Shocking Smyth case demands an inquiry
JUST when you think you no longer can be shocked by new revelations about child sexual abuse by the clergy, and the State’s handling of such cases, new information comes along that proves profoundly disturbing.
Documents provided to the North’s Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry showed that the Garda Síochána in Finglas investigated serial paedophile Fr Brendan Smyth as long ago as 1973. Then came an apparent request by the priest’s psychiatrist to allow him have treatment instead of facing arrest.
In the letter, the doctor wrote that he had recommended in-patient care in St Patrick’s Hospital or in St Edmonds Bury, a facility that specialised in the treatment of paedophilia. The doctor finished by writing: ‘I hope this arrangement will be satisfactory to you and your superiors.’
As we now know, it would be a full 20 years before Smyth was charged with and convicted of offences, dozens of which took place after 1973. Here is a clear case of a man who might have been lifted off the streets, sparing his subsequent victims the hurt and anguish of the vile crimes visited upon them. Instead, he continued abusing.
The implications of this are enormous, and a transparent public inquiry must be established immediately to answer the many questions raised. If the State knew of Smyth’s crimes, will his subsequent victims be liable for compensation?
What was the nature of the Garda investigation in 1973? What evidence against Smyth was uncovered and what was done with it? When the letter arrived from the doctor, did that affect the decision not to prosecute? If so, was that decision in the gift of the Garda in Finglas or was it fed up through the force’s hierarchy? Did it reach the DPP, the desk of the Minister for Justice of the time, or was any other politician consulted?
Once a decision was taken not to prosecute, did gardaí demand follow-up information on the nature of the treatment? Did they even check Smyth went for treatment at all – and did they continue to monitor his activities when he was in the State, knowing that he posed a risk to children?
To date, most of the focus has been on the Church and what it did, or more usually didn’t do, to confront the evil of paedophilia in its ranks – but if children were badly failed by the Garda Síochána too, that adds another layer of horror to our dark history.
None of this ever is pleasant but we need to know. We all agree that much has been done to make reporting of abuse easier, and that it now is taken seriously by Church and State alike. But equally, only a public inquiry can tell us just how much latitude the Garda Síochána had in deciding to act on a doctor’s request instead of the word of a raped or abused child, and whether such a decision still would be possible today.