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. 4—The experiences of four survivors with the Towards Healing process—January 2015


Download PDF Download PDF

The experiences of four survivors with the Towards Healing process

JANUARY 2015

REPORT OF CASE STUDY NO. 4

ISBN 978-1-925289-00-8

© Commonwealth of Australia 2015

All material presented in this publication is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 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 3.0 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: mediacommunication@childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au

Report of Case Study No. 4 The experiences of four survivors with the Towards Healing process

January 2015

CHAIR

The Hon. Justice Peter McClellan AM

COMMISSIONERS

Professor Helen Milroy Mr Andrew Murray

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

Contents

Preface 1

The Royal Commission 1

Public hearings 1

Private sessions 2

Research program 2

This case study 3

Executive summary 4

Joan Isaacs’ Towards Healing experience 4

Jennifer Ingham’s Towards Healing experience 7

DG’s Towards Healing experience 10

DK’s Towards Healing experience 12

1 Introduction 15

1.1 Submission process 16

2 Joan Isaacs’ Towards Healing experience 19

2.1 Child sexual abuse of Mrs Isaacs 19

2.2 Father Derriman is convicted of sexual abuse 20

2.3 Towards Healing process 20

Facilitation 27

Aftermath 29

2.4 Compensation 32

2.5 Counselling 34

2.6 Two years later and $30,000 was offered 36

2.7 Father Derriman remains an ordained priest 42

3 Jennifer Ingham’s Towards Healing experience 44

3.1 Child sexual abuse of Mrs Ingham 44

3.2 Other complaints against Father Paul Brown 45

3.3 Towards Healing process 46

Mr Mullins leaves position of Director; Ms Rogers takes over 49

Mrs Ingham’s request for a meeting prior to the facilitation 50

Appointment of Michael Salmon as Facilitator 54

Facilitation 61

Role of Emma Fenby, CCI Representative 63

After the facilitation 65

Meeting with Bishop Jarrett 65

3.4 The 1990 Meeting 67

Circumstances in which the 1990 meeting was arranged 67

What was said at the 1990 meeting? 69

Connection between Mrs Ingham and Father Mulcahy 71

Bishop Jarrett’s telephone call with Father Mulcahy prior to the facilitation 73 Deacon Wallace’s inquiries and meeting with Father Mulcahy 75

Evidence of Mr Colin Riches 76

4 DG’s Towards Healing experience 78

4.1 Child sexual abuse of DG 78

Report of Case Study No. 4

4.2 Other complaints against Brother Foster 78

4.3 DG goes to the police 81

4.4 The Marist Brothers’ response to Brother Foster’s suicide 83

4.5 DG contacts the Marist Brothers 84

4.6 DG’s barrister contacts the Marist Brothers 89

Application of Towards Healing procedures to DG’s complaint 91

The solicitors arrange a settlement conference 92

4.7 DG’s settlement conference 94

5 DK’s Towards Healing experience 99

5.1 Child sexual abuse of DK 99

5.2 Other complaints against Brother Murrin 100

5.3 DK contacts the Marist Brothers 101

Initial contact 101

The Marist Brothers’ approach to the Towards Healing procedures in DK’s case 103 Identity of unnamed Brother at the St Augustine’s infirmary 104

Arrangements for facilitation 107

5.4 A Facilitator is appointed 108

The Towards Healing (2010) protocol 110

5.5 The Facilitation 112

5.6 DK wanted information from the Marist Brothers about their knowledge of abuse at St Augustine’s 113

1981 incident involving Brother Murrin 114

Brother Burns’ evidence 115

Mr Salmon’s evidence 116

Brother Moraghan’s evidence 119

Brother Turton’s evidence 120

Conclusion 121

5.7 DK raises concerns about Mr Salmon’s position 121

DK contacts Brother Turton 122

DK contacts Mr Salmon 122

DK contacts Mr Monahan 123

5.8 Brother Murrin’s position in the Marist Brothers 125

6 Systemic Issues 127

APPENDIX A: Terms of Reference 128

Letters Patent 128

APPENDIX B: Public hearing 133

Endnotes 136

1

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

Preface

The Royal Commission

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

In carrying out this task the Royal Commission is directed to focus its inquiries and recommendations on systemic issues but also recognise that its work will 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.

A copy of the Letters Patent is at Appendix A to this report.

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 was 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 that 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.

Public hearings will also be held to assist in understanding the extent of abuse that may have occurred in particular institutions or types of institutions. This will enable the Royal Commission to understand the way that 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.

2

Report of Case Study No. 4

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 that 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 likelihood 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.

Private sessions

When the Royal Commission was appointed it was apparent to the Australian Government that many people (possibly thousands of people) would wish to tell the Royal Commission of their personal history of sexual abuse in an institutional setting when they were a child. As a consequence 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 30 November 2014, the Royal Commission has held 2,724 private sessions and more than 1,000 people were waiting to attend one. Many accounts given in a private session will be reported in a de-identified form in later reports of the Royal Commission.

Research program

In addition to public hearings and private sessions the Royal Commission has an extensive research program. Apart from information gained in public hearings and private sessions the research program will draw upon research undertaken by consultants to the Royal

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

3

Commission together with the original work of its own staff. Significant issues will be considered in issues papers and discussed at roundtables.

This case study

This is the report of the public hearing that examined the experiences of four people in the Towards Healing process. The Towards Healing protocol is a set of principles and procedures established by the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference and the Australian Conference of Leaders of Religious Institutes for a person who wishes to complain of having been, relevantly for this Royal Commission, sexually abused by a priest, religious or other Catholic Church personnel. It was introduced in 1997 and revised in 2000, 2003, 2008 and 2010.

4

Report of Case Study No. 4

Executive summary

Towards Healing: Principles and procedures in responding to complaints of abuse against personnel of the Catholic Church in Australia protocol (Towards Healing) is a set of principles and procedures for a person who wishes to complain of having been, relevantly for this Royal Commission, sexually abused by a priest, religious or other Catholic Church personnel. Towards Healing was established by the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference and the Australian Conference of Leaders of Religious Institutes. It was introduced in 1997 and revised in 2000, 2003, 2008 and 2010.

The introduction of each version of Towards Healing states that the document:

establishes public criteria according to which the community may judge the resolve of Church leaders to address issues of abuse within the Church. If we do not follow the principles and procedures of this document, we will have failed according to our own criteria.

In general terms, the stated intent of Towards Healing is to give individuals the opportunity to tell their story to somebody in authority in the Church, receive an apology and be offered pastoral care and reparation.

Towards Healing is also one of the methods that Church bodies use to assess risk regarding those still holding a position within the Church. It is intended to apply to complaints received everywhere in Australia, except for complaints about accused persons who at the time of the alleged abuse were priests, religious and laypersons holding an appointment from the Archbishop of Melbourne. These complaints are dealt with under the Melbourne Response.

The procedures outlined in the original and revised versions of Towards Healing differ in terms of structure and procedure. The principles, however, have remained unchanged and include striving for truth, humility, healing for victims, assistance to other persons affected, an effective response to those who are accused, an effective response to those who are guilty of abuse and prevention of abuse.

This case study examines how the Catholic Church responded to the abuse of four people, each of whom suffered sexual abuse from priests or religious Brothers. Each of them has suffered significant and continuing adverse impacts from the abuse.

The Royal Commission will be reporting on redress later in 2015.

Joan Isaacs’ Towards Healing experience

Mrs Joan Isaacs was sexually abused by a Catholic priest, Father Francis Edward Derriman, from 1967 to 1968. She was 14 to 15 years of age at the time and a student of the Sacred Heart Convent at Sandgate in Brisbane, Queensland.

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

5

Father Derriman was a priest of the Archdiocese of Brisbane and chaplain of the Sacred Heart Convent at the time.

Mrs Isaacs waited until Father Derriman was convicted of two counts of indecent dealing against her before starting the Towards Healing process. She felt that if she pursued a complaint with the police and Father Derriman was found guilty of any charges Towards Healing would be an easier process to go through because she ‘wouldn’t have to prove anything anymore’.

At the time, the original Towards Healing procedures which were drafted in 1996 and introduced in March 1997 applied.

The contact report and assessment usually done under the protocol were not needed. Mrs Isaacs’ process proceeded straight to a meeting with the Church, known as a facilitation.

Mrs Isaacs took her lawyer to the facilitation, but probably due to miscommunication, she believed that she could take only one person. That meant her husband did not come to the facilitation with her.

We accept that it was not the intention of the Queensland Director of Professional Standards, Dr Kenneth Robertson, to exclude Mrs Isaacs’ husband and it was unfortunate that that occurred.

At the facilitation, the Archdiocese was represented by Father Adrian Farrelly, the Judicial Vicar of the Regional Tribunal of Brisbane. Bishop John Gerry, a former Auxiliary Bishop who was assigned by the then Archbishop of Brisbane, Archbishop John Alexius Bathersby to deal with Towards Healing matters was unwell and could not attend.

Archbishop Coleridge, the current Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Brisbane said that it was available to Bishop Gerry, to suggest that a more senior member of the Church, such as the Archbishop attend the facilitation but ‘[c]learly it wasn’t the kind of communication that took place between the two men.’

The person who was delegated by Bishop Gerry to attend the facilitation was a person who had limited authority to give Mrs Isaacs what she wanted. Archbishop Coleridge said he thought the then Archbishop should have attended the facilitation.

 Finding 1: A senior person from the Church should attend meetings with survivors which have a pastoral element.

 Finding 2: It is clear that any process by which Survivors engage with the Church about the abuse they have suffered from a member of the clergy should be one in which they are consulted and listened to.

 Finding 3: It was unfair not to have had a discussion with Mrs Isaacs about paying her solicitor’s fee for attending the facilitation and it was unfair not to have paid that fee. As Dr Robertson acknowledged in these respects, he made a mistake.

On 20 April 1999, the facilitation took place at Centacare in Fortitude Valley, Brisbane. Mrs Isaacs, Ms Bernadette Rogers (acting as Facilitator), Father Farrelly (representing the

6

Report of Case Study No. 4

Archdiocese of Brisbane) and Mr Peter Deed (Mrs Isaacs’ lawyer) were in attendance. Counselling, compensation and an apology were discussed at the meeting.

Father Farrelly offered that the Church would pay for 10 sessions of counselling and then review the situation after that time. At the facilitation, Father Farrelly expressed an apology for the abuse Mrs Isaacs suffered. Bishop Gerry later gave her a written apology.

 Finding 4: Mrs Isaacs received payments for counselling costs only following considerable prompting after the Archdiocese had already agreed to pay. These payments came to an end after the settlement sum was paid.

Mrs Isaacs understood that following the facilitation there would be discussions between her solicitor and the Church about compensation. It took over two years to resolve the issue of compensation. Throughout this time, Mrs Isaacs continued to attend counselling with her psychologist, Ms Lynne O’Donoghue, with the expectation that the Archdiocese would at least initially meet those costs. However, Mrs Isaacs had to pursue the Archdiocese to pay for her counselling sessions.

After two years of negotiations, on 20 April 2001 solicitors for the Archdiocese offered Mrs Isaacs an ex gratia payment of $30,000 ‘all up’. After she had paid legal fees and Health Commission fees, she spent $5,000 on Coles-Myer shares and bought a sewing machine. She said that after that she had ‘little or no money left from the settlement’.

Mrs Isaacs’ experience highlights some of the complex issues in the relationship between redress schemes and civil litigation.

 Finding 5: Actions of those representing the Archdiocese of Brisbane were as follows:

 After a claim for damages was made, the Church, their lawyers and insurer engaged in protracted legal negotiations for a period of over two years before making the monetary offer to Mrs Isaacs.

 The Archdiocese paid Mrs Isaacs $30,000. After paying $20,000 for legal costs, Mrs Isaacs was left with a small amount of money.

 Even though Father James Spence thought that the offer of $30,000 was ‘mean’, he took no action to either suggest a higher price or to find out if the Archdiocese would contribute additional money to Mrs Isaacs’ settlement sum.

 The Church relied heavily on advice from insurers and lawyers when negotiating compensation.

After the settlement sum was agreed on, Mrs Isaacs had to sign a deed of release.

 Finding 6: Mrs Isaacs ultimately signed a deed of release that prevented her from disclosing the terms of the settlement (clause 7) and required her not to make ‘disparaging remarks or comments’ about the Church Authority about the subject matter of the proceedings (clause 8). Clauses 7 and 8 effectively imposed on Mrs Isaacs an obligation of silence about the circumstances that led to her complaint. This was inconsistent with Part 2, clause 41.4, of Towards Healing (2000).

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

7

 Finding 7: It was not compassionate, fair or just to require Mrs Isaacs to sign a deed with clause 7 in it.

 Finding 8: Confidentiality clauses should never have been included in deeds of release relating to child sexual abuse.

Father Derriman was ordained in the Archdiocese on 29 June 1963 and remains an ordained priest of the Catholic Church. However, he can no longer function as a priest because he incurred a latae sententiae excommunication after he ‘attempted marriage’ on 16 October 1970. Archbishop Coleridge gave evidence that, while Father Derriman is still technically a priest, he is ‘completely removed from any public ministry’ by virtue of his excommunication.

On 29 September 2011, Archbishop John Alexius Bathersby, then Archbishop of Brisbane, was contacting priests who had decided to leave active ministry to see if they, ‘desire[d] to start a process to … [be] dispensed from the obligations of the clerical state’. He sent a letter to Father Derriman as part of that exercise. In his letter, he said that if he had not heard from Father Derriman by 1 November 2011, he would ‘commence the process for requesting the dispensations from the Holy Father’. Father Derriman did not reply to Archbishop Bathersby’s letter. Despite this, Archbishop Bathersby did not commence the process to dismiss him from the clerical state.

It was not until November 2013 that Archbishop Coleridge, who became Archbishop of Brisbane after Archbishop Bathersby, commenced the canonical process to dismiss Father Derriman from the clerical state.

 Finding 9: The canonical process for dismissal of Father Derriman from the clerical state was not commenced until 14 November 2013 - 15 years after Father Derriman was convicted.

 Finding 10: In 1998, the Church knew that Father Derriman had been convicted of two counts of indecent assault, and the Church did nothing until September 2011.

Jennifer Ingham’s Towards Healing experience

Mrs Jennifer Ingham gave evidence that she was sexually abused by Father Paul Rex Brown in the Diocese of Lismore between 1978 and 1982. She was 16 years old when the abuse began and it continued into her early adult years.

In 1980, at the age of 17 and during her final year at school, Mrs Ingham was being treated in hospital for bulimia and also received psychiatric treatment. Because of her health issues at the time, she did not sit her final high school exams.

Father Brown ministered in Lismore from 1960 to October 1981. On 20 June 1986 Father Brown was removed from his appointment by the then Bishop of Lismore, Bishop John Satterthwaite.

8

Report of Case Study No. 4

 Finding 11: The Diocese of Lismore had, in 1986, taken appropriate steps to remove Father Brown’s faculties and in so doing had taken the steps necessary to effectively stop Father Brown from acting or holding himself out as a priest.

Mrs Ingham began the Towards Healing process in August 2012. While she was going through that process, a new Queensland Director of Professional Standards was appointed. Mr Patrick Mullins left the position of Director on 7 April 2013 and Ms Rogers took over. Mrs Ingham was not told of this transition.

 Finding 12: Mrs Ingham should have been told when Mr Patrick Mullins left the role of Queensland Director of Professional Standards in 2013 and Ms Bernadette Rogers took over.

Mrs Ingham had wanted a meeting with the Director of Professional Standards before the facilitation. This meeting did not occur.

 Finding 13: Ms Rogers relied upon the advice that Mr Mullins gave her about a meeting with Mrs Ingham and therefore Ms Rogers did not meet with her.

 Finding 14: Ms Rogers should have had a meeting with Mrs Ingham. Ms Rogers has since made changes to the office practice, including by adopting the practice of meeting with complainants before facilitations.

 Finding 15: It would have been preferable for Mr Mullins or Ms Rogers to have met face to face with Mrs Ingham to talk her through the process of the facilitation. However, it was not required by Towards Healing (2010) or the current guidelines.

On 9 May 2013, Ms Rogers wrote to Mrs Ingham advising her among other things, that “Michael Salmon, my counterpart in Sydney and an extremely experienced Facilitator has agreed to make himself available” for the facilitation.

 Finding 16: Ms Rogers’ email on 9 May 2013 was not framed in such a way that provided an opportunity for Mrs Ingham and the Church Authority to endeavour to agree on a Facilitator. Ms Rogers did not ask Mrs Ingham whether she agreed or disagreed with his appointment or of her option to suggest an alternative Facilitator from the approved panel or an otherwise qualified mediator, as contemplated by clause 41.4 of Towards Healing (2010).

 Finding 17: More could have been done by the Queensland Professional Standards Office to make clearer to Mrs Ingham the fact that she could suggest an alternative Facilitator.

We are satisfied that, despite a lack of consultation on the matter, Mrs Ingham did not express dissatisfaction with Mr Michael Salmon’s appointment. Mrs Ingham said that she found him to be ‘both compassionate and professional throughout the facilitation’.

At the time of Mrs Ingham’s Towards Healing process, Mr Salmon was Director of Professional Standards in NSW.

Before the facilitation, Mrs Ingham made it clear to Ms Rogers that she wanted Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, the Bishop of Lismore at the time, to attend the facilitation. When it

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

9

was apparent that he could not attend, it was arranged that Bishop Jarrett would meet Mrs Ingham separately after the facilitation meeting.

 Finding 18: For many victims the most important part of facilitation for them is the experience of being listened to and acknowledged by the Church, particularly by someone senior in the Church. By meeting with the victim the Church Authority intends to demonstrate respect for the victim, as well as the importance of his or her individual complaint.

The facilitation occurred on 24 May 2013.

Ms Emma Fenby, representing Catholic Church Insurance (CCI), attended the facilitation. The outcome was that Mrs Ingham received $276,736.64 inclusive of costs, $250,000 from CCI, $15,000 from the Diocese of Lismore and costs and disbursements of $11,736.64 towards her legal fees of $34,320. The money was paid promptly. Mrs Ingham signed a written document confirming acceptance of the offer that was prepared by Mr Kelso, dated 24 May 2013. Mrs Ingham did not sign a Deed of Release.

 Finding 19: In Mrs Ingham’s Towards Healing process Ms Emma Fenby acted consistently with the principles and procedures of Towards Healing (2010) and responded to Mrs Ingham’s needs with justice and compassion.

An issue that was raised in this case study was that Mrs Ingham said she attended a meeting in 1990 with senior clerics from the Diocese of Lismore. At that meeting she told the clerics that she had been sexually abused as a child by Father Brown. She gave evidence that Father Francis Mulcahy attended the meeting.

Father Mulcahy said to us that he had ‘absolutely no recollection of any meeting with Mrs Ingham’ and that he believed that the meeting never occurred.

At the time, Chancery did not maintain records of meetings and appointments. Mrs Ingham gave evidence initially that the Bishop was present and then accepted that he was not.

Deacon Wallace undertook some researches and inquiries into the 1990 meeting. He collated a list of the clerics of the Diocese and possible senior clergy at the time who may have been in attendance at the meeting. He then attempted to contact all of them and there was a ‘negative response in all cases’.

 Finding 20: We are satisfied that Mrs Ingham attended a meeting in 1990 with senior members of the church.

 Finding 21: We have no doubt that Mrs Ingham now believes that Father Francis Mulcahy was present at the 1990 meeting.

There are some difficulties in finding that Father Mulcahy was present at the 1990 meeting.

In light of Father Mulcahy’s denial, the absence of any contemporaneous record, the inquiries made by Deacon Wallace, Mrs Ingham’s changed recollection about the presence of the Bishop and the effects of the passage of time on memories, we cannot be satisfied to the relevant standard that a finding that Father Mulcahy was present should be made.

10

Report of Case Study No. 4

However, Mrs Ingham impressed us as an honest witness who gave evidence to the best of her recollection. It would be consistent with Father Mulcahy’s role in the diocese that he was present.

DG’s Towards Healing experience

‘DG’ was sexually abused by Brother Raymond Foster, also known as Brother Celestine, while he was a student at a Marist Brothers college in the early 1970s. Brother Foster was a teacher at the college at the time. The Marist Brothers had received a number of complaints about Brother Foster before DG came forward in 1994.

 Finding 22: Brother Alexis Turton was Provincial of the Marist Brothers when:

 an anonymous caller rang the Marist Brothers in 1991 alleging certain things of a sexual nature against Brother Raymond Foster

 on or before 30 August 1993, the Marist Brothers received a complaint of child sexual abuse against Brother Foster at St Augustine’s College in the 1950s

 shortly after 25 May 1994, the Marist Brothers received a complaint of child sexual abuse against two Brothers, one of whom was possibly Brother Foster, at St Augustine’s College in 1954-1955. Brother Turton received the complaint

 sometime between November 1993 and 29 June 1994, Brother Turton held discussions with Brother Foster, who acknowledged that there had been two incidents in the 1950s that were inappropriate.

 Finding 23: Brother Turton did not take any further action in relation to these complaints, and did not take any action in relation to Brother Foster’s acknowledgement.

 Finding 24: Brother Turton did not did not comply with the 1992 Protocol for Dealing with Allegations of Criminal Behaviour from the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference. He did not refer complaints against Brother Foster to the relevant Special Issues Resource Group.

In early 1994, DG reported the abuse to the Queensland Police Service and made a statement. Brother Foster was interviewed by police on 25 August 1994. Brother Foster spoke with Brother Turton the next day.

 Finding 25: Brother Turton withdrew Brother Foster from ministry on or about 25 August 1994 immediately after becoming aware that the police had contacted Brother Foster, and that the matter was, or could be, serious.

Arrangements were made to extradite Brother Foster from New South Wales to face the charges in Queensland. On 23 March 1999, the morning he was to be extradited, Brother Foster committed suicide.

After Brother Foster’s suicide, the then-Marist Brothers Provincial, Brother Michael Hill, wrote a letter to the Marist Brothers.

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

11

 Finding 26: The fact that Brother Hill did not mention the need to assist or pray for the complainant in the letter to the Marist Brothers on 24 March 1999, was a serious omission.

DG contacted the Marist Brothers in early 2000 and met with Brother Michael Hill, the then Provincial of the Marist Brothers. Brother Hill did not give DG a copy of the Towards Healing protocol or explain to him how the process operated. Brother Hill told DG he was willing to meet with him again, but he did not attempt to contact DG after this meeting.

 Finding 27: Victims of child sexual abuse should be provided with sufficient information by the Church Authority on the options available to them in order to make an informed choice about how to proceed, and which must include the provision of the Towards Healing protocol.

 Finding 28: At the time of his meeting with DG, Brother Hill knew the following information about Brother Foster but did not convey it to DG:

 Brother Foster had been withdrawn from ministry after DG’s complaint to the police.

 Brother Foster intended to plead guilty to the charges relating to DG.

 Brother Foster left a suicide note in which he asked for DG’s forgiveness.

 There had been other allegations against Brother Foster before DG’s complaint.

 Brother Foster had admitted to two incidents of inappropriate conduct in the 1950s.

 Finding 29: In a letter to the Marist Brothers dated 28 April 2000, DG asked for a copy of the transcript of the police interview with Brother Foster about DG’s complaint. The Marist Brothers did not attempt to obtain those transcripts.

 Finding 30: The Marist Brothers did not attempt to contact DG after the initial meeting on 11 May 2000.

Over a year after DG’s meeting with Brother Hill, DG spoke to Mr Michael Byrne, a barrister and member of the Queensland Professional Standards Resource Group. Mr Byrne gave DG a copy of the Towards Healing protocol and advice about the process.

Mr Byrne then contacted the Marist Brothers and told Brother Hill that DG ‘has expressed an openness to engage in a mediation process along the lines identified in Towards Healing’. Brother Hill wrote to the principal of the school where DG was abused and said, ‘I will instruct our solicitors to negotiate as best they can to keep it all out of the public eye’.

 Finding 31: Brother Hill tried to keep DG’s matter out of the public eye. Brother Hill gave evidence that this was for the sake of the personnel currently at St Joseph’s school.

Ultimately, DG’s solicitors and the solicitor for the Marist Brothers and CCI arranged a settlement conference. Brother Turton attended DG’s settlement conference on behalf of the Marist Brothers. DG’s claim was settled for $36,500 in exchange for a deed of release, a written apology and a copy of the report of a psychiatrist who had examined DG.

 Finding 32: The appointment of a Contact Person was not necessary in DG’s case because there was an admission by Brother Foster, and DG had already made a police statement.

12

Report of Case Study No. 4

 Finding 33: At the time of DG’s settlement conference, the Marist Brothers’ representative knew basic details about Brother Foster, including that he had been suspended from teaching after the Police contacted him, and had access to the Provincial’s records which contained records of complaints against Brother Foster, but did not inform DG of these matters.

 Finding 34: DG’s Towards Healing experience was little more than negotiations between his lawyers and CCI about money.

DK’s Towards Healing experience

In 1976, DK was sexually abused by a Brother in the infirmary at Marist Brothers’ St Augustine’s College, Cairns, after he had cut his foot.

In late 1980 or early 1981, DK was sexually abused by Brother Ross Murrin in Brother Murrin’s dormitory. He was also abused by Brother Leonidas.

At the time of DK’s abuse, Brother Gerald Burns was the principal of St Augustine’s and Brother Andrew Moraghan was a teacher at the college.

Later in 1981, Brother Burns received complaints from two male students at St Augustine’s College about Brother Murrin. Brother Murrin was convicted in 2008 and 2010 after pleading guilty to charges relating to child sexual abuse at two schools.

 Finding 35: Brother Burns received complaints from two male students in 1981 that Brother Murrin had inappropriately touched them at St Augustine’s College, and:

 Brother Burns spoke to Brother Murrin about these complaints

 Brother Murrin admitted that he had inappropriately touched the boys

 Brother Burns informed the Provincial of the Marist Brothers about the complaint

 Brother Burns did not remove Brother Murrin from his position as dormitory master, and

 Brother Burns did not remove the complainants from Brother Murrin’s dormitory.

 Finding 36: Different protective steps should have been taken when Brother Burns received two complaints in 1981 about Brother Murrin touching boys inappropriately in his dormitory.

If different protective steps had been taken by the Marist Brothers, Brother Murrin’s subsequent offending may have been avoided.

Brother Turton was appointed as the first Director of Professional Standards for the Marist Brothers in around January 2002. As Director, Brother Turton was directly answerable to the Provincial and was responsible for managing professional standards claims on a day-to-day basis.

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

13

In November 2009, DK rang the Marist Brothers and spoke to Brother Turton about the abuse by Brothers Leonidas and Murrin but did not disclose the identity of the Brother who abused him in 1976 in the infirmary.

Brother Turton told CCI that he was sure that the Brother who abused DK in the infirmary was Brother Michael Hunt, although DK never named Brother Hunt.

 Finding 37: It was not Brother Anthony Hunt who abused DK in the infirmary.

Brother Turton arranged for a facilitation of DK’s complaint. He asked Mr Salmon, who was at the time the Director of Professional Standards in NSW, to act as Facilitator. Mr Salmon agreed.

 Finding 38: Mr Salmon did not act consistently with Towards Healing (2010) in that he acted as Facilitator without having obtained approval in accordance with clause 39.5 of Towards Healing (2010).

 Finding 39: A Director of Professional Standards acting as a Facilitator in a Towards Healing facilitation raises a real potential for an actual or perceived conflict of interest given that the Director is employed by the Catholic Church.

 Finding 40: A Director of Professional Standards should not act as a Facilitator unless:

 the victim knows the Director’s position and makes an informed decision

 the Director obtains written consent from the victim

 the Director obtains the written approval of the Executive Officer of the National Professional Standards Committee.

DK’s facilitation took place on 30 March 2010. At DK’s request, Brother Turton arranged for Brother Burns and Brother Moraghan to attend the facilitation.

 Finding 41: Brother Turton and Mr Salmon knew that DK wanted the Marist Brothers to respond during the facilitation to his concerns that many people at St Augustine’s knew of Brother Murrin’s behaviour and that there were other victims.

 Finding 42: The discussion during DK’s pastoral session plainly raised the question of whether the Marist Brothers present had reason to suspect Brother Murrin’s behaviour at the time and, in particular, whether there had been complaints about Brother Murrin’s behaviour while he was at St Augustine’s.

 Finding 43: During the pastoral session, Brother Burns:

 did not inform DK about the 1981 complaints against Brother Murrin, of which he had personal knowledge

 caused DK to understand that the Marist Brothers were not, and had no cause to be, aware of Brother Murrin’s behaviour at St Augustine’s and did not know of any abuse.

After his facilitation, DK said that he was watching television and found out that Mr Salmon was the Director of the Professional Standards Office in New South Wales. DK contacted Brother Turton, Mr Salmon and Patrick Monahan, the solicitor who represented the Marist Brothers and Catholic Church Insurances at DK’s facilitation.

14

Report of Case Study No. 4

 Finding 44: The Marist Brothers did not effectively communicate Mr Salmon’s position as Director of the New South Wales Professional Standards Office to DK before the facilitation. They should have.

 Finding 45: Mr Salmon did not effectively communicate his position as Director of Professional Standards to DK or his barrister either before or during DK’s facilitation. He should have.

 Finding 46: Brother Murrin has been convicted and jailed for child sexual abuse. He remains a Marist Brother.

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

15

1 Introduction

This fourth public hearing by the Royal Commission looked at Towards Healing which is a set of principles and procedures established by the Catholic Church in 1996 to respond to individuals who have been, relevantly for this Royal Commission, sexually abused by a priest, religious or other Catholic Church personnel.

The process was intended to begin when a complaint of abuse came to the notice of any Church personnel. Church personnel were to immediately refer the complaint to a Contact Person.1

The Contact Person’s role was to listen to the complainant’s account, and provide a report signed by the complainant to the Church Authority.2

In 2000, the Towards Healing protocol was amended, and a Director of Professional Standards was appointed in each State and the Northern Territory. The Director was given responsibility for managing the process.3

Under the new provisions, complaints were to be passed on to the Director of Professional Standards.4 The Director then forwarded the written complaint to the relevant Church Authority, who would inform the accused of the nature of the complaint if possible.5 Where there was a significant dispute as to the facts, the Director of Professional Standards could appoint an assessor to investigate the facts of the case.6

lf the Church Authority was satisfied of the truth of the complaint, whether through admission of the offender, a finding of a court, a canon law process or a Church assessment, the Church Authority was to respond to the needs of the victim as demanded by justice and compassion.7 Responses could include providing an apology on behalf of the Church, counselling services or the payment of counselling costs. Financial assistance or reparation could also be paid to victims of a criminal offence or civil wrong, even though the Church was not legally liable.8

The next stage of the process was usually a facilitation. The Church Authority and the complainant should agree upon a person from an approved panel to conduct the facilitation (the ‘Facilitator’).9 The Facilitator’s role was to understand the ongoing needs of the complainant and the Church Authority’s response to those needs.10

The Facilitator would usually arrange for a meeting between the complainant and the Church Authority in which apologies could be offered and unresolved issues, including monetary reparation, addressed.11

The Church Authority was to bear all ordinary and reasonable expenses of the process of facilitation.12

This public hearing looked at the experiences of four survivors with the Towards Healing process:

16

Report of Case Study No. 4

 Joan Isaacs, who was abused by a priest from the Archdiocese of Brisbane, and engaged with Towards Healing from 1999

 Jennifer Ingham, who was abused by a priest from the Diocese of Lismore, and contacted the Diocese in 2012

 Mr DG, who was abused by a Marist Brother, and contacted the Marist Brothers in early 2000, and

 Mr DK, who was also abused by a Marist Brother, and who went through Towards Healing in 2010.

The eighth public hearing by the Royal Commission considered the experience of another survivor, Mr John Ellis, with Towards Healing in the Archdiocese of Sydney.

Submission process

Following the public hearing, Counsel Assisting made written submissions which were provided to parties with leave to appear. Many of these parties made written submissions in reply.

Counsel Assisting considered all written submissions in reply, and revised their submissions having carried out that task. Parties with leave were given the opportunity to make revised submissions if they wished.

