CONFERENCE REPORT

TIME FOR JUSTICE Delivering a human rights compliant inquiry for the victims of historical institutional child abuse in Northern Ireland

October 7 th 2010 Wellington Park Hotel, Belfast

Amnesty International PROTECT THE HUMAN

1 CONTENTS

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION PAGE 3 Patrick Corrigan, Northern Ireland Programme Director, Amnesty International

ADDRESS ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST & DEPUTY FIRST MINISTER PAGE 5 Robin Newton MLA, Minister, Office of the First & Deputy First Minister

DELIVERING A HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLIANT INQUIRY FOR THE VICTIMS OF HISTORICAL CHILD ABUSE IN NORTHERN IRELAND PAGE 6 Duncan Wilson, Head of Strategy and Legal, Scottish Human Rights Commission

OUR DEMAND FOR JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND PAGE 13 Margaret McGuckin, Survivors/Victims Institutional Abuse Northern Ireland

OUR CAMPAIGN FOR JUSTICE IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND PAGE 15 Andrew Madden, Victim/survivor of clerical child abuse and campaigner

LEARNING THE LESSONS FROM THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND PAGE 19 Marian Shanley, Legal Reform Commissioner

LEARNING THE LESSONS FROM THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND PAGE 23 Norah Gibbons, Advocacy Director of Barnardos, Ireland

LEARNING THE LESSONS FROM THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND PAGE 35 Pearse Mehigan, Solicitor, Legal Adviser to One in Four, Ireland

REDRESS, RESTITUTION AND SUPPORT PAGE 37 Maeve Lewis, Executive Director, One in Four, Ireland

ESTABLISHING A NORTHERN IRELAND INQUIRY: THE LEGAL CONTEXT PAGE 40 Fiona Doherty, Barrister-At-Law

REDRESS, RESTITUTION AND SUPPORT DESIGNING A VICTIM-CENTRED SYSTEM Deirdre Kenny, Advocacy Director, One in Four, Ireland PAGE 45

WORKSHOP FEEDBACK PAGE 51

SUGGESTIONS ON THE WAY FORWARD FOR THE SURVIVORS AND VICTIMS OF INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE PAGE 53 Jon McCourt, Margaret McGuckin, John Meehan and Brian Doherty

2 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION Patrick Corrigan, Northern Ireland Programme Director, Amnesty International

Welcome Minister, ladies and gentlemen to secure belated justice for themselves and this important conference: Delivering Justice the many more they represent. for the Victims of Historical Institutional Child Abuse. But we also hear from those who have made this journey before and we seek to learn the Since its establishment, Amnesty lessons from elsewhere on this island and International has stood for justice and has beyond. stood with the victims of injustice. In that time we have stood with prisoners of From Andrew Madden and Bernadette Fahy conscience, with victims of torture, with the we hope to learn the lessons – often very refugee and the dispossessed. Today is no painfully learned by them – of how they different when we stand with those of you stood up to the most powerful institutions in who have suffered as children, whilst the land, government and church, and supposedly in the care of institutions to secured a measure of justice and redress for which society entrusted you. That trust was themselves and others. abused. From Maeve Lewis and Deirdre Kenny of Individual abusers and those bodies – One in Four, we hope to hear about the including but not exclusively the Catholic counselling and advocacy support which Church – under whose auspices that abuse that fantastic organisation has helped to was perpetrated, often in a systematic deliver and which has been and continues to fashion, bear a terribly responsibility for what be so important to so many in the Republic. was done to you and to hundreds, perhaps thousands of other children. Norah Gibbons and Marian Shanley, both members of the Ryan Commission of Inquiry Those perpetrators, both individual and into Child Abuse, are with us today to share institutional, deserve to be brought to the experiences of Ryan and other inquiries account for both their actions and inactions, with which they have been involved. even if those events date from decades past. Pearse Mehigan, who has acted as both legal adviser to One in Four and lawyer for But ultimate responsibility for the violation of victims dealing with the Redress Board, will the rights of children in care rests with the talk us through that crucial side of the State. In the days when the abuse against process. you was carried out, the State may have been the old Northern Ireland government. We have lessons to learn from them all – Today we look for the delivery of justice to what worked, what hasn’t worked so well the new Northern Ireland government. We and what insights they might have for our are glad that government is represented process in Northern Ireland. here today in the person of Minister Robin Newton and officials from the Office of the Today we will also examine the legal and First and Deputy First Minister. political context in Northern Ireland for a process of inquiry and redress with the help Today we also hear from many courageous, of human rights lawyer Fiona Doherty, who expert and experienced voices from whom brings much experience from the Saville we seek to learn. We will hear from Inquiry; and Assembly member Conall Margaret McGuckin, John Meehan and Jon McDevitt, who has been acting as an McCourt who will give us a glimpse of the adviser to the Victims and Survivors Group. pain and damage done to children like them This is not a case of “any inquiry will do”. It in institutions across Northern Ireland and must be designed to meet the needs of tell us how, today, they are working to victims and the human rights obligations set down in international law. It must be

3 independent, impartial and effective in these requirements. Alex Tennant and delivering justice. Those who have Jacqueline Melville from NICCY will help experienced institutional abuse in Northern guide us through the implications of inquiry Ireland must participate in its design to for current child protection practices here. ensure it is fit for purpose. It cannot permit side deals which offer immunity to those When we met the First and Deputy First who committed the abuse or others who Minister on this issue in July, we received may have helped to cover up that abuse. It assurances that they had heard the cry for must not short-change the victims and justice and they that would lead from the survivors in offering them the redress and front, cutting through any inter-departmental compensation to which they are due. barriers, in order to deliver the justice that is demanded. We are delighted and honoured Duncan Wilson from the Scottish Human that Minister Robin Newton has chosen to Rights Commission and Khara Khan-Glackin be with us this morning and we hope that he from the Northern Ireland Human Rights will be able to add to those assurances and Commission will be helping us to examine give us an update on progress. Please relevant international human rights welcome Minister Robin Newton. standards and how they could be applied to

4 ADDRESS ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST & DEPUTY FIRST MINISTER Robin Newton MLA, Minister, Office of the First & Deputy First Minister

Thank you Patrick for your kind introduction, strength and the courage in people dealing and a very good morning to you all. with this issue. They share the desire of survivors to achieve a satisfactory form of I am very pleased to be here today and have closure on the matter, for all those who have the opportunity to address you at this been affected. important conference, through which you are hoping to inform and assist the process of I understand the very complex legal and identifying a way forward for the victims and relationship issues involved with this matter, survivors of institutional abuse here. but I am also mindful of the time with which some have carried their suffering and we are I want to assure you that the Executive is determined to move on the matter as quickly committed to identifying a way forward for as possible. dealing with the matter and to do everything in its power to ensure that what regrettably To this end Ministers agreed that OFMDFM happened in the past will never be allowed would now take the lead in progressing the to happen again. matter and would immediately form a working group with those departments that In line with this commitment many of you will have operational responsibility for the already be aware and indeed I know some issues. of you were actually present, when the First Minister and deputy First Minister met with a I am pleased to say that this work has group representing the victims and survivors commenced. The group has met several of institutional abuse on the 22 nd of July this times and is currently working on actions to year. address issues such as looking at the immediate needs of people for counselling, This meeting was linked to an options paper health and advice. The group will also work produced earlier this year by the Health with representatives to establish a conduit Minister Michael McGimpsey, on the for survivors to input their ideas to Ministers. potential ways forward on dealing with historical abuse here. I am sure that today’s Conference and its findings will also be used to inform the During this meeting the group outlined their ongoing discussions. I want to reassure views on a range of issues such as: everyone here that this matter is one which the Executive is keen to move forward on at • an apology; the earliest opportunity. In agreeing any way • the establishing of a public enquiry; forward however the Executive will want to • an assurance that no child would be be certain that it is the right way forward for put in a similar situation today; and all those affected by what is an extremely • the establishment of a Redress Board complex and sensitive matter. to consider the needs of victims, the possibility of legal support and how What happened in the past was wrong. We compensation and financial support are determined however to do everything in could be managed for victims. our power to ensure that those who were affected achieve closure and that the The members of the group also expressed necessary mechanisms are in place to their hope that the matter could be taken ensure that it will never be allowed to forward as quickly as possible. happen again.

The First and deputy First Minister listened You are no longer alone. to the testimonies and views of the group. They recognised the hurt and also saw the Thank you.

5 TIME FOR JUSTICE – DELIVERING A HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLIANT INQUIRY FOR THE VICTIMS OF HISTORIC INSTITUTIONAL CHILD ABUSE IN NORTHERN IRELAND Duncan Wilson, Head of Strategy and Legal, Scottish Human Rights Commission

Introduction Parliament to promote and protect human rights for everyone in Scotland. The Good morning everyone and thank you for Commission has a unique role on human the invitation to talk with you today. I am rights in our country. It is wholly independent very pleased to have the opportunity to of Government, and operationally share with you the work which the Scottish independent of Parliament, but is not a “non- Human Rights Commission has undertaken governmental organisation” like Amnesty. to develop a human rights framework for responding to historic child abuse. I wish I The Commission is similar to your own were able to join you in person, but we are Northern Ireland Human Rights hosting an international event in Scotland Commission, with whom we work very starting today, so I hope the technology closely, and we both have a role in does not fail us for this exchange. promoting understanding of and fulfilment of internationally recognised human rights, as In the time I have available, I would like to a bridge between the United Nations human briefly explain what the Scottish Human rights system (which has given both Rights Commission is, how we came to be Commission’s what it calls “A status” to working on responses to historic child abuse reflect our independence and the strength of and what we have done. our human rights mandates) and our domestic contexts. First of all let me say that every context of abuse is different, both at the individual level What the Commission has done and at the systemic level, and while I hope that the lessons from experience in Scotland The Commission has been operational since may be a useful comparison, it is obviously December 2008 and following a nationwide for the people of Northern Ireland, consultation, our main priority has been the particularly those affected by historic abuse, promotion and protection of human dignity, to determine what is right for you. That particularly in relation to care. having been said, there are certain international standards – which are based We have, for example, supported the on legally binding commitments which both development of a Charter of Rights for the UK and Ireland have undertaken, which People with Dementia and their Carers; we tell us what the State (the Government, the have produced training and awareness justice system, the police, social work and raising resources relating to the care and others) should do to remedy the ongoing support of older people, which are being effects of abuse, and to ensure justice for rolled out to thousands of workers and those who have experienced abuse. I will regulators as well as users of care services; give an outline of what those laws require. we have undertaken an independent evaluation of the human rights based Firstly though a little context on the approach adopted at The State Hospital, the organisation I represent, the Scottish Human high security mental health institution for Rights Commission. both Scotland and Northern Ireland; and we have worked with Adult Protection About the Scottish Human Rights Committees (which aim to protect adults at Commission risk of harm from abuse) to enable them to understand the importance of human rights The Scottish Human Rights Commission to their work. (the Commission) is a national human rights institution – an independent body Finally, and most importantly for today, we established by an Act of the Scottish have developed a human rights framework

6 of recommendations on how to design and The Government commissioned an develop a process of justice, remedies and independent Historic Abuse Systemic reparation for historic child abuse. Review, a review of the law, policies and strategies surrounding residential child care Before I discuss how we developed the over a number of decades to see what can human rights framework, and what it be learned from the past to improve child included, let me explain a little about the care in the future. This review was context of historic abuse in Scotland. undertaken by the former Chief Inspector of Education for Northern Ireland, Tom Shaw, The Scottish context who reported in 2007.

