Child Abuse Commission Report - Legal Profession

H

Howitzer

Registered User
Messages
1,458
It seems to me that the Legal Profession have quite a few questions to answer with regards to their conduct during this Commission.

2 questions posed by Michael O'Brien on Q&A.

Why were 7 Barristers present during his hearing?
Why was a confrontational stance taken when the brief seems to have been, explicitly, non-confrontational?

Presumably 7 barristers were present to represent each individual Religous group. But it would have been quite obvious beforehand that each indivual case would only present issues against 1, 2 or maybe 3 at most.
 
I'm afraid the stance taken by some of these bodies and their representatives is far from one of contrition and apology but further belligerance toward the now adults who they had victimised as Children. It almost seems that the sorrow expressed may be sorrow that its all come to light and been accepted as truth rather than sorrow for what they have done and the lives they have destroyed and maybe even a hatred for those who despite what has been inflicted upon them have come out fighting. It stems from their cultural belief that they were nothing as Children due to the unfortunate circumstances which led to them being placed in care and continue to be of no concequence as Adults.
It is dispicable that their Legal Representatives have behaved like this after all they must have been briefed on the situation as all but one of the bodies kept records and the abuse was apparant from them alone, maybe it was the last ditch effort of bullying and harassment in order to turn them away from giving their testemony.
But then again many of the Solicitors who were hired by the State as Representatives for the Victims who have already received compensation lied to their Clients and robbed them of some of their money which shamefully came to light a few years ago.
 
That struck me as well. In that case the Legal Representatives effectively double billed the victims by charging them, and removing their fee from the award before they passed it on to the client, when they had already been paid by the state.

What is wrong with these people, are they so obsessed by money that they've lost all sense of human decency?

My own opinion on the points raised on Q&A is that all 7 barristers were present because they knew they'd get paid for the time, even if it had nothing to do with the groups they represented. The stance was confrontational as it takes more time, and earns more money, than a non-confrontational one.
 
'many of the solicitors...'

Please try to be accurate when making such damaging remarks about my profession as a whole.

In the event, despite the huge media hype, there were- out of over 14000 cases, only 180 complaints to the law society of which approx 45 were upheld. Of those 45 I believe the majority related to a tiny number of firms.

For some background:
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=16388&highlight=residential+redress

As for the remark about the barristers I think you have to distinguish between them and the instructing client. I assume that the 7 barristers referred to were instructed by various religious orders. They were there to do their job.

The ethics of that particular job are debatable. Insofar as some of the victims must have been extremely vulnerable and therefore if there was a confrontational/hostile atmosphere this would seem wrong. However surely if there was a chairman presiding it should have been for them to prevent this?
 
Vanilla said:
However surely if there was a chairman presiding it should have been for them to prevent this?
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe that they would have roped in a less than saintly chairman? Surely it would be possible for an organization on the back foot, to put someone more amenable to their way of thinking in as chairman. Or if they didn't appoint, would be in a position to influence the appointing of a chairman. It is for that exact reason that you get these sub cults at work. Wheels within wheels etc.
 

Who are 'they'?

The chairman and board were appointed by the Minister.

As it happens I knew the chairman- Judge ( formerly Senator) Sean O'Leary ( before anyone starts he was FG). Not personally, but had the honour of appearing before him when he was a circuit judge on the SW circuit. He really was a gentleman and extremely quick and intelligent, very well respected by all. I would have thought he was extremely unlikely to be part of any cult if that is what is being suggested.

As for the seven barristers I am sure it will be explained anon why there were so many. There may have been one or two for the board, and certainly that gentleman himself may have had one or two- not sure if these are being counted or not.

Sadly it is the nature of the system in Ireland that when compensation is being sought it is an adversarial system. This sometimes is unfair on a 'victim' however we also have to respect the rights of someone who may have been accused unfairly. This was never meant to be a 'court' but it certainly sounds as if it was not far from that experience.
 
Howitzer said:
It seems to me that the Legal Profession have quite a few questions to answer with regards to their conduct during this Commission.
Click to expand...

Presumably this comment is not directed at the many solicitors and barristers who have acted for abuse victims and who spent a lot of time helping these vulnerable clients -often for years and with no immediate prospect of payment.
 
As someone who was involved first hand in this process, some of the Solicitors did fantastic work with their clients. People have to remember that abused children can grow into adults with big problems, sometimes addictions, etc and may not be the easiest of people to deal with.

I would have more critisism for the way the hearings were handled - almost bullying people to remember what happened to them when they were 10 almost sixty odd years ago and trying to discredit people when they were tellng the truth. No apologies. The money is no good at this stage.
 
Surely a solicitors job is to protect his clients interests and not give in to emotion. Of the countless victims there is also the possibility that some (non victims) will try and manipulate this case for their own gain. It is a highly emotional case, but when things get legal then cold hard fact is what has to be dealt with.
 
