Tag Archives: redress

From left: George Kennedy, John Boland, David Phayer, Thomas Hogan and a man who did not wish to be identified by name

This afternoon.

Department of Education, Dublin 2.

A group of men who were sexually abused as children by a teacher at Creagh Lane primary school in Limerick protest outside the Dáil, over the State’s ongoing failure to grant them the redress they are due.

Via RTÉ:

Today is the fifth time in recent years that the ‘Creagh Lane men’, as they are known, have travelled from Limerick to Dublin to try to draw attention to their situation through protest.

A State redress scheme was established for survivors of abuse in national schools, after the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the Louise O’Keeffe case that the State did share liability for their abuse.

But the Creagh Lane men are among what is believed to be hundreds excluded by the scheme’s narrow interpretation of the European court ruling.

A year ago, the Government accepted a former judge’s finding that that the conditions of that scheme were “inherently illogical”, “fundamentally unfair” to applicants, and should be changed.

…Responding to the judge’s conclusions in the Dáil last year, the then minister for education Joe McHugh promised “action not words”. He established a second review.

But there has been no offer made to the Creagh Lane men and others.

Sex abuse survivors protest over redress scheme (RTÉ)

Rollingnews


Mary Raftery

Mick Peelo writes:

Our series highlights a series of significant and weighty public interest issues. What has the State learned from its experience of redress?

The Ryan Commission, which produced a shocking and revealing report but lacked teeth when it came to bringing justice and accountability for survivors, set the bar for current and future Commissions of Inquiry.

The State’s Redress Scheme for Magdalenes suggests it has learned little in terms of understanding the needs of survivors.

The last Dáil was in the process of legislating for the sealing of the records of the Ryan Commission and the Redress Board for 75 years.

Was this proposed in order to protect the confidentiality of survivors or was it to bury the evidence and obliterate it from living memory?

Is there not a way that protects those who want anonymity but can also make files available to survivors and researchers?

This series asks if the State’s response to survivors of residential institutions has been adequate and whether or not it delivered on its promises.

If the problematic issues that took place at the closed hearings of both the Redress Board and the Commission are not highlighted, how can Ireland possibly learn anything and hope to resolve the injustices that have marked much of its recent history?

Redress: Breaking The Silence  on RTÉ One tonight and tomorrow night at 9.35pm.

Redress – examining the Irish state’s response to the survivors of residential abuse (RTÉ)

Rollingnews

Thanks Breeda

Judge Iarfhlaith O’Neill

This afternoon.

A judge has concluded that the State has misinterpreted a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and in doing so has denied victims of child sexual abuse access to a redress scheme to which they are entitled.

In a decision that will be welcomed by survivors, Judge Iarfhlaith O’Neill has ruled that the State’s interpretation represents:”a fundamental unfairness to applicants” and involves “an inherent inversion of logic”, because of its insistence that survivors of sex abuse in primary schools need to prove that there was a complaint made to authorities about their abuser before their abuse took place.

….Figures revealed by RTÉ News earlier this year showed that out of 50 applicants to the scheme no applicant has been successful, and that all of the cases refused have been declined on the grounds of a failure to show evidence of a prior complaint….

Judge rules State misinterpreted ECHR abuse ruling (RTÉ)

Pic via Juris Resolutions

From top: Former Taoiseach Enda Kenny in the Dáil in February 2013 when he apologised to women who had been incarcerated in Magdalene homes; Irish Examiner journalist Conall Ó Fátharta

Yesterday.

Journalist with The Irish Examiner Conall Ó Fátharta tweeted his thoughts on the Magdalene redress scheme.

His sobering account follows separate previous reports by him detailing how 14 women who were sent from An Grianán training centre to work in Dublin’s High Park Magdalene laundry in the 1980s have yet to receive an offer of redress from the Department of Justice.

This delay, he reported, is on account of the department saying that the order which ran the laundry, the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity of Refuge, claims it stopped sending women from An Ghrianán to the laundry in 1980.

But, Mr Ó Fátharta has pointed out, among other matters, that the department’s legal team has refused on three occasions to given the women’s legal team any evidence to support this claim and the High Court accepted, in 2017, that children worked at High Park into the 1980s.

Mr Ó Fátharta tweeted:

Related: Magdalene women seek minister’s help on redress (Conall Ó Fátharta, The Irish Examiner)

Dr Maeve O’Rourke; Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan

Yesterday evening.

