Tom Humphries and Judge Karen O'Connor: Too Light a Sentence?

Tom Humphries

Judge Karen O'Connor

The funny thing about outbreaks of hysteria is how quickly they come to an end.  It's not really a positive factor however - more like a breathing space so that the media can prepare itself to launch the next one. It now looks like David Walsh is NOT going to lose his job with the Sunday Times for giving a character reference to the court. It may not be a CRIMINAL offence for his employer to fire him.

Can an Employer Fire a Person who Gives a Character Reference for a Convicted Sex Offender?

HOWEVER I suspect that an employer who did so in such circumstances, could be sued and the employee might well be awarded exemplary and punitive damages.

The OTHER issue that seems to have run out of steam is the denunciation of the judge for giving what was described as too light a sentence. There were several articles by journalists suggesting that the Director of Public Prosecutions Claire Loftus was likely to appeal the sentence and demand a tougher one.  However even at the height of the hysteria Shane Phelan wrote in the Irish Independent that "opinion is divided in legal circles as to whether such an appeal would lead to a different outcome". 

TRANSLATION: There isn't a hope in hell that an appeal by the DPP would result in an increased sentence. However if the media were still denouncing Judge Karen O'Connor, my guess is that the DPP would go ahead anyway just to appease the mob!

Barrister Tom O'Malley, who is senior law lecturer at NUI Galway had a detailed article in the Irish Independent on 28 October entitled "Why the Judge in the Humphries Case Got It Right"

The key parts of Tom O'Malley's article are here:

...The maximum sentence for the defilement offences to which Tom Humphries pleaded guilty was five years imprisonment. The judge clearly ranked these offences high in the scale of gravity because she set the headline sentence at four years for each (an element of her decision that has been largely ignored in media comment). Having given due credit for mitigating factors, notably the guilty plea, his medical condition and remorse, she arrived at a final sentence of two and a half years. ......

The statement made by Judge O'Connor when sentencing Mr. Humphries shows that she approached the case with great care. She took account of the aggravating as well as the mitigating factors (as reflected in the fact that she adopted a headline sentence close to the maximum for the defilement offences) and noted that he had not entered a guilty plea until a relatively late stage. She dealt in detail with the impact on the victim and in saying that one might have some sympathy for the offender's present situation, she stressed that this was not to be interpreted  as condoning in any way his criminal conduct.....

I predict that the sentence will stand. At this stage the DPP will probably not even try to appeal it, because the media and the mob have moved on to other things!


Tom O'Malley is a Senior Lecturer in Law in NUI Galway, a member of the Irish Law Reform Commission and a practising barrister specialising in judicial review

Tom Humphries: Can an Employer Fire a Person who Gives a Character Reference for a Convicted Sex Offender?

David Walsh - Chief Sports Writer Sunday Times

Donal Og Cusack - former coach Clare Hurling Team

David Walsh and Donal Og Cusack were subjected to savage criticism in the media because they provided the court with character references for Tom Humphries after he had been convicted of having sex with a 16 year old girl. Cusack stepped down from his position as coach to the Clare senior hurling team while journalists demanded that the Sunday Times provide a statement regarding their chief sports journalist David Walsh. (The obvious idea was that the ST should fire him.)

The following is an extract from a discussion on the Politics.ie website

Originally posted by Prof Honeydew 24 October 2017

I gave a character reference once for a fella I knew both personally and from work. He asked me himself to put in a word for him. The prosecution made out he was a callous scheming criminal swindling grannies out of their savings but, from what I knew of him, it appeared he'd got out of his depth and started making stupid reckless decisions in the belief that everything would work itself out. I would have considered him a friend and I still do but he was one of these guys who'd jump into something without ever figuring out what he was getting into.

I asked his solicitor afterwards did my statement make any difference and he said it didn't. My mate got a stretch that was in the middle of the range his barrister had expected.

On another matter, I knew Tom Humphries a bit because I work in the same line of business. In my opinion, he was the best Irish sports writer I ever came across - original, observant, knowledgeable, colourful, good insight and easily the best stylist in a branch of literature which has developed cliche into an art form. And unlike many of the prima donnas who occasionally venture down to the sticks when there isn't a match that Sunday in Croke Park, he'd engage with the local grunts if asked. It wasn't all one-way with him in contrast to some others who'd milk you for local information and give nothing in return.

The level of vitriol being thrown at David Walsh is disturbing. He was always quite open about Humphries being a friend of his and hasn't jumped on him just to suit the storm whipped up by others in what is a very bitchy sector of the media. I can't say the same of Donal Og Cusack who, not for the first time, appears to have changed his tune so as not to derail his media image.

Reply by borntorum to Prof Honeydew

I agree with you that Humphries was a superb writer. However he had an increasing tendency towards self-indulgence, and the anti-rugby bigotry became really tiresome as the years went on.

I also agree that the vituperation heaped on Walsh is over the top. I suspect there’s a bit of schadenfraude involved from those journalists who might be jealous of the Walsh’s esteemed reputation (which he himself has not been slow to burnish)

Posted by Prof Honeydew 25 October 2017

I didn't contribute to this thread until yesterday. It came across as one of those where the facts didn't matter and, if they did, they were interpreted in such a way as to support whatever hangup monopolising the poster's view of the world. There isn't much point in adding to a discussion where everybody's mind is already made up.

Condemnation orgies are a fact of life on P.ie but this one took another turn when the theme moved on to denouncing those who provided  character references for Tom Humphries. That's going into guilt-by-association territory, the McCarthyism turned on anyone who doesn't fit in with the narrative decided by those dominating public comment. Much of it was based on a lack of understanding of the role character references play in the legal system.

As someone who actually supplied a character reference in a criminal case (and, no, I'm not someone famous or well-known), I posted what my experience of it was. As probably the only poster on this thread who knew him, I added my own impression of what dealings I had with Humphries in order to show why David Walsh may have held an opinion not quite in tune with the wolf-pack intent on demonising him.

Reply by Myself (AKA Kilbarry1) to Prof Honeydew

A general question. What would happen if a man lost his job because he provided such a character reference - a procedure that is provided for in Irish law? I would say he could be entitled to exemplary and punitive damages from the employer. But let's go a bit further.

