Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—Royal Commission—Report of Case Study No. 44—The response of the Catholic Diocese of Armidale and Parramatta to allegations of child sexual abuse against a priest—November 2017


Download PDF Download PDF

The response the Catholic Diocese of Armidale and Parramatta to allegations of child sexual abuse against a priest

NOVEMBER 2017

REPORT OF CASE STUDY NO. 44

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

ISBN: 978-1-925622-93-5

© Commonwealth of Australia 2017

All material presented in this publication is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Australia licence (www.creativecommons.org/licenses).

For the avoidance of doubt, this means this licence only applies to material as set out in this document.

The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the Creative Commons website as is the full legal code for the CC BY 4.0 AU licence (www.creativecommons.org/licenses).

Contact us

Enquiries regarding the licence and any use of this document are welcome at:

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse GPO Box 5283 Sydney, NSW, 2001

Email: contact@childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

Report of Case Study No. 44

Report of Case Study No. 44 The response of the Catholic Diocese of Armidale and Parramatta to allegations of child sexual abuse against a priest

November 2017

CHAIR

The Hon. Justice Peter McClellan AM

COMMISSIONERS

Justice Jennifer Coate

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

Report of Case Study No. 44

Table of contents

Preface 4

This Case Study 7

Executive Summary 17

1 John Joseph Farrell: Appointments and Criminal Proceedings 39

2 John Joseph Farrell 41

2.1 Childhood 41

2.2 Seminary 42

3 Diocese of Armidale: 1981 to 1989 49

3.1 Farrell’s ordination 49

3.2 Moree parish 51

3.3 Evidence of CPA 54

3.4 Sexual abuse of Mr Michael McGroder 55

4 Response of Diocese of Armidale to Allegations Against Farrell in Moree 65

4.1 Introduction 65

4.2 Monsignor Ryan informs Father Gleeson of allegations 66

4.3 Father Flood’s account about Farrell’s removal 67

4.4 Police statement of CPE 68

4.5 Father Gleeson engages the assistance of Father Flood 69

4.6 Farrell is sent for treatment with Mr Gary Boyle 73

4.7 Gossip about Farrell’s removal from Moree 74

4.8 Tamworth East parish 74

4.9 Community concern about Farrell’s appointment to Tamworth East 78 4.10 Arrest and Narrabri court proceeding 80

5 Diocese of Parramatta: 1989 to 1992 88

5.1 Farrell is appointed in the Diocese of Parramatta 88

5.2 Kenthurst parish 90

5.3 Merrylands parish 107

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

6 Bishop Manning is Appointed Bishop of Armidale 112

6.1 Bishop Manning makes enquiries about Farrell 113

6.2 Bishop Manning restricts Farrell from exercising public ministry 115 6.3 Bishop Manning meets with Farrell 117

6.4 Farrell seeks an extension in the Diocese of Parramatta and a future military appointment 118

6.5 Bishop Manning discussed Dr Blaszczynski with Farrell 119

6.6 Farrell expresses interest in the Parish of St Bernadette, Dundas 120 6.7 Dr Blaszczynski advises Bishop Manning 121

6.8 Meeting of the College of Consultors on 27 May 1992 122

7 Bishop Heather Terminates Farrell’s Appointment in the Diocese of Parramatta 123

7.1 Father John Boyle raises concerns about Farrell 123

7.2 Father Dominic Arcamone reports complaints about Farrell 125 7.3 Bishop Heather terminates Farrell’s appointment in Merrylands 126

8 Bishop Manning Withdraws Farrell’s Faculties 128

8.1 Bishop Manning is informed of concerns about Farrell’s conduct in the Diocese of Parramatta 128

8.2 Bishop Manning is told by Dr Blaszczynski that Farrell is an ‘ongoing risk’ 128

8.3 Bishop Heather tells Bishop Manning of termination 130

8.4 Bishop Manning withdraws Farrell’s faculties 132

8.5 Father David Maguire writes to Bishop Manning 133

8.6 Bishop Manning’s further conversations with Dr Blaszczynski 134 8.7 Referral of Farrell to the Special Issues Resource Group 135

8.8 Bishop Manning meets with Farrell in September 1992 136

9 Special Issues Resource Group 138

9.1 Background 138

10 The Key Issue 141

11 A Chronology 142

11.1 Bishop Manning refers Farrell to SIRG: 27 August 1992 142

11.2 The first meeting: 3 September 1992 142

11.3 The second meeting: 24 September 1992 143

11.4 The third meeting: 12 November 1992 143

11.5 Events after the three meetings 144

11.6 Four Corners program: 2012 144

11.7 The Whitlam inquiry: 2012 145

11.8 Submissions as to use of documentary evidence 146

Report of Case Study No. 44

12 Before the Three Meetings Between the SIRG and Farrell 147

12.1 Father Lucas advises Bishop Manning that he ‘move to laicise’ Farrell 147 12.2 Reporting to police 150

12.3 Media release dated 16 March 1992 151

13 The First Meeting: 3 September 1992 152

13.1 Father Peters’ accounts 152

13.2 Father Lucas’ accounts 159

13.3 Evidence to the Royal Commission 169

13.4 Monsignor Usher’s accounts 173

13.5 Bishop Manning’s accounts 197

14 The Second Meeting: 24 September 1992 199

14.1 Father Peters’ account 199

14.2 Father Lucas’ accounts 202

14.3 Monsignor Usher’s accounts 203

15 The Third Meeting: 12 November 1992 208

15.1 Father Peters’ accounts 208

15.2 Father Lucas’ accounts 210

15.3 Monsignor Usher’s accounts 212

16 Key Issue: Consideration 215

16.1 Common ground 215

16.2 Monsignor Usher’s evidence 216

16.3 Father Peters’ evidence 219

16.4 Father Lucas’ evidence 220

16.5 Other submissions on behalf of Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher 221

17 Events from November 1992 to May 2012 224

17.1 Farrell resigns from the priesthood 224

17.2 Farrell seeks permission to celebrate a funeral mass 224

17.3 CPE contacts Father Flood 225

17.4 Civil claims and criminal proceedings arise 226

17.5 Allegations of blackmail emerge 228

17.6 Farrell’s evidence in CPK’s extortion trial 229

18 Before the Four Corners Program in 2012 231

18.1 ‘Putting their heads together’ 231

18.2 The common recollection? 232

18.3 Father Lucas writes Father Peters’ response to Four Corners 233

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

19 After the Four Corners Episode 240

19.1 The Archdiocese of Sydney releases a media statement 240

20 The Whitlam Inquiry 243

21 Bishop Matthys’ Response to Farrell 245

21.1 Complaint by the diocesan Director of Catholic Schools 245

21.2 CPD’s complaint to Cardinal Pell and Bishop Matthys in 2002 246 21.3 Farrell attends Encompass Australasia 247

21.4 Catholic Commission for Employment Relations enquiry 249

21.5 Civil proceedings 250

21.6 Complaints about Farrell’s behaviour at the memorial mass for Pope John Paul II 250

21.7 Farrell is laicised 251

22 Society of St Gerard Majella 252

22.1 Introduction 252

22.2 Allegations of misconduct are made 252

22.3 Special Enquiry established 253

22.4 Father Usher’s inquiry 254

22.5 NSW Police seeks the report of the Special Enquiry 255

22.6 Evidence given about the diocese’s response to the allegations 255 22.7 Destruction of documents 258

22.8 Conclusions 261

Systemic Issues 263

Appendix A: Terms of Reference 264

Appendix B: Public Hearing 271

Appendix C: Reasons 274

Endnotes 280

Report of Case Study No. 44

4

Preface

The Royal Commission

The Letters Patent provided to the Royal Commission require that it ‘inquire into institutional responses to allegations and incidents of child sexual abuse and related matters’.

In carrying out this task, we are directed to focus on systemic issues but be informed by an understanding of individual cases. The Royal Commission must make findings and recommendations to better protect children against sexual abuse and alleviate the impact of abuse on children when it occurs.

For a copy of the Letters Patent, see Appendix A.

Public hearings

A Royal Commission commonly does its work through public hearings. A public hearing follows intensive investigation, research and preparation by Royal Commission staff and Counsel Assisting the Royal Commission. Although it may only occupy a limited number of days of hearing time, the preparatory work required by Royal Commission staff and by parties with an interest in the public hearing can be very significant.

The Royal Commission is aware that sexual abuse of children has occurred in many institutions, all of which could be investigated in a public hearing. However, if the Royal Commission were to attempt that task, a great many resources would need to be applied over an indeterminate, but lengthy, period of time. For this reason the Commissioners have accepted criteria by which Senior Counsel Assisting will identify appropriate matters for a public hearing and bring them forward as individual ‘case studies’.

The decision to conduct a case study will be informed by whether or not the hearing will advance an understanding of systemic issues and provide an opportunity to learn from previous mistakes, so that any findings and recommendations for future change which the Royal Commission makes will have a secure foundation. In some cases the relevance of the lessons to be learned will be confined to the institution the subject of the hearing. In other cases they will have relevance to many similar institutions in different parts of Australia.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

5

Public hearings will also be held to assist in understanding the extent of abuse which may have occurred in particular institutions or types of institutions. This will enable the Royal Commission to understand the way in which various institutions were managed and how they responded to allegations of child sexual abuse. Where our investigations identify a significant concentration of abuse in one institution, it is likely that the matter will be brought forward to a public hearing.

Public hearings will also be held to tell the story of some individuals which will assist in a public understanding of the nature of sexual abuse, the circumstances in which it may occur and, most importantly, the devastating impact which it can have on some people’s lives.

A detailed explanation of the rules and conduct of public hearings is available in the Practice Notes published on the Royal Commission’s website at:

www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

Public hearings are streamed live over the internet.

In reaching findings, the Royal Commission will apply the civil standard of proof which requires its ‘reasonable satisfaction’ as to the particular fact in question in accordance with the principles discussed by Dixon J in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336:

it is enough that the affirmative of an allegation is made out to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. But reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind that is attained or established independently of the nature and consequence of the fact or facts to be proved. The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal...the nature of the issue necessarily affects the process by which reasonable satisfaction is attained.

In other words, the more serious the allegation, the higher the degree of probability that is required before the Royal Commission can be reasonably satisfied as to the truth of that allegation.

Report of Case Study No. 44

6

Private sessions

When the Royal Commission was appointed, it was apparent to the Australian Government that many people (possibly thousands) would wish to tell us about their personal history of child sexual abuse in an institutional setting. As a result, the Commonwealth Parliament amended the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to create a process called a ‘private session’.

A private session is conducted by one or two Commissioners and is an opportunity for a person to tell their story of abuse in a protected and supportive environment. As at 22 September 2017, the Royal Commission has held 7,642 private sessions and more than 472 people were waiting to attend one. Many accounts from these sessions will be recounted in later Royal Commission reports in a de-identified form.

Research program

The Royal Commission also has an extensive research program. Apart from the information we gain in public hearings and private sessions, the program will draw on research by consultants and the original work of our own staff. Significant issues will be considered in issues papers and discussed at roundtables.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

7

This Case Study

Scope and purpose

The public hearing of Case Study 44 was held in Sydney and commenced on 12 September 2016. There were eight sitting days: 12-15 and 19-22 September 2016.

The scope and purpose of the public hearing was to inquire into:

• The responses of the Catholic Diocese of Armidale and the Catholic Diocese of Parramatta to allegations of child sexual abuse made against John Joseph Farrell.

• The response of the Special Issues Group for the Province of Sydney to allegations of child sexual abuse against John Joseph Farrell.

• Any related matters.

On 6 July 2016, the Royal Commission invited any person or institution who believes that they have a direct and substantial interest in the scope and purpose of the public hearing to lodge a written application for leave to appear at the public hearing. Appendix B sets out details of those who were granted leave.

The evidence

The Royal Commission heard from 10 witnesses at the public hearing. Two witnesses, CPA and Mr Michael McGroder, gave evidence that they were sexually abused by Farrell in the Parish of Moree. Ms Karolyn Graham, Mr McGroder’s mother, also told us of her experiences.

We heard from seven institutional witnesses, all of whom are priests:

• Father Bernard Flood, a priest of the Diocese of Armidale

• Father Richard Gleeson, a priest of the Diocese of Armidale

• Bishop Gerard Hanna, who at the time of the public hearing had recently resigned from his position as the Bishop of the Diocese of Wagga Wagga and was formerly a priest of the Diocese of Armidale

• Bishop Bede Heather, former Bishop of the Diocese of Parramatta

• Bishop Luc Matthys, former Bishop of the Diocese of Armidale

• Father Brian Lucas, former member of the Special Issues Resource Group and a priest of the Archdiocese of Sydney

• Monsignor John Usher, former member of the Special Issues Resource Group and a priest of the Archdiocese of Sydney.

Report of Case Study No. 44

8

Evidence of John Joseph Farrell

Farrell is presently serving a 29-year term of imprisonment for multiple child sexual offences. At the time of the public hearing in 2016, NSW Police had laid further charges against him for child sexual offences. Those charges were scheduled for trial in the District Court of New South Wales commencing in April 2017.

The Letters Patent refer to the need to ensure that evidence that the Royal Commission may receive that identifies particular individuals as having been involved in child sexual abuse or related matters is dealt with in a way that does not prejudice current or future criminal or civil proceedings or other contemporaneous inquiries.

On the first day of the public hearing, Senior Counsel Assisting the Royal Commission said:

it is not proposed to call John Joseph Farrell to give evidence in these hearings because to do so is likely to commit a contempt of court by the Commission given that Farrell … has been charged and given the scope and purpose of this hearing, questions would clearly be asked of him relevant to matters for which he has been charged. 1

Application by the State of New South Wales

At the time of the public hearing in 2016, NSW Police were investigating the conduct of Father Brian Lucas and Monsignor John Usher and their response to allegations of child sexual abuse made against Farrell.

On the first day of the public hearing, the State of New South Wales made the following applications:

• that Farrell, Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher not be called as witnesses in the public hearing and that, if tendered, certain documents should be prohibited from publication

• in the alternative, that the evidence of those three witnesses not be live streamed by the Royal Commission and that non-publication orders should be made in relation to their evidence

• the State of New South Wales sought a private hearing of the Royal Commission, with only the legal representatives present, in which to make submissions in relation to these applications. That application was granted. 2

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

9

The State of New South Wales made the following submissions in support of its applications:

• To require Farrell to give evidence in respect of his possible offending would bring the Royal Commission into contempt.

• Because of the possible prejudicial impact on the further trial of Farrell, the Royal Commission should either not call Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher or, alternatively, take their evidence in private.

• It was inevitable that the Royal Commission’s hearing would attract publicity. In these circumstances it is possible that, if Farrell’s current charges go to trial, potential jurors may be affected by the publicity given to some of the documentary evidence and the oral evidence of Fathers Lucas and Usher.

• The publicity attracted may lead, if they are ever charged, to a successful application by Fathers Lucas and Usher to permanently stay a trial in respect of any alleged offending by them.

• Because Fathers Lucas and Usher are presently being investigated by the police with respect to their knowledge, if any, of offending by Farrell gained from conversations with Farrell, the Royal Commission should not require Father Lucas or Monsignor Usher either to give evidence or to give evidence in public. 3

Farrell was legally represented at the public hearing and did not wish to be heard in relation to the State’s application. 4 Each of counsel for Father Lucas, Monsignor Usher and the Truth, Justice and Healing Council opposed the application.

Counsel for Monsignor Usher, Mr Rushton SC, submitted:

I can indicate to your Honour, or Commissioner, that it is quite clearly a matter between the State and the Commission, but our position is this, that we don’t support the application. My client recognises the important work that this Commission has done and will continue to do and wants to cooperate fully. If the Commission wants to hear from him then he thinks he should be heard.

THE CHAIR: And no restriction on publication?

MR RUSHTON: None whatsoever. 5

Counsel for Father Lucas, Mr Skinner, made the following submission:

I have had an opportunity to get some instructions from my client, Father Brian Lucas, on this application. He does not support it. He is summonsed to appear before the Commission and he intends to do so and do his best to assist within the Terms of Reference in answering any questions asked of him that are admissible. 6

Report of Case Study No. 44

10

Mr Gray SC, on behalf of the Truth, Justice and Healing Council and the Dioceses of Armidale and Parramatta, said:

Your Honour, may I say on behalf of my clients that they take the view it is a matter for the Commission, but, for their part, they also do not support the application. 7

We rejected each of the State’s submissions. At the resumption of the public hearing on 12 September 2016, we said the following:

We have carefully considered the issues that have been aired before us this morning. We have determined that the matter will proceed to a public hearing and will be live-streamed, but we do that upon the assumption, as Counsel Assisting’s submission has indicated, that any documents that are tendered can be redacted and the evidence of any witness can be confined so that there will not be, in these proceedings, any evidence capable of linking a particular allegation to any of the charges which will be the subject of the criminal proceedings in April next year.

We will prepare reasons in relation to that determination, which we will publish in due course, but unless anyone says otherwise, we propose that the hearing should now proceed at 2 o’clock this afternoon. 8

The reasons for that determination are attached to this report as Appendix C.

The hearing took place in public and, in accordance with the Royal Commission’s usual procedure, was live streamed. Redactions in this report have been made consistent with our decision set out above.

Bishop Manning’s evidence

Bishop Kevin Manning, a former Bishop of the Diocese of Armidale, was summonsed to give evidence at the public hearing. At the time of the public hearing he was 82 years of age. 9

Bishop Manning’s counsel, Ms Gerace, made an application that he be excused from giving evidence as required by the summons due to his poor state of health. Two medical reports were tendered in support of the application, and we made a direction that those reports not be published.10

Ms Gerace nevertheless indicated, in broad terms, the nature of Bishop Manning’s condition. She said that Bishop Manning had been diagnosed as suffering from a major neurocognitive disorder which affects his ability to give reliable evidence and his competence as a witness. The medical opinion was that the bishop was unlikely to be able to give reliable evidence. 11

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

11

We were satisfied that there was no purpose in calling Bishop Manning to give evidence at the public hearing in September 2016. We excused the bishop from giving evidence in the hearing. 12

Adjournment of the public hearing

After eight days of evidence, the public hearing adjourned on 22 September 2016, with Senior Counsel Assisting making the following submission:

Your Honour, there are further inquiries that those assisting the Royal Commission wish to make in relation to the matters that have been heard over the last two weeks, so I’m not seeking that a direction be made in relation to submissions at this stage. I am submitting that the hearing should be adjourned to a date to be fixed, and all those with an interest will be informed of that date once it has been settled upon.

THE CHAIR: Very well. We will take that course and we will now adjourn. 13

Farrell’s criminal proceedings

As we have said, Farrell’s criminal trials were scheduled to be heard over approximately six weeks commencing in April 2017. However, the proceedings did not conclude in the anticipated time frame. A number of those criminal matters were adjourned to a date in March 2018 - a date beyond the lifetime of the Royal Commission.

For the same reasons that we determined Farrell could not be called as a witness in 2016, he could not be called as a witness in 2017. The public hearing did not ultimately resume, and a direction was made for the provision of written submissions to the Royal Commission.

A Direction Not To Publish all written submissions in the case study was also made. The Royal Commission’s usual practice is to vacate that direction once all written submissions and replies are received so that all parties’ submissions are published on the website contemporaneously.

However, in this case, we did not vacate the non-publication direction in the usual way and publish the written submissions on our website. The direction will be vacated at a future time, after the conclusion of Farrell’s criminal proceedings.

On 6 April 2017, the State of New South Wales requested that the Royal Commission remove the transcripts and exhibits from the case study from its website for the duration of Farrell’s criminal trial. We agreed to this request and have done so.

Report of Case Study No. 44

12

The submissions process

Senior Counsel Assisting’s submissions were served on parties with leave to appear and the Archdiocese of Sydney on 30 June 2017. Senior Counsel Assisting served a short supplementary submission in relation to the Society of St Gerard Majella (discussed later in this report) on 3 July 2017.

In July 2017, Bishop Manning’s legal representatives indicated that his health had further deteriorated such that he could no longer personally provide instructions to his lawyers. Submissions were provided to us which were prepared on the instructions of the Enduring Guardian for Bishop Manning. 14

Counsel for Bishop Manning submitted that:

• the inability to examine Bishop Manning and his inability to provide instructions on matters examined means that the inquiry into Bishop Manning’s response to allegations of abuse against Farrell has been limited

• Bishop Manning has not had a full opportunity to be heard about proposed findings or the factual substratum because of his medical condition

• the effluxion of time, the death of witnesses and the inability of Bishop Manning to give evidence or to test evidence mean that there are limits on fact-finding that can be undertaken by the Royal Commission

• if the Royal Commission proposes to make any finding about Bishop Manning’s response to allegations of child sexual abuse against Farrell, it is submitted that the report and any and each finding should expressly acknowledge the limited nature of the inquiry and the consequent limitation in fact finding

• the Royal Commission should refrain from making findings that involve criticism or censure of Bishop Manning, as Bishop Manning was not able to give evidence to explain or qualify his actions and decisions. 15

The written submissions received in the case study were extensive and detailed. We have carefully reviewed and considered all submissions, and we have taken them into account in preparing this report. It has been necessary in some parts of this report to address the submissions of the parties in detail and to include our reasoning in relation to the findings and recommendations we have made.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

13

Availability of witnesses

In addition to Bishop Manning being unavailable to give evidence, Father Peters is deceased and, for the reasons given above, Farrell did not give evidence.

It is the case that each of these witnesses could have given evidence on a number of matters in contention. We have considered the evidence available to us in coming to our findings, bearing in mind we have not had the benefit of their evidence.

Counsel Assisting’s ‘case theory’

Submissions were made by counsel for Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher that Counsel Assisting the Royal Commission had a ‘case theory’ which determined the manner in which evidence was elicited and considered.

This issue also arose in the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. In the final report, Commissioner the Hon. Dyson Heydon AC QC stated:

211. … Counsel for affected persons frequently inserted in their submissions that counsel assisting were pursuing a particular ‘case theory’. In this context, the term ‘case theory’ often seemed to be a pejorative one. It was used to hint at some sinister intent, although the intent was never spelt out in any clear or explicit way. Fundamentally, the suggestion seemed to be that counsel assisting was pursuing a ‘case theory’ to the exclusion of any other evidence and was thereby, in some ill-defined way, ‘biased’.

212. The first point to be made in response to such suggestions is that they proceed upon a fundamental misconception. There is nothing inappropriate about counsel assisting in a commission of inquiry having a theory of the case. On the contrary, it is the duty of counsel assisting to have a theory of the case, if by that expression is meant a hypothesis or conception of where the evidence might lead. Counsel assisting who did not have some theory of the case would be doing nothing more than aimlessly asking questions in the hope that some interesting evidence would emerge. And it would not be possible to put affected persons on notice of where the investigations were going. A similar argument was recently considered by McDougall J concerning the Independent Commission Against Corruption of New South Wales in relation to which the following was stated: 16

Report of Case Study No. 44

14

[I]t would be quite extraordinary if a body having the powerful and important investigative and reporting functions of the Commission were to launch an investigation, and as part of that inquiry conduct lengthy public inquiries (with all the risk to reputation and pocket involved), without having at least a ‘case theory’ that the subject matter of the investigation involved corrupt conduct within the remit of the Commission to consider, and that the persons to be examined at the public inquiry might reasonably be suspected of having been engaged in that corrupt conduct.

In truth, if the ‘case theory’ allegations are to go anywhere, it must be on the basis that the Commissioner was so firmly wedded to the case theory that she was, or had become, incapable of bringing an independent evaluative mind to all the evidence gathered, and of considering whether, on the basis of all that evidence, the case theory could be maintained.

213. Moreover, in a circumstance in which there was conflicting evidence on particular points, in the absence of some ‘case theory’ counsel assisting would not be in a position to do their duty to assist the Commissioner to arrive at or reject a conclusion by considering the points favouring it and the points contradicting it. Rather, counsel assisting would simply present all viewpoints from all parties and leave it to the Commissioner to try and work out from the mass of material what the appropriate outcome or finding might be. Counsel assisting has to formulate some working framework for what has gone on, some structure by which the evidence can be ordered. That is one of the ways they can assist the Commission. 17

We have followed a similar approach to this issue as McDougall J and Commissioner Heydon AC QC.

The rule in Browne v Dunn

Our Practice Guideline set out our general approach to application of this rule, which was to limit its general application to a number of matters in relation to disbelieving a witness, the giving of deliberately false evidence and a mistake on matters of significance.

The approach adopted by the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption Cole Royal Commission was that the rule did not apply in the context of a Royal Commission. 18

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

15

As was stated by Commissioner Heydon AC QC, a Royal Commission is an evolving inquiry. Issues may arise at short notice. Leads may arise and may be pursued. Counsel assisting may not be cognisant of all the issues, let alone all the evidence, at the time of an examination. It therefore may simply not be possible for the rule in Browne v Dunn to be observed, or observed as strictly as might be the case in a proceeding in court.

Further, and importantly, in this case, witnesses were put on notice of any adverse findings by the provision of detailed submissions from Counsel Assisting or correspondence from the Royal Commission. Witnesses had the opportunity to make any submissions of their own.

This Royal Commission, like others, was required to carry out a wide-ranging factual inquiry in a limited time. Procedures were adopted to expedite this process. One important factor arising in this context was that it was neither possible nor appropriate for Counsel Assisting to put exhaustively every matter to a witness. There was not the time. Commissioner Heydon AC QC said:

182. With two qualifications this Report expresses general agreement with the conclusions expressed in the report of the Cole Royal Commission, namely that the rule in Browne v Dunn has no or limited operation in the context of a Royal Commission.

183. The first qualification is that, in fact, in a great many cases counsel assisting and counsel for other persons did put the substance of the adverse evidence to a witness for his or her comment, regardless of whether or not that was strictly required.

184. The second qualification is that while the rule in Browne v Dunn is often described as a rule of fairness to the witness it has another important implication for the fact finding process. If a witness has given evidence and not been challenged at all, at least on a particular issue, it may be difficult in a practical sense for a Commission to arrive at a finding inconsistent with the witness’s evidence on that issue. In those circumstances there is no unfairness to the witness. But a failure to question can weaken the integrity of the fact-finding process. The conclusion expressed in the Cole Royal Commission was that ‘a Royal Commission is entitled to reject a witness’ evidence even if the witness had not been cross-examined in relation to that evidence.’ 19 With respect, this may be correct as a general proposition. But a Royal Commission would generally be slow to reject sworn evidence which had not been challenged, tested, or explored unless that evidence was inconsistent with the contemporaneous documents or the objective force of circumstances. 20

We have followed a similar approach in relation to the final sentence set out above.

Report of Case Study No. 44

16

The Whitlam inquiry

On 23 July 2012, the Bishop of Armidale, Michael Kennedy, and the Bishop of Parramatta, Anthony Fisher, jointly announced Terms of Reference for an independent inquiry commissioned by the two dioceses. 21 Mr Anthony Whitlam QC was appointed to conduct the inquiry.

The Whitlam inquiry’s Terms of Reference, among other things, included:

• The nature and quality of the management of complaints received by alleged victims of Fr F when they were received by the Diocese of Armidale or the Diocese of Parramatta including the response of Armidale and Parramatta to:

° the complaints received by alleged victims

° those who were responsible for supervising Fr F’s ministry

• The sequence of events that led to Fr F’s termination from ministry

• Information related to the 1992 meeting(s) of the Catholic Bishops Special Issues Resource Committee held in respect of Fr F’s ministry

• Whether the action taken by each of the Dioceses of Armidale and Parramatta in the management of Fr F was appropriate. 22

During the inquiry, Mr Whitlam QC conducted interviews with a number of individuals, including clergy from the dioceses of Armidale and Parramatta who were involved in, or had knowledge of, the response of those dioceses to allegations of child sexual abuse against Farrell. This included interviews with Bishops Manning, Heather and Hanna; Monsignor Usher; and Fathers Lucas, Gleeson and Flood, who gave evidence in this case study; as well as Father Peters, who died in February 2015 and did not give evidence in this case study.

References to these transcripts will be made throughout this report.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

17

Executive Summary

In Case Study 44 the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse examined the responses of the Catholic Diocese of Armidale and the Catholic Diocese of Parramatta to allegations of child sexual abuse made against John Joseph Farrell. It also examined the response of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference Special Issues Resource Group (SIRG) for the Province of Sydney to allegations of child sexual abuse against John Joseph Farrell.

John Joseph Farrell

Farrell was born in Armidale, New South Wales in 1953. In 1974, Farrell entered the seminary at St Columba’s College, Springwood, New South Wales (the Springwood seminary), as a candidate for the Diocese of Armidale. He was 21 years old and one of 34 men who commenced studies in 1974.

Farrell’s teachers and colleagues at the Springwood seminary found him ‘unusual’ and many thought him unsuitable as a priest. Nevertheless, he was ordained as a Catholic priest by Bishop Henry Joseph Kennedy in September 1981 in Armidale.

Farrell held appointments as an assistant priest in the Catholic Diocese of Armidale and the Catholic Diocese of Parramatta between 1981 and 1992. In June 1992, Bishop Bede Vincent Heather of the Diocese of Parramatta terminated Farrell’s appointment as assistant priest at Merrylands parish. In July 1992, Bishop Kevin Manning of the Diocese of Armidale withdrew Farrell’s faculties. Farrell was laicised in November 2005.

Farrell was first charged with child sexual abuse offences in 1987. He was charged with six counts of sexual intercourse without consent and five counts of indecent assault against a boy who was under 16 at the time of the alleged offences. The assaults were alleged to have occurred on or about April 1983, when Farrell was a priest in Moree. On 18 February 1988, the charges were dismissed at the Narrabri Local Court. The boy who made the allegations took his own life in 2001.

In 1998, Farrell was charged with sexual assault offences against a child whom he did not meet during his time as a priest. All charges were dismissed in 1999. 23

In 2012 the ABC screened an episode of the Four Corners program about the Catholic Church’s management of allegations against Farrell. In a July 2012 episode titled, ‘Unholy Silence’, Four Corners journalists alleged that Catholic Church authorities moved Farrell from parish to parish with prior knowledge of allegations of child sexual abuse against him and that this was never reported to police. Further details about the episode and surrounding circumstances are set out later in this report.

Report of Case Study No. 44

18

Police recommenced investigations of allegations of child sexual abuse by Farrell after the Four Corners episode screened.

On 2 May 2016, Farrell came before Judge Zahra SC in the District Court of New South Wales for 79 offences (25 counts of sexual intercourse without consent, two counts of attempted sexual intercourse without consent, 49 counts of indecent assault and three acts of indecency). The offences related to 12 complainants and were committed over a nine-year period between December 1979 and December 1988. The complainants were aged between nine and 18 at the time of the offences.

Ten of the counts were convictions after trial. Farrell pleaded guilty on the remaining counts. He was sentenced for 62 of those offences, with 17 offences being taken into account on sentencing in accordance with s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

Judge Zahra SC imposed an aggregate sentence of 29 years, with a non-parole period of 18 years. The sentence was backdated to 20 June 2015 to take into account pre-sentence custody served. The full term of Farrell’s sentence will expire on 19 June 2044.

Farrell will be eligible to be released on parole on 19 June 2033. He will be 79 years old.

Diocese of Armidale: 1981-1989

Assistant priest at Moree

Farrell’s first appointment was as an assistant priest at Moree parish in the Diocese of Armidale from 11 November 1981 until 31 July 1984. Monsignor Francis Patrick (Frank) Ryan was the parish priest. Two assistant priests who worked with him were Father James Bernard Flood and Father Richard Gordon Gleeson.

Mr Michael McGroder and his parents lived in Moree. Michael was an altar boy. Mr McGroder and his mother, Ms Karolyn Graham, gave evidence of Michael’s disclosure of sexual abuse by Farrell. We also received evidence of Mr McGroder’s parents’ discussions with Fathers Flood and Gleeson about Farrell. Father Gleeson told them that ‘No-one has the right to ruin another person’s reputation’, his father had ‘driven a huge wedge through the community and divided it’, ‘You can’t act on allegations’ and ‘You have no right to accuse a priest of these things’. We found that Father Gleeson responded insensitively and inappropriately to Mr McGroder’s parents in saying those things.

Other parents then came forward with allegations against Farrell. Bishop Kennedy moved Farrell from Moree.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

19

Sometime after Farrell had left Moree, Father Gleeson told Father Flood that six or seven children had been sexually assaulted by Farrell in Moree.

After the allegations emerged, Farrell organised to see Mr Gary Boyle, a psychologist used by the Church at that time to treat suspected offenders. Bishop Kennedy did not receive a report about Farrell from Mr Boyle about his treatment at that time.

Assistant priest at Tamworth East

Farrell was appointed assistant priest at Tamworth East in July 1984, where Bishop (then Father) Gerard Joseph Hanna was the parish priest.

We are satisfied that, at the time Farrell was appointed to the Tamworth East parish, Bishop Kennedy believed that Farrell posed a serious risk to the safety of children. Despite his appreciation of this risk, Bishop Kennedy moved Farrell to that parish. He should not have appointed Farrell to any position of public ministry where he would have access to children.

Bishop Kennedy commented to Father Hanna that Farrell was moved because ‘it’s the usual thing, he was messing around with altar boys’. This indicates to us that Bishop Kennedy knew of other priests who had sexually abused altar boys or at least of allegations that they had.

Bishop Kennedy’s account to Father Hanna was that no further complaints had come forward from Farrell’s time at Moree and the police had taken no action against him. On this basis, he decided, wrongly in our view, to appoint Farrell to another parish.

When appointing Farrell, Bishop Kennedy encouraged him to visit the houses of parishioners. Again, in our view, this was wrong.

We are satisfied that when Farrell was moved to Tamworth East, where Father Hanna was the parish priest, Father Hanna was not told by, among others, Father Flood and Bishop Kennedy what they each knew about the allegations of child sexual abuse by Farrell in Moree.

Bishop Kennedy did tell Father Hanna that Farrell was a risk and must be closely watched. However, Bishop Kennedy did not himself impose any requirements, restrictions or conditions on Farrell’s ministry at Tamworth East. While Father Hanna did impose close restrictions on Farrell’s conduct at Tamworth East, there is no evidence that Bishop Kennedy took any steps to ensure this was the case or to monitor Farrell’s conduct at that parish.

Father Hanna, properly, informed the local primary school principal and the nun about the restrictions he placed on Farrell, to ensure those restrictions were observed.

Report of Case Study No. 44

20

Local Court proceedings

On 18 February 1988 Farrell came before Magistrate Raymond Blissett at the Narrabri Local Court for committal proceedings. He faced charges for five counts of indecent assault and six charges of sexual intercourse without consent against a boy. The Diocese of Armidale paid Farrell’s legal expenses.

Farrell pleaded not guilty to all charges and all 11 charges were ‘dismissed’, according to the letter from the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions to Farrell.

People in the community felt a ‘grave injustice’ had been done by the magistrate’s decision because ‘there were other young men named around about that same time’.

After the charges against Farrell were ‘dismissed’ and after learning that no further action would be taken, Bishop Kennedy did not conduct his own investigation of or inquiry into the allegations the subject of the charges or cause one to be conducted. Given his knowledge of the earlier allegations at Moree, Bishop Kennedy should have investigated the allegations after the criminal proceedings concluded. He did not do so, and we believe that this was a serious failure on his part.

Diocese of Parramatta: 1989-1992

After the court proceedings concluded in 1988, Bishop Kennedy approached Bishop Heather, the Bishop of Parramatta, at the bishops’ conference at Kensington in 1989. He said:

I have a priest at the moment in our Diocese, Father John Farrell, and I was wondering whether you could place him in the Diocese for a while. There were some criminal allegations made against him of a sexual nature but he was acquitted of those charges. Because the Diocese of Armidale is relatively small, and there has been a lot of publicity up there about the matter, I am finding it impossible to place him anywhere in the Armidale Diocese and was wondering whether you could take him for a time at Parramatta.

Bishop Kennedy did not inform Bishop Heather that there had been other allegations about Farrell’s sexual misconduct with children prior to the charges at Narrabri Local Court.

Bishop Heather agreed to take Farrell because he needed priests and he believed that Farrell had been acquitted of the charges.

Bishop Heather conceded to us that he did not make careful inquiries and he should have done more to satisfy himself that Farrell did not pose a threat to children before accepting him into his diocese. That concession was appropriate. He should have made those inquiries.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

21

Assistant priest at Kenthurst

Bishop Heather told his College of Consultors what he was told by Bishop Kennedy about Farrell. Bishop Heather said some of them were critical of him accepting Farrell. Nevertheless, Bishop Heather appointed Farrell to the Parish of Kenthurst for a period of 12 months.

Bishop Heather told the parish priest at Kenthurst, Father Chris Dixon, that Farrell had had ‘problems’ in Armidale. Bishop Heather told us that the reason for not disclosing to Father Dixon the nature of Farrell’s problems in Armidale was ‘I thought a man was entitled to his good name’. We found that, by not disclosing this information to Father Dixon, he prioritised Farrell’s reputation over the frank disclosure to a fellow priest about an assistant priest who would be working with him. Bishop Heather’s response to Father Dixon omitted crucial information which might have influenced whether Father Dixon may have resisted accepting Farrell as his assistant or the conditions on which Farrell would exercise his ministry in Kenthurst.

We are satisfied that Bishop Heather should have told Father Dixon of Farrell’s background.

There were complaints made against Farrell in Kenthurst. One was about his conduct with a woman and another, in April 1990, about his inviting young boys on an overnight camping trip.

It is clear by the latter complaint that, at least in April 1990, Farrell had continued access to children in the Diocese of Parramatta and the Parish of Kenthurst.

It is also evident that, at least on this occasion, he was using his position as a priest to seek to take children on overnight trips. It follows that no restrictions or effective restrictions were put on his ministry to prevent him from engaging in activities which involved contact with children.

Father Wayne Peters, now deceased, was then Episcopal Vicar of the Tribunal for the Diocese of Armidale. Monsignor John Usher is a priest of the Archdiocese of Sydney with qualifications in social work. In 1990, Monsignor Usher was the director of Centacare in Sydney - a Catholic welfare agency. Following the complaint that Farrell was seeking to take young boys on an overnight trip, Father Peters requested Monsignor Usher to ‘assess’ Farrell. After his interview with Farrell, Monsignor Usher reported to Father Peters, who reported to Bishop Kennedy that, in part:

The Priest in question is known to me and I have interviewed him in relation to the alleged offences. His personal manner and his ongoing need to spend time with children is a matter of grave concern to me.

Monsignor Usher recommended that Farrell be seen by Dr Alex Blaszczynski - a psychologist with expertise in treating priests alleged to have sexually abused children.

Report of Case Study No. 44

22

In about October 1990, Bishop Kennedy asked Bishop Heather to extend Farrell’s appointment in the Diocese of Parramatta for a further year. Bishop Kennedy made this request despite his knowledge of Monsignor Usher’s report to Father Peters which expressed ‘grave concern’ about Farrell and of the incident in which Farrell planned to take three or four young boys away on a camping trip. We found that Bishop Kennedy, as Farrell’s bishop, should have removed him from ministry altogether.

We found that Bishop Kennedy did not inform Bishop Heather of Monsignor Usher’s grave concerns or of the camping trip incident. He should have done so, so that Bishop Heather could make an informed decision about whether Farrell should continue to minister in his diocese and the conditions upon which he would exercise his ministry.

Bishop Heather moved Farrell from Kenthurst to the Parish of Merrylands.

Bishop Kennedy retired in April 1991 as Bishop of Armidale.

We found that, as at the end of Bishop Kennedy’s term as Bishop of Armidale in April 1991, in relation to Farrell he had not told Bishop Heather:

• that, when he asked Bishop Heather to place Farrell in the Diocese of Parramatta in 1989, there were allegations or complaints of child sexual abuse received in the Diocese of Armidale around the time Farrell was moved from Moree in April 1984

• about any other complaints or problems the Diocese of Armidale received before Farrell was charged in 1987

• around September 1990, the report he received from Father Peters about a camping trip Farrell proposed to take with three or four boys from the Diocese of Parramatta

• in August 1990, Monsignor Usher’s report to Father Peters dated 22 August 1990 in which he expressed ‘grave concern’ about Farrell’s ‘ongoing need to spend time with children’ and that he had recommended Farrell should see Dr Blaszczynski.

Bishop Manning replaces Bishop Kennedy as Bishop of Armidale

Bishop Kevin Manning replaced Bishop Kennedy as the Bishop of Armidale in July 1991. He later said that when he arrived:

From my discussions with people in Moree I have no doubt that Father John Farrell was involved in widespread sexual activity with children and that concern about this had been expressed to the previous Bishop.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

23

A few weeks after becoming bishop, Bishop Manning refused to give Farrell permission to celebrate mass at a particular event, to publicly celebrate mass or perform other public liturgical functions in the Diocese of Armidale until further notice.

By the end of his first month as bishop in 1991, Bishop Manning knew that Farrell was working in the Diocese of Parramatta.

By October 1991, Bishop Manning was told that there were still children in Moree who were ‘silenced’ at the time of the court case.

In April 1992, following the recommendation by Monsignor Usher, Dr Blaszczynski, the psychologist who assessed Farrell, told Bishop Manning that:

He needs to be kept away from children where he is at risk and the area of his work needs to be limited to adults. However, controlling him would be very difficult and he remains a potential risk. Pre-pubescent children are in danger where he is.

In June 1992, concerns were raised with Bishop Heather about Farrell’s conduct with children. Farrell was observed attending two ordination ceremonies at the cathedral in Parramatta with a young boy unaccompanied by a guardian. Farrell was also accused of making lewd comments to an altar server. He had also been touching a girl inappropriately around the shoulders at a disco to see whether she was wearing a bra.

Dr Blaszczynski gave Bishop Manning his opinion in June 1992 that Farrell was an ‘on-going risk’ and he saw in him ‘a high risk of recidivism’.

By the end of June, Bishop Manning had also been told of complaints made to Bishop Heather about ‘lurid’ language used by Farrell towards children.

By that time, Bishop Manning and Bishop Heather were aware that Farrell was under suspicion of having offended with boys in the Diocese of Parramatta.

In June 1992, Farrell admitted to Bishop Heather that he had used language ‘in a bit of anger when altar servers had misbehaved’.

Bishop Heather terminated Farrell’s appointment with effect from 15 August 1992.

We are satisfied that, between April 1991 (when Bishop Manning became the Bishop of Armidale) and 30 June 1992 (when Bishop Heather terminated Farrell’s appointment in the Diocese of Parramatta), Bishop Manning did not tell Bishop Heather about the two reports from Dr Blaszczynski.

Report of Case Study No. 44

24

We are satisfied that Bishop Manning failed to communicate important and relevant information about Farrell to Bishop Heather. That failure stemmed from the dysfunctional structure whereby each diocese was separately managed and there was no process or requirement that relevant matters be communicated when a priest incardinated in one diocese moves to another.

We note that, from 1996, successive editions of Towards Healing contained an express requirement that that occur.

Farrell is referred to the Special Issues Resource Group

On 27 August 1992, Bishop Manning wrote to Farrell referring him to the SIRG - in particular, Father Brian Lucas. Bishop Manning told Farrell that it was the ‘task of this committee to evaluate the situation and to advise on ways of proceeding’.

Members of the SIRG were required under the applicable Church protocol to be available to leaders of all dioceses and religious orders operating within the province to provide advice, conduct and assist in investigating complaints and interviewing the accused, manage contact with media in relation to child sexual abuse and make recommendations to the bishop or religious leader about what further action was required.

Bishop Manning told Father Lucas that Father Peters was attending as his representative and Farrell’s faculties would continue to be withdrawn until further advice from the SIRG.

Meeting with Bishop Manning on 1 September 1992

Bishop Manning met with Farrell on 1 September 1992. We set out a relevant excerpt of his notes about the meeting:

I presented JF with my letter to him advising of an appointment with Rev Father B Lucas on Thursday 3 September:

John’s response was …

4. He claimed complete innocence in the charge brought against him by [REDACTED] who could have charged him on another count.

5. He referred to three other incidents which could have brought him ‘fourteen years apiece.’ I didn’t question him about these …

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

25

Admissions to the Special Issues Resource Group about child sexual abuse

The key issue for this part of this case study is whether Farrell made admissions to the priests at a SIRG meeting on 3 September 1992 (the first meeting) as set out in Father Peters’ letter dated 11 September 1992 (the first letter).

As mentioned, Father Peters attended the meeting as a representative of Bishop Manning of the Diocese of Armidale. Fathers Lucas and Usher attended as representatives of SIRG for the Province of Sydney.

First meeting: 3 September 1992

On 3 September 1992 Monsignor Usher made a note in his journal about the first meeting. It included ‘Farrell is unrepentant about his sexual misconduct with children’.

On 10 September 1992, Monsignor Usher made a note in his journal that he spoke to Bishop Manning and advised him Farrell should be told to seek secular work outside the Church for three to five years, seek therapeutic treatment and not be allowed to return to a position in the Diocese of Armidale unless ‘some real admission of contrition and maladjustment is made’.

On 11 September 1992, Father Peters wrote to Bishop Manning reporting on the first meeting. Among other matters, he reported that Farrell had ‘admitted that there had been five boys around the age of ten and eleven that he had sexually interfered with in varying degrees in the years approximately 1982 to 1984 while he was the assistant priest at Moree’.

Second meeting: 24 September 1992

A second meeting was held on 24 September 1992 with the same priests present (the second meeting).

At that meeting, Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters put to Farrell a document drafted by Father Lucas titled ‘Points for Discussion’, also referred to as the seven-point plan or five-year plan. Among other matters it advised that the diocese would support Farrell’s laicisation and, if that was resisted, it recommended that he exercise no ecclesial ministry and attend therapy. It also noted that any possible future appointment would not be in the relevant diocese and will be limited to a specialised ministry of minimal risk.

A file note made by Monsignor Usher on 24 September 1992 records, ‘Met with John Farrell, Brian Lucas and Wayne Peters - a seven point plan was presented to John Farrell CSA re his laicisation’.

Report of Case Study No. 44

26

On 25 September 1992, Father Lucas wrote to Bishop Manning reporting on the second meeting. He reported that Farrell was ‘not adverse’ to the proposal contained in the ‘Points for Discussion’ document but that ‘at this stage’ he was ‘not inclined’ to implement an application for laicisation. He reported that Farrell had asked for ‘some time to reflect on the proposal and consider “the practicalities”’.

On 26 October 1992, Father Peters wrote to Bishop Manning reporting on the second meeting. Among other matters, he reported that Farrell did not accept the proposals and wanted to give the proposals more thought.

Third meeting: 12 November 1992

The third meeting between the priests was held on 12 November 1992 (the third meeting). Father Peters wrote to Bishop Manning on 25 November 1992 reporting on the third meeting. Among other matters, he stated that Farrell wanted a further two weeks to reach a decision.

In 2001, Father Lucas told Mr John Davoren, who was at the time director of the Professional Standards Office in New South Wales, which covered all dioceses in New South Wales, that the information from the interview he and Monsignor Usher had with Farrell would be ‘conclusive evidence against him canonically’.

The Four Corners program

From late May to July 2012 there were various email exchanges between Father Lucas, Father Peters and Monsignor Usher about a forthcoming Four Corners episode. The content of those emails is dealt with below.

On 6 June 2012, Monsignor Usher prepared a file note for Cardinal George Pell entitled, ‘4 Corners interview with Cardinal Pell’ (the June 2012 file note). He said, among other matters, that Farrell made no admissions at the first meeting.

The Four Corners program ‘Unholy Silence’ aired on 2 July 2012. During the program, Four Corners journalists alleged that Catholic Church authorities moved Farrell from parish to parish with prior knowledge of allegations of child sexual abuse against him and that this was never reported to police. Father Peters’ letter dated 11 September 1992 was published.

In the two days after the Four Corners program aired, on 3 and 4 July 2012, representatives of and lawyers for the Archdiocese of Sydney interviewed Father Lucas and, separately, Monsignor Usher and Father Peters, and a file note was made of the discussions. Relevant details are dealt with below.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

27

Evidence on Farrell’s admissions

Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher gave evidence to the Royal Commission in September 2016. Father Peters died in February 2015 and did not give evidence.

Common ground

There are a number of matters about which there is no controversy.

Monsignor Usher and Father Lucas attended the three meetings in their capacity as members of SIRG. Father Peters attended as representative of Bishop Manning and as an observer. Farrell was present at each meeting.

Prior to the first meeting, Bishop Manning had withdrawn Farrell’s faculties. The meetings were held to advise Bishop Manning on whether Farrell should be allowed public ministry.

Father Peters reported to Bishop Manning after each of the meetings, by way of letter. Each of three letters in evidence was written by Father Peters. He wrote the three letters on the dates recorded and gave them to Bishop Manning, who, at some time, read them. It has not been suggested to us that he deliberately lied or was dishonest in the accounts he gave in the letters.

Father Lucas accepts that the first letter is an accurate account of the first meeting, save for the reference to the admissions having been made. Monsignor Usher said that Father Peters captured some of the things Farrell said but interpreted them in another way.

Monsignor Usher’s evidence

Monsignor Usher has given his recollections of the three meetings on various occasions.

Save for the file note made of the interview with the Archdiocese of Sydney’s solicitors, each document was created by him, signed by him or a transcript of an interview. He did not dispute the accuracy of what was said, although he provided various interpretations of them. We accept that each accurately represented what he said or wrote.

Monsignor Usher’s accounts differ from each other, sometimes in immaterial respects which can be viewed as the effects of the passage of time. However, in other respects they frankly did not make sense and were on occasions rambling and lacking coherency. His explanations for the differences and the reasons he advanced why we should not accept the accuracy of Father Peters’ letter were not persuasive. Further, the materially different responses given by Monsignor Usher makes his recollection of the first meeting not credible.

Report of Case Study No. 44

28

He has variously expressed his recollection of the first meeting in relation to Farrell making admissions as:

• Farrell made ‘no admissions’

• Farrell made ‘no personal disclosures of criminal behaviour’

• Farrell gave no ‘information relating to sexual contact with specific children, or of any actual criminal conduct’

• Farrell continually denied any wrongdoing, spoke of boundary violations and described his sexual fantasies, which included sex with children

• ‘I do not believe that Farrell made any admissions in relation to any of the abuse that was alleged against him in Armidale and Moree’.

The key reason Monsignor Usher advanced as to why the letters were not accurate as to admissions being made was that, if they were, Monsignor Usher would have reported them to the police. He said that that was his practice. However, it was submitted on his behalf that, as an alternative to a finding being made that admissions were made, it should be found that Monsignor Usher did not understand that Farrell was making admissions.

Whether or not Monsignor Usher had that understanding does not affect whether the admissions recorded in the letter were made.

Monsignor Usher gave other reasons or explanations for why Father Peters’ letter was not accurate:

• Father Peters had conflated information he had from other sources.

• Farrell was ‘deranged and bizarre’ and talking about sexual fantasies.

• Farrell was too smart to make admissions.

• It suited Farrell to make admissions under oath in 2004.

• It was inconceivable that Farrell would make admissions when he was seeking to return to ministry.

First, Monsignor Usher could not identify with any precision what the information Father Peters had prior to the meeting or the source of that information. He initially suggested it was probably in the files held by the diocese. When that was questioned, he said the information was from ‘stories floating around the diocese of Armidale’.

We accept from Father Peters’ interview with Mr Antony Whitlam QC, who was appointed to inquire into the Church’s handling of the Farrell matter, that, while Father Peters had some general concerns about rumours about Farrell, he had only a cursory knowledge of Farrell’s history of sexual abuse allegations in the Diocese of Armidale before the first meeting. It is also clear from the material held on the files at the diocese that the detail set out in the letter was not available to Father Peters.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

29

It follows that Father Peters did not have sufficient information to conflate the information in his 11 September 1992 letter with his knowledge of the prior allegations against Farrell.

Further, Monsignor Usher’s reasoning is at odds with his evidence that Father Peters would give the bishop an accurate account of the meeting.

Second, Monsignor Usher said it was Farrell fantasising, talking about rumours, and/or he was bizarre, deranged or dishonest. There is a deal of evidence before us as to Farrell’s general demeanour and the accounts he had given of the allegations against him. None of it was consistent with that description.

Third, Monsignor Usher said that Farrell was too smart to make admissions and it was inconceivable that he would do so.

We have accepted the accuracy of the note that Bishop Manning made on his conversation with Farrell on 1 September 1992. It is clear from that note that Farrell made admissions to Bishop Manning.

Further, we note that, on 10 September 2003, Bishop Luc Julian Matthys, the then Bishop of Armidale, met with Farrell to discuss the report received from Encompass Australasia after his week-long treatment at the centre. A signed file note of Bishop Matthys dated 14 October 2003 records the discussion set out above, in which Farrell was recorded as having made an admission.

In a 2015 statement to NSW Police, Father Flood said that he had a conversation with Farrell as follows:

[44] During one earlier conversation, John told me that he was prepared to admit to some offences against the boys but that others did not happen. John mentioned that there was one bloke on the North Coast, who he had never met, who alleged that he sexually assaulted him. John did not mention any names during this phone call and I did not ask him.

[45] During a much earlier phone conversation, John told me that he wanted to tell me how it happened (by this I took that he was talking about sexually abusing the young boys). I told John that I didn’t want to know what he had done, because if I was ever asked to give evidence at court I would have to tell it how I knew it, and I would prefer to say that I didn’t know.

Father Flood gave evidence to the Royal Commission that this conversation probably took place before 2015 but that he could not remember when it occurred or even what decade it took place in. He later gave evidence that this conversation took place ‘much later’, after the acts of child sexual abuse occurred.

Report of Case Study No. 44

30

We have also accepted the accuracy of the transcript of the criminal proceedings. That indicates that Farrell again made admissions, this time under oath. Those admissions may not have been complete, and the transcript may not be complete; however, we do not doubt that it is a formal transcript of court proceedings.

Further, the evidence that Farrell was deranged and bizarre cannot be reconciled with the evidence that Farrell was too smart to make admissions.

As noted above, Monsignor Usher agreed that Farrell had poor judgment and was self-centred.

Monsignor Usher’s evidence as to why Father Peters’ letter was wrong was confused, rambling and internally inconsistent. We do not accept his evidence as credible as to what was said at the meetings with Farrell, and we reject it.

Father Lucas’ evidence

Father Lucas has given various conflicting accounts of what occurred at the first meeting. The accounts differ in material respects, and his evidence to us as to those differences is not credible.

First, he told Mr Davoren in 2001 that the information from the interview he and Monsignor Usher had with Farrell would be ‘conclusive evidence against him canonically’.

Father Lucas told us he meant that ‘John and I would have been able to have said that the acquittal, the dismissal of the case was unsafe, wouldn’t have given him much room with the Vatican’.

We do not doubt that the admissions set out in the first letter would be conclusive evidence to commence canonical proceedings. However, it would be surprising if Father Lucas’ ‘surmise’ that the suspicion that the outcome of the court case concerning one boy was unsafe would be sufficient. We have received extensive evidence about the reluctance of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the department of the Roman Curia that currently has jurisdiction over cases of child sexual abuse by clergy - to laicise even when there has been a conviction. We seriously doubt that the level of suspicion that Father Lucas held would be sufficient.

Second, his draft and final media statements differ from his account to Four Corners . The releases refer to Farrell acknowledging wrongdoing and refer to more than one victim. Father Lucas gave evidence to us that he ‘surmised’ Farrell’s wrongdoing was in relation to the boy the subject of the charges that were dismissed.

He told Four Corners that Farrell was not specific with respect to any admissions. He told us that that comment to Four Corners referred only to the boy the subject of the Narrabri court case.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

31

Third, he accepted that his response to Four Corners was not true insofar as he implied that there were rumours only, when there were complaints.

Finally, he told the ABC AM program that Farrell had engaged in criminal and wicked behaviour and said that ‘to take the matter further with the police … you need to have some names of who these men were’. Again, this differed from his account to Four Corners and his account to us.

We do not consider Father Lucas’ evidence as to what occurred at the first meeting to be credible, and we reject it.

Father Lucas told us many times that he could not make sense of the letter and it ‘puzzled’ him. His evidence was largely directed to proposing explanations or reasons that we should not accept the accuracy of the letter. Many of those reasons were the same as those advanced by Monsignor Usher.

The reasons included the following:

• People did not make admissions and, if an admission was made, there would be ‘remorse and upset and drama’.

• It was not a complete confession.

• It did not accord with subsequent actions, including meetings held and the five-year plan.

• He would have been shocked and it would have been something he would not forget.

• Father Peters may have had a separate conversation with Farrell or was relying on other information.

• Farrell was ranting and vague and all over the place.

We note Father Lucas’ evidence that, if the letter is accurate, his memory is ‘fundamentally flawed’ as to what occurred at the meeting.

We do not accept Father Lucas’ propositions as to why we should be satisfied that the letter is not accurate. Our reasoning in relation to the admissions Farrell made before and after the meeting, Farrell’s demeanour and whether Father Peters was relying on other information is set out above.

In relation to the five-year plan, as we understand it, it was very difficult to have a priest laicised without his consent. A large part of Monsignor Usher’s and Father Lucas’ work in the late 1980s and early 1990s was to persuade priests by what means were available to them to have them resign. We view the five-year plan as part of that process and certainly not inconsistent with it.

Report of Case Study No. 44

32

Counsel for Father Lucas submitted that:

two persons called and questioned in an attempt to prove the reliability of a document - not authored or adopted by either of them and written over 24 years before their extensive examination in the public hearing - were inevitably going to have some stumbles in memory and in consistency between each other and internally in their own recollections and reconstructions and other evidence.

Counsel for Father Lucas also submitted that, despite or because of the inconsistencies, their evidence should be accepted as honest and given to the best of their abilities.

We do not accept that they were mere ‘stumbles’. The materially different responses that Father Lucas gave make his recollection of the first meeting not credible.

Counsel for Father Lucas submitted there were other grounds for scepticism as to the truth of the letter:

• Father Lucas’s ‘puzzlement’ as to why Father Peters agreed that no admissions were made until the letter was revealed was credible.

• Farrell’s actions until the meeting were to deny ‘everything and fight to remain in the church’. It is therefore unlikely that Farrell proceeded to ‘launch’ into admissions.

• There was a mixing of the concept of ‘admissions’ and ‘allegations against himself’.

• No constraints were placed on Farrell between that meeting and the next meeting three weeks later.

• Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher had done positive work in trying to get the Church to act on child sexual abuse.

Father Peters’ evidence is that he did not remember the letter until he saw it. We do not share Father Lucas’ ‘puzzlement’ as to that.

Farrell had made admissions to Bishop Manning shortly before the meeting. As is clear from the remainder of the letter, which Father Lucas accepted as accurate, it was within that context that Farrell was negotiating his position with the Church.

Father Peters was not a lawyer and we do not believe that the use of language as described warrants scepticism on our part as to the accuracy of the letter.

Constraints had been placed on Farrell before the first meeting. His faculties had been removed.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

33

Other submissions on behalf of Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher

Monsignor Usher’s submissions detail at length his qualifications, background and work as a priest in the area of child sexual abuse and other related issues.

Many of the submissions address his motive not to refer the allegations to the police in 1992. We make no findings as to why none of Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters reported to the police the admissions made by Farrell in 1992. We note that the SIRG protocol did not require them to do so. The police are investigating the issue of reporting to the police. Our findings are directed to whether the admissions were made and the evidence given in 2012 and before us as to whether we can be satisfied that they were made.

For the above reasons, we accept that on 3 September 1992 Farrell made the admissions set out in the first letter from Father Peters to Bishop Manning dated 11 September 1992. We reject the evidence of Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher to the contrary.

‘Putting their heads together’ regarding the Four Corners program

As set out above, in July 2012, ABC screened an episode of the Four Corners program about the Catholic Church’s management of allegations against Farrell. Four Corners journalists alleged that Catholic Church authorities moved Farrell from parish to parish with prior knowledge of allegations of child sexual abuse against him and that this was never reported to police.

Father Lucas, Monsignor Usher and Father Peters had many exchanges and discussions about what to do given that Father Peters’ first letter was in the public domain.

We are satisfied that, after receiving the emails from the Four Corners producer, Father Lucas, Monsignor Usher and Father Peters put their heads together to come up with an account which was in each of their own interests.

We are satisfied that the file note that Monsignor Usher prepared for use by Cardinal Pell was incorrect in that it implied that each of the three priests had the same recollection. The effect of that statement was to discredit the account in the letter that Farrell had made admissions because all three priests agreed he had not.

Father Lucas provided Father Peters with a draft form of words to send to Four Corners explaining what he meant by ‘admissions’ in his first letter. Father Lucas said he drafted the words without having seen the first letter or knowing its contents.

Report of Case Study No. 44

34

We find that Father Lucas’ evidence as to the circumstances in which he provided a response for Father Peters to an inquiry by Four Corners is implausible, and we reject it. We do not find it credible that he prepared a draft without seeing Father Peters’ letter or being told about its contents. The wording of the draft is consistent with, and consistent only with, that knowledge. His evidence was initially that he merely recorded what Father Peters told him. By the end of his evidence, he had conceded that he provided some of the words used in the draft response.

We are satisfied that Father Lucas was told of the contents of the 11 September 1992 letter before he completed his draft of the letter for Father Peters.

The Whitlam inquiry

On 23 July 2012, the Bishops of Armidale and Parramatta, Bishop Michael Kennedy and Bishop Anthony Fisher (as he then was), jointly commissioned former Federal Court judge the Hon. Antony Whitlam QC to conduct a private inquiry to ‘examine the processes related to the management of Farrell’.

Monsignor Usher signed two statements dated July and September 2012, the details of which are dealt with below.

Throughout September and October 2012, Bishop Manning, Father Lucas, Monsignor Usher and Father Peters were interviewed by Mr Whitlam QC. Transcripts were prepared.

During the inquiry, Mr Whitlam QC conducted interviews with a number of individuals, including clergy from the Dioceses of Armidale and Parramatta who were involved in, or had knowledge of, the response of those dioceses to allegations of child sexual abuse against Farrell. This included interviews with Bishops Manning, Heather and Hanna; Monsignor Usher; and Fathers Lucas, Gleeson and Flood, who gave evidence in this case study; as well as Father Peters, who died in February 2015 and did not give evidence in this case study.

Mr Whitlam QC delivered his report on 6 December 2012. In relation to the events from 1992 and the involvement of the SIRG, Mr Whitlam QC concluded that Fathers Usher, Lucas and Peters did not ‘cover-up’ admissions allegedly made by Farrell at the 3 September 1992 meeting. He wrote that ‘After 20 years it is hardly surprising that all three men have different recollections of what was said by Farrell. Each of them brought different background knowledge to that first meeting’.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

35

He said:

Notwithstanding the honest differences in recollection, I do not disbelieve Fr Lucas and Mgr Usher. Accordingly, if Farrell made no admissions that either of them considered could and should be reported to the police, then there was no ‘cover-up’ back in 1992. They had, of course, never seen the report prepared by Fr Peters. The ‘admissions’ in that report had also, albeit unknown to them, been aired in court as early as 2004. It would have been futile to attempt a ‘cover-up’ of its contents.

It was submitted on behalf of Father Lucas that Mr Whitlam QC’s reasoning ‘is compelling and his conclusions as to the letter should be accepted’. It was also submitted that Mr Whitlam QC had access to ‘all relevant Church records’ and ‘unlike this case study’ had interviewed all relevant Church people.

The task that Mr Whitlam QC undertook was significantly different from the work of this Royal Commission. Our relevant Terms of Reference are considerably wider, and it is obvious that we exercised our power to compel the production of documents and to require available and competent witnesses to give evidence under oath.

Mr Whitlam QC did not record in his report all the documents to which he had access. Therefore, we do not know the basis for the submission that he had access to all relevant Church records. Without evidence to support the submission, we reject it.

We have taken into account the transcripts of the accounts given to Mr Whitlam QC. However, properly, we have come to our own view on the evidence before us.

Farrell’s laicisation

On 10 September 2003, Bishop Matthys, the successor to Bishop Manning as Bishop of Armidale, met with Farrell to discuss the report he received from Encompass Australasia after Farrell’s week-long treatment at the centre. A signed file note of Bishop Matthys dated 14 October 2003 records the discussion:

John bumped into my presence, cheerful and self-contented. He reported that he had not learnt anything new about himself. He admitted to them, he said, that he had abused boys in the past. He stated that he had been diagnosed some years ago by a psychologist, that he was sexually immature and undeveloped.

Report of Case Study No. 44

36

In 2004, Farrell gave evidence in a trial in relation to extortion charges brought by the police. Those charges were against CPK, a person who, it was claimed, had extorted money from Farrell in exchange for not reporting Farrell to the police for Farrell’s sexual abuse of him in the Diocese of Parramatta. Farrell gave evidence at that trial relating to what he said at the first meeting with Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters in September 1992. His evidence was that at that meeting he made certain admissions to the priests that he had had oral sex with young boys.

Farrell was laicised in 2005. He was not laicised for a further six years after Bishop Matthys first learned of Farrell’s history and three years after learning that Farrell continued to pose a serious risk to children. We found that this was an unacceptable delay.

In January and May 2016, Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher made statements to NSW Police in the context of the police investigations relating to Farrell.

Society of St Gerard Majella

The Society of St Gerard Majella (the Society) was a religious congregation ‘erected’ by the Archbishop of Sydney, Archbishop James Darcy Freeman, on 24 March 1973. Brother John Sweeney was the superior general of the Society. Brother Joseph Prichard and Brother Stephen Robinson were members of the council of the Society.

In April 1993, a number of Brothers in the Society wrote to Father Rodger Austin, a canon lawyer, alleging they had been sexually abused by Brother Sweeney, Brother Pritchard or Brother Robinson. We heard evidence from Bishop Heather and Monsignor Usher in relation to those allegations.

Special Enquiry into the Society

On 4 May 1993, Bishop Heather established a Special Enquiry into the Society, to be conducted by Father Austin and Father Peter Blayney, who were tasked ‘[t]o investigate the sexual impropriety which is alleged to have taken place within the Society of St. Gerard Majella’. On 31 August 1993 the Special Enquiry completed its final report to Bishop Heather (the 1993 report). It concluded that all of the allegations it had received were substantiated. Bishop Heather did not go to the police after receiving the report from Father Austin.

In December 1993, Bishop Heather received a statement made by HBC. The statement alleged that HBC had been sexually abused by Brother Sweeney starting from when HBC was 16 years old. Bishop Heather then wrote to Father Usher providing him with HBC’s statement. Bishop Heather notified Father Usher that ‘since some of the allegations concern a period when HBC was a minor, I expect to be informing you of the matter officially after my meeting with Brother John Sweeney’.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

37

Father Usher interviewed Brother Sweeney about HBC’s allegations. He completed a report to Bishop Heather on 17 February 1994 (the 1994 report) in which he wrote:

if HBC decided to proceed with police action he would have every right to do so and it is likely that the police would take the allegations seriously and that Brother John would be charged with child sexual abuse.

Around 12 December 1994, NSW Police contacted Bishop Heather. According to NSW Police, ‘the Bishop indicated that he had the [1993] report but would not release it to them without some Court process’.

Bishop Heather destroys documents

The next morning, NSW Police executed a search warrant at the diocesan office in Parramatta (Bishop Heather was not present at the time). The police seized four files, but none of them contained a copy of the 1993 report. That afternoon NSW Police attended Father Austin’s office and obtained a copy of the 1993 report from him.

Shortly after NSW Police executed the search warrant, Bishop Heather ‘took the precaution of destroying all papers of mine which could have been to the disadvantage of persons with whom I deal’. Bishop Heather said he destroyed these to ‘respect the confidentiality of things that were conveyed to me as Bishop’. Bishop Heather did not accept the suggestion that he was trying to keep the documents undiscoverable by the police.

Bishop Heather could not recall whether the documents related to complaints of a sexual nature against priests. The Chair put to Bishop Heather that he had a very clear recollection of many events of the time, yet he did not recall the character of the documents he destroyed. Bishop Heather said ‘No, no, I don’t, no’.

We are satisfied that Bishop Heather was not frank or honest in relation to the specifics of his conduct, and he sought to obfuscate and minimise his culpability in relation to the kinds of documents he destroyed. We do not accept that he was a ‘person seeking to recall events following the passage of some 20 years’.

We are satisfied that Bishop Heather’s evidence was less than forthcoming about whether he destroyed documents which recorded allegations of criminal conduct, including sexual misconduct, against priests and religious.

Report of Case Study No. 44

38

We are satisfied that Bishop Heather destroyed documents held by the diocese that contained information which was adverse to priests and religious in the diocese. This included documents recording complaints and allegations of criminal conduct by priests and religious, including allegations of sexual misconduct.

Bishop Heather conceded to us it was the execution of the search warrant by police in relation to allegations of sexual misconduct against religious which prompted his destroying documents. It follows that documents of this nature must have been front of mind for Bishop Heather in December 1994.

The catalyst for the destruction of documents was the execution by NSW Police of a search warrant on diocesan premises.

We are satisfied that Bishop Heather’s conduct was intended primarily to prevent state agencies, including police, from discovering information which disclosed possible criminal conduct by priests and religious, including allegations of sexual misconduct with children. It would also have the effect of depriving litigants of access to those documents.

This was wrong, and prioritised the reputation of clergy and religious, and the Catholic Church, over the safety of children and the proper conduct of the criminal justice system.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

39

1 John Joseph Farrell: Appointments and Criminal Proceedings John Joseph Farrell was born in Armidale, New South Wales, in 1953. He was ordained as a Catholic priest by Bishop Henry Joseph Kennedy in September 1981 in Armidale. 24

Farrell held appointments as an assistant priest in the Catholic Diocese of Armidale and the Catholic Diocese of Parramatta between 1981 and 1992. 25 In June 1992, Bishop Bede Vincent Heather of the Diocese of Parramatta terminated Farrell’s appointment as assistant priest at Merrylands parish. 26 In July 1992, Bishop Kevin Manning of the Diocese of Armidale withdrew Farrell’s faculties. 27 Farrell was laicised in November 2005. 28

The following table shows Farrell’s appointments from his ordination in 1981.

Diocese of Armidale

Ordained September 1981

Moree parish Assistant priest November 1981 to July 1984

Tamworth East parish Assistant priest August 1984 to August 1987

Diocese of Parramatta

Kenthurst parish Assistant priest November 1989 to November 1990

Merrylands parish Assistant priest November 1990 to June 1992

Faculties withdrawn July 1992

Laicised November 2005

Farrell was first charged with child sexual abuse offences in 1987. He was charged with six counts of sexual intercourse without consent and five counts of indecent assault against a boy who was under 16 at the time of the alleged offences. 29 The assaults were alleged to have occurred on or about April 1983, when Farrell was a priest in the Parish of Moree in the Diocese of Armidale. 30 On 18 February 1988, the charges were dismissed at the Narrabri Local Court.31 The boy who made the allegations took his own life in 2001.

In 1998, Farrell was charged with sexual assault offences against a child whom he did not meet during his time as a priest. 32 All charges were dismissed in 1999. 33

Police investigations of allegations of child sexual abuse by Farrell recommenced in 2012 after the ABC screened the Four Corners program entitled ‘Unholy Silence’, which discussed the Catholic Church’s management of allegations against Farrell, in July 2012. Four Corners journalists alleged that Catholic Church authorities moved Farrell from parish to parish with prior knowledge of allegations of child sexual abuse against him and that this was never reported to police.34 Further details about the episode and surrounding circumstances are set out later in this report.

Report of Case Study No. 44

40

On 2 May 2016, Farrell came before Judge Zahra SC in the District Court of New South Wales for 79 offences (25 counts of sexual intercourse without consent, two counts of attempted sexual intercourse without consent, 49 counts of indecent assault and three acts of indecency). The offences related to 12 complainants and were committed over a nine-year period between December 1979 and December 1988. The complainants were aged between nine and 18 at the time of the offences.

Ten of the counts were convictions after trial. Farrell pleaded guilty on the remaining counts. He was sentenced for 62 of those offences, with 17 offences being taken into account on sentencing in accordance with s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

Judge Zahra SC imposed an aggregate sentence of 29 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 years. The sentence was backdated to 20 June 2015 to take into account pre-sentence custody served. The full term of Farrell’s sentence will expire on 19 June 2044.

Farrell will be eligible to be released on parole on 19 June 2033. He will be 79 years old.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

41

2 John Joseph Farrell

2.1 Childhood

In May 2005, Farrell drafted a document relating to his petition to be laicised (2005 petition). 35 In that document, he gave an overview of his life from birth to the time of writing based on material he had written in his personal diaries. The information set out in this section has been primarily drawn from the 2005 petition.

Farrell was born in 1953 and is the youngest of seven children. He has three brothers and three sisters.36

From a young age, Farrell regularly attended mass at Saints Mary and Joseph Cathedral in Armidale in New South Wales (the Armidale Cathedral) with his family. In his 2005 petition, Farrell recalled that his parents ‘were very strong Catholics from solid Catholic backgrounds’. 37 Farrell also wrote that ‘[t]here was never a time when I felt close to [my parents] and all this had a very negative impact on me for much of my life’. 38

From about 1961 to 1970, Farrell was an altar sever at the Armidale Cathedral. Farrell recalled serving mass for Bishop Edward Doody ‘most Mondays’ and described his relationship with the bishop as ‘very close’. While he found Bishop Doody to be ‘very kind’, Farrell recalled that he felt unable to confide in Bishop Doody on personal issues, ‘which concerned [Farrell]’. Farrell recounted in his 2005 petition that ‘[t]his was a constant feature of my childhood, that no-one was able to get me to talk to them about the things which concerned me’. 39

In his evidence to the Royal Commission, Father James Bernard Flood said that, when he moved to Armidale in 1964, ‘It was then that I became aware that John Farrell was among the altar boys, and he was one particularly favoured by Bishop Doody as his regular server at the private mass’.40 Father Flood said, to his knowledge, he was not aware of anything unusual about Farrell’s closeness to Bishop Doody. 41

Father Flood was ordained a Catholic priest on 24 July 1962. From November 1981 to November 1982, he worked alongside Farrell as an assistant priest in Moree. 42

When Bishop Doody died in 1968, Farrell recalled being upset, as he had lost his ‘main role model and mentor’. 43 Farrell described Bishop Doody’s funeral as the ‘grandest ceremony I had ever attended … It was my first experience of the grandeur of the Church and I was inspired by it’. 44 Bishop Doody’s funeral was one of the experiences which Farrell attributed to encouraging him to become a priest.

