Mandy Johnston

Humphries’ demise shines an unwelcome light on response by GAA and ‘Irish Times’ to his horrific violations

THE Tom Humphries story is a complex and harrowing one that centres around choice and consequences. Everyone, either personally or professionally, entangled in this modern account of entrapment and exploitation became defined by the choices they made in relation to the man at the centre of it.

In finding a path to the facts and eventually convicting Tom Humphries, a broader truth eventually emerged. One that exposed an undercurrent of privilege that centres around class in Irish society today. It also reveals much about how our judicial system treats victims of sexual abuse and rape.

Tom Humphries had choices. He chose defilement and sexual exploitation.

A middle-class man, he was high up and well respected in not one but two revered organisations in this country. ‘The Irish Times’ and the GAA, both veritable bastions of Irish society. We have been conditioned to believe both ‘The Irish Times’ and the GAA operate with the highest of ethical and moral standards. Tom Humphries abused the status and responsibility both of those organisations afforded him. His ignominious demise now shines an unwelcome light on to their responses to his horrific violations.

The GAA had choices. A bedrock of trust in our communities since its establishment, it represents everything that is good and decent in our country. It cannot allow itself to be tarnished or used by unscrupulous individuals who seek to exploit children. Neither can it just move on without due regard to what happened in this case.

Resisting pressure for greater scrutiny and failure to accept that new safeguards are required would be foolhardy in the extreme. Of course, we want to believe that this type of behaviour is confined to one immoral individual. But are we really sure of that?

In 2008, the GAA established the National Children’s Office which produced an official Code of Behaviour. Its national children’s officer stated this week that no changes were anticipated to that code in light of the Tom Humphries case but vowed to ask coaches to be more vigilant. The organisation’s apparent incapacity to deal with sexual misbehaviour was evidenced further by its official reaction to the lewd pictures involving some members from Ballyragget GAA club, saying: “This is a Kilkenny GAA issue.” I’m afraid it isn’t, it is a national GAA issue and one that has serious reputational consequences.

How the GAA deals with the issue of child-adult interaction in the future is now the issue. Expecting coaches to be vigilant for the children is not enough. All the well-meaning, watchful parents, coaches and cyber watchdogs will never counteract the trust that an innocent child places in the respect of an elder who has gained their confidence.

‘The Irish Times’ had choices. Its reporting on this issue was never more questionable than on Wednesday when it published an article originally titled ‘Tom Humphries: Acclaimed Sports Writer’. The article was viewed by many as a eulogy with no mention of the abuse issues until paragraph 37. It may have been regarded as insensitive on any day since the exposure of these heinous crimes, but on the day that such a lenient sentence was handed down, it seemed borderline cruel.

Its strong record in solid reporting has earned the publication the title of ‘paper of record’. However, the ethical standards that ‘The Irish Times’ expects of others cannot simply be overlooked merely because someone was employed by the title. Exacting standards are uncompromising and must be applied internally if they are demanded externally.

David Walsh and Donal Óg Cusack had choices. They had the choice to vouch for a man they believed to be upstanding and merited their support, or they could have remained uninvolved and abstained.

In offering character references, both men said their support was proffered not as a defence of Tom Humphries’ actions, but based on his past behaviour as a colleague and a friend. Motivations aside, their character-witness submissions were viewed by many as a sympathy for human weakness. Their willingness to pay testimony to Humphries’ qualities felt to some as detachment bordering on contempt. But that was their choice. One retreated from their actions, the other did not.

But their actions did effect a change, there was a consequence. The judge took them into consideration and the sentence was modified.

For decades, and to our shame, Irish society and the system that supports it has been mired in secrecy. Historically, the Catholic Church protected people who society deemed to be sacred courtesy of the cloak they were shielded in. Priests were supported and safeguarded and their nasty secrets of abuse were hidden. Because of the exposure of the extent of those abuses, we now thankfully live in a country that extends an open door to victims.

Arguably, it has never been easier to report abuse and inappropriate behaviour. We have more watchdogs, more agencies, more helplines, more procedures, and most importantly perhaps, we have learned to be more receptive and alert when red flags are raised.

Which brings us to the greatest paradox and tragedy of all. Because having encouraged victims to come forward, we then subject those same traumatised people to a justice system which prolongs their suffering. Abuse victims are regularly subjected to lengthy waiting times before cases ever get to court. When cases are eventually heard, sentencing can be horrendously inconsistent. With such a large amount of discretion afforded to the judge, mitigating circumstances often dilute sentences to the point of incredulity.

Judge Karen O’Connor had choices. On Tuesday, in a case that took six years to come to court, she handed down a two-and-a-half-year sentence. A judgment which places Tom Humphries alongside a coterie of offenders who seem to be offered lenient incarceration periods. Calculations made by some judges appear heavily persuaded by the position that the offender holds within society, and who will vouch for them personally.

The family of Tom Humphries had choices. Their choice was perhaps the most important one of all. Valour is not a word that you might expect to enter the narrative of this story anywhere. However, it too has its place. The family of Tom Humphries deserve praise. They could have tried to hide it away, closet it in some confined circle, try and sweep it beneath the carpet. But they didn’t, they decided to expose this horrifically shocking behaviour immediately. In choosing the correct moral and legal path, they did it in the full knowledge that their own lives would be changed forever, and for that they should be commended.

The one person who had absolutely no choice was the survivor. An innocent child who was ruthlessly pursued for sexual exploitation. The case exposed the unknown extent to which juveniles can now be callously exploited in this evolving digital age. No superficial semblance of action will suffice in protecting those who are exposed to its dangers.

Ultimately, no paedophile, no matter who they are or who vouches for them publicly, should ever be allowed to escape the consequences of their choices without due regard to appropriate retribution.

The Director for Public Prosecution has choices.

The one person who had absolutely no choice was the survivor