COMMISSION TO INQUIRE INTO CHILD ABUSE PUBLIC HEARING HELD AT THE HERBERT PARK HOTEL BALLSBRIDGE, DUBLIN 4 ON THURSDAY, 4TH MAY 2006 - DAY 215 EVIDENCE OF BR. DENIS MINIHANE ST. JOSEPH'S INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL, GREENMOUNT 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. B. McGOVERN SC MR. P. WARD BL MS. C. McGOLDRICK BL Instructed by: MS. E. McHUGH FOR PRESENTATION BROTHERS: MR. A. COLLINS SC Instructed by: Mr. R. Neville Solicitor FOR THE COMPLAINANTS: MR. T. O'LEARY SC Instructed by: Murphy English & Co. FOR THE DOE: MR. B. O'MOORE SC MR. C. DIGNAM BL Instructed by: CSSO 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. DENIS MINIHANE QUESTION - THE COMMISSION 1 - 16 EXAMINED - MR. O'LEARY 17 - 162 FURTHER QUESTIONED - THE COMMISSION 163 - 278 EXAMINED - MR. COLLINS 279 - 353 FURTHER QUESTIONED - THE COMMISSION 354 - 371 1 THE HEARING COMMENCED AS FOLLOWS ON THURSDAY, 4TH MAY 2 2006 AT 10:30 A.M. 3 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning Mr. O'Leary. 5 Just give us a minute while 10:31 6 we go through the little photo opportunities. 7 MR. O'LEARY: Indeed. 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 9 Good morning everybody. 10 This morning we are conducting the Phase III hearings 10:31 11 into St. Joseph's Industrial School, Greenmount in Cork 12 and just to indicated the order in which things will 13 happen this morning. The Presentation Brothers are 14 here and represented by Mr. Collins. I think he's 15 hear. Thank you, Mr. Collins. The witness, I 10:32 16 understand, is Br. Denis Minihane; is that correct? 17 Very good . Good morning Br. Minihane. 18 19 The first thing is that our counsel, Mr. McGovern, will 20 just introduce the witness very briefly. Following 10:32 21 that Mr. O'Leary, counsel for the nominated legal firm, 22 Murphy English, will examine Br. Minihane. 23 Mr. McGovern will then conduct such examination as he 24 thinks fit on our behalf, that is the Investigation 25 Committee. Then the Presentation Brothers counsel 10:33 26 Mr. Collins will be able to examine in relation to any 27 matters that he wishes to elucidate at that stage. 28 29 I should, perhaps, say to people who are here that 4 1 while we have sought to involve everybody in the 2 process by inviting them, through their lawyers, to 3 contact the nominated legal team with any points they 4 wish to raise, that if people have issues or points 5 that they want to make, or corrections, or whatever, 10:33 6 they can write them down, we'll supply writing 7 materials if people need them, and submit them to our 8 legal team. Our legal team are sitting here on my 9 left-hand side of the front table here. So, if anybody 10 wants to they can submit that. Or they can speak to 10:34 11 the legal team and we will undertake to examine those 12 and see whether they ought to be followed up in writing 13 subsequently, or followed up in whatever fashion 14 subsequently. So that's the way it will go. Very 15 good. Now, Mr. McGovern, perhaps you would introduce 10:34 16 us to Br. Minihane. Br. Minihane, could you come 17 forward please. 18 19 BR. DENIS MINIHANE, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED 20 BY THE COMMISSION, AS FOLLOWS: 10:34 21 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, Br. Minihane. 23 Will you sit down there and 24 make yourself as comfortable as you can. 25 1 Q. MR. McGOVERN: Good morning, Br. Minihane. 10:35 26 Have you got all the 27 documents there that you think you'll need? 28 A. Yes. 29 2 Q. I am one of the counsel for the Commission and I just 5 1 want to introduce you to the hearing. I don't have 2 many questions to ask you at this stage and, indeed, I 3 may be asking you questions later but I don't think I 4 will be detaining you at any great length. You 5 prepared an opening statement on behalf of the 10:36 6 Presentation Brothers in relation to institution we are 7 investigating here, Greenmount, in Cork, isn't that 8 right, St. Joseph's? 9 A. That's right. 10 3 Q. Did you spend some time there yourself as a Brother? 10:36 11 A. I spent about five months there in 1953. 12 4 Q. Yes. What is your position in the Order of the 13 Presentation Brothers now? 14 A. I am just representing them. I don't have any title. 15 5 Q. I see. 10:37 16 A. Thank God. 17 6 Q. Can I just ask you what was the source of your 18 information in preparing the opening statement on 19 behalf of the Presentation Brothers? 20 A. All the documents that exist, and we have pretty good 10:37 21 documents. 22 7 Q. Yes. There were some additional documents produced to 23 the Commission after the hearings had taken place, or 24 the bulk of them had taken place, can you tell the 25 Commission why they were produced at that stage and not 10:37 26 earlier? Do you know? 27 A. What have you in mind? 28 8 Q. There was a book of additional documents, they 29 contained items such as the manager's annual report to 6 1 the Department, and things of that nature? 2 A. They were always available. I have no reason to 3 believe that they weren't. 4 9 Q. I see, very good. Can you tell the Commission when did 5 the school finally close down? 10:37 6 A. The school closed in 31st March, 1959. 7 10 Q. What happened to the premises then? 8 A. It became a juniorate for our own aspirants for some 9 time and eventually was demolished. 10 11 Q. What happened the land, was the land kept by the Order 10:38 11 or sold off? 12 A. No, the land was sold off in bit and pieces. 13 12 Q. When was that? 14 A. It was in the 80's I would say. 15 13 Q. Yes. I think you understand the purpose of today's 10:38 16 hearing, that we have had lengthy hearings of this 17 institution and other institutions, at which evidence 18 was given in private, and there may be some questions 19 that parties would want to ask you arising out of what 20 might be seen as unresolved issues, or issues giving 10:38 21 rise to certain queries at this point. You know, I 22 think, that you are here to deal with those questions 23 that you will be asked by different parties? 24 A. Yeah. 25 14 Q. As the Chairman has already said, some of the other 10:38 26 parties will proceed. I think Mr. O'Leary will be 27 asking you question, he is representing complainants. 28 Then there will be questions from Mr. Collins, and 29 myself perhaps. Is that your understanding of what you 7 1 are here to do? 2 A. Yes. 3 15 Q. You feel you have all the documentation that you need 4 for that purpose? 5 A. Yes. 10:39 6 16 Q. I see. Chairman, I don't think there is anything else 7 I need to do at this stage? 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, that's it Mr. McGovern. 9 MR. McGOVERN: I can ask what questions I 10 wish to do at a later 10:39 11 point. 12 13 END OF QUESTIONING OF BR. DENIS MINIHANE BY THE 14 COMMISSION 15 10:39 16 BR. DENIS MINIHANE WAS THEN EXAMINED, AS FOLLOWS, BY 17 MR. O'LEARY 18 19 17 Q. MR. O'LEARY: Yes, Chairman. Hello, 20 Br. Minihane, how are you? 10:39 21 My name is Tim O'Leary and I am here instructed by 22 Mr. Eugene Murphy for Murphy English & Company 23 solicitors, who the Commission have nominated to act on 24 behalf of those who may have made various complaints to 25 the Commission. I think you understand that. 10:39 26 A. I do. 27 18 Q. I think you also understand that it is not envisaged 28 that I am going to mention any names of individual 29 people who may have made complaints in the private 8 1 Phase II part of the Inquiry. You understand that as 2 well? 3 A. I do. 4 19 Q. I am also not going to mention any individual Brothers 5 by name, I think it is not envisaged in that regard 10:40 6 either. Although, I think maybe from time to time it 7 will become clear during our conversation that there 8 are individuals involved. You understand that as well? 9 A. Yes. 10 20 Q. I have read your opening statement, which effectively 10:40 11 can be taken as the phase I statement in this 12 Commission; isn't that right? 13 A. Yes. 14 21 Q. I just want to ask you a few personal questions in 15 terms of your own, shall we say, involvement. You were 10:40 16 actually attached to Greenmount Industrial School, were 17 you simply residing there for that period of five 18 months you mentioned? 19 A. Yes, I was residing there, I was teaching in another 20 school in Cork City and I just did some supervision, a 10:40 21 very small amount. 22 22 Q. Oh, I see. Yes. I had understood that you weren't 23 involved in the running of the school, but you say you 24 may have been involved in supervision in a general 25 sense? 10:41 26 A. Yes. 27 23 Q. You are aware that there have been -- that evidence has 28 been given of both physical and sexual abuse taking 29 place at that time, and certainly leading up to that 9 1 time and, indeed, after that time, maybe not 2 specifically that particular period of time. I presume 3 you were actually in the Commission when that evidence 4 was given? 5 A. Yes, I was. 10:41 6 24 Q. First of all, to separate the two, would you accept 7 that there was unwarranted physical abuse in Greenmount 8 Industrial School? 9 A. Yes, by today's standards there certainly was, 10 especially at a period during the 1940's, our research 10:41 11 would show that there was certainly excess corporal 12 punishment. 13 25 Q. Yes. As you know, that may have arisen for discipline 14 reasons, it even may have existed without good 15 disciplinary reasons. It is very hard to be precise in 10:42 16 relation the that, but you would accept that it was 17 excessive? 18 A. I would accept that certainly by today's standards it 19 was excessive. 20 26 Q. Yes. Well it is very hard for me, as you can imagine, 10:42 21 and indeed hard for yourself to go back into that time, 22 as to what was acceptable then. But you may have heard 23 evidence in relation to the use of, let's say, canes or 24 I think what was described as bamboo sticks, in terms 25 of certain corporal punishment. Would you think that's 10:42 26 ever acceptable, even at the time? 27 A. There was mention by one of the contributors that there 28 was a strap that had coins embedded in it, or 29 something. I don't accept that. Any research I have 10 1 done, or anything I could do to find out whether that 2 happened or not has been negative. 3 27 Q. Oh I see. So just for the avoidance of doubt, you 4 don't accept that happened is what you are saying? 5 A. No, I don't. 10:43 6 28 Q. Can I put it this way, because we won't be able to 7 resolve it, I think, in this particular forum, it might 8 be a matter for the Commission ultimately, in their 9 report. Would you accept that if that did take place 10 that it was unacceptable even at the time? 10:43 11 A. Oh yes. 12 29 Q. In relation to discipline generally, there doesn't 13 appear to be any record, or a discipline log, or a 14 discipline book, isn't that correct? 15 A. That's true. 10:43 16 30 Q. Do you know was there a discipline book kept at the 17 time, or is it the fact that it has been lost, or is 18 the case that in fact there was never any discipline 19 book? 20 A. All I can tell you about a discipline book is that it 10:44 21 is mentioned in the rules and constitutions of 22 industrial schools. 23 31 Q. Yes. 24 A. Apart from the fact that it was there, I have never 25 heard from any inspection that it was complained it was 10:44 26 missing. We have no evidence whatever that a 27 Punishment Book, as it was called, existed. 28 32 Q. Existed, yes. 29 A. Yes. As you know, there were frequent inspections of 11 1 all the other books and there were reports made. 2 33 Q. Yes. 3 A. And at no time did we find a mention of the absence of 4 a Punishment Book. 5 34 Q. Yes. Of the absence of it? 10:44 6 A. Yes. 7 35 Q. Or, indeed, the existence of it? 8 A. Exactly, yes. 9 36 Q. Did you have personal knowledge of the existence of 10 such a book? 10:44 11 A. No. 12 37 Q. I presume you'd accept that if there wasn't such a book 13 there should have been one? 14 A. Oh absolutely, it was in the rules. But what puzzles 15 us is that it was never adverted to in any of the 10:45 16 reports from visiting people from the Department. 17 38 Q. Either the presence or absence of same? 18 A. Exactly. 19 39 Q. In your time there, I know you weren't involved and you 20 may take it, Br. Minihane, that I am not going to be 10:45 21 asking you personal questions of that sense to in 22 anyway lead you down any road you don't want to go 23 down, but you can be helpful given that you were there 24 during the 50's, even for a short period. Were you 25 aware, even in your very vague supervisory duties there 10:45 26 from time to time, of, shall we say, beatings or over 27 discipline in the industrial school? 28 A. Never. I cannot remember any case of excess corporal 29 punishment during my five months there. 12 1 40 Q. Again with the same, shall we say, preface to my 2 question, do you understand, it is not about your 3 involvement as such but, perhaps, what you could shed 4 light on, how regularly did you supervise when you were 5 in the school? 10:46 6 A. My memory is -- and again I would have to say that it 7 is 53, 54 years ago -- all I can remember is that at 8 weekends I had a slot of yard duty. 9 41 Q. I see. 10 A. That's my memory of it. 10:46 11 42 Q. I see. Whilst they might be outside exercising or 12 something of that nature? 13 A. Yes. 14 43 Q. So it wouldn't have been during the school term as 15 such, or during school hours? 10:46 16 A. Well, I was teaching in another school so it wasn't 17 during school hours. 18 44 Q. It couldn't have been that? 19 A. Yes. 20 45 Q. I understand. That answers that particular question. 10:47 21 At the time were you still a novitiate or were you 22 actually -- 23 A. I was temporary professed. 24 46 Q. Temporary professed. Had you qualified as a teacher at 25 that stage? 10:47 26 A. No. 27 47 Q. You were qualifying as it were, you were training? 28 A. Yes, exactly. 29 48 Q. Had you received any training from the order at that 13 1 stage yourself in relation to how you should deal with 2 children in that environment, even in a supervisory 3 capacity? 4 A. I would have got such training for the work I was doing 5 in the other school, but nothing for what you are 10:47 6 asking about. 7 49 Q. Yes. Would you be aware whether or not there was any 8 particular training, do you understand, leaving aside 9 teaching as a vocational training, but particular 10 training for the Brothers -- who again shall remain 10:47 11 nameless for the time being -- who were there at the 12 time? Were you aware had they been trained? 13 A. Some of them would have had experience in similar 14 schools in England as younger people. 15 50 Q. Yes. 10:48 16 A. But apart from that I am not aware of any courses or 17 seminars or anything that were available from our own 18 Department of Education, or in this country even. 19 51 Q. Well, indeed, from the Department of Education I 20 suppose they will have to ask that themselves. But 10:48 21 within the Order itself was there any particular 22 training? 23 A. I wouldn't think so, no. 24 52 Q. Yes. I think it is implicit in your statement, but, 25 please, if you disagree with me feel free to do so, 10:48 26 that you feel there should have been training for the 27 people who were involved in running the institutions on 28 a daily basis? 29 A. Absolutely. In today's experience, if there were 230 14 1 boys from the ages of 6 to 16 in a given institution 2 there probably would be 100 people looking after them, 3 and rightly so. But the needs were not seen, the needs 4 of the young people were not adverted to, they were not 5 cared for and, particularly, I would have to advert to 10:49 6 the fact that it was an all male institution, there was 7 a complete absence of anything that would provide a 8 mother's care for those children. 