Case Study no. 5 The provision of residential care in boarding schools for children in Scotland by the Benedictine monks of Fort Augustus Abbey between 1948 and 1991 at Carlekemp Priory School, North Berwick, and Fort Augustus Abbey School, Invernesshire Evidential Hearings: 18 July 2019 to 1 October 2019 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open‑government‑licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.childabuseinquiry.scot Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to [email protected] Published August 2021 Produced by APS Group Scotland, 21 Tennant Street, Edinburgh EH6 5NA Case Study no. 5 The provision of residential care in boarding schools for children in Scotland by the Benedictine monks of Fort Augustus Abbey between 1948 and 1991 at Carlekemp Priory School, North Berwick, and Fort Augustus Abbey School, Invernesshire Evidential Hearings: 18 July 2019 to 1 October 2019 Contents Foreword v Preface vi Summary ix 1. Introduction 1 2. The Benedictine Schools in Scotland 3 History and ethos 3 Structure 4 Diocesan oversight 5 Presence in Scotland 8 Schools: Carlekemp Priory School and Fort Augustus Abbey School 10 Finance 19 Staffing 19 Training and Qualifications 21 Closure 22 The English Benedictine Congregation witnesses 22 Visitations 23 3. The regime 27 Introduction 27 Home 27 Denial of abuse 27 Positive aspects 28 Atmosphere of fear and violence 30 Transfer of monks 30 The Australian connection 33 Response to evidence about the regime 34 Conclusions about regime 35 4. Sexual abuse 36 Carlekemp Priory School 36 Known abusers at Carlekemp Priory School 37 Fort Augustus Abbey School 44 Known abusers at Fort Augustus Abbey School 44 Other sexual abuse 53 Response to evidence about sexual abuse 54 Conclusions on sexual abuse 54 ii Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry – Case Study no. 5 5. Physical abuse 55 Attitudes to punishment of children prevalent over the period of this case study 56 The approach taken by the Benedictine monks of Fort Augustus Abbey 56 Carlekemp Priory School 57 Fort Augustus Abbey School 66 Response to evidence about physical abuse 82 Conclusions about physical abuse 83 6. Emotional abuse 84 Carlekemp Priory School 84 Fort Augustus Abbey School 85 Response to evidence about emotional abuse 86 Conclusions about emotional abuse 86 7. Reporting 87 Carlekemp Priory School 87 Fort Augustus Abbey School 90 Response to evidence about reporting 96 Conclusions about reporting 97 8. Reflections 98 No compassion 98 Impact on adult lives 98 Catholicism and faith 99 Encouraging others 100 The EBC 101 9. Records 102 The Fort Augustus Abbey archive 102 Closure of the monastery in 1999 102 Inventories of the archive 104 Files relating to the schools 104 Some records of note 105 Attempts by former pupils to recover records 106 Response to evidence about records 107 Conclusions about records 109 10. Inspection reports 110 Carlekemp Priory School 110 Fort Augustus Abbey School 111 Conclusions about inspections 122 11. Other investigations 123 Independent Inquiry into Sexual Abuse 123 The Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Sexual Abuse 123 “Sins of Our Fathers” 124 Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry – Case Study no. 5 iii Appendix A – Terms of Reference 129 Appendix B ‑ The parental right of chastisement, corporal punishment in Scottish schools, and related matters 131 Appendix C – Breakdown of numbers of children at Fort Augustus Abbey School and Carlekemp Priory School 137 Appendix D – Numbers of complaints, civil actions, police investigations, criminal proceedings and applicants to SCAI 142 Appendix E – Convictions of Michael Seed (Benedict Seed) and Denis Alexander 143 Appendix F – Roles 144 Appendix G – Notice of draft findings 146 *Readers are warned that Chapter 5 of these findings contains an image that some may find upsetting. iv Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry – Case Study no. 5 Foreword These are the fifth of my published case study findings and they relate to the provision of residential care for children by the Benedictine monks of Fort Augustus Abbey at two boarding schools: Carlekemp Priory School, North Berwick, and Fort Augustus Abbey School, Invernesshire. They are the second in a series of three case study sets of findings in which the residential care of children provided by male religious orders in Scotland is examined. During the hearings in this case study, I heard about many aspects of the Carlekemp Priory School and Fort Augustus Abbey School that were shocking and distressing. I appreciate how challenging it will have been for all witnesses— former pupils, monks and former monks, former members of staff, and others—to engage with and provide evidence to