Redress Board

The Redress Board, by printing the names of others accused from the same institution, have broken their own confidentiality, naming workers and ex inmates as �alleged abusers� to third parties is defamation and we would ask that it be stopped. Many of the people with L.O.V.E in the RIRB identified and contacted each other because of the open disclosure of confidential information from the RIRB. Some of the names of the accused are ex-inmates, accusing each other. Some were best friends in the Institutions.
�Let Our Voices Emerge� (L.O.V.E), take no issue with the general principles of the Redress Board, i.e. to award fair and reasonable monetary compensation for those who suffered abuse as children in Irish Industrial Schools in the past. We fully accept some of our fellow inmates suffered terrible cruelty and mistreatment by some of those entrusted with their care, and for this, they deserve an apology, and compensation. To quote a Survivor I respect and admire � �I want an apology on the back of a cheque I can give my children, and grandchildren�.

However, we have serious concerns with the way the compensation system, under the R.I.R.B Act 2002, was implemented. The well known Kaufman Report (Canada) and the House of Commons Report (U.K), have already demonstrated that the compensation is seriously flawed in that it creates a new �genre of miscarriages of justice�. The genuinely abused are seen as defrauding the State, the falsely accused are left with ruined lives, and the public are left confused and misled as to the real extent of the abuse.

We feel the cost being paid by the taxpayer will be far in excess of what true justice requires. In other countries, the State is now paying compensation to those who have proven false allegations against them. Do we really want to go down that road?

1. Why did our government bring in a compensation system which has already been proven seriously flawed in other countries?

2. Why did our government allow such a wide definition of abuse (physical, sexual, emotional, neglect) that literally every child ever to attend an institution was abused, and every person who ever worked in an institution deemed an abuser.

We have discovered that some of the Sisters, who ran the Homes, are actively encouraging their past pupils to claim on the basis that �you were in a Home, the money is there for you, and you might as well claim it. Others are making up stories to get more, just stick to the truth�.

3. Following on the last point, why the necessity to name the alleged abuser, when, with the wide definition of abuse, plus the law burden of proof, almost all claims (except the blatantly fraudulent ones), will succeed. Some of our members were only informed after compensation was awarded against them, that they were named as �abusers�.

4. The RIRB was adopted as being the �least adversarial and most cost effective� means of achieving justice for those abused, yet for those accused, the most basic rights to justice and their good name seem to be denied.

Legal aid is provided for the �applicant�, he/she can bring as many �witnesses� as they wish to back up their story. One of our members was told his accuser had eleven witnesses to back him up, and when he insisted on cross examining his accuser and witnesses, all charges were dropped. The RIRB refused to give him a letter to that effect as �they do not disclose the outcome of individual cases�. He was also refused permission to bring someone to support him.

According to the Act, the RIRB may facilitate cross examination of the applicant by the accused in order to a) correct mistakes, b) defend themselves, c) vindicate their personal and other rights. Yet some of our members have had to use legal services (paid for themselves), to force the RIRB to allow cross examination. Where they succeeded, most had their accuser refuse to meet them; others have had all charges dropped. Have the RIRB prosecuted those people for making false allegations? We can�t find out as the RIRB �can�t comment on individual cases�

5. Why, given the emphasis on �confidentiality� are the names of other individuals accused of abuse, printed in the �notification of abuse allegation letter� letter from the RIRB. We have seen up to eleven others from the same institutions named. (Some are former inmates!). Yet when one of our members tried to point out (verbally), that two of the people named in his letter never worked in his institution, (and so couldn�t have abused the person claiming), he was told he couldn�t disclose it as was �confidential� information.

Why, is the �confidential� nature of the RIRB, so �confidential� that those accused can�t bring forward evidence to support others accused. Yet the RIRB has failed to prosecute any person who has exposed the accused as abusers, and who have named institutions as places of abuse in the media. Our information is that the Redress Board does not have the power to report, that it must be the person/institution exposed. Why hasn�t this been made clear before? What happens if the person is dead � can they be named as abusers with no defence? If so, not only has the RIRB attracted defrauders, but defamers also!

6. Why did our government grade the compensation to the severity of the abuse? Points are awarded for the varying degree of abuse, the higher the points, and the greater the compensation. Obviously this means where one could quite legitimately claim for �loss of opportunity� (post primary education), �neglect� (couldn�t possibly get some attention/clothes/food as if in a family situation) etc, many are increasing the claim to severe physical/sexual/emotional abuse, and naming the alleged abusers. To give such incentive to claim would tempt the best of us, never mind those who went on to have �problem� lives.

7. Why given the financial incentives to claim, and given the huge potential to destroy the lives of many of those who sacrificed themselves to care for us in the past � haven�t even the most basic measures against false allegations been taken. Surely a reporting hotline would be obligatory?

It seems as if everything is geared to make it as easy as possible for the claimant, yet is blatantly against the accused. Even if one were to ignore the terrible miscarriage of justice taking place, surely our Public Accounts Committee can�t justify this to the paying public.

Finally and not connected to the RIRB, but is part of our concern with the lack of regard the government seem to have for the public purse.

8. Why are the departments of Health, Education and Science giving so much funding to the Victim Support Groups (millions!), with no monitoring of how the monies are spent? Mr David Byrne and Mr Jack Hogan have informed us the groups are autonomous, and therefore not answerable to the Departments.

We ask the Public Accounts Committee to look into and inform us, if they feel the massive outlay of public money to address the issue of Residential Institution Child Abuse is justified, and if it is, is the lack of monitoring and lack of protection from fraudulent use justifiable?

Florence Horsman Hogan

Chairperson: Let Our Voices Emerge

COMMENT

We have been informed by the Public Accounts Committee that they have discussed our concerns and will be holding our letter for discussion at their meeting in November which is at the Redress Board!

FHH