Suppose a witness gives evidence in a highly controversial criminal case where the mob want the accused to be convicted - but this guy's evidence tends to exonerate the accused. (Let's take it for granted that his evidence is honest.) Suppose his employer then fires him.  In addition to punitive and exemplary damages in a CIVIL Court, the employer could find himself facing criminal charges for attempting to pervert the course of justice. And saying that "My customers hate this guy and insisted that I fire him" won't serve as a defence!

Could an employer face criminal charges for firing an employee who provides an honest character reference in court?  I'm not at all sure because a character reference is a lot less important than giving evidence under oath, but it's worth discussing the issue.

Reply by Gurdiev77 26 October 2017

The Icelandic government has recently been brought down by a similar circumstance. As I understand it, the PMs father wrote a character refence for a covicted paedophile. This apparently is part of the process of rehabilitaion after conviction in Iceland.

I dont know whether that relates only to sex crime or to all crime. But evidently the nation feels very strongly about it.

Reply by Me to Gurdiev77

One must always take public opinion into account and said opinion might go against the letter of the law. In this day and age, it wouldn't surprise me if a jury refused to convict an employer who fired a man who had given honest evidence in court. Because some jurors might be more concerned with virtue-signalling than applying the law!

There's a very interesting article on this subject in the Irish Times on 25 October quoting a leading barrister Michael O'Higgins SC. He said that giving a character reference in a criminal case is NOT an error of judgment, is  part of the court process and does NOT condone the actions of the accused.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/barrister-defends-use-of-court-references-after-humphries-case-1.3268178

Barrister defends use of court references after Humphries case

“You’re not in any way condoning the activity, you’re not in any way making any disparaging comment about the abused person, you’re not showing a lack of sympathy,” he told RTÉ’s Morning Ireland. “You’re simply highlighting one particular, one discrete aspect of the case, namely that the person has done other good things and a court is entitled to take that into consideration.

“There’s no error of judgment. You’re giving a view of a person in a very narrow and very well defined circumstances, you’re not in any way saying what they did was right, or correct, on the contrary.  “The idea that anyone would think that giving a reference is an error of judgment in circumstances where they are expressly indicating they’re not condoning the criminal behaviour, but simply pointing out other aspects of the person’s character, because character is a rounded thing, I think that’s grossly misconceived.” ........

“People who criticise references don’t understand the sentencing process which is that the prosecution outlines their case against the accused and its the function of the defence to highlight such points as may go to mitigating the sentence. “Of course, if you have an otherwise unblemished character, if you can point to good things that you might have otherwise done in your life, I pose the question rhetorically:What could be wrong about highlighting that?”

Mr O’Higgins expressed concern that people would not give references if they thought they were going to be “excoriated” for doing so. “There’s no question that a person would not want to give a reference in these circumstances if they’re going to be excoriated for it and if their action is going to be misinterpreted as in some way or other showing a lack of support for an abused child or showing some support for the actions of the abuser, but a reference doesn’t do either of those things.”

MY COMMENT: Perhaps it's time to launch a witch-hunt against Michael O'Higgins SC -  for telling inconvenient truths that the mob doesn't want to hear?

Perverting the course of Justice?

Originally Posted by GJG on 7 November 2017
Perhaps you don't realise that criminal charges can only flow from an offence against the criminal law. What statute are you referring to that you think is being breached?

Reply by Myself to GJG
I think I answered that above. Perverting the course of justice is a serious crime. I see from a UK website that this includes "intimidating or threatening a witness or juror in a case "

So an employer who fires an employee for giving honest evidence in a court case could be jailed e.g. the accused is unpopular with the public but the employee has witnessed the events and gives evidence that the accused is likely innocent. So the employer fires him in order to appease the mob who want the accused found guilty. I am almost certain that this would constitute the crime of attempting to pervert the course of justice and an employer could face prison time for doing that.

My main question relates to an employer who fires an employee because he gave an honest character reference for a person who had been convicted of a crime.  It's not the same thing as "intimidating or threatening a WITNESS". Would it come under the heading of "perverting the course of justice"? I don't know. The question is worth discussing in the light of the thuggish attacks on David Walsh and Donal Og Cusack - including obvious attempts to get the Sunday Times to fire David Walsh.

Further Reply by Myself to GJG
Perverting the course of justice seems to be an offence under common law rather than statute law. This is from an Irish Times report of an extradition  from Ireland to the UK involving someone accused of this offence.
Extradition granted to face charge of perverting course of justice
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/extradition-granted-to-face-charge-of-perverting-course-of-justice-1.769980

Counsel for the Minister [for Justice] said that if the same activity was carried out here, it would amount to the same offence as that contained in the warrant, that is, perverting the course of justice contrary to common law.

The IT report also indicates that the offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Presumably THAT would only come into play if an attempt was made to intimidate  a witness, juror or the judge himself. Maybe  a lesser penalty should apply to a criminal [employer] who ONLY tries to intimidate someone who supplied a character reference??

Reply to Me by fellow

It’s worth posing the question. However, neither Walsh nor Cusack gave evidence. They wrote letters and I wonder what the status of those is. The judge did take them into account.

Perverting the Course of Justice? [2]

Objections by GJG

....The statute in Ireland was incorporated in an act (not looking it up at this hour); it does remain a common law offence in the UK. In both, the offence is clearly limited to acts likely to influence the outcome of actual or potential legal action. An action that takes place after the legal action clearly cannot meet that test.

  So someone who threatens to fire an employee if they don't give the right evidence is clearly guilty. Someone who fires them without warning in pique afterwards is not. ....

 ........The key here is whether the employer did something with a view to influence the outcome of the trial. Actions post-trial might be evidence of the nature of pre-trial behaviour (firing someone might prove that an earlier threat was serious), but nothing after the trial can be an offence in this case.