As with other countries including Ireland, In 2008 Scottish Ministers announced that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, there has they planned to trial a form of truth been increasing recognition over last 20 commission on historic child abuse which years of a history of abuse in Scottish was later given the working title, institutions of child care. “Acknowledgement and Accountability Forum”. There have been prosecutions of individuals from a wide range of institutions, and at In late 2009, the Scottish Government least three formal inquiries (in Fife, announced a Pilot Forum would be Edinburgh, and at a residential institution in established to listen and validate survivors Ayrshire called Kerelaw). There were also at experiences, create a historical record, least two individual petitions to the Scottish signpost to services available and test out a Parliament (in 2000, 2002) related to historic confidential committee model. Since June child abuse in Scottish institutions. These 2010 the Time to Be Heard pilot Forum has petitions follow a procedure in the Scottish been operational. Parliament where anyone can write to the Public Petitions Committee in the Parliament SHRC Responses to ask their help in securing action on an issue which is of concern to them, on which The Commission developed a Human they feel the Government or Parliament Rights Framework for the design and should be doing more, or doing better. implementation of a comprehensive process of justice, remedies and reparation for the allegations and the petitions related to survivors of historic child abuse. We based care provided in all It is very important to the framework on a progressive note that all of these steps – the interpretation of international human rights prosecutions, the investigations, forms of law, including European and United Nations institutions – state and private, those of human rights treaties, research on the views different faiths and those without a religious of survivors and others whose rights were basis. affected, and experiences elsewhere in the world. Scottish Responses The legal review: In response to all of this, successive • Sought to define child abuse in Governments have taken a number of steps. human rights terms, understanding These include: how different treatment may have been considered to amount to On 1 December 2004 the then First Minister torture, cruel, inhuman and Jack McConnell issued an apology on behalf degrading treatment; violation of of the people of Scotland for past child physical and mental integrity; we abuse in residential care homes. noted that human rights standards related to abuse have evolved In 2005 the Scottish Government created a overtime and pointed to the National Strategy for Survivors of Childhood importance of judging conduct Sexual Abuse. according to the prevailing standards at the time.

7 • Legality, an explicit link to legal • Considered the rights of everyone standards. affected by a process of redress, not only survivors of abuse but also Participation surviving relatives, former staff Everyone whose rights are affected has the members (who have rights related right to participate in all relevant decisions to protection of reputation, fair and the form of remedies available to them. hearing etc) To enable people to participate appropriate information should be available in accessible • Clarified responsibilities for redress formats, and necessary support should be – looking to the role of the State, provided. private institutions and individuals Realising the right to participate in decisions • Clarified what duties of response requires action. In both the design and the are – including investigation, implementation phases effective prosecution, reparation. Importantly communications and outreach strategies are the Commission considers that needed to ensure that everyone who is victims of human rights abuses who affected knows about the development and have not had access to an effective implementation of the Forums and other remedy in the past should be remedies entitled to realise their right to an effective remedy as it is understood International experience suggests that “ it is today, and not be limited to essential to involve victims in the process of remedies which were required under designing and implementing the [remedy human rights law at the time of the and reparations] programme.” International abuse; standards on involvement in decisions which affect rights require involvement at the time • Considered human rights in the when “all options are open” , and a genuine design as well as the opportunity to influence outcomes. implementation of the processes of justice, remedy and reparation. Research undertaken to support this framework suggests the importance of The Commission’s recommendations ensuring the process is seen as inclusive throughout including in the leadership of the The Commission consciously based its process as has been secured for example in recommendations on international best respect of Truth and Reconciliation Canada. practice and the ceiling, not floor, in international human rights law, as well as Accountability views of all affected. In other words, we did Accountability lies at the heart of any not ask – what is the minimum which is process of justice, remedy and reparation. It required in order to comply with human includes a range of steps to ensure that rights law? We asked – what does best those responsible are held to account, practice and a reasonable, but progressive, where appropriate; that systemic lessons interpretation of international human rights are learned to reduce the likelihood of law suggest should happen? similar abuses in the future; and that individuals whose rights have been violated Across all of its work the Commission can access remedies and reparation. promotes a simple model for a “human rights based approach”. This “PANEL” Who should be accountable? model includes five elements: • Participation of people in decisions In international human rights law the State is which affect their human rights; accountable to respect, protect and fulfil • Accountability of duty bearers; human rights of everyone, everywhere in its • Non-discrimination and equality; jurisdiction (whether at home, in a state or a • Empowerment; private institution). Acts of public authorities

8 will also generally attract State investigation”. An effective official responsibility. investigation, where required under the European Convention on Human Rights, The Government and other parts of the should be: State has to make sure that people who i. Prompt; work for it do not commit abuses; as well as ii. Carried out at the initiative of the taking effective measures to prevent abuses State; by others, and acting to protect individuals iii. Independent and impartial; from abuses which it knows or ought to iv. Capable of determining who is know of. The State also has the duty to responsible and punishing them; ensure access to justice, effective remedies v. Open to public scrutiny; and reparation for victims of human rights vi. Accessible to the victim. abuses, as I will explain a little later. b. where there are reasonably International and domestic human rights law substantiated allegations of abuse not also increasingly recognise responsibilities involving someone who works for the of other actors, including public authorities, Government (a State agent), the private institutions and individuals. In investigation requirements under human particular, since the Human Rights Act rights law are in development. In this entered into force across the whole UK on 2 case another form of investigation may October 2000, private actors which perform be appropriate, but it should be capable a “public function” must comply with rights in of identifying any failure of the State to the European Convention. comply with its duties to prevent abuse and protect people from a real and How? immediate risk of abuse which it either knew of. To give an example, the State Where there are reasonable grounds to duty to prevent a risk of abuse includes believe serious abuses have taken place a duty to have in place adequate there is a human rights obligation on the legislative safeguards against abuse. State to investigate those, to identify liability The UK has been criticised in this and punish perpetrators as appropriate. This respect for laws which permit the does not depend on a formal complaint, but “reasonable chastisement” of children. “it is enough for the victim simply to bring the facts to the attention of an authority of the Effective remedies State for the latter to be obliged to consider In response to abuses, the State should it as a tacit but unequivocal expression of ensure the victim’s right to an effective the victim’s wish that the facts should be remedy is upheld. This right demands promptly and impartially investigated”. access to justice in practice, not only in law,

for everyone whose human rights are The purpose of the investigation should be violated and a victim centred proportionate to identify what happened and the context in and participatory reparations process which which it happened. So the investigation has seeks, to the extent possible, to repair the a constructive aim – to establish what went damage caused by abuses. Other wrong, in order that lessons can be learned institutions, to the extent that they are for the future. accountable, should contribute to

reparations for survivors. The nature of investigation requirements depend on who the alleged perpetrator is a. access to justice – in the course of and the gravity of the alleged abuse. our work survivors in Scotland have

repeatedly mentioned barriers to Investigation and prosecution securing access to justice for

serious abuse. These barriers a. where there are reasonably include difficulty in securing legal substantiated allegations of State representation and legal aid, a lack involvement in serious abuse there of adaptation of remedies to needs should be an “effective official of survivors of abuse, and the

9 manner in which the so-called “time- traumatising, in particular feeling bar” has been applied by the they were cross-examined; Scottish courts. iii. Rehabilitation – can involve b. Reparation is a process of trying to access to mental health repair – to the extent possible – the services such as counselling, as effects of human rights abuses. The well as other courses – in right reparation package for any Scotland some survivors have individual victim of human rights suggested parenting skills would abuse should be guided by two key be useful; principles – proportionality to the gravity of the abuse, and iv. Satisfaction – many survivors participation of the victim in Scotland, as elsewhere, have themselves in determining the right called for measures of package for them. Although satisfaction such as effective reparation is a State duty, apologies and a formal international best practice suggests recording of the truth. In relation that institutions should contribute to to securing effective apologies reparations funds in a proportionate there are international principles manner. In international human of best practice on the form an rights law reparation has five apology should take, and the elements: Commission has also noted experience from Canada, some i. Restitution – restoring things states in the US and Australia, that were lost due to the abuse where “apology laws” have been e.g. access to education, health; passed to mitigate concerns from institutions that an apology ii. Adequate compensation – could be used as a basis for civil compensation should be liability or to void insurance available, the amount to be contracts; determined on an individual basis and should be an amount v. Guarantees of non-repetition which can be considered “just – reparation is also forward satisfaction” for the abuse of looking, to identify what went rights endured. It can be no fault wrong and learn lessons for the compensation and could be future. through an ad hoc redress mechanism. The Scottish Government is currently of the Non-discrimination view that the Criminal Injuries All aspects of the design and Compensation Authority is the implementation of any Forum or other appropriate mechanism through remedies for historic abuse should be free which to seek compensation. from both direct and indirect discrimination, However, this has a number of and genuinely accessible to all. Ensuring limitations – including a time non-discrimination in any process of justice limitation to events after 1964, and remedy means, amongst other things: and a number of survivors have told the Commission of varying • Unreasonable limitations on access experiences in using this on any ground – age, language, mechanism. Some feel they poverty (cost) etc – should be were compelled to repeat their avoided; experience to a large number of people such that it amounted to • There should also not be any an unnecessary infringement of unreasonable limitations to the their right to private life; others scope of justice and reparations found the experience measures in relation to experience

10 the experience of abuse – i.e. where remedy however, everyone who has not yet it took place, in which type of had access to an effective remedy should institution, at what time it took place benefit from the current standard of the right (although conduct should be to an effective remedy, including access to considered according to the justice and reparations. prevailing standards at the time); Some of the relevant human rights which • Some of those affected may now be should be considered in the design and living abroad, sometimes as a direct implementation of remedies and reparation result of their experiences. It will be for historic abuse include: necessary to consider how any remedy and reparations package The Prohibition of torture, inhuman and can be accessed by them; degrading treatment or punishment:

• There should be consideration of In its work the Commission outlined how extending remedies and reparation definitions of serious ill-treatment have to certain classes of indirect victims evolved over time to include physical, sexual (such as relatives in some and emotional abuse and serious neglect. circumstances). The definition of serious ill-treatment in human rights terms is neither static nor uniform. It evolves over time to reflect Empowerment developing standards across Europe (and Empowering people to know their rights and the world) and the “threshold” for treatment how to exercise them will be a necessary to be considered inhuman or degrading is feature of any process which seeks to not a one-size-fits-all. It depends on the secure justice for people in extremely particular circumstances of the individual, vulnerable situations such as survivors of and factors such as age, physical and historic abuse. Empowerment includes mental health and the relative power increasing awareness of what rights people between the victim and perpetrator can all have; what abuse is; how to access be aggravating factors. remedies. The right to respect for private and family Empowerment also includes supporting life, home and correspondence and the people to be involved and protecting them from a risk of any reprisals or risks to their protection of reputation physical or mental health as a result of This is a very broad right and its implications participation. for remedy, justice and reparation steps are very significant. The right is of course not absolute, and all limitations must justify the Legality tests of legality, legitimate aim and Any human rights based response to historic proportionality. Relevant elements of this abuse should explicitly apply the full range right include: of human rights legal protections. In its work o Physical and mental integrity the Commission considered the rights of (other forms of abuse which do everyone who is likely to be affected by such not pass the threshold of inhuman a process, including survivors of abuse, their or degrading treatment); relatives, staff and former staff of institutions o Protection of family life – there and their relatives. may be reports of denial of correspondence, the right to know In determining whether conduct amounted to your family, visits etc; an abuse of human rights the Commission o Freedom of movement – an recommended that the definitions to be unknown number of children were applied should be at least those that were sent overseas from Scottish care, accepted at the international level at the reportedly to Australia, Canada or time (to determine whether the State New Zealand; complied with its obligations). In defining

11 o Privacy and reputation – Forum and to have their side of events individuals who may be named heard. during any process of remedy should have their right to respect for private life and reputation Next steps? taken into account in the design The pilot forum called Time to be Heard has and implementation of the completed its hearings and will report its process; findings early in 2011. There is currently a o Access to information related to Petition before the Scottish Parliament’s one’s own time in care, such as Petitions Committee from two survivors who medical and care records. are calling for more expansive remedies and the implementation of the Commission’s Human Rights Framework. In May 2011 the The right to a fair trial and fair hearing Scottish elections will be held, which will determine composition of the next Scottish Issues related to the right to a fair hearing Parliament. may arise in the Forum and other remedies in two ways: 1) where individuals (notably Thereafter the Commission will gather former staff) feel that, during the period together all of those affected by the issues under review, their right to a fair hearing was raised, including decision makers, not respected where they have been representatives of institutions and survivors accused of ill-treatment; 2) during the Forum themselves, to identify how to implement the or in other remedies themselves. recommendations included in the Human

Rights Framework. This right will be engaged in proceedings where individuals may be dismissed, placed In the meantime, we will continue to on child protection registers, or otherwise exchange experience internationally as well have their employment rights affected by as domestically, to promote good practice in determinations of abuse. securing the right to access justice, to an

effective remedy and reparations for Care should be taken in designing the entire survivors of historic child abuse. remedy framework of the need to uphold the rights of persons who may be accused. The Many thanks for inviting me to speak to you right to a fair trial and a fair hearing is an today, and good luck with the rest of your absolute right, so cannot be limited. At least, discussions. everyone with an interest should have the opportunity to make representations to the

12 OUR DEMAND FOR JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND Margaret McGuckin, Survivors/Victims Institutional Abuse Northern Ireland

