Religious ‘stone-walled’ abuse inquiry

MS JUSTICE LAFFOY again criticises the majority of religious orders under investigation for their continued stone-walling of inquiries into allegations against members and institutions under their control.

She repeats an assertion first made in November 2002 that: “In the main and with few exceptions, the respondents have adopted an adversarial, defensive and legalistic approach in the process.”

“Insofar as respondents contend that they are co-operating with the committee, in practice, they are doing no more than complying with statutory obligations and doing so reluctantly in the case of some respondents, and under protest in the case of others.”

Ms Justice Laffoy points out that 87% of all the complaints being investigated relate to institutions which were under the management of religious congregations which, she says, makes their co-operation vital to the Investigation Committee’s efforts to fulfil its mandate “in a timely and proper fashion”.

She acknowledges that the passage of time since the allegations of abuse has caused problems for some orders where key figures are dead, ill or elderly, or where files were poorly kept.

But she notes that she has received full assistance from two congregations, the Presentation Brothers and the Rosminian Institute, and adds: “If the congregations have a genuine desire to co-operate with the committee, they could do so without prejudicing their position.”

She illustrates the difficulties the Investigation Committee has had with the example of a case where a woman complained she was not adequately fed in an institution, a claim backed up by the general observations of a Department of Education inspector who wrote at the time that the food was “very bad”.

But the religious order involved would not accept the specific complaint from the woman, saying it would need “expert testimony” to determine the truth of the allegations and decide whether or not they constituted abuse.

Such an approach would “inevitably result in a process which is more protracted and costly than it should be,” warns Ms Justice Laffoy, who says that the indications from the religious orders are that they will contest the vast majority of complaints.

“If the statements are a true reflection of the intentions of the congregations, this has implications for the committee going forward in terms of the time it will take and the costs which will be associated with discharging its workload.”

In general the orders do not argue that they are constrained from fuller co-operation by pending criminal investigations, civil litigation or pressure from insurers.

In any case, the “no fault” redress scheme and indemnity agreement provided by the State means “concerns in relation to civil liability and indemnification should no longer be a deterrent to real co-operation”.