9 53 Q. Or a female perspective on things? 10 A. Exactly, yes. 10:49 11 54 Q. I think again -- I mean given that you have not 12 actually made the statement, but it is a matter of 13 public record given that it is in Phase I, but I think 14 you refer in your statement to the fact that you feel, 15 and it is probably a personal view perhaps, that in 10:49 16 hindsight the industrial school system was not and 17 could never be a success. Is that your view? 18 A. That's stated clearly, I think, in my statement. 19 55 Q. Yes. 20 A. It was probably satisfying a need in the latter half of 10:49 21 the 19th century, when there was such a thing as street 22 children, at least they got a home. But I don't think 23 it should ever have been seen as the answer. That was 24 even adverted to in reports, particularly in a report 25 in 1936 of one Government, and they saw at that stage 10:50 26 that industrial schools were not coping and catering 27 for the needs of the children who were there. And it 28 took another 34 years or something to bring it to an 29 end. 15 1 56 Q. Indeed, the date you mention is of some relevance given 2 that the period that the Commission is inquiring into, 3 in fact, is 1936 to 1959? 4 A. Exactly. I would say that in that period of time 5 industrial schools had reached their sell by date, 10:50 6 certainly in this country. 7 57 Q. By, let's say, 1936 or the late 30's is what you are 8 saying? 9 A. Yes. 10 58 Q. That's your view? 10:50 11 A. Yes. 12 59 Q. Had you formed that -- and it is difficult to answer 13 this question and I know I am asking very many personal 14 questions, but it is help, perhaps, to the Commission 15 to hear this, I believe. Had you formed that view at 10:51 16 the time when you were there in the 50's? 17 A. I don't think so. I probably would have found the view 18 of the complete absence of mothering for the special 19 younger children. But as for the views I have given 20 you now, that would be...(INTERJECTION) 10:51 21 60 Q. Over time? 22 A. Over time, yes. 23 61 Q. When you were supervising was it a chaotic situation, 24 or were the boys generally well behaved? 25 A. Absolutely behaved, and law and order everywhere and a 10:51 26 degree of fun and play and enjoyment. I remember it as 27 quite a happy place. 28 62 Q. When you say "law and order everywhere", I mean were 29 they extremely well behaved, given that you were 16 1 dealing with them on a weekend situation? 2 A. I would say so, yes. I would say they were well 3 behaved boys. 4 63 Q. As you know -- and I am not going to go into specific 5 details because, as I indicated to you I think, it is 10:52 6 probably inappropriate, but maybe that's my 7 understanding of the matters -- some of the boys 8 certainly had a different view in relation to it being 9 a happy place, and found it to be a regimental and 10 harshly disciplined place, even during that time, 10:52 11 certainly in the 50's shall we say. I presume you 12 would accept their view of it? 13 A. Yes, I would have to accept that, that was their view. 14 64 Q. Yes. In relation to sexual abuse, and perhaps I might 15 revisit the physical abuse having dealt with this, but 10:52 16 in relation to sexual abuse, as you know, certain 17 things have been said against certain Brothers. It is 18 a matter for the Commission really in relation to how 19 they weigh that. Were you aware of any of that in your 20 time, when you were being processed and, indeed, 10:53 21 thereafter, during the 1950's? 22 A. Absolutely not. 23 65 Q. At any stage? 24 A. No. But when you say any stage? 25 66 Q. Sorry, I meant in the 1950's, sorry. 10:53 26 A. In the 1950's we have documented a situation in 1955. 27 67 Q. I will get on to that in a second, yes. I suppose 28 that's really where I am going in relation to it and, 29 again, you have the documents and, indeed, you have 17 1 Professor Keogh's helpful history of the Commission by 2 the Brothers (sic). It seems clear that there was an 3 inquiry launched, it appears, by the Bishop at the 4 time, Bishop Lucey, and inquired into by a canon, a 5 canonical inquiry in effect, from the diocese in which 10:54 6 Greenmount happened to be, as it were. 7 A. He was from the diocese of Kerry. 8 68 Q. I'm sorry about that. I mean that the Inquiry was 9 launched by the diocese in which Greenmount was, the 10 Cork diocese, the diocese of Cork and Ross I think. 10:54 11 Isn't that right? 12 A. That's right. 13 69 Q. There doesn't seem to be any remaining report or 14 documentation in respect of the fruits of that inquiry, 15 isn't that right? 10:54 16 A. That's right. 17 70 Q. But it is clear that an investigation took place which 18 formed the basis of outsiders, shall we say, although 19 members of the clergy, coming into the school and 20 conducting inquiries, albeit interviews of both pupils 10:54 21 and, indeed, staff; isn't that right? 22 A. That's right. 23 71 Q. Again it is not relevant to trying to draw you down to 24 any personal situation, but it might be interesting to 25 note, given that you were a member of the Order at that 10:55 26 time, although obviously in a separate school and a 27 different part of the country probably. Were you aware 28 in 1955, as a member of the Order, that such an inquiry 29 was taking place in Greenmount, although you were not 18 1 in Greenmount at the time? 2 A. I was not aware at the time the inquiry was taking 3 place, but I was aware of the results of the inquiry, 4 to the extent that one brother, of his own volition, 5 left the Congregation and another man was changed. But 10:55 6 to that extent I became aware of it in 1956. I would 7 have to say that all documentation we have in regard to 8 that time was put at the disposal of Professor Keogh. 9 72 Q. I accept that completely. It is more about the state 10 of knowledge and, I suppose, what was going on within 10:56 11 the Order at the time. 12 A. Right. 13 73 Q. You became aware that there had been two changes close 14 to the top of Greenmount in 1956; isn't that right? 15 A. That's right. 10:56 16 74 Q. Did you inquire as to why that was the case, or was it, 17 shall we say, common knowledge within the Order? 18 A. It wasn't common knowledge. There was very little said 19 about it. 20 75 Q. Yes. 10:56 21 A. It was kept to the people who actually were -- 22 76 Q. Were involved? 23 A. Who were in authority at the time. That is mentioned 24 very well in Professor Keogh's book as well. 25 77 Q. It is. 10:56 26 A. That there was very little talk without it anywhere. 27 In fact, he refers to something that was discussed 28 years later during a time when one of them visited 29 Canada, and one of the Brothers in Canada inquired 19 1 about what happened in Greenmount. 2 78 Q. That's right, it is referred to and there is a 3 quotation in relation to it? 4 A. Exactly. 5 79 Q. And that particular person's view of how it had been 10:57 6 conducted. 7 A. And he was a pretty senior person. 8 80 Q. Indeed. I suppose, perhaps, that's the point I am 9 getting to, it wasn't talked about. 10 A. No. 10:57 11 81 Q. Was there any change or was there any edict, if that's 12 the right word, or any information in relation to child 13 abuse or child sexual abuse from the top of the Order 14 to those who were in the Order, ordinary members like 15 yourself maybe at the time, post 1956/1957? 10:57 16 A. I have no memory of that. All I can say is that 17 another incident of a moral situation occurred in 1956, 18 the following year. 19 82 Q. In another institution? 20 A. No, in Greenmount. 10:57 21 83 Q. I see. 22 A. And the Gardaí were called in. 23 84 Q. Yes. Sorry, I know to which you are referring now. 24 A. Yes. 25 85 Q. But the guards were called in? 10:58 26 A. Yes. 27 86 Q. But, again, within the Order was there any information 28 about that disseminated out to the ordinary members of 29 the Order? 20 1 A. I don't think so. I think it was kept to the few 2 people who were dealing with it. But, obviously, 3 because of the fact that a member, and a very poplar 4 member of the Congregation had left it gave rise to 5 discussion, maybe even anger. But the detailed causes 10:58 6 of it, to my knowledge, were not known. In fact, I 7 could say myself that reading Professor Keogh was 8 education for me. 9 87 Q. I see. We'll call it, if you know what I mean, the 10 allegation of sexual abuse, do you understand, in 10:58 11 relation to what occurred? 12 A. Yes. 13 88 Q. So we are clear on that, so that you can discuss with 14 me the responses to it. You never knew, or certainly 15 never knew in the 50's or, indeed, 60's that that was 10:59 16 the allegation; is that right? 17 A. I had some knowledge, but it was vague and couched in 18 language that was difficult to understand. 19 89 Q. I understand. Yes. Can I ask you this question, and 20 again there is always the element of hindsight, 10:59 21 perhaps, as part of your answer: Do you think there 22 should have been some information, and there should 23 have been some, perhaps, training at that stage, given 24 the allegations, we'll call them, from pupils or boys 25 in 1955 and 1956 in Greenmount, and that should have 10:59 26 applied to all the Order? 27 A. Well, with the knowledge that we have gleaned in the 28 last 10 to 15 years, obviously one cannot separate 29 oneself from what has happened then, since then, in the 21 1 last 10, 15 years. 2 90 Q. Yes. 3 A. And that colours any answer I could give you there. Of 4 course, from our point of view now there should have 5 been. Furthermore, I would couple that with the 1936 11:00 6 situation. 7 91 Q. Inspection? 8 A. Where there was always after that a real emphasis on 9 supervision. In practically every visitation 10 supervision of the boys was emphasised as a very, very 11:00 11 important duty. 12 92 Q. I understand that. You are talking about the 13 visitation from within the Order? 14 A. Yes. 15 93 Q. Yes. As opposed to the inspections? 11:00 16 A. It was also emphasised from the Department people. 17 94 Q. I understand. But I suppose the point I am making is 18 this -- and you can agree or disagree with me, it is 19 perfectly within your rights to do so -- given that the 20 Order would have known that this had occurred, or these 11:00 21 allegations had occurred shall we say, which caused two 22 outside agencies, in two consecutive years to, to use a 23 word, deal with the allegations, one the Bishop and 24 secondly the guards, shouldn't they have done something 25 about it in terms of educating those other Brothers in 11:01 26 the Order about what might have happened? 27 A. Oh, I think that's a fair comment, yes. 28 95 Q. Thank you. There is one, I suppose, little side issue 29 to that, if you will bear with me, Brother. In both 22 1 those situations, 1955 for instance, you have an 2 outside agency coming in, as it were, on foot of a 3 complaint being made, I think, to a local priest and 4 thereafter the Bishop coming in and, I think, making, 5 it appears, an initial interview and thereafter 11:01 6 ordering the canonical inquiry from Canon Lane, which 7 we don't know the results of. Again in relation to the 8 Garda investigation, do you know if there was any 9 parallel investigations within the Order in 1955, 10 within the Order, between the Superiors in the Order 11:02 11 and those that were the subject of allegations? 12 A. Dealing with Greenmount now? 13 96 Q. Yes. 14 A. I'm not aware. I have seen no documents about that, 15 except, again, visitations reports, where supervision 11:02 16 was emphasised. 17 97 Q. Does that strike you as strange, do you understand, 18 that it was left to an outside agency? 19 A. I think one would have to understand the time as the 20 time. I think in today's standards by all means what 11:02 21 you are saying would be obvious probably. But I don't 22 think it was at the time. 23 98 Q. Why do you say that? 24 A. Because the handling of such situations in the 50's was 25 done not openly. 11:03 26 99 Q. Yes. 27 A. That was the way things were done. 28 100 Q. Was there, using a phrase, was there a culture of 29 secrecy within the Order? 23 1 A. No, I don't think so. This was a once off event in 2 Greenmount in 1955. 3 101 Q. Okay. You are saying that in relation to allegations 4 of sexual abuse there was secrecy, that is effectively 5 what you are saying? 11:03 6 A. Well if sexual abuse occurred in Greenmount -- we have 7 no knowledge that it did -- if it did occur it was done 8 in secret and, therefore, that would seem to me to say 9 that it was in no way condoned by anybody. 10 102 Q. No, no I understand that by its nature sexual abuse, 11:03 11 and I have always used the word allegation in relation 12 to it so we can have this discussion, by its nature it 13 is a secretive affair, but once the allegation is made 14 and investigations are set in train on foot of that, 15 I'm saying at that stage it appears clear there was 11:04 16 still a secrecy within the Order. No one could name 17 it. No one talked about it. 18 A. It wasn't talked about, no. 19 103 Q. And within the Order, when you were being, shall we 20 say, professed or as you were going through the very 11:04 21 stages of your vocation, is part of your training a 22 secrecy in relation to matters that might cause scandal 23 to the Order? 24 A. I don't think so. I wouldn't say that at all. That's 25 taking it to a conclusion now that's not true. 11:05 26 104 Q. I don't know you see. I'm asking you the question 27 because I didn't go through the process, you went 28 through it. 29 A. No, that is not true, because we were educated in the 24 1 life we were preparing for. We were preparing for vows 2 of poverty, chastity and obedience and, as you can see, 3 chastity was one of them. That entailed examination 4 and education in the areas that you are talking about. 5 105 Q. So there was no vow of secrecy in that sense? 11:05 6 A. Not at all. 7 106 Q. Bringing a scandal to other members of the Order? 8 A. Not at all. Not at all, no. 9 107 Q. In respect of Professor Keogh's report, it is the wrong 10 word perhaps, but shall we say his small book or his 11:06 11 history of the school, it appears clear that what -- 12 and I don't think we need to refer to it, I think you 13 probably accept what I have to say, and if not I will 14 certainly give you ample opportunity to refer to 15 individual parts of it. It appears clear, Br. 11:06 16 Minihane, that as a result of the two departures at the 17 end of 1955, involving, as you rightly say, senior 18 people, there was a very long visitation, I think, from 19 a Br. Nicholas in relation to the matter and it appears 20 from '55 to '59, before the school closed, there 11:06 21 appears to have been a somewhat demoralised situation, 22 would you accept that, within the school, as a result 23 of, perhaps, the investigation and the departures? 24 A. I wouldn't accept it was a result of. Numbers were 25 dropping drastically and this was what was happening in 11:07 26 industrial schools generally. There were 235 and this 27 time it was dropped to 100 and that would have caused a 28 certain amount of problems. But I don't think it was 29 because of what you are saying now. I have to say that 25 1 one member left, the other did not. You said two left. 2 108 Q. Well, my understanding is that one left and one had 3 changed position shall we say? 4 A. That's right. That's right, yes. 5 109 Q. Yes. I didn't mean to, as it were, to fudge the issue, 11:07 6 but I think that's clearly the case. Just in case we 7 are at crossed purposes here. Do you accept that those 8 changes, if we call them that, occurred as a result of 9 the investigation? 