Madam, - Dr Michael Corry's heroic stance in relation to the activities of the Residential Institutions Redress Board (May 19th) must be commended. Dr Corry wrote that in giving evidence to the board on behalf of three patients, two of whom had been under his care for over 10 years, he "felt under time pressure, and worse, that [he] was an unwelcome irritation slowing down proceedings. An atmosphere of minimisation prevailed. It was impossible to present a complete picture ".
If this is how a psychiatrist felt, one can only imagine the anguish that victims of institutional abuse must feel as they try to regurgitate their years of hellish abuse, behind closed doors, to a board which clearly doesn't wish to know the full extent of their painful pasts.
Might it be that the redress board is concerned that if it hears all the gory details in their entirety, perhaps it would feel morally compelled to compensate victims with amounts equivalent to High Court awards for similar types of abuse? Raymond Noctor, a victim of institutional abuse, is a classic example. He was recently awarded €370,000 in the High Court. To date the average award paid out at the Redress Board is €78,000.
Before accepting an award, victims must sign a conditional secrecy agreement and a waiver on taking further legal action. If victims publicly disclose amounts awarded or the facts of their case, they can face fines of €3,000 or €25,000 and/or six months or two years' imprisonment. In contrast, Raymond Noctor had no such constraints. He spoke openly and eloquently on the Joe Duffy radio show about the facts of his case and the award made. Discrimination is another form of abuse.
Raymond's partner, friends, and counsellor were all permitted to be present at the High Court, if he so wished. The media too, were allowed. Alas, the Redress Board does not operate this equitable practise. Instead, victims are prohibited from bringing a spouse/partner, a friend or a counsellor into the hearing. The media too, are prohibited.
Victims are alone and defenceless as they try to articulate their stories, worrying all the while whether they will be believed or not, and feeling helpless to respond to disparaging remarks made to them, about themselves and their parents, by some members of the board. Victims feel alone, unprotected and isolated, feelings they experienced during their years of abuse in institutions.
Is it any wonder that Dr Corry "found the discomfort of waiting in a side room. . .aware of [his] patients' fears and worries, unbearable"?
It is no surprise that Dr Corry believes "there is emerging evidence that the Redress Board re-traumatises victims". The National Counselling Service appears to hold a similar view. Recently it wrote to the Redress Board, expressing misgivings and concern about the damaging effect of board hearings on some of their clients. It would appear from the board's response that it is unwilling to change.
It should be apparent that a full time counsellor at the Redress Board would be of enormous support to victims - and might encourage victims who have not yet used the service to do so.
Given that the Government pledged €10 million towards counselling following the Taoiseach's apology in May 1999; and that the Commission of Inquiry into Residential Abuse has an excellent victim impact support system in operation, the question needs to be answered: why has the Redress Board decided to adopt such an unsympathetic approach? - Yours, etc,
CHRISTINE BUCKLEY,
Aislinn Centre for Support
and Education of Victims
of Institutional Abuse,
Jervis House,
Dublin 1.