Today was a day where, for the first time in about the younger of my two brothers, who many, many years, I felt, we finally had a were locked away with us, that he was voice, a platform an invitation to speak. That sexually abused and mistreated terribly all of we were invited to speak and not being told his time in the institution. He was abused by to be quiet, or called liars, as had Brothers who after stripping him, beat him continuously occurred over the years, was a mercilessly with leather straps. These very big step forward for many of the people who were supposed to be looking survivors/victims lives today. It was a time to after him repeatedly raped him nightly. be heard, but more importantly, believed! These children thought this was a normal I spoke about the traumatic years that were pattern of behaviour. They knew nothing spent locked up behind those red-bricked else. I have even heard them say, ‘that it walls, where boredom took hold often, wasn’t all bad’. Because they felt that they at loneliness engulfed one so badly it hurt, like times were special because “they” had been an open wound. How, when you ached for chosen! Perpetrators got away with doing the love of your sister, who was just through this, because it was never believed if any the metal railings beside you, one was one dared to make a complaint. They were a pulled away roughly, never to feel the law unto themselves. This must be warmth of her hand in mine. To be investigated. This is only one story. I have separated in those early years left us in been meeting with many people now, who years to come like strangers to each other, have told me the same stories over and over too late to form a bond, one that was taken again. from us and cruelly shattered. What I have heard a lot of is that when the We were treated like objects, animals at children were let out for holidays, they had times, treated with disdain and humiliated to endure being repeatedly sexually abused, daily. The institution was cold, our “foster because when they told the Orders in parents” were cold, so uncaring, unloving charge, they were disbelieved, told they and heartless, that it left us feeling the same were liars and bad evil ones, and sent back way they were. The regime was regimental out again the next holiday occasion? in its daily routine towards us. The next big issue is loss of identity. And if one stepped out of line, it was a Children being pulled apart and separated in battering of a wooden cane or leather strap. the orphanage was bad enough, but to one Fingernails would be embedded into one’s day know you had other siblings and the wrists as you were trailed along by the hair, next, for them to be spirited off to another to be locked in a dark cupboard, and left to country or state, the pain and hurt endured cry there alone, a further reminder, as we was unbearable. Grown-ups, not knowing were often told, that no one wanted you nor where they were genuinely from. Believing would anyone want to come and get you they were from Belfast, or N.I. only to find out. These are the feelings one carries the out they were from the South of Ireland. rest of one’s life. I think the important issue Children from Belfast, or other areas of N.I, here at this time is that we are not forgotten sent away to Wales, Australia, Canada, etc about again! We will not and cannot let this now finding out they are from opposite parts happen! of the world. Children having been separated, (misplaced) are still trying to find I believe this is just the tip of the iceberg, their birth mothers and family members. with so many people having not spoken out Help is needed here in N. Ireland, to yet, and sadly so many having brought their encourage this! stories to the graves with them. With lots of encouragement these people are speaking Lack of Education means illiteracy. The out now. Only recently I have found out issue of not being self sufficient, inefficient in

13 all sorts of day to day activities, is still a big only be a good thing. We deserve the time problem: children unprepared for the outside to prepare ourselves, at long last, for some world, when told to leave the Institutions; form of future ahead, a future that was unprepared for any kind of relationships in snatched from us, as innocent children. A the workplace, marital, and in general; time to laugh and cry, to heal and hopefully children found they were very afraid and to disengage ourselves of the baggage we vulnerable, after being locked away for so have carried for so long and to gain some long, that they felt like strangers on the understanding of our situations. We need to outside. They stood out in this mass of reassure one another, that what took place people, knew they were different, were told in these institutions was not our fault! they were different, were made fun of, and in many, many cases, because of, we believe, We need a place were we can continue to what had already happened in the meet, as we are already trying to do, to re- Institutions, (or not) they were again educate, to learn from the past, to put subjected to continuous sexual and physical wrongs to right, etc, but we need help and abuse. support and the facilities and means to enable this to take place. I know of many of our people I’ve spoken to, that they tried desperately to get back to the We would encourage our people to leave Institution from where they had just gotten the blame where it belongs, to leave the out of, because they were so cut off, so responsibility of costs of an Investigation etc, unaccustomed to the outside world, they not upon the shoulders of the already could not engage with anyone, or had not heavily burdened, survivors/victims, but the acquired intelligence to do so. placed back to the State and the Religious Orders. We believe there must be a special status given to ourselves because of our This is their problem. We await the outcome. exceptional circumstances. More effort and But don’t leave it until too late for us all. We expense is needed in these areas to look at deserve to be treated with some sort of what can be done for our people, in respect and justice! whatever area is lacking. More opportunities of getting together to share stories etc, can Society owes us just that!

14 OUR CAMPAIGN FOR JUSTICE IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND Andrew Madden, Victim/survivor of clerical child abuse and campaigner

It is worth noting at the outset that there dishonest. Speaking about the were 3 different processes which led to a compensation, a spokesperson told the collective uncovering of the childhood Sunday Times on 14 th August: ‘That is not experiences of thousands of children in the way the procedure works. If a priest had Ireland and which also uncovered what violated a code he is charged before a court. different authorities knew about them. The issue of money does not arise.’ That We’ve had the Ferns Inquiry, the Child was a year after Cardinal Connell had Abuse Commission & the Redress Board helped Ivan Payne out, with a loan from and the Dublin Inquiry. Diocesan funds to pay the compensation. And speaking about the decision to I was most involved in the Dublin Inquiry reappoint any such priest the Diocesan and to a lesser extent the Ferns Inquiry but response was, what was to become the each of these processes had their often-repeated lie, that such offending similarities, not least of all the role the media priests are only ever reappointed after played in bringing them about. medical opinion to the effect that it was safe to do so. In April 1994 I first moved information into the public domain to the effect that a The response from the Government that Catholic priest who had sexually abused me should have been concerned about the as a child, years earlier, was still a serving obvious risk to children was total silence. priest in a Dublin parish with all the access More details were moved into the public to other children that such a position domain during 1995 and by September of afforded him at that time. that year Gardai were conducting their own investigations into Ivan Payne. By early 1 It took until November 2009, some 15 /2 1998 Payne had been convicted for sexually years later, before the Irish government was abusing 10 boys over a 20-year period. ready to publish a Report into how the Many of those offences were committed by Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin and others Payne after I had told Catholic Church had handled allegations of child sexual authorities about him in 1981 – the problem abuse against priests – that huge delay in therefore could not have been more plain for the government’s response does not say all to see: moving Payne from one parish to much for how seriously it takes the safety, another had caused the sexual abuse of welfare and protection of children. more children.

This was after all a priest, Ivan Payne, who I So how many times had the Catholic Church had reported to the Church in 1981, who in Dublin or indeed in Ireland done this? with the full knowledge of Church authorities What processes had they engaged in to in the Archdiocese of Dublin, had cause them to believe, if indeed they ever compensated me in 1993, and yet there he did, that reassigning such a person to a was up until the middle of 1995 still a position where he had access to children serving priest in a Dublin parish. was a safe thing to do? How many other priests with a similar record of the sexual Thanks to the Murphy Report we know why abuse of children had been similarly the Archdiocesan authorities left him where reassigned putting other children at risk? they did for so long, but what took the These were among the many questions I Government so long to respond and what wanted the State to ask the Catholic were the steps taken to eventually have the Church. full truth exposed? I wrote to then Taoiseach Ahern in March 1998 asking that an Inquiry be set up to The initial response from the Archdiocese of investigate these and related matters. I Dublin to my revelations in 1994 was briefed the media too as I considered it was

15 important that the wider public know that In 2001 Irish Catholic Bishops announced such a request had been made and I hoped the setting up of an audit of all Dioceses in that like me, they would watch for the the country. Despite the involvement of Taoiseach’s response. retired judge, Gillian Hussey, this audit was to have no credibility whatsoever. It lacked When it came some 3 months later it was the total independence and the powers that hugely disappointing. Mr. Ahern declined to such a process requires. set up such an Inquiry, saying that the church was not a public body and inquiries Early in 2002 the BBC documentary ‘Suing could only be established 'for the purpose of the Pope’ was broadcast and such was the inquiring into definite matters of urgent impact it had, the Government was forced to public importance'. Seemingly for Mr. Ahern set up the Ferns Inquiry to identify the sexual abuse of children by priests did complaints and allegations made against not qualify as a matter of urgent public clergy of the Diocese of Ferns, and to report importance. upon the response of Church and Civil Authorities. For the next 3 to 4 years, more and more allegations about Catholic priests and child During summer of the same year I sexual abuse came into the public domain participated with Mary Raftery and Mick and more of those who had been abused Peelo in their making of the award winning spoke publically about their experiences. Prime Time special Cardinal Secrets. This At the same time that these developments programme detailed what the Archdiocese had been taking place, the Irish public were of Dublin knew about 8 priests against also learning about the abuse that children whom allegations of child sexual abuse had who had been detained in industrial schools been made. Again, the impact was huge: and other such institutions had suffered. people were shocked to learn in quite some detail about the nature of the allegations and After years of campaigning by a small but the response from Church authorities. very determined group of people who had been detained in such institutions, coupled As with ‘States of Fear’ and ‘Suing the with the broadcasting of the documentary Pope’, the broadcast of Cardinal Secrets series ‘States of Fear’, in 1999 the was fundamental to Government eventually Government announced the setting up of changing its mind and agreeing to an what was to become the Child Abuse Inquiry. No revelation of abuse, no clear Commission and the Redress Board, and instance of cover up, no child’s welfare was I’m sure you’ll be hearing more about that enough to cause Government to act – only later from other speakers. I think what was when media and public outrage reached a instrumental there was the huge impact the certain level was Government moved to revelations as detailed in States of Fear had respond. Seemingly political expediency on the public. Such was the media and was a necessary component. public reaction, Government had no choice but to announce that Inquiry. So at long last, in October 2002 there was agreement to investigate how allegations of Along with others I did my best to keep the child sexual abuse against priests in the need for an Inquiry into the Catholic Church Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin were 1 in the public domain, working with media at handled. It was however to be a further 3 /2 a national and international level to keep the years before the Inquiry would start its work. campaign going. But it wasn’t easy - on one side we had a Government that was as Michael McDowell was Justice Minister at deferential to the Catholic Church as it was that time and he wanted to legislate for a uninterested in the needs of those who had new form of public Inquiry to investigate been abused or who were concerned about matters of urgent public concern that would the safety of children. On the other side we be an attractive alternative to the had a Catholic Church that used every trick cumbersome expensive Tribunal model. in the book to ward off any such Inquiry. We agreed to wait for such an alternative but were angered and frustrated that it took

16 the best part of 2 years to pass the Inquiry the period of time being investigated necessary legislation and a further 18 was 1975 – 2004. But if an allegation was months to agree terms of reference and put made against a priest in 1984 for example, it practical arrangements in place to facilitate was important that the Inquiry had the power the Inquiry. During that time, Colm to examine how any previous allegations O’Gorman, Marie Collins and I met with against the same priest were also handled, Minister McDowell and his officials regularly even if such allegations predated 1975 to keep this Inquiry high on their agenda and because how an earlier allegation was to discuss progress, or lack of it. We also handled helps to make a determination on met with opposition party leaders and justice whether a later allegation was handled spokespersons to secure their support for properly on not. the legislation, to keep them updated and to encourage them to raise matters in the Dail. The legislation on which this Inquiry was We were not too upset at the sight of the based allowed for the Inquiry to be held in occasional row in the Dail chamber over private, this can be a matter of concern for how long things were taking. We also kept some people. You may have noticed there interested parties in the media informed as has been much political opposition in their reporting of the snail’s pace of progress Leinster House to the banking inquiry also in Leinster House sometimes had the being held in private, under the same desired effect. legislation. I am not concerned about I made reference earlier to the Terms of private inquiries so long as the legislation on Reference. It was very important to stay which they are based requires the relevant very close to the Minister and his officials as Minister to publish the final Report. The fact these were being set. Left to their own of both the Ferns and Dublin Inquiries being devices officials would have limited the held in private did not have any negative effectiveness of the Inquiry with weak Terms impact on the effectives of their publication of Reference. We didn’t win every or on the attention they received, worldwide. argument; I was concerned for example about the imposition of a time limit of 18 So, in short what steps do I think were most months for the Inquiry; we asked helpful to us? Department of Justice officials what would happen after the 18 months – the Inquiry • Firstly both media and public respond would be acting outside of its Terms of well to the sharing of personal Reference was the reply. Anyone wishing to experience – having people who can prolong proceedings with slow or non co- share experience which makes it easy operation would find that very convenient. I for the wider public to understand what was unimpressed. In the end Judge Yvonne happened and why an Inquiry is needed Murphy and her team took all the time they is vital. needed, to do the job properly. • It was also important for us to be clear We were happy too, to agree to only a about what we wanted and to present it sample of allegations between 1975 and professionally, coherently and 2004 being investigated providing that the consistently. Terms of Reference stated that the sample had to be a representative sample, as was • In addition to engaging with media we the case. Chapter 11 of the Murphy Report regularly met with politicians, both spells out how the representative sample government and opposition. was put together by the Inquiry. • To the best of our ability we presented a When it comes to the Terms of Reference, I united front. really cannot emphasise enough how important the detail is. Anyone in talks with • We never gave up. Government officials needs to be very clear We were very fortunate that investigative about what is wanted from the Inquiry and journalists like Mary Rafferty worked hard to needs to be able to ensure that the Terms of help us uncover and expose the truth. Reference deliver exactly that. In the Dublin