10 A. Oh yes. 11:08 11 110 Q. Yes. I am suggesting to you that it is implicit in the 12 report, but one can't say, that is from the report and 13 the various reports of Br. Nicholas, who had a very 14 long visitation at the end of 1955, I think you know -- 15 I think he had an 11 or 12 day visitations at the end 11:08 16 of 1955, are you aware of that? 17 A. Yes. 18 111 Q. I think the normal visitation was about two or three 19 days; is that correct? 20 A. Three or four days. This one was about double that. 11:08 21 112 Q. Isn't it inevitable that there would be a somewhat 22 demoralising aspect, given that the people who left 23 were very senior, without seeking to identify them any 24 further than that? 25 A. I cannot answer that because I'm not aware of it. I'm 11:08 26 not aware of the demoralisation that you are talking 27 about. 28 113 Q. You see, I think you are indicating that the numbers 29 entering the school were falling, isn't that right, 26 1 between '55 and '59, when it ultimately closed? Isn't 2 that correct? 3 A. Yes, yes. The numbers being assigned to the school, 4 because it wasn't a question of recruiting for the 5 school either. The numbers that were being assigned. 11:09 6 114 Q. The numbers being assigned to the school? 7 A. There was another aspect as well, that during that time 8 there was an advent of boys. Up to that they were 9 mainly boys from the south, but during those years boys 10 came from the Dublin area. Boys were assigned to 11:09 11 Greenmount from the Dublin area and that created 12 further problems. 13 115 Q. In terms of discipline? 14 A. Yes. 15 116 Q. I see. There doesn't seem to have been -- I mean I 11:09 16 don't think in the period '55 to '59 there was a 17 decrease in the need for places in industrial schools 18 generally in the country? 19 A. I think there was. I think there was, in the late 50's 20 there was a decrease. That's documented in Keogh 11:09 21 anyway, the numbers that were in industrial schools. 22 117 Q. Well the numbers that were being assigned to Greenmount 23 it certainly seems to be the case. 24 A. To all industrial schools. 25 118 Q. What do you think the reason for the closing in 1959 11:10 26 was? It closed much earlier than other industrial 27 schools shall we say? 28 A. Yes. 29 119 Q. I think you will accept that? 27 1 A. Yes. The reason, there were several reasons. One of 2 the main ones was that it was not viable, because, as 3 you know, the money coming from the Department was on a 4 capitation basis. So if a school loses close to a 5 third, more than a third actually of the capitation 11:10 6 then it became a non-viable unit, difficult to survive. 7 That was the main reason for closing, as far as I can 8 see. 9 120 Q. Do you not think the difficulties experienced by the 10 school in '55 and '56 may have, shall we say, lessened 11:10 11 the will of the Order, shall we say, to run an 12 industrial school, leaving aside the financial aspects? 13 A. I'm not aware of that. I can't say yes or no to that. 14 But I am aware of the fact that the Bishop was against 15 closing it. 11:11 16 121 Q. Yes. 17 A. Which would seem to imply that he had forgotten '55, or 18 that '55 had been dealt with. Because that gave an 19 opportunity to him to say good riddens. 20 122 Q. Were there replacements to the two people who were 11:11 21 moved, one person who left and one person who was 22 moved? 23 A. Yes. 24 123 Q. There were replacements? 25 A. Yes. 11:11 26 124 Q. So the numbers involved in dealing with the pupils in 27 the industrial school did not decrease? 28 A. The numbers of brothers there was about the same all 29 the time. 28 1 125 Q. About the same all the time? 2 A. Yes. 3 126 Q. Again, in your view, there wasn't any extra training or 4 anything given by the Order during the late 50's? 5 A. That would have been another reason for closing, 11:12 6 because it was seen, I think very clearly at that 7 stage, that that sort of training was required. I 8 mentioned particularly the Dublin aspect, that I think 9 emphasised that we were dealing with a new and more 10 difficult client, and that training and expertise was 11:12 11 required. 12 127 Q. I presume you'd agree, leaving aside the difficulties 13 with the client, as you describe it, that given the 14 allegations in '55 and '56 that training would be 15 required in that regard also; isn't that right? 11:12 16 A. Oh yes. 17 128 Q. But the answer you gave to my second last question, is 18 that an answer given in hindsight or are you saying 19 that that was a documented fact, that the Order took 20 that decision in '59 because of that requirement to, 11:12 21 shall we say, up skill the Brothers? 22 A. I don't think so. Again, I can't be very helpful there 23 because my memory of 1959 was that the closure came 24 very quickly and it was a decision made by the hirer 25 authorities to close it. I think even the people 11:13 26 there, there was a new Resident Manager went in, in the 27 Christmas of '58/'59. 28 129 Q. They were unaware? 29 A. They were unaware, yes. 29 1 130 Q. Given the Order is closed by March, or something of 2 that nature? 3 A. Yes. 4 131 Q. And various, I suppose, replacements were made for the 5 boys that were still underage. We don't have any 11:13 6 documentation in terms of any of those decisions from 7 the Superiors of the Presentation Brothers, isn't that 8 right? 9 A. Except what is in Keogh. 10 132 Q. Exactly? 11:13 11 A. Keogh does document it to a certain extent. He 12 describes letters from the Superior General to the 13 Bishop and contact that was made. 14 133 Q. We don't have any letters, I believe, in detail, there 15 are some notes from various people but we don't have 11:13 16 any notes of meetings where the Superior General of the 17 Order discussed the allegations of '55 and '56; isn't 18 that right? 19 A. Yes. This would be in '55/'56 now? 20 134 Q. Yes. Can I ask you this personal question, I don't 11:14 21 mean this in any way, I know you were nominated to act 22 on behalf of the Brothers for the purpose of this 23 Inquiry, and I think you describe yourself as just a 24 Brother at this stage, did you yourself progress -- and 25 I hesitate to use the word ranks, but you understand 11:14 26 the point I'm making -- did you progress up the Order 27 during your time in the Order? 28 A. In 1955/'56 I was a university student, attending UCC. 29 135 Q. Yes. 30 1 A. And I qualified as a teacher in 1957 and started 2 teaching in 1957. 3 136 Q. Yes. 4 A. I became principal of a school in 1961 and remained 5 that until I retired. 11:15 6 137 Q. I see. 7 A. 1997. 8 138 Q. So you have never been aware, or you have never been 9 on, let's say, if there is a general council or if 10 there is, shall we say, a Committee at the top of the 11:15 11 Order you have never been on that or been aware of 12 that? There is a Superior General, isn't that right? 13 A. Yes. 14 139 Q. I presume he has advisors or some form of committee? 15 A. Yes, the Superior General has a council. Then in 11:15 16 Ireland since 1952 we have had a Provincial as a 17 council and I have been on the Provincial Council. 18 140 Q. You have? 19 A. Yes. That's regarded as an honour, and sometimes as a 20 dubious honour. 11:15 21 141 Q. Indeed, and I can well imagine. With that knowledge 22 though has there been, at any stage -- and we have 23 talked about looking at things from the point of view 24 of 2006 and looking at it from 1955 -- has there at any 25 stage been a policy adopted by the Order in respect of 11:16 26 allegations of sexual abuse within, shall we say, the 27 schools that are still run by the Order? 28 A. That all changed about '94. 29 142 Q. 1994? 31 1 A. About then, when this country at large became aware of 2 the problem of sexual abuse. Since then I documented 3 what has happened since '94 in Phase I of my 4 contribution. 5 143 Q. Prior to that there hadn't been any documentation or 11:16 6 policy; is that correct? 7 A. Yes, there were no policies generally. 8 144 Q. I shouldn't be too much longer with you, Br. Minihane, 9 just bear with me for one moment. In your statement, 10 and I am sure it is not an express omission, but I 11:17 11 wonder are you sorry for the boys that experienced the 12 abuse they say they experienced? 13 A. Absolutely. We have an apology issued a long time. I 14 reiterated it in Phase I, that anybody who suffered 15 hurt or abuse under our care we apologise to them. 11:18 16 145 Q. Have the Order taken any steps to help those people in 17 terms of counselling or anything of that nature since 18 all of this arose, as you say? 19 A. I'm sure you are aware of the counselling service known 20 as Faoiseamh. 11:18 21 146 Q. Yes. 22 A. And we have contributed to that. 23 147 Q. You contributed to it? 24 A. Yes. 25 148 Q. I'm sure you have been authorised to make that apology 11:18 26 again today, I presume? 27 A. Oh yes. That apology is on our web site continuously. 28 149 Q. I understand that, but I think you might understand the 29 point that I'm making as well. You are authorised to 32 1 make that apology again today? 2 A. Absolutely. 3 150 Q. And I think you can make it in a personal capacity as 4 well? 5 A. Yes. Yes. 11:18 6 MR. O'LEARY: Just one moment, Chairman. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's all right. 8 151 Q. MR. O'LEARY: Two points that I have 9 somewhat dealt with during 10 the course of the evidence. There are many other 11:19 11 points, as you know, in relation to food but I think 12 the Commission has heard from the individual people 13 involved and I think it may be that Mr. McGovern can 14 deal with those particular aspects, if it was so 15 required. But I think in your statement you do accept 11:19 16 that, obviously, the Order was doing it best but 17 conditions weren't by any means perfect; isn't that 18 right? 19 A. Especially during the war, where we all know there was 20 severe rationing. 11:19 21 152 Q. And there was difficulties with food at that stage? 22 A. Yes. 23 153 Q. And, indeed, that would have applied also to clothes at 24 the time? 25 A. Greenmount had a couple of great advantages there, in 11:20 26 that it had a bakery, which meant there was always 27 bread available. It also had a farm, which produced 28 farm produce, vegetables. 29 154 Q. But much of that, in fairness -- I don't want to create 33 1 too much controversy -- most of that would have gone 2 outside? 3 A. No, there was continued contribution inside. 4 155 Q. I know that. Some of it would have gone inside, but 5 much of it would have been sold outside; isn't that 11:20 6 right? 7 A. The surplus would have been sold outside, both bakery 8 and farm. The surplus. 9 156 Q. I can see us going down a long road in relation to 10 that. Obviously the Order would have...(INTERJECTION)? 11:20 11 A. We have done an account, you are aware of this, from 12 Ernest & Young, and they have accounted the sort of 13 support the bakery and the farm gave to the institution 14 and, also, the fact that the Brother's salaries were 15 also part of the financing of the institution. 11:20 16 157 Q. What I would say to you is, obviously -- and you may 17 take a different view to me, I accept that -- but the 18 decision as to what was sufficient was, obviously, a 19 matter for the Order, isn't that right? And 20 thereafter, the decision as to what was surplus was 11:21 21 also a matter for the Order; isn't that correct? 22 A. Well there was nobody else to decide it. 23 158 Q. Exactly. You would accept that, in fact, there was 24 shortages of food from time to time in the school, 25 isn't that right? 11:21 26 A. There were shortages, especially of the foods that were 27 rationed. 28 159 Q. I see. You made a statement towards the end of our 29 conversation about why the school was closed, and it is 34 1 a matter which, perhaps, one can never be definitive 2 about, and I think you accept that as well? 3 A. Yes. 4 160 Q. But you indicated that -- you said the Bishop didn't 5 want to close the industrial school. Did he express 11:22 6 that in strong terms? 7 A. That's is itemised in Keogh, the correspondence is all 8 available in Keogh. 9 161 Q. I have seen that in Mr. Keogh's report. But is it not 10 interesting that the Brothers still went ahead and 11:22 11 closed the school, and is that perhaps not indicative 12 of the fact that they wanted to get out of that type of 13 situation, not just for financial reasons. 14 A. I think it had become a very uneconomic unit, for one. 15 Secondly, for reasons that I said earlier, we didn't 11:22 16 have trained personnel to deal with the emerging 17 difficult problems. 18 162 Q. In terms of the assignation of boys, or boys being 19 assigned, just to make it simpler, I don't have the 20 information in front of me, but it is an observation 11:23 21 that I can make and the Commission can deal with it as 22 best as they see fit ultimately, but it strikes me that 23 I don't think there was a severe drop in numbers, or 24 certainly as pronounced in terms of the need for places 25 in the country as a whole, or indeed in Cork, as 11:23 26 opposed to the actual drop in numbers that appears to 27 have been experienced by Greenmount? 28 A. I don't accept that. I don't accept that. I think the 29 drop in numbers nationally is documented in detail in 35 1 Keogh, that in the late 50's numbers dropped. 2 MR. O'LEARY: Br. Minihane, thank you 3 very much. I don't believe 4 I have the opportunity to speak to you thereafter but 5 there are more questions to be asked by Mr. McGovern 11:24 6 and, indeed, your counsel Mr. Collins and, indeed, by 7 the Board themselves. 8 9 END OF EXAMINATION OF BR. DENIS MINIHANE BY 10 MR. O'LEARY 11:24 11 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Mr. 13 O'Leary. Now Mr. McGovern. 14 15 BR. DENIS MINIHANE WAS FURTHER EXAMINED, AS FOLLOWS, BY 11:24 16 THE COMMISSION: 17 18 163 Q. MR. McGOVERN: Br. Minihane, I just want 19 to ask you about a few 20 items. The first thing I would like to deal with is 11:24 21 the question of the annual report which the manager of 22 the school would furnish to the Department of 23 Education. Are you familiar with those reports? 24 A. Yes. 25 164 Q. I think they were in a template and then there was a 11:24 26 certain type of form used up to the mid 1940's, and I 27 think from 1944 onwards the template changed somewhat, 28 it was more in the way of columns with information to 29 be given under various headings. Would you agree with 36 1 that? 2 A. Yes. 3 165 Q. These reports were furnished once a year, in a 4 comprehensive fashion it seems from looking at them. 5 What was the purpose of those reports? 11:25 6 A. Well that's a question for the Department of Education, 7 because it was they who had the template. 8 166 Q. Yes, but they furnished it to the manager of the 9 industrial school? 10 A. Yes. 11:25 11 167 Q. In this case St. Joseph's, Greenmount? 12 A. Yes. 13 168 Q. And they were completed. It was the manager of the 14 school was furnishing information to the Department? 15 A. That's right. 11:25 16 169 Q. Were these intended to give a complete and accurate, 17 insofar as one can do in a template, were they intended 18 to give a complete and accurate picture of the school? 19 A. That would be my reading of it, yes. 20 170 Q. Have you seen these reports? 11:25 21 A. Yes. 22 171 Q. Do you think they did do that? 23 A. I would have question marks about it. 24 172 Q. Yes, indeed, I am sure you would. 