Does Redress Board 'gagging clause' prevent disclosure of abuse?

political analyst

This is an issue that has been brought back to prominence by the two-part RTÉ documentary on redress for institutional abuse.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/indemnity-deal-with-congregations-over-redress-was-mistake-says-martin-1.4190636

The State’s decision in 2002 to indemnify 18 religious congregations that had run residential institutions for children against legal claims above €128 million was “a mistake”, Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin has said.

The deal was brought to the final Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrats government cabinet meeting by then minister for education Michael Woods. Despite warnings from attorney general Michael McDowell, the deal was agreed.

Under it, the religious congregations concerned were indemnified against any future legal actions taken against them by abuse survivors, in return for a €128 million contribution to redress costs.

Speaking on an RTÉ One documentary about redress, Mr Martin, who was minister for health at the time, said: “In retrospect in my view, that was, that was a mistake at the time.

“I think there was that window. You’re talking about the last cabinet meeting [of that government]. This is something that has been negotiated. It’s in the best interests of everybody, bring it to closure and that’s how it got through.”

Retired High Court judge Mary Laffoy has said she resigned as chair of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse in 2003 because of “resistance” to the commission by the Department of Education. She recalled telling colleagues at the time that “I think they want us to wilt on the vine”.

Human Rights lawyer Dr Maeve O’Rourke says the impact of the gagging order on survivors “seems to have been absolutely enormous,” so much so they “often have felt they can’t even speak to the police,” which was not the case.

Nor does it mean “you can never speak about what happened to you.”

However, she feels that “if a state does something that makes people feel they can’t speak, that is a very real interference with their right to freedom of expression.”

Judging by what I've highlighted in the second quote, the answer to my question in the heading of this OP is: No.

Did redress board applicants not seek legal advice when they sought compensation?

Has the 'gagging clause' ever been explained in the Dáil?

John Hutton

The people who availed of the redress scheme where under no obligation to do so.

suicide_circus

would it be fair to say that lot of people who lived or were raised in these institutions did not end up receiving a lot of education and probably didnt really know what was going on with technicalities of the redress board?

political analyst

suicide_circus wrote: »

would it be fair to say that lot of people who lived or were raised in these institutions did not end up receiving a lot of education and probably didnt really know what was going on with technicalities of the redress board?

Their lawyers would have told them of the 'gagging clause', wouldn't they?!

If not, those applicants who didn't understand the technicalities can seek alternative legal advice. It reminds me of the non-disclosure deals that Weinstein forced his victims to sign.

suicide_circus

political analyst wrote: »

It reminds me of the non-disclosure deals that Weinstein forced his victims to sign.

they weren't "forced" to sign anything, they signed in return for big sweaty wads of cash.

John Hutton

suicide_circus wrote: »

would it be fair to say that lot of people who lived or were raised in these institutions did not end up receiving a lot of education and probably didnt really know what was going on with technicalities of the redress board?

No I don't think it is fair to say that someone who voluntarily applied for and voluntarily accepted compensation and the attached conditions did not know what was going on.

This was a negotiated solution of which the main drawback is that the amount of money to be contributed by the religious institutions was arguably too low.

A "gag order" is par for the course with payments made without prejudice. It often benefits both parties, it saves individuals from taking personal legal action which may be beyond their means (and indeed due to passage of time impossible to prove wrongdoing), or too much for their mental health, and also protects individual religious or employees or institutions who are innocent until proven guilty.

Compensation is paid without admission of guilt and complainants lose the right to take further action.

If individual victims did not want to avail of the redress scheme they did not have to. If they wanted to pursue other avenues they could. If the primary desire/motivation was a truth finding etc thing then the redress scheme was entirely unsuitable and individuals should have not have applied or accepted.

anewme

political analyst wrote: »

Their lawyers would have told them of the 'gagging clause', wouldn't they?!

If not, those applicants who didn't understand the technicalities can seek alternative legal advice. It reminds me of the non-disclosure deals that Weinstein forced his victims to sign.

Many of the victims employed a solicitor who took on large group cases.

Many of the victims did not know or understand the technicalites of law and many were older, the types who would respect /fear authority, because of their lack of confidence and education. Even the thought of a solicitors letter would instill fear.

In Primetime programme tonight, survivors will state that the Redress Board hearings were adversarial, despite original pledges made by the government. I can categorically state that this is true, some of them were questioned very aggressively, as if they were on trial themselves.

I didn't watch the program last night, and wont tonight either. Our family has suffered so much by what our family member endured. We know there was no real redress, nor will there ever be.

John Hutton

anewme wrote: »

Many of the victims employed a solicitor who took on large group cases.

Many of the victims did not know or understand the technicalites of law and many were older, the types who would respect /fear authority, because of their lack of confidence and education. Even the thought of a solicitors letter would instill fear.

In Primetime programme tonight, survivors will state that the Redress Board hearings were adversarial, despite original pledges made by the government. I can categorically state that this is true, some of them were questioned very aggressively, as if they were on trial themselves.

I didn't watch the program last night, and wont tonight either. Our family has suffered so much by what our family member endured. We know there was no real redress, nor will there ever be.

