a Christian Brother. 17 That way out would be dispensation. 18 A. Yes. 19 331 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: So this man is being 20 allowed out quietly, 14:21 21 without fuss, even though the General Council has found 22 him guilty. 23 A. Yes. 24 332 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: What we are wondering as we 25 look at this is how it 14:21 26 happened? Was that the suggestion of the apostolic 27 visitor? But however it was, that's the result of it. 28 A. Correct. I don't know who was responsible, but I agree 29 with you, that's what happened. 113 1 333 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. When we look at the 2 Provincial record it is 3 even more -- I mean, at least you can work out what 4 happened when you see the General Council record. But 5 I think Mr. MacMahon is analysing that the difference 14:21 6 between the two -- because when you look at the 7 Provincial Council, as I read it, it merely means that 8 the man was accused. 9 A. Yes. 10 334 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't say what the 14:21 11 result was. It says he was 12 advised to seek a dispensation and did so. Now, you 13 can put two and two together, but you have to put two 14 and two together; isn't that right? 15 A. Yes. 14:22 16 335 Q. MR. MacMAHON: I suppose if we look at the 17 record relating to the 18 Brother whose surname begins with "W", I mentioned him 19 earlier. And the contrast is, perhaps, even greater, 20 because one document...(INTERJECTION) 14:22 21 A. I have two "W's". 22 336 Q. These are 0016/1? 23 A. Yes. 24 337 Q. The following document, the top of it is a bit blurred 25 but it relates to the same Brother I think. 14:22 26 A. Yes. 27 338 Q. The Provincial record, according to what you would say, 28 simply says: 29 "Dismissed from the Congregation by 114 1 General Council on (the date). Left for home (saying where it was). Immodest 2 conducts with boys in Carriglea." 3 4 A. Yes. 5 339 Q. Then the General Council document gives some greater 14:22 6 detail. It says: 7 "Accused by boys of immodest conduct 8 towards themselves." 9 A. Yes. 10 340 Q. 14:23 11 "The Brother admitted the truth of the accusations when called before the 12 General Council for trial." 13 A. Yes. 14 341 Q. 15 "One offence occurred on Christmas 14:23 day." 16 17 A. Yeah. 18 342 Q. 19 "He was unanimously dismissed." 20 14:23 21 A. Yes. 22 343 Q. Of the three Brothers that you referred to in the 23 beginning, in fact the third one, the one whose name 24 begins with "M", he wasn't sent away or dismissed 25 directly from Artane but, in fact, he went to another 14:23 26 school for a period of two days before being dispensed 27 with, if these records are correct? 28 A. "M" or "W". 29 344 Q. "M". It is 0014/1. Do you have "M"? 115 1 A. If I do. 001 4/1. 2 345 Q. Yes. And the next one is 0016/1, which is the same 3 Brother. 4 A. No. It is a different Brother I think. 5 346 Q. No, it is the same Brother? 14:24 6 A. My 0014/1 begins "C" and my 16/1 begins with "M". 7 347 Q. The registration number of the Brother is 3447. That's 8 "M". 9 A. That's "M", yes. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's 0016/1. 14:24 11 MR. MacMAHON: Yes. And the previous 12 document is 0014/1. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just before that, in my 14 book -- this always happens 15 with everybody having them -- in my book 0014/1, 14:24 16 referring to the same man. 17 A. That's correct, yes. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Now we are all 19 the same. We have it 20 clarified. The second of the documents is the 14:25 21 Provincial record. 22 A. That's correct. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: And the first one is the 24 General Council's . 25 348 Q. MR. MacMAHON: The Provincial record would 14:25 26 suggest that that Brother 27 was sent to Cabra on 12th October 1944? 28 A. From the list above I see what you are looking at now. 29 349 Q. There is no reference to that in the other document? 116 1 A. No. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Which one says -- oh I 3 see. I see it, I'm sorry. 4 350 Q. MR. MacMAHON: Apart from the three, the 5 Visitation Reports refer to 14:25 6 a fourth being transferred to another school? 7 A. Yes. 8 351 Q. That fourth, his surname begins with "W"? 9 A. Yeah. 10 352 Q. It is correct he appears on the documents to have been 14:26 11 transferred to another school? 12 A. That's correct. Not to another school, to another 13 community. To another community. I haven't checked 14 that out, because at that stage of the year, which was 15 whatever month it is, is it October again? It is. The 14:26 16 other school, their staff would be in place, you can't 17 simply bring a person in, if there isn't any room for 18 him. I may be wrong in that and it may represent the 19 Congregation as you. But my reading of it, I must 20 confess, and it may refer to the other one as well, 14:26 21 that they were taken out of the place straight away. 22 The reason he wasn't dismissed was that he was of 23 temporary profession and in a few months time he was 24 going to have to renew that, and he was going to be 25 told you can't renew it and there was no need to 14:26 26 dismiss him. That was in October and I think it was in 27 December then he would be renewing his vows. 28 353 Q. He seems to have been transferred on 26th October and 29 his scrutiny was...(INTERJECTION)? 117 1 A. The date is 15/12. 2 354 Q. 15th December 1944? 3 A. Yeah. 4 355 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry to be stupid 5 about this, but where's 14:27 6 15th December 1944? 7 A. In the Provincial note on the right-hand side just 8 above the grade examination marks. I can't read the 9 thing at the bottom because it goes down below the 10 bottom of my page. 14:27 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 12 356 Q. MR. MacMAHON: The Brother whose name 13 begins with "W", whom we 14 have referred to already, he was transferred in 1944 15 out of Artane? 14:28 16 A. This is "RBW". You have two "W's" is why I'm saying 17 that. 18 357 Q. Sorry "DPW"? 19 A. He was dismissed from Carriglea. The reason I have 20 included him in my submission -- I have included him in 14:28 21 my submission as somebody who was dismissed in whatever 22 year it was, in 1945, but it was previously, the reason 23 I included it in that because we had any report record 24 of misconduct in Artane but because we had misconduct 25 -- record of misconduct and dismissal afterwards and he 14:28 26 had been in Artane prior to that, so I thought that 27 that was something that would be helpful to the 28 Commission. 