25 A. Yes. 11:25 26 173 Q. I am going to raise some of these questions with you 27 now. If you look at the reports from 1940 to 1943, and 28 I am not going to put them up on the screen, but you 29 have seen them? 37 1 A. Yes. 2 174 Q. On most areas they are almost identical and verbatim in 3 the manner in which they are completed, it is almost as 4 if they were photocopied, although each one on an 5 annual basis is in manuscript. Would you agree with 11:26 6 that? 7 A. Yes, there is a certain amount of repetition. That's 8 what I said I questioned myself. 9 175 Q. Yes. It was almost like a single, transferable report 10 from year to year? 11:26 11 A. Yes. The only thing I would add to that is that this 12 would have been followed by a visit from the officer 13 from the Department, and there was room there to fill 14 in or question, or whatever. 15 176 Q. Yes, but I assume you would agree with me that the 11:26 16 purpose of this exercise was to give accurate 17 information to the Department and not give information 18 which might require a further inspection, where things 19 would be found out? 20 A. Yes. Well, I think the information with regard to 11:26 21 numbers and figures and numbers in various classes and 22 so on, that would be accurate. But I am sure what you 23 are referring to is the rather global description of 24 affairs, and I would have questioned that myself. 25 That, I think, is pretty obvious. 11:27 26 177 Q. Yes. One of the things you said in answer to 27 Mr. O'Leary was that corporal punishment was the norm 28 there and you pointed out elsewhere in Ireland at the 29 time? 38 1 A. Yes. 2 178 Q. And that there is evidence that it was excessively used 3 from time to time? 4 A. Right. 5 179 Q. You said something interesting, you said "especially 11:27 6 during the 1940's there was excessive corporal 7 punishment"? That's what you said? 8 A. I did, yes. 9 180 Q. You gleaned that from records, presumably, or things 10 you have heard? 11:27 11 A. And evidence. 12 181 Q. Heard in evidence? 13 A. Yes. 14 182 Q. I see. Again I am not going to put up on the screen 15 these management reports, but I am going to quote you 11:27 16 what was said in the years 1940, '41, '42 and '43 in 17 each of these reports. In 1940 it said: 18 "Punishment of every kind is all but a 19 dead letter in the school." 20 11:28 21 In 1941: 22 "Punishment of any kind is all but 23 abolished in the school." 24 25 In 1942: 11:28 26 "Corporal punishment of every kind is all but completely abolished." 27 28 And the same entry in 1943. Just before you answer a 29 question about this, if we move on to the reports from 39 1 1944 onwards, which were in a slightly different 2 format. Again, the reply to the query: 3 "nature of punishments for misconduct." 4 5 In each of the years after 1944 was almost identical. 11:28 6 It was: 7 "forfeiture of rewards or privileges 8 which are allowed boys of good conduct." 9 10 Now, with very minor variations those were the issues 11:28 11 dealing with punishment and discipline in those years. 12 Doesn't that suggest and convey to anybody reading 13 those reports that corporal punishment was non-existent 14 or as good as non-existent in the school? 15 A. That's the only conclusion you could draw, from reading 11:29 16 the reports. 17 183 Q. Isn't that totally inaccurate? 18 A. I'd have to accept that, yes. 19 184 Q. Yes. You are probably aware that in the course of the 20 private hearings there was evidence given by 11:29 21 complainants and by Brothers former Brothers, and one 22 former Brother at least, in referring to one of his 23 colleagues, said that he was very severe and the boys 24 were afraid of him, and they had every reason to be 25 afraid of him. 11:29 26 A. That is true. That is true. But in addition to that, 27 that's the same person who wrote that report. 28 185 Q. I see, I didn't know that. 29 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, wrote which report? 40 1 MR. McGOVERN: Who wrote the annual 2 reports? 3 A. Yes. 4 186 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Why do you think that would 5 be, Brother? 11:30 6 A. I just don't know. 7 187 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: He was spinning one thing 8 to the Department and he's 9 telling...(INTERJECTION) 10 A. He was the Resident Manager and I have no explanation 11:30 11 for it except that he regarded himself as the 12 disciplinarian in the school. And from his point of 13 view, I'm not saying from my point of view now, from 14 his point of view corporal punishment was part of it. 15 188 Q. I don't know if it is permis to mention the person's 11:30 16 name, he's not a respondent I think, but he's a former 17 Brother. Perhaps it can be left to the Commission to 18 check the transcripts in relation to it. I think 19 that's probably more appropriate. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: I think so. 11:31 21 MR. McGOVERN: Because it was evidence 22 that emerged in a private 23 hearing. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: Br. Minihane accepts that 25 the information furnished 11:31 26 to the Department was totally inaccurate. 27 MR. McGOVERN: Yes, very good. I can move 28 on then. 29 A. Chairman, that's in respect of what we are talking 41 1 about. 2 189 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. But it casts 3 a doubt over anything else, 4 doesn't it? I mean, if it says the boys were all happy 5 in 1943 one has to have a bit of a question mark over 11:31 6 that. I'm not saying it does, it is just that's the 7 reality. 8 A. I accept that. 9 190 Q. MR. McGOVERN: Can I ask you about the 10 Punishment Book. You 11:31 11 agree, and I think we all know this, the regulations 12 required a Punishment Book to be kept by all industrial 13 schools, and there appears to be no Punishment Book 14 that was produced by St. Joseph's Greenmount. Do you 15 know whether a Punishment Book existed or not? 11:31 16 A. As I explained earlier, we have no knowledge whatsoever 17 of a Punishment Book. We have searched all our 18 archives and everything and, as I said earlier, we have 19 no reference to it from people that should have 20 adverted to it. 11:32 21 191 Q. A former Brother gave evidence before the Commission, 22 in which he was asked about punishment being carried 23 out in a storeroom. He said that he knew this happened 24 but never saw it happening, he said it was hearsay. 25 But he knew that punishment was administered there and 11:32 26 a record was kept to be seen by a representative of the 27 Department of Education. Would that have been a 28 Punishment Book he would have been talking about? 29 A. I have read that and, again, I can't add anything to 42 1 what I have said. But we have not found one. 2 192 Q. Do you think he's mistaken? 3 A. I don't know. 4 193 Q. You don't know. Very good. I want to put up on the 5 screen just one or two documents which refer to a 11:33 6 particular Brother, whose name will not appear, 7 obviously, on these documents. I'm not so much 8 concerned about whether the suspicions or allegations 9 about this Brother were true or not, but I just want to 10 raise with you whether or not they were investigated. 11:33 11 You will see there that it makes reference that: 12 "Br. X should be changed as he is a 13 menace in such a place. He has denied all the charges made against him, 14 saying that the only visitor to his room was his brother, when in town, and 15 the electrician on a few occasion to 11:33 prepare his electric fire. It was 16 difficult to get any concrete evidence against him." 17 18 Now, what I want to ask you about is this: Do you 19 remember that incident that's referred to there? 20 A. I knew that man, the man that's being referred to. 11:34 21 194 Q. Yes. 22 A. He was a maverick. He was referred to in various 23 visitation books as a menace. He was referred to as 24 being irresponsible. I think all those things are 25 accurate. But there was never any allegation against 11:34 26 him. Now, in later life it was found that he was a 27 pretty chronic diabetic. 28 195 Q. I don't want to go into all the detail s, or say 29 anything that might identify him. But it is really a 43 1 question of the policy of the Presentation Brothers I 2 am concerned with in investigation matters which may 3 turn out to amount to nothing but which on the other 4 hand could be serious. If you look at this, it is 5 talking about a Brother and it is making reference to 11:34 6 people visiting his room, and him denying any 7 impropriety. He's saying the only visitors to his room 8 were his brother, when in town, and an electrician to 9 fix his electric fire. What do you think one was to 10 understand about discussion about somebody visiting a 11:35 11 Brother's room? 12 A. I would go along with your thinking except I know the 13 man. 14 196 Q. It may have been an entirely innocent visit, and I 15 accept that. 11:35 16 A. Yes. 17 197 Q. But what I want to know is was an investigation carried 18 out to ensure that it was entirely innocent? 19 A. Well, that question of visiting a room was referred to 20 in various visitation reports, that a Brother's room 11:35 21 was a sacred place. I think if you read through the 22 visitation reports that's referred to repeatedly, and 23 that's what is in question there. I'm not sure what 24 the reference to his brother is, I don't know anything 25 about that. 11:35 26 198 Q. So you think that this reference was more about the 27 inviolability of the Brother's room, or cell, than a 28 concern that people might be in his room who shouldn't 29 be in the room? 44 1 A. Yes. 2 199 Q. Invited by him perhaps? 3 A. Yes. Yes, I think so. 4 200 Q. I see. But do you recall any investigation being 5 carried out to see was there something that people 11:36 6 should be worried about? 7 A. No, no. 8 201 Q. I see. 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is clear, Brother, from 10 these -- sorry, let me 11:36 11 start again. Do you agree that it is clear that there 12 were charges or allegations against this particular 13 Brother? 14 A. I'm not. 15 202 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: But it says here: 11:36 16 "he has denied all the charges against 17 him...it is hard to get concrete evidence." 18 19 A. Yes. These would be charges that would have been 20 something like going to the kitchen late at night, 11:36 21 looking for food. Because it was only in later years, 22 as I have said already, that he was discovered to be a 23 diabetic. And he was a bit obese and he was always 24 looking for food. So that is the type of charge I 25 think is in question there. 11:37 26 203 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. Well that's 27 something for us, obviously, to consider. I have to 28 tell you that when I read the series of references, 29 year by year, in the reports, not the visitation 45 1 reports but the reports to the Provincial Council -- 2 that's separate and I want to ask you something about 3 those in the end if Mr. McGovern doesn't pursue it -- 4 but a succession of references that certainly I took as 5 being code for sexual activity. You don't agree with 11:37 6 that? 7 A. I don't. 8 204 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I will took at it again, 9 and, obviously, I can't 10 speak for my colleagues, but I just want your view on 11:37 11 that. That's what it looked like to me, and when I 12 look at this and see he's a menace in the situation it 13 doesn't look to me like somebody sneaking off to raid 14 the fridge, to be frank. 15 A. My view of that is that this man was a headache to the 11:38 16 Superiors, and continuously so, for reasons that had 17 got nothing to do with abuse. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. 19 205 Q. MR. McGOVERN: Why would the statement 20 say: 11:38 21 "Br. X will always be a danger there." 22 Was it dangerous to be running off to the kitchen? 23 A. Dangerous in that -- there is a reference again in 24 repeated in visitation books that, and I have a note 25 made of it here, that: 11:38 26 "The affairs of the Brothers should not 27 be discussed with outsiders." 28 29 That's referred to repeatedly. That was the type of 46 1 thing this man was capable of doing. He was 2 irresponsible. 3 206 Q. And I can understand you wouldn't want someone being 4 indiscreet about religious life, and so on? 5 A. Exactly. And he was very indiscreet. 11:38 6 207 Q. I just want to suggest to you that any person coming at 7 this and reading it, the first thing that would jump 8 out of the page at them would be that there is a 9 suspicion that this person is inappropriately bringing 10 people to his room? 11:39 11 A. Yes, I accept that. 12 208 Q. And he's denying that? 13 A. I accept that, but I don't agree with it. 14 209 Q. I see. And it may or may not be true? 15 A. Yes. 11:39 16 210 Q. But I am suggesting to you that it is something which 17 one would expect would be investigated. And you say 18 you don't recall any investigation? 19 A. I don't. And this man was continuously under 20 investigation. 11:39 21 211 Q. Do you recall any investigations taking place into 22 suspicions...(INTERJECTION) 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. What was the nature 24 of the investigation, 25 Brother, you say he was continuously under 11:39 26 investigation? 27 A. Well, that he was, as I said, a problem. He was a 28 thorn in their side. He was capable of being 29 indiscreet, and to that point of view. And he ended up 47 1 in a nursing home, the last ten or fifteen years of his 2 life. 3 MR. LOWE: Was he a drinking man? 4 A. No, no. In fact, he was a total abstainer I would say. 5 But my point about diabetes I think is that I think he 11:40 6 was late being diagnosed with diabetes and for that 7 reason his blood sugars and all would have been haywire 8 at the time where we had made these allegations before 9 us. 10 212 Q. MR. McGOVERN: I see. Apart from the 11:40 11 canonical investigation, 12 which I will come to briefly in a moment, do you ever 13 remember any allegations being made against Brothers of 14 inappropriate sexual behaviour which were investigated? 15 Whether they turned out to be true or not I'm not 11:40 16 really concerned about. But do you remember any 17 allegations being made and those being investigated? 18 A. I have no knowledge of that. 19 213 Q. But do you remember any allegations being made, whether 20 they were investigated or not? 11:40 21 A. The allegations of 1955. 22 214 Q. Yes. 23 A. What I knew about those I told you. 24 215 Q. Are they the ones that the canonical investigation took 25 place in respect of? 11:41 26 A. Yes. 27 216 Q. And the Bishop put that in train? 28 A. Yes. 29 217 Q. Did he come in at the behest of the Brothers or did 48 1 he...(INTERJECTION) 2 A. There are various descriptions of what happened there. 3 One is that it was a visiting chaplain who got to know 4 it, and that is well documented. 5 218 Q. I think you are correct there, yes? 11:41 6 A. I think all aspects of that are in Keogh. 7 219 Q. Were the Brothers subordinate to the rule of the Bishop 8 or were they independent of the Bishop? 9 A. They were independent to the extent that we had our own 10 authority. But we were working in his diocese. 11:41 11 220 Q. Of course. But you wouldn't have been directly 12 subordinate to the authority of the Bishop? 13 A. No, no. 14 221 Q. What you seem to be suggesting is that in 1955 an 15 outsider, if I may call him that, a priest had some 11:41 16 reservations and on foot of that the Bishop instigated 17 an investigation? 18 A. Yes. 19 222 Q. Did the community of the Presentation Brothers know 20 this investigation was taking place? 