BELOW IS THE EXTRACT FROM THE RYAN REPORT THAT NAMES AN INNOCENT PERSON/SURVIVOR AND GIVES BOTH THE FORENAME AND THE SURNAME OF THIS PERSON. WHILE THE PERPETRATORS OF THE MOST HEINOUS CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN ARE PROTECTED BY PSEUDONYMS THE SAME ANONYMITY IS NOT AFFORDED TO A PERSON PUT INTO AN INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL AS A BABY.
To protect the identity of this person, I’ve deleted anything that could identify her.
As one of many case-studies on this topic, consider **** who was committed to an Industrial School on 13th April 1935 by order of the District Court pursuant to the Children Act 1908. The reason given was that she was destitute.
The District Court directed that she remain within the Industrial School system until she reached the age of 16. Since her age at the time the order was made was 23 months, she spent 14 years of her life in Industrial Schools. In relation to the manner in which she was placed within the Industrial School system her major complaint is that in so doing the State criminalised her. She is of the view that she was charged, tried and convicted by a criminal court, which sentenced her to 14 years in prison (she was aged 23 months at the time of her committal). The words she uses in her various letters are that she was ‘charged,’ with being destitute, ‘found guilty’ and ‘sentenced to 14 years in one of Ireland’s penal institutions’. She has consulted the court records and they have reinforced her in this view. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has stated that she was not convicted of any offence and furthermore that she could not have been in view of her age and the fact that she was involved in care proceedings.
At this point, one might comment that the selection by someone in the courts, system, of criminal (rather than say civil forms) suggested that even officials were not clear about the difference between committal orders and criminal proceedings. They did admit however that the court forms used at the time might have contributed to her view that she was involved in to criminal rather than care proceedings. The Department also pointed out that s 35 of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 removes any doubt that a person who was detained in an Industrial School pursuant to the Children Act 1908, other than a person who was so detained as a consequence of a conviction for an offence, shall not be subject to any disqualification or any other restriction that is a consequence of a conviction. ** ********* is not persuaded by this provision and wants her criminal record expunged. She is also dissatisfied by the fact that no evidence survives to support the courts’ view that she was destitute. She feels that she was ‘stigmatised as a criminal as surely as if [she] had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in Mountjoy Prison,’ and points out that as a result she has been deprived of employment opportunities in many spheres.
Finally she points out that the State made no effort to keep her family together in that it deliberately withheld correspondence from her family while in school and also in so far as it did not tell her how many siblings she had.
You don’t have to be a member to write on this page. You’re welcome to express you views or feelings here whenever you feel like doing so. Best wishes. Paddy.
Hi, I hope no one will mind me writing on this page as I am not a member, I am a sexually abused victim not from an institution but from a foster care placement I was sent to from 1991 – 1998 where i was groomed, blackmailed, raped, beaten, neglected, suffered emotional torture ect. I’ve found it extremely hard to talk about for years and now finally have the strength, courage and a small bit of confidence to realise i am not to blame and no longer need to feel dirty, ashamed, shy and ugly. I’ve written out a statement and have given it to a solicitor. I feel i may be swayed or pushed aside. Would someone be kind enough to advise me what not to listen to and if i would have a good case. I’ll leave my email. Talula2604@hotmail.com. Many thanks and kindest regards. Tx
You name is shown but not your e-mail address. When I look at your post I can your name but that’s all. If you’d prefer not to have your name seen then let me know and I’ll delete your posts. Best wishes. Paddy.
Why is my email address shown? Is it a mistake on your part or did I do something wrong, perhaps it is only shown to me when I log on – please explain.
Eileen
I hope the lady referred to in the Ryan report knows she has nothing to feel bad about. The stigma belongs with the savages who committed these vile and prolonged offences. It belongs to with the very first (a Catholic State for a Catholic Church?) Irish government and continues with successive governments to this very day. Who ever heard of time limits for punishment or compensation for crimes such as these. My mother was born in 1923 she became an inmate at the Good Shepherd Convent in Limerick when she was three years old. I have no time for anyone who thinks forgiveness is divine and as for those who expect their reward in heaven – I look forward to meeting them there. By the way I am very proud of my mother. If it is any consolation to a previous contributor I am sure her children will be proud of their father too. To know he not only survived but did his best, that is something to be proud of given the start he had.
It’s obvious that the proof readers didn’t do their job properly. Having said that, the ultimate responsibility for the report rests with Justice Ryan. He must now delete the name of this person from the website immediately – this would take about two minutes to do. He must then ensure that no further volumes of the Report to Inquire into Child Abuse be printed until the name of the individual is deleted from the document. Finally and most importantly, he must at the very least issue an unreserved apology to this person.
Paddy
The Ryan report was A legal document that cost millions of Euros and Judge Ryan should have had the report proof read experts.