The submissions on behalf of the Church parties began by making general submissions. The Church parties said that the Towards Healing protocol is a statement of the Church’s ‘position’ and that it puts forward a series of ‘possible steps’ in a process ‘which is, and is intended to be, inherently flexible’.13 That approach to the interpretation and implementation of Towards Healing serves, in the Church parties’ submissions, to excuse and justify departures from, or actions inconsistent with, the Towards Healing protocol. The Commissioners were surprised by this submission.

While it is accepted that the Towards Healing protocol is not ‘a legislative instrument or a commercial contract’,14 it is a ‘document [which] … states public criteria according to which the community may judge the resolve of Church leaders to address issues of abuse within the Church’. The document acknowledges the following:

If we do not follow the principles and procedures of this document, we will have failed according to our own criteria.

Having publically committed itself to the principles and procedures set out in Towards Healing, and having invited public judgement on whether it has followed those principles and procedures, we do not agree that those principles and procedures are in effect optional, and that it is only compliance with ‘a substantive or essential principle of the protocol’ which is required.

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

17

Further, the Church parties said that no accepted or objective meaning of either ‘justice’ or ‘compassion’ was proposed or established and it was necessary to establish, ‘by evidence’, what is meant by and required by ‘justice’ and ‘compassion’ before any adverse finding could be made that there was a failure to meet those standards.15 We do not accept that approach. Even in a court of law applying the rules of evidence, evidence of the meaning of a word is neither necessary nor admissible save in respect of specialised technical expressions ― an exception that does not apply in this case. Further, none of the witnesses expressed any difficulty with regard to the meaning of ‘justice’ or ‘compassion’ and no objection was made about the use of those words in questioning the witnesses.

We use the ordinary meanings of those words in the context in which they appear in the Towards Healing protocol. Towards Healing commits the Catholic Church in Australia, and its various formations, to a ‘just and compassionate’ response to victims of child sexual abuse. It is the ordinary way in which readers of that public commitment will understand it that matters. That is the standard to which the formations of the Catholic Church in Australia and its personnel are accountable.

We accept that minor departures from the Towards Healing protocol should not be visited with specific critical findings by the Royal Commission.

However, we do not accept the submission that the actions of a Church Authority disciplining an offender do not properly fall within the parameters of a study on Towards Healing. Clause 42 of Towards Healing (2010) clearly requires the future ministry of the person accused to be considered, and that such decisions are consistent with Church law.

The Church parties submitted that an adverse finding in relation to an individual should only be proposed or made if the relevant assertion has been put to the individual directly and fully.16

According to the rule in Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67, if a party wants to contradict evidence given by a witness, notice of the proposed contradiction must be given, for example by putting the proposed contradiction to that witness. A frequently cited description of the rule is that of Hunt J in Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1, 16:

It has in my experience always been a rule of professional practice that, unless notice has already clearly been given of the cross-examiner's intention to rely upon such matters, it is necessary to put to an opponent's witness in cross-examination the nature of the case upon which it is proposed to rely in contradiction of his evidence, particularly where that case relies upon inferences to be drawn from other evidence in the proceedings. Such a rule of practice is necessary both to give the witness the opportunity to deal with that other evidence, or the inferences to be drawn from it, and to allow the other party the opportunity to call evidence either to corroborate that explanation or to contradict the inference sought to be drawn.

In Re Minister of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S154/2002 (2003) 77 ALJR 1909, 1918 found that the rule in Browne v Dunn did not apply to non-adversarial proceedings.

18

Report of Case Study No. 4

We accept that the factual foundation for the submission as to an adverse finding should be put to the witness. It is not accepted that the adverse finding itself must be so put. It is through the process of submissions that individuals are provided with the opportunity to respond to any adverse findings submitted to be available on the evidence by counsel assisting (see Bond v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1988) 19 FCR 494 at 512). It is always open to any person or institution with leave to seek a further opportunity to put evidence before the Royal Commission, prior to the conclusion of the submission process.

The Royal Commission cannot report adversely on a person or institution without first giving a person or institution an opportunity to answer the matters put against them and to put submissions as to findings or recommendations that might be made (Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1991-1992) 175 CLR 564 at 581, see also Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596 at 601).

Each of the findings in this report that is adverse to an individual has been the subject of submissions by Counsel Assisting and each individual, personally or through their legal representatives has been given an opportunity to make submissions in reply to those of Counsel Assisting. There has been no request that any additional evidence be called or that oral submissions should be heard.

We are satisfied therefore that each finding adverse to an individual made in this report has been made after an appropriate opportunity has been given to that individual.

The Church parties also said that they offered to adduce evidence from witnesses on the Towards Healing process generally, but that that proposal was not accepted by the Commission.17 We do not accept this. The solicitors for the Church parties offered to provide a presentation to the Commissioners in the solicitors’ boardroom as to the operation of Towards Healing. For obvious reasons, that was declined.

At no time did the Church parties propose additional witnesses which were declined to be called by Counsel Assisting in relation to the general operation of Towards Healing.

We do not accept the submission by the Church parties that analysis of the four sub-studies within the present case study is not possible or appropriate in the absence of ‘evidence from witnesses on the Towards Healing process generally’.18 The development of the Towards Healing process over the years is apparent from the different revised versions from 1996 to 2010 as well as the reviews which preceded each version. It is the protocols themselves that were held out by the Catholic Church in Australia as applying at the different times and therefore to the different sub-studies.

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

19

2 Joan Isaacs’ Towards Healing experience

Child sexual abuse of Mrs Isaacs

Joan Isaacs was sexually abused by a Catholic priest, Father Francis Edward Derriman, from 1967 to 1968.19 She was 14 to 15 years of age at the time and a student of the Sacred Heart Convent at Sandgate in Brisbane, Queensland.20

Father Derriman was a priest of the Archdiocese of Brisbane and chaplain of the Sacred Heart Convent at the time.21 Mrs Isaacs’ sexual abuse was preceded by a period of grooming.22 In 1967, Mrs Isaacs had contact with Father Derriman through lessons in religion, mass and confession.23 Father Derriman also ‘became close’ to her family to the extent that he visited the family home for dinner ‘on frequent occasions, including his birthday’.24

In 1968, on occasion, Father Derriman would drive Mrs Isaacs home from school.25 Mrs Isaacs recalled that, around this time Father Derriman confided in a small group of students, of which she was a part.26 She stated that Father Derriman:

created a cult like group which included myself and three other children. Frank Derriman used the Peanut comic as a platform and used the surname ‘Brown’ in reference to himself, the three other children and me. I believe that this conduct of Fr Derriman is what would today be called ‘grooming’.27

While Mrs Isaacs was at school Father Derriman wrote her letters telling her that he was suffering from a fatal lung condition and would soon die. On a number of occasions he told her that she needed to have sex with him before he died. She gave evidence that:

He told me that he could have sex with me once I attained the age of 16, so I was terrified of turning 16 to the point of being suicidal. On one occasion he acted out in a fit in front of the ‘Brown’ group.28

Before the end of 1968, Father Derriman was transferred to another nearby parish. He remained ministering as a priest.

After she finished school, Mrs Isaacs maintained friendships with the other three children in the ‘Brown group’. Two girls out of the group have told her that Father Derriman also sexually abused them. Mrs Isaacs said that one of them took steps to have him criminally charged with her sexual abuse and the other girl was pregnant with Father Derriman’s child at the age of 17 years.29

Mrs Isaacs has suffered in many ways as a result of the sexual abuse by Father Derriman. She said:

I have had recurring depression throughout my adult life, which has involved suicidal ideation and insomnia. Prior to the abuse, I was one of the top students in my class and, both during and subsequent to the abuse, my results deteriorated significantly

20

Report of Case Study No. 4

and I consequently struggled to attain employment qualifications. I have also had serious difficulties in my marital relationship. During my working life I wasn’t able to work full time at times, even though I was working as a qualified teacher, because of my depression and other difficulties. I feel that my life has taken a whole different track to what it would have taken had this not happened.30

Father Derriman is convicted of sexual abuse

Almost 30 years after the abuse occurred, Mrs Isaacs took action against Father Derriman. She said she was motivated to do this because, in 1996, she saw Father Derriman for the first time in nearly 30 years on the beach with a young woman and a child.31 Mrs Isaacs said that she ‘felt really traumatised by knowing that nothing had changed in his life and he was still interested in young women’. She also knew that Towards Healing was being developed as a protocol for dealing with abuse victims.32

On 27 August 1996, Mrs Isaacs wrote to Father James Spence, who was a priest of the Archdiocese of Brisbane, and asked him to ‘send [her] details of procedures for investigating claims of abuse from within the Church’.33 On 2 September 1996, Father Spence replied and enclosed the almost-finalised Towards Healing protocol document. He said, ‘If I can be of any assistance to you, please don’t hesitate to telephone [redacted]’.34

She reported her abuse to the police and Father Derriman was prosecuted. On 10 December 1998, after two committal hearings and a trial, Father Derriman was convicted of two counts of indecent dealing against Mrs Isaacs.35 At the time the offences were committed, the maximum penalty was imprisonment for two years. At the time of sentence it was 10 years. Father Derriman was sentenced to one year imprisonment, to be suspended after serving four months.36

Judge McGuire said when sentencing Father Derriman: ‘You played on her emotions by pretending you were so chronically sick as to be in danger of imminent expiration.’ His Honour described two incidents as involving a ‘good deal of premeditation and deceit’.37 Judge McGuire also made the following remarks:

By virtue of your office you were in a position of dominance over the complainant. Your acts constituted a gross and flagrant betrayal of priestly trust.38

Towards Healing process

Mrs Isaacs waited until Father Derriman was convicted before starting the Towards Healing process. 39 She felt that if she pursued a complaint with the police, and Father Derriman was found guilty of any charges, Towards Healing would be an easier process to go through because she ‘wouldn’t have to prove anything anymore.’40

At the time the original Towards Healing procedures which were drafted in 1996 and introduced in March 1997 applied. Dr Kenneth Robertson, Convenor of the Professional

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

21

Standards Office in Queensland was listed as a Contact Person on a Towards Healing pamphlet that Mrs Isaacs obtained from her parish. He was someone who was known to her.41 In January 1999, Mrs Isaacs telephoned Dr Robertson, who told her ‘in general terms what the process involved’.42

On 12 February 1999, Mrs Isaacs wrote to Dr Robertson informing him of her intention to enter the Towards Healing process43 and indicated that she had authorized her solicitor, Peter Deed, to act on her behalf. In her letter, Mrs Isaacs complained that she was not contacted by the Church following Father Derriman’s conviction:

In spite of being informed about Derriman’s activities at the time, the Catholic Church made no attempt to help me as a victim. Archbishop Bathersby in a media statement released on 19 October 1998 stated that the needs of victims are ‘a priority’. No attempt was made by the current Church hierarchy to either contact me or to assist me since my trial in December.44

She wanted an apology, counselling and compensation from the Church. She wrote:

I seek an apology from the Church which failed to protect me from this abuse. I seek an apology from the Church which abandoned me in spite of having knowledge of my circumstances at the time. At my trial, Judge Fred McGuire made significant comments about the effects of Derriman’s indecent dealings on me and my life during the ensuing period of thirty years. I formally seek compensation for the abuse and the subsequent effects that this had had on my life. As I require ongoing counselling, I seek support from the Church to enable this to continue.45

A handwritten note by Dr Robertson indicates that on 22 February 1999 he spoke to Mrs Isaacs and ‘advised her of the delay caused by Bishop John’s operation’ and also ‘explained about facilitated meetings - She needs to tell her story and have her needs provided for’.46

The reference to ‘Bishop John’ was to Bishop John Gerry, former Auxillary Bishop who was assigned by the then Archbishop of Brisbane, Archbishop John Alexius Bathersby to deal with Towards Healing matters.47 Bishop Gerry was at the time recovering from major surgery.48

On 2 March 1999, Dr Robertson forwarded Mrs Isaacs’ letter to Bishop Gerry and suggested that he arrange for a facilitated meeting between Bishop Gerry, Mrs Isaacs and her husband.49 A handwritten note by Dr Robertson records that on the same day Dr Robertson spoke to Mrs Isaacs who indicated that ‘she wants Peter Deed at the meeting’.50

On 8 March 1999, Mrs Isaacs provided Dr Robertson with her police statement and victim impact statement along with a personal statement detailing the psychological, emotional and sexual abuse that she suffered and details of her reporting of the offences to Church authorities at the time of the abuse.51 In her letter, Mrs Isaacs acknowledged the difficulty in providing the documents to Church authorities which she wrote were ‘very personal and painful aspects of my life.’52 She also informed Dr Robertson that her lawyer, Mr Deed, ‘wishes it be known that a full psychiatric report will be made available in the near future.’53 Dr Robertson forwarded these materials to Bishop Gerry on 11 March 1999.54

22

Report of Case Study No. 4

Dr Robertson determined that no contact report or assessment was necessary and Mrs Isaacs’ process proceeded straight to facilitation.55 This was sensible and due to Father Derriman’s criminal conviction and because Mrs Isaacs had supplied various documents which established the relevant facts.56

On 19 March 1999, Bishop Gerry wrote to Mrs Isaacs and advised that he was unwell and would be unable to attend a facilitation for at least two months.57 He acknowledged the importance of Mrs Isaacs having the opportunity of ‘meeting someone representing the Archdiocese as soon as possible to begin the much delayed process of healing of the abuse that [she had] suffered at the hands of a priest’ and ‘acknowledged that [her] earlier experience, when [she] turned to those from whom you might have expected support, was totally disappointing and distressing’. 58

Bishop Gerry explained that Father Adrian Farrelly, the Judicial Vicar of the Regional Tribunal of Brisbane, had been identified by Archbishop Bathersby as the Church Authority in Bishop Gerry’s absence, and offered for him to attend in his stead.59 At the time of Mrs Isaacs’ complaint, Father Farrelly had been working in that position for five years.60 Although Mrs Isaacs was given the opportunity to wait until Bishop Gerry was available, she said that ‘after the many years of trauma’ she had experienced she ‘wanted the Towards Healing process resolved as quickly as possible’ and therefore ‘felt it was the best option to go with Dr Adrian Farrelly’.61

Bishop Gerry’s letter also offered Mrs Isaacs the services of Esther Trust, ‘a resource available in the Archdiocese to help people who are victims of abuse or violence.’62

A handwritten note by Dr Robertson indicates the following interaction with Mrs Isaacs in late March:

Mar 23 Spoke to Joan Isaacs re Bishop John’s letter. She wants to meet with Dr Adrian Farrelly as long as the case moves on. - She has her own Counsellor and wants to retain this Counsellor - Need to find out suitable dates - Peter Deed is her lawyer and support person.63

On 1 April 1999, Dr Robertson wrote a letter to Mrs Isaacs64 and to Father Farrelly65 setting out details for a meeting between them on 20 April 1999. Dr Robertson summarised who would be involved, what would be discussed and where it would be held. The letter stated:

Re our telephone conversation concerning a meeting between Ms Joan Isaacs and Fr Adrian Farrelly. The following arrangements have been made with both parties…

Attendance - Ms Joan Isaacs; Mr Peter Deed (Support Person); Fr Adrian Farrelly; Ms Bernadette Rogers (Facilitator)

Agenda - Should relate to the needs set out by the victim: Apology; Counselling; Compensation

Should there be any difficulty with any of the above aspects of the proposed meeting, please contact me. 66

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

23

On 13 April 1999, Mr Laurie Rolls, the Manager of Special Projects at Catholic Church Insurance (the Church’s insurer) wrote to the CCI Claims Manager, Mr Paul Reynolds, noting that he would ‘write to Bishop Gerry to advise him of the position with regard to the QBE Liability Policies and the CCI Special Issues Cover’.67

On 19 April 1999, Mr Rolls wrote to Bishop Gerry68 about that issue and also ‘set out [his] views as to some of the factors relevant to that meeting’, including detailed advice on how Father Farrelly was to conduct himself at the facilitation. Mr Rolls advised:69

You will, of course, be considering the claims from a pastoral viewpoint. It has been the custom of the Archdiocese in such cases to give sympathetic hearing to applications for assistance with counselling and other like expenses in recognition of the suffering experienced by the applicant, although it is clearly understood the responsibility lies with the alleged offender rather than the Archdiocese.

Further, there may be commercial reasons for offering to pay some compensation on an ex gratia basis. Notwithstanding the claimant’s difficulty in commencing legal process, she may nevertheless attempt to do so and legal expenses will be incurred in responding.

I understand Father Adrian Farrelly is meeting with Ms Isaacs and her support person, Mr Peter Speed [sic] on Tuesday 20th April. I am concerned that Mr Speed [sic] happens also to be a lawyer. I have suggested to Father, he should bring the meeting to close, if Mr Speed engages in legal argument and agree to continue only with a lawyer representing the Archdiocese present. It should also be remembered, if Ms Isaacs resorts to legal representation, she forfeits the right to your continuing offer of pastoral communication.

Father Farrelly agrees he will engage in a form of apology which expresses sorrow that such events could take place, that a priest of the Archdiocese could act in such a manner but will avoid any suggestion the Archdiocese is itself responsible for the actions of the priest.

He will agree to consider the cost of counselling, preferably with our own service, Centacare. It may not be possible to insist on this. If not, no open ended arrangement is to be considered. Rather, a set number of sessions over specific period will be agreed. Depending on how much counselling has already taken place, it is not uncommon to agree to ten sessions over a six month period, followed by review.

On the question of compensation, Father will suggest he is not in a position to negotiate but will need to refer to the financial advisers of the Archdiocese on the question of whether a payment is required to be made, as well the appropriateness of any amount proposed. It is difficult sometimes for lay persons to understand why a Bishop or an Episcopal Vicar suggests he cannot decide such matters. It is useful then to refer to the principle that the monies held by the Archdiocese are the property of the Catholic community held in trust and formal procedures are in place governing the process of making disbursements for particular purposes ...70

24

Report of Case Study No. 4

We know from people who have more recently experienced Towards Healing that this approach has changed over time. In the 1990s the insurer took a commercial approach to the Towards Healing process.

Father Farrelly gave evidence that although he could not recall whether he saw the letter before or after the facilitation date,71 the views expressed by Mr Rolls in his letter were virtually the same as those which he conveyed to him during their telephone conversation prior to the facilitation.72 Before the facilitation, Father Farrelly prepared typed notes, which he used as an aide memoire at the meeting:73

MEETING WITH JOAN ISAACS

Peter Deed (support person) and Bernadette Rogers (Facilitator)

1. Apology, counselling, compensation.

2. Bishop Gerry’s letter - earlier experience totally disappointing and distressing.

3. Sorrow that you were abused by a priest in this way. Court proceedings show the effects of that behaviour.

4. I am entitled to offer assistance with on-going counselling - 6 months (10 sessions) then review.

5. Re compensation I am not entitled to settle with you.74

Father Farrelly gave evidence that the notation, ‘1. Apology, counselling, compensation’,75 referred to three matters that he understood Mrs Isaacs wanted from the meeting.76

Father Farrelly agreed that, going into the meeting, he was not able to offer Mrs Isaacs any compensation,77 that he was to express sorrow but not offer an apology78 and that he was entitled to offer 10 sessions of counselling and then a review.79

Father Farrelly told the Commission that he did not view his telephone conversation with Mr Rolls prior to the facilitation as ‘instructions’.80 He said he was willing to be advised by people who had experience in these matters81 and that consulting with those persons regarding insurance, compensation, liability and other matters appeared to be the prudent thing to do.82

Father Farrelly agreed that he did not do anything before the meeting to let Mrs Isaacs know that his role was limited so that she could set her expectations about what he did and did not have authority to do.83 On reflection, Father Farrelly stated that, ‘it would … have been better if Bishop Gerry or Archbishop Bathersby had met Mrs Isaacs in person at some stage’.84

Archbishop Coleridge, the current Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Brisbane, said that Bishop Gerry could have suggested that a more senior member of the Church - for example, the Archbishop - attend the facilitation. But, he said, ‘[c]learly it wasn’t the kind of communication that took place between the two men’.85 He said that, ‘as successor to Archbishop Bathersby, I would be very strongly committed to attending facilitations’.86

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

25

Archbishop Coleridge agreed that the person that Bishop Gerry delegated to attend the facilitation had no authority to give Mrs Isaacs anything that she wanted. Archbishop Coleridge said he thought the then Archbishop should have attended the facilitation:

I am slightly puzzled by the choice of Father Farrelly at the time, a fairly junior member of the archdiocesan team, if I could put it in those terms. It was unfortunate, to put it mildly, that Bishop Gerry was out of action. Frankly, this is a point where, personally, I think the archbishop, wherever possible, should attend facilitations.87

 Finding 1: A senior person from the Church should attend meetings with survivors which have a pastoral element.

Mrs Isaacs gave evidence that, aside from the 1 April 1999 letter from Dr Robertson, no-one explained to her what the facilitation process would entail.88

Dr Robertson had difficulty accepting that he did not explain the facilitation to Mrs Isaacs89 and gave the following evidence:

I believe, based on my usual practice and my Handwritten Notes, that this [that he had not explained to Mrs Isaacs what the facilitation process would entail] would be unlikely. I always tried to explain to victims what the various stages of Towards Healing involved, including facilitations. In that regard, I would respectfully draw attention to paragraphs 15 and 16 of Mrs Isaacs statement, and to the entries for ‘Feb 22’ and ‘March 23’ in my Handwritten Notes. However, as I have said, I do not now have any actual recollection of precisely what was said in my various conversations with Mrs Isaacs. In any event I am very sorry that Mrs Isaacs feels that she was not adequately informed of what would occur during the facilitation.90

The entry for ‘Feb 22’ in Dr Robertson’s handwritten notes is set out above.

Dr Robertson understood that Mrs Isaacs felt unprepared and insufficiently informed about what would occur at the facilitation.91 He accepted responsibility for this.92

Mrs Isaacs gave evidence that during a telephone call in January 199993 she was advised by Dr Robertson to engage a lawyer throughout the Towards Healing process. She said that Dr Robertson had said to her, ‘Joan, this is off the record but don't go anywhere near the church without a lawyer’. 94 She said that prior to this conversation she had not intended to get a lawyer involved in the process.95 She was under the impression that her husband would accompany her to the facilitation but due to Dr Robertson’s comments, had decided to take a lawyer.96

Mrs Isaacs had engaged Mr Deed by the time she wrote her letter of complaint to Dr Robertson dated 12 February 1999.

Dr Robertson gave evidence that it was likely that he advised Mrs Isaacs to get a lawyer,97 although he was not sure of when.98

26

Report of Case Study No. 4

Dr Robertson’s said that generally, if survivors of abuse were seeking compensation, he would inform them that they may wish to engage a lawyer, as it was likely that the Church would engage a lawyer in such cases.99 However, he said that it was not his practice to use language of the kind described by Mrs Isaacs100 and had no recollection of saying the words, ‘Joan, this is off the record but don’t go anywhere near the church without a lawyer’.101

Under Towards Healing (1996), at the facilitation, ‘Both the victim and the Church Authority may have one other person present with them’ (clause 7.2.1).

Unfortunately, probably due to miscommunication, Mrs Isaacs believed that she could take only one person. She wanted to take her lawyer and she thought that meant her husband could not come to the facilitation with her.

In his letter dated 1 April 1999, Dr Robertson referred to Mr Deed as Mrs Isaacs’ ‘support person’.102 Dr Robertson gave evidence that he knew that Mr Deed was in fact Mrs Isaacs’ lawyer103 but understood that he would be attending the facilitation in the capacity of a support person.104 This is consistent with his handwritten notes dated 2 and 23 March 1999 in which, respectively, he noted: ‘Spoke to Joan Isaacs - she wants Peter Deed at the meeting’105 and recorded information conveyed in a telephone conversation that ‘Peter Deed is her lawyer and support person’.106 It is also consistent with Mrs Isaacs’ diary entry after the facilitation, in which she records that she ‘requested that [her] support person in this was to be [her] lawyer, Peter Deed’.107

Mrs Isaacs said that before the facilitation she asked whether ‘someone’, whether or not it was her husband, could attend the facilitation with her. She said she was told, ‘Definitely, no you can only have one person there’.108 Mrs Isaacs could not recall who said these words, but she stated that it was not Dr Robertson. She said that it was possible that Mr Deed had asked on her behalf and had relayed the response back to her.109

Mrs Isaacs recalled being angry after having read a clause in Towards Healing (1996) which provided that if there is a priest who comes under investigation he can come to a meeting with a support person but she was told to bring a lawyer.110

Dr Robertson was certain that he did not say to anyone that Mrs Isaacs could not have her husband as well as Mr Deed at the facilitation or that she could only have one person there. He stated that this would have been contrary to his ‘usual practice which was not to restrict the number of people the victim wished to bring for meaningful support’.111

Dr Robertson’s intention not to exclude Mrs Isaacs’ husband from the facilitation are also evident in a letter to Bishop Gerry on 2 March 1999.112 In that letter, Dr Robertson suggested a process for dealing with Mrs Isaacs’ complaint, including:

2. I arrange a facilitated meeting for you to meet with Joan Isaacs and her husband [emphasis added] (This could take place when you are feeling better).

Dr Robertson said that, if someone associated with the Church had communicated this to Mrs Isaacs, it would have been the wrong thing to say.113 He agreed that ‘regardless of whether the protocol said you can only bring one support person, no proper authority

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

27

looking to mete out justice and compassion’ would have said to Mrs Isaacs that she could not bring her husband.114 He said that, if Mrs Isaacs had asked whether her husband could also attend, he would have contacted the Church Authority and recommended that her husband be allowed to attend.115

We accept that it was not his intention to exclude Mrs Isaacs’ husband and it was unfortunate that that occurred.

Under Towards Healing (1996) (clause 7.2):

In the event of proven guilt, whether through admission of the offender or through a finding of a civil court or through a Church assessment, the Church Authority and victim shall mutually agree on a Facilitator from the approved panel.116

On 1 April 1999, Mrs Isaacs received a letter from Dr Robertson ‘in relation to [their] telephone conversation concerning a meeting between [her] and Fr. Adrian Farrelly’. Dr Robertson set out details of ‘arrangements [that had] been made with both parties’ and named Ms Rogers as the Facilitator for the meeting.117

Mrs Isaacs gave evidence that before she received the letter she had not been asked whether she agreed to Ms Rogers’ appointment as Facilitator. She said, ‘From memory, I was just told that Bernadette Rogers would be the Facilitator’. When she was asked once again whether she was told in this letter or before she received the letter, she said, ‘I am not sure, but I think I just got it with the letter’.118 Mrs Isaacs had never met or spoken to Ms Rogers before the facilitation meeting.119

When Dr Robertson was asked whether he accepted Mrs Isaacs’ evidence that she was not consulted about the choice of Facilitator, he responded, ‘I don’t want to deny her evidence in any respect, but I find it difficult to understand that I didn’t talk to her about it’.120 He agreed that there was no note of him having done so.121

Dr Robertson accepted that the memory of a person who has gone through the Towards Healing process, and how they were treated during that process, is likely to be deeply embedded.122 He was not prepared to accept that he did not talk to Mrs Isaacs about the identity of the Facilitator, because it was ‘so imperative, and I was particular in those areas’.123

 Finding 2: It is clear that any process by which Survivors engage with the Church about the abuse they have suffered from a member of the clergy should be one in which they are consulted and listened to.

Facilitation

On 20 April 1999, the facilitation took place at Centacare in Fortitude Valley, Brisbane. Mrs Isaacs, Ms Rogers, Father Farrelly and Mr Deed attended the facilitation.

Mrs Isaacs gave the following evidence about her expectations leading up to the facilitation:

28

Report of Case Study No. 4

My expectation leading up to the facilitation was that I would be dealt with warmly, the people involved would accept what I had to say, they’d understand that what was said in the past was true, that I’d been let down in the past, and I would be able to move forward and get that apology. I also expected to receive counselling and compensation. Compensation was not a big part for me, but I just knew that I might get words that were empty if I didn’t go that step and ask for compensation and I thought that this would be paid for by the Catholic Church.124

Ms Rogers gave evidence that her practice was to read the material that had been provided before a facilitation so that she understood a victim’s needs.125 She said that she would have seen the letter from Dr Robertson setting out the agenda and she would have been aware ‘that was what the complainant wanted to talk about’.126 She said she knew that Mrs Isaacs’ needs were ‘apology, counselling, compensation’.127

While she could not now independently recall Mrs Isaacs’ facilitation,128 Ms Rogers said her usual practice on the day of a facilitation was to meet with each party separately first to give them an opportunity to get to know her and to discuss the facilitation process and their expectations.129 During the facilitation, she would have the victim speak about their abuse and its impact upon them and have the Church Authority listen. She would then encourage discussion around the victim’s needs.130

On the issue of counselling, Mrs Isaacs said that she told Father Farrelly that she had been seeing a counsellor, Ms Lynn O’Donoghue at her own expense ‘for quite some years’ and that she wished for the church to pay for ongoing counselling from that point.131 Father Farrelly recorded in his facilitation report:

[Mrs Isaacs] does not see her counsellor on a regular basis but, from time to time, will see a great need; at other times, a less need. This perception of need is what determines when she visits the counsellor.132

Father Farrelly offered that the Church would pay for 10 sessions of counselling and then review the situation after that time.133 Mrs Isaacs ‘was content with that offer as a starting point’. She viewed it as an interim measure that would be reviewed after the 10 sessions. However, she said that she ‘was not told of any criteria regarding a review’.134

Mrs Isaacs then raised the issue of compensation. Father Farrelly wrote in his facilitation report:

This was not, she reiterated, her primary motive in having the meeting. The first thing she wished to happen was for the Church to hear, listen to what happened to her, and to respond to that … She was hurt by this incident and hurt badly and, as she said, she does want the Church to feel some of that hurt through a compensation payment … I responded by saying I was not entitled to discuss the allocation of monies entrusted to the Church, but would refer the matter to the appropriate processes and advisers who needed to be involved in such decisions.135

Mrs Isaacs said that, before the facilitation, she had not been told that Father Farrelly did not have authority to negotiate compensation.136 Mrs Isaacs gave evidence that she hoped it would be resolved at the facilitation because the letter she received from Dr Robertson on

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

29

1 April 1999 had compensation as part of the agenda.137 However, as discussed below, she quickly understood that it would be dealt with between lawyers after the facilitation.

The evidence of Dr Robertson,138 Ms Rogers139 and Mr Rolls140 was that, under Towards Healing in Queensland at the time, the practice was to deal with the question of monetary payment between lawyers after the facilitation was complete.

Dr Robertson gave evidence that he knew that the issue of monetary payment and amount would not be dealt with or resolved at the meeting.141 He agreed that when he wrote to Mrs Isaacs he gave her the expectation that compensation would be on the agenda142 and would be dealt with.143 He went on to say that he did not agree that he was creating an expectation that the issue of compensation would be ‘resolved’ but only that it would be dealt with.144 In our opinion, there is no distinction of any significance.

Dr Robertson said that he ‘should have made it more clear to Mrs Isaacs that whether a monetary payment would be made and if so in what amount would not be able to be resolved at the facilitation meeting’.145

However, Mr Deed said to Mrs Isaacs at the conclusion of the facilitation that he wanted (thereafter) to put together ‘a very good compensation request’ for her. Mrs Isaacs said she understood that she would see a psychiatrist and an accountant about that, and that Mr Deed would also engage a barrister to assess the aspect of damages.146

Consistently with that approach, a letter from Mr Deed to Dr Robertson dated 27 April 1999 stated, among other things:

Could you also inform Father Farrelly that we are in the process of putting a submission together concerning a claim for compensation. Once we have it to hand, we will forward it to you and also Father Farrelly for the Church’s consideration.147

The submission was eventually sent to the Archdiocese’s lawyers on 31 August 1999.148

Aftermath

Mrs Isaacs documented her experience of the facilitation in a diary entry dated 22 April 1999. She wrote:

When we finished the meeting we left the building quite different people than when we had arrived. I felt a sense of relief and achievement that I had at last dealt with something so important in my life. The Facilitator was clearly moved. Her hands were still shaking as we said our ‘goodbyes’. She said that although she had done a number of these interviews this one had left her visibly shaken. [Father Farrelly] said he would never be able to talk or read about the subject of abuse without seeing my face before him. I thought that was a good outcome …

For me, I have now done what I set out to do. There are formalities to be seen to, but that is not my personal concern. It is now a job for the lawyers and they are welcome to that job. Whatever the outcome I will be content that I have challenged the system - both the legal system and the Church and that I have finally been

30

Report of Case Study No. 4

heard. My life will still be difficult at times. The pain will go on. But I have done what I had to do. It has just taken 31 years to get there.149

In a letter to Father Farrelly dated 26 April 1999, Mrs Isaacs described the opportunity to be heard by the Church at the facilitation as a ‘crucial element to my healing process’.150

Dr Robertson spoke to Mrs Isaacs on 29 April 1999. His note records:

April 29 Rang Joan - meeting went well, impressed with Dr Farrelly - feels a great sense of relief - advised that the process is now complete and the question of compensation will now be settled at the lawyer level.