11:42 21 A. Do you mean the community in Greenmount? 22 223 Q. Yes. 23 A. They were part of the investigation. 24 224 Q. They must have been interviewed, I would assume? 25 A. Yes. 11:42 26 225 Q. Did the community carry out its own investigation? 27 A. I don't know. You see, one of those being investigated 28 was then Superior. So he left. 29 226 Q. Well was it taken to another senior member of the 49 1 Order, perhaps outside Greenmount, then to investigate? 2 A. Well Br. Nicholas is the man that's mentioned there, he 3 visited there. 4 227 Q. But are there any records of an investigation into what 5 were serious allegations? 11:42 6 A. Within the Order? 7 228 Q. Within the Order? 8 A. The only records we have are all, even snippets of 9 information, were all made available to Keogh and they 10 are documented there. 11:42 11 229 Q. Yes. Did you ever see the fruits of any 12 investigations? 13 A. In what sense? 14 230 Q. Well, do you know if an investigation within the 15 Presentation Brothers was concluded or not? 11:43 16 A. No. 17 231 Q. Did you ever receive the report that went to Bishop? 18 A. No. 19 232 Q. Professor Keogh, in his very detailed history of the 20 Order, at page 171 of his account makes an interesting 11:43 21 point. He said there is no evidence of the report of 22 the canonical investigation and raises the query as to 23 why it didn't survive. It is suggested by a former 24 chaplain to Greenmount that perhaps the Bishop had torn 25 it up, as he had something of a reputation for tearing 11:43 26 up correspondence, at least. Did you ever hear that? 27 A. No, that was news to me now. I knew Fr. Goode very 28 well, and he and the Bishop had a very close 29 relationship. So he would have known this quality or 50 1 characteristic of him. 2 233 Q. So Fr. Goode would have been in a position to know the 3 Bishop's ways and habits? 4 A. I think the question of Fr. Goode and the Bishop of 5 Cork is a national issue. 11:44 6 234 Q. I think it may well be. So it seems then that he told 7 Professor Keogh that the Bishop was notorious for 8 tearing up correspondence and that might have been what 9 happened to the report? 10 A. Yes. Yes. It is stated there that two of our Brothers 11:44 11 trawled the archives of the Cork and the Kerry diocese 12 just in case. Canon Lane was later Dean of Kerry and 13 in Tralee, and they trawled through both and found 14 nothing. 15 235 Q. So a report had been commissioned, as it were, by the 11:45 16 Bishop into serious allegations in relation to -- was 17 it two brothers? 18 A. Yes. 19 236 Q. And no report ever turned up, for whatever reason. Did 20 that cause concern in the Presentation Brothers? 11:45 21 A. Well I suppose when we started looking into it in 22 recent years it was surprising that some form of report 23 didn't emerge. 24 237 Q. Was it not of more concern to you at that time? 25 Somebody was waiting on a judgment, as it were, on this 11:45 26 particular issue, a serious issue, whether the facts 27 were true or untrue, as alleged. 28 A. Yes. 29 238 Q. Did anyone ever discuss when we were going to hear the 51 1 outcome of this investigation, or why has nobody told 2 us anything? 3 A. The authorities at the time would have been the people 4 dealing with that. They are all dead since the late 5 50's so I can't answer that question. 11:46 6 239 Q. Yes. But there is nothing in the records you have seen 7 which would indicate that anybody ever expressed any 8 concern that this issue remained unresolved, the issue 9 of what was in the report? 10 A. All I can do is quote what Keogh says: 11:46 11 "I am completely satisfied that every 12 effort is being made by the Order to comb their archives for all relevant 13 documentation." 14 240 Q. And that's as much as you can help us with it? 15 A. Yes, yes. 11:46 16 241 Q. Very good. There is just one or two other issues that 17 I would like to deal with. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: For whatever reason, it was 19 thought appropriate that no 20 copy of this document should survive, for whatever 11:46 21 reason. It doesn't exist, it is not there, and the 22 question is: Is it speculation or inference? That's a 23 matter we have to worry about, as to why it might have 24 gone missing. 25 242 Q. MR. McGOVERN: Yes. There was evidence 11:47 26 given that the food was 27 bad, do you accept that or not? 28 A. I accept that every effort was made during the war 29 years to have the food as good as possible. I think 52 1 that is referred to repeatedly by the medical officer. 2 243 Q. Yes. 3 A. She has always been praiseworthy of the food in 4 Greenmount. 5 244 Q. Yes. There is a document I'm putting up on the screen 11:47 6 there, I'm not going to delay on this, but it is a 1957 7 document and it, I believe, comes from a visitation 8 report. It says that: 9 "The boys seem to be well supervised 10 etc. At the same time they appear to 11:47 be very raggedy and unkempt." 11 12 A. What's the date on that? 13 245 Q. It is 1957? 14 A. '57. 15 246 Q. The fact that a visitor says that they were very 11:48 16 raggedy and unkempt would, I suggest, indicate that 17 there wasn't that much care taken for their welfare. 18 A. There was always a struggle for making ends meet. The 19 funds available, which I am sure you are aware of, even 20 at that stage was something like 22 shillings and 6 11:48 21 pence a week for each boy. Now, if the number of boys 22 was diminishing then I think the first thing to suffer 23 was probably the clothing, rather than the food. I 24 think there was a continuous struggle going on during 25 the 40's and 50's to make ends meet. Again, I would 11:48 26 refer you to the financial report. 27 247 Q. I know it is difficult for all of us to cast our mind 28 back to the hardship of those years, but even allowing 29 for that would you accept that perhaps the children 53 1 there were kept in a less than satisfactory state? 2 A. That's a statement of fact by an observer, I can't 3 quibble with it, it is true. 4 248 Q. An issue that arises from time to time, in fact with 5 great regularity I have to say in the annual reports 11:49 6 from the manager, is that there was a problem with the 7 trade union and getting them to accept the skills of 8 the boys, that they would have learnt in the industrial 9 schools, or accepting them into any of the trades. Do 10 you recall that? 11:49 11 A. That's mentioned repeatedly. 12 249 Q. Yes, repeatedly. 13 A. Yes. 14 250 Q. I will just quote from one entry, it says: 15 11:49 "It is indeed difficult to obtain 16 positions at skilled trades in the city owing to trades union." 17 18 A. Yes. 19 251 Q. This seems to have been a recurring problem? 20 A. Yes. 11:50 21 252 Q. What did the Presentation Brothers do about that, to 22 overcome that problem? 23 A. All they could do is accept it and try and place the 24 boys somewhere else. Because in the cities, and in 25 that case I presume we are referring to Cork only, that 11:50 26 this problem was there and even though it was objected 27 to it was not overcome, because it is repeated year 28 after year. 29 253 Q. Why do you say they just had to accept it? Couldn't 54 1 they have tried to do something about it? Did they 2 ever, for example, get in touch with the Department of 3 Education and say, look, we are having a problem here 4 with the trades union, if you can't deal with this 5 maybe you would get on to the Department of Labour, or 11:50 6 whatever it was in those decades, and see if they can 7 sort this out? 8 A. Well what you are quoting to me is a report to the 9 Department of Education. That's where you are quote 10 from. 11:51 11 254 Q. Yes, but did anyone in the Presentation Brothers ever 12 seek a meeting on this issue? 13 A. I'm not aware of that. 14 255 Q. It was a serious issue? 15 A. Yes. 11:51 16 256 Q. In fact, can I invite you to agree it was a fundamental 17 issue, because these children from backgrounds of 18 deprivation, they were there to get an education in an 19 industrial school, in trades; isn't that right? 20 A. That's true. 11:51 21 257 Q. So the very purpose of the school was defeated if they 22 couldn't go out and be accepted by the trades union, or 23 get into skilled positions or apprenticeships with 24 unions controlled bodies. Would you agree with that? 25 A. I would. But unions were closed shops at the time. I 11:51 26 don't know what efforts the Brothers made, but they 27 report year after year that the unions were a huge 28 barrier to placing their boys. 29 258 Q. But apart from reporting it year after year, do you 55 1 know of any evidence in the documents to show that they 2 took it further? 3 A. I don't. 4 259 Q. And said this is a disgrace, we must do something about 5 it? 11:52 6 A. No, I have seen nothing. 7 260 Q. Is there any evidence that anyone in the Presentation 8 Brothers every sought a meeting with trade union 9 officials to discuss the issue? 10 A. I have never seen it. 11:52 11 261 Q. Do you know why not? 12 A. I don't. 13 262 Q. On the issue of the trades that they were taught, a 14 number of witnesses gave evidence that they felt they 15 were put to work in the bakery, or wherever, for the 11:52 16 purpose of suppling the school, whether it be with 17 bread or with footwear, or whatever, or farm produce, 18 but that they weren't there to learn anything but more 19 they were there as workers to provide materials for the 20 school. Do you think that's fair, in the light of the 11:52 21 documentation you have read and the evidence you have 22 heard? 23 A. I don't accept it. I accept that in hindsight the 24 people concerned might look at it that way. But I have 25 a clear memory of boys in the bakery regarding it as a 11:53 26 huge plus to be in the bakery, as many of them got jobs 27 out of that later. 28 263 Q. And they got bread, is that right, bits of bread to 29 eat? 56 1 A. I don't know that. 2 264 Q. Well one city boy said he was sent to the farm and said 3 he was never trained for anything else. Now, he may be 4 right or wrong about that, but do you think that's 5 something that may have happened, that people were just 11:53 6 shoved into work without any real assessment as to 7 whether their background suited them for this or the 8 future they might be going to would suit them for it? 9 A. I think it was a case of making ends meet. Most of 10 them were city boys, so if farm training was part of 11:53 11 the training some had to go to the farm. 12 265 Q. If we look at the list of trades, they were, if I may 13 put it, fairly old fashioned trades. I know farming is 14 farming and we still have farmers working in a totally 15 different way to them. But apart from the farming 11:54 16 there was tailoring and baking, and things like that. 17 Do you think the school evolved with the times to 18 ensure that these were jobs, or trades rather, the boys 19 could use when they got out? 20 A. I think that's something we are looking back at now. 11:54 21 But in the 40's and 50's these trades were viable. 22 266 Q. Well do you think they were? 23 A. I think so. I quote you here from file 71 from the 24 Department. It says: 25 11:54 "It has invidious to make comparisons 26 between one school and another, but we desire to state how favourably we were 27 impressed with the management of Greenmount school." 28 29 That is referring to what you are talking about now, 57 1 the trade issue, that trades were being taught in a 2 superficial way, and that the training of the people 3 who were the trainers, as it were, the carpenters and 4 so on, that they were not trained teachers. Now that's 5 valid I think, they were not trained teachers but they 11:55 6 were trained carpenters. 7 267 Q. They weren't trained teachers? But wasn't there an 8 obligation under the rules of the industrial schools, 9 for the schools to give information to the Department 10 on the level of training and qualifications of people 11:55 11 teaching? I will read you the extract if I can lay my 12 hands on it. First of all I would like you to just 13 answer this: The rules and regulations were the ones 14 certified for industrial schools in Saorstát na 15 h'Eireann, isn't that right? 11:56 16 A. Uh-huh. 17 268 Q. Under industrial training it refers to this I think -- 18 just bear with me for a moment. Yes, it says: 19 "Each school shall submit, for approval 20 by the inspector, a list setting forth 11:56 the occupations which constitute the 21 industrial training of the children and the qualifications of the instructors 22 employed to direct the work." 23 24 Was that ever done, "the qualifications of the 25 instructors"? 11:56 26 A. I think the qualifications of the instructors would 27 have been a carpenter, a shoe maker, a baker. They 28 were a trained baker, shoe maker and carpenter. But I 29 would question what you are saying with regard to their 58 1 ability to teach those subjects. 2 269 Q. This wasn't an optional provision. It said: 3 "Each school shall submit for approval 4 by the inspectors a list setting forth the occupations, etc. and the 5 qualifications of the instructors 11:57 employed". 6 7 A. There were two questions there. First of all, there 8 was the payment of them and secondly, there was the 9 availability of them, I said both would have been valid 10 questions. That they just weren't available, such 11:57 11 people. 12 270 Q. Are we to understand from that, Brother, that, in fact, 13 the schools, well Greenmount at any rate, didn't submit 14 for the approval of the inspectors, the qualifications? 15 A. I don't know that. 11:57 16 271 Q. Have you seen any evidence from the vast amounts of 17 documents you have read to show that they did? 18 A. The names were submitted, but I don't know about the 19 qualifications, except that they were given as 20 carpenter or a baker. 11:58 21 272 Q. Do you know anything about how qualified these people 22 were? 23 A. I don't. 24 273 Q. What strikes me, in looking at the documents, Brother, 25 and maybe you will comment on this, is that there is no 11:58 26 mention of training of boys to be, for example, 27 electricians, plumbers, mechanics or getting them into 28 apprenticeship in those trades; would you agree with 29 that? 59 1 A. There is evidence in the early 1940's where they did go 2 out to Crawford Municipal Technical School and some of 3 them were qualified. 4 274 Q. In those trades? 5 A. In those trades, yes. 11:58 6 275 Q. Because there wouldn't be a town or village in the 7 country where you couldn't get work if you had some 8 skills in that area, even in the 1940's and 1950's, 9 wouldn't that be right? 10 A. Yes. 11:58 11 276 Q. Would you agree that those types of trades would have 12 been more relevant to the evolving Ireland, backward as 13 it may have been in those days? 14 A. I think that's a valid criticism from our point of view 15 now. But I think being in it at the time it was a case 11:59 16 of doing the best with the available finance. 17 277 Q. But there doesn't, as far as I can see, appear to be 18 any documentary evidence to show that meetings took 19 place between the manager or anyone else in Greenmount 20 and, for example, Government Departments, be it the 11:59 21 Department of Education or Labour, or whatever, to see 22 about evolving the situation? 23 A. There were repeated meetings of the joint Resident 24 Managers and the topic was always finance. They were 25 always trying to make ends meet. 11:59 26 278 Q. Do you know did the topic of relevant trades being 27 taught or the issue of boys being sent out, if 28 necessary, to learn relevant trades, was that ever 29 discussed? 60 1 A. I don't know, except that I have not seen it in any of 2 the reports from the visiting inspectors or any 3 department people. 