29 358 Q. Indeed it is helpful, because he was transferred to the 118 1 other school in August 1944 and he was dismissed from 2 that school in January 1945? 3 A. Yeah. 4 359 Q. A couple of months later? 5 A. Yes. 14:28 6 360 Q. There was a further one, who comes into the same 7 category as the last one you referred to, his initial 8 is? 9 A. "JPH". 10 361 Q. I was referring to one whose name begins with "M", 14:29 11 dispensed with a considerable number of years later? 12 A. 1959. 13 362 Q. I'm not sure if we are speaking about the same one? 14 A. I think there may be some confusion. I have one here, 15 two copies of one here, the first one seems to be -- 14:29 16 the Provincial Council one has a number -- sorry, I 17 will give you CBART 09-7/1. Is that what you are 18 referring to? No. 19 363 Q. Yes. 20 A. To the best of my knowledge...(INTERJECTION). 14:30 21 364 Q. I was referring to one whose surname begins with "M", 22 it is CBART 097-1? 23 A. Yes. 24 365 Q. He was in fact also in Artane? 25 A. Yes. But I have not anything on his record which 14:30 26 indicates that his dispensation had anything to do with 27 misconduct of any type. 28 366 Q. I see. If we look at the first three Brothers whom you 29 have referred to, I think it is correct to say they all 119 1 arrived in Artane in 1941? 2 A. Yes, that's correct. 3 367 Q. So they were there from the period 1941 to 1944, a 4 period of three years? 5 A. Yes. 14:31 6 368 Q. Do we know from the documentation whether there was any 7 effort to establish the period of time or the number of 8 boys with whom they may have had improper or interfered 9 with? 10 A. I don't know is the answer. All I know is that 14:31 11 statements were taken from a number of boys. 12 369 Q. Boys who had complained? 13 A. Yes, and I think in all cases, I can't give you the 14 number, but I know that cases were written and I seem 15 to remember that in one case it looked very much to me 14:32 16 as if the complaint was written in an adult hand but 17 all the others were written in a pupil's hand. But as 18 to how many boys were involved or whether that was the 19 totality, I don't know. 20 370 Q. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the cover letter 14:32 21 accompanying the Visitation Report of 1944, where it 22 refers to: 23 The Brothers who were outside the circle were quite unaware of what was 24 going on and knew nothing about it until all was over". 25 14:32 26 A. Yes. 27 371 Q. That wasn't appear to refer to the boys who may have 28 been aware of what was going on, but it is confined to 29 Brothers? 120 1 A. I presume so, that's what my reading of it as well was, 2 yes. 3 372 Q. Is there any record of any effort being made to 4 establish the knowledge of the boys or the boys who may 5 have been touched by these Brothers? 14:33 6 A. Other than the written documentation of the boys 7 themselves. I am not aware of anything else. 8 373 Q. Which is one or two examples, I think, of written 9 complaints, one transcribed by an adult hand, others 10 perhaps written by a child? 14:33 11 A. I think from reading, and I have them in front of me, 12 certainly my reading was that there were more that 13 that, and what we have is what we discovered is what we 14 have. My gut feeling on reading it is that I felt 15 there were more statements, whether they were written 14:33 16 or not I don't know. My information on inquiring about 17 it since this process began was that the Resident 18 Manager had, I think, it was a sodality, something like 19 to Legion of Mary, not sodality in the sense that we 20 use sodality now, that during that this was a group of 14:33 21 boys who were selected that talked to him about various 22 things in school, including problems, and that it was 23 through this process that it was brought to the 24 knowledge of the Resident Manager, who then went about 25 it. 14:34 26 27 He had an investigation, he brought his findings to the 28 Provincial Council, they made a decision, referred it 29 to the General Council and then decisions were taken. 121 1 That is my reading of it. 2 374 Q. I am really interested in the records. Here we have a 3 record that indicates that a Brother has misbehaved in 4 some way? 5 A. Yes. 14:34 6 375 Q. And it is kept somewhere. Who has access to that 7 record, as over the years who had access to that 8 record? 9 A. The members of whoever were on the Council, what would 10 be known as the Provincial Council or the General 14:34 11 Council at the time. 12 376 Q. Both? 13 A. Well, two different sets of almost duplicate documents, 14 yes. 15 377 Q. So one might have a set that gave one impression, an 14:34 16 accusation perhaps, another might have a set that had 17 different documentation, a conviction perhaps or an 18 admission? 19 A. Yes. The one thing that would have been a significant 20 element that would have been common in both was that 14:35 21 the Brother was no longer a member of the Congregation 22 and he was either dispensed with -- expelled or asked 23 to seek a dispensation. 24 378 Q. Well, there was another common thread running through 25 most of them, I know not all of them, and that is that 14:35 26 they were teachers? 27 A. I'm not sure that that is true. I think it was two and 28 two. 29 379 Q. Yes. The first one is referred to as a domestic 122 1 Brother, in fact, but the others appear to have gone 2 through the standard teacher training routine? 3 A. I don't think so, I must confess, although I may with 4 be wrong. I think the second one might have been. I 5 think the information in relation to that, if you want 14:35 6 to search it out, you would have go through the 7 community lists in the Visitation Reports for the time 8 and it will probably tell you what they were. My 9 understanding was two and two, but I may be wrong. 10 380 Q. Two and two. Assuming that is correct, is there any 14:36 11 evidence that these documents were traceable or were 12 traced by somebody who was perhaps seeking to employ 13 one of these Brothers in a teaching capacity? 14 A. No, not in relation to these ones specifically, no. 15 There is one other that I refer to somewhere here where 14:36 16 it became known that he was seeking a teaching 17 position, that I think it was a parish priest contacted 18 the Provincial Council I think at the time and the 19 Provincial Council said to him not suitable for 20 employment as a teacher. 14:36 21 381 Q. If such a parish priest made an enquiry, the person 22 presumably would be a normal employer of a national 23 schoolteacher. If he made that enquiry would the 24 person to whom he made the enquiry have access to these 25 documents? 14:37 26 A. He would, because I presume it would be to the 27 Provincialate he would be making that application. 