Abuse claims: why so few before money was offered?

SO Eugene Murphy (Letters, August 29) did not find my column headlined ‘Taxpayers fleeced and reputations ruined by false child abuse claims’ (August 22) to his taste.

I can assure him that my book, Kathy’s Real Story, contains a raft of clear cases and specific examples of people who have been declared innocent of the charges against them in a criminal court to find that their same accusers later received compensation from the Redress Board.

Whereas former Justice Minister Michael McDowell said the redress scheme “won’t need strict proof, adversarial justice or courtroom procedures”, Mr Murphy contends that “the redress scheme adopts the majority of courtroom procedures, but it does not slavishly follow them”.

That is a vast understatement.

In contrast with normal criminal or civil court cases, the hearings which actually reach the Redress Board are held in private. There is no jury and its decisions are confidential.

The board can also hear claims against people who are dead. I don’t think ‘cross-examination’ by the dead would amount to much. According to the Redress Board’s own figures, up until the end of 2006 it had completed 7,291 applications.

Only 1,408 went to a hearing. The vast majority of applicants received compensation. A total of 344 received no reward because they had never attended a relevant institution.

So virtually everyone who applied to the Redress Board, and could prove they were in a relevant institution, received a payout — on average €70,000.

While Mr Murphy resents me describing the redress scheme as “a State-sponsored ATM machine”, the figures paint the same picture. Solicitors like Mr Murphy have also done very well out of the redress scheme. For instance, Murphy, English and Co, Solicitors, received €1.3 million for legal representation of claimants in 2006 alone.

It is in everyone’s interest that those who are guilty of abuse are tried before a public court of law and jailed.

I certainly hold that people who have been abused should be compensated, yet it is in the victims’ interest that the veracity of their claims be tested, proven in public and differentiated from false accusations. In the Government-sponsored report on a similar compensation scheme in Nova Scotia, Judge Kaufman commented the scheme was fundamentally unfair to state employees and did a disservice to true victims of abuse.

He said that claimants of abuse “should not be regarded as immune from the temptations and incentives — particularly monetary — that move human beings generally”.

There was nothing to prevent people lodging complaints with the religious orders before the compensation scheme was announced, yet few did.

After money was put on offer, more than 14,500 applications were lodged with the Redress Board.

Due to the political decisions which led to the redress scheme legislation, I believe an injustice has been done to many people.

This is to no one’s benefit and, at a cost of €1.1 billion, most certainly not the Irish taxpayer.

Hermann Kelly

Dunleer

Co Louth