Point taken Vanilla. However, it still remains that people in decision making who belong to various affiliations, do influence the thinking of others. I mean that is very much the core of church ethics. Go forth and multiply - it is quoted in pulpits up and down the country - was originally uttered by God but has been a bon mot in the catholic church since it's inception (providing offspring are brought up RC only). And the catholics world wide did exactly that, even when extreme poverty was a direct result.
Ireland does not have a monopoly in instintutional sexual/physical/mental abuse (see below) but the RC church seems to be leading the field.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex3.htm
I think what upset readers most in this case was the way the church, instead of putting it's hands up, admitting guilt, paying restitution and reforming itself, went through every trick in the book to deny (therefore making liars out of these victims), fudge questions, hide behind canon law or banks of lawyers etc.
This is nothing personal Vanilla. The church is a very wealthy organisation and like most successful organisations, got to that lofty state by being good at counting the pennies. It's compromise with Woods a few years ago was almost criminal. No doubt it went down well with the bosses in Rome but it was not a christian way to do things. Finally, can Class Proceedings Act be brought in here? After all there is a common claim.
 
Solicitors and barristers in the employ of the religious orders are being paid (handsomely) by private clients to do a job of work. What do you expect them to do?

The then [broken link removed] who, on his last day in office, negotiated behind closed doors a staggeringly lenient 'sweetheart deal' with those religious orders was supposedly acting in the best interests of the Irish people, as an elected representative, and is presumably now drawing a full ministerial pension at taxpayers' expense in addition to his salary as a TD and as Chairman of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs (and whatever other sources of income he may have).

I'd say he owes those people — and the rest of us — a word or two of apology. Instead he defends the deal, the Government and the Church.

Vomit-making.
 
This is what I don't understand. I have only a laymans notion of this entire matter. When this report was first commissioned I remember distinctly the various people who set it up being very ashen faced and explaining how responsibility was accepted 100% and how this system would be instigated in order to give the victims closure and recompense, that all cases would be heard and a non-adversarial approach would be taken.

The original judge then moves on, instead of all cases being heard a subset is seen and this aggressive stance is taken.

How did this happen?
 

The damage was done by the members of your Profession as you refer to them, don't lecture me about my accuracy or otherwise as its a matter of public record. You must be aware as a member of that Profession that there weren't 14,000 Solicitors involved but in fact far fewer and 180 complaints is 180 too many, 45 upheld complaints are 45 Criminals. You must also be aware that the Law Society spoke publicly about their disquiet about the transgressions of their members they were therefore part of the "hype". You must also be aware that as a closed shop they won't slap the hands of all, but in fact show more lenience than they maybe should or that another body would.
You must also be aware when you row in with support for the Barristers involved that the instructions prior to the commencement of the Tribunal was for non-adversarial conduct. Their behaviour can't be described simply as "wrong" but should be seen as it was - another tool to bully and victimise the Victims.
 
It is beyond shocking that a person abused by the system should go into a room and be confronted by 7 of the most well trained, well paid barristers acting for the abusers.

No ordinary person, never mind an abuse victem, who in general is barely educated, and in general a person of limited means should have to deal with this in addition to the lifelong torment of dealing with the abuse.

I am not sure if the abused have legal representation in the room but I'm sure it's is not equal to the best barristers in Ireland. An ordinary solicitor couldn't hope to compete with this.

I've heard some of the questions people were asked. Disgusting is all I can say.

Some justice. Shame on all involved.
 
All the victims were given legal representation. I am not trying to defend anything here but what do you think happens in rape cases in court every day of the week? Its not pleasant but whats the alternative? I am not sure how the Child Abuse Commission was set up but I can't see they could ever have promised that it wouldn't be confrontational if accusations of criminal acts was going to be made.
 


I agree with this.

The barristers have to act on their instructions. If their client tells them something didn't happen what should they do? Ignore their own client or question the accuser?

Don't forget there have been cases where false claims were made.

It doesn't make it fair for the real victims but that is the system we have.
 

The point is it was not a court of law. It was not public. It was not supposed to be confrontational.

So we have the victim, their solitary legal representative, 7 top barristers and a judge and where are the abusers? The victims alone gets to be cross examined unless I'm missing something.

It's just more abuse.

I ask again where is the justice? What is the Law Society's position on this and the equivelent of the barristers society.
 

You are making an awful lof of assumptions there
 

It was not a Court of Law therefore you can't compare a Criminal Case for Rape with these hearing. The hearings were stated in advance to be amongst other things "as informal as possible" and the number of people in the room were stated to be "up to 3" being the Judge, a Stenographer and a Councellor I believe, but in fact this did not materialise from the reports given recently in the Media by those who went to the Redress Board. If you are unsure as to the proposed proceedures at the redress board I suggest you read up on them on their official site www.rirb.ie, it would help you reach a more informed opinion. The Victims had to give up a lot in order to take part in this proceedure, its shameful how they were treated.
 

I don't recall any cases where there were false claims made during this proceedure. More smoke and Mirrors?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register