Most abuse claims exaggerated

AS the closing date draws closer for Residential Institutions Redress Board (RIRB) applications (December ‘05), the campaign for sourcing claimants is really stepping up, with victim support groups, solicitors and the Government extensively advertising in Ireland and abroad.

With the low level of proof and the all-encompassing definition of abuse allowed for claiming, almost all of the allegations are getting through.

The June '05 figures released from the RIRB show that out of 3,204 claimants, all but two received awards.

The RIRB states that the award of compensation against a named person or institute is not a finding of guilt as a child abuser or place of abuse as the burden of proof is too low. Obviously the named person/institute doesn't see it that way.

Almost all of the institutions have been named, and almost all of the carers religious and secular named and compensated against.

This we cannot tolerate.

While we do not take issue with those genuinely abused seeking their rightful compensation, under the definition allowed by the Government physical, sexual, emotional and all forms of neglect all of us from the institutions are also entitled to claim, even if it's only on the basis that we were among large groups of children (average ratio carer to children 1:30 to 1:50) and so were emotionally neglected.

If we include the level of experience of the carers, supports in place, stress levels, etc, then far more could legitimately claim.

The tragedy of the way the Residential Institutions Redress Board Act was implemented is that it's more advantageous to exaggerate the claim, and obviously name a person and/or institution.

1. We have evidence where the alleged abuses in certain cases were physically impossible for the accused to have carried out due to congenital defect. Even after this was pointed out to the RIRB, compensation was awarded.

2. We have evidence of up to 16 names of others accused from the same institution being included in the Redress Board's letters of notification of abuses alleged. Ipso facto, the RIRB itself has breached the 2002 Act confidentiality rule.

3. We have evidence that most of the complainants are fraudulently exaggerating their claims to receive more financial benefit.

We confidently predict, from the evidence already available to us, that when the Ryan Commission completes its investigation in 2008, the outcome will be that the majority of institutions will be shown to have achieved a far better level of care than previously alleged.

Although there will be some abuses and deliberate cruelty uncovered, it will be shown that many innocents were tragically made suffer the reflected shame of the few abusers.

When this happens we will be calling for an investigation into the RIRB and will be asking how such a blatantly inhumane system of compensation was ever allowed to be introduced by our Government, and why the religious orders contributed to the scheme without ensuring that adequate measures were put in place to ensure that the course of natural justice wasn't perverted.

In other countries the compensation system was seen to be seriously flawed in that it gave the impression that the genuinely abused were fraudsters 'milking' the system.

It left the falsely accused with ruined lives, and the public confused as to the real level of abuse that may have occurred.

In their pursuit of justice, the RIRB has now created a new form of miscarriage of justice.

Florence Horsman Hogan

PRO - Voicesmerge

10 Seaview Wood

Shankill

Co Dublin