Brothers' challenge to inquiry premature - counsel

A challenge by the Christian Brothers Congregation to procedures which the Laffoy Commission inquiry into child abuse in institutions proposes to adopt is "premature and hypothetical", counsel for the State has argued before the High Court.

Mr James Connolly SC, for the State, said the establishment of the Laffoy Commission was an "appropriate and proportionate" response by the legislature to matters of great public concern and provided a means to investigate matters that would otherwise perhaps have been investigated only by journalists.

He noted that the Taoiseach had publicly apologised, on behalf of the Government, the State and the Irish people, to all those on whom abuse had been inflicted in institutions. One could not cut across the appropriateness of that apology.

Mr Connolly argued that the procedures which the commission proposes to adopt do not cut across the particular rights of any persons. The Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse Act, 2000, put in place a proportionate means of protecting both the privacy of complainants who would give evidence to the inquiry's confidential committee and people whose good name might be mentioned in the commission's eventual report.

It could not be right that persons whose good name might be mentioned in a report could affect the operation of the entire inquiry, he said. Dead persons had no constitutional right to their good name. If the commission proposed to make findings against others against whom allegations had been made, they would be notified of that intention at that stage, and it was premature for the congregation to seek to intervene now.

No-one was in any peril at this point of having their names published as persons who were guilty of abuse. In those circumstances, there was no need for the Brothers to claim that the names of certain persons should be "weeded out" now.

Counsel also expressed concern about an assertion on behalf of the Brothers that the entire of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act, 2000, under which the Laffoy Commission was established, was suspect on grounds that a ruling by the commission's investigation committee of October 18th, outlining its proposed procedures, did not specify any individual section of the 2000 Act under which the ruling was made.

Such a finding would be inappropriate, and judicial restraint should be exercised in constitutional matters, he said. It was untenable to suggest the whole Act should fall. That would affect not only the investigation committee but also the commission's confidential committee which was perfoming the laudable and therapeutic function of listening to the accounts of complainants.

Mr Connolly was opening the State's opposition yesterday to proceedings taken by the Congregation against the Laffoy Commission and a number of State parties. The congregation is seeking a number of declarations, including declarations that the procedures which the investigation committee proposes to adopt in carrying out its investigations contravene fair procedures and the principles of natural and constitutional justice.

The congregation also argues that the commission cannot make findings of abuse against deceased, elderly, infirm or untraceable members of the Order or those unable to give instructions. The commission has received 700 abuse allegations.