In his facilitation report, Father Farrelly also recorded that Mrs Isaacs was disappointed that she was not seen by one of the Bishops. He wrote, ‘She was very keen on the Bishops themselves hearing what she had gone through and having her face in their mind when they think about these matters’.151

On 26 April 1999, Mrs Isaacs reiterated this view in a letter to Father Farrelly. In the letter she made suggestions for improving the Church’s response to other victims in the future. She said that ‘It would take a great deal of courage to do this however, this approach would be seen as a more genuine and meaningful response’.152

On 27 April 1999, Ms Rogers provided a short facilitation report to Dr Robertson. Ms Rogers gave evidence that the brevity of the report she produced was consistent with reports that she wrote in the early years of her experience as a Facilitator.153 Dr Robertson also said that it was ‘reasonably typical of the facilitation reports I would receive at around that time’.154 Amongst other matters, Ms Rogers’ report recorded that ‘ongoing discussions will take place in relation to compensation’.155

Towards Healing (1996) states (Part 2, clause 7.2.6):

The Church Authority shall bear all ordinary and reasonable expenses of the process of facilitation.

By the time that Dr Robertson had sent the letter dated 1 April 1999 setting out the agenda for the meeting and the name of the Facilitator, Mrs Isaacs understood that she was to pay for the costs of Mr Deed, as she had not asked that the Church pay and nobody proposed they would.156

Dr Robertson said that, if a victim asked him whether the Church Authority might pay his or her legal fees, he would put this to the Church Authority.157

Although it is not expressly required under Towards Healing (1996), Part 2, clause 7.2.6, we are satisfied that the costs of Mr Deed attending the facilitation could reasonably be construed as an ‘ordinary and reasonable expense of the process of facilitation’ and could have been something that was offered to Mrs Isaacs. Dr Robertson agreed that the protocol did not prevent him from making that offer.158

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

31

Dr Robertson agreed that it was unfair not to have had a discussion with Mrs Isaacs about the payment of fees and that it was unfair not to have paid those fees. He said that he had made a mistake.159 We accept Dr Robertson’s evidence in this respect.

 Finding 3: It was unfair not to have had a discussion with Mrs Isaacs about paying her solicitor’s fee for attending the facilitation and it was unfair not to have paid that fee. As Dr Robertson acknowledged in these respects, he made a mistake.

Father Farrelly wrote a report of the facilitation ‘very soon after’ the facilitation.160 He recorded that he ‘did not offer an apology on behalf of the Church but did express [his] sorrow at what had happened to her’.161 Father Farrelly gave evidence that he should have offered an apology on behalf of the Church at the meeting.162

Although Mrs Isaacs ‘felt that Dr Farrelly really got in his heart and stomach what happened to me’ she thought that it was ‘not good enough’ and also requested a written apology signed by the Bishop.163 Father Farrelly conveyed that he did not have instructions about this matter but that he would raise it with the Bishop.164

At this point, Mrs Isaacs felt that the matter was ‘left up in the air’ after she had ‘made it quite clear’ that a written apology was what she wanted.165

On 21 April 1999, Father Farrelly addressed Mrs Isaacs’ request for a written apology with Bishop Gerry. On Bishop Gerry’s instructions, Father Farrelly prepared a draft apology and sent it to Mr Rolls to ‘run it by [him] to see what [his] thoughts about the request and the letter were’.166 Father Farrelly gave evidence that he did so because ‘given all these other issues - insurance, compensation, liability and all those things - that were in people’s minds back in 1999, that seemed to be a prudent thing to do, to consult the ones with the experience to see what they thought’.167 Father Farrelly gave evidence that he had no recollection of receiving a response from Mr Rolls.168

The apology that Bishop Gerry ultimately sent to Mrs Isaacs on 30 April 1999 was in very similar terms to the one that was drafted by Father Farrelly, except for some amendments. For example, the sentence ‘I am sorry that you were not believed when you told other priests what had happened to you’ was replaced in Bishop Gerry’s letter with the sentence ‘The response made at the time was less than you could have rightly expected’.169

A memorandum from Mr Rolls to Mr Reynolds dated 10 June 1999 indicates that Mr Rolls had ‘instructed Bishop Gerry to remove’ that sentence from the letter.170 However, Mr Rolls had no recollection of ‘instructing’ Bishop Gerry to do this and he did not recall any conversation with the Bishop about the draft apology. He said that, if he suggested to the Bishop that it should be removed, he did not know why.171 Bishop Gerry took responsibility for all changes to the draft apology that Father Farrelly had prepared.172

Bishop Gerry gave evidence that, while Mr Rolls’ letter of 19 April 1999 referred to a limitation on the form of oral apology to be offered at the facilitation, it was not his usual practice to impose this limitation. He said that, when he subsequently himself offered Mrs Isaacs a written apology, he did not include any such limitation; rather, he offered an unqualified apology.173

32

Report of Case Study No. 4

Bishop Gerry’s apology was in the following terms:

As I mentioned in my previous letter, I have been appointed by the Archbishop as the ‘Church Authority’ to act in the name of the Archdiocese in Towards Healing processes.

I write now in this capacity to say how sorry I am for what you suffered at the hands of Frank Derriman who was a priest of the Archdiocese at the time. You were taken advantage of in a most shameful way. He abused the position he had as a priest, the friendship your parents and family had with him and the trust you had placed in a priest. The response made at the time was less than you could have rightly expected. I am deeply saddened to hear what effect this abuse and lack of adequate response had on the faith of your own mother and father, and on your sons. You have been let down by those from whom you had every right to expect more.174

Mrs Isaacs gave evidence that the first thing that entered her mind when she read the letter from Bishop Gerry was ‘that it had been written by a lawyer, not by Bishop Gerry’ and ‘said sorry for what happened, but that the Church had no role to play’.175 This caused Mrs Isaacs to feel ‘as though the Catholic Church were completely distancing themselves from Frank Derriman to protect themselves from any responsibility and maybe litigation’.176

Bishop Gerry gave evidence that he deeply regretted that he had not met face to face with Mrs Isaacs to hear her speak of her pain directly.177 He said that he had missed a number of opportunities to establish a personal rapport with her, which again, he deeply regretted and apologised for.178

Compensation

Mrs Isaacs’ experience of the compensation negotiations highlights some of the complex issues in the relationship between redress schemes and civil litigation.

Mrs Isaacs understood that after the facilitation there would be discussions between her solicitor and the Church about compensation. She recorded in a diary entry after the facilitation that she was content for the lawyers to take care of this.179 At that stage she ‘had no idea what sort of amount would be considered or how it would be determined’180 and ‘had no understanding of how long the negotiations between Peter Deed and the Church might take, but thought maybe a couple of months’.181

It took over two years to resolve the issue of compensation.

Mr Deed continued to represent Mrs Isaacs. The Archdiocese was represented by Mr John Moore of Thynne + Macartney, with the participation of Mr Rolls and Mr Paul Reynolds from CCI as the Archdiocese’s insurer.182 Father Spence, the former Archdiocesan Chancellor, was nominated by Archbishop Bathersby to act as a ‘conduit’183 or ‘liaison person’184 between the Archdiocese of Brisbane and the lawyers and insurers involved.185 Father Spence relied on those advisers in all insurance and legal matters.186

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

33

On 31 August 1999, Mr Deed submitted to Thynne + Macartney a claim for compensation with various attachments on behalf of Mrs Isaacs. The total amount claimed was about $358,682. This included claims for general damages, aggravated and exemplary damages, special damages and past and future economic loss totaling some $259,632. He also provided a report dated 22 April 1999 from Dr Donald Grant, psychiatrist, and an economic loss report dated 20 August 1999 from Vincents, Chartered Accountants.187

From this point on, the parties held different views on the nature of the compensation process. Mrs Isaacs thought that the negotiations flowed from the facilitation held under Towards Healing.188 Father Spence189 and Mr Rolls,190 on the other hand, both understood that once Mr Deed submitted the claim for compensation Mrs Isaacs was no longer engaged in the Towards Healing process. Father Spence said that:

this step taken by Mrs Isaacs’ lawyer confirmed [his] understanding that, apart from the ongoing counselling sessions which Mrs Isaacs was having, she was no longer engaged in a Towards Healing process, but rather was pursuing a substantial, detailed, legal claim for compensation … When Ms Isaacs sought to press a claim for compensation, the Archdiocese essentially moved into a defensive litigation stance and there followed a drawn-out two year period before the matter was resolved. Apart from the provision of counselling which continued for some time, there was no further engagement with her on a pastoral level. I regret the lack of any further pastoral contact with Mrs Isaacs. I would also hope that if similar circumstances arose today, I would realise the importance of continuing concern for the welfare of the victim.191

Mr Rolls said that the nature and format of the calculations of the claim were ‘typical of such claims made by solicitors in common law personal injuries cases, outside the context of Towards Healing’.192 He thought that the ‘claim was now being treated as an insurance claim against the Archdiocese and was outside the Towards Healing process’.193

In a letter dated 21 September 1999, Thynne + Macartney advised Father Spence that he should not discuss the issue of compensation with Mrs Isaacs and that:

If Joan Isaacs contacts you or other Church representatives direct over the issue of compensation, it would be our recommendation that she be referred back to her solicitors because it would not be ethical for the Church to talk directly with her when she has retained a solicitor to act in her interests.194

In a letter to Mr Deed dated 27 October 1999, Thynne + Macartney communicated the Church’s position at that point:

we are working through a process with the Church in relation to the significant cash damages claim your client has presented. Despite your advice to us that your client was not pursuing a ‘civil liability claim’, quite clearly, with respect, that is the case and we note your advice that the matter is to be litigated.

In our view it is clear that the parties have different understandings with respect to the Towards Healing process and protocol. ‘Compensation’ in that arena can be directed towards reimbursement of properly incurred medical expenses in appropriate cases. The protocol otherwise seeks to provide for assessment and

34

Report of Case Study No. 4

where ongoing needs exist, continuing assistance designed to promote a process of healing. As we have previously indicated, Towards Healing is not a monetary compensation protocol in the sense of a process that deals with a substantial civil common law claim. No assessment by the Church interferes in any way with the processes of civil or criminal law.

In this instance your client seeks a substantial common law payment ... In our view, civil legal liability does not exist on the part of any Church institution for criminal or other alleged wrongful or disgraceful activities of a person who quite obviously acted outside any scope of authority or duty entrusted to them and, certainly, outside any religious teachings. On this basis, and as explained to you by phone on 19 October 1999, it is our expectation that ex gratia cash compensation will not be paid in response to the above very substantial common law claim.

The resources of the Archdiocese are directed towards supporting the Towards Healing program. It is our belief that on-going support under the Towards Healing program, which can take into account issues involving treatment expenses will be available to your client.195

Mrs Isaacs said that she felt this letter contradicted what Father Farrelly said at the end of the facilitation - that discussion about the compensation aspect would be ongoing. It also differed from Mrs Isaacs understanding of the Towards Healing procedures document.196

Mrs Isaacs gave evidence that:

At this point Peter suggested to me that I commence civil action against both Frank Derriman and the Catholic Church. Peter said that he did not want to engage in a civil claim on my behalf but he thought initiating the action would precipitate closure for me. I agreed with Peter’s suggestions and he continued to engage with the Brisbane Archdiocese on my behalf. Accordingly on 6 January 2000, Peter sent me a copy of the Notice of Intention to Defend and Defence that had been served by the Brisbane Archdiocese.197

Counselling

Throughout this time, Mrs Isaacs continued to attend counselling with her psychologist, Ms O’Donoghue, with the expectation that the Archdiocese would at least initially meet those costs.

During her first counselling session after the facilitation, she told Ms O’Donoghue that the Church would pay for 10 sessions and that she should send the accounts directly to Bishop Gerry. After attending nine sessions, Ms O’Donoghue told her that she had not been paid for the last eight sessions.198 On 17 February 2000, Mrs Isaacs wrote to Bishop Gerry asking for payment and attaching Ms O’Donoghue’s account.199 Having to do this made her feel ‘just devastated’.200

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

35

On 25 February 2000, Bishop Gerry responded and acknowledged that Father Farrelly had told him that he had offered payment for counselling. He also wrote that ‘Father Farrelly had mentioned that at the meeting [Mrs Isaacs] indicated that she did not need to see a counsellor on a regular basis’. Bishop Gerry authorised another session and advised that the Church would need either ‘a progress report or a professional assessment of the benefit of on-going counselling before any further commitment could be made’.201 This ‘really upset’ Mrs Isaacs, as she had ‘gone to great lengths in the facilitation to tell them that [she] had had counselling for quite a number of years’.202

Mrs Isaacs wrote to Bishop Gerry on 3 March 2000 stating that at no stage during the facilitation did she suggest that she did not need regular counselling, that she had told Father Farrelly that she had received intensive counselling since 1994 and that an assessment by Dr Donald Grant indicated there was a need for 50 sessions of continued therapy.203

On 7 April 2000, Mrs Isaacs forwarded to Bishop Gerry a report that Ms O’Donoghue wrote advising of the need for Mrs Isaacs to continue counselling.204 On 2 June 2000, Bishop Gerry waived ‘any detailed professional assessment’ and authorised a second set of 10 counselling sessions for Mrs Isaacs.205

During a session with Ms O’Donoghue in early June 2000, Ms O’Donoghue informed Mrs Isaacs that she had not been paid for the second set of sessions.206 Mrs Isaacs said that this had made her ‘very angry’ and prompted her to call Bishop Gerry on 6 June 2000.207 Bishop Gerry told her that a letter and payment for counselling was in the mail and asked whether counselling was addressing the problem. Mrs Isaacs responded:

Counselling can address some issues but the total process of ‘healing’ is severely impeded by the Church’s reluctance to see this to its conclusion. Part of the problem lies with my feelings of abandonment by the Catholic Church. Until the compensation issue is finalised my healing cannot be fully realised.208

Bishop Gerry gave evidence that he does not doubt that there was some delay in responding to payment for Mrs Isaacs’ consultations with Ms O’Donoghue.209 He said that he was ‘quite shocked, because I don’t know how that happened’.210

Archbishop Coleridge gave evidence that where Mrs Isaacs’ matter ‘went wrong was in the later phases to do with counselling’. He said that a lack of oversight by the then Archbishop led to a ‘spectacular bungling on the part of the Archdiocese of Brisbane’.211

Clearly, Mrs Isaacs received payments for counselling costs only following her considerable prompting after the Archdiocese had already agreed to pay. These payments came to an end after the settlement sum was paid.

We will be considering further the desirable components of a redress scheme. However, it is clear that many victims will need counselling or other therapeutic assistance for years after the abuse and some for their lifetime.

36

Report of Case Study No. 4

 Finding 4: Mrs Isaacs received payments for counselling costs only following considerable prompting after the Archdiocese had already agreed to pay. These payments came to an end after the settlement sum was paid.

Two years later and $30,000 was offered

After two years of negotiations, on 20 April 2001 Mrs Isaacs was offered an ex gratia payment of $30,000 ‘all up’ by Thynne + Macartney. Following further negotiations and correspondence between the lawyers, Thynne + Macartney indicated on 30 April 2001 that $30,000 was a ‘top of the limit figure’.212

Mrs Isaacs was ‘not happy with the offer’.213 No separate offer was made for legal costs.214 At that point she had already incurred $8,000 for legal costs for the civil claim against Father Derriman. Father Derriman’s lawyer put an offer to her through Mr Deed to waive costs if she did not pursue a further claim,215 but she refused it. She gave evidence that ‘I could not allow Frank Derriman to take back the control that I felt I had gained from the criminal trial so I refused to sign the contract and accordingly had to pay the $8,000 to Frank Derriman’s solicitor’.216

Mrs Isaacs gave evidence that ‘just after’ she was offered the $30,000, she telephoned Archbishop Bathersby and made notes during that conversation.217 Her notes recorded that she asked him: ‘Do you know that after two years of stonewalling I have accrued nearly that amount in legal fees I will have very little left?’ Archbishop Bathersby is then recorded as saying, ‘That’s your problem’. Mrs Isaacs said that she was ‘utterly defeated’ and decided to accept the offer and ‘get out of this terrible situation’.218

Mrs Isaacs gave evidence that she had also incurred $12,000 for legal costs for the advice and representation she received from Mr Deed for the Towards Healing process and the civil claim. After she had paid legal fees and Health Commission fees,219 she spent $5,000 on Coles-Myer shares and bought a sewing machine. She said that after that she had ‘little or no money left from the settlement’.220

We are satisfied that there was a heavy reliance on advice from insurers and lawyers by the Church when negotiating compensation.

Father Spence told Mr Moore that he thought the offer of $30,000 by Thynne + Macartney was ‘mean’.221 Father Spence said that he did not suggest an alternate figure because he was, ‘not really in a position to quantify them.’222 Father Spence said that he had not taken into consideration, as he perhaps should have, that outside of whatever the insurers would pay, the Church could pay more.223

Father Spence acknowledged that as far as decisions regarding amounts of monetary payment were concerned, he regarded those decisions as depending on the expertise of lawyers and other advisers.224 Although a contribution from Church funds was not usually

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

37

made at the time of Mrs Isaacs’ complaint, Archbishop Coleridge said he would offer that contribution today if the need were there.225

Bishop Gerry said that he had no control over compensation; he understood that Archbishop Bathersby dealt with the insurers about that matter.226 He said that before hearing Father Spence’s evidence that he was assigned by the Archbishop to liaise with insurers, ‘it was a blank for me of what happened in that area’.227 Bishop Gerry stated that:

as far as decisions concerning amounts of monetary payment were concerned, I regarded those as depending upon the expertise of lawyers and other advisers. On reflection, the Archdiocese could have and should have not relied so heavily on such advisers and should have formed an independent view of the appropriate approach to take.228

Archbishop Coleridge gave evidence that a lack of oversight by the Archbishop led to insurers and lawyers playing a damaging role:

I have learned many things, not only listening to the evidence but in preparing for the Royal Commission. One is that in this case there was what I would take to be a drastic failure of oversight … when I talk about oversight, I mean the kind of episcopal oversight that leads to coordination, which is essential in these matters.

… in this particular case … the role played by lawyers and insurers, all good and well-intentioned people … I think the failure of oversight led them to play a role which was most damaging.229

Archbishop Coleridge stated that the Archbishop should provide this oversight.230 Archbishop Coleridge provided details about what oversight there should have been and where oversight was lacking:

The oversight - as I understand it, the facilitation went well. The archbishop, I think, should be involved right from the start, so keeping an eye on the facilitation, not micro-managing but attending to the various personnel involved in the facilitation. But my understanding is that in this case, the facilitation did work well.

Where it went wrong was in the later phases to do with counselling, which - the counselling episode in the case of Mrs Isaacs seems to me to be a case of spectacular bungling on the part of the Archdiocese of Brisbane, where everyone seemed to presume that someone else was doing it. That’s a lack of oversight. I think the Archbishop should have made sure that the commitment to pay for counselling was in fact honoured.

Then similarly with compensation. Now, lawyers and insurers have their words to speak, but they can’t have a final word. That was always true. It wasn’t so obvious back in the late 1990s, but it was true. It’s certainly true now, that they have their words to speak - and, again, when I say the buck stops with me, I of course am obliged to take advice, and I take advice as much as I can, particularly from highly qualified professionals, like lawyers and insurers. But, in the end, I have to decide whether a proposal is within the terms of Towards Healing, just and compassionate,

38

Report of Case Study No. 4

and if I don’t think it is, I have to make a final decision, and my decision in this matter would be final.231

Archbishop Coleridge gave the following evidence about the Church’s over-reliance on advisers:

Bishops and major superiors were like rabbits caught in a headlight. They didn’t know how to respond. That’s why, when a seemingly trusted and competent professional, like a lawyer or an insurer, came forward, saying, ‘This is the way forward’, bishops and major superiors were inclined to breathe a sigh of relief and say, ‘Yes, you are right’.232

 Finding 5: Actions of those representing the Archdiocese of Brisbane were as follows:

 After a claim for damages was made, the Church, their lawyers and insurer engaged in protracted legal negotiations for a period of over two years before making the monetary offer to Mrs Isaacs.

 The Archdiocese paid Mrs Isaacs $30,000. After paying $20,000 for legal costs, Mrs Isaacs was left with a small payment of money.

 Even though Father James Spence thought that the offer of $30,000 was ‘mean’, he took no action to either suggest a higher price or find out if the Archdiocese would contribute additional money to Mrs Isaacs’ settlement sum.

 The Church relied heavily on advice from insurers and lawyers when negotiating compensation.

A deed of release is a formal document in which a party agrees not to pursue legal proceedings against another party. In some deeds of release executed under the Towards Healing process, confidentiality provisions were included, requiring victims to keep confidential certain information such as the nature of allegations of sexual abuse or the amount of financial assistance paid.233

After the settlement sum of $30,000 was reached, on 13 June 2001 Mrs Isaacs was provided with the first draft of the deed of release (‘first draft deed’), on the basis that it ‘still has to be approved by our client’. The letter attached to the deed also indicated that ‘We have incorporated the standard provisions that we understand are now being required particularly in the area of confidentiality.’ 234

The first draft deed prevented disclosure of the terms of the settlement (clause 7) as well as requiring her not to make ‘disparaging remarks or comments’ about the Church Authority in relation to the subject matter of the proceedings (clause 8).235 The deed also prohibited Mrs Isaacs from discussing the amount of compensation or bringing a civil claim against the Brisbane Archdiocese in respect of the abuse by Father Derriman.236

On 21 June 2001, Thynne + Macartney sent a letter to Father Spence enclosing a second draft deed that they indicated Mrs Isaacs would be ‘required to sign’. The letter stated, ‘We have endeavoured to make the confidentiality provisions quite strict, including an entitlement to cancel the settlement if the terms are breached’.237

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

39

On 22 June 2001, Mrs Isaacs was provided with an amended deed (‘second draft deed’). The second draft deed provided changes to clauses 7 and 8 as follows: a. The terms of settlement were to remain strictly confidential ‘prior to or after the release was executed’.

b. Mrs Isaacs could not make ‘other comments’ about the releasees (or any one of them).

c. She could not enter into discussions in relation to the subject matter of the proceedings or in relation to any process relating to any sexual abuse matter or issues involving the Church.

The second draft deed included the following additional clause 9:

[9] Notwithstanding the confidentiality requirements of Clauses 7 and 8 hereof, the Releasor shall be at liberty to make confidential disclosure of any sexual abuse issues and/or any consequential matters arising therefrom which are the subject of confidentiality under this release, discharge and indemnity for:

(a) genuine therapeutic treatment purposes; and/or

(b) if otherwise compelled by law to do so.238

On 22 June 2001, Mr Deed told Thynne + Macartney that Mrs Isaacs would sign the original deed. He said that the alteration to the original deed of release had ‘greatly upset’ Mrs Isaacs ‘emotionally and spiritually’. He said that unless the first draft deed was agreed to, all settlement negotiations would come to an end and that prolonging the matter was not in the Church’s or Mrs Isaacs’ interests.239

On 3 July 2001, Thynne + Macartney told Father Spence that a few ‘issues’ had arisen in relation to the deed of release. They suggested a ‘wait and see’ approach be adopted.240

Mrs Isaacs gave evidence that she ‘immediately’ refused to sign the second draft deed.241 She spoke to her psychologist, Ms O’Donoghue, about this deed. Ms O’Donoghue then wrote a report, dated 5 July 2001, highlighting her concerns about Mrs Isaacs being prevented from discussing the sexual abuse.242

The report said that at the time when Mrs Isaacs commenced therapy, she had not told anyone, other than her parents and her husband, about her experiences. She observed that there was a ‘considerable body of research’ that highlighted the importance for victims to disclose their past. It was an ‘essential part of the healing process’. She said that disclosure has been a ‘difficult task’ for Mrs Isaacs but that confiding in and receiving support from friends and family had ‘contributed to her ongoing recovery and in coming to terms with her past’.243

On 13 July 2001, Thynne + Macartney wrote to Mr Deed expressing disappointment that they ‘cannot reach agreement on the terms of settlement’. They further wrote:

If it is your client’s position that she is only prepared to sign the first Deed that was submitted and she has received appropriate advice in relation to the varied Deed, including particularly Clause 9, then we are prepared to make a further effort to

40

Report of Case Study No. 4

have the terms of settlement accepted by the various people we have to secure instructions through …

Once we incur further legal defence expense, the offer previously made will not be revived. From a personal point of view, we think that would be a shame because we cannot see any basis upon which the action can succeed and the consequences of that would be a cost order against Mrs Isaacs.244

Mrs Isaacs said that she ‘found the letter to be particularly threatening’ - in particular, the final sentence concerning a cost order against her.245

On 10 August 2001, Mrs Isaacs signed a deed of release that was based on the first draft she received on 13 June 2001.246 Mrs Isaacs gave evidence that she felt that the provision that she not make ‘disparaging remarks’ about the Church in the deed that she signed had ‘silenced’ her and it continues to ‘haunt’ her.247 Her evidence was that ‘The silencing holds the same power and control over me that was used by Frank Derriman when he abused me as a child’.248

Before signing the deed of release, on 7 July 2001, Mrs Isaacs wrote a letter to Archbishop Bathersby. 249 The letter explained her concerns regarding the second draft deed. Once she had signed the deed with the original wording, Mr Deed sent her letter to Thynne + Macartney. Mr Deed requested that they pass the letter to the Archbishop as requested by Mrs Isaacs.250 In the letter Mrs Isaacs stated:

Although I found the initial Deed of Release to be most restrictive and did not necessarily agree with the contents, I could understand and accept these conditions. However, on the other hand, the amended Deed of Release, in particular, Clause 9, severely limits my ability to continue healing into the future and I find this totally unacceptable. 251

She referred to a media statement made on 20 October 1998252 by Archbishop Bathersby in which he stated:

The needs of the victim are a priority … The Church wants an open environment where the victims of abuse are encouraged to talk openly, and begin the long journey to complete healing with the help of professional counsellors, family and friends.253

She said in her letter that ‘The second Deed of Release, particularly Clause 9, does not, in its current form, afford me this right’.254

Father Spence agreed that he did not do anything with Mrs Isaacs’ letter dated 7 July 2001, and particularly, did not give it to the Archbishop respond to it on the Archbishop’s behalf.255 However, a letter from Thynne + Macartney to Father Spence dated 16 August 2001 makes clear that the lawyers did not forward the letter to Father Spence until after Mrs Isaacs had signed the deed of release.256

Father Spence said that, while it did not occur to him at the time, he could see now that clause 7 of the first draft deed was ‘quite inappropriate’.257 He also said that ‘we should not

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

41

bind a person not to speak about something that has had such a grave effect on her life’.258 Father Spence gave evidence that he had not formed this view recently; it ‘has been an issue for some time’.259 He said that, at the time of the draft deeds, his experience in working with insurers was that ‘they always required that clause of confidentiality on settlements, and so I just thought that this was part of the procedure’.260

Father Spence, when asked about whether he gave instructions, advice or information to Thynne + Macartney in respect of the drafting of either of the deeds, said:

I accepted their advice. They drafted them. They sent them to us. They included - and I presume this is where you are heading - on the confidentiality and they said that that was the usual situation, so we accepted it.261

Father Spence agreed that it was not compassionate, fair or just to require Mrs Isaacs to sign a deed with clause 7 in it.262 He ‘did not know’ why he did not think of that then.263 We accept Father Spence’s evidence in this respect.

The negotiations concerning Mrs Isaacs’ deed of release occurred in mid-2001. Towards Healing (2000) was in operation at that stage. Part 2, clause 41.4 provided:

No complainant shall be required to give an undertaking which imposes upon them an obligation of silence concerning the circumstances which led them to make a complaint, as a condition of an agreement with the Church Authority.264

 Finding 6: Mrs Isaacs ultimately signed a deed of release that prevented her from disclosing the terms of the settlement (clause 7) and required her not to make ‘disparaging remarks or comments’ about the Church Authority about the subject matter of the proceedings (clause 8). Clauses 7 and 8 effectively imposed on Mrs Isaacs an obligation of silence about the circumstances that led to her complaint. This was inconsistent with Part 2, clause 41.4, of Towards Healing (2000).

 Finding 7: It was not compassionate, fair or just to require Mrs Isaacs to sign a deed with clause 7 in it.

On 16 August 2001 Thynne + Macartney wrote to Father Spence confirming that settlement had been completed and advising him of its effect. They advised:

The settlement is in full and final satisfaction of all future claims. The settlement also brings to an end any further assistance, including payment of counselling or other medical expenses, under any present or future special issues program (including the current Towards Healing program) administered by the Church.265

Father Spence gave evidence that he was not of the same view as Thynne + Macartney, that there was no further assistance that could or should be given to Mrs Isaacs after the deed of release was entered into. He said that he ‘would certainly have wanted the Towards Healing programs to be open to Mrs Isaacs, to be continually open to her’ with the exception that ‘questions of damages would seem to be resolved by the acceptance and the release’.266 He believed that assistance that should still available to her was the payment of counselling fees and ‘what other areas of need Mrs Isaacs had’.267

42

Report of Case Study No. 4

On 5 December 2013 Archbishop Coleridge wrote a letter to Mrs Isaacs stating that he ‘very much regret[ted]’ that her experience of the process was not positive. He wrote about the confidentiality clauses in the deed of release that she was required to sign:

I am disappointed that the clauses were considered necessary at the time. In my view they should not have been included. Therefore, I want to let you know now that the Archdiocese of Brisbane no longer requires you to observe the requirements of those clauses.268

Mrs Isaacs gave the following evidence on Archbishop Coleridge’s letter dated 5 December 2013:

Too little, too late. I was waiting and waiting, and I heard the opening address from the church this morning about how sorry they were for everything that happened, and I went back to my letter and I couldn't find ‘sorry’ anywhere.

I believe that I signed my deed of release under duress. I was silenced for the last 12 years. It has been so difficult to live like that. I believe when I actually signed it that the bishops conference had already talked about these silence clauses should not be included.269

Archbishop Coleridge said that Mrs Isaacs comment that his letter was ‘too little, too late’ was ‘probably an absolutely fair comment’ but that it was ‘the best [he] could do in difficult circumstances’.270 He said that, although his letter was a ‘rather pathetic belated gesture’, he felt conscience bound to write it.271 He said that after reading Mrs Isaacs’ statement he could not deny that ‘there was something about these confidentiality clauses that was not unlike some of the constraints or intimidations of the abusers’.272 He ‘thought confidentiality clauses should never have applied’.273

 Finding 8: Confidentiality clauses should never have been included in deeds of release relating to child sexual abuse.

Father Derriman remains an ordained priest

Father Derriman is a priest of the Archdiocese of Brisbane. He was born on 12 July 1938.274 He was ordained in the Archdiocese on 29 June 1963 and remains an ordained priest of the Catholic Church but no longer has faculties to function as a priest.275

On 16 October 1970, Father Derriman ‘attempted marriage’ and incurred a latae sententiae excommunication.276 In a letter dated 14 November 2013, Archbishop Coleridge wrote that, as far as he is aware, the effect of this excommunication persists.277 He wrote:

The excommunication is one reserved to the Holy See. Shortly after the attempted marriage, he abandoned priestly ministry in the Archdiocese and took up residence in Victoria.278

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

43

Archbishop Coleridge gave evidence that, while Father Derriman is still technically a priest, he is ‘completely removed from any public ministry’ by virtue of his excommunication.279

On 29 September 2011, Archbishop Bathersby was contacting priests who had decided to leave active ministry to see if they ‘desire[d] to start a process to … [be] dispensed from the obligations of the clerical state’. He sent a letter to Father Derriman as part of that exercise. In his letter, he said that if he had not heard from Father Derriman by 1 November 2011, he would, ‘commence the process for requesting the dispensations from the Holy Father’.280

Father Derriman did not reply to Archbishop Bathersby’s letter.281 Even though Father Derriman did not reply, Archbishop Bathersby did not commence the process to dismiss him from the clerical state.