Bishop Doody was succeeded by Bishop James Darcy Freeman, who was Bishop of Armidale from 1968 to 1971.

In July 1971, Bishop Freeman was appointed Archbishop of Sydney and Bishop Kennedy became Bishop of Armidale. Bishop Kennedy held this position until he retired in April 1991.

Report of Case Study No. 44

42

In 1973, Farrell recalled attending a mass at the Armidale Cathedral given by Bishop Kennedy. Farrell said that Bishop Kennedy ‘gave a passionate appeal for priests and I was stirred, but was still very disturbed about my immaturity and many other problems in my life’. 45

The following year Farrell entered a seminary. Reflecting on his decision to join the seminary, Farrell wrote, ‘my decision to commence studies for the priesthood was made without guidance and the proper discernment. I had no real understanding of what was expected of me in the seminary’. 46

2.2 Seminary

In 1974, Farrell entered the seminary at St Columba’s College, Springwood, New South Wales (the Springwood seminary), as a candidate for the Diocese of Armidale. He was 21 years old and one of 34 men who commenced studies in 1974. 47

Farrell said that, before he was accepted into the Springwood seminary, he was interviewed by Monsignor James McCosker, who was a priest of the Archdiocese of Sydney. 48 Farrell recalled:

It was a simple interview, but it was the only formal assessment I had before becoming a seminarian. I had to send references to the seminary. I understand that the Principal of De La Salle College did not recommend me. 49

In his 2005 petition, Farrell reflected that when he entered the seminary he lacked maturity, ‘especially psycho-sexual development’. Farrell said that by the time he entered the seminary he had no sexual experience, had not received any form of sexual education and ‘knew nothing about contraception’. 50

Father Brian Lucas gave evidence to us that he was in the year below Farrell at the Springwood seminary. 51 Father Lucas spoke about his impression of Farrell at the seminary:

He was a - he was always the sort of person that you might say was always in your face. He was always big-noting himself. He was, you know, in charge of everything. You know, he was not - I mean, it didn’t much bother me in my relationship with him. I know there was someone from his own diocese who just detested him and I understand that they had a bad relationship. Look, he didn’t cause me any bother; I didn’t - he wasn’t one of my close friends. He was just a bit different in many respects, yes.52

On 16 August 1980, Father Lucas was ordained a Catholic priest and incardinated in the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney. He is also a lawyer. We detail his work with the archdiocese later in this report.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

43

Concerns about Farrell in the seminary

In 1975, when Farrell entered his second year at the seminary, he reflected that the new rector at Springwood seminary, Father John Walsh, recognised that Farrell ‘had problems’, so he sent Farrell to ‘see a specialist to get help’. Farrell wrote in 2005 that for ‘several months I used to leave the seminary one afternoon each fortnight and go to Sydney to meet with a nun named Sister Bernadette Curtin’. Farrell recalled, ‘My sessions with her were very helpful. Sadly, these sessions came to an end because she had to go away for some reason. No arrangements were made for me to obtain help from anyone else’. 53

Farrell did not specify what ‘problems’ were the subject of the assistance he received from Sister Curtin. However, in his 2005 petition he reflected that during his time at the seminary he ‘lacked maturity … was fairly narrow-minded … was a negative thinker … was very low on self-confidence and independence … was critical of others and unassertive … lacked the ability to trust others … lacked a proper ability to relate to [his] peers’ and that psychologists had told him that he ‘was lacking in a proper maturity, especially psycho-sexual development’. 54

Even though he did not satisfy all the academic requirements at the end of his third year at the Springwood seminary in 1976, Farrell was accepted into fourth year at the seminary at St Patrick’s College, Manly, for the 1977 academic year. By this stage, 16 of the original 34 of Farrell’s contemporaries who started at the Springwood seminary in 1974 had dropped out. Farrell said, ‘That attrition rate was consistent with previous classes’. 55

During Farrell’s time in the seminaries, he would return home to Armidale during holiday periods. Farrell said that during these visits ‘Bishop Kennedy and the local priests were very hospitable and I regularly visited them at the presbytery’. 56

By early 1977, clergy from the Diocese of Armidale had expressed concern about Farrell’s suitability for the priesthood.

On 11 March 1977, Father Bruce Macpherson, an assistant priest at the Armidale Cathedral, wrote a letter to the president of St Patrick’s College, Father Neil Collins, in which he was critical of Farrell’s ‘angular personality’. 57

Father Richard Gordon Gleeson recalled in his evidence that he met Farrell in 1977. At the time, Father Gleeson was a deacon at Armidale parish. Father Gleeson stated, ‘We weren’t simpatico, I would say. He’s not my sort of bloke. I just found him unusual and - I just found him unusual’. 58

On 10 August 1978, Father DJ Willoughby wrote a letter to ‘My Lord’, in which he said that three students of his Theology II class (one of which was Farrell) were not suitable for the priesthood.59

Report of Case Study No. 44

44

An undated and unsigned typed note produced by the Diocese of Armidale states:

I have serious reservations about John’s suitability for the priesthood. In the past many efforts have apparently been made to improve an abrasive and ego-directed attitude but to no avail.

His relationship with others is not overall a happy one and I see little chance of John being equipped to handle such a person-orientated role as that of the Priest.

He is unfortunately insensitive on a number of quite important issues.

While I intend speaking to John further and at some length about these matters before the end of term, I feel it is impossible for dramatic improvement to take place. 60

Farrell takes a leave of absence from the seminary

In August 1978, Farrell informed the president of St Patrick’s College, Bishop Patrick Murphy, that ‘after … consultation with my Spiritual Director’ he had decided to leave the seminary for a period of 12 months at the end of the term. 61

Farrell’s spiritual director was Father Rex Brown, a priest from the Diocese of Lismore. Farrell said in his 2005 petition that ‘[Father Brown] has an outstanding intellect and is noted for his insights into human beings. I cannot remember when I actually first met him, but I had heard a lot about him from classmates from the Lismore diocese. That diocese had many students in the seminary, and they were in regular contact with Father Brown’. 62

In 1996, Father Brown was convicted of an offence relating to the possession of child pornography. He died in 2005. Father Brown was the subject of allegations of child sexual abuse in the Royal Commission’s Case Study 4: The experiences of four survivors with the Towards Healing process.63

Bishop Murphy responded that he was ‘willing to forward [Farrell’s] application to Bishop Kennedy with the recommendation that he consider it favourably’. Bishop Murphy informed Farrell that he would urge Bishop Kennedy to impose the following conditions on Farrell: that Farrell maintain contact with a priest nominated by Bishop Kennedy; and that, ‘as far as possible’, Farrell spend the 12 months within the Diocese of Armidale. 64

Bishop Murphy told Bishop Kennedy of the exchange and said, ‘it could be very beneficial for [Farrell] to spend a year outside the Seminary on the conditions which I indicated to him in my reply’.65 Bishop Murphy also made the following comments about Farrell’s time in the seminary:

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

45

John has caused a deal of concern here in the College because of his apparent insensitiveness and a tendency to use people. These matters have been pointed out to him, but he does not always respond - not necessarily through lack of good-will. When the same comments were made to him recently by a friend outside the Seminary and in writing, he seems to have come to a greater awareness of his failings. 66

On 1 September 1978, Bishop Kennedy informed Bishop Murphy that ‘with some hesitation’ he approved Farrell taking a 12-month leave of absence from the seminary ‘in keeping with the conditions outlined in your letter’. 67

In 2005, Farrell made the following comments about why he took a 12-month leave of absence from the seminary in 1978:

Great changes occurred in 1978. The Springwood seminary was closed at the end of 1978. Henceforth all the seminarians would be at Manly. From 1978 the leadership pyramid was inverted and 1978 was a very bad year. Instead of the seminary being top heavy with leadership from the top, the greater number of young students dominated the place and immaturity was rife.

… Many left from my class. There had been 14 students in the class at the start of the year, but the year ended with only eight. I was not one of them. Things had not gone well for me and in August I was told not to return after the August holidays. I was technically on leave. 68

In a signed police statement dated 10 September 2015, Father Flood stated the following about the circumstances surrounding Farrell taking a leave of absence from the seminary:

I was aware that [Farrell] had been suspended for twelve months from the seminary at St Patrick’s College Manly. I was told that John was part of a group that would streak naked along a verandah that faced onto the Manly Village. I was aware that during the suspension he spent some time of [sic] the North Coast and stayed with a Father Rex BROWN. I have been told that Father BROWN was living with a same-sex partner and has since died. 69

Father Flood said in his evidence to the Royal Commission such behaviour ‘is most unusual and undesirable in a future priest of the Catholic Church’. 70

Father Flood said, ‘It was part of the chattering among the local clergy’ that Farrell and others would streak naked. Father Flood agreed that it would be ‘unusual’ for a student to be suspended from the seminary in those days. 71

Farrell lived and worked in Armidale between September 1978 and June 1979. 72

Report of Case Study No. 44

46

In his 2005 petition, Farrell said that during this period he met with Father Brown:

In due course I met [Father Brown] and he took a keen interest in my affairs and was very helpful. He kept in touch with me while I was on leave from Manly and encouraged me to apply to return to the Manly seminary from September 1979. Father Brown arranged for me to be assessed by a psychologist, who duly concluded that I should be readmitted to the seminary. No steps were taken, however, to ensure things were in place so that I would make good progress and flourish. 73

Father Flood gave evidence that he was not aware that Farrell was provided with any counselling during his period of suspension. Father Flood said that he believed that there should have been some counselling offered to Farrell. 74

Farrell is readmitted to the seminary in 1979

In April 1979 Farrell sought to be readmitted to the seminary from the beginning of the third term in 1979. 75 Farrell said in 2005 that in June 1979 he ‘left Australia and travelled the world’. Farrell made the following reflections about his travels:

I had many spiritually uplifting experiences and knew I certainly had a vocation to be a priest, but my ability to respond to it had been handicapped by my shortcomings. 76

Bishop Kennedy formally requested Bishop Murphy to readmit Farrell to the seminary. 77 Farrell resumed his fifth year at the seminary in September 1979. 78

Bishop (then Father) Gerard Joseph Hanna was a member of the Diocese of Armidale Council of Priests at the time Farrell was permitted to return to the seminary. He gave evidence that members of the council did not share Bishop Kennedy’s view that Farrell should be permitted to return:

the Bishop then decided that he would send him back, he couldn’t accept the decision of the seminary, and explained to the Council of Priests at the time why he was doing that, and there was some discussion as to whether he should do it or not, but clearly, he had made up his mind to promote John Farrell and in the course of that discussion, the reasons emerged that he was from a good family, his mother was outstanding as a parishioner, and that he should at least be allowed to return to the seminary and continue studying, to the point of ordination. The Bishop was not open to hear any other point of view at that time. 79

Bishop Hanna gave evidence that other members of the Council of Priests at that time included Father Flood and Monsignor Francis Patrick (Frank) Ryan. 80 He said that the problems that the seminary identified ‘were one of attitude and personality, his overbearing manner’. He said that the Council of Priests did not consider supervision or counselling of Farrell at that time. 81

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

47

Bishop Hanna was the administrator and parish priest at St Nicholas parish in Tamworth East at the time of Farrell’s appointment to that parish in August 1984. Bishop Hanna was appointed Bishop of Wagga Wagga in February 2002. He resigned from this position due to ill health in September 2016.82

In March 1980, Farrell returned to St Patrick’s College, Manly, for his sixth and final year at the seminary. At some stage during the year, Farrell ‘did an external counselling course with St John of God Brothers at Burwood’. Farrell said in his 2005 petition:

I had a close relationship with the director, Father Colin McKay. Before my ordination he took me out to dinner. I wanted to tell him that I had all sorts of problems, but I didn’t. A day never passes without my regretting that I did not tell him about my problems.83

In his 2005 petition, Farrell made the following observations about life at the seminary in 1980:

During 1980 - the last year when I lived at Manly seminary - my life was far better than many other students, especially some in the class below mine. Some were out at the pub almost every night and were drinking heavily. Some were regularly involved in wild sexual activity with several other seminarians. Some were coarse, arrogant and exceedingly offensive to many of our fellow students. I was liked by Grove Johnson (the seminary’s President) but some of the academic staff had concerns about me. 84

Farrell continued:

At both Springwood and Manly there were talks on celibacy, but always at a theoretical level rather than on practical issues. No attempt was ever made to discuss the issue of sexuality and how to cope with sexual urges. Worse still, the seminary did not address the fact that many students were sexually active with each other …

On many occasions the students at Springwood and Manly expressed their wish to have outside priests come in and talk about real life in the priesthood, especially issues of sexual activity. At Springwood, I was conscious that a few men in my class knew almost nothing about women’s sexual organs so I asked for something to be done …

In my final year at Springwood (1976) seminarians were divided into discussion groups with a priest as the group moderator. One of my mates was in a group led by Father John Hill. I was not in John Hill’s group, but after each meeting my mate told me what had happened. His group meeting quickly became a sensitivity session drawing on the then highly popular works of the Jesuit priest, John Powell. He was

Report of Case Study No. 44

48

the author of books such as ‘Why am I afraid to tell You I Love you?’ and ‘Why am I afraid to tell you who I am?’ Following the suggestions in these books, the members of Hill’s group started to reveal themselves to one another. This caused a lot of emotional disturbance among the group.

The members of Hill’s group became overtly tactile, hugging and caressing one another, quite often in public. Most of the group went beyond normal barriers and had inappropriate expressions of their feelings, including genital sexual activity and the intense desire for it. Several members of the group, including my mate were adversely effected [sic]. Having whetted their appetites and having found it enjoyable, they became almost insatiable, as they craved for more.

Physical intimacy began to be common place in the seminary. These experiences of homosexual activity dulled consciences and allowed some seminarians to be fairly undisturbed about continuing to engage in similar activity in the seminary, and later in their Ministry. Many of us became fairly regularly involved in emotional entanglements and sexual activity with other seminarians.

So, not only had the seminary not taught the seminarians how to live celibate lives as sexual beings, but a counter-culture had emerged which found expression in regular sexual activity which some students continued during their years in the seminary and afterwards. 85

Father Lucas said he did not have the same experience as Farrell:

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Did you observe that experience with others?

A. No.86

In a letter to Bishop Luc Matthys dated 8 July 2005, Bishop Manning said:

Over the course of those years I consulted with others who were involved in his seminary training. To start with there were mention of parties with naked students while at the Manly seminary. The Rector, at the time, had been under the impression that John Farrell had gone overseas for a holiday after the incident and that he would not return to the Seminary. I later discovered that his spiritual director was a person who was also convicted of homosexual activity. 87

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

49

3 Diocese of Armidale: 1981 to 1989

3.1 Farrell’s ordination

Farrell was ordained as a deacon of the Diocese of Armidale on 28 November 1980. 88

Over 1981, he participated in the ‘Diaconate Program’, which involved him living and working under the supervision of clergy in various parishes in the Diocese of Armidale. 89 Farrell spent time at the following parishes of the Armidale diocese: 90

• South Tamworth (January 1981)

• Narrabri (February - April 1981)

• Marriage Tribunal (Armidale) (April - May 1981)

• Ashford (May 1981)

• Moree (June - August 1981)

• Quirindi (August - September 1981).

Farrell kept in touch with his spiritual adviser, Father Brown, during this time.

Farrell reflected in his 2005 petition that, after graduating from the seminary at the end of 1980, he felt ill-prepared to join the priesthood:

Reading through my diaries and examining the evidence, I now have grave doubts that in 1980, the last year I was in the seminary, I was suitable for ordination to the diaconate. I had completed the academic requirements, but I had failed to form good habits for the spiritual life: mental prayer, meditation, and examination of conscience. My life was compartmentalised and I had not addressed serious problems. 91

Reports from clergy to Bishop Kennedy about Farrell’s suitability to be ordained were mixed. Father Harry Leis, the parish priest of St Francis Xavier, Narrabri, made the following comments about Farrell:

He seemed to resent any criticism, or gave me that impression. John was particularly helpful in preparing the Altar Boys for the Easter Triduum and I believe the ceremonies were of a high standard because of the time and enthusiasm he showed in preparing the readers etc …

John was very faithful to his classes at the state school but I gathered the children found him rather harsh …

He was always industrious and did a great deal of visitation of the parents of the children from the school. 92

Report of Case Study No. 44

50

In February 2001 Farrell was appointed to Narrabri under the Diaconate Program. For the three weeks he was in Narrabri he lived at the Bishop’s House at the Armidale parish and worked under Father Wayne Peters at the Marriage Tribunal. 93 Father Peters provided reports to Bishop Kennedy regarding Farrell’s time with him as part of the Diaconate Program. Bishop Kennedy responded, ‘I appreciate your frankness in these reports which certainly shall remain confidential to me’. 94 Father Peters’ letter and the enclosed reports were not produced to the Royal Commission.

The next phase of Farrell’s Diaconate Program was spent at the Parish of Moree under the Vicar General of the Diocese of Armidale, Monsignor Ryan. Farrell was appointed to the Parish of Moree from 11 June to 3 August 1981. Bishop Kennedy told Farrell, ‘It is extremely important that you keep in close contact with your spiritual director. These final weeks of your preparation for Ordination are all important. Your spiritual director will have much to offer’. 95

By letter dated 6 August 1981, Father Flood (for the Diocesan Vocations Team) advised Bishop Kennedy ‘that we believe that John is adequately prepared for his presidential role at Mass’. 96

On 16 August 1981, Farrell wrote a petition to Bishop Kennedy to be ordained to the priesthood. In support of his petition, Farrell made the following declaration: ‘I declare that I am clearly aware of what the law of celibacy entails; and I firmly resolve with the help of God to fulfil that law willingly and to keep it in its entirety until the end.’ 97

Farrell spent the final phase of the Diaconate Program at the Parish of Quirindi working under Father Stan Campbell. He was at Quirindi between 1 September and 18 September 1981. 98 Father Campbell wrote a positive report to Monsignor Ryan about Farrell on 16 September 1981 but also noted, ‘two weeks is a very short time’. 99

On 21 September 1981, Farrell was ordained by Bishop Kennedy as a priest of the Diocese of Armidale.100

It is clear that there were a number of objectors to Farrell’s ordination. 101

Father Gleeson gave evidence that ‘it was the common talk amongst the clergy’ that Bishop Kennedy ordained Farrell because of Bishop Kennedy’s relationship with Farrell’s mother: 102

Bishop Kennedy, had a great respect, it seems to us - to me - for John’s mother, Ursula.103

Bishop Manning said that, after he was appointed Bishop of Armidale, ‘I soon discovered that the Diocesan Consultors had been adamantly opposed to his being ordained and had voted against it’. 104 He said, ‘My own conclusions to the aforesaid is that John Farrell should not have been ordained, for it was obvious that he had problems with sexuality while in the seminary, which would not suit him for the celibate life’. 105

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

51

In his 2005 petition Farrell reflected, ‘I really should not have been ordained a priest at that time’. 106

3.2 Moree parish

After Farrell was ordained, his first appointment was as an assistant priest at Moree parish in the Diocese of Armidale. He worked in the Moree parish from 11 November 1981 until 31 July 1984.107

At the time, Monsignor Ryan was the parish priest at Moree as well as the Vicar General in the Diocese of Armidale. 108

Bishop Kennedy was the Bishop of the Diocese of Armidale. Both Bishop Kennedy and Monsignor Ryan are deceased.

In 2016, Farrell was convicted for child sexual abuse offences committed between 1981 and 1984 against nine children while he was at Moree. We heard from two of these survivors: CPA and Mr Michael McGroder. The Royal Commission also heard evidence from Mr McGroder’s mother, Ms Karolyn Graham.

Observations of Farrell’s ‘odd’ behaviour

Father Flood was appointed as an assistant priest at the parish of Moree at around the same time that Farrell commenced work there in November 1981. Both priests worked under the supervision of Monsignor Ryan. 109

Prior to their appointment together, Father Flood had ‘minimal dealings’ with Farrell. Father Flood was tasked with providing scripture classes to the state schools and working with the local Indigenous community, while Farrell assumed responsibility for supervising and training the local altar boys.110

Father Flood said that he and Farrell lived in the presbytery with Monsignor Ryan and a handyman. However, he was not aware of what Farrell was doing with his time. He said he thought that Monsignor Ryan ‘should have kept a closer eye on John’. 111

Father Flood said that there were a number of incidents at the presbytery where Farrell did some things that he thought were ‘odd’. On one occasion, Farrell used an axe to break a locked door so that he could gain access to an office. On two other occasions he killed animals who were annoying him - one by shooting cats and the other by setting frogs on fire. 112

Report of Case Study No. 44

52

Father Flood also recalled that Farrell told him about a time when Monsignor Ryan was away from the presbytery and Farrell put on Monsignor Ryan’s robes and ran around St Philomena’s school yard during the school fete. 113

He said, at the time, Farrell’s conduct was ‘unacceptable’ but, when asked if he thought Farrell’s conduct was incompatible with his being a priest, Father Flood said, ‘I didn’t look at it from that perspective’. 114

In early 1983, Bishop Kennedy appointed Father Gleeson to Moree as an assistant priest. 115 Father Gleeson succeeded Father Flood. When he arrived, Farrell was already serving as an assistant priest. 116

Father Gleeson became an assistant priest at the Saints Mary and Joseph Cathedral parish in Armidale in 1989. 117 At the time of the public hearing, Father Gleeson was administrator at the Cathedral parish in Armidale. 118

He said that, while all of the priests would visit the homes of parishioners, Farrell ‘took it to another level’ and was known to regularly invite himself over to parishioners’ houses for breakfast. Father Gleeson said that this was something he would never do himself. He was aware that some people eventually asked Farrell to stop coming over because they were not ready for guests in the morning. 119

Father Gleeson and Farrell were on a roster for performing mass in the surrounding areas, including Northstar and Pallamallawa.

Father Gleeson also recalled two occasions on which Farrell ‘did things which were a bit strange.’ They were similar to Father Flood’s observations and included animal cruelty. 120

Observations of Farrell’s interaction with children

Father Flood recalled there were occasions when Farrell would bring altar boys back with him to the presbytery and give them soft drinks and food. 121

He ‘saw that John was sitting in a chair in the lounge room and the boys would be swarming all over him’. He recognised they were altar servers but could not recall who they were individually. Father Flood confronted Farrell over his bringing the boys into the presbytery, because this was where they lived and he believed they were entitled to some privacy. 122

However, Father Flood also gave evidence that his view at the time was that it ‘was unprofessional and could be open to misunderstanding’ because of ‘the possibility of sexual contact’. He said sexual contact between priest and child was ‘possibly’ something that was in his mind in the early 1980s, ‘but I had nothing to alert to the fact that that was the context’. 123

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

53

Father Flood gave an example of another priest who had been part of the Diocese of Armidale in the 1960s who ‘had the suggestion made that he was interfering with boys’, which he had heard about through ‘clergy chitchat’.124

Father Flood did not have any involvement with training the altar boys and only interacted with them while celebrating mass. Whenever he travelled to say mass at other towns, he did not take an altar server with him. He said, ‘you did not need them to celebrate mass’. 125

Father Flood said he was not aware at the time that Farrell would take altar servers away with him when he went on trips to nearby areas. 126 Father Flood said that he was not aware of any other priest taking boys away on trips and that he would have deemed such behaviour ‘inappropriate’ because of ‘[t]he possibility of sexual abuse or sexual misunderstanding of contact and, therefore, unhelpful for the pastoral relationship between the young man and/or his family’. 127

Father Gleeson recalled several occasions in which he saw Farrell in contact with children. He saw altar servers, including two boys, CPD and another boy (whose identity was known to Father Gleeson but was redacted from the document tendered), with Farrell at the presbytery.128 He said it ‘wasn’t unusual after, say, an altar server practice, for the kids to come over [to the presbytery] and get a drink and something to eat or something’. 129

Like Father Flood, Father Gleeson said that he never took an altar boy with him on trips outside Moree because he felt it was ‘unnecessary’. He said, ‘it was a luxury but you didn’t need an altar boy to say mass’. Father Gleeson said that he was not aware if Farrell took altar boys with him, but if Farrell had it would have been a ‘non-issue’. 130

Father Gleeson said that Farrell would sometimes take the children away with him, but ‘this was not unusual’. He said he knew that Farrell took some of the children shooting. 131

Father Gleeson said he ‘would have been very disturbed to have been one child going with him’ but that being taken away in a group was ‘part of life in the bush’. Father Gleeson said that it was ‘not only unwise; it’s not done’ for a priest to take one child (as opposed to a group of children) on a trip. As to why it was not done, ‘the obvious thing is things might have happened’. 132

Father Gleeson also recalled when he was in the presbytery and he saw Farrell sitting in his room at his desk with a boy, CPD, sitting on his knee. He said that he did not approach Farrell about this because he had the door open and did not think there would be anything untoward going on. However, he said he did think it was ‘unusual and unwise’. 133

He said that he thought a priest ‘holding a 10-year-old on their lap’ was ‘improper’ and ‘wrong’. When asked whether he thought it was ‘off’ because of the potential for misconduct with a child, he said, ‘well, today I would say absolutely. Back then, I’m not too sure I thought people conducted misconduct with children’. 134

Report of Case Study No. 44

54

3.3 Evidence of CPA

CPA gave evidence to the Royal Commission that he was sexually abused by Farrell on two occasions in late 1981. At the time, CPA was serving as an altar boy at the Moree parish. 135

CPA gave evidence that, on the first occasion that he was sexually abused, Farrell forced his erect penis into CPA’s mouth while CPA was working in a cellar underneath the altar at St Francis Xavier Church. CPA said that Farrell repeatedly forced his penis into his mouth, which caused him to start gagging, and that Farrell eventually ejaculated in his mouth, on his face and on his shirt.136

CPA’s evidence was that, as soon as he heard that Farrell had left the church, he immediately ran to the presbytery next door to the church and told Monsignor Ryan, ‘Father Farrell hurt me’. CPA said that Monsignor Ryan put his hand on his shoulder and told him, ‘It’s okay, I’ll sort it out’ or ‘I’ll fix it up’. 137

The following morning, CPA said he returned to St Francis Xavier Church, as he had been rostered on by Farrell to assist with the morning mass. When he arrived at the church, Farrell grabbed CPA’s arm and dragged him behind the altar. Farrell bent CPA over what CPA thought was a pew behind the altar and pulled down his shorts and underpants. Farrell placed his finger inside CPA’s anus and then, moments later, his erect penis. CPA recalled that it felt like Farrell’s penis was in his anus for ‘like hours’. While CPA was being raped by Farrell, Farrell said to him, ‘If you tell anyone about this I will kill you and your family’. CPA then ran home. At the time, he did not tell anyone about what happened with Farrell. 138

CPA stated that he never spoke to Monsignor Ryan after he told him that Farrell had hurt him. He said he felt let down by Monsignor Ryan because he ‘trusted him and thought that he would help’ CPA.139

After being sexually abused by Farrell, CPA said he stopped serving as an altar boy and started to get into trouble at school. 140

CPA moved with his family from Moree to Sydney at the beginning of 1983. CPA said he developed a problem with people in positions of authority and would often get into trouble with the police. CPA’s evidence was that ‘I didn’t care if I lived or died. I self-destructed’. 141

It was not until his father died in late 2005 that CPA disclosed to his mother that he had been raped when they lived in Moree. CPA’s evidence was that around 18 months later he told his mother that it was Farrell who had raped him.142

CPA reported Farrell to the police in 2012 after he heard Farrell being discussed on the Ray Hadley radio show.143

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

55

In February 2016, Farrell was found guilty by jury of three sexual assault offences against CPA. 144

Monsignor Ryan is deceased and has given no account of the events that CPA described. CPA was an impressive witness and gave sworn evidence to us.

The Truth, Justice and Healing Council, the Diocese of Armidale and the Diocese of Parramatta (the Church parties) accepted that CPA told Monsignor Ryan that Farrell had ‘hurt him’.

We are satisfied that CPA told Monsignor Ryan that Farrell ‘hurt him’. There is no evidence that Monsignor Ryan did anything with that information.

3.4 Sexual abuse of Mr Michael McGroder

Mr Michael McGroder and his family moved to Moree in 1980, when he was seven years old. 145

In 1982, at the age of nine, Michael became an altar boy with his close friends from St Philomena’s Catholic school, including CPD and CPF. Farrell was responsible for training the altar boys.146 Mr McGroder described Farrell taking boys to the Moree swimming pool after altar boy practice, visiting the boys at school and spending lunchtimes with them in the playground. He made them feel special. 147

Sometime in 1982, Mr McGroder became aware that some of the other altar boys started to go away on trips with Farrell to assist him in conducting mass at country properties and smaller towns. 148

Sometime between January and April 1984, Farrell asked Mr McGroder to assist him in celebrating a home mass at a property near Goondiwindi, which is located around 127 kilometres from Moree. His parents gave him permission to go with Farrell, as they were friends with the person who owned the property. 149

During the car trip from Moree to Goondiwindi, Farrell sexually abused him. 150

In April 2016, Farrell entered two pleas of guilty for two counts of indecent assault against Mr McGroder. He was also sentenced for a further two counts of indecent assault, being taken into account on sentencing in accordance with s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).151

Report of Case Study No. 44

56

Mr McGroder discloses the sexual abuse

Not long after the incidents with Farrell in his car, Mr McGroder began to speak to other altar boys at school about Farrell. He said that he mentioned to CPD, CPF and CPN that Farrell had touched him during the car trip to the Goondiwindi property. The boys told him that they had also been touched by Farrell, and Mr McGroder realised that they had been touched far worse than he had. Mr McGroder said that, after speaking to his friends, he decided to talk to his parents about what Farrell had done. 152

Mr McGroder told us that, within two weeks of the incidents with Farrell in his car, he disclosed to his mother, Ms Graham, and his father, Mr Patrick McGroder, that Farrell had touched him and that he had pushed Farrell’s hand away. 153

Mr Patrick McGroder meets with Monsignor Ryan

On the evening of Mr Michael McGroder’s disclosure to his parents, his father, Mr Patrick McGroder, met with Monsignor Ryan at the St Francis Xavier presbytery. 154 It is likely that this meeting occurred around April 1984.

Monsignor Ryan is deceased and has not given account of what he said or did with respect to any allegations or complaints made to him by Mr Michael McGroder or his family.

Mr Patrick McGroder died in 2013. 155 Before he died, he signed a police statement dated 4 January 2013. 156 This statement was tendered in evidence.

Mr Patrick McGroder stated that, during the meeting, he told Monsignor Ryan that Michael had told him and his wife that Farrell had touched him on the genitals when he was driving with Farrell to say mass at a property. Monsignor Ryan asked him what they wanted to be done and he said he wanted Farrell to be kept away from his children at first instance and then removed from the parish. Monsignor Ryan did not question him further and told him that he would speak to Farrell and make sure that Farrell would be kept away from the children until he could make further enquiries. 157

Ms Graham told us that her husband told her that Monsignor Ryan said that he would confront Farrell and ‘look into it’. 158

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

57

Parents begin to speak to one another

Ms Graham said that, at some time during the next few days, Mr Patrick McGroder told her that Monsignor Ryan had contacted another family, as Monsignor Ryan was trying to find out how many boys had been interfered with by Farrell. 159

Mr Michael McGroder recalled that, the night that he made the disclosure to his parents, he thought they contacted CPD’s mother, CPE, and told her what he had told them. He said that, around the same time, his parents contacted the parents of other altar boys, including CPG, CPO and another parent. 160

Mr Michael McGroder recalled talking to CPD, CPF and two other boys about Farrell. He said that, by that stage, all of their parents were talking to each other. 161

Mr Patrick McGroder has a further meeting with Monsignor Ryan

Mr Michael McGroder told us that, after his father met with Monsignor Ryan, Farrell continued to say mass and was involved in activities at St Philomena’s school in Moree. 162 He told his father.

Mr Patrick McGroder went to the presbytery and spoke to Monsignor Ryan again. Mr Patrick McGroder said that he told Monsignor Ryan that all the boys were frightened of Farrell, as he was still around them. Monsignor Ryan responded that he would speak to Farrell, to which Mr Patrick McGroder said, ‘If it isn’t done this time I will have to go to the police’. Mr Patrick McGroder stated that Monsignor Ryan then told him, ‘Please don’t, I will deal with it’.163

Ms Graham said that she recalled that her husband had a second meeting with Monsignor Ryan. Mr Patrick McGroder told her that Monsignor Ryan asked him not to go to the police, as it would be traumatic for Mr Michael McGroder and the family. Monsignor Ryan asked him whether they wanted to see their boy ‘on a witness stand being torn to pieces’. She also said that her husband told her that Monsignor Ryan had said to him that Farrell ‘loved the boys, he didn’t mean to do them any harm, he only fondled their genitals and it was just his way of showing affection’. Ms Graham also said that her husband told her that Monsignor Ryan told him that Farrell would be removed from the parish and sent away to get help. 164

Conversation between Mr Patrick McGroder and Father Gleeson

About three weeks later, Ms Graham saw Farrell sitting on his motorbike outside her house next to Michael’s brother and CPD. She rang her husband, who went straight to the presbytery, banged on the door and confronted Father Gleeson. Mr Patrick McGroder described the interaction as follows:

Report of Case Study No. 44

58

[32] I saw Father GLEESON approach the door and look through the glass to see me, at this stage I realised that the door wasn’t locked. I proceeded to open the door, he responded by trying to push it shut and said to me; ‘You can’t act on allegations’. I knocked him back against the wall. He said; ‘Mons isn’t here.’ I proceeded walking down the hallway to Mons RYAN’s office with Father GLEESON following after me and yelling at me. I walked into the office to see Monsignor RYAN on the telephone, he hung up immediately and I told him very angrily what had just occurred at my house. He apologised to me and the family saying that FARRELL was just back in town to collect his belongings and that he was under strict instructions not to approach any of the families of children who may be involved.

I yelled at Monsignor RYAN: ‘If that was the case why wasn’t somebody with him all the time to make sure he didn’t disobey your instructions because it is quiet [sic] obvious what he’s like and that he takes no notice of you’ .

He just apologised again and said: ‘ I’m sorry this would ever happen.’

[33] I then told him that I will be going to the police to report the incident that took place in FARRELL’S care, even though we as a family didn’t want punishment, it was quiet [sic] obvious that the church could not guarantee the safety of our kids. I also said to him how the church had shown no inclination to approach the families of altar boys to find out if they were affected by FARRELL. Mons RYAN apologised again and at that stage Father GLEESON came into the room and ‘Mons’ ordered him out and to leave us alone. I was extremely emotional and Mons RYAN invited me to stay and relax until I regained some composure. Mons RYAN said; ‘Do you really need to go to the police.’ I lost my cool and said; ‘In the light of your failure, there’s no other option as a family and I will do anything I can to protect my kids.’ I then stormed out of ‘Mons’ room and was confronted by Father GLEESON In the hallway, he said to me; ‘You have no right to accuse a priest of these things.’ I went after him with the view of knocking him down, but he ran off. I stopped and left the Presbytery and went straight home to my family.165

Although he could not recall exactly when it took place - he said it may have been 1986 or 1987166 - Father Gleeson gave the following evidence about a conversation with Mr Patrick McGroder:

[26] Around this time, I spoke to some of the parents of the boys. I remember Pat McGroder coming around to the Presbytery and wanted to talk to me about John mucking around with the boys. Pat said, ‘He was mucking around with these kids. Mine too’. I said, ‘Oh God. What happened?’ Pat said, ‘He was driving out to Northstar and he put his hand on my sons knee.’ I knew Northstar was a nearby town where we would travel to say mass. Pat mentioned the names of CPD and [REDACTED] as some of the boys.167

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

59

Father Gleeson told us that he had no recall of the McGroders speaking to him but said he would have spoken with the family. 168 Father Gleeson gave evidence that he could see in his mind Mr McGroder ‘sitting in my little office and he was talking to me about what happened to Michael’.169

Father Gleeson responded to Mr Patrick McGroder’s allegation that Father Gleeson said to him, ‘You can’t act on allegations’ and ‘You have no right to accuse a priest of these things’:

I have no recollection of that, no recollection of that whatsoever, actually. The only recollection I have of me and Pat McGroder talking is in my office, as I said, down the track. It’s an unusual statement from my point of view, just, you know, which door he’s talking about, and the fact of me running away is very unlike me; I think I more would likely stand and fight. 170

Comment by Father Gleeson to Mr Patrick McGroder and Ms Graham

We also heard from Mr Michael McGroder that his father had told him that he had an argument with Father Gleeson one Sunday after mass. He said Father Gleeson told his father he had ‘driven a huge wedge through the community and divided it’. 171

Father Gleeson did not recall the conversation, but he accepted it would have occurred. He said:

No, I don’t have any recall, but I actually believe the McGroders, so it probably did take place. I just don’t recall it. This is not the only argument I’ve ever had with a Catholic in my job, so I don’t know. As to driving a wedge in the community, I’m not sure. I’m not sure. Maybe I said it, maybe I didn’t, but I categorically can’t say it didn’t take place. 172

When asked if it is likely he would have put the Church first, he said, ‘Oh I would have, yes, I’m sure, because I would assume that it was; like, I’ve learnt a lot since, but I would have assumed it was’.173

Ms Graham said that she had a conversation with Father Gleeson in which he said, ‘No-one has the right to ruin another person’s reputation’. Father Gleeson said:

she said that I said that. I can’t - I haven’t got any clarity of memory there, but I believe it. She’s got no reason to make that up. I know her and she was a professional person and she clearly had more intuitive understanding of what was potentially happening here than any of us, which is terrible. 174

Report of Case Study No. 44

60

Father Gleeson said that, while he could not confirm or deny the words that she quoted him as saying, ‘the likelihood is that [I] said that’. 175

As the Church parties accept, Mr Michael McGroder and his mother, Ms Graham, were honest and credible witnesses. Further, the police statement by Mr Patrick McGroder reflected his best recollection of the events and conversations it describes.

We accept also that Father Gleeson gave evidence to the best of his recollection.

We are satisfied that Father Gleeson’s responses to Ms Graham and Mr Patrick McGroder were insensitive and inappropriate.

Conversation between Father Flood and the McGroders

Around a day after the conversations described above between Mr Patrick McGroder, Father Gleeson and Monsignor Ryan, Father Flood approached Mr Patrick McGroder and his wife and offered support through counselling and spiritual support.

Ms Graham said that Father Flood visited her and Mr Patrick McGroder at their home. Father Flood told them that Bishop Kennedy had sent him to investigate what Farrell had been doing. 176

Mr Patrick McGroder said that over the following few months Father Flood came to their home and spoke to the family about what Farrell had done and the lack of understanding and support from the Church. During these meetings, Mr Patrick McGroder stated that his son told Father Flood how Farrell had touched him on the ‘dick’ and tried to make him do it back to him. 177

Ms Graham said that she asked Father Flood to speak to Farrell and ask him what he had done to Michael. Ms Graham said that, within a few days, Mr Patrick McGroder told her that Father Flood told him that he had spoken with Farrell, who said, ‘I don’t know what the McGroder’s are on about - I only made a pass at Michael’. 178

Not long after meeting with Father Flood, Ms Graham said that Monsignor Ryan told her and her husband that Farrell was being sent to see a psychiatrist in Sydney. She recalled, ‘Farrell was whisked out of the parish almost overnight’. 179

Father Flood gave the police a different account of these events. He said, ‘Father Gleeson told him that Pat McGroder declined the offer for [Father Flood] to speak to his son and that his family had sorted the matter out with his son and they wanted to move on’. 180

Father Flood told us he had no recollection of visiting Ms Graham and Mr Patrick McGroder at their home181 or of a request by the McGroders that he speak to Farrell and ask him what he had done to Mr Michael McGroder. 182

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

61

Father Flood told us that he did not speak to Farrell and ask him what he had done to Mr Michael McGroder. He had no recollection of telling Mr Patrick McGroder that he had spoken to Farrell. Father Flood said that he had no recollection of Farrell saying to him, ‘I don’t know what the McGroder’s are on about. I only made a pass at Michael’. 183

In evidence to us, Father Flood accepted that it is possible that the conversations alleged by Ms Graham did occur, but he had no recollection of them. 184

When Counsel Assisting put to Father Flood that it was likely that events occurred as Ms Graham said they did, he said, ‘I make no comment on the evidence that she submitted to the Royal Commission. I have no recollection of the comments she attributes to me as ever being made’. 185

Counsel Assisting asked Father Flood whether he wanted to say anything to the Royal Commission which in his mind suggested that Ms Graham had not been a truthful witness. Father Flood responded:

I have no desire to make any such implication against the good lady. I don’t recall ever meeting her and I presume she’s a person that is honest and truthful and made her submission to the Commission under oath. 186

Father Gleeson told us that said he was not aware whether Father Flood spoke to Farrell. He said that ‘in those days’ he would not have expected to be informed, ‘because that would have been confidential to him talking to that family and to those people. He wouldn’t have told me what happened with them’. 187

We have heard Fathers Flood and Gleeson and Ms Graham give evidence about these events. We have not heard from Mr Patrick McGroder, although we have read his statement. It is not surprising that Ms Graham and her husband recall the events following their son’s disclosure - it would have been a shocking revelation.

The evidence is that, while Father Flood did not recall the conversation with Ms Graham or Mr Patrick McGroder, he ‘presumed’ that Ms Graham was an honest and truthful person.

As we said above, the Church parties accept that Mr Michael McGroder and his mother, Ms Graham, were honest and credible witnesses. Further, the Church parties accept that the police statement by Mr Patrick McGroder reflected his best recollection of the events and conversations it describes.

Father Flood did not deny that Ms Graham asked him to speak to Farrell and to ask him what he had done to Michael.

Report of Case Study No. 44

62

Father Flood denied that he had spoken with Farrell and that Farrell had told him, ‘I don’t know what the McGroder’s are on about - I only made a pass at Michael’. He also had no recollection of having told that to Mr Patrick McGroder.

Mr Patrick McGroder did not refer to this exchange in his statement, and Ms Graham’s evidence was that this exchange was told to her by her husband - she herself did not witness it.

The Church parties submitted that Ms Graham’s evidence as to Father Flood’s response to her husband is third-hand hearsay and not reliable. Further, they submit that Father Flood had specifically denied that he was sent by Bishop Kennedy. Father Flood had given ‘unchallenged’ evidence that he did not have a discussion with Bishop Kennedy until years later.

We are satisfied that Ms Graham asked Father Flood to speak with Farrell. However, we cannot be satisfied that he did so and what Farrell’s reply may have been. We accept her evidence that Father Flood told her that he was sent by Bishop Kennedy. We made no finding as to whether that was accurate.

Conversation between Ms Graham and Father Crowley

Ms Graham said that around the same time she also had a conversation with Father Tom Crowley. She recalled that he said to her words to the effect, ‘I should have said something before Father Farrell was ordained’. 188

Father Crowley at the time was the parish priest of Warialda. He is now deceased. 189

We accept Ms Graham’s evidence. Ms Graham was an honest and credible witness and was not questioned by any party. Further, the comment attributed to Father Crowley is consistent with evidence about the reservations that clergy in the Diocese of Armidale held about Farrell’s ordination at that time.

Approach to police

Mr Patrick McGroder said that he went to the Moree Police Station and spoke to Detectives Bruce Huggett and Les Peet and informed them of what his son had told them and his subsequent dealings with Monsignor Ryan. Mr Patrick McGroder said that Detective Huggett told him that they knew of Farrell’s activities, but as it was not a serious matter they would like to get more information on Farrell so that they could have a more ‘weighty charge’ to proceed against him. 190

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

63

During the next two months, Mr Patrick McGroder said that he ran into Detective Peet and asked whether anything was being done about Farrell, to which Detective Peet allegedly responded, ‘We are still looking into it’. Mr Patrick McGroder stated that he eventually gave up enquiring with Detective Peet. 191

In his police statement, Mr Patrick McGroder also recalled encountering Farrell on George Street in Sydney in early 1987. Mr Patrick McGroder said that he asked Farrell to disclose to his counsellors, psychiatrist or bishop the names of the boys that he had sexually abused in Moree. Mr Patrick McGroder said that Farrell responded, ‘How about I reveal what you have told me in confession … You’re just like everybody else, you don’t understand the love for a man and a boy’. 192

The State of New South Wales has provided documents, which have been tendered, indicating that neither of the two named detectives were located at Moree Police Station in 1983-1984. The records also indicate that Mr McGroder made a complaint to Moree police on 16 March 1984 on a matter unrelated to Farrell and not to either of the named police officers.

We accept that the documents that the State of New South Wales tendered make it unlikely that Mr McGroder made the complaint against Farrell to those named police officers.

Correspondence between the McGroders and Monsignor Ryan

Ms Graham said that in January 1985 she and Mr Patrick McGroder decided to move the family from Moree to Sydney. 193

In mid-1987, she and Mr Patrick McGroder received a package from Monsignor Ryan. Enclosed in it were a letter and a statue of the Holy Family. In the letter, Monsignor Ryan thanked Mr Patrick McGroder and her for all their work in the parish. Ms Graham gave evidence that she destroyed the letter because she was ‘so angry … because the Church waited three years before acknowledging anything about the harm which Father Farrell had caused’. 194

On 26 August 1987, Mr Patrick McGroder wrote a letter to Monsignor Ryan and sent back the statue of the Holy Family.195 He wrote:

Karolyn and I at least tried - I often take myself to task for not doing more but we did something. Did anyone else?

All we ever wanted was to see the kids helped. We were never interested in punishment for anyone (maybe that was a mistake as it may have forced the issue). We just wanted support for those children who were adversely effected. It does no good to know that I was right - it certainly does nothing for those wonderful children.

Report of Case Study No. 44

64

But why were they abandoned?

… Your colleague got the best help money could buy, but what about the kids? Nothing. 196

Two weeks earlier, on 12 August 1987, while he was an assistant priest at Tamworth East parish, Farrell had been arrested. 197 He was charged with five counts of indecent assault and six counts of sexual intercourse without consent in relation to one boy in Moree. 198

On 19 September 1987, Monsignor Ryan responded to Mr Patrick McGroder’s letter. He wrote:

I honestly feel that you have judged me and the Moree community in the light of allegations made and charges that have been laid concerning which I nor the Bishop nor any members of the Moree community had any knowledge … I can assure you that if I had any information whatsoever regarding this boy I would have taken very strong and positive action in the matter. Both Father Gleeson and I made discreet enquiries and liaised with the families known to have children involved in the matters brought to our notice. I commend you for the love, care and direction you seek to give your children but pray that a calmer reflection on the circumstances known to us in 1983 may enable you to judge both yourself and us in kinder light. 199

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

65

4 Response of Diocese of Armidale to Allegations Against Farrell in Moree 4.1 Introduction

Many years after Farrell left Moree, Arrow Insurance Adjusting undertook an investigation on behalf of Catholic Church Insurance Ltd (CCI) in relation to Farrell. The investigation occurred in the context of a civil action seeking damages for injuries which had arisen following alleged sexual abuse of a boy by Farrell in 1983. 200 Arrow Insurance Adjusting were given access to a ‘voluminous file covering all correspondence from [Farrell’s] induction in 1974 at Columba’s College, Springwood to [about May 1996]’.

Arrow Adjusting Insurance reported in a letter to the Dunhill Madden Butler, the solicitors representing CCI, dated 29 May 1996:

There is very little in the file from his appointment to Moree until the 23 March 1984, and there is nothing in the file concerning any allegations until the next piece of correspondence on the 31 May 1984, in which Farrell advises the Bishop that he presented for treatment in Sydney with Gary Boyle. The correspondence to the Bishop apparently followed complaints made to Monsignor Frank Ryan at Moree, but there is nothing on file to indicate the nature of complaints, or what action was taken other than to refer Farrell to Gary Boyle.

It would appear that between March and May 1984, complaints were made to Monsignor Father Frank Ryan in Moree, concerning allegations against Fr. John Farrell, and that as a result of those complaints, Farrell was subsequently transferred to Tamworth.

It is clear that Fr. Frank Ryan had knowledge of the allegations in around March 1984, and while there always been serious concerns regarding John Farrell’s attitude and suitability to become a priest, there was never any indication until that time that his problems were of a sexual nature. 201

On 10 November 1997, Arrow Insurance Adjusting wrote to CCI’s solicitors to report on a telephone conversation with Monsignor Ryan. As we have said, Monsignor Ryan is deceased and did not give evidence in this case study. Arrow Insurance Adjusting wrote:

Mons. Ryan advised that John Farrell was taken out of the Moree Parish due to complaints, and what he termed ‘school yard rumours’ about Farrell providing sex lessons for Alter [sic] Boys.

Report of Case Study No. 44

66

He went on to advise that the sister of one of the Alter Boys concerned learned of the ‘lessons’ and advised her parents, who then contacted Mons. Ryan. He claimed he advised the then Bishop, Henry Kennedy, and that Farrell was taken out of the Parish, counselled, and then sent to Gary Boyle for evaluation and treatment.

Interestingly, he advised that, [REDACTED] was not one of the Alter Boys concerned, and that no complaint had ever been received from him or his parents. 202

4.2 Monsignor Ryan informs Father Gleeson of allegations

We heard from Father Gleeson that sometime in 1984 Monsignor Ryan called him and Sister Carmel (an aspirant for the Sisters of Mercy who was working as a pastoral associate in Moree) into the parlour room at the presbytery. He told them Farrell was ‘in trouble’ and, although he could not recall Monsignor Ryan’s exact words, he said something to the effect of ‘He’s been mucking around with kids’. 203 Father Gleeson said Monsignor Ryan did not go into specifics. 204

When asked what he thought this meant, Father Gleeson said, ‘I would imagine feeling each other, maybe; touching each other’. 205 He said he ‘absolutely’ understood this was not between boys, but it was Farrell and boys. 206 He also agreed he understood that it was conduct of a sexual nature with children, and he immediately assumed it was with the altar servers. 207

Father Gleeson said that Monsignor Ryan did not inform him of whether Farrell admitted to any of the conduct.208

The conversation between Monsignor Ryan and Father Gleeson is most likely to have occurred in around April 1984. That timing is consistent with the evidence of Mr Michael McGroder and Ms Graham, and it is consistent with documents (discussed below) which indicate Farrell was sent on leave from Moree parish in around April 1984.

In his 2015 statement to NSW Police, Father Gleeson said, ‘whilst [he] was unaware of any incidents’, this information did not surprise him ‘because of the type of person that Farrell was and the fact that I saw CPD sitting on his lap in his room’. 209 Father Gleeson gave evidence to the Royal Commission that:

I just put two and two together and: one, his behaviour is odd; secondly, he is eccentric; thirdly, you never knew where he was or what he was doing, anyway; and the fact that he was surrounded by kids and then the other, you know, just comes to mind, that - it didn’t surprise me .210

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

67

As to why he was not surprised that Monsignor Ryan told him that Farrell had been ‘mucking around’ with children, Father Gleeson responded:

Oh, and his just general behaviour. I mean, he was constantly surrounded by children. You think - you know, I never saw people his own age, so to speak ... 211

Father Gleeson told the police that after the conversation with Monsignor Ryan in the parlour room he returned to his room. A short time later, Farrell came into Father Gleeson’s room and said, ‘I’ve done something stupid’. Father Gleeson asked Farrell what he had done, but Farrell did not elaborate. Father Gleeson said he thought this ‘was related to what Monsignor Ryan told me about him mucking around with boys’. He said that, not long after this, Farrell left the presbytery and was transferred from Moree. 212 He continued:

Following this, over a period of the following weeks, I had further conversations with Monsignor Ryan where he told me that some of the victims were CPF, CPD, [REDACTED] and Michael McGroder. On these occasions, Monsignor Ryan did not go into specifics about the details of the incidents. 213

Father Gleeson’s evidence was that Monsignor Ryan told him a few names and, while he did not go into specifics, he understood that these were victims of Farrell and somehow or other he would have sexually interfered with these children. 214

He said he thought that first occasion he heard from Monsignor Ryan of the complaints was in the context of Farrell being sent from Moree. 215

Until that time there was never any indication that Farrell’s problems were of a sexual nature. 216

4.3 Father Flood’s account about Farrell’s removal

As at the time of Farrell’s removal from the Moree parish (in around April 1984), Father Flood was the administrator at Bingara parish. Father Flood moved to this position after he left Moree in November 1982. 217

In an interview with Mr Antony Whitlam QC conducted as part of Mr Whitlam QC’s inquiry into the Church’s management of Farrell, Father Flood said that Farrell left Moree ‘following the accusations of some families of interference’. He said he was not told who they were ‘but there had been charges’. He said that Monsignor Ryan did not provide him with this information. He said, ‘It just becomes news that John Farrell has had allegations, he’s been moved to Tamworth’.218

Father Flood gave a slightly different account in his 2015 statement to NSW Police:

Report of Case Study No. 44

68

I am unable to tell you when it occurred or how long after we had been in Moree, but I remember Monsignor RYAN told John to leave the parish and never to visit the parishioners again. I later found out through the Whitlam Enquiry that this was as a result of CPE (who was the [REDACTED] at the school and the mother of CPD who was one of the Altar Boys) approaching Monsignor RYAN and told him that John had sexually assaulted CPD. Monsignor RYAN told me that he had dismissed John and that he wouldn’t be coming back. He did not tell me why and I was never told this by Monsignor RYAN ... 219

Father Flood told us that he did not recall precisely how he came to know that Monsignor Ryan had ordered Farrell to leave Moree, and he said he thought Monsignor Ryan ‘mentioned that he had been told to go away, as general as that’, but he did not tell him why. Father Flood said that, although he was ‘deeply curious’ as to why Farrell was asked to leave Moree, he did not ask Monsignor Ryan. 220 He said Farrell left suddenly, 221 and the ‘clergy chitchat’ took off much later than those first few weeks. 222

However, Father Flood then went on to say that he ‘learnt about that time of a complaint of CPE to Monsignor Ryan’. He said this was around the time Farrell left Moree and Father Flood was working at Bingara parish. 223

4.4 Police statement of CPE

In 2016, Farrell was convicted of sexually abusing CPD between around February 1982 and July 1984.

CPE is the mother of CPD. CPE did not give evidence to the Royal Commission, but she provided a signed statement to NSW Police on 18 November 2012, which is in evidence. 224

CPE stated that her children attended St Philomena’s Catholic primary school in Moree, and from 1981 her son, CPD, served as an altar boy at St Francis Xavier Catholic Church in Moree. 225

CPE recalled the following in her police statement:

Sometime between March and June of 1984, I attended a Parents and Friends meeting at our school. The meeting had finished and we were all having a cup of tea as usual. Whilst speaking to CPQ, a parent of another child at the school, I enquired with her as to why she stopped her son from being an altar boy. Her response was words to the affect [sic] of ‘Surely you know what is going on with Father FARRELL.’

I said, ‘What do you mean?’

She said words to the effect of ‘Father Farrell was interfering with the boys.’ 226

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

69

CPE stated that the following morning she spoke to CPD and asked him, ‘Has Father Farrell ever touched you?’. She said that CPD immediately burst into tears and said, ‘Yes, but I cannot get him into trouble’. 227

CPE said that she contacted Monsignor Ryan. He came to her home in the morning. She said to him, ‘Do you know that Father Farrell is interfering with the boys?’. CPE said that Monsignor Ryan responded, ‘You know I will need to go and ask him about it’. 228

CPE said, ‘By noon that day I became aware that Father Farrell had packed and left Moree’. She was unsure who told her this information. 229

We accept CPE’s account in her police statement. It is consistent with Father Gleeson’s evidence that CPD was one of the boys Monsignor Ryan named as being victims of Farrell.

4.5 Father Gleeson engages the assistance of Father Flood

CPG is the mother of CPF, who was one of Farrell’s altar boys. Father Gleeson told the police that CPG asked him to talk to CPF ‘about the situation with John Farrell’. Father Gleeson gave evidence that CPG was a ‘good friend’ of his that he spoke to ‘probably twice a week’ about ‘just normal day-to-day life’. 230

Father Gleeson told us that he was ‘pretty sure’ that CPF’s name would have been mentioned to him by Monsignor Ryan around the time that he informed him of allegations of child sexual abuse against Farrell. 231

He said that he ‘didn’t know what to do’, so he asked Father Flood to speak to CPF. 232

Father Gleeson acknowledged that, while they were doing a lot of work on family therapy and working with alcoholics, on this subject ‘We were totally out of our depth’. 233

Father Gleeson said reporting to the police, he assumed, ‘would have been the parents’ and said ‘back in those days courts and police were the last line, you know? You don’t go to them … the age of transparency has not dawned’. 234

As to whether he thought that what had happened to the children were crimes, he said:

it wasn’t in my head, no. If I knew what I knew from Four Corners, it was a crime, absolutely a crime, but, as I said yesterday, I just thought, being a priest and everything, it would have just been at the level of, you know, indiscretion, you know? But even reading the statement about fondling genitals shocks me even now. I wasn’t aware of that. It would have shocked me then, yes, and we would have started thinking about crimes, mmm. 235

Report of Case Study No. 44

70

Father Gleeson told us that no one, particularly Monsignor Ryan, told him that Farrell was later appointed to the parish at Tamworth East. He commented, ‘I’m at the bottom of the ladder. They don’t tell you things - they didn’t. That’s not our job. That’s the whole problem, no information’. 236

Father Flood speaks with Father Gleeson

Father Flood gave evidence that Father Gleeson approached him some time after Farrell left Moree parish.237 Father Gleeson told him that he was aware that ‘a number of children had been sexually assaulted by John Farrell and he believed that the Church should show some concern to the families’. 238

Father Flood said that, when Father Gleeson asked for his assistance in speaking with the families involved, he did not tell him how he found out about the sexual assaults and Father Flood did not ask him. When asked if he put two and two together and thought that was why Farrell left Moree, Father Flood said, ‘By that stage I was fairly certain it was the reason’. 239

Father Flood gave evidence that, although he did not recall precisely what the conversation was, they would have spoken ‘in general terms’ about what to do. 240

In his 2015 statement to NSW Police, Father Flood said:

[26] … At Father GLEESON’s request (after he sought Monsignor RYAN’s clearance), I agreed to approach the families of any of the children who wanted to speak to me. Father GLEESON and I are close personal friends and I think that he wanted an outsider to approach the families, and he thought that the Church should do something.

[27] I have a vague recollection that Father GLEESON told me that there were six to seven boys involved. I can’t remember if this was on the phone or in person, but we used to meet regularly. Father GLEESON told me that CPG had agreed to allow me to talk to her son CPF, but that Pat McGRODER did not want me to talk to his son. Father GLEESON did not mention any other names, but I was aware from other sources that CPD one of the altar boys who was abused. 241

Father Flood gave evidence that this was ‘the first time I heard of it, there were a number, six or seven. It was as vague as that, yet, as many as that’ but then said further, ‘I have a vague memory that Father Gleeson raised the matter before that occasion’. 242

Father Flood gave evidence that his understanding was that ‘Father Gleeson approached each of the families [of the six or seven boys], made the offer and the family responded accordingly’. He agreed that Father Gleeson would need to know the identity of the six or seven boys to contact the families. 243

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

71

As to what Father Gleeson said to him, Father Flood’s evidence was:

My recall is a general comment that he thought the church needed to do a bit more in responding to the families and their needs, and I had some experience in my time in the Catholic Schools Office in somewhat similar cases, and I agreed on the condition that a parent was present at the conversation and that Monsignor Ryan agreed to the process.244

He said he was not involved in getting Monsignor Ryan’s ‘clearance’ for permission to approach families, but he presumed he knew about the claims. He did not have a discussion with Monsignor Ryan at any time. 245

We accept Father Flood’s evidence that Father Gleeson told him sometime after Farrell had left Moree that six or seven children had been sexually assaulted by Farrell. His evidence in this regard is consistent with his 2015 statement to NSW Police and with Father Gleeson’s evidence as to what he was told by Monsignor Ryan and his approach to Father Flood.

Father Flood’s meeting with CPG and CPF

Father Flood gave evidence that only one family - CPG and her son CPF - took up the invitation to meet with him.246 Father Gleeson had told him that CPF had been sexually assaulted. 247

Father Flood told us:

the comment was made, and it was directed more to his mother than the kid, that he had a right to draw that to the attention of the police at any time as long as Farrell lived, and if he wished to pursue the matter around compensation, that was also a possibility, if he wished to explore it, that he could do it. Whether he’d get any or how much I had no idea, but he had that right as long as Farrell lived, was my understanding of the law. 248

Father Flood accepted what CPG and CPF told him. 249 He presumed what CPF had told him had occurred.250 He understood that the conduct complained of could be criminal conduct. He said that he was not aware of an obligation to bring those matters to the attention of the police. 251

Father Flood said that after the meeting he verbally briefed Father Gleeson on the conversation. He did not take any notes of the meeting. 252

Father Flood did not think of speaking to Bishop Kennedy because his ‘presumption was that those whose responsibility it was would have briefed the Bishop anyway’. Father Flood gave evidence that he did not consider it his responsibility ‘on this occasion’. 253

Report of Case Study No. 44

72

There is no evidence about whether Father Gleeson informed Bishop Kennedy or Monsignor Ryan of what Father Flood reported to him. Father Gleeson was not questioned about this matter.

None of Father Flood, Father Gleeson, Monsignor Ryan or Bishop Kennedy reported any of the allegations to the police.

Father Flood speaks to Bishop Kennedy

Father Flood told us that several years later, when he was in the Parish of West Tamworth (July 1988 to March 1993), he rang Bishop Kennedy to pass on a message he received from Mr Patrick McGroder.254

Mr Patrick McGroder had asked Father Flood to inform the bishop of certain information relating to a legal argument that would be made by a boy who ‘was coming before the courts’. The boy had breached a court order, and Mr Patrick McGroder told Father Flood that the boy’s lawyers would be arguing that his punishment should be mitigated because he had been abused by Farrell. Mr Patrick McGroder also told Father Flood that the boy’s lawyers or family had approached them to become part of a group action. 255

He also wanted to tell the bishop that the McGroders would not be part of a foreshadowed ‘group action’ at the time. 256 The details of this action are not in evidence.

Father Flood gave further details in his 2015 statement to NSW Police:

[29] … I rang Bishop Harry KENNEDY and informed him of what Pat McGRODER had told me and Bishop KENNEDY told me to mind my own business. I reiterated that I was only calling at the request of Pat McGRODER and Bishop KENNEDY again told me to mind my own business and the call was ended. I did not send any correspondence to Bishop KENNEDY about the conversation and I did not make any records in the Presbytery diary about it.257

Father Flood gave the following evidence as to what he did after Bishop Kennedy told him to ‘mind [his] own business’:

I snapped and I said, ‘You didn’t hear what I said.’ And I repeated, ‘I’m ringing you to tell you the message that the father of one of the boys has asked me to give you.’ He repeated his comment, ‘Mind your own business.’ I repeated what I said and there were a couple of short exchanges and we hung up. 258

Father Flood gave evidence that this was the ‘only example around sexual matters and diocesan response that I ever discussed with Bishop Harry Kennedy’. 259

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

73

Father Flood speaks with Farrell

In 2015 statement to NSW Police, Father Flood said that he had a conversation with Farrell as follows:

[44] During one earlier conversation, John told me that he was prepared to admit to some offences against the boys but that others did not happen. John mentioned that there was one bloke on the North Coast, who he had never met, who alleged that he sexually assaulted him. John did not mention any names during this phone call and I did not ask him.

[45] During a much earlier phone conversation, John told me that he wanted to tell me how it happened (by this I took that he was talking about sexually abusing the young boys). I told John that I didn’t want to know what he had done, because if I was ever asked to give evidence at court I would have to tell it how I knew it, and I would prefer to say that I didn’t know. 260

Father Flood gave evidence to the Royal Commission that it was likely that this conversation took place before 2015 but that he could not remember when it occurred or even what decade it took place in. 261 He later gave evidence that this conversation took place ‘much later’ after the acts of child sexual abuse occurred. 262

4.6 Farrell is sent for treatment with Mr Gary Boyle

Mr Gary Boyle is a psychologist. He first met Farrell in 1984. He said that the bishop did not refer Farrell to him; rather, Farrell was a ‘self referral’. He thinks he saw him about five or six times over about a year.

Bishop Kennedy’s recollection in 1996 was that, while he directed Farrell to see Mr Boyle, he could not remember whether he made the arrangements himself or whether he told Farrell to contact Mr Boyle.

He did remember that he had difficulty getting Farrell to provide him with a report from Mr Boyle. Other than a report dated 30 July 1988, which we refer to below, he did not receive a report from Mr Boyle.263 Mr Boyle later said that Farrell did not ask him or give permission for him to report to the bishop at that time.

Mr Boyle diagnosed Farrell as having delayed psychosexual development. 264 He said:

Farrell’s sexual age was that of a 12 year old child with the same curiosities of a child that age … At no time during my treatment of Farrell did he disclose to me that he had acted on his interest in children or that he committed any physical or sexual offences upon any child. 265

Report of Case Study No. 44

74

In May 1984 Farrell told Bishop Kennedy that Mr Boyle recommended that he take several weeks’ holiday. Farrell said Mr Boyle suggested that Farrell see him at the end of the holiday and that Farrell would be ready to return to parish duties after that time. 266

Mr Boyle denied that he would have recommended that Farrell take holidays as a result of his treatment. 267

We are satisfied that Bishop Kennedy should have done more in relation to his knowledge that Farrell was being treated by Mr Boyle. We are of the view that Bishop Kennedy should have:

• told Mr Boyle, himself, the context of Farrell seeking treatment from him, including the 1984 allegations

• made the arrangement with Mr Boyle himself so that Mr Boyle would report to him, or

• obtained Farrell’s consent at the outset to Mr Boyle reporting to him.

4.7 Gossip about Farrell’s removal from Moree

Bishop Hanna was parish priest at Tamworth East when Farrell left Moree. He told us that clerical chitchat operated ‘to a remarkable degree’ when Farrell was removed from Moree. 268

Father Peters told Mr Whitlam QC that there was talk when Farrell was moved. At the time, Monsignor (then Father) Peters was an assistant priest at the Armidale Cathedral. He told Mr Whitlam QC:

Well, we didn’t know at the time, except that there was quite a lot of talk because he was moved in a hurry … And it wasn’t part of the general shuffle. It was a one-off thing, therefore, something happened, and there were rumours and what-have-you, about there being trouble with altar boys. But we were never ever told what actually had happened. 269

4.8 Tamworth East parish

Farrell was appointed assistant priest at Tamworth East in July 1984, where Bishop (then Father) Hanna was the parish priest.

Father Hanna was ordained a Catholic priest on 9 December 1968. 270 Relevant to this case study, he was appointed as an assistant priest in Tamworth East from 1972 to 1977; moved to Moree from 1977 to 1980; took a year off to go to London from late 1980 to mid-1981; and held the position of administrator at Tamworth East from mid-1983 to 1993. 271

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

75

He became Bishop of Wagga Wagga in 2002 and resigned from this position due to ill health in September 2016.

Bishop Hanna had also heard of the rumours about Farrell, although he gave evidence that he did not know of the complaints against Farrell:

When news came through that Farrell was removed more or less overnight, I think we thought, then, that rumours that had been circulating at that time had some ground of credibility … 272

Bishop Hanna was a consultor and attended the meeting of the diocesan College of Consultors on 17 July 1984, at which it was decided to appoint Farrell an assistant priest to East Tamworth.273

The minutes are signed off as ‘approved’ by Bishop Kennedy on 5 December 1984.

Bishop Hanna told Mr Whitlam QC what Bishop Kennedy told the consultors:

The discussion as I recall, made a point that no charges had been brought against him. There were no allegations - a lot of smoke. It was felt by the parish priest of Moree at the time [Monsignor Ryan] that he needed to be moved … He was taken out and put on leave. But having done that, that was the result, I think of the parish priest at Moree saying, ‘This man needs to go from here. He is making a mess of things.’ So, in due course, he was in no-man’s-land. He couldn’t stay there forever, in the absence of any allegations or anybody coming forward - that’s how I understood it - so the bishop determined to send him to East Tamworth as an assistant … When I was asked to take him, none of that was recounted to me. The exact words of the bishop were, ‘He has made a mess of things in Moree and he needs a new start.’ 274

Bishop Hanna told us that Bishop Kennedy told the meeting that he had decided to bring Farrell out of administrative or sick leave after a couple of months and return him to ministry. He said the term ‘sick leave’ ‘was a term that was ready to hand’ but ‘it certainly didn’t describe the situation’. 275

Bishop Hanna provided more detail to us about his knowledge. When asked whether he knew the actions alleged against Farrell were of a criminal nature, Bishop Hanna said:

We assumed that. The fact is, the actions were just that, they were allegations. There was no proof, no-one came forward. Whatever happened between Monsignor Ryan and the Bishop for his sudden removal from Moree stayed with them. It wasn’t common knowledge. It certainly wasn’t given at the Consultors meeting. In fact, nothing of that nature was mentioned until one of the Consultors said, ‘Look, you are going to send him to East Tamworth. You have said nothing about the reasons

Report of Case Study No. 44

76

or what has happened. Surely, Gerry Hanna needs to know why he’s going, what is behind it’, so I stayed back after the meeting and the Bishop said, ‘Oh, you know, Gerry, it’s that usual thing, he was messing around with altar boys.’ I said, ‘Well, have we got any details, Bishop? I mean, how serious is it? Is there anything to say that he shouldn’t be in ministry at all? You’re sending him to me and I’ve got very little idea of what’s going on or what he did.’ He said, ‘Well, you have got to regard him as a big risk and you have to just give him restricted ministry and keep an eye on him.’ And as sad as that seems, that’s the truth.276

Bishop Hanna said that, as a child growing up in Armidale, he knew of some instances of ‘the usual thing’. 277

Bishop Hanna understood that the issue was interference of a sexual nature. He said he was not told how many boys were involved and was not given any details, but Bishop Kennedy said, ‘He’s high risk, you’ve got to watch him and put him on restricted ministry’. 278

Bishop Hanna did not know the age of the children that he needed to watch Farrell with, but because Bishop Kennedy spoke of ‘the usual thing with altar boys’ he presumed it was primary school or early secondary school age. 279

Bishop Hanna told Bishop Kennedy that he thought returning Farrell to ministry after two months was ‘premature’. He said Bishop Kennedy said, ‘No’, he had made up his mind. Bishop Kennedy said, ‘No-one has come forward, there are no charges. There’s no reason why he can’t be put back in ministry’. 280 Bishop Hanna was of the view that Farrell should not have been moved to his parish. 281

We accept Bishop Hanna’s evidence.

We are satisfied that Bishop Kennedy believed that Farrell posed a serious risk to the safety of children at Tamworth East parish. Despite his appreciation of this risk, he appointed Farrell to that parish. He should not have appointed Farrell to any position of public ministry where he would have access to children.

Bishop Kennedy’s comment to Father Hanna that ‘it’s the usual thing, he was messing around with altar boys’ indicates to us that Bishop Kennedy knew of other priests who had sexually abused altar boys or at least allegations that they had.

It was wrong of Bishop Kennedy to rely on the absence of further complaints and police action in appointing Farrell to another parish.

The day after the meeting of the College of Consultors, on 18 July 1984, Bishop Kennedy wrote to Farrell informing him of his appointment as assistant priest of the Parish of St Nicholas, Tamworth East. The appointment was to commence on 26 July 1984. 282

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

77

Bishop Kennedy also wrote, ‘Please regard the regular visitation of parishioners in their homes as a most fruitful means for the success of your apostolate for the people of God’. 283

In light of his belief of the risk posed by Farrell, Bishop Kennedy’s encouragement to Farrell to visit the houses of parishioners was wrong.

Later in that month, Father Flood told the bishop that he had ‘deep and serious disquiet’ about Farrell’s appointment to Tamworth East. He referred to ‘recent events’ and ‘the earlier incidents are very likely to re-occur’. 284 While he could not tell us what he meant by those comments, we are satisfied that, given the timing of this letter and Father Flood’s knowledge of the allegations of child sexual abuse at Moree, it is probable that those references are to the allegations of child sexual abuse against Farrell at Moree.

He told us that, although he had information about complaints of child sexual abuse in Moree, he did not tell Father Hanna what he knew.

