ANOTHER WHISTLEBLOWER IN the Grace case has criticised the long-awaited report published this week for its “inaccessible” language, saying that she has found her asking herself “what was it all for”, 16 years after she first made a protected disclosure about Grace’s care.

“It really is so hard to follow if you haven’t been involved and I just think it’s such a shame, because that actually really suits the people who failed Grace,” the former social worker told RTÉ One’s Today with Claire Byrne programme.

‘Paula’, which is not her real name, added: “It suits the HSE. It suits those about whom findings have been made because they’re just so hard to find.”

The final report into the ‘Grace’ case inquiry was published this week after a six-year delay.

It concerned a young woman with profound intellectual disabilities when she was left in a foster home in the south-east for almost 20 years, despite a succession of sexual and physical abuse allegations.

Speaking this morning, Paula – the latest whistleblower to speak about the report – said that she felt “devastated” for the dozens of families affected by the case.

In her view, “All this time, all this money, has been wasted on this type of a process to produce a document like that one.”

However, the whistleblower said she also wanted to “change the narrative” on the report, pointing to damning findings of neglect made in senior counsel Marjorie Farrelly’s report this week.

“Neglect is not a minor finding. To me, that’s a serious finding,” she said.

She commented that, in her view, she “wasn’t surprised” that the Commission made findings that Grace was not sexually or physically abused because of its “legalistic approach”.

Grace, now in her mid 40s, was aged 17 before she got a visit from a social worker.

In 1995, on the back of claims that Grace suffered abuse in her foster home, the South Eastern Health Board decided not to place any more people in the home.

However, a decision to remove Grace was overturned in 1996 and she remained at the foster home until a whistleblower’s complaint in 2009.

Paula told the programme that she had attempted to get the HSE to make Grace a ward of court in 2009.

She said she feels that the HSE’s failure to make Grace a ward of court and the rationale for that have been subject to a “kind of glossing over” amid reaction to the report.

In the Farrelly report, the findings cite conversations that took place within the HSE in 2009 around concerns it had about Grace’s case being put in the public domain.

The commission said it was satisfied that concerns were raised that if a wardship application were made it could open a “can of worms” for the HSE.

It was satisfied that concerns in the HSE were raised that it could be open to serious criticism, that people could lose their jobs and that a civil action could be brought on behalf of Grace.

Experience of the commission

Paula was also critical of the Commission for not giving any forewarning of its publication, having found out of the report’s release on the day of its release, Tuesday, while she was on holidays.

This was an issue raised by Minister for Minister for Children, Disability and Equality Norma Foley when she released the report this week.

Paula commented that she had expected a “very weak report with findings that would be diluted by endless legal argument” due to how the Commission was set up to carry out its work.

Similar criticism was made by the Irish Association for Social Workers this week when it said that Commissions of Inquiries are “not suitable” for investigating safeguarding concerns due to significant legal thresholds relating to evidence.

Paula added that she felt that her experience at the commission was “horrendous”, as she believed that it was difficult to “rebut and refute” the evidence presented by other parties to the inquiry.

While she accepted that this was not unlawful or not in accordance with the commission’s rules, she said it took its toll.

Paula said she would have needed to attend each sitting to know what each witness had put forward, as the commission did not require written statements in advance of hearings.

“The commission split up its work into a number of different modules to look at various aspects of the terms of reference,” she added.

“That meant that witnesses like me were called to appear before the Commission on multiple occasions throughout the eight years, so just over and over again for days on end you would be called to give evidence.”

She said that “institutional parties” had legal teams that cross-examined Paula “over and over and over again for days on end in a highly adversarial manner”.

“Witnesses like me weren’t in a position to do that. You know, we have jobs, we have to work. Financially, I just ran out of resources to participate in an inquiry that was set up in that way.”

With reporting by Christina Finn