 My Reply to GJG
This is from a UK website "Human Rights in Criminal Justice" and of course it refers to your normal witness in a trial - as distinct from a character witness like David Walsh or Donal Og Cusack. However it includes threats NOT intended to influence the course of the trial, made AFTER the trial, and threats made by persons other than the defendant. It may come under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the maximum sentence is 5 years so it's NOT the law relating to perverting the course of justice (for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment). It seems to envisage physical threats but I suspect that firing an employee because the employer didn't like his evidence could also come under this heading.

https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/legal-help/human-rights-in-criminal-justice

Freedom from witness intimidation
"Witness intimidation can have a significant effect on the course of a trial – however, any harm or intimidation visited upon a witness before, during or after trial is illegal. If you have been called as a witness and you do fear intimidation, the prosecution can apply to have your written statement serve as your testimony, preventing your need to appear in court before anyone who could intimidate you.

 "If it is found that intimidation was used by the defendant, or a party on behalf of the defendant, and the court accepts that this intimidation may have genuinely affected the outcome of the case, the court has the power to order a re-trial.

 "Intimidation isn’t always designed to affect the course of the trial – a defendant could attempt to intimidate a witness after a trial has ended, contacting them or following them once they leave prison, and sometimes even contacting them from inside.

 "The maximum penalty for witness intimidation is 5 years in jail, depending on the severity of the intimidation and the effect that it had on the outcome of a legal case."

 There are probably similar provisions in Irish law to protect the "normal" witness in a trial. In view of the hysteria promoted by the media, it might be a good idea to extend this protection to character witnesses also. Otherwise many people will be afraid to give this kind of testimony.

Tom Humphries and Paedophilia ??

Tom Humphries - Paedophile ??

It is very dangerous nowadays to point out certain very simple facts - including the fact that an adult who has sex with a 16 year old girl is NOT a paedophile. As per the Wikipedia definition:
"Pedophilia is used for individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children aged 13 or younger."

On the other hand, "Ephebophilia" is the recognised term for "the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally aged 15 to 19".

I have been writing about false allegations of child abuse for many years now but every time I need to use the latter phrase, I have to look it up in Wikipedia or elsewhere. None of my friends has ever complimented me on my good memory but the main reason I can never recall the word is that the media are intent on demonising men who have sex with adolescents who are below the legal age of consent. But this age varies from country to country even within Europe - and in several European countries, Tom Humphries actions would not even be illegal!

I am no friend of Tom Humphries and I criticised him long before it became compulsory to do so. See my previous article "Tom Humphries, The Christian Brothers and Child Abuse Hysteria"

However what is now happening to him is wrong. Moreover the level of aggression and hysteria directed at Tom Humphries has ugly implications for anyone who works with children and increases the danger that such workers will be subjected to false allegations.

The following is from a discussion on the website politics.ie regarding Tom Humphries

The Meaning of Paedophilia [1]

Originally posted by Dame Enda on 27 October 2017
The correct term for what he did might be ephebophilia. Paedophilia is when the victim is prepubescent.

My Reply [as Kilbarry1] to Dame Enda
Good point. I have posted similar comments a few times over the years but every time I have to go to the dictionary to check the word. Sex with a 16 year old is not paedophilia. I think some European countries still have 14 as the age of consent or had so until fairly recently. This is from the Wikipedia article on Ephebophilia

Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19. The term was originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century. It is one of a number of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the technical term chronophilia. Ephebophilia strictly denotes the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction.
In research environments, specific terms are used for chronophilias: for instance, ephebophilia to refer to the sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents, hebephilia to refer to the sexual preference for earlier pubescent individuals, and pedophilia to refer to the sexual preference for prepubescent children. However, the term pedophilia is commonly used by the general public to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the legal age of consent, regardless of their level of physical or mental development [My emphasis]

Wiki makes it sound as though "the general public" may simply be misinformed. In fact their "ignorance" has been stoked by thuggish journalists intent on whipping up hysteria. (I bet the journalists themselves are well aware of the difference.)

Reply to Me by Lumpy Talbot
You can call it what you like but a fifty year old man grooming 14 year old girls for sex is not really something that should spark a discussion of terminology.

The judge in this case had better hope that when this man is released- in what seems likely to be a very short time considering the crime- that such a man with not even a reputation to protect from here on doesn't re-offend in short order.

Reply to Me by darkhorse
The generic term describing sex between a 50+ year old man and a 14 year old girl is paedophilia. Of course there are variants within that but that is the general term describing the events.

The meaning of Paedophilia [2]

My reply to Dark Horse
From the Wikipedia article on Pedophilia [American spelling]
Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,  criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13

In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse, and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors. Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse are sometimes pedophiles, child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children, and some pedophiles do not molest children.

The age of consent in Sweden is 15. In Denmark it is the same.  In the Slovak Republic it is also 15. In Spain it is 16 but was 13 prior to 2015. In Norway it is 16. In Portugal it is 14 subject to certain limitations. In Italy it is also 14.

Regarding Ireland the Wiki article on Age of Consent comments:
The age of consent in Ireland is 17, in relation to vaginal, oral, or anal sex, and vaginal or anal penetration. This gives it one of the highest ages of consent in the European Union.

Not quite the highest however, because in Malta the age of consent is 18.

Tom Humphries pleaded guilty to having sex with a 16 year old didn't he? This would never be categorised as paedophilia in ANY circumstances. In several European countries it would not even be illegal.

Reply to me by Wagmore
Listen mate- you should have a good chat with yourself. Humphries was a middle aged obese slob who groomed a young teen. It's been reported that one of his many txts requested her to "be my whore." Nothing to see here? Is that the type of country you want to live in? Count me out

The Meaning of Paedophilia [3]

My post of 27 October 2017
Since SWEDEN is often seen as some kind of liberal paradise, I will quote a few interesting snippets from the Wiki article on Ages of Consent in Europe

...Pornography laws were softened in the 1960s. In 1965 there was a review of previous laws governing pornography depicting children as part of the "child's rights to sexuality". From 1971 to 1980 it was legal to buy, sell, and possess child pornography that featured children as young as 10 or 11.....

AND AGAIN:

....The Swedish age of consent [i.e. 15] also applies if the act takes place outside Sweden but the elder person later goes to Sweden. The elder person doesn't have to be a Swedish citizen or resident, but could be a tourist on a temporary visit. This is regardless of the age of consent in the country where the act took place...