Archbishop Coleridge did not commence the canonical process for Father Derriman’s dismissal until November 2013. Archbishop Coleridge said that ‘as soon as’ he discovered that Father Derriman had not replied to Archbishop Bathersby’s letter he ‘set in train the petition to the Holy See which is required in order for an ordained priest to be dismissed from the clerical state even against his will, or without his indication’.282

On 14 November 2013, Archbishop Coleridge appointed Father Adrian Sharp to carry out a preliminary investigation under Canon 1717 of the Code of Canon Law.283 On 19 November 2013, Father Sharp advised him that a preliminary investigation could be dispensed with - it was superfluous given that the facts and circumstances of at least some of Father Derriman’s offences were both notorious and proven beyond reasonable doubt in the civil realm. Father Sharp said Father Derriman:

has committed the delict named canon 1395, § 2, a more grave delict reserved to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and that this is gravely imputable to him and that … All that remains is for him to be dismissed from the clerical state.284

Archbishop Coleridge said that the next step was to send the fully documented petition to the Holy See in Rome along with a covering letter that included his own ‘vote’ or view of the matter and then to await a decision.285 He gave evidence that this was a belated gesture, but he was conscience bound to do it.286

Archbishop Coleridge agreed that in 1998 the Church knew that Father Derriman had been convicted of two counts of indecent assault and that the Church did nothing about it until September 2011. He gave evidence that this was ultimately a failure of oversight by the Archbishop.287 We accept Archbishop Coleridge’s evidence in this respect.

Archbishop Coleridge’s said that it was:

extremely difficult to move against a priest who had abandoned ministry, without his consent. This was changed in the early 2000s when the Holy See changed its own provisions, where now it is far easier to dismiss a priest against his will … That would be one of the factors that would explain why there was such a failure to move, to have him dismissed from the clerical state.288

44

Report of Case Study No. 4

Bishop Gerry gave evidence that the Archbishop was responsible, within the Archdiocese, for considering what if any action should be taken against priests who had convictions. Bishop Gerry gave evidence that he had no responsibility for that.289

 Finding 9: The canonical process for dismissal of Father Derriman from the clerical state was not commenced until 14 November 2013 - 15 years after Father Derriman was convicted.

 Finding 10: In 1998, the Church knew that Father Derriman had been convicted of two counts of indecent assault and the Church did nothing until September 2011.

3 Jennifer Ingham’s Towards Healing experience

Child sexual abuse of Mrs Ingham

Jennifer Ingham gave evidence that she was sexually abused by Father Paul Rex Brown in the Diocese of Lismore between 1978 and 1982.290

She was 16 years old when the abuse started and it continued into her early adult years. In 1980, at the age of 17 and during her final year at school, Mrs Ingham was hospitalised for bulimia and also received psychiatric treatment. As a result of her health issues, she did not sit her final high school exams.291

After Mrs Ingham finished her schooling, Father Brown arranged for her to meet him regularly at the Sydney University Motel in Glebe, Sydney, where she said he continued to sexually abuse her. Throughout this time she continued to suffer from bulimia and receive psychiatric treatment.292

Father Brown arranged for Mrs Ingham to attend a specialist psychiatrist and helped to have her admitted to two private psychiatric clinics. Mrs Ingham was isolated from her parents as part of her ‘treatment plan’ and lived in the clinics for a substantial time.293 The costs of this treatment were never invoiced to Mrs Ingham or her family. Mrs Ingham assumes that Father Brown paid for the psychiatric treatment she received.294

From 1981 to 1982, Father Brown arranged a waitressing job for Mrs Ingham in Sydney and sometimes arranged and paid for her to fly from Sydney to stay at his then residence at St Joseph’s Parish Church, Tweed Heads.295 She said that Father Brown sexually abused her on each of the occasions she stayed at his residence. During the years that Mrs Ingham said she was sexually abused by Father Brown, she attempted to commit suicide a number of times.296 On two occasions she almost died.297

Mrs Ingham described the abuse she suffered as a ‘horrendous black secret’ that she held for ‘far too many years’. She said she was ‘full of despicable self-loathing’ and ‘petrified I would be found out for my sins’.298

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

45

Mrs Ingham remained in contact with Father Brown after the abuse ended and was ‘so frightened that her acts of betrayal would be found out’. This was because he disclosed to her the name of someone else he had abused. She kept up the ‘façade of a pleasant friendship’ and asked him to marry her to her first husband, Mr Colin Riches. Father Brown did so in Lismore in November 1985.299

She started a treatment program for her bulimia in 1989 at Queensland University, St Lucia. She continues to receive private treatment under the care of Professor Roger Dooley.300

Mrs Ingham has had several operations on her face and mouth because of her bulimia and continues to suffer from severe facial pain as a result of those procedures.301

Other complaints against Father Paul Brown

Father Brown ministered in Lismore from 1960 to October 1981. He went on leave from October 1981 to April 1982. In April 1982, he was appointed Parish priest to the Parish of Kyogle for two days before being appointed as priest to the Parish of Tweed Heads on 3 April 1982.

Father Brown remained at Tweed Heads until he was removed from his appointment by the then Bishop of Lismore, Bishop Satterthwaite on 20 June 1986.302 Father Brown never publicly functioned as a priest again.

Father Brown took legal action in Australia against Bishop Satterthwaite’s actions and appealed to the Vatican.303 On 26 June 1986, the Supreme Court of NSW dismissed Father Brown’s application for an injunction against the Decree of Removal.304 On 8 August 1987, the Sacred Congregation of the Clergy in Rome confirmed the Decree of Removal by Bishop Satterthwaite.305 On 26 October 1987, Bishop Satterthwaite issued a Decree to Father Brown withdrawing his faculties as a priest in the Diocese of Lismore.306

Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, Bishop of Lismore, explained that the effect of the Decree of Removal was that Father Brown was removed from ministry. He had therefore returned to private life and could not present himself as a priest.307

A document was prepared as part of the process of removal of Father Brown’s faculties. It recorded in part the following allegations of child sexual assault against him:

Permanent illness of mind and body which makes the parish priest unequal to the task of fulfilling his duties satisfactorily …

(o) When we were drunk Father Brown asked REDACTED to sit on his knee. We were in the room with the television. REDACTED said he was getting too old to sit on Father Brown’s knee. After that Father Brown asked me to come into another room on my own. He rubbed his hand on the inside of the top of my leg …

(p) The other bag (we stole) contained magazines … they had photographs of boys aged fourteen years and less who were naked and involved in sexual acts … The names of the children known to REDACTED and I, and who stayed at the Youth

46

Report of Case Study No. 4

Refuge at Tweed Heads, were written in handwriting (Father Brown’s) on these magazines … Before visiting Father Brown we did not know that he would want physical contact with us …

(q) Rex had his head buried beneath the sheets on my side of the bed and was practicing fellatio, with his mouth on my penis … I was deeply shocked … Since then he has invited me to share his bed on several occasions … he would attempt to kiss me with his mouth on mine, trying to get his tongue into my mouth …308

Despite these allegations, the principal reason given for Father Brown’s removal from ministry was his problem with alcohol and the effect that had on his ‘pastoral responsibilities’.309

Father Brown was convicted of possession of child pornography on 27 March 1996.310 Father Brown died on 30 June 2005.311

Bishop Jarrett was asked whether there was anything further that could have been done after Father Brown had been removed from ministry in 1986 when his criminal conduct subsequently came to light.312 Bishop Jarrett said:

I didn’t consider that any action was needed from me in regard to this. Father Brown, I suppose, was a back number, too … in the sense that his case had already been dealt with; he was out of ministry; he was living in retirement; and I don’t think he was in contact with many of the priests.313

 Finding 11: The Diocese of Lismore had, in 1986, taken appropriate steps to remove Father Brown’s faculties and in so doing had taken the steps necessary to effectively stop Father Brown from acting or holding himself out as a priest.

Towards Healing process

On 1 August 2012, Mrs Ingham telephoned the Director of Professional Standards in Queensland, Mr Patrick Mullins, after reading media clippings about child sexual abuse.314 Mr Mullins gave Mrs Ingham information about the Towards Healing process.315 She found Mr Mullins ‘very compassionate’.316 She understood that Towards Healing was an opportunity to tell her story, be offered pastoral care, receive financial support for counselling and, in some cases, receive compensation.317

On 30 August 2012, Mrs Ingham sent an email to Mr Mullins thanking him for his ‘compassion and the way you explained the process of Towards Healing … That made the phone call so much easier. It was a nervous call to make. Having as much detail and knowledge is very important to me’.318 She also expressed her anger and provided details about how she had previously informed church leaders of the abuse. She wrote:

I now want to add my name to the list of those abused by a senior priest in the church, but MOST OF ALL want to express my anger for the manner the then leaders

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

47

of the church personally swept this knowledge under the table. I ABSOLUTELY DESERVE that apology and so much more.

I have the total support of my daughter’s father. He is still a very dear friend. He attended at the meeting in the early nineties when we met with the then Bishop and another priest to tell them of my abuse. Fr Mulcahy cried … no sobbed … and said he already knew. After this meeting there was no further communication …

I met with a senior Priest at Dutton Park Catholic Head office for guidance. I told him of my abuse and struggle. He was compassionate, but there was no further communication.

Not long before my father passed away in 2008 I met with a local priest. I wanted to make peace with the church for my Dad’s sake. I told him of my abuse and struggle with the church. (I had a friend with me). He just got really angry. I left and had no further communication.319

Mr Mullins responded on the same day. He advised Mrs Ingham that, ‘the Church’s position in these matters is that victims should take the matter to police’. He also explained what the next steps in the process would be after she sent him a signed letter of complaint.320 After further assistance from Mr Mullins, Mrs Ingham reported her abuse to the police, however, as Father Brown was dead, nothing could be done by the police.321

A signed copy of the letter of complaint was received by the Queensland Professional Standards Office on 4 October 2012.322

On the same day that he received Mrs Ingham’s complaint, Mr Mullins organised a copy to be sent to Bishop Jarrett. Bishop Jarrett was overseas at the time. However, Deacon Christopher Wallace, the Chancellor of the Diocese, accepted the complaint on Bishop Jarrett’s behalf. Deacon Wallace had primarily managed the Diocese’s response to Towards Healing complaints since his appointment to that role in 2005.323 Deacon Wallace accepted Mr Mullins’ recommendation that Mr Peter Scanlan, a retired police officer, be appointed the Contact Person.324

On 18 October 2012, Mr Scanlan visited Mrs Ingham’s home to prepare a contact report. Mrs Ingham’s husband and her best friend, Ms Alison Reichert, were also present.325 Mrs Ingham said that Mr Scanlan was ‘very professional, gentle and took a lot of care in asking questions’.326

On 25 October 2012, Mrs Ingham received a draft copy of the contact report.327 Mrs Ingham said that Mr Scanlan informed her that there may be ‘significant time’ between when he submitted the contact report and when Bishop Jarrett determined whether an investigation was required.328

Mrs Ingham sent the signed contact report to Mr Scanlan on 5 November 2012329 who forwarded it to Mr Mullins on 8 November 2012.330 Mr Mullins sent it to Deacon Wallace on 13 November 2012.331

The contact report identified three things that Mrs Ingham wanted to achieve through the Towards Healing process:

48

Report of Case Study No. 4

Primarily Jennifer would like an audience with Father Mulcahy. She would like to confront him and ask him why he did not take any action to stop this priest as soon as he became aware of what was happening.

Secondly she would also like a compensation package. Over the years she has spent thousands of dollars on medical and psychiatric treatment. She is still being treated at the present time.

Thirdly she is seeking a Letter of Apology from the Catholic Church.332

On 15 November 2012, Mrs Ingham emailed Mr Mullins detailing her experience with Mr Scanlan. She commented that he ‘was very professional, patient and empathetic’ throughout the contact report interview.333

During the period before Bishop Jarrett determined whether an investigation would be required, Mr Mullins was prompt to respond to Mrs Ingham’s queries. He emailed Deacon Wallace to follow up on progress, pointing out the reasonable anxieties and apprehensions that Mrs Ingham was experiencing.334

On 13 December 2012, Deacon Wallace emailed Ms Fenby and informed her of Mrs Ingham’s Towards Healing complaint. 335 Ms Fenby was at the time a lawyer employed by CCI. He enquired what stage of the complaint CCI would like to get involved. Ms Fenby responded that day saying that ‘now’ would be a good time. Ms Fenby was then actively involved in many aspects of Mrs Ingham’s case, including by suggesting who to appoint as the Facilitator336 and being involved in the practical arrangements for the facilitation337 and also the meeting between Bishop Jarrett and Mrs Ingham.338 Ms Fenby attended the facilitation meeting. Ms Fenby’s role is considered below.

On 18 December 2012, after the Diocese made a decision that they accepted Mrs Ingham’s claim, Mr Mullins advised Mrs Ingham that the complaint could proceed straight to facilitation and no investigation or assessment was necessary.

Mr Mullins advised Mrs Ingham that a psychologist’s report was needed before the facilitation could proceed. He suggested that, if Mrs Ingham was presently receiving treatment, her treating practitioner was the best person to provide the report. Mr Mullins said that the Diocese would meet the cost of the report and that, once the report was received, a date could be set for the facilitation.339

On 24 December 2012, Mr Mullins provided an overview of the process and advised Mrs Ingham that she should bring a support person to the facilitation meeting.340

It was decided that Professor Dooley would provide the psychologist’s report. Mr Mullins made arrangements to obtain the psychologist’s report. He made the request to Professor Dooley in early February 2013.341

On 13 February 2013, Mrs Ingham emailed Mr Mullins to request a meeting with him before the facilitation because she had ‘a few questions’.342 Mr Mullins replied that day and said: ‘We can arrange this. I will contact you when I have Professor Dooley’s report.’343

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

49

On 5 April 2013, Professor Dooley explained to the Professional Standards Office that he expected to provide the report within a month.344 Professor Dooley’s report was received in early May 2013.345

Mrs Ingham’s complaint was resolved in 11 months including a period of almost five months when Mrs Ingham’s psychologist was preparing a report.

Mr Mullins leaves position of Director; Ms Rogers takes over

Mr Mullins left the position of Director on 7 April 2013 before Mrs Ingham’s facilitation was organised. Ms Rogers took over as the Queensland Director of Professional Standards.346

On 5 April 2013, Ms Rogers and Mr Mullins had a handover meeting to discuss the Towards Healing cases that were current at the time.347

Mr Mullins had prepared a file note about Mrs Ingham’s complaint. He recorded the involvement of CCI and that the Diocese of Lismore had determined that the matter would proceed to a facilitation without an assessment pending a psychologist’s report from Professor Dooley.348 He wrote:

The Diocese has reported the matter to CCI and they (Emma Fenby) are actively involved in the matter. They are awaiting receipt of the psychologist report from Professor Roger Dooley. When that comes to hand, my understanding is that they are agreed to proceed to Facilitation/Mediation so that the matter can be resolved. You will note that there is a completed Contact Report which was completed in November 2012.

The important thing is that the Diocese has determined that the matter can proceed direct to Facilitation and that no Assessment is necessary. Accordingly, as soon as Professor Dooley’s report is obtained, that should go to both the Diocese and the CCI and arrangements can be made with CCI and the Diocese and the complainant for the appointment of a Facilitator so that the Facilitation can proceed.349

Mr Mullins agreed that the file note did not give information on Mrs Ingham’s needs or her goals for the facilitation.350 He said that those issues were addressed in the contact report on the file.351 Ms Rogers said that at the meeting Mr Mullins also told her that ‘there was a need to move quickly to facilitation as Mrs Ingham was seeking a speedy resolution of her complaint’.352

Mrs Ingham complained that from the first week of May onward353 she did not receive any type of communication from the Queensland Director of Professional Standards and she was not told why Mr Mullins was no longer in the role of Director.354 Ms Rogers’ evidence confirmed that, at the time of changeover, neither she nor Mr Mullins discussed with Mrs Ingham why he had left the position of Director.355

Mr Mullins considered that it was not his role to inform claimants that he would be ceasing in that role. But he accepted ‘that claimants ought to have been made aware’, either by him or Ms Rogers, of the change of personnel and that he should have discussed it with Mrs Ingham.356 He stated that he regretted not having spoken with her about it.357

50

Report of Case Study No. 4

Ms Rogers agreed that a ‘more just and compassionate approach to Mrs Ingham would have been for there to be a discussion either by Mr Mullins, preferably or by her explaining that he was leaving’.358 Ms Rogers further said:

…with the benefit of hindsight, I can see that by just passing Mrs Ingham’s management of a file, if you like, from Mr Mullins to me, she did not have an opportunity to get to know me, to build up trust, to understand how I worked, to understand how I communicated, to understand the language I used. All of that is quite important.359

Ms Rogers explained that, when she leaves her position in January 2014, she will inform Towards Healing participants by either writing to them or speaking to them on the phone.360

 Finding 12: Mrs Ingham should have been told when Mr Patrick Mullins left the role of Queensland Director of Professional Standards in 2013 and Ms Bernadette Rogers took over.

Mrs Ingham’s request for a meeting prior to the facilitation

Mr Mullins’ email dated 13 February 2013, in which he mentioned that they could meet before the facilitation once he had the psychologist’s report, gave Mrs Ingham an expectation that she would have a face-to-face meeting with Mr Mullins before the facilitation.

Mrs Ingham emailed Mr Mullins on 11 April and 8 May 2013. In both emails she mentioned that she was keen to meet with him. Mr Mullins forwarded her emails to Ms Rogers after receiving them.361

Mr Mullins said that he intended to meet with Mrs Ingham when she first raised the issue with him on 13 February 2013, as he ‘understood that it was to be a meeting prior to the facilitation’.362 However, he received Mrs Ingham’s request to have a meeting ‘to prepare for the Facilitation’ after he ceased acting as Director. He said that he would have been reluctant to attend that kind of meeting because he believed it was not the role of a Director to help a claimant prepare for a facilitated meeting.363

Mr Mullins said that he would have no problem meeting a victim to talk about the process of facilitation, but he would want to avoid getting into ‘more details about the factual circumstances and how they might be presented, or best presented, at the facilitation’.364 Mr Mullins said, ‘I figured that I was the process person here and that I was not to get into the issues’.365 It was Mr Mullins’ practice to explain the Towards Healing process through email and telephone in order to ‘keep that process moving’, to ‘avoid making claimants re-tell the circumstances of their abuse’ and to distinguish his role from that of a support person.366

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

51

On 9 May 2013, Ms Rogers sought Mr Mullins’ advice about whether she should meet with Mrs Ingham in person before the facilitation.367 Ms Rogers said that before she accepted her position as Director Mr Mullins had told her that the Director would not typically meet with a victim and she wanted to confirm that approach in this situation.368 Mr Mullins replied to her that it was not his practice to meet with complainants during the process.369 He wrote:

I would not have met with her in person except perhaps to just introduce myself and welcome her at the time of the Facilitation (eg if it was held here). I wouldn’t have had a formal meeting with her. That’s not the Director’s role. You can talk to her per phone as I had been doing and give her information about the process.370

On 10 May 2013, Mrs Ingham asked for a meeting before the facilitation because she had a number of questions and she wanted to ‘ensure that [she had] a thorough understanding the intent/outcome of the facilitation’.371

Mrs Ingham emailed Ms Rogers again on 13 May 2012 referring to her expectation that she would meet Mr Mullins before the facilitation.372

On 14 May 2013, Ms Rogers telephoned Mrs Ingham and said that it was not her practice or Mr Mullins’ to have a preliminary meeting before the facilitation.373 She advised that it was the Facilitator’s role to discuss the process. She said that she could arrange for the Facilitator to call Mrs Ingham. She also said that it was normal practice for the Facilitator to meet with the complainant an hour before the facilitation. Mrs Ingham was ‘really upset’ that Ms Rogers would not meet with her face to face to discuss the facilitation.374

Ms Rogers said that she understood how Mr Mullins’ email to Mrs Ingham dated 13 February 2013 would have left her with an expectation of a face-to-face meeting with Mr Mullins. She said that, had she read that email, she ‘may have agreed to meet with Mrs Ingham given her expectation that it would occur’.375 Mr Mullins said that he should have pointed out to Ms Rogers that Mrs Ingham had requested a meeting before the facilitation.376

Ms Rogers said that she understood that Mrs Ingham was anxious and nervous but said that Mrs Ingham did not tell her that she was upset that they were not meeting and did not explain her concerns to her during the 14 May 2013 conversation.377 Although Ms Rogers said that, although ‘intuitively’ she thought that she should meet with Mrs Ingham as requested, she felt that she should ask for Mr Mullins’ advice ‘given his experience, and since he had already been dealing with Mrs Ingham’.378 She accepted his advice that these meetings were not part of the role of a Director. We accept Ms Rogers’ evidence in this respect.

We accept that Ms Rogers had at least two lengthy telephone conversations with Mrs Ingham between 9 and 24 May 2013379 and exchanged emails with Mrs Ingham on 9, 10, 13, 15, 16 and 17 May 2013.380

Ms Rogers accepted the proposition that ‘[a] just and compassionate response to Mrs Ingham … would have been to meet with her, as she asked you to do’.381 The Church parties submitted that, while Ms Rogers understandably agreed with this proposition, it

52

Report of Case Study No. 4

does not necessarily follow that not doing so displays an absence of justice and compassion. The Church parties submitted that Ms Rogers had cogent reasons for not doing so.382

Ms Rogers said that the structure of her office and accommodation has changed considerably and now she invites people to meet with her and has met with complainants at their request subsequent to Mrs Ingham.383

Ms Rogers gave evidence about the changes she had instituted at the Queensland Professional Standards Office since Mrs Ingham’s complaint. She based the changes on her early experience in the role of Director.

The changes originally took the form of a series of recommendations to the liaison committee of the Queensland Professional Standards Office.384 She said that the following changes have been put in place:

 The role of the Director is now a full time position with a full time administrative assistant.385

 The practice of meeting with complainants has been adopted.386

 Ms Rogers arranged a formal handover to her successor over a week in January 2014 in which each complainant would be contacted by her and her successor.387

 She established a process for imparting information to her successor, and assisting him in understanding the importance of the spiritual trauma of those coming to Towards Healing.388

 She oversaw a redrafting of the role description of the Director.389

 Meetings occur with contact people to instruct them on proper modes of communication with complainants.390

 A new office with a meeting room has been obtained where meetings with complainants or facilitations can take place.391

We accept Ms Rogers’s evidence that in hindsight she should have had a meeting with Mrs Ingham392 and that she has since made changes to the office practice.393 She has now adopted the practice of meeting with complainants.394

The Church parties submitted that those changes have enhanced the effectiveness of the process for complainants in complaints that are managed by the Queensland Professional Services Office.395

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

53

 Finding 13: Ms Rogers relied upon the advice that Mr Mullins gave her about a meeting with Mrs Ingham and therefore Ms Rogers did not meet with her.

 Finding 14: Ms Rogers should have had a meeting with Mrs Ingham. Ms Rogers has since made changes to the office practice, including by adopting the practice of meeting with complainants before facilitations.

 Finding 15: It would have been preferable for Mr Mullins or Ms Rogers to have met face to face with Mrs Ingham to talk her through the process of the facilitation. However, it was not required by Towards Healing (2010) or the current guidelines.

54

Report of Case Study No. 4

Appointment of Michael Salmon as Facilitator

Towards Healing (2010) provides (clause 41.4):

The Church Authority and the victim shall endeavour to agree on a Facilitator, either from the approved panel or otherwise a qualified mediator approved by the Director for Professional Standards, who is suited by reason of training and experience to understand the needs of victims of abuse. In the absence of agreement, the Executive Officer of the National Committee for Professional Standards shall appoint a Facilitator.396

On 19 April 2013, Ms Fenby emailed Ms Rogers and suggested that Mr Salmon, the Director of the Professional Standards Office NSW, would be the appropriate choice of a Facilitator for Mrs Ingham. Ms Fenby had worked with him previously and found him to be very experienced and pastoral.397

For these reasons, Ms Fenby supported the appointment of Mr Salmon as the Facilitator. She said that she never would have suggested Mr Salmon if she ‘thought that he would in any way disadvantage Jennifer’.398 Ms Rogers said that in her time as Director, Mrs Ingham’s process was the only time where CCI were involved in the consideration as to who would be the Facilitator.399 Ms Fenby wrote in her email:

I confirm that we are awaiting on the report from her treating psychologist. In the interim, could I suggest considering Michael Salmon (Director of the NSW Professional Standards Office) as the Facilitator. Michael is very experienced and has done some recent facilitation work in Victoria.400

Ms Rogers received Professor Dooley’s report in early May 2013.401 Mrs Ingham said that it was around this time that the Towards Healing process ‘got murky’. She found the two weeks that followed ‘very stressful’.402

On 9 May 2013, Ms Rogers wrote to Mrs Ingham telling her that Mr Mullins was no longer the Queensland Director of Professional Standards and that she was now in the role. She said that she would like to speak to Mrs Ingham ‘to talk about the next stages and identify what support [she] will need’ and explained that the next step in the process would be a facilitation meeting with a representative from the Diocese of Lismore.

She also wrote:

Michael Salmon, my counterpart in Sydney and an extremely experienced Facilitator has agreed to make himself available for this process. He is available either 23 or 24 May with a preference for the 24th. These dates might not be convenient for the people you would like to bring with you. If these dates are too soon can you tell me some dates that might work for you in June or July.

I hope to speak with you shortly but wanted to give you information about possible dates as soon as possible.403

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

55

Ms Rogers said that when she wrote this email to Mrs Ingham she did not mean to give Mrs Ingham the impression that she had appointed Mr Salmon but just that ‘he had agreed to make himself available’.404 Ms Rogers said that her email to Mrs Ingham ‘was framed in such a way that if she had have had any issues with Michael Salmon once I explained to her who he was, that he would not have been the Facilitator’.405

Ms Rogers agreed that she had not explained to Mrs Ingham before the 9 May 2013 email that Mrs Ingham might be able to suggest her own Facilitator406 and that she was ‘making decisions as to what might be best for [Mrs Ingham], without giving her the option of making a decision herself’.407

Counsel Assisting submitted as an available finding that Ms Rogers’ email on 9 May 2013 was not framed in a way that invited Mrs Ingham’s consultation on the appointment of Mr Salmon. It was submitted that Ms Rogers did not ask Mrs Ingham whether she agreed or disagreed with his appointment or give her the option to suggest an alternative Facilitator from the approved panel or an otherwise qualified mediator, as envisaged by clause 41.4 of Towards Healing (2010).408

The Church parties submitted that clause 41.4 of Towards Healing does not require that either of these occur.

The Church parties submitted that clause 41.4 requires the Church Authority and the victim ‘agree on a Facilitator’. The clause does not impose any particular approach to or process for seeking or obtaining that agreement. They submitted that nothing in clause 41.4 requires a Director to give the complainant a list of people who could be the Facilitator.

The Church parties submitted that the fact that Ms Rogers accepted, in response to questioning, that she should have consulted with Mrs Ingham demonstrates her view in hindsight but does not affect whether her action at the time was inconsistent with the provisions of Towards Healing.

While acknowledging that further consultation with victims about the appointment of the Facilitator is undoubtedly preferable, the Church parties submitted that Ms Rogers’ engagement with Mrs Ingham about the appointment was not inconsistent with clause 41.4 of Towards Healing. Had Mrs Ingham disagreed with the suggestion, it would not have proceeded. The Church parties submitted that although Ms Rogers’ email of 9 May 2013 did not explicitly state that Mrs Ingham could choose another Facilitator if she wished, it did not in any way exclude that possibility. Ms Rogers’ email proposed the appointment of Mr Salmon, it did not impose it.

The Church parties submitted that there is no evidence to suggest that Mrs Ingham queried the proposed appointment, expressed unhappiness, or asked about appointing someone else, even though she was in communication with Ms Rogers at that time about possible dates for the facilitation.

The Church parties submitted that the evidence demonstrates that:

 Mrs Ingham did not raise a concern about Mr Salmon being the Facilitator

56

Report of Case Study No. 4

 Mrs Ingham had nothing but praise for Mr Salmon. They set out examples of instances where Mrs Ingham expressed praise and gratitude to Mr Salmon.

The Church parties submitted that, while the Professional Standards Office or the Church Authority will know of a number of people who would be suitable to act as a Facilitator, many victims would have no independent knowledge of or recommendations for a suitable Facilitator.

The Church parties also submitted that the proposition was not put to Mrs Rogers that the email of 9 May 2013 was not framed in a way that would have invited Mrs Ingham to disagree.409

We are satisfied that Ms Rogers’ email on 9 May 2013 was not framed in such a way that provided an opportunity for Mrs Ingham and the Church Authority to endeavour to agree on a Facilitator. Ms Rogers did not ask Mrs Ingham whether she agreed or disagreed with his appointment or of her option to suggest an alternative Facilitator from the approved panel or an otherwise qualified mediator. Clause 41.4 of Towards Healing (2010) clearly contemplates that this will occur.

We are satisfied that, despite a lack of consultation on the matter, Mrs Ingham did not express dissatisfaction with Mr Salmon’s appointment. Mrs Ingham said that she found him to be ‘both compassionate and professional throughout the facilitation’.410

 Finding 16: Ms Rogers’ email on 9 May 2013 was not framed in such a way that provided an opportunity for Mrs Ingham and the Church Authority to endeavour to agree on a Facilitator. Ms Rogers did not ask Mrs Ingham whether she agreed or disagreed with his appointment or of her option to suggest an alternative Facilitator from the approved panel or an otherwise qualified mediator, as contemplated by clause 41.4 of Towards Healing (2010).

 Finding 17: More could have been done by the Queensland Professional Standards Office to make clearer to Mrs Ingham the fact that she could suggest an alternative Facilitator.

At the time of Mrs Ingham’s Towards Healing process, Mr Salmon was Director of Professional Standards in New South Wales.

As set out below, we are satisfied that a Director of Professional Standards acting as a Facilitator in a Towards Healing facilitation raises a real potential for an actual or perceived conflict of interest given that the Director is employed by the Catholic Church. The relevant finding is also set out below.