Father Flood said that ‘as soon as John arrived in Tamworth he began refereeing junior football’. Even though he knew of complaints against Farrell in relation to children, he did not tell Father Hanna that he thought Farrell should not have contact with minors. 285

Father Flood said:

The short issue is professional boundaries. I was not and never have been the Bishop of his diocese, ‘his’ being Farrell … I didn’t think it was appropriate to go repeating the bits and pieces that I knew, and I assumed that he had been briefed of his background before agreeing to take him as an assistant. 286

Father Flood said that he did not test the assumption he made. He did not ask Father Hanna whether he knew about Farrell’s background. 287 This is in contrast to what he told the police in 2015: that Father Hanna told him that he was not given a briefing in relation to what Farrell had done and what Father Hanna was expected to do. 288

In his interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Father Flood said that in the time between Farrell’s arrest and the charges being dismissed, he received ‘occasional letters from the clergy to say “It’s cropped up again”’. 289 Father Flood gave evidence to us that he presumed ‘it’ was a reference to sexual misconduct with children. 290

Father Flood was not alone in the ‘deep and serious disquiet’ he expressed to the bishop about Farrell’s appointment. 291 A local solicitor also wrote to the bishop and asked him to carefully consider Farrell’s appointment, as his ‘recent conduct’ was known to a number of parishioners in Tamworth. 292

Report of Case Study No. 44

78

We do not doubt that the local solicitor’s letter referred to the allegations of Farrell’s sexual misconduct with children at Moree parish three months earlier. Despite these expressions of concern, Bishop Kennedy proceeded with Farrell’s appointment at Tamworth East.

We are satisfied that, when Farrell was moved to Tamworth East, where Father Hanna was the parish priest, Father Hanna was not told by Father Flood, Monsignor Ryan or Bishop Kennedy what they each respectively knew about the allegations of child sexual abuse by Farrell.

4.9 Community concern about Farrell’s appointment to Tamworth East

In 1996, Bishop Kennedy said, ‘Once John Farrell was transferred back to Tamworth in July 1984, his activities were monitored by the Parish Priest, Fr Gerard Hanna, and naturally I kept an eye on him whenever I visited Tamworth’. 293

In his evidence to us, Bishop Hanna said that when Farrell arrived at Tamworth East he had an ‘upfront’ conversation with Farrell, during which Bishop Hanna told him that he was aware that Farrell was removed from Moree because of allegations of sexual misconduct with children. 294

Bishop Hanna gave evidence that he said the following to Farrell:

You came out of Moree, you didn’t leave of your own accord, you were removed overnight because of serious allegations that were brought before you. Nothing has come out of it since: in the time that you were on leave, nobody came forward and I know there was no prosecution, but that’s not the point. The point is you are a risk. These things have to be taken seriously and you are not a free man in terms of you can go where you like and what you like, not here, anyway. 295

Bishop Hanna said:

Well, I accepted him. I gave him a fairly strict routine to follow: he wasn’t permitted to go to any of the schools; he wasn’t permitted to celebrate any masses with children. I didn’t allow him to in any way mix with the altar boys or people that age, and I constantly let him know that I was aware of where he was at any time. 296

Father Hanna informed the other assistant priest at Tamworth East parish about the restrictions he placed on Farrell and said he ‘was aware at this stage that he had been moved from Moree and that people were talking and that he was a risk. That much was known’. When asked if the other assistant priest also understood the risk was in relation to sexual misconduct with children of a primary school age, he said, ‘I believe so, yes’. 297

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

79

Father Hanna assumed the role of supervising Farrell, and the other assistant priest ‘avoided him like the plague; wouldn’t have anything to do with him at all’. 298

Father Hanna told the principal at the local primary school that Farrell was not to go to schools. He said the reason he gave to the principal was ‘His removal from Moree: there was good reason to keep him out of the schools’. 299

Father Hanna was in charge of the altar boys ‘with some help from one of the school people, one of the nuns at the time’. 300 Bishop Hanna told us that the nun was aware of the reasons why restrictions had been placed on Farrell. 301

Bishop Hanna gave the following evidence about the reaction of the school principal and nun after he told them about Farrell’s history:

A. Well, they acknowledged the risk and they acknowledged the necessity to control that risk and supervise him.

Q. They didn’t say, ‘Get this man out of our parish and away from our children’?

A. I think they very much would have liked me to do that, yes.

Q. But you couldn’t?

A. No, it wasn’t up to me.

Q. Because it was the Bishop’s call?

A. It was, yes.302

Bishop Hanna gave evidence that he was not aware of Farrell acting other than in accordance with the restrictions placed on him, but he did state:

on one occasion I felt he was visiting a family too often and was seeing one of the boys in that family far too frequently, and I mentioned it to the mother and the father and they dismissed it because they had come to trust him and they thought he was a great influence on the boys in the family, and it ended at that. The mother just wouldn’t accept that there was any danger. 303

When asked if he was satisfied that he was able to do enough in terms of observing Farrell, Bishop Hanna said, ‘I believe I couldn’t have done any more than I did. I was very hard on him’. 304

Report of Case Study No. 44

80

Bishop Hanna gave evidence that he could not ‘ascertain with certainty, but I’m led to believe that in the three years he was with me he didn’t offend … I did make an initial inquiry as to whether he did offend while he was with me in Tamworth, and all I can say at this level is it appears he didn’t’. 305

We accept Bishop Hanna’s evidence. Aside from telling then Father Hanna that Farrell was a risk and must be closely watched, Bishop Kennedy did not himself impose any requirements, restrictions or conditions on Farrell’s ministry at Tamworth East. While Father Hanna did impose close restrictions on Farrell’s conduct while at Tamworth East, there is no evidence that Bishop Kennedy took any steps to ensure this was the case or to monitor Farrell’s conduct at that parish.

We acknowledge that it was appropriate for Father Hanna to inform the local primary school principal and the nun about the restrictions placed on Farrell, to ensure those restrictions were observed.

Farrell applies to undertake a course

In 1987, Farrell became aware that there was to be a course conducted by the Institute of Tribunal Practice. He wrote to Bishop Kennedy expressing surprise that he was not invited to undertake that course. He wrote that it was well known that he was ‘very interested in Tribunal work’. 306

Bishop Hanna’s evidence was that he was unaware of this correspondence. 307 Bishop Hanna said that ‘that was a definite no, anyway. There was no way in the world he was going to do that, not under my jurisdiction anyway’. 308

He said Farrell was ‘totally unsuitable’ to undertake the course. He continued:

And, also, he was under restrictions. I wasn’t going to permit him to go away and do that. In my view, he would have been totally unsuitable for that kind of work where you have to make judgments about people and their relationships, et cetera. 309

4.10 Arrest and Narrabri court proceeding

Farrell was arrested on 12 August 1987 while he was an assistant priest at Tamworth East parish.310 He was charged with five counts of indecent assault and six counts of sexual intercourse without consent in relation to one boy in Moree. 311

Father Hanna found out about Farrell’s arrest from the housekeeper at the presbytery. She told him that two police officers had taken Farrell to the police station. 312

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

81

Father Hanna engaged Mr Harry O’Halloran of RJ O’Halloran Solicitors and Attorneys, who had been looking after the Church’s interests for at least a decade. Bishop Hanna said that, from that point, Mr O’Halloran ‘came and took over’ and that he ‘just stepped back, out of the way’.313

Bishop Hanna gave evidence that thereafter he had no involvement in the criminal action. 314

He said that when Farrell came home to the presbytery he ‘stood him down from all public ministry’. He said Farrell stayed for a while, but ‘eventually he went back to Armidale during that time’. 315 Bishop Hanna said that this was not Bishop Kennedy’s act but his own. 316 He ‘wasn’t even sure the Bishop agreed with the fact that I took it upon myself to remove him from ministry’. 317

The effect of Farrell being stood down was that he could not exercise public ministry, but he could walk around in his priestly garb and call himself a priest. 318

Shortly after the arrest, Bishop Kennedy was told by a parish priest at Gurya that Farrell would be welcome to stay at ‘a house which has accommodation for priests who are wanting time to be alone or recover from some difficulty while living in a community atmosphere’. He was also given the name of a psychiatrist. 319

Farrell refused the opportunity, and Bishop Kennedy did not order him to attend the ‘house of hospitality’.320

In October 1987, Father Hanna was finalising arrangements for Farrell’s departure from Tamworth. He told Farrell of the names of priests whom had indicated a ‘willingness to help’. Bishop Heather was one of those willing to help. 321

Bishop Hanna told us he had no recollection of speaking with Bishop Heather or the other priests who were willing to help. 322 He said that the intention for providing this advice was as follows:

I was looking for people who might be able to talk to him and get through to him. He was just immovable when it came to, you know, accepting that there was something seriously wrong here and that he has - that I had every reason to put him on restricted duties, to regard him as a risk. It didn’t compute at all, and I thought at the time that there must be someone he can talk to, who can get him to see that. And that was my initiative, not the Bishop’s. I just can’t remember how I came up with those names, that’s all.323

Bishop Hanna told us that Bishop Kennedy wanted Farrell to stay in Tamworth and, as far as he knew, the Bishop wanted him to remain as the assistant priest in Tamworth while the legal matters proceeded. Bishop Hanna agreed that, rather than talking the bishop out of that position, he just moved Farrell out of Tamworth. 324

Report of Case Study No. 44

82

Bishop Hanna gave evidence that in the intervening period, before Farrell came before the court in February 1988, Father Hanna ‘lost track of him to some extent’. He said Farrell was not living in the presbytery and, as far as he knew, he was not living in Tamworth. He said he thought that Farrell ‘travelled around a bit’. 325

Letter from Father Ron Perrett

On 3 December 1987, Father Ron Perrett of St Edward’s parish in South Tamworth wrote to Bishop Kennedy expressing concern regarding the bishop’s handling of the matter, his decision to remove Farrell from the diocese and his lack of compassion towards Farrell. He referred to Farrell having sought and received treatment for his ‘certain deviant behaviour’. 326

Bishop Hanna gave evidence that he did not know that Farrell had received any treatment as at December 1987.327

On 11 December 1987, Farrell wrote a letter to Bishop Kennedy ‘requesting payment for the period I was absent from Tamworth to see Gary Boyle’. Farrell also noted in the letter, ‘I have requested Gary Boyle to write to you. He would like to see me again in the new year’. 328

Bishop Kennedy responded to Farrell’s letter:

I just can’t see how you can claim since you were not absent on sick leave but was simply going to see your doctor for a check-up. I do this every year myself as the doctor advised me to do but I don’t claim for it. 329

Bishop Hanna’s evidence was that Bishop Kennedy did not tell him that Farrell had been seeing Mr Boyle and that he had no knowledge at the time that Farrell was seeing Mr Boyle during his appointment at Tamworth East. 330

Narrabri court proceeding

Farrell had returned to the Diocese of Armidale by early January 1988. 331

In correspondence written in 1988, Farrell commented on the community attitude towards him:

The best support I have received comes from the older men who have either ‘been there and done that’ or seen others ‘been there and done that’, and reflecting on their experience, and weighing up all that is involved, have formed a sound opinion. 332

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

83

… The real problem is that no one, including me, knows what I should do after the court hearing. There are pros and cons in all opinions. Some say I should just disappear, but it is impossible to disappear - wherever I go, sooner or later the story of the allegations will rear its ugly head. Others say I should move to West Tamworth, and be the Adm. for Johnny O’Connor - which is my own preference - but the question is asked: How will that go over with the people? And, so the debate continues. 333

Farrell came before Magistrate Raymond Blissett at the Narrabri Local Court for committal proceedings on 18 February 1988. He faced charges for five counts of indecent assault and six charges of sexual intercourse without consent against a boy. 334 Local solicitor Mr O’Halloran had briefed Mr Chester Porter QC to represent Farrell. The Diocese of Armidale paid Farrell’s legal expenses. 335

Farrell pleaded not guilty to all charges, 336 and all 11 charges were ‘dismissed’, according to the letter from the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions to Farrell. 337

Bishop Hanna gave the following evidence about what happened next:

He came back to Tamworth and I wrote to the Bishop and said I could not see how we could give him a placement anywhere in the Armidale Diocese, because it was a committal hearing and all it said was there was insufficient evidence to warrant a trial. What does that say? It doesn’t say he’s innocent. It doesn’t say he’s guilty. But it says that he continues to be a risk and we should be vigilant. So the Bishop said, ‘Keep him till Easter’, which was another three weeks away, I think, three or four weeks, but I didn’t give him any duties. 338

‘Light duties’ at Tamworth East parish

Farrell was appointed to ‘light duties’ (being weekend masses only) at Tamworth East parish. Farrell’s view was that this was done so that he ‘may be seen as vindicated’. 339

Bishop Hanna gave evidence that he had to go back on one of his decisions that Farrell not say public mass ‘because the Vicar-General said “He’s been vindicated and he should be allowed to say public Mass”’. Bishop Hanna said he compromised that Farrell could say one public mass on the first weekend. 340

Bishop Hanna said that he told Farrell he could not return him to public ministry, but he could stay at Tamworth East and live. However, Farrell wanted to leave. 341

As to why Farrell could not return to public ministry in Tamworth, Bishop Hanna said, ‘By this time, people were very suspicious. The fact that he had now gone through a committal hearing, that somebody at last had come forward - yes, I think the general mood was that it was better if he wasn’t around’. 342

Report of Case Study No. 44

84

Farrell’s proposal to study at the University of New England

In March 1988, Farrell suggested to Bishop Kennedy that he go on study leave until December 1988. Farrell wrote:

I am not convinced that matters have ended. Mgr Ryan informed me that an official made enquiries in Moree. There is no guarantee that there will be no repeat of the last eight months. Gaining a degree will ensure I have job security, should it happen that I am precluded from exercising Ministry.

Secondly, I am unfit to exercise Ministry at present. Studying will have a therapeutic effect.

Thirdly, there will be benefits to the Diocese. For instance, I will be qualified as an historian. Writing history is rapidly becoming important in all institutions, including the Church. Also, my degree will refute claims that the clergy are uneducated. 343

The diocesan Council of Consultors, at their meeting on 28 March 1988, agreed to relieve him from performance of his ministry. 344

Bishop Hanna was not aware of Bishop Kennedy trying to find somewhere or someone to treat Farrell. Bishop Kennedy did not discuss this with Father Hanna. 345

Bishop Hanna was critical of Bishop Kennedy’s inaction in relation to Farrell: ‘I think he should have decided that there was no place for John Farrell in the diocese - in fact, anywhere where he would exercise priestly ministry.’ 346

Bishop Hanna was obliged to continue to pay Farrell ‘his livelihood’ after he had stepped down. 347

Controversy following dismissal of Narrabri charges

On 9 August 1988, the Director of Public Prosecutions wrote to the family of the complainant in the Narrabri proceedings. He advised of his decision that no ex officio indictment should be presented. 348 He explained that, in reaching this decision, he had regard to the case before the magistrate and the results of subsequent investigations, including a psychiatric report furnished by a doctor. He explained:

There are a number of serious difficulties in this matter, notably lack of complaint at the time of the alleged assault and lack of conclusive corroboration. The time elapsed since the alleged assault and question of reliability of evidence are also issues that

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

85

weaken the Crown case. There appears to be no reasonable prospect of conviction, and the magistrate cannot be shown to have made any error. Accordingly, I have determined it would not be appropriate to attempt to proceed further. 349

In his 2005 letter to Bishop Matthys, Bishop Manning wrote:

There was bitterness in the Diocese over the Court proceedings in the [REDACTED] case for which the Diocese had to pick up the expenses whereas, the lad was unrepresented. As you know, [REDACTED] … later committed suicide.

To give you an idea of the public feeling the local Member for Tamworth, Mr Park, and the Rotary Club took the matter to the State Attorney General when Father John was found guilty in the [REDACTED] case. 350

In 2012, Bishop Manning told Mr Whitlam QC that people felt a ‘grave injustice’ had been done because ‘there were other young men named around about that same time’. 351 Father Peters told Mr Whitlam QC that he thought Bishop Kennedy did not know what to do and that he was not aware of anything being done after the committal. 352

Surprisingly, ‘all relevant court transcripts and documents … appeared to have been destroyed by Mr O’Halloran senior after the relevant charges were dismissed’. 353

We are satisfied that, after the charges against Farrell were dismissed and after learning that no further action would be taken, Bishop Kennedy did not conduct his own investigation or inquiry into the allegations the subject of the charges or cause one to be conducted. Given his knowledge of the earlier allegations at Moree, Bishop Kennedy should have investigated the allegations once the criminal proceedings concluded. He did not do so, and this was a serious failure on his part.

Mr Gary Boyle provides a report to Bishop Kennedy

On 30 July 1988, psychologist Mr Boyle wrote to Bishop Kennedy at Farrell’s request. He expressed the opinion, after ‘considerable discussions and assessment that Farrell did not present as a man with true paedophilia’. He said, ‘although the presenting behaviour was consistent with paedophilia the issue for Fr. Farrell was more of a delayed psychosexual development’. 354 Mr Boyle wrote:

His psychosexual development was equivalent to the age of the children with whom he became attached. The actual behaviour was similar to the sexual curiosity of children of that age.

Report of Case Study No. 44

86

Through counselling Fr. Farrell made rapid progress in his psychosexual development and within a three month period had developed to age appropriate and mature sexual orientation. Fr. Farrell rapidly moved beyond a stage of curiosity with children to establishing a mature heterosexual orientation. In my opinion children no longer present as true sexual objects.

In my opinion Fr Farrell’s problems were that of delayed maturation which sadly had to cause difficulties for himself and others before the issues were addressed and more appropriate maturity obtained. In my opinion Fr Farrell does not have a paedophilia problem and no longer presents any problems for children or yourself. 355

Mr Boyle continued:

He has always been willing to face issues directly and is very open to growth and change. In a supportive environment I believe he will continue to do well for himself and the Church.

It is my hope that Fr. Farrell be given every assistance in putting this difficult period behind him and is allowed to return to full ministry in the Church. I am concerned with the level of depression still evident in Fr. Farrell and believe that he needs to be trusted, supported and returned to active ministry so as to recover from this traumatic period. From discussions with Fr. Farrell his placement at Tamworth rather than reducing trauma appears to have increased his distress and depression due to the lack of trust and support he received. I would hope that Fr. Farrell be given every opportunity to move beyond the cloud that still appears to hang over his head and receive the care and support he justly deserves after all this time. 356

Bishop Hanna gave evidence that he did not think he knew at the time that Farrell was seeing Mr Boyle and that Bishop Kennedy made the arrangement without referring to him. 357 He said that he had seen the letter from Mr Boyle but could not place it on a timeline as to when he saw it.358

In his interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Father Peters stated that there was ‘disquiet about the very positive report’ of Mr Boyle. 359 Father Peters was asked if Bishop Kennedy relied on the favourable report in whatever he said to Bishop Heather about going to Parramatta, and he said, ‘He probably would have’.360

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

87

Father Hanna’s involvement after the court proceedings

After the hearing, Father Hanna expressed the view that:

The matter continues to be delicate and given the small nature of our diocese - personnel population wise - it is difficult to see how an appointment could be possible for Fr Farrell in the near future.

The widest possible professional consultation and the most careful course of deliberation is now called for. 361

Bishop Hanna gave evidence that, by this point, he was effectively out of the picture as to what the Diocese of Armidale was doing with Farrell, 362 and he ‘virtually lost contact with John Farrell when he left the Diocese’. 363

Father Hanna found out relatively soon after Farrell was appointed to the Diocese of Parramatta and he subsequently learnt that Farrell went from Kenthurst parish to Merrylands parish. He said it was ‘general knowledge’. He also learnt that Farrell’s appointment in the Diocese of Parramatta was terminated and that his faculties were removed in the Diocese of Armidale. 364

Farrell returns from study leave

On 1 January 1989, Farrell wrote to Bishop Kennedy to inform him that he was ready to return to active ministry. 365

Report of Case Study No. 44

88

5 Diocese of Parramatta: 1989 to 1992

5.1 Farrell is appointed in the Diocese of Parramatta

Bishop Kennedy approaches Bishop Heather

Bishop Heather made a statement in January 2005 in the context of a civil action that was being taken by a person who claimed he had been sexually abused by Farrell. 366 He also gave evidence to us.

He said he first heard of Farrell after a bishops’ conference in 1989:

I have a vague recollection of being approached by Bishop Kennedy, Bishop of the Armidale Diocese, at the Bishops’ Conference at Kensington in 1989. I cannot recall precisely what was said but it was something along the following lines:

‘I have a priest at the moment in our Diocese, Father John Farrell, and I was wondering whether you could place him in the Diocese for a while. There were some criminal allegations made against him of a sexual nature but he was acquitted of those charges. Because the Diocese of Armidale is relatively small, and there has been a lot of publicity up there about the matter, I am finding it impossible to place him anywhere in the Armidale Diocese and was wondering whether you could take him for a time at Parramatta’. 367

One of the reasons he agreed to take Farrell on was that, at the time, there was a shortage of priests in the Parramatta diocese:

In light of the fact that he had been acquitted of the charges, and we needed priests in the Diocese, I agreed to take Father John Farrell on for a period of time. I do not recall the period being specified. 368

In his evidence to us, Bishop Heather said he now understands the distinction between dismissal of charges and acquittal. 369

Inquiries made by Bishop Heather

When asked by Counsel Assisting what inquiries he made as to the nature of the charges against Farrell and the nature of the disquiet that continued despite his ‘acquittal’, Bishop Heather said:

Yes. I’m afraid I have to acknowledge that I didn’t make the careful inquiries that I should have made, and that is a cause of great regret to me, that I didn’t do so. It led to one of the great mistakes of my life.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

89

I was inclined to - well, I did accept the fact of his acquittal, to begin with, and then the assurance of the Bishop, Bishop Kennedy, reinforced by the consultation he’d had with a psychologist whom I knew of and respected. So those three factors came together and I was satisfied with that. I was thinking of things like a person being innocent until proved guilty, without realising that in a matter of this nature, far more careful discernment is necessary, and, of course, I think even in the protocols of the church, now, bishops would be required to seek much stronger assurances than that.

But at that time, unhappily, I was satisfied with that threefold type of evidence. In short, I considered that Father Farrell was innocent and that his Bishop was commending him for a short time to service in our diocese, and that the Bishop’s assurance was supported by the opinion of a respected psychologist. 370

Bishop Heather said he was not aware that there was continued concern in the Armidale community about Farrell, but he said he thought Bishop Kennedy could not place him in Armidale because he said there was ‘a lot of talk in the community’. 371 When asked if he considered that, because of the talk, there might be something more to it, Bishop Heather, ‘I didn’t, no, unwisely’. He said he ‘considered that what the Bishop referred to was ill-founded rumour that was probably going around among people, gossip, and without foundation’. 372

Bishop Heather said that he was not told by Bishop Kennedy or informed through the ‘clerical grapevine’ about other complaints the diocese had received or problems it had had before Farrell was charged. When asked by Counsel Assisting whether he believed Bishop Kennedy had been less than frank with him regarding Farrell’s history, Bishop Heather said, ‘I wouldn’t want to push the blame on to anybody but myself for accepting Father Farrell into our diocese’. 373

Bishop Heather told us that, before he dealt with Farrell, he did not know of and had not dealt with another priest who had sexually offended against a child. 374

On 3 October 1989, Farrell wrote to Bishop Heather saying that he had come to the city to investigate the possibility of going on loan to his diocese. He requested that they meet. He mentioned that Bishop Kennedy thought Bishop Heather would probably want to speak with him before meeting Farrell and provided Bishop Kennedy’s phone number. 375

In his 2005 statement, Bishop Heather stated that after receiving Farrell’s letter he telephoned Bishop Kennedy on 9 October 1989. 376 During that conversation, Bishop Kennedy confirmed to him that Farrell had ‘made a great recovery and should be back in Armidale in about 12 months’ time’. He continued:

Bishop Kennedy also said he had no fear about the things of which Father Farrell had been accused and had received advice of Gary Boyle, psychologist experienced in abuse matters involving priests, that Father Farrell was now going okay. However, Bishop Kennedy said that Father Farrell was still a bit ‘I am’ meaning that he was still a bit assertive. 377

Report of Case Study No. 44

90

Bishop Heather made handwritten notes of the conversation with Bishop Kennedy at the time 378 and gave evidence to us which was consistent with his statement.

Bishop Heather said to us that he believed that it was implicit in this conversation that Farrell would be welcomed back in 12 months after ‘all the fuss would have died down’. When asked whether he would have expected that the talk in Moree and the wider Armidale diocese would have found its way to Parramatta, Bishop Heather said, ‘That would, I suppose, be the assumption, yes’. 379

Bishop Heather said that, although he accepted what Bishop Kennedy told him about Farrell, he rang the psychologist Mr Boyle because he thought ‘it was wise to confirm the Bishop’s views’.380 Bishop Heather’s evidence was that he could not recall his conversation with Mr Boyle, beyond receiving confirmation of what Bishop Kennedy had said. 381

Bishop Kennedy is deceased and he has not given an account about these matters.

Bishop Heather gave his evidence in a frank and candid manner and we accept his evidence:

• as to what Bishop Kennedy told him; and from that we infer that Bishop Kennedy did not inform him that there had been other allegations about Farrell’s sexual misconduct with children prior to the charges at Narrabri

• that neither Bishop Kennedy nor Mr Boyle gave Bishop Heather a copy of Mr Boyle’s report.382

We are satisfied that Bishop Heather’s concession that his inquiries were inadequate, and he should have done more to satisfy himself that Farrell did not pose a threat to children before accepting him into his diocese, was appropriate. He should have made careful inquiries, should not have simply accepted the fact of Farrell’s ‘acquittal’ and should have sought much stronger assurances than he did.

5.2 Kenthurst parish

Father McGuckin’s objection

In the late 1980s, Father Robert McGuckin was a priest of the Diocese of Parramatta, a canon lawyer and Judicial Vicar for New South Wales. In 1989, he was running the Marriage Tribunal of the Diocese of Parramatta. 383 Bishop McGuckin was not required to give evidence to the Royal Commission. However, he gave an account of relevant matters to Mr Whitlam QC.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

91

Bishop McGuckin told Mr Whitlam QC the following:

• He advised Bishop Kennedy after Farrell’s arrest in 1987 that ‘he ought to step Farrell aside while he has been arrested … and that he should not be exercising any ministry whatsoever’. 384

• While he was at the tribunal, Bishop Heather asked whether he would have Farrell work for him.385 He said this was not put to him on any particular basis, such as Bishop Heather wanting to keep him away from parish duties: 386

‘I informed the bishop that I would not have him anywhere near me … People that we deal with in the tribunal, many of them there may be victims of sexual abuse within the family and I didn’t think he was an appropriate person to have there.’ 387

• Bishop Heather then said he might appoint Farrell chaplain to Marist Brothers at Westmead:

‘[This] brought a more violent reaction from me - from my expression. And Bp Heather said, “I don’t know why I said that.” So I think there was an awareness that this guy needed to be watched.’ 388

• He thought Bishop Heather was ‘struggling for an appointment for him’. 389

In his evidence to us, Bishop Heather said he did not recall the conversation with Bishop (then Father) McGuckin but said, ‘I take it if that’s what Bishop McGuckin said, that must be true’. 390

Bishop Heather also did not recall suggesting to Father McGuckin that Farrell be appointed to Marist Brothers at Westmead, but he said he supposed that was true.391

Although he accepted it would have been highly inappropriate to appoint Farrell to a boys’ school, Bishop Heather said:

I didn’t accept him in the diocese on the view that, ‘Here is a man likely to be guilty of sexual abuse, and where am I going to place him?’ I did not accept him in that way to the diocese. I accepted him as a person who was innocent, had not been proved guilty, against whom there had been charges that had been dismissed and that, therefore, I would hold nothing against him over that regarding his prospects of appointment. 392

Counsel Assisting put to Bishop Heather that Bishop McGuckin’s account of Bishop Heather’s comment, ‘I don’t know why I said that’, suggests that he did know of the inherent risk of putting Farrell in a boys’ school. Bishop Heather responded that he did not recall saying that but that Bishop McGuckin must have a better memory than him. 393

Report of Case Study No. 44

92

As we have said, Bishop McGuckin was not called to give evidence and we have no reason to doubt that Bishop McGuckin gave an honest account to Mr Whitlam QC.

Bishop Heather did not recall the conversation; however, he did not deny that it occurred and accepted that it must be true.

It clearly would have been highly inappropriate to appoint Farrell to a boy’s school, and we are satisfied that, by this time, Bishop Heather had turned his mind to Farrell posing a risk to children.

Farrell’s 12-month appointment to Kenthurst parish

On 25 October 1989, a meeting of the College of Consultors for the Diocese of Parramatta was held. Bishop Heather presided. The minutes of the meeting record:

Bishop Bede gave details of a letter received from Fr. John Farrell, a Priest of the Armidale Diocese, who, with his Bishop’s permission, was seeking a position in this Diocese for a time …

… In each case Bishop Bede felt an appointment for 12 months would be helpful. Various possibilities were suggested, Bishop Bede commenting that there was obviously no objection to our endeavouring to be of assistance. 394

A handwritten annotation above Farrell’s name on the minutes states, ‘Kenthurst’. 395

Bishop Heather gave evidence that he informed the consultors of what Bishop Kennedy had told him about Farrell and their ‘reaction was much the same as my reaction’. Bishop Heather said that, while some of the consultors ‘were rather critical of my accepting’ Farrell, he believed that they accepted what he had told them of Bishop Kennedy and Mr Boyle’s assurances. He said that he did not ask anyone who was working in the Kenthurst parish their view on accepting Farrell. He said that this would not ‘be the normal way in which a Catholic parish would operate’: ‘The Bishop appoints a priest to a parish and we don’t have the consultative process that is sometimes practised in other Christian churches.’ 396

Bishop Heather wrote to Farrell on 10 November 1989 and confirmed his 12-month appointment as assistant priest at St Madeleine’s parish at Kenthurst. The appointment commenced on the weekend of 18 November 1989. 397

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

93

Bishop Heather’s management of Farrell’s appointment to Kenthurst

When Bishop Heather was asked if he imposed any restrictions or supervision of Farrell’s ministry when appointing him to Kenthurst parish, he said:

Not beyond the general supervision that any parish priest would have [had] of an assistant had [sic] priest in his parish. The parish priest is responsible for the ministry of the church in the parish and, in a general way, the assistant priest works under his supervision, but I didn’t place any particular restriction on Father Farrell in addition to that, no. 398

Father Chris Dixon was the parish priest at Kenthurst at the time of Farrell’s appointment to that parish.399 He was not required to give evidence to the Royal Commission; however, he was interviewed by Mr Whitlam QC in 2012.

Father Dixon told Mr Whitlam QC in 2012:

When Bp Heather approached me about appointing John Farrell, he asked me if I would like an assistant priest and I said, ‘Sure.’ I had had another man previously for a short term. So when he asked me if I wanted an assistant priest and I said, ‘Yes, most definitely’, he then mentioned the name John Farrell to me, from Armidale diocese ... He didn’t say anything other than that, but I remember saying to him quite clearly, ‘Is there anything I should know?’ 400

Father Dixon said Bishop Heather’s response was:

No, no, no. He is coming here for respite. He has had a bit of trouble up in Tamworth, in Armidale, and he is just coming here for respite for about a year. 401

Father Dixon said it did not occur to him that ‘it was a sexual abuse thing that he was getting away from or respite from’.402 Father Dixon said he was not aware at the time that Farrell had been the subject of criminal charges in 1987. 403

In Bishop Heather’s interview with Mr Whitlam QC in 2012, he said he did not recall speaking to Father Dixon about the allegations before Farrell took up duties at Kenthurst. He then clarified that he had ‘no recollection of speaking to Fr Dixon, but whether I did or not, I can’t be sure’.404

However, Bishop Heather gave evidence to the Royal Commission that he recalled the discussion with Father Dixon about the proposed appointment of Farrell to Kenthurst. Bishop Heather said he asked Father Dixon if he would welcome having an assistant priest.405 As to what he told Father Dixon about Farrell, Bishop Heather said:

Report of Case Study No. 44

94

I told him he had had problems in Armidale and that the Bishop had asked me to take him for a short period of experience with us until he returned to his own diocese. I don’t think I mentioned the nature of the problems in Armidale. 406

He also said he recalled Father Dixon asking him if there was anything he should know. Bishop Heather said this was a reasonable question for him to ask. Bishop Heather gave evidence that his reply was that ‘there had been some problems in Armidale’. Bishop Heather gave evidence that the response that Father Dixon said he gave is likely to be what he would have said. 407

Bishop Heather said that the reason for not disclosing to Father Dixon the nature of Farrell’s problems in Armidale was ‘I thought a man was entitled to his good name’. 408 When asked if it would have been prudent to give Farrell’s supervisor information about Farrell’s past, Bishop Heather said:

We know a lot more about these matters now, but in 1989 he was a priest who was innocent of such matters, coming to our diocese, whose name I felt a duty to respect, whose reputation I felt a duty to respect, and I did not see that I should warn Father Dixon in any special way about a risk that he posed, because I didn’t see him as posing a risk. 409

Bishop Heather said he had his own ‘eye and ear open’ in relation to Farrell. 410 When asked if it would have been easier for Father Dixon to have his eye and ear open, given he was closer to the ground, Bishop Heather responded that he did not think it was tenable for the parish priest to have ‘special surveillance’ over Farrell. 411

Bishop Heather said his response to Father Dixon was not misleading - what he said was correct and it respected Farrell’s right to his reputation. 412

Bishop Heather went on to say:

I didn’t think that it was necessary for him to know about the charges. Eventually, he did come to know, of course, as many other priests in the diocese did, so I suppose it may have been reasonable to tell him, but I didn’t - I didn’t believe at that stage that I needed to tell him and I did have respect for the good name of Father Farrell. 413

Bishop Heather said that he did not consider Farrell to be a ‘risk’ at the time he was appointed to Kenthurst, but he accepted:

I should have taken far more care about accepting him into the Parramatta Diocese in the first place. I should have, in greater wisdom, made further inquiries and not been satisfied with the assurance on the three scores that I mentioned to you, but I recognise that now, I did not recognise it then. 414

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

95

When it was put to Bishop Heather that he placed too much emphasis on preserving Farrell’s reputation in appointing him to Kenthurst rather than mitigating the potential of risk of harm to children, Bishop Heather said he did not wish to say anything and would leave it to the judgment of the Royal Commission. 415

Father Dixon’s account to Mr Whitlam QC of his discussion with Bishop Heather before Farrell’s appointment to Kenthurst in 1989 is consistent with Bishop Heather’s evidence to the Royal Commission. We accept that evidence.

Counsel for the Truth, Justice and Healing Council submitted that Bishop Heather’s statement to Father Dixon was not misleading but ‘respected the right of Father Farrell [an innocent man on Bishop Heather’s understanding] to his reputation’. The council submitted that that was reasonable in 1989, as Bishop Heather believed Farrell was innocent and did not pose any risk. The council submitted that Bishop Heather did not prioritise Farrell’s reputation over protecting children.

We do not accept that submission. Bishop Heather’s evidence is consistent with him having turned his mind to telling Father Dixon and then formed the view that it was not necessary. In doing so, he prioritised Farrell’s reputation over the frank disclosure to a fellow priest in relation to an assistant priest who would be working with him. He did mislead Father Dixon and, even if his view as to Farrell’s potential risk was as his response to Father McGuckin suggested, Farrell’s reputation should not have been uppermost in his mind.

Bishop Heather’s response to Father Dixon omitted crucial information which might have influenced whether Father Dixon may have resisted accepting Farrell as his assistant or the conditions on which Farrell would exercise his ministry in Kenthurst.

We are satisfied that Bishop Heather should have told Father Dixon of Farrell’s background.

Within days of Farrell taking up his appointment as assistant priest at Kenthurst parish, the diocesan College of Consultors met. Bishop Heather presided. The minutes of the meeting on 22 November 1989 record:

As a result of discussions, Bishop Bede that Fr. John Farrell has now been appointed for one year as Asst. Pastor at Kenthurst … 416

Bishop Heather gave evidence that he thought the ‘discussions’ mentioned in the minutes refers to the discussions he had with Father Dixon. 417 Bishop Heather did not know if the reference also included his discussions with Father McGuckin. 418 When asked by counsel appearing for the Church parties, Bishop Heather said that it was ‘possible’ that the ‘discussions’ referred to may have been with Bishop Kennedy. 419

Report of Case Study No. 44

96

Talk of Farrell’s problems in Armidale

Bishop Heather gave evidence that he was aware that, ‘some months’ after Farrell’s appointment at Kenthurst, talk of Farrell being in trouble in Armidale and his involvement in a court case started to circulate among the priests in the Diocese of Parramatta. 420 Bishop Heather said he became aware of this during a consultors’ meeting, during which he repeated ‘what I’d said initially in introducing the case of Father Farrell, that is, that the charges against him had been dismissed and that I accepted him on the recommendation of the Bishop and with the confirmation of the psychologist’. 421

In his interview with Mr Whitlam QC in 2012, the following exchange took place:

MR WHITLAM: In any event, the fact that you were telling the consultors in the middle of 1990, which is well before he goes to Merrylands, that he was seeing Gary Boyle and that sort of thing, would suggest that, at least, the purport of the allegations that there was sexual misconduct was abroad amongst the priests in the diocese?

BP HEATHER: Well, yes, I think it’s likely, yes, most likely.

MR WHITLAM: That he had come under a cloud?

BP HEATHER: There is a very efficient network among clergy, and I would say that he would no sooner have appeared in Parramatta than everyone would have know [sic] the story from Armidale.422

Bishop Heather repeated his remarks to Mr Whitlam QC to us.423

Bishop Heather went on to say in his evidence, ‘priests have friends, classmates, even from the seminary, in one diocese or another, and so of course information spreads’. When asked if priests gossip, he said, ‘They do, yes’.424

In his 2005 statement, Bishop Heather stated that ‘There were no problems with Father Farrell whatsoever that [he] was aware of whilst at the Kenthurst Parish’. 425 Bishop Heather said that there was never any complaint involving Farrell and a ‘serious matter involving children’ during Farrell’s appointment at Kenthurst, but ‘if it had been a complaint about sexual assault of a child, I would have had to stand him down immediately while the investigation took place’. 426

In his 2012 interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Father Dixon said that, some months after Farrell was appointed to Kenthurst parish and while he was still in that parish, he did begin ‘to hear voices saying, “What’s he here for? Why is he here? There has been trouble and there was a court case in Armidale, somewhere in the diocese.” I certainly did hear about those stories’. Father Dixon said he heard these things in an ‘informal’ context. 427

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

97

Problems arise at Kenthurst parish

In June 1990, Farrell wrote to Bishop Kennedy applying for appointment to the vacant Parish of Boggabri in the Diocese of Armidale. He advised that he had spoken to Bishop Heather about his intention to apply and that the bishop had indicated that he would be willing to cancel the present arrangements if he was the successful applicant. 428

Farrell’s position was discussed at a meeting of the College of Consultors for the Diocese of Armidale on 26 June 1990. In the meeting minutes, it was recorded that Farrell’s ‘position was brought up for discussion as his twelve months stay in the Diocese of Parramatta was drawing to a close’ and that ‘opinions varied on the matter’. 429 After a brief discussion, he was not appointed to the Parish of Boggabri. 430

We infer that the difference of views was related to the knowledge among priests in the Diocese of Armidale about the court case at Narrabri against Farrell and the risks he posed in a parish. Knowledge of the court case was widespread in Armidale and the opinions which prevailed must have been negative, as Farrell was not appointed to the position.

Farrell requests to be moved from Kenthurst parish

The day after the meeting of the College of Consultors in Armidale, on 27 June 1990, a meeting of the College of Consultors for the Diocese of Parramatta was held. Bishop Heather presided. 431 Farrell’s placement was discussed at this meeting. The minutes of the meeting record:

Fr. John, a priest of the Diocese of Armidale, had been at Kenthurst since last October, said Bishop Bede, following a request by his Bishop for a 12 months’ placement. However, he had come to see him the other day to say his psychologist had advised him he should not continue there. 432

When asked by Counsel Assisting his recollection as to why Farrell had been advised by his psychologist that he should not continue with his appointment at Kenthurst, Bishop Heather responded, ‘I could only give a general impression that it was about some personality clash between himself and Father Dixon’. 433

The following month, on 25 July 1990, another meeting of the College of Consultors was held.434

The minutes of this meeting record that Bishop Heather raised several issues that had come about relating to Farrell’s placement at Kenthurst:

Report of Case Study No. 44

98

Bishop Bede said this was a difficult situation in that Fr. Farrell had come to see him to say his psychologist had advised him he should move on from Kenthurst as it was not satisfactory for him there. He had then spoken to Fr. Chris Dixon and subsequently saw Fr. Farrell again, but could not manage to get them together in a three sided meeting. Fr. Farrell would like some further work in the Diocese. Bishop Bede said he might have possibility of weekend supply but did not have anything more for the moment. Some discussion followed. 435

A handwritten annotation next to the entry relating to Farrell states, ‘Apptm’t to June. Now til October’. 436

Bishop Heather gave the following evidence:

I don’t think the Consultors were ever really content with his presence in the diocese. As I think I may have said yesterday, he didn’t have an engaging personality, didn’t make friendships readily among the clergy in the diocese, and there was this criticism within the Consultors, and among others, also, of his presence in the diocese. 437

Bishop Heather agreed that it was also because most of the consultors knew about the charges at Narrabri.438

Complaint by a teacher to Father Dixon

Father Dixon told Mr Whitlam QC in 2012 that a teacher had reported to him that Farrell had made an ‘inappropriate suggestion’ or ‘inappropriate remark’ to her. He said he reported this to Bishop Heather, but he did not know what the bishop did with the information. 439

Bishop Heather gave evidence that he thought Father Dixon reported that Farrell had gone into the teacher’s classroom while she was preparing the next day’s lessons and made a suggestive remark to her. He said he did not think Father Dixon ever told him what the remark was. Bishop Heather said he assumed it was sexually suggestive. 440

When asked by Counsel Assisting if that caused him to reconsider Farrell’s presence in his diocese, Bishop Heather said, ‘This was an inappropriate remark made to an adult and, no, I didn’t think that was sufficient ground for me to reconsider his position in the diocese’. 441

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

99

Criticism of Farrell’s appointment at Kenthurst

Bishop Heather gave evidence that by 1990 an ‘amount of feeling had generated against the presence of Father Farrell in our diocese’. 442 It came to Bishop Heather’s attention ‘at several Consultors meetings’. 443 Bishop Heather’s evidence was that:

A number of people were critical of Father Farrell in the diocese, but none of them at any stage presented to me any positive evidence of any failure on his part that would have warranted my action against him. 444

On 8 August 1990, Bishop Heather wrote to Farrell at the Kenthurst presbytery:

I understood from our conversation on Monday 18th June, and from a subsequent discussion with Father Christopher Dixon, that you had mutually agreed that your appointment at Kenthurst would terminate as from the end of June. 445

In the letter, Bishop Heather offered Farrell the opportunity to do supply work in the Diocese of Parramatta and said that, in the meantime, he would look out for some opportunity for him. 446

In his evidence to the Royal Commission, Bishop Heather explained that the termination of Farrell’s appointment at Kenthurst meant he was ‘more or less in no-man’s-land at that stage … He was still technically on loan to us from Armidale, but I didn’t have any appointment for him at that stage’.447 Bishop Heather said he remained living in the Diocese of Parramatta, and he did supply work at Kenthurst parish. 448

Counsel Assisting put to Bishop Heather that this would have been an opportunity to send Farrell back to Armidale, to which Bishop Heather replied:

Well, the 12 months were not quite up, that I’d undertaken to take him for, and I had no indication from Bishop Kennedy that he was ready to take him back at that stage, so I didn’t make any move in that direction. 449

On 22 August 1990, Farrell wrote to Bishop Heather saying that he had continued to work at Kenthurst and that ‘much ha[d] changed’ since they spoke in June. He wrote:

the discussions in June led to a clearing of the air, and now a most favourable atmosphere prevails. Therefore, in view of this, and in consideration of all other things, my feeling is that we review the proposed termination of my appointment, and that I continue at Kenthurst. 450

Bishop Heather said he did not think that Father Dixon shared the view that there was a ‘favourable atmosphere’ prevailing. Bishop Heather said, ‘of course, subsequent events and the Whitlam Report have made me a bit dubious about some of the matters that Father Farrell brought to me’.451

Report of Case Study No. 44

100

Camping trip incident

On 16 September 1990, Father Gerard Hayes wrote to Father Peters in Armidale about an incident in Kenthurst in April of that year. 452

He wrote this letter in response to a request from Father Peters to ‘supply in writing the information which I gave you in conversation three weeks ago’.

Father Hayes wrote that a local Moree woman, who was visiting her aunt in Kenthurst, was introduced to a young priest who had called around to her aunt’s home to arrange a camping trip with the aunt’s young sons. He reported that the priest was Farrell, and there were to be three or four boys under the age of 12 accompanying him on the camping trip. 453

The Moree woman said she did not recognise Farrell on being introduced to him. Her aunt remarked in Farrell’s presence that the woman was a teacher at Moree, and Farrell abruptly left. A short time late, Farrell telephoned the aunt and told her, ‘that girl from Moree might tell you some nasty stories about me in Moree; don’t believe her - they are just awful stories which someone made up to hurt me’. 454

The Moree woman said at this point ‘the penny dropped’ and she told her aunt of the charges brought against Farrell. She insisted that the boys not go camping with Farrell, and the trip did not go ahead. 455

Father Hayes also informed Father Peters about the concern expressed by the same woman’s family relating to the attention Farrell was paying to their oldest son, who was 20 years old and who had moved out of his family home. Father Hayes wrote:

Fr Farrell is on his doorstep frequently. The family is quite concerned at the attention which Fr Farrell is paying to this young man. 456

Father Peters told Mr Whitlam QC that he reported the incident that was relayed to him by Father Hayes to Bishop Kennedy. 457

Father Peters said that he also raised the matter with Monsignor John Usher, who was a friend of his. Monsignor Usher is a priest of the Archdiocese of Sydney with qualifications in social work. In 1990, he was the director of Centacare in Sydney - a Catholic welfare agency. 458

Monsignor Usher then wrote an advice dated 22 August 1990, which is referred to below. 459

Monsignor Usher gave evidence that, at the time of giving his advice, he was not aware of Father Hayes’ report to Father Peters about the camping trip incident. 460

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

101

Father Peters told Mr Whitlam QC on 5 September 2012 that he ‘would have handed on’ Monsignor Usher’s advice to Bishop Kennedy. 461 He said he ‘thought it was important for him to know’. 462

Bishop Heather gave evidence that he was familiar with the advice, but he thought it might have ‘been through the Whitlam Report that I came to know of that. I hadn’t known of it before’.463 He said it did not come to his attention around September 1990 or afterwards. 464

It is clear that, at least in April 1990, Farrell had continued access to children in the Diocese of Parramatta and the Parish of Kenthurst, where he worked as a priest.

It is also evident that, at least on this occasion, he was using his position as a priest to seek to take children on overnight trips. It follows that no restrictions or effective restrictions were put on his ministry to prevent him from engaging in activities which involved contact with children.

We accept Father Peters’ account to Mr Whitlam QC that he told Bishop Kennedy about the incident reported to him by Father Hayes and gave him a copy of Monsignor Usher’s report. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Father Peters’ account to Mr Whitlam QC that he told Monsignor Usher about the incident that Father Hayes reported to him conflicts with Monsignor Usher’s sworn evidence. We did not require Father Hayes to give evidence. A letter he wrote to Father Peters is the basis of the evidence set out above.

The timing of Father Peters’ exchange with Father Hayes is of particular importance in resolving this conflict.

Father Peters told Mr Whitlam QC that reporting the camping incident to Monsignor Usher led to Monsignor Usher interviewing Farrell and writing his report dated 22 August 1990.

The letter written by Father Hayes records that Father Hayes verbally reported the incident to Father Peters three weeks before - that is, around 25 August, after the date of Monsignor Usher’s report. His letter is dated 16 September 1990.

Accepting the accuracy of the dates set out, Monsignor Usher’s report was written before Father Peters was told about the camping incident. Therefore, he could not have told Monsignor Usher about the incident before Monsignor Usher interviewed Farrell and prepared his report.

Accordingly, we cannot be satisfied that Father Peters told Monsignor Usher about the camping incident before Monsignor Usher interviewed Farrell and prepared his report.

Report of Case Study No. 44

102

College of Consultors meeting on 26 September 1990

On 26 September 1990, the College of Consultors for the Diocese of Parramatta met. Bishop Heather presided.465

The minutes of the meeting record:

Fr. John Farrell

Details were given by Bishop Bede of what had occurred since the termination of Fr. John’s appointment at Kenthurst at the end of June but where he was still staying. As a result of discussions at the Assembly he had agreed to pay him a Car Allowance for September and October, saying if he wished to continue in this Diocese beyond the 12 months from last November granted by Bishop Kennedy, we would have to re-negotiate with his Bishop. 466

In his interview with Mr Whitlam QC in 2012, Bishop Heather said of the College of Consultors meetings ‘in the middle of 1990’:

There was an unease among them, yes. My recollection of Fr Farrell is that he didn’t mix readily or well with his fellow clergy and, of course, people had heard the stories from Armidale. They were uneasy about him, yes, but like myself, they had no reason to rule him out of the appointment and work in the diocese. He had been acquitted, apparently, as far as we all knew, of charges that were brought against him. His bishop was recommending him. He had been for psychological advice.

MR WHITLAM: And you told the consultors that, that he had been to Boyle?

BP HEATHER: Yes, I did.467

The day after the consultors’ meeting, on 27 September 1990, Bishop Heather wrote to Farrell to confirm that he would do supply work at Kenthurst parish during October while Father Dixon was on holiday leave. He stressed that Farrell was working at Kenthurst on a temporary basis and that Bishop Kennedy’s approval would be required if Farrell wanted to stay past October 1990.468

In that correspondence, Bishop Heather sought to make it clear to Farrell that his future involvement at Kenthurst was restricted to supply work and he would not appoint Farrell to Kenthurst or renew his previous appointment at Kenthurst. 469

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

103

Father Dixon told Mr Whitlam QC in 2012 that, after Farrell’s appointment at Kenthurst was terminated, Farrell did not stay on in the parish. 470 The minutes of meeting of the College of Consultors on 26 September 1990 record that Farrell continued to supply at Kenthurst parish after the termination. 471 Father Dixon may have been mistaken, as he was on leave during some of the period that Farrell supplied at the parish.

Monsignor John Usher interviews Farrell and raises concerns

In his interview with Mr Whitlam QC in 2012, Monsignor Usher said Father Peters told him they had a report from psychologist Mr Boyle about Farrell which concluded he was no risk to children, and Monsignor Usher offered to speak to Farrell. 472 Monsignor Usher said he did not receive a copy of that report. 473

He told Mr Whitlam QC he knew of Mr Boyle, who was a couple of years ahead of him at the Springwood seminary. 474

Monsignor Usher gave similar evidence to us and also said it was not his practice at the time to do assessments of this kind; it was a one-off. 475

Monsignor Usher told us that before this he did not know anything about Farrell: 476

The only thing I was told - I now realise this was a bit incorrect - that some years before he had been charged and arrested and Wayne told me that he’d been acquitted. I now understand that he hadn’t been acquitted, but the matter had not gone to trial. 477

Monsignor Usher’s evidence was Father Peters told him it was in relation to a ‘child sexual matter’, 478 but he was not given any records or information about what the Church had done. He said Father Peters ‘only asked me to meet with [Farrell] and assess did I think that the report he had from the other psychologist was accurate or should they do something else’. 479

Monsignor Usher said ‘it wasn’t an assessment’ and he ‘wasn’t going to psychoanalyse him’ but was ‘just going to give my impression as to whether or not they should readmit him to ministry’. 480 When asked how he could do that on the basis of a one-hour meeting without knowing anything about the man, Monsignor Usher said it was probably his fault for not asking for more information. 481 He said that, other than knowing the court case related to sexual abuse against a boy, he did not know the age of the boy, the nature of the assault or whether it was ongoing or one-off. 482

Monsignor Usher knew Farrell was working as a priest at the time, and ‘there were a lot of rumours amongst the priests in Armidale about this man and that he should assess him professionally, so he sent him off to a psychologist’. 483 He said, ‘I understand the rumours were

Report of Case Study No. 44

104

that the priests in Armidale knew more about that abuse that occurred than I was told or - and I don’t know what the Bishop was told’. He said that Farrell told him about the rumours at the interview, but he did not know of them before. 484

Monsignor Usher’s evidence was that the meeting with Farrell was arranged through the Diocese of Armidale. He did not know what Farrell was told would happen, but he came willingly. He gave the following evidence about the interview:

I interviewed him for about an hour and he certainly made no admissions, but I - for the first time I met a man whose personality traits concerned me considerably. He admitted he had a great ministry to children and young people, he told me, but, more importantly, he was very critical of the Bishop and the priests of Armidale and - but more so of his fellow priests. I suppose my judgment was ‘I’m not in a position to make a diagnosis of the person’, but I detected that he had a serious psychiatric illness. 485

On 22 August 1990, Monsignor Usher wrote to Father Peters following his interview with Farrell:

I wish to reiterate my views regarding the reappointment of a Priest to a pastoral post in the diocese of Armidale who has been before the courts in relation to child sexual assault. I am aware that the priest in question was acquitted of the charges but it is vital that a Bishop make a personal assessment of the case irrespective of the outcome of any trial, before making such an appointment. 486

Monsignor Usher continued, expressing ‘grave concern’ about Farrell:

The Priest in question is known to me and I have interviewed him in relation to the alleged offences. His personal manner and his ongoing need to spend time with children is a matter of grave concern to me. During my interview with him I gained the impression that he was unable to understand the seriousness of the matters with which he had been charged and was arrogantly dismissing the whole affair as a figment of other people’s imagination. The events, serious as they were alleged to be, did not seem to distress him greatly. His behaviour, therefore, indicated that his feelings were repressed and that he had developed certain defence mechanisms which enabled him to cope with such stressful events by denying that they had any basis of truth at all. Of course, denial is a trait of many child sexual assault offenders and it is not uncommon to witness complete disinterest in such people in relation to their behavior. I am not suggesting that the Priest in question is guilty of such behaviour but his personality traits indicate some deep-seated disorder. During the single interview I had with him I was in no position to make any comprehensive assessment nor would it would [sic] appropriate for me to do so. 487

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

105

In relation to Mr Boyle’s report, Monsignor Usher wrote:

I understand that he has had counselling from Mr Garry Boyle and that Mr Boyle has provided the Bishop with some assessment of the man in question. I believe that it would be very appropriate, in view of the seriousness of the allegations and in view of the man’s own personality, that a further assessment be sought. If Mr Boyle’s opinions are confirmed then there would seem to be no good reason not to proceed with a pastoral appointment. If, on the other hand, there is some doubt about this Priest’s ability to hold down such an appointment in an appropriate way, the Bishop may have to consider some other intervention. 488

In relation to his ‘grave concern’ over Farrell’s ‘ongoing need to spend time with children’, Monsignor Usher said:

No, what I’m saying is he talked to me a lot about how he was loved by children, he spent a lot of time with young people, how other priests didn’t do this and they didn’t understand him, and they made assumptions about his behaviour - all that sort of stuff. 489

Monsignor Usher thought Farrell ‘was a risk and needed to be further evaluated because there were many things I didn’t know’. 490 Monsignor Usher said he judged Farrell to be a narcissistic and arrogant person. 491

Monsignor Usher said he did not continue to engage with Father Peters about Farrell. He had ‘suggested they refer him to Professor or then Dr Blaszczynski and I contacted Dr Blaszczynski, said would he take this referral, he said he would, and he then contacted the Diocese of Armidale. I’m not sure whether he contacted the Bishop or Father Peters’. 492

Monsignor Usher said he was not aware at the time of his assessment that Farrell was working in the Diocese of Parramatta and had sought an extension of his appointment there. However, he said he heard from Father John Boyle, a priest from Parramatta, on the clerical grapevine ‘along the track somewhere’ that Farrell had been reported to Bishop Heather for having a boy in his car. He said he told the priest, ‘That’s very wrong’, and the next thing he heard Farrell had left Parramatta. 493

Bishop Heather gave evidence that he did not know of Monsignor Usher’s report at the time, and he saw it for the first time in Mr Whitlam QC’s report in 2012. 494 Bishop Heather said that he was not advised as to the contents of Monsignor Usher’s report and that ‘it would have been very helpful to have had that report at that time’. 495

When asked by Mr Whitlam QC in 2012 if he knew that Monsignor Usher had suggested to the Diocese of Armidale that Farrell should see Dr Blaszczynski in around August 1990, Bishop Heather said ‘No’.496

Report of Case Study No. 44

106

An opinion by Dr Blaszczynski is recommended

On 23 October 1990, Father Peters wrote to Bishop Kennedy ‘in regard to the matter of a possible appointment of Rev. John Farrell to an appropriate Ecclesiastical Office and a suitable professional person to give a second opinion in his particular case’. Father Peters wrote that, after discussions with Father John Usher, he recommended Dr Alex Blaszczynski, who was based in Sydney. He wrote that Dr Blaszczynski ‘is an expert in dealing with people who have problems in the area of sexual deviation’ and he had ‘been approached by the NSW Bishops to be part of a committee to deal with situations where charges of a sexual nature are made against clergy’. 497 Father Peters wrote:

Father Usher has spoken to Dr Brazinski [sic] and given him some briefing of the case of Father Farrell … may I suggest Rev Gerard Hanna of Tamworth as a possible suitable person to further brief the doctor. 498

In his 2012 interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Father Peters said he wrote this letter to Bishop Kennedy because of the ‘disquiet’ about the favourable report about Farrell from Mr Boyle. 499

Father Peters told Mr Whitlam QC that, as Farrell was still in Parramatta at the time, ‘there was no clamouring for anything to be done’, but there was a concern that there was a danger of Farrell ‘using priesthood as a platform to gain trust in families and, therefore, putting children at risk’. He said, ‘we wanted to make sure that if there was a problem there, we were going to uncover it’. 500

Farrell requests an extension of his appointment in the Diocese of Parramatta

Bishop Heather forwarded a copy of his letter to Farrell of 27 September 1990 - in which he confirmed the supply arrangements at Kenthurst but stressed that Farrell was there on a temporary basis501 - to Bishop Kennedy the next day. He wrote to Bishop Kennedy:

If he requests, with your approval, to stay on here for a further year I shall try to place him. This is not easy, I find. Those who knew him in the seminary are reluctant, not realising perhaps that he has changed much in the meantime. Also, my Consultors impress on me the importance of his returning to his own diocese sooner or later. 502

On 10 October 1990, Farrell wrote to Bishop Heather. He referred to a conversation he had with Bishop Kennedy, in which the bishop was ‘of the opinion that I should ask to continue in your Diocese for another term. Accordingly, I formally request to go on loan for the Diocese of Parramatta for twelve months’. 503

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

107

Meeting of the College of Consultors on 24 October 1990

On 24 October 1990, the College of Consultors for the Diocese of Parramatta met. Bishop Heather presided. The minutes of the meeting record:

Fr. John Farrell

Bishop Bede said that he sent a copy of his letter to Fr. Farrell to Bishop Kennedy, who said in reply that whilst he accepted that Fr. Farrell belonged to Armidale Diocese, he would be grateful if we could appoint him here for another year. 504

Father David Maguire, who was a consultor present at this meeting, wrote in a letter to Bishop Manning in July 1992:

At the October 1990 meeting of Consultors, we were advised that Bishop Kennedy had stated that, while he accepted that Fr. Farrell belonged to Armidale Diocese, he would be grateful if we could appoint him to another appointment in Parramatta for a further year. This was not received very well by some of the Consultors who, nevertheless, deferred to Bishop Heather’s sense of compassion towards John. 505

We are satisfied that, in about October 1990, Bishop Kennedy asked Bishop Heather to extend Farrell’s appointment in the Diocese of Parramatta for a further year. Bishop Kennedy made this request despite his knowledge of Monsignor Usher’s report to Father Peters, which expressed ‘grave concern’ about Farrell, and of the incident in which Farrell planned to take three or four young boys away on a camping trip. Bishop Kennedy, as Farrell’s bishop, should have removed him from ministry altogether.

As found earlier, Bishop Kennedy did not inform Bishop Heather of Monsignor Usher’s grave concerns or of the camping trip incident. He should have done so, so that Bishop Heather could make an informed decision about whether Farrell should continue to minister in his diocese and the conditions upon which he would exercise his ministry.

5.3 Merrylands parish

In his statement of 14 January 2005, Bishop Heather said:

I cannot recall precisely what happened with Father Farrell in terms of extending his initial period of 12 months, but I believe my letter of 9 January 1991 indicates I had spoken with Bishop Kennedy. At some stage, I gather that there was a vacancy for the position of Assistant Priest at Merrylands so I had no difficulty allowing Father Farrell to move to Merrylands as there had been no problem with him at Kenthurst. 506

Report of Case Study No. 44

108

He said that the intention was for Farrell to fill in at Merrylands only for a short period. 507

In his 2012 interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Bishop McGuckin said he thought he was conscious at the time that Farrell was being sent to Merrylands. He said his personal view was that Farrell ‘should have been relocated out of the Parramatta diocese … and I would have said these things, I believe, to Bp Bede, not that he had to take any notice of what I had to say, but I personally didn’t - I had a feeling he shouldn’t have been here in the first instance’. 508

Bishop Heather told us that Father McGuckin ‘did not say that to me’, 509 but he acknowledged that may have been his view. He said:

[Father McGuckin] did have a feeling, and that was shared by others, too, that he should not have been in our diocese. Now, we’re talking about 1990, at this stage, and certainly an amount of feeling had generated against the presence of Father Farrell in our diocese. 510

The following exchange with Counsel Assisting also took place:

Q. But by now you had a number of people being concerned about him?

A. Yes, I did, yes.

Q. You had the Consultors, for a variety of reasons, including personality, their knowledge of what had happened at Moree, and now some people remembering him from the seminary?

A. Yes.

Q. You also had Father Dixon telling you of that episode in relation to the woman and suggestive remarks being made?

A. Yes.

Q. It was adding up, wasn’t it, Bishop?

A. I grant, yes, it was adding up and I was becoming nervous about the presence of Father Farrell in the diocese, but I didn’t have any evidence of any sexual impropriety, especially with children in our diocese.

Q. Why did you need any evidence of that in order to just say, ‘Go back to Armidale. You’re not one of ours, anyway, and you’re causing problems’?

A. I thought I should treat him fairly. I was anxious to give him a fair go, as they say, and I thought I was endeavouring to do that. 511

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

109

An undated handwritten note from ‘Bede’ to ‘Harry’ (likely to be from Bishop Bede Heather to Bishop Henry or ‘Harry’ Kennedy) on Diocese of Parramatta notepaper records: ‘John has done quite well at Merrylands. I trust his maturity in his ministry is growing.’ 512

This note was probably written between November 1990, when Farrell was given a supply role at Merrylands, and January 1991, when Farrell was given an ongoing appointment at Merrylands.

Bishop Heather gave the following evidence to the Royal Commission about Farrell’s formal appointment to Merrylands after his initial supply period:

Father Bray came back but on light duties, as far as I remember, and they were still needing further help and, with their agreement [Father Roderick Bray and Father Zvonimir Gavranovic], I appointed him to Merrylands and that is much to my regret. 513

Bishop Heather said that he sought the agreement of Fathers Bray and Gavranovic before formally appointing Farrell to Merrylands because ‘they had had some experience of him there as a supply, and so I spoke with them just to verify that they would find it acceptable to have him appointed in a permanent position’: 514

I’m quite sure I did do this, but I had forgotten it completely, and I suppose it’s the illness of age which leads one to this. But, anyway, I did go to see them, yes, and, as I say, I was becoming nervous about John’s presence in the diocese and the criticisms of the Consultors and others, and so I did consult with Father Bray and Father Gavranovic, and I think I advised them to let me know immediately if anything untoward took place …

I think I told them that there had been charges of a sexual nature against John in Narrabri, but they had been dismissed, so I told them that, I think, yes. 515

Father Gavranovic gave a similar account of his discussion with Bishop Heather to Mr Whitlam QC in 2012.

Father Gavranovic told Mr Whitlam QC that during Farrell’s time with him at Merrylands parish Farrell ‘was looking after the altar servers. He was sort of training them … That would have been during lunchtime during school time that he was training altar servers’. 516

Father Gavranovic also said the only unusual behaviour of Farrell’s that he recalled was following a wedding at which Farrell had five or six altar servers. He took the boys back to the parish house sitting room and gave them Coca-Cola. He said they were there for about 45 minutes. Afterwards, Father Gavranovic asked Farrell if it was wise to bring altar servers back and give them Coca-Cola. He said it also struck him as odd to have so many altar servers at a wedding. 517

Report of Case Study No. 44

110

Bishop Heather told us that it did not come to his attention that Father Gavranovic saw Farrell having five or six altar servers back at the parish house after mass. 518 He said, ‘Father Gavranovic apparently didn’t put that into the category of something untoward that I might have expected him to report’.519

At a meeting of the College of Consultors on 27 February 1991, Bishop Heather’s decision to appoint Farrell to Merrylands until November 1991 was recorded:

Meanwhile Bishop Kennedy had asked if we could accept Fr. John Farrell for a further 12 months, so Bishop Bede said he had appointed Fr. John at Merrylands until next November.520

Father Maguire was a consultor present at this meeting. He wrote to Bishop Manning in July 1992:

When Bishop Heather reported this development to the Consultors at the February 1991 meeting, it was not well received. But again, the Consultors deferred to the Bishop …

I was surprised that the extension of John’s appointment or its termination was not raised at the meetings of Consultors held in November 1991, or January 1992. 521

The evidence about the circumstances of the termination of Farrell’s appointment at Merrylands and the Diocese of Parramatta is considered later in this report.

We are satisfied that, as at the end of Bishop Kennedy’s term as Bishop of Armidale in April 1991, Bishop Kennedy knew the following:

• By April 1984, there were ‘school yard rumours’ about Farrell providing sex lessons for altar boys.

• By April 1984, there were allegations concerning Farrell’s behaviour which were ‘strong’ enough to warrant him directing Farrell to see clinical psychologist Mr Boyle.

• By July 1984:

° Farrell was moved from Moree because of the ‘usual thing, he was messing around with altar boys’.

° He was of the view that Farrell had ‘made a mess of things in Moree and he needs a new start’ and that he was ‘high risk’ and needed to be watched and put on restricted ministry.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

111

• By July 1988 Mr Boyle’s assessment was that ‘although the presenting behaviour was consistent with paedophilia the issue for Fr. Farrell was more of a delayed psychosexual development’.

• In 1989, Farrell was appointed priest within the Diocese of Parramatta.

• By August 1990, Monsignor Usher had ‘grave concerns’ about Farrell.

• By September 1990 Farrell had proposed a camping trip with three or four boys under the age of 12. The trip did not go ahead.

We are satisfied that, as at the end of Bishop Kennedy’s term as Bishop of Armidale in April 1991, Bishop Heather knew the following:

• ‘There were some criminal allegations made against Farrell of a sexual nature but he was acquitted of those charges’.

• Bishop Kennedy considered that Farrell had ‘made a great recovery’ following treatment with Mr Boyle.

• Bishop Heather had received a complaint from Father Dixon that a teacher had reported to him an ‘inappropriate suggestion’ or ‘inappropriate remark’ by Farrell. Bishop Heather assumed it was sexually suggestive.

It follows that, as at the end of Bishop Kennedy’s term as Bishop of Armidale in April 1991, in relation to Farrell, Bishop Kennedy had not told Bishop Heather:

• that, when Bishop Kennedy asked him to place Farrell in the Diocese of Parramatta in 1989, there were allegations or complaints of child sexual abuse received in the Diocese of Armidale around the time Farrell was moved from Moree in April 1984

• about any other complaints or problems received by the Diocese of Armidale before Farrell was charged in 1987

• around September 1990, about the report he received from Father Peters about a camping trip Farrell proposed to take with three or four boys from the Diocese of Parramatta

• in August 1990, about Monsignor Usher’s report to Father Peters dated 22 August 1990 in which he expressed ‘grave concern’ about Farrell’s ‘ongoing need to spend time with children’ and that he had recommended Farrell should see Dr Blaszczynski.

Report of Case Study No. 44

112

6 Bishop Manning is Appointed Bishop of Armidale Bishop Manning replaced Bishop Kennedy as the Bishop of Armidale in July 1991. Before that, he was the secretary to the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (ACBC). He had not previously held any posts in the Diocese of Armidale. 522

When Bishop Manning arrived in the diocese, Monsignor Ryan was still the parish priest in Moree and also the Vicar General for the Diocese of Armidale. 523

Bishop Manning remained Bishop of Armidale until he was appointed the Bishop of Parramatta in July 1997. At that point, Monsignor Ryan became administrator of the diocese until a new bishop was appointed two years later. In 1999, Bishop Matthys became Bishop of Armidale.524

At the time of Bishop Manning’s appointment, Farrell was still assistant priest at Merrylands in the Diocese of Parramatta.

Bishop Manning was excused from giving evidence in the public hearing on medical grounds. However, we had the benefit of various documents he had written, including a lengthy letter to his successor, Bishop Matthys, in 2005. File notes he had written were also in evidence, as was the transcript of his interview with Mr Whitlam QC in 2012.

While Bishop Manning was unable to give instructions in relation to the hearing and submissions by Counsel Assisting, his counsel submitted to us that there was no evidence that he had adopted the transcript of the interview with Mr Whitlam QC. It was submitted that it was evident that the bishop had experienced a number of adverse medical incidents since the events and in the months preceding that interview.

We note that, during the interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Bishop Manning said to Mr Whitlam QC, ‘I just have to say that since this time I spent some time in hospital with meningococcal and in the last four months I’ve had three TIA’s with minor strokes, so if I sound a bit …’. Mr Whitlam QC then said, ‘You don’t sound at all, but please, don’t worry about that’. Bishop Manning replied, ‘I’m not recalling as well as I might, as I would like to’. 525

However, the transcript of Bishop Manning’s interview with Mr Whitlam QC does indicate that Bishop Manning was able to recall with clarity many events that Mr Whitlam asked him about. The transcript also indicates that, when Bishop Manning could not recall events, either at all or with detail, he expressed this to Mr Whitlam QC.

We accept that Bishop Manning may have had trouble recalling, in detail and with clarity, all of the events Mr Whitlam QC asked him about. However, there is no reason not to rely on the answers Bishop Manning gave to Mr Whitlam about the matters he could recall at the time of that interview.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

113

6.1 Bishop Manning makes enquiries about Farrell

Bishop Manning described to his successor as Bishop of Armidale, Bishop Matthys, what he knew about Farrell before and at the time of his becoming bishop:

I was ordained Bishop of the Diocese of Armidale in 1991. Father Farrell was, at the time, a priest of the Armidale Diocese, but working in the Diocese of Parramatta following arrangements made between Bishop Kennedy of Armidale and Bishop Heather of Parramatta relating to allegations of sexual abuse made against Father Farrell while working in the Diocese of Armidale.

Before I came to the Diocese of Armidale I was well aware of these allegations through the clerical grapevine. At the same time there was general knowledge in the Armidale Diocese of allegations against Father Farrell.

I soon discovered that the Diocesan Consultors had been adamantly opposed to his being ordained and had voted against it. Despite opposition, Bishop Kennedy had ordained him. From my enquiries with the Seminary authorities at the time it emerged that John Farrell had not received a recommendation from them for ordination. 526

Bishop Manning went on to say in that letter:

From my discussions with people in Moree I have no doubt that Father John Farrell was involved in widespread sexual activity with children and that concern about this had been expressed to the previous Bishop. 527

In his interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Bishop Manning also said when he took up office as Bishop of Armidale there ‘were rumours around the place and the scandal, I suppose, that people felt had gone on because there were questions about the trial in Narrabri’. He described it as ‘well known’. 528

He continued:

It was such an extraordinary intervention by Blissett to abort the case, if you like. And there was the fact that there were other young men named around about that same time that people felt a grave injustice had been done. 529

Bishop Manning told Mr Whitlam QC that he made inquiries with Father Hanna and sought documents about the Narrabri court case from solicitor Mr O’Halloran to try ‘to find out what it was all about’.530 As noted above, on 25 July 1991 Mr O’Halloran wrote to Father Hanna informing him that ‘all relevant court transcripts and documents pertaining thereto appeared have been destroyed by Mr O’Halloran senior after the relevant charges were dismissed’. 531

Report of Case Study No. 44

114

He said he ‘brought it to a head fairly quickly’ in July 1991 when he suspended Farrell from parish duties ‘because there was an incredible feeling around the place that a grave injustice had been done’. He said different people had spoken to him about it, and ‘priests were only too ready to speak about it’. However, Bishop Manning said that he did not discuss Farrell with Bishop Kennedy, as Bishop Kennedy was sick at the time. 532

Bishop Manning also told Mr Whitlam QC he had seen Monsignor Usher’s report on his file expressing reservations about Farrell and said there was ‘the feeling around the diocese and so on, that he had got away with it’. 533 Bishop Manning was aware that, by the end of 1990, Father Peters had suggested to Bishop Kennedy that an appointment be made with Dr Blaszczynski. 534

After Bishop Manning’s appointment as Bishop of Armidale in July 1991, Bishop Heather said that he did not have discussions with Bishop Manning about Farrell’s future in Parramatta. Bishop Heather said, ‘I wasn’t going to hasten a new Bishop into a decision on this matter, but, yes, I understood, of course, that it would depend on Bishop Manning as to whether he stayed on in Parramatta or returned immediately to Armidale’. 535 Bishop Heather’s evidence was that Bishop Manning did not communicate to him his concerns and his dealings with Father Farrell.536

This was consistent with what Bishop Manning told Mr Whitlam QC in 2012. 537

There is an unsigned and undated handwritten note in evidence entitled ‘Conversation with Rev Father B Flood about Rev J Farrell’. Bishop Manning told Mr Whitlam QC it was his handwriting and it related to what he was told by Father Flood. 538

We understand the document as referring to discussions with a number of priests, including Father Flood. The note refers to CPF and CPD as being ‘kids involved’. Reference was also made to eight others, likely to be children, in circumstances where it is not clear whether they were considered to be ‘involved’.