28 382 Q. I simply ask that question, because the Visitation 29 Report of 1944 makes a long list of recommendations, 123 1 Mr. McGrath has already referred to some of them. 2 Recommendation eight was that glass panels be inserted 3 in the doors, locked rooms near the kitchen. There is 4 references to Brothers not allowing boys near their 5 bedrooms and so on. And yet the following year there 14:37 6 is a different visitor, which seems to -- it is not 7 clear whether he represents a different council, and 8 perhaps you know that, but the Brother who visited in 9 November 1945 said: 10 "The Council considered that the glass 14:38 panels recommended by the Brother first 11 consultor at last visitation to the doors leading to store rooms around the 12 kitchen in charges beside the boy's refectory were unnecessary". 13 14 A. Yes. Can you just direct me to that? 15 383 Q. That's page...(INTERJECTION)? 14:38 16 A. Correct, of the Visitation Report, please. 17 384 Q. CBART 009/3 and it is about a quarter of the way down 18 the page. It is the Visitation Report of 1945. 19 A. It is in the folder that you gave me, is it? 20 385 Q. Yes, it is. 14:38 21 A. In the same section, is it? 22 386 Q. It is, I think, a slightly earlier section. Yes. 23 A. There you go, thanks. ACB 0? 24 387 Q. 009/3. The first document in that little bundle is a 25 1944 Visitation Report and then after that I think it 14:39 26 is a 1945 Visitation Report? 27 A. I seem to have one document all pinned together. 28 388 Q. Yes. 29 A. Is that all one report or is it two? That seems to be 124 1 one report. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is all one report, 3 starting 30th October, it 4 is all in the one. 5 A. And I have nothing in that section after that. 14:39 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, that's the document, it 7 is a four page document. 8 A. Yes, but I think Mr. MacMahon is now referring -- 9 that's 1944. He's referring me to 1945. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I thought he was 14:39 11 still on 1944, sorry. 12 That's all there is in this little pocket, 13 Mr. MacMahon. Wait now. 14 389 Q. MR. MacMAHON: Well, I suppose the 15 question is would 14:40 16 subsequent Brothers who were visiting have access to 17 the reasons why Brothers had been dispensed with? 18 A. I presume they would, yes. 19 390 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Brother, could you help 20 with something here, I 14:40 21 wonder? 22 A. Yes. 23 391 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: The visitation took place, 24 the visitor was a senior 25 person in this case, we know he was a senior person and 14:40 26 he was very thorough and he writes these long reports 27 with recommendations? 28 A. Yes. 29 392 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: That he submits to the 125 1 Provincial Council; am I 2 correct? 3 A. Yes. 4 393 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: And that remains in the 5 records of the Provincial 14:40 6 Council? 7 A. Yes. 8 394 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: What actually goes out to 9 the institution is a 10 letter? 14:41 11 A. That's right. 12 395 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: And it may be more or less 13 polite, it may be more or 14 less a summary, but usually it will be a great deal 15 less trenchant than the report itself? 14:41 16 A. That's right and much shorter. 17 396 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: And much shorter; isn't 18 that right? 19 A. Yes. 20 397 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: But the next man who goes 14:41 21 down? 22 A. Yes. If he's doing his job correctly, the first thing 23 he does before he goes is read the previous report. 24 398 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: If he's doing his job? 25 A. But if he's not doing his job...(INTERJECTION). 14:41 26 399 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: He simply goes down, 27 because it is one of the 28 puzzling things that sometimes one finds that there is 29 a reference to something that has been going on, it is 126 1 obviously a thing of some, not necessarily, sexual 2 impropriety, not necessarily, but some problem that you 3 have not found referred to in the previous report, you 4 have to maybe go back a few before you find a reference 5 to it. So that explain the system. 14:41 6 A. It simply explains that somebody didn't do his job 7 correctly, in my opinion. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I see your point, 9 indeed. 10 400 Q. MR. MacMAHON: Brother, the fact that a 14:42 11 Brother had been found or 12 had admitted to having abused boys, was that 13 necessarily an impediment in his future advancement or 14 in his progress as a member of the Brothers, that's 15 presuming he was kept on, he wasn't dispensed? 14:42 16 A. Yes. Though I would say that didn't always hold 17 either. There are examples of where that didn't hold, 18 the system fell down and where a bad decision was made 19 . 20 401 Q. Would you like to give us some examples of that? 14:42 21 A. Well you have one in your submission to me. 22 402 Q. Yes. 23 A. If I can find it. 24 403 Q. I think towards the beginning of the booklet, perhaps 25 the third tab. There, that one, I think. 14:43 26 A. Yes, correct. 27 404 Q. There is a Brother there whose surname begins with "B" 28 and he was in Artane from August to September 1945. 29 There is a second example as well? 127 1 A. I am sorry, I haven't the right one just yet. If you 2 look at that, I think if you look at that carefully you 3 will find he hardly arrived Artane at all, he was there 4 in -- 5 405 Q. August to September 1945? 14:43 6 A. -- August to September. He was there for a month in 7 other words. 8 406 Q. He went on to have a long career in the Christian 9 Brothers and remained with them until he died in 1986? 10 A. Yes. That was dealt with just from the point of view 14:43 11 of the Committee because he was also in Letterfrack 12 later on. That was dealt with yesterday and was dealt 13 with in Br. Gibson's submission at page 85, footnote 14 159 and the reference is in relation to Letterfrack is 15 0085/1 CBLFR. 14:44 16 407 Q. Yes. It was suggested that he transferred to a day 17 school and that happened? 18 A. In 1945? 19 408 Q. I think there were complaints in later years, 1957? 