Child abuse debacle: we need clear thinking – not conspiracy theories

IN THE early 1990s, a member of the Christian Brothers was watching television from his home in Western Canada. He tuned into live coverage of the Hughes Inquiry then underway in Newfoundland. The inquiry was investigating allegations of abuse by Christian Brothers in Newfoundland’s Mount Cashel Orphanage.

To the Brother's horror, he heard accusations made against himself on television. It was the first he'd heard of the charges. He travelled 3,000 miles across Canada to defend his reputation before the Hughes Inquiry. He was exonerated, but was deeply traumatised both by the allegations and the very public context in which they were made.

This man's experience should be a warning to those who think that, in the wake of the Judge Mary Laffoy's resignation as chairperson of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, a televised public inquiry, as suggested by columnist Fintan O'Toole in yesterday's Irish Times, might be appropriate.

If there is one lesson to be drawn from the Laffoy controversy, it is that the Government should not pander to those who want investigations of physical and sexual abuse conducted in an atmosphere of panic and outrage.

There are important rights to be respected on all sides:

(1) The right of abuse victims to get thorough investigation of their claims, and to be generously compensated where these claims are upheld;

(2) The right of the citizens of this State to accountability on the part of all those who have acted in their name, past or present, within institutions of Church or State;

(3) The right of those accused to have serious allegations against them investigated in a responsible and balanced way, and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Lose sight of the delicate balance to be maintained between these three rights and you're in trouble.

Back in 1999, the Government had a choice to make. They could opt for a limited inquiry, similar to one in Queensland, Australia. This would not have allowed a trial around each individual allegation of abuse. But the need for lawyers would not have been so great and proceedings would be quicker and cheaper. The other option was a full-scale inquiry where each allegation would be fully tested. This was always going to be expensive and time-consuming because there was always going to be a clash of constitutional rights.

On one side, you had victims who needed to confront their abusers with their crimes. On the other side you had dead and elderly members of religious orders no longer in a position to defend themselves against sometimes unfounded allegations.

The Government cannot but have foreseen the problems of cost, delay and constitutional rights associated with a full-scale inquiry. To understand why they went ahead with this option, without any significant public discussion, you have to look at the climate then prevailing. The positive side of RTÉ's States of Fear series in 1999 was the exposure of many years of wrongdoing within industrial schools and residential institutions. But the downside was the frenzy of anger and indignation unleashed in the country. The Government had to be seen to take decisive action. As a result they rushed into making a promise which they now say they cannot keep.

The Government must take its share of the blame for this. But the makers of States of Fear and RTÉ, however much they may deserve credit for exposing a dark side of Irish life, should also take responsibility for contributing to a climate of irrationality in the country. Even as we struggle to make sense of the Laffoy debacle people continue to hinder mature public debate with their implications of conspiracy and dark dealings.

For example, last Thursday night's Prime Time made the unsubstantiated allegation that within the Department of Education there are people who are "less well disposed to the (Laffoy) inquiry than others". Prime Time produced no hard evidence for this, nor for the claim by James McGuill, a solicitor representing hundreds of victims, that the Department of Education made deliberate attempts "to cause divisions between the lawyers and their clients".

In recent days we have heard no supporting evidence either for another claim on Prime Time to the effect that there was some kind of cosy relationship between the religious orders and the Department of Education.

On the contrary, Judge Laffoy's letter makes clear that the reason for her resignation and the suspension of her commission's investigative committee was the Government's decision to change the remit of the commission.

Yet the conspiracy theories continue. In yesterday's Irish Times, Fintan O'Toole alleged the return of 'Rome Rule' to the State. His basis for this? The fact that the State now baulks at the legal costs of the Laffoy Commission, estimated at a possible €200 million, but accepted €128 million in June 2002 from the religious orders in exchange for an indemnity from further liability to pay compensation to the abused. This style of argumentation by O'Toole is very questionable. The State may well have been too generous in its deal with the religious orders. But that's not evidence of any conspiracy. The State concluded its deal with the religious orders in June 2002 because it was under pressure to do so. Victims had threatened not to co-operate with the Laffoy Commission until a compensation mechanism was established. The Government had to be seen to make the religious orders contribute, although the orders were quite free to ignore the redress board and take their chances in the courts.

Clear thinking, not conspiracy theories, is what we need now. The Government must choose among three options:

(1) Make no changes to the Laffoy Commission and impose intolerable delays on victims and accused parties;

(2) Spend large amounts of money to allow more people work for the inquiry, thus accomplishing its work within a shorter time-frame, or

(3) Cut back on the scope of the inquiry, by investigating sample cases in full and drawing inferences from these.

Any proposal to reduce the investigation to the examination of sample cases could never serve the interests of justice? It would create two classes of abuse victim those whose claims were taken seriously and those whose claims were ignored. And it would create two classes of accused person: those whose cases were resolved one way or the other, and those left in limbo in the land of 'accused, never proved'.

We have all come too far for this to be an acceptable solution. More than 1,700 victims have requested full and thorough investigation of their claims.

They are entitled to that. But if a reduction in the involvement of lawyers is necessary to allow this to happen in a speedy and cost-effective investigation, then the quid pro quo should be that accused parties are granted anonymity, except in the most clear-cut of cases.