17 • And once Government had agreed to covering up such abuse and what we are the Inquiry, we monitored the setting up left with is the justice that comes from at of the Inquiry as much as we could and least knowing that the truth is out. There is became very involved in the preparation justice too in knowing that an organisation of the Terms of Reference – too which has had so much power over people important to be left to government has now had to account to some degree to ministers or their officials. those same people for how that power was used or abused. It suits Cardinal Brady and I have been asked to also address the issue Pope Benedict to attempt to portray those of justice and whether or I think who have been abused in a bad light – both victims/survivors have achieved it. For me have made reference to victims wanting the personally I feel I have had justice insofar as Catholic Church to be humiliated. Being Ivan Payne had to face the criminal justice required to account to an Inquiry of the system and serve a gaol sentence as people is not about humiliation – it is about handed down by the courts. But my accountability, and that in itself is justice of campaigning over the years was always sorts. about much more that my own case. And finally, there was no compensatory For many people the Ferns, Ryan and element to the Dublin Inquiry, but having Murphy Reports represent the only justice listened to some of the people who have they may ever receive. For all of the been before the Redress Board I think one offences detailed in the Ferns Report only 1 lesson for anyone to learn who maybe alleged offender ever faced the courts. And seeking something similar is to make sure we were told in the Murphy Report only 1 in Government doesn’t engage those who 5 priests out of the total representative have been abused in a process that causes sample of 46 was ever convicted in the them to feel that they have been criminal courts. Add to this the fact that no disbelieved, disrespected and abused all person in the governance of any diocese over again. has ever been prosecuted for his part in

18 LEARNING THE LESSONS FROM THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND Marian Shanley, Legal Reform Commissioner

I would like to thank Amnesty Northern phenomenon of the systemic abuse of Ireland for the invitation to speak here today children by third parties who were in a and to congratulate them on what is already position of trust and authority over these a most successful conference. children. From the point of view of the public at large, the scale of the abuse I came to this issue in 2003 without any perpetrated by this one man came as a previous exposure to it whatsoever. I was a profound shock. Paedophiles operating lawyer and had never encountered child within their families will usually restrict their abuse before. It was an extraordinary abuse to their families but men like Brendan learning curve and I feel very privileged to Smyth and Sean Fortune in Ferns who have been part of the telling of this part of operated in the community had dozens and our history in Ireland. even hundreds of victims.

The Ferns Report (2005) and the Dublin It is impossible to overstate the difficulties Diocesan Report (November 2009) both facing those people who first spoke about dealt with allegations of child sexual abuse their experience of sexual abuse by catholic by catholic priests and in particular at the clergy - Andrew Madden has spoken way complaints were handled by the Church eloquently of his struggle These young men and State authorities. The CICA report (May and women were vilified and ignored by 2009) dealt with abuse of children who were Church and State and there was a general in the care of the State in residential sense of disbelief that such atrocities could institutions. have occurred in the safe environs of the church. However as more and more These three reports had one significant accounts of abuse began appearing in the factor in common. They all dealt with abuse media, the public became uneasy that by third parties, by men (and men were by something very wrong had happened in the far the most serious offenders) who were not church and that the church was failing to related to the child. Ireland had had its fair face up to the truth. Colm O’Gorman and share of sexual abuse scandals within the One-in- Four lobbied for an inquiry into family context. The Kilkenny Incest Inquiry sexual abuse by catholic clergy in the chaired by Judge Catherine McGuinness diocese of Ferns and in 2002 the coalition which reported in 1993, and the West of government set up a judicial inquiry chaired Ireland Farmer case in 1995 catalogued by the recently retired Supreme Court Judge stories of physical and sexual abuse by Frank Murphy who was one of the most fathers on their families that left the Irish highly regarded legal figures in the country. public sickened and angry that the obvious distress of the children in each of these A key factor in the Ferns Inquiry was the cases was ignored by the authorities and strong united voice that Colm O’Gorman social services for so long. They gave to the victims and this is something demonstrated the power of evil people to that should really be looked at by survivors inspire such fear that their victims were in Northern Ireland. Andrew Madden forced to collude in the cover-up of their emphasised the importance of survivors actions and more alarmingly they showed identifying clearly what their goals are and how apparently upright decent people, being focused in achieving them and I would pillars of the community could be guilty of completely endorse that. It is not just the most heinous crimes. important at the stage of establishing terms of reference but it is also important that It was not until after Fr Brendan Smyth’s during the Inquiry there is an intelligent, arrest in Belfast and the publicity that rational person or persons who can surrounded the seeking of a search warrant understand when compromises need to be by the Northern Ireland Authorities in 1994, made and when they ought to take a stand. that Irish society was fully exposed to the

19 Looking at all that has transpired since the abusing children. It was chilling and Ferns Report was published in 2005, it is unnerving to listen to them. easy to forget just how ground-breaking that inquiry was. For the first time in the history The extent of sexual abuse uncovered by of the state the Catholic Church was called the Ferns Inquiry was deeply disturbing. 29 to account before the people of Ireland. In priests were identified as having had addition, the interaction of church and state credible allegations made against them was put under the spotlight for the first time. representing 12% of the priests in the diocese during the relevant period. Equally The format for the inquiry was decided after disturbing was the failure of Church a preliminary report by a senior counsel who authorities to act on complaints. Priests examined the types of allegations that were were protected and moved around and, being made and assessed the level of co- more invidiously, victims were marginalised operation that was likely to be forthcoming and ostracised. The Ferns report raised from the Church, the Health Board and the serious questions as to the extent of the Gardai all of whom were to be required to problem of clerical abuse outside of Ferns. account for their handling of sexual abuse Was this an aberration or would this problem allegations. A number of issues had to be be replicated throughout the country? taken into account: complainants did not want to be identified publicly; it is simply not An equally disturbing finding was the possible to identify people as paedophiles powerlessness of the Health Boards to without affording them full constitutional effectively intervene. The Health Boards protection and for an inquiry to be have extensive powers in situations where successful in getting to the truth it has to children are being abused by their parents have the co-operation of all the key but really no powers where the abuse was stakeholders. All of these factors together conducted by third parties. The law deems with a desire to complete the work in as the child’s parents as the appropriate short a time as possible pointed to the persons to decide what action to take. If the establishment of a private non-statutory parent decided not to make a formal inquiry. complaint to the Gardai, the Health Board had no clearly defined role. Since the Ferns In addition to Judge Murphy, two experts report that has changed and the Health were also appointed to the board: Dr Board is now the body to which all Lorraine Joyce who was an expert in allegations of abuse are referred and they organisational management and Dr Helen can now liaise with the civil authorities and Buckley from Trinity College an expert in remove suspected abusers from contact child protection. with children even if the parents refuse to make a statement to the Gardai. One of the first things the Inquiry did was to set up a two day seminar inviting experts on In November 2009, the Dublin Diocesan paedophilia, psychiatrists and psychologists Report offered little comfort to those who who had treated priests who had abused to believed that Ferns was exceptional. That attend. It is indicative of the learning curve report identified 320 children abused by 49 the members of the inquiry were on that a priests. Whilst the Ferns Report tended to great deal of time was spent researching the emphasise the level and extent of abuse – whole area of child abuse in order to get an or that is what the media concentrated on insight into the problem. This seminar was when reporting it - the Murphy Report an eye-opener for most of us who had never moved the process along and went in to really encountered this issue before. Videos considerable detail on the Church and State of men who were undergoing treatment response to allegations that were made were shown where they outlined their own known to them. A further report into the justifications and rationalisations for their Diocese of Cloyne is due to be published behaviour. They did not present as later this year. monsters. They were quiet spoken, educated, charming men who dedicated Whilst the full horror of diocesan clerical their lives to identifying, grooming and child abuse was unfolding through legal and

20 media accounts another extraordinary story was agreed that a Redress scheme would began to be told. This was the experience of be established to offer compensation to ex- children who had been placed in residential pupils of residential schools who had been care by the state in schools run by religious abused either sexually, physically, orders. educationally or emotionally.

As in the case of Colm O’Gorman and A Commission of Inquiry was also others in Ferns and Andrew Madden and established at the same time as the Redress others in Dublin, this began with one person Board but operating independently of it. This telling her story and having her story heard. Commission was asked to provide a forum When Christine Buckley went on the Gay for persons who had been abused in Byrne Hour in 1996 it was primarily to speak childhood to recount their experiences and it about her quest for her father whom she had was asked to investigate the causes and not seen since shortly after her birth. She nature of such abuse. It had two separate began to describe her experiences in Committees. A Confidential Committee Goldenbridge orphanage and spoke of a which Norah Gibbons was instrumental in regime of cruelty and neglect. The phone setting up and chairing which afforded lines in RTE were jammed with callers who people the opportunity of speaking in had had similar experiences in state care. complete confidentiality about their experiences and an Investigation Committee There followed the ‘States of Fear’ which heard evidence in a tribunal setting. programme on RTE which was broadcast in The Investigation Committee allowed the 1999 and the publication of ‘Suffer Little religious orders and individual religious who Children’ by Mary Rafferty and Eoin were accused of abuse to cross-examine O’Sullivan also in 1999. One after another, witnesses through their senior or junior people who had thought they were alone in counsel. their memories of abuse spoke out and in their numbers they found strength and Whilst there were many good points about courage. Lobby groups were formed and the Child Abuse Commission there were pressure was brought on the Government to also things that we could have done better. investigate what had happened in these One of the mistakes I think we made was schools and why it had happened. This was that the Investigation Committee was ‘over- different from the diocesan inquiries lawyered’. There were historical reasons for because the State, who had placed the this. When the original terms of reference for children in the care of these schools through the Committee were agreed, it was the court, was implicated in the abuse that anticipated that the report would identify occurred. individual perpetrators of abuse – a name and shame exercise. This had to be The Taoiseach Mr. Bertie Ahern met with reconsidered and in the end individual survivors of institutional abuse and promised institutions were named but not individual to act on their complaints. In 1999 he issued perpetrators. However, the legal an apology on behalf of the people of Ireland representation that had been deemed for ‘our collective failure to intervene, to necessary when individual identification was detect their pain, to come to their rescue’. anticipated, was not reduced and every The Statute of Limitations was amended to priest, nun, brother, teacher or lay person extend the period within which actions for who was named in a statement as well as damages could be brought in the case of the religious order who owned and managed sexual abuse. Many hundreds of ex- the institution were fully represented at the residents went to lawyers seeking to institute oral hearing. This meant that there could be proceedings. It soon became clear that both as many as 17 lawyers in the room when a the State and religious orders faced an survivor came in to tell their story. It was an enormous bill for damages and an equally extremely daunting experience. The enormous bill for legal fees. The government Commission was mindful of the need to decided that it would be in everyone’s best complete its work as quickly as possible. interests to take these actions out of the Witnesses were not getting any younger and adversarial setting of the High Court and it if the work was not completed in a timely

21 fashion many ex-residents of these had been met, on the whole, I think the institutions would not live to see the results response was courageous and fulsome on of the investigations. Had there been a the part of the government. Of course challenge to a proposed reduction in legal money can never compensate for a representation, it would have considerably childhood blighted by abuse but it is at least delayed the completion of the work of the a recognition that a grave wrong had been Investigation Committee and it was therefore done. Over 15000 people have received decided to just get on with it. This is more than 1.2billion Euro from the redress something that can be considered at the board. Awards ranged from a few thousand very beginning of the Northern Ireland euro to €350,000 for the most serious cases. process and a more limited form of I am firmly of the view that if these cases representation should be possible. had been left to make their way through the courts individual awards could have been That said, it is extremely important that due much higher and many cases which were process be afforded to anyone who stands clearly deserving would have been to be condemned, even by implication, by dismissed because of the higher threshold the report. Duncan Wilson has spoken about of proof required. On balance I suspect it the human rights issues that must apply in would have cost far more than the €1.2 the setting up of any judicial inquiry and he which I believe is the current estimate and is of course absolutely correct in asserting legal fees would have been very high. This the rights of victims to have a voice in how was €1b given to Irish citizens; it was largely the Inquiry should be conducted. However spent in the state; it gave a chance to what is just as important, and in my view people who had never been given a break. I even more important, are the human rights can think of few more worthwhile causes. of alleged perpetrators. It is simply not possible to name people as paedophiles or I think if there is one lesson to be learnt from even to have it suggested that they may be all of this it is that where grave wrongs have a perpetrator of sexual abuse without been committed, it is the job of government affording them full constitutional rights. It to face up to them and offer real solutions. I must be one of the most horrific experiences think the Irish government took a brave and to be accused of abusing a child where it is innovative stand on this issue and I think it is not true. Although it would be cheaper and a template that is being looked at all over quicker to have an inquiry that did not allow the world as this issue continues to grow. legal representation to anyone, it is not possible to do so. It is extremely important when victims and survivors of abuse in Northern Ireland embark on this journey of seeking the truth, that they fully realise the limitations of what can be achieved. We live in a democracy and everyone is equal before the law and everyone is entitled to protect their good name.