And no, having sex with a 15 year old is NOT paedophilia either but if people  want to get hysterical about this kind of thing, they should really be targeting the Swedes!

Reply to me by Ellie08
Kilbarry what is your point here? This is about Ireland, and something that happened here. Stop deflecting it with what the Swedes do or do not. It looks like you're trying to make the point that is is ok by pointing to some other countries laws on this. This is Ireland, and aren't you a brother or ex brother? Surely you should be more interested in Canon law than Swedish law.

Reply to me by darkhorse

Never mind Sweden this is Ireland
We DONT legalise child sex

My reply to ellie08

Sorry it's late at night and I find it difficult to answer in a short space. There is gross and obscene hysteria about child sex abuse in Ireland and everywhere else. It is partly a reaction from the Sex Revolution of the 1960s and 70s - child pornography was legalised in Denmark as well as Sweden, the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) achieved semi-official status in the UK and in Ireland anyone who spoke out in favour of traditional values was routinely sneered at. John Cooney was religious affairs correspondent in the Irish Times at that time and later produced a biography of John Charles McQuaid containing allegations of paedophilia so ludicrous that even anti-clerics were embarrassed.

The same people who launched the anything-goes Sex Revolution are now getting hysterical about child abuse - and they can see no contradiction. It was Mary Whitehouse who opposed the PIE and British civil rights and gay liberation groups that supported them! "Liberals" seem to lack any kind of self-knowledge and rocket from one lunatic extreme to the other. I could write more but that will have to do for the time being.

And incidentally I personally was criticising Tom Humphries long before it became compulsory to do so!
TOM HUMPHRIES, THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS AND CHILD ABUSE HYSTERIA
My article concluded as follows:
"Tom Humphries now seems to have fallen victim to the same kind of hysteria that he once promoted."

Supporting Rape and Child Abuse? [1]

Originally Posted by petaljam 

More to the point though, if you think a support from a poster who consistently supports child abusers is welcome in making a case defending other alleged sex abusers, that really is your own problem, but I can confidently predict that it won't strengthen that case in any normal person's mind.

When he regularly defends child rapists, how could anyone imagine he wouldn't support the alleged rapists of adult women?

Reply by talkingshop 
That's a fairly appalling thing to say about a poster - Kilbarry, I assume?

Reply by myself to petaljam and talkingshop
I saw this exchange some time ago while I was preparing to post on the thread about Mary McAleese. Then I had to go out. I suppose I should have reacted more quickly but I have experienced this kind of thing so often over the years that it doesn't mean much. I remember George Orwell commenting about 1940 that the word "Fascist" no longer signifies anything except that the speaker disagrees with someone else. [I think Orwell wrote  that in an essay called "Politics and the English Language"]. Much the same applies nowadays with calling a person a supporter of rape or child abuse!

The people who do MOST to protect rapists and child abusers are those who make false accusations and I have posted some examples on my blog
"Are There Very Few False Allegations of Rape and Child Abuse ?[1]

In the end the public will become cynical and disbelieve ALL accusers - including those who are telling the truth!

Supporting Rape and Child Abuse? [2]

Reply by petaljam
Well, actually IMO those are the people who do third or fourth most to protect them.
The ones who do the most are those who actively cover up for real abusers. Then there are those who know of abuse and possibly of a cover up, but still choose not to get involved by corroborating allegations that they know to be plausible.

Only after those groups is it reasonable to put people making false accusations - and of course the reality is that by false allegations you often mean unproven ones.

Response by myself

"and of course the reality is that by false allegations you often mean unproven ones."

You didn't even bother to read the article did you? I refer to SEVEN false allegations. In five cases the accuser was convicted and jailed, in the other two, the accusers admitted that they had lied. (One of the latter was a conscience case - her lie would never have been exposed otherwise; the second was a thug who had already been discredited).

I have a follow-up article to the above. It concerns someone like yourself who made a reckless statement without bothering to consider the evidence (and "reckless" is putting it charitably where this gentleman is concerned.)
Are There Very Few False Allegations of Rape and Child Abuse ? [2]

Tom Humphries, The Christian Brothers and Child Abuse Hysteria

Tom Humphries

Several years ago I criticised Tom Humphries myself - at a time before it became compulsory to do so - and curiously enough the issue was the hysteria surrounding the topic of child abuse. Having contributed to the hysteria, he has now fallen victim himself. And no I am not saying he is innocent but the savage attacks on him are disproportionate - and they have also extended to the two men who supplied character references to the court. This procedure is recognised in Irish law but the media mob are now demanding that they be fired from their jobs for this supposed "offence".

The  article on my website entitled "Tom Humphries, The Christian Brothers and Child Abuse" is dated 19 April 2011 but refers back to events a decade earlier. On 9th May 2000 Humphries wrote an article in the Irish Times reflecting on his time spent as a schoolboy  in St Joseph's Christian Brothers School in Dublin. He wrote:
 "Now I've seen so many Brothers who once had nicknames and reputations leaving courtrooms with anoraks on their heads and cuffs on their wrists that I wonder. I search the reports for familiar names. I take care with the jokes that I make."

Replying on 12th May, a deputy head of the Christian Brothers,  Brother Michael Murray wrote:

It is quite disturbing that Mr Humphries can make such an erroneous statement and that his colleague Emmet Oliver can repeat the error on the same page of your paper. It would appear that Mr Humphries actually believes that he has seen photographs of several Christian Brothers leaving our courts having been convicted of child abuse and that he has searched the reports looking for familiar names. It would also appear that Mr Oliver believes this misinformation. Has this belief become part of the mind-set of some journalists?

While stressing that any such conviction is one too many, it is grossly unfair to convict others by association or to blacken the good name of those who dedicated all their working lives to Irish education down through the years. This gives the impression that several members of the congregation have been convicted on abuse charges in our courts and are serving custodial sentences for these crimes. This is not true. One member of the congregation has been convicted on such charges. Mr Humphries's statement that he has seen many members of the congregation leaving courtrooms in handcuffs and with anoraks over their heads is simply untrue.

