The proposals from the new chairman of the child abuse commission offer a way forward, writes Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent.
The key objective of the reforms of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse is to reduce the number of cases going before its investigation committee. This, if achieved, will greatly reduce both the legal costs involved and the time needed to complete the work of the commission.
The need to reduce the number of cases appearing before this committee was the conclusion of both the Attorney General, in his review of the work of the child abuse commission last February, and that of its new chairman, Mr Justice Ryan.
At its inception the commission was divided into two committees, the investigation committee and the confidential committee. The investigation committee was charged with establishing what abuse took place, who was responsible, and whether, and how, it could have been prevented.
This involved the victims making their allegations of abuse, which would be, in most cases, contested vigorously by those accused or by the organisations to which they belonged. The right of the accused, and of their organisations, to mount such a defence was upheld by the courts. The costs of such defences would almost certainly be borne by the State.
Because the legislation provided for the committee to hear each and every allegation of abuse, and more than 1,700 people made allegations to the investigation committee, the prospect that confronted the committee was of 1,700 mini-trials, with full legal representation on all sides.
Not only would this cost an incalculable mount of money (the Minister for Education, Mr Dempsey, surmised yesterday it could amount to €500 million in legal costs alone), it would also mean that a final report would take many years.
During this time many of both the accused and the abused would be dead. Therefore the abused would be denied closure in their lifetime, and the accused would either escape public odium, if that was appropriate, or, if they were not guilty, they would die with the stain of accusation lying on their name. This could not be satisfactory for either the victims or the accused.
Further, it is not in the interests of Irish society, which was shocked to its core by the revelations in the States of Fear programme, that citizens should have to wait decades for a verdict on what occurred.
The proposals announced yesterday will allow for two culls of those appearing before the investigation committee. The first will be carried out by Mr Justice Ryan, writing to each of the 1,712 asking them if they want to pursue their complaint in this forum, or if they would prefer to do so in the confidential committee. This latter committee allows victims to describe what happened, but will not lead to the identification of individual abusers. Mr Justice Ryan will point out that it is not necessary to appear before either committee before seeking compensation.
This is likely to reduce considerably the numbers seeking to appear before the investigation committee. A second layer will then be removed by a more controversial proposal - that the commission will examine all the cases before it, but will only go on to hear those that are likely to lead to concrete information about patterns of abuse.
Therefore a person who makes allegations against an individual who is dead, and where there is no prospect of checking the facts alleged, could find that their case will not be heard by the investigation committee, and they will be asked if they would agree to go to the confidential committee instead.
This will allow the commission to select the cases that provide the most information about what happened in residential institutions. It will mean that allegations that are vague or duplicate other, more detailed ones against the same individuals or institutions, will not go forward for hearing. This will mean that not all victims will "confront their abuser", which has been a demand of some of the victims' groups. But it will also spare certain victims from hostile cross-examination on behalf of the institutions, which could add to the trauma they already suffered.
Other procedural changes are proposed that will expedite the work of the investigation committee, including allowing documents, such as records from institutions or from the Department of Education, to be accepted as evidence unless challenged. These changes will all contribute to a speedier hearing of a reduced number of cases.