Mr Whitlam QC asked Bishop Manning about this document. Bishop Manning said:

I was desperate all the time I was there to find someone who was prepared to say, ‘Farrell did this to me’, and it never happened. 539

Bishop Manning told Mr Whitlam QC that he could not recall ever asking Monsignor Ryan about the names of victims and what the offences were. 540 He said that he could not recall Monsignor Ryan telling him about CPE reporting to Monsignor Ryan that Farrell had sexually abused her son, CPD. 541

Father Flood told us he did not recall any such conversation with Bishop Manning, and he did not know if it was Bishop Manning’s handwriting. 542

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

115

When asked if he now had any doubt that what is recorded in the file note is what he told whoever recorded it, Father Flood again said he had no recollection of any such conversation with anyone. 543 However, Father Flood agreed it was ‘a reasonable proposition’ and that some of the matters recorded were within his knowledge. 544

Father Flood later gave evidence that Farrell had admitted to him that he had sexually abused a boy while he was in the Diocese of Parramatta. He could not recall at what time Farrell made that admission but that ‘sometime after’ this interaction Father Flood came to know this boy that Farrell admitted to sexually abusing was CPK. Father Flood gave evidence that he did not tell anyone else what Farrell had told him. 545

We are satisfied that the note refers to matters that Father Flood disclosed to Bishop Manning. That is the obvious, plain meaning of the note by Bishop Manning. Further, we are of the view that there is no reason for Bishop Manning to have not told the truth to Mr Whitlam QC about this file note.

Counsel for the Truth, Justice and Healing Council submitted that, in light of Father Flood’s evidence that he knew some but not all of the information recorded in the file note, Counsel Assisting did not ask Father Flood to identify what he did not know. We do not accept this submission. The source of the information is plain from the note. Whether or not Counsel Assisting questioned Father Flood as suggested is irrelevant.

From the contents of the note, and the account given by Bishop Manning to Mr Whitlam QC, it is likely that the conversation occurred sometime between July and early October 1991.

6.2 Bishop Manning restricts Farrell from exercising public ministry

On 22 July 1991, Farrell wrote to Bishop Manning seeking permission to celebrate mass as part of a high school reunion at O’Connor Chapel in the Diocese of Armidale. 546

The same day, Father Peters wrote to Bishop Manning advising him of his power to issue a decree to restrict a priest in the exercise of ministry and enclosing the relevant canon law and draft decree. 547

Bishop Manning refused to give Farrell permission to celebrate mass at the event, to publicly celebrate mass or to perform other public liturgical functions in the Diocese of Armidale until further notice. He told him that he ‘understood that Bishop Heather has graciously accepted that you work in the Diocese of Parramatta until November when I will review his situation’. 548

Report of Case Study No. 44

116

Farrell told Bishop Manning that he would still be attending his high school reunion in Armidale and requested a meeting to discuss ‘the matters [he had] mentioned’. 549 Bishop Manning restated his decision to forbid him to publicly celebrate mass. He wrote:

The instruction given you in my letter of 30 July still stands, and I question the prudence of your even taking a high profile at the Reunion. 550

The following month, in October 1991, Bishop Manning received further advice from Father Peters about Farrell. Bishop Manning recorded that advice in a file note as follows:

Advice from Rev Father Wayne Peters - October 1991

In regard to John Farrell I advise that:

1. You order him to see Professor Brazinski [sic] because:

a. Gravity of the matter and the danger to the Diocese.

b. There are still children around who were silenced at the time of the court case.

c. There is the matter of scandal.

d. There is a wide-spread knowledge of the imputation.

e. One opinion as to his mental and psychological health is insufficient.

2. If he refuses, order him under pain of penalty.

3. Invoke the penalty:

a. Little by little.

b. Leading to an entire suspension. 551

When Father Peters was interviewed by Mr Whitlam QC, Father Peters said he had no knowledge of the ‘silencing of witnesses’ and that the bishop ‘may have got that from other conversations’. 552

In Bishop Manning’s interview with Mr Whitlam QC, he was asked if Father Peters amplified or said anything more about the ‘children around who were silenced at the time of the court case’. Bishop Manning said he did not, but ‘this was the type of thing that was going on. They were saying this happened and that happened and so on and you could never get any solid information about it. There was a lot of speculation’. 553

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

117

6.3 Bishop Manning meets with Farrell

Bishop Manning met with Farrell on 9 October 1991. 554 A document entitled ‘Summary of a Meeting with Rev Father J. Farrell - 9/10/91 …’ records the following:

1. Father John was initially quite belligerent and demanded to know why I had refused him permission to celebrate a public Mass and denied that he had any idea why he was being kept out of the Diocese.

2. He denied that Bishop Kennedy had ever acquainted him with any accusation of wrong-doing or even spoken to him about it.

3. I detailed for him the following reasons:

a. There was the matter of incidents with boys in Moree.

b. The matter of the court case in Narrabri.

c. The silencing of witnesses in Moree by Rev. Monsignor Ryan.

d. The scandal emanating from both of those areas.

e. Widespread knowledge of both matters.

f. Potential damage to the Diocese and the priesthood.

g. The demand for distancing of John by parents of children involved.

h. The threat of physical violence to John by parents and others.

i. Widespread knowledge of the accusations.

j. The danger to children if a cure had not been effected

4. I put to Father John the need to protect myself and the Diocese from future claims by indicating I had done something to offset the danger of future adverse actions on his part.

5. I advised him I required a further testimony from a psychiatrist to the effect that he was unlikely to offend again before I could ask another Bishop to take him on in his Diocese.

6. Initially he was prepared to accept this but later in the conversation asked that such an action be postponed for twelve months as it was unsettling for him. On my insistence that it be immediate he agreed.

7. I was left with the feeling that he surrendered very easily to my requests and during the course of the conversation he continually changed the topics as though the whole issue was of little consequence. 555

Report of Case Study No. 44

118

In 2005, Bishop Manning wrote to Bishop Matthys in support of Farrell’s application for laicisation. He described his meeting with Farrell in similar terms to his file note set out above.556

When Mr Whitlam QC asked Bishop Manning about this note, Bishop Manning agreed it was a summary of some of the things that Father Flood had told him, and the note would have gone into Farrell’s file in the archives. In respect of the ‘silencing of witnesses’, Bishop Manning concluded it was Monsignor Ryan, but he did not remember if it was just a conclusion he drew or whether something specific had been said to him. 557

We are satisfied that, by 30 July 1991, Bishop Manning knew that Farrell was working in the Diocese of Parramatta. That was made plain by his letter of the same date to Farrell. It is also clear from the letter he received from Father Vincent Redden dated 22 November 1991 that he was told that Farrell was then associate pastor at Merrylands. We refer to this letter later in this report. There were also various letters on the files, to which he had regard, making that clear - for example, letters to Farrell dated 10 November 1989 and 9 January 1991 from Bishop Heather; and a letter to Bishop Heather from Bishop Kennedy dated 28 September 1989.

We are satisfied that, by October 1991, Bishop Manning was told that there were still children around in Moree who were ‘silenced’ at the time of the court case. The note records that Father Peters was the source of the information. Father Peters denied he knew that or told that to Bishop Manning. Bishop Manning told Mr Whitlam QC that he thought it was Monsignor Ryan who told him. In the absence of any further evidence, the source of that information cannot be satisfactorily determined. However, Bishop Manning conveyed it to Farrell as a fact, and we infer that Bishop Manning believed it to be true.

6.4 Farrell seeks an extension in the Diocese of Parramatta and a future military appointment

Also in October 1991, Farrell wrote to Bishop Heather expressing his desire to continue exercising his ministry in the Diocese of Parramatta for a further two years. He noted that Bishop Manning ‘was agreeable to this and indicated that he would make the necessary arrangements with you’. 558

Farrell also requested permission to make arrangements in order to apply for service to the Military Vicariate ‘at some future occasion’. He wrote that Bishop Manning indicated that he would be happy for Farrell to be the next priest to go from the Diocese of Armidale. 559

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

119

On 22 November 1991, Father Redden (Dean of St Mary’s Cathedral, Sydney) wrote to Bishop Manning informing him that Farrell had approached Father Redden seeking admission to the Army Reserve as a chaplain. Father Redden thought Farrell was a suitable candidate, but he needed the bishop’s approval. In that letter, Father Redden said that Farrell was ‘currently the associate pastor at Merrylands’. 560

A handwritten annotation on Father Redden’s 22 November 1991 letter, signed ‘KM’, which is most likely to be the initials of Bishop Kevin Manning, states:

4/6/1992 spoke with Vince and advised I wouldn’t approve such an appointment 561

In a statement in 2005, Bishop Heather said Father Redden also wrote to him in the same terms that day.562 On 29 November 1991, Bishop Heather wrote to Father Redden suggesting that consultation with Bishop Manning would be more relevant for his enquiry. 563

Bishop Heather also noted that Farrell had given ‘satisfactory service’ to the parishes of Kenthurst and Merrylands for a period of two years. He said he was awaiting advice from Bishop Manning as to whether he would be made available for a further period. 564

6.5 Bishop Manning discussed Dr Blaszczynski with Farrell

On 16 October 1991, Bishop Manning recorded in a file note that, after Farrell had ‘turned up’ at a funeral mass, Farrell asked Bishop Manning ‘what would become of Professor Brazinski’s [sic] opinion if it was given in writing’. He recorded that Farrell also told him:

Gary Boyle had advised him that it would be dangerous to have such opinions if ever there was a court case.

I promised John that any opinion would be kept in the secret archives and only information read from it would be given to Bishop Heather or other Bishops. 565

In a police statement dated 10 May 2016, Mr Boyle denied that he had given that advice. 566

Shortly after, Bishop Manning wrote to Farrell and told him that, to enable him to approach Bishop Heather or another bishop about a placement for him, he required an opinion from Dr Blaszczynski about ‘any problem that might prevent [him] from taking up an appointment in another diocese’. 567

Report of Case Study No. 44

120

Bishop Manning made a file note on 30 December 1991 recording a further meeting with Farrell. The note records that Farrell informed Bishop Manning he had seen Dr Blaszczynski twice and needed to see him again. The note continued:

My advice to Father John was that he needs to give Professor Brazinski [sic] permission to write a report back to me as to his condition and progress.

John tells me that he is quite settled into the parish and wishes to remain there. He has applied for a part-time chaplaincy with the Forces but is still interested in the full-time chaplaincy. I promised him that I would contact Bishop Heather after I received his report.568

Bishop Manning told Mr Whitlam QC that he did not take up with Bishop Heather any of his reservations about Farrell until mid-1992. 569

Bishop Heather gave evidence that ‘he knew nothing of [Farrell’s treatment from Dr Blaszczynski]’ and that he ‘received no communication [from Bishop Manning]’ 570 and that Bishop Manning’s meeting with Farrell on 9 October 1991 (where the bishop put a number of his concerns to Farrell) did not come to his attention at the time. 571

Bishop Heather said that he did not have any dealings with Father Peters at that time. 572

We accept Bishop Heather’s sworn evidence that he did not know of Farrell’s treatment from Dr Blaszczynski and received no communication from Bishop Manning. It is consistent with Bishop Manning’s account to Mr Whitlam that he did not take up with Bishop Heather any of his reservations about Farrell until some months later. Given that Farrell was in Bishop Heather’s diocese, Bishop Manning should have done so.

6.6 Farrell expresses interest in the Parish of St Bernadette, Dundas

On 11 February 1992, Farrell wrote to Bishop Heather expressing an interest in filling a position at the Parish of St Bernadette in Dundas, New South Wales, in the Diocese of Parramatta. 573

Bishop Heather rejected Farrell’s application for appointment at the Dundas parish. He reiterated that Farrell’s position in the Diocese of Parramatta was that of a ‘visitor’ and that he was therefore unable to consider him as an applicant for a vacant parish. 574

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

121

6.7 Dr Blaszczynski advises Bishop Manning

On 17 February 1992, Bishop Manning wrote to Farrell once again following up on when he might expect a report from Dr Blaszczynski. 575 A week later, on 24 February 1992, Bishop Manning had a conversation with Farrell and made the following file note of the conversation:

I spoke with Father J. Farrell in my office in Armidale, and he informed me that Professor Brazinski [sic] wants to see him every month for a full year.

The Professor is trying to determine why he is angry within himself and is training him to cope with kids who put him into a compromising situation! 576

In a statement to NSW Police dated 4 May 2016, Dr Blaszczynski said in relation to this note:

[15] I don’t recall this conversation and I would have never said that I was training him to cope with kids putting him in a compromising situation. This is outside of any clinical approach and I would suggest Bishop MANNING grossly misinterpreted me discussing risk management strategies and cognitive therapy to resist his urges. 577

It seems to us that Bishop Manning’s file note refers to what he was told by Farrell rather than what he himself understood. Nevertheless, we understand from Dr Blaszczynski’s statement that Farrell did not tell accurately tell Bishop Manning what Dr Blaszczynski told him.

Bishop Manning spoke to Dr Blaszczynski on 1 April 1992. He recorded in a file note:

Professor Brazinski [sic] spoke to me by telephone and said that he would not give a favourable report on Father John Farrell or recommend an appointment at this time. Father John contains a great deal of anger and is not revealing his problem. He emerges as a manipulative person and is telling only what he wants me to know. 578

The following day, Bishop Manning reminded Farrell to obtain a letter from Dr Blaszczynski to enable Bishop Manning to approach Bishop Heather or another bishop about a placement in his diocese.579

Bishop Manning made a file note of a further conversation with Dr Blaszczynski on 15 April 1992:

With a view to seeking a Bishop who would be prepared to give Father John Farrell a chance in his Diocese, I spoke with Professor Brazinski [sic] whose advice to me concerning Father Farrell was:

Report of Case Study No. 44

122

He needs to be kept away from children where he is at risk and the area of his work needs to be limited to adults. However, controlling him would be very difficult and he remains a potential risk. Pre-pubescent children are in danger where he is.

Father John Farrell has a need for intense intimacy and relationship. He is making a genuine effort but is in danger with a precocious child. A position with the army could be an option. 580

In 2012, Mr Whitlam QC asked Bishop Manning if by April 1992 he was moving to try to get Farrell out of the Church. Bishop Manning said that was ‘certainly the case’, as there was ‘a general feeling and understanding, that the man was just not suitable to be a priest’. He continued, ‘Unfortunately, he wasn’t laicised, because laicisation in those days … was quite a process’.581

6.8 Meeting of the College of Consultors on 27 May 1992

At a meeting of the College of Consultors for the Diocese of Parramatta on 27 May 1992, Farrell’s position was discussed. At that time, Farrell was still exercising ministry at Merrylands parish. The following was recorded in the minutes:

Fr. Maguire inquired the position concerning Fr. John and whether he would be remaining here or going back to Armidale. Bishop Bede said we would have to wait to see what the new Bishop, Bishop Manning, decides. 582

Bishop Heather said that he did not have discussions with Bishop Manning about Farrell’s future in Parramatta after Bishop Manning’s appointment as Bishop of Armidale in mid-1991. 583

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

123

7 Bishop Heather Terminates Farrell’s Appointment in the Diocese of Parramatta 7.1 Father John Boyle raises concerns about Farrell

In 1992, concerns were raised with Bishop Heather about Farrell’s conduct with children.

Father Boyle told Mr Whitlam QC that, on 29 March 1992 (while Farrell was at Merrylands parish), he saw Farrell attend two ordination ceremonies at the cathedral in Parramatta with a young boy unaccompanied by a guardian. Father Boyle was the dean of the cathedral at the time. The boy he saw was CPK. 584

Many years later, on 7 October 2003, CPK made an unsigned statement to NSW Police in which he alleged that Farrell had sexually abused him. In his statement, CPK said he met Farrell in late 1991, when he was 11 or 12 years old, while he was serving as an altar boy at St Margaret Mary’s, Merrylands. CPK said that he was first sexually abused by Farrell around June 1991 at the Merrylands presbytery. 585

Father Boyle told Mr Whitlam QC that before he saw Farrell with CPK at the ordination ceremonies in March 1992 he had ‘heard that Fr John Farrell had been in trouble with police in relation to allegations of molestation of boys’. He said that he knew there was a court case and that Farrell had ‘got off on a technicality’. 586 He said that he came to know this information on ‘the grapevine’. 587 Father Boyle thought that a young boy being unaccompanied by a guardian was ‘imprudent and inappropriate conduct by Farrell’. 588

Father Boyle said that he reported the incident to the Vicar General of the Diocese of Parramatta, Father Richard Cattell. He said that he never discussed Farrell with Bishop Heather but took it up with Father Cattell because ‘that’s chain of command’. 589

Mr Whitlam QC reported in December 2012:

[73] A week later Father Cattell said to Father Boyle that the Bishop had suggested that Father Boyle was mistaken about Farrell being unaccompanied on the occasion in question. When Fr Boyle was persistent, Fr Cattell retorted, ‘The bishop said that you are to give John Farrell a fair go and it is none of your business’. Father Boyle was left with the impression that this response had come from Bishop Heather … 590

Father Cattell has since been convicted for child sexual assault offences. 591

Bishop Heather told Mr Whitlam QC that he did not recall Father Cattell raising any of the concerns raised by Father Boyle. 592 However, Bishop Heather gave evidence to us that he recalled being told that Farrell brought a boy with him to an ordination ceremony at the cathedral in Parramatta. 593 Bishop Heather said:

Report of Case Study No. 44

124

[I] did ask Father Farrell about that, and Father Farrell said that was untrue; that he had someone else with him in the car, there was another adult in the car as well as himself, and I reported that to the persons concerned but they said there had been two ordinations over that period and that confused the matter for me and I didn’t take it any further. 594

Bishop Heather said further:

in the present culture it would be regarded as very improper for a priest or indeed for any adult … to have a child in a car alone like that. It would be considered very inappropriate. In those days, I suppose it was still something that you’d look twice about. The distance from Merrylands to Parramatta is, I suppose, roughly 5 kilometres. It was not as if he had taken him on a long journey from Katoomba or somewhere, so I did not regard it as seriously - perhaps not as seriously as I should have. 595

Monsignor Usher told us that he heard from Father Boyle, a priest from Parramatta, on the clerical grapevine ‘along the track somewhere’ that Farrell had been reported to Bishop Heather for having a boy in his car. He said he told the priest, ‘That’s very wrong’, and the next thing he heard was that Farrell had left Parramatta. 596

Father Flood gave evidence to us that Farrell admitted to him that he had sexually abused a boy while he was in the Diocese of Parramatta. He could not recall when this occurred. He said that ‘sometime after’ this interaction, Father Flood came to know this boy that Farrell admitted to abusing was CPK. Father Flood gave evidence that he did not tell anyone else what Farrell had told him.597

Bishop Heather gave evidence that:

it weighs heavily on my conscience that I know that one person at least in the Parramatta Diocese, one child, was abused as a result of my giving permission to Father Farrell to work in our diocese, and for that I have to apologise to the family concerned and express my sincere regret that my negligence led to that. 598

Further evidence relating to CPK is set out later in this report.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

125

7.2 Father Dominic Arcamone reports complaints about Farrell

In a statement dated 14 January 2005, Bishop Heather said that the first ‘he heard anything of untoward conduct on the part of Father Farrell’ was when he spoke to Father Dominic Arcamone on 2 June 1992. 599 At the time, Father Arcamone was the parish priest at Westmead in the Diocese of Parramatta. 600

Bishop Heather stated that Father Arcamone told him that:

the father of a child at Merrylands approached him and said that Father Farrell was making lewd comments to an altar server. He had also been touching a girl inappropriately around the shoulders at a disco to see whether she was wearing a bra.601

Bishop Heather’s contemporaneous notes are consistent with his 2005 statement. 602

In his evidence to the Royal Commission, Bishop Heather explained his response to these complaints:

I got in touch with the principal of the school there, as Father Arcamone had recommended, and she was happy to have a conversation on the phone about that, and she confirmed, yes, that the boys had come to her, the altar servers, and confirmed that Father Farrell had made these statements, and also someone had reported the incident of the girl at the disco. The information was starting to spread. There was a lot of unrest among the Parents and Friends. The principal herself was not prepared to act on rumours. She had respect for the priest, said he had a lot going for him in a way, but, at the same time, when he came to the school, he almost always used some blue language towards the staff, and she was very uneasy about the situation. So, of course, that left me also very uneasy and I was concerned particularly that the Parents and Friends were taking that view, and not without reason, I imagined. 603

Bishop Heather said in his statement that he made some further inquiries on 6 June 1992 and these confirmed ‘some of the comments concerning Father Farrell’. 604 He said:

There was no evidence of any additional incidents at that time. Some others told me they found him arrogant and he was making snide remarks, telling jokes to school children and making other inappropriate comments. 605

Report of Case Study No. 44

126

However, handwritten notes by Bishop Heather indicate that these inquiries are likely to have occurred a few days later - on 9 June 1992. 606

Bishop Heather subsequently spoke to Father Bray, the parish priest at Merrylands, on 12 June 1992. 607

In his 2005 statement, Bishop Heather stated:

Father Bray had spoken to the parents who made the original complaint and they confirmed the truth of what had been said to the boys in the sacristy. However, they also said that nothing further had happened. For this reason, I did not investigate further although I was, of course, concerned that one of our priests was talking to children and acting in this way. Father Bray also confirmed the lewd language of Father Farrell and said that he had at times been embarrassed by his language. 608

7.3 Bishop Heather terminates Farrell’s appointment in Merrylands

At the end of the month, on 29 June 1992, Bishop Heather spoke to Farrell. Bishop Heather’s notes of that meeting record:

Spoke to Fr John Farrell. Admitted to language used in a fit of anger when altar servers had misbehaved.

Thought that Annette Kelly herself uses some blue language and tells some ‘off’ jokes at times.

Told John in view of all, I had to terminate appointment.

Contrite and compliant response.

Told him he would have to negotiate with Bp Manning about any further appointment. (Matter of girl denied. Does not know which girl. Many would put arms around priest very simply). Terminate appointment 15/8. Next Sunday 5th July will be last at Merrylands. May do a marriage for good friends in September.

Spoke with Bishop Manning. 609

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

127

In his 2005 statement, Bishop Heather said when he raised the ‘issues of concern’ with Farrell he ‘admitted to the inappropriate language but denied that he had inappropriately touched a girl on the shoulder and put his arm around her to feel whether she was wearing a bra’. 610 Bishop Heather said that he told Farrell ‘that his conduct was not appropriate and that he proposed to terminate his appointment with effect from 15 August 1992’. He also stated that:

I told him that the following Sunday, 5 July 1992, would be his last day of Mass at Merrylands. I told him he was allowed to undertake a marriage for good friends of his in September 1992. I spoke with Bishop Manning on that day and advised him of these matters. By then Bishop Manning had taken over as Bishop of the Armidale Diocese from Bishop Kennedy. 611

Bishop Heather’s evidence to the Royal Commission was that ‘What happened with the altar servers was enough for me to reach a decision. I didn’t have to take one view or another about the event of the girl’. 612

Bishop Heather gave evidence that, from the point that he terminated Farrell’s appointment, he ‘never laid eyes on him since’. 613

We are satisfied that Bishop Heather notified Bishop Manning of his decision and the reasons for the decision, including Farrell’s admission as to his conduct with the altar servers. From Bishop Manning’s file note dated 29 June 1992, it is clear that Bishop Heather advised him of the reasons for the termination. 614

Report of Case Study No. 44

128

8 Bishop Manning Withdraws Farrell’s Faculties 8.1 Bishop Manning is informed of concerns about Farrell’s conduct in the Diocese of Parramatta

Before Bishop Heather notified Bishop Manning of his termination of Farrell’s appointment and the reasons for it, Bishop Manning was informed of other concerns about Farrell’s conduct in Parramatta earlier that month.

A file note dated 9 June 1992 records a conversation Bishop Manning had with Father Maguire, Vicar for Clergy in the Diocese of Parramatta:

Father Maguire spoke to me about two instances of Father John Farrell bringing altar boys along with him to an ordination. Different priests spoke to Bishop Heather about this fact that he had been seen in the company of altar boys. When questioned by Bishop Heather John denied that he was alone. This was certainly true in one instance for he had two elderly ladies with him, however it was not true in the other case.

Father Maguire also spoke to me about John training altar boys and the manner in which he spoke to them especially in instructing them about the use of the thurible.

Father Maguire also alluded to incidents in a family when John was an assistant at Kenthurst. 615

8.2 Bishop Manning is told by Dr Blaszczynski that Farrell is an ‘ongoing risk’

Three days later, on 12 June 1992, Bishop Manning had a conversation with Dr Blaszczynski. Bishop Manning recorded:

I had requested Father John Farrell to provide me with evidence of his progress under the counselling of Professor Brazinski [sic].

Professor Brazinski advised me that John had refused him permission to put anything into writing but had agreed that he could speak to me and give me a summary of his condition.

This is the conversation with Professor Brazinski:

He informed me that Father John Farrell says he is enjoying his work and his anger is reducing. At the same time Professor Brazinski queries Father Farrell’s insight into the risk associated with his past behaviour as he tends to intellectualize his problem.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

129

To paint a true picture of Father Farrell which one cannot get from him, it would be necessary to question collaborative sources who know him closely. His insight into himself is limited, he is shallow, self-centered, blames the environment not himself for his problems. He has no insight into himself.

Father Farrell will be an on-going risk, even when independent of his priestly status. His proclivity to offend is not reducing as is usual with age. He has revealed a minimum about himself and the area of sexual activity is practically untouched. Professor Brazinski sees in him a high risk of recidivism.

Father Farrell according to Professor Brazinski will almost certainly react to any move on the part of the Church against him. He will react with bitterness to the detriment of the Church. Almost certainly he will see the matter ends up in court. His advice to me is to handle Father Farrell with care for he will almost assuredly go public to defend his rights. He has already written articles under a pseudonym.

Professor advises me that there will be minimum gain in any future counselling. It won’t break through Father Farrell’s personality. In two words the prognosis is not good. 616

In his interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Father Peters recalled that Farrell ‘vetted [Bishop Manning] on Blaszczynski talking to or sending a report’ and ‘Blaszczynski may have stretched the boundaries a bit far even in what he said over the telephone’. He also told Mr Whitlam QC that Farrell stopped seeing Dr Blaszczynski after this ‘because, in my opinion, Blaszczynski was on to him’. 617

There is no evidence that Bishop Manning informed Bishop Heather of Dr Blaszczynski’s advice even though Farrell was still working in the Diocese of Parramatta. In his interview with Mr Whitlam QC, when asked if he would have had reservations about intruding into Bishop Heather’s authority in his diocese if he had assessed that Farrell could work in Merrylands, Bishop Manning said he would have had such reservations. He said Bishop Heather was the senior bishop to him, and he ‘would have had reservations about challenging him over much’. 618

In his interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Bishop Manning was asked whether he thought at the time ‘it prudent to ring [Bishop] Heather and say, “Look, I’ve been speaking to this clinical psychologist who has seen Farrell and he says he shouldn’t be around children?”’. Bishop Manning told Mr Whitlam QC, ‘I’m not too sure whether I even knew that he had faculties down there’, and ‘That was my understanding, that he was just living there and he had no faculties’. 619

Mr Whitlam QC drew Bishop Manning’s attention to the letter that Farrell wrote to Bishop Manning on 25 March 1992, which was on letterhead from St Margaret Mary’s presbytery Merrylands, and suggested, ‘That of course, may mean no more than he was just living there’.

Report of Case Study No. 44

130

Bishop Manning responded, ‘That was my understanding, that he was just living there and he had no faculties. He got into trouble there with altar boys, didn’t he?’. 620

We have found that Bishop Manning knew that Farrell was working in the Diocese of Parramatta based on his letter dated 30 July 1991 and the letter from Father Redden dated 22 November 1991 in which he was told that Farrell was then associate pastor at Merrylands parish. Contrary to the suggestion that Farrell may have been living there, we accept that he was working and that that was communicated to Bishop Manning on a number of occasions.

8.3 Bishop Heather tells Bishop Manning of termination

Bishop Manning told Mr Whitlam QC it was only when Bishop Heather stood Farrell down in mid-1992 that he had any discussions with Bishop Heather about Farrell. 621

Mr Whitlam QC suggested to Bishop Manning that Bishop Heather’s reason for terminating Farrell at Merrylands parish - because of lewd language - was ‘pretty lame’ and queried whether he had been apprised of ‘more substantial reasons’ to terminate him. Bishop Manning said ‘No’. 622

By contrast, in his 2005 letter to Bishop Matthys, Bishop Manning wrote:

Mid-year 1992, Most. Rev. Bishop Heather, Bishop of Parramatta, advised me that he had withdrawn John’s faculties in the Diocese of Parramatta. There were instances quoted where he was under suspicion of having offended with boys. This turned out to be true, as I have only recently paid out $60,000 in compensation on one offence here in the Diocese of Parramatta. 623

The Truth, Justice and Healing Council submitted that we should not accept the part of the letter extracted above as reliable evidence that, in mid-1992, Bishop Heather informed Bishop Manning that Farrell was under suspicion of having offended with boys.

The council submitted that it was implausible that Bishop Heather would have terminated Farrell for using inappropriate language if he had any reason to suspect Farrell of having offended with boys at the time. Further, it submitted there is no other contemporaneous document which ‘gives support to the notion’ that Bishop Manning was told this by Bishop Heather. The council submitted that the likely explanation for the language used in Bishop Manning’s 2005 letter is that it was a reconstruction based on more recent information that Bishop Manning had acquired.

We do not accept that submission. Bishop Heather believed he had sufficient grounds to terminate Farrell. Those grounds were the suspicion of Farrell having offended with boys. They are made plain in the letter that Bishop Manning wrote in 2005.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

131

We are satisfied that in mid-1992 Bishop Heather informed Bishop Manning that Farrell was under suspicion of having offended with boys.

We are satisfied that, in relation to Farrell, by end June 1992 Bishop Manning had knowledge or belief:

• of Dr Blaszczynski’s opinion in April 1992 that Farrell ‘needs to be kept away from children where he is at risk and the area of his work needs to be limited to adults. However, controlling him would be very difficult and he remains a potential risk. Pre-pubescent children are in danger where he is’

• of Dr Blaszczynski’s opinion in June 1992 that Farrell was an ‘on-going risk’ and he saw in him ‘a high risk of recidivism’

• of complaints of ‘lurid’ language used by Farrell towards children, which had been made to Bishop Heather624

• that Farrell was under suspicion of having offended with boys in the Diocese of Parramatta.

We are satisfied that, between April 1991 (when Bishop Manning became the Bishop of Armidale) and 31 June 1992 (when Bishop Heather terminated Farrell’s appointment in the Diocese of Parramatta), Bishop Heather knew that:

• Farrell had brought a boy with him to an ordination ceremony at the cathedral in Parramatta

• the father of a child at Merrylands parish had approached Father Arcamone and told him that Farrell was making lewd comments to an altar server. He had also been touching a girl inappropriately around the shoulders at a disco to see whether she was wearing a bra

• Farrell had ‘admitted to language used in a bit of anger when altar servers had misbehaved’

• Farrell was under suspicion of having offended with boys.

The evidence does not enable us to know whether, between April 1991 (when Bishop Manning became the Bishop of Armidale) and 30 June 1992 (when Bishop Heather terminated Farrell’s appointment in the Diocese of Parramatta), Bishop Manning told Bishop Heather about:

• Dr Blaszczynski’s opinion in April 1992 that Farrell that ‘he needs to be kept away from children where he is at risk and the area of his work needs to be limited to adults. However, controlling him would be very difficult and he remains a potential risk. Pre-pubescent children are in danger where he is’

Report of Case Study No. 44

132

• Dr Blaszczynski’s opinion in June 1992 that Farrell was an ‘on-going risk’ and he saw in him ‘a high risk of recidivism’

• Bishop Manning’s concerns and his dealings with Farrell as set out above.

However, if Bishop Manning failed to communicate important and relevant information about Farrell to Bishop Heather, that failure stemmed from the dysfunctional structure whereby each diocese was separately managed and there was no process or requirement that relevant matters be communicated when a priest incardinated in one diocese moves to another.

We note that, from 1996, successive editions of Towards Healing contained an express requirement that that occur.

8.4 Bishop Manning withdraws Farrell’s faculties

On 29 June 1992, Bishop Manning spoke with Bishop Heather about his termination of Farrell’s appointment at Merrylands parish. 625

The next day, Bishop Manning requested Father Peters to seek advice on the withdrawal of Farrell’s faculties and he ‘advised Brian Lucas of developments and put him in contact with Wayne’. 626

In the 1990s in New South Wales, Father Lucas was the person that bishops and congregational leaders would call when a complaint or problem relating to sexual abuse surfaced in their diocese or order.627

Father Lucas gave evidence that the ‘developments’ Bishop Manning was likely to have been referring to were that Farrell was terminated in the Diocese of Parramatta and that Father Peters was drafting an advice. 628 Monsignor Usher gave evidence that, at that point, he had not been brought into the picture. 629

On 1 July 1992, Bishop Manning notified Farrell that he was withdrawing his faculties to exercise public ministry anywhere. He noted that Bishop Heather had advised him of the withdrawal of Farrell’s mandate to exercise ministry in the Diocese of Parramatta. Bishop Manning wrote:

In the [sic] light of this I express my concern about your suitability for an appointment at this time. I wish to consider the position very carefully in regard to the question of a future appointment for you.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

133

Until you return from your holidays and meet with me to discuss the whole matter, I am withdrawing your faculties. That means that you are not permitted to exercise any public ministry anywhere.

I expect you to make contact with me for an appointment to discuss all this within a week of your return from vacation. 630

A typed file note also records that Bishop Manning spoke to Farrell the same day and read out the letter confirming withdrawal of his faculties over the telephone. 631 There was some discussion as to the date Farrell would cease his parish duties. 632

A further typed file note made by Bishop Manning on 7 July 1992 records that Farrell attempted to obtain a celebret from Bishop Heather, ‘who was advised would make him liable for any of J.F’s actions which [sic] he was overseas’. 633

Father Lucas gave evidence that a celebret is a Latin certificate of good standing. He explained that ‘when you go travelling to another place, if you want to present yourself as a priest, you will be asked to present that document’. 634

Bishop Manning’s file note also records that Farrell had circulated Bishop Manning’s letter ‘to different people in an attempt to solicit support’. 635 Father Lucas agreed with Counsel Assisting’s propositions that this shows Farrell was, at the least, ‘calculating’ and also ‘enterprising’. 636

In his evidence to the Royal Commission, Monsignor Usher agreed that Farrell’s active engagement in seeking support from others and resisting Bishop Manning’s intentions was ‘very calculating behaviour’. He said that he was not surprised by this behaviour and that he had ‘never heard before or since of a priest doing anything like this’. 637

8.5 Father David Maguire writes to Bishop Manning

In July 1992, Bishop Manning asked for a detailed account of what Father David Maguire, Episcopal Vicar for Clergy and Director of Vocations in the Diocese of Parramatta, knew about Farrell’s time in the Diocese of Parramatta.

In August 1990, Bishop Heather appointed Father Maguire as one of his consultors. As noted above, Father Maguire attended the abovementioned consultors’ meetings in July 1990 and October 1990 and commented that each of Farrell’s appointments in the diocese was not well received by the consultors but that they ‘deferred to Bishop Heather’s sense of compassion towards John’.

Report of Case Study No. 44

134

In his response, Father Maguire referred to the ordinations where Farrell was in the company of a young altar server and the complaints received by Father Arcamone. In addition, he wrote:

Following the receipt of letters of termination of his appointment from Bishop Heather and a temporary suspension of his faculties from yourself, John telephoned me in a great panic. I went to see him immediately on Friday July 3rd last. Before I went to see John on that day, I had been telephoned by the Principal of St. Margaret Mary’s Primary School, Miss Annette Kenny. She informed me that John had arrived at her office that very morning wanting her and the Assistant Principal to sign a statutory declaration to the effect that his behaviour had been proper and denying that his ministry had in any way been flawed. I advised her not to sign any document at all and I also advised Fr. Bray in similar fashion as John had also wanted him to sign such a declaration … 638

8.6 Bishop Manning’s further conversations with Dr Blaszczynski

On 17 August 1992, Bishop Manning had a further conversation with Dr Blaszczynski. 639

Bishop Manning recorded the following:

Professor Brazinski [sic] said there is no psychological morbidity there. It is more of a personality disorder which manifests itself in poor judgement, self-assertiveness and an inability to judge his actions. It would be difficult to establish there was a condition existing at the time of his ordination which may have invalidated the ordination on psychological grounds. There would be no grounds there to prove there was an error of judgement.

The fact of his denial of anything that has happened in regard to his previous actions does not reveal a pathology. 640

In his 2005 letter to Bishop Matthys, Bishop Manning said that this communication with Dr Blaszczynski was in order to assure himself that he was not being unfair or unjust to Farrell.641

In his interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Bishop Manning said that, in speaking with Dr Blaszczynski, he was trying to invalidate Farrell’s ordination. However, it did not lead anywhere. 642

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

135

In his evidence to the Royal Commission, Father Lucas explained:

I’m not expert in that, but there would be cases where the Holy See would laicise someone based on the fact that, for example, they didn’t consent at the ordination, there was some psychiatric issue at the time of the ordination.

Q. So they were incapable of consenting to their order.

A. Yes, whatever.643

8.7 Referral of Farrell to the Special Issues Resource Group

On 27 August 1992, Bishop Manning wrote to Farrell referring him to the ACBC Special Issues Resource Group for the Province of Sydney (SIRG). 644 Father Peters assisted Bishop Manning to draft the letter. 645 Bishop Manning wrote:

I again express my concern about your suitability for an appointment at this time …

The matters of the alleged incidents with the boys in Moree together with the widespread knowledge and scandal have never been satisfactorily resolved …

I understand that your consultations with Professor Brazinski [sic] did not come to any satisfactory conclusion.

I am therefore referring you to the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference Special Issues Resource Group. It is the task of this committee to evaluate the situation and to advise on ways of proceeding. For a preliminary meeting with a representative of this Resource Group an appointment has been made for you to meet with Father Brian Lucas in Sydney on the evening of 3 September next. 646

The evidence in relation to the meeting on 3 September 1992, and subsequent meetings with members of the SIRG, is considered further below.

Bishop Manning also informed Farrell in this letter that Father Peters was attending as his representative, and Farrell’s faculties would continue to be withdrawn until further advice from the SIRG.

Report of Case Study No. 44

136

8.8 Bishop Manning meets with Farrell in September 1992

Bishop Manning met with Farrell on 1 September 1992. We set out a relevant excerpt of his notes about the meeting:

I presented JF with my letter to him advising of an appointment with Rev Father B Lucas on Thursday 3 September:

John’s response was …

4. He claimed complete innocence in the charge brought against him by [REDACTED] who could have charged him on another count.

5. He referred to three other incidents which could have brought him ‘fourteen years apiece.’ I didn’t question him about these.

6. Referred to two alliances with women which he claimed proved his complete heterosexuality.

7. Expressed fear at the possibility of laicisation for then ‘those policing the church’ would charge him. I refrained from pursuing this, but I wondered afterwards if he had ground for the fear.

8. Relaid the one verbal reference (claims it was the only grounds on what so apparent that was withdrawn) to the incident at Merrylands for which Bishop Heather had sacked him. This was brought to the Bishop’s attention by a classmate from a neighbouring parish. 647

Mr Whitlam QC asked Bishop Manning about this meeting. Bishop Manning said that Farrell ‘was very specific not to give any specific information’. 648

Referring to the note that Farrell ‘referred to three other incidents which could have brought him “fourteen years apiece”’, the following exchange took place:

MR WHITLAM: You said, ‘I didn’t question him about these.’ But he quite obviously said something which was an odd thing to say.

BP MANNING: Yes.

MR WHITLAM: Which was an admission of criminal behaviour but not specifically of incident or victim.

BP MANNING: Exactly.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

137

MR WHITLAM: So he was telling his bishop that he had engaged in conduct which could leave him vulnerable to a 14-year prison term.

BP MANNING: Yes.

MR WHITLAM: There’s no doubt about that; that is what he is telling you there.

BP MANNING: That’s right, yes.649

In his letter to Bishop Matthys, Bishop Manning wrote:

Later in the year [1992], and I indicate that you would have records of the exact dates, Father John again asked that his faculties be restored.

He was still as adamant that he would defend himself, but did reveal to me that there had been other incidents other than the celebrated [REDACTED] case and also some dalliances with women.

He reacted to my suggesting that he might seek laicisation using as an excuse that enemies of the Church would then move to have him charged. 650

Bishop Manning continued: ‘Through all of my meetings and discussions Father John Farrell never expressed any regret for his actions. As a matter of fact, when confronted with facts he said: “I don’t know what you are on about, these kids came looking for it, they enjoyed it.”’ 651

We accept the accuracy of Bishop Manning’s contemporaneous notes of the meeting with Farrell on 1 September 1992, his account to Mr Whitlam QC and his letter to his successor.

Accordingly, in addition to the knowledge set out above, we are satisfied that, by September 1992, Bishop Manning was moving to get Farrell out of the Church, in full understanding that the process of laicisation was difficult. By this time, Bishop Manning had learnt the following:

• Father Maguire ‘alluded’ to incidents in a family when Farrell was an assistant at Kenthurst.

• In his interview with Farrell, Farrell claimed complete innocence in the charge brought against him by [REDACTED] who could have charged him on another count.

• Farrell told him of three other incidents which could have brought him ‘fourteen years apiece’. Bishop Manning did not question him about these.

• He understood that to be ‘an admission of criminal behaviour but not specifically of incident or victim’.

Report of Case Study No. 44

138

9 Special Issues Resource Group

9.1 Background

Presentations to the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference

Father Lucas was ordained a Catholic priest and incardinated in the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney in 1980.

He holds a number of tertiary qualifications, including a Bachelor of Laws (University of Sydney, 1974), a Master of Laws (University of Sydney, 1978), a Master of General Studies (University of New South Wales, 1985), a Diploma in Jurisprudence (University of Sydney, 1989), a Bachelor of Sacred Theology (Catholic Institute of Sydney, 1980) and a Licentiate of Sacred Theology (Catholic Institute of Sydney, 2000).

Father Lucas has held various roles within the Catholic Church. Most notably, he was the official media spokesman for the Archdiocese of Sydney from 1985 to 2002 and archdiocesan secretary and financial administrator from 1990 to 2002. He was also the general secretary of the ACBC from 2002 to October 2015. He was a director of CCI for 12 years from 2003 until he reached the maximum term of appointment in 2015.

In 2015, he was appointed the National Director of Catholic Mission - a position he continues to hold at the present time.

Monsignor Usher was ordained a priest of the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney in 1972. He holds a Bachelor of Theology (1972), a Bachelor of Social Sciences (Univ ersity of Sydney, 1978) and a Master of Social Work (University of Sydney, 1989). 652

In 1983, Monsignor Usher was appointed the director of Centacare, the Catholic welfare agency. He remained in that role until 2004, when he was appointed chancellor of the Archdiocese of Sydney 653 - a position from which he retired on 28 February 2015.

In 2004, he was appointed a visiting lecturer in social sciences at Australian Catholic University. In 2009, he was appointed an adjunct professor of the School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Notre Dame, Australia. 654

In 2012, he was appointed Vicar General for the Archdiocese of Sydney. 655

In November 1987, Fathers Lucas and Usher made a presentation to the ACBC on clergy and child sexual abuse.656

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

139

In April 1988, Fathers Lucas and Usher made another more formal presentation to the ACBC,657 during which Father Lucas said:

[I recommend] that there be a national committee established forthwith by the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference and the Major Superiors which will monitor cases and be a resource for individual bishops. All complaints should be brought to its attention so that there is a consistency of approach. 658

On 28 November 1988, the ACBC established a Special Issues Committee on an interim basis to advise on matters relating to child sexual abuse. 659

The Special Issues Committee was chaired for the first two years by Bishop Ronald Mulkearns, the then Bishop of Ballarat and chairman of the Committee for Clergy and Religious. 660

Development of Protocol for Dealing with Allegations of Criminal Behaviour

In 1989, the Special Issues Committee developed a Protocol for Dealing with Allegations of Criminal Behaviour (the Protocol). 661 The first draft was presented to the ACBC at the November 1989 Plenary Meeting. It was approved in principle in May 1990 for implementation on a trial basis for 12 months. It was to be revised in light of experience and any observations made in writing to the Special Issues Committee. 662

Further revised versions of the Protocol were approved in April 1991 663 and again in April 1992.664 The 1992 version of the Protocol continued to be used until the introduction of Towards Healing in 1996.

Establishment of Special Issues Resource Group

Article 5.2 of the 1992 Protocol recommended the establishment of a Special Issues Resource Group (occasionally referred to as the Special Issues Resource ‘Committee’) (SIRG) in each ecclesiastical province in Australia.

Under the Protocol, members of the SIRG were required to be available to leaders of all dioceses and religious orders operating within the province to provide advice, conduct and assist in investigating complaints and interviewing the accused, manage contact with media in relation to child sexual abuse, and make recommendations to the bishop or religious leader about what further action was required. 665

Report of Case Study No. 44

140

In a statement dated 25 September 2012 (the September 2012 statement), Monsignor Usher provided the following description of the role of the SIRG:

[21] The Special Issues Resource Group was a coterie of priests and a woman counsellor who were trying to assist the Church and the Bishops to deal with issues relating to child abuse. We did not keep formal records of meetings, but we did meet occasionally to discuss cases. There was not in existence any policy or practice manual, although protocols were developed over time. Our goals were firstly to assist victims and secondly to make sure that any offenders were moved out of active priesthood or religious life, and that offences were reported to the authorities. Mostly however, we acted individually as requested by either victims or leaders in the Church. Generally, a person from the Special Issues Resource Group would take another member along to a meeting when that person thought it prudent. 666

In the 1990s in New South Wales, Father Lucas in particular became the person that bishops and congregational leaders would call when a complaint or problem relating to sexual abuse surfaced in their diocese or order.667

Where there was a reasonable suspicion of truth, Father Lucas’ job, as he described it to Mr Whitlam QC in 2012, was to ‘help the bishop, or major Superior … manage the person who was making the complaint, to make sure that whatever their needs were, were being heard and met; and to get the man out of the business’. 668

Monsignor Usher generally provided pastoral support to the victims of those priests and religious. 669

Before they interviewed Farrell in 1992, Fathers Lucas and Usher had been engaged in a number of interviews with religious Brothers and clerical religious priests. 670 Father Lucas said that Farrell may have been the first diocesan priest that he had dealt with in this way. 671

Father Lucas gave evidence that there were two categories of men that they met:

There were the men who were facing court and the conversation was then about their plea of guilty and it was always to encourage the plea of guilty. I was very firm on that. Others took a different view - lawyers particularly took a somewhat different view, that the man is entitled to his defence and whatever, but my view was if he’s going to court, he ought to be pleading guilty, and that was a view I propagated strenuously. So there was that group. And then there would have been others where, for whatever reason, either the matter had been not pursued in the courts or the person abused didn’t want to go to the authorities, and Brother Julian and subsequently, a little bit later, Brother Alexis would solicit our help to try to talk him into both his resignation and also the need for therapy. 672

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

141

10 The Key Issue

As stated above, Bishop Manning referred Farrell’s matter to SIRG. Farrell met with SIRG representatives Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher on 3 September, 24 September and 12 November 1992.

The key issue for this part of this case study is whether Farrell made admissions to Father Lucas, Monsignor Usher and Father Peters (who was there representing Bishop Manning) at the meeting on 3 September 1992 (the first meeting) as set out in Father Peters’ letter dated 11 September 1992 (the first letter).

The sources of the evidence before us about that and subsequent meetings are:

• various documents created between September to November 1992, including letters and file notes, primarily by Bishop Manning, Monsignor Usher, Father Lucas and Father Peters

• a transcript of evidence given by Farrell in criminal proceedings in 2004

• a written account by Bishop Manning to his successor, Bishop Matthys, in 2005

• email accounts by Monsignor Usher, Father Lucas and Father Peters about and provided to the ABC program Four Corners between May and July 2012

• a file note made by Monsignor Usher on 6 June 2012

• transcripts of accounts given by Father Lucas, Monsignor Usher and Father Peters and Bishop Manning to Mr Whitlam QC in late 2012

• statements made by Monsignor Usher in July and September 2012

• a statement to NSW Police made by Father Lucas in January 2016

• a statement to NSW Police made by Monsignor Usher in May 2016

• oral evidence to us by Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher.

It is evident from this evidence that Father Lucas, Monsignor Usher and Father Peters have given many and inconsistent accounts decades after the 1992 meetings. The various accounts given are important to our understanding of and ultimate findings about the key issue. They have been set out in some detail in the report to assist that process. In order to make sense of that material, we first set out the facts as recorded in the key documents.

Report of Case Study No. 44

142

11 A Chronology

11.1 Bishop Manning refers Farrell to SIRG: 27 August 1992

On 27 August 1992, Bishop Manning wrote to Farrell referring him to the SIRG. He advised that an appointment had been made for him to meet with Father Lucas in Sydney on 3 September 1992.673 Bishop Manning told Farrell that it was the ‘task of this committee to evaluate the situation and to advise on ways of proceeding’. 674

Bishop Manning made a file note on 1 September 1992 of his meeting with Farrell on that day. He recorded, among other matters, that Farrell made admissions to him of criminal conduct with children. 675

11.2 The first meeting: 3 September 1992

On 3 September 1992, Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters attended a three-hour meeting with Farrell in the presbytery of St Mary’s Cathedral (the first meeting). 676 Father Peters attended the meeting as a representative of Bishop Manning of the Diocese of Armidale. Fathers Lucas and Usher attended as representatives of SIRG for the Province of Sydney.

On 3 September 1992 Monsignor Usher made a note in his journal about the first meeting. It included ‘Farrell is unrepentant about his sexual misconduct with children’. 677

On 10 September 1992, Monsignor Usher made a note in his journal that he spoke to Bishop Manning and advised him Farrell should be told to seek secular work outside the Church for three to five years, seek therapeutic treatment and not be allowed to return to a position in the Diocese of Armidale unless there is ‘some real admission of contrition and maladjustment is made’.678

On 11 September 1992, Father Peters wrote to Bishop Manning reporting on the first meeting. Among other matters, he reported that Farrell had ‘admitted that there had been five boys around the age of ten and eleven that he had sexually interfered with in varying degrees in the years approximately 1982 to 1984 while he was the assistant priest at Moree’. 679

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

143

11.3 The second meeting: 24 September 1992

A second meeting was held on 24 September 1992 with the same priests present (the second meeting).

At that meeting, Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters put to Farrell a document drafted by Father Lucas entitled ‘Points for Discussion’. This document is also referred to as the seven-point plan. Among other matters it advised that the diocese would support laicisation. If Farrell resisted laicisation, it recommended that he exercise no ecclesial ministry and attend therapy. It also noted that any possible future appointment would not be in the relevant diocese and will be limited to a specialised ministry of minimal risk.

A file note made by Monsignor Usher on 24 September 1992 records, ‘Met with John Farrell, Brian Lucas and Wayne Peters - a seven point plan was presented to John Farrell CSA re his laicization’. 680

On 25 September 1992, Father Lucas wrote to Bishop Manning reporting on the second meeting. 681 He reported that Farrell was ‘not adverse’ to the proposal contained in the ‘Points for Discussion’ document but that ‘at this stage’ he was ‘not inclined’ to implement an application for laicisation. He reported that Farrell had asked for ‘some time to reflect on the proposal and consider “the practicalities”’. 682

On 26 October 1992, Father Peters wrote to Bishop Manning reporting on the second meeting. 683 Among other matters, he reported that Farrell did not accept the proposals and wanted to give the proposals more thought.

11.4 The third meeting: 12 November 1992

The third meeting between the priests was held on 12 November 1992 (the third meeting). Father Peters wrote to Bishop Manning on 25 November 1992 reporting on the third meeting. 684 Among other matters, he stated that Farrell wanted a further two weeks to reach a decision.

In 2001, Father Lucas told Mr John Davoren, who was at the time director of the Professional Standards Office in New South Wales, which covered all dioceses in New South Wales, that the information from the interview he and Monsignor Usher had with Farrell would be ‘conclusive evidence against him canonically’.

Report of Case Study No. 44

144

11.5 Events after the three meetings

On 10 September 2003, Bishop Matthys, the successor to Bishop Manning as Bishop of Armidale, met with Farrell to discuss the report he received from Encompass Australasia after Farrell’s week-long treatment at the centre. A signed file note of Bishop Matthys dated 14 October 2003 records the discussion:

John bumped into my presence, cheerful and self-contented. He reported that he had not learnt anything new about himself. He admitted to them, he said, that he had abused boys in the past. He stated that he had been diagnosed some years ago by a psychologist, that he was sexually immature and undeveloped. 685

In 2004, Farrell gave evidence in a trial in relation to extortion charges brought by the police. 686 Those charges were against CPK - a person who, it was claimed, had extorted money from Farrell in exchange for not reporting Farrell to the police for Farrell’s sexual abuse of him in the Diocese of Parramatta. Farrell gave evidence at that trial relating to what he said at the first meeting with Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters in September 1992. 687 His evidence was that at that meeting he made certain admissions to the priests that he had had oral sex with young boys.

Farrell was laicised in 2005. 688

11.6 Four Corners program: 2012

From late May to July 2012 there were various email exchanges between Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters about a Four Corners episode about the Church’s handling of the Farrell matter.

On 6 June 2012, Monsignor Usher prepared a file note for Cardinal George Pell entitled, ‘4 Corners interview with Cardinal Pell’ (the June 2012 file note). He said that Farrell made no admissions at the first meeting.

The Four Corners program ‘Unholy Silence’ aired on 2 July 2012. During the program, Four Corners journalists alleged that Catholic Church authorities moved Farrell from parish to parish with prior knowledge of allegations of child sexual abuse against him and that this was never reported to police. 689 Father Peters’ letter dated 11 September 1992, in which he stated that Farrell had ‘admitted that there had been five boys around the age of ten and eleven that he had sexually interfered with in varying degrees in the years approximately 1982 to 1984 while he was the assistant priest at Moree’, was published.

In the two days after the Four Corners program aired, on 3 and 4 July 2012, representatives of and lawyers for the Archdiocese of Sydney interviewed Father Lucas and, separately, Fathers Usher and Peters and a file note was made of the discussions. 690

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

145

11.7 The Whitlam inquiry: 2012

On 17 July 2012, the Bishops of Armidale and Parramatta, Bishop Kennedy and Bishop Fisher (as he then was), jointly commissioned former Federal Court judge the Hon. Antony Whitlam QC to conduct a private inquiry to ‘examine the processes related to the management of Farrell’.691

Monsignor Usher signed two statements dated July and September 2012.

Throughout September and October 2012, Bishop Manning, Father Lucas, Monsignor Usher and Father Peters were interviewed by Mr Whitlam QC. 692 Transcripts were prepared.

Mr Whitlam QC delivered his report on 6 December 2012. In relation to the events from 1992 and the involvement of the SIRG, Mr Whitlam QC concluded that Fathers Usher, Lucas and Peters did not ‘cover-up’ admissions that Farrell allegedly made at the 3 September 1992 meeting. 693 He wrote that ‘After 20 years it is hardly surprising that all three men have different recollections of what was said by Farrell. Each of them brought different background knowledge to that first meeting’. 694

Father Peters died in February 2015.

In January and May 2016, Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher made statements to NSW Police in the context of the police investigations relating to Farrell. 695

Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher gave evidence to the Royal Commission in September 2016.

Report of Case Study No. 44

146

11.8 Submissions as to use of documentary evidence

Submissions were made on behalf of Monsignor Usher and Bishop Manning cautioning against the reliance on hearsay material. Counsel for Monsignor Usher submitted that we should not make adverse findings against Monsignor Usher by reference to ‘untested hearsay material’; and, further, that it would be ‘grossly unfair’ in circumstances where Monsignor Usher was deprived of any opportunity to test that material.

It was submitted that ‘this is not a case where reliance might be placed upon hearsay material because it records nothing more than uncontroversial facts. The Commission is fully aware that in large measure what is contained within this untested hearsay material is hotly contested’.

The ‘untested hearsay material’ is identified as some of the documents set out above - namely, Bishop Manning’s 1 September 1992 file note, Father Peters’ three letters to Bishop Manning, the court transcript and the transcripts of interviews that Mr Whitlam QC had with Father Peters and Bishop Manning.

It was also submitted that adverse inferences should not be drawn ‘in favour of what is contained in a small number of ancient pieces of paper. There is not a shred of reliable evidence that the contents of those documents are accurate’.

We make our findings in relation to the ‘ancient pieces of paper’ created between 1992 and 2012 later in this report.

Our view is that hearsay evidence is now routinely received in a wide variety of situations, even in a court bound by the strict rules of evidence. Second-hand hearsay evidence may also be received. We note that in civil cases the rule against hearsay in England has virtually been abolished. In criminal cases there are extensive exceptions.

We have considered all the available evidence and given it the appropriate weight.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

147

12 Before the Three Meetings Between the SIRG and Farrell 12.1 Father Lucas advises Bishop Manning that he ‘move to laicise’ Farrell

From April until June 1992, Bishop Manning engaged Father Lucas to assist in relation to a complaint against Farrell made by CPS. We refer to that complaint below.

On 15 April 1992, while Farrell was still in the Diocese of Parramatta, Bishop Manning made a record of a conversation with Father Lucas in which Father Lucas suggested to Bishop Manning that he ‘move to laicise J.F. but wait for a month before proceeding’. 696

Father Lucas recalled that the tenor of the conversation with Bishop Manning was that ‘Bishop Manning had arrived, had heard rumour about Farrell and was of the opinion that the dismissal [of the criminal charges at Narrabri] was unsafe and that he was concerned about Farrell generally’. 697 He further gave evidence:

Manning was nervous about Farrell, and I think things had happened in Parramatta … I think at some stage he had had some report from Bishop Heather or from someone else from Parramatta that Farrell was just at the very, you know, bottom end, being a terrible nuisance and impossible to put anywhere, through to there was at one point an allegation of quite inappropriate language with the altar servers. That was what I understood were his concerns out of Parramatta, but I know that it weighed heavily on his mind that the dismissal could well have been unsafe and did he have a problem with Farrell.698

Father Lucas could not assist us as to why he suggested to Bishop Manning that he wait a month before moving to laicise Farrell. He said that he had ‘more than one sleepless night trying to make sense of this’ but that he really had ‘no idea’. He suggested it may have been because Farrell was going overseas. 699

This conversation occurred on the same day that Bishop Manning spoke with Dr Blaszczynski, who advised that Farrell needed ‘to be kept away from children’ and ‘Prepubescent children are in danger where he is’. This advice from Dr Blaszczynski is set out earlier in this report. 700

In his evidence to the Royal Commission, Father Lucas said that he did not know whether he spoke to the bishop before or after the bishop’s conversation with Dr Blaszczynski. He did not recall Bishop Manning relaying what Dr Blaszczynski had told him at the time. 701

This issue is considered later in this report.

Report of Case Study No. 44

148

Father Lucas gave evidence that he met CPS twice. The first time, she told him ‘something of the story’ and Father Lucas suggested she write it out in her own words. He said that she did that and then, when he saw her the second time, she added some further comments to what she had written. 702 Father Lucas made a file note of the ‘supplementary material’ that CPS provided during their second meeting.

An unsigned handwritten note written by Bishop Manning records conversations with Father Lucas about Father Lucas’ discussions with CPS in late April and mid-May 1992. The effect of the conversations was that she would give a deposition to Father Lucas and:

[Father Lucas was] prepared as Bishops Committee to confront him [Farrell] as to his future, offering alternatives of counselling, or application for dispensation. 703

Father Lucas told us that this was within his role, as contemplated by the Protocol. 704

It was put to Father Lucas that counselling and an application for dispensation were expressed as alternatives, which was contrary to Father Lucas’ earlier evidence that priests would be removed and given counselling under the Church’s counselling program. Father Lucas disagreed.705 He said:

One alternative would be that [Farrell would be] offered counselling and he stays a priest, because that’s all that is required. The other is that we try and laicise him, and part of that process would have, in our normal course of practice, been to say, ‘You’ve got to get your life together’, and provide some therapeutic opportunity for that. 706

Father Lucas said he knew that Farrell was a ‘problem’ but had no knowledge of the extent of his ‘problem’ at that stage.707

Father Lucas accepted that the bishop was in no doubt that by this stage that ‘prepubescent children are in danger’. 708 He said that, if he knew that Farrell was a danger to prepubescent children and that had been told to him explicitly, counselling would not have been an option. 709

The Chair asked Father Lucas why, if he did not know of any other complaints at the time, he was offering the alternative of laicisation to the bishop. Father Lucas said that this ‘was the whole package of what the Bishop wanted done with the various complaints, including an “unsafe” dismissal putting him at risk with respect to children’. 710

Father Lucas did not agree that he was presenting alternatives to the bishop. Father Lucas said that the way he presented it to the bishop was that counselling should be offered ‘if it turned out there was nothing in it, which was probably unlikely, “or removal from the priesthood” if there was something in it’. 711

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

149

On 6 June 1992, Father Lucas spoke with Bishop Manning in relation to CPS. Bishop Manning made a file note of the conversation. Father Lucas told him that CPS described three incidents: touching on upper leg, touching on the breasts and a further episode of touching on the upper leg.712

Father Lucas said that at the time he would have understood that one or more of those incidents amounted to a potential offence. 713

On 10 June 1992, Father Lucas wrote to Bishop Manning 714 in the following terms:

Further to our conversation on the problem we have been discussing I enclose in a sealed envelope the original statement and some supplementary notes. I have shown Father Wayne Peters the original statement and we have discussed various strategies.715

Mr Whitlam QC did not ask Father Peters about his knowledge of the statements. 716

In his interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Bishop Manning said that, beyond his handwritten notes, he did not ‘know what happened [after Father Lucas took these statements], but that seems to have just fizzled out and she disappeared out of the records’. He said, ‘She evidently just withdrew from the whole process, from what I could understand - just disappeared’. 717

Father Lucas accepted that, by June 1992, he and Father Peters were engaged in strategies to effectively get Farrell out of the priesthood. 718 Father Lucas gave evidence that he had not worked with Father Peters in this capacity before. Father Peters’ involvement was to represent the Bishop of Armidale and to report back to him on whatever happened with Father Lucas and ultimately Monsignor Usher. 719

We are satisfied that, on 15 April 1992, Bishop Manning spoke with Dr Blaszczynski, who told him that Farrell needed to be kept away from children and that prepubescent children were in danger from Farrell. Bishop Manning also spoke with Father Lucas that day.

Father Lucas told us he did not remember whether Bishop Manning spoke with him before or after he spoke with Dr Blaszczynski.

We know that the purpose of engaging Father Lucas was to advise Bishop Manning on matters relating to child sexual abuse. Dr Blaszczynski’s opinion was clearly key to understanding the risk to children that Farrell posed. We also know that Father Lucas recommended that Bishop Manning move to laicise Farrell.

Report of Case Study No. 44

150

Laicisation is the most severe sanction against a priest, and it is unlikely to have been suggested by Father Lucas unless Farrell posed an unacceptable risk. The advice from Dr Blaszczynski was to that effect.

It is not necessary for us to find whether Father Lucas was told of Dr Blaszczynski’s advice. It would be surprising if he had not been.

12.2 Reporting to police

Father Lucas gave evidence that he did not refer CPS’s complaint to the police. He said that CPS ‘was very adamant she did not want that done’. 720 He continued:

Her boyfriend wanted her to do that. She came the second time without her boyfriend and she told me that quite deliberately, because he was hassling her, but she was quite adamant she didn’t want any referral to the police. 721

Father Lucas said that, in terms of encouraging CPS to go the police, he ‘listened to what she said and [he] respected what she said’. 722

Father Lucas said that he did not know one way or another whether Bishop Manning would have turned his mind to whether he should go to the police. 723

Although there is no record in Bishop Manning’s note of 6 June 1992 about CPS’s preference not to go to the police, Father Lucas said that he expected he would have relayed this information to Bishop Manning. 724

Father Lucas said that he did not know of Bishop Manning referring any complaint that he received against Farrell to the police. 725 Father Lucas gave the following evidence as to how he knew this:

At some point - I just don’t remember now whether the question of referring Farrell to the police came up, because the context of the conversation with Bishop Manning, as I remember it, was his frustration that the court case had been dismissed. So I think the assumption would have been: well, he’s known to the police. Now, what he found out afterwards is another question. 726

Father Lucas gave evidence that when he said, ‘he’s known to the police’, he was relying on the fact that the police charged Farrell in 1987 - he was not suggesting that he knew any information the police had subsequent to that. 727

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

151

12.3 Media release dated 16 March 1992

On 16 March 1992, Monsignor Usher drafted a statement that was released to the public on Archdiocese of Sydney letterhead:

Catholic Church Responds to Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Women and Children by Religious and Clergy

... the Catholic Church ... views that the sexual assault of women and children by religious and clergy is an extremely serious matter and any church person suspected of criminal behaviour ... is automatically stood down and the matter is put in the hands of civil authorities. 728

Father Lucas accepted that the allegation he received from CPS was clearly an allegation of criminal conduct. 729 Father Lucas accepted that, with respect to the complaint made by CPS against Farrell, Farrell was not ‘automatically stood down and the matter … put in the hands of civil authorities’ as envisioned by the media release. 730

He said that was because CPS ‘did not want the matter put in the hands of civil authorities and we respected that’. 731

However, Father Lucas gave evidence that he thought this statement by Monsignor Usher was ‘overstated’.732 Father Lucas said:

That’s his statement and his view. He forgot to add, ‘put in the hands of the civil authorities unless the person abused doesn’t want that to happen’, which was, of course, the position. 733

… Look, I think it needed much more nuancing than that. This is a media release, obviously, in the context of some public controversy. Farrell, by April 1992, had effectively been stood down. He was not in ministry in April 1992, as I recall it. 734

Father Lucas accepted that, contrary to his evidence, in fact, Farrell was stood down in July 1992.735 As at April 1992, Farrell was exercising ministry in the Diocese of Parramatta.

We are satisfied that Father Lucas did not act in accordance with the Church’s public announcement of its approach in these cases. Father Lucas did not report Farrell to the police and did not act to have Farrell stood down.

The effect of this failure was that Farrell was permitted to continue to have access to children as a priest and any police investigation was delayed.

Report of Case Study No. 44

152

13 The First Meeting: 3 September 1992

As set out earlier, on 27 August 1992, Bishop Manning wrote to Farrell referring him to the SIRG. He advised that an appointment had been made for him to meet with Father Lucas in Sydney on 3 September 1992. 736

On 3 September 1992, Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters attended a three-hour meeting with Farrell in the presbytery of St Mary’s Cathedral (the first meeting). As indicated, each of the three priests has given a number of accounts of that meeting. Farrell has given one account on oath during unrelated criminal proceedings and there is a file note of his conversation with Bishop Matthys about the admissions Farrell said he made to Encompass Australasia.

13.1 Father Peters’ accounts

As is set out earlier in this report, before the meeting on 3 September 1992, Father Peters said he did not know of Farrell leaving Moree in 1984 or moving to Tamworth East or that Farrell consulted with psychologist Mr Boyle at the time. 737 Between 1986 and July 1998, Father Peters was living in Canada and was therefore out of Australia when Farrell was arrested in August 1987.738 He said that he heard of Farrell’s arrest from Father Hanna while he was in Ottawa. 739

Father Peters knew of the complaint about Farrell wanting to take some boys on a camping trip when he was in Kenthurst in 1990. He also knew of Monsignor Usher’s 1990 report on Farrell in which Monsignor Usher expressed the view that Farrell’s ‘personal manner and his ongoing need to spend time with children is a matter of grave concern to me’.

In addition, he provided the advice to Bishop Manning in October 1991 about Farrell. Bishop Manning’s record of that advice is set out earlier in this report. 740

Father Peters has written the only detailed report of what occurred at that meeting. He sent the report to Bishop Manning eight days after the meeting, on 11 September 1992.

Father Peters’ letter dated 11 September 1992

The full text of Father Peters’ letter is as follows:

Dear Bishop Manning

I wish to communicate a short report on the meeting that took place recently between Rev. John Farrell and members of the Australian Catholic Bishops Special Issues Resource Committee. At your instruction, I attended that meeting as a representative of you and the Diocese of Armidale.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

153

The meeting was held at the Cathedral Presbytery, St. Mary’s Cathedral Sydney on Thursday 3rd September 1992 commencing at 7.40 p.m. Present were Rev. John Farrell, Rev. Brian Lucas, Rev. J.Usher and Rev. W.Peters.

After opening remarks from Rev. Brian Lucas, Rev. John Farrell indicated that he wished to make certain admissions.

He admitted that there had been five boys around the age of ten and eleven that he had sexually interfered with in varying degrees in the years approximately 1982 to 1984 while he was the assistant priest at Moree.

He had placed his hand on the leg of one boy who had indicated that he did not want that to happen. Rev. Farrell maintains he never attempted any advances again to that particular child.

It was a similar story with another boy. He made advances by touching the second child on the leg and the child indicated he did not want that to happen. Rev. Farrell maintains he made no such further advances to that child.

A third child [REDACTED] Rev. Farrell did admit that he fondled the boy’s genitals during the car trip from Moree to Narrabri.

The situations of boys four and five were the occasion of more serious admissions of the part of Rev. Farrell. He admitted that over a period of approximately twelve months he fondled the genitals of each of these boys and to quote ‘sucked off their dicks’. As far as Rev. Farrell can remember this was done on about a monthly basis over a period of twelve months. It was done only when each boy was alone with him. The boys were never together whenever an offence took place.

After the allegations of this behaviour were made, Rev. Farrell was transferred to another parish. He alleges he then became sexually involved with a woman and that this continued for a period of some months. This was in the period of twelve months after being transferred from Moree.

In 1988, towards the end of his university course at Armidale, while he was on leave awaiting the outcome of civil proceedings against him, he alleges that he became sexually involved with a young lady at the University of New England. This was a short affair.

After the period in which Rev. Farrell made the above admissions and allegations against himself, the two members of the Bishop’s Resource Committee questioned Rev. Farrell and attempted to explain the various complexities that have arisen because of his actions and the problems of the future. The following was pointed out:

Report of Case Study No. 44

154

That there was widespread knowledge in the Diocese of Armidale of the nature of the allegations

There continued to be widespread scandal in the Diocese of Armidale

Because of the knowledge and the scandal, it was not possible for an appointment in the Diocese of Armidale in the foreseeable future

Appointment to another diocese was also seen as impossible given that the whole matter of the allegations was an unresolved matter. Without resolution no recommendation could come for an appointment to another diocese from the Bishop of Armidale. Such a recommendation could be seriously injurious to the Church and the Diocese of Armidale in particular in the event of further criminal charges being made by the other boys involved without a previous clearance for appointment from competent psychiatric authority.

As there is no statute of limitations on charges being laid in the matter of sexual abuse of children, the possibility always remains that one or some of the boys involved may bring criminal charges against the Rev. Farrell with subsequent grave harm to the priesthood and the Church.

In the present climate in Australia, the media and public in general are more inclined to publicise, highlight and pursue the matter of a priest offending sexually against children than the situation of a lay person offending.

Various ways of proceeding were presented. These included:

That Rev. John Farrell return to the lay state seeking a laicisation from the Holy See with the support of his Diocesan Bishop.

That Rev. John Farrell place himself into a programme of therapy arranged and monitored by the Bishops’ Special Issues Resource Committee. Even with this, no guarantees could be given of a future appointment.

The meeting agreed that a further meeting between the same people was to be held within a few weeks to further discuss the whole situation and possible ways of proceeding.

The meeting closed at 10.30 p.m.

A further meeting has now been arranged for the evening of 24th September next at the Cathedral Presbytery, St. Mary’s Cathedral Sydney. 741

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

155

Father Peters’ emails to Four Corners

On 28 June 2012, Ms Mary Ann Jolley, a Four Corners producer, sent separate and identical emails to Fathers Usher and Peters:

I’m a producer with the ABC’s Four Corners program and am currently working on a story about the Catholic Church and how it deals with allegations of sexual abuse. The story will be broadcast this coming Monday night.

We are aware of a meeting you attended in Sydney on September 3, 1992 at which you were involved in interviewing John Farrell.

We have asked Cardinal George Pell about this meeting and he has told us no admissions were made by John Farrell during this meeting. We understand via the Cardinal that this concurs with your recollection.

There are just a couple points we want to clarify with you directly: During the September 3, 1992 meeting did John Farrell say anything that you felt should be reported to the police? Did you report anything he said to the police? 742

On 29 June 2012, Father Peters responded ‘no’ and ‘no’ to her questions.