4 MR. McGOVERN: Thank you very much, 5 Brother. I have no further 12:00 6 questions. 7 8 END OF QUESTIONING OF BR. MINIHANE BY THE COMMISSION 9 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, Mr. Collins. Are you 12:00 11 in a sufficiently 12 comfortable position, Mr. Collins? 13 MR. COLLINS: Possibly as comfortable as 14 I am going to be. I don't 15 have that many questions to put, Chairman, I just want 12:00 16 to take up a number of general issues which arise out 17 of the questioning that has already been posed, 18 hopefully we won't be going over any additional ground. 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly. 20 21 22 BR. MINIHANE WAS EXAMINED, AS FOLLOWS, BY MR. COLLINS: 23 24 279 Q. MR. COLLINS: Br. Minihane, certain 25 questions have been put to 12:00 26 you concerning abuse of various kinds that is alleged 27 to have taken place in the school. Could you describe 28 the location of the school, the context -- physical and 29 geographical context of the school and social context 61 1 of the school in Greenmount? 2 A. Yes. The school was situated city centre. There was 3 another large primary school on the same grounds. It 4 was fairly open, a fairly open school, in that there 5 was regular coming and going. So it wasn't a school 12:01 6 with high walls around it. It was quite open. 7 280 Q. Did the Presentation Brothers have any particular role 8 in the society in the area, particularly in the 9 immediate surroundings of the school? 10 A. Well, I say they would have been involved in the -- 12:01 11 anybody who knows the area would see that it is in the 12 centre of a parish known as the Lough Parish, which is 13 the parish which gave home to St. Finbar's hurling 14 club, and there was a continuous relationship between 15 the Brothers and St. Finbar's club. In fact, some of 12:02 16 the boys would have played hurling in what was known as 17 the Lough Parish league, which was a parish thing. 18 281 Q. You said there was a lot of coming and going, for 19 instance, the evidence seems to be it was one of the 20 pupils who gave evidence before, at Phase II, gave 12:02 21 evidence of the fact that he was -- the Brothers 22 arranged for him to go to a family on visits every 23 month, he not being in contact with his own mother? 24 A. That was a regular feature, that boys were allowed out, 25 the Cork city boys were allowed out at weekends, 12:02 26 Sundays and also at summertime. But what you are 27 referring to there is a family sponsoring a boy who had 28 no home to go to. That was a feature of Greenmount. 29 282 Q. How was that organised? 62 1 A. I think the sponsors would have been sussed out by the 2 Brothers, one of those has been very complimentary. 3 One of the seven people who came in Phase II was very 4 complimentary to that family and has maintained his 5 relationship with them to this day. 12:03 6 283 Q. Would it be the case that once boys were discharged 7 from the industrial school, would they ever attend, for 8 example, the other primary school that was on the 9 premises? 10 A. Oh yes. Boys from the locality, who would have been in 12:03 11 Greenmount for maybe family reasons, maybe sickness of 12 a parent or so, when they were discharged they would go 13 to the other school. 14 284 Q. Would there be much interaction with past pupils of the 15 school? 12:04 16 A. It was a regular feature in the 1940's and 1950's that 17 past boys came back. In fact, it is mentioned in the 18 reports as well, past boys came back to visit the 19 school. 20 285 Q. Now, the Commission is already well aware of the 12:04 21 excursions and so on that were organised, and you have 22 said the school therefore was in a very central 23 position, it was quite an open institution, is there 24 any conclusions you would draw from that regarding the 25 allegations of abuse or that? 12:04 26 A. I suppose they are pretty obvious, that if it was a 27 place where abuse was practiced, that people were 28 coming in and out all the time, it should have been 29 open to observation, or whatever you like. 63 1 286 Q. And you have made the point, of course, that you have 2 accepted that there was excessive physical punishment 3 or abuse, certainly in the light of -- excessive in any 4 way, but certainly in the light of today's standards? 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Could you clarify that for 12:05 6 us, Mr. Collins, what does 7 that mean? And to be fair to Br. Minihane, he's not 8 the only one who has said, "oh, well, by today's 9 standards the punishment was excessive." What does 10 that mean? 12:05 11 MR. COLLINS: I'm not the witness, 12 Chairman. 13 287 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you would elucidate 14 for us, Br. Minihane, what 15 does that mean? 12:05 16 A. It means, Chairman, my interpretation of it is that 17 corporal punishment in schools was totally acceptable 18 until 1982. 19 288 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Agreed. 20 A. So today's standards are...(INTERJECTION). 12:05 21 289 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: We are not in dispute about 22 that, that's a fact. And 23 corporal punishment in schools is not permitted today. 24 A. Right. 25 290 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Therefore, any corporal 12:05 26 punishment, howsoever 27 slight, is not acceptable by today's standards. 28 A. Yeah. 29 291 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. So when you say 64 1 there was excessive 2 corporal punishment in the 1940's, by today's 3 standards, can you clarify for me what does that mean? 4 A. I think Professor Keogh even mentions that point 5 himself, that when he was a pupil, I think he mentioned 12:06 6 in the suburb of Dublin in Raheny 7 that...(INTERJECTION). 8 292 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Correct, I was a pupil in 9 the part of Dublin, not 10 wildly different from Professor Keogh, and we were all 12:06 11 at school, there was punishment, there was corporal 12 punishment. But if somebody asked me was there 13 excessive punishment, I know what they mean. I say yes 14 or no. Do you know what I mean? I'm not trying to 15 that -- that's why I asked Mr. Collins because I 12:06 16 thought maybe he would want to elucidate it. When we 17 say there is excessive punishment, I know what that 18 means. If somebody says, "was such a teacher guilty?" 19 "Yes". "Was he severe? Was he excessive?" I know 20 what that means one was, one wasn't. But I don't have 12:07 21 to say by today's standards. If I say by today's 22 standards I am inviting you to comment. I mean, it 23 suggests that there is a qualification that says it was 24 all right at the time. Do you know what I mean? 25 12:07 26 So if we are looking at the 1940's and we say was there 27 excessive punishment -- that's a question we have to 28 answer, we have to ask ourselves, which is why I am 29 trying to -- it is not helpful to us in thinking, "oh, 65 1 well by today's standards that would be excessive", 2 because the fellow in the next classroom who might have 3 been saintly but still exercising some punishment was 4 still excessive by today's standards. I am sorry for 5 making a speech about that. Can you help us about 12:08 6 that? 7 A. I think that -- I can only give my own experience. In 8 the school that I went to on occasion I would have 9 observed -- on occasion not all the time, I would have 10 observed what I would have interpreted at the time as 12:08 11 excessive. Maybe it was a bad day for the teacher, but 12 that sort of thing happened country wide, in my 13 experience. That occasional busts, we'll call them, of 14 punishment. 15 293 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: There was excessive 12:08 16 punishment? 17 A. Yes, yes. I think that's what we are talking about. 18 294 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: One doesn't have to say by 19 today's standards? 20 A. I agree. 12:08 21 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is not a criticism, it 22 is just a clarification, it 23 is just so we know where we are going. We can leave 24 that out, in fact, we are better off, we are clearer. 25 Sorry, Mr. Collins. 12:08 26 295 Q. MR. LOWE: Can I just point out that 27 if corporal punishment was 28 acceptable up to a certain level, the reports would say 29 things like "nature or punishment for misconduct, 66 1 forfeiture of rewards and privileges", suggests that 2 there was a different concept at work, at least on 3 paper? 4 A. I agree. 5 MR. LOWE: Yes. 12:09 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: Poor Mr. Collins started 7 all that when he said "by 8 today's standards." 9 MR. COLLINS: In many ways, Chairman, it 10 is useful and it is 12:09 11 relevant -- 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: It is a relevant question. 13 Thank you very much. 14 296 Q. MR. COLLINS: -- and it is elucidated in 15 its form. 12:09 16 17 (To the witness) Perhaps just the next general point to 18 move on from this particular issue is that, 19 nonetheless -- just to finish off on the issue. 20 Nonetheless, the school, as you said, Brother, that the 12:09 21 school was one that was not isolated or cut off from 22 the community, and had there been a lot of very bad 23 things going on that would have been known generally, 24 I'll put it that way? 25 A. It was part of the locality and was central to it. 12:09 26 Like clubs would have come in to use the pitches, 27 training and that sort of thing. 28 297 Q. Very good. Coming to the business of the school's 29 closure, there is discovery from the Department of 67 1 Education that shows, as a matter of fact and I'm not 2 going to put it to you, you are not in a position to 3 deal with this. But it demonstrates that numbers were 4 falling post war, much to the surprise of the 5 Department, in fact. I don't think that can really be 12:10 6 contested. Would you be surprised if I were to put it 7 to you that when an inspection was carried out in 8 November 1952, and this is a document which we have 9 received on discovery from the Department, that the 10 school manager informed the inspector that when the 12:10 11 numbers "fall to 150 school will surrender its 12 certificate"? 13 A. That's right, that statement was made as early as 1952. 14 298 Q. 1952? 15 A. Yes. 12:10 16 299 Q. Before any of the matters that were being canvassed 17 this morning? 18 A. Exactly. 19 300 Q. Then there is the question of course of who had 20 authority to close the school. Brother, you are not an 12:11 21 expert on Canon Law, but we do have some correspondence 22 that was discovered, and perhaps given some of the 23 matters that arose this morning I might open up this to 24 you. I'm not sure if perhaps a copy could be provided 25 of the relevant letters. They are letters which are in 12:11 26 the Bishop's discovery, and from the Commission's point 27 of view I should just refer to them as BDGM 005, BDGM 28 006, BDGM 007, they are three letters, correspondence, 29 in February 1959. Perhaps the Commission has a note of 68 1 them. Perhaps they could just be handed to 2 Br. Minihane (Same Handed). 3 4 These are the three letters just. The first is a 5 letter that seems to come from the Bishop's office, or 12:12 6 from the Bishop himself, it is not clear. It states, 7 it states as follows, in the fourth paragraph: 8 "It is the closing down of the 9 industrial school that is the Bishop's direct concern. Change from an 10 external work to an internal work, that 12:12 is from an industrial school to a 11 juniorate, is what is in question. You have that change, I'm informed, by an 12 independent expert in Canon Law whom I consulted. Formal permission is 13 necessary from the local ordinand. To give that permission it must be asked 14 and a reason or reasons given for the proposed change. I may add that the 15 convenience or good of the religious 12:12 community is not a sufficient reason 16 unless it is also shown that the closing of the school is not against 17 the public good or the good of the boys concerned. Perhaps then you would put 18 before me the reasons for the proposed change." 19 20 Have you seen that letter, Brother? 12:13 21 A. Yes, I have it. 22 301 Q. And you are acquainted with it? 23 A. Yes. 24 302 Q. That would seem to indicate that there had been some 25 correspondence, the Commission has of course, but 12:13 26 principally that permission had to be obtained from the 27 Bishop? 28 A. Yes. 29 303 Q. Then the next letter BDGM 006 is dated the following 69 1 day, 7th February 1959, and the reasons for closing the 2 school are set out there. The Commission has those, 3 but it states that, it is the author, Fr. O'Brien, 4 Superior General: 5 12:13 "Apologises for putting his case very 6 badly to the Bishop and regrets that he was not sufficiently informed as to the 7 necessity proceeding your permission in connection with the step we propose to 8 take." 9 10 Then he puts forward the reasons and there are four 12:13 11 reasons. The first being: 12 "That over a period of years the 13 constant decline in numbers made working in the establishment uneconomic 14 and consequently difficult to cater adequately for the temporal needs of 15 the boys. We believe that if the 12:14 temporal needs of the boys were not 16 made their spiritual and moral wellbeing will suffer and the 17 institution will fail to achieve its purpose. 18 2. We are satisfied the public good 19 and the good of the boys will not suffer as a result of the closuring of 20 the school. We understand there is 12:14 ample accomodation in other industrial 21 schools in Munster for all the boys who are now in Greenmount. Consequently we 22 feel the need for Greenmount as an industrial school no longer exists. 23 3. Because of the difficulty to 24 provide suitably trained Brothers to staff such an institution, Greenmount 25 being the only school of its kind which 12:14 we have in Ireland. 26 4. If we cannot use Greenmount as an 27 extra juniorate we must build now at short notice an extension to Douglas 28 juniorate or provide alternative accomodation. 29 These are the reasons, my Lord, which 70 1 we believe justify us in applying to you now for the necessary permission to 2 effect the proposed change." 3 4 I see that letter as well. That's your understanding 5 of the reasons why the school was changed? 12:14 6 A. Yes. 7 304 Q. Then there is a letter dated 11th February 1959, it is 8 the last of the sequence and it is stated there -- it 9 seems to be signed in typewritten form anyway by the 10 Bishop of Cork and New Ross: 12:15 11 "In view of the reasons for the change 12 submitted in your letter of February 7th and on the understanding that the 13 boys in Greenmount are provided with suitable alternative accommodation and 14 that you will, as intimated to me in our interview, give up your holding in 15 Passage Parish. 12:15 16 I hereby approve in accordance with Canon 497 of the Code of your closing 17 down Greenmount Industrial School and using the building there for aspirants 18 of your Congregation". 19 A. Do you want me to comment on that? 20 305 Q. Just to say that you are aware of this correspondence? 12:15 21 A. Yes. 22 306 Q. That would seem to indicate the circumstances in which 23 the school closed? 24 A. That's right. 25 307 Q. And two principle reasons would seem to be, as you 12:15 26 canvassed in questions with Mr. O'Leary, that the 27 numbers were falling and that is indicated as far as 28 1952 and the situation concerning the availability of 29 suitably trained Brothers, given the evolving nature of 71 1 the pupils? 