Former Christian Brother given additional year of jail for indecent assault of two boys

This article contains references to sexual assault involving minors. Reader discretion is advised.

By Eimear Dodd

A former Christian Brother and teacher serving a prison sentence for indecently assaulting eight boys in a Dublin school in the 1970s has been told he will spend an extra year in custody for the abuse of two more young boys.

Jack Manning (89) pleaded guilty to four counts of indecent assaulting two boys at CBS Westland Row, Dublin 2 on dates between July 1972 and June 1974.

Manning, with a former address of a nursing home in Blanchardstown, was a teacher at CBS Westland Row at the time of his offending. The victims were aged between seven and eight.

Dublin Circuit Criminal Court heard that Manning has 22 previous convictions and is currently serving a four year sentence, imposed last March for the indecent assault of eight young boys between 1973 and 1974. His earliest release date is in March 2028.

Manning also received a three-year sentence in 2021 for the indecent assault of four boys on dates between 1972 and 1973. These boys were also pupils at CBS Westland Row.

Lisa Dempsey BL, prosecuting, told the court that the two victims in this case wish to retain their anonymity and nothing should be published which may identify them.

Evidence was heard that both complainants were pupils in the school at the time. The abuse was similar in nature and involved Manning calling each of the two boys to the top of the class, then indecently assaulting them while correcting their homework.

Manning pleaded to three counts of indecently assaulting the first boy and one of indecently assaulting the second boy, the court was told.

Imposing sentence Judge Martin Nolan noted that Manning held a position of trust, which he betrayed and that the two boys were in his care at the time of the offending.

He said the impact on both victims was significant, and both men have “carried trauma and some burdens as a result of his behaviour”.

The judge noted that any sentence imposed must be proportionate and not crushing.

Judge Nolan said he would extend Manning’s time in prison, imposing a one-year sentence to run consecutive to the sentence Manning is currently serving.

“I think there has to be some extra time for extra bad behaviour,” the judge said, noting he would have imposed a more substantial sentence if only dealing with these two complainants.

In a victim impact statement, the first victim said he was a survivor of abuse at the hands of Manning, who was “supposedly a Christian Brother”, but didn’t “deserve that title”.

“How dare you hurt a small defenceless human being?”

He described experiencing immense hurt and “longstanding trauma”. He said he developed trust issues and the abuse has had a long lasting impact on his relationships.

He said he lived in fear and was unable to tell anyone except a now deceased relative and his wife. He said he hoped one day to feel at ease and to move.

Reading his impact statement, the second victim said he went to gardai after the publication of the Scoping Inquiry into Historical Sexual Abuse in Schools run by religious orders and an appeal made by the Garda Commissioner.

He said he kept what happened “bottled up for 50 years”, describing it as a “devastating thing to happen to a young child”.

He said he was too afraid to tell his parents, and the fear and stress he felt caused damage to his core.

He noted that while Manning was “directly responsible for abusing me and my classmates”, there was a “culture” which tolerated his behaviour.

“I feel strongly that my school and the relevant religious and State authorities failed in their duties to protect me and classmates”.

He expressed his gratitude to the gardai and his family. He also thanked “the courageous men from Westland Row who came forward and made it easier for me”.

He said he was “thinking of all the young boys who never got any justice”.

Evidence was heard that the first victim was around seven when the abuse occurred. He would be sent to Manning’s class if his teacher was out sick.

He said Manning’s class had a hostile atmosphere and was ruled by fear, adding that the teacher was a violent man prone to aggressive outbursts.

He said Manning abused him approximately once a week and estimated there were at least 20 incidents. On one occasion, Manning indecently assaulted the boy at the blackboard in front of the class, before ridiculing the child.

In another incident, Manning digitally penetrated this boy’s anus while correcting his homework.

The first victim also told gardai about an incident in 1975 or 1976 where Manning smacked his buttocks while he was changing clothes during a school play.

Evidence was given of one incident in relation to the second complainant, who was around eight at the time.

He said Manning called him to the top of the classroom to have his homework corrected, then indecently assaulted him by touching his genital area under his clothing.

He said it was horrible and he was very afraid of Manning, whom he called a dominant character.

He also described an incident where Manning made the children strip naked for a PE class. He said he felt ashamed of being naked and vulnerable.

Gardai made arrangements to interview Manning, but he could not attend due to medical difficulties.

The garda witness accepted under cross-examination that Manning instructed his solicitors to indicate to the prosecution that he wished this investigation to be concluded as quickly as possible.

Medical reports and other documents were handed to the court.

Philipp Rahn SC, defending, said his client had instructed him to apologise and that his guilty pleas are a sign of remorse for his actions.

Manning joined the Christian Brothers in 1950 when he was 14 and taught in schools in Tralee, Cashel and in Westland Row.

Mr Rahn said his client taught in Westland Row until 1976, when he left the order and married.

He asked the court to take into account his client’s advanced age, declining health and isolation.

Mr Rahn submitted that the court must assess his client’s offending globally and consider how it might sentence if dealing with all 14 complainants, while avoiding a crushing period of imprisonment.