20 A. There were, yes. My reading, incidentally, of the 1945 14:44 21 one, that wouldn't be that uncommon in the sense that 22 happened at that stage the changes were made July, 23 August. Well August there was a stipulated day or date 24 in August for moving. Inevitably if a problem took 25 place somewhere and for some reason or another someone 14:44 26 didn't move or wasn't going to wherever he was there, 27 there was, what was euphemistically known among the 28 Brothers, a back wash because if he didn't go somebody 29 had to take his place and then somebody had to take the 128 1 place of the somebody who took his place and there was 2 a ripple effect. I am guessing, I must confess, that 3 that is what happened in the 1945 one because he was 4 only in the place for a month. In fact, if he arrived 5 on 11th August he would have found very few people 14:45 6 there, because that was the holiday period. 7 409 Q. Yes, there were a number of complaints about him for 8 interfering sexually with boys, in 1957? 9 A. In 1957, yes. 10 410 Q. He was moved initially to a day school? 14:45 11 A. I'm just looking. 12 411 Q. Not immediately but a year or so later? 13 A. In 1960. 14 412 Q. Yes. But he subsequently ended up a Superior of a 15 school? 14:46 16 A. He did. 17 413 Q. And it was not a day school? 18 A. Yes. And that was the reference and I think you 19 mentioned it that the system broke down that if 20 somebody was accused of abuse, that was the case here 14:46 21 in 1957, that was filed away and a group comes in in 22 whenever date this was, 1971, and they haven't gone 23 back through -- in other words, the system of checking 24 through the years has fallen down. More correctly, it 25 wasn't sufficiently strict in order to have that or to 14:46 26 make that...(INTERJECTION). 27 414 Q. Is that the explanation or is there another one? I am 28 referring now to Br. OF, he was a Brother not in 29 Artane? 129 1 A. Correct. 2 415 Q. He was accused of indiscretions with some of the 3 Brothers in a school and he admitted that those 4 accusations were correct? 5 A. Yes. 14:47 6 416 Q. He was transferred, he was kept on in the Brothers? 7 A. Yes. 8 417 Q. He subsequently went on to become a Superior somewhere 9 else? 10 A. Yes, yeah. In that particular one -- when you talk 14:47 11 about the system breaking down, when I received this in 12 the discovery yesterday that was the first I knew about 13 it, I must confess as well, because it didn't relate to 14 Artane. But, in my opinion, it was a serious lack of 15 judgment on the people who did that at the time. 14:47 16 418 Q. Yes, the letter covering the situation is a letter 17 dated 25th July 1958, the reference is ACB 01-0192? 18 A. Yes. 19 419 Q. And it is addressed to the Superior General from 20 Br. Mulholland at the time? 14:47 21 A. Yes. 22 420 Q. It starts off: 23 "I must apologise for having to refer the case, namely Br. Q, and also for 24 having to ask you and your Council to transfer two of the Superiors already 25 appointed. We have tried to make these 14:48 changes so that there would not be any 26 extra Brothers appointed Superior. Br. Blank has been accused of 27 indiscretions with some of the boarders in this school, which he names, and has 28 admitted that some of the accusations are correct. The worst feature of the 29 case is that the boarders are talking about these indiscretions amongst 130 1 themselves. 2 We also know there is a necessity to improve the moral tone in the school 3 and with this talk amongst the boarders there is no likelihood that Br. Blank 4 will be able to effect the much needed amendment." 5 14:48 6 It goes on to say: 7 "On the other hand, Br. Blank, since he became Superior of the school has 8 effected certain changes for the better discipline of the place and we can say 9 that the bigger boys resent the tightening up of the discipline. This 10 fact may have led to some exaggeration 14:48 of the Brother's indiscretions. Taking 11 both sides into account we thought it would be only fair to give the Brother 12 a chance as Superior in another house. The voting of the full council was in 13 favour of transferring him to another school." It names the other school. 14 "As Superior" 15 14:49 16 A. Yes, I would look on that as being an example of 17 extraordinary naivety on behalf of the Council, who 18 seemed to think that some sort of warning would 19 automatically end up in the person in question mending 20 his ways. And who didn't at all refer to the effect 14:49 21 that his actions had on the young people at the time 22 and they had no intention of trying to defend it 23 because there was no defence for it. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: What's the date of that, 25 Mr. MacMahon? 14:49 26 MR. MacMAHON: It is not that long ago. 27 A. 1958. 28 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. 29 421 Q. MR. MacMAHON: 26th July 1958. There was 131 1 one other sheet I wanted to 2 ask you about and it was in relation to ACB 01-0117/1? 3 422 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Could I just ask, 4 Br. Reynolds, what do you 5 make, or what comment would you make, or what do you 14:50 6 think we might learn from the consideration of each 7 side of the matter. Do you follow me? 8 A. Yes. 9 423 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Allegations are made, they 10 are put to the Brother, he 14:50 11 admits some of them? 12 A. Yes. 13 424 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Let's not go any further, 14 some of them. And then 15 there is a discretion, maybe there is a bit of 14:50 16 exaggeration and between the two of them, well, look 17 let's give...(INTERJECTION)? 18 A. Yes. 19 425 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Doesn't that seem morally 20 unacceptable? 14:51 21 A. I wouldn't agree with it, is what I am saying. Now, 22 having said that I don't want to even be seen to try to 23 attempt to defend it. We don't know the circumstances 24 and we don't know what he was -- but there was 25 certainly some sexual innuendo about what went on and 14:51 26 that's as far as we can go. All I am saying is that I 27 do not agree with the decision. 28 426 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand that. It 29 suggests to me that one can 132 1 read something or learn something from the approach? 2 A. Yes. 3 427 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: And you think that's 4 reasonable? 5 A. Yes. 14:51 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. 7 428 Q. MR. MacMAHON: There was another Brother I 8 wanted to ask you about his 9 records? 10 429 Q. MR. LOWE: Sorry, Mr. MacMahon, before 14:51 11 you go from that. On the 12 letter on the following page, July 26th, 1958, about 13 the same Brother, it is ACB 01-0193/1? 14 A. Yes. 15 430 Q. MR. LOWE: I am just interested in 14:52 16 some of the thinking that 17 emerges in that. 18 "If a Brother were transferred as Superior to another place in that way 19 his character would be amply safeguarded, he should however be 20 seriously warned". 14:52 21 A. Yes. 22 431 Q. MR. LOWE: Now, the concern is for his 23 character? 