Mrs Rogers’ email dated 9 May 2014 was the first contact Ms Rogers had had with Mrs Ingham. Ms Rogers said that she ‘considered it was preferable in the first instance to send an email rather than telephone Mrs Ingham without notice of my call, and to invite Mrs Ingham in the email to speak to me at a time convenient to her’.411 Mrs Ingham replied that day indicating a suitable date for the facilitation. She also wrote, ‘I am keen to move

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

57

forward as this has been a difficult process, however I have appreciated all the support during the process. Bernadette I can be contacted anytime if required’.412

Later that day, Ms Rogers and Mrs Ingham had a telephone conversation in which they discussed some of the details of the facilitation.413

Mrs Ingham said that Ms Rogers described the facilitation as an ‘insurance matter’ and that a representative of CCI would be present at the facilitation.414 Mrs Ingham was ‘dumbfounded’.415 She said that her ‘attitude changed when [she] was told so offensively by Bernadette Rogers that the facilitation was an “insurance matter”’.416 Mrs Ingham said that at the time just before the facilitation she felt very confused and nervous, and really defensive.417 She said she genuinely felt that the goal posts had changed and that ‘the pastoral care element was lost and it was to be about money’.418

Mrs Ingham also said that Ms Rogers also told her that ‘they are bringing out the big guns’ for her facilitation process.419 She said Ms Rogers referred to the Facilitator, Mr Salmon, and said, ‘Michael is brought in on the difficult and complex cases’. Mrs Ingham said she ‘could not believe that they were treating [her] abuse as though it was a commercial negotiation’.420

Mrs Ingham said that during the conversation Ms Rogers told her ‘often the person representing the Church Authority is not as skilled as [Ms Fenby] is in such matters of negotiating compensation’.421

Mrs Ingham said that Ms Rogers asked her whether she would be bringing someone to the facilitation. Mrs Ingham told her she would be bringing her husband and sister Margaret. Ms Rogers asked her: ‘your husband, but won’t he be upset hearing what you’ve got to say?’ Mrs Ingham said the question really shocked her, as her husband had been through so much with her.422

Mrs Ingham said that during the conversation Ms Rogers also told her that she had not read Professor Dooley’s report.423 ‘Mrs Ingham, couldn’t believe that the new director had not even read Professor Roger Dooley’s report’.424

Mrs Ingham said that Ms Rogers also said to her ‘Look, under the table, you need to have a good solicitor there. You need to have legal representation’.425 When Mrs Ingham asked her why, she was told ‘because there will be compensation’. Mrs Ingham said this was the first time that Mrs Ingham said she was told that she needed a lawyer.426 Mrs Ingham said that being told she needed a lawyer only two weeks before the facilitation ‘created a lot of stress and anxiety because I didn’t understand I needed it, and it was very difficult to get assistance in that time frame’.427

Mrs Ingham said her discussion with Ms Rogers was ‘lengthy’ and she felt that there was a ‘great sense of haste to move forward with the facilitation’. Mrs Ingham said that Ms Rogers told her that ‘all parties felt it was important to move to a facilitation as soon as possible. She said the Church wanted it resolved quickly for my benefit so that I could move forward in the healing process’.428

58

Report of Case Study No. 4

Ms Rogers did not recall the terms of that conversation but said that she ‘may have said the words’ attributed to her.429

Ms Rogers said that in a preliminary conversation like this one her usual practice was to give information about who will be present and what their roles will be. She said that she would have explained Mr Salmon’s and Ms Fenby’s roles. She would not have used the words, ‘this is an insurance matter’ in describing the context and content of her claim; she was more likely to have used them in the context of describing Ms Fenby’s involvement and the reason for her presence.430

Ms Rogers said that the ‘whole process of explaining to a complainant the presence of a person from the insurance company and their role is critical’.431 She thought it important that Mrs Ingham ‘be told about who would be in the room at the earliest opportunity’ but accepted that she could have handled the issue more sensitively with Mrs Ingham.432 Ms Rogers agreed that she did not effectively and efficiently explain the various roles of those who would be participating in Mrs Ingham’s facilitation.433

Ms Rogers said that it was not her intention to treat Mrs Ingham’s complaint of abuse ‘as though it was a commercial negotiation’. She said she ‘was trying to make sure she had the information she needed, and a proper understanding of the way in which the facilitation would proceed, including the fact that financial reparation would be an issue discussed’.434

Ms Rogers said:

When people say to me that they wish to bring their spouse to a facilitation or to any difficult meeting about a sensitive personal issue, I would usually say words to the effect, ‘Is he (or she) OK with that?’ I do that because in my experience, meetings to facilitate sensitive complaints can be very difficult and emotional for those involved, and a spouse can sometimes become distressed, or be confronted with new information.435

Ms Rogers said that she had ‘scanned through’ Professor Dooley’s report to understand if Mrs Ingham was in a position to proceed from a health perspective and to see if Professor Dooley made any recommendations about support during the process.436 Ms Rogers agreed that just ‘scanning’ the report was probably not helpful to Mrs Ingham.437

Ms Rogers said that Mrs Ingham did not convey to her during the discussion that the process was moving too quickly, or that she was concerned she might not have adequate time to find a lawyer or prepare for the facilitation.438 Ms Rogers said that she encourages complainants with serious allegations to consider seeking the assistance of a solicitor, and that her experience is that this can be helpful to the complainant at the time when reparations are discussed. However, she said that she does not generally use the expression, ‘under the table’.439

Ms Rogers said she understood that Mrs Ingham wished to proceed quickly with the process.440 This was consistent with Mrs Ingham’s email to Ms Rogers dated 9 May 2013 in which Mrs Ingham said she was ‘keen to move forward’.

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

59

This exchange highlights the importance to survivors of child sexual assault of being dealt with sensitively by the institution.

On 10 May 2013, Mrs Ingham emailed Ms Rogers and confirmed that 24 May 2013 would be a suitable facilitation date. In emails to Ms Rogers on 10 and 13 May 2013, Mrs Ingham made it clear that she wanted Bishop Jarrett in attendance at the facilitation: ‘it is important to me that [Bishop Jarrett] is in attendance as he is the head of the Diocese’.441

Ms Rogers exchanged a number of emails with Ms Fenby about the possibility of the Bishop attending the facilitation or whether a separate meeting could be arranged with the Bishop.442 Ms Rogers said she spent ‘quite some time’ trying to ensure that Bishop Jarrett could attend the facilitation.443 When it was apparent that he could not, it was arranged that Bishop Jarrett would meet Mrs Ingham separately on 24 June 2013 after the facilitation meeting.444

In their telephone conversation on 14 May 2013, Ms Rogers told Mrs Ingham that Bishop Jarrett would not be able to attend the facilitation.445 She said that he would not be available to attend until the end of June 2013. Instead, the Chancellor, Deacon Christopher Wallace, would be present.446

Mrs Ingham said that this angered and confused her. She said she felt she deserved the respect of Bishop Jarrett’s attendance at the facilitation, as she ‘needed answers from him’.447 Mrs Ingham said that her primary objective was to meet the Bishop. This was because he was head of the Diocese of Lismore, she wanted respect and she needed to tell the leader so that she felt that she was ‘valued and respected and heard’.448 Mrs Ingham saw Deacon Wallace as only a Deacon and a lay person.449

Bishop Jarrett gave evidence that he was not able to attend the facilitation because of specific prearranged commitments, including the celebration of a mass, a meeting and an evening confirmation.450 Even though Deacon Wallace had suggested that arrangements be made to allow Bishop Jarrett to attend both the facilitation and the other commitments,451 Bishop Jarrett did not feel that this was feasible.452 He said:

I wanted to give the facilitation my full attention and all my energies and the time it required and I would not have been able to do that under this suggestion, and also have the necessary energy and alertness for the confirmations in the evening.453

Bishop Jarrett said that he was ‘determined to meet with Mrs Ingham’ and understood that she ‘was certainly wanting [him] to be present’ so he ‘saw to it’ that arrangements were made for a meeting at a later date.454

Bishop Jarrett said that, on reflection, it would have been preferable if he had been available on the first date. However, he thought that the 24 June 2013 meeting he had with Mrs Ingham ‘was sincere and constructive, and [they] were able to focus more on Mrs Ingham’s experience with the benefit of the financial reparation discussions having concluded and Mrs Ingham having had an opportunity to reflect on the initial facilitation’.455

The Church parties submitted that for many victims the most important part of facilitation for them is the experience of being listened to and acknowledged by the Church,

60

Report of Case Study No. 4

particularly by someone senior in the Church. By meeting with the victim the Church Authority intends to demonstrate respect for the victim, as well as the importance of his or her individual complaint.456 We accept this submission.

 Finding 18: For many victims the most important part of facilitation for them is the experience of being listened to and acknowledged by the Church, particularly by someone senior in the Church. By meeting with the victim the Church Authority intends to demonstrate respect for the victim, as well as the importance of his or her individual complaint.

‘At some point’ before the facilitation, Bishop Jarrett and Deacon Wallace had a conversation about Mrs Ingham’s complaint that she had told Father Mulcahy about her abuse.457 Bishop Jarrett said that this was an ‘aspect of Mrs Ingham’s complaint [that] needed some inquiry from me, because I wanted to understand why nothing had happened in response to Mrs Ingham’s complaint at the time it was first made’.458 Bishop Jarrett agreed to Deacon Wallace’s suggestion that he speak to Father Mulcahy.459

Bishop Jarrett telephoned Father Mulcahy and told him he had received a complaint from Mrs Ingham that she had been abused by Father Brown. He told him that she named Father Mulcahy as an attendee at a meeting with clergy in 1990 in which she reported the abuse. Bishop Jarrett said that although Father Mulcahy remembered Mrs Ingham’s parents, he could not remember Mrs Ingham, nor the meeting in 1990.460

Bishop Jarrett reported to Deacon Wallace the substance of his conversation with Father Mulcahy.461

Although Bishop Jarrett was aware that Mrs Ingham wanted to confront Father Mulcahy about the 1990 meeting,462 he did not ask Mrs Ingham if she still wished to speak to Father Mulcahy.463 He said that he did not ask Father Mulcahy to attend the meeting with Mrs Ingham because:

At this stage, when we were already moving to facilitation, I was wondering whether arranging such a meeting, when Father Mulcahy denied that it took place, would serve a good purpose in terms of the outcome for Mrs Ingham at that point in time.464

He agreed that he effectively made the decision about whether or not Mrs Ingham could speak to Father Mulcahy and that he did not give her the opportunity to make a decision about that.465 He said that ‘it may well have been’ better to allow Mrs Ingham to decide whether it was in her interests to meet Father Mulcahy.466

Deacon Wallace said that, once he was informed that Father Mulcahy could not recall the meeting in 1990, he became concerned that Father Mulcahy was not going to change his mind on this recollection. He was concerned that ‘if [Father Mulcahy] was put into a position of meeting Mrs Ingham, it would not go well for Mrs Ingham’.467 He said:

although I held out the possibility of them still meeting, I certainly went on the back-pedal as far as doing anything about bringing that meeting about, because my prime

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

61

concern was the welfare of Jennifer Ingham, and to confront her with Father Mulcahy denying that it had even taken place or that he didn't remember it, I felt, would have been detrimental to her health.468

Facilitation

During the conversation on 14 May 2013, Ms Rogers informed Mrs Ingham that CCI was willing to pay for Professor Dooley and her lawyer to attend the facilitation, but Mrs Ingham was satisfied with just her lawyer and support persons attending.469

Ms Rogers confirmed with Mrs Ingham’s solicitor that Deacon Wallace for the Diocese and a representative from CCI would be at the facilitation.470

The facilitation occurred on 24 May 2013 at the Mullins Lawyers offices in Brisbane. Mrs Ingham attended with her husband, Lindsay Ingham, her sister Margaret, her best friend, Ms Reichert, and her lawyer, Mr Kelso. Deacon Wallace represented the Diocese of Lismore. Mr Salmon acted as the Facilitator and Ms Fenby attended the facilitation.471

Mrs Ingham said that ‘Chris Wallace attended in his civilian clothes and I did not understand why he did not attend wearing his clerical collar to what was a very, very important meeting’.472 Deacon Wallace called Mr Salmon a few days before the facilitation to discuss what he should wear to the facilitation.473 He said that, if the same issue were to arise in the future, he would engage with the complainant on their expectation of how the Church Authority would appear.474

Before the facilitation started, Mrs Ingham and her support group had a short time with Mr Salmon to discuss the process.475 Mrs Ingham had not met Mr Salmon beforehand.476

The facilitation meeting was in two phases. In the first phase Mrs Ingham would be given an opportunity to tell her story and ask questions of the Church. In the second phase there would be negotiations on compensation.477 The facilitation went for seven hours. Mrs Ingham described it as ‘a very long and emotional day and draining for all parties’.478

At the outset of the first phase of the facilitation, Mr Salmon expressed the ‘absolute importance of the pastoral care element’ of the meeting. Mrs Ingham found Mr Salmon to be ‘both compassionate and professional throughout the facilitation’.479 Similarly, Ms Fenby said that Mr Salmon ran the facilitation well and that he was ‘very caring and kind and pastoral and patient’ and related well to Mrs Ingham.480

Deacon Wallace opened his comments with what Mrs Ingham said was ‘a sincere apology on behalf of the Church’.481 Similarly, Ms Fenby said that Deacon Wallace’s apology to Mrs Ingham was genuine and appropriate in the context of the facilitation.482 Deacon Wallace said that the apology he provided at the facilitation ‘was still inadequate for what I wanted to convey, but she accepted it was very gracious in doing so’.483

Mrs Ingham said that Deacon Wallace told her that he had met Father Brown. Deacon Wallace said that he felt that Father Brown was ‘evil’ and made reference to a comment that Bishop Jarrett made, which was ‘I thought Father Brown only interfered with

62

Report of Case Study No. 4

boys’. Mrs Ingham felt this was ‘a genuinely insulting reference to make in my presence as a victim of Father Brown’.484

Deacon Wallace said that he did not recall using the word ‘evil’, but it is likely that he did use it because it was consistent with his assessment of Father Brown. Deacon Wallace said that he had no intention of insulting Mrs Ingham but that he was ‘trying to help her understand there had been no clear evidence in 1990 that he had abused girls as well as boys and this was still a common understanding’.485

During the facilitation, Deacon Wallace informed Mrs Ingham that Father Mulcahy denied the meeting in 1990 and said that he didn’t remember it at all. Mrs Ingham said that ‘this was really upsetting for [her]’.486 Deacon Wallace gave evidence that the first time he conveyed Father Mulcahy’s denial of the 1990 meeting to Mrs Ingham was at the facilitation.487 He agreed that he should have addressed Father Mulcahy’s denial of 1990 meeting with Mrs Ingham before the facilitation.488

In the second phase of the facilitation, Mr Kelso negotiated financial compensation with Ms Fenby and Deacon Wallace. Mrs Ingham said that Mr Kelso’s role in representing her was crucial in dealing with the aspect of compensation.489

The outcome was that Mrs Ingham received $276,736.64 inclusive of costs490, $250,000 from CCI, $15,000 from the Diocese of Lismore and costs and disbursements of $11,736.64491 towards her legal fees of $34,320.492 The money was paid promptly. Mrs Ingham signed a written document confirming acceptance of the offer that was prepared by Mr Kelso, dated 24 May 2013.493 Mrs Ingham did not sign a Deed of Release.

On 27 May 2013, Mr Salmon emailed his facilitation report to Deacon Wallace, Ms Fenby and Ms Rogers.494 In the report, Mr Salmon noted that a follow-up pastoral meeting would be scheduled between Mrs Ingham and Bishop Jarrett on 24 June 2013.495 He recorded the outcomes of the meeting as follows:

Jennifer Ingham was offered the opportunity to directly address Deacon Wallace. In particular she was able to speak to profound issues of concern for her namely:

 When the church had knowledge of Fr Brown’s inappropriate conduct both generally, and in relation to her own circumstances, and

 Her sense of lack of pastoral care from the church with particular reference to a 1990 meeting at the Lismore presbytery which was attended amongst others, by Fr Frank Mulcahy.

 Deacon Wallace was offered the opportunity to respond to Jennifer’s specific questions and concerns, and more generally to her complaint. In doing so Deacon Wallace offered a verbal apology which was accepted by the complainant.

 It was agreed that the church authority will work up a written apology which will be provided to Jennifer Ingham at the 24 June pastoral meeting with Bishop Jarrett.

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

63

 Deacon Wallace gave an undertaking to personally follow up with Fr Frank Mulcahy as a matter of priority, certain issues of concern, and to report back on this exercise at the 24 June pastoral meeting.

 Deacon Wallace undertook for the immediate future to be the contact point for Jennifer Ingham in terms of providing her with spiritual direction until, and if a Brisbane based person is identified for the task.

On 28 May 2013, Mrs Ingham emailed Mr Salmon and expressed her appreciation for the respect he showed her at the facilitation.496 She thought he managed the facilitation well.497 She also wrote:

I got to say what was important. I am disappointed in Father Mulcahy. But I will let that go. To receive the letter from the Bishop is very important. I have over the last days started to feel free of the blackness that has been part of me for so long.498

Mr Salmon replied that day and thanked Mrs Ingham for her ‘kind thoughts’ and referred to her ‘outstanding courage and generosity of spirit in the face of great personal adversity’. He also said that he thought the meeting with the Bishop would be a very positive experience for her and that he would do his very best to ensure that was the case. 499

Role of Emma Fenby, CCI Representative

At the time of Mrs Ingham’s Towards Healing process, Ms Fenby was responsible for managing CCI’s response to Mrs Ingham’s Towards Healing complaint. She was the claims officer for more than 200 claim files500 and reported to CCI National Claims Manager.501

Ms Fenby said about her objectives and principal areas of focus in the claim process:

Firstly, assisting the Church Authority and the Professional Standards Office in minimising the impact as much as possible of the claim process on the victim, through offering to fund counselling with a psychologist of the victims choosing etc and secondly undertaking investigations in respect of indemnity.

In undertaking my role, I had the objective of treating all victims in a dignified and respectful way and moving claims forward expeditiously in an attempt to minimise the stress and anxiety caused by the claim process.

CCI’s objective was to accommodate the needs and requests of the victim. I was guided by the Professional Standards Office, the Church Authority and/or the appointed Facilitator to determine how to proceed with the claim. 502

Ms Fenby said:

CCI is, in practice, a captive insurer. It is owned by the church; its insureds are the church. It considers itself part of the church and it assists the church. It is a collaborative process. [The Diocese and CCI] helped each other.503

Before the facilitation, Ms Fenby sought legal advice on what Mrs Ingham’s claim was worth, as she thought it was ‘significant’ in light of Professor Dooley’s report.504 Ms Fenby

64

Report of Case Study No. 4

said that the ‘nature and extent of the abuse; the duration; most particularly, the current functioning of the victim’ were relevant.505

She said that the assessment of quantum in Towards Healing claims was dealt with similarly to the conventional damages concept under the common law.506 Her instructions as a CCI claims officer were to ‘settle for a fair, just and reasonable outcome’ and there were cases where CCI offered more to a victim that the victim had asked for in order to provide such an outcome.507

On 15 May 2013, Ms Fenby received advice from Mr Alex Kohn of Makinson d’Apice lawyers.508 He said that $189,992 was the likely common law assessment of the claim:

However, in light of this matter being under Towards Healing, it may be possible to achieve a settlement for an amount lower than this assessment. We would recommend a starting offer of approximately $30,000 inclusive of costs and to go up to about $75,000 inclusive of costs in order to attempt settlement of the matter under Towards Healing. 509

Ms Fenby agreed there was an ‘apparent disconnect’ in the relevant figures.510 She said that she did not agree.511 She ‘didn’t think it mattered what forum a victim had chosen. I didn’t think they should be punished for the forum they had chosen to bring their claim forward’.512 She said that when instructing solicitors on providing quantum advice, ‘it made no difference’ to her whether it was a Towards Healing matter or if the claim had come through some other forum.513

She told Makinson d’Apice that she thought the recommended first offer in the advice was too low. She said, ‘instead in Towards Healing I liked to limit it to two offers, the first very close to the final position as I found it a more dignified and respectful way to proceed without detracting from the often lengthy pastoral session’.514 She further explained her approach:

I didn’t think it very dignified or respectful to horse trade in a facilitation. Often I sat through a very powerful and very moving pastoral session where I felt, or I hoped very sincerely, that a victim had received some real healing in being validated, accepted and apologized to, and I thought it was disrespectful, after that process, to then start horse trading and have multiple offers going backwards and forwards, and I tried to avoid that.515

On 24 May 2013, Ms Fenby attended Mrs Ingham’s facilitation. Ms Fenby said that she had decided not to bring a lawyer with her because she did not see it as necessary and ‘thought the process already very intimidating for a victim and I thought the less people the better’.516 When it came to negotiating a monetary offer, Ms Fenby did not negotiate with Mrs Ingham directly but with her lawyer, Mr Kelso. Mr Salmon was present for the majority of these discussions.517 Ms Fenby said she had moved from offering the figure of $190,000, as advised by the external solicitors, to $250,000 because of her observation from sitting in ‘the open session with Jennifer and gaining a real understanding of the impact’.518

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

65

We are satisfied that Ms Fenby responded to Mrs Ingham’s needs in relation to compensation with justice and compassion.

 Finding 19: In Mrs Ingham’s Towards Healing process Ms Emma Fenby acted consistently with the principles and procedures of Towards Healing (2010) and responded to Mrs Ingham’s needs with justice and compassion.

After the facilitation

After the facilitation, Deacon Wallace followed up on his undertaking to personally make inquiries about the 1990 meeting.519 Bishop Jarrett telephoned Father Mulcahy and requested that he arrange a meeting with Deacon Wallace.520 Before his meeting with Father Mulcahy, Deacon Wallace made attempts to identify the ‘senior Catholic Church clergy’ that Mrs Ingham met with in 1990. His attempts were unsuccessful - none of the clergy he contacted said that they had any knowledge of the meeting.521

On 13 June 2013, Deacon Wallace visited Father Mulcahy at his home in Brisbane. He showed him the contact report in the hope that it might ‘jog his memory or to open the matter up’ about the 1990 meeting.522 Father Mulcahy denied the 1990 meeting and said that he could not recall Mrs Ingham.523 Deacon Wallace said that he told Father Mulcahy that Mrs Ingham had asked for a meeting with him.524 He said he ‘put a bit of pressure’ on Father Mulcahy and, after some discussion, Father Mulcahy agreed to meet with Mrs Ingham if she wished to do so.525

Before the meeting on 24 June 2013, Deacon Wallace prepared a draft apology on behalf of Bishop Jarrett. Before sending the draft to the Bishop he sought Mr Salmon’s comments.526 Although Mr Salmon had agreed at the earlier facilitation that the Bishop would give Mrs Ingham a letter of apology at their meeting,527 the Bishop did not draft or finalise a written apology at this time because he wanted to meet Mrs Ingham before preparing it.528

The Bishop said that he considered it was important that the written apology be a ‘genuine and personal’ apology from him that reflected the abuse and the effects as described by Mrs Ingham, so he did not draft the apology until after the meeting.529 The apology that was ultimately sent to Bishop Jarrett was drafted personally by Bishop Jarrett530 and was in different terms to Deacon Wallace’s draft.

Meeting with Bishop Jarrett

On 24 June 2013, Mrs Ingham met with Bishop Jarrett. Mr Salmon acted as Facilitator and Deacon Wallace and Mrs Ingham’s brother were also present.

Mrs Ingham said that she was disappointed that Bishop Jarrett did not attend the initial facilitation. However, she said that the second meeting was of real benefit, as the financial matters had settled and her meeting with the Bishop was about:

66

Report of Case Study No. 4

Talking to the Bishop, telling my story and getting an apology. So separating the two for me was effective and I believe a recommendation is a strategy on how - separating pastoral from financial in such an intense time.531

Bishop Jarrett expressed a similar view about the meeting. He said:

I believe that for Mrs Ingham, and certainly for myself, it was a much happier outcome and meeting than - the lawyers and the insurance assessors had done their work, and our facilitation, our meeting, was not to do with that. It was to do with what Towards Healing was primarily set up to do, which was to assist a person who had been abused by a church person to move beyond and get some sense of their life settling in a new way and the past having been dealt with properly.532

During the meeting, Deacon Wallace informed Mrs Ingham that he had contacted Father Mulcahy after the facilitation and that he still denied that the 1990 meeting had occurred.533 Bishop Jarrett informed Mrs Ingham that there were no records of the 1990 meeting and ‘the lack of them support the truth more’.534 He assured Mrs Ingham that he believed that the 1990 meeting occurred.535

Deacon Wallace said that he told Mrs Ingham that Father Mulcahy was willing to meet with her if she wanted to. Deacon Wallace said that Mrs Ingham ‘said there was no point to this if Father Mulcahy denied ever having met her’.536 Mrs Ingham said that she did not recall Deacon Wallace telling her this or making the response that Deacon Wallace said she did.537

At the end of the meeting Bishop Jarrett committed to sending Mrs Ingham a personal letter of apology. Mrs Ingham found this to be ‘respectful’.538

On 2 July 2013, Mrs Ingham thanked Mr Salmon for attending the meeting with the Bishop. She told him that she had ‘much trust’ in what he said and sensed his ‘conviction to support people like [her]’.539 She said that she found the Bishop to be ‘genuine’ but also ‘found him naïve, or perhaps more so really struggling with the truth of the depraved within the church’s history’. 540

Mr Salmon responded that he was confident that her recent experiences with the Church and the Bishop’s letter of apology would be helpful in her healing process. Mr Salmon also offered his assistance over the longer term and encouraged her not to hesitate to contact him at any time.541

On 10 July 2013, Mrs Ingham received a letter of apology from Bishop Jarrett. She understood that it had been drafted personally.542

Bishop Jarrett apologised ‘unreservedly’ for the ‘unconscionable and disgraceful conduct of a priest who betrayed every standard of decency and of the spiritual and moral trust expected of him’, and ‘of the singular failure of concern and pastoral care when you most needed to be believed and helped’. He said ‘we can’t undo the past but the church must make drastic change. Those responsible must be accountable’.543 He said that Mrs Ingham was ‘completely deserving of any apology from the Church and the Diocese of Lismore, for what had been done to her by a Priest of the Diocese’.544

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

67

Mrs Ingham has not come to terms with the compensation payout and she ‘simply doesn’t like it’.545 She said:

no amount of money could make up for what I experienced and the ensuing years of struggle for myself and my family. On all accounts I should not be medically alive and any money I received has already historically been spent to get me being alive today.546

Mrs Ingham also spoke about the disparity between amounts paid under Towards Healing:

It is beyond unfair. My story of abuse is no greater or less or measurable against others. Such disparity has caused me psychological distress. This must change. This is why I need to tell people about my payment. It can’t just be kept within the realms of the Church authorities. I believe the Towards Healing approach to determining compensation should be reviewed.547

The 1990 Meeting

There is an issue as to whether there was a meeting in 1990 between Mrs Ingham and senior clerics from the Diocese of Lismore, and if there was, what Mrs Ingham disclosed at that meeting about her sexual abuse as a child by Father Brown. There is also a question of whether Father Mulcahy attended the meeting. The meeting will be referred to as ‘the 1990 meeting’.

Mrs Ingham said that the 1990 meeting did occur and that Father Mulcahy attended.548 Father Mulcahy said that he had ‘absolutely no recollection of any meeting with Mrs Ingham’549 and that he believed such a meeting never occurred.550 Counsel Assisting and counsel for Father Mulcahy made competing submissions about this issue and the Church parties made no submissions.

At the time, there were no Chancery records maintained which recorded such meetings and appointments.551 In the absence of any record of the meeting and where Mrs Ingham and Father Mulcahy gave conflicting evidence, it is necessary to consider their evidence in light of surrounding circumstances and the evidence of other relevant witnesses.

Circumstances in which the 1990 meeting was arranged

Mrs Ingham has received treatment from clinical psychologist, Professor Roger Dooley, periodically since 2 November 1989.552 The contact report dated 4 September 2012 recorded that during her treatment she and her husband Mr Riches:

attended a meeting with Senior Leaders of the Catholic Church in 1990 (A date to be confirmed) in Lismore at the Catholic Presbytery. This meeting was scheduled as an important part of my treatment plan for recovery to tell the church leaders of my abuse.553

This was consistent with Professor Dooley’s evidence to the Royal Commission that, during the course of a group therapy program, Mrs Ingham:

68

Report of Case Study No. 4

went to the church authorities and reported the history of sexual abuse … This action was done as a therapeutic exercise to affirm her innocence and to reduce the self blame she carried for the abuse. Each member of the therapy group would identify a task of self challenge to meet between sessions. Jennifer’s action was one such challenge for her.554

Professor Dooley qualified that he was duty bound to say that he could not be absolutely certain that his recall of the information about the 1990 meeting was valid. This was because of:

the amount of time that has elapsed since and the fact that this information has been discussed with Jennifer at other times, particularly in regard to her dealings with Towards Healing. My memory could be confounded by the recent discussions.555

He said that he:

put that qualification in [his statement] not to say that it had perhaps been confused but to indicate the possibility that it could be confused because of the normal vulnerabilities that exist with memory and to detail what had taken place. I put that in, as a cautious person that I am, to say that a psychologist would always make a recognition that there are factors which could confuse the accuracy of a memory.556

Despite making that qualification, Professor Dooley said that he had ‘always understood in [his] therapy with Jennifer over the years that she did report the matter of her sexual abuse by Father Brown to church authorities’. 557 His report dated 30 April 2013 showed that in the course of preparation of his report to Towards Healing Mrs Ingham ‘informed [him] of her recall of a meeting with church authorities involving several priests including Father Mulcahy in 1990’.558

Professor Dooley and Mrs Ingham gave evidence that the 1990 meeting was arranged in the context of her treatment program. Professor Dooley did not ‘have a record directly reporting such a meeting in 1990 between Jennifer and church leaders including Father Mulcahy’.559 However, he did produce a record of a consultation with Mrs Ingham and Mr Riches dated 30 March 1990 that included the following notations:

Feels she has now cut the ties which were holding her to her past.

E.g … sexual misuse by men (e.g. priest) …

- Held up at moment in throwing off cloak or identity

- (Will do so now that Fa (Father) Brown issue is laid to rest).560

On the first line set out above, Professor Dooley gave evidence that ‘one of the important actions that she took, that contributed to her cutting the ties would have been her going to the church authorities about what had happened to her’.561

Professor Dooley said that ‘particularly the latter notation’ (referring to the last two lines set out above) recorded what he interpreted as a reference by Mrs Ingham ‘to the

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

69

psychological benefit she felt having confronted the issue of Father Brown’s abuse of her through meeting with clerical leaders of the church in early 1990’.562 Professor Dooley accepted the possibility that the reference to ‘laid to rest’ could refer to Mrs Ingham’s disclosure of abuse to her then husband and to the group session but made the following qualification:

It could be a reference to that, were it not for the context in which I understood that note that I have written to be, which was in the context that other matters had taken place, to my recall, that had also made a significant difference and which would have also led to the conclusion of saying that the Father Brown issue was laid to rest.563

These notes dated 30 March 1990 do not help to determine whether Father Mulcahy attended the 1990 meeting.

Professor Dooley did not produce notes from all of the consultations with Mrs Ingham in early 1990. Professor Dooley explained that there were two sets of clinical notes that were taken at the time. One of them reflected the group therapy sessions conducted between November 1989 and April 1990. The other set were the treatment notes from individual sessions with Mrs Ingham. 564 He said that he had all of the individual notes but no longer had the notes on the last four group sessions, which occurred between 12 February 1990 and 2 April 1990.565 He said that ‘there certainly was a possibility that a note was taken about the group sessions, which would have existed’.566

Whether or not there may have been other notes, they were not in evidence before us. We do not infer from Professor Dooley’s evidence that these notes, if they existed, contained reference to the 1990 meeting.

We accept the submissions of Father Mulcahy that he was only, relevantly, in Lismore from the end of January 1990 to 30 March 1990. So if Father Mulcahy had been at the 1990 meeting, it must have occurred during the period from the beginning of February to 29 March 1990. 567

 Finding 20: We are satisfied that Mrs Ingham attended a meeting in 1990 with senior members of the church.

What was said at the 1990 meeting?

Mrs Ingham said:

At the meeting, when I told the clerics about my abuse, Fr Mulcahy cried and told me that he knew that I was being sexually abused at the time, had been unwell with Bulimia and spent time in a psychiatric hospital for it. Fr Mulcahy also told me of the names of two other girls who he knew were abused by Fr Brown. This was consistent with my experience because on the last occasion Fr Brown sexually abused me he told me that my breasts tasted like the breast of one of the girls whom Fr Mulcahy referred to in the meeting.568

70

Report of Case Study No. 4

Mrs Ingham said that this was a summary or paraphrase of a much larger conversation that occurred at the 1990 meeting.569 In relation to her statement that ‘he knew that I was being sexually abused at the time’ Mrs Ingham clarified that ‘my intention was not to say that while I was being abused for that period of time, that Father Mulcahy was aware, no’.570 She said that she could not recall any contact with Father Mulcahy in the years she was being abused.571

Before the 1990 meeting, Mrs Ingham did not know of any way that Father Mulcahy could have indirectly obtained the knowledge from her that she was being sexually abused.572 Her evidence was therefore that Father Mulcahy learnt of her allegation of abuse at the 1990 meeting.