Human rights lawyer and legal adviser to the Clann Project Dr Maeve O’Rourke tweeted a thread on foot of an article by Irish Examiner journalist Conall Ó Fátharta.

Ó Fátharta reported how women who worked in Magdalene laundries, but who have been wrongly excluded from a redress scheme, are now expected to provide “records” showing how long they worked in the institution.

He also reported the requirement follows the publication of an addendum to the scheme by the Department of Justice this week…

Women excluded from Magdalene laundries redress must provide ‘records’ of work (Conall Ó Fátharta, Irish Examiner)

Previously: “It’s Like As If They’re Calling Us Liars”

Denied compensation: Magdalene survivor Maureen Sullivan

On October 23 last, Ellen Coyne, in The Times Ireland edition, reported how some women who worked in Magdalene Laundries feared the Government was trying to limit their compensation.

These are women who would have lived in adjoining institutions to the laundries, as opposed to the laundries themselves.

Ms Coyne reported:

The Department of Justice is asking the women to provide details of how many hours they worked in the laundries, despite few records of rosters being available.

Until now, compensation for Magdalene survivors has been based on the months and years spent in the laundries and not the number of hours worked.

The 2013 Quirke report had said that compensation would be calculated based on the number of months or years that a woman had worked in the laundry, and survivors were never asked on previous applications for redress how many hours they worked.

“How do the government expect me to answer that question with any sort of accuracy?” said “Anna”, a 56-year-old survivor.

Further to this on today’s News At One on RTÉ One.

A woman who worked in a laundry – Maureen Sullivan, from Carlow – told RTE reporter Joan O’Sullivan that she has been supplying information to the Department of Justice since 2009, as part of her application for redress, and the department is still asking her questions.

Ms Sullivan said:

“I first started in 2009 and this is 2018.

“We have all the proof that we were in these places, well I have. I’ve all the proof and still they’re looking for bits of paper that doesn’t make sense.

“Like, they’ve asked me for my mother’s marriage certificate but I think to leave us hanging on this long and to put us through all this over and over again.

“It just causes frustration and our age group – we’re not able for this.

“Like my friend, 84 years of age, here, not far from me, in Carlow, she can’t cope with it any more. She’s been through the courts and everything.

“She was one of the women in the last group that took it into court and still this woman – they even refused to give her a meeting, to sit down and speak with her. So she just can’t take it anymore.

“She’s not able for it. And I think that’s awful sad.

“That’s not what we went out and fought for. And done marches for and brought all this to the fore. And then for an old lady of 84 years of age to be treated like this – it’s just scandalous.

It’s very stressful and it’s like as if they’re calling us liars.”

Later.

Claire Byrne spoke with the Ombudsman Peter Tyndall who published a report last year called Opportunity Lost – An Investigation by the Ombudsman in to the administration of the Magdalene Restorative Justice Scheme, in which he criticised the Department of Justice for its administration of the scheme and it’s exclusion of the women who worked at the laundries.

He told Ms Byrne:

As far as we were concerned, they [the women who worked in the laundries but lived in adjoining institutions] could have been admitted to the original scheme. It didn’t require an addendum to the scheme but Government have taken the view that an addendum is necessary to enable them to access the scheme.

“If that were the case, it should have been processed and dealt with quickly. Our concern has been that it’s a year since the report was issued. That addendum still hasn’t been finalised.”

Listen back in full here

Rollingnews

A Magdalene laundry in the 1950s; Dr Martin McAleese with his report into Magdalene laundries in 2013

This morning.

In the Irish Examiner

Conall Ó Fátharta reports:

The Department of Justice failed to examine all available evidence when it wrongly refused some Magdalene laundry survivors access to redress payments.

Following an almost year-long investigation of the scheme, Ombudsman Peter Tyndall has published a scathing assessment of the department’s administration of the scheme.

The department had refused several women access to redress, claiming they were not resident in one of the 12 institutions covered by the scheme.

However, the Ombudsman was provided with evidence that some of the Magdalene laundries were either physically linked to the units where the women lived, or were located on the same grounds as the Magdalen laundries and were, in reality, “one and the same institution”.

The report determined that the department gave “undue weight” to evidence supplied by the religious congregations and some of it had been requested and received by the department after the decision to exclude the women was made.