24 A. Yes. 25 432 Q. MR. LOWE: Would you say that was 14:52 26 widespread in the thinking 27 at that time? 28 A. I don't know, but I certainly am saying that it was -- 29 first of all, that particular one that we are concerned 133 1 with should have been -- but that's where the naivety 2 comes in. That the concern should have been for the 3 the pupils, rather then for the character of the person 4 and that fact that that wasn't adverted to at all in 5 the whole process does show a lot of naivety and lack 14:53 6 of understanding of the situation. 7 433 Q. MR. MacMAHON: There is another Brother 8 whose surname begins with 9 "B", I am sorry to be using these codes, the reference 10 is ACB-1/0117/1. 14:53 11 A. ACB? 12 434 Q. 0117/1. His surname begins with "B". It is about 13 halfway through this book? 14 A. It is the letter you were talking about. 15 435 Q. Yes. 14:54 16 A. Then we have the four...(INTERJECTION). 17 436 Q. Yes, it is beyond that. 18 A. Into the next one, is it? Yes, yes. 19 437 Q. I think just his register number is 4388? 20 A. That's correct, yes. 14:54 21 438 Q. There is a number of things I wanted to ask you about 22 that. This is a Brother who wrote a letter to the 23 Superior General in 1972? 24 A. Yes. 25 439 Q. And he says: 14:54 26 "I wish to apply for a dispensation from my vows. I have been finally 27 professed for 22 years but I find I cannot keep any vow of chastity, I 28 thought that with the passing of years that the struggle would grow less and 29 less but I have been disillusioned." 134 1 2 He says that: 3 "My record as regards chastity has not been good, as my Brother Provincial can 4 tell you. There have been many instances where I caused anxiety to my 5 major Superiors but they have been good 14:54 enough to give me the benefit of the 6 doubt. I know I have caused much scandal. I feel that if I stayed much 7 longer in the Order that I would have to be eventually expelled. " 8 9 There is a lot of sort of coding in that letter, it 10 doesn't specify exactly what the difficulty is, it 14:55 11 refers to as inability to keep his vow of chastity. 12 But I think there is a form that accompanies that 13 letter, it is immediately after the letter which I have 14 read and it is entitled "Form to be Completed 15 Concerning Application for Dispensation from Perpetual 14:55 16 Vows", reference is 0119/1. 17 18 At paragraph eight it says: 19 In relation to this Brother his conduct as religious. Due to prolonged illness 20 early in his religious life he was 14:55 excused from attendance at morning 21 prayers. In recent years he has been very irregular in attendances at mass. 22 He is known to have interfered with boys in his class". 23 24 Just if I can pause there. In relation to having 25 interfered with boys in his class, is the Committee to 14:56 26 understand that as being a euphemism for difficulty 27 with chastity, or to put it the other way is one to 28 understand where reference is made to a difficulty as 29 regards chastity that the Committee is to read that as 135 1 having difficulty or interfering with boys? 2 A. I would read that that is certainly part of it, whether 3 or not there is anymore I don't know. When he's saying 4 difficulty with chastity I would say I collude that in 5 what he's talking about, whether there was anything 14:56 6 else there or not I don't know. 7 440 Q. That Brother was in Artane from 1960 to 1962? 8 A. He was, I refer to that in my submission as well. 9 441 Q. The Provincial Council and then I think General Council 10 also voted five nil in favour of granting dispensation? 14:56 11 A. Yes. 12 442 Q. And I think a document came through from Rome, it is in 13 Latin and my Latin isn't great, but it is dated 29th 14 May 1972 and it appears to have approved the grant of 15 dispensation to that Brother? 14:57 16 A. Yes. 17 443 Q. Can we explain how that Brother was still a member of 18 the Congregation when he died in 1995? 19 A. I can't. Your Latin is as good as mine, you will be 20 glad to know, Mr. MacMahon. But the piece that is 14:57 21 missing from this, is that there is no signature 22 belonging to him on it and I would presume that 23 somewhere or other I think there is something there in 24 my poor Latin, there is something (inaudible) which 25 means within ten days that he has to sign, that he has 14:57 26 to accept it. That last sentence, if my Latin is 27 correct, seems to say sign that within ten days. Now, 28 if he didn't sign it the question would be what 29 happened next, I don't know. If he did sign it how 136 1 come he died in the Congregation, I don't know that 2 either. 3 4 Since getting this I was aware of that difficulty when 5 I made the submission, but I didn't pursue it in the 14:58 6 sense that he had left Artane at that stage and it 7 hadn't a lot to do with it in a sense. But I have not 8 succeeded in making anymore headway, in spite of the 9 fact that I have inquired to see can I come up with 10 anything else. My only reading on it is, and it 14:58 11 presents a difficulty no matter which way you read it, 12 either he signed the dispensation and didn't leave or 13 he didn't sign the dispensation. The question being 14 then why didn't one or two or both Councils do 15 something about it? I don't know, is the answer. 14:58 16 17 It also means unfortunately that there is a piece 18 missing. Because it isn't possible -- I mean, the 19 Provincial Council was there at the time, they would 20 have known he was still in the Congregation, so 14:58 21 whatever happened we are missing a piece. 22 444 Q. He remained on for 23 years, after going through the 23 whole process of dispensation? 24 A. Yes. 25 445 Q. Can we glean from the document, perhaps you can, as to 14:58 26 whether he remained within houses of the Christian 27 Brothers? 28 A. Oh, he did. 29 446 Q. Which were involved in teaching boys or in respect of 137 1 which boys were present? 2 A. Yes. 3 447 Q. The document on its face, the register relating to that 4 Brother, doesn't on its face refer to his difficulty 5 with boys or to his dispensation? 14:59 6 A. No. My guess, for what it is worth, is that he didn't 7 sign the dispensation, that for some reason or other, 8 for whatever reason, it didn't go through. Because if 9 it did I would expect that would have appeared on the 10 register page down at the bottom of the register page 14:59 11 where it appears with everybody else. I am sorry, I 12 can't offer you any explanation as to why, I am just 13 saying that's a fact. 14 448 Q. I know Mr. McGrath discussed with you the approach of 15 the Brothers to the Punishment Book and the approach 15:00 16 towards punishment and I don't propose going into that 17 in any great detail, but there is a sequence of 18 documents which I would ask you to comment on. It is 19 towards the end of the book, I think it is just before 20 the last tab and they start 0232. They appear to be -- 15:00 21 it is correspondence going between Br. Mulholland, who 22 I think was the Provincial at the time, and Br. Clancy, 23 is Superior General. The first of the documents is 24 dated 22nd December 1956? 