As has been stated, the Committee has received three hundred and ninety-one (391) requests to testify which will not proceed to a hearing. The main reasons why there will not be a hearing are as follows:
176 Section 13(2)(c).
177 Chapter 7.
Death
•
The right to recount abuse to the Committee is given by the Act178 to ‘‘persons who have suffered abuse in childhood in institutions during the relevant period’’. The Committee has received twenty (20) requests from spouses, partners or other family members of deceased persons whom it is alleged suffered abuse which comes within the remit of the Committee. Further, the Committee has been informed that nineteen (19) Complainants have died since submitting a request to testify, regrettably without having obtained a hearing. It may be that other Complainants have died and that the Committee has not been informed. While the death of the person who is alleged to have been abused and the loss of his or her direct evidence prevents his or her specific complaint being inquired into, the Committee is cognisant of the fact that family members of the deceased may have evidence to offer which is relevant to the Committee’s broader investigative remit: to inquire into abuse in institutions generally and to determine the causes, nature, circumstances and extent of the abuse. Family members may also have evidence to offer in relation to the effects of institutionalisation on the deceased and how his or her family was affected in turn.The information furnished by, or in relation to, the deceased remains part of the documentary records of the Committee as a potential source of evidence.
Complaints outside the Committee’s statutory remit
•
It has been decided in the case of twenty (20) requests to testify, that the matters alleged do not come within the ambit of the functions conferred by the Act on the Committee because, for example—■ the incident or activity complained of does not come within the statutory definition of ‘‘abuse’’,
■ the alleged abuse did not occur in an ‘‘institution’’ as defined in the Act,
■ the Complainant was not under the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the alleged abuse,
■ the matters complained of occurred outside the ‘‘relevant period’’ as defined by the Act,179 or
■ the matters complained about occurred outside the State.
Where the Committee has determined that a matter, the subject of a request to testify, does not come within its statutory remit, the Complainant has been notified.
Transfers to the Confidential Committee
•
The Act180 permits a Complainant to transfer to the Confidential Committee prior to completion of his or her evidence to the Investigation Committee. To date, ninety-two (92) Complainants, who initially chose to testify to the Investigation Committee and have their allegations investigated, have opted to give their evidence to the178 Section 12(1)(a).
179 See Ruling of the Investigation Committee dated 27th November, 2002 on the meaning of ‘‘relevant period’’
which is posted on the Commission’s website.
180 Section 19(1).
Confidential Committee instead. The volume of transfers to the Confidential Committee over the past three years is as follows:
■ 39 transfers in 2001
■ 47 transfers in 2002
■ 6 transfers in 2003.
In it second Interim Report,181 the Commission availed of the opportunity to remind Complainants of the nature of the inquiries being carried out by the Committee and the Confidential Committee respectively. The importance of a Complainant being fully aware of the differences between the two Committees and being in a position to make a fully informed choice of Committee to which to recount his or her experiences at an early stage of participation in the process was emphasised. It was recommended that a Complainant should be fully advised of these matters by his or her legal representatives and that, if there was a concern that the nature of the process of the Committee would be excessively stressful for a Complainant, consideration should be given to transferring to the Confidential Committee at an early stage.
Default in compliance with rules/deadlines
•
The Committee has terminated its preliminary inquiries into complaints submitted by one hundred and forty-four (144) Complainants because of failure to furnish a statement in accordance with the Act182 by the final date stipulated for submission of a Complainant’s statement, 30th June, 2002. In a small number of cases, seven, the preliminary inquiries were terminated because of failure to submit a statement in conformity with the Committee’s guidelines for making statements before the deadline.As the Commission has explained in the past,183 a whole range of factors is considered in reaching a determination which excludes somebody from the process. The fundamental imperative is that, in the interests of fairness and justice, the Commission’s investigative remit must be fulfilled with reasonable expedition.
Completion of the Commission’s work and publication of its final report as soon as reasonably practicable is desirable in the interests of the generality of Complainants participating in the work of the Committee.
Withdrawal
•
The Committee has been notified by ninety (90) Complainants that they have decided to withdraw from the process of the Committee, without giving any reason for the decision. Fifty-eight (58) of these Complainants were legally represented in the process and the notification of the decision to withdraw was given by their solicitors. The number of withdrawals notified by solicitors in the last three years is as follows:181 Appendix C.
182 Section 23(2)(a).
183 For example, in the second Interim Report (Appendix C) in relation to the deadline on 31st July, 2001 for submitting requests to testify.
■ 24 withdrawals in 2001
■ 31 withdrawals in 2002
■ 3 withdrawals in 2003.
The level of notifications in the current years raises the question of the impact of the work of the Residential Institutions Redress Board (the Redress Board) on the willingness of Complainants to continue in the Committee’s process and have the investigation of their complaints brought to a conclusion at a hearing. Prima facie, it would appear that the work of the Redress Board has had no impact.