I would like to briefly mention the other pillar of the State’s response to institutional abuse – the Redress Board. I think the combination of redress and investigation was a good and complete response by the state to the issue of residential abuse. Whilst I am aware that not all survivors felt their particular needs

22 LEARNING THE LESSONS FROM THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND Norah Gibbons Advocacy Director of Barnardos, Ireland

Time For Justice Conference Belfast 7 th October 2010

Delivering a human rights compliant inquiry for the victims of historical institutional child abuse in Northern Ireland

Presentation by Norah Gibbons Director of Advocacy, Barnardos

Establishment of CICA

• Government apology:

“On behalf of the State and of all citizens of the State, the Government wishes to make a sincere and long overdue apology to the victims of childhood abuse for our collective failure to intervene, to detect their pain, to come to their rescue”

• CICA established: - Initially non statutory - Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000 – amended 2002 and 2005.

• Other Actions - National Counselling Services - Statute of Limitations amended - Redress Board - Education Finance Board.

23 Key Milestones on Establishment

• Apology by Taoiseach May 1999

• Establishment of Non-Statutory Commission May 1999

• Child Abuse Act became law April 2000

• Establishment of Statutory Commission May 2000.

Milestones Continued

• Public Sittings June 2000 - How work would be done - Invited Submissions

July 2000 - Responded to Submissions - Identified issues outstanding: • Legal Representation Expenses Scheme • Compensation Scheme • Both agreed by Government 2001

24 Confidential Committee Principal Functions of the Confidential Committee were:

• To provide a forum for persons who have suffered abuse in institutions during their childhood, and who did not wish to have that abuse enquired into by the Investigation Committee to recount their experiences and make submissions in confidence.

• To receive evidence of such abuse.

• To make proposals of a general nature with a view to their being considered by the Commission in deciding what recommendations to make.

• To prepare and furnish reports.

Confidential Committee The mandate of the Committee was to hear the evidence of those who wished to report their experiences in institutions in a confidential setting, as defined in the legislation. The legislation provided that the Confidential Committee was to endeavour to ensure that meetings of the Committee at which evidence was being given were conducted so as to afford to witnesses an opportunity to recount in full the abuse suffered by them in an atmosphere that was sympathetic to, and understanding of, them, and as informally as was possible in the circumstances.

25 Confidential Committee

• Confidential Committee heard from 1,090 witnesses. Hearings commenced September 2000.

• They had been discharged from, or left, the institutions between 1922 and 2000, and were residing in Ireland, the UK and other parts of the world.

Defined Categories of Abuse The Committee was required to hear the evidence of witnesses who wished to report four types of abuse as defined by the Acts. The definitions changed in the 2005 Act and the changes made the 2005 Act are highlighted in bold below.

Physical Abuse: The wilful, reckless or negligent infliction of physical injury on, or failure to prevent such injury to, the child.

Sexual Abuse: The use of the child by a person for sexual arousal or sexual gratification of that person or another person.

Neglect : Failure to care for the child which results, or could reasonably be expected to result , in serious impairment of the physical or mental health or development of the child or serious adverse effects on his or her behaviour or welfare.

Emotional Abuse: Any other act or omission towards the child which results, or could reasonably be expected to result , in serious impairment of the physical or mental health or development of the child or serious adverse effects on his or her behaviour or welfare.

26 Confidential Committee Remit

Evidence heard from witnesses from:

• Industrial or reformatory schools.

• Other institutions which included: general, specialist and rehabilitation hospitals, foster homes, primary and second level schools, Children’s Homes, laundries, Noviciates, hostels and special needs schools (both day and residential) that provided care and education for children with intellectual, visual, hearing or speech impairments, and others.

Evidence

Evidence heard covered:

• Demographic and social circumstances of witnesses before their admission to the institutions.

• The experiences and reports of abuse while in the institutions.

• Their life after leaving the institutions.

27

Documentation

Witnesses were invited to bring supporting documentation to their hearing, if they wished, and a number brought copies of documents relating to their admission that they had acquired under the Freedom of Information Acts 1997 and 2003, and other searches. Included among the documents provided by witnesses to the Commissioners were:

• Admission records • Documents from institutional centres • Medical records • Birth certificates • Letters from the Department of Education and Science • Court orders • Correspondence between their families, the institutions and relevant authorities • Letters from the gardai and others seeking payments from parents • General correspondence • Newspaper cuttings relating to their admission • Personal photographs from their time in the institution.

Reasons for attending the Confidential Committee

Reasons for Males % Females % Total % giving evidence (*Rounding Witnesses up applied)

To record abuse 174 29 114 23 288 26

Prevent abuse in the 111 19 97 19 208 19 future

Therapeutic Benefit 98 17 85 17 183 17

To tell what 84 14 88 18 172 16 happened to them

Encouraged by 61 10 67 13 128 12 others

Sense of obligation 23 4 11 2 34 3

Other Reasons 31 5 31 6 62 6

Not Stated 10 2 5 1 15 1

Total 592 100 498 (100)* 1,090 100

28 How Confidential Committee Worked

• Listening on behalf of the State. • Policies and Procedures outlined in advance and communicated; amended by experience. • Non adversarial. • No secondary gain. • Some choice re venue, timescale. • Choice of how evidence given within parameters: - Companion; - How hearing conducted; - Life before care, life in care, life aftercare; - Positive experiences.

How Committee Worked

• Possibility to rehear own tape.

• Total confidentiality - 2 exceptions: - present danger to child; - serious crime.

• Published to the people.

• It did not close down other options.

29 Witness Support Arrangements

• Witness Support Officers • Travel expenses • Information provision on counselling services • Follow up contact if required – aftercare - this was very difficult for some survivors.

CICA Report

• Commission’s report published 20 May 2009.

• Consists of 5 volumes including: - Reformatory and industrial school (Vols.1 and 2) - Confidential Committee (Vol. 3) - Dept of Education funding issues (Vol. 4) - Other relevant issues and Research on adjustment of adult survivors (Vol. 5).

30

Response

• Special Government meeting held on 26 th May 2009.

• Accepted all recommendations and reiterated apology made in May 1999.

• Minister for Children and Youth Affairs tasked with production of Implementation Plan by end July 2009.

Implementation Plan

• Plan deals with Commission’s recommendations under seven categories: - Addressing the effects of past abuse - National policy and evaluation of its implementation - Regulation and Inspection - Management of children’s services - Voice of the child - Children First - Additional issue

31

Key Proposals

• 99 Action points and timescale

• Memorial to victims

• Improved availability of counselling and NCS exempt form employment moratorium

• Audit of child welfare and protection resources and needs to be undertaken by HSE

• Improved inspections of provisions.

Key Proposals Cont.

• Every child in care will have an allocated social worker

• Multi disciplinary team for children in care and detention

• Improved after care provision

• Out of hours pilot provision

• Children First – publication of revised guidelines and legislation – proposal to put on statutory basis.

32

Implementation

• Plan accepted by Government and published on July 2009

• Challenge now is implementation in current climate

• Minister to chair a group to monitor implementation

• Implementation Plan included in new Programme for Government

• €15m. Allocated in 2010.

Challenges to Implementation

• Plan sets out a number of challenges to implementation

- Leadership and accountability

- Governance

- Staffing resources

- Information Systems and Standard Business Processes

- Staff retention issues

- Financial

33 The Journey Now

• Saving Childhood Group • Key Campaign Demands - Constitutional Change - Child Protection Guidelines on Statutory Basis - GAL system for every child coming into care - Provision of After-care services to be compulsory - Vetting Legislation - Out of Hours provision.

34 LEARNING THE LESSONS FROM THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND Pearse Mehigan, Solicitor, Legal Adviser to One in Four, Ireland

Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 contributed to by an act or admission of a person engaged in the management, • Definitions. administration, operation, supervision or regulation of the institution or a person Abuse in relation to child means: otherwise employed in or associated with the institution. (a) The wilful reckless or negligent infliction of physical injury on or failure to prevent • Entitlement to an award on proof of: such injury to the child. (a) Identity (b) The use of the child by a person for (b) Residence. sexual arousal or sexual gratification of that (c) Injury. person or another person.

(c) Failure to care of the child which results • No fault Scheme in serious and permanent of the psychical or An applicant shall not when presenting an mental health or development of the child or application to the Board be required to serious adverse affects on his or her produce to the Board any evidence of behaviour and welfare or; negligence on the part of a person referred to in the application by thee employer of that (d) Any other act or remission towards the person or a public body. child, which results in serious impairment of the physical or mental health or • Time Limits and Statute of development of the child or serious adverse Limitations effects on his or her behaviour and welfare. • Deceased applicants Award means a financial award made by Where a person who would have qualified the Board. As opposed to the other possible as an applicant and who did not receive an areas of redress made available to the award of settlement referred to dies after the applicant by way of State support in the way 11 th May 1999 and prior to making an of educational grants, counselling and other application under the Act, the children of support networks. spouse of that person may, subject to sub section 3, make an application on behalf of Injury includes physical or psychological that deceased person. injury and injury that has occurred in the past or currently exists and cognate words Where an applicant dies after making an shall be construed accordingly. application but before a determination is made by the Board the children or spouse of Institution means an institution that is that deceased applicant may proceed with specified in the schedule. It is important to the application. ensure that all relevant institutions that come within the terms of the redress scheme are • Hearings to be before a sitting of the scheduled. Board Consisting of Chairperson and at least one References in the act to abuse of children in member of the Board institutions or which occurred in institutions include references to any case in which • Interim Awards abuse of a child took place not within an Liberty to make interim awards where a institution but while the child was residing or preliminary decision is made to make such being cared for in an institution and the an award having regard to the abuse was committed, aided, abetted, circumstances including the age of the counselled or procured by or otherwise

35 applicant, it is appropriate under all the The Board shall pay to an applicant to whom circumstances. it has made an award a reasonable amount for expenses incurred by him or her relating The Board shall be entitled to appoint to the preparation and presentation of the medical and suitably qualified professionals application and shall be agreed between the including Counsel who made sit in divisions. Board and the application and in default of such agreement such expense should be • Settlements determined by a Taxing Master of the High There is provision for settlements to be Court. made in accordance with the Act and on making an award the Applicant may accept • Prohibition on disclosure of or reject the award and alternatively submit Information the award to the Review Committee for review of the amount awarded. • Criminal Records - Expunged Ad Hoc groups of lawyers are vital to impose • Income and Award terms on government - take ownership Income consisting of an award under this Act shall be regarded for the purpose of • Media / Support Group income tax assessment and any payment in respect of an award under this act shall be • Listen to victims/survivors treated in all respects as if it were a payment It's not about you - it's about them. made following the Institutions by or on behalf of the applicant to whom the payment • Truth is made of civil action for damages in respect of personal injury. • Acknowledgment