The proof he had complied with the law in this aspect of the report is the fact known paedophiles were allotted pseudonyms. It is my contention the fact the survivor named in the report was considered a lesser being because her upbringing was in one of Ireland’s Penal Institutions and has led the commission to believe her human rights can be breached at will – just like when she was imprisoned as an infant
M
Catherine. It would be a serious mistake for the government or any member of it to think that I will just lie down or go away. I’ve no intention of doing anything of the sort. Pandora’s Box is open and it can’t be shut.
If you log on to and use the search box to find what you’re looking for. That box is at the top right hand side of the Commission Website index page. Hope that works for you. Paddy.
NAME A VICTIM – DON’T NAME A PERPETRATOR.
It has just occurred to me, but I cannot find in the Ryan Report any Reference to The Daughters of Charity at St Vincent’s Industrial School, Drogheda. Yet they have named a survivor, why? Or am I wrong.
“NOT ONE SINGLE SENIOR GOVERNMENT MINISTER AT THAT MEETING SPOKE OR ADDRESSED ANY ISSUE RAISED.”
That is because they hope you will all lie down and die for them, and get Pandora’s Box sealed again.
Yes, the only way is Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and they have to address the matter as the Domestic Authority- Eire has failed to deliver justice.
Also, the most important issue in Strasbourg is- have you exhausted all remedies in Ireland? Yes.
When thousands of complaints are received , then something will be done.
I brought the issue of expunging “criminal records” with the Government on Tuesday last. Minister Dermot Ahern assured me that people who were in Industrial Schools “do not have criminal records”. I disagreed with the Minister and I also highlighted this issue with the Taoiseach and the ‘heavy hitters’ of his front bench in government. NOT ONE SINGLE SENIOR GOVERNMENT MINISTER AT THAT MEETING SPOKE OR ADDRESSED ANY ISSUE RAISED.
NAMING AN INNOCENT SURVIVOR – Let me just guess. This lady was probably told by a Solicitor “Do not mention your Criminal Record” when and if she went to Redress – just like me. She was 18 months younger than me.
The reason this lady has so much trouble even getting a job is because no matter how she may be educated, if she lives in The Irish Republic, potential employers are able to access Court Records, thus, once they see that a potential employee has been convicted they immediately refuse to employ them. Why, employers are not interested in The 1908 Children’s Act and it’s sections, all they see is the record.
Section 35 of The Redress Act 2002 does not Expunge the record, and so, because that section 35 is all gob and no action, the record will remain listed in the court records or “The Judge’s Minute Book” – either way, it will stay forever, unless it is Expunged. In Expunging the Record, the courts record clerks are required to “Black it out of the Minute Book” in order that no actual record will remain.
Be under no illusion, Section 35 of The Redress Act 2002 has no merit without an Expungement – That Section, in my view, is merely to shut up such as you and I. The lazy-good-for-nothing – Government has no intention of Expunging those records, if it did, it would have been done as part of our Redress.
No, it will not be Expunged unless we take it to The Human Rights Court at Strasbourg. It will not be Expunged because in doing so, the Government admits that it exists as a criminal record, and, not just admits the record but admits that they Wrongfully Convicted babies and toddlers, and convicted us without legal council. The way I see it, we have a case.
The lady makes reference to the fact that letters sent to her were deliberately witheld from her, this is true. Not just that, it is a good bet that her family had no idea she was being taken to court, as was the case in my case.
The Government, the Solicitors representing you and The Redress Act 2002 and Board have, and continue to lie about what is valid and what is not.
We have to go to Strasbourg to get the record Expunged. But even in doing that, one is going to have to ask Strasbourg to award costs against The Irish Republic, if not, it could be very expensive for the individual, as the pittance the Redress Board awarded will not go anywhere in that respect.
Good luck to each and every one of you, we are still not yet properly vindicated.
Totally agree Paddy. Obscene really this is. Only in Ireland.
Dear Paddy.
What a cruel thing to do to another human being.!
You and I both know that HSE social workers operate in the very same manner today.
EUGENICS was and is a big part of their thinking- as they being the elite seem to think they can treat the rest of us like cattle.
Once a child has been in their “wonderful care/prison”- they are stigmatised, often cut off from siblings and deliberately kept apart from family.
Everything possible is done to break their spirit, isolate them and bring them under their evil control.
You Paddy and other have spirits which cannot be broken.
I deal with families this daily, as SS as we call them, play their horrible mind control games on innocent children and parents.
Justice Ryan and boys in curls like him rubberstamp children into CORPORATE CARE £££ on a daily basis and the people of Ireland pay the biils.
Justice Ryan does not live in our reality and has no FEELING of how injustice affects the human soul.
Justice Ryan must immediately prevent further publication of this persons name. He and his team must also offer an unreserved apology….and that’s just for a start.