the Inquiry. I am very grateful to them for their assistance and co‑operation and for their valuable contributions. In reaching the stage of publication of these findings—from detailed analysis to the final document—I have had the benefit of being supported and assisted by some quite exceptional teamwork. I would like to record my gratitude to the Inquiry counsel who led in this case study and the members of staff Lady Smith involved at each stage; their diligence and commitment has been remarkable. Applicants and other witnesses continue to come forward to the Inquiry with relevant evidence about the care provided by the Benedictine monks of Fort Augustus Abbey and this will be considered as part of a continuing process. I would encourage anyone who has relevant information on any aspect of our work to get in touch with our witness support team. We want to hear from you. Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry – Case Study no. 5 v Preface The Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry Public hearings (“SCAI”) In common with other public inquiries, the SCAI’s Terms of Reference (“ToR”) require work of SCAI includes public hearings. They it to “investigate the nature and extent of take place after detailed investigations, abuse of children in care in Scotland” during research, analysis, and preparation have the period from within living memory to been completed by SCAI counsel and 17 December 2014 and to create a national SCAI staff. That stage can take a long time. public record and commentary on abuse The public hearings of SCAI include— of children in care in Scotland during that importantly—the taking of oral evidence period. from individuals about their experiences as children in care and the reading of a The requirement is to investigate sexual, selection of evidence from some of their physical, psychological, and emotional abuse written statements. The evidence also and, at my discretion, other types of abuse includes accounts of the impact of their including unacceptable practices (such as having been abused as children in care, deprivation of contact with siblings) and including in boarding schools. During and neglect. There is also a requirement to make following the evidential hearings into case findings about the impact of abuse. studies, applicants and other witnesses may SCAI is also to consider the extent to which come forward with further relevant evidence any form of abuse arose from failures in and such evidence will be taken into account. duty by those with responsibility for the I am aware that children were abused protection of children in care. In particular, in a substantial number of institutions SCAI requires to consider whether any in Scotland and were the subjects of abuse arose from systemic failures and migration programmes that involved an the extent to which any such failures have outcome of abuse. It is not realistic to been addressed. It is to make findings and present every institution and instance of recommendations for the effective protection abuse at a public hearing; were SCAI to of children in care now and in the future. do so, an Inquiry, which will of necessity A copy of SCAI’s ToR is at Appendix A. in any event be lengthy, would be unduly prolonged. Accordingly, with the assistance An “applicant” is the term SCAI uses for a of SCAI counsel, I will continue to identify person who tells SCAI that he/she was abused particular institutions and matters that in circumstances that fall within the ToR. are representative of the issues being explored by SCAI and thus appropriate for presentation at a public hearing in “case studies.” vi Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry – Case Study no. 5 Section 21 Responses relating to the schools were updated by the Under section 21 of the Inquiries Act 2005, EBC, and submitted to SCAI on 29 March 7 as Chair of this Inquiry, I have the power to 2019. require persons to provide evidence to SCAI. Institutions targeted by SCAI as part of its Private sessions investigations have been issued with various Applicants and other witnesses can tell section 21 notices, including requiring them members of the SCAI team about their to respond in writing to questions posed by experiences as children in care and any other the SCAI team. These questions were divided relevant evidence at a “private session”. They into parts—A, B, C, and D (Parts A‑D section are supported throughout this process by 21 notice). The Fort Augustus Abbey no SCAI’s witness support team. After the private longer existed but it had been a member of session, a statement is prepared covering the English Benedictine Congregation (the those matters spoken about which are ”EBC”) for much of its existence. The EBC relevant to the ToR.