MR JUSTICE Ryan announced in 2004 that the commission would not name individuals believed to be guilty of abuse so as to give alleged perpetrators the right to his or her good name.
Naming was part of the original remit of the commission, under the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Bill 2000, but proved an obstacle following vehement opposition by some religious orders, one of whom initiated a court challenge.
In 2005, amending legislation was introduced which only permitted the naming of persons who had been convicted in the criminal courts of abuse of children.
However, the report says that “even under the unamended legislation, naming some individuals was always going to be fraught with difficulty and inconsistency” and that “the probability was that only a very small number of persons would actually be named”.
The supposed benefits of being able to name persons who committed abuse were outweighed by the disadvantages, the report says.
The decision to no longer name and shame has been severely criticised by victims, who say the commission has had its teeth pulled. Justice Ryan said every allegation had the potential to become a full-blown trial, which would make the entire process unmanageable.