• Taxation of costs • Apology

36 REDRESS, RESTITUTION AND SUPPORT Maeve Lewis, Executive Director, One in Four, Ireland

1 2

Redress, Restitution, Support

What Do Survivors Need? TIME FOR JUSTICE An Overview Maeve Lewis One in Four

3 4 STATUTORY AND VOLUNTARY 1. Statutory Inquiries: Ferns, Ryan PROVISION Murphy and Cloyne 1. Statutory Inquiries: Ryan and Murphy 2. Financial Redress • Role of survivors and media 3. Tracing Services • Validated and placed on public record 4. Educational Support • Mobilised public opinion 5. Counselling Services • Forced response from Church and State 6. Advocacy Services • Apologies ? 7. The Criminal Process • Criminal investigation: Murphy

37 5 2. Residential Institutions Redress 6 3. Family Tracing Services Board • Contribution from Church Barnardo’s Origins Service • Lowered burden of proof • Funded by Dept of Education and Skills • 14, 484 applications (Dec 2005) • 2002 – 2009: • 699 withdrawn, refused or nil award - 1, 033 contacts • Average award €64, 200 - 875 complete • Experience of survivors accessing Board ? - 50% + led to reunions or information about family

7 8 4. Educational Support 5. Counselling Services

• Help Lines • National Counselling Service – Full statutory funding • Education Finance Board (Dept of • One in Four – no HSE funding for counselling Education and Skills) • Dublin Rape Crisis Centre: 66% HSE funding • Funding for former residents and their • Rape Crisis Network Ireland: varied levels families for education and training • Faoiseamh – Catholic Church funded (available to Northern Ireland)

9 10 National 24 Hour Helpline (DRCC) Counselling Statistics 2009

2009 AGENCY 2009

• 10, 914 counselling calls National Counselling 2, 853 referrals Service • 53% childhood abuse • No information on number of institutional One in Four 282 clients seen survivors 98 on waiting list Dublin Rape Crisis 579 clients seen Centre

38 11 12 6. Advocacy Services Context of Abuse: 2009 One in Four: One in Four Psychotherapy Clients % 65 % Statutory funding

45 Clients 40 35 30 Intrafamilial 2008 426 25 Clerical / Institutional 20 Known 15 Stranger 10 2009 1, 140 5 0

13 14 Context of abuse: One in Four Advocacy Advocacy Support 2009 % One in Four Experience • Child Protection 60 • Accessing Criminal Justice System 50 Intrafamilial • Accessing Civil Courts and Settlements 40 Clerical/Institut • Support in attending Redress Board ional 30 Extrafamilial • Support in attending Commissions of Inquiry 20 • General support re housing, social welfare, Unknown 10 counselling referrals etc

0

15 16

Type of Advocacy Support 2009 % WHOLE SYSTEM APPROACH

30 Crininal Public Validation Accessible Support Services 25 Justice System Civil Processes 20

15 Child Protection 10 Inquiries, Redress 5 General Criminal Processeses Financial Recompense

0

39 ESTABLISHING A NORTHERN IRELAND INQUIRY: THE LEGAL CONTEXT Fiona Doherty, Barrister-At-Law

I have been asked to speak about the legal Recent high-profile statutory inquiries in this context of establishing an inquiry into jurisdiction that you will be familiar with are: historical institutional child abuse in Northern Ireland. 1. The Bloody Sunday or Saville Inquiry which was set up under the Tribunals of I hope that the experience from the inquiries Enquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 (the first that have been held in the south shows that public inquiry conducted by Lord the type of inquiry established can have Widgery into the events of that day had implications for how that inquiry operates the same basis) and, ultimately, whether it is in a position to 2. The Billy Wright Inquiry which was fulfil its task effectively and to the initially set up under the Prison Act (NI) satisfaction of all involved. What I intend to 1953 do is speak briefly about the types of inquiry 3. The Rosemary Nelson Inquiry set up that are possible here and draw attention to under the Police (NI) Act 1998 some issues that may be of particular 4. The Robert Hamill Inquiry again initially relevance in this context. set up under the Police (NI) Act 1998.

I should say first that the choice of the type So from that you can see that there were a of inquiry often can and should be number of statutes which could be used to influenced by the issues it will deal with and establish an inquiry, depending on the what it is set up to achieve. For example, is subject matter. However, since the coming it a fact-finding exercise to establish what into force of the Inquiries Act 2005 it is now happened/construct a narrative from which the only statutory basis for establishing lessons should be learned and and holding an inquiry in this jurisdiction. It recommendations made, or as a method of sets out a definite structure for the holding of recording experiences without judgment? an inquiry which the Inquiry must follow. Does it require confidentiality, anonymity or privacy? In addition, of course, there may The inquiries held under that Act are always be some, or many, who want, as the result public inquiries , although parts can be held of an inquiry prosecutions and/or in private if certain criteria are met. An compensation. inquiry can only be established under the act if there is real or potential public concern In this jurisdiction there are currently only about an event that has or may have two ways in which an inquiry can be set up. happened. It can either be statutory or non-statutory. As the names suggest, a statutory inquiry is The Inquiries Act has been controversial one set up under existing legislation and its because, in contrast to the previous operation is governed by that legislation, a legislation, it reserves certain powers to the non-statutory or ad hoc inquiry is not. Non- Minister who set it up. Previously, once an statutory inquiries are generally free to set inquiry had been set up, matters of their own procedure, within the bounds of procedure and the running of the inquiry fairness and the law, but otherwise are were generally left to the members of the unregulated. tribunal to decide. Under the 2005 Act the Minister may intervene to do a number of As you all know the Ryan Commission was things including:- established by a statute, the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000 and the 1. Amend the terms of reference if it is in Murphy Commission under the the public interest to do so; Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. 2. Terminate the appointment of a member of the inquiry; 3. Suspend the inquiry;

40 4. Bring the inquiry to an end; also precludes an inquiry saying e.g. that 5. Withhold publication of the inquiry report there was negligence. An inquiry is said to or part of it; and perhaps most be inquisitorial (which means it is a fact significantly finding exercise led by the inquiry itself) 6. Issue a notice to restrict attendance at unlike most court cases, which are an inquiry, or at any particular part of an adversarial (in that they involve different inquiry – the Minister can decide that interests who dictate which witnesses are certain parts of the inquiry can be held called and evidence produced which is then in private; and adjudicated on by a judge). What this 7. Issue a notice to restrict disclosure or means in practice is that an inquiry will only publication of any evidence or set out the facts as it finds them and, even documents given, produced or provided where it seems clear that those facts could to an inquiry – the Minister can decide constitute an offence and/or civil wrong, the that certain documents shouldn’t be inquiry will not say so. made public. That isn’t a new departure by the Inquiries It is these last powers that have caused the Act. Inquiries have always taken that to be most controversy, Lord Saville in particular the limits of their role. That was one of the has been very scathing indicating that he reasons why there was such interest in the would not be prepared to be appointed to an language used by the Bloody Sunday inquiry held under the Act and he has Inquiry in its report. An alleged leak a few indicated that the two senior judges from days before publication indicated that the Canada and Australia who sat with him take report might describe some of the deaths as the same view. unlawful killing. Those of us involved would have been astounded if that was the case, As well as the Act, Inquiries Act inquiries are precisely because of these limits. The governed by the Inquiry Rules 2006, which inquiry made clear findings of fact and those deal with a number of issues including findings may point in a certain direction but representation before the inquiry and a criminal or civil responsibility is decided only detailed scheme for costs assessment. It is by the relevant court. The function of worth noting Rule 10, which provides that, prosecuting someone on a criminal charge generally, it will only be counsel to the belongs to the Public Prosecution Service inquiry and the inquiry panel that question here alone and it is why prosecutions were witnesses. If anyone else wishes to not recommended by the BSI and why the question a witness they will have to apply to report did not say, for example, that soldiers the chairman for permission to do so. I had committed murder or manslaughter or know that in the current CDifficile inquiry all were guilty of unlawful killing. lines of questioning are being filtered through counsel to the inquiry and I The second Inquiries Act provision that I understand that also happened in the would like to draw to your attention relates Rosemary Nelson inquiry. This can be a to how the Inquiry obtains evidence. When I source of some disquiet to those with an say evidence I mean both documents and interest in the inquiry. Clearly how victims oral evidence from witnesses. Clearly this is interact with and have access to the inquiry an incredibly important issue for an inquiry’s is vital to securing confidence in its work. work because without evidence, and the means of getting it, the inquiry can’t fulfil its There are two provisions in the Inquiries Act task. that I particularly want to draw to your attention. The first relates to something I Before I go into that it’s appropriate to briefly mentioned earlier and said I would come consider the other type of inquiry – i.e. the back to and it is section 2 of the Act which non-statutory or ad hoc inquiry - because provides that the inquiry must not rule on, this is where there may be a significant nor has it power to determine, civil or difference between the two. criminal liability. That precludes the inquiry from saying e.g. that an individual was Some recent examples of non-statutory murdered, unlawfully killed or assaulted. It inquiries are

41 prosecution because the evidence of others 1. The Iraq Inquiry (sometimes called the could be used against the person but what it “Chilcott Inquiry”) which is running now did was ensured that a witness could not to identify what happened and examine refuse to answer questions or provide other the lessons to be learned from the evidence by claiming that it could lead to invasion of Iraq self-incrimination. 2. The Hutton Inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly Other inquiries have taken varying approaches to this issue. The Robert Hamill A non-statutory inquiry is arguably more Inquiry, like the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, flexible in that it is free to set its own sought and received an assurance in procedure, not governed by Act or Rules. relation to criminal proceedings from the But the main practical difference between Attorney General. statutory and non-statutory inquiries lies in what they can do to obtain evidence. The Rosemary Nelson Inquiry sought and received assurances from the Attorney The non-statutory inquiry relies entirely on General in relation to criminal proceedings; co-operation from those it is investigating. from the Ministry of Defence in relation to While in practice an Inquiries Act inquiry courts martial and other disciplinary may obtain most of its evidence by way of proceedings; from the civil service in co-operation it has extensive powers to Northern Ireland and Britain in relation to compel production of evidence and disciplinary proceedings and from the Chief testimony of witnesses if co-operation is not Constable of the PSNI in relation to forthcoming. disciplinary proceedings.

In practice the Bloody Sunday Inquiry didn’t The Billy Wright inquiry took a completely have to use its powers of compulsion often. different approach. They said they would Where the subject of the inquiry is an consider applications in relation to particular organisation or organisations and their witnesses on an individual basis. members or employees, it may be easier to secure co-operation through internal While it may initially seem unattractive to channels, particularly where that suggest that guarantees like these are given organisation has agreed to co-operate. In it is one thing to get a person before a that case it was the Ministry of Defence and tribunal it is another thing to ensure that they the Army. However, if co-operation is not co-operate fully by giving evidence and secured, a statutory inquiry will be able telling the truth. That must ultimately be an request that the PPS prosecute that person inquiry’s goal and if such assurances assist for refusing to co-operate. Alternatively the in achieving co-operation and getting to the Inquiry can resort to the High Court and truth then they are worth considering. ultimately ask for individuals to be sent to prison if their co-operation is not secured. So how the inquiry obtains its evidence is Both the Robert Hamill inquiry and the Billy probably the most important issue. Wright inquiry used this power to try to Obviously terms of reference are important. obtain evidence. Generally terms of reference are broadly drawn but it is important to consider in Securing someone’s attendance at an advance what the inquiry should be asked to inquiry can be of little assistance if they can do – investigate, recommend or simply refuse to give evidence or tell the truth. For record, a combination of all three or that reason the BSI secured an assurance something else entirely? from the Attorney General that where a person provided evidence to the inquiry that The inquiry chair and panel are also evidence would not be used in subsequent important. The Bloody Sunday Inquiry was criminal proceedings against them, except an international judicial inquiry chaired by a where those proceedings were for giving Law Lord sitting with a former judge of the false evidence to the inquiry. The High Court of Australia and a former judge assurance did not provide immunity from of the Supreme Court of Canada. The