25 A. You are just a little ahead of me, at the minute. I 15:01 26 have 0243. 27 449 Q. 0232. 28 A. That's it, I have two pages. I have some more pages 29 and then another tab. 138 1 450 Q. Sorry. 2 A. 010240. No? 3 451 Q. 0232, maybe just before the part you are talking about. 4 A. Is it before the big report? 5 452 Q. I will have to get a copy of that for you. 15:01 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. MacMahon, what are we 7 talking about here? 8 MR. MacMAHON: It is the Christian 9 Brothers interpretation of 10 the rules concerning the punishment in the schools and 15:02 11 it is a discussion between...(INTERJECTION). 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Why don't you put the 13 question and see if 14 Br. Reynolds can answer it without the document. 15 453 Q. MR. MacMAHON: Very well. In December 15:02 16 1956, Br. Mulholland asked 17 Br. Clancy to assist in interpreting chapter 157 of the 18 Christian Brothers. He said: 19 "It does not now appear to be in keeping with rule 96 of the national 20 board and we are asking for a direction 15:02 to enable us to instruct the Brothers 21 as to the use of punishment in the schools". 22 23 Are you familiar with that? 24 A. Yes, I understand what that's about I think. It is as 25 follows, I think it was read out yesterday. A circular 15:02 26 came out around that time from the Department of 27 Education saying that corporal punishment was to be 28 administered with, I think, a cane or a light rod to 29 preclude the use of the leather which was the 139 1 (inaudible) in the Brother's school and therefore the 2 question was, "well, does that mean that all the 3 Brothers dispense with the use of the leather and use 4 cane or rods or whatever was permitted?" I think 5 representation -- I have the documentation in front of 15:03 6 me, but I did read it at one stage. Representation was 7 made, possibly through the Resident Managers 8 Association, in which Br. Clancy said that it would 9 appear to him that it was a choice between the cane and 10 a leather, he would think that the leather was the more 15:03 11 lenient of the two. Permission was sought from the 12 Department of Education to include that and my 13 understanding is that's what happened. 14 454 Q. The reply that came through from the Superior general 15 from Br. Mulholland is dated 21st January 1957? 15:03 16 A. Yeah, I think the actual circular we are talking about 17 came in 1956, so that would probably be correct. 18 455 Q. Yes. 19 A. Anyway I will stop looking for it then. 20 456 Q. There were two paragraphs in the letter and I will read 15:04 21 them to you and ask you for your comment on them: 22 "In the interpretation of Act 157 and its subsection it may be assumed that 23 our primary and secondary schools in each establishment may be regarded as 24 separate entities." 25 15:04 26 I think a query had come in as to whether -- it then 27 goes on to say: 28 "As to the actual administration of punishment, the General Council is of 29 the opinion that the Superior of the community may authorise a Brother in 140 1 charge of a classroom or a class to administer necessary corporal 2 punishments according to the prescribed limitation, but before such punishment 3 is administered a record of the particulars should be entered by the 4 Brother in a book to be kept for the purpose. With all best wishes" 5 15:04 6 A. Yes. 7 457 Q. That would seem to suggest that in the case of all 8 schools under the ages of the Christian Brothers a 9 Punishment Book is required? 10 A. Yes. 15:05 11 458 Q. In your response to Mr. McGrath earlier today you seem 12 to distinguish between punishment administered during 13 the class and punishment administered outside class? 14 A. Yes, in Department regulations, yes. 15 459 Q. Would you like to elaborate on that a little bit in 15:05 16 light of this direction from the Superior Council? 17 A. What I am saying is that that directive was certainly 18 never carried out. Well, from when I began teaching in 19 1968 and my experience is that it wasn't being carried 20 out at that stage and I have nothing to lead me to 15:05 21 believe that it was carried out prior to that. 22 460 Q. Yes. Just taking your response to Mr. McGrath from 23 this morning, would it be -- would your interpretation 24 of the correct position be that there ought to have 25 been a Punishment Book dealing with class infringements 15:06 26 which a Brother taking that class could use and then 27 another Punishment Book dealing with the school that 28 the others could use? 29 A. Yes, that was in the regulation. The only distinction 141 1 I am making that in relation to Mr. McGrath's question 2 we were talking in the context of the 1933 Act, or 3 whatever act it was, in other words a departmental 4 regulation, and there was a definite distinction there 5 between the school and the institution. In what you 15:06 6 are reading to me it appears that the Congregation 7 said, "now, we want this recorded in relation to all 8 schools." I am saying from -- I haven't that in front 9 of me, but from my experience that did not happen. 10 461 Q. In your opening statement, Brother, you referred to the 15:06 11 fact that deliberations or consideration was being 12 given to the closing of Artane by a certain date? 13 A. Yes. 14 462 Q. But that the timing was left to the Provincial, I 15 think? I can get the quote for you somewhere. 15:07 16 A. I think what happened was the Provincial announced that 17 it was going to close in 1968 and the Department 18 requested or said, "well, if you do that, we are not 19 able to cater for anything in between, so can you 20 prolong it for another year?" And it closed in June 15:07 21 1969, I think. 22 463 Q. Yes. But the notice resigning the certificate was sent 23 by Br. Creed to the Minister on 22nd January 1968? 24 A. Yes. Have you a reference for that? 25 464 Q. Yes, it is in your book, I think. It is ART 0384-004. 15:07 26 Yes, I think it is the end of that section. 27 A. This one? 28 465 Q. No, no, the next tab. 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: What's the question, 142 1 Mr. MacMahon? 2 466 Q. MR. MacMAHON: The question is: Was there 3 something that precipitated 4 the timing that resulted in the certificate actually 5 being resigned. 15:08 6 A. I think a decision taken, and I think the decision 7 could have been taken in 1967, I think I have that 8 somewhere in my report, taken by the Provincial Council 9 that they were going to close Artane. 