Later that day, Ms Jolley wrote again to Father Peters:

Thank you for your response. We’d really appreciate one final clarification. We understand that you wrote to your superior In Armidale referring to certain admissions made by John Farrell during that meeting on 3 September 1992. Can you confirm this? 743

Less than two hours after Ms Jolley’s further email, Father Lucas sent an email to Father Peters. Monsignor Usher was copied into the email. Father Lucas wrote:

Herewith draft

When I referred to admissions in my report to bishop manning I was using the word generally. John Farrell conceded there had been instances of sexual misconduct but deliberately would not give any details or say anything that would incriminate him or amount to an admission in a legal sense. He persisted in denying involvement in the case which had gone to court. However, we concluded that he should be removed from ministry. 744

Twenty-seven minutes after Father Lucas provided the draft response, Father Peters responded to Ms Jolley in the same terms as the draft other than as to the first sentence. He said:

Report of Case Study No. 44

156

In my report to Bishop Manning, I referred to admissions made by John Farrell. 745

Father Lucas’ involvement in assisting to draft Father Peters’ email is addressed below.

File note of a meeting with the Archdiocese of Sydney on 4 July 2012

On 4 July 2012, two days after the Four Corners episode screened, Fathers Usher and Peters met with staff from the Archdiocese of Sydney, including Mr Michael Casey (Cardinal Pell’s private secretary), Mr Danny Casey (business manager), Ms Katrina Lee (Director of Catholic Communications), Ms Jennifer Cook (general counsel) and Mr Michael do Rozario (a solicitor from Corrs Chambers Westgarth, a firm acting for the archdiocese). 746 Ms Cook made a file note of that meeting.

Ms Cook’s file note recorded comments made primarily by Father Peters, with some contributions made by Monsignor Usher. Extracts of the file note are set out below:

[2] MC then asked about the letter dated 11 September 1992 from Mgr Peters to Bishop Manning which came to light in 4 Corners.

[3] Mgr Peters said that it was his job to come to the Meeting as the Bishop’s representative to observe what happened at the Meeting. The letter was ‘a private letter intended for the Bishop.’ Mgr Peters said he was ‘mystified how the letter got out’. He said that Bishop Manning was also surprised that the letter was made public. After 4 Corners aired, Bishop Manning called Mgr Peters and asked him ‘how did the letter get out?’

[12] The Meeting was for Fr Farrell to meet with the special issues committee with Mgr Peters as an observer for Armidale to ‘get to the bottom’ of things. Fr Lucas was the chair of the committee. Mgr Usher said that the committee was very informal committee. Fr Lucas asked JU to attend as he was assisting on such matters. Mgr Peters said that the intention was ‘to close him [Fr F] down no matter what’.

[13] Mgr Peters said that there were 3 meetings. No admissions were made at the second or third meetings. JU was at the second meeting on 24 September 1992 where a 7 point plan was presented to Fr F.

[14] Mgr Peters said he had not been directly informed previously of the allegations referred to by Fr F in the Meeting but that parents had made complaints to Fr Ryan and this had been reported to Bishop Kennedy. It was rumoured that Fr F had interfered with other children. Mgr Peters had never met a victim or had a complaint about Fr F. JU also confirmed he never met or interviewed a complainant in relation to Fr F.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

157

[15] In relation to the Meeting, JU said that even if the charges against Fr F had been dismissed, it was incumbent for the Church to look into the allegations. The sense was that the Church had to do something. Mgr Peters said after the charges were dismissed the police and people in the town petitioned the DPP to reconsider but the DPP decided not to do so.

[16] Mgr Peters said he was surprised by admissions made by Fr F during the meeting. Mgr Peters said that it was ‘not clear if he was telling the truth’. JU agreed with this. He said it was not clear if it was fantasy or made up. He was ‘unreal and weird’. Mgr Peters had to report what he said, but was not sure it was true.

[17] Mgr Peters confirmed that he did not take notes during the meeting and has no notes about the meeting. He did not have regard to notes or files when writing the letter. He does not remember Fr Lucas making notes during the Meeting. JU says he did not take notes of the Meeting but later recorded short ‘aide de memoire’ notes in his red bound diary. Mgr Usher said Fr F was unrepentant about his misconduct. He recorded that he should not have an appointment. He doubted his willingness to go to therapy, although Fr F said he would. If Fr F had made admissions of actual criminal conduct, he would have recorded this.

[18] Mgr Peters referred to Fr F as being ‘evil’. He said: ‘I was gung ho for this guy to be put on ice’. He is not happy that Fr F is still around in Armidale, attending Mass and showing up from time-to-time.

[19] When it was put to Mgr Peters that JU and Fr Lucas had no memory of admissions being made as set out in his 11 September 1992 letter, Mgr Peters said ‘if I did not have the letter, I would not remember’. He confirmed that he had not discussed the contents of the letter with Fr Lucas or JU. ‘Neither Jack nor Brian knew the contents of the letter’. He says ‘if that is what I wrote, I have to stand by my letter’.

[20] JU said if Fr F had admitted what is set out in the letter, he would have gone to the police.

[21] Mgr Peters said he was unaware of his obligation to report to the police. ‘My responsibility was to report to the Bishop’. He only found out about the obligation to report ‘in the last couple of weeks’.

[22] Reporting to the police was not discussed at the Meeting. Mgr Usher said he may not have been aware at the date of the meeting of the duty to report under the Crimes Act, but was aware of the reporting obligations under the child protection regulation.

Report of Case Study No. 44

158

[23] In relation to whether he should have reported Fr F to the police, Mgr Peters said that Fr F referred only to ‘Boy 1’ ‘Boy 2’, ‘Boy 3’ - no specifics were given so as not to incriminate himself and no names were provided so no one could contact any victims. So there was nothing specific to report.

[24] Mgr Peters has no knowledge of any offences since 1992 and nothing on file about further allegations. He has had no contact with victims. He heard about a case regarding Fr F brought in relation to sexual assault of [REDACTED] (when she was around 14) but the charges were also dismissed. The first time he heard of CPR [interviewed on 4 Corners] was when he saw the 4 Corners Report. In response to a question by MdR, he said he has not reached out to CPR pastorally.

[25] It was unclear why Mgr Peters first told JU that no admissions were made but he now ‘stands by the letter’. Mgr Peters did say he checked the file immediately when 4 Corners asked questions about Fr F and other priests in Armidale ‘over a month ago’. From the discussion, it appears that at the time Mgr Peters told JU no admissions were made at the Meeting he was not aware the letter was in the public domain.

[26] Mgr Peters said that he obtained Father Lucas’ assistance in framing responses to questions by 4 Corners. He was asked by 4 Corners whether there was any information that was reportable to the police and, if so, did he report to the police. When Mgr Peters spoke to Fr Lucas about 4 Corners, Fr Lucas said, ‘I think they must have a copy of that letter’, he said Fr Lucas made reference to the Broken Rites website.

[27] In consultation with Fr Lucas (who gave him a ‘form of words’), Mgr Peters responded that Fr F had said ‘nothing specific in a legal sense’ that could be reported to the police.

[28] When asked what he would now tell the media, Mgr Peters said he would ‘stand by the letter’ but that he would not be saying anything to the media. 747

Interview with Mr Whitlam QC in 2012

Father Peters told Mr Whitlam QC that he would not have recalled any of the meetings 20 years earlier had he not re-read each of his reports in 2012. He said that re-reading them ‘brought it all back’.748

Mr Whitlam QC asked Father Peters whether anything in his letter dated 11 September 1992 reflected something that Farrell had told him on some earlier occasion before 11 September 1992:

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

159

MR WHITLAM: The next thing is, of course, having reread it - and, as you say, you mightn’t have remembered anything without looking at it, but now it comes back to you - does any of the material in there reflect something that Farrell had told you on some earlier occasion before 11 September?

MONS PETERS: No. No. He had been in total denial: ‘I never did anything wrong’. 749

13.2 Father Lucas’ accounts

Before the meeting

Father Lucas stated in his police statement dated 17 December 2015 that he understood the catalyst to be the complaint from CPS and the complaint from Merrylands parish about Farrell’s behaviour and language with the altar boys. 750

While he could not recall having any conversations with Bishop Manning in the days before the meeting, 751 he presumed that he had some conversation with Father Peters and Monsignor Usher to arrange the meeting. 752 He could not recall the specifics. 753

He said he would have explained to Farrell the nature of the meeting, that it was ‘confidential as between ourselves and the Bishop, and that he should be able to speak freely’. 754

Recollections of the first meeting

Father Lucas has given a number of accounts about the meetings with Farrell - in particular, the first meeting:

• in an email exchange with Mr Davoren, who was at the time director of the Professional Standards Office in New South Wales

• in email exchanges with Father Peters and Monsignor Usher about responses to Four Corners

• in emails to Four Corners

• to representatives of the Archdiocese of Sydney

• in a statement to NSW Police in 2016

• in an interview by Mr Whitlam QC, of which a transcript was prepared

• in his evidence to us.

Report of Case Study No. 44

160

Emails between Mr John Davoren and Father Lucas in 2001

In February 2001, Father Lucas was involved in email correspondence with Mr Davoren, who was at the time director of the Professional Standards Office in New South Wales, which covered all dioceses in New South Wales. 755

Father Lucas told Mr Davoren that he was approached by a woman who telephoned him in relation to a complaint against Farrell. The woman was calling on behalf of her son. 756

Mr Davoren responded by suggesting that she should encourage her son to make a formal complaint. He then said:

At the moment there is very little that can be done about JF as you know, and while the facts may not be much in doubt, equally they are not very clear. What does the Bishop need to know before he can proceed? Has he notified his legal advisers? 757

Father Lucas’s undated reply email to Mr Davoren states:

There have been developments - positive I think. The mother rang me back. She spoke with the son and as it turned out he was pleased that she had contacted the Church. He was pleased to know that JF was not acting as a priest and commented that he was glad he had been ‘punished’. They do not seem to want to go to the police … I have informed Bishop Matthys of this. I doubt that JF would run the Nestor option. Usher and I interviewed him and that would be conclusive evidence against him canonically I think. 758

Father Lucas told us that the ‘conclusive evidence’ he was referring to was ‘the fact that he’d agreed to resign … plus whatever other information we would have heard from that meeting’. 759 He further elaborated:

My recollection of that meeting, which I’m sure we’ll come to in some detail, was that I formed a view, whether on what he said or what I surmised, that it was true, that the suspicion about the court case was unsafe. 760

Father Lucas said that this was ‘conclusive evidence against [Farrell] canonically’. 761 When asked whether this was because this was sufficient to initiate the canon law process to get rid him, Father Lucas said:

I would have thought what I meant there was if he tries to run the Nestor option, the fact that he had agreed to resign, the fact that John and I would have been able to have said that the acquittal, the dismissal of the case was unsafe, wouldn’t have given him much room with the Vatican. That’s as I understood it. 762

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

161

Responses to Four Corners in June 2012

Father Lucas first received an email from Four Corners on 31 May 2012 stating that Four Corners would like to understand what happened at the 3 September 1992 meeting with Farrell and what action was taken. 763

He forwarded the email with an article from the Broken Rites website to Monsignor Usher.

The Broken Rites article said:

On 3 September 1991 (according to an official document in the possession of Broken Rites) Father XYZ was called to a meeting at the Sydney Cathedral presbytery, attended by three church officials:

• Reverend Brian Lucas (then based at the Sydney Cathedral), who was involved in the administration of the Sydney archdiocese.

• Reverend John Usher, of the Sydney archdiocese, chairperson of the Australian Catholic Welfare Commission.

• Reverend Wayne Peters, a senior priest of the Armidale diocese, whose responsibilities then included the Armidale diocese Tribunal (Peters later became Armidale’s vicar-general, the bishop’s deputy).

Interviewed by the three officials. Father XYZ admitted that he had been committing sexual acts on young boys in his parishes. 764

It was clear that Father XYZ was Farrell. It was not clear on the evidence where Father Lucas obtained the article. However, he did so within minutes after receiving the Four Corners email. Father Lucas agreed that the date was wrong: it should have been 1992. 765

Father Lucas said that that evening he marked with a question mark the section of the article relating to admissions. 766 Later in his evidence, he elaborated that he did so because when he read that ‘Father XYZ admitted that he had been committing sexual acts on young boys in his parishes’ it ‘didn’t equate to what [he] had recollected ’. 767

He provided Monsignor Usher and Father Peters as well as Bishop Kennedy with a draft of his proposed reply to Four Corners. His ultimate response was largely consistent with that draft. He told Four Corners that:

John Farrell had been arrested and charged but the court dismissed the charge. There were rumours about his behavior and his bishop wanted us to interview him to see if he should be allowed public ministry. We interviewed him and although he was not specific with respect to any admissions we formed a view that he should not be

Report of Case Study No. 44

162

allowed public ministry. That advice was taken by his bishop and he was not given any ministry after that. 768

Counsel Assisting asked Father Lucas about his reference to ‘rumours’. Father Lucas accepted that, to the extent that this suggests that there were just rumours, that is not true. He accepted there were also formal complaints, including a complaint of the inappropriate language used with altar servers and the complaint by CPS, as well as the rumours about the boys from Moree.769 Father Lucas did not accept that he was seeking to minimise what was known to the priests before the first meeting. 770

Counsel Assisting put to Father Lucas that it follows from saying, ‘not specific with respect to admissions’ that Farrell must have made some admissions. Father Lucas said that ‘something had happened with this young man but he was not specific as to what that was’. 771 Father Lucas said this was the only admission he was referring to. 772

Father Lucas said he knew the young man Farrell was referring to. The lack of specificity was as to ‘the act that he performed or had performed’.773 Father Lucas ‘expected’ that he told Fathers Usher and Peters that this was his memory when they were discussing their common response. 774

He then received an email from Four Corners on 28 June 2012 and was asked:

Why was John Farrell called to a meeting with you and others on 3 September 1992?

Were any admissions made during that meeting?

What action was taken as a result of those admissions? 775

He responded ‘No’. 776

Meeting between Father Lucas, Monsignor Usher and individuals connected to the Archdiocese of Sydney on 4 July 2012

After their meeting with Father Peters on 4 July 2012, Monsignor Usher and staff from the Archdiocese of Sydney had a telephone conference with Father Lucas. 777 At the commencement of the meeting he was informed that Father Peters was standing by his letter.

Ms Cook made a file note of this meeting, which recorded his account as follows:

[3] Fr Lucas said ‘No one has said no admissions were made,’ He said to carefully review the text of his email to 4 Corner which says ‘no admissions of a specific nature were made.’ When asked what type of admissions were made, he added: ‘He was vague and all over the place. He was ranting.’

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

163

[4] Fr Lucas said he took no notes of the Meeting. He had no recollection of discussing reporting Fr F’s claims to the police. He confirmed that he had no input into Mgr Peters’ letter and that the letter does not accord with the meeting and he has no recollection of Fr F saying what is set out in the letter. ‘We tried to get him talking to see whether he would say something that would enable us to suspend him’. He said that Fr F ‘did not say what is in the letter. I would have recalled that but he gave us enough to have us doubt his credibility enough to stand him down’. Fr Lucas’ recollection is that Fr F was ‘evasive’ and ‘all over the place’. He wondered whether it was truthful. He said that if Fr F had conveyed ‘that level of detail’ [as set out in the letter] then he would have reported it to the police. [IMC noted ‘that level of detail would have been reportable’. Also noted ‘If WP had that level of detail he should have reported it’.] He suggested that victims be invited very publicly to come forward now.

[5] When asked how to explain the letter by Mgr Peters if it does not reflect what happened at the Meeting, Fr Lucas said that Mgr Peters ‘definitely wanted this guy out’.

[8] Fr Lucas said that he has ‘never spoken to any victim of Farrell’. There was no discussion regarding Farrell after 1992.

[9] He went on to say that he would talk to Mgr Peters about the letter and the need for him to include that he had embellished it. He said that in the context of time this would be understandable. That would be the end of it and ‘gets him off the hook’. This is the only way ‘to clear this up and explain things’.

[11] The telephone call ended before 12.30. 778

Father Lucas conceded to us that his description of Farrell as ‘ranting’ and ‘vague and all over the place’ was ‘quite inconsistent’ with the form of words he had given Father Peters to respond to Four Corners. He said, ‘Yes, I didn’t direct my mind to that from what he spoke to me about’.779

In relation to the reference in Ms Cook’s note to Father Lucas saying he had never spoken to any victim of Farrell, Father Lucas denied saying this because he had ‘obviously had the conversation with the young lady’. He said that, although it was in quotes, it is not something he would have said.780

Father Lucas was asked about the comment attributed to him in Ms Cook’s note that he ‘would talk to Father Peters about the letter and the need for him to include that he had embellished it’. Counsel Assisting put to Father Lucas that that reads as though he was going to tell Father Peters what to do, in terms of saying something inconsistent with the letter he’d written 20 years before. Father Lucas responded:

Report of Case Study No. 44

164

Yes, I wouldn’t have said that. I’d had in my mind I wanted to talk to Peters to ask him for an explanation. At that stage, one of my hypotheses was had he embellished it, but it would have been for Peters to explain that or give some other explanation. I certainly wouldn’t have had in my mind that I would be telling him to do anything other than what was, in his mind, the truth of the matter. 781

Father Lucas conceded ‘absolutely’ that this was entirely inconsistent with Ms Cook’s note. 782

Counsel Assisting put to Father Lucas that he was seeking to get Father Peters to say publicly something that would minimise the intent of his 11 September 1992 letter in order to get them all off the hook and to avoid the appearance of a cover-up of what occurred in 1992. Father Lucas did not accept this. He gave the following evidence:

Well, I don’t accept that that was the import of what I was saying. It may have been the conclusion of the person who drafted the note. My expectation was to be able to talk to Peters at some point in time, find out what his explanation was. My theory was had he embellished it or had he got information from somewhere else? I was looking for an opportunity to talk to him. I thought I would have had the opportunity when they asked me to be available for a meeting with him and they didn’t give me that opportunity, so I said I would talk to him at some other time, but I had nothing in my mind about him then making some false statement. I wouldn’t have asked him to do that.783

Draft and final media releases by Father Lucas on 4 and 5 July 2012

Father Lucas gave evidence to the Royal Commission that, after his teleconference with Monsignor Usher and staff from the Archdiocese of Sydney on 4 July 2012, he wrote a media release which he proposed to issue in his own name. 784

Father Lucas set out his recollection of the first meeting as follows in the first draft of his media release:

What is important to understand is that my best recollection of the meeting some 20 years ago is that the person’s acknowledgement of wrongdoing was vague and generalised and he was cautious in not incriminating himself by naming any victims .

It is common ground with Monsignor Peter’s [sic] letter that no names of victims were mentioned. On that basis I did not consider that there was anything to report to the police that would assist in any prosecution. 785

As to whether this was the first time that he referred to Farrell’s acknowledgement of wrongdoing, Father Lucas gave the following evidence:

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

165

Well, as I said, whether it was precisely his words for my summation, I certainly had a view that he had acknowledged wrongdoing with respect to the man who had prosecuted him.

Q. I think the admission you’ve referred to was that you surmised from something he’d said that he’d done something; is that an acknowledgment of wrongdoing?

A. Well, he didn’t - of course it was wrongdoing, what he surmised he - what I surmised he did. There was some other activity with that young man, different from what he was charged with, that in my mind amounted to wrongdoing. That was my memory.

Q. So he acknowledged to you wrongdoing?

A. Well, as I said, I can’t be precise as to whether it was his words or my surmising from his words, but that was my conclusion.

Q. So ‘acknowledgment’ probably isn’t the best word to use?

A. Probably.

Q. Then you say, ‘he was cautious in not incriminating himself’. So you recalled some 20 years earlier not just that he didn’t incriminate himself but, in fact, he was cautious in doing it, therefore, he had some mindset about what he was doing. Is that -

A. Well, that was my recollection, that he, in referring to these other people, was of a view that they were all making up lies about him; that he wasn’t going to make any specific agreement that what was being alleged was something he had done. And there were certainly no names mentioned, other than, of course, the name that we knew from the court case. 786

In writing that Farrell was ‘cautious in not incriminating himself by naming any victims’, it was put that this suggests he named events that occurred but just did not put names to them. Father Lucas said that that was not how he read or intended that. 787 However, Father Lucas conceded that this was ‘entirely consistent’ with Father Peters’ letter. 788

Father Lucas’ attention was drawn to the line in his media statement, ‘It is common ground with Monsignor Peters’ letter that no names of victims were mentioned’. He was asked whether this was his basis for not reporting to the police. Father Lucas said that this was his ‘public response’ to Father Peters’ letter, which was at this point in the public forum. As to what his ‘private response’ was, Father Lucas gave evidence that there were two matters: first, that Farrell was already known to police from his charges in 1988; and, second, that there was ‘nothing specific said at that meeting … that would have grounded a reporting to police’. 789

Report of Case Study No. 44

166

As to there being nothing specific that would have grounded a report, Father Lucas said:

I don’t think it was just that there were no names but, as I said, my position has always been that I don’t recall him giving that description of the conduct. 790

On 5 July 2012, Father Lucas prepared a revised version of his first draft media statement.

In the second version, Father Lucas altered the following paragraph:

What is important to understand is that my best recollection of the meeting some 20 years ago is that the person’s acknowledgement of in acknowledging wrongdoing was vague and generalised and he was cautious in not incriminating himself by naming any victims. 791

Father Lucas gave evidence that he could not explain the reason for that editing change. 792

On 5 July 2012, a final draft version of Father Lucas’ media statement was prepared. It contained the following changes from the second draft media statement:

What is important to understand is that My best recollection of the meeting some 20 years ago is that in acknowledging wrongdoing Fr F did not name any victims he was cautious in not incriminating himself by naming any victims. No victims are named in Monsignor Peters’ letter. It is common ground with Monsignor Peters’ letter that no names of victims were mentioned. I did not consider at that time that reporting to the police would assist in any prosecution since we did not have any details of victims. On that basis I did not consider at that time that reporting to the police that would assist in any prosecution. He was already known to the police and had been the subject of police investigation and was charged.

Fortunately today there are now protocols with the NSW Police where information such as this can be shared for intelligence gathering purposes without the need for identified victims to identify victims . This is especially valuable in cases where a victim does identify to a church authority but explicitly does not want police involvement. 793

It was put to Father Lucas that in this media release Father Lucas was thinking in multiples - that Farrell did not name any names and no victims are named in the letter. Father Lucas said that Farrell did not name multiple incidents (of wrongdoing) at the meeting, and he referred to multiple incidents in his media release ‘because this is a response to what was alleged in the letter’. 794

Father Lucas gave the following evidence on why he removed the reference to Farrell being ‘cautious not to incriminate himself’ from the second and third version of his media release:

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

167

Q. Presumably you removed it because you were uncertain about whether or not he was cautious about incriminating himself?

A. Well - or someone told me to take it out, but I don’t -

Q. How could someone tell you to take out something that was your recollection about a meeting?

A. Well, it is how much you put in. You’re writing a press release; you’re not writing a transcript of everything and it is how much you say and how you say it.

Q. So it wasn’t considered to be in your interests to put that in the press release, presumably?

A. I wouldn’t have disputed it and I said it on air and I was happy to say it on air. 795

It was put to Father Lucas that the correct position would have been for him to say, ‘I don’t agree with the letter’. Father Lucas responded:

Well, that’s not the way in which I approached the media in the context of the letter being in the public forum. I could have in hindsight said, ‘Well, let’s debate the content of the letter.’ At that stage, of course, with respect, I’m still somewhat - I mean, my recollection was there, but I still, at this stage, had not yet, by the time of this media release, spoken to Wayne about his letter. 796

Father Lucas was asked how his evidence to the Royal Commission could be reconciled with what he wrote in the media release. Father Lucas said, ‘I think it’s a matter of a different context. This media release is in the context of responding to media agitation about the Wayne Peters letter, not about the meeting itself’. 797

The following exchange took place:

Q. You’re talking about your recollection of the meeting; that’s about the meeting itself.

A. No. The second part, he did not name any victims -

Q. No, in this statement you’re saying this is your recollection, ‘My recollection of the meeting’; you’re putting into the public domain what you say is the true recollection you have of the meeting?

A. And he did not name any names in that meeting.

Report of Case Study No. 44

168

Q. I know, but the point I raised with you, and you know what it is, is that you referred here to multiple victims, not just the one lad [REDACTED].

A. Well, that assumes that there were victims. He did not name any victims. I’m not assuming that there were victims; I’m saying he did not name any -

Q. Father Lucas, you’re saying your recollection is that in acknowledging wrongdoing, he did not name any victims.

A. I don’t draw the conclusion that he was saying that there were other victims; that’s not my recollection. I’m responding within the context of a letter saying that he mentioned other victims. He didn’t name them; that’s the context of my response. 798

Father Lucas’ interview on the AM program

On 6 July 2012, Father Lucas was interviewed by Mr Tony Eastley of ABC’s AM program. 799

Father Lucas said the following in relation to his recollection of the first meeting:

TONY EASTLEY: Okay, let me stop you there. So did Father F then admit, as Four Corners has revealed this week, to molesting five altar boys in Moree around the age of 10 or 11?

BRIAN LUCAS: My recollection is not as specific as that. There was a very generalised discussion with him. He was certainly very, very cautious not to incriminate himself and very, very careful not to name any names.800

Father Lucas said the following in relation to Father Peters’ letter dated 11 September 1992:

TONY EASTLEY: Now in an excerpt from that report it says that he admitted over a period of approximately 12 months he fondled the genitals of each of these boys and performed oral sex on them. This was done on about a monthly basis over a period of 12 months. Is that report correct?

BRIAN LUCAS: As I said my recollection doesn’t go to that level of detail.

TONY EASTLEY: But generally speaking, I think you’ve said that this Father F admitted he’d been a naughty boy or a bad boy.

BRIAN LUCAS: I think it was then he’d been a bad boy. This is criminal and wicked behavior but to take the matter further with the police of course you need to have some names of who these men were and those men today ought to go to a police station and report this abuse so that justice can be done. 801

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

169

Father Lucas accepted that he had described Farrell as having engaged in ‘criminal and wicked behavior’. He gave the following evidence about this description:

I think the way Tony Eastley put it was sort of a flippant comment, ‘So he’d admitted he was a bad boy’. Well, we’re not talking about someone who was a bad boy; we’re talking about someone about whom there are allegations and a court case about very wicked and criminal behaviour. 802

Father Lucas gave evidence that it had always been his view that Farrell’s behaviour was ‘criminal and wicked’. 803 He accepted that he had not expressed it before in these terms, and he gave further evidence:

but that was in response to an apparent put-down, ‘So he admitted he’d been a naughty boy’. I mean, that’s just a ridiculous suggestion, so I responded accordingly. 804

Interview with Mr Whitlam QC

In his interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Father Lucas said:

the Wayne Peters letter is a puzzlement to me, on two levels: one, the detail of it; but the fact that, in the context of Four Corners, he didn’t circulate that letter to John and I to refresh our memories. But John, in my conversations with John when we were negotiating the Four Corners response, when this came out in the program, was quite definitive that the correct wording was to say that he didn’t make any admissions of a specific nature, and that seems to accord with John’s own handwritten note. 805

… I think reading the first Peters letter, what struck me was that it wasn’t a complete confession, because of these other things we now know about that aren’t referred to - no reference to CPK at all. 806

13.3 Evidence to the Royal Commission

Bishop Manning’s note of conversation with Farrell on 1 September 1992

Counsel Assisting took Father Lucas to Bishop Manning’s handwritten note of a conversation he had with Farrell on 1 September 1992 - two days before the first meeting. 807 That note is set out earlier.

Report of Case Study No. 44

170

Father Lucas agreed ‘on the assumption that [Farrell] was telling the truth’ that, by two days before their meeting, Farrell had shown a preparedness to admit to a range of what was clearly criminal conduct in relation to the reference to ‘fourteen years apiece’. 808 He said it was a ‘puzzlement’ to him why Bishop Manning recorded that he did not question Farrell further about those matters and why he did not call off the meeting between Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters ‘having got exactly what he wanted from us’. 809 He said:

There would be no reason for us to have to meet with us any further if Bishop Manning had from him, as his Bishop, those explicit admissions. I can’t understand or explain that. 810

Father Lucas agreed that withdrawing Farrell’s faculties was what Bishop Manning could do to immediately remove him from being associated with being a priest in the public eye. Father Lucas agreed that the next step was laicisation and to begin what is known to be a lengthy process. 811 Father Lucas accepted that laicisation, at that stage, was virtually impossible without the consent of the priest concerned. However, he said that it depended on the circumstances. 812

It was put to Father Lucas that the reality facing the bishop was that, if Farrell was to be removed from the Church, he had to be persuaded to agree. Father Lucas disagreed and said that the bishop could have put a decree of suspension on Farrell. When the Chair pressed Father Lucas as to whether Farrell had to effectively consent to being reverted to the lay state, he responded, ‘It would have been very difficult to have had a canonical trial’. 813

Father Lucas agreed that it was clear that Farrell was reluctant to accept the plan put to him for leaving ministry. He accepted that the purpose of the second and third meetings was to persuade him that that was the best course of action for him. 814

Counsel Assisting then put to Father Lucas that, regardless of whether or not Farrell made those admissions, the process was still necessary in order to persuade Farrell out. Father Lucas responded:

No, the process - if he’d have made those admissions, what I’m calling ‘the five-year plan’ would have been ridiculous. We had the admission of very, very serious conduct that would have grounded the suspension by the Bishop.

Q. When you say ‘the suspension by the Bishop’, what would be the effect of a suspension?

A. That he would be completely removed from every public ministry.

Q. Wasn’t that the effect, anyway - he was removed public ministry?

A. Yes.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

171

Q. So, in effect, the Bishop had gone as far as he could. He needed you, because that’s what you did, to move him further towards the laicisation path, which you did via a plan?

A. Yes.815

Monsignor Usher’s note dated 6 September 1992

Monsignor Usher’s note of 6 September 1992 is set out above. It referred to Farrell being unrepentant about the sexual misconduct of children.

Father Lucas gave evidence that Farrell’s sexual misconduct with children was raised at the meeting. 816 He said, ‘That’s the whole point of what the meeting was about, yes’. 817 Father Lucas further said that Farrell was unrepentant about it, and ‘That was certainly my impression’. 818

Father Lucas’ explanation of the ‘admissions’

Father Lucas told us it made ‘no sense’ to him that Farrell would have made admissions as stated in Father Peters’ letter. He gave the following evidence:

To my recollection, and on my oath, I have to say that I simply do not remember him stating he wanted to make admissions, because people didn’t do that and if they did do it, you’d have remorse and upset and drama about what we do next, which doesn’t accord with anything that happened subsequently. I’d have to say if all that stood was this letter, I’d have to confess that my recollection was fundamentally flawed. I have poured over this and poured over it in the context of everything else that was said. It makes no sense to me that he would have made those admissions. 819

It was put to Father Lucas that Father Peters could not have made up the admissions. Father Lucas suggested in response that Father Peters may have ‘got information from elsewhere’. 820

Father Lucas responded to the proposition that that was very difficult to accept:

Look, I’d have to say on my oath, your Honour, my first reaction, when I saw this, was to send a message to John Usher, ‘This does not accord with my recollection.’ I absolutely agree, those words, if said to me, would be something I would not forget. Now, I can’t explain - and I’ve looked at this every which way. I cannot explain why Wayne wrote those words and then we carried on with this the way we did. Why he never said anything to us about this letter, it makes no sense to me. I’ve poured over it every way and I’m sorry, I just cannot make sense of it. 821

Report of Case Study No. 44

172

Father Lucas went on to say that, if Farrell had said the words recorded in Father Peters’ letter, there would have been no need for a second meeting or the five-year plan .822

Father Lucas gave evidence that it ‘certainly was his impression’ that ‘right through’ the first meeting it was not clear if Farrell was telling the truth:

Well, he was very defensive about everything, is my recollection. There was reference to the boys in Moree that he said were all making up lies and telling lies about him, were out to get him, and things like that, that, to me, didn’t seem to necessarily ring true, and it took some time, in my recollection, before we finally got to a point where either, as I said, by my surmising from the demeanour or what he did say, or whatever he said, that the dismissal of the case in Narrabri was unsafe; that something had happened with that young man. So in the whole process I was never sure what was - whether it was fantasy or truth. He just was very defensive and evasive is my impression [of] his demeanour. 823

It is clear that Father Lucas has given various conflicting accounts of what occurred at the first meeting. The accounts differ in material respects, and his evidence to us as to those differences is not credible.

First, he told Mr Davoren in 2001 that the information from the interview he and Monsignor Usher had with Farrell would be ‘conclusive evidence against him canonically’.

We do not doubt that the admissions set out in the first letter would be conclusive evidence upon which to commence canonical proceedings. However, it would be surprising if the ‘surmise’ Father Lucas claimed to have made in evidence that he suspected that the outcome of the court case concerning one boy was unsafe would be sufficient to commence canonical proceedings.

We have received extensive evidence about the reluctance of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith -the department of the Roman Curia that currently has jurisdiction over cases of child sexual abuse by clergy - to laicise even when there has been a conviction. We seriously doubt that the level of suspicion Father Lucas said he had would be sufficient to persuade them to laicise Farrell.

Second, his draft and final media statements differ from his account to Four Corners . The releases refer to Farrell acknowledging wrongdoing and refer to more than one victim. Father Lucas gave evidence to us that he ‘surmised’ Farrell’s wrongdoing was in relation to the boy the subject of the charges which were dismissed.

He told Four Corners that Farrell was not specific with respect to any admissions. He told us that that comment to Four Corners referred only to the boy the subject of the Narrabri court case.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

173

Third, he accepted that his response to Four Corners was not true insofar as he implied that there were rumours only, when there were complaints.

Finally, he told ABC AM program that Farrell had engaged in ‘criminal and wicked behaviour’ and said that ‘to take the matter further with the police … you need to have some names of who these men were’. 824 Again, this differed from his account to Four Corners and his account to us. Use of the plural ‘men’ is acknowledgement of admissions by Farrell in respect of more than one victim.

We do not consider Father Lucas’ evidence as to what occurred at the first meeting to be credible.

13.4 Monsignor Usher’s accounts

As indicated above, Monsignor Usher wrote two notes in his journal; had email exchanges about and with the Four Corners program; made a file note for Cardinal Pell; and made three statements, two taken by the archdiocese’s solicitors and one taken by the police. He has been interviewed by the archdiocesan solicitors, and a file note was made of that interview. He has been interviewed by Mr Whitlam QC, and a transcript was made. Finally, he gave evidence to us on 21 September 2016 and 22 September 2016.

His first statement was dated 6 July 2012 (the July 2012 statement). In evidence to us, Monsignor Usher initially could not recall why the statement was written. 825 It was put to Monsignor Usher that the statement was prepared in anticipation that Four Corners may publicly air allegations involving him, but Monsignor Usher could not recall whether this was the case. However, he did accept that one of the issues that Four Corners raised was that he had knowledge of admissions that Farrell had made. He said that ‘it may well be right’ that this statement was being prepared as a riposte to that suggestion. He conceded ‘it does look like that’.826

The second statement was dated 25 September 2012 (the September 2012 statement), and it arose in the following circumstances.

Monsignor Usher initially agreed that it was likely that someone interviewed him, prepared the statement and provided him with a draft which he would have looked over. He said that he ‘wouldn’t have noticed inconsistencies’ because it was a ‘very tense time’ for him. 827 Monsignor Usher later agreed that Ms Cook, a lawyer from the Chancery Office of the Archdiocese of Sydney, prepared the statement 828 with assistance from Mr do Rozario of Corrs Chambers Westgarth.829

Report of Case Study No. 44

174

Monsignor Usher said he was shown a bundle of documents ‘a few days before his meeting with Mr Whitlam’.830 After initially giving evidence that the Archdiocese of Sydney had shown him documents, 831 he later said he did not know whether the bundle of documents was prepared by Mr Whitlam QC and his advisers or by his own legal advisers. 832 Monsignor Usher agreed that he would have read the draft statement before he signed it. Monsignor Usher was asked if he adopted it as a true recollection of what happened. He said:

As best I could, your Honour, yes, but, you know, we’re talking about recollecting 25 years ago, then influenced by a bundle of documents that had been put in front of me that I had not seen before. 833

He said it was still his ‘best effort’ of a true recollection of what happened. 834

Monsignor Usher gave a police statement signed 12 May 2016 (the May 2016 police statement), which he said was made in the context of an investigation by the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to whether he and others had failed to report matters in relation to Farrell to the police.835

Monsignor Usher’s knowledge of Dr Blaszczynski at the first meeting

Two issues arise out of paragraph 9 of his July 2012 statement set out above, which is in similar terms to paragraph 38 of his September 2012 statement. The first concerns whether Monsignor Usher knew of Dr Blaszczynski’s opinion before or during the meeting.

Monsignor Usher told us that ‘it was during the meeting that [he] asked Farrell about his meetings with Professor Blaszczynski’ and that he did not know about that beforehand. 836

This evidence contrasts with paragraph 9 of his July 2012 statement and paragraph 38 of his September 2012 statement, which states:

[38] ... My understanding was that we had been asked to meet with Farrell because the Bishop had removed his faculties and further that the Bishop had been advised by Dr Blazynski [sic] that Farrell was unsuitable to continue as a priest, however Farrell had not made any admissions of wrongdoing to Dr Blazynski [sic]. The Bishop was seeking advice as to what should happen to Farrell, who was asking to be allowed back as a priest to the Armidale Diocese.837

A second issue arises from Monsignor Usher’s reference to admissions of criminal behaviour not having been made to Dr Blaszczynski.

In his July 2012 statement he said, ‘There is no evidence that Farrell made any admission of criminal behaviour to Dr Brazinski [sic] in spite of the fact that he met with [him on] a number of occasions’. 838 He made a similar statement at paragraph 38, as set out above.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

175

When asked by Counsel Assisting why he wrote that line, he said that the only ‘sense [he] could make of it’ was that he thought that he was given some documents before his interview with Mr Whitlam QC which related to ‘Alex Blaszczynski’s response and all of that sort of stuff’. 839

Monsignor Usher conceded that there was no evidence that Dr Blaszczynski gave advice concerning ‘personality issues’ or that he commented on whether admissions had been made by Farrell to Bishop Manning. 840 Monsignor Usher did not know where he got this information from. 841

It was put to Monsignor Usher that that line was inserted into his statement as part of a riposte to one of the issues raised by Four Corners - that he had knowledge of admissions that Farrell had made. Monsignor Usher responded, ‘It looks like it; I mean, all I can say is it seems that way’.842

Monsignor Usher agreed that this line was also a riposte to the suggestion that Monsignor Usher effectively ‘covered up’. He agreed that that was ‘probably’ why it was there. 843

Monsignor Usher conceded that, to the extent that his July and September 2012 statements suggest that he knew that there had been no admissions made to Dr Blaszczynski before the meeting on 3 September 2012, they are wrong. 844 He agreed that there were certain elements of each statement in relation to timing which are wrong. 845

We are satisfied that paragraph 9 of Monsignor Usher’s July statement, which states his understanding that Dr Blaszczynski had advised Bishop Manning that Farrell was unsuitable as a priest given personality issues at the time, was not accurate.

Dr Blaszczynski did not give that advice. We are satisfied that Monsignor Usher included this line in his statement to limit his understanding of the problems with Farrell to ‘personality issues’. In doing so, he sought to distance himself from any knowledge that Farrell’s problems related to child sexual abuse allegations.

We are also satisfied that that same paragraph which states there is no evidence that Farrell made any admission of criminal behaviour to Dr Blaszczynski is not accurate. We are satisfied that Monsignor Usher included that in his statement to respond to one of the issues raised in the Four Corners episode that screened four days earlier - that he had knowledge of admissions that Farrell had made and that he had effectively covered up those admissions.

Farrell’s meeting with Bishop Manning on 1 September 1992

Bishop Manning’s 1 September file note of his discussion with Farrell is set out earlier in this report. Monsignor Usher accepted to us that that file note was a record of Farrell effectively having told Bishop Manning that a boy could have charged him on ‘another count’ and was

Report of Case Study No. 44

176

therefore an admission that that he had interfered with the boy. 846 Monsignor Usher agreed that Farrell was prepared to acknowledge to his bishop that there was a boy who could have charged him.847

In relation to the reference to Farrell telling Bishop Manning there were ‘three other incidents which could have brought him “fourteen years apiece”’, Monsignor Usher accepted this was likely to have been a reflection on the sentence that may have been available in relation to those charges or those incidents. 848 Monsignor Usher accepted that, two days before the first meeting, Farrell told the bishop there were other incidents that were so serious that he could have been jailed for up to 14 years. 849

Monsignor Usher accepted that it was not inconceivable that, given Farrell had this conversation with the bishop a few days earlier, he made the admissions that Father Peters recorded in his report. 850 However, Monsignor Usher said that this surprised him and, ‘If this, and it is, a true record of a conversation that Kevin Manning had with Farrell, why did he send [Farrell] to talk to us?’.851

Counsel Assisting put to Monsignor Usher that, if it was Bishop Manning’s aim to get Farrell out of the priesthood, he wanted those people whom he knew did that sort of work to speak with him. Monsignor Usher responded, ‘Yes, but this should have been disclosed to us’. Monsignor Usher said that, if this had been disclosed to them, it would have been reported to police at the time. 852

Monsignor Usher agreed that Bishop Manning had no reason not to tell them about his conversation with Farrell. He gave the following evidence on this point:

Oh, I thought he did, because I thought that he was talking to us about getting his Bishop to agree to his re-admission to ministry. Why would Kevin Manning agree to his re-admission if Kevin knew all that. That’s all bizarre to me.

Q. That’s a matter for Bishop Manning?

A. Yes.853

Monsignor Usher agreed that it was the case that in those days you needed the priest’s consent to go down the laicisation path; therefore, they had to work out ways to move the person on, even if it was incrementally. Monsignor Usher said, ‘the laicisation part was best achieved if the priest himself applied for it’.854 He accepted that one could do that by offering the priest various incentives, or even inducements, to ultimately go by putting it on a short-term basis.855 Monsignor Usher said it was ‘not inconceivable’ that the bishop knew these matters and handed it over to get rid of him. 856

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

177

Monsignor Usher accepted that the limit to what the bishop could do in relation to Farrell was, effectively, to withdraw his faculties - and this was what Bishop Manning ‘had done’. He agreed that Bishop Manning had gone as far as he could. 857

When Counsel Assisting put to Monsignor Usher that it was clear in Bishop Manning’s mind that he was not going to have Farrell back, and he needed a process by which Farrell would be persuaded to leave, Monsignor Usher said:

Ms Furness, you could well be right, but they’re not the sort of writing instructions I understood that that meeting was about, and the - except that that later interview, you know, in 2012, whenever it was, with Wayne Peters where he said, ‘I was determined to put this bloke on ice’, makes me think that maybe this was in Wayne’s head and the Bishop’s head, but Brian and I were not aware of that.

Q. If you go back to his letter, he refers to what he says Farrell told him in quotations. We’ll have that -

A. It’s all right, I know what you mean.

Q. You do?

A. Yes.

Q. Are you suggesting that he made up a quote from Farrell to put in the letter to make it more believable?

A. I’m not suggesting anything like that, but that’s possible.

Q. You know that Father Peters was asked whether or not he had conflated other events in his mind which resulted in that letter. You understand he has been asked that?

A. Yes.

Q. And he has denied that?

A. I think that’s part of the reason he wrote the letter, but that’s beside the point.

Q. But you understand he was asked that by Mr Whitlam?

A. Yes.

Q. And he said he stood by the letter as being accurate?

Report of Case Study No. 44

178

A. Yes.

Q. So notwithstanding that he has denied what you’ve suggested he did, you maintain that that’s the most likely explanation?

A. I have to, yes.858

Monsignor Usher agreed that clearly the idea was to get Farrell out of the priesthood through Father Lucas’ seven-point plan, which was presented to Farrell at the second meeting. 859 However, Monsignor Usher said that, if this were the case, ‘why would we put in that plan that … he’d take a period of leave … but must attend therapy, and an appointment back in ministry would not be considered until he completed some therapy and he got a positive statement from the therapist’. He did not agree that they were ‘stringing him along’ to ‘get him to agree’.860

Knowledge before the first meeting

As set out above, Monsignor Usher prepared a report for Father Peters about Farrell in 1990. He also recommended to Father Peters that Dr Blaszczynski be engaged to provide therapy for Farrell.

Monsignor Usher said in his July 2012 statement:

[8] My next involvement with Farrell was in 1992. I was aware that Bishop Heather had withdrawn Farrell’s mandate to act as a priest in the Diocese of Parramatta, and that Bishop Manning, the Bishop of Armidale had withdrawn Farrell’s faculties as a priest. I was aware there were ongoing problems with Farrell. I was not aware of the specifics of those problems.

[9] I met with Farrell in 1992 in my capacity as a member of the Special Issues Resource Group for the Province of Sydney, along with Fr Brian Lucas (who was also a member of the Special Issues Resource Group) and Fr Peters, who was attending as an observer for the purposes of advising Bishop Manning in relation to Farrell. I understood that Dr Brazinski [sic] had advised Bishop Manning that Farrell was unsuitable to continue as a priest, given personality issues at the time. There is no evidence that Farrell made any admission of criminal behaviour to Dr Brazinski [sic] in spite of the fact that he met with [him on] a number of occasions.

[10] I do not have a specific recollection as to how that meeting came about, however it is likely that Bishop Manning contacted Fr Lucas and asked that the Special Issues Resource Group interview Farrell, because Bishop Manning needed more information in order to have Farrell laicised. 861

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

179

Monsignor Usher gave evidence to us that the ‘ongoing problems’ he was referring to in paragraph [8] of his statement were that:

there were rumours about him, that he was not popular, that … he was a difficult man to live with and to deal with … I found out way back in 1990 when I interviewed him, that the priests were talking about him and he didn’t like the priests and all of that sort of stuff … And he was critical of the bishops and he was just unusual. 862

Monsignor Usher told us that he was approached to attend the first meeting by Father Lucas on the Sunday before the meeting. 863

He said the extent of the briefing he received from Father Lucas was, ‘Bishop Manning wants to know if Farrell should be readmitted to ministry’. 864 Monsignor Usher was not given a briefing by Father Peters. 865 Monsignor Usher said that Bishop Manning did not speak to him before the meeting. 866 He was not given a package of documents to read. 867

Monsignor Usher gave evidence that he did not have a discussion with Father Lucas when he rang him, or at some point before the meeting, about the object of the meeting. He conceded that ‘maybe [he] should have, but he did not’. 868 He agreed that it was ‘very odd’ to be called to a meeting which had been arranged by the Bishop of Armidale and not to understand what they were trying to achieve. 869

Counsel Assisting submitted to us that Monsignor Usher’s evidence that he was not told the purpose of the first meeting and not given any background should be rejected.

It was submitted on behalf of Monsignor Usher that ‘Monsignor Usher must have had an understanding of the purpose of the meeting. What he attempted to make clear in his evidence to the Commission was that he could not “recall being told anything before the meeting”’. 870

We agree he must have had such an understanding. He knew that Farrell had had his faculties withdrawn, he knew there had been allegations of child sexual abuse against him and he knew that Bishop Manning was seeking advice on whether to allow Farrell back as a priest.

Further, we know that Monsignor Usher had interviewed Farrell only two years prior and had reported to Father Peters his ‘grave concerns’ about Farrell’s ongoing need to spend time with children. With that knowledge, and having regard to his role with SIRG, we are satisfied that Monsignor Usher understood that the meeting related to concerns about Farrell’s sexual misconduct conduct with children.

Report of Case Study No. 44

180

The first meeting

Monsignor Usher’s 3 September 1992 note

Monsignor Usher made a note in his journal the morning after the first meeting. 871 He dated the note 3 September 1992 and wrote:

3/9/92

7.30pm - Met with Brian Lucas, Wayne Peters and John Farrell. Farrell is unrepentant about his sexual misconduct with children in my opinion. He states that he is open to therapy, but I doubt his veracity. I will recommend to the Bishop that he be suspended and that reinstatement be conditional upon his willingness to such therapy at his own cost and to comply with the therapeutic process. 872

In his May 2016 police statement, he stated the following about his 3 September note:

[17] In my notes dated 3/1992 from the first meeting with FARRELL and Reverends LUCAS and PETERS I make note that ‘FARRELL is unrepentant regarding his sexual misconduct with children’. I believe that this comment is in relation to the Narrabri court matter as it was the only matter that I was aware of regarding FARRELL. I can surmise that the note referred FARRELL’S [sic] inappropriate boundary violations concerning his ongoing contact with children at the time when boundaries surrounding priests and their contact with children had already undergone major changes at this time. 873

Monsignor Usher told us that his note was an accurate ‘aide-memoire’ of the meeting. 874

He said that the expression ‘sexual misconduct’ referred to Farrell saying at the first meeting that ‘he loves to spend time with children; he loves to take children to the pictures and on drives’. He said that, if he had been talking about sexual abuse or a sexual crime, he would have said that.875

It was put to Monsignor Usher that the conduct he described to us was not ‘sexual misconduct’. Monsignor Usher responded, ‘Well, that’s the way I describe it, sorry’. 876

Monsignor Usher told us that taking children to the movies was sexual misconduct: ‘What we would call a boundary violation, and you would be in big trouble for doing it.’ 877 He agreed that the word ‘boundary violation’ did not appear there because it is a more modern concept. 878

Monsignor Usher agreed you could not get therapy for boundary violation: ‘No, you can get rapped over the knuckles and don’t do it again.’ 879

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

181

Monsignor Usher was asked why he recorded a reference to therapy in relation to his sexual misconduct with children. Monsignor Usher responded with the following evidence:

I’m saying he’s not open - I doubt whether he would persevere with therapy, because at that meeting he indicated to me, or to the three of us, that he had not found his time with Professor Blaszczynski very helpful and he didn’t like Blaszczynski, and all that sort of stuff.

Q. But you say the sexual misconduct he was talking about was not the sort of conduct that’s amenable to therapy; is that what you’re saying?

A. No.

Q. You get a rap over the knuckles but it is not a matter for therapy?

A. No, that’s right. But I’m talking about his whole personality. I mean, I don’t say it there - it was just simply an aide-memoire - but I thought the man needed therapy. 880

Monsignor Usher said that the word ‘repentant’ was an ‘old Catholic word’. He said, ‘it means he’s not sorry for all of that’: 881

He’s not sorry for being close to children and saying that he’s the only one, and saying how he’s right and everyone else is wrong. He was not sorry for any of that. 882

When asked why Farrell would need to repent about having children in his car, Monsignor Usher said it was because he ‘thought it was wrong and inappropriate’. 883

Monsignor Usher accepted that not being repentant about sexual misconduct may be interpreted as consistent with the way Father Peters recorded Farrell as speaking at the meeting on 3 September 1992, but he did not accept that this was the case in his mind. 884

Monsignor Usher’ account he gave in his May 2016 police statement is different from his evidence before the Royal Commission. 885

Monsignor Usher agreed that the Narrabri matter, which he referred to in his 2016 police statement, was a charge of sexual assault of one form or another. 886 The following exchange with Counsel Assisting occurred:

Q. You have just told us it [the note] was in relation to boundary violations and you were using sexual misconduct to mean boundary violations. That’s not what you told the police, Father, is it?

A. Probably not.

Report of Case Study No. 44

182

Q. What you told the police is that you were, effectively, using the term ‘sexual misconduct’ to mean conduct that could, and in this case did, amount to a criminal offence?

A. That was not my intention.

Q. You signed this a few months ago?

A. I know, but I went on and say about the boundary violations in the same paragraph.

Q. You did, but you begin by saying, ‘I believe that this comment is in relation to’?

A. Could I put it in this context? My thinking then and now is the only thing I knew at the time was about the one matter that he’d gone to court for, that’s Narrabri, that’s all I knew. After that, I met with him in 1990. He denied - he went on to tell me what people had accused him of, but he denied committing an offence.

Q. And that was in 1990?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that right?

A. Yes, and what I’m saying is that’s what I did become aware of and what he did not deny is the fact that he liked to take kids for drives in his car and he loved kids and other priests were not as close to children as they should be and children loved him, all that sort of stuff. 887

Monsignor Usher’s 10 September 1992 notes of his conversation with Bishop Manning

On 10 September 1992, Monsignor Usher spoke to Bishop Manning. He recorded in a diary entry:

10.00: Spoke to Kevin Manning (rang me earlier at home). I advised him that after speaking to John Farrell, I believe that he should be told to seek secular work outside the church for 3 - 5 years. During this time he should seek therapeutic treatment with a therapist of Manning’s choice but at Farrell’s cost. If at the end of this treatment some real admission of contrition and maladjustment is made, then, and only then would his role in the Diocese of Armidale be considered. 888

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

183

File note prepared by John Usher dated 6 June 2012

On 6 June 2012, Monsignor Usher prepared a file note for Cardinal Pell titled, ‘4 Corners interview with Cardinal Pell’. In relation to Farrell, he wrote:

Farrell Case

There was an important case involving a priest from the Diocese of Armidale (Fr John Farrell). He was arrested and appeared before the court. He was acquitted. The new Bishop of Armidale, then Bishop Kevin Manning, asked Frs Peters, Lucas and Usher to interview Fr Farrell to assess whether he should be allowed to continue as an Armidale Priest, even though the court had acquitted him of charges. The three priests who interviewed Farrell, aware that he had been acquitted by the court, and aware that he could not be tried again in relation to the same matter, made an assessment, after interviewing him, that he was not a fit person to continue as an active priest. Although he made no admissions, he was judged to be a person who, on the balance of probabilities, could become too closely involved with children and young people. The interviewing priests advised Bishop Manning accordingly and Farrell was stood down from active ministry. 889

Monsignor Usher gave evidence to us that the reference to Farrell not making any admissions was ‘probably’ in the file note set out above because he understood from the Broken Rites website that it was an issue. However, he said that, ‘more importantly’, he had spoken with Fathers Lucas and Peters and they all ‘had no recollection of [Farrell] making admissions’. 890

Email to Four Corners

As set out above, on 31 May 2012 Father Lucas forwarded to Monsignor Usher the email he had received along with the article from Broken Rites website.

Monsignor Usher said two of the handwritten annotations on the article - the letters ‘JU’ and the question mark - were made by him. 891 He said he often marked a document with a question mark if he disagreed with it. 892

On 29 June 2012, Monsignor Usher replied to an email from Ms Jolley of Four Corners (set out above and dated 28 June 2012), describing the first meeting in the following terms:

I was present with Frs Lucas and Peters at the meeting with John Farrell in 1992, that you referred to.

I have, on behalf of the Archdiocese of Sydney, had a policy of reporting any disclosures of criminal conduct to the New South Wales Police and, when required, to the Department of Community Services. This was a practice prior to the 1990’s.

Report of Case Study No. 44

184

I can state that Farrell made no personal disclosures of criminal behavior during the meeting in September 1992. There was, therefore, nothing that could be reported to the NSW police and hence no report was made by us. 893

Monsignor Usher was asked why he inserted the word ‘personal’. The following exchange took place:

THE CHAIR: Q. Why did you insert the word ‘personal’?

A. Well, I’m talking about him - him. Because he -

Q. Well, you were obviously talking about him?

A. No, no, no.

Q. But were you seeking to distinguish -

A. No, but he did talk about other people in the interview. He didn’t name them, but he did talk about other - what other people do.

Q. So he told you about other people’s criminal behaviour?

A. No, no. Well, he didn’t say who they were, but he went on and talked about what paedophiles do and all sorts of things like that. But I’m saying, about himself, he didn’t - that’s the distinction I’m trying to make. Whether it confuses the matter or not - I’m sorry if it does.

MS FURNESS: Q. And the reference to ‘criminal behaviour’ is similar to what you have described before - it didn’t make the criteria of a crime?

A. Mmm, yes.894

Monsignor Usher’s July 2012 statement

In his statement, Monsignor Usher said the following in relation to his recollection of the first meeting:

[11] Fr Lucas, Fr Peters and I met with Farrell at St Mary’s Presbytery at 7:30pm on 3 September 1992. The meeting probably lasted a couple of hours; it was not a short meeting. My recollection is that Farrell’s conduct at that meeting was extremely bizarre. It was clear to me that he had a psychiatric disorder. Farrell was keen to tell us that he was sexually active and that he was bisexual. He admitted that he spent time with young people and liked boys and girls. He admitted to fantasising about sex

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

185

including sex with young people. I cannot specifically remember, but it is quite possible that I sought to draw Farrell out about both his actual conduct and his sexual fantasies, so as to better understand him. Farrell’s response was rambling and it was not possible to ascertain whether he was speaking about actual or imagined conduct. I got the impression that Farrell became aroused by telling sexual stories and it was not clear whether those stories were true or figments of his imagination. It was clear to me that Farrell was a very disturbed man. Farrell was unapologetic about the unusual matters that he alluded to and said things like ‘I am just a normal bloke’. He would laugh indicating that he was endeavoring to make us feel uncomfortable. I constantly needed to remind him that these were serious matters that we were discussing. 895

[12] I remember that Fr Peters, Fr Lucas and I were each confused as to what Farrell was telling us and were having difficulty separating fact from fiction. I recall that we broke from our meeting with Farrell on at least one occasion to separately meet in the absence of Farrell, to discuss what we had heard. My strong recollection is that Farrell included information of boundary violations involving children (e.g. travelling alone with them in motor vehicles, taking them to the movies or on country outings etc ...). It was also clear that Farrell found this conduct sexually gratifying. Farrell did not provide any information relating to sexual contact with specific children, or of any actual criminal conduct. We were looking for evidence that we could give to Bishop Manning in relation to the actions that should be taken against Farrell. Fr Lucas and I would have been alert to any matters that constituted information specific enough for us to report to police. There was nothing to hang our hats on apart from the ravings of a sexually maladjusted creep … 896

Monsignor Usher gave evidence to the Royal Commission that, where he wrote ‘Farrell did not provide any information relating to sexual contact with specific children’, this was consistent with what Father Peters had in his letter. 897

Meeting with representatives of the Archdiocese of Sydney

Monsignor Usher’s account to the representatives of the Archdiocese of Sydney is set out earlier. In that account Monsignor Usher is recorded as agreeing with Father Peters that he was not clear if Farrell was telling the truth.

Monsignor Usher’s September 2012 statement

In relation to the first meeting, Monsignor Usher said the following in his September 2012 statement:

Report of Case Study No. 44

186

[40] My recollection is that Farrell spoke in much the same manner that he had, in my interview with him two years earlier. He considered that the people that had accused him of sexual assault were stupid and wrong. In the meeting, we did discuss some very explicit rumours that were circulating about Farrell in the Diocese of Armidale. He told us of the accusations that had been made against him in explicit details. These details were already known to the NSW police. My recollection is that Farrell raised the issues himself and said words to the effect of ‘this is what people are saying about me’. My recollection is that Farrell unequivocally stated that the rumours were not true. He denied the allegations that had been made against him in [REDACTED] case and any other allegations that were made against him. It was a ‘they are all wrong and I am right’ type of conversation.

[41] One of the questions I often asked, from my experience as a counsellor, when assessing people, was for them to explain or describe their sexual fantasies, so that I was better able, from the answer they provided, to understand their sexual tendencies. I asked this question of Farrell, in light of his demeanour and behaviour in the interview. I recall that Farrell spoke in some detail about his sexual fantasies, and he went on and on. Farrell did speak about homosexual sex, heterosexual sex, and sex with children as part of his fantasies. It appeared to me that Farrell found the recounting of his sexual fantasies as being arousing, and also that he was clearly looking to get a reaction out of us. I had to continually remind him that this was a serious interview. His response was rambling and he constantly referred back to himself as being ‘just a normal bloke’ and that ‘we all have these fantasies’. 898

He continued:

[43] … None of the discussions we had with Farrell related to particular people or events in Moree, Armidale or any other place. At the time I had no personal knowledge of the events that had occurred in Moree or the Interventions of other Armidale priests or the former Bishop. The discussion was much more general than that, which is one of the reasons that we had to break to discuss what Farrell was telling us. I recall us discussing what Farrell was telling us and whether, and if so which of, his ramblings related to matters of fact or of fantasy.

[44] We formed the view that he had certainly engaged in close contact with children and adults, such that there was a risk of sexual abuse. In relation to children, that included information of boundary violations (eg travelling alone in motor vehicles, taking them to the movies or on outings etc). I do not believe that Farrell made any admissions in relation to any of the abuse that was alleged against him in Armidale and Moree. Indeed, my recollection is that while he discussed the allegations made by [REDACTED] he continually denied any wrongdoing, and stated that any persons who asserted to the contrary were wrong, stupid or deluded.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

187

[45] Nevertheless, I formed the view that he could be a danger as a priest, based on my assessment of his personality. He was, in my view, a sexually maladjusted creep. The view I had formed of Farrell was not that he had necessarily committed sexual assaults, but that he did have personality characteristics consistent with him potentially being or becoming a paedophile. I considered that he needed ongoing therapy and treatment before any further role could be considered for him in the Church. 899

His July and September 2016 statements are silent as to Farrell talking about the criminal behaviour of others.

In his July 2016 statement, Monsignor Usher said the following in relation to Father Peters’ letter dated 11 September 1992:

[55] Annexure 8 is a letter that was apparently written by Fr Peters to Bishop Manning dated 11 September 1992. I first became aware of this letter when it was referred to on a 4 Corners program on 2 July 2012. I have since discussed this letter with Fr Peters.

[56] Fr Peters’ letter does not reflect my understanding or recollection of the matters that were discussed with Farrell on 3 September 1992. I note that Fr Peters’ letter is dated 11 September 1992, some 8 days after the meeting and the day after my telephone conversation with Bishop Manning.

[57] I also make the comment that although the letter is written on the letterhead of the Tribunal of the Catholic Church, and signed by Fr Wayne Peters as Judicial Vicar, it was not my understanding that the interview was being conducted for the purposes of any function of the Tribunal.

[58] Fr Peters’ letter contains what appear to be very specific admissions of wrongdoing. I am firm in my recollection that there were no admissions of that type, let alone of that specificity . In particular, I believe if the statements of sexual conduct as alleged in Fr Peters’ letter about the third to fifth children had been made by Farrell, I would have considered those matters as admissions of sexual assault and reported those matters to the police in communication with Fr Lucas. It is my recollection that Farrell was either describing the allegations that had been made against him or speaking about his sexual fantasies.

[59] There are a number of matters in Fr Wayne Peters’ letter that do coincide with my recollection. In particular we certainly did discuss the rumours that existed about Farrell’s conduct in the Northern Tablelands and the discussion of there being no statute of limitations regarding whether an allegation brought to the police could be prosecuted is consistent with my recollection; I believe that it was Fr Brian Lucas who made that point. As I stated above, I recall Farrell discussing heterosexual

Report of Case Study No. 44

188

relationships, but again I do not recall him providing information that was as specific as the information contained in Fr Wayne Peters’ letter. My recollection is that he was talking in generalities. 900

Evidence to Royal Commission about the September 2012 statement

Counsel Assisting took Monsignor Usher to the line in his September 2012 statement where he said, ‘we did discuss some very explicit rumours that were circulating about Farrell in the Diocese of Armidale’. Monsignor Usher was asked whether what was discussed in explicit terms was actually about what Farrell had done. He answered ‘Yes. Yes.’ He gave the following evidence:

Q. Do you remember what those rumours were now?

A. Oh, it was about - it was about him being with children and committing specific offences.

Q. So that was in relation to him with boys in Moree?

A. Yes.

Q. And fondling their genitals?

A. Yes.

Q. And that sort of conduct?

A. That sort of conduct.

Q. That’s the sort of conduct that’s in Father Peters’ letter, isn’t it?

A. That’s correct.

Q. He’s right insofar as he’s got that conduct in his letter in relation to Farrell?

A. That’s right.901

When Counsel Assisting asked Monsignor Usher whether Farrell said that he did those things, Monsignor Usher shifted his position from the evidence set out above and provided the caveat that Farrell said these things in the context of accusations that people had made about him:

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

189

Q. Farrell said that he did those things, in the interview?

A. No, he didn’t say he did those things. He was saying either that’s what he’s accused of, ‘This is the sort of thing people say about me and by the way, this is what people do’, but not - he was too smart to put his own name or his own - to say ‘I did these things’. It was very clever.

Q. He had very poor judgment?

A. I beg your pardon?

Q. Dr Blaszczynski said he had poor judgment?

A. He might have had poor judgment, but he was a very, very smart fellow. 902

It was put to Monsignor Usher that Farrell had made admissions to Bishop Manning only two days earlier. The following exchange took place:

THE CHAIR: We have already looked at the Bishop’s note of what he said to the Bishop two days earlier?

A. Yes, that puzzles me. I was not aware of that.

Q. You say that he’s too smart to have made admissions. That wasn’t the position with the Bishop, was it?

A. Yes. Can I say that I have been told that Farrell himself has made admissions over the years. He never made admissions in my presence, but I would suspect that making admissions to certain people at certain times he would have seen as an advantage. Don’t ask me what it was, but some people he made admissions to and others he made denials too. I’m trying to explain to you how weird this all is. 903

In his September 2012 statement Monsignor Usher referred to accusations in the plural: ‘He told us of the accusations that had been made against him in explicit details. These details were already known to the NSW police.’ 904 Monsignor Usher said he meant that ‘there may have been more than one accusation against the one boy [REDACTED]’. 905 Again, Monsignor Usher said that Farrell said these things in the context of them being accusations made against him:

What had - the question to him had been, on both occasions, ‘What had you been accused of?’ And he proceeded to tell us. And then another question was, ‘What are people saying about you?’ And he’d tell us that too. ‘What are the rumours about you?’906

Report of Case Study No. 44

190

Monsignor Usher subsequently gave the following evidence:

Q. It is the case then that he told you only of one incident or one or more incidents in relation to one boy?

A. That’s correct.

Q. He didn’t tell you of any others?

A. No.

Q. To the extent you’re talking in the plural, that’s not right?

A. No, I just presumed there might have been a number of allegations against the same boy.907

Monsignor Usher said he assumed that, because Farrell had been arrested and had gone to court, the police must have known about whatever he told them. 908

Interview with Mr Whitlam QC

In his interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Monsignor Usher said:

MONS USHER: … I’d met him before and we were talking to a man who was quite crazy. He was difficult to understand. It was difficult to understand what he was talking about, but I’m sure we asked him what it was that he had been accused of - not what he had done, because the court case was all over, but what he had been accused of - and he went on and on and on and on.

Now, I can understand how Wayne might write something like this in the light of what Farrell said, but I don’t recall him mentioning any names of people. I don’t recall him mentioning any places. I was certainly not aware of the whole Moree story. So it was a rambling about what people were saying about him, what people had accused him of.

As I said, it was my practice often in these interviews, to ask people what their sexual fantasies were and I suspect he went on and talked about that too. You know, in a sense, Wayne’s letter makes a bit of sense, but they weren’t - in my opinion, in my judgment, they weren’t admissions on the part of Farrell … 909

In his evidence to the Royal Commission, Monsignor Usher accepted that there was nothing in Father Peters’ letter that suggested Farrell had mentioned names of people during the meeting. 910

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

191

Contrary to his interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Monsignor Usher accepted that Farrell did refer to Moree and that Moree was clearly mentioned during the meeting. However, Monsignor Usher qualified that Farrell mentioned Moree because they had asked him what he had been accused of, as opposed to what he had done. 911

May 2016 police statement

In his May 2016 police statement Monsignor Usher said:

[15] I have been asked about the letter written by PETERS to Bishop MANNING regarding the meeting on the 3rd September 1992. The letter is dated 11th September 1992. …

[16] My recollection of the meeting was that FARRELL claimed that his problems were all of somebody else’s doing and that FARRELL was being victimized. This may have come out as a result of FARRELL speaking about the matters against him in court at Narrabri. I recall that both LUCAS and I left the room for a short period of time because it was like talking with a mad man and I certainly felt that I had to clear my head although I cannot recall now the exact reason. FARRELL’S thoughts were not lucid or in a chronological order. FARRELL made strange remarks about other priests and their alleged sexual orientations and misbehaviours.

[17] … I recall that when I arrived at the meeting FARRELL was already in the room and that we began the meeting, I do not recall at any stage being given a background of the meeting either verbal or written outside that Bishop MANNING wanted FARRELL’S suitability for a return to active ministry assessed, I do not recall FARRELL making any direct admissions to committing sexual offences on children and if he had done so, I would have reported the matters to the appropriate authorities. Prior to this meeting and post this meeting I reported a number of matters to the appropriate authorities. FARRELL did however talk about what he had been previously accused of and a lot of (what I thought were fantasies) about what peoples sexual aberrations were (in a general nature). He talked about a whole range of things that people said about him, and a lot of sexual things including sexual fantasies against children, which I think he did to get us to react. Father PETERS was aware of material relating to FARRELL which I was not privy to prior to the meeting. The only explanation that I can give as to why Father PETERS included FARRELL’s supposed admissions in his letter is that through his previous knowledge of FARRELL’s history, he was able to understand or put comment into a context that I was unable to. I had a lot of difficulty in comprehending and understanding a lot of what FARRELL was saying because he was jumping around between topics, and I had trouble assessing truth from fantasy. I have never been in a meeting like it, before or since. I can say that at the end of the meeting I was concerned that FARRELL was at the very least a serious risk of committing sexual offences and was not suitable to continue in an active ministry. 912

Report of Case Study No. 44

192

Conflation of information from other sources

In his September 2012 statement, made shortly before his interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Monsignor Usher stated:

[73] On 3 July 2012, I received a further e-mail from Fr Brian Lucas, a copy of which is Annexure 16. After receiving this email, I telephoned Fr Lucas and said words to the effect ‘I think you might be right about Peters having more information’. 913

In his interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Monsignor Usher said:

Well, I think you might have noticed after the Four Corners program, Brian Lucas emailed me to say, ‘Do you think Wayne was dealing with other information or something?’ I didn’t email him back, but I rang him back and said, ‘Yes, I think you might be right.’ Wayne had a lot of knowledge. But now that I know - I’ve read all the paper - it was not just Wayne Peters, it was Gerry Hanna and Frank LeFevre and all those blokes in Armidale that had knowledge about Farrell and knew the rumours and knew the story. Of course, we didn’t have that. 914

Monsignor Usher gave evidence to the Royal Commission that he ‘absolutely’ would have expected that Father Peters would have reported back to the bishop, given the role he played as the bishop’s representative at the meeting. 915

He also expected that Father Peters, as Vicar General of the Diocese of Armidale and representative of the bishop, would give the bishop an accurate report of the meeting. 916 It was his opinion that Father Peters had not in fact provided an accurate report to Bishop Manning. 917

Monsignor Usher’s evidence was that, in writing his letter, Father Peters was ‘influenced by other information’ that he had read elsewhere. His assumption was that Father Peters had information of the sort of detail set out in the letter from some other means.

He said he did not know what the other means were, but he assumed that Father Peters sought out the various files from the Diocese of Armidale that Fathers Lucas and Usher did not have access to and copied from those files details as specific as a quote as to what Farrell was said to have done. Monsignor Usher acknowledged that this was ‘a big assumption’, but it was ‘one of the few explanations’ he could give. 918

When asked by Counsel Assisting if he had ever put this suggestion to Father Peters, Monsignor Usher gave the following evidence:

A. I think I did. I think I did.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

193

Q. And he denied it, did he, or did he admit it?

A. I think he laughed.

Q. I beg your pardon?

A. I think he had a bit of a laugh.

Q. Because he thought it was ridiculous?

A. I mean, I do recall meeting him in Armidale, of all places - no, I’m sorry, in Toowoomba, at a gathering, and I said, ‘You must have read the files, you know, about Farrell.’ He said, ‘Everyone in Armidale knew about Farrell’, and laughed. I mean -

THE CHAIR: Q. Father, if what you say was true, if that’s what he did, all he had to do was write a letter about your meeting and a separate letter about what’s in the files?

A. But he wouldn’t do that.

Q. Why not?

A. I’m sorry, your Honour, I might have misunderstood you.

Q. If what you say happened to be true, all that Father Peters had to do, in order to communicate honestly with his bishop, was to write a report about the meeting that you had and write a separate letter, or include in that letter reference to material on the files?

A. That’s quite right. Why didn’t he?

Q. Counsel put to you it doesn’t make sense that he would do what you suggest he did do?

A. Well, that’s up to you and others to judge.

Q. Do you think he might have laughed at your suggestion because it was just ridiculous?

A. Probably. I don’t know. All I know is I only saw him, I think, once after that Four Corners program before he died, and that was an occasion up in Toowoomba. 919

Monsignor Usher then said that, if the information was not on the diocesan file, it must have been something Father Peters heard about because there were ‘all sorts of stories … about Farrell floating around the Armidale diocese’. 920

Report of Case Study No. 44

194

Monsignor Usher gave evidence that what Father Peters wrote in his letter may have been said, but he sought to explain it in the following way:

Q. Is it the case then that what is set out in Father Peters’ letter may well have been said, but he interpreted it as an admission and you interpreted it as fantasy?

A. As fantasy, as descriptions of what other people were saying about him, all that sort of thing.

Q. Is it the case then that you accept what he set out as was said by Farrell as accurate, it is just the meaning attributed to it that differs?