Mrs Ingham said she left the meeting thinking ‘Oh, my God, it’s not just me. It wasn’t my fault’.573 This is consistent with her evidence that Father Mulcahy also told her ‘the names of two other girls who he knew were abused by Fr Brown’.574 Mrs Ingham was not willing to disclose the names of the two other girls. She only explained that they were ‘a similar age’ to her, and attended school with her.575

Father Mulcahy said in relation to Mrs Ingham’s evidence about the 1990 meeting:

If the subject of abuse by another Catholic Priest had been brought to my attention, I would have remembered such a meeting. If I had been so affected as to have been reduced to tears, I am sure I would recollect such a meeting. I have no such recollections …

I note that Mrs Ingham alleges that, in the alleged meeting, I broke down and cried and said that I knew of the alleged abuse and I knew two other girls that Father Rex Brown had abused. At the time of that alleged meeting, I had no knowledge of any person, male or female, who had been abused by Father Rex Brown.576

Furthermore, Father Mulcahy said that he was not ‘a man capable of tears when upset’ and that he could not ‘recall having tears in my eyes since I was a child, even when my mother and father died’.577 He said that if someone had come to him with a complaint that a priest or religious had abused them, he would have ‘gone straight to the bishop’. He said that he has never received a complaint of that kind by anybody.578

Mrs Ingham’s email to Mr Mullins dated 30 August 2012 was the first time she disclosed in writing that the 1990 meeting had occurred.579 She wrote:

[Mrs Ingham’s former husband, Mr Riches] attended at the meeting in the early nineties when we met with the then Bishop and another priest to tell them of my abuse. Fr Mulcahy cried ... no sobbed … and said he already knew. After this meeting there was no further communication …580

The contact report dated 4 September 2012 does not refer to the attendance of the ‘then Bishop’ but states that ‘Senior Leaders of the Catholic Church’, including Father Mulcahy, attended. Mrs Ingham said that by the time of the interview with Mr Scanlan for the contact report in October 2012, she could only confirm that ‘Father Mulcahy was there, for absolute

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

71

definite’. She could not confirm the attendance of any other cleric but has ‘always assumed’ that one of the other clerics at the meeting was the ‘then Bishop’.581

The evidence of Bishop Satterthwaite (who was Bishop of Lismore in 1990) is that he did not attend a meeting in 1990 or at any other time with Father Mulcahy or any other person in which Mrs Ingham made a complaint of child sexual abuse against Father Brown.582 Bishop Satterthwaite said that, given he removed Father Brown as parish priest in 1986, a meeting about another complaint of sexual abuse against Father Brown would have been significant to him and ‘I do not believe I would forget such a meeting’.583 Deacon Wallace’s inquiries on the 1990 meeting confirmed that Bishop Satterthwaite did not attend.584

Mrs Ingham could not provide any contextual information about how the 1990 meeting was arranged and only recalled some details about it. She said that it took place in the presbytery585 in a large office586 and that alcohol was served.587 She recalled that scotch was served but could not remember how it was served or whether a decanter was used.588 Mrs Ingham could not recall how the meeting was set up589 or how many people were present.590

Connection between Mrs Ingham and Father Mulcahy

Mrs Ingham did not accept that it was equally as possible that Father Mulcahy did attend the 1990 meeting as he did not attend at all.591 Mrs Ingham said that the reason she remembered Father Mulcahy being at the meeting was ‘because I believed him to be a good man, a familiar man, and I was to do something really important, so it was just safe’.592 She said, ‘The best that I believe personally is that Father Mulcahy was aware of exactly - my name was Jenni Williams and that I was the daughter of Noeline and Kevin Williams’.593 She could not identify any specific occasion when this information passed between her and Father Mulcahy but said that she ‘genuinely believe[d] that Father Mulcahy was aware that I was my father’s daughter’.594

Father Mulcahy was shown a photograph of Mrs Ingham when she was 19 years of age. He said that he did not recognize her.595 Father Mulcahy accepted that as an Administrator of the Lismore Cathedral from 1981 (that is, St Carthage’s Cathedral Parish, Lismore), while he did not know Mrs Ingham, she would have known him.596

Mrs Ingham said that she knew Father Mulcahy ‘because he had attended a private boarding school with [her] father and they remained friends for many years following their schooling’.597 Mrs Ingham was unable to date when she became aware of the school connection between the two men.598 She said:

Father Mulcahy was a parish priest of the parish where I went to school, and I just can’t specifically say was it during that time was I aware that he went to school with my dad. My dad used to talk about that he and another gentleman and Father Mulcahy went to school together; he talked about that often. And that’s why I can’t pinpoint was it in my early schooling was I aware.

72

Report of Case Study No. 4

Mrs Ingham attended school from 1967 to 1980.599 Mrs Ingham’s early school years coincided with one of the periods that Father Mulcahy was a priest in the Diocese of Lismore (namely, from 1958600 to 1969601).

Father Mulcahy said it was true that he was in the same class as Mrs Ingham’s father - they attended Woodlawn College, Lismore.602 He said that they were both boarders at the school in the same year for the last three years of his school (1949-1951).603 However, Father Mulcahy did not feel that he and Mr Kevin Williams could be described as ‘friends’.604

Between 2005 and 2008, Father Mulcahy had regular contact with Mrs Ingham’s parents, Mr and Mrs Williams. They had moved from Lismore to Alstonville and, because Mr Williams had had a stroke, Father Mulcahy would visit their house on a monthly basis and give communion to them.605 After Mr Williams died, Father Mulcahy met Mrs Williams each Saturday night after she attended mass.606

Despite giving evidence that part of his role as a priest involved getting to know the families that he was a priest for, he said that Mr and Mrs Williams never discussed their children or family with him.607 He said that their children were never present and Mr and Mrs Williams ‘led the conversation and it would have been about something else’.608

Mrs Ingham’s aunt, Sister Clare Williams, was a Presentation nun who was a missionary nun in New Guinea. Mrs Ingham said that she would often come home and there would be celebratory gatherings at her home. She would attend, as would priests and bishops.609 Mrs Ingham was unable to pinpoint any specific connection between her family and Father Mulcahy and it was only ‘possible’ that Father Mulcahy attended these gatherings.610 Father Mulcahy said he ‘knew of’ Sister Clare Williams but did not recall that she was a missionary nun or that she was a relative of the Williams’ and only ‘might have’ had a discussion with them about her.611

To the best of her recollection, Mrs Ingham first met Father Mulcahy just before her 21st birthday, in October 1983, when she began work at Paupiette’s - a restaurant in Lismore.612 Mrs Ingham worked at the restaurant for about 12 months.613 She recalled that Father Mulcahy was a regular visitor and would dine there as often as weekly.614 She said that she felt ‘very familiar’ with him and called him ‘Frank’.615

Mrs Ingham said that Father Mulcahy dined with Father Brown on an occasion when Father Brown was visiting from Tweed Heads. She knew Father Brown well at the time and he recognised her. She said that the two men appeared familiar with one another.616

Father Mulcahy confirmed that he regularly dined at Paupiette’s most Friday nights. However, he said he had no recollection of Mrs Ingham working there ‘or otherwise, having made herself known to me either by her name or by reference to her being her father’s daughter’. He said the fact that he regularly dined at Paupiette’s was ‘well known in Lismore’. 617 Father Mulcahy said that Father Brown was an alcoholic and that he ‘wouldn’t dine with him in a restaurant in a fit’.618 He said that he ‘never dined in a restaurant with Brown’.619

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

73

In November 2008, Mrs Ingham’s name was on the prayers for the sick at Alstonville Church620 where Father Mulcahy was the parish priest from December 1991 to August 2012.621 A contemporary search of the prayer list for the Alstonville Parish was tendered and noted that, as at 16 November 2008, Mrs Ingham was named in the parish newsletter with a reference to ‘in your compassion’.622

Father Mulcahy said that he did not say prayers for the sick at the parish but that their names would be placed on a list of about 40 people in the weekly parish magazine. He said that ‘the secretary would receive that somebody was sick and put them on the list’.623 Although Father Mulcahy accepted that he visited those who were on the list of names of the sick,624 he denied knowing Mrs Ingham625 or visiting her.626 Father Mulcahy gave evidence that the list of the sick and those he visited who were sick were on separate lists.627

Bishop Jarrett’s telephone call with Father Mulcahy prior to the facilitation

At the time of Mrs Ingham’s Towards Healing process, Bishop Jarrett said that, although he had no corroborative evidence about the meeting, he was willing to accept that it happened on Mrs Ingham’s testimony.628 He said this was because he did not believe Mrs Ingham ‘had confected a story’. He was willing to accept that a meeting took place although the precise details were not known, other than that Father Mulcahy was present.629 He said that, at the time, Chancery records of meetings and appointments were not maintained.630

Bishop Jarrett considered that he needed to inquire into Mrs Ingham’s complaint that she had informed a number of people within the Church of the abuse, including Father Mulcahy, and that there had been no response to her complaints.631 He said he ‘wanted to understand why nothing had happened in response to Mrs Ingham’s complaint at the time it was first made’.632 Bishop Jarrett telephoned Father Mulcahy before the facilitation and said in relation to this conversation:

I recall that I told Father Mulcahy that a complaint had been received from Jennifer Ingham that she had been abused by Father Brown, but also that she had reported the matter in a meeting with clergy, among whom she named Father Mulcahy as being present, in 1990. I remember that Father Mulcahy said that he could not recall the meeting with Mrs Ingham. My impression from this discussion was that Father Mulcahy did not remember Mrs Ingham, but I cannot recall that he said this. Father Mulcahy could remember Mrs Ingham’s father and mother. He told me that Mrs Ingham’s father had died, but that her mother was still living in the Parish of Alstonville. I recall being puzzled at the time as to why Father Mulcahy could remember Mrs Ingham’s parents but not remember Mrs Ingham nor the meeting with her.633

He said that he was ‘puzzled’ about why Father Mulcahy could remember Mrs Ingham’s parents but not her or the meeting because:

I knew that Father Mulcahy had been to school with Mrs Ingham’s father, and while it wouldn’t have been - it could have been likely that they had kept up knowledge of each other across all the years, there was a later connection in that both of

74

Report of Case Study No. 4

Mrs Ingham’s parents were resident in Father Mulcahy’s parish, and it puzzled me that they there had been the connections earlier and later, that they didn’t come together in a knowledge on the relationship.634

Father Mulcahy gave the following evidence about the telephone call:

After I moved to live in Brisbane, I recall being telephoned by Bishop Jarrett. He told me that a woman whom I think he identified as Jennifer Ingham, previously Williams, had a complaint that she spoke to me and two other senior Priests in the Presbytery in Lismore in 1990.

He said that the conversation was about her complaint of being sexually abused by Father Rex Brown. He said that the complaint was that I did nothing about the matters raised with me. I replied to Bishop Jarrett that I had no recollection of any such meeting and I thought that I had left Lismore in early March 1990.

As a result of that conversation, I contacted the Secretary of Alstonville Parish, Tanya Pagotto. I asked her what our census records showed as to the children of Kevin and Noelene Williams. She told me they had a son, David and a daughter, Jennifer. It is on this basis that I formed the definite view that the complainant of whom Bishop Jarrett had been talking was the daughter of Kevin and Noelene. I had an inkling that that might be the case which is why I asked Ms Pagotto to do the check for me.635

Father Mulcahy said that, at the time of this telephone call, he did not know Mrs Ingham and ‘wouldn’t have known her name’. He said that he told Bishop Jarrett that he didn’t know Mrs Ingham and that it ‘didn’t mean anything to me’.636

Father Mulcahy’s statement and oral evidence about whether Bishop Jarrett identified Mrs Ingham by her maiden or married name during the telephone conversation is inconsistent. Father Mulcahy gave evidence in his statement that Bishop Jarrett ‘identified as Jennifer Ingham, previously Jennifer Williams’.637 In his oral evidence, when Father Mulcahy was asked whether he knew Mrs Ingham’s parents, he said, ‘I don’t remember, because he called her “Ingham”, and I didn’t know who Ingham was. I didn’t realise that she was Williams’.638 He later said that Bishop Jarrett ‘may have’ mentioned the name ‘Williams’ to him and then said ‘that’s the only way I’d get it [in order to make inquiries about the Williams children]’.639

Bishop Jarrett said that it was ‘most likely that I mentioned her married name of Ingham rather than her maiden name’. When Counsel Assisting referred to Father Mulcahy’s evidence that he thought that the Bishop had identified her as Jennifer Ingham, previously Jennifer Williams, he said he ‘might have known her maiden name at the time but I can’t be sure’.640

In his statement, Father Mulcahy said that, after his discussion with Bishop Jarrett, he had an ‘inkling’ that the complainant about whom the Bishop was talking was the daughter of Kevin and Noelene Williams, which is why he took steps to investigate.641 He said that, after

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

75

checking with the Parish and asking whether they had children, it was confirmed that they had a daughter Jennifer and it ‘clicked that Jennifer was a Williams’.642

Deacon Wallace’s inquiries and meeting with Father Mulcahy

Deacon Wallace said that before and during the facilitation he and the Bishop were willing to accept Mrs Ingham’s word on the 1990 meeting.643 There were a number of reasons for this:

we felt her complaint was a truthful one; we had no evidence that it did not take place given that Fr Mulcahy did not recall it; to challenge her over it would have been cruel and counterproductive with regard to any healing we hoped might take place for her.644

Although he ‘couldn’t say one way or the other whether the meeting had taken place’, Deacon Wallace said, ‘I believed [Mrs Ingham] believed the meeting had taken place and that [Father Mulcahy] was present’.645 It was on the basis of Mrs Ingham’s belief that he made the apology at the facilitation.646

After the facilitation and before the meeting between Mrs Ingham and Bishop Jarrett on 24 June 2013, Deacon Wallace did some research and made inquiries about the 1990 meeting. He collated a list of the clerics of the Diocese and possible senior clergy at the time who may have attended the meeting.647 He then attempted to contact all of them and there was a ‘negative response in all cases’.648

Deacon Wallace arranged a meeting with Father Mulcahy on 13 June 2013 to see if there was some ‘objective, corroborative evidence of the circumstances’.649 At the meeting, he showed Father Mulcahy Mrs Ingham’s contact report because of the impact he thought the report might have on him.650 He gave evidence that he hoped it would jog his memory but ‘in fact it went the other way and he said that it didn’t take place’.651

At the meeting, Father Mulcahy denied meeting Mrs Ingham and said he could not recall her. He said he did remember her mother and father. He said that he did not frequent Mrs Ingham’s family home when he was in Lismore and that he did not recall Mrs Ingham at the restaurant.652

Deacon Wallace gave evidence that what Father Mulcahy said at the meeting had resonated with him because over the years he had been told through hearsay from various priests that around 1990 Father Mulcahy was under severe stress.653 He had resigned from a number of diocesan committees and took leave for almost two years. Deacon Wallace said that he left the meeting ‘feeling that perhaps he didn’t recall it because he had been so stressed and virtually on the verge of a breakdown’.654

After being excused from giving evidence, Father Mulcahy gave an additional statement to the Royal Commission that annexed letters outlining reasons for his resignation to various positions that were not related to stress. 655 He said:

I have never, at any time, suffered from any stress related condition or had cause to consult any general medical practitioner or medical consultant in relation to any

76

Report of Case Study No. 4

stress related condition. I was not suffering from stress or any stress related conditions at any time during 1990, having been on holidays for the whole of January 1990 and then having resigned and retired on my return from holidays.656

Deacon Wallace took a contemporaneous note just after speaking with Father Mulcahy which stated, ‘Denies meeting her says he can’t recall her. Remembers mother after he went to Alstoneville remembers her father’.657 He said:

I walked away with a view that the meeting may have taken place, but I had no evidence to say that it did take place, and using police terms, I was left with conflicting statements.658

However, he said that Mrs Ingham’s account was not made less believable because Father Mulcahy had denied being at the meeting.659

Father Mulcahy was the Administrator of St Carthage’s Cathedral until the end of March 1990.660 Deacon Wallace said that, if there had been a meeting in 1990, given Father Mulcahy’s position he would have expected him to attend.661 Father Mulcahy accepted that he was the senior ordained person of the St Carthage’s Cathedral Parish and meetings in the presbytery would have been arranged through his office. He accepted that, if someone was asking for a meeting with church leaders to deal with the very sensitive subject of sexual abuse, this would have been brought to his attention.662

Father Mulcahy accepted that, given he was in charge of the parish where this person claimed to have been sexually abused and this person was seeking to reveal what happened to her then, if the meeting occurred, it was very likely that he would be present. He said that the Bishop would also have been present.663

Evidence of Mr Colin Riches

Colin Riches is Mrs Ingham’s former husband. Mr Riches gave evidence that he used an email that Mrs Ingham sent to him, dated 6 December 2013, as a drafting tool for preparing his statement.664 In the email, Mrs Ingham set out matters that Mr Riches should include in his statement. 665

In these circumstances, we cannot give any weight to Mr Riches’ evidence.

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

77

 Finding 21: We have no doubt that Mrs Ingham now believes that Father Francis Mulcahy was present at the 1990 meeting.

There are some difficulties in finding that Father Mulcahy was present at the 1990 meeting.

In light of Father Mulcahy’s denial, the absence of any contemporaneous record, the inquiries made by Deacon Wallace, Mrs Ingham’s changed recollection about the presence of the Bishop and the effects of the passage of time on memories, we cannot be satisfied to the relevant standard that a finding that Father Mulcahy was present should be made.

However, Mrs Ingham impressed us as an honest witness who gave evidence to the best of her recollection. It would be consistent with Father Mulcahy’s role in the Diocese that he was present.

78

Report of Case Study No. 4

4 DG’s Towards Healing experience

Child sexual abuse of DG

DG was sexually abused by Brother Raymond Foster, also known as Brother Celestine, while he was a student at a Marist Brothers college in the early 1970s.666 Brother Foster was a teacher at the college at the time.667 Brother Foster first sexually abused DG at DG’s family home in 1970,668 and subsequently on the school grounds.669 DG gave evidence that ‘[t]here were a lot of other incidents’ and that the sexual abuse continued until he left the college at the end of 1973.670

DG gave evidence that the sexual abuse has had a ‘profound impact’ on his life and family.671 He said that the abuse has:

made me feel alienated and isolated and these feelings have, in turn, had a negative impact on my personal and professional relationships. Particularly, I have to an extent experienced alienation from my parents and siblings since raising the abuse. The abuse has also been a significant factor in my abuse of illegal and legal substances, the destruction of my religious beliefs and trust in religious institutions, and the sense of underachievement I feel in both my personal and professional life.672

Other complaints against Brother Foster

The Royal Commission received evidence that three complaints were made about Brother Foster’s behaviour to the Marist Brothers before DG came forward.

The first record of a complaint against Brother Foster that was received by the Marist Brothers is a file note dated 30 August 1993. The file note records the name and contact number of the complainant but does not record who received the complaint or who wrote it.

The file note records a complaint by a man - given the pseudonym ‘DR’ by the Royal Commission - that he was sexually abused while he was a student at St Augustine’s College Cairns during the 1950s.673 The complaint related primarily to a Brother Sebastian; however, the file note also records:

Less frequently a Brother Celestine subsequently R.F., ran the tuckshop and said he enjoyed watching people abuse themselves and masturbate. Not as serious as Sebastian.674

The file note states that the complainant ‘[w]ants no publicity, wants no action, just wanted to tell someone so as to free his own mind of the situation’ and that ‘I spoke to him for quite some time and he seemed very genuine’.675

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

79

At this time Brother Turton was Provincial of the Sydney Province of the Marist Brothers. He held that position between 1989 and 1995. In that position he had overall responsibility for responding to cases involving allegations of sexual abuse.676 Brother Hill was the Vice Provincial of the Sydney Province between 1993 and July 1995.677 As Vice Provincial, Brother Hill shared responsibility with the Provincial for responding to complaints of child sexual abuse.678 In July 1995, Brother Hill became the Sydney Provincial.

At the time this first complaint was made, Brother Turton was travelling to Rome for a conference. He did not return to Sydney until November 1993.679 Brother Turton agreed that whoever had made the note would have taken it as a serious matter. He said that it was likely that it would have been brought to his attention as Provincial either while he was in Rome or when he returned to Australia.680

There is no evidence that anyone in the Marist Brothers took any action on this complaint.

When this complaint was received, Brother Foster was working as a teacher at St Joseph’s College Hunters Hill.681 He was a teacher there between 23 November 1991 and 31 August 1994. Brother Foster continued to teach in an unrestricted capacity at St Joseph’s.

The second complaint is outlined in a letter from Father John O’Connor, a semi-retired priest in Tully Heads, which was forwarded to the Marist Brothers on 25 May 1994.682 It describes a visit to a man with a name similar to that of DR, the complainant named in the file note of 30 August 1993.683 It reads:

In the course of conversation he said that he had been sexually molested by two Marist Brothers whilst a boarder at St Augustine’s Cairns. It happened over a period of two years. He was 12 and 13 years old at the time. He is now 53 so this would have happened 40 years ago about the year 1954 and 1953. I don’t think he is going to lay any legal charges.684

Neither of the Brothers is named in the letter. The letter forwarding this complaint stated, ‘The usual Special Issues Incident Report, with this information, is being sent to CCI on behalf of the Cairns Diocese.’685

Brother Turton said that he has no actual recollection of receiving this letter, but he has no doubt that he received it shortly after 25 May 1994.686 He said that he took no further action as a result of the letter.687

The complainant named in this letter and the complainant named in the file note of 30 August 1993:

 have similar names688

 both live in Tully Heads

 both complained of sexual abuse by two Marist Brothers at St Augustine’s College in Cairns over a period of two years in the early 1950s.

We accept that it is probable, if not likely, that these two complaints were made by the same person and that the second complaint is therefore also about Brother Foster.689

80

Report of Case Study No. 4

The third document, Allegations Regarding AB24, records two complaints against Brother Foster. AB24 was a code was used by the Marist Brothers to refer to Brother Foster.690

Brother Turton said that this document is a summary of the allegations that had been received by the Marist Brothers against Brother Foster. He created it sometime between November 1993 and 29 June 1994.691 The document records:

 a phone call from a man with a name similar to that given the pseudonym DR alleging that, when he was a student in the 1950s, Brother Foster had exposed himself and encouraged the then student to stimulate himself, and that this had happened on a few occasions.692

 ‘About 1991 an anonymous caller rang the Brothers’ house - not very coherent - alleging certain things against AB24 of a sexual nature. No further information was available … The anonymous caller could not be followed up.’693

 ‘Discussions by Provincial with AB24 gained an acknowledgement that there had been two incidents in the Fifties which were inappropriate. No further action taken.’694

In relation to the final point, Brother Turton recalled that Brother Foster had admitted to two incidents of ‘inappropriate conduct’, but he could not recall any other details about the conversation.695

He also had no recollection of the factors he took into account in deciding he would not take any further action after this conversation.696 He said:

I can’t remember my thought process at that time, but I didn’t consider that it was necessary, what the meaning, the severity of ‘inappropriate’ - I don’t know. Given the learnings that we have made, the severe learnings over the years, I am quite sure that I would have taken action today.697

Brother Turton assumed he would have obtained an assurance from Brother Foster ‘that what was referred to 40 years ago was not an issue now’. However, he said, ‘but I cannot state that for sure, since I don’t recall that’.698

In April 1992, the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference Special Issues Sub-Committee adopted the Protocol for Dealing with Allegations of Criminal Behaviour (the 1992 protocol).699 The 1992 protocol includes the following provisions:

 ‘Criminal behaviour’ is defined to include ‘sexual assault relating to children’700

 clause 5.2, which provides that the Provincial Council should establish a Special Issues Resource Group consisting of personnel who are skilled in dealing with allegations of criminal behaviour

 clause 6.1, which provides that ‘Whenever the competent ecclesial authority receives information of alleged criminal behaviour the matter shall immediately be

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

81

referred, except in circumstances of a most serious and extraordinary nature, to the relevant Special Issues Resource Group’.

The 1992 protocol applied to the Marist Brothers between April 1992 and the commencement of the first Towards Healing protocol in 1996.701 Brother Turton agreed that the 1992 protocol applied to the Marist Brothers at the time and that he was the ‘competent ecclesial authority’.702

Brother Turton said that he did not refer the complaints against Brother Foster to the relevant Special Issues Resource Group as required by the 1992 protocol. We are satisfied that, in not doing so, Brother Turton did not comply with the 1992 protocol.

 Finding 22: Brother Alexis Turton was Provincial of the Marist Brothers when:

 an anonymous caller rang the Marist Brothers in 1991 alleging certain things of a sexual nature against Brother Foster

 on or before 30 August 1993, the Marist Brothers received a complaint of child sexual abuse by Brother Foster at St Augustine’s College in the 1950s

 shortly after 5 May 1994, the Marist Brothers received a complaint of child sexual abuse against two Brothers, one of whom was possibly Brother Foster, at St Augustine’s College in 1954-1955. Brother Turton received the complaint

 sometime between November 1993 and 29 June 1994, Brother Turton held discussions with Brother Foster, who acknowledged that there had been two incidents in the 1950s that were inappropriate.

 Finding 23: Brother Turton did not take any further action in relation to these complaints, and did not take any action in relation to Brother Foster’s acknowledgement.

 Finding 24: Brother Turton did not did not comply with the 1992 Protocol for Dealing with Allegations of Criminal Behaviour from the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference. He did not refer complaints against Brother Foster to the relevant Special Issues Resource Group.

DG goes to the police

DG first revealed his abuse by Brother Foster in 1990 while attending marriage counselling. In early 1994, DG reported the abuse to the Queensland Police Service and made a police statement. DG said:

I know it took me a long time to make the complaint but, until that time, I don’t think I was stable or strong enough and in a strong enough relationship to be able to put myself forward to do it. My parents didn’t even know that Br Foster had sexually abused me until I made a statement to the Police. I think the hardest thing I had to do was walk through the door of a police station and stand at a desk with people around and say why I was there.703

82

Report of Case Study No. 4

The Queensland police interviewed Brother Foster on 24 August 1994.704 On 25 August 1994, Brother Turton spoke to Brother Foster. In his statement, Brother Turton recalled:

Br Foster came to speak to me and said that he had been accused of offences when he was in [redacted]. Although I do not remember his exact words, or whether he specifically mentioned the police, he gave me the strong impression that it was serious and that he needed legal advice. I referred him immediately to our legal advisers so that they could put him in touch with a criminal lawyer if necessary.

I also told him that I was standing him down until further notice. I transferred him from his current teaching position [at St Joseph’s College] to the Marist Community residence in Eastwood.705

Brother Turton was asked what he knew about the allegations against Brother Foster at the time he decided to stand him down from his teaching position. He said:

My recollection is it was a fairly brief interview. He did not want to give me any detail except to say that there was police; he declined to make comment. And I think I asked him was it a serious matter, and he said it could be, and he particularly came to see me to request legal advice and he didn’t want to say any more about it. So the only thing I knew about it was that it was … a police investigation, could be a serious matter, and the location where it was, and on that basis I withdrew him from ministry.706

Brother Turton gave evidence that after transferring Brother Foster to Eastwood, he directed him not to be associated with minors. Brother Turton said that he may have also told the person in charge of Eastwood about the charges Brother Foster was facing, but that he could not be sure.707 He said that ‘there was no other plan made out at that stage’.708

The police believed that Brother Foster was continuing to work as a teacher at St Joseph’s College in Hunters Hill in February and March 1995.709 An internal memorandum of the Criminal Investigation Branch of the Queensland Police Service records that belief.

We accept Brother Turton’s evidence that he removed Brother Foster from St Joseph’s on or shortly after 25 August 1994, because:

 there is a letter dated 30 September 1994 from Brother Foster at the Eastwood Marist Community centre to Brother Turton about the projects he was working on there710

 this is recorded on Brother Foster’s ministry record.

 Finding 25: Brother Turton withdrew Brother Foster from ministry on or about 25 August 1994 immediately after becoming aware that the police had contacted Brother Foster, and that the matter was, or could be, serious.

The Queensland police did not proceed with DG’s case until 1999, when arrangements were made to extradite Brother Foster from New South Wales to face the charges in Queensland. On the morning he was to be extradited - 23 March 1999 - Brother Foster committed suicide.711

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

83

The Marist Brothers’ response to Brother Foster’s suicide

Brother Foster left a suicide letter for Brother Hill,712 which stated:

I bear no ill will against the person who had me charged as he had every right to do so and I ask his forgiveness if he would be so kind. May God forgive me for my actions then and now.713

Brother Hill found this letter after viewing the body of Brother Foster. He did not give a copy of the letter to the police.714

DG said:

I was really angry with Br Foster for choosing suicide over facing me or the Queensland Courts about the abuse he inflicted on me. I felt like he had chosen a path designed to free him from prosecution and inflict guilt upon me.715

On 24 March 1999, after Brother Foster’s suicide, Brother Hill wrote a letter to the Marist Brothers. He wrote that he had spoken with Brother Foster ‘several times’ over the weekend after his arrest and before the date of his extradition.716 He also wrote that someone who had been a student in the early 1970s had brought charges against Brother Foster and that Brother Foster had ‘indicated that he intended to plead guilty to the charges’.717 The letter stated:

At a time like this I can only resonate with what many of you would be feeling … devastation, anguish, deep sadness and puzzlement. Our faith is sorely tested by such an action. Our sense of hope can be exposed as something quite fragile. Yet it is in faith, hope and love that we must support each other more than ever. We ask the Lord to receive Ray into his presence so that he may experience the peace which clearly eluded him in the final days of his life. We pray particularly for the Brothers of the Marist Centre community. Their loss is deep and painful. Knowing that they have our unconditional fraternal support will be of great consolation to them.718

Brother Hill agreed that the fact he did not mention the need to assist or pray for the complainant in this letter was a serious omission.719 We accept that Brother Hill did not know the complainant’s identity when he wrote this document and that it was a circular to the Marist Brothers after the suicide of one of their Brothers.

 Finding 26: The fact that Brother Hill did not mention the need to assist or pray for the complainant in the letter to the Marist Brothers on 24 March 1999, was a serious omission.

Brother Hill said that after Brother Foster’s suicide, ‘I was certainly quite concerned for the, at that stage, unknown, person, [DG] but I did not see any way of being able to determine his identity’.720 Brother Hill did not ask the police about the complainant’s identity and did not try to find out whether the complainant was one of the people who had complained directly to the Marist Brothers previously.721

84

Report of Case Study No. 4

After Brother Foster’s suicide, some Marist Brothers were quoted in local newspapers saying ‘Br Foster hadn’t committed suicide, but had died of natural causes and was a wonderful man’.722

DG said ‘this really upset me at the time’, and ‘these things really stuck with me; they made me feel like I was harassing a sick old man, rather than seeking justice for the actions of a devious, slothful and drunkenly indulgent child molester’.723

Brother Hill said:

I became aware on or about 24 March 1999 that one of the Brothers from the Marist Centre in Mittagong had been contacted by a journalist, and had made comments to that journalist ... I did see statements in one or more newspapers, and heard one or more broadcasts, to the effect referred to by DG. The Brother who made the comments to that journalist had no experience in the type of allegations made against Br Foster. I did not authorise the statements made by that Brother, I was not aware of them until they were published, and was appalled by them when I did see them.

After becoming aware of these reports, I telephoned the Brother who had made the comments and said ‘The Provincial and the Vice Provincial alone are to be the spokesmen for the Marist Brothers. If any journalist contacts Mittagong, refer the journalist to Drummoyne.’