10 467 Q. As a decision of principle and the timing being left to 15:08 11 an individual? 12 A. Yes, yes. 13 468 Q. You do refer to that in your opening statement? 14 A. Yes. 15 469 Q. And that was referred to in a memo which has been 15:09 16 disclosed by the Department of Education? 17 A. Yes. 18 470 Q. Relating to discussions which took place after the 19 notice of resignation was served? 20 A. Yes. 15:09 21 471 Q. What I am asking you, Brother, was there other 22 considerations which the Brothers had in mind in the 23 actual timing, the decision to actually close Artane 24 when it did? 25 A. I don't know, I don't know what you are -- I know the 15:09 26 topic of conversation you are referring to, but I don't 27 know the specific detail that you are referring to. I 28 am sure I will see it in here somewhere. 29 472 Q. The Kennedy Committee was appointed in the autumn of 143 1 1967? 2 A. Yes. 3 473 Q. And I think the Kennedy Committee visited Artane within 4 a very short time indeed of it being set up? 5 A. Yes, they visited Artane, I can't give you a date on 15:10 6 it, yes. 7 474 Q. There is a letter dated 27th December 1967, it is ACB 8 01-0240. That may be it. It is addressed to "my dear 9 Brother Superior". 10 A. I beg your pardon, yes. 15:10 11 475 Q. Do the members of the Committee have that letter, it is 12 27th December 1967? 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 14 A. What section are you referring me to? 15 476 Q. MR. MacMAHON: The letter is from 15:10 16 Br. Creed. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: He has the letter, he wants 18 to know which bit are you 19 referring to. What's the question, Mr. MacMahon? 20 477 Q. MR. MacMAHON: The second and third 15:11 21 paragraphs of the letter? 22 A. Yes. 23 478 Q. What would you make of that, Brother? 24 A. In what sense? What it says to me, on reading it here, 25 is that the Committee was going to recommend the 15:11 26 closing of -- certainly of two places, maybe of another 27 one, and that the Congregation were going to do that. 28 In fact, the Congregation were going to preempt their 29 recommendation and close. 144 1 479 Q. Well it says more than that, doesn't it? It says at 2 the third paragraph:2? 3 "The 12 members of the Commission have already visited both Artane and Galway 4 and are to visit Letterfrack and Tralee earlier in the new year. At their 5 meeting just before Christmas both 15:12 Artane and Galway were discussed in the 6 light of information received during their visits and it was decided that a 7 recommendation be put in their report to close both these establishments. 11 8 members in favour of closing, the Superior of Artane did not vote". 9 10 A. Yes. I presume the reason the Superior didn't vote 15:12 11 because he was declaring a vested interest one way or 12 another, being the Superior of Artane he absented 13 himself from voting on that issue. 14 480 Q. On the Committee? 15 A. Yes, I think that would be ordinary. 15:12 16 481 Q. That immediately predated in time the delivery of the 17 letter of resignation of the certificate in respect of 18 Artane? 19 A. Yes. 20 482 Q. Do you have any views as to why that was done at that 15:12 21 time? 22 A. I am presuming that it was done because the inevitable 23 was that the school was going to be closed and they 24 said, "well, let's close it". 25 483 Q. It was felt preferable perhaps to close it, for the 15:13 26 Brother to close of their own volition rather than to 27 wait and...(INTERJECTION)? 28 A. That may well be the case, but it was quite clear that 29 recommendation was going to be made to close industrial 145 1 schools as they were known at that time, and that 2 essentially is what happened. 3 484 Q. And the Kennedy Commission never did contain a 4 reference requiring the closure of Artane, I think it 5 only referred to two other schools? 15:13 6 A. Yes, yes. 7 485 Q. There was another letter which -- in the documents 8 which have been furnished to us, it is incomplete, I 9 think, it is a thin letter, handwritten, but it appears 10 to relate to 1967 and its reference is 241, ACB 15:14 11 01/0241. It refers to a number of young Brothers in 12 the Leaving Certificate class? 13 A. Yes. 14 486 Q. I think it is in the training school of the Brothers? 15 A. Yes. 15:14 16 487 Q. It says: 17 "We have 13 young Brothers leaving from the Leaving Certificate class. At 18 first sight it does not look so good, but at least seven of them have been 19 under suspicion for some time and would not survive scrutiny and two others 20 have trouble with the vow of chastity. 15:14 The picture is not too dark. It is one 21 of these things that hit a province now and then". 22 23 A. Yes. Is there a date on that letter? 24 488 Q. No, it is not dated, it seems to be 25 the...(INTERJECTION)? 15:15 26 A. It seems to be part two of something. 27 489 Q. The last two pages of a letter, it is signed by 28 Br. Creed, I think. Do you have that letter? 29 A. Yes, I have the bit here, but I have no signature at 146 1 the bottom. 2 490 Q. I think at the very bottom you will see, with some 3 difficulty, at the end of...(INTERJECTION)? 4 A. Anyway, yeah. 5 491 Q. It also says at the last paragraph: 15:15 6 "I am forwarding a number of Visitation Reports. There are a few more to 7 follow after Easter. Information leaked in here that the truth, the 8 whole truth and nothing but the truth was being withheld from the visitor in 9 some houses. After some inquiries in the two houses we discovered that this 10 was so." 15:15 11 12 13 A. Are you sure you haven't a mixture of two letters in 14 that? 15 492 Q. I am not sure, they came together. And if you look at 15:15 16 the number sequence on the bottom, it will show that 17 they came in -- they were on the file just 18 before...(INTERJECTION)? 19 A. The reason I am saying that is I think I would 20 recognise Br. Creed's handwriting and I don't think 15:16 21 they are both in Br. Creed's handwriting. But I may be 22 incorrect in that. 23 493 Q. You think they may be two separate letters? 24 A. They may be a piece each of two different letters, I 25 don't know. 15:16 26 494 Q. Can I ask you, what do you make of them? How should 27 the Committee interpret those sheets, what are they 28 saying to us? 29 A. They are saying that in a training house there was a 147 1 number of Brothers who, for whatever reason and 2 including something to do with chastity, people were 3 going to be dismissed. These were people at this stage 4 who hadn't even reached training college. Obviously 5 whoever was -- I think scrutiny is referred to on one 15:16 6 of them. At the end of the year, the staff would have 7 been writing saying "we have X number of Brothers, we 8 think that the following people should not be allowed 9 to proceed any further, they are not suitable for this 10 vocation." 