A. Well, it’s not quite accurate because it wasn’t said as concisely as that, if it was said at all.

Monsignor Usher’s characterisation of Farrell as ‘deranged’ and ‘bizarre’

In his September 2012 statement, made shortly before his interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Monsignor Usher referred to Farrell speaking in some detail about his sexual fantasies and about homosexual fantasies and sex with children as part of his fantasies. He said Farrell also named a number of people at St Patrick’s seminary as homosexuals - Monsignor Usher stated that he knew this to be wrong and quickly formed the view that Farrell was ‘deranged or being dishonest’. 921

However, he said that his assessment of Farrell as ‘deranged’ was ‘probably’ ‘a bit strong’ and that he was ‘probably not qualified to make such a statement’. 922

Monsignor Usher accepted that none of the documents which Counsel Assisting took him to, from his letter to Bishop Manning dated August 1990 through to Bishop Manning’s note dated 1 September 1992, referred to Farrell in terms of ‘bizarre’ and ‘deranged’. 923 He accepted that Bishop Manning’s note of his conversation with Farrell recounted a structured discussion where Farrell made admissions. 924

Monsignor Usher did not accept Counsel Assisting’s proposition that Monsignor Usher constructed Farrell as rambling and bizarre because that was the only way he had to explain Father Peters’ letter. 925

Monsignor Usher gave evidence that Father Peters ‘captured some of the things that Farrell said but interpreted them in another way’. 926

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

195

Reasons why Father Peters is wrong

Monsignor Usher was not prepared to concede that his memory was wrong and gave the following evidence:

I’d like to propose that Wayne is wrong. I’m not going to say that my memory after 25 years is absolutely clear. I could be - I could be a little bit misled, but because - there are a number of things that convince me that I’m right. The first thing is that even back in 1982 [sic] it was my practice to report matters to either DoCS or the police when I heard an allegation or an allegation was reported to me. I didn’t do it in this case. Why didn’t I do it? Because I believe I didn’t hear an allegation. There would be no other reason why I wouldn’t report it.

… it wasn’t my meeting. That’s one reason. The second reason is that my recollection is that this meeting, which had been sort of asked for by Bishop Manning - the request was to give him some advice as to whether Farrell should be returned to ministry or not. It is inconceivable that a man who is seeking to be returned to ministry would make admissions like Wayne claims he made.

Now, the third thing is absolutely hypothetical, but having worked with a Bishop for 10 years in Sydney - not that I knew Bishop Manning very well - but the way you as a Vicar General or a Chancellor would work with the Bishop, I would presume - I don’t know this for sure - that Wayne would have gone back to his diocese, he would have sat down with the Bishop and had a discussion about what happened in the meeting; the Bishop would have said to him, as my Bishop used to say, ‘Well, go and put that in writing and put it on the file.’ Wayne would have gone away, put it in writing and it would have been put on the file. 927

When asked why the latter point made Father Peters’ letter wrong, he said:

It doesn’t. I’m not suggesting that. I’m just saying that’s what he wrote, but what he told the Bishop in a discussion - I mean, there’s a - what’s worrying to me - well, not worrying to me, but it is a fact - in that Sydney meeting, where Wayne was present, he said, ‘I wanted to put the man on ice.’ Well, what did he mean by that? He wanted the man, that’s Farrell, out, out of Armidale, out of the picture: ‘I wanted to put him on ice’, he said, and he said that in front of five or six people. He wasn’t questioned about it, but it does seem to me it is the sort of statement you’d make as if you’d go to any lengths to get someone out of the picture. 928

We sought to clarify whether what Monsignor Usher was saying was that Father Peters did not tell the truth in order to get Farrell out of the priesthood. Monsignor Usher responded:

Report of Case Study No. 44

196

I’m saying he had much more information about Farrell than Brian Lucas or I had. He had access to all the files about Farrell, things we didn’t see until the Whitlam Inquiry. He would have seen letters to the Bishop from other priests, he would have read - I presume he had read about what happened in Moree, the delegation of parents that went to see Father - the parish priest there, Father Ryan, I think it was. That was all on the file. I only saw that years later, but Wayne would have had access to that. I can’t help think that he was terribly influenced by what he already knew and what he’d already …

What he told his Bishop face to face and what he wrote in the letter I don’t know about, but the letter certainly doesn’t represent what happened at the interview. 929

Counsel Assisting asked Monsignor Usher:

Q. Do you accept that the letter, being dated 11 September, a few days after the meeting, is a more reliable record as to what was said, rather than your recollection 20 years later?

A. I don’t believe so, no. 930

Monsignor Usher said it was ‘inconceivable’ to him that a man in Farrell’s position would make admissions as set out in Father Peters’ report. However, he agreed that Farrell was self-assertive, had poor judgment and was self-centred. 931 When Counsel Assisting put to Monsignor Usher that those characteristics are consistent with a man saying, in a meeting of this sort, what he had done, 932 Monsignor Usher conceded that they ‘probably are’. 933

Monsignor Usher agreed that Farrell had poor judgment, that Dr Blaszczynski thought he had poor judgment and that this was ‘absolutely’ an exercise in poor judgment. 934

Farrell’s admissions under oath in 2004

As set out above, in 2004, Farrell gave evidence in a trial in relation to extortion charges brought by the police.935 Those charges were against CPK - a person who, it was claimed, had extorted money from Farrell in exchange for not reporting Farrell to the police for Farrell’s sexual abuse of him in the Diocese of Parramatta. Farrell gave evidence at that trial relating to what he said at the first meeting with Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters in September 1992. 936 His evidence was that at that meeting he made certain admissions to the priests that he had had oral sex with young boys. Further details of these proceedings are dealt with later in this report.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

197

Monsignor Usher was aware of Farrell’s evidence and said to us:

Q. You think he was lying when he was giving evidence on oath?

A. Not at all, not at all, but it seemed that there were certain occasions when it would suit him to make admissions, other times it would not suit him to make admissions, that’s all I’m saying.

Q. And you were in the fortunate position of being with him on the occasion that he did not make admissions; is that right?

A. That’s what I was saying. 937

We make findings about Father Usher’s evidence later in this report.

13.5 Bishop Manning’s accounts

Letter from Bishop Manning to Bishop Matthys dated 8 July 2005

In a letter from Bishop Manning to Bishop Matthys dated 8 July 2005, Bishop Manning referred to Father Peters’ report dated 11 September 1992 as follows:

Afterwards I referred him to the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference ‘Special Issues Resource Committee’ to evaluate his situation and advise him on ways of proceeding.

A report of Father Farrell’s meeting with the Special Issues Resource Committee was relayed back to me by Rev. Father Wayne Peters who attended the meeting. (A copy of that Report should be in the archives.) Father John, at that meeting reported that he had sexually interfered with boys when he was an Assistant Priest at Moree. The Special Issues Resource Committee made it quite clear in their report the knowledge of his activity was fairly widespread and was the cause of scandal in the Diocese. He was advised that it would not be possible for the Bishop to restore his faculties in the Diocese of Armidale in order to recommend him to the Bishop of another Diocese for an appointment. There was a suggestion at the time that he be laicised or that he place himself in a therapy programme such as Encompass where he could be monitored. 938

Report of Case Study No. 44

198

Bishop Manning’s interview with Mr Whitlam QC

On 2 October 2012, Bishop Manning was interviewed by Mr Whitlam QC.

He said the following about the purpose of arranging for Farrell to meet with the SIRG:

MR WHITLAM: … were you really looking for the committee to put pressure on him and get him out of the church or -

BP MANNING: Yes, I certainly wanted support to - and a clear vision of what we should do with him because he obviously had no future in the church. 939

Bishop Manning could not recall the first letter and said:

the first time I saw it, that was just more recently when I discovered that it had been subpoenaed for one of the court cases, but I can’t remember it. I just don’t recall it. 940

He agreed that some of the language Father Peters recorded was consistent with the kind of language Farrell used. 941

In 1996, Father Peters gave the file to investigators on behalf of CCI. The letter was on the file. Thus, despite Bishop Manning’s account that he saw the letter recently, the evidence is clear that the letter was on the relevant file in the diocese in 1996.

However, the time at which he read it cannot be precisely determined. It is likely that he would have done so shortly after he received it, because he had sent Father Peters to the meeting in order to report back, and it was important to Bishop Manning at the time to get rid of Farrell.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

199

14 The Second Meeting: 24 September 1992 The second meeting between Farrell and Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters took place on 24 September 1992.

14.1 Father Peters’ account

On 26 October 1992, Father Peters wrote to Bishop Manning reporting on the second meeting. 942 It is convenient to set the letter out in full:

The meeting was held at the Cathedral Presbytery, St. Mary’s Cathedral Sydney on Thursday 24th September 1992 commencing at 7.30 p.m. Present were Rev. John Farrell, Rev. Brian Lucas Rev. John Usher and Rev. Wayne Peters.

Father Brian Lucas opened the meeting and informed Father Farrell that the committee members had given consideration to the matters discussed at the previous meeting of 3rd September 1992 and now wished to offer concrete proposals as a way forward for Father Farrell. Father Lucas then led the meeting through seven points contained in the proposal.

1. For the reasons previously explained and taking into account all the circumstances there is no possibility of an appointment at this stage.

There was little if any discussion on this point.

2. This is subject to on-going review.

There was no discussion on this point.

3. In the event of an application for laicisation the recommendation would be that the diocese support this and assist in its implementation.

Farther Farrell indicated that he did not see this as a way forward for him. To begin with, he was quite opposed to any thought of this way of proceeding. The idea of the laicisation of Father Farrell was returned to on a number of occasions during the course of the meeting. It [is] my impression that while Father Farrell was still against the idea, he was more inclined at the end of the meeting to at least give some thought to that way of proceeding. However, I do not think it would be his preferred way of proceeding as on the 24th September 1992.

4. In the event that laicisation is resisted then some significant proof of the possibility of successful ministry must be provided.

There was no discussion on this point.

Report of Case Study No. 44

200

5. To assist in the preparation of the proof required in (4) the following is recommended:

5.1 That there be a period of extended leave of say 5 years with an initial review in two years.

It was agreed that the details of the implementation of any review in two years would have to [be] spelt out in a concrete way.

5.2 That there be a full-time secular employment and secular living situation.

I questioned the committee members on some aspects of this recommendation. The committee members advised that this meant that, Father Farrell not take any employment that was associated with the Church or a Church agency; that Father Farrell not live in a Presbytery or Convent or Monastery or such like accommodation that was associated so closely with the Church. Further implications to this recommendation were that Father Farrell should refrain from using the clerical titles such as Reverend or Father, that he should refrain from the wearing of clerical dress and that he should not promote himself as a priest.

The preferred location for this secular employment and secular accommodation was inter-state. However, it was seen that Sydney as a second preference might have to prevail. This was because of the availability of a suitable therapist for on-going treatment. Dr. Alex Blaszczynski, the committee’s preferred choice as a therapist is a resident of Sydney. The committee was strongly adamant that the employment and education would not be Armidale or within the Armidale Diocese because of Father Farrell’s high profile in the Diocese.

Father Farrell raised the possibility of further study in preference to employment in the strict sense. The committee members believed this was a real possibility as study is employment of sorts. However, the committee members again stressed that any such further study not be at the University of New England in Armidale because of Father Farrell’s high profile in Armidale and the Diocese of Armidale.

5.3 That there be no ecclesial ministry (either clerical or lay)

There was no discussion as such on this point. It was covered in the committee’s observations that Father Farrell seemed to have difficulty in maintaining a low profile.

5.4 That there be an approved programme of therapy and in this respect on-going treatment with Dr. Alex Blaszczysnki is recommended.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

201

Father Farrell indicated that he was not happy with Dr. Blaszczynski. He indicated that he felt Dr Blaszczynski was vague and forgetful. He cited the example that he had asked the doctor to send a written report to Bishop Manning on the meetings between Father Farrell and Dr Blaszczynski which had never been done. When he asked the doctor about it, the doctor seemed vague.

Father John Usher pointed out to Father Farrell that he needed a strong and capable therapist such as Dr Blaszczynski who would challenge and push issues with him.

Father Farrell indicated that he was not absolutely opposed to Dr Blaszczynski. However, he was clearly not happy with the prospect of Dr Blaszczynski .

5.5 That Father Farrell pay for such therapy and further, as a gesture of goodwill, attempt to meet some of the previous costs expended in the legal process.

This point passed without comment from Father Farrell.

5.6 That there be an approved person appointed as a monitor, to whom there was [sic] be a regular reporting.

Father John Usher strongly expressed the view that the monitor be appointed by Bishop Manning since the monitor was a representative of the Bishop and ultimately responsible to the Bishop. Monsignor Usher also expressed the view that it may be preferable for the monitor not to be a priest.

5.7 That there be a positive report that unambiguously recommends a future appointment.

There was not much discussion on this except that a future appointment would depend on such a positive report.

6. In the event of some possible future appointment it will not be in the Diocese of Armidale and will not be parochial and will be limited to a specialised ministry of minimal risk.

There was no significant discussion on this point.

7. The Special Issues Resource Group for the Province will supervise the implementation of the above if so directed by the Bishop.

There was no further discussion on this point.

Report of Case Study No. 44

202

It was hard to ascertain just what emotions were going on in Father Farrell. He seemed to act in a calm and business-like manner throughout. When asked his reaction to the proposals, Father Farrell indicated that he was quite angry about it all.

On a couple of occasions there were some small indications that Father Farrell is perhaps beginning to appreciate in some way the very difficult position his actions of the past have placed him, his Bishop, those offended against, the priesthood and the Church. However I stress that the signs were small and I cannot be confident of that.

The matter of salary payments to Father Farrell was discussed. The committee members indicated that should Father Farrell accept the proposals as a way forward, the recommendation would be that Bishop Manning pay him say two months’ salary to assist him as he seeks suitable employment and accommodation. Father Farrell indicated that he had not received any salary from the Diocese of Armidale or the Diocese of Parramatta where he had been employed since July 1992.

Father Farrell indicated that he did not accept the proposals at the time and wished to give the matter some thought before replying to the proposals.

The meeting adjourned for a break at about 9.30 p.m. Apparently, further discussions took place between Father Farrell and Father Brian Lucas during that adjournment. I was not privy to the details of that meeting. However, when the meeting re-convened, the meeting was informed that Father Farrell wished to think the matters over for a month. During that time he would spend time with his family and think about the proposals that the committee had put forward.

The meeting finally ended close to 10 pm. 943

In Father Peters’ interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Mr Whitlam QC suggested to Father Peters that Father Peters ‘must have made some notes’. Father Peters replied ‘yes, okay’. 944 No notes have been produced to us.

14.2 Father Lucas’ accounts

On 25 September 1992, Father Lucas wrote to Bishop Manning reporting on the second meeting. 945 He referred to the ‘Points for Discussion’ (referred to by Monsignor Usher as ‘a seven point plan’) and indicated that it was the basis for discussion with Farrell at their meeting. Father Lucas’ account was consistent with Father Peters’ later letter to Bishop Manning. Father Lucas concluded:

I believe that this is satisfactory. Considerable progress has been made and allowing John some sense of control about the future would be in his best interests. 946

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

203

Points for Discussion document

Father Lucas agreed, in a general sense, that Father Peters accurately set out what happened at the second meeting in his letter of 26 October 1992. 947 Father Lucas also accepted it was clear that Father Peters wrote this letter having written the previous letter on 11 September 1992. 948

In relation to the first dot point set out in Father Peters’ letter, Father Lucas said that he did not know why he would have written ‘there is no possibility of an appointment at this stage’ if he had those explicit admissions in Father Peters’ letter. He said, ‘it would have been, “There’s no possibility of an appointment”, full stop.’ 949 Father Lucas accepted that it was his job in this case to ‘get rid’ of Farrell. 950

Father Lucas said that the reference to ‘For the reasons previously explained and taking into account all the circumstances’ was a reference to the second part of Father Peters’ report listing various points. 951 Father Lucas accepted that the letter was accurate in this respect. However, Father Lucas said he was ‘puzzled’ because he could not explain why they would have discussed those matters if they already had the ‘explicit admissions’ as set out in Father Peters’ letter.

Father Lucas accepted that there was no reference in this letter to any specific concern about the way in which Farrell appeared at the meeting in terms of his demeanour or manner. 952

Counsel Assisting took Father Lucas to the following extract in Father Peters’ letter:

It was hard to ascertain just what emotions were going on in Father Farrell. He seemed to act in a calm and business-like manner throughout. 953

Father Lucas said that he could not specifically recall the second meeting with Farrell and what his demeanour was like, 954 but he did not accept that Farrell had calmed down by the second meeting. He said that Farrell ‘indicated he was very angry about it all’. 955

14.3 Monsignor Usher’s accounts

Monsignor Usher gave evidence that he did not see Father Lucas’ letter before it was sent. He agreed that it was a ‘reasonable summation’ of the meeting. 956

A file note made by Monsignor Usher on the day of the second meeting on 24 September 1992 states:

7.30pm: Met with John Farrell, Brian Lucas and Wayne Peter - a seven point plan was presented to John Farrell CSA re his laicization. 957

Report of Case Study No. 44

204

Monsignor Usher presented several different versions of his understanding of what he meant by this file note. These differing accounts are set out below.

In his September 2012 statement, made shortly before his interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Monsignor Usher stated:

[48] … The other term that I used to refer to sexual assaults was CSA, meaning child sexual assault …958

In his interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Monsignor Usher said the following:

MR WHITLAM: I noticed there you used the expression ‘CSA’.

MONS USHER: Yes.

MR WHITLAM: Would that mean that he did admit to an assault?

MONS USHER: Look, I can’t answer that.

MR WHITLAM: It is conceivable with what you said earlier that it would.

MONS USHER: I realise that.

MR WHITLAM: I thought you might. I’m not trying to trick you because this was developing, you know, and he was saying different things at different times, or at least I suppose this is a very terse note of a meeting that went on for a long time. I would think probably it must be a possibility that you have captured the nub of it there about what you have been talking about.

MONS USHER: Yes, yes. Look, I really can’t -

MR WHITLAM: You don’t remember?

MONS USHER: I can’t remember. It’s just a very cryptic note. It could mean -

MR WHITLAM: I could certainly see how you recall, in retrospect, asking people these things and this bloke comes out with these extraordinary fantasies. I could see that that would be something you would remember.

MONS USHER: Yes, yes. Look, I honestly don’t recall what that means. I would think I am just saying, ‘I went to this meeting’, to remind myself that I went to it. 959

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

205

In May 2016 police statement, Monsignor Usher stated:

[19] In my 1992 journal I have made a notation referring to meeting with FARRELL in company with both LUCAS and PETERS a second time. The note makes reference to FARRELL’S laicisation because of child sexual assault (CSA) offences. In my mind I was referring to the matters for which FARRELL had already been to court for. 960

In his evidence to the Royal Commission, Monsignor Usher agreed that he accepted with Mr Whitlam QC that it was conceivable that his use of the expression ‘CSA’ in the context of his note meant that Farrell did admit to an assault. 961

In relation to his comment to Mr Whitlam QC that his file note was ‘cryptic’ and he did not recall what it meant, the following exchange occurred between Counsel Assisting and Monsignor Usher:

Q. Now, there’s no doubt what it meant, is there?

A. Not in my mind, no.

Q. Why didn’t you tell Mr Whitlam that?

A. Well, we - I knew what it meant, that the term ‘CSA’ means child sexual assault. What I’m probably saying to Mr Whitlam - Ms Furness, I can’t say any more, I don’t think - I can’t be more honest than that.

Q. More honest than saying nothing more?

A. I don’t recall why I said that. 962

When asked about his 2016 statement to the police, Monsignor Usher gave the following evidence to the Royal Commission:

Q. So what you’re saying now is the reference to ‘CSA’, firstly, is a reference to a child sexual assault offence?

A. [REDACTED] I think.

Q. [REDACTED]

A. That’s correct.

Q. That’s not something you told Mr Whitlam some four years previously?

Report of Case Study No. 44

206

A. I appreciate that. I mean, I’ve got no explanation for that, Ms Furness.

Q. For the fact that we’ve got three different accounts as to what that file note means?

A. Yes, yes. I’m only human and I made some different comments on it.

Q. And this, of course, is the most recent?

A. That’s the most recent, yes. 963

The following exchange took place: 964

Q. ‘Following CSA’ clearly means following there having been a view that, in fact, he had committed child sexual assault; is that right?

A. Well, I don’t believe that. I think it means following a CSA meeting, which was the previous meeting, and that’s all I can say, Ms Furness.

Q. Even though the word ‘meeting’ doesn’t appear there?

A. It doesn’t appear. 965

Monsignor Usher gave evidence about the reference in Father Peters’ letter to ‘those offended against’. He said this was a reference to Farrell’s victims. 966

Monsignor Usher said that the context in which the comment was made was that Monsignor Usher made a ‘speech’ seeking to ensure that the others at the meeting were aware of the need for the Church to put victims first in the context of sexual assault matters. 967

Monsignor Usher did not agree that he made this ‘speech’ because the matter of sexual assault by Farrell was being addressed. 968 He said he made the speech because:

There was in those days, and there still is in some places today, an inclination to handle these matters as if we’re looking after the church or the institution, and of course that applies to other professions too. 969

It was put to Monsignor Usher that, even so, the assumption is that Farrell had offended and there were victims. Monsignor Usher said he could not deny that the assumption in the note was that Farrell and offended and there were victims. However, his recollection was that he said it in a more general sense - ‘If you had offended, or if anyone had offended, this is what happens’. 970

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

207

Counsel for Monsignor Usher submitted the following about the note he made:

• The note does not say that admissions of child sexual assault were made at the meeting to which the note relates - namely, the meeting of 24 September 1992 or at the first meeting (his emphasis).

• It was not a file note but an aide memoire.

• Whatever the note means, it is likely to be innocent. 971

It was also submitted that Father Peters’ letter does not refer to admissions being made.

It is apparent to us that the reference to ‘CSA’ in Monsignor Usher’s note can only be to child sexual assault. Monsignor Usher conceded as much to us and in his police statement. His statement to Mr Whitlam QC that it was ‘cryptic’ is not credible. We are also of the view that the phrase ‘Farrell child sexual abuse’ is more likely to refer to an understanding that Farrell had sexually abused rather than, as suggested by Monsignor Usher, that it meant ‘following a child sexual abuse meeting’. That evidence by Monsignor Usher is not credible. This is particularly so when it is considered with the reference to laicisation.

Counsel for Monsignor Usher submitted that it was ‘inconceivable’ that Monsignor Usher would have given advice that Farrell needed a therapist if admissions had been made as set out in Father Peters’ letter.

The basis of this submission is not clear to us. We know from our work that treatment was still considered worthwhile for offenders in 1997, when Encompass Australasia was established. Further, evidence in the Ballarat hearing was that, in January 1993, Monsignor Usher prepared a draft discussion paper on therapeutic interventions for, among others, alleged offenders, which included establishing a network of counsellors and therapists to deal with alleged offenders. He noted that ‘any prognosis for “a cure” for people who admit to acts of sexual misconduct in relation to children and young people is remote … the possibility of any offender returning to full active ministry is unlikely’. 972

We do not agree that it is ‘inconceivable’ that Monsignor Usher would have given advice that Farrell needed a therapist if admissions had been made by Farrell.

Father Lucas submitted that the points for discussion and Father Peters’ letter dated 26 October are equally consistent with no admissions of a specific nature being made. We accept that those documents do not refer to Farrell having made admissions in the first meeting. However, that fact does not, to our mind, provide reliable evidence that no admissions were made at the first meeting.

Report of Case Study No. 44

208

15 The Third Meeting: 12 November 1992

Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters met with Farrell for a third time on 12 November 1992. The meeting took place at St Mary’s Cathedral presbytery in Sydney. 973

On 24 November 1992, Farrell wrote to Bishop Manning noting that the SIRG made it clear that at or by the third meeting the points of discussion were not negotiable. He offered his resignation. 974

15.1 Father Peters’ accounts

On 25 November 1992, Father Peters wrote to Bishop Manning reporting on the third meeting. 975 An extract of Father Peters’ report is set out below:

The meeting commenced at 7.40 p.m. Present were Fathers Brian Lucas, John Usher, John Farrell and Wayne Peters.

The following is an outline of what took place:

[1] John Farrell told the meeting that neither voluntary laicisation nor the five year plan that involved his voluntary return to secular living, secular employment and on-going therapy was acceptable to him. He wished to find some other acceptable way of proceeding.

[2] At some length, Brian Lucas explained the seriousness and the difficulty of the situation. Possible harm to the Church, harm to the Diocese of Armidale in particular, harm to the Church, harm to the priesthood, harm to Farrell himself were emphasised again. Brian Lucas emphasized that there were young men out there who could still come forward and lay charges through civil proceedings. Experience from similar situations showed that the betrayal felt by the victims of sexual abuse was often centred on the fact that the trust they had placed in a priest had been abused. If they saw John Farrell continuing as a priest it was more likely they would press charges so as to prevent other children from being hurt. If the victims knew that serious measures through therapy and the removal of ministry that involved contact with children were being taken so as to remove the dangers to other potential victims, then the likelihood of further charges being brought forward in the civil court was significantly reduced.

[3] John Farrell indicated that he was fearful that if he was laicised or no longer seen to be a priest, the chance of young men he had offended against bringing civil charges against him was greater than if he remained a priest in the public forum. He indicated that he heard that the reason the families of the victims did not bring charges back in 1984 was because they did not wish to publicly hurt the Church by prosecuting a

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

209

priest. John Usher explained that the hurt to the victims in these situations was particularly painful because the victims’ trust in the person of the priest had been abused by that priest. John Usher believed that there was less chance of John Farrell being further prosecuted by the victims if he was not a priest than if he continued to be seen in the public forum as one. Brian Lucas agreed but also pointed out that no one could give any guarantees to John Farrell that the victims would not bring charges in the future whether he was a priest or not. There was no statute of limitations in the State of New South Wales in regard to sexual offences against minors.

[4] It was pointed out to John Farrell that the situation was that he had a choice between voluntary application for laicisation or the five year plan of voluntary secular work, secular accommodation with on-going therapy. It was the expectation of the committee that he would come to this meeting and indicate the choice he had made. The committee was to assist him in putting into operation the choice he had made. It was further pointed out that at the meeting of 24th September last, John Farrell had agreed to take one month to think about this and make his choice, discuss with and inform if necessary his parents and family of the situation. It was now one month and three weeks since that meeting. So it was the expectation of the committee that he indicate his choice at this meeting. It was also the expectation of Bishop Manning.

[5] John Farrell asked what was the situation if he chose neither of the two options being offered. Brian Lucas advised that would place Bishop Manning in the situation where he would have to consider initiating canonical proceedings against John. The difficulties this would bring to all parties were discussed. The possibility that the young men who had been offended against might have to be contacted in a canonical process was mentioned. John Farrell said quite definitely that he would want to avoid any canonical proceedings against him.

[6] Discussion continued on the seriousness of the situation. It was again pointed out that there was no possibility of any appointment ever to ministry in the Diocese of Armidale. Even if John Farrell chose the five year plan, there was no guarantee there would be a return to ministry for him. At best, any return to ministry would be in a very limited way that removed as far as possible the risk of re-offending.

[7] John Farrell requested of Brian Lucas some background reading material on the whole subject. He said that he just did not view the situation as seriously as the committee obviously did. He thought that if he did some background reading it may help him to view the situation with something of the same seriousness as the committee.

[8] John Farrell indicated that he needed a further two weeks to reach a decision.

Report of Case Study No. 44

210

[17] John Farrell indicated that other people had supported him in not seeing the same seriousness in the situation as the committee saw. John Usher asked if these people knew the full story. John Farrell said they did. John Usher stated that it was understood that only John Farrell, Brian Lucas, John Usher, Wayne Peters and Bishop Manning knew the full extent of the story at this stage. John Farrell said that those people were indeed the only ones who knew the full story. The committee members were left uncertain as to how many people John Farrell has talked to, how much he has told them or what he has told them.

The meeting closed at approximately 9.40 p.m. 976

In his interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Father Peters again denied conflating material and said that he ‘stood by’ his letter dated 25 November 1992 as ‘being the truth’:

MR WHITLAM: Then again, in your next letter, you have written on 25 November, about the meeting on the 12th. The same sort of thing, it is a very long report. Same thing.

MONS PETERS: Yes. Running into dead ends everywhere.

MR WHITLAM: Yes. Well, you have no reason to think that any of that represented a conflation of material that you were getting from Farrell on any other occasion?

MONS PETERS: I have to stand by that as being the truth. 977

15.2 Father Lucas’ accounts

Father Lucas gave evidence that he did not see the letter from Father Peters to Bishop Manning around the time that it was created (the third letter). 978 However, it is clear from his evidence that he accepted what was attributed to him, with one exception, which we will deal with below. As to other matters, he either accepted or did not recall them.

He was taken to his comments as set out in the letter. In short, his evidence was that his comments related to Farrell’s comments about people making allegations against him and Farrell’s denials of such allegations or his comments were limited to the charges against Farrell in relation to the one boy in Narrabri.

For example, he gave evidence that his comment that there were ‘young men out there who could still come forward and lay charges’ (paragraph 2) was a reference to Farrell saying that people were making allegations against him. He said Farrell denied those allegations. 979

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

211

In relation to his comment about ‘young men who had been offended against’ having to be contacted as part of a canonical process (paragraph 5), he said that was a reference to the boy the subject of the Narrabri charge. He said the letter was wrong insofar as it referred to ‘men’ in the plural. 980

He said:

Well, the only person I knew about was the one young man on the basis that there were others out there and there were the possibilities that there were others out there, that would have to be further investigated. 981

However, Father Lucas accepted that the comment that there were young men that Farrell had offended against was consistent with what Father Peters wrote in his first letter to Bishop Manning dated 11 September 1992 982 insofar as it mentions various boys. 983

Father Lucas told us about his comment that, if victims knew that serious measures had been taken, the ‘likelihood of further charges being brought forward in the civil court was significantly reduced’ (paragraph 2). He said that came from his own experience. 984

As to his reference to the ‘risk of re-offending’, he said, ‘there had obviously been some issue with the young man. I regarded that as some form of offending’. Father Lucas said that what he ‘surmised’ had happened in respect of the boy the subject of the Narrabri court proceedings was offending by Farrell 985 and that he, Father Lucas, was seeking to avoid the risk of reoffending because, in his mind, Farrell had offended. 986

Father Lucas said he made the comment about there being no statute of limitations in relation to sexual abuse of minors, on the basis that ‘if there are such allegations, that was what will happen’. 987

Father Lucas gave evidence that Farrell said that he had heard that the reason the families of the victims did not bring charges back in 1984 was that they did not wish to publicly hurt the Church. Father Lucas accepted that this was an admission of misconduct that could result in criminal charges 988 and was consistent with what Father Peters said in his letter dated 11 September 1992.989

Father Lucas had no recollection of the ‘background reading material’ that Farrell requested, which is referred to in paragraph 7. However, he accepted that such a request, if made, indicates that Farrell ‘clearly had his wits about him’. 990

Report of Case Study No. 44

212

15.3 Monsignor Usher’s accounts

Monsignor Usher also gave evidence that he did not see the letter at the time it was written. He first saw the letter was at the time of the Whitlam inquiry in 2012. 991

Monsignor Usher accepted that much of the third letter was consistent with Father Peters’ first letter, including:

• the experience of victims of sexual abuse and the likelihood they would press charges992

• the reference to Farrell being fearful that if he was laicised ‘the chance of young men he had offended against bringing civil charges against him was greater than if he remained a priest’ 993

• that no one could give any guarantees that the victims would not bring any charges in the future994

• the ‘reason the families of the victims did not bring charges back in 1984’ 995

• the ‘possibility that the young men who had been offended against might have to be contacted in a canonical process’. 996

He qualified a number of comments attributed to him by saying he was speaking generically, not in relation to Farrell’s conduct.

For example, the comment that he believed that there was less chance of Farrell being further prosecuted if he was not a priest than if he continued to be seen in the public forum as one, was generic. 997

Counsel for Monsignor Usher submitted that there are ‘a number of’ credible reasons why Father Peters’ third letter is not accurate. The submissions then made was that the letter is not contemporaneous, having been created more than two weeks after the event.

Counsel for Father Lucas also submitted that the letter was not contemporaneous, and its content is equally consistent with Father Lucas’ version of the first meeting and the object of that meeting.

We do not accept Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher’s evidence characterising the meeting as relating to hypothetical victims and offending, and a generalised approach to having priests removed or the experience of victims. The language used in Father Peters’ letter is to the contrary - there is no qualifying language used to indicate the meeting was dealing with allegations only, or hypothetical victims, or usual practice. The language of the letter is specific to Farrell’s offending and to Farrell’s victims.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

213

It follows that it is consistent with the first letter and not with Father Lucas’ account.

We consider that Father Peters’ letter to Bishop Manning on 25 November 1992 was a detailed account. It was expressed to be a report of what occurred at the third meeting and includes detail such as the precise time the meeting commenced and concluded.

There is no credible reason to doubt the accuracy or completeness of Father Peters’ letter. Neither Father Lucas nor Monsignor Usher took real issue with its content, particularly insofar as it recorded their comments at the meeting.

Monsignor Usher and Father Lucas properly conceded that much of the letter was consistent with Father Peters’ letter of 11 September 1992. In our view, it is also consistent with Monsignor Usher’s file notes of 3 and 24 September 1992.

We are satisfied that the language, tone and tenor of the letter clearly establish that the object of the meeting was to secure Farrell’s removal from the priesthood because of the admissions of criminal offending he had made in relation to multiple boys at the first meeting - in particular, the references to:

• the ‘young men out there who could still come forward and lay charges’

• the ‘betrayal felt by victims of sexual abuse’ who had ‘placed their trust in a priest’ but had ‘been abused’

• if victims ‘saw Farrell continuing as a priest it was more likely they would press charges so as to prevent other children from being hurt’

• however, if the victims knew that ‘serious measures through therapy and the removal of ministry that involved contact with children were being taken so as to remove the dangers to other potential victims’, the likelihood of them bringing further charges is significantly reduced

• the chance of ‘young men he had offended against bringing civil charges’ was greater if Farrell remained a priest in a public forum

• Farrell’s reference to the reason ‘families of the victims’ who ‘did not bring charges back in 1984’ being because they did not wish to publicly hurt the Church ‘by prosecuting a priest’

• Monsignor Usher’s view that there was less chance ‘of Farrell being further prosecuted by the victims if he was not a priest’

• Father Lucas’ comment that there could be no guarantee ‘that the victims would not bring charges in the future whether he was a priest or not’, as there ‘was no statute of limitations in the State of New South Wales in regard to sexual offences against minors’

Report of Case Study No. 44

214

• the possibility that the ‘young men who had been offended against’ might need to be contacted in any canonical proceedings

• that there was ‘no possibility of any appointment ever to ministry’ in the Diocese of Armidale and any return to ministry, at best, would be in a very limited way that ‘removed as far as possible the risk of re-offending’

• the ‘seriousness of the situation’ as seen by the SIRG, that Farrell’s supporters did not know ‘the full story’ and that only the meeting attendees and Bishop Manning ‘knew the full extent of the story’.

Father Lucas’ evidence that Farrell’s criminal conduct was limited to the Narrabri charges, and otherwise it related to the allegations against him which he denied, is not accepted. There is no reference to the Narrabri charges in the letter. Further, the letter refers to ‘young men who have been offended against’, contradicting Father Lucas’ evidence that the focus was only one victim.

In relation to the comment that Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters, and Bishop Manning, knew ‘the full story’, we have found that Bishop Manning knew of the admissions made to him on 1 September and that Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters knew of the admissions made at the meeting two days later. There are some differences between the admissions recorded by Bishop Manning and those recorded by Father Peters. It is not necessary for us to come to a conclusion as to what was meant by that comment.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

215

16 Key Issue: Consideration

16.1 Common ground

There are a number of matters about which there is no controversy.

Monsignor Usher and Father Lucas attended the three meetings in their capacity as members of SIRG. Father Peters attended as representative of Bishop Manning and as an observer. Farrell was present at each meeting.

Bishop Manning had withdrawn Farrell’s faculties before the first meeting. The meetings were held to advise Bishop Manning on whether Farrell should be allowed public ministry.

After each of the meetings, Father Peters reported to Bishop Manning by way of letters. Each of three letters in evidence was written by Father Peters. He wrote the three letters on the dates recorded and gave them to Bishop Manning, who, at some time, read them. It has not been suggested to us that he deliberately lied or was dishonest in the accounts he gave in the letters.

Father Lucas accepts that the first letter is an accurate account of the first meeting, save for the reference to the admissions having been made. Monsignor Usher said that Father Peters captured some of the things Farrell said but interpreted them in another way.

Father Peters died in 2015.

Father Peters did not give evidence to us. However, in 2012 Father Peters’ recollection was tested to varying extents about his letters - in particular, his first letter and whether Farrell made the admissions set out in that letter:

• before and during the Four Corners program in discussions with Monsignor Usher and Father Lucas

• by the legal representatives of the Archdiocese of Sydney

• by Mr Whitlam QC.

Nonetheless, Monsignor Usher and Father Lucas were unable to question him under the same circumstances they were questioned. Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher were closely examined about their recollections and they did not have the benefit of testing Father Peters in the same way.

Our task is to consider the sworn evidence of Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher as to what occurred at the meeting and the relevant documentary evidence.

We have set out the occasions on which each provided his account of the meetings, particularly the first and third meeting, and those accounts in some detail.

Report of Case Study No. 44

216

16.2 Monsignor Usher’s evidence

Monsignor Usher has also given his recollections of the three meetings on various occasions.

Save for the file note made of the interview with the Archdiocese of Sydney’s solicitors, each document was created by him, signed by him or a transcript of an interview. He did not dispute the accuracy of what was said, although he provided various interpretations of them. We accept that each accurately represented what he said or wrote.

Monsignor Usher’s accounts differ from each other, sometimes in immaterial respects which can be viewed as the effects of the passage of time. However, in other respects they frankly did not make sense and were on occasions rambling and lacking coherency. They are set out above in detail. His explanations for the differences and the reasons he advanced why we should not accept the accuracy of Father Peters’ letter were not persuasive. Further, the materially different responses that Monsignor Usher gave makes his recollection of the first meeting not credible.

He has variously expressed his recollection of the first meeting in relation to Farrell making admissions as that:

• He made ‘no admissions’.

• He made ‘no personal disclosures of criminal behaviour’.

• He provided no ‘information relating to sexual contact with specific children, or of any actual criminal conduct’.

• Farrell continually denied any wrongdoing, spoke of boundary violations and described his sexual fantasies, which included sex with children.

• ‘I do not believe that Farrell made any admissions in relation to any of the abuse that was alleged against him in Armidale and Moree.’

The key reason Monsignor Usher advanced as to why the letters were not accurate as to admissions being made was that, if they were, Monsignor Usher would have reported them to the police. He said that that was his practice. However, it was submitted on his behalf that, as an alternative to a finding being made that admissions were made, it should be found that Monsignor Usher did not understand that Farrell was making admissions.

Whether or not Monsignor Usher had that understanding does not affect whether the admissions recorded in the letter were made.

Monsignor Usher gave other reasons or explanations for why Father Peters’ letter was not accurate:

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

217

• Father Peters had conflated information he had from other sources.

• Farrell was ‘deranged and bizarre’ and talking about sexual fantasies.

• Farrell was too smart to make admissions.

• It suited Farrell to make admissions under oath in 2004.

• It was inconceivable that Farrell would make admissions when he was seeking to return to ministry.

First, Monsignor Usher could not identify with any precision what information Father Peters had before the meeting or the source of that information. He initially suggested it was probably in the files held by the diocese. When that was questioned, he said the information was from ‘stories floating around the diocese of Armidale’.

We accept from Father Peters’ interview with Mr Whitlam QC that, while Father Peters had some general concerns about rumours about Farrell, he had only a cursory knowledge of Farrell’s history of sexual abuse allegations in the Diocese of Armidale before the first meeting. It is also clear from the material held on the files at the diocese, as set out earlier, that that detail was not available to Father Peters.

It follows that Father Peters did not have sufficient information to conflate the information in his 11 September 1992 letter with his knowledge of the prior allegations against Farrell.

Father Peters specifically denied he did so when questioned by Mr Whitlam as to that very issue.

Further, Monsignor Usher’s reasoning is at odds with his evidence that Father Peters would give the bishop an accurate account of the meeting.

Second, he said it was Farrell fantasising, talking about rumours, and/or he was bizarre, deranged or dishonest. There is a deal of evidence before us as to Farrell’s general demeanour and the accounts he had given of the allegations against him.

In the period preceding the first meeting, Bishop Manning has recorded many discussions with Farrell that have concerned his conduct, Dr Blaszczynski has written a report and two years earlier Monsignor Usher had interviewed Farrell and recorded his opinion. None of them describe him in the way Monsignor Usher did.

Further, the written accounts by each of the three priests around the time of the meetings do not describe conduct as described by Monsignor Usher.

Third, Monsignor Usher said that Farrell was too smart to make admissions and it was inconceivable that he would do so.

Report of Case Study No. 44

218

We have accepted the accuracy of the note Bishop Manning made on his conversation with Farrell on 1 September 1992. It is clear from that note that Farrell made admissions to Bishop Manning.

Further, we note that on 10 September 2003 Bishop Matthys met with Farrell to discuss the report received from Encompass Australasia after his week-long treatment at the centre. A signed file note of Bishop Matthys dated 14 October 2003 records the discussion:

John bumped into my presence, cheerful and self-contented. He reported that he had not learnt anything new about himself. He admitted to them, he said, that he had abused boys in the past. He stated that he had been diagnosed some years ago by a psychologist, that he was sexually immature and undeveloped. 998

In 2015 statement to NSW Police, Father Flood said that he had a conversation with Farrell as follows:

[44] During one earlier conversation, John told me that he was prepared to admit to some offences against the boys but that others did not happen. John mentioned that there was one bloke on the North Coast, who he had never met, who alleged that he sexually assaulted him. John did not mention any names during this phone call and I did not ask him.

[45] During a much earlier phone conversation, John told me that he wanted to tell me how it happened (by this I took that he was talking about sexually abusing the young boys). I told John that I didn’t want to know what he had done, because if I was ever asked to give evidence at court I would have to tell it how I knew it, and I would prefer to say that I didn’t know. 999

Father Flood gave evidence to the Royal Commission that this conversation likely took place before 2015 but that he could not remember when it occurred or even what decade it took place in. 1000 He later gave evidence that this conversation took place ‘much later’ after the acts of child sexual abuse occurred.1001

We have also accepted the accuracy of the transcript of the criminal proceedings. That indicates that Farrell again made admissions, this time under oath. Those admissions may not have been complete, and the transcript may not be complete. However, we do not doubt that it is a formal transcript of court proceedings.

Further, the evidence that Farrell was deranged and bizarre cannot be reconciled with evidence that Farrell was too smart to make admissions.

As noted above, Monsignor Usher agreed that Farrell had poor judgment and was self-centred.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

219

Monsignor Usher’s evidence as to why Father Peters’ letter was wrong was confused, rambling and internally inconsistent. We do not accept his evidence on what was said at the meetings with Farrell as credible.

16.3 Father Peters’ evidence

Several issues arise as to Father Peters’ accounts.

First, in June 2012 he initially agreed with Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher that Farrell had made no admissions.

Father Peters told Mr Whitlam QC said he did not initially remember that he had written the letter or its contents until it was shown to him around the time of the Four Corners program. That is not surprising, given the passage of time and does not, to us, call into question the accuracy of the first letter.

However, once he had seen it, he accepted it.

Second, it was submitted to us by Monsignor Usher’s counsel that Father Peters’ first letter was not contemporaneous with the events described in the letter and therefore is not reliable. We do not agree. A period of eight days after the meeting occurred is not sufficient to render it unreliable.

Third, counsel for the Truth, Justice and Healing Council made submissions concerning the knowledge of Father Peters. They submitted that there was an inconsistency in Father Peters’ first letter between the paragraphs recording the admissions and the paragraph ‘the whole matter of the allegations was an unresolved matter. Without resolution no recommendation could come for an appointment to another diocese from the Bishop of Armidale’. Because of that inconsistency and that Mr Whitlam QC did not ask Father Peters whether Farrell made admissions, a finding should not be made about what Father Peters understood Farrell said at the first meeting.

We do not agree that there is an inconsistency. The paragraph referred to above was in the context of widespread knowledge in the diocese of the nature of the allegations and the arising scandal. What was known in the community was the charges at Narrabri. As we have said earlier, there was concern within the clergy and the community that justice had not been achieved when those charges were dismissed. We are of the view that it was to those allegations that the paragraph set out above was directed. In the minds of those in the community, those allegations, which formed the charges at Narrabri, were not resolved.

Finally, in Ms Cook’s file note (set out above), Father Peters is recorded as having said that he did not take notes at the meeting on 3 September 1992. 1002

Report of Case Study No. 44

220

Father Peters told Mr Whitlam QC that he did not remember taking notes. When Mr Whitlam QC reminded him that he had said in the letter when the meeting commenced and concluded, Father Peters concluded that he ‘must have’ taken notes. Mr Whitlam QC then agreed with him that he must have taken notes and told him that ‘you wouldn’t write a three page letter saying when it started and when it finished, unless you …’. Father Peters replied that he ‘did not have a memory of taking notes, but you would have to conclude that I did’. 1003

Father Peters then agreed with Mr Whitlam QC that he would have compiled his notes and reported to the bishop after the meeting was held .1004

No notes have been produced to us and we are satisfied that Father Peters’ account to Mr Whitlam QC is equivocal as to whether he took notes.

Our conclusions as to the accuracy of the letter appear below. However, we are not persuaded that any of these matters affect the accuracy of the letter.

16.4 Father Lucas’ evidence

Like Monsignor Usher, Father Lucas’ accounts varied each time they were recorded. His accounts in 2012 began with his response to Four Corners that Farrell was ‘not specific with respect to any admissions’. The various changes to that account have been set out above and concluded with him telling the ABC AM program that Farrell’s behaviour was ‘criminal and wicked’. We have set out above our findings about Father Lucas’ evidence about the first meeting.

Father Lucas told us many times that he could not make sense of the letter and it ‘puzzled’ him. His evidence was largely directed to proposing explanations or reasons why we should not accept the accuracy of the letter. Many of those reasons were the same as those advanced by Monsignor Usher.

The evidence is set out above. In short form, they were as follows:

• People did not make admissions and, if an admission was made, there would be ‘remorse and upset and drama’.

• It was not a complete confession.

• It did not accord with subsequent actions, including meetings held and the five-year plan.

• He would have been shocked, and it would have been something he would not forget.

• Father Peters may have had a separate conversation with Farrell or was relying on other information.

• Farrell was ranting, vague and all over the place.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

221

We note Father Lucas’ evidence that, if the letter is accurate, his memory is ‘fundamentally flawed’ as to what occurred at the meeting.

We do not accept Father Lucas’ propositions as to why we should be satisfied that the letter is not accurate. Our reasoning in relation to the admissions Farrell made before and after the meeting, Farrell’s demeanour and whether Father Peters was relying on other information is set out above.

In relation to the five-year plan, as we understand it, it was very difficult to have a priest laicised without his consent. A large part of Monsignor Usher and Father Lucas’ work in the late 1980s and early 1990s was to persuade priests by what means were available to them to have them resign. We view the five-year plan as part of that process and certainly not inconsistent with it.

16.5 Other submissions on behalf of Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher

Counsel for Father Lucas submitted that:

two persons called and questioned in an attempt to prove the reliability of a document - not authored or adopted by either of them and written over 24 years before their extensive examination in the public hearing - were inevitably going to have some stumbles in memory and in consistency between each other and internally in their own recollections and reconstructions and other evidence. 1005

Counsel submitted that, despite or because of the inconsistencies, their evidence should be accepted as honest and given to the best of their abilities.

We do not accept that they were mere ‘stumbles’. The materially different responses given by Father Lucas makes his recollection of the first meeting not credible.

Counsel for Monsignor Usher submitted that the transcript of the court proceedings in 2004, which was tendered, is not complete and it cannot be assumed that his evidence was true. Further, it is ‘untested hearsay’. Counsel for Father Lucas made a similar submission, albeit using different language. 1006

Father Lucas conceded in his submission that Farrell’s answers under cross-examination ‘come close to being an adoption of the letter’. His submission also says that it cannot be said to be conclusively adopting its contents as accurate.

Report of Case Study No. 44

222

It is the case that a complete transcript was not tendered, although there was no objection to its tender. However, the portion which was tendered recorded Farrell giving evidence on oath that he made admissions to the three priests on 3 September 1992. Farrell’s evidence at the trial was against his interests - there is no reason for him to concede that he made ‘certain admissions’ that he had oral sex with young boys to Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters if he did not do so.

We accept the transcript as a true record of what Farrell said and we accept the truth of the evidence he gave under oath.

Counsel for Father Lucas submitted there were other grounds for scepticism as to the truth of the letter:

• Father Lucas’ ‘puzzlement’ as to why Father Peters agreed that no admissions were made until the letter was revealed was credible.

• Farrell’s actions until the meeting were to deny ‘everything and fight to remain in the church’. It is therefore unlikely that Farrell proceeded to ‘launch’ into admissions.

• There is a mixing of the concept of ‘admissions’ and ‘allegations against himself’.

• No constraints were placed on Farrell between that meeting and the next in three weeks’ time.

• Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher had done positive work in trying to get the Church to act on child sexual abuse.

Father Peters’ evidence is that he did not remember the letter until he saw it. We do not share Father Lucas’ ‘puzzlement’ as to that.

Farrell had made admissions to Bishop Manning shortly before the meeting. As is clear from the remainder of the letter, which Father Lucas accepted as accurate, it was within that context that Farrell was negotiating his position with the Church.

Father Peters was not a lawyer and we do not believe that the use of language as described warrants scepticism on our part as to the accuracy of the letter.

Constraints had been placed on Farrell before the first meeting. His faculties had been removed.

In relation to the final submission, we acknowledge the work done by Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher.

Monsignor Usher’s submissions detail at length his qualifications, background and work as a priest in the area of child sexual abuse and other related issues.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

223

Many of the submissions address his motive not to refer the allegations to the police in 1992. We make no findings as to why none of Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters reported to police the admissions that Farrell made in 1992. We note that the SIRG Protocol did not require them to do so. The police are investigating the issue of reporting to the police. Our findings are directed to whether the admissions were made and the evidence given in 2012 and before us as to whether we can be satisfied that they were made.

For the above reasons, we accept that on 3 September 1992 Farrell made the admissions set out in the first letter from Father Peters to Bishop Manning dated 11 September 1992. We do not accept the evidence of Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher to the contrary.

Report of Case Study No. 44

224

17 Events from November 1992 to May 2012 17.1 Farrell resigns from the priesthood

In December 1992, Farrell took a five-year leave of absence from the priesthood. 1007 The leave was subject to several terms and conditions which were similar to the seven-point plan put to Farrell by SIRG.

On 11 May 1993, Bishop Manning met with Farrell. Bishop Manning’s handwritten notes of that meeting are in evidence. 1008 Bishop Manning recorded, amongst other things, that Farrell gave him a letter indicating that, after having consulted with Mr Boyle, he was moving to leave the priesthood. He also noted, ‘Confronted him with the fact that he had really done nothing since 1986 to help himself be rehabilitated’. Bishop Manning noted that Farrell had refused to cooperate with Dr Blaszczynski and told Farrell that counselling with Mr Boyle would not satisfy him. 1009

A further handwritten, undated note titled ‘Farrell’ records the following:

You knew about this man’s crimes when you suspended him and did nothing to bring him to account.

One cannot act against the will of the victims or solicit them to take action. 1010

Mr Whitlam QC asked Bishop Manning about this note and said to him that it ‘looks like your handwriting’, which Bishop Manning did not dispute.

We accept that this note is in the handwriting of Bishop Manning. It is very similar to the handwriting in the note recording the meeting with Father Flood titled ‘Conversation with Rev Father B Flood about Rev J Farrell’, which Bishop Manning accepted was his handwriting.

Bishop Manning told Mr Whitlam QC that he had no recollection of what the note was recording. He said it ‘looks as though it’s some accusation from somebody’ but said ‘the only crimes I knew about was the Narrabri court case and the rumours that surrounded that. I had no recollection of any other of his crimes’.

We find that the evidence is not sufficient to establish what Bishop Manning’s note was intended to record.

17.2 Farrell seeks permission to celebrate a funeral mass

Late in May 1993, Farrell sought Bishop Manning’s permission to celebrate a funeral mass. 1011 Bishop Manning refused permission. He wrote to Farrell that it ‘concerns me that you still do not seem to realise the seriousness of your situation’. 1012 He continued:

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

225

You are a suspended priest of the Diocese. You do not seem to appreciate that, under the present circumstances, any public action by you as a priest increases the possibility that further criminal action could be brought against [you] by the civil authorities. That possibility is further increased within this diocese where the nature of the allegations made against you is well known. 1013

Bishop Manning wrote that he was refusing permission to celebrate the funeral mass because of ‘concerns for [Farrell’s] good, the good for the priesthood and the good of the Church’. 1014

Bishop Manning also raised in the letter the issue of Farrell returning to ministry. He wrote that it would not be possible for him to consider Farrell returning to active ministry without his involvement in the program of rehabilitation previously offered to Farrell. 1015

17.3 CPE contacts Father Flood

On 30 August 1993, Father Flood wrote to Bishop Manning reporting on a phone call with CPE in which she reported that her son was sexually abused by Farrell. He recorded that she said ‘the Church had done nothing for those boys’. She went on to claim that the anger was shared by other parishioners as well. Father Flood wrote:

It may be opportune for you to write to the family asking her to speak with you around the matter. Pastorally it would certainly he helpful here in the Parish if a formal apology were to be issued. I would presume that legal advice would need to be sought before proceeding that way as the apology would be a statement which could be tendered in court as evidence that the Diocese deemed the allegation as substantiated. In fact my comment to CPE implied that I knew her son was among the alleged victims and I may have been injudicious to have responded the way I did. Either way it seems appropriate to brief you of the conversation. The matter is difficult as it is sensitive. 1016

Father Flood told us he had no recollection of receiving a reply from the bishop and he had no recollection of doing anything further. 1017

Father Flood expected and hoped that Bishop Manning’s response to this letter would be to ‘intervene, or at least tell me what he intended doing, so appropriate parish support could be there’. Father Flood did not recall Bishop Manning doing any of those things. He did not hear of any formal apology being given. He did not hear of any family being written to. 1018

In his interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Bishop Manning said that he did not speak with Father Flood around this time. 1019

Report of Case Study No. 44

226

17.4 Civil claims and criminal proceedings arise

On 10 November 1993, Bishop Manning wrote to Mr John Taylor (who was the acting general manager at CCI) foreshadowing ‘the possibility of some threat of a claim that could eventuate in the future’. 1020

On 28 December 1993, victim advocacy group Broken Rites issued a media release stating that the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption had been asked to investigate the conduct of the magistrate who presided over Farrell’s 1988 criminal proceeding at Narrabri. 1021 The press release stated:

The magistrate who heard the 1988 case is a prominent Catholic layman in a northern NSW parish, where the priest served from 1984 to 1988 … the priest was still in the magistrate’s parish when police laid the charges …

Nobody was surprised when this magistrate discharged the priest without a trial.

The case should have been heard by a different magistrate not connected with the priest. A church should not be seen to receive preferential treatment in the judicial process.1022

On the same day, Bishop Manning issued a press release in response. 1023 He wrote that he had read the press release issued by Broken Rites and considered that it was ‘a most serious allegation to suggest that a magistrate is corrupt’. He continued:

The priest involved in the case is not working as a priest and I understand he is pursuing private studies at the University of New England.

The Australian Bishops have well established procedures for dealing with allegations against clergy and are firmly committed to ensuring such allegations are dealt with decisively and in a way consistent with the due process of law. 1024

On 2 May 1994, Bishop Manning completed a CCI Special Issues Incident Report in relation to Farrell and allegations of abuse made by the boy the subject of the proceedings at Narrabri. Bishop Manning completed the section entitled ‘Details of alleged incident’ as follows:

This priest was charged at Narrabri Local Court in February 1988 with Indecent Assault (5) and Sexual Intercourse without consent (6).

The priest was discharged without a trial.

Broken Rites is having the Magistrate investigated by ICAC on the grounds of conflict of interest.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

227

I have completed this form ‘assuming’ that if the original charge is true there may be ‘other’ cases attributed to this priest. So far none have surfaced although rumours persist.1025

On this form, Bishop Manning indicated that the incident was known to a diocesan authority in 1984. Bishop Manning noted that he ‘presumed’ it was ‘advised’ to Bishop Kennedy. 1026

On 30 June 1995, Bishop Manning received a letter from the law firm McCabe Brown informing him that they had been instructed to advise him that there would be a claim made by their client and that they ‘anticipate a number of other claims will be made arising from the conduct of father Farrell against the Roman Catholic Church, the Diocese of Armidale and any other relevant representatives and organs of the Roman Catholic Church’. 1027

In 1996, a civil action seeking damages for injuries which had arisen following alleged sexual abuse by Farrell in 1983 was commenced. 1028 In the context of this litigation, Arrow Insurance Adjusting undertook an investigation on behalf of CCI in relation to Farrell. 1029 It was in those circumstances that they read the first letter from Father Peters.

On 3 April 1996, Father Peters filled out a CCI Special Issues/Ethical Standards Form in relation to the litigation. He indicated that the date of the alleged incident was ‘or on about 27 April 1983’ and that there was no police involvement. He provided the following details about the circumstances in which diocesan authorities became ‘aware of this incident or any other incident involving this offender’:

The first time the Diocesan Authorities became aware of the alleged incident was when John Farrell was arrested at Tamworth on thirteenth of August 1987. The information was then given to Bishop Kennedy by the Administrator of the Tamworth parish, Father Gerard Hanna. In regard to any other alleged incident regarding this offender, in approximately March 1984, allegations of rumours concerning John Farrell using inappropriate language and suggestion of a sexual nature were made by a parent to Monsignor F Ryan who was the Parish Priest of Moree NSW at the time. The allegations were about inappropriate language and no allegations re John Farrell of a behavioural nature were made at that time. 1030

At the time of preparing this Special Issues Incident Report to CCI in April 1996, Father Peters knew of ‘other incident[s] involving this offender’ which this form required him to detail. He did not disclose that diocesan authorities were aware of the matters set out in his letter to Bishop Manning dated 11 September 1992. He told the Archdiocese of Sydney solicitors and Mr Whitlam QC in 2002 that he had forgotten about the letter until shown it in 2012.

In 1998, Farrell was charged with sexual assault offences against a child whom he did not meet during his time as a priest. 1031 All charges were dismissed in 1999. 1032

Report of Case Study No. 44

228

17.5 Allegations of blackmail emerge

In August 1998, Mr Davoren of the Professional Standards Committee told Father Peters that Farrell had advised him that he was being blackmailed by a young man who alleged Farrell had sexually assaulted him. The blackmail had commenced in February 1998. Farrell had paid the blackmailer $22,000 to that date.

Mr Davoren told Father Peters that he advised Farrell he should apply for dispensation from obligations of priesthood. 1033

The following day, Father Peters spoke to Farrell, who told him of being blackmailed and that he was moving towards applying for a dispensation from priesthood. Farrell said:

John explained that the young man knew of the allegations against John of sexual abuse against young men in Moree many years ago and was taking advantage of that to threaten John. John advised he paid up because of the very difficult situation he was in because of the previous allegations of sexual abuse.

John advised that he had seen a solicitor who had advised him he had no choice but to take the matter to the police, otherwise he would be never free of the threats from the alleged blackmailer. The solicitor was to take further advice on the weekend of 15, 16 August.1034

In September 1998 Father Peters received a message from Farrell advising that the blackmailer had been arrested by police:

He’s likely to make all sorts of unusual allegations in return. I’ve been advised to let you know that, and if there was anything in Armidale you think should be got rid of, this is the time to do it. I’ll be in touch again. Hope you’re well. Goodbye now.

Father Peters’ file note of the conversation said:

I did not personally speak to John. But I wondered if John was suggesting in the message that I should remove material from his file.

I arranged a consultation within an hour with solicitor Rob Watt of Watson, McNamara and Watt of Armidale. Rob Watt confirmed an opinion previously received, that the file should not be interfered with. 1035

Father Lucas gave evidence that this did not come to his attention in 1998. 1036

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

229

In September 1998, CPK was arrested and charged with 12 counts of Demand Money with Intent to Steal after Farrell had paid him various amounts amounting to approximately $22,000.1037 CPK stood trial in 2004.

17.6 Farrell’s evidence in CPK’s extortion trial

As noted above, in September 1998, CPK was arrested and charged with 12 counts of Demand Money with Intent to Steal after Farrell had paid him various amounts amounting to approximately $22,000.1038

CPK’s trial was set down for three days in June 2004. Before the hearing, on 10 May 2004, CPK’s solicitor filed a Subpoena for Production in the District Court of New South Wales to the Diocese of Parramatta seeking, among other things, production of documents relating to Farrell.1039

Father Peters’ letter to Bishop Manning of 11 September 1992, reporting on the meeting between Farrell and Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters on 3 September 1992, was produced in response to the subpoena. 1040

On 17 June 2004, Farrell gave evidence in CPK’s extortion trial. 1041 The following exchange between Counsel for CPK and Farrell is recorded on the transcript, in relation to the meeting between Farrell and Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters on 3 September 1992:

MASSEY: Now Father Farrell, sorry, Mr Farrell were you at a meeting on 3 September 1992?

Q. I don’t know.

Q. With yourself, Reverend Brian Lucas, Reverend Usher and Reverend Peters?

A. I attended a meeting in Sydney and - what date?

Q. 3 September 1992?

A. Towards the end of 1992, yes.

Q. And that I suggest to you that at that meeting you made certain admissions to those priests that you had had oral sex with young boys, what do you say about that?

A. Yes.

Report of Case Study No. 44

230

Q. And that’s the reason why they won’t let you carry out your duties as a priest isn’t it?

A. That’s part of it, yes.

Q. Not just because you had a falling out with the bishop?

A. It was subsequent to that, that -

Q. I imagine it would have been?

A. Yeah.

Q. That of course breaks your promise of chastity doesn’t it?

A. Actually what you are talking about is the promise I took of celibacy, which is not getting married, but if you are saying was it wrong and sinful to engage in wrong practices the answer is yes, and I am deeply sorry for what had happened. 1042

Father Lucas gave evidence that he was not aware of CPK’s extortion proceedings in 2004. 1043 He was unaware that Farrell gave evidence in the trial. He said that he became aware of that fact ‘sometime later’, but he did not recall exactly when. 1044 Father Lucas said it was ‘never’ talked about in any priestly circles that Farrell had given evidence at CPK’s trial. 1045

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

231

18 Before the Four Corners Program in 2012 As stated above, in 2012 the Diocese of Armidale became aware that the ABC program Four Corners was to air an episode on the diocese’s handling of the Farrell matter.

18.1 ‘Putting their heads together’

It is clear from the evidence set out earlier in this report that Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters discussed the various emails from Four Corners and their responses to them on a number of occasions.1046

Father Lucas gave evidence that the purpose of speaking with Fathers Peters and Usher was to determine ‘What were the recollections and what sort of response - because we had each received a similar email from Four Corners; what would be the response’. 1047

Father Lucas said that it would be good if each recollection accorded with one another because ‘it would be more likely to say, since each has remembered the same thing, the same thing is the same thing’. 1048

Father Lucas gave evidence that, in seeking to come to that combined view, Monsignor Usher was ‘clearer and firmer in his view’; Father Lucas was ‘uncertain and to some extent maybe deferred to [Monsignor Usher’s] view’; and Father Peters agreed with Monsignor Usher’s perspective - which was a ‘puzzlement’ to Father Lucas. 1049 Father Lucas accepted that Father Peters may simply not have remembered that he had written a letter. 1050

It was suggested to Father Lucas that it appeared as though Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters ‘put [their] heads together to come up with a view that was in each of [their] own interests’. Father Lucas said he could ‘accept that that’s what it looks like’.1051 Father Lucas denied that this was in fact the case and said that he thought they were ‘genuinely trying to be honest in the response, to find a formula of words that would be an honest response to Four Corners’. 1052

Nevertheless, Father Lucas accepted the proposition that, as a result of ‘putting [their] heads together’, Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters came up with a form of words that they ‘could all live with’. Father Lucas said that the form of words that they had agreed upon was ‘along the lines that there had been no specific admissions’. 1053

It was his understanding that, regardless of what they as individuals may have recalled, the idea was that they would put their heads together and come up with one response and that each of them would ‘stick by it’. 1054

In his September 2012 statement, which he made shortly before his interview with Mr Whitlam QC, Monsignor Usher recalled the context within which he provided the file note to Cardinal Pell:

Report of Case Study No. 44

232

[61] Fr Peters rang me on about the 5th or 6th of June and said to me words to the effect of ‘Did you speak to Fr Lucas’, or ‘Did you get a message from Fr Lucas’, to which I replied ‘Yes’. Fr Peters then said words to the effect of ‘Did he tell you what I said to him, that there were no admissions made and therefore there was nothing sent to the police?’ I indicated to Fr Peters that Fr Lucas had told me that information and that my recollection was the same. 1055

Monsignor Usher did not accept that he, Father Lucas and Father Peters had ‘put their heads together’ in relation to a response to be made to the public about what happened at the first meeting: 1056

A. Well, we didn’t put our heads together. I just rang the two of them and asked, ‘Is it your opinion that Farrell made admissions?’ That’s all. There was no putting of heads together.

Q. Did you have some discussions in order to find common ground among you?

A. Not really, I just rang them and said, ‘What’s your recollection? Did he make - do you think he made admissions?’ They both told me ‘No’. Adamantly, ‘No’.

Q. I beg your pardon?

A. They were adamant.

Q. So each of you had the same view precisely and, therefore, you conveyed that view?

A. To Cardinal Pell, yes.

Q. There was no discussion necessary?

A. There wasn’t any meeting or anything about it; I spoke to each of them on the phone. 1057

18.2 The common recollection?

Father Lucas’ evidence was that Monsignor Usher was mistaken in terms of what the three priests agreed was their combined recollection. He said that Monsignor Usher might have heard that the three of them had agreed on the terminology that there were ‘no admissions’, but this was incorrect. 1058 Father Lucas said that if he were in Monsignor Usher’s position the words he would have used would be ‘although he made no specific admissions’. 1059

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

233

Father Lucas said that Monsignor Usher was ‘much clearer’ in his recollection and it made Father Lucas question whether he was wrong in his own surmising. 1060 Father Lucas gave evidence that when he came to write the words he sent to Four Corners he ‘put in what, essentially, was perhaps some midway position, that there were no specific admissions’. 1061

As at 6 June 2012, it was Father Lucas’ best recollection that Farrell had made ‘no specific admissions’. 1062 He said that this was the recollection which he shared with the other two priests.1063

Father Lucas accepted that there was ‘nothing remotely like’ this recollection in Monsignor Usher’s file note to Cardinal Pell. 1064

He accepted that it was wrong to read Monsignor Usher’s file note to Cardinal Pell as a view held by each of them.1065

We are satisfied that, after receiving the emails from the Four Corners producer, Father Lucas, Monsignor Usher and Father Peters put their heads together to come up with an account which was in each of their own interests.

We are satisfied that the file note prepared by Monsignor Usher for use by Cardinal Pell was incorrect in that it implied that each of the three priests had the same recollection. The effect of that statement was to discredit the account in Father Peters’ letter that Farrell had made admissions because all three priests agreed he had not.

18.3 Father Lucas writes Father Peters’ response to Four Corners

As set out above, Father Lucas provided a draft response to Father Peters to send to Four Corners. Father Peters amended that response then forwarded it to Four Corners . The circumstances in which Father Lucas drafted the response was the subject of much evidence, which we set out below. Ultimately, we are not satisfied that the events occurred as Father Lucas contended in his evidence to us.

In a meeting with individuals from the Archdiocese of Sydney on 4 July 2012, Father Peters is recorded as saying the following about the process of Father Lucas drafting the email for him to send to Four Corners:

[26] Mgr Peters said that he obtained Fr Lucas’ assistance in framing responses to questions by 4 Corners. He was asked by 4 Corners whether there was any information that was reportable to the police and, if so, did he report to the police. When Mgr Peters spoke to Fr Lucas about 4 Corners, Fr Lucas said ‘I think they must have a copy of that letter, he said Fr Lucas made reference to the Broken Rites website.

Report of Case Study No. 44

234

[27] In consultation with Fr Lucas (who gave him a ‘form of words’), Mgr Peters responded that Fr F had said ‘nothing specific in a legal sense’ that could be reported to the police.1066

Father Lucas confirmed that he provided a draft form of words to Father Peters. 1067 He gave the following evidence:

I recall it was the middle of the night where I was. Something had changed. I think he’d received another request from Four Corners challenging him about his report, because he was in a bit of a state on the phone to me, and I had to try and put down in words what he wanted me to say which, to some extent, was a variation on his previous position. So in the light of what he told me, I put some words down and sent them back to him. 1068

Father Lucas said that Father Peters was in a state because he knew that Four Corners now had a document which proved that what all three of them had been saying previously was not correct.1069

Father Lucas said that he asked Father Peters about the report that Ms Jolley referred to. He said he did not see the report, and Father Peters did not send it to him because Father Lucas was in America at the time. 1070

Father Peters told him what he wanted to say about it and Father Lucas sent him back a form of words to use.1071

Father Lucas agreed that the words Father Peters was asking him to write were inconsistent with what Father Peters had previously told him was his recollection. 1072 Father Lucas gave evidence that it was ‘foolish’ for him to provide this draft to Father Peters. 1073

Father Lucas conceded that there was not only no point in Father Peters contacting him; it was also irrational if he was instructing Father Lucas what to write down and send back to him. 1074 When Counsel Assisting put to Father Lucas that it did not sound plausible that it happened that way, Father Lucas said that the purpose of sending back words Father Peters wanted to say was because Father Peters ‘was looking for some tighter words or specific words or what he could say, how to put this into words for Four Corners’. 1075 The following exchange took place:

Q. If he wanted tighter words or specific words, how could you provide those without knowing the document that he was commenting on?

A. I agree.

Q. But how could you have, as a matter of fact, because you say you did, but how could you possibly have done that without seeing the document?

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

235

A. I agree. It was a foolish thing to do. I should have been more demanding.

Q. More than foolish; it doesn’t make any sense. Do you understand that?

A. I do.

Q. It doesn’t make any sense to say that you were foolish in doing something which served no useful purpose from Father Peters’ point of view, from what you’re saying?

A. I agree. I don’t know what - I don’t know why he rang me. I know he was in a state. He tells me that there’s this report. He says, without reading the report to me - and I should have, but again, you know, he has woken me up in the middle of the night - he wants some words to respond to a new request. I have given him some words as a draft and, in hindsight, I should have told him to get other advice, but I sent it back to both of them, presuming they would talk between themselves.

THE CHAIR: Q. Father, I have to say to you, at the very least to me it seems odd that you were rung by Peters in the night - wherever you are. He’s in a state -

A. Yes.

Q. - about a document he has written -

A. Yes.

Q. - and yet, you don’t ask him to tell you what’s in the document that puts him into a state.

A. That’s correct.

Q. I have to tell you that’s very odd.

A. Yes, I agree.

Q. Can you offer any explanation as to why you say you didn’t ask him what was in the document?

A. No, other than I took on face value what he’d said to me, what he wanted said, and I quickly put some words down for him and sent them back to him. 1076

It was put to Father Lucas that Father Peters did in fact give him a copy of the letter and said to him, ‘We’ve got to get out of this in some way. Can you draft something to minimise the effect of that letter’. Father Lucas responded, ‘I can [be] absolutely certain that I never saw that letter until I saw it on the Four Corners program’. 1077

Report of Case Study No. 44

236

Father Lucas said that he ‘accepted the foolishness’ of settling a draft email without knowing what was in the letter. 1078 Father Lucas conceded that this was not honest. He said that he ‘did his best’ to reflect what Father Peters wanted to say. 1079

After lengthy examination on this point, Counsel Assisting confirmed Father Lucas’ position on several points:

Q. We began this discussion on this letter with you saying you just took down what his words were?

A. Yes.

Q. I think we’re now at the position where you had, in fact, provided at least ‘anything that would incriminate him or admit to an admission in a legal sense’; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. You’ve also provided instances of sexual misconduct ‘but deliberately would not give details’?

A. Yes.

Q. They are your words too, aren’t they?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, this is your document advising him what he could or should say to the ABC?

A. That’s reflecting as my understanding of what his intention was, yes.

Q. But this was not your understanding at all as to what happened at the meeting?

A. Precisely.

Q. Well then you’d spent that time, those various discussions, putting your heads together. Monsignor Usher, on your evidence, had gone off to the Cardinal misunderstanding your view?

A. Yes.

Q. You’d then put a different view to the other two who, presumably, hadn’t come back to you at this stage and then here is a third view that you’re being given by Peters, while you’re overseas, that you knew wasn’t your recollection and you thought probably wasn’t his because of what he’d said earlier; is that the situation?

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

237

A. Well, this is close to my recollection.

Q. This is close to your recollection; is that right?

A. That he didn’t make any admissions in a legal sense.

Q. Let’s go back then. You say your first recollection was that he didn’t make admissions of a specific nature or specific type?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you explain that you meant that he was talking about what had happened with a particular boy and you surmised that something had happened, but he didn’t tell you enough to be specific?

A. Yes.

Q. What you’ve got here is the word ‘admissions’ now being used generally. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. That’s different from ‘not in a specific sense’, isn’t it?

A. Yes.

Q. You’ve got a concession there had been instances of sexual misconduct. That’s not what you’ve said before?

A. That’s what he’s telling me is his position.

Q. But you’re, nevertheless, providing him with a draft of what you don’t believe happened in the meeting?

A. He’s telling me what he has put in some report that I’d never seen. Obviously, to a certain extent, my recollection was incorrect, or I thought it could have been incorrect.

Q. You were so keen to be on the same page because it would be less confusing and yet, you’re providing him with words of what happened to go to Four Corners where you don’t believe this was said?