At around that time, I also contacted those media outlets which had published or broadcast reports that Br Foster had not committed suicide, in order to correct those reports.724

Brother Hill did not put out a public statement on behalf of the Marist Brothers publicly correcting and apologising for the false information.725

It was put to Brother Hill that some may be left with the impression that at the time he was more concerned with protecting the reputation of the Marist Brothers than ensuring that victims got support and that the truth was made public. Brother Hill responded, ‘I can see it being interpreted that way. At the time I wouldn’t have seen myself as actually doing that’.726

DG contacts the Marist Brothers

In early 2000, DG wrote to the Marist Brothers about Brother Foster’s abuse.727 DG attached the statement he had made to the Queensland Police setting out his account of what happened to him. He wrote:728

These events have engendered in me a cynical disrespect of authority and a sense of underachievement in my personal and professional life […]

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

85

Foster’s actions destroyed my trust and beliefs in religion be it Catholic or other. This is reflected in my utter distrust of clergy and many of the lay people associating themselves with religious schools and groups, particularly males.729

Brother Hill received DG’s letter and sent it on to Mr Howard Harrison of Carroll & O’Dea, the Marist Brothers’ solicitors.730 Mr Harrison then forwarded the letter to CCI.731

Brother Hill referred every complaint he received to the Marist Brothers’ solicitors.732 He said that ‘it had become our standard practice’,733 and ‘I wanted advice from the solicitors to make sure I was following correct procedures from a legal perspective’.734

Brother Hill said he sought advice from his solicitors on how to set up mediations, including advice on ‘[p]lace, a suitable mediator, matters such as those’,735 but he did not seek advice from his solicitors about the proper interpretation of Towards Healing.736

On 15 March 2000, Mr Harrison sent an email to a CCI employee about DG’s complaint. He wrote, ‘Br Hill suspects that some form of legal dialogue would be the best way to handle the matter and that the Towards Healing system is unlikely to produce a resolution’.737 He attached a draft letter from Brother Hill to DG and asked for CCI’s comments on whether it ‘presents any difficulty’.738

On 16 March 2000 Brother Hill replied to DG’s letter, amending the draft proposed by Mr Harrison but adopting the following paragraphs:739

The Towards Healing Resource Group in Brisbane do provide a mediation facility which we could look at. Alternatively, you may have a solicitor acting for you.

Perhaps you could contact me to discuss how we might best go forward to look at some form of revolution [sic] of these painful issues from the past.740

Brother Hill agreed that the letter reads as though DG had two choices: he could either follow Towards Healing or be represented a solicitor, but not both.741 Brother Hill said that his expectation was that DG would choose between these two options after receiving this letter.742 Brother Hill also agreed that the Towards Healing procedures do not prevent a complainant being represented by a solicitor.743

Brother Hill said that he did not give DG information about Towards Healing in this letter because ‘I intended to do that when I met with him’.744

This letter was also sent to Mr Harrison, who forwarded it to CCI.745

On 6 April 2000, DG replied to Brother Hill, writing:

I have been open in my submission and now require the same from you …

These issues are not new to you or your organisation. If you are the person empowered to liaise, on behalf of the Marist Brothers, then we must meet as soon as can be arranged.

I will continue to consider the avenue of legal representation, but would prefer to deal with this as I see fit and with the help of my loved ones.746

86

Report of Case Study No. 4

Brother Hill said that, at the time, he interpreted this letter as ‘perhaps he [DG] does not want to go into a church-sponsored process’.747 However, he also agreed with the proposition that DG’s letter was entirely consistent with Towards Healing.748

Brother Hill said, ‘at that stage - I’m not saying it was against Towards Healing, but at that stage I hadn’t sat down with him to discuss the procedures of Towards Healing’.749 Brother Hill then explained that his understanding that DG did not want to proceed with Towards Healing came later.750

Brother Hill responded to DG and proposed that they meet in DG’s home town.751 This letter was sent to Mr Harrison, who forwarded a copy to CCI.752

DG then wrote to Brother Hill requesting that he ‘ask the N.S.W. police, or your solicitor, for the transcripts of the police interview/s with Brother Raymond [Foster], pertaining to my complaint’.753

Mr Harrison met with Ms Lisa Clarke and Mr Paul Gamble of CCI in 8 May 2000.754 The file note of this meeting reads:

It was a case where there was knowledge of a propensity on the part of the brother and that may knock us out from a special issues viewpoint.

I informed CCI as to where we are up to in terms of speaking with the Plaintiff.

It was agreed that this matter would go somewhere at some stage but it’s up to the Plaintiff to initiate matters in all probability.755

Brother Hill met DG and his wife in DG’s home town on 11 May 2000 during a trip to Queensland.756

Brother Hill said that in the initial meeting DG had said, ‘I am suspicious of Church processes and reluctant to engage in Towards Healing because I do not trust anyone in a position of authority’.757 DG agreed that at this initial meeting he had said that he was not attracted by the Towards Healing approach.758

Brother Hill’s record of this initial meeting reads:

I repeated to him options which I had outlined in a previous letter. He [DG] is not attracted by the prospect of a Towards Healing line of action, but agreed with my strong suggestion that a settlement be negotiated through two sets of solicitors.759

When asked why he made this strong suggestion, Brother Hill gave the following evidence:

Having chosen not to go down the line of Towards Healing, I wanted to find some form of moving towards a satisfactory resolution … 760

He had indicated to me that he was, first of all, not interested in church-sponsored procedures, so that left me with limited options as to what to suggest to him.761

Brother Hill said that he did not tell DG about the benefits of Towards Healing during this meeting because of DG’s unwillingness to use Towards Healing.762

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

87

Brother Hill did not offer DG information about Towards Healing after the initial meeting because DG had rejected that line of action.763 He rejected the proposition that he should have given DG information about Towards Healing before, during or after the initial meeting. He said, ‘I still believe it was too soon to do that’.764

DG said, ‘I really didn’t understand where Towards Healing was coming from and whether I was in or out of that process’ following the initial meeting.765

Although the introduction of Towards Healing (1996) states that it is ‘a public document that establishes public criteria according to which the community may judge the resolve of Church leaders to address sexual abuse within the Church’, it does not require that a copy of the Towards Healing protocol be given to victims who come forward to the Church about their abuse.

However, Towards Healing (2010) includes the following procedure: ‘The Contact Person shall explain the procedures for addressing the complaint and ensure that the complainant gives his or her consent to proceeding on the basis laid down in this document.’ This implies that the Towards Healing protocol should be given to victims who come forward to the Church about their abuse.

DG was only given a copy of the Towards Healing protocol and an explanation of how it worked in 2001, when he spoke to Mr Michael Byrne, a barrister with knowledge of Towards Healing because he was a member of a Professional Standards Resource Group.

 Finding 27: Victims of child sexual abuse should be provided with sufficient information by the Church Authority on the options available to them in order to make an informed choice about how to proceed, and which must include the provision of the Towards Healing protocol.

DG said of his meeting with Brother Hill in 2000:

[The initial meeting] was not great; it felt really empty because no further information was given about my case. Br Hill said he didn’t know Br Foster and was not really able to tell me anything about the case that I didn’t know already. There was still this void around the suicide of Br Foster.766

DG said he was never given any information about Brother Foster’s whereabouts, whether he was still working when DG went to the police, whether there had been any other complaints against him and whether he had made any admissions of guilt.767

Brother Hill said, ‘I did not say that I “didn’t know Br Foster”. Such a statement would have been untrue, as I certainly had known Br Foster’.768 However he also said that he talked about Brother Foster only briefly and that ‘the only detail about Foster that I mentioned to [DG] was to confirm the suicide and also to clear up the matter of the way it was reported in local media, and I apologised to him for that’.769 Brother Hill said:

I agree that I did not tell DG anything about ‘the case’. On that day, I saw that first meeting as mainly an opportunity for DG to speak rather than for me to do so … I

88

Report of Case Study No. 4

had anticipated that I would have further meetings with DG at a later time, and, if appropriate, had in mind that I would say more at that time or those times.770

In his letter of 28 April, DG asked for a copy of the transcript of the police interview with Brother Foster about his complaint. Brother Hill did not attempt to get the transcript.771 Brother Hill knew Brother Foster’s solicitor and could have asked him or the police for the transcript.772 However, Brother Hill said ‘I could not work out what that information might be that he [DG] wanted’.773

 Finding 28: At the time of his meeting with DG, Brother Hill knew the following information about Brother Foster but did not convey it to DG:774

 Brother Foster had been withdrawn from ministry following DG’s complaint to the police.

 Brother Foster intended to plead guilty to the charges relating to DG.

 Brother Foster had left a suicide note in which he had asked for DG’s forgiveness.

 There had been other allegations against Brother Foster before DG’s complaint.

 Brother Foster had admitted to two incidents of inappropriate conduct in the 1950s.

 Finding 29: In a letter to the Marist Brothers dated 28 April 2000, DG asked for a copy of the transcripts of the police interview with Brother Foster about DG’s complaint. The Marist Brothers did not attempt to obtain those transcripts.

Brother Hill did not agree with the suggestion that ‘a compassionate response, in accordance with Towards Healing protocols, would have been to engage in a discussion which would include imparting crucial information to Mr [DG]’.775 He responded, ‘Not in that first meeting. I don’t agree, no’.776

At the end of this initial meeting, Brother Hill expressed his willingness to meet with DG again. However, he did not attempt to contact DG after this.777 Brother Hill said:

I had not initiated any further contact in that period [after the initial meeting] because DG had said that he wanted to deal with the matter in his own way and because I did not want to seem to be harassing him. However, if I were given the opportunity to revisit this complaint, I would send DG a letter summarising the outcomes of our meeting held on 11 May 2000. Such a letter would have confirmed that I was very willing to meet with DG again, if he wished to do so.778

Brother Hill’s evidence was that if he were given the opportunity to revisit this complaint, he would send DG a letter summarising the outcomes of their meeting held on 11 May 2000. This letter would have confirmed that he was very willing to meet with DG again if DG wished to do so.779

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

89

 Finding 30: The Marist Brothers did not attempt to contact DG after the initial meeting on 11 May 2000.

DG’s barrister contacts the Marist Brothers

Over a year after the initial meeting, DG retained the assistance of Mr Byrne, a barrister and a member of the Queensland Professional Standards Resource Group. Mr Byrne gave DG advice about Towards Healing and gave him a copy of the Towards Healing document.780

On 20 September 2001, Mr Byrne wrote to Brother Peter Rodney, a Marist Brother, on behalf of DG.781 The letter set out some background to DG’s complaint, and continued:

Mr DG is of course seeking some financial compensation to reimburse him for the cost of counselling incurred over many years and necessitated by the abuse, which eventually lead to the failure of his first marriage. He would like some form of apology process that could embrace his parents and family, since his raising of these issues has resulted in some degree of alienation between him, his parents and his siblings. He would like some form of public recognition of the misdeeds of his abuser in the [redacted] area, as he perceives he was identified, or at least identifiable, as the person who made the allegations in various news reports at the time of Brother Foster’s death.

My client has expressed an openness to engage in a mediation process along the lines identified in Towards Healing (the Dec 2000 version). …

As I see it this is a pastoral matter. … it would be appropriate, within the conciliatory spirit of ‘Towards Healing’, for this matter to now proceed to some resolution which recognises the destructive outcome of the abuse he suffered, and sets in place some rehabilitative outcomes.782

Brother Hill stated that this letter ‘represented - or it didn’t ‘represent’; it was a change of [DG]’s position from a rejection of the Towards Healing process to an openness to engage in the final part of the Towards Healing protocol, the mediation’.783 Brother Hill agreed that everything in the letter was consistent with Towards Healing.784 He gave evidence that at the time he understood the letter to be a request for, or an election to proceed with, the final part of the Towards Healing process.785

From this time, all correspondence with the Marist Brothers about DG’s complaint was handled by Mr Byrne or solicitors Bill Cooper & Associates, who were retained by DG sometime between September and November 2001.

On 24 October 2001, Brother Hill replied to Mr Byrne’s letter.786 He wrote:

As indicated in the notes I made I did express to him my willingness to meet further with him should he wish to do so. I have not heard from him since then, and have felt it best to leave it up to DG to initiate the next step. This he has clearly done.

90

Report of Case Study No. 4

Interestingly he has rethought his position concerning the Towards Healing process. If this means meeting with DG again in [redacted] then I will certainly do so.787

On the same day, Brother Hill forwarded this correspondence to Mr Harrison. He wrote: ‘Inevitably the question of financial compensation will arise and I will indicate that such an arrangement should be done through appropriate channels … generally involving two sets of solicitors.’788 Brother Hill gave evidence that:

By ‘appropriate channels’, I simply meant the best process by which a settlement could be achieved. DG had initially stipulated that he did not want to use Towards Healing, and Mr Byrne had referred to a mediation ‘along the lines’ identified in Towards Healing. In those circumstances some other appropriate approach, not being Towards Healing, was needed.789

Mr Byrne responded to Brother Hill’s query about whether he was DG’s independent legal adviser or whether he was acting ‘in concert with’ the Queensland Professional Standards Resource Group.790 Mr Byrne wrote:

A good example of my role is evidenced in the change you note in Mr DG in respect of the Towards Healing process. I was able to advise him of the process and provide a copy of the document and make pertinent comments on the appropriateness of the process in his case.791

On 30 October 2001, Brother Hill wrote to the principal of the school DG attended and asked for the dates that DG was enrolled at the school so that he could forward them to CCI.792 He also wrote:

I hope that we can proceed with this matter discreetly and appropriately. However I cannot guarantee that because one of the plaintiff’s initial demands is for a ‘public apology’ to be circulated in the [redacted] area. Such a demand is not unusual at the beginning of these proceedings. However I will instruct our solicitors to negotiate as best they can to keep it all out of the public eye.793

Brother Hill agreed that his objective was to keep DG’s matter out of the public eye. He gave evidence that this was ‘for the sake of the personnel at the college’.794 He also said, ‘The dilemma I was in was to respond as best I could to [DG] and to somehow reduce whatever impact a public apology would have on the innocents, the innocent people currently at that college’.795

Brother Hill said that the reason he endeavoured to avoid a public apology ‘wasn’t to protect the reputation of the Brothers so much as to protect the people at the school at the time’.796

 Finding 31: Brother Hill tried to keep DG’s matter out of the public eye. Brother Hill gave evidence that this was for the sake of the personnel currently at St Joseph’s school.

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

91

Application of Towards Healing procedures to DG’s complaint

Under Towards Healing (2000), Church personnel who receive a complaint of abuse shall forward it on to a Contact Person. The Contact Person shall in turn promptly forward it to the Director of Professional Standards.797

The role of the Director of Professional Standards was introduced following Professor Parkinson’s review of Towards Healing in 2000. Professor Parkinson recommended that the Director be given an explicit case management role because:

 ‘one of the major problems which has been experienced in the last three years is that no-one has had overall responsibility for the process of dealing with the complaints, and

 there have been many instances where Church authorities have not followed the procedures laid down in Towards Healing as fully as is desirable’.798

After Brother Hill received Mr Byrne’s letter, he did not refer DG’s complaint to the Director of the relevant Professional Standards Office as required under Towards Healing (2000).799

Brother Hill agreed that normally the Director would manage a matter and organise the facilitation.800 When Brother Hill was asked whether the Director should have managed DG’s complaint, he replied:

I can only assume that Mr Byrne, who was on the Professional Standards Resource Group in Queensland, would have informed the then Queensland Director of Professional Standards. I can’t confirm one way or the other whether that actually happened. I assumed it at the time.801

Mr Byrne informed Brother Hill on 26 October 2001 that he was a barrister acting on instructions from DG’s solicitors. Mr Byrne was not obliged to refer DG’s complaint to the Director.

We are satisfied that there was no basis for Brother Hill’s assumption that Mr Byrne would have referred DG’s complaint to the Director. We also consider that there would have been a benefit in DG’s complaint being referred to the Director of Professional Standards, if only for statistical purposes.

Under Towards Healing (2000), if a complainant wishes to proceed with Towards Healing then their matter shall be referred to a Contact Person as soon as possible.802 DG’s complaint was not referred to a Contact Person.

Brother Hill said that there was no need to refer DG’s complaint to a Contact Person because ‘there was no debate as to the facts of the matter. The Contact Person makes the initial contact in order to prepare for an assessment in the Towards Healing process’.803 He also said that Mr Byrne, DG’s barrister, had achieved what the role of the Contact Person is supposed to achieve, and that his letter combined with the police process substituted the contact report.804

92

Report of Case Study No. 4

Brother Hill gave evidence that DG’s matter was ‘not a normal Towards Healing case’. He said:

There are so many differences. First of all, it started off as a police matter. And the suicide. There’s very little resemblance between this particular case and what is envisaged in the Towards Healing protocol.805

Brother Hill said that DG had only accepted the final part of the Towards Healing process, namely the mediation.806 He said:

all the initial stages, in a sense, were irrelevant in this particular case - the Contact Person, the assessment. I mean, there was no doubt as to the facts of the complaint. There was no - it would have been illogical to go through a Contact Person, followed by an assessment stage. That, in effect, had been done by the police.807

This approach was supported to some extent by the evidence of Brother Turton, who said:

I think the term ‘contact report’ is used in different senses by different people. Some people refer to the contact report as ‘the story of what happened to me’, and that’s what the Contact Person goes to get, or they receive its equivalent. Others will see the contact report as ‘the story of what happened to me, plus a statement of what I expect, plus a statement that I am not currently involved with the police and do not want to go to the police’. But given that, I would think [the initial complaint] would be sufficient for a contact report, given that somewhere there is some expectation of what’s looked for.808

 Finding 32: The appointment of a Contact Person was not necessary in DG’s case because there was an admission by Brother Foster, and DG had already made a police statement.

The solicitors arrange a settlement conference

On 25 October 2001, Mr Harrison wrote to Mr Byrne, ‘We act on behalf of the Marist Brothers and presently have instructions in relation to this matter’.809 The letter also stated:

We write to confirm that Brother Michael Hill has issued instructions that some form of mediation process should now be put together to assist the parties to bring these issues to closure.810

Five days later, Ms Karen Mole of CCI wrote separately to Brother Hill and Mr Harrison confirming that CCI had instructed Mr Patrick Monahan of Ebsworth & Ebsworth lawyers to take over conduct and control of DG’s complaint.811

On 6 November 2001, Bill Cooper & Associates responded to Mr Harrison’s letter of 25 October 2001, confirming that they acted on behalf of DG. They wrote, ‘[DG] is willing to attend a mediation conference in order to resolve this matter at the earliest opportunity’.812 They enclosed a copy of the report of Dr Louis Salzman, a psychologist who examined DG at

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

93

the request of DG’s solicitors, and wrote, ‘Our client has indicated that he is willing to attend an independent assessment by a further psychologist if necessary.’813

Mr Monahan responded ‘we need to arrange an independent psychiatric examination of your client, and obtain a report from our independent psychiatrist’.814

CCI proposed that DG be examined by psychiatrist Dr Chalk.815 On 11 January 2002, Mr Monahan told Ms Mole of CCI that DG’s lawyers agreed to the examination but only if they were given the referral letter and Dr Chalk’s report.816 Mr Monahan said, ‘I see no reason why we should agree with this, although they have provided us (actually Carroll & O’Dea) with the report of Louis Salzman’.817

Ms Mole responded in somewhat colourful language on the same day:

I do not intend to proffer any reports to the plaintiff’s lawyer particularly without seeing them first or providing any referral letter. If they insist they can go and jump and try and get an extension and have no hope of a red cent coming their way. Should they get ‘shirty’ you might want to point out the virtually impossible task they will have of getting over this one. Besides the connection between cause and effect knowledge being earlier to 1994 when in marital therapy, the alleged offender is deceased.818

DG gave evidence that Dr Chalk examined him in early February 2002.819 He said:

The thing that really galled me was that after the appointment, which lasted a couple of hours, Dr Chalk called me back because he had been advised to ask more questions of me. He told me that he had been advised to ask me further questions. The call was at a very inconvenient time for me - my family was visiting and we had a bit of a family reunion going on and the call came during dinner time. That really stuck with me. I remember thinking: what right does a solicitor have to tell a psychiatrist to go back and ask more questions? You might be able to do that of a policeman, or something like that, but I was with Dr Chalk long enough for him to get all the information he needed. I remember he even said to me: ‘It’s a waste of time; I’m not going to change anything, but I have to ask you a few more things anyway’.820

In his statement Mr Monahan said:

On reviewing the report of Dr Chalk with my instructor from CCI, we noted that there were a number of matters which we had asked Dr Chalk to address, which he had not addressed in his report. I therefore wrote to Dr Chalk asking him to give further consideration to those particular matters and to let us have a further letter providing his comments on those issues, and other particular matters. I did not instruct or request Dr Chalk to require Mr DG to attend at his rooms again for a further consultation. It would appear, though, that Dr Chalk made that decision. I am sorry that Mr DG was inconvenienced in this way.821

DG’s lawyers told Ebsworth & Ebsworth:

94

Report of Case Study No. 4

With respect to Dr Chalk’s report, we would consider it necessary that we be provided with a copy of the report prior to any such conference so that all the relevant information is available to both parties to facilitate the exploration of settlement options.822

This letter also noted that, under the Queensland Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, both parties to the proceedings were required to disclose all expert reports.823

Mr Monahan advised Bill Cooper & Associates that his instructions were to not release a copy of Dr Chalk’s report to DG’s solicitors. He also wrote that the Queensland Uniform Civil Procedure Rules ‘are not directly relevant to this (unlitigated) matter’.824

In the same letter, Mr Monahan wrote that ‘we consider it appropriate to meet you and your client in [redacted] and to proceed by way of an informal settlement conference’.825

On 29 April 2002, Mr Monahan wrote to Bill Cooper & Associates noting that Brother Hill had retired from his position as Provincial and asking ‘whether your client would like his successor to this role, Br Alexis Turton, to attend the settlement conference’.826

Brother Turton was asked by no later than 10 May 2002 to attend DG’s settlement conference.827 He was asked to represent the Marist Brothers, to respond to DG and to convey an apology on behalf of the Marist Brothers.828

DG said:

I was initially happy that Br Turton was involved as he was a principal at a Marist Brothers school where I completed my high school and he was my physics teacher and football coach. He was recognised as an intelligent and good man.829

DG’s settlement conference

DG explained that he wanted the following from the settlement conference:

I wanted some closure. I wanted acknowledgment of the truth of the claim and I wanted reassurance that my actions had had a positive effect in removing the person who was a threat to other people - removing the person who had abused me, removing that threat from other people and other children. I didn’t receive those assurances.830

DG said that his understanding at the time was that ‘we were going along the lines of the Towards Healing process’.831 He understood that he was to attend a meeting, but he did not know that a mediation was different from a settlement conference.832 DG was not aware that the Marist Brothers regarded the settlement conference as not part of the Towards Healing process.833

When asked whether he had instructed his solicitors that he was willing to participate in an informal settlement conference or a mediation, DG said:

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

95

The difference at the time was probably not apparent to me. The difference to this day is still not grossly evident to me, in that the process was for mediation along the lines of the things that I had requested be provided.834

The settlement conference took place on 18 June 2002.835 DG’s solicitor, Ms Sara Loughlin, and barrister, Mr Byrne, were present along with Brother Turton, Ms Mole from CCI and Mr Monahan,836 who was representing CCI and the Marist Brothers.837

The meeting commenced with a discussion between Brother Turton and DG.838 After about 10 minutes, it was decided that DG and Brother Turton be excused from the room and that the financial aspect of his claim be negotiated between lawyers.839 During these negotiations, Brother Turton remained in a separate room by himself.840

In relation to the first part of the meeting, DG said:

During the meeting Br Turton said he had interviewed Br Foster about the abuse, but had no notes on or recollection of that conversation. That just stopped me in my tracks. I was disgusted. I thought: ‘you are the one person that I put my faith in. You came across to me as a good man. That’s a blatant lie, that you could go and interview a brother of yours over a sexual abuse case and then say you can’t remember a word that was spoken’.841

Brother Turton gave the following evidence in his statement:

I did not cut off Mr DG, and I did my best to answer any questions that he had. I did not say that I had no recollection or records of Br Foster’s employment or of when he stopped teaching. Such records would have been available, and if I was not able to recall such information at the time, I would have offered to find out the information …842

I did not say that I had ‘interviewed’ Br Foster about the abuse of Mr DG. Nor had I done so. When I had spoken briefly to Br Foster in 1994 about the accusation against him relating to conduct at [redacted], I had no idea that it was Mr DG who had made that accusation. I never had a conversation with Br Foster about any abuse where Mr DG was named. Mr DG may have asked whether I had spoken to Br Foster, and I may have said that I had spoken to him about an accusation relating to [redacted], as I had.843

At the time that Brother Turton attended DG’s settlement conference, he knew basic information about Brother Foster, including that he had suspended Brother Foster from teaching after he was contacted by the police.844 Brother Turton also had access to the Provincial’s records at the time, which included the records of complaints made about Brother Foster.845 Brother Turton did not recall seeing the suicide note until some years after the settlement conference.846

The handwritten record of the settlement conference reads: ‘Br Alexis Provincial 1989-95; vaguely recalls a “murmur” of Br Foster having problems’.847 Brother Turton agreed that in the settlement conference he ‘acknowledged that Brother Foster had had problems,’848 and that he did not give any substantive information about Brother Foster to DG at the conference.849

96

Report of Case Study No. 4

 Finding 33: At the time of DG’s settlement conference, the Marist Brothers’ representative knew basic details about Brother Foster, including that he had been suspended from teaching after the Police contacted him, and had access to the Provincial’s records which contained records of complaints against Brother Foster, but did not inform DG of these matters.

The Marist Brothers offered DG $36,500 in exchange for a deed of release, a written apology and a copy of Dr Chalk’s report.

The written apology was based on the draft provided by DG’s lawyers at the settlement conference. It was approved by DG’s lawyers before it was given to DG.850

In his initial letter to the Marist Brothers, Mr Byrne had written that DG ‘would like some form of public recognition of the misdeeds of his abuser in the [redacted] area, as he perceives he was identified, or at least identifiable, as the person who made the allegations in various news reports at the time of Brother Foster’s death’.851

At the settlement conference, Mr Byrne requested a ‘public apology in general terms’. DG’s lawyers provided a draft public apology to the settlement conference.852

According to Ms Mole’s handwritten note of this settlement conference, Mr Monahan (‘PJM’) raised some concerns at the prospect of a public apology.853 Brother Turton (‘Br A’) is recorded as saying, ‘Would prefer to address the family rather than write a letter. Reported his experience of newspaper/media articles from other past victims and Brothers’.854 The following exchange is then recorded:

PJM ‘Family apology’ can be done with some tweaking

‘Public Apology’ can’t be done for various reasons.

MB Wants it to readdress his hurt following the glowing Eulogy

PJM [illegible]

MB Still wants the public injury re addressed via the draft statement.

PJM We can’t see the benefit of such a general statement and will ` do more harm than good, but we will not close our minds.

KM Apologise for Eulogy in family apology??

PJM/MB Possible alternative.855

Mr Monahan could not recall specifically why he had raised concerns about a public apology during DG’s settlement conference, but he thought it would have been done on the basis of instructions from Ms Mole and Brother Turton.856 He said that his concerns at the time might have been:

Concerns about broad publicity; concerns about whether this would ultimately really be helpful to the healing of the victim and his family; possibly concerns that other

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

97

claims would arise. All of these sorts of matters, I would imagine, would have cropped up in discussion.857

In relation to his evidence that one of the concerns may have been the possibility of other claims arising as a result of the public apology, Mr Monahan was asked whether claims should be brought if they can rightly be brought.858 Mr Monahan replied, ‘Well, that’s a matter of opinion, I suppose, but representing the party that I was representing at that settlement conference, I don’t think one would regard it as desirable’, or in the interests of the Marist Brothers.859

Mr Monahan agreed that one of his concerns would have been the potential for damage to the Marist Brothers’ reputation. However, he said, ‘That was never a major focus of what motivated us, but it would certainly be one factor’.860 Mr Monahan explained, ‘we wouldn’t put the reputation of the church authority in question ahead of other interests … So you wouldn’t deny that it was a factor, because it would have to be in people’s minds, but it could not be the primary factor’.861 Mr Monahan also said:

I suspect - and I’m really not certain about this because I can’t remember the facts, so I am speculating a bit, but I suspect that we would have had a much broader discussion than what is written down on these three lines on this document about whether it really was a good idea and whether it was to his benefit, and it was obviously our impression or our view at the time that it wasn’t to the benefit of our clients.862

Brother Turton did not recall the ongoing discussion about the public and private apology and was unable to comment on Mr Monahan’s statement that there were problems with the public statement. He said, ‘I don’t quite know what that was about’.863

In relation to Ms Mole’s handwritten notes of what Brother Turton said during DG’s settlement conference, Brother Turton gave evidence that:

My reading of that - and I don’t have a detailed memory now of that - is that if an apology was to be effective for the family, it was better done personally and face to face. As to how the media would handle it, I couldn’t really make any other comment.864

Brother Turton said that it was not his understanding that the Marist Brothers refused to provide DG with a public apology. He understood that it may have been opposed because it would draw adverse publicity to the Marist Brothers.865 He said that he was not opposed to a public apology; he ‘was simply expressing a preference’.866 He also said, ‘If at the end of that discussion the victim, Mr [DG], still wanted a public apology, I think that should be considered’.867

Similarly, Brother Hill gave evidence that a person who has been abused ‘certainly should’ have the benefit of a public apology if that is what they wanted.868

In addition to financial compensation, DG initially asked for some form of apology process that could embrace his parents and family as well as some form of public recognition of the misdeeds of the abuser.869 DG’s barrister had also told the Marist Brothers:

98

Report of Case Study No. 4

As I see it this is a pastoral matter. My client has been walking and living through an interminable ‘dark night’ it would be appropriate, within the conciliatory spirit of ‘Towards Healing’, for this matter to now proceed to some resolution which recognises the destructive outcome of the abuse he suffered, and sets in place some rehabilitative outcomes.870

However, DG’s facilitation was little more than negotiations between his lawyers and CCI. DG said:

When I look back now at the Towards Healing process, I can say ‘Oh, so that’s what Towards Healing was’ and basically that I was given some money to pay for counselling and that was it. But I really did not understand at the time where Towards Healing was coming from or what I could achieve through the process - or even if I was formally part of that process. The process felt to me like it consisted of two psychological assessments, a short meeting with my barrister, and a brief meeting with all the parties before I was asked to leave the room. I was told to sign a bit of paper and to go home and not come back. I was not offered or provided with any support or counselling during the process. I found the whole thing pretty disgusting and I could never quite work out where the healing part came into it, because I certainly didn’t feel healed by that process.871

In his 2009 review of Towards Healing, Professor Parkinson observed that many cases that ostensibly come under Towards Healing are essentially a process of negotiations between lawyers or a mediation to attempt to settle the victim’s claim, and are indistinguishable from the settlement process for other civil claims.872

Professor Parkinson noted that, if the case is run by lawyers and the complainant is only seeking compensation, Towards Healing really only provides procedures for the investigation and assessment of a complaint.873 This was clearly right, as this case study demonstrates.

The Truth Justice and Healing Council has also submitted that the facilitation process, where it involves lawyers, ‘can amount to little more than negotiations between the lawyer for the victim and the lawyer for the Church Authority (or the insurer if the claim is insured) or both’.874

Towards Healing was amended in 2010 to clarify that, if a complainant chooses to be represented by a lawyer and is only seeking compensation, the complaint should not proceed through Towards Healing.875

 Finding 34: DG’s Towards Healing experience was little more than negotiations between his lawyers and CCI about money.