15:17 11 495 Q. The use of the words: 12 "They have been under suspicion for some time". 13 14 A. That could be suspicion for a myriad of things. I went 15 through the particular institution myself and I know 15:17 16 some of the things one might be under supervision for, 17 like going out to the neighbour's house to watch match 18 of the day and various other indiscretions that 19 wouldn't be looked on too kindly. But there is 20 reference to the vow of chastity. They might possibly 15:17 21 have been out at dances, for instance, or various other 22 things and people are saying "well, this isn't the life 23 for you." 24 496 Q. Yes. Well, is there documentation which helps the 25 Committee to interpret what is meant by the reference 15:17 26 to chastity there and to the reference being under 27 suspicion? 28 A. No. 29 497 Q. So you are guessing? 148 1 A. Well, I am not in a sense, that's why I asked you for 2 the year. If you told me the year, I would 3 ...(INTERJECTION) 4 498 Q. It would appear to be 1967? 5 A. Yes. 15:17 6 499 Q. But the next page refers to: 7 "We hope to have a separate house of novitiate in 1970." 8 9 Which would perhaps put it in the same order in which 10 it appears in the file? 15:18 11 A. Yes. But I do know that at that particular period a 12 large number, as in ten or twelve from, I think, two 13 consecutive years were not allowed proceed any further 14 than whatever stage they reached then. 15 MR. MacMAHON: Thank you very much. 15:18 16 17 END OF FURTHER QUESTIONING OF BR. REYNOLDS BY THE 18 COMMISSION 19 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. 15:18 21 MR. DOWLING: I have just one quick 22 question, I actually 23 flagged yesterday that I would be coming back to it. 24 It was just in relation to the number of Brothers that 25 were in Artane. I asked, it is only going to take two 15:18 26 seconds, Br. Reynolds about it yesterday and he said 27 there were 200 and I think that at the time that 28 doesn't seem right, but I wasn't able to lay my hands 29 on the information. 149 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 2 3 BR. MICHAEL REYNOLDS WAS THEN RE-EXAMINED, AS FOLLOWS, 4 BY MR. DOWLING: 5 15:18 6 500 Q. MR. DOWLING: Br. Reynolds, I suppose it 7 ties in with what 8 Mr. MacMahon was asking about. I think I asked 9 yesterday how many Brothers were in Artane as far as 10 you could recollect during the period and you said 200. 15:18 11 I just checked the individual Brothers register page 12 that were discovered and 119 different pages were 13 discovered and maybe there is some simple explanation 14 for that discrepancy, but I understood you made 15 discovery of the personnel records for every Brother 15:19 16 who was in Artane? 17 A. First of all, my estimate was from the top of my head, 18 Mr. Dowling, so that's the first reason why there was a 19 discrepancy, I would say I was incorrect. But my 20 memory was that somebody had said, do you know the 15:19 21 lists, we had a name for them and I can't think of it. 22 Not the register page, but we gave you lists saying R1, 23 R2, R3. I think at one stage or another, not I, 24 somebody counted all those and gave me the figure. I 25 may be quite incorrect. 15:19 26 501 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Does 119 sound more correct 27 to you? 28 A. I don't really know, to be quite honest. 29 502 Q. MR. DOWLING: Well there are 119 names on 150 1 that list? 2 503 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: That is something that can 3 be checked, isn't that 4 right? 5 A. Are you talking about the list that goes this way 15:19 6 (indicating)? 7 504 Q. MR. DOWLING: The list that gives the 8 names of each of the 9 Brothers? 10 A. Well, if that is what is on it that is the number. 15:19 11 THE CHAIRPERSON: What we are talking about 12 is the number of Christian 13 Brothers who were in Artane between 1936 and 1969; is 14 that right? 15 MR. DOWLING: That's the issue. 15:20 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. 17 MR. DOWLING: So that is it. I wasn't 18 sure what 19 the...(INTERJECTION). 20 505 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for raising it. 15:20 21 And Br. Reynolds will 22 please come back to us on that. 23 A. Anyway, that can be checked. 24 25 END OF RE-EXAMINATION OF BR. REYNOLDS BY MR. DOWLING 15:20 26 27 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Now? 28 MR. HANRATTY: I have no questions. Thank 29 you. 151 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: You have no questions and 2 the Department has no 3 questions. 4 MR. DIGNAM: No questions. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Mr. Lowe, have 15:20 6 you any questions? 7 MR. LOWE: No, thank you. 8 MS. SHANLEY: I have no questions. 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: All questions have been 10 asked. Thank you very 15:20 11 much, Br. Reynolds. Now, before we go any further I 12 think we will take a little break and then we will 13 review the situation in about 15 minutes time. 14 15 SHORT ADJOURNMENT 15:20 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 152 1 THE HEARING RESUMED, AS FOLLOWS, AFTER A SHORT 2 ADJOURNMENT: 3 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, Mr. Ward, the next 5 institution on the agenda 15:40 6 is Tralee, isn't that right? 7 MR. WARD: St. Joseph's Tralee, 8 Chairman. 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: We are just thinking there 10 is no way that we are going 15:40 11 to finish that this afternoon, and we would be 12 reasonably confident that we would finish it in the 13 morning. Are we all agreed on that? Nobody is stuck 14 to an absolute in any of this. So, unless anybody -- 15 if anybody had a particular difficulty or a particular 15:40 16 thing we would entertain an application to start now. 17 But otherwise our thinking is to adjourn now and start 18 again. We would make one change though, we would start 19 at 10 o'clock in morning to give us just a little bit 20 extra time on it. Again, if that doesn't 15:40 21 inconvenience. If anybody has a problem with that 22 maybe they would mention it fairly well immediately to 23 Mr. MacMahon. Well, you better mention it to me now if 24 there is anybody has a problem, because otherwise 25 everybody else will be misled. 15:41 26 27 So, what we will do then is we will adjourn now until 28 tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, and we will follow up 29 Tralee with Carriglea. Isn't that right? Thank you 153 1 very much. 2 3 THE HEARING THEN CONCLUDED AT 3:41 P.M. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 154