Newspaper Articles
Personal Stories/OpinionsNewspaper Articles Archive sitemap privacy © 2003
Having read the article "Sex abuse victims call for lifting of ‘crime slur’" by Henry McDonald, Sunday March 21, 2004, The Observer, I was appalled to discover that along with so many other survivors of the Industrial School System, I also (possibly) have a "Black Mark" still documented against me for being incarcerated at the age of 3 and I most certainly wish this to be wiped from all records.
To achieve this I have done some research and found that it is possible (legally) to do just that and that the authorities have no choice but to comply. However, my research seems to imply that only those survivors who were detained under Section 58 of the 1908 and 1922 Children Act (as amended) under the charge of ‘Improper Guardianship’ will be in a position to insist on the lifting of this charge if they are still blighted by it today as follows.
|
Discharge of child committed to industrial school. |
5. —(1) Where—(a) a child has been committed to an industrial school under section 58 of the Principal act, and ( b ) an application is made to the Minister for Education by a parent or guardian for the release of the child, and ( c ) the Minister is satisfied that the circumstances which led to the making of the committal order have ceased and are not likely to recur if the child is released, and that the parent or guardian is able to support the child, the Minister shall order the discharge of the child. (2) The Minister may, if he so thinks proper, refer the application to the court. (3) If the Minister refuses the application, the parent or guardian may refer it to the court. (4) The court, if satisfied in regard to the matters referred to in paragraph ( c ) of subsection (1), shall have jurisdiction to order the discharge of the child. (5) A reference to the court under this section shall be made to the District Court in the District in which the committal order was made or, if the applicant resides in another District, in that District. (6) The order for the discharge of the child, whether made by the Minister or the court, shall operate to revoke the detention order. (7) ( a ) Where the District Court or, on appeal, the Circuit Court, orders the discharge of a child, the court may award costs and expenses to the successful applicant and the Minister shall defray out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas such sum as the court may certify in respect thereof. ( b ) The costs and expenses which may be certified by the court shall not exceed the maximum amounts which may be awarded as between party and party in an action for tort in the District Court. |
Sub Paragraph (6) above is particularly interesting when it says "The order for the discharge of the child, whether made by the Minister or the court, shall operate to revoke the detention order". In other words, if one reads the definition of the word "revoke", one would be as surprised as I was to read, annul by recalling or rescinding, countermand, lift, overturn, renege, repeal, rescind, reverse, vacate, cancel, error, fault, go back on, mistake. It is as if to say that nothing happened at all and if that is the definition as is the case, backtracking through events that led up to that point has the same result, which is that the charge of ‘improper guardianship’ should never have been brought against children incapable of properly mounting a defence, let alone fully understanding what was taking place.
Indeed, most of you will find that the authorities were approached by family members for assistance who, only when there was no family members present, brought these charges against you fully knowing that it was wrong, indeed illegal, since, having agreed to help in the support of families in need (by taking you into their care) ultimately became the legal guardian and that being the case renders the authorities at the time at fault in bringing false charges against children who could not possible resist, a bit like charging your own children with an offence, ludicrous don’t you think?
I am in possession of a document, which shows that asking the authorities for assistance is just what happened in my case by my Grandmother and, as you, myself being in possession of a copy of the District Court Order which sent me to 2 of these institutions am not at all happy that I as a 3 year old at the time, now (possibly) have a criminal record. I am now calling on the relevant Minister to "Blanket Cancel" these charges for everyone where Section 58 is concerned forthwith if justice is to be seen to be done, at least on this issue. Also, for those who do not fall into the Section 58 category, I say that they too were in all probability dubiously convicted in so far as a fair hearing with proper defence is concerned. Ask for a copy of the transcript of the hearing if in doubt.
As to Section 35 of the Redress Act 2002. Having read it several times I find that it is somewhat circular (like a ring) in its wording and seems to start off by removing disqualification and other restriction only to insert it right back in again by its reference to a "conviction for an offence" – have the authorities not already deemed "improper guardianship" as an offence in taking children to the District Courts in the first place. Section 35 is non-committal in categorically saying that no offence exists as can be seen.
If you read the above several times you will soon see the ring effect and that the restrictions and disqualifications are still there by the reference to "an offence". The words "separate offence" should have been included. Perhaps an amendment to the Act, Sect 35, would clarify the situation.
It is my hope for myself and all survivors that the powers that be will instil a belief in all of us that the apologies of several high profile Ministers and Clergy were uttered in good faith and that they will ultimately do the right thing now in order to finally put the past behind us with confidence in their sincerity.
Email: Martin John Joseph Petty-O'Callaghan, Bradford, West Yorkshire, England