The report also said it was not evident “what weight, if any, was afforded to the testimony of the women and/or their relatives”.

Department of Justice ignored Magdalene redress evidence (Irish Examiner)

Previously: ‘Based On The Findings Of The McAleese Report’

The Magdalene Report: A Conclusion

Magdalene

Further to the Religious Sisters of Charity getting ‘sole ownership’ of the new National Maternity Hospital.

And the online petition, against the move, that has gained more than 75,000 names…

And the Sisters of Charity basing their decision not to pay redress to the Magdalene survivors based on the findings of the McAleese Report…

Readers may wish to recall the following reported by Conor Ryan and Clare O”Sullivan, in the Irish Examiner, back in February 2013…

The Sisters of Charity made €63m in sell-offs during the boom of which €45m came from the 2001 deal for land around its former laundry in Donnybrook, Dublin.

Last year, the Religious Sisters of Charity, who amassed a €233m property portfolio, said they could not afford to release €3m it promised to put into a trust fund for the victims of institutional child abuse.

The order blamed the decision to reduce its cash offer by 60% on the poor property market.

In 2009, when they supplied details of their assets to the Government, it had financial interests of €33m and sold €63m of property in 10 years. The order said it needed to set aside €38.6m to care for its 264 sisters.

Substantial assets, but no more cash for redress (Irish Examiner, February 2013)

Pic: Gloucester Street Magdalenes via Limerick Museum

90344293catherineconnolly

The grounds of the former Bon Secours mother and baby home in Tuam, Co Galway; Galway West independent TD Catherine Connolly

You may recall how, during Leaders’ Questions on March 8, Independent TD Catherine Connolly, of Galway West, asked about a second interim report from the Commission into Mother and Baby Homes which was given to the Minister for Children Katherine Zappone last September.

This interim report was to identify any matters that the commission felt warranted further investigation as part of the commission’s work.

Ms Connolly asked Taoiseach Enda Kenny:

“I’m asking you now to confirm, why it hasn’t been published? Eight months later? What’s in it that’s so frightening? What’s in it that prevents it being published?”

Further to this…

Fiach Kelly, in The Irish Times, reports this morning that the indemnity agreement signed in 2002 between the then Minister for Education Michael Woods and 18 religious congregations – which served to cap the orders’  liability – may be extended to include children abused in mother and baby homes.

Just recently, the Comptroller and Auditor General found that, as of the end of 2015, the congregations had paid just 13% of the total compensation bill which, at that point, amounted to €1.5billion.

Mr Kelly writes:

The existing redress scheme for victims of residential child abuse could be reopened to cover those abused as children in mother and baby homes, an unpublished report to the Government has recommended.

The proposal is contained in the second interim report of the Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes, The Irish Times has learned. It has caused alarm in Government circles, due to the cost of the existing scheme.

It says the redress scheme established in 2002 could be used again to provide compensation for those who were abused as children in mother and baby homes.

…Ms Zappone has been repeatedly pressed in the Dáil for the reason for the delay in publishing the second interim report, which she received last autumn.

A briefing on it was given to Cabinet in the autumn, but a number of Ministers could not remember a redress scheme being discussed. Well-informed sources said the delay in its publication was due to the controversial nature of the proposed form of redress.

One source suggested that it may never be published if there had not been public outcry over the commission’s confirmation last month of the discovery of the remains of babies and infants at the site of a former mother and baby home in Tuam, Co Galway. However it is now expected to be published next week.

Government alarm at possible redress for mother and baby home victims (The Irish Times)

Previously: ‘What’s In It That’s So Frightening?’

Indemnity And The Religious

‘Based On The Findings Of The McAleese Report’

Screen Shot 2017-03-14 at 11.19.39Screen Shot 2017-03-14 at 11.20.08Screen Shot 2017-03-14 at 11.40.38 Screen Shot 2017-03-14 at 11.04.10

From top: The results of a poll on last night’s Claire Byrne Live which was attended by Colm O’Gorman and David Quinn (third pic) and Michael O’Brien, above

Last night.

On RTÉ One’s Claire Byrne Live.

Colm O’Gorman, of Amnesty Ireland, and Irish Independent columnist David Quinn, of Iona Institute, joined Claire Byrne for a debate on the Catholic Church and the State.

