BishopAccountability.org
	Anxiety Grows over Delays in Clerical Abuse Report The Irish Times November 11, 2009 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1111/1224258551862.html ANALYSIS: Victims of clerical sex abuse are concerned at legal arguments behind closed doors which are delaying publication of the Dublin archdiocese report, writes PATSY McGARRY DELAYS IN the publication of the report into the handling of clerical child sex abuse allegations in Dublin’s Roman Catholic archdiocese have caused frustration to many of those who hope the report will cast light on what happened to them. There is also growing anxiety over what is going on at the High Court. Currently, the Dublin report is before the court for a second time, having been cleared for publication initially by Mr Justice Paul Gilligan on October 15th. He ordered the removal of chapter 19 and 21 other deletions prior to publication. This was to avoid prejudicing separate proceedings against a man currently before the courts. However, on October 16th, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is understood to have raised new concerns with the Department of Justice about content in chapter 20. It is believed he felt publication of that chapter could jeopardise legal proceedings being taken against another man. In spring of this year, the day before the DPP gave evidence to a hearing of the Commission of Investigation which prepared the report, a decision was taken to initiate extradition proceedings against this same man, on foot of allegations received over 20 years before. The delay in initiating those proceedings has not been explained. On October 21st last, and in response to the DPP’s concerns about this latter case, the Dublin report was referred back to the High Court by Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern. On October 29th, Mr Justice Gilligan heard legal submissions in camera , that is in private, without the presence of members of the public or media. He has yet to announce his decision. Chapter 20 is understood to be highly critical of An Garda Siochana, and of other State authorities, for their handling of clerical child abuse allegations. Yet the public interest was not represented separately at the in camera hearing on October 29th or, indeed, at any of the four in camera hearings at the High Court concerning this report. Nor, for that matter, has the Commission of Investigation itself been represented at any of those in camera hearings. The report was received from the commission by the Minister for Justice last July. It was referred by him to the High Court following advice from the Attorney General, on September 8th. In camera hearings took place on October 1st and 2nd, and again on October 15th, prior to Mr Justice Gilligan announcing his then decision on publication. The remaining in camera hearing took place on October 29th after the report was submitted a second time. The gravity of people’s concern over the latest High Court proceedings rests on the fact that it is agencies of the State, themselves investigated by the commission, that are the sole parties to the proceedings they have initiated. This anxiety has been added to by the realisation that it is chapter 20 which is now being looked at by the High Court and which is understood to be so critical of how those same State agencies dealt with allegations of clerical child sex abuse in Dublin. There is also puzzlement at why the DPP’s concerns were not raised when the report was first before the High Court last month. This concern extends to the report being allowed back to the High Court a second time. Attention in that context has been drawn to the Supreme Court judgment on October 6th in the Zoe property group cases, which found they were not entitled to bring a second petition. Why, some sources are wondering, was the Dublin report accepted back at the High Court a second time? Meanwhile people who were abused by priests of the Dublin archdiocese are among those who are most anxious about what is going on. Andrew Madden, the first person in Ireland to go public about his abuse by a priest, last night described the current situation as “an absolute shambles”. He said that it was over seven years since there was first talk of an investigation into Dublin’s Catholic archdiocese. That followed the RTE Cardinal Secrets programme by Mary Raftery and Mick Peelo, which was broadcast in October 2002. After the programme, Madden, fellow Dublin abuse victim Marie Collins and Colm O’Gorman were involved in helping draw up terms of reference for a new type of inquiry which led to the Commission of Investigation Act 2004. It was under that Act that the Dublin commission was set up in March 2006. In January of this year, Madden was allowed by the commission to see those elements of the report relevant to himself, as is practice. At that time he was told it would be published in March. The current situation “has this Government’s incompetence all over it”, Madden said. “No one has a clue what’s going on. It is drifting on week to week and no one is querying why,” he said. He was particularly exercised over the fact that neither the commission nor the public interest was represented at the current High Court proceedings. Madden has been waiting all year for publication of the report, putting off plans of any sort, even holidays. It has been very stressful, he says. His fear now is that publication could clash with the budget next month, thereby minimising (for some) the impact of its contents. Marie Collins, who has been dealing with the abuse issue for 24 years and is anxious to get on with the rest of her life, is finding “the ongoing situation very stressful. It is the not knowing what’s happening which is the worst part”. She too is fearful that the report might now be published in December. “Then most of the support services will be winding down for Christmas and may not be available to help people,” she said remarking on the huge upsurge in demand for such support following publication of the Ryan report last May. Her preference is that, “if the Dublin report is not published by the end of November they should wait until the new year”. In the meantime she was finding the situation “hugely stressful. It is hard to sleep at night.” Colm O’Gorman felt particularly concerned that chapter 20 might be dropped from the report for now. He recalled how, in preparing terms of reference for the commission, he and others who had been abused felt it was critical that it was not just the church which was investigated but also those agencies of State which had responsibilities in the area. Leaving out chapter 20 at this time could be very problematic, he felt.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.