Lawyer says Taoiseach's apology only valid if abuse findings allowed

The Taoiseach's apology to victims of childhood abuse was not worth anything if there were no findings of abuse in individual…

The Taoiseach's apology to victims of childhood abuse was not worth anything if there were no findings of abuse in individual cases by the Laffoy Commission, a lawyer for complainants said yesterday.

"If there is no possibility of a finding that they were abused, then they have been let down big time. So much for the Taoiseach's apology, its not worth anything," Mr David McGrath SC, for some complainants, told the Commission.

He was responding to arguments by lawyers for the Christian Brothers and sisters who ran 26 industrial schools that where an alleged perpetrator was dead there could not be a finding of abuse without evidence or a denial.

They had also contended that the Commission's function was not to inquire into individual cases but to report to the Oireachtas on the wider picture of abuse since the 1940s.

READ MORE

Mr McGrath said he would see no point in the complainants going before the investigative committee if there was no possibility of a finding.

If that were the case the work of the Commission would be negated and it would not be able to carry out its statutory function. Something like 400 intended complainants had complied with the legislation in terms of giving statements and evidence.

"For the complainants to see the Commission established to inquire into abuses which occurred while they were, as they would see it, incarcerated, for that effectively to be rendered toothless must be seen as disastrous," he said. To many of the complainants the Commission was the greatest gift ever given to them in life.

"It was their opportunity to tell their story, to be listened to sympathetically and have it believed. To have that taken away would be a complete disaster and a trauma psychologically," Mr McGrath said.

Mr McGrath said it would paint a picture that society did not care and that the big religious organisations always won. "These are very vulnerable people and it is crucial for their well-being," he said.

Mr McGrath said there were huge difficulties faced by the people coming to the Commission. Most were victims of childhood abuse which resulted in long-term psychological trauma. There was avoidance behaviour and for them to open up caused difficulty and confusion.

"The effect of any embargo or prohibition as sought, of knowing the Commission couldn't make a finding, would be like opening a trap-door and all their hopes and wishes disappearing," he said.

Mr Ben O'Floinn representing other complainants said to contend that a dead person had rights was an unsustainable argument.