Statement by Patricia Gilligan, former Child Protection Adviser in the Diocese of
Salford in response to information made public by Michael Devlin (Chair of the
Salford Diocesan Safeguarding Commission) and Father Barry O’Sullivan
(Safeguarding Coordinator) at a meeting held on 10 September 2010 at St Chad’s,
Manchester.
I have accessed the audio-recording available on the internet at
http://www.mediafire.com/?se3udyzz3jql7gr . This is a recording of a meeting held at
St Chad’s, Manchester on 10 September 2010. The meeting involved Michael Devlin
(Chair of the SalfordDiocesan Safeguarding Commission), Father Barry O’Sullivan
(Safeguarding Coordinator), Paul Malpas and Mike Harding. I understand from the
recording that the meeting took place to discuss a letter and report from Paul Malpas
regarding complaints about abuse suffered at the hands of Thomas Duggan, the
former Rector of St Bede’s (1950 to 1966), by former pupils at St Bede’s College,
Manchester. The meeting started at 2.10 pm and finished at 3.05 pm. It was also
attended by Uschi Műller (Safeguarding Adviser) and Pam Jones (Safeguarding Office
Manager).
Listening to the recording, I note that Mr Devlin and Fr O’Sullivan, chose, at this
meeting, to make information about several significant matters concerning the
work of the Salford Safeguarding Commission (formerly the Child Protection
Commission) available to Mr Malpas and Mr Harding, who Mr Devlin notes
have no ‘official’ status, and through them, to anyone who accesses the
audio recording of the meeting which is available to the public generally at
http://www.mediafire.com/?se3udyzz3jql7gr .
As the former Child Protection Adviser in the Diocese of Salford (January 2002
to April 2008) Iwas surprised to hear Mr Devlin and Fr O’Sullivan making information
available about matters other than those which Mr Malpas and Mr Harding had
come to discuss. However, I very much welcome the fact that, by making such
information publicly available, the Chair of the Commission and the Safeguarding
Coordinator have removed some of the restrictions on my own freedom to
comment on these matters to others.
I also welcome the opportunity to question the accuracy and selective nature of
several of thethings said by Mr Devlin and Fr O’Sullivan during the meeting on 10
September 2010. I do this in the context of Mr Devlin’s statements that he and Fr
O’Sullivan will supply Mr Malpas with all relevant information about Duggan, that he
has always wished “to be as open and transparent as possible” and that these
matters belong to “the body of the Church”.
Regarding Thomas Duggan:
Mr Devlin and Fr O’Sullivan emphasise several times, in the recording of the
meeting, available at http://www.mediafire.com/?se3udyzz3jql7gr that, despite
Fr O’Sullivan’s lack of surprise at receiving Mr Malpas’ letter and his
admission that he has been hearing stories about Duggan for 23 years (“on
the golf course and on retreats”), Mr Malpas is the first person to raise such
concerns about Thomas Duggan. Mr Devlin states, in reference to the
complaints about Duggan, that “nobody had ever reported it or drawn it to
the attention ...”
However, I recall that on 7 November 2003, Fr O’Sullivan and I interviewed a
former student of St Bede’s who wished to discuss the abuse he had been
subjected to by Duggan.
This interview was audio-recorded and a transcript wordprocessed. I would,
therefore, have assumed that a written record of it would be readily available
in the Commission’s files.
Regarding Thomas Doherty, former parish priest of St Joseph’s Todmorden:
Mr Devlin and Fr O’Sullivan give Mr Malpas and Mr Harding information
about Doherty’s whereabouts following his release from prison and about
Bishop Brain’s decision not to send Doherty’s request for laicisation to
Rome. As far as I know, this is information that has never before been
shared publicly with the people of the Diocese of Salford or with the
parishioners of St Joseph’s, Todmorden.
However, whilst revealing this information, Mr Devlin and Fr O’Sullivan do
not mention the meetings that Fr O’Sullivan and I had with parishioners
of St Joseph’s in 2003/2005 nor the fact that, at these meetings, Fr
O’Sullivan left both these parishioners and me believing that Doherty had
been laicised (dismissed from the clerical state under Canon Law) as we
would have expected given the Bishops’ commitment to implementing the
recommendations of the Nolan Report. There was at these meetings no hint
that an ‘exception’ had been made in Doherty’s case, let alone a public
justification of this, as would be required if the Nolan recommendations were
being followed. Indeed, despite the fact that I was representing the Diocese
in its discussions with the parishioners of St Joseph’s, at this time, I had not
been told that Doherty had not been laicised and was, subsequently, very
shocked to learn, during the summer of 2007, what Mr Devlin has now
revealed publicly, i.e.that Doherty had written a letter requesting laicisation,
but that Bishop Brain had decided not to send this to the Vatican. This was
certainly not an “open and transparent” process.
Meanwhile, also in relation to Doherty, I note that, in the audio-recording,
· Mr Devlin refers to the process of laicisation as one which would
have resulted in Doherty being “spat out by the Church”. This
colourful expression is extremely misleading and in very marked
contrast to what was said by the Nolan Committee. They say,
“…laicisation does not mean that the Church has no further part to play in relation to the abuser. As with lay worker abusers who are no longer employed by the Church, the Church may nonetheless be able to assist with the rehabilitation and pastoral needs of the individual.” (Nolan, 2001: 44)
Mr Devlin, later, says that “the rules that govern these matters
within the Church have changed” and implies that it would
have been impossible for the Church to retain any
responsibility or role within a covenant of care before these
“rules” were changed. However, as the quotation (above)
makes clear that was not the position following the Bishops’
decision to implement the Nolan recommendations in 2001. It
would have been possible for Doherty to be the subject of a
covenant of care and for the Church to cooperate with the
police and probation services whether he was laicised or not.
· Mr Devlin informs Mr Malpas and Mr Harding that Doherty had
more than one victim. He refers to “very vulnerable young boys”.
Again, this is information that, as far as I know, has not previously
been shared publicly and has not been shared with the
parishioners of St Joseph’s, Todmorden.
Patricia Gilligan,
7 October 2010
UPDATE - 10 April 2011
Following publication of the above statement from the former Child Protection Adviser in the Diocese of Salford, Father O'Sullivan, the Coordinator of the Salford Diocese Safeguarding Commission wrote to at least one person stating that there were inaccuracies in Patricia's statement as regards the interview on 7th November 2003 (see comment from Darrylwall at http://www.toteo.com/education/2400-salford-bishop-apology-over-st-bedes-school-abuse.html). However, the nature of that alleged inaccuracy was left unstated.
In this context, CAADS notes the tenth comment at http://paulmalpas.com/uncategorized/doing-down-duggan/#comment-1345 posted on 17 March 2011, i.e.
“I was at St Bede’s from 1955 until 1962 and well remember the weird Dracula-like figure of Tommy Duggan floating around the school. But my abuse was at the hands of another priest, not TG. In 2003 I requested an interview with the Salford Diocese CPC to put my experiences on record.
I sent a copy of the interview report to John Byrne, the St Bede’s headmaster at the time, and received from him a disgacefully cold, legalistic reply – even though I had made it clear that I was not looking for compensation. Since then, I have done nothing and have not heard again from the CPC.”
This would appear to clarify the nature of the alleged “inaccuracy”, but, perhaps, tends to underline the original point being made.