2 A. Yes. 3 308 Q. Another matter was raised by Mr. McGovern, if I could 4 perhaps turn on the question of Br. X. A document was 5 put before you. There is another reference to Br. X in 12:16 6 a similar document, it is another one of the reports, 7 Provincial Reports, and it is dated June 1955. I 8 haven't a number for it, but just to locate the 9 document, June 1955, which notes -- and I think it is 10 perhaps important to point this out to the Commission, 12:16 11 that on the internal report it notes that 140 boys were 12 residents in June 1955 which is below, of course, the 13 figure of 150 indicated in 1952. 14 15 I just want to read out the following passage and ask 12:16 16 you to comment on it. It states: 17 "Br. X will always be a danger there. 18 He has no sense of responsibility. It is always difficult where he is when 19 out or when he goes out or comes back. The Superior made the mistake of 20 putting him in charge of the flag day 12:17 (for the band) activities. He is 21 evidently very good at that type of work but not responsible enough." 22 23 24 Could you comment on that passage? 25 A. I think that only adds to what I said earlier about 12:17 26 this man, that he was, as I said, a maverick with 27 tendencies that could lead to irresponsibility and, 28 above all, not being a team player. 29 309 Q. Would you comment on the observation, the reference 72 1 that "he will always be a danger" and then the context 2 in which that is put? 3 A. I think it only emphasises what I said earlier. 4 310 Q. Very well. Perhaps you might just describe as well, 5 because it is something which hadn't really come out, 12:17 6 obviously these were internal report and dealt with the 7 religious life of the Brothers. What type of -- I'm 8 only asking this in short form because this isn't a 9 Commission to investigate into monastic life, but could 10 you explain the type of rigours that members of the 12:18 11 Order were required to keep at that time in the 1950's 12 by the Order and the type of things that would -- if 13 you breached them, would constitute an infraction that 14 would be investigated by the Order itself, as a breach 15 of the monastic life? 12:18 16 A. That's referred to in the first document, the first 17 thing you quoted about Br. X, that it was forbidden to 18 leave the grounds, really, alone. That was one thing 19 he was prone to do. In other words, he went where he 20 liked when he liked and that was very much contrary to 12:18 21 regulations at the time. 22 311 Q. And then in terms of the -- it was touched upon, I 23 think, in your answer to Mr. McGovern, the 24 inviolability of the monk's room or cell, could you say 25 something more about that? 12:18 26 A. That was repeatedly stressed right through visitation 27 time. And when we are talking about visitation now, we 28 are talking about something that happened in every one 29 of our houses, it wasn't just Greenmount. That type of 73 1 visitation happened in every house. 2 312 Q. Yes. 3 A. And the visitation book was kept in each house and 4 those comments that are here before us with regard to 5 Greenmount were similar in other houses. 12:19 6 313 Q. Would it be fair to say that this was the type of 7 internal policing of the religious life of the Order? 8 A. Well you could call it that, yeah. Again, to quote a 9 phrase, not acceptable in today's sort of religious 10 living. 12:19 11 314 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Collins, may I just 12 interrupt for a moment to 13 clarify, because I think you have just clarified 14 something, Brother, that I was going to ask you. In 15 other institutions that we are aware of, the Visitation 12:19 16 Report takes place but the Visitation Report is made to 17 the higher authorities, headquarters, so to speak, the 18 Provincial Council or whatever it is. But if I'm 19 understanding you correctly, the situation here was the 20 Visitation Book was kept on site in this instance, in 12:20 21 Greenmount, but in every other Presentation Brothers' 22 unit or establishment. So the visitor filled in that 23 and left it there and he separately reported to the 24 Provincial Council? 25 A. Yes, that is partly true. But in 1952, our Governments 12:20 26 changed, in that after 1952 the General Council was 27 responsible for the Irish province, in 1952 we got a 28 Provincial. 29 315 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Just stop there for a 74 1 second. What did that 2 mean, before 1952? 3 A. Before 1952 the Irish situation was governed by the 4 General Council. 5 316 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Which was where? 12:21 6 A. Which was in Cork, Mount St. Joseph's in Cork. Post 7 1952, the Provincial Council was in charge of the Irish 8 province and they would report back then to the General 9 Council. 10 317 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Before and after 1952 the 12:21 11 head, or the authority, the 12 governing authority for the Presentation Brothers was 13 the General Council. 14 A. That's right. 15 318 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Before and after? 12:21 16 A. That's right. 17 319 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Its location is not 18 important but it happened 19 to be located in Cork, but that's not important? 20 A. Yes. 12:21 21 320 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: So Greenmount would have 22 reported before 1952 to the 23 General Council? 24 A. Correct. 25 321 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: But after 1952 we find that 12:21 26 the operations of the 27 Presentation Brothers are divided into provinces; is 28 that right? 29 A. Yes. 75 1 322 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Of which one province is 2 Ireland, or whatever; is 3 that right? 4 A. That's right. 5 323 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Then presumably you had 12:22 6 places abroad and 7 other...(INTERJECTION)? 8 A. Yes. 9 324 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: So that would be the 10 province or whatever it 12:22 11 was? 12 A. Yes. 13 325 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: Now there was a lower 14 level, there was another 15 level introduced? 12:22 16 A. A tier of authority. 17 326 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: A tier, thank you very 18 much. Which is the 19 Provincial Council. So from 1952 onwards a visitor 20 would come presumably from the Provincial Council and 12:22 21 report back to the other members of that Provincial 22 Council? 23 A. That's right. 24 327 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: But before that, he would 25 be reporting to the General 12:22 26 Council? 27 A. Yes. 28 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 29 A. There might be other variations of that. 76 1 328 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: In relation to the point I 2 am asking, the Visitation 3 Report, the Visitation Book, of which we have these 4 exhibits, that's left in Greenmount in this case? 5 A. Yes. 12:23 6 329 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: But he makes a separate 7 report prior the 1952 to 8 the General Council? 9 A. Yes. Sometimes he was a member of the General Council. 10 330 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, yeah. 12:23 11 This would be before 1952? 12 A. That's right. 13 331 Q. THE CHAIRPERSON: After 1952, you would often 14 find that it was a member 15 of the Provincial Council who would now also give a 12:23 16 report and as we know sometimes a great deal franker or 17 different to the somewhat bland one he gave for the 18 locals? 19 A. Yes. 20 THE CHAIRPERSON: All right. Thank you. 12:23 21 332 Q. MR. COLLINS: Just on the issue there of 22 trades that Mr. McGovern 23 touched upon a number of questions. Could I ask do the 24 records disclose any criticism by the -- you made 25 returns of this to the Department of Education. The 12:23 26 boys would attend primary school until school leaving 27 age; wasn't that so? 28 A. 14, yes. 29 333 Q. Then they would -- if they were still in the school, 77 1 would continue until their 16th birthday? 2 A. Yes. 3 334 Q. Carrying on trades? 4 A. Yes. 5 335 Q. You made returns of this information to the Department 12:24 6 of Education? 7 A. That's right. 8 336 Q. Is there any record of any criticism by the Department 9 of the training being provided to boys between 14 and 10 16 years of age? 12:24 11 A. Not that I'm aware of, no. 12 337 Q. In any of the discovered documents? 13 A. No, no. 14 338 Q. It is the case, as you pointed out, that the school had 15 no money? 12:24 16 A. Absolutely. The school was run on a shoestring and 17 that's -- again, there doesn't seem to be much emphasis 18 on that, but that was a fact of life, especially during 19 the war years. 20 339 Q. You have provided, of course, a report to the 12:24 21 Commission, a financial report by independent auditors 22 that demonstrates the vicarious circumstances? 23 A. Yes. I would like to spell out what happened there, 24 that we invited in this company, Ernst & Young, to look 25 at our financial affairs during the period in question, 12:25 26 and it was they who chose the three years, 1945, 1946 27 and 1947 and 1955, 1956, 1957 and they have issued a 28 detailed, pretty detailed, account of the finances of 29 the institution on those six occasions. 78 1 340 Q. So would it be fair to say then what you are saying is 2 that if the Department had criticised you, and it 3 doesn't appear they did, in relation to the trade 4 training available, that the school would have had 5 difficulties in trying to provide vocational training 12:25 6 in plumbing or electrics or something of this kind? 7 A. I think that goes without saying. 8 341 Q. Very good. Now, in the questioning earlier from 9 Mr. O'Leary a question arose about the policy of the 10 Presentation Brothers concerning sexual abuse and I 12:26 11 think you said that a policy was adopted some time in 12 the 1990's? 13 A. Yes. 14 342 Q. Would it be fair to say, as I think you also said in 15 your previous evidence, in earlier questions, that of 12:26 16 course this was unacceptable? 17 A. Totally. 18 343 Q. That in effect was the policy? 19 A. Oh yes, totally unacceptable. 20 344 Q. Could you perhaps say something about how complaints 12:26 21 would be dealt with by boys, if boys had complaints to 22 make of whatever kind in the school how in practice 23 they might be dealt with by the Brothers? 24 A. Again that's a difficult question to answer because 25 some of the evidence at Phase II would have told us 12:26 26 that the boys felt free to talk to some of the 27 Brothers. Now maybe not to all of them, but that they 28 felt free to make their complaints to some of the 29 Brothers, and that came through in evidence. So I 79 1 think the best way I could answer that question is that 2 it was very much on an ad hoc basis. 3 345 Q. If complaints were made about anything, be it food, 4 clothing, excessive force or whatever, that they would 5 go -- would those complaints necessarily end up with 12:27 6 the Resident Manager? 7 A. I think so. Whether they be adverted to or anything I 8 don't know about it, I just can't answer that. But I 9 would hope they would be listened to. 10 346 Q. Clearly, obviously, where complaints were made and came 12:27 11 to the attention of the Resident Manager steps were 12 taken to investigate these matters; isn't that right? 13 A. Yes, yes. 14 347 Q. And that is whether the alleged perpetrator was a 15 Brother or another boy? 12:27 16 A. Yes. 17 348 Q. But at this remove it is -- would you say it is 18 possible to reach any conclusions in relation to what 19 you heard at Phase II or what appears to be indicated 20 in some of the questions put to you this morning? 12:28 21 A. I think it is impossible to reach definitive 22 conclusions. 23 349 Q. But it certainly was the case that there was a 24 rudimentary perhaps -- and perhaps nothing, a 25 rudimentary system of complaint did exist? 12:28 26 A. Yes. 27 350 Q. And that insofar as complaints did come to the 28 attention, they were investigated. But we are too far 29 from the events in question to know? 80 1 A. The detail of that. 2 351 Q. Or to draw any real conclusions in relation to that? 3 A. Yes. Yes. 4 352 Q. You heard the complainants at Phase II and do you have 5 any -- not observation about them generally, but just 12:28 6 generally about the manner in which the school was run 7 during the time? How many boys, roughly, attended the 8 school? 9 A. During the period under investigation I would estimate 10 1,000 during that period and seven came forward in 12:29 11 Phase II. 12 353 Q. To give evidence? 13 A. Yes. 14 MR. COLLINS: No further questions. 15 Thank you very much. 12:29 16 17 END OF EXAMINATION OF BR. MINIHANE BY MR. COLLINS 18 19 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much. I see 20 somebody down there and I 12:29 21 can quite understand that people have questions, but I 22 have to say, and I'm not particularly concerned about 23 this, but we have to establish a principle and I said 24 at the start that if people have questions we will 25 circulate somebody to go around or make available -- we 12:29 26 will take a note of the question and we will follow 27 them up afterwards. But I hope people will understand 28 that it is not -- I mean, we are sympathetic to this, 29 it is not a public meeting, there is a way we have to 81 1 do it and how we do this one affects how we do every 2 other institution. 3 4 I know that people will have objections, disagreements, 5 queries, and in the nature of things we want to make 12:30 6 this as open and inclusive as possible, but I can't 7 allow questions from the floor, I'm sorry about that. 8 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Your Honour, I wasn't 9 intending to ask a question 10 from the floor. I was just going to ask you may I have 12:30 11 permission to talk to the counsel from the Commission 12 to ask a question to Br. Minihane. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: Certainly I will give you 14 permission to speak to 15 counsel. If Ms. McGoldrick would talk to this 12:30 16 gentleman. But I don't want to be sort of transmitting 17 questions up, if we are now finished. If it is a 18 relevant question and if she wants to come to Mr. 19 McGovern, well and good. 20 12:30 21 What I will promise people is this, that we will 22 certainly follow up, if necessary by writing or 23 whatever it is, in whatever way we need to follow up 24 for our purposes we will follow up whatever issue is 25 raised. Now that's the best I can do. 12:31 26 27 But meantime Ms. McGoldrick will go over and will speak 28 to you and take note of it because there is other 29 things that we want to raise with Br. Minihane. Thank 82 1 you very much now. Is Ms. McGoldrick there? Thank you 2 very much. 3 MR. O'LEARY: I presume, Chairman, in the 4 hiatus that that applies 5 also, rather than me re-questioning the Brother, which 12:31 6 I think would be inappropriate, that if things arise 7 that I can make submission in writing to the Commission 8 in that situation, given the questioning that has gone 9 on since then. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: Of course. Nobody should 12:31 11 assume that today's -- that 12 applies to everybody, nobody should assume that 13 because -- it is not like somebody closing his case and 14 that's the end of that, okay, finished. No, because it 15 is an Inquiry, I mean we welcome people's observations, 12:31 16 and I want to reassure people therefore that it is not 17 like you lose the bus, you miss the bus if you don't 18 get on at this stop. 19 MR. O'LEARY: I understood that but I 20 just wanted it for the 12:32 21 purpose of clarity in case it does arise. 