My comment of April 2011 is still valid i.e.
Tom Humphries now seems to have fallen victim to the same kind of hysteria that he once promoted.

The following are the texts of two letters published in the Irish Times in May 2000. I have also added the text of a previous letter from the Christian Brothers dated 9 October 1999 with an accompanying   apology from the editor of the Irish Times. I'm sure it was as sincere as his apology of 15 May 2000!

The Christian Brothers

Irish Times, May 15, 2000

Sir, - Reflecting on his time spent in St Jospeh's CBS, Fairview, Dublin, Tom Humphries states (EL, May 9th): "Now I've seen so many Brothers who once had nicknames and reputations leaving courtrooms with anoraks on their heads and cuffs on their wrists that I wonder. I search the reports for familiar names. I take care with the jokes that I make."

This gives the impression that several members of the congregation have been convicted on abuse charges in our courts and are serving custodial sentences for these crimes. This is not true. One member of the congregation has been convicted on such charges. Mr Humphries's statement that he has seen many members of the congregation leaving courtrooms in handcuffs and with anoraks over their heads is simply untrue.

While stressing that any such conviction is one too many, it is grossly unfair to convict others by association or to blacken the good name of those who dedicated all their working lives to Irish education down through the years.

It is quite disturbing that Mr Humphries can make such an erroneous statement and that his colleague Emmet Oliver can repeat the error on the same page of your paper. It would appear that Mr Humphries actually believes that he has seen photographs of several Christian Brothers leaving our courts having been convicted of child abuse and that he has searched the reports looking for familiar names. It would also appear that Mr Oliver believes this misinformation. Has this belief become part of the mind-set of some journalists?

One mush ask how such misinformation can be published by a reputable newspaper. - Yours, etc.,

Br Michael Murray, Deputy Leader, St Helen's Province, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin.

Br Murray is correct and the error is regretted. The cases of a number of other Christian Brothers are pending in the courts and their appearances have been for charge or remand. All defendants have denied the charges. - Ed., IT.


Irish Times, May 18, 2000

A chara, - May I take issue with the article (EL, May 9th) by Tom Humphries on the Christian Brothers, and in particular the Brothers in St Joseph's, Fairview?

I also was at school at St Joseph's (1924-1930). During those six years I never ever saw any of the violent treatment that Tom Humphries talks about, nor ever was there the slightest whiff or whisper of anything unseemly on the part of the Brothers.

If I were not to write the above I would fail badly in the debt I, and so many others, owe the Brothers for their dedication and self-sacrifice. - Is mise,

Fr Tom Ingoldsby SDB, Salesian House, Ballinakill, Portlaoise.

The response of the editor of the Irish Times on 15 May 2000 is reminiscent of his response when the Christian Brothers pointed out another "mistake" in an IT report several months previously. On THAT occasion the "mistake" related to a report of two boys who allegedly died after having being punched in the stomach by a Christian Brother! 

CHRISTIAN BROTHERS AT ARTANE

Letter to Irish Times, 9 October 1999

SIR, - The Christian Brothers note with deep regret and disbelief the seriously misleading article by Patsy McGarry, "Artane Boys faced the music - and straps" (The Irish Times, September 25th). The main source for the story seems to be Mr. Patrick Walsh, a former resident of Artane Industrial School.

 Mr. McGarry made no attempt to check his story with the Christian Brothers. The article refers to boys arriving at the infirmary "clutching their stomachs after being punched by Christian Brothers". In this context Patrick Walsh is quoted as saying that he “recalled two funerals of boys who had been rushed to the Mater Hospital with ‘acute appendicitis’"”.

 It is outrageous that an award winning journalist should include such extremely serious assertions in an article in The Irish Times without even bothering to check the facts. The implication is that the boys who were beaten and seriously injured by the Brothers were then dispatched to hospital where they died. The use of quotation marks around the words "acute appendicitis" seems to imply that the boys died from some other cause. The fact of the matter is that no boy resident in Artane died while Patrick Walsh was there.

 The article also refers to records showing that Patrick Walsh was detained in the infirmary five times between October 1963 and October 1964, “each following severe beatings”. No doubt the reference to records and the inclusion of definite dates are meant to show the authenticity of the story. One would have to ask however if Patsy McGarry has checked these records. In fact the records for Artane Industrial School show that Patrick Walsh was never admitted to the infirmary during that period.

 Your correspondent, and you as Editor, must surely be aware of the Government commission (May 1999) into childhood abuse in reformatory and industrial schools and other places. It is astonishing, therefore, that such an irresponsible and misleading article has been published by The Irish Times. We would ask you please to set the record straight.

 Yours, etc.

Brother J.K. Mullan
 Province Leader
 Christian Brothers Provincialate,
 Cluain Mhuire,
 North Circular Road,
 Dublin 7.

RESPONSE BY IRISH TIMES EDITOR
9 October 1999
A procedural oversight occurred as a result of which Mr. Walsh's allegations were not put to the Christian Brothers in advance of publication.

 A further error took place in citing Mr. Walsh's dates of admission to the infirmary. Artane records show that he was admitted four times between October 1964 and October 1965.

 The Irish Times is happy to put this clarifying information from the Christian Brothers on the public record. The errors are very much regretted.  Ed, IT.

Are There Very Few False Allegations of Rape and Child Abuse? [2]

Colm O'Gorman, Executive Director of Amnesty International Ireland

This is a follow up to my original article
Are There Very Few False Allegations of Rape and Child Abuse? [1]
(The first two paragraphs below are adapted from the original article. )

Colm O'Gorman and the Insignificance of False Allegations.

Colm O'Gorman is dismissive of the idea that false allegations of rape or child sex abuse, constitute a significant problem.  He wrote in the Irish Times on 29 March 2006 that:
“In the past few months a number of commentators have suggested that grave injustice is being done to priests falsely accused of child sexual abuse. Such suggestions rightly concern fair minded people, but remarkably, no evidence of any kind has been presented to suggest that false allegations are being made or that the rights of those accused are being abused.”