A. No, I was at the position where I must have been incorrect. My recollection must have been incorrect. There must have been a different approach to it.

Report of Case Study No. 44

238

Q. But you had already had all of these meetings to come to a common view?

A. Yes, I know, and he’d never ever disclosed anything about this until this last minute and he -

Q. Well then, why are you helping him providing words when you didn’t believe this was what was said?

A. Well, I could have well been wrong. This was always my position. I didn’t -

Q. So you were conceding to him, as it were, were you?

A. To a certain extent I was, yes.

Q. On the phone, overseas, with him being upset?

A. Exactly right, yes.1080

Counsel Assisting put to Father Lucas that his evidence made ‘no sense’ 1081 and that he provided a draft to Father Peters of what he thought was necessary to give a different view of the plain reading of Father Peters’ letter. Father Lucas responded, ‘Well, I could put it in those terms, that I did my best to assist him on what he said was his now new recollection of what had happened’. 1082

Counsel Assisting put to Father Lucas that, having looked at the various emails over the month leading up to the Four Corners episode, it is almost impossible to conclude anything other than a manipulation by one or more or all of the priests as to what was going into the public domain. 1083 Father Lucas gave the following evidence:

I wouldn’t use the word ‘manipulation’. I think there was an honest attempt to try to find common ground. Then suddenly on 29 June that ground was shifted dramatically when Wayne Peters disclosed for the first time some report where he told me on the phone that there had been, in his report, some reference to ‘admissions’. I said, ‘What do you mean by that?’ And he tells me what he wants said. They weren’t specific admissions which roughly accorded to my own recollection, they were general admissions, so I sent him back some words to explain that.

Q. You were prepared to do that without having seen the letter which he said he was, in effect, dealing with?

A. Yes.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

239

Q. And you now say that’s foolish?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Anything more than foolish?

A. Careless and negligent.

Q. Negligent?

A. Yes.

Q. In relation to your duty to whom?

A. To him and in general terms. 1084

We find that Father Lucas’ evidence as to the circumstances in which he provided a response for Father Peters to an inquiry by Four Corners is implausible, and we reject it. We do not find it credible that he prepared a draft without seeing Father Peters’ letter or being told about its contents. The wording of the draft is consistent with, and consistent only with, that knowledge. His evidence was initially that he merely recorded what Father Peters told him. By the end of his evidence, he had conceded that he provided some of the words used in the draft response.

We are satisfied that Father Lucas was told of the contents of the 11 September 1992 letter before he completed his draft of the letter for Father Peters.

Report of Case Study No. 44

240

19 After the Four Corners Episode

On 2 July 2012, the ABC screened the episode of Four Corners entitled ‘Unholy Silence’.

The effect of the program was to allege that Farrell was moved from parish to parish with prior knowledge of Catholic Church authorities of allegations of sexual abuse made against him and that these allegations were never reported to police. The program emphasised the first meeting held between Farrell and Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters on 3 September 1992. 1085 The content of Father Peters’ 11 September 1992 letter, particularly the reference to the admissions that Farrell made at the first meeting, was publicly aired on the program.

Father Lucas said that he saw the 11 September 1992 letter when he was at the airport, and it was a ‘total shock’ to him.1086 At 3.21 am on 3 July 2012, he wrote to Monsignor Usher:

Have now watched four corners on Internet. No way did Farrell give us that details I wonder if Wayne had another meeting with him. I recall a reference by Wayne to two meetings. Report was 8 days after our meeting. Could Wayne have got more out of him afterwards. I do not think we can do any more. 1087

19.1 The Archdiocese of Sydney releases a media statement

On 4 July 2012, two days after the Four Corners program screened, the Archdiocese of Sydney issued a media statement. It stated:

The Archdiocese of Sydney does not accept allegations that its priests have failed to disclose the existence of crimes committed by a former Armidale priest.

Father Lucas and Monsignor Usher separately told the ABC 4 Corners programme in emails that no specific admissions were made at the meeting with Father F and they stand by these statements.

The recollections of Fr Lucas and Monsignor Usher accord with the information provided to Cardinal Pell and subsequently conveyed by him to ABC 4 Corners. In 1992, Cardinal Pell was an auxiliary bishop of Melbourne. He was not aware of the meeting held in Sydney in 1992 between the three priests and a priest of the Armidale diocese until it was raised by ABC 4 Corners.

Cardinal Pell made 4 Corners aware that each Bishop is responsible for his particular Diocese and, as such he has never had any authority over Fr F. This was always a matter for the Bishop of Armidale.

Contrary to reports, the letter of Father Peters to Bishop Manning was not an official record of the 1992 meeting. The letter was a private report from Father Peters to Fr F’s then Bishop.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

241

Neither Fr Lucas nor Monsignor Usher was aware of the existence and contents of Fr Peters’ letter until it was raised by the 4 Corners program. The letter does not reflect their recollections of the meeting or notes of the meeting held by the Church’s Professional Standards Office.

The Archdiocese of Sydney welcomes the announcement today by Bishop Kennedy, the Bishop of Armidale of a full independent investigation and strongly supports his call for any victims of sexual abuse to contact the police. Where victims are unable to do so or require assistance, the Church’s Professional Standards Office can assist by contacting the police on their behalf.

In addition, the Archdiocese of Sydney, through the Church’s Professional Standards Office, has contacted the NSW police and offered its cooperation with any investigations that may arise.

The suffering of victims of sexual abuse reported by 4 Corners is tragic and terrible. Cardinal Pell and all at the Archdiocese extend their deepest sympathies to all those affected by the evil of sexual abuse. The Archdiocese reiterates its commitment to bringing sexual abuse to light and to ensuring that victims are treated with compassion, respect and justice. 1088

Father Lucas gave evidence about this statement. We note that he was not the author of the statement.

Father Lucas said the statement that he and Monsignor Usher separately gave to Four Corners - that no specific admissions were made at the first meeting - was not correct. It reflected what he had said to Four Corners but not what Monsignor Usher had said. 1089 He accepted that the impression from that paragraph is that Fathers Lucas and Usher separately sent off their responses to Four Corners without coming to an agreed or otherwise position. 1090

Father Lucas said the statement that the recollections of Fathers Lucas and Usher accords with the information given to Cardinal Pell was ‘certainly not right’. 1091

Father Lucas agreed that there was ‘nothing unofficial’ about Father Peters’ letter. He agreed that it was a report he made in his proper capacity as an observer of that meeting to his bishop,1092 and Father Peters gave the letter to Bishop Manning in the usual course of his business.1093 Father Lucas agreed that the suggestion was that the report was not official and that this somehow affected its reliability. 1094

Father Lucas said that the statement that neither he nor Father Usher were aware of the existence and content of the letter until it was raised by Four Corners was accurate.1095

Report of Case Study No. 44

242

Father Lucas also said that he did not know what the statement ‘notes of the meeting held by the Church’s Professional Standards Office’ referred to. He said that he subsequently made two requests for these notes, and nothing was shown to him. 1096

There was no Professional Standards Office in 1992. Father Lucas told us that, if there were file notes of the meeting held by the Church’s Professional Standards Office, they certainly would not have been contemporaneous. 1097

The Archdiocese of Sydney stated that it ‘reiterates its commitment to bringing sexual abuse to light’. Father Lucas accepted ‘given the various machinations from late May to mid-July, one would be forgiven for thinking that the opposite of bringing it to light was indeed what happened’. 1098

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

243

20 The Whitlam Inquiry

On 23 July 2012, the Bishop of Armidale, Bishop Kennedy, and the Bishop of Parramatta, Bishop Fisher, jointly announced Terms of Reference for an independent inquiry commissioned by the two dioceses.1099

It was announced that former Federal Court judge the Hon. Antony Whitlam QC had been appointed to conduct the inquiry, which ‘will examine the processes related to the management of former priest, the then ‘Fr F’, who is the subject of allegations of abuse of children and complaints received from alleged victims’. 1100

The media release noted the inquiry would be a private inquiry and would not take the form of a public hearing. However, at the conclusion of the inquiry Mr Whitlam QC’s report would be made available for public access.1101

The Whitlam inquiry’s Terms of Reference included:

• The nature and quality of the management of complaints received by alleged victims of Fr F when they were received by the Diocese of Armidale or the Diocese of Parramatta including the response of Armidale and Parramatta to:

° the complaints received by alleged victims

° those who were responsible for supervising Fr F’s ministry

• The sequence of events that led to Fr F’s termination from ministry

• Information related to the 1992 meeting(s) of the Catholic Bishops Special Issues Resource Committee held in respect of Fr F’s ministry

• Whether the action taken by each of the Dioceses of Armidale and Parramatta in the management of Fr F was appropriate. 1102

During the inquiry, Mr Whitlam QC conducted interviews with a number of individuals, including clergy from the Dioceses of Armidale and Parramatta who were involved in, or had knowledge of, the response of those dioceses to allegations of child sexual abuse against Farrell. This included interviews with Bishops Manning, Heather and Hanna; Monsignor Usher; and Fathers Lucas, Gleeson and Flood, who gave evidence in this case study; as well as Father Peters, who died in February 2015 and did not give evidence in this case study.

Mr Whitlam QC delivered his report on 6 December 2012. In relation to the events from 1992 and the involvement of the SIRG, Mr Whitlam QC concluded that Monsignor Usher, Father Lucas and Father Peters did not ‘cover-up’ admissions allegedly made by Farrell at the 3 September 1992 meeting. 1103 He wrote that ‘After 20 years it is hardly surprising that all three men have different recollections of what was said by Farrell. Each of them brought different background knowledge to that first meeting’. 1104

Report of Case Study No. 44

244

Mr Whitlam QC wrote:

[156] The very specific admissions contained in the report of 11 September 1992 cannot be reconciled with the replies given to Ms Jolley. Nor do they accord with what Fr Lucas and Mgr Usher told me that they recollect being discussed at the meeting in question on 3 September 1992. There is nothing sinister in that situation. Nor do I consider that the earlier document must necessarily be accepted as a more accurate record of the discussion. I have tried to explain how I think Fr Peters came to prepare a fairly comprehensive report for his bishop which drew on information not available to Fr Lucas and Fr Usher. 1105

He continued:

[157] Notwithstanding the honest differences in recollection, I do not disbelieve Fr Lucas and Mgr Usher. Accordingly, if Farrell made no admissions that either of them considered could and should be reported to the police, then there was no ‘cover-up’ back in 1992. They had, of course, never seen the report prepared by Fr Peters. The ‘admissions’ in that report had also, albeit unknown to them, been aired in court as early as 2004. It would have been futile to attempt a ‘cover-up’ of its contents. 1106

It was submitted on behalf of Father Lucas that Mr Whitlam QC’s reasoning ‘is compelling and his conclusions as to the letter should be accepted’. It was also submitted that Mr Whitlam QC had access to ‘all relevant Church records’ and, ‘unlike this case study’, had interviewed all relevant Church people.

The task undertaken by Mr Whitlam QC was significantly different from the work of this Royal Commission. Our relevant Terms of Reference are considerably wider, and it is obvious that we exercised our power to compel the production of documents and to require available and competent witnesses to give evidence under oath.

Mr Whitlam QC did not record in his report all the documents to which he had access. Therefore, we do not know the basis for the submission that he had access to all relevant Church records. Without evidence to support the submission, we reject it.

We have taken into account the transcripts of the accounts given to Mr Whitlam QC. However, properly, we have come to our own view on the evidence before us.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

245

21 Bishop Matthys’ Response to Farrell

Bishop Matthys was ordained as a Catholic priest in South Africa in 1961. 1107 In 1976, he was incardinated as a priest of the Archdiocese of Melbourne. 1108

In March 1999, Bishop Matthys was appointed Bishop of Armidale, and he was officially ordained in May 1999. 1109

After Bishop Matthys arrived in the diocese in May 1999, he understood that Farrell was living in the diocese but had no faculties and could not function publicly as a priest. 1110 However, he knew that Farrell was permitted to ‘say private mass at home if he wanted’, could wear priestly garb ‘if he wanted to’ and could call himself a priest. 1111

Bishop Matthys gave the following evidence about what he heard about Farrell when he arrived at Armidale:

Well, when I came to Armidale, one of the first things I did was to issue faculties to the priests who were administering priestly functions in the diocese. There were a few people there who didn’t belong; they had just parked themselves there. So I did not issue faculties to JJ Farrell, because I’d been told there were things against him, and by then I had learned that they had tried to laicise him but that didn’t go on, so of course I asked why they wanted to laicise him and I was told various things. 1112

Bishop Matthys said that he was told that the reason why they wanted to laicise Farrell was ‘Because - they said that he was - had been fiddling and playing with young boys, et cetera, et cetera, and that complaints had been received, et cetera’. 1113

21.1 Complaint by the diocesan Director of Catholic Schools

On 15 March 2000, the diocesan Director of Catholic Schools, Mr RW Johnston, wrote a confidential letter to ‘Principals’, which enclosed a letter to Farrell of the same date, who was noted to be ‘not on active duty’. 1114 The letter to Farrell stated:

I am writing to inform you that you do not have my permission to enter Catholic Schools in the Diocese of Armidale for the purpose of assisting teachers and students with projects associated with the history of the Diocese.

In fact any invitation to our Catholic Schools is from the Principal and I will be advising them that a visit from you does not have my support.

I have consulted with Bishop Matthys in this matter. 1115

The circumstances that gave rise to this letter are not clear from the evidence. It seems likely that it was written because Farrell was visiting schools. However, we cannot conclude that on the evidence before us.

Report of Case Study No. 44

246

21.2 CPD’s complaint to Cardinal Pell and Bishop Matthys in 2002

The next relevant event occurred in June 2002, when CPD wrote to Cardinal Pell about his ‘prolonged sexual abuse’ by Farrell when he was an altar boy at Moree between 1982 and 1984.1116 CPD sought an explanation as to how Farrell had been dealt with by the Church in 1984. Cardinal Pell and Bishop Manning responded compassionately and encouraged him to report the matter to police. Their letters did not refer to the steps taken by the Church in relation to Farrell in 1984. 1117

Bishop Matthys told CPD that Farrell had been ‘forbidden to act as a priest since about 1992’. 1118 As part of Towards Healing, the bishop then met with CPD, who told him that he had decided not to report the matter to the police.

Bishop Matthys was asked whether a complainant who was unwilling to make a report to the police could participate in the Towards Healing process. Bishop Matthys responded: 1119

Well, they can be, but they stymie the whole process … Because there is no official record with the police of what happened or what they allege happened.

Bishop Matthys also had the following exchange regarding Towards Healing:

Q. Are you saying that, as far as you understood it, no-one could obtain any money through the Towards Healing process?

A. Well, not from me.

Q. As far as you were concerned were you responsible for the Towards Healing process in Armidale?

A. Yes.

Q. Anyone who was abused in Armidale could not get money through you from the church; is that right?

A. Well, not in the way you describe it as, no, no, no.

Q. How could they?

A. Well, you’re making out that they have a right to ask for -

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

247

Q. No, no, no, I’m just asking was there any means by which they could get money from the church, if they’d been abused by one of the priests in Armidale?

A. But why would they want to get money from the church?

Q. Because one of the church people, one of the ordained members of the church, had abused them?

A. Oh, I see. Well, that to me is compensation.

Q. And as far as you were concerned, no-one could get it; is that right?

A. That’s correct.1120

This evidence makes it clear that Towards Healing was not consistently applied in Australia and confirms the need for a national redress scheme.

21.3 Farrell attends Encompass Australasia

It was not until July 2003 that Farrell agreed to undertake a week-long course with Encompass Australasia in Sydney. 1121 In his letter to Dr Gerardine Taylor of Encompass Australasia dated 18 June 2003, Bishop Matthys states that Farrell was booked in for 20 July 2003. 1122 He also noted that:

My reason for suggesting that he go to Encompass is simply that this man has been out of the priesthood for some ten years now. He needs personal counselling for he is a very unhappy man. He has a history of molesting boys over a period of time. He has been told that he cannot return to the priesthood. Where does his future lie? A professional assessment of his personality should form the basis of some decisions he has to make. Of course, there is never one, simple cause for a person like John acting as he has and seems to continue to act. He needs help.

He remains a priest of this Diocese and so I have responsibilities towards him. His history shows that he agreed in earlier years to go to Encompass; he pulled out at the last moments, as he did with me in 2000. Maybe this time he will present and accept the assessment. 1123

On 20 August 2003, in a ‘Confidential’ report sent from Dr Taylor to Bishop Matthys, Dr Taylor expressed the opinion that Farrell continued to pose a ‘serious risk to children and adolescents’. The report states:

Report of Case Study No. 44

248

Thank you for your letter of 22nd July, 2003 requesting a report on Mr John Farrell’s presence at Encompass the week of July 21, 2003, and an opinion on the data you forwarded prior to the assessment …

Without disclosing any personal information related to Mr Farrell I can inform you that the assessment team is of the opinion that Mr Farrell continues to pose a serious risk to children and adolescents, and that he demonstrates entrenched cognitive distortions and personality traits that further add to his risk. Mr Farrell’s knowledge of victim impact is limited and he shows no insight into his behaviour and/or its underlying dynamics.

In relation to the data you forwarded, I am reluctant to comment except to say that it is obvious that Mr Farrell’s problematic personality dynamics are longstanding, and that his pattern of sexually abusive behaviour is also long term. It is the opinion of the assessment team that Mr Farrell requires treatment but that the prognosis for him after treatment would probably at best be guarded and at worst poor. Our concern is that Mr Farrell is accountable to no one and continues to pose an unacceptable risk to minors. 1124

Bishop Matthys’ evidence was that when he received this letter he recalled that he ‘immediately started a process to laicise [Farrell]’.1125 However, the evidence is that the process to laicise Farrell did not commence until almost two years later, in February 2005.

We note that by this time Farrell had had his faculties removed and had been refused permission to enter Catholic schools in the diocese.

Within 10 days, on 10 September 2003, Bishop Matthys met with Farrell to discuss the Encompass Australasia report. A signed file note of Bishop Matthys dated 14 October 2003 records the discussion:

John bumped into my presence, cheerful and self-contented. He reported that he had not learnt anything new about himself. He admitted to them, he said, that he had abused boys in the past. He stated that he had been diagnosed some years ago by a psychologist, that he was sexually immature and undeveloped.

After half an hour of self-exaltation, I requested that he write down for me what had transpired, and his summation of his five days at Encompass. I stressed again to him that he consider a ‘career-change’ as he understands very well that he will never be allowed to minister as a priest. I told him his mother won’t live for ever. That, after her death, he should go far away, preferably outside Australia, take a new name and a new identity. He pondered over this, did not disagree or agree. 1126

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

249

21.4 Catholic Commission for Employment Relations enquiry

The following year, on 14 July 2004, Bishop Matthys wrote a letter to the executive officer of the Catholic Commission for Employment Relations, Mr Michael McDonald, in response to an enquiry by Mr McDonald on 8 July 2004 about Farrell. 1127 Mr McDonald’s letter of enquiry is not in evidence.

In his response to Mr McDonald, after consulting Farrell’s file, Bishop Matthys recounted the extensive allegations against Farrell and the knowledge of the diocese over many years. He wrote:

1. As far as I can determine there were allegations of sexual abuse by JJF. When a Court case took place in Narrabri in 1988, the charges were dismissed. [REDACTED] laid charges.

As recently as February 1999 a case brought against JJF in the Armidale Magistrate’s Court was dismissed. His [REDACTED] alleged indecent assault.

2. There was more than one victim. [REDACTED] alleged he was indecently assaulted by JJF in April 1983 when [REDACTED] was aged 11 years. JJF has ‘acknowledged’ as many as five victims, but there may be more, I am uncertain what ages they were but they would have attended the Catholic Primary School in Moree, where JJF was an assistant priest.

3. As far as I can make out the Diocesan authorities became aware of the alleged incidents on 13th August 1987, when JJF was arrested in Tamworth.

4. At the time JJF was an assistant priest with general priestly duties in the parish. This included working with altar boys. I am not sure whether there were any school camps. He would certainly have been at the primary school.

5. John has had no assignment or appointment for many years. After Court case in Narrabri he spent some time in Parramatta diocese, where Bishop B Heather told him to leave after some time. In July 1984 he came under Gary Boyle & Associates for therapy. He is declared suitable for re-appointment! Currently JJF holds no appointment in this diocese and he is aware that no such an appointment will ever be given, here or in any other diocese. Bishop Kevin Manning suspended him and withdrew his faculties as a priest August 1992.

6. He was taken out of child related services as early as 1983, apart from a short period in Parramatta in 1984. 1128

Report of Case Study No. 44

250

Bishop Matthys also informed the Catholic Commission for Employment Relations about the Director of Catholic Schools ‘warn(ing) [Farrell] off all school properties, and the findings of the Encompass assessment in 2003 that Farrell continued to pose an unacceptable risk to minors. He followed this with the comment, “As if we did not know!”’. 1129

Bishop Matthys concluded the letter that he was ‘still hopeful’ Farrell would sooner or later apply for laicisation. 1130

As we found earlier, Father Peters’ first letter was on file in the diocese. Bishop Matthys advice to the Royal Commission that Farrell had acknowledged as many as five victims reflects the letter from Father Peters that Farrell ‘admitted that there had been five boys around the age of ten and eleven that he had sexually interfered with’ while he was assistant priest at Moree.

21.5 Civil proceedings

In 2005, CPK commenced civil proceedings against Farrell and the Dioceses of Armidale and Parramatta for the alleged sexual assaults by Farrell when he was a child. 1131 On 25 February 2005, the proceedings were settled without admission of liability. As part of the settlement negotiations, Farrell signed a petition to grant him dispensation from obligations of the priesthood. 1132

The Dioceses of Armidale and Parramatta were each ordered to pay $55,000 to CPK. Farrell was ordered to pay $25,000.1133 CPK died by suicide in 2007. 1134

21.6 Complaints about Farrell’s behaviour at the memorial mass for Pope John Paul II

Less than a month later, on 12 April 2005, the Head of Religious Services, Ms Lee Herden, signed a typed note entitled ‘Report on Incident in Sts Mary and Joseph’s Cathedral 7 April 2005’. Ms Herden recorded two incidents relating to Farrell’s contact with two students.

In the first incident, it was recorded that Farrell approached a young female student in the procession from behind, placed his hand on her shoulder, leaned over to her and closely whispered in her ear. The child blushed, and the incident was witnesses by teachers. 1135

In the second incident, it was recorded that Farrell approached and ‘interviewed’ a male student. A staff member questioned whether Farrell could make contact with the children ‘given that all schools had been advised that he was not a person allowed on school property or to have contact with students in our schools’. 1136

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

251

Two days later, the diocesan Director of Catholic Schools, Mr Johnston, wrote to Bishop Matthys informing him of what he had done in relation to Farrell’s behaviour at the memorial mass, which included informing the local police. 1137

21.7 Farrell is laicised

On 28 April 2005, Farrell wrote a letter to Bishop Matthys and enclosed a statement entitled ‘Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation’, in support of his application for laicisation. 1138

On 18 November 2005, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a decree granting Farrell dispensation from all obligations of the priesthood. 1139

Bishop Matthys gave evidence that the delay of over two years between the Encompass Australasia assessment of Farrell and Farrell’s laicisation was because ‘you couldn’t get a laicisation done without the cooperation or knowledge of the person … So it took me a while to convince him’. 1140

By 1999 Bishop Matthys knew that Farrell had been the subject of multiple allegations of sexual abuse of boys. By 2000, he knew that the diocesan Director of Catholic Schools had directed Farrell not to enter any school without permission. By 2002, he had heard a first-hand account of CPD’s experience of sexual abuse as an altar boy in Moree in the early 1980s. By 2003, Bishop Matthys knew of Farrell’s ‘history of molesting boys’ and the Encompass Australasia report, which concluded that Farrell continued to pose a serious risk to children.

Bishop Matthys knew that Farrell could still dress in priestly garb, call himself a priest and practise private mass.

Farrell was not laicised for a further six years from Bishop Matthys first learning of Farrell’s history and three years from learning that Farrell continued to pose a serious risk to children. This was an unacceptable delay.

Report of Case Study No. 44

252

22 Society of St Gerard Majella

22.1 Introduction

On 24 March 1973, following approval from the Vatican, Archbishop Freeman ‘erected’ the Society of Gerard Majella (the Society) as a lay Religious Congregation of Diocesan Right. 1141 The term ‘Diocesan Right’ meant that the Society was accountable to the relevant diocese - then the Archdiocese of Sydney - for its activities. 1142 On that date, Brother John Sweeney, as superior general of the Society, announced his council, which included Brother Joseph Pritchard and Brother Stephen Robinson. 1143

In 1985, by agreement with the Archbishop of Sydney, the Society took over responsibility for the pastoral care of the Parish of Greystanes, with Brother Sweeney taking on the role of parish priest.1144

In 1986, the Archdiocese of Sydney was subdivided to create the additional Dioceses of Parramatta and Broken Bay. The Society was placed under the supervision of the new Bishop of Parramatta, Bishop Heather. 1145

In this case study, we heard evidence from Bishop Heather, Bishop of the Diocese of Parramatta, and Father Usher, Director of Centacare and a priest in the Archdiocese of Sydney, in relation to allegations made in 1993 of sexual conduct against members of the Society.

In Case Study 50: Institutional review of Catholic Church authorities , various documents were tendered which are relevant to the allegations made against the Society.

The account of the allegations and the response by the diocese set out below is derived from those documents.

We then consider the oral evidence given to us by Bishop Heather and Father Usher concerning their response to the allegations and, in particular, the destruction of documents by Bishop Heather.

22.2 Allegations of misconduct are made

In April 1993, a number of Brothers in the Society wrote to Father Rodger Austin, a canon lawyer, alleging they had been sexually abused by Brothers Sweeney, Pritchard or Robinson. 1146 The authors of the letters all alleged that the abuse had started when they were postulants or novices in the Society. At least one person, HBA, explicitly alleged that he was a minor at the time the abuse started, and the letters from another two persons (including HBB, who alleged sexual abuse by Brother Robinson) raised this possibility. 1147 Later in April 1993, Father Austin had a meeting with Bishop Heather regarding the allegations of sexual abuse and provided him with the letters he had received. 1148

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

253

On 3 May 1993, Bishop Heather wrote to Brother Pritchard asking him to refrain from priestly ministry because of the allegations against him ‘that have become known to me in the past ten days’. Brother Pritchard agreed to this. 1149

22.3 Special Enquiry established

On 4 May 1993, Bishop Heather established a Special Enquiry into the Society, to be conducted by Father Austin and Father Peter Blayney, and notified all members of the Society.1150 The mandate of the Special Enquiry included ‘[t]o investigate the sexual impropriety which is alleged to have taken place within the Society of St. Gerard Majella’. 1151

On 31 August 1993 the Special Enquiry completed its final report to Bishop Heather (the 1993 report). The Special Enquiry concluded that all of the allegations it had received against Brothers Sweeney, Robinson and Pritchard of ‘sexual impropriety’ (which the authors said was a term used synonymously with sexual abuse) were substantiated. 1152 The allegations related to multiple incidents and multiple victims on the part of each of the three Brothers. The incidents of abuse had started in the late 1960s and continued until the early 1990s. All of those who had been abused had at some point been members of the Society, and for the majority the abuse had started when they were postulants or novices.

The Special Enquiry stated that Brother Sweeney had ‘perform[ed] acts’ with 17-26-year-olds.1153

The Special Enquiry also found that Brother Sweeney, when superior general, had been informed that Brother Pritchard was engaging in ‘sexual impropriety’ with ‘young males’ as early as 1974.1154 Despite this, after 1974 Brother Pritchard was appointed principal of Newman High School. The Special Enquiry found that he sexually ‘interfered’ with a student at the school.1155

On 23 December 1993, HBC met with Father Blayney and presented him with a statement alleging he had been sexually abused by Brother Sweeney, starting in the 1970s, when HBC was 16 years old.1156 HBC’s statement was provided to Bishop Heather the following day. 1157

Bishop Heather wrote to Father Usher on 27 December 1993, providing him with HBC’s statement and notifying him that ‘since some of the allegations concern a period when HBC was a minor, I expect to be informing you of the matter officially after my meeting with Brother John Sweeney’. 1158

Report of Case Study No. 44

254

Bishop Heather told Father Usher that he expected that he would need to interview HBC and Brother Sweeney. 1159 Father Usher later wrote that the reason that Bishop Heather asked him to investigate the matter was that it ‘referred to child sexual assault in terms of New South Wales laws and it was deemed appropriate that it should be investigated by me rather than by the earlier investigating team’. 1160

The Bishop informed Father Usher in his letter on 27 December that:

in the Special Inquiry held earlier this year eight members or former members of the Society alleged sexual impropriety in their regard by Brother John Sweeney. He received less severe treatment than some others because the improprieties were in many instances less recent, less protracted and apparently less serious than those of the others. The present letter throws quite a different light on him. HBC did not appear before the Special Enquiry. I have never had to deal with anything as terrifying as this.1161

On 31 December 1993, Bishop Heather asked Brother Sweeney to take administrative leave and forbade him from exercising any priestly ministry pending the outcome of an investigation to be conducted by Father Usher. 1162

22.4 Father Usher’s inquiry

On 12 January and 3 February 1994, Father Usher interviewed Brother Sweeney about HBC’s allegations. 1163 Father Usher completed his report to Bishop Heather on 17 February 1994 (the 1994 report). He concluded:

I believe that HBC has adequate grounds to proceed with criminal action in relation to Brother John Sweeney … The truth of his allegations is impossible to verify because, as Brother John explained, he and HBC were not living in the same house until long after HBC’s 18th birthday [Sweeney denied that any inappropriate sexual behaviour had occurred with HBC prior to his 18th birthday]. Nevertheless, if HBC decided to proceed with police action he would have every right to do so and it is likely that the police would take the allegations seriously and that Brother John would be charged with child sexual abuse. Brother John’s subsequent behaviour in relation to HBC would give any formal investigation into child sexual assault great credence and I doubt that Brother John would escape without a conviction. Of course, I make this statement with no prejudice and, having interviewed Brother John, I believe that he always acted in the best interests of HBC even though his actions were inappropriate for a senior member of a religious society. 1164

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

255

Father Usher recommended that Brother Sweeney ‘take leave’ from the Society for at least 12 months, not exercise any public priestly ministry and not be involved in any affairs of the Society or reside in any Society community during this time. 1165 Father Usher also recommended that Brother Sweeney be psychologically assessed and enter into therapy. However, Father Usher recommended that at the end of the period of leave, if Brother Sweeney had adhered to the recommendations and there were favourable reports about his progress, it would be open to the bishop to consider allowing Brother Sweeney to play an ‘ongoing role with limited pastoral involvement with the Brothers and the general community’ or for Brother Sweeney to approach the Bishop of Parramatta with a view to ‘transfer to another diocese to carry out a priestly ministry’. 1166

22.5 NSW Police seeks the report of the Special Enquiry

Around 12 December 1994, Detective Constable Sean Lynch contacted Bishop Heather. 1167 According to NSW Police, ‘the Bishop indicated that he had the [1993] report but would not release it to them without some Court process’. 1168

In the morning of 13 December 1994, NSW Police executed a search warrant at the diocesan office in Parramatta (Bishop Heather was not present at the time). 1169 The warrant authorised police to search for the 1993 report.1170 The police seized four files, but none of them contained a copy of the report. 1171 That afternoon NSW Police attended Father Austin’s office and obtained a copy of the 1993 report from him. 1172

22.6 Evidence given about the diocese’s response to the allegations

Bishop Heather’s evidence

Bishop Heather said that in 1993 canonist Father Austin was assisting the Brothers of the Society in overseeing the procedures of their chapter.

A number of Brothers went to Father Austin with ‘allegations of misconduct against several of the Brothers in the community’. Bishop Heather accepted that these included allegations of misconduct by older Brothers against younger Brothers who were minors. However, he gave evidence that ‘very few’ joined the society under the age of 18.

Bishop Heather said he believed that the reports were ‘probably prompted’ by the sexual abuse conviction of Brother Pritchard, deputy head of the order, against a naval apprentice in May 1993. 1173

Report of Case Study No. 44

256

Bishop Heather told us that members of the Society and Father Austin brought allegations of sexual misconduct within the Society to him. 1174 Bishop Heather subsequently set up an administrative inquiry to investigate the allegations and to ‘look at the Society more generally’. 1175 Bishop Heather appointed Father Blayney and Father Austin to conduct the inquiry and report to him at the end of August 1993. Bishop Heather said that this report verified the allegations and he ‘took action accordingly’. 1176

When asked whether he went to the police after receiving the report from Father Austin, Bishop Heather said ‘no, I didn’t, because it was never clear to me whether there had been any sexual abuse of persons under 18 years of age’. 1177

Brothers Pritchard and Robinson were stood down from priestly ministry with immediate effect. Brother Sweeney was allowed to continue in restricted priestly ministry and was not stood down until February 1994, after further, ‘quite serious’ allegations against him were investigated by Monsignor Usher. 1178 Bishop Heather told the Royal Commission that he was aware that this allegation related to a person under 18 and that person took the matter to the police in March 1994. 1179

When asked whether he considered that he had an obligation to report these matters to police, Bishop Heather said, ‘I did not see myself as bound to take those complaints to the police’. Bishop Heather said that he was ‘principally concerned about the impact on the community’, 1180 although did not agree this concern was for the adverse effect that the publicity would have on the Church. 1181

Monsignor Usher’s evidence

Monsignor Usher gave evidence that, in January 1994, Bishop Heather commissioned him to conduct an inquiry into an allegation made in December 1993 that Brother Sweeney had sexually abused a 16-year-old boy.1182

In February 1994, Father Usher provided his report to Bishop Heather and, soon after, Brother Sweeney was stood down by Bishop Heather. 1183 Monsignor Usher agreed with Counsel Assisting that the reason Bishop Heather approached him to provide a report was his knowledge of child sexual assault by clergy and religious. 1184

Monsignor Usher said that his report was a private report and provided to Bishop Heather. Monsignor Usher recalled that he was not satisfied that Brother Sweeney had sexually misconducted himself in relation to the child. 1185 Monsignor Usher said:

I wasn’t convinced because [Brother Sweeney] denied it. He said … he had sexual relationships with that man, as an adult, but he denied having a relationship with him when he was a boy …

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

257

I drew a conclusion that he made no admissions on that occasion, but I wrote the report to Bishop Heather in such a way that he needed to look into it further, take it very seriously.1186

Monsignor Usher said that he did not make any recommendations as to what Bishop Heather should do, but he recalled following the matter up with Father McGuckin on the telephone a few days after he delivered his report. Monsignor Usher’s evidence was that Father McGuckin told him that police were investigating the matter. 1187

Monsignor Usher said that he called Father McGuckin because he wanted to find out whether Brother Sweeney had been reported to the police and because he was concerned that Brother Sweeney would not be removed from ministry. 1188

In April 1994, Brother Sweeney underwent a psychological assessment conducted by Dr Blaszczynski. On 20 April 1994, Father Usher sent a letter to Dr Blaszczynski thanking him for his report on Brother Sweeney. 1189 The letter states:

The report will be very helpful to Bishop Bede Heather of the Diocese of Parramatta. Br Sweeney, who is also an ordained priest, has been stood down from all active roles for a period of three years. Any reinstatement to a LIMITED pastoral role will not be considered until he has undergone therapy, as you recommended, and on the condition that he carries out certain other requirements placed on him by the Bishop.

In fact, the Religious Society that was founded by John Sweeney has now almost disbanded. It is most likely that it will not be possible for him to return to any work in the Religious Society in which he was previously involved, even if it was thought to be acceptable in three years’ time.

His former Religious Society (The Brothers of St Gerard Majella) has many disaffected ex-members in the community, many of whom are seeking financial compensation from the Religious Society for a variety of psychological, emotional and sexual abuses. Br John Sweeney, himself, is now being interviewed by the police in the wake of the allegations by the former member whom he discussed with you. This man was 16 years of age when he met John Sweeney. It is a very sad situation which was unknown and hidden from the rest of the Church until recently. 1190

Monsignor Usher said in his evidence that he recalled that there was a second page of this letter which was not produced to the Royal Commission. 1191 Monsignor Usher’s evidence was that his statement that Brother Sweeney was being interviewed by police was based on his discussion with Father McGuckin. 1192

Report of Case Study No. 44

258

22.7 Destruction of documents

Bishop Heather gave evidence that in 1994 he informed the diocesan solicitors, Makinson d’Apice, of the police investigations in relation to Brother Sweeney and the Society more generally. Bishop Heather said that he sought legal advice because he was anxious to know the diocese’s obligation in the matter. Makinson d’Apice informed Bishop Heather that there was a possibility that police would issue a warrant to search his office. Bishop Heather accepted that, as the Society was part of the diocese, the diocese may hold records relating to the Society.1193

Bishop Heather told us that after the police warrant was executed he did not believe that he had further dealings with the police or his lawyers about what was seized. 1194

Almost two years after the execution of the search warrant, Bishop Heather wrote to solicitors Makinson d’Apice, on 15 August 1996. 1195 The letter was in relation to a civil claim in respect of a priest of the Diocese of Parramatta, Father Cattell, who had been convicted of child sexual abuse offences.

Bishop Heather wrote:

Following the police raid on our offices, shortly afterwards I took the precaution of destroying all papers of mine which could have been to the disadvantage of persons with whom I deal.1196

Bishop Heather gave evidence that the execution of the search warrant in relation to the Society made him reconsider the security of the diocesan files. When asked by Counsel Assisting if, prior to the execution of the search warrant, he was conscious that records held by the diocese could be obtained by the state by some legal means, he said he had never heard of that happening, and he thought the possibility of that happening seemed extremely remote. 1197

When asked what he did in relation to the concern about the security of diocesan files, Bishop Heather said:

Well, from that point onwards I became a bit cautious about what I kept on file - maybe irrationally, as I look back on it now. I would say, in hindsight, I was traumatised by the event on December 13, 1995. It is one of the dates that stands out as a black day in my history. I would say I was traumatised and suffered stress disorder as a result. I’d say, in hindsight, I should have taken counselling. 1198

The following exchange took place with Counsel Assisting:

Q. Did you destroy any documents that you had, that you didn’t want anyone else, including the State, to get hold of?

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

259

A. Not from the past, no, but I did, from that point, became cautious about what I filed. I didn’t keep everything that could have been filed.

Q. So that you made notes from time to time as you ordinarily would and then disposed of those notes rather than keep them in the file?

A. I kept as much as I could in my head, yes.

Q. Did that include material in relation to complaints of a sexual nature against priests?

A. By that time, I was aware that if there were any such complaints regarding minors, that I would be bound to report them, so I -

Q. Report to whom?

A. To the police. Yes, I was conscious by that time that I would be so bound. 1199

Bishop Heather clarified that ‘by that time’ meant ‘1995/1996’ and said ‘by that time … nothing of that nature was destroyed, but a number of other matters of a confidential nature were destroyed’.1200 When examined by Mr Gray SC, Bishop Heather agreed that the criteria he had in mind included private matters referable to alcohol or depression. 1201

When asked for an example of documents he destroyed, Bishop Heather said he destroyed his letter to Makinson d’Apice of 15 August 1996, set out above. He also gave the example of the ‘persons with whom I deal’ as a reference to CCI. 1202

Bishop Heather said he destroyed these to ‘respect the confidentiality of things that were conveyed to me as Bishop’. 1203 Bishop Heather did not accept the suggestion that he was trying to keep the documents undiscoverable from the police. Instead, Bishop Heather said that he was keeping the documents confidential from ‘anyone who could invade the office’. When asked who he thought might raid the office, Bishop Heather said that thefts could occur, as the office was in a public building. 1204 However, Bishop Heather accepted that, aside from the Royal Commission, no one else has sought by compulsion documents from the diocese. 1205

When asked whether he destroyed documents that provided the basis to write to CCI about potential claims against Father Cattell, Bishop Heather initially could not recall and said that he did not destroy anything that he received prior to the execution of the police warrant, in December 1994. 1206 However, the following exchange then occurred:

Q. This letter suggests to the contrary, Bishop. Have you read the letter carefully?

Report of Case Study No. 44

260

A. I did. I think in 1994, I say, yes, he was -

Q. You say:

Following the police raid on our offices, shortly afterwards I took the precaution of destroying all papers of mine which could have been to the disadvantage of persons with whom I deal.

Now, that includes, of course, the document that you had created in this matter before the police raid, doesn’t it?

A. Yes, ‘This I did’ - the letter I wrote to Father Connors was in 1994, yes.

Q. So you did destroy documents which were created before the police executed the warrant, didn’t you?

A. I’m not sure what the date of that was, whether it is before or after 13 December.

Q. This letter suggests, plainly, that you created the document, the police then executed a warrant and you destroyed it?

A. Well, that’s an interpretation, yes. Yes, I notice that -

Q. Is it the true position that you did destroy documents that had been created before the police raid?

A. Yes, well, I have no recollection of that, your Honour.

MS FURNESS: Q. But you accept that that’s what you’ve done?

A. Yes, yes.1207

It was put to Bishop Heather that he likely destroyed ‘source documents’ on which notifications to CCI were based, as well as advice to CCI, which contained information relevant to potential claims. Bishop Heather said ‘Yes. Yes, I think so, yes’. 1208

When it was put to Bishop Heather that this was evidence that suggested criminal offending by priests, he said, ‘I don’t have a recollection of destroying a lot of documents at all, but I agree that the evidence of this letter is that I did destroy at least that document, yes’. 1209

Bishop Heather said he could not recall destroying the source documents but accepted that was ‘an interpretation’. 1210 When asked if it was likely that those documents related to complaints of a sexual nature against priests, Bishop Heather said, ‘it’s possible’, but ‘I can’t recall that and I’m not prepared to commit myself to it’. 1211

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

261

The Chair put to Bishop Heather that he had a very clear recollection of many events of the time, yet he did not recall the character of the documents he destroyed. Bishop Heather said, ‘No, no, I don’t, no’. 1212

Bishop Heather later gave evidence that confidentiality was his principal concern and a criterion he used to determine what could be destroyed. Bishop Heather said that this did not include destroying documents that indicated a possibility of criminal behaviour with minors. It was put to Bishop Heather that he now seemed to have recall of the documents he destroyed, to which he said:

No. What I’m aware of is that in 1996 I was quite conscious of the obligations to report offences, sexual offences against minors. 1213

It was put to Bishop Heather that the position appeared to be that he destroyed documents which would be adverse to an individual, including potential criminal offences. He agreed. 1214 Bishop Heather was further questioned about this:

Q. But the matters that were relevant to CCI were all potential claims against the church for failing in its duty of care to individuals, weren’t they?

A. The matters of the CCI, yes, they were.

Q. And central to those was sexual abuse, wasn’t it?

A. Yes.

The Society was closed by Bishop Heather in December 1994. Bishop Heather said that he wrote to the Vatican to get approval for the Society’s dispersal due to the ‘breakdown of the religious life and its [sic] standards in the community’ after the conviction of three members for sexual offences. 1215

22.8 Conclusions

We are satisfied that Bishop Heather was not frank or honest in relation to the specifics of his conduct, and he sought to obfuscate and minimise his culpability in relation to the kinds of documents he destroyed.

We do not accept his solicitors’ submission that he was a ‘person seeking to recall events following the passage of some 20 years’.

Report of Case Study No. 44

262

We are satisfied that Bishop Heather’s evidence was less than forthcoming about whether he destroyed documents which recorded allegations of criminal conduct, including sexual misconduct, against priests and religious.

Bishop Heather’s evidence initially was that he only destroyed documents created after the execution of the search warrant in December 1994. However, when pressed that his letter of 15 August 1996 made it plain that he destroyed at least one document created in 1994, being a CCI notification in relation to allegations against Father Cattell, Bishop Heather eventually conceded he destroyed that document.

Bishop Heather also told us that he could not recall the specific documents that he destroyed. However, when examined by Mr Gray SC, Bishop Heather’s evidence was that he did not destroy documents indicating the possibility of criminal behaviour with minors.

We are satisfied that Bishop Heather destroyed documents held by the diocese that contained information which was adverse to priests and religious in the diocese. This included documents recording complaints and allegations of criminal conduct by priests and religious, including allegations of sexual misconduct.

Bishop Heather conceded to us it was the execution of the search warrant by police in relation to allegations of sexual misconduct against religious which prompted his destruction of documents. We find that it follows that documents of this nature must have been front of mind for Bishop Heather in December 1994.

Bishop Heather conceded that he destroyed his letter to Makinson d’Apice dated 15 August 1996 and his 1994 notification to CCI, both of which related to possible claims against Father Cattell, who had been convicted of child sexual abuse offences.

We reject Bishop Heather’s evidence that he was concerned to protect documents from intruders. The catalyst for the destruction of documents was the execution by NSW Police of a search warrant on diocesan premises.

We are satisfied that Bishop Heather’s conduct was intended primarily to prevent state agencies, including police, from discovering information which disclosed possible criminal conduct by priests and religious, including allegations of sexual misconduct with children. It would also have the effect of depriving litigants access to those documents.

We find that this was wrong, and prioritised the reputation of clergy and religious, and the Catholic Church, over the safety of children and the proper conduct of the criminal justice system.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

263

Systemic Issues

The systemic issues arising in Case Study 44 are:

• knowledge of senior Catholic Church personnel of allegations of sexual abuse of children by a priest

• movement, treatment and supervision of a priest accused of child sexual abuse

• the need to have and apply policies and procedures for handling complaints of child sexual abuse

• disciplinary action against a priest accused of child sexual abuse

• recordkeeping, and information sharing and management

• reporting allegations of child sexual abuse to child protection authorities and the police.

Report of Case Study No. 44

264

Appendix A: Terms of Reference

Letters Patent dated 11 January 2013

ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth:

TO

The Honourable Justice Peter David McClellan AM, Mr Robert Atkinson, The Honourable Justice Jennifer Ann Coate, Mr Robert William Fitzgerald AM, Dr Helen Mary Milroy, and Mr Andrew James Marshall Murray

GREETING

WHEREAS all children deserve a safe and happy childhood.

AND Australia has undertaken international obligations to take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect children from sexual abuse and other forms of abuse, including measures for the prevention, identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow up of incidents of child abuse.

AND all forms of child sexual abuse are a gross violation of a child’s right to this protection and a crime under Australian law and may be accompanied by other unlawful or improper treatment of children, including physical assault, exploitation, deprivation and neglect.

AND child sexual abuse and other related unlawful or improper treatment of children have a long-term cost to individuals, the economy and society.

AND public and private institutions, including child-care, cultural, educational, religious, sporting and other institutions, provide important services and support for children and their families that are beneficial to children’s development.

AND it is important that claims of systemic failures by institutions in relation to allegations and incidents of child sexual abuse and any related unlawful or improper treatment of children be fully explored, and that best practice is identified so that it may be followed in the future both to protect against the occurrence of child sexual abuse and to respond appropriately when any allegations and incidents of child sexual abuse occur, including holding perpetrators to account and providing justice to victims.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

265

AND it is important that those sexually abused as a child in an Australian institution can share their experiences to assist with healing and to inform the development of strategies and reforms that your inquiry will seek to identify.

AND noting that, without diminishing its criminality or seriousness, your inquiry will not specifically examine the issue of child sexual abuse and related matters outside institutional contexts, but that any recommendations you make are likely to improve the response to all forms of child sexual abuse in all contexts.

AND all Australian Governments have expressed their support for, and undertaken to cooperate with, your inquiry.

NOW THEREFORE We do, by these Our Letters Patent issued in Our name by Our Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia on the advice of the Federal Executive Council and under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and every other enabling power, appoint you to be a Commission of inquiry, and require and authorise you, to inquire into institutional responses to allegations and incidents of child sexual abuse and related matters, and in particular, without limiting the scope of your inquiry, the following matters:

a. what institutions and governments should do to better protect children against child sexual abuse and related matters in institutional contexts in the future;

b. what institutions and governments should do to achieve best practice in encouraging the reporting of, and responding to reports or information about, allegations, incidents or risks of child sexual abuse and related matters in institutional contexts;

c. what should be done to eliminate or reduce impediments that currently exist for responding appropriately to child sexual abuse and related matters in institutional contexts, including addressing failures in, and impediments to, reporting, investigating and responding to allegations and incidents of abuse;

d. what institutions and governments should do to address, or alleviate the impact of, past and future child sexual abuse and related matters in institutional contexts, including, in particular, in ensuring justice for victims through the provision of redress by institutions, processes for referral for investigation and prosecution and support services.

AND We direct you to make any recommendations arising out of your inquiry that you consider appropriate, including recommendations about any policy, legislative, administrative or structural reforms.

Report of Case Study No. 44

266

AND, without limiting the scope of your inquiry or the scope of any recommendations arising out of your inquiry that you may consider appropriate, We direct you, for the purposes of your inquiry and recommendations, to have regard to the following matters:

e. the experience of people directly or indirectly affected by child sexual abuse and related matters in institutional contexts, and the provision of opportunities for them to share their experiences in appropriate ways while recognising that many of them will be severely traumatised or will have special support needs;

f. the need to focus your inquiry and recommendations on systemic issues, recognising nevertheless that you will be informed by individual cases and may need to make referrals to appropriate authorities in individual cases;

g. the adequacy and appropriateness of the responses by institutions, and their officials, to reports and information about allegations, incidents or risks of child sexual abuse and related matters in institutional contexts;

h. changes to laws, policies, practices and systems that have improved over time the ability of institutions and governments to better protect against and respond to child sexual abuse and related matters in institutional contexts.

AND We further declare that you are not required by these Our Letters Patent to inquire, or to continue to inquire, into a particular matter to the extent that you are satisfied that the matter has been, is being, or will be, sufficiently and appropriately dealt with by another inquiry or investigation or a criminal or civil proceeding.

AND, without limiting the scope of your inquiry or the scope of any recommendations arising out of your inquiry that you may consider appropriate, We direct you, for the purposes of your inquiry and recommendations, to consider the following matters, and We authorise you to take (or refrain from taking) any action that you consider appropriate arising out of your consideration:

i. the need to establish mechanisms to facilitate the timely communication of information, or the furnishing of evidence, documents or things, in accordance with section 6P of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 or any other relevant law, including, for example, for the purpose of enabling the timely investigation and prosecution of offences;

j. the need to establish investigation units to support your inquiry;

k. the need to ensure that evidence that may be received by you that identifies particular individuals as having been involved in child sexual abuse or related matters is dealt with in a way that does not prejudice current or future criminal or civil proceedings or other contemporaneous inquiries;

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

267

l. the need to establish appropriate arrangements in relation to current and previous inquiries, in Australia and elsewhere, for evidence and information to be shared with you in ways consistent with relevant obligations so that the work of those inquiries, including, with any necessary consents, the testimony of witnesses, can be taken into account by you in a way that avoids unnecessary duplication, improves efficiency and avoids unnecessary trauma to witnesses;

m. the need to ensure that institutions and other parties are given a sufficient opportunity to respond to requests and requirements for information, documents and things, including, for example, having regard to any need to obtain archived material.

AND We appoint you, the Honourable Justice Peter David McClellan AM, to be the Chair of the Commission.

AND We declare that you are a relevant Commission for the purposes of sections 4 and 5 of the Royal Commissions Act 1902.

AND We declare that you are authorised to conduct your inquiry into any matter under these Our Letters Patent in combination with any inquiry into the same matter, or a matter related to that matter, that you are directed or authorised to conduct by any Commission, or under any order or appointment, made by any of Our Governors of the States or by the Government of any of Our Territories.

AND We declare that in these Our Letters Patent:

child means a child within the meaning of the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989.

government means the Government of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, and includes any non-government institution that undertakes, or has undertaken, activities on behalf of a government.

institution means any public or private body, agency, association, club, institution, organisation or other entity or group of entities of any kind (whether incorporated or unincorporated), and however described, and:

i. includes, for example, an entity or group of entities (including an entity or group of entities that no longer exists) that provides, or has at any time provided, activities, facilities, programs or services of any kind that provide the means through which adults have contact with children, including through their families; and

ii. does not include the family.

Report of Case Study No. 44

268

institutional context: child sexual abuse happens in an institutional context if, for example:

i. it happens on premises of an institution, where activities of an institution take place, or in connection with the activities of an institution; or

ii. it is engaged in by an official of an institution in circumstances (including circumstances involving settings not directly controlled by the institution) where you consider that the institution has, or its activities have, created, facilitated, increased, or in any way contributed to, (whether by act or omission) the risk of child sexual abuse or the circumstances or conditions giving rise to that risk; or

iii. it happens in any other circumstances where you consider that an institution is, or should be treated as being, responsible for adults having contact with children.

law means a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory.

official , of an institution, includes:

i. any representative (however described) of the institution or a related entity; and

ii. any member, officer, employee, associate, contractor or volunteer (however described) of the institution or a related entity; and

iii. any person, or any member, officer, employee, associate, contractor or volunteer (however described) of a body or other entity, who provides services to, or for, the institution or a related entity; and

iv. any other person who you consider is, or should be treated as if the person were, an official of the institution.

related matters means any unlawful or improper treatment of children that is, either generally or in any particular instance, connected or associated with child sexual abuse.

AND We:

n. require you to begin your inquiry as soon as practicable, and

o. require you to make your inquiry as expeditiously as possible; and

p. require you to submit to Our Governor-General:

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

269

i. first and as soon as possible, and in any event not later than 30 June 2014 (or such later date as Our Prime Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, fix on your recommendation), an initial report of the results of your inquiry, the recommendations for early consideration you may consider appropriate to make in this initial report, and your recommendation for the date, not later than 31 December 2015, to be fixed for the submission of your final report; and

ii. then and as soon as possible, and in any event not later than the date Our Prime Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, fix on your recommendation, your final report of the results of your inquiry and your recommendations; and

q. authorise you to submit to Our Governor-General any additional interim reports that you consider appropriate.

IN WITNESS, We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent

WITNESS Quentin Bryce, Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Dated 11th January 2013 Governor-General By Her Excellency’s Command Prime Minister

Report of Case Study No. 44

270

Letters Patent dated 13 November 2014

ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth:

TO

The Honourable Justice Peter David McClellan AM, Mr Robert Atkinson, The Honourable Justice Jennifer Ann Coate, Mr Robert William Fitzgerald AM, Dr Helen Mary Milroy, and Mr Andrew James Marshall Murray

GREETING

WHEREAS We, by Our Letters Patent issued in Our name by Our Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, appointed you to be a Commission of inquiry, required and authorised you to inquire into certain matters, and required you to submit to Our Governor-General a report of the results of your inquiry, and your recommendations, not later than 31 December 2015.

AND it is desired to amend Our Letters Patent to require you to submit to Our Governor-General a report of the results of your inquiry, and your recommendations, not later than 15 December 2017.

NOW THEREFORE We do, by these Our Letters Patent issued in Our name by Our Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia on the advice of the Federal Executive Council and under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and every other enabling power, amend the Letters Patent issued to you by omitting from subparagraph (p)(i) of the Letters Patent “31 December 2015” and substituting “15 December 2017”.

IN WITNESS, We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent.

WITNESS General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC (Ret’d), Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Dated 13th November 2014 Governor-General By His Excellency’s Command

Prime Minister

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

271

Appendix B: Public Hearing

The Royal Commission Justice Peter McClellan AM (Chair)

Justice Jennifer Coate

Mr Bob Atkinson AO APM

Mr Robert Fitzgerald AM

Professor Helen Milroy

Mr Andrew Murray

Commissioners who presided Justice Peter McClellan AM (Chair)

Justice Jennifer Coate

Date of hearing 12-22 September 2016

Legislation Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth)

Royal Commissions Act 1923 (NSW)

Leave to appear Monsignor John Usher

The Truth, Justice and Healing Council, the Catholic Diocese of Armidale and the Catholic Diocese of Parramatta

The State of New South Wales

Karolyn Graham

Michael McGroder

Father Brian Lucas

CPA

John Joseph Farrell

Bishop Kevin Manning

Bishop Bede Heather

Bishop Luc Matthys

Report of Case Study No. 44

272

Legal representation G Furness SC, Counsel Assisting the

Royal Commission

S Rushton SC and S Duggan, instructed by M do Rozario of Corrs Chambers Westgarth, appearing for Monsignor John Usher

P Gray SC and H Pintos-Lopez, instructed by A Floro of Gilbert + Tobin Lawyers, appearing for the Truth, Justice and Healing Council, the Diocese of Armidale and the Diocese of Parramatta

I Bourke SC and G Wright, instructed by NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office, appearing for the State of New South Wales

J Ellis, appearing for Karolyn Graham and Michael McGroder

P Skinner and J Whelan, instructed by A Collie and H Harrison of Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers, appearing for Father Brian Lucas and Bishop Luc Matthys

P O’Brien, appearing for CPA

D Carroll, instructed by G Kee of APJ Law, appearing for John Joseph Farrell

M Gerace, instructed by T Castle and N Christiansen of Sparke Helmore Lawyers, appearing for Bishop Kevin Manning

M Ainsworth, instructed by A Pope of Thomson Geer Lawyers, appearing for Bishop Bede Heather

Pages of transcript 769

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

273

Notices to Produce issued under the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth) and documents produced

Summons to Produce issued under the Royal Commissions Act 1923 (NSW) and documents produced

Summons to Appear issued under the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth)

4 Notices to Produce, producing 10 documents

5 Summons to Produce, producing 9,666 documents

10 Summons to Appear

Number of exhibits 12 exhibits consisting of a total of

394 documents tendered at the hearing

Witnesses CPA

Survivor

Michael McGroder Survivor

Karolyn Graham Mother of survivor

Father Bernard Flood Priest of the Diocese of Armidale

Father Richard Gleeson Priest of the Diocese of Armidale

Bishop Gerard Hanna Priest of the Diocese of Armidale

Bishop Bede Heather Former Bishop of Parramatta

Bishop Luc Matthys Former Bishop of Armidale

Father Brian Lucas Former member of the Special Issues Resource Group

Monsignor John Usher Former member of the Special Issues Resource Group

Report of Case Study No. 44

274

Appendix C: Reasons

These reasons are concerned with the decision which was made by the Commissioners with respect to the procedure to be followed in Case Study 44.

The scope and purpose of that study was identified as an inquiry into:

• The responses of the Catholic Diocese of Armidale and the Catholic Diocese of Parramatta to allegations of child sexual abuse made against John Joseph Farrell.

• The response of the Special Issues Group for the Province of Sydney to allegations of child sexual abuse against John Joseph Farrell.

• Any related matters.

On 2 May 2016 Farrell was sentenced to a term of 29 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years for 62 sexual offences in relation to children. Each of these offences occurred when Farrell was exercising his ministry in the Armidale diocese. The fact of his conviction and the outcome of the proceedings, including Farrell’s sentence, were the subject of significant publicity when they occurred. Since being sentenced, Farrell has been charged with a further 23 offences against five complainants. The offences are alleged to have been committed between 1975 and 1983. Publicity has been given to the fact of these subsequent charges.

Before Farrell was charged, public controversy had attached to his activities. That controversy centred on the response of the Roman Catholic Church to his alleged offending. In 2012 the ABC program Four Corners discussed the circumstances relating to a person they identified as Father F and, in particular, examined a letter from Father Peters to Bishop Manning, who was then the Bishop of Armidale, which recorded Father Peters’ account of a meeting between Farrell and Fathers Lucas, Usher and Peters on 3 September 1992. The letter indicated to the bishop that Farrell had admitted at that meeting to sexually abusing children.

At the commencement of this case study an application was made by the State of New South Wales with respect to the procedure the Royal Commission should follow. The State submitted that Farrell should not be called and that certain documents, if tendered, should be prohibited from publication. It was also submitted that, if the hearing proceeded, Fathers Lucas and Usher should not be called (Father Peters is deceased) or, alternatively, that their evidence should not be live streamed and that non-publication orders should be made in relation to the evidence of those priests.

Although Bishop Manning is alive, he is in poor health. For that reason, he was excused from giving evidence before the Royal Commission and no question otherwise arose with respect to whether he should be required to give evidence.

With respect to Farrell, it was submitted that to require him to give evidence in respect of his possible offending would bring the Royal Commission into contempt. For this reason, it was submitted that he should not be called.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

275

The Royal Commission has no difficulty with the application that Farrell not be called to give evidence. The decision of the High Court in Hammond v Commonwealth (Hammond) confirms that, once charged, a person should not be compelled to answer matters relevant to that charge.1216 Although some of the matters discussed in the hearing did not relate to any current charges, some may have and for that reason we determined that Farrell should not be called.

With respect to Fathers Lucas and Usher, the State submitted that, because of the possible prejudicial impact on the further trial of Farrell, the Royal Commission should either not call them or, alternatively, take their evidence in private.

It was inevitable that the Royal Commission’s hearing would attract publicity. The State submitted that in these circumstances it is possible that, if Farrell’s current charges go to trial, potential jurors may be affected by the publicity given to some of the documentary evidence and the oral evidence of Fathers Lucas and Usher.

It was further submitted that, if Fathers Lucas and Usher are ever charged, the publicity attracted may lead to a successful application by Fathers Lucas and Usher to permanently stay a trial in respect of any alleged offending by them.

It was further submitted that, because Fathers Lucas and Usher are presently being investigated by the police with respect to their knowledge, if any, of offending by Farrell gained from conversations with Farrell, the Royal Commission should not require Father Lucas or Father Usher either to give evidence or to give evidence in public.

It was submitted that, against the possibility that at some future time they might be charged with an offence concerned with concealing knowledge of an indictable offence (being admissions allegedly made by Farrell), the Royal Commission should not proceed to compel them to answer in relation to those matters. In the alternative, if they were called, it was submitted that we should supress any publication of their evidence.

Each of these submissions was rejected and the hearing took place in public. Also, in accordance with the Royal Commission’s usual procedure, the hearing was live streamed.

The conduct of Fathers Lucas and Usher and their conversation with Farrell have previously been the subject of an inquiry commissioned by the Catholic Church. Although that inquiry was in private, the report of Mr Whitlam QC was made public. It remains publicly available.

The investigation by Mr Whitlam QC was initiated after the ABC Four Corners program was broadcast. Both the Four Corners program and the letter (in which Farrell’s name is not used - in the program he is referred to as ‘Father F’) are available on the ABC website. Subsequently, on 2 May 2016 the ABC, in its 7:30 Report, confirmed that Father F was John Farrell.

Report of Case Study No. 44

276

Beyond these matters, Farrell’s activities have been the subject of significant media interest over a lengthy period of time. Using the Google search engine returns hundreds of thousands of relevant results.

The problems of evidence obtained by compulsion and the difficulties of subsequent criminal trials have been addressed in a number of recent decisions: X7 v Australian Crime Commission,1217 Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission,1218 Lee v The Queen1219 and R v Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commissioner .1220 Each of these cases is concerned with bodies given statutory authority to investigate particular matters including allegations of criminal activity. They include the Australian Crime Commission and the New South Wales Crime Commission.

Although the particular circumstances of the current application have not been considered previously, the law with respect to the relationship between a Royal Commission and other litigation has been authoritatively discussed in Victoria v Australian Building Construction Employees’ and Builders Labourers’ Federation 1221 (BLF Case) and Hammond.1222

In the BLF Case, Mason J carefully analysed the competing public interests between ensuring a fair hearing in a court and the important role of a Royal Commission. His Honour said:

where there is no intent to interfere with the administration of justice the court must weigh up the competing public interests, viz, the public interest in the litigant having his case tried free from all matter of prejudice and the public interest in the exposure of public abuses, the dissemination of information of public importance and in freedom of discussion on those matters. 1223

When discussing ‘the importance to the executive government of the procedure by way of commission of inquiry’, his Honour further said:

It is a valuable method of comprehensive and authoritative fact finding on which to base wide-ranging proposals for legislative and administrative reform. It is a means of ascertaining whether abuses exist and what steps might be taken to eliminate them. By virtue of the publicity which usually attends the proceedings and ultimately the report when it is made public, the commission of inquiry serves the beneficial purpose of enlightening the public, just as it enlightens government. 1224

On the issue of whether the Royal Commission should be restrained from proceeding in public, Mason J said:

this restraint, limited though it is, seriously undermines the value of the inquiry. It shrouds the proceedings with a cloak of secrecy, denying to them the public character which to my mind is an essential element in public acceptance of an inquiry

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

277

of this kind and of its report. An atmosphere of secrecy readily breeds the suspicion that the inquiry is unfair or oppressive. Especially is this so when the inquiry has the power to compel attendance and testimony. 1225

Ultimately, his Honour stated that a restraint on a Royal Commission hearing a particular matter in public ‘should not be imposed unless it is established that it is necessary to avoid a substantial risk of serious injustice’. 1226

His Honour went on to emphasise the importance of the public being made aware of the proceedings before a Royal Commission. He said:

the public has a substantial and legitimate interest in knowing what is happening before the Commission. Consequently the public interest in freedom of discussion has an important value [which is quite independent of any other proceedings]. That public interest is not as readily subordinated to the need to maintain the administration of justice free from interference as it is in the trial by newspaper situation. 1227

Gibbs CJ preferred a test expressed in terms of ‘a real risk that the conduct of the inquiry … in public would interfere in any way with the administration of justice’. 1228

The issue was again considered by the High Court in Hammond,1229 when Gibbs CJ said:

the plaintiff must establish that there is a real risk, as opposed to a remote possibility, that justice will be interfered with if the Commission proceeds in accordance with its present intention. The tendency of the proposed actions to interfere with the course of justice must be a practical reality - a theoretical tendency is not enough. 1230

In Hammond Mason J agreed with Gibbs CJ. 1231

Although not determinative, it is of considerable significance that Farrell, through his counsel, does not wish to be heard in relation to the application of the State. It is also significant that each of counsel for Fathers Lucas and Usher and the Truth, Justice and Healing Council opposed the application. Counsel for Father Usher said:

I can indicate to your Honour, or Commissioner, that it is quite clearly a matter between the State and the Commission, but our position is this, that we don’t support the application. My client recognises the important work that this Commission has done and will continue to do and wants to cooperate fully. If the Commission wants to hear from him then he thinks he should be heard. 1232

Counsel Assisting has indicated that it is possible to confine the oral evidence and any documentary material so that it would be impossible for any person to relate evidence in the case study to evidence which might be relevant to the current charges against Farrell.

Report of Case Study No. 44

278

Accordingly, any person who took the time to understand the detail of the proposed hearing would not be able to conclude that there was any matter in the evidence before the Royal Commission relevant to the trial of the current charges. The fact that Farrell has been convicted of multiple charges of offending against children is referred to in a great many news items presently available to any person who accesses the internet.

Although not the same, similar issues were raised in the Royal Commission conducted by the Hon. Dyson Heydon QC, referred to as the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. Mr Heydon QC received evidence that, if admitted in a trial of relevant offences, could prove criminal conduct by certain individuals. It could be expected that arising from his investigation some criminal charges would follow in relation to those matters. When considering whether or not he should publish the evidence and, furthermore, his conclusions with respect to that evidence in his report, Mr Heydon QC said:

The public has an interest in knowing what conclusions the Commission has reached. The case study technique enables the scrutiny of the reasoning process from evidence to ultimate finding. This would have been undermined if the results had been kept secret.

Further, while the Commission was deeply conscious of the fact that a finding as to possible criminal or inappropriate conduct could adversely affect a person’s reputation, the fact is that a reasonable onlooker would appreciate the many important differences between findings of a Royal Commission and, for example, a determination of guilt in a criminal court.

… A Royal Commission is an administrative inquiry. A finding of a Royal Commissioner is an expression of opinion, not a determination of legal rights. A Royal Commission does not and cannot engage in an inquiry of the kind carried out by a criminal court. Hence a finding of this Royal Commission on breach does not rise above an opinion that the person ‘may’ have engaged in criminal conduct.

The point which can be drawn from the above observations is that a finding of a Royal Commission, even a finding in conjunction with a referral, is merely the start of a further process.

Assuming an adverse finding and a referral have been made, the regulatory authority will consider the referral and initiate such steps as appear appropriate. Those next steps could include further investigation. Clearly in the course of those investigations further or more detailed evidence, including exculpatory evidence, may come to light. Of course, adverse evidence may also be uncovered. Admissions may be made. The nature of the charges could alter. Other kinds of relevant conduct may be revealed. All these factors would be taken into account by any reasonable person considering the impact of an adverse finding on an affected person’s reputation. 1233

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

279

When considering whether, in practical reality, the proposed case study hearing will impose a real risk, as opposed to a remote possibility, that justice will be interfered with, it is relevant to have regard to the publicity already given to Farrell’s activities, including the information available on the internet, the Four Corners program, the Whitlam report and the public report of Farrell’s convictions and sentencing.

We accept that it could never be said that publicity given to the Royal Commission’s proposed hearing could never influence the mind of a juror. However, that alone would not be sufficient. Having regard to the information already in the public domain and the period between this hearing and the prospective trial of Farrell, we are satisfied it is not possible to conclude that the proposed hearing will give rise to the relevant risk. No doubt at any trial the jury would be directed to put from their minds any knowledge of Farrell’s activities and confine their deliberation to the evidence. In this context, it is important to bear in mind the decision of the High Court in Dupas v The Queen1234 that, by reason of the capacity of a trial judge to give appropriate directions which, it must be assumed, a jury would obey, a permanent stay by reason of pre-trial publicity would only be granted in an extreme case.

Furthermore, we are not persuaded that, because the actions of Father Lucas and Father Usher are presently being investigated by the police, the Royal Commission should not require them to give evidence. Whether or not those investigations result in criminal charges is presently a matter of speculation, particularly having regard to the fact that the issues have been alive and in the public domain for at least four years.

When any realistic concern about the possibility of injustice to Farrell or Fathers Lucas and Usher is balanced against the public interest in there being a public hearing in relation to these matters, the conclusion is readily available that the hearing should proceed in public. If it were to proceed in private or relevant parts were supressed and if, subsequently, an adverse finding was made against any person, the accusation of a secretive and unfair process could always be levelled against the Royal Commission, whatever may be the true position.

There is one further issue. Although the proceedings may take place in public, the Royal Commission may always recommend to the executive that any findings not be published until any trial has been concluded. There is no reason to believe otherwise than the executive would accept such a recommendation.

For these reasons the Royal Commission did not require Farrell to give evidence but sat in public and live streamed its proceedings.

These are the reasons why the Royal Commission decided to proceed in public. Since their preparation, the hearing has concluded and the report prepared. In that report we have recommended that this report not be published until proceedings against Farrell and any proceedings against Fathers Lucas and Usher have been concluded.

Report of Case Study No. 44

280

Endnotes

1 Transcript of G Furness SC, Case Study 44, 12 September 2016 at 20864:22-32. 2 Transcript of I Bourke SC, Case Study 44, 12 September 2016 at 20859-20862; see also Appendix C of this report. 3 See Appendix C of this report.

4 Transcript of D Carroll, Case Study 44, 12 September 2016 at 20863:26-31. 5 Transcript of S Rushton SC, Case Study 44, 12 September 2016 at 20862:25-36. 6 Transcript of P Skinner, Case Study 44, Case Study 44, 12 September 2016 at 20863:18-24. 7 Transcript of P Gray, Case Study 44, Case Study 44, 12 September 2016 at 20863:33-38. 8 Transcript of the Chair, Justice Peter McClellan AM, Case Study 44, 12 September 2016 at 20866:

41-20867:10.

9 Transcript of M Gerace, Case Study 44, 12 September 2016 at 20876:29-31. 10 Transcript of M Gerace, Case Study 44, 12 September 2016 at 20875:6-43, 20877:20-26. 11 Transcript of M Gerace, Case Study 44, 12 September 2016 at 20875:45-20876:27. 12 Transcript of the Chair, Justice Peter McClellan AM, Case Study 44, 12 September 2016 at 20876:

42-20877:16.

13 Transcript of G Furness SC, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21622:7-17. 14 Submissions in Reply on behalf of Bishop Manning, Case Study 44, SUBM.2479.001.0001 at para 1. 15 Submissions in Reply on behalf of Bishop Manning, Case Study 44, SUBM.2479.001.0001 at paras 8-10.

16 McCloy v Latham [2015] NSWSC 1879 at [16] and [18]. 17 Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Final report (2015), vol 1, pp 80-82. 18 Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, Final report (2003), vol 2, ch 5, pp 49-51. 19 Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, Final report (2003), vol 2, ch 5, p 51. 20 Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Final report (2015), vol 1, p 72. 21 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Terms of Reference for Whitlam Inquiry’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40002.8169_R. 22 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Terms of Reference for Whitlam Inquiry’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40002.8169_R

at 8170_R.

23 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Report by Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0228_R. 24 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘“Form B” Listing John Farrell’s appointments’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01002.0347_R. 25 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘“Form B” Listing John Farrell’s appointments’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01002.0347_R; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Bede Heather to John Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0046; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Minutes of meeting of the College of Consultors (Parramatta)’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03010.0302_R at 0303_R; Exhibit 44-0005 ‘Letter from Bishop Bede Heather to John Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0058; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Bede Heather to John Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0098. 26 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Bede Heather to John Farrell’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0098_R.