How else should it have been done, just take as complete gospel everything anyone said?

Even with the passage of time the best willed person may not recall details with accuracy.

I understand this is a personal issue for you and your family but there had to be some sort of process to protect the validity of the scheme, or indeed ANY scheme. Necessarily this would involve applicant claims being subject to some degree of challenge.

It was far less advisarial than a personal legal action in court would have been, which was the alternative.

No process like this would or could ever be perfect.

The redress scheme essentially involved the church writing a check for a specific sum and the state writing a BLANK check for the remainder. Unprecedented.

Many applicants received compensation who would have more than likely have got nothing otherwise, or only with great (and protracted) difficulty.

anewme

John Hutton wrote: »

How else should it have been done, just take as complete gospel everything anyone said?

Even with the passage of time the best willed person may not recall details with accuracy.

I understand this is a personal issue for you and your family but there had to be some sort of process to protect the validity of the scheme, or indeed ANY scheme. Necessarily this would involve applicant claims being subject to some degree of challenge.

It was far less advisarial than a personal legal action in court would have been, which was the alternative.

No process like this would or could ever be perfect.

The redress scheme essentially involved the church writing a check for a specific sum and the state writing a BLANK check for the remainder. Unprecedented.

Many applicants received compensation who would have more than likely have got nothing otherwise, or only with great (and protracted) difficulty.

My point is, the clients did not for the most part get adequate and personal legal advice and were not represented well by these large groups. The majority would not know how ot where to get a decent solicitor.

...they were told it was not going to be adverbial- it so was. People were more or less called liars.

I am sure that will be the feedback this evening in the program.

I believe a lot of Solicitors firms got rich on the back of this.

In our case, there was no challenge, there was reams of documents confirming.

I can only give experience of our family.

ILoveYourVibes

Lawyers were in it for themselves.

Nothing good has yet come out of this.

John Hutton

anewme wrote: »

My point is, the clients did not for the most part get adequate and personal legal advice and were not represented well by these large groups. The majority would not know how ot where to get a decent solicitor.

...they were told it was not going to be adverbial- it so was. People were more or less called liars.

I am sure that will be the feedback this evening in the program.

I believe a lot of Solicitors firms got rich on the back of this.

In our case, there was no challenge, there was reams of documents confirming.

I can only give experience of our family.

A lot of people did a lot of hard, good work on the redress scheme to try and get victims compensation while they were still alive in the least traumatic way possible, considering court was the alternative.

Many people got compensation who otherwise would never have got anything. Over a billion euro was spent on it.

I think it is an absolute disgrace to basically imply (not saying you are saying this but the general thrust runs this way) that those involved in the redress scheme were basically hoodwinking people in order to shut them up and cover up and protect paedophiles and abusers.

This was a optional scheme. You had to apply. If after the process you weren't happy you could refuse. Any hearing was far nicer than any court proceeding would be. People got money who would never have gotten anything if it went to court even if they wanted to go to court.

What happened was of course terrible. There could never be a totally perfect way to deal with things. This was better than the alternative.

John Hutton

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Lawyers were in it for themselves.

Nothing good has yet come out of this.

For many victims the compensation was of great help.

anewme

John Hutton wrote: »

For many victims the compensation was of great help.

It was an absolute pittance for lives and families lives ruined.

People have received way more for skidding on a banana skin in Dunnes stores.

anewme

John Hutton wrote: »

For many victims the compensation was of great help.

It was an absolute pittance for lives and families lives ruined.

People have received way more for skidding on a banana skin in Dunnes stores.

John Hutton

anewme wrote: »

It was an absolute pittance for lives and families lives ruined.

People have received way more for skidding on a banana skin in Dunnes stores.

No amount would ever be enough in fairness.

What would you have had done, which would have been realistic? Nothing, and let those able and who had strong enough cases go to court and get torn apart?
Would you have given everyone who applied a massive sum completely on the basis of what they said subject to no hearing or challenge?

anewme

John Hutton wrote: »

No amount would ever be enough in fairness.

What would you have had done, which would have been realistic? Nothing, and let those able and who had strong enough cases go to court and get torn apart?
Would you have given everyone who applied a massive sum completely on the basis of what they said subject to no hearing or challenge?

You seem to be having a go at me. I’m not the one at fault here. People were denied honest redress and justice over and over, from cradle to grave.

Your comment
For many victims the compensation was of great help.

Is quite frankly an insult. As if people are getting a handout.

It was pittance.

There was no redress. There will never be redress. It is a shame on on our Country.

John Hutton

anewme wrote: »

You seem to be having a go at me. I’m not the one at fault here. People were denied honest redress and justice over and over, from cradle to grave.

Your comment
For many victims the compensation was of great help.

Is quite frankly an insult. As if people are getting a handout.

It was pittance.

There was no redress. There will never be aredress. It is a shame on on our Country.

So what would you have done?

It might not have been your families experience but the money was of help to others.

It was over a billion euro. The reality is that without the redress scheme the vast majority would have gotten nothing.

I'm not having a go at you. Of course nothing would ever make up for what happened but the redress scheme was the best option and was, I repeat, voluntary.