At the time, Colm O'Gorman was head of the child abuse victims' organisation "One In Four" which he had founded. Two years later, in February 2008 he became Executive Director of Amnesty International Ireland a post he still holds. Evidently Amnesty is in agreement with his views on the non-importance of false allegations!

In response to O'Gorman's March 2006 article,  I wrote a letter to the Irish Times. It wasn't published (I didn't expect it to be) but here it is anyway.

Editor
Irish Times

9 April 2006

Madam,
Writing in the Irish Times on 29 March last, the director of "One in Four" Colm O'Gorman made some remarkable statements in an article headed "There is no evidence to show that the rights of those accused have been abused".

Mr O'Gorman stated: "In the past few months a number of commentators have suggested that grave injustice is being done to priests falsely accused of child sexual abuse. Such suggestions rightly concern fair minded people, but remarkably, no evidence of any kind has been presented to suggest that false allegations are being made or that the rights of those accused are being abused."

Did Mr. O'Gorman never hear of the case of Nora Wall, formerly Sister Dominic of the Sisters of Mercy?  In 1999 she became the first woman in the history of the State to be convicted of raping a child AND the first person to get a life sentence for rape. She was also the first person to be convicted on the basis of "Recovered Memory Syndrome". (This kind of evidence is very rare in Ireland but has a long and infamous history in the USA).

Nora Wall was convicted on the word of two women Regina Walsh and her "witness" Patricia Phelan, BOTH of whom had made a string of allegations against other people (mainly relatives and boyfriends). The case started to collapse when they sold their story to The Star newspaper and one of the men who had been accused by Patricia Phelan read it and contacted Nora Wall's family. In December 2005 in the Court of Criminal Appeal, Patricia Phelan finally confessed publicly that she had lied.

In the same newspaper article Regina Walsh stated that she had also been raped by a "black man in Leicester Square". Again it was the first the Defence had heard of this allegation.

At the trial Regina Walsh claimed that one of the rapes occurred on her 12th birthday. She said that Nora Wall held her down while Pablo McCabe raped her. Pablo McCabe was in Mountjoy Prison on that date!! When this was pointed out to the jury they acquitted the two accused on that charge but convicted them on the other allegations. I believe that the only reason for this incredible decision is that Nora Wall had been a nun.  Does Colm O'Gorman have an alternative explanation?

Mr. O'Gorman might like to look at the Judgement of the Court of Criminal Appeal on the Nora Wall case. It is dated 16 December 2005 and is readily available on the Internet.

But perhaps the Nora Wall case is just an aberration? Consider the following.

There are  wild claims that the Christian Brothers and other religious have murdered up to 'hundreds' of the boys in their care. (For example an interview with Mannix Flynn about Letterfrack Industrial School in the Sunday Independent on 22 December 2002). Gardai at Clifden, Co Galway, investigated claims that there were bodies of boys who had died as a result of foul play buried in the grounds of Letterfrack. Early in 2003, the Gardai reported that they had found no evidence to back this up. Superintendent Tony O'Dowd said: "There was no evidence available that would suggest that foul play led to the deaths of anybody buried inside or outside of the cemetery at the old Industrial School in Letterfrack." He added: "There was no evidence of a mass grave."

Then there was the case of former Letterfrack resident, Willie Delaney. His body was exhumed in April 2001 because of claims that he had died as a result of head wounds inflicted by a Christian Brother. The subsequent autopsy revealed that he had died from natural causes and that there was no evidence of a blow to the head.

The list goes on. Patrick Flaherty, who spent some years in the Holy Family School in Renmore, Co Galway said he made two allegations against members of the Brothers of Charity because of 'false memory syndrome'. He later withdrew the allegations. He has also said that while attending a public meeting of the Laffoy Commission in 2003 he overheard other former residents discussing among themselves whether or not to accuse a particular Brother. Some in the group said the Brother had never abused anyone. Others said he should be accused anyway.

The evidence of Patrick Flaherty was not widely reported in the media (I saw it in the Irish Independent on 1st November 2003 and nowhere else). However as head of "One in Four", surely Colm O'Gorman should be aware of it?

 There is no way that Mr. O'Gorman can have missed the allegations about the "killing" of Willie Delaney. The media screamed obscenities at the Christian Brothers. About 20 April 2001,  Evening Herald posters were all over the streets of Dublin proclaiming "Now it's Murder Enquiry". Then the autopsy report was published and the entire media dropped the story like a shot. Yet this was a Blood Libel against the Christian Brothers which was no different from Nazi Blood Libels about the Jews.

Did Colm O'Gorman have anything to say at the time? Will he say something now? How can he possibly maintain that "no evidence of any kind has been presented to suggest that false allegations are being made or that the rights of those accused are being abused."

Yours etc.

Rory Connor

NOTES:
(1)  I was so sure that the Irish Times would not publish this letter that I sent it to Mr. O'Gorman on the same day saying that I did not expect publication and requesting his comments. Maybe he would care to give them now?

(2) I forgot to include the case of Waterford priest Fr Michael Kennedy. In January 2006 i.e. only two months before O'Gorman's statement, two brothers were convicted of trying to extort money from the priest by threatening to make false allegations of child abuse against him.

Colm O'Gorman and the Catholic Church

There was a discussion on the Politics.ie website in May 2009 at the time Colm O'Gorman published his biography 'Beyond Belief'. Naturally I contributed!

In reply to a comment that "It's hard to be very critical of someone who has suffered like that, even when you disagree on the most basic point, as you always have some sympathy", I wrote

I am not so sure about that. The following is part of an interview Colm O'Gorman did with Emily Hourihane in the Sunday Independent today [10 May 2009] - entitled 'The Man Who Faced His Demons'

In 'Beyond Belief', O'Gorman writes, bleakly, "there were two men living in our village who hurt children ... they raped and abused ... I was one of the children they hurt." When I ask him now how this could have happened, why he was not better protected, he responds, "because I was five at a time when this wasn't possible. It was 1971, child sexual abuse didn't exist. I didn't have anything like the level of understanding to know what was happening to me. And at that age, one of the things I knew was that grown-ups hurt you when you'd been bad. So my experience of adults who hurt me, was that they hurt me if it was my fault." ................