27 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to John Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0320. 28 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Approval of dispensation for Farrell from Pope Benedict XVI’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0343. 29 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Front page of charge and transcript sheet’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0167;

Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from H. Hamilton of the Public Prosecutions Office to John Farrell containing handwritten notes’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0312. 30 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Dunhill Madden Butler to The Secretary, Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.1981_R; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Special Issues/Ethical Standards

Claim Form re John Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0201_R 31 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from H. Hamilton of the Public Prosecutions Office to John Farrell containing handwritten notes’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0312. 32 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Charge Sheet - Farrell’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2048_R. 33 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Report by Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0228_R.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

281

34 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Transcript - Four Corners’, Case Study 44, CTJH.402.07013.0019_R at 0022_R-0039_R. 35 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R. 36 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’,

Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2356_R. 37 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2357_R. 38 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’,

Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2359_R. 39 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2362_R. 40 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20915:26-31. 41 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20915:37-39. 42 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20912:18-20. 43 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’,

Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2362_R. 44 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2362_R. 45 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’,

Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2364_R. 46 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2365_R. 47 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’,

Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2365_R. 48 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2365_R. 49 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’,

Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2365_R. 50 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2367_R. 51 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21238:15-22. 52 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21238:33-44. 53 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’,

Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2368_R. 54 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2366_R-2367_R. 55 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’,

Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2369_R. 56 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2368_R-2369_R, 2371_R. 57 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bruce Macpherson to Rev N. Collins’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01003.0037. 58 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20987:23-37. 59 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from DJ Willoughby to “My Lord” dated 10 August 1978’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01003.0056_R. 60 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Typed note titled “John Farrell”’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01003.0065. 61 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Farrell to Bishop Murphy dated 15 August 1978’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01003.0058. 62 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2370_R. 63 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Report of Case Study No 4:

The experiences of four survivors with the Towards Healing process, Sydney, 2015, p 4. 64 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Murphy to Farrell dated 20 August 1978’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.1723.

Report of Case Study No. 44

282

65 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Murphy to Farrell dated 20 August 1978’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01003.0061. 66 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Murphy to Farrell dated 20 August 1978’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01003.0061. 67 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Murphy to Farrell dated 20 August 1978’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01003.0066.

68 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2370_R. 69 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1820_R at 1821_R. 70 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20919:1-2. 71 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20918:18-30. 72 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’,

Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2370_R; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kennedy to Farrell dated 1 September 1978’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01003.0067_R. 73 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2370_R. 74 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20918:40-20919:21. 75 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kennedy to Farrell dated 15 April 1979’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01003.0069_R.

76 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2370_R. 77 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Henry Kennedy to Bishop Patrick Murphy’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01003.0074. 78 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’,

Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2370_R. 79 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21033:8-47. 80 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21034:10-18. 81 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21034:38-21035:2. 82 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21030:9-15, 21030:29-21031:30. 83 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’,

Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2371_R. 84 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2374_R. 85 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’,

Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2375_R-2376_R. 86 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21240:1-36. 87 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Manning to Bishop Matthys dated 8 July 2005’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03028.0573_R at 0576_R. 88 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘“Form B” Listing John Farrell’s appointments’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01002.0347_R. 89 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kennedy to Farrell dated 15 October 1989’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01003.0113_R.

90 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘“Form B” Listing John Farrell’s appointments’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01002.0347_R. 91 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2374_R. 92 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Report of Father Harry Leis to Farrell (undated)’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40003.1843 at 1843, 1844, 1846. 93 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kennedy to Farrell dated 1 May 1981’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01004.0011. 94 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kennedy to Father Peters dated 9 June 1981’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01004.0025.

95 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kennedy to Farrell dated 9 June 1981’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.1836 at 1836-1837.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

283

96 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Flood to Monsignor Ryan dated 6 August 1981’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.1935. 97 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Henry Kennedy’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.1932. 98 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Monsignor Ryan to Farrell date 20 August 1981’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40003.2252_R. 99 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Campbell to Monsignor Ryan dated 18 September 1981’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01004.0040. 100 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘“Form B” Listing John Farrell’s appointments’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01002.0347_R. 101 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20916:11-24. 102 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21005:46-21006:3. 103 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21006:5-14. 104 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Manning to Bishop Matthys dated 8 July 2005’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03028.0573_R.

105 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Manning to Bishop Matthys dated 8 July 2005’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03028.0573_R at 0577_R. 106 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell for Dispensation”’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R at 2376_R. 107 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘“Form B” Listing John Farrell’s appointments’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01002.0347_R. 108 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20914:29-30. 109 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.1820_R at 1821_R. 110 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1820_R at 1821_R-1822_R. 111 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.1820_R at 1822_R. 112 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1820_R at 1823_R-1824_R. 113 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.1820_R at 1824_R. 114 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20924:26-42. 115 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father Richard Gleeson’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1831_R at 1831_R; Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20986:43-20987:5. 116 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20987:19-21. 117 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father Richard Gleeson’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1831_R

at 1831_R-1832_R.

118 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20985:31-35. 119 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father Richard Gleeson’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1831_R at 1823_R. 120 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father Richard Gleeson’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1831_R

at 1824_R.

121 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1820_R at 1823_R. 122 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1820_R at 1823_R. 123 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20920:17-36. 124 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20920:46-20921:12. 125 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.1820_R at 1821_R-1822_R. 126 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1820_R at 1824_R. 127 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20925:5-23.

Report of Case Study No. 44

284

128 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police statement of Father Richard Gleeson’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1831_R at 1835_R. 129 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20989:4-14. 130 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father Richard Gleeson’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1831_R

at 1834_R.

131 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Statement of Father Richard Gleeson’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1831_R at 1835_R. 132 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20991:5-24. 133 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Statement of Father Richard Gleeson’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1831_R

at 1835_R.

134 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20990:11-46. 135 Transcript of CPA, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20879:37-20887:35. 136 Exhibit 44-0002, ‘Statement of CPA’, Case Study 44, STAT.1187.001.0001_R at 0003_R-0004_R. 137 Exhibit 44-0002, ‘Statement of CPA’, Case Study 44, STAT.1187.001.0001_R at 0004_R. 138 Exhibit 44-0002, ‘Statement of CPA’, Case Study 44, STAT.1187.001.0001_R at 0004_R-0005_R. 139 Exhibit 44-0002, ‘Statement of CPA’, Case Study 44, STAT.1187.001.0001_R at 0006_R. 140 Exhibit 44-0002, ‘Statement of CPA’, Case Study 44, STAT.1187.001.0001_R at 0006_R. 141 Exhibit 44-0002, ‘Statement of CPA’, Case Study 44, STAT.1187.001.0001_R at 0007_R. 142 Exhibit 44-0002, ‘Statement of CPA’, Case Study 44, STAT.1187.001.0001_R at 0009_R. 143 Exhibit 44-0002, ‘Statement of CPA’, Case Study 44, STAT.1187.001.0001_R at 0009_R-0010_R. 144 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Acquitted Charges Table’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2974_R at 2979_R. 145 Transcript of M McGroder, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20888:29-20900:14. 146 Exhibit 44-0003, ‘Statement of Michael McGroder’, Case Study 44, STAT.1186.001.0001_R at 0004_R. 147 Exhibit 44-0003, ‘Statement of Michael McGroder’, Case Study 44, STAT.1186.001.0001_R at 0004_R. 148 Exhibit 44-0003, ‘Statement of Michael McGroder’, Case Study 44, STAT.1186.001.0001_R at 0005_R. 149 Exhibit 44-0003, ‘Statement of Michael McGroder’, Case Study 44, STAT.1186.001.0001_R

at 0006_R-0007_R.

150 Exhibit 44-0003, ‘Statement of Michael McGroder’, Case Study 44, STAT.1186.001.0001_R at 0007_R-0009_R. 151 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Acquitted Charges Table’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2974_R at 2976_R-2977_R. 152 Exhibit 44-0003, ‘Statement of Michael McGroder’, Case Study 44, STAT.1186.001.0001_R at 0010_R. 153 Exhibit 44-0003, ‘Statement of Michael McGroder’, Case Study 44, STAT.1186.001.0001_R at 0011_R. 154 Exhibit 44-0004, ‘Statement of Karolyn Graham’, Case Study 44, STAT.1185.001.0001_R at 0006_R. 155 Exhibit 44-0004, ‘Statement of Karolyn Graham’, Case Study 44, STAT.1185.001.0001_R at 0001_R. 156 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Signed police statement of Patrick McGroder’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.0116_R. 157 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Signed police statement of Patrick McGroder’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.0116_R

at 122_R.

158 Exhibit 44-0004, ‘Statement of Karolyn Graham’, Case Study 24, STAT.1185.001.0001_R at 0006_R. 159 Exhibit 44-0004, ‘Statement of Karolyn Graham’, Case Study 44, STAT.1185.001.0001_R at 0006_R. 160 Exhibit 44-0003, ‘Statement of Michael McGroder’, Case Study 44, STAT.1186.001.0001_R at 0011_R. 161 Exhibit 44-0003, ‘Statement of Michael McGroder’, Case Study 44, STAT.1186.001.0001_R at 0012_R. 162 Exhibit 44-0003, ‘Statement of Michael McGroder’, Case Study 44, STAT.1186.001.0001_R at 0012_R. 163 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Signed police statement of Patrick McGroder’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.0116_R

at 0122_R.

164 Exhibit 44-0004, ‘Statement of Karolyn Graham’, Case Study 44, STAT.1185.001.0001_R at 0007_R. 165 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police statement of Patrick McGroder’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.0116_R at 0123_R-0124_R. 166 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21000:38-21001:1. 167 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father Richard Gleeson’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1831_R

at 1836_R.

168 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21009:44-47. 169 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21001:3-8. 170 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21027:19-27. 171 Exhibit 44-0003, ‘Statement of Michael McGroder’, Case Study 44, STAT.1186.001.0001_R

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

285

at 0013_R-0014_R.

172 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21010:33-39. 173 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21011:4-7. 174 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21012:23-28. 175 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21022:44-21023:9. 176 Exhibit 44-0004, ‘Statement of Karolyn Graham’, Case Study 44, STAT.1185.001.0001_R at 0007_R. 177 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police statement of Patrick McGroder’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.0116_R

at 0125_R.

178 Exhibit 44-0004, ‘Statement of Karolyn Graham’, Case Study 44, STAT.1185.001.0001_R at 0007_R-0008_R. 179 Exhibit 44-0004, ‘Statement of Karolyn Graham’, Case Study 44, STAT.1185.001.0001_R at 0008_R. 180 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.1820_R at 1826_R. 181 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20973:15-24. 182 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20973:31-35. 183 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20973:37-20974:6. 184 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20974:8-17. 185 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20974:19-23. 186 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20974:25-31. 187 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21011:35-47. 188 Exhibit 44-0004, ‘Statement of Karolyn Graham’, Case Study 44, STAT.1185.001.0001_R at 0008_R. 189 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21009:27-31. 190 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police statement of Patrick McGroder’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.0116_R

at 0124_R-0125_R.

191 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Signed police statement of Patrick McGroder’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.0116_R at 0126_R. 192 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Signed police statement of Patrick McGroder’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.0116_R at 0127_R-0128_R. 193 Exhibit 44-0004, ‘Statement of Karolyn Graham’, Case Study 44, STAT.1185.001.0001_R at 0009_R. 194 Exhibit 44-0004, ‘Statement of Karolyn Graham’, Case Study 44, STAT.1185.001.0001_R at 0009_R. 195 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Patrick McGroder to Monsignor Ryan’, Case Study 44,

IND.0516.001.0001_R.

196 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Patrick McGroder to Monsignor Ryan’, Case Study 44, IND.0516.001.0001_R. 197 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from R. J. O’Halloran to Father Hanna’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2124. 198 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Front page of charge and transcript sheet’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0167. 199 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Monsignor Ryan to Patrick McGroder’, Case Study 44,

IND.0516.002.0001_R.

200 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Dunhill Madden Butler to The Secretary, Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.1981_R. 201 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Ian Whitehead to Dunhill Madden Butler (attn. Paul Gamble)’, Case Study 44, CCI.0086.00001.0122_R at 0123_R, 0125_R, 0126_R. 202 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Arrow Insurance Adjusting to Dunhill Madden Butler’, Case Study 44,

CCI.0086.00001.0116_R at 0117_R. 203 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20992:22-20993:23; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father Richard Gleeson’, Case Study 44 NPF.097.001.1831_R at 1835_R-1836_R. 204 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20994:16-19. 205 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20993:29-32. 206 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20993:41-20994:8. 207 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 20998:20-26. 208 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21012:5-8. 209 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father Richard Gleeson’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1831_R

at 1836_R.

210 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20995:32-39.

Report of Case Study No. 44

286

211 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 20998:28-33. 212 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father Richard Gleeson’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1831_R at 1836_R. 213 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father Richard Gleeson’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1831_R

at 1836_R.

214 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 20999:27-36. 215 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21000:32-36. 216 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Ian Whitehead to Dunhill Madden Butler (attn. Paul Gamble)’, Case Study 44, CCI.0086.00001.0122_R at 0126_R.

217 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20912:18-20. 218 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential Interview of Father Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0503_R at 15:14-26. 219 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.1820_R at 1824_R. 220 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20926:14-32. 221 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20927:4-5. 222 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20926:34-38. 223 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20927:7-27. 224 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police statement of CPE’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.0225_R. 225 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police statement of CPE’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.0225_R at 0226_R. 226 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police statement of CPE’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.0225_R at 0226_R. 227 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police statement of CPE’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.0225_R at 0226_R-0227_R. 228 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police statement of CPE’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.0225_R at 0227_R. 229 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police statement of CPE’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.0225_R at 0227_R. 230 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21001:25-29. 231 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21001:13-20. 232 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father Richard Gleeson’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1831_R

at 1836_R.

233 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21001:31-47. 234 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21002:29-35. 235 Transcript of R Gleeson, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21002:37-46. 236 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21004:15-19. 237 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20927:20-32. 238 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.1820_R at 1824_R-1825_R. 239 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20930:1-9. 240 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20929:44-46. 241 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.1820_R at 1824_R-1825_R. 242 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20929:5-18. 243 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20931:27-37. 244 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20927:34-41. 245 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20930:37-20931:14. 246 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20932:6-16. 247 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.1820_R at 1825_R. 248 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20932:22-39. 249 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20943:19-24. 250 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20976:17-19. 251 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20976:34-41. 252 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20933:2-16. 253 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20933:30-36. 254 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.1820_R at 1826_R; Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20933:38-20934:15.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

287

255 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20933:38-20934:15. 256 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20933:38-20934:15. 257 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1820_R at [29]. 258 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20934:8-15. 259 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20934:25-40. 260 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.1820_R at 1829_R-1830_R. 261 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20959:6-40. 262 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20962:41. 263 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Statement of Henry Joseph Kennedy’, Case Study 44, CCI.0086.00001.0121. 264 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Gary Boyle’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2941_R at 2943_R. 265 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Gary Boyle’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2941_R at 2943_R. 266 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to “My Lord”’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0001. 267 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Gary Boyle’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2941_R at 2944_R. 268 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21035:15-34. 269 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 3:3-4:1. 270 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21030:34-35. 271 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21030:47-21031:22. 272 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21074:1-20. 273 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Handwritten minutes of meeting’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01002.0002. 274 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential Interview of Bishop Gerard Hanna’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0699_R at 9:42-46, 10:4-11, 11:16-19. 275 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21036:1-21037:30. 276 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21037:8-30. 277 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21037:43-21038:19. 278 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21038:35-43. 279 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21038:45-21039:2. 280 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21041:4-11. 281 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21040:47-21041:2. 282 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Henry Kennedy to John Farrell’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40003.2220_R. 283 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Henry Kennedy to John Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2220_R. 284 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Bernard Flood to Bishop Henry Kennedy’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0002 at 0002-0003. 285 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20949:44-20950:17. 286 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20950:46-20951:19. 287 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20951:21-25. 288 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.1820_R at 1828_R. 289 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential Interview of Father Bernard Flood’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0503_R at 13:9-17. 290 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20966:25-27. 291 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Bernard Flood to Bishop Henry Kennedy’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0002. 292 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from P. O’Halloran to Bishop Henry Kennedy’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0004_R at 0004_R-0005_R. 293 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Statement of Henry Joseph Kennedy’, Case Study 44, CCI.0086.00001.0121. 294 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21038:29-38, 21039:29-31. 295 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21039:34-42. 296 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21039:15-20. 297 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21042:18-32.

Report of Case Study No. 44

288

298 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21042:34-38. 299 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21045:39-46. 300 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21047:28-30. 301 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21047:36-40. 302 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21047:39-21048:4. 303 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21042:47-21043:6. 304 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21042:40-43. 305 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21043:13-26. 306 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Henry Kennedy’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40003.2194.

307 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21048:6-14. 308 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21048:22-26. 309 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21048:28-39. 310 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from R. J. O’Halloran to Father Hanna’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2124. 311 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Front page of charge and transcript sheet’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0167. 312 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21049:11-29. 313 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21049:31-47. 314 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21050:6-8. 315 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21050:6-11. 316 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21050:13-16. 317 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21053:33-37. 318 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21050:13-26. 319 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from “Paul” to Bishop Henry Kennedy’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0006_R.

320 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21051:5-13. 321 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Gerard Hanna to Bishop Henry Kennedy’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0480. 322 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21053:5-9. 323 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21052:36-21053:3. 324 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21053:46-21054:6. 325 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21057:27-39. 326 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Ron Perrett to Bishop Henry Kennedy’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0013. 327 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21055:7-14. 328 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Henry Kennedy’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01004.0072. 329 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Henry Kennedy to John Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01004.0073. 330 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21044:9-18. 331 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Morrie Clarke’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0015. 332 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Morrie Clarke’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0015

at 0015-0016.

333 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Morrie Clarke’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0015 at 0017. 334 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Front page of charge and transcript sheet’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0167. 335 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21056:25-38. 336 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21057:13-21. 337 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from H. Hamilton of the Public Prosecutions Office to John Farrell containing

handwritten notes’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0312. 338 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21058:38-21059:1. 339 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Henry Kennedy’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0022.

340 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21059:21-30. 341 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21059:21-30.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

289

342 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21059:32-44. 343 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Henry Kennedy’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0022. 344 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Henry Kennedy to John Farrell’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0025.

345 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21064:2-28. 346 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21063:15-20. 347 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21061:36-41. 348 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Director of Public Prosecutions to CPI’, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.0088_R.

349 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Director of Public Prosecutions to CPI’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.0088_R. 350 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to Bishop Luc Matthys’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03028.0573_R at 0576_R. 351 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 6:30-34. 352 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.01011.0578_E_R at 7:24-33. 353 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from R. J. O’Halloran to Father Hanna’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2124. 354 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Gary Boyle to Bishop Henry Kennedy’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0313 at 0313. 355 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Gary Boyle to Bishop Henry Kennedy’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0313 at 0313. 356 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Gary Boyle to Bishop Henry Kennedy’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0313 at 0314. 357 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21062:10-22. 358 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21064:30-38. 359 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 9:27-28. 360 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 9:38. 361 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Gerard Hanna to Bishop Henry Kennedy’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0042.

362 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21068:43-21069:3. 363 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44,14 September 2016 at 21071:8-10. 364 Transcript of G Hanna, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21072:17-26. 365 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Henry Kennedy’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0045.

366 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21092:14-35. 367 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Witness Statement of Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03020.0922_E at [4]. 368 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Witness Statement of Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03020.0922_E at [5]. 369 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21087:28-30. 370 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21082:6-27. 371 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21082:29-39. 372 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21083:1-6. 373 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21087:35-21088:13. 374 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21089:14-23. 375 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Bede Heather’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03010.0168_R.

376 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Witness Statement of Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03020.0922_E at [5]. 377 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Witness Statement of Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03020.0922_E at [5]. 378 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Handwritten note titled, “H Kennedy”’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03010.0169. 379 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21090:42-21091:8. 380 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21090:9-22.

Report of Case Study No. 44

290

381 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21091:10-12. 382 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21091:31-35. 383 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21094:34-47. 384 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Robert McGuckin’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0200_E_R at 7:38-41. 385 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Robert McGuckin’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0200_E_R at 12:38-40. 386 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Robert McGuckin’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0200_E_R at 12:46-13:2. 387 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Robert McGuckin’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0200_E_R at 13:7-11. 388 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Robert McGuckin’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0200_E_R at 13:36-39. 389 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Robert McGuckin’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0200_E_R at 13:47-14:1. 390 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21096:28-30. 391 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21097:35-21098:7. 392 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21098:35-42. 393 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21099:21-30. 394 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Minutes of meeting of the College of Consultors (Parramatta)’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03010.0271 at 0273_R. 395 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Minutes of meeting of the College of Consultors (Parramatta)’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03010.0271 at 0273_R. 396 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21093:10-21094:7. 397 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Bede Heather to John Farrell’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0046; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Minutes of meeting of the College of Consultors (Parramatta)’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03010.0275_R at 0276_R. 398 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21092:47-21093:8. 399 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21102:28-30; Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Robert McGuckin’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0200_E_R at 15:22-25. 400 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Chris Dixon’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0249_E_R at 5:21-29. 401 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Chris Dixon’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0249_E_R at 5:34-37. 402 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Chris Dixon’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0249_E_R at 5:46-6:3. 403 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Chris Dixon’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0249_E_R at 6:5-13. 404 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0146_E_R at 17:2-29, 31-32. 405 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21102:35-38. 406 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21102:40-45. 407 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21105:2-23. 408 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21102:40-21103:1. 409 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21103:16-22. 410 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21103:28-30. 411 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21103:32-39. 412 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21105:30-32. 413 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21110:37-45. 414 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21105:38-21106:10. 415 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21106:12-35. 416 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Minutes of meeting of the College of Consultors (Parramatta)’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03010.0275_R at 0276_R.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

291

417 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21108:8-24. 418 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21108:35-38. 419 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21156:14-17. 420 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21107:8-30. 421 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21107:32-39. 422 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Bede Heather’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0146_E_R at 17:34-18:2. 423 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21110:7-35. 424 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 2111:4-10. 425 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Witness Statement of Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03020.0922_E at [6]. 426 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21102:3-26. 427 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Chris Dixon’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0249_E_R at 6:17-33. 428 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Henry Kennedy’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2141; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Henry Kennedy’,

Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01005.0009. 429 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Meeting Minutes’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01002.0004. 430 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Meeting Minutes’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01002.0006. 431 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Minutes of meeting of the College of Consultors (Parramatta)’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03010.0280_R.

432 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Minutes of meeting of the College of Consultors (Parramatta)’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03010.0280_R at 0281_R. 433 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21113:24-33. 434 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Minutes of meeting of the College of Consultors (Parramatta)’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03010.0285. 435 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Minutes of meeting of the College of Consultors (Parramatta)’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03010.0285 at 0288. 436 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Minutes of meeting of the College of Consultors (Parramatta)’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03010.0285 at 0288. 437 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21113:38-21114:7. 438 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21114:9-11. 439 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Chris Dixon’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0249_E_R at 8:9-17. 440 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21115:45-21116:7. 441 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21116:11-15. 442 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21101:5-9. 443 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21101:19-21. 444 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21101:33-36. 445 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Bede Heather to John Farrell’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0047.

446 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Bede Heather to John Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0047. 447 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21114:16-27. 448 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21114:29-31. 449 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21114:37-42. 450 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Bede Heather’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03010.0175.

451 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21116:37-42. 452 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter form Gerard Hayes to Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40002.7390_R. 453 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter form Gerard Hayes to Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40002.7390_R.

454 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter form Gerard Hayes to Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40002.7390_R.

Report of Case Study No. 44

292

455 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter form Gerard Hayes to Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40002.7390_R. 456 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter form Gerard Hayes to Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40002.7390_R at 7391_R. 457 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 8:22-44. 458 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21434:18-25; Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 8:12-17. 459 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 8:9-29. 460 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21453:18-45. 461 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 8:43-44. 462 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 9:12-14. 463 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21118:13-16. 464 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21118:18-20. 465 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Minutes of meeting of the College of Consultors (Parramatta)’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03010.0290_R.

466 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Minutes of meeting of the College of Consultors (Parramatta)’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03010.0290_R at 0292_R. 467 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0146_E_R at 16:25-47. 468 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Bede Heather to John Farrell’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0051.

469 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21119:26-29. 470 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Chris Dixon’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0249_E_R at 8:37-46. 471 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Minutes of meeting of the College of Consultors (Parramatta)’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03010.0290_R at 0292_R. 472 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Monsignor John Usher’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0748_E_R at 5:2-9. 473 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21448:3-10. 474 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Monsignor John Usher’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0748_E_R at 4:20-45. 475 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21448:12-17. 476 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21445:21-27. 477 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21445:40-46. 478 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21446:4-10. 479 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21446:12-19. 480 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21446:21-27. 481 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21446:33-41. 482 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21446:43-21447:7. 483 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21447:17-27. 484 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21447:32-41. 485 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21448:29-38. 486 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father John Usher to Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40003.2138.

487 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father John Usher to Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2138. 488 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father John Usher to Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2138.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

293

489 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21450:26-21451:14. 490 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21451:24-37. 491 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21452:23-35. 492 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21453:8-16. 493 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21454:8-22. 494 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21117:2-9. 495 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21117:16-20. 496 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Bede Heather’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0146_E_R at 15:22-28. 497 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Wayne Peters to Bishop Henry Kennedy’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0054_R. 498 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Wayne Peters to Bishop Henry Kennedy’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0054_R.

499 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 9:21-34. 500 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 12:20-31. 501 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Bede Heather to John Farrell’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0051.

502 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Bede Heather to “Harry”’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0053_R. 503 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03010.0178. 504 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Minutes of meeting of the College of Consultors (Parramatta)’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03010.0296_R at 0298_R. 505 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father David Maguire to Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0100 at 0101. 506 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Witness Statement of Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03020.0922_E at [7]. 507 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Witness Statement of Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03020.0922_E at [7]. 508 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Robert McGuckin’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0200_E_R at 18:31-36. 509 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21100:6-21. 510 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21101:3-9. 511 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21120:24-35. 512 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Handwritten letter from “Bede” to “Harry”’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1985. 513 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21120:41-47. 514 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21121:6-15. 515 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21123:12-26. 516 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Zvonimir Gavranovic’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0118_R at 9:29-32. 517 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Zvonimir Gavranovic’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0118_R at 14:24-47, 15:21-27. 518 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21124:27-37. 519 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21124:27-37. 520 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Minutes of meeting of the College of Consultors (Parramatta)’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03010.0308_R.

521 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father David Maguire to Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0100 at 0101-0102. 522 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 3:21-34. 523 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 4:33-40.

Report of Case Study No. 44

294

524 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 4:42-5:1; Transcript of L Matthys, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21164:5-27. 525 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 17:33-42. 526 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to Bishop Luc Matthys’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03028.0573_R at 0573_R. 527 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to Bishop Luc Matthys’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03028.0573_R at 0576_R. 528 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 6:22-30. 529 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 6:30-34. 530 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 6:36-7:8. 531 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from R. J. O’Halloran to Father Hanna’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2124. 532 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 7:14-29. 533 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 7:33-8:26. 534 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 8:28-37. 535 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21125:5-22. 536 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21125:32-36. 537 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 9:44-10:1. 538 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 13:9. 539 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 19:8-12. 540 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 23:13-16. 541 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 23:23-24:7. 542 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20955:43-20956:12. 543 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20957:21-28. 544 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20957:40-47. 545 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20940:31-20941:22-23. 546 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40003.2125.

547 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Wayne Peters to Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.1652. 548 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to John Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0064. 549 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40003.2122.

550 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to John Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.1646. 551 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Bishop Kevin Manning re advice from Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.1640. 552 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 12:33-13:29. 553 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 24:15-23.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

295

554 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Bishop Kevin Manning re meeting with Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0077_E. 555 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Bishop Kevin Manning re meeting with Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0077_E at 0077_E-0078_E. 556 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to Bishop Luc Matthys’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03028.0573_R at 0574_R. 557 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 25:17-38. 558 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Bede Heather’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03010.0182.

559 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03010.0182. 560 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Vincent J Redden to Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0083. 561 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Vincent J Redden to Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0083.

562 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Witness Statement of Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03020.0922_E at 0923_E. 563 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Bede Heather to Father Vincent J Redden’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03010.0185. 564 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Bede Heather to Father Vincent J Redden’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03010.0185.

565 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0070. 566 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Gary Boyle’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2941_R at 2946_R. 567 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to John Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0071_R.

568 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Bishop Kevin Manning re conversation with Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2106. 569 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 9:44-10:12. 570 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21125:38-21126:2. 571 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21125:27-31. 572 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21126:16-19. 573 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Bede Heather’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03010.0186.

574 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Bede Heather to John Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03010.0187. 575 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to John Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40002.7411. 576 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Bishop Kevin Manning re conversation with Farrell’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0084.

577 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Professor Alex Blaszczynski’, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2928_R at 2932_R. 578 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Bishop Kevin Manning re conversation with Professor Blaszczynski’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0085. 579 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to John Farrell’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0086_R.

580 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Bishop Kevin Manning re conversation with Professor Blaszczynski’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0087. 581 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 28:38-29:3. 582 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Minutes of meeting of the College of Consultors (Parramatta)’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03010.0314 at 0317. 583 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21125:5-22.

Report of Case Study No. 44

296

584 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential Interview of Father John Boyle’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0038_E_R at 11:46-12:6, 12:47-13:12; Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Report Commissioned by the Bishops of Armidale and Parramatta into processes related to the management of “Father F” by Antony Whitlam QC’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.30002.1200_R at 1224_R.

585 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of CPK’, Case Study 44, CCI.0059.00007.0049_R at 0051_R, 0053_R. 586 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential Interview of Father John Boyle’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0038_E_R at 9:34-10:12. 587 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential Interview of Father John Boyle’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0038_E_R at 11:1. 588 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential Interview of Father John Boyle’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0038_E_R at 13:5-11. 589 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential Interview of Father John Boyle’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0038_E_R at 11:34-40. 590 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Report Commissioned by the Bishops of Armidale and Parramatta into processes related to the management of “Father F” by Antony Whitlam QC’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.30002.1200_R at 1224_R. 591 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Report Commissioned by the Bishops of Armidale and Parramatta into processes related to the management of “Father F” by Antony Whitlam QC’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.30002.1200_R at 1258_R. 592 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0146_E_R at 29:4-20. 593 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21126:31-36. 594 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21126:38-44. 595 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21126:47-21127:9. 596 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21454:8-21455:8. 597 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20940:31-20941:23. 598 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 14 September 2016 at 21085:21-33. 599 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Witness Statement of Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03020.0922_E

at 0924_E.

600 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21113:19-21. 601 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Witness Statement of Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03020.0922_E at 0924_E. 602 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Handwritten note titled “Rev D. Arcamone”’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03010.0164. 603 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21127:42-21128:11. 604 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Witness Statement of Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03020.0922_E

at 0924_E.

605 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Witness Statement of Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03020.0922_E at 0924_E. 606 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Handwritten notes’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03028.0124. 607 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note by Bishop Bede Heather re conversation with Father Rod Bray’, Case Study

44, CTJH.280.03010.0189. 608 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Witness Statement of Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03020.0922_E at 0924_E. 609 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Unsigned notes re conversation with Farrell and Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study

44, CCI.0059.00008.0030. 610 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Witness Statement of Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03020.0922_E at 0924_E. 611 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Witness Statement of Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03020.0922_E

at 0924_E.

612 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21129:10-13. 613 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21129:46-47. 614 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Unsigned typed note re Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0106.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

297

615 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Bishop Kevin Manning re conversation with Father B Maguire’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0092. 616 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Bishop Kevin Manning re conversations with Professor Blaszczynski’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0097. 617 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 14:45-15:14. 618 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 33:13-24. 619 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 29:16-31. 620 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 29:25-32. 621 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 10:5-12. 622 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 32:4-15. 623 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to Bishop Luc Matthys’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03028.0573_R at 0574_R. 624 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Unsigned typed note re Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0106. 625 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Unsigned typed note re Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0106. 626 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Unsigned typed note re Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0106. 627 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21437:2-9. 628 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21270:14-34. 629 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21461:10-12. 630 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to John Farrell’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0320.

631 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Unsigned typed note re Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0106. 632 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Bede Heather’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03010.0193_R. 633 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Unsigned typed note re Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0106. 634 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21271:2-17. 635 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Unsigned typed note re Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0106. 636 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21271:34-21272:1. 637 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21461:33-21462:20. 638 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father David Maguire to Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0100 at 0102-0104. 639 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Bishop Kevin Manning re conversation with Professor Blaszczynski’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2076. 640 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Bishop Kevin Manning re conversation with Professor Blaszczynski’,

Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2076. 641 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to Bishop Luc Matthys’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03028.0573_R. 642 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 33:32-47. 643 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21272:29-36. 644 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to John Farrell’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0110.

645 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Wayne Peters to Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2074; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Untitled document’, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2075. 646 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to John Farrell’, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0110 at 0110. 647 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Unsigned notes on Armidale Diocese paper re interview with Farrell’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0112_R at 0112_R-0113_R.

Report of Case Study No. 44

298

648 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 35:20-21. 649 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 35:23-36:2. 650 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to Bishop Luc Matthys’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03028.0573_R at 0575_R. 651 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to Bishop Luc Matthys’, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03028.0573_R at 0576_R. 652 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Statement of Father John Usher (with annexures)’, 25 September 2012, Case Study

44, CTJH.400.40003.3345_R at 3345_R. 653 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Statement of Father John Usher (with annexures)’, 25 September 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.3345_R at 3345_R. 654 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Statement of Father John Usher (with annexures)’, 25 September 2012, Case Study

44, CTJH.400.40003.3345_R at 3345_R. 655 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Statement of Father John Usher (with annexures)’, 25 September 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.3345_R at 3345_R. 656 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21435:23-26. 657 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Child Sexual Abuse - John Usher and Brian Lucas’, 12 April 1998, Case Study 44,

CTJH.301.11002.0098; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘ACBC Clergy and Child Sexual Assault - Brief Notes prepared by Father Brian Lucas’, 12 April 1998, Case Study 44, CTJH.301.11015.0176; Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21435:28-31. 658 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘ACBC Clergy and Child Sexual Assault - Brief Notes prepared by Father Brian Lucas’, 12 April 1998, Case Study 44, CTJH.301.11015.0176 at 0179. 659 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘ACBC Meeting Minutes’, 28 November 1988 - 2 December 1988, Case Study 44, CTJH.301.02001.1431 at 1437-1438. 660 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘ACBC Meeting Minutes’, 26 April1989 - 5 May 1989, Case Study 44, CTJH.301.02001.1482 at 1494; Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21435:46- 21436:1. 661 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Protocol for Dealing with Allegations of Criminal Behaviour’, 30 November 1989, Case Study 44, CTJH.301.02002.0001. 662 Exhibit 44-0005 ‘ACBC Meeting Minutes’, 27 November 1989 - 1 December 1989, Case Study 44, CTJH.301.02001.1537 at 1558. 663 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Protocol for Dealing with Allegations of Criminal Behaviour’, April 1991, Case Study 44, CTJH.0001.001.0312. 664 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Protocol for Dealing with Allegations of Criminal Behaviour’ April 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.0001.001.0295. 665 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Protocol for Dealing with Allegations of Criminal Behaviour’ April 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.0001.001.0295 at 0299-0300. 666 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Statement of Father John Usher (with annexures)’, 25 September 2012, Case Study 44,CTJH.400.40003.3345_R at 3347_R. 667 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21437:2-9. 668 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Brian Lucas’, 18 September 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0645_E_R at 0662_E_R. 669 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21237:24-31, 21232:37-45. 670 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21236:13-21237:2. 671 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21275:20-23. 672 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21237:4-22. 673 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to John Farrell’, 27 August 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0110 at 0110. 674 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to John Farrell’, 27 August 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0110 at 0110. 675 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Unsigned notes on Armidale Diocese paper re interview with Farrell’, 1 September 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0112_R.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

299

676 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Diary entry of Father John Usher’, 3 September 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40001.6422; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Wayne Peters to Bishop Kevin Manning’, 11 September 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0123_R. 677 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Diary entry of Father John Usher’, 3 September 1992, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40001.6422.

678 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Diary entry of Father John Usher’, 24 September 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40001.7332. 679 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Wayne Peters to Bishop Kevin Manning’, 11 September 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0123_R at 0123_R. 680 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Diary entry of Father John Usher’, 24 September 1992, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40001.6425.

681 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Brian Lucas to Bishop Kevin Manning’, 25 September 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0126. 682 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Brian Lucas to Bishop Kevin Manning, 25 September 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0126 at 0126. 683 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Wayne Peters to Bishop Kevin Manning’, 26 October 1992,

Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0128. 684 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Wayne Peters to Bishop Kevin Manning’, 25 November 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0139. 685 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Bishop Matthys’, 14 October 2003, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0287_R.

686 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Transcript - R v CPK’, 17 June 2004, Case Study 44, NSW.2093.001.0099_R. 687 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Transcript - R v CPK’, 17 June 2004, Case Study 44, NSW.2093.001.0099_R at 0155_R. 688 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Approval of dispensation for Farrell from Pope Benedict XVI’, 12 December 2005,

Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0343. 689 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Transcript - Four Corners’, 2 July 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.402.07013.0019_R. 690 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Jennifer Cook re meeting with Monsignor Peters’, 4 July 2012,

Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40001.6408_R at 06410_R, 06411_R. 691 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Terms of Reference for Whitlam Inquiry’, 23 July 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40002.8169_R at 8169_R. 692 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, 5 September 2012, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R; Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Brian Lucas’, 18 September 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0645_E_R; Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Monsignor John Usher’, 28 September 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0748_E_R. 693 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Report Commissioned by the Bishops of Armidale and Parramatta into processes related to the management of “Father F” by Antony Whitlam QC’, 6 December 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.30002.1200_R at 1250_R-1253_R. 694 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Report Commissioned by the Bishops of Armidale and Parramatta into processes related to the management of “Father F” by Antony Whitlam QC’, 6 December 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.30002.1200_R at 1251_R. 695 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father Brian Lucas’, 17 December 2015, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2913_R; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father John Usher’, 11 May 2016, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2956_R. 696 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Handwritten notes on Armidale Diocese letter head’, 15 April 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0096_R; Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21252:18-45. 697 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21252:47-21253:24. 698 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21252:47-21253:24. 699 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21254:16-23. 700 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Bishop Kevin Manning re conversation with Professor Blaszczynski’, 15 April 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0087. 701 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21255:35-41. 702 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21261:16-22.

Report of Case Study No. 44

300

703 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Handwritten notes on Armidale Diocese letter head’, 15 April 192, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0096_R. 704 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21256:8-18. 705 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21256:25-44. 706 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21257:5-11. 707 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21257:13-22. 708 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21257:43-45. 709 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21257:47-21258:5. 710 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21258:24-30. 711 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21257:32-40. 712 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Unsigned file note on Diocese of Armidale letterhead re interview conducted

by Father Brian Lucas’, 6 June 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0088. 713 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21261:24-29. 714 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Handwritten statement by CPS’, 6 June 1992, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0089_R; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Supplementary material from interview with CPS from Father Brian Lucas’, 6 June 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.1627_R. 715 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Handwritten statement by CPS’, 6 June 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0089_R; Exhibit 44-0005 ‘Supplementary material from interview with CPS

from Father Brian Lucas’, 6 June 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.1627_R; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Brian Lucas to Bishop Kevin Manning’, 10 June 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0094_R at 0094_R. 716 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, 5 September 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 0592_E_R. 717 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, 2 October 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 30:9-31:9. 718 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21268:13-16. 719 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21268:18-34. 720 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21262:5-11. 721 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21262:5-11. 722 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21262:13-15. 723 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21263:29-38. 724 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21263:9-15. 725 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21263:25-27, 21263:46-21264:10. 726 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21264:12-20. 727 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21264:22-31. 728 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Media release by Father John Usher’, 16 March 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.301.11013.0087_R. 729 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21265:10-13. 730 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21265:40-45. 731 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21265:35-38. 732 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21265:17. 733 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21265:19-24. 734 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21265:47-21266:6. 735 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21266:14-16. 736 Exhibit 44-0005 ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to John Farrell’, 27 August 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0110 at 0110. 737 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, 5 September 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 0582_E_R. 738 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, 5 September 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 0583_E_R. 739 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, 5 September 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 0583_E_R. 740 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Bishop Kevin Manning re advice from Father Wayne Peters’, October 1991, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.1640.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

301

741 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Wayne Peters to Bishop Kevin Manning’, 11 September 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0123_R at 0124_R-0125_R. 742 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Email correspondence between Mary Ann Jolley and Father John Usher’, 28 June 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.0712_R; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Email chain between

Father Wayne Peters and Mary Ann Jolley (cc: Geoff Thompson)’, 29 June 2012, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.0466_R at 0467_R. 743 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Email chain between Father Wayne Peters and Mary Ann Jolley (cc: Geoff Thompson)’, 29 June 2012, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.0466_R at 0466_R. 744 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Email from Father Brian Lucas to Monsignor Peters (cc: Father John Usher)’,

29 June 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40002.7993_R. 745 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Email chain between Father Wayne Peters and Mary Ann Jolley (cc: Geoff Thompson)’, 29 June 2012, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.0466_R at 0466_R. 746 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Jennifer Cook re meeting with Monsignor Peters’, 4 July 2012,

Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40001.6408_R. 747 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Jennifer Cook re meeting with Monsignor Peters’, 4 July 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40001.6408_R at 6409_R-6411_R. 748 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, 5 September 2012, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 0593_E_R. 749 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, 5 September 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 0595_E_R. 750 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father Brian Lucas’, 17 December 2015, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.2913_R at 2916_R-2917_R. 751 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21276:14-23. 752 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21276:25-29. 753 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21276:8-29. 754 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21277:8-22. 755 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21280:38-47. 756 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Email correspondence between John Davoren and Father Brian Lucas’,

7 February 2001, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.0111_R. 757 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Email correspondence between John Davoren and Father Brian Lucas’, 7 February 2001, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.0111_R. 758 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Email correspondence between John Davoren and Father Brian Lucas’,

7 February 2001, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.0111_R. 759 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21281:47-21282:14. 760 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21282:6-10. 761 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21282:12-14. 762 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21282:16-23. 763 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Email from Mary Ann Jolley to Father Brian Lucas (forwarded to Father John Usher)’,

31 May 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.1760_R. 764 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Email from Father Brian Lucas to Father John Usher’, 31 May 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40002.8596_R at 8598_R. 765 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21487:47-21488:2; Transcript of B Lucas,

Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21290:33-39. 766 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21289:22-300, 21291:9-12. 767 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21291:9-12. 768 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Email from Father Brian Lucas to Monsignors Usher and Peters’, 14 June 2012,

Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40001.6778_R at 6778_R (emphasis added). 769 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21304:3-38. 770 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21304:40-42. 771 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21305:18-22. 772 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21305:25-28. 773 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21305:25-33. 774 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21306:1-7.

Report of Case Study No. 44

302

775 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Email from Father Brian Lucas to Monsignors Usher and Peters’, 14 June 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40001.6778_R at 6778_R. 776 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Email chain between Mary Ann Jolley and Father Brian Lucas’, 28 June 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40001.6810_R at 6810_R. 777 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Jennifer Cook re telephone attendance with Father Brian Lucas’,

4 July 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40001.7006. 778 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Jennifer Cook re telephone attendance with Father Brian Lucas’, 4 July 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40001.7006. 779 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21370:39-41. 780 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21366:18-25. 781 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21366:27-39. 782 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21366:41-43. 783 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21369:15-32. 784 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21371:40-42. 785 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Media statement’, Undated, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.0703

(emphasis added).

786 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21373:41-21374:30. 787 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21374:36-39. 788 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21374:42-44. 789 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21375:8-41. 790 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21375:38-47. 791 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Media statement of Father Brian Lucas’, 5 July 2012, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40003.0700.

792 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21377:9-22. 793 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Media statement of Father Brian Lucas’, 5 July 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.0698. 794 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21395:27-32. 795 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21382:22-46. 796 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21395:34-42. 797 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21395:44-21396:2. 798 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21396:4-27. 799 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘ABC “AM”, “Lucas: No cause to refer ‘Father F’ to police in 1992”’, 6 July 2012,

Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40001.7092_R. 800 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘ABC “AM”, “Lucas: No cause to refer ‘Father F’ to police in 1992”’, 6 July 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40001.7092_R at 7092_R (emphasis added). 801 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘ABC “AM”, “Lucas: No cause to refer ‘Father F’ to police in 1992”’, 6 July 2012,

Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40001.7092_R at 7093_R (emphasis added). 802 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21383:6-12. 803 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21383:24-26. 804 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21383:28-32. 805 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential Interview of Father Brian Lucas’, 18 September 2012, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0645_E_R at 0680_E_R. 806 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential Interview of Father Brian Lucas’, 18 September 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0645_E_R at 0682_E_R. 807 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Unsigned notes on Armidale Diocese paper re interview with Farrell’,

1 September 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0112_R. 808 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21355:1-8. 809 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21355:20-27. 810 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21355:29-33. 811 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21355:35-21356:15. 812 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21355:17-21. 813 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21356:23-36. 814 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21358:24-31. 815 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21358:33-21359:8.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

303

816 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21390:12-15. 817 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21390:12-15. 818 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21390:17-19. 819 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21331:41-21332:5. 820 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21332:7-15. 821 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21332:23-33. 822 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21333:3-17. 823 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21347:28-43. 824 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘ABC “AM”, “Lucas: No cause to refer ‘Father F’ to police in 1992”’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40001.7092_R at 7093_R. 825 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21477:46-21478:14. 826 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21480:47-21481:33. 827 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21473:8-15. 828 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21475:28-41. 829 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21484:47-21485:15. 830 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21472:21-27. 831 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21471:35-39. 832 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21475:3-10. 833 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21476:2-5. 834 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21476:2-14. 835 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21542:32-41. 836 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21479:39-43. 837 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Statement of Father John Usher (with annexures)’, 25 September 2012,

Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.3345_R at 3350_R (emphasis added). 838 Ex 44-0005, ‘Confidential and privileged statement of Father John Usher’, 6 July 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2337_R at 2337. 839 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21470:38-43. 840 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21472:39-44. 841 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21473:46-47. 842 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21481:22-39. 843 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21482:14-19. 844 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21483:38-46. 845 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21485:23-29. 846 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21529:43-21530:7. 847 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21530:9-12. 848 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21530:23-26. 849 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21530:28-33. 850 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21531:9-16. 851 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21531:9-16. 852 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21531:22-33. 853 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21531:46-21532:7. 854 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21532:9-14. 855 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21532:16-19. 856 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21532:1-25. 857 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21532:43-21533:6. 858 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21533:13-21534:22. 859 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21537:17-22. 860 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21537:17-36. 861 Ex 44-0005, ‘Confidential and privileged statement of Father John Usher’, 6 July 2012, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40003.2337_R at 2337_R-23388_R (emphasis added). 862 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21478:16-21479:28. 863 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21465:1-19; Transcript of J Usher,

Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21467:26-30. 864 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21465:36-41. 865 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21465:27-34.

Report of Case Study No. 44

304

866 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21465:21-22. 867 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21465:24-25. 868 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21467:16-20. 869 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21467:16-30. 870 Submissions in Reply on behalf of John Joseph Usher, Case Study 44, SUBM.2480.001.0001

at paras 447-448.

871 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21539:10-12. 872 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Diary entry of Father John Usher’, 3 September 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40001.6422. 873 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father John Usher’, 11 May 2016, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.2956_R at 2959_R-2960_R. 874 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21539:20-21. 875 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21539:26-42. 876 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21539:33-45. 877 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21540:35-38. 878 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21540:40-43. 879 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21541:2-8. 880 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21541:31-21542:3. 881 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21539:47-21540:5. 882 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21540:7-10. 883 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21540:31-33. 884 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21540:17-21. 885 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father John Usher’, 11 May 2016, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.2956_R.

886 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21543:3-11. 887 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21543:13-21544:11. 888 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Diary entry of Father John Usher’ 24 September 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40001.7332.

889 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Father John Usher re Four Corners interview with Cardinal Pell’, 6 June 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0851 at 0853-0854 (emphasis added). 890 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21496:37-42. 891 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21488:20-37. 892 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21488:34-37. 893 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Email correspondence between Mary Ann Jolley and Father John Usher’,

28 June 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.0712_R at 0712_R (emphasis added). 894 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21506:10-28. 895 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Confidential and privileged statement of Father John Usher’, 6 July 2012,

Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2337_R at 2338_R. 896 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Confidential and privileged statement of Father John Usher’, 6 July 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2337_R at 2338_R (emphasis added). 897 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21555:9-19. 898 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Statement of Father John Usher (with annexures)’, 25 September 2012,

Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.3345_R at 3350_R-3351_R (emphasis added). 899 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Statement of Father John Usher (with annexures)’, 25 September 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.3345_R at 3351_R (emphasis added). 900 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Statement of Father John Usher (with annexures)’, 25 September 2012,

Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.3345_R at 3352_R-3353_R (emphasis added). 901 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21556:1-24. 902 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21556:26-40. 903 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21556:26-21557:10. 904 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Statement of Father John Usher (with annexures)’, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40003.3345_R at 3350_R. 905 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21558:19-22. 906 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21558:38-42. 907 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21559:4-14.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

305

908 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21558:44-21559:2. 909 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Msgr John Usher’, 28 September 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0748_E_R at 18:18-41. 910 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21587:33-45. 911 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21588:6-42. 912 Exhibit 44-0005’, ‘Police Statement of Father John Usher’, 11 May 2016, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.2956_R at 2959_R-2960_R (emphasis added). 913 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Statement of Father John Usher (with annexures)’, 25 September 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.3345_R at 3354_R. 914 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Monsignor John Usher’, 28 September 2012,

Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0748_E_R at 19:15-24. 915 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21486:1-10. 916 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21486:15-20. 917 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21486:22-23. 918 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21549:38-21550:44. 919 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21551:1-41. 920 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21551:43-21553:2. 921 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Statement of Father John Usher (with annexures)’, 25 September 2012,

Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.3345_R at 3351_R. 922 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21561:33-41. 923 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21561:43-21562:4. 924 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21562:22-36. 925 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21652:31-36. 926 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21563:8-11. 927 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21524:40-21525:37. 928 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21525:39-21526:5. 929 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21526:22-32. 930 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21521:11-31. 931 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21527:21-28. 932 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21527:30-33. 933 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21527:30-34. 934 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21528:8-13. 935 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Transcript - R v CPK’, 17 June 2004, Case Study 44, NSW.2093.001.0099_R. 936 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Transcript - R v CPK’, 17 June 2004, Case Study 44, NSW.2093.001.0099_R

at 0155_R.

937 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21557:12-47. 938 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to Bishop Luc Matthys’, 8 July 2002, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03028.0573_R at 0575_R. 939 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, 2 October 2012, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 34:29-36. 940 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, 2 October 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 38:31-39:47. 941 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, 2 October 2012, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 38:31-39:47. 942 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Wayne Peters to Bishop Kevin Manning’, 26 October 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0128. 943 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Wayne Peters to Bishop Kevin Manning’, 26 October 1992,

Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0128 at 0131. 944 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, 5 September 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 0595_E_R-0596_E_R. 945 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Brian Lucas to Bishop Kevin Manning’, 25 September 1992,

Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0126. 946 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Brian Lucas to Bishop Kevin Manning’, 25 September 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0126 at 0126. 947 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21387:46-21388:1.

Report of Case Study No. 44

306

948 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21388:3-5. 949 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21386:2-17. 950 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21386:19-21. 951 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21386:23-30. 952 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21387:30-36. 953 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Wayne Peters to Bishop Kevin Manning’, 26 October 1992,

Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0128 at 0130. 954 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21388:38-41. 955 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21388:43-21389:5. 956 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21574:13-22. 957 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Diary entry of Father John Usher’, 24 September 1992, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40001.7332.

958 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Statement of Father John Usher (with annexures)’, 25 September 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.3345_R at 3352_R. 959 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Monsignor John Usher’ 28 September 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0748_E_R at 29:3-30:7. 960 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father John Usher’, 11 May 2016, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.2956_R at 2960_R. 961 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21590:30-35. 962 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21590:37-21591:10. 963 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21592:20-47. 964 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21585:26-31. 965 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21585:26-31. 966 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 211581:3-20. 967 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21581:3-215812:16. 968 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21581:38-21582:9. 969 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21582:1-9. 970 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21582:18-27. 971 Submissions in Reply on behalf of John Joseph Usher, Case Study 44, SUBM.2480.001.0001

at paras 480-490.

972 Exhibit 28-0156, ‘Draft Discussion Paper re “therapeutic” interventions for victims of child sexual assault, perpetrators and alleged offenders’, 14 January 1993, Case Study 28, CTJH.003.01001.0057 at 0065.

973 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Wayne Peters to Bishop Kevin Manning’, 25 November 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0139 at 0139. 974 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Kevin Manning’, 24 November 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0133 at 0134. 975 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Wayne Peters to Bishop Kevin Manning’, 25 November 1992,

Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0139. 976 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Wayne Peters to Bishop Kevin Manning’, 25 November 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0139 at 0143. 977 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, 5 September 2012, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 0596_E_R-0607_E_R. 978 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21398:30-32. 979 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21399:23-45. 980 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21403:21-24. 981 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21403:26-31. 982 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21401:33-35. 983 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21403:39-41. 984 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21400:46-21401:1. 985 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21408:47-21409:2. 986 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21409:4-6. 987 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21400:46-21401:1. 988 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21401:37-43. 989 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21401:45-47.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

307

990 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 20 September 2016 at 21404:16-22. 991 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21593:29-30. 992 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21598:23-27. 993 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21598:39-36. 994 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21599:42-21600:12. 995 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21598:38-21599:6. 996 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21600:14-35. 997 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21599:17-40. 998 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Bishop Matthys’, 14 October 2003, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0287. 999 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Police Statement of Father James Bernard Flood’, 10 September 2015,

Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.1820_R at 1829_R-1830_R. 1000 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20961:6-40. 1001 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20962:40-43. 1002 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Jennifer Cook re meeting with Monsignor Peters’, 4 July 2012,

Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40001.6408_R at 6410_R. 1003 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, 5 September 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 0594_E_R-0595_E_R. 1004 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Father Wayne Peters’, 5 September 2012, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0578_E_R at 0596_E_R-0597_E_R. 1005 Submissions in reply on behalf of Father Brian Lucas, Case Study 44, SUBM.2478.001.0001 at para 81. 1006 Submissions in reply on behalf of Father Brian Lucas, Case Study 44, SUBM.2478.001.0001 at paras

119-127.

1007 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to John Farrell’, 28 December 1992, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0147_R. 1008 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Unsigned notes on Armidale Diocese paper re meeting with John Farrell’, 11 May 1993, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0153. 1009 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Unsigned notes on Armidale Diocese paper re meeting with John Farrell’,

11 May 1993, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0153. 1010 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Handwritten note titled, “Farrell”’, Undated, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2031. 1011 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Kevin Manning’, 29 May 1993, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40002.7835_R.

1012 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to John Farrell’, 30 May 1993, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2028_R. 1013 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to John Farrell’, 30 May 1993, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2028_R. 1014 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to John Farrell’, 30 May 1993, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40003.2028_R.

1015 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to John Farrell’, 30 May 1993, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.2028_R. 1016 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Father Bernard Flood to Bishop Kevin Manning’, 30 August 1993, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0156_R. 1017 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20948:14-16. 1018 Transcript of J Flood, Case Study 44, 13 September 2016 at 20948:34-20949:1. 1019 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, 2 October 2012, Case Study 44,

CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 44:10-28. 1020 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Kevin Manning to John Taylor’, 10 November 1993, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0157. 1021 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Press Release issued by Bishop Kevin Manning’, 28 December 1993, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0161_R at 0162_R. 1022 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Press Release issued by Bishop Kevin Manning’, 28 December 1993, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0161_R at 0162_R. 1023 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Press Release issued by Bishop Kevin Manning’, 28 December 1993, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0161_R.

Report of Case Study No. 44

308

1024 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Press Release issued by Bishop Kevin Manning’, 28 December 1993, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0161_R at 0161_R. 1025 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Special Issues Incident Report re John Farrell’, 2 May 1994, Case Study 44, CCI.0086.00001.0437_R. 1026 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Special Issues Incident Report re John Farrell’, 2 May 1994, Case Study 44,

CCI.0086.00001.0437_R.

1027 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from McCabe Brown to Bishop Kevin Manning’, 18 March 1996, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.1971_R. 1028 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Dunhill Madden Butler to The Secretary, Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church’, 18 March 1996, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.1981_R at 1981_R. 1029 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21278:29-41. 1030 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Special Issues/Ethical Standards Claim Form re John Farrell’, 3 April 1996,

Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0201_R at 0201_R. 1031 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Charge Sheet - Farrell’, 1 June 1998, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2048_R. 1032 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Report by Father Wayne Peters’, 5 February 1999, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0228_R.

1033 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Note by Father Wayne Peters’, 14 August 1998, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.1953. 1034 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Note by Father Wayne Peters’, 15 August 1998, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0224_R. 1035 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Note by Father Wayne Peters’, 4 September 1998, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40003.1949.

1036 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21280:27-28. 1037 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘NSW Police COPS Entry’, 18 August 1998, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2093_R at 2097_R; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘NSW Police COPS Entry’, 5 June 2003, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2135_R at 2136_R.

1038 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘NSW Police COPS Entry’, 18 August 1998, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2093_R at 2097_R; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘NSW Police COPS Entry’, 5 June 2003, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2135_R at 2136_R.

1039 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Subpoena - R v CPK’, 10 May 2004, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03010.0012_R. 1040 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential interview of Bishop Kevin Manning’, 2 October 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0064_R at 38:5-10; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Jennifer Cook re meeting with Monsignor Peters’, 4 July 2012, CTJH.400.40001.6408_R at 6408_R.

1041 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Transcript - R v CPK’, 17 June 2004, Case Study 44, NSW.2093.001.0099_R. 1042 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Transcript - R v CPK’, 17 June 2004, Case Study 44, NSW.2093.001.0099_R at 0155_R. 1043 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21283:7-11. 1044 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21283:23-33. 1045 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21284:31-43. 1046 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21291:35-21292:1. 1047 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21292:3-7. 1048 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21292:27-30. 1049 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21293:10-17. 1050 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21293:19-21. 1051 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21293:23-26. 1052 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21293:28-31. 1053 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21295:22-32. 1054 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21302:11-15. 1055 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Statement of Father John Usher (with annexures)’, 25 September 2012,

Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.3345_R at 3353_R-3354_R. 1056 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21516:35-21517:47. 1057 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 21 September 2016 at 21517:1-21. 1058 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21298:30-39. 1059 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21298:41-44. 1060 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21298:15-19.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

309

1061 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21298:21-28. 1062 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21299:29-32. 1063 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21297:46-21298:1. 1064 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21298:11-19. 1065 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21299:19-21. 1066 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Jennifer Cook re meeting with Monsignor Peters’, 4 July 2012,

Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40001.6408_R at 6411_R. 1067 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21309:4-5. 1068 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21309:22-30. 1069 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21312:9-17. 1070 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21309:32-45. 1071 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21311:2-8. 1072 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21315:13-18. 1073 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21315:30-32. 1074 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21313:3-10. 1075 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21313:20-26. 1076 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21313:28-21314:28. 1077 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21315:34-39. 1078 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21316:45-21317:1. 1079 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21317:2-6. 1080 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21317:39-21319:47. 1081 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21320:1-6. 1082 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21320:8-15. 1083 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21325:26-38. 1084 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21325:26-21326:16. 1085 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Transcript - Four Corners’, 2 July 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.402.07013.0019_R

at 0031_R.

1086 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21326:30-46. 1087 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Email from Father Brian Lucas to Father John Usher’, 3 July 2012, Case Study 44, TJH.400.40001.6766. 1088 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Media Release - Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney’, 4 July 2012, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40002.8054_R.

1089 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21339:31-41. 1090 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21340:2-9. 1091 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21340:11-18. 1092 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21340:27-45. 1093 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21341:47. 1094 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21340:42-45. 1095 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21341:9-26. 1096 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21341:28-35. 1097 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21341:37-44. 1098 Transcript of B Lucas, Case Study 44, 19 September 2016 at 21342:14-26. 1099 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Terms of Reference for Whitlam Inquiry’, 23 July 2012, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40002.8169_R.

1100 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Terms of Reference for Whitlam Inquiry’, 23 July 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40002.8169_R at 8169_R. 1101 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Terms of Reference for Whitlam Inquiry’, 23 July 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40002.8169_R at 8169_R. 1102 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Terms of Reference for Whitlam Inquiry’, 23 July 2012, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40002.8169_R at 8169_R. 1103 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Report Commissioned by the Bishops of Armidale and Parramatta into processes related to the management of “Father F” by Antony Whitlam QC’, 6 December 2012, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.30002.1200_R at 1250_R-1253_R.

Report of Case Study No. 44

310

1104 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Report Commissioned by the Bishops of Armidale and Parramatta into processes related to the management of “Father F” by Antony Whitlam QC’, 6 December 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.30002.1200_R at 1251_R.

1105 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Report Commissioned by the Bishops of Armidale and Parramatta into processes related to the management of “Father F” by Antony Whitlam QC’, 6 December 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.30002.1200_R at 1252_R-1253_R.

1106 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Report Commissioned by the Bishops of Armidale and Parramatta into processes related to the management of “Father F” by Antony Whitlam QC’, 6 December 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.30002.1200_R at 1253_R.

1107 Transcript of L Matthys, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21163:34-35. 1108 Transcript of L Matthys, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21163: 37-38. 1109 Transcript of L Matthys, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21164:5-7. 1110 Transcript of L Matthys, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21166:44-21167:1-20. 1111 Transcript of L Matthys, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21167:22-41. 1112 Transcript of L Matthys, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21165:16-25. 1113 Transcript of L Matthys, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21165:45-21166:1. 1114 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from R W Johnston, Diocesan Director of Catholic Schools, to “Principals”’,

15 March 2000, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0300. 1115 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from R W Johnston, Diocesan Director of Catholic Schools, to John Farrell’, 15 March 2000, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0301_R. 1116 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from CPD to Archbishop George Pell’, 1 June 2002, Case Study 44,

CTJH.400.40003.1825_R. 1117 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Archbishop Pell to CPD’, 18 June 2002, Case Study 44, CTJH.400.40003.0489_R. 1118 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Luc Matthys to CPD’ 16 July 2002, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.0926_R.

1119 Transcript of L Matthys, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21177:7-15. 1120 Transcript of L Matthys, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21178:7-38. 1121 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Luc Matthys to Gerardine Taylor’, 18 June 2003, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0263; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Email from John Farrell to Bishop Matthys’, 29 July 2003,

Case Study 44,CTJH.240.01001.0278_R; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Gerardine Taylor to Bishop Matthys’, 20 August 2003, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0283. 1122 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Luc Matthys to Gerardine Taylor’, 18 June 2003, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0263. 1123 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Luc Matthys to Gerardine Taylor’, 18 June 2003, Case Study 44,

CTJH.240.01001.0263.

1124 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Gerardine Taylor to Bishop Matthys’, 20 August 2003, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0283 at 0283. 1125 Transcript of L Matthys, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21180:4-6. 1126 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘File note of Bishop Matthys’, 14 October 2003, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0287. 1127 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Luc Matthys to Michael McDonald of the Catholic Commission

for Employment Relations’, 14 July 2004, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0295_R. 1128 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Luc Matthys to Michael McDonald of the Catholic Commission for Employment Relations’, 14 July 2004, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0295_R. 1129 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Luc Matthys to Michael McDonald of the Catholic Commission

for Employment Relations’, 14 July 2004, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0295_R at 0296_R. 1130 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Bishop Luc Matthys to Michael McDonald of the Catholic Commission for Employment Relations’, 14 July 2004, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0295_R at 0296_R. 1131 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Affidavit of CPK’, 22 September 2004, Case Study 44, CCI.0059.00007.0044_R

at 0044_R-0045_R.

1132 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from Watson, McNamara & Watt to Bishop Luc Matthys’, 22 February 2005, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01005.0139_R. 1133 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Terms of Settlement - CPK v John Farrell and others’, 25 February 2005, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0496_R.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

311

1134 Exhibit 44-0009, ‘Confidential Interview of Father John Boyle’, 2 October 2012, Case Study 44, CTJH.280.03011.0038_E_R at 21:3-20. 1135 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Report on Incident in Sts Mary and Joseph’s Cathedral”’, 12 April 2005, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0298. 1136 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled “Report on Incident in Sts Mary and Joseph’s Cathedral”’,

12 April 2005, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0298. 1137 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from R.W. Johnson to Bishop Luc Matthys’, 14 April 2005, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0297. 1138 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Letter from John Farrell to Bishop Luc Matthys’, 28 April 2005, Case Study 44,

NPF.097.001.2355_R; Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Document titled, “Relating to the Petition of John Joseph Farrell For Dispensation”’, 28 April 2005, Case Study 44, NPF.097.001.2356_R. 1139 Exhibit 44-0005, ‘Approval of dispensation for Farrell from Pope Benedict XVI’, 12 December 2005, Case Study 44, CTJH.240.01001.0343. 1140 Transcript of L Matthys, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21180:21-33. 1141 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘An Historico-Juridical Report on the Society of St. Gerard Majella’, undated,

Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01045.0328_R at 0338_R; Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Report of the Diocese of Parramatta on the Society of St Gerard Majella’, 1 January 2014, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01003.0001_R at 0005_R. 1142 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Bishop Bede Heather Transcript of Interview with Police’, 13 April 1995, Case Study 50, STAT.1188.001.0034_R at 0035_R. 1143 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Letter from Br John Sweeney to “Friends”’, 12 April 1973, Case Study 50, CTJH.400.30001.1160_R. 1144 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Report of the Diocese of Parramatta on the Society of St Gerard Majella’, 1 January 2014, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01003.0001_R at 0006_R; Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Report to Bishop B Heather on the Special Enquiry into the Society of St Gerard Majella’, 31 August 1993, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01001.0002_R at 0010_R (for a copy of the contract see Appendix 5 (at 0048_R) of the report). 1145 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Report of the Diocese of Parramatta on the Society of St Gerard Majella’, 1 January 2014, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01003.0001_R at 0002_R. 1146 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Report to Bishop B Heather on the Special Enquiry into the Society of St Gerard Majella’, 31 August 1993, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01001.0002_R at 0095_R, 0104_R, 0124_R, 0139_R, 0024_R. 1147 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Report to Bishop B Heather on the Special Enquiry into the Society of St Gerard Majella’, 31 August 1993, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01001.0002_R at 0095_R, 0124_R, 0139_R. 1148 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Bishop Bede Heather Transcript of Interview with Police’, 13 April 1995, Case Study 50, STAT.1188.001.0034_R at 0036_R. 1149 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Letter from Bishop Heather to Br Joseph Pritchard’, 3 May 1993, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.03003.0089_R. 1150 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Decree: Special Enquiry into the Society of St. Gerard Majella’, 4 May 1993, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01123.0025; Exhibit 50-0013 ‘Circular Letter to All Members of the Society of St. Gerard Majella from Bishop Bede Heather’, 4 May 1993, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01123.0027. 1151 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Special Enquiry into the Society of St. Gerard Majella: Mandate’, 4 May 1993, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01123.0024. 1152 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Report to Bishop B Heather on the Special Enquiry into the Society of St Gerard Majella’, 31 August 1993, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01001.0002_R at 0022_R, 0025_R, 0029_R. 1153 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Report to Bishop B Heather on the Special Enquiry into the Society of St Gerard Majella’, 31 August 1993, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01001.0002_R at 0021_R. 1154 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Report to Bishop B Heather on the Special Enquiry into the Society of St Gerard Majella’, 31 August 1993, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01001.0002_R at 0028-0030_R. 1155 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Report to Bishop B Heather on the Special Enquiry into the Society of St Gerard Majella’, 31 August 1993, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01001.0002_R at 0030_R. 1156 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Handwritten statement signed by HBC’, 23 December 1993, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01073.0023_R. 1157 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Handwritten Letter from “Bede” to Rev John Usher’, 27 December 1993, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01073.0009_R.

Report of Case Study No. 44

312

1158 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Handwritten Letter from “Bede” to Rev John Usher’, 27 December 1993, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01073.0009_R. 1159 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Handwritten Letter from “Bede” to Rev John Usher’, 27 December 1993, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01073.0009_R. 1160 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Report to Bishop Bede Heather Bishop of the Diocese of Parramatta concerning

certain matters pertaining to Br John Sweeney SSG Prepared by Fr John Usher’, 17 February 1994, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01073.0015_R at 0017_R. 1161 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Handwritten Letter from “Bede” to Rev John Usher’, 27 December 1993, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01073.0009_R. 1162 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Brief Notes on the Meeting called by Bishop Heather with Bro John Sweeney SSG

at the Diocesan Office’, 31 December 1993, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01073.0013_R at 0013_R; Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Handwritten letter from Bishop Bede Heather to Br John Sweeney’, 31 December 1993, Case Study 50, CTJH.270.08001.0011_R. 1163 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Report to Bishop Bede Heather Bishop of the Diocese of Parramatta concerning certain matters pertaining to Br John Sweeney SSG Prepared by Fr John Usher’, 17 February 1994, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01073.0015_R at 0017-0018_R. 1164 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Report to Bishop Bede Heather Bishop of the Diocese of Parramatta concerning certain matters pertaining to Br John Sweeney SSG Prepared by Fr John Usher’, 17 February 1994, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01073.0015_R at 0020_R. 1165 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Report to Bishop Bede Heather Bishop of the Diocese of Parramatta concerning certain matters pertaining to Br John Sweeney SSG Prepared by Fr John Usher’, 17 February 1994, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01073.0015_R at 0021_R. 1166 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Report to Bishop Bede Heather Bishop of the Diocese of Parramatta concerning certain matters pertaining to Br John Sweeney SSG Prepared by Fr John Usher’, 17 February 1994, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01073.0015_R at 0021_R. 1167 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Police Statement of Sean Lynch’, 27 May 1995, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01144.0029_R at 0029_R. 1168 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘New South Wales Police Situation Report - No. 1’, 13 December 1994, Case Study 50, NPF.104.001.0094_R at 0095_R. 1169 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘New South Wales Police Situation Report - No. 1’, 13 December 1994, Case Study 50, NPF.104.001.0094_R at 0095_R. 1170 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘New South Wales Police Force Search Warrant’, 13 December 1994, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.03005.0132_R. 1171 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Police Statement of Shaunagh Cassidy’, 7 June 1995, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01144.0027_R; Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Letter from Makinson & d’Apice to Detective S P Lynch’, 14 December 1994, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.03005.0098. 1172 Exhibit 50-0013, ‘Police Statement of Sean Lynch’, 27 May 1995, Case Study 50, CTJH.280.01144.0029_R at 0030_R. 1173 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21135:17-43. 1174 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21135:1-15. 1175 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21136:4-26. 1176 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21136:15-37. 1177 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21137:8-13. 1178 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21136:1-21137:6. 1179 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21137:8-44. 1180 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21137:8-44. 1181 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21137:34-21138:15. 1182 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21605:15-30. 1183 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21605:32-38. 1184 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21605:45-47. 1185 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21606:10-22. 1186 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21606:16-28. 1187 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21606:31-41. 1188 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21607:33-41.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

313

1189 Exhibit 44-0010, ‘Letter from Father Usher to Professor Blaszczynski’, 20 April 1994, Case Study 44, IND.0533.001.0001. 1190 Exhibit 44-0010, ‘Letter from Father Usher to Professor Blaszczynski’, 20 April 1994, Case Study 44, IND.0533.001.0001. 1191 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21608:18-24. 1192 Transcript of J Usher, Case Study 44, 22 September 2016 at 21608:41-47. 1193 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21138:28-21140:4. 1194 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21142:27-30. 1195 Exhibit 44-0008, ‘Letter from Bishop Heather to Mr Kohn of Makinson d’Apice’, 15 August 1996,

CTJH.280.01008.0144_R.

1196 Exhibit 44-0008, ‘Letter from Bishop Heather to Mr Kohn of Makinson d’Apice’, 15 August 1996, CTJH.280.01008.0144_R. 1197 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21143:11-17. 1198 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21143:28-41. 1199 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21143:43-21144:19. 1200 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21144:21-24. 1201 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21159:38-21160:3. 1202 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21144:30-40, 21146:12-21147:6. 1203 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21144:30-47. 1204 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21144:47-21145:23. 1205 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21145:25-34. 1206 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21147:21-46. 1207 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21148:1-36. 1208 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21148:38-47. 1209 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21149:12-14. 1210 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21149:26-39. 1211 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21149:41-21150:16. 1212 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21150:22-26. 1213 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21158:43-47, 21159:44-21160:3. 1214 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21159:8-28. 1215 Transcript of B Heather, Case Study 44, 15 September 2016 at 21151:4-21152:22. 1216 (1982) 152 CLR 188. See also X7 v Australian Crime Commission (2013) 248 CLR 92, 127 [70]-[71],

152-153 [157].

1217 (2013) 248 CLR 92. 1218 (2013) 251 CLR 196. 1219 (2014) 253 CLR 455. 1220 [2016] HCA 8. 1221 (1982) 152 CLR 25. 1222 (1982) 152 CLR 188. 1223 (1982) 152 CLR 25, 95. 1224 (1982) 152 CLR 25, 97. 1225 (1982) 152 CLR 25, 97. 1226 (1982) 152 CLR 25, 98 (emphasis added). 1227 (1982) 152 CLR 25, 99. 1228 (1982) 152 CLR 25, 60 (emphasis added). 1229 (1982) 152 CLR 188. 1230 (1982) 152 CLR 188, 196 (emphasis added). 1231 (1982) 152 CLR 188, 199. 1232 Transcript of proceedings, 20862:25-32. 1233 Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Final report, vol 1, pp 57-58

[137]-[141].

1234 (2010) 241 CLR 237, 245 [18], 251 [38].

Commonwealth of Australia

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

ISBN: 978-1-925622-93-5 Published November 2017