42 recent inquiries have been chaired by a investigated then a private inquiry may not judge with two other members who have be appropriate to achieve that. particular expertise in the issue being investigated. For example, the Billy Wright Linked to that is the possibility of anonymity inquiry inquired into Mr. Wright’s murder in or other protective measures for witnesses. prison. The chairman was a judge and he This is generally decided by an Inquiry on a was joined by an academic with particular case-by-case basis. In this jurisdiction there expertise in prison issues and a cleric – the are also automatic reporting restrictions former Bishop of Hereford. So, the relating to the victims of some types of chairperson doesn’t have to be a judge – sexual offences that will have to be indeed the current CDifficile inquiry panel is considered. made up of individuals with healthcare experience. I should also say that, although one would hope that it needn’t happen, the decisions of There are a few other issues that I should inquiries, whether they are statutory or non- mention: statutory are subject to challenge by way of judicial review. It will be rare that such First, I have mentioned the two possible challenges succeed because the courts will types of inquiries that are currently available be slow to intervene in issues that are left to here – statutory or non-statutory inquiry. an independent tribunal to decide unless There is a third option: entirely new they are clearly wrong. Having said that two legislation tailored to facilitate an inquiry in challenges to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry this particular context. However this is not a were successful and resulted in soldiers clear possibility and would take some time retaining anonymity and the inquiry moving to draft and pass. from Derry to London for a year to hear their evidence. Another issue is Human Rights standards. The Human Rights Act 1998 will apply to It seems to me that the most important any inquiry. You have heard earlier from things to consider are: - Duncan Wilson of the Scottish Human Rights Commission how the rights 1. What you want the inquiry to do; guaranteed in that Act could apply to an 2. The arrangements that are in place to inquiry. Also, the rules of procedural ensure that it can do it. fairness will apply. The inquiry will have to ensure that alleged perpetrators are treated Some practical issues to finish: - fairly, that they have time and facilities to respond to allegations made against them, 1. Once an inquiry is set up it will inevitably that they are aware of precisely what those take a considerable period of time to allegations are and that they have legal gather evidence before it can even representation if they need it. begin hearings – perhaps a year or two, or even more. Equally, the inquiry must protect the rights of victims and witnesses including their right to 2. It is also inevitable that issues (both participate in the inquiry. legal and factual) that were never previously thought of will materialise and Inquiries can be private, that is not open to require decisions from the Inquiry. the public. It may be thought that the nature of the evidence to be given in any inquiry set 3. There is also a certain loss of control up into historical institutional child abuse and perhaps ownership of the issues would suggest there should be privacy for once an inquiry is set up – the those who have suffered such abuse from investigation is the inquiry’s and the glare of publicity. However, if one of the although the witnesses and interested purposes of the inquiry is to allay public parties are a crucial part of that it is the concern about these events and to show inquiry that will run things. everyone - victims, perpetrators and the public - that they have been fully and fairly

43 4. Certain allegations made, once all the material is uncovered and tested, may 5. It could be a long and drawn out not be substantiated. The purpose of an experience and often frustrating but, it is inquiry is to investigate and reach to be hoped, ultimately a healing conclusions based on the evidence experience and one that can bring some available, to put matters to rest once measure of closure. and for all, whether they are substantiated or not.

44 REDRESS, RESTITUTION AND SUPPORT: A VICTIM-CENTRED SYSTEM Deirdre Kenny, Advocacy Director, One In Four, Ireland

Examples around the world Aboriginal children who were in institutions (Bringing them Home Report, 1997). • Redress Western Australian • Residential Institutions Redress Board There have been a number of Government (Ireland) inquiries throughout Australia in relation to • Indian Residential Schools Agreement the abuse of children in State care. (Canada) All inquiries made specific recommendations regarding an apology, support/counselling Common Themes services and some form of monetary redress (ex gratia payment) for the survivors of • Addressing historical wrongs abuse. • Perpetrated by government & churches Similar schemes have been set up in • Particularly vulnerable victims • Queensland and Tasmania. Queensland’s Alternative to litigation scheme offered ex-gratia payments ranging

from $7000 to $40,000 and Tasmania Elements to consider offered ex-gratia payments up to $60,000. Redress WA is the broadest scheme in that • Telling the story we recognise the most state care • Damages arrangements. Redress schemes have also • Truth and reconciliation been offered in Canada and Ireland. • Confidentiality/Containment

The Redress Scheme was open for 12 The Challenge months (from 1 May 2008 until 30 April 2009) and was advertised within WA, across Addressing the emotional hurt as well as Australia and to a lesser extent achieving a sense of justice internationally.

Redress Western Australian To assist people who may have found out about the scheme towards the end of the On 17 December 2007, the former Western application period, potential applicants Australian Government announced the $114 registered before the 30 April 2009 (either million Redress WA Scheme. Redress WA directly or by a third party), were given until was set up by the Western Australian the 30 June 2009 to complete and submit Government in 2008 to acknowledge and their formal application. apologise to adults, who as children, were abused and/or neglected while they were in the care of the State. Redress WA provided eligible applicants with an alternative to pursuing a claim Redress WA also provides access to through the court process that is less support and counselling services and, for traumatic and less costly. eligible applicants, an ex-gratia payment of between $5000 and $45,000. Eligible applicants are living persons who:

Since 1920, an estimated 55,000 children in (1) are aged 18 and over at the closing date; Western Australia were under State care. Of and these, 2921 are known to have been child (2) who were: migrants (Lost Innocents: Righting the Record, 2001) and up to 3000 were

45 • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders an endowment to the Aboriginal Healing who were placed in State Care under Foundation. the Aborigines Act 1905 (WA), the Native Administration Act 1936 (WA) or The Common Experience Payment (CEP) is Native Welfare Act 1954 (WA); a lump-sum payment that recognizes the • persons placed in State care under the experience of living at an Indian Residential State Children Act 1907(WA); School(s) (IRS) and its impacts. CEP is • wards placed in State care pursuant to based on: orders made under the Child Welfare Act 1947(WA) including those children • An application accompanied by placed under the control of the validated personal identity Department; documentation; • child migrants placed under the • Student residency in a recognized IRS; guardianship of the State in State care and subject to the Immigration • The number of years of residency (Guardianship of Children) Act ($10,000 for the first school year or 1946(Cth) and the Child Welfare Act portion thereof and $3,000 for each 1947(WA); subsequent year). • persons placed under the Young Offenders Act 1994; or Total cost well in excess of $2 billion • persons who the Internal Member is (Churches contributing: $40 million for otherwise satisfied were placed in State Common Experience Payments) care; but does not include ineligible persons; The Redress board (Ireland)

The Redress Board was set up under the Indian Residential Schools Agreement Residential Institutions Redress Act, 2002 to (Canada) make fair and reasonable awards to persons who, as children, were abused while The IRSSA is the largest class action resident in industrial schools, reformatories settlement in Canadian history. The and other institutions subject to state Government announced on May 10, 2006 regulation or inspection. that the IRSSA was approved by all parties involved: the Government of Canada, legal counsel for former students, Churches, the The Residential Institutions Redress Board Assembly of First Nations, and Inuit (RIRB) is a wholly independent body chaired Representatives. Implementation of by a judge. the IRSSA began on September 19, 2007. There was a 3-year application period: The IRSSA includes the following: December 2002 to December 2005.

Scheme was widely advertised in the global • Common Experience Payment to be press and specialist publications such as paid to all eligible former students who ‘Irish Echo’. Board officers travelled to the resided at a recognized Indian US and UK to hear evidence and take Residential School; submissions. • Independent Assessment Process for claims of sexual and serious physical The final date for receipt of applications has abuse; now passed and the Board has received a • Truth and Reconciliation Commission; total of 14,753 applications • Commemoration Activities; • Measures to support healing such as the Indian Residential Schools The Board is chaired by His Honour Judge Resolution Health Support Program and Sean O'Leary, Judge of the Circuit Court. All applications for redress are treated in the

46 strictest confidence, and all hearings conducted by the Board were in private. TYPE OF ABUSE EXAMPLES

Violent anal or vaginal penetration. Victim made to masturbate member of staff or Redress SEXUAL ABUSE perform oral-genital acts. The Act provides that “abuse” of a child Sexual kissing; indecent touching of private parts means – over clothing. Serious injuries requiring hospitalisation; (a) the wilful, reckless or negligent infliction profound deafness caused by blows to ears. of physical injury on, or failure to prevent Severe beating causing e.g. a fractured limb or such injury to, the child; PHYSICAL ABUSE leaving permanent scars. (b) the use of the child by a person for Corporal punishment more severe than was legally sanctioned at the time, but leaving no sexual arousal or sexual gratification of permanent physical signs. Gross over-work that person or another person; involving inadequate rest, recreation and sleep. (c) failure to care for the child which results Depersonalisation e.g. through family ties being in serious impairment of the physical or severed without justification or through deprivation of affection. mental health or development of the EMOTIONAL ABUSE child or serious adverse effects on his or General climate of fear and apprehension. her behaviour or welfare, or Stigmatisation by staff, e.g. through repeated racist remarks or hurtful references to parents. (d) any other act or omission towards the Severe malnutrition; failure to protect child child which results in serious impairment against abusive placements; inadequate guarding of the physical or mental health or NEGLECT against dangerous equipment in work-place. development of the child or serious Failure to provide legally prescribed minimum of adverse effects on his or her behaviour school instruction; lack of appropriate vocational training and training in life skills. or welfare. Inadequate clothing, bedding or heating. The following are some particular examples of abuse for which redress may be payable: It is not necessary for a person to have been prosecuted or convicted of any criminal offence in connection with the abuse suffered by an applicant.

Redress

The meaning of “injury” The Act provides that “injury” includes physical or psychological injury and injury that has occurred in the past or currently exists. Redress under the Act is payable in respect of any injury which is consistent with any abuse suffered by the applicant while he or she was resident in a specified institution.

The following are some particular examples of injury for which redress may be payable:

47 a two-stage process. First, the Board assesses the weight to be attached to NATURE OF INJURY EXAMPLES the different elements that go to make up the experiences of victims of abuse PHYSICAL OR according to the following table: PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESS 1. Loss of sight or hearing. Loss of or damage to teeth. Weighting scale for evaluation of 1. Physical injury Permanent scar(s)/disfigurement. severity of abuse and consequential injury 2. Sexually transmitted diseases. Respiratory diseases. elements of redress Constitutive Severity of abuse 2. Physical illness Skin diseases. Severity of injury resulting

from abuse 3. Severe depression with suicide attempts. Medically Psycho Loss 3. Psychiatric illness Personality disorder. verified -social of Post-traumatic stress disorder. physical/p sequel oppo sychiatric ae rtunit y PSYCHOLOGICAL Illness INJURY 1. Inability to show affection or trust Weighting 1-25 1-30 1-30 1- 1. Emotional disorder Low self-esteem; persistent feelings of 15 shame or guilt. Recurrent nightmares or flashbacks.

2. Cognitive 2. Literacy level well below capability. These four separate weightings are impairment/ Impoverished thought processes. educational Limited vocabulary leading to designed to produce an overall assessment retardation communication difficulties. of the severity of the abuse and the injury suffered by the applicant. When they are 3. Marital difficulties involving sexual added together, the Board look at the case 3. Psychosocial dysfunction. maladjustment Low frustration tolerance. overall to see whether the total assessment Shyness and withdrawal from mixing reached in this way is reasonable in all the with people. circumstances for the particular applicant; where necessary, it may make appropriate 4. Anti-social 4. Substance abuse. behaviour Compulsive stealing. adjustments to the overall assessment. Physical aggressiveness.

LOSS OF 1. Having to refuse employment The amount of redress will then be OPPORTUNITY opportunity/ promotion because of determined by reference to the Board’s illiteracy. assessment of the severity of the abuse and 2. Need to concoct a false identity and to the injury, according to the following redress live a lie with workmates. bands: 3. Unable to pursue certain occupations, e.g. police, because of “record”.

Redress Bands Redress

In every case the Redress Board would REDR TOTAL AWARD PAYABLE have to be satisfied that the particular injury ESS WEIGHTING FOR BY WAY OF resulted “as a consequence of the abuse” BAND SEVERITY OF REDRESS suffered by the applicant. ABUSE AND INJURY/EFFECTS OF ABUSE

Redress in respect of the severity of the €200,000 - V 70 OR MORE abuse and injury €300,000

€150,000 - IV 55-69 An award of redress in respect of the €200,000 severity of the abuse and the injury €100,000 - III 40 – 54 suffered by an applicant is determined by €150,000

II 25-39 €50,000-€100,000 48 I LESS THAN 25 Up to €50,000 1. The severity of the abuse and injury Redress On the basis of the medical and other evidence available to it, the Board assessed the redress award with reference to the Informal settlement severity of (1) the abuse suffered, (2) the applicants physical and mental injuries, (3) the emotional and social effects of the Where the Board were satisfied that the injuries, and (4) the loss of employment and applicant was entitled to redress, it would other opportunities. make an offer in settlement, which the applicant was free to accept or reject. If 2. Additional redress accepted the, no further proceedings were In exceptional cases, the Board could make necessary. If rejected, the application could an additional award not exceeding 20% of then proceed to a hearing by the Board. the normal redress award where it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so. Hearing by the Board 3. Medical expenses Where it was not possible to deal with The Board could make an award for applications by way of a settlement; the reasonable expenses incurred in respect of Board allocated a date for the hearing. The past, present or future medical or psychiatric hearing, which was as informal as possible, treatment for the effects of the injuries which was conducted by a panel consisting of two the applicant suffered as a result of the or three members of the Board. The hearing abuse. enabled the applicant or the Board to call 4. Other costs and expenses witnesses to give oral evidence and to question other witnesses. The Board could also make an award for any other costs and expenses which Any person named in an application as reasonably incurred in making application responsible for the abuse which suffered, for redress. This includes the reasonable and a representative of the institution in costs of legal representation for the making which the abuse took place, may also take of your application. part in the hearing.