When he was seven or eight, an older boy from the area began abusing Colm, abuse which he was by then tragically inured to "accept as normal". 

And after that there was Father Sean Fortune who was the FOURTH person to abuse him - at the age of 14. Most people's character and personality are well formed by the time they are 14 years old. I do intend to read the book but it seems strange that Sean Fortune and the Catholic Church should be the sole focus of O'Gorman's human right's campaign.

Perhaps it's because of the power of the Church? In an interview with John Spain in the Irish Independent yesterday [9 May 2009] - entitled 'About a Boy' Colm O'Gorman explains:

"You have to remember the social and political power the priests had at the time." In the book he brilliantly describes the flagrant way Fortune would arrive in the house and be feted with food as he waited for Colm. In every house he visited in the area, O'Gorman remembers, people deferred to him and lavished attention on him. His own parents were no different."

But does that explain how two other men - and a youth - were able to abuse him, long before Father Fortune appeared on the scene? Why has O'Gorman's entire career been based on the behaviour of the fourth male to have abused him?

Colm O'Gorman and Fr Sean Fortune

Comment by 'asset test'
Yes it is strange that the other abuse happened also. The fact that O'G doesn't refer to this much is again, because those people did not have a worldwide protectorate around them like the clergy did. Maybe he now sees that as a one off travesty. However the ability of priests in any parish to do the same with impunity was rampant (not all did of course, but could have).
Institutional cover up is probably the reason for his focus on Fortune.

My Reply to 'asset test'
I wish I could be more charitable. The following is from a Profile of Colm O'Gorman that appeared in The Sunday Times on 30 April 2006 - entitled Profile: Champion for the abused valiantly joins political fray - Times Online

It was July 1984 and Colm O’Gorman wanted to tell his sister that he had been sexually abused by Fr Sean Fortune. But the words wouldn’t come. Instead, he told her he was gay and that he had been having an affair with the priest, a monstrous character who eventually committed suicide in 1999 while facing 66 charges of molesting young people.  ......When his sister Barbara tracked him down [in Dublin] in 1984, he had found a job in a restaurant and a place to stay. Even though he couldn’t tell her the truth, just telling someone he was gay helped. He became part of the gay scene in Dublin. Previously, when confused about his sexuality, he had thought of himself as “something sick and wrong and evil”, but now this changed. “I will never forget the first time I walked into a meeting and realised, ‘My God, all these people are like me’,” he has said ........

[In London] Things improved in 1994, after he trained as a physical therapist and, for the first time, began to think deeply about his teenage experience.

Word reached him that Fortune was going to celebrate a family wedding, so he didn’t attend. But the priest, according to his sister, was surrounded at the event by a crowd of teenagers. The news triggered O’Gorman into action. He went home, told his father what had happened, and then walked into Wexford garda station and made a statement in March 1995. That action triggered an investigation into Fortune’s activities and led to the uncovering of the widespread sexual abuse in the diocese of Ferns and elsewhere.

Colm O'Gorman was 18 in 1984. According to this article, he was too ashamed to tell his sister that he had been raped by Father Sean Fortune so instead told her he was gay and had an affair with the priest. Am I the only one to see something strange about that scenario? My suggestion: Colm O'Gorman was gay and had been having an affair with Father Fortune!

When O'Gorman denounced Fr Fortune in 1995, the latter was in no position to tell the Gardai that he had been having a sexual affair with O'Gorman prior to 1984. After all, that would have been statutory rape!

This may also explain why Colm O'Gorman finds it so difficult to acknowledge the fact that false allegations of child abuse are a significant problem in Ireland today.

Colm O'Gorman and the Power of the Catholic Church in 1980s Ireland

I wasn't the only one in the Politics.ie discussion to find something strange about Colm O'Gorman's narrative. The following is a comment by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

Did anyone else hear the interview with Colm O'Gorman on this morning's Tubridy Show? [12 May 2009]link to audio

I caught the second half in the car, but I've just listened to the whole interview (almost 40 minutes).

I have to say that there is something about his story and/or his way of telling it that leaves me uneasy, because I find it very difficult to believe him. He went into detail about being repeatedly abused by a local old fellow when he was five. In spite of this happening repeatedly and, according to himself, having a devastating effect on him, absolutely nobody seems to have noticed that something was wrong. He explains away his parents' failure to notice anything, but he had five siblings, pals, teachers, etc. Apparently, nobody noticed a change in his personality, signs of depression, terror, confusion, etc.

Then, just three years later, as an 8 year old, he was sexually abused by another local - a teenager this time - and, again, nobody noticed.

Then, when he was 14, he had his first encounter with S. Fortune, who enticed him into bed and abused him, only for C.O'G. (after making a cup of tea for himself) to return to bed and, thereafter, allow Fortune to bully him into continuing the abusive relationship.

Later still, aged 17 and studying hotel management at Cathal Brugha Street, he supplemented his finances by working as a male prostitute (still unaware that he was gay - and this in 1984, not 1948!!).

Repeatedly, Colm depicts himself as lurching between exceptional self-possession (e.g., at 14, he decided to 'take charge' of the relation with Fortune, and even started addressing him as 'John' from the night of their first encounter) and exceptional innocence (in Dublin, several years after the Fortune episode, a man in a public toilet invites him back to his place, and Colm is innocent enough to think that there is nothing sinister about this).

Listening to him, I want to believe his account, but I find it impossible to do so. Even when he describes himself in the present as "a very happy man", I can't believe him. It just doesn't ring true. To me, listening to this interview, he comes across as a troubled individual.

At the end of the interview, I was curious to hear him speaking about himself and his partner having adopted children. Not having read the book, I don't understand the legal status of this adoption, but I would imagine it is unusual in Ireland.

Anyhow, I wish him well.