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. It gives me the 23 opportunity of letting 24 people know. Mr. McGovern, sorry. 25 MR. McGOVERN: Chairman, I am aware of the 12:32 26 fact that when I was 27 referring to some other parties present, I forgot that 28 Mr. O'Moore and Mr. Dignam are here, I think for the 29 Department of Education. I don't know whether they 83 1 have any questions they want to ask. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm sorry. So did I, 3 but I saw Mr. O'Moore 4 ...(INTERJECTION). 5 MR. McGOVERN: Probably with the seating 6 arrangements we 7 ...(INTERJECTION). 8 THE CHAIRPERSON: We'll improve the seating 9 arrangements. It is 10 obvious that they need a bit of improving. Yes, 12:32 11 Mr. O'Moore. 12 MR. O'MOORE: No, we have no 13 questions. I told 14 Mr. McGovern that informally just a few moments ago. 15 Arising out of today's evidence we have no questions 12:32 16 for Br. Minihane. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, there is something, 18 Mr. McGovern, perhaps you 19 would think of raising, and this maybe that Mr. Collins 20 wanted to re-examine and that was a question about 12:32 21 diaries and infirmary records. 22 MR. McGOVERN: I take that point, 23 Chairman. I will pursue 24 that and I will be brief on it. 25 THE CHAIRPERSON: It may be that Br. Minihane 12:32 26 cannot have a great deal to 27 offer, but it will probably be better to offer him an 28 opportunity of commenting on it, if that seem 29 reasonable to you. 84 1 MR. McGOVERN: Very good. 2 3 BR. MINIHANE WAS FURTHER QUESTIONED, AS FOLLOWS, BY THE 4 COMMISSION: 5 12:33 6 354 Q. MR. McGOVERN: Br. Minihane, there were 7 diaries and there were 8 medical infirmary records kept as well, are you aware 9 of that? 10 A. Yes. 12:33 11 355 Q. And they were kept in separate books? 12 A. We have them actually. 13 356 Q. It appears from our perusal of these that there are 14 some discrepancies and there are matters logged in the 15 diary, for example, that aren't logged in the infirmary 12:33 16 records. If I just mention to you this, that the 17 discrepancy for 1949 amounts to 59 in number and in 18 1950 70 in number. They are just samples. Do you have 19 an explanation for that? 20 A. No, I haven't. No, I haven't. I am not aware of these 12:33 21 discrepancies at all. All I know is that the diaries 22 were kept and I think the Commission has copies of 23 these diaries and the infirmary book is a fairly 24 detailed document kept by the nurse. 25 357 Q. Where the discrepancies seem to arise is that the -- 12:34 26 where somebody was sent to hospital, that's not 27 recorded in the infirmary records but is in the diary. 28 Do you know what the reason for that is? 29 A. I don't. I don't. 85 1 358 Q. I may be not entirely correct in that all the 2 discrepancies relate to that, but certainly that's the 3 thrust of the discrepancies, most of them relate the 4 admissions to hospital or visits to hospital, if not 5 admissions? 12:34 6 A. My immediate comment to you there is that if a person 7 went to hospital they probably skipped the infirmary. 8 359 Q. They wouldn't have gone through the infirmary? 9 A. I don't know now, I don't know. I would also suspect 10 that if people weren't in the infirmary overnight their 12:35 11 visit to the infirmary may not have been recorded, that 12 it would have been overnight stays in the infirmary. 13 THE CHAIRPERSON: It occurs to me, 14 Mr. McGovern, that probably 15 the best thing to do is for -- I mean, both of these 12:35 16 come from the Presentation Brothers' records, and it is 17 like comparing and contrasting the infirmary record 18 with the diaries. Now, Mr. Collins may well want to 19 come back on this, but it is the sort of thing that you 20 might want to consider at -- I don't -- at leisure, but 12:35 21 in tranquility, rather than being faced with the thing 22 there. There may well be a comment you want to make on 23 it. 24 MR. COLLINS: There is a simple 25 explanation, Chairman. 12:35 26 That's the reason why I was keen to intervene. 27 Apparently there was a separate hospital book, a 28 separate record kept in relation to hospital matters, 29 which is a separate book. They are my instructions. 86 1 THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you would clarify 2 that, Mr. Collins, look 3 into it. It would appear that we don't have the 4 hospital book. Now, as soon as I say that somebody is 5 going to prove me wrong. 12:36 6 MR. COLLINS: The difficulty is, I 7 believe, Chairman, is this, 8 and my solicitor is present, your agents, if I can put 9 it like that, came down to visit us and they took away 10 what they wanted themselves and they may have 12:36 11 overlooked this book inadvertently. 12 THE CHAIRPERSON: It may well be, 13 Mr. Collins. 14 MR. COLLINS: It sounds something like 15 that. 12:36 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: I am not going to assume 17 the conspiracy theory as 18 soon as something goes wrong. Please have an 19 opportunity, we will send you the apparent -- the 20 discrepancies and the list of them, it may well be that 12:36 21 that's the explanation, please, then furnish us with -- 22 isn't that the best thing to do, Mr. McGovern? 23 MR. McGOVERN: Yes, I think so, Chairman. 24 On the other point, I have 25 a note here from Ms. McGoldrick and the gentleman 12:37 26 concerned -- he is concerned that Br. Minihane stated 27 only seven people chose to give evidence. Mr. Ward 28 tells me that, in fact, there were some number, over 29 20, who were complainants and when approached seven 87 1 gave evidence or wanted to give evidence or came 2 forward to give evidence. 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: That's the position. 4 MR. McGOVERN: That seems to be the 5 position. It wasn't a 12:37 6 question of certain people being selected in this 7 institution but that of the 20 odd who made complaints 8 there were seven...(INTERJECTION). 9 THE CHAIRPERSON: The people who gave notice 10 to the Commission in the 12:37 11 first instance were 20 people. The number who actually 12 gave evidence ultimately was seven. That wasn't 13 because we had made any selection or anything else, it 14 just happened. And people were free to do that, that's 15 what they did, that's what they did. It doesn't mean 12:37 16 that we don't investigate the institution but that is a 17 fact as it happened, that seven people did it, for 18 whatever reason. 19 20 Ms. Shanley, have you any questions you want to ask 12:38 21 Br. Minihane? 22 360 Q. MS. SHANLEY: Do you mind if I just ask 23 one question and I won't 24 keep you. You described the punishments as being 25 excessive on occasions, and generally they weren't. I 12:38 26 suppose a lot of the complaints we received were not 27 punishments that were received in classrooms, so making 28 comparisons, I suppose, with school situations wouldn't 29 apply across the board, would you accept that? 88 1 A. Yes. 2 361 Q. MS. SHANLEY: A lot of the punishments we 3 heard about were during 4 supervision, or as a result of misdemeanours in the 5 dormitory, the playground, the refectory. In other 12:38 6 words, situations much more akin to a home environment 7 than school environment. Would you think it is a valid 8 distinction to make in the school, that the school 9 operated at two levels, at the one level it was a 10 school but at another level it was supposed to be 12:39 11 providing a home to children? 12 A. Yes. 13 362 Q. MS. SHANLEY: And was there, in fact, a 14 distinction in the kind of 15 treatment the boys received, as there would have been, 12:39 16 I think we can all accept, in most home and schools, 17 children received different treatment during the 18 period, would there have been a distinction made in the 19 school between the two periods, between school and 20 home? 12:39 21 A. I think the school was, what I would refer to as, a 22 normal national school, and there was another one, 23 another national school -- 24 363 Q. MS. SHANLEY: Yes. 25 A. -- on the same grounds. Now you want me 12:39 26 to...(INTERJECTION). 27 364 Q. MS. SHANLEY: I accept that, and I think 28 that in terms of what went 29 on in the classroom we have not received that many 89 1 complaints. It was really outside of the classroom 2 environment that we did receive complaints of excessive 3 punishment. I suppose you wouldn't be making 4 comparisons there with the classroom situation you 5 would be making comparisons with the home situation. I 12:40 6 suppose I am drawing you out a little on your use of 7 the word "excessive" and I am just wondering whether, 8 in fact, it was excessive in terms of a school 9 environment or excessive in terms of a home 10 environment? 12:40 11 A. That's not an easy one to answer, but I think what I 12 would say there is what I said earlier with regard to 13 an industrial school meeting the needs of a home. And 14 it didn't do that. I would say that in an ordinary 15 home there were times where maybe mother interceded 12:40 16 with the father not to be excessive on punishment. Now 17 that sort of thing would have been missing. Am I 18 answering your question there? 19 365 Q. MS. SHANLEY: When you did supervision, 20 for example, would you have 12:40 21 had, not you personally but would it happen -- we have 22 heard evidence to the effect that Brothers supervising 23 the boys would have a cane or a strap? 24 A. No, I never was the perpetrator of any sort of 25 punishment in Greenmount. 12:41 26 366 Q. MS. SHANLEY: Would you have seen that, 27 that some of the Brothers 28 would have found it necessary to carry a cane or a 29 strap when the person was supervising? 90 1 A. No, no. 2 367 Q. MS. SHANLEY: You never saw it? 3 A. Not in my experience. 4 MS. SHANLEY: Okay. Thank you. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Now, Mr. Lowe. 12:41 6 368 Q. MR. LOWE: Under conduct of pupils in 7 the late 1940's, in every 8 case "very good" is written down, but just beneath 9 that, under "absconding" we have the following: 10 12:41 "Five boys were transferred to Daingean 11 and two to industrial schools. Two boys absconded in the next year and one 12 transferred to Daingean. 47, two boys did not return, two boys were committed 13 to reformatory." 14 15 In the next: 12:41 16 "Four boys overstayed their leave and two of them were committed to 17 reformatory." 18 19 What was the policy about the use of the reformatory? 20 A. I think in the area of absconding it was used and again 12:42 21 I don't know apart from that, I don't know how serious 22 those abscondings were, they are not described. But 23 one of the punishments for absconding, not in all 24 cases, but one of the punishments was referral to 25 reformatory. 12:42 26 369 Q. MR. LOWE: Who made that decision? 27 A. I'm not sure of that. I presume it was the Resident 28 Manager, in consultation with the Department. It had 29 to be reported to the Department. I am not sure what 91 1 consultation took place between the two bodies, but I 2 am sure there was some consultation there, but I have 3 not seen it. I took it what you read out to me there, 4 that the result of absconding was that they were 5 referred to reformatory. 12:42 6 370 Q. MR. LOWE: But in one case four boys 7 overstayed and only two 8 were sent to reformatory? 9 A. Yes, and what the distinction was there, I don't know. 10 Obviously somebody regarded two as more serious than 12:43 11 others or perhaps two was regarded as the ringleaders. 12 371 Q. MR. LOWE: But you are not aware of 13 any policy which term 14 determined who was sent? 15 A. No, I am not. 12:43 16 MR. LOWE: Thank you. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. 18 19 END OF FURTHER QUESTIONING OF BR. MINIHANE BY THE 20 COMMISSION 12:43 21 22 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr. Collins. 23 MR. COLLINS: Just in answer to 24 Dr. Lowe's question, I 25 could perhaps be of assistance. The decision as to 12:43 26 whether a boy was sent to a reformatory after 27 absconding is one taken by the District Court, that's 28 why Br. Minihane doesn't know about it. It was a 29 judicial matter, it was out of the hands of the 92 1 Brothers and that's why some would be...(INTERJECTION). 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just remind us about that. 3 Mr. Collins. 4 MR. COLLINS: They would be sent -- if 5 they absconded it was an 12:43 6 offence to abscond and they would be back before the 7 District Court and in some cases the District Court 8 would send them to another institution. In other cases 9 they wouldn't be sent to another institution. 10 THE CHAIRPERSON: As a specific offence on 12:44 11 this occasion. 12 MR. COLLINS: Yes. You will recall one 13 witness who in the -- gave 14 evidence in Phase II who absconded and committed an 15 offence and you remember that he never went back to 12:44 16 Greenmount, he was sent to another institution. 17 THE CHAIRPERSON: So he committed an offence 18 while he was out, so that 19 is a separate one, if you like. 20 MR. COLLINS: Yes. But that would have 12:44 21 been the type -- it was a 22 matter for the Court, as I understand it, to decide 23 what happened in such offences. 24 THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. But your 25 point, if I am 12:44 26 understanding, your point is that absconding in itself 27 was an offence. This may be a submission and you can 28 always sort of...(INTERJECTION). 29 MR. COLLINS: That's what I understand. 93 1 That's why Br. Minihane would be unaware. I note that 2 in asking the questions, it didn't seem to be a matter 3 for the Brothers almost. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 5 MR. COLLINS: The other point, I think, 12:44 6 which is probably fair, my 7 solicitor pointed this out to me, the decision to 8 commit to a reformatory couldn't have been taken by the 9 Presentation Brothers. To commit a boy to reformatory 10 would require a court order. If that was of 12:45 11 assistance. 12 MR. LOWE: I was aware that the Court 13 would have to make that, 14 that's why I asked what the policy was. If you are 15 saying that the policy was that all boys who absconded 12:45 16 were sent back to the District Court...(INTERJECTION). 17 MR. COLLINS: We can certainly clarify 18 that matter. As I say, 19 Br. Minihane wasn't able to assist them and I was 20 hoping to...(INTERJECTION). 12:45 21 MR. O'LEARY: Perhaps submissions would 22 be better. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: It sounds unlikely that 24 everybody, Mr. Collins -- 25 but there might have been a policy as to which fellows 12:45 26 we will bring down to the District Court and seek to 27 have transferred to the reformatory. The actual mode 28 of getting them to the reformatory, but I think that's 29 really what is behind this, Mr. Lowe was wondering 94 1 about was there a policy. Thank you very much. 2 MR. COLLINS: We will try and clarify 3 that by way of information 4 and fact. 5 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Now, very good. 12:45 6 Thank you very much, 7 Br. Minihane. That closes our Phase III session in 8 respect of Greenmount. I think we are next on Tuesday, 9 without Mr. McGovern for happy reasons. 10 BR. MINIHANE: Congratulations. 12:46 11 MR. O'LEARY: I was wondering would there 12 be reference made to that, 13 along that line. 14 15 THE HEARING THEN CONCLUDED AT 12:46 P.M. 12:46 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 95