All hearings were in private and not open to the public or to the media. In exceptional If a person was not satisfied with an award circumstances, the Board allowed a close made by the Board following a hearing they relative or other appropriate person to be could apply to the Residential Institutions present at the hearing of the application. Redress Review Committee for a review of the Board's award. The Review Committee Interim award could uphold the Board’s award, or increase Where the Board made a preliminary or decrease the amount of the award. decision that the applicant was entitled to an If the applicant accepted the award made by award and, having regard for age and the Board, or by the Review Committee on infirmity, it could consider the payment of an review, they must have agreed in writing to interim award of not more than €10,000. give up any right to bring a claim for This interim award would be deducted from damages in the courts in respect of the the final award. abuse and injuries covered by the award. Final award The applicant was given one month in which to decide if this is what they wished to do. The final award made by the Board, which will be a fair and reasonable sum having If they decide NOT to accept the award regard to the applicant’s unique made by the Board, or by the Review circumstances, was assessed under the Committee on appeal, any right they may following four headings. have to bring a claim for damages in the courts is not affected in any way. But the

49 applicant cannot come back to the Board a Useful links second time if they find out later that the damages to which they were entitled from Redress Western Australia court proceedings are lower than the award http://www.communities.wa.gov.au of redress made by the Board or by the Review Committee. Indian Residential Schools Agreement (Canada)

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca

Redress Board http://www.rirb.ie/

50 WORKSHOP FEEDBACK

Inquiry terms of reference – setting 1986. It was felt that at the end of the human rights benchmarks process there had been no redress and no sense of closure for those who had been violated and abused. 1. It was felt that it was of fundamental importance for there to be proper consultation with the victims/ survivors 3. It was noted that any inquiry could be and their families with regards to the very wide ranging in view of the formulation of any future Inquiry’s terms timeframe, institutions and extent of the of reference. It was considered that the physical, emotional and sexual abuse terms of reference should not be involved. Each and every word would narrowly drawn. An Inquiry should not have to be carefully defined. With simply be asked to find whether or not regards to the term “abuse” abuse had taken place on a widespread consideration was given as to whether it scale - this was already a matter of should be encompassed by the public knowledge. Instead, it should be definition “conduct amounting to tasked with answering more searching breaches of article 2 and/ or article 3 of and difficult questions such as why and the European Convention,” how such abuse had been allowed to occur. Preliminary investigation/ scoping exercise 2. The group also took into account the helpful synopsis of the potential 4. There was discussion as to whether a shortfalls in the Inquiries Act 2005 1 preliminary investigation, perhaps in the which had been identified in the initial form of a non-statutory inquiry or stages of the workshop by Khara Khan- investigative scoping exercise, could be Glackin. Notably with regards to the carried out to ascertain the potential setting of the terms of reference there extent and remit of any Inquiry to be was no duty of the minister to consult carried out under the Inquiries Act 2005. with victims/ survivors and any terms of It was pointed out that many of the reference could be set 2. The group was public Inquiries conducted to date mindful of this concern and this was (notably Bloody Sunday and the encapsulated in the comment that, Inquiries carried out following “Victims should not become bystanders publication of Justice Cory’s reports into in someone else’s process.” In this the deaths of Rosemary Nelson, Billy context, reference was also made to the Wright, and Robert Hamill) had taken Hughes Inquiry into sexual abuse in longer than anticipated to commence children’s homes which reported in the oral hearings. This was for a number of reasons, including legal challenges. If a statutory Inquiry is inevitably going to 1 These included, but are not limited to the power be a long process, it is preferable for all of the relevant Minister to remove the chair or parties involved to have a realistic idea members of the Inquiry panel (section 12), of the timescale (and cost) involved from suspension and termination of the Inquiry the outset so as to manage (sections13&14), restriction on attendance and expectations. prohibition of disclosure/ publication of evidence and documents, prevention of publication or exclusion of the report (section 39). 5. Consideration was given to whether or 2 Section 5 (4) only places an obligation on the not a non-statutory Inquiry alone may be Minister to consult with the Chairman before fit for purpose. This was in the context of setting out or amending the terms of reference.

51 the insightful talk given by Andrew could be done, particularly in light of the Madden who suggested that it may not experience of the Robert Hamill Inquiry. necessarily affect the validity of any process if the hearings are conducted in 6. The group gave consideration to the private, provided that the findings are interplay of an Inquiry with the civil and public. The feeling of the group was that criminal process. because the purpose of any inquiry is to alleviate public concern, public hearings The group considered that much could be were fundamental (although the power learnt from the experiences of the Scottish of an Inquiries Act Inquiry to have some Human Rights Commission in developing a hearings in private was noted). It was human rights framework. These were also felt that the powers of compelling outlined in the informative talk given by witnesses to attend and enforcement Duncan Wilson. provisions were necessary so justice

52 SUGGESTIONS ON THE WAY FORWARD FOR THE SURVIVORS AND VICTIMS OF INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE Jon McCourt, Margaret McGuckin, John Meehan and Brian Doherty

nd On 2 November 2009, former residents of The ultimate responsibility for abuse rests Church Run Institutions went to the with the offender i.e.: Where it is the wish of Assembly at Stormont to present a petition a Victim of Abuse, Offences should be calling for an Inquiry into Historic Institutional reported to the police and the police and the Abuse. That day the Assembly passed the Justice Department decide how they should following motion: be taken forward. All possible advice, assistance and support should be to given to “this Assembly expresses grave concern at ensure that all incidents are reported. the findings of the Commission to Inquire However failure to report should not into Child Abuse report (the Ryan Report) adversely affect a victim’s right to Justice. published in May 2009 in the Republic of Ireland; considers that such neglect and If the offence occurred while in the employ abuse of children and young people’s of an organisation, that organisation has a human rights must be subject to criminal responsibility i.e.: If abuse occurred while law; recognises that children who were the abuser was a resident, or in employment placed by state authorities in Northern either in a paid or voluntary capacity, then Ireland in establishments or settings where through failure of management, supervision they became victims of abuse are entitled to and monitoring, organisations should be support and redress; calls on the Executive deemed to have failed in their duty of care to commission an assessment of the extent towards those in their charge. of abuse and neglect in Northern Ireland, to liaise and work with the authorities in the If the organisation was a contracted Republic of Ireland and to report to the organisation the contractor has a Assembly; calls on the Executive to provide responsibility. i.e.: It is not sufficient to funding to support helpline and counselling suggest that organisations and institutions services which are now facing new should have been capable of managing their demands; and further calls on the Executive own affairs. It should have been the duty of to work, through the North South Ministerial the initial placing organisation to regularly Council, to ensure that all-Ireland monitor and report on the placement and protections for children and vulnerable conditions in the institution. adults are in place as soon as possible.” This clearly has at least differing levels of While appreciating that it takes time for responsibility. The Abuser, the Institution processes to be put in place to deal with an and the Placement Authority and the issue as complex as this, there is concern Government Department at that time among Victims and Survivors of Institutional responsible for the Safety and Welfare of Abuse, who are none the less frustrated by “Children in Care”. th the lack of movement to date. On the 19 March the Health Minister Michael There is a realisation that this is an issue that has impacted on many lives over the McGimpsey issued an options paper to the years; an example can be drawn from the Executive “regarding potential ways forward on dealing with historical child abuse in Redress Board by the Dublin Government established to look at Abuse in Residential Northern Ireland.” Institutions in the South under the Redress In order to assist the Executive to speed the Act 2002, which had around 15,000 applications. process here are some suggestions which should be helpful.

53 One of the original concerns among many of We see as a priority the immediate those abused while in various Institutions, availability of Support and Counselling was that they would not be believed. Services to all those traumatised by their However there is now sufficient experience while “in care” in Institutions. A acknowledgement and anecdotal evidence Public Awareness campaign of the to suggest that physical, mental, availability of such services should be psychological and sexual abuse did indeed considered as a matter of urgency. Access take place in these institutions. While to these services should be available apologies issued on behalf of “Religious through self-referral as well as the usual Institutions and Orders” have come as a professional channels. These services relief to some of those abused, such should be available without charge to the apologies have satisfied few whose lives client at the point of need. have already been destroyed by the experience. Such apologies no matter how While the Assembly considers the best way genuine have come too late for many who to proceed we are aware that many have could no longer live with the trauma and already instituted proceedings. This has shame of their experience and sought the created financial difficulty for many who ultimate release by taking their own lives. currently live outside the jurisdiction. Many have already lost “up front” fees, paid The appeal put before the Assembly was without any guaranteed prospect of a simple, that an Inquiry into Historical Abuse settlement. Following the “Opinions of the in Care Institutions be held by the Assembly Lords of Appeal for a Judgement in the to determine the nature, extent and impact Cause: (1) Bowden and (2) Whitton v The of that abuse on children placed “in care” Poor Sisters of Nazareth and Others and that the Assembly, as a result of the (Scotland) (Consolidated Appeals) on May outcome of such an Inquiry consider the 21 st 2008, “Time Barring” has been a development of a mechanism by which frustrating legal device that has been victims and survivors could seek redress reported as the main reason for cases failing from the responsible parties. to be heard. We would ask that the Assembly consider the establishment of an While realising the unprecedented nature Arbitration and Redress Process instead of and the possible enormity of such an a confrontational model as a possible undertaking, the Assembly should, as a solution. It would not be in the interest of priority consider the impact and trauma that Victims and Survivors to see litigation as the abuse has caused to the victims and primary method of seeking Justice or survivors, before seeking to justify not Compensation or Redress. While many proceeding or limiting the scope of such an Victims and Survivors of Institutional Abuse Inquiry. still reside in this jurisdiction many have left in the hope of putting it all behind them. This We wish to make it clear that the term now has put them in a position of legal “Institutions” includes all facilities where disadvantage. children were put “in care” either by the State on any Agency deemed to have been The Department of Justice could assist them acting on its behalf. It includes any facility by considering the following to expedite where children were placed, on a temporary matters: or permanent basis, by a parent or parents or guardian acting on their behalf. These • Follow the example of the Dublin include Facilities managed or run by Government who in May 1999 Religious Orders of any Denomination, State announced an Amendment to their Institutions, Charitable Societies, Private/For Statute of Limitations so that the “Time Profit Facilities including Foster and “Group Barred” rule would no longer apply. Homes”.

54 • Extending the qualification to Legal Aid to the Date and Jurisdiction of an alleged offence, rather than a restrictive timeframe and the current residency of the claimant.

• Review and amend the current legislation with regard to “Compensation Barred” claimants with specific regard to

this issue. In the event that this is not

feasible then broadly consider the award

of settlements “without prejudice”.

We are aware of the huge financial undertaking this will be but this does not dissuade us nor should it dissuade the Assembly. We would be loath to have the taxpayer shoulder a large share of a burden that is not theirs. Bearing in mind the particular assets of “Organisations” historically responsible for “Care Institutions”, the Department of Justice should consider at the outset demanding of all those Religious Orders of any Denomination, State Institutions, Charitable Societies, Private/For Profit Facilities including Foster and “Group Homes”, a commitment to financially and morally honour their responsibilities.

These were “Criminal Acts” carried out, in the main, on properties owned by corporate entities, who “Criminally and Negligently

Failed in their Duty of Care” and in the absence of a commitment or guarantee, consideration should be given to utilising “Criminal Assets Legislation” to sequester their resources. We feel a repetition of the “Land for Cash” proposal agreed with the Redress Board and the Dublin Government was a travesty that unfairly burdened the Irish Taxpayer and created the first “Toxic Bank”. It did not corporately penalise the institutions anywhere near the level that would equate with the suffering of their victims.

As final tribute to those who did not live to see this day, we would ask that the Assembly do all in its power to ensure that, where possible individual gravestones are provided on their last resting places, or that “Acknowledgement Stones” are suitably erected in their memory.

55

Amnesty International 397 Ormeau Road Belfast BT7 3GP

Tel: 028 9064 3000 Email: [email protected] Web: www.amnesty.org.uk/ni

56