Members of the audience also spoke, including Michael O’Brien, who, in 2009, spoke on Questions and Answers about the abuse he suffered at an industrial school and how he was told he was telling lies at the Laffoy/Ryan Commission.

Last night, Mr O’Brien accused Mr Quinn of telling him, in a Dáil committee room, that ‘it didn’t happen as bad as you’re saying’. Mr Quinn said he never met Mr O’Brien in a Dáil committee room.

Donald Clarke, of The Irish Times, also spoke from the audience recalling a column he wrote on June 7, 2014, headlined: ‘If you don’t approve of the church then don’t take part in its rituals’.

Readers may wish to note that the latest Census figures for religion won’t be available until October 12.

From last night’s debate.

Michael O’Brien:All we have is denial, denial, denial. And the one thing that I will propose: that the assets of the Catholic Church be frozen and frozen now. Until the mother and babies, the institutional abuse, the clerical abuse and the magdalene laundries – all that is sorted out for once and for all so that this country can move, as it did years ago, as a peaceful country. And not for us to be listening, day after day, day after day. Because when you talk about abuse, I feel, as if it only happened to me a few minutes ago. And this is the problem we have.”

“The Catholic Church has denied and denied and covered up, from the first day. And not one Bishop, not one who covered it up has been brought into one of our courts.”

Claire Byrne: “Michael, do you not feel that things are moving? When we have the Taoiseach saying, only yesterday, that the church must measure up to the responsibilities that they accepted. Do you not feel that that’s a fundamental shift?

O’Brien:I can’t believe the Taoiseach any more because I remember when they removed the ambassador from the Vatican – a big hullaballoo. What did he do? He sent him back again. He put an ambassador back in there again. And went soft on the church. And because the mother and babies [story] came, this disgrace upon all of us, a shame upon all of us, that this thing happened, he now, again, is battering, shouting at the church.”

“I’m shouting at the church because I know what the church done to me and what two or three individuals of the church done to me. It’s easy to stand there, you, David [Quinn]. You know nothing about being raped and buggered. You know nothing about it. I do. I do. And four of my brothers and three of my little sisters – the same thing happened to them. Eight of us from the one family.”

Byrne: “Ok, Michael, I just…”

O’Brien: “So don’t…”

Byrne: “I just don’t want to put David in a position where he’s seen as a denier because he is not.”

Gorman: “It might be useful for me to say something and I completely understand where Michael’s anger and upset and I think it’s quite righteous where it’s coming from. But I do just want to say David [Quinn] and I were talking earlier on about the first time we were in a  television studio and on that occasion David was advocating for the church to sell off every asset the church possessed until it properly compensated and dealt with these issues. So…”

David Quinn: “Thank you.”

Gorman: “So, to be fair, David’s been clear. David and I don’t agree on a very significant number of things but, to be fair, he’s also looked for, he’s generally looked for accountability on these issues.”

Byrne: “And I’m glad you made that point. We did ask out Claire Byrne Live/Amarach research panel: should the Government seize church land and property to compensate victims of clerical or institutional abuse – 69% said yes and 17% said no, 14% don’t know. Which is interesting. Because only in the last couple of hours, Minister Leo Varadkar says that property cannot be seized and that, if we ran a referendum on it, that that referendum would be lost. I know that Simon Harris suggested that, over the weekend, that perhaps we could do that. I don’t know, David, if you have a view of that.”

Quinn: “I mean it’s extremely likely it would be lost because you, you’d have to change the constitution in such a way that you make it easy for the State to seize property and, you know, it wouldn’t just be the church that would be affected. Basically, you’d give the State incredibly sweeping powers to seize property. Obviously, in terms of the compensation scheme,  the 18 orders around the institutions must contribute their fair share and so the Comptroller and Auditor General released a report and so, if they’re not paying their fair share. Mind you, it also showed, of the 18 orders, most have paid what they said they’d pay and it’s important to put that on the record. The two, which are the biggest ones, which are the Christian Brothers the Mercy sisters, who ran most of the country’s institutions, they have yet to meet their obligations. I hope that happens in time. It ought to happen in time.”

Later

Donald Clarke: “…People who do not believe in the Catholic doctrine, do not believe in all the things that are being said, should not take part in its rituals. These seems a very, very modest proposal to me…”

Previously: Did Your Nan Leave Money To The Nuns?

“These Are Just Tactics”

Watch back in full here