There followed an exchange of views between 'wexfordman' and 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

Comment by wexfordman

Yes, because in the 70's everyone was an expert in spotting children who were victims of abuse, sure you cold spot them a mile away, thats why we were so quick to react to protect the victims and punish the perpetrators

Reply by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

wexfordman, I think there is an elaborate mythology about how benighted and innocent Ireland was back in the 70s. I am older than Mr. O'Gorman, and I can assure you that, from an early age, my schoolmates and myself were well able to spot a dodgy teacher, priest, neighbourhood pest (or even older schoolmate!). Any suspicious behaviour did not pass without comment. By the 1970s, Ireland had been well exposed to the 50s/60s 'youth culture' of sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, etc. Whatever about 'the older generation', a more or less normal teenager would have to have been suffering from sensory deprivation not to be aware of the birds and the bees, and most variations of bird/bee behaviour. It was on TV, in cinemas, in song lyrics, books, magazines, etc., etc.

Comment by wexfordman

Of course he allowed him, sure did;nt all 14 year olds know how to tackle yer basic pervert priest in the 80's, it was part of the school curriculum.

Reply by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

I have seen several photos of Fortune, and I can assure you that if a weird looking creep like that had looked sideways at me when I was 14, I would have been fully aware of the appropriate reaction!

Comment by wexfordman

Ah, I heard differently, perhaps we both need to listen again, cos one of us got it wrong...

Reply by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'
I am listening again, just to be clear. He agrees with Tubridy's depiction of himself as 'a farm boy' (= 'innocent'?) in Dublin. He spent a few weeks with a student friend, freeloading, and then lived on the streets on and off for six months, "either on the streets ... or I'd get picked up". One night he was sleeping in an underground toilet cubicle in O'Connell Street, and a man asked him if he wanted "to do business", and he agreed (to do business) in order to have a place to sleep. He said he never made much money because "I was a bad prostitute", because he had no business sense. Well, my own recollection of coping with student penury is that there was no shortage of ways to earn a little extra income from part time jobs in bars or restaurants, etc. The best source of information on part time work was fellow students. Had Colm O'Gorman's no friends whatsoever at Cathal Brugha Street? Perhaps his book explains why not?

Comment by wexfordman

WITH REGARDS 1984 V 1948, things were not as different as you think, ffs, condoms were still prohibited, never mind homosexuality.

Reply by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

I beg to differ. I think things were VERY different indeed. For goodness sake, this was 20 years (!) after The Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, Dylan, Late Late Show, etc., etc. By the 1980s, even Ireland had been well exposed to the best and the worst of what the post-60s world had to offer. Even the stuff that was still officially banned was available via late night British TV channels. How anyone could have remained 'sheltered' from all of that is beyond me.

Comment by wexfordman

He has a partner, a family, kids, a home of his own ...

Reply by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

I just wondered about the legal status of his children. I am not an expert on adoption procedures or criteria in Ireland, but I haven't heard of other legal adoptions by either single men or gay couples.

Comment by wexfordman

... why should he be happy, having come from where he once was....

Reply by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

I may be mistaken, and I going strictly on the content and tone of that one interview, but his profession of happiness does not ring true for me. My impression (it is no more than that, since I know very little about the man) is of a troubled individual.

Exchange of Views between Myself and 'Wexfordman' during Politics.ie Debate

I had several exchanges with 'wexfordman' and supporters of his during the discussion on Politics.ie - these included a threat of violence by one of the supporters. I reproduce part of the discussion below - but excluding the physical threat. [I also corrected some spelling errors]

Comment by 'wexfordman' on 12 May 2009
No kilbarry, you have said that o'gorman was having an affair with fortune and as such made false allegations against fortune, you further qualified your statement by inferring that that is the reason he has difficulty acknowledging false allegations, by virtue of the fact that he made one himself.

Now apart from the vileness of the suggestion that a 14 yr old is capable of having an affair with an adult in his late 20's or thereabouts, apart from the fact that you claim fortune is guilty of nothing more then than statutory rape, I would suggest you retract it i the interet of the dgds rule!!

My Reply to 'wexfordman'
A 14 year old male is certainly capable of having an affair with an adult - as distinct from being violently raped by an adult - but the actions of the adult are still illegal. The same applies to a 14 year old girl who has consensual sex with a man of 30.  That is why there is an offence of "Statutory Rape" distinct from Rape. A 14 year old is not a helpless infant.

Colm O'Gorman has certainly made a false allegation by stating that "no evidence of any kind has been presented to suggest that false allegations are being made or that the rights of those accused are being abused" and it is NOT a minor issue.

That does not fill me with confidence in relation to other allegations that he has made.

Reply to Me by 'wexfordman' on 12 May 2009
Really, you were in the room, and can verify that he made a false allegation that what heppened to him was against his will ? I think if you beleive he made a false allegation, you should report it to the authorites immediately, you are after all it seems concerned very much with those who do make them, and you have stated as fact that he has done so himself. I suggest you report this to the gardai immediately

Comment by 'wexfordman' on 14 May 2009
Have you reported the false claims you allege cog made re fr fortune to the authorities yet kilbarry?

My Reply to 'wexfordman'
Many people have been found NOT guilty of child abuse by the courts over the past decade and more, but few accusers have been convicted of making false allegations. It is a very difficult thing to prove - unless the accuser actually confesses and maybe not even then. One of the two women who slandered Nora Wall  admitted years later that she had lied and was duly forgiven by the former nun. The Gardai and the DPP took no action against her. (Having prosecuted and jailed Nora, they would have looked a bit foolish going after their own witness.)

Strangely enough (or not so strangely) O'Gorman's organisation "One in Four" was involved in one of the few cases where a false accuser was convicted. This was Paul Anderson convicted in June 2007 of falsely accusing a priest of buggering him while giving him First Communion prayer tuition more than 20 years previously. Anderson had been sponsored by "One in Four".

Comment by 'wexfordman' on 16 May 2009
Kilbarry, why dont you come out from behind the anonymous veil you have and make your allegations against a public figure publicly ?

My Reply to 'wexfordman'
I have discussed this kind of issue in public on other websites and in public fora. However where other parties use aliases, so do I. My letter to the Irish Times (see contribution no 15) was of course sent under my own name. Also I was so convinced that the Times would not publish that I sent it to Colm O'Gorman on the same day (9 April 2006). So he knows my name.