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

99

5 DK’s Towards Healing experience

Child sexual abuse of DK

DK was sexually abused while he was a boarder at the Marist Brothers St Augustine’s College, Cairns, between 1976 and 1981.876

In 1976, when DK was 11, his dormitory master Brother Leonidas watched DK and other male students while they showered.877 Also in 1976, one of the Brothers sexually abused DK in the infirmary at St Augustine’s College after he had cut his foot.878 This Brother made him take his pants off, fondled his genitals and tried to masturbate him.879 In late 1980 or early 1981 DK was sexually abused by Brother Ross Murrin in Brother Murrin’s dormitory.880

At the time of DK’s abuse, Brother Burns was the principal of St Augustine’s and Brother Moraghan was a teacher at the college. DK gave the following evidence:

My grade 10 dorm master, Br Andrew Moraghan, often found me in Br Murrin’s dormitory. I remember him getting very angry on these occasions. He would order me to leave Br Murrin’s dormitory, but Ross Murrin would always invite me back. I believe now that Br Moraghan was put in charge of Ross Murrin to keep an eye on him. I also believe that Br Gerald (Gerry) Burns, the Principal of St Augustine’s College, knew about Br Murrin.881

Brother Burns gave evidence that he was not aware of Brother Murrin’s behavior towards DK and that he did not condone it.882

Brother Moraghan said, ‘I can honestly say that I do not remember at any time going into Ross’s dormitory and finding Ross and [DK] in that dormitory’.883 He also said:

I was not put in charge of Br Murrin, either to ‘keep an eye on him’ or for any other reason. At no time while I was at St Augustine’s College was it suggested to me by anyone that Br Murrin was or may have been acting inappropriately towards the students, and I did not suspect that this might have been occurring.884

DK gave evidence that his academic performance suffered after Brother Murrin abused him.885 He said:

The abuse I experienced at St Augustine’s College has affected me profoundly. I have lived my whole life scared. I have difficulties trusting people and I am a very anxious person. I have terrible insomnia and have felt depressed and suicidal … I have difficulty concentrating and have struggled to work effectively over the years. Basically, I have never been able to string the consistency of life together. I have also felt a lot of anger towards my abusers and the Brothers who I feel have failed to act to ensure my safety.886

100

Report of Case Study No. 4

Other complaints against Brother Murrin

In June or July 1981, while Brother Burns was the Principal of St Augustine’s College, he received a telephone call from a man given the pseudonym Mr Smith - the father of a child given the pseudonym Y Smith who was a student at the time.887

Brother Burns gave the following evidence about this call:

I recall that Mr Smith told me that his son did not want to come back to the College. I do not recall whether or not Mr Smith told me the reason why Y Smith did not want to return.

I remember calling Y Smith into my office to discuss what his father had told me. I asked Y Smith to tell me in his own words what had happened. Y Smith told me that Br Ross [Murrin] had been touching and rubbing his chest and stomach, and the chest and stomach of another boy. He did not tell me that Br Ross had attempted to put his hands down his pants. I asked Y Smith if he could give me the name of the other boy who had been touched by Br Ross. He responded with the name of another student, DQ.888

Brother Burns spoke to ‘DQ’ shortly after his discussion with Y Smith. During that conversation, DQ told him that Brother Murrin had touched him on the chest and stomach.889 Brother Burns said that the boy who complained was ‘distressed, probably - angry’ about what had happened.890

Brother Burns gave evidence that he thought Brother Murrin’s actions were ‘quite inappropriate’ because ‘it was something - it wasn’t normal sort of behaviour. It was inappropriate for a teacher to touch a boy, touch a student, like that’.891

Brother Burns said that neither Y Smith nor DQ said anything that suggested that Brother Ross was behaving like this with anyone else; he understood that these incidents were limited to these two boys.892

After speaking with the boys, Brother Burns called Brother Murrin into his office to discuss the complaints. Brother Burns said:

I recall that Br Ross appeared shocked when I first told him of the complaints. Notwithstanding that the boys had denied it, I asked Br Ross whether he had touched the genitals of either boy and he claimed very definitely that he had not. Br Ross gave an account of what had happened that was consistent with what the boys had told me, that is, that he had rubbed them on their chests and stomachs.893

Y Smith’s father later came to the school and spoke to Brother Burns and Brother Murrin. Brother Burns said that by the time Y Smith’s father left, he was happy for his sons to stay at the school.894

Brother Murrin then met with Brother Geaney, who was the Marist Brothers’ Provincial at the time. Brother Burns said that they did not take any protective measures against

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

101

Brother Murrin ‘beyond getting an assurance from him that it wasn’t going to happen again, and speaking to him fairly regularly to see how things were going for him, but again taking his word for it’.895 The two boys were not removed from Brother Murrin’s dormitory.896 Brother Burns agreed that different protective steps should have been taken against Brother Murrin.897

 Finding 35: Brother Burns received complaints from two male students in 1981 that Brother Murrin had inappropriately touched them at St Augustine’s College, and:

 Brother Burns spoke to Brother Murrin about these complaints

 Brother Murrin admitted that he had inappropriately touched the boys

 Brother Burns informed the Provincial of the Marist Brothers about the complaint

 Brother Burns did not remove Brother Murrin from his position as dormitory master, and

 Brother Burns did not remove the complainants from Brother Murrin’s dormitory.

 Finding 36: Different protective steps should have been taken when he received two complaints in 1981 about Brother Murrin touching boys inappropriately in his dormitory.

If different protective steps had been taken by the Marist Brothers, Brother Murrin’s subsequent offending may have been avoided.

Brother Burns said that at the time of this incident a decision had already been made that Brother Murrin would leave St Augustine’s College at the end of the year.898 Brother Burns did not know whether the principal of the school that Brother Murrin was going to was told about the incidents involving Y Smith and DQ.899 Brother Burns said that he would not have seen it as his place to inform the principal because he had fully informed the Provincial.900

Brother Murrin was convicted in 2008 and again in 2010 after pleading guilty to charges of child sexual abuse at a Marist Brothers Primary School in Daceyville and St Gregory’s College, Campbelltown, Sydney.901 These convictions were unrelated to DK.

Brother Burns said that he first became aware of other allegations of improper conduct against Brother Murrin when he was convicted in 2008.902

DK contacts the Marist Brothers

Initial contact

In November 2009, DK rang the Marist Brothers and spoke to Brother Turton about the abuse he suffered at St Augustine’s College.903 He told Brother Turton about the sexual abuse by Brothers Leonidas and Murrin, but he did not disclose the identity of the Brother who abused him in 1976 in the infirmary.904

102

Report of Case Study No. 4

On 19 November 2009, Brother Turton informed the Marist Brothers Provincial, Brother Geoffrey Crowe, the New South Wales Professional Standards Office and the solicitor used by the Marist Brothers, Mr Harrison, about DK’s complaint.905

On 25 November 2009, Brother Turton sent an email to Brother Crowe and Mr Harrison. He wrote, ‘Regarding this man DK I have a feeling that we need to respond fairly quickly’ and noted that he suspected a Canberra lawyer, Mr Jason Parkinson, had been in touch with DK.906 He also wrote that he thought there would be benefit in DK speaking to Brother Rodney and Brother Burns, who taught at St Augustine’s at the same time as Brother Murrin. Brother Turton wrote, ‘I think that both acted well in the circumstances of Murrin’s earlier offences at Cairns’.907

On 15 February 2010, DK called Brother Turton. Brother Turton outlined the main steps in Towards Healing and DK said that he was happy to proceed with Towards Healing.908 Brother Turton also told DK that Brother Murrin would probably acknowledge that there had been inappropriate contact and that an assessment would probably not be needed.909

During this call, Brother Turton also urged DK to take his matter to the police, but DK did not want to. Brother Turton told DK he would need a signed statement of DK’s story and a signed acknowledgement that he had been urged to take his matter to the police.910

The next day, Brother Turton sent an email to Mr Joseph Bucci of CCI. He wrote, ‘At this stage I have not taken up this matter with Towards Healing but my intention would be to do it through Michael Salmon given all the changes taking place in the QPSO office at the moment. I am sure Michael would be happy to run with it’.911 He also wrote, ‘No assessment has been carried out although I have no doubt that the events did occur’.912

On 17 February 2010, DK wrote to Brother Turton setting out the outcomes he wanted from the Towards Healing process:

 I would like to meet with Brothers Gerald, Peter Rodney and Andrew. I would like to calmly and logically confront them and resolve Issues that I have with them. I feel that they were aware of the abuse at the school and covered it up. I also feel that they punished me for Ross Murrin’s actions.

 I would like to meet with Brother Michael Green and then be provided with evidence that the school has some policy/mechanism going forward to deal appropriately with child sexual abuse, both historical and contemporary.

 I would like a cash compensation payment for the damage that I have suffered as a result of abuse at St Augustine’s. As you know, I have told my story to a solicitor with experience in this injury. His advice to me in relation to a compensation claim is in the vicinity up to $200,000.

 I would also like any future psychiatric/psychological treatment in relation to dealing with this matter covered.

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

103

 I would like to know how the Marist Brothers and indeed the Church in general is dealing with the issue of child sexual abuse. I hope that this issue is being dealt with correctly.913

DK also told Brother Turton that he would like to complete his Towards Healing process during March of that year.914

Brother Turton wrote to the principal of St Augustine’s College and asked what policies and procedures the school had for dealing with child sexual abuse. He wrote, ‘I’d appreciate any guidance or policy which you can give me that I can pass on to DK’.915

The Marist Brothers’ approach to the Towards Healing procedures in DK’s case

Brother Turton was appointed as the first Director of Professional Standards for the Marist Brothers in around January 2002.916 As Director, Brother Turton was directly answerable to the Provincial and was responsible for managing professional standards claims on a day-to-day basis. In this role he was responsible for communicating with the victims, other Professional Standards Offices, lawyers, and CCI about the resolution of claims.917

This position is distinct from the State Director of Professional Standards.918 When asked why the Marist Brothers created their own position of Director of Professional Standards, Brother Turton said, ‘My understanding is that many orders have a person in the order who deals with professional standards matters’.919

Brother Turton said that, where a victim had already provided a written account of their complaint, he would discuss whether that could be used as the Towards Healing ‘contact report’ with the State PSO.920 Brother Turton also said that the PSO would usually determine whether an assessor needed to be appointed and would consider possible Facilitators. After this, he would take responsibility for the matter.921

In DK’s case, Brother Turton considered that DK’s written statement and email of 17 February 2010 constituted the contact report for the purposes of Towards Healing (2010).922 Brother Turton said that he was not technically the Contact Person as envisaged by the Towards Healing protocol.923 He said that ‘there wasn’t a Contact Person, per se’ because the contact report was ‘already done’.924

Brother Turton gave evidence that in the first conversation he had with DK, DK had said to him: ‘Oh, so you are going to deflect me to another office again?’ During that discussion Brother Turton ‘got the impression that he wanted to deal directly with the brothers in processing his claim, and that’s the way it followed through’.925

Because of this, Brother Turton did not formally refer DK’s matter to the State Professional Standards Office for case management after DK expressed a desire to engage in Towards Healing in February 2010.926 He agreed that pursuant to the provisions of Towards Healing (2010) he should have done so.927

104

Report of Case Study No. 4

Brother Turton managed DK’s complaint with the full acknowledgment and knowledge of Mr Salmon.928 The only time Mr Salmon performed the role of Director of Professional Standards on DK’s complaint was when he referred DK’s complaint to the police.929

Mr Salmon said he did not insist that Brother Turton refer DK’s matter to him in accordance with Towards Healing (2010) because he formed the view that Brother Turton was engaging pastorally with DK, and that this was appropriate.930 Mr Salmon said:

Mr DK had made his complaint directly to the Church Authority, namely Brother Turton. The 2010 edition of Towards Healing envisaged that in such circumstances the complaint would be referred to the Director of Professional Standards, who would then appoint a Contact Person. In this case, although I was the NSW Director of Professional Standards, Br Turton asked me to act as Facilitator. He had already had considerable interaction with Mr DK and was, in effect, functioning as the Contact Person envisaged under Towards Healing. He was also in practical terms carrying out the tasks which Towards Healing envisaged for the Director of Professional Standards, in a more typical case … In all those circumstances, it was possible to move almost immediately to the facilitation phase of the process envisaged in the Towards Healing protocol.931

Brother Turton accepted that he did not follow the Towards Healing procedure exactly, and gave evidence that ‘I acknowledge that I would not be as involved in each of those steps, certainly it’s not appropriate’.932

Identity of unnamed Brother at the St Augustine’s infirmary

When DK reported his abuse to the Marist Brothers, he told them about an incident of abuse by an unnamed Brother at the infirmary in St Augustine’s College.

On 18 February 2010, Brother Turton sent an email to Mr Salmon and CCI. He wrote:

[DK] mentions a totally separate case of specific sexual abuse in the College infirmary. I raised this issue with him after reading his statement and he indicated that this is not an issue for him and he does not want that to be part of the whole mediation process.933

On 2 March 2010, Brother Turton wrote to DK:

If I can email you some photos of some of the Brothers who were there at the time would you be happy to see if you can identify the man whom you encountered in the infirmary in 1976? We don’t have photos of everyone but I can copy some out of the 1981 magazine.934

In this email, Brother Turton listed 14 names of Brothers who were staff in 1976.935

On 3 March 2010, DK responded to Brother Turton that there was no need for the photos - he knew exactly who it was from the names. He said he would discuss it with Brother Turton on 30 March 2010.936

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

105

On the same day, Brother Turton wrote to Mr Bucci of CCI:

DK indicates that he knows from the names that I sent him who the person referred to in his first year of Cairns in the infirmary might be. I am quite sure that it is Br Anthony. Due to some totally internal matters with the Marist Brothers Br Anthony Hunt has acknowledged that there were some difficulties in his career and that did include Cairns. He did not mention the name DK but given that he was the afterhours infirmarian and that DK specifically mentions the infirmary I am sure that is who it is. I am not inclined to push him at this stage to mention the name as he seems to wish to hold it till the 30th but if you wish to raise a file then that would be the name.937

A handwritten document entitled ‘Possible Sources of Complaints re Professional Standards’ and signed by Brother Anthony Hunt on 10 October 2009 lists:

 three names under ‘Ashgrove (1964-67)’

 five names under ‘Mittagong (1968-73)’

 four names and the word ‘others?’ under ‘Cairns (1976-83)’

 one name under ‘Lismore (1984-88)’

 five names under ‘Lololima (2006-2009)’, which have the words ‘Application with gauze pad of Whitfield’s Ointment to fungal infection in groin area’ beside them.

The document ends with the words: ‘This is as accurate as I can make it at this point.’938 DK is not named on this list. Brother Turton said that Brother Hunt posted this list to him. He said that he does not recall discussing it with Brother Hunt but presumes that he did.939 He would have given this list to the Provincial at the time, but he does not recall giving a copy to the police.940

On 18 March 2010, Mr Monahan wrote to Brother Turton, ‘In anticipation that the facilitation will also address the claim concerning the person who you have now identified as Br Anthony Hunt, could you please send down to me (and also to Joe) all material which you hold relating to Br Anthony Hunt’.941 On the same day, Mr Monahan also wrote to Mr Bucci:

DK has also mentioned to Br Alexis Turton some other episode (details still not fully clear) which occurred to him at the hands of the Brother working in the infirmary in 1976. Br Alexis has now satisfied himself that this is a reference to Br Anthony Hunt.942

On 24 March 2010, Brother Turton wrote to Mr Bucci, ‘Hunt is the man I am sure DK is referring to in the infirmary incident even though at this stage HE HAS NOT NAMED HIM [emphasis in original]’.943

On 26 March 2010, Mr Monahan wrote to Mr Bucci, ‘I recommend that we attempt to settle this claim below $100,000 at the TH facilitation, with the settlement sum to be allocated between the two separate claim files which you have opened, one for Br Anthony Hunt and one for Br Ross Murrin’.944

106

Report of Case Study No. 4

After DK’s facilitation, Brother Turton wrote to Brother Hunt:

Just a short note to let you know that I met with an ex student of Cairns whom I had mentioned to you on the phone some time ago … He also had a complaint regarding the infirmary at the College. It seemed to be consistent with other things that we have talked about and we accepted what he said. As a result he was able to sign a Deed of Release and the matter was settled.945

Data held by the Marist Brothers and the National Committee for Professional Standards records that DK made a claim against Brother Murrin and Brother Hunt.946 Similarly, data that CCI gave to the Royal Commission about claims for child sexual abuse records two claims by DK.947 The data also records that the claim against Brother Hunt was accepted.

Brother Turton gave evidence that he ‘accepted that Brother Anthony fitted the description of the brother in the infirmary’ and that he communicated this to CCI.948 Brother Turton said that he specifically asked Brother Hunt about DK’s complaint and that Brother Hunt ‘never admitted to me that he was the person who was the abuser. He admitted that he was in the infirmary. He told me that he did not recall [DK]’.949

Brother Hunt made a statement to the Royal Commission in which he said:

I deny that I ever sexually abused DK. I have never fondled his genitals or tried to masturbate him. I did not take him to my dormitory, in 1976 I did not have charge of a dormitory. I do not ever recall treating DK for any injury. I do not ever recall asking DK to take off his pants on any occasion. I do not recall having any particular association with DK at all.950

DK gave evidence that ‘I now understand that the Marist Brothers concluded that Brother Anthony Hunt abused me in the infirmary. In 2009, I did not name this person who abused me when I cut my foot’.951 He also said:

I had thought that it was another one of the brothers, but I may now never know. Nothing was discussed with me during Towards Healing. I should have been told.952

Brother Turton said he had a ‘strong sense’ that he did ask DK whether Brother Hunt was the brother who had abused him in the infirmary, but that he ‘couldn’t swear to it’.953

Brother Turton did not mention Brother Hunt at DK’s facilitation.954

We are satisfied that Brother Turton did not ask DK whether Brother Hunt was the Brother who abused him in the infirmary, because:

 there is no contemporaneous record of Brother Turton asking DK about Brother Hunt

 Brother Turton gave evidence that he could not be certain whether he had asked DK

 the evidence of DK, DL and Brother Turton establishes that Brother Hunt’s name was not mentioned during the facilitation.

We accept that, in light of DK’s evidence, it was not Brother Hunt who abused DK in the infirmary.

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

107

We note that the Marist Brothers informed CCI that they thought Brother Hunt had abused DK in circumstances where Brother Hunt said he did not know DK and DK was not asked whether it was Brother Hunt who had abused him.

 Finding 37: It was not Brother Anthony Hunt who abused DK in the infirmary.

Arrangements for facilitation

On 18 February 2010, Brother Turton spoke at length with DK about a Towards Healing facilitation of his complaint.955 Brother Turton strongly recommended that DK should have a lawyer look at the deed of release. He told DK that the Marist Brothers would pay the moderate costs of a lawyer attending the facilitation.956 Brother Turton’s file note of the conversation records:

We discussed his meeting with Brothers Gerald, Peter Rodney and Andrew. He is aware that Peter Rodney is overseas and is happy to speak to him when he returns. In the meantime he is very keen to meet with Gerald and Andrew in the same conversation with a mediator present as soon as possible.957

On the same day Brother Turton emailed DK a copy of the Student Protection Protocol for the Diocese of Cairns, Brother Turton also reiterated his recommendation that DK obtain legal advice on the deed of release.958

DK subsequently told Brother Turton that he had asked a barrister, DL, to attend the facilitation. He asked the Marist Brothers to cover DL’s costs.959 Brother Turton responded that he did not see any problems with DL attending. He said it ‘May mean we have a legal person there as well in case it gets into serious legal speak. We would cover his fare and fees for the day’.960

Brother Turton forwarded this correspondence to Mr Bucci from CCI. He noted that he was not sure that they needed to have a psychiatric assessment of DK but that he had tentatively booked DK with Professor Harvey Whiteford. He asked for Mr Bucci’s thoughts on that matter.961 Professor Whiteford subsequently assessed DK at CCI’s request.962

Brother Turton and DK corresponded about whether DK could be given a copy of Professor Whiteford’s psychiatric report. Brother Turton told DK that he would discuss this request with Professor Whiteford.963

On 25 February 2010, Brother Turton visited Brother Murrin in prison. Brother Murrin initially told Brother Turton that he did not remember his relationship with DK being in any way sexual.964 However, after this visit, Brother Murrin wrote to Brother Turton acknowledging that the incident that DK complained of had occurred.965

108

Report of Case Study No. 4

On 1 March 2010, Mr Bucci wrote to Brother Turton informing him that CCI’s public liability policy would cover the sexual assault components of his claim against Brother Leonidis and Brother Murrin. He wrote:

We have referred the matter to Mr Patrick Monahan from Monahan + Rowell Lawyers who will protect the interests of CCI and the Trustees of the Marist Brothers in these matters. Patrick will be in contact with you shortly to discuss management and progression of this matter and will keep us both informed of developments as they arise.966

The following day Mr Salmon called DK to introduce himself as Facilitator and spoke to him about the facilitation.967

On 18 March 2010, Brother Turton wrote to Brother Rodney, DK’s teacher at St Augustine’s College, about DK’s complaint. Brother Turton noted that DK claimed that many of the students knew about Brother Murrin’s behavior. He asked when Brother Rodney came to know or suspect Brother Murrin’s behaviour at St Augustine’s. He also asked whether Brother Rodney had any comment on the drop in DK’s marks while he was in Brother Rodney’s class.968

Brother Rodney responded to Brother Turton:

As to his belief that Ross’ behaviour was ‘common knowledge’ among the Brothers and boys, I cannot speak for the boys. As I think I said to you, I have a recollection of a conversation with Ross in the staff room/ printing room one evening. But I cannot fix the year. At that time a boy in Ross’s dorm (Year 8 - I think) must have made a complaint to Gerry. Then and now I was not aware of the details of the complaint. For whatever reason, Ross felt the need to explain his side of the story. This was that the boy misunderstood/misinterpreted Ross’ actions. I must admit that at this distance I cannot remember clearly what those ‘actions’ were. My vague recollection is that Ross touched the boy and that the boy ‘misinterpreted’ Ross’ intention …

In summary Alex, at no time in my years in Cairns did I know or suspect Ross of any misbehaviour. It was only after Ross’ actions in other places came to public knowledge did the ‘penny’ drop for me as to what the ‘misunderstanding’ might really have been.969

On 25 March 2010, DK suggested that the Marist Brothers’ solicitor and the CCI case manager sit in on the pastoral session of the facilitation so that he did not have to repeat his story.970 Brother Turton made arrangements accordingly.971

A Facilitator is appointed

Brother Turton spoke with DK on 22 February 2010. Before this call, Brother Turton had drafted an email to DK in which he explained that Mr Salmon was the Director of Professional Standards. After speaking with DK, Brother Turton wrote on the bottom of this

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

109

draft email: ‘PS This was not sent as a long conversation was held with DK 22nd February 2010 and above was explained.’972

Brother Turton told Mr Salmon the next day that he had raised the possibility of Mr Salmon acting as Facilitator with DK. Brother Turton said he had clearly pointed out to DK that ‘Mr Salmon was employed by the Church to oversee the implementation of Towards Healing and was an experienced and qualified mediator. DK saw no trouble with this’.973

Brother Turton gave evidence that, because of an earlier experience, he was aware of the possibility of a perception of conflict if Mr Salmon acted as Facilitator. He gave evidence that he therefore deliberately took steps to raise Mr Salmon’s position with DK.974

On 23 February 2010, Brother Turton asked Mr Salmon to mediate DK’s Towards Healing facilitation.975 Mr Salmon agreed.976 Mr Salmon also agreed to contact the police ‘in the conventional notification process that we have regarding this matter mentioning the complaint against Murrin but not mentioning the name of the complainant.’977 He did this on 24 February 2010.978

Mr Salmon gave evidence that he telephoned DK on or about 2 March 2010. He said that he wanted to reassure DK that the mediation process would be independent. He did this because he understood from his discussions with Brother Turton that DK was suspicious of the Church.979 Mr Salmon said that during this call he told DK:

Even though I am employed by the Church in another capacity, my role is to be an honest broker and to get the best outcome. It is not my role to protect the backside of the Marist Brothers.980

Mr Salmon gave evidence that ‘Mr DK indicated that he did not have a problem with me mediating the complaint’.981

We note that neither Mr Salmon’s file note of his telephone conversation with DK on 2 March 2010, nor his file note of his conversation with DK on 28 May 2010, record that he informed DK of his position as Director of Professional Standards.982

DK gave evidence that he spoke to Mr Salmon on two or three occasions before the facilitation. He said that Mr Salmon did not tell him that he was employed by the Church, and that he described himself as independent.983

On 18 March 2010, Mr Monahan wrote to Mr Bucci:

Mr Salmon has been engaged directly by Br Alexis Turton as the Facilitator. Because of the potential for perceived conflict, Br Alexis says that he has checked this clearly with DK, who is happy to proceed on this basis.984

We note that neither Brother Turton nor Mr Salmon wrote to DK about Mr Salmon’s position or asked him to consent in writing to Mr Salmon acting as Facilitator.

110

Report of Case Study No. 4

The Towards Healing (2010) protocol

Towards Healing (2010) provides that ‘The Director of Professional Standards should not normally participate in the facilitation process’.985 A footnote to this clause states that the Director may participate in the facilitation if approval is given in accordance with clause 39.5. Clause 39.5 provides:

With the written approval of the Executive Officer of the National Committee for Professional Standards, the Director may depart from these processes if to do so would better accord with the principles in the special circumstances of the case.986

Mr Salmon agreed that the effect of these provisions is that the Director of Professional Standards should not normally participate in a facilitation. However, if they do, they need to get the written approval of the National Committee.987 He said:

I did not obtain the written approval of the Executive Officer to mediate this complaint. I did not consider it necessary to do so in circumstances where I believed Mr DK had been informed of my position by Br Turton as the Church Authority and had consented to me acting as the mediator.

In any event, given my experience mediating complaints and my discussions with the current and previous Executive Officers in relation to similar circumstances, I was confident that in circumstances such as these consent would be given by the Executive Officer.988

Brother Turton gave evidence that at the time he did not turn his mind to this clause of Towards Healing (2010) and that this was an ‘oversight.’989

 Finding 38: Mr Salmon did not act consistently with Towards Healing (2010) in that he acted as Facilitator without having obtained approval in accordance with clause 39.5 of Towards Healing (2010).

Mr Salmon agreed that the reason that Towards Healing (2010) requires the Director to obtain written approval before participating in a facilitation was that the Director may have a conflict of interest, or there may be a perception that the Director has a conflict and is not independent of the Church.990

Mr Salmon understood that there may be a perception of a conflict of interest if the Director acts as the Facilitator.991

Brother Turton agreed that a Facilitator must be impartial in order to be effective and that the Facilitator should be seen to be fair and impartial.992 He agreed that having a Director of Professional Standards act as a Facilitator inherently raises the potential for a perception that there is a conflict of interest.993 Brother Turton said that, on reflection, he would have recommended a Facilitator who was totally unconnected with the Church.994

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

111

However, Mr Salmon gave evidence that it is appropriate for a Director of Professional Standards to act as the Facilitator in a Towards Healing facilitation if:

 the victim knows the Director’s position and makes an informed decision995

 the Director obtains written consent from the victim,996 and

 the Director obtains the written approval of the Executive Officer of the National Professional Standards Committee.997

When asked whether he will continue to accept requests that he act as a Facilitator in Towards Healing facilitations, Mr Salmon said:

I will certainly consider it deeply and I will look at all the issues, and if I feel that the request in all the interests - in all the circumstances may be beneficial or would be beneficial, prima facie beneficial, to the complainant, then I would take it to the executive officer.998

Mr Salmon said that a Towards Healing facilitation differs from a traditional mediation. As a result, the principles of neutrality and impartiality do not necessarily apply to Towards Healing Facilitators.999 He said that Towards Healing facilitations are aimed at getting the best result for the victim, and the Facilitator can play a proactive role in achieving this.1000

We have considered the experiences of four individuals with Towards Healing from 1996 to 2010. We have also had the benefit of a submission from the Truth Justice and Healing Council to an issues paper published by the Royal Commission concerning redress.1001

From that material, and the evidence in this case study, it seems to us that there can be little difference between a traditional mediation and a Towards Healing facilitation. The 2010 version of the Protocol uses the language of ‘mediation’ as well as ‘facilitation’. The Truth Justice and Healing Council’s submission described the role of CCI in facilitations as ‘negotiating with the solicitors for the plaintiff as to quantum’.1002 Mr Salmon’s evidence was also that the financial part of a facilitation occurs like a mediation of a legal claim.1003 Finally, DL, and experience barrister, described DK’s facilitation as a mediation.1004

Victims may find it difficult to trust those in positions of authority and are often in a vulnerable position during a facilitation.1005 They may not always choose to have a lawyer present and may be required to sign a deed of release at the end of the facilitation.1006

In light of these matters, we accept that it is particularly important that a Towards Healing Facilitator is neutral and independent of the Church or at least that the victim has agreed in writing that he or she will accept a Facilitator who is employed by, or otherwise part of, the Church Authority.

We are satisfied that having a Director of Professional Standards act as a Facilitator in a Towards Healing facilitation raises a real potential for an actual or perceived conflict of interest given that the Director is employed by the Catholic Church.

112

Report of Case Study No. 4

 Finding 39: A Director of Professional Standards acting as a Facilitator in a Towards Healing facilitation raises a real potential for an actual or perceived conflict of interest given that the Director is employed by the Catholic Church.

 Finding 40: A Director should not act as a Facilitator unless:

 the victim knows the Director’s position and makes an informed decision

 the Director obtains written consent from the victim

 the Director obtains the written approval of the Executive Officer of the National Professional Standards Committee.

The Facilitation

DK’s facilitation took place on 30 March 2010. Present at the facilitation were DK, his wife, DL (DK’s barrister), Mr Salmon, Brother Turton, Brother Moraghan, Brother Burns, the solicitor Mr Monahan and Mr Bucci of CCI.

There was a pastoral session in the morning with the Brothers. Negotiations on settlement took place in the afternoon. Mr Salmon acted as the Facilitator.

The negotiations on settlement were conducted while DK, his wife and DL were in one room and CCI and the Church Authority were in another. Mr Salmon moved between the two rooms and communicated the offers to DK.1007

DK was ultimately offered $88,000 subject to his signing a deed of release, which he accepted.1008

Brother Turton apologised to DK at the facilitation and also undertook to put the apology in writing and send it to DK, which he did.1009 Brother Turton also read out an apology from Brother Murrin.1010

Before sending DK the written apology from the Marist Brothers, Brother Turton sent the draft apology to Mr Monahan, who responded, ‘apology looks fine to me, br alexis, and does not contain any overt “admissions” of particular allegations that could be used against us in future matters if he hands it over to Parkinson or other claimants’.1011

DK gave evidence that he felt the facilitation meeting had helped him, and that he felt somewhat better afterwards.1012

On 3 May 2010, DK wrote to Brother Turton, thanking him for his letter of apology. He wrote, ‘For some reason now I am just not so angry, I feel that I am able to let it all go. To that extent, the fact that they [Brothers Burns and Moraghan] were able to be present on the day was extremely helpful’.1013

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

113

DK wanted information from the Marist Brothers about their knowledge of abuse at St Augustine’s

We accept that before DK’s facilitation, Brother Turton and Mr Salmon were aware that DK wanted information from the Brothers about whether they were aware of Brother Murrin’s behaviour at St Augustine’s College at that time. This is based on the following evidence.

Brother Turton’s file note of the original call of complaint from DK states:

He [DK] also considered that many people at the school were aware of RM’s activity and that there were other victims. He believed that a number of the Brothers were aware of Murrin’s activity and protected him sometimes by bullying people who might have been prepared to make complaints.1014

Mr Harrison’s file note of a meeting with Brother Turton on 26 November 2009 states:

The plan is for [DK] to meet with Brother Gerald and Brother Peter Rodney who can explain what was known and what was not known at the time.1015

Brother Turton’s file note of a telephone conversation with DK on 15 February 2010 states:

After the discussion about Towards Healing [DK] indicated that he had three main objectives:

a) He would like to have a meeting with Peter Rodney, Gerry Burns and Andrew Moraghan as he wanted to clarify for himself how much they knew at the time and whether or not they were trying to protect RM from any allegations.1016

An email dated 17 February 2010 from DK to Brother Turton states:

I would like to meet with Brothers Gerald, Peter Rodney and Andrew. I would like to calmly and logically confront them and resolve issues that I have with them. I feel that they were aware of the abuse at the school and covered it up. I also feel that they punished me for Ross Murrin’s actions.1017

Mr Salmon gave evidence that before the facilitation he was aware that DK wanted to know about Brother Murrin’s involvement with other students.1018

Brother Burns gave evidence that he was asked to attend DK’s facilitation and that he did not see anything in writing before the facilitation. He said:

I had the impression that my being there was to add what I could, because I’d been there and been principal at the time - anything I could contribute, but with the emphasis on what had happened to [DK]. I don’t - quite honestly, I don’t remember at that time thinking that it had anything to do with Murrin.1019

Brother Moraghan gave evidence that he attended DK’s facilitation because Brother Turton asked him to. He could not recall being told the reason for his attendance, other than that DK had made allegations against Brother Murrin and that DK was in Brother Morghan’s dormitory.1020

114

Report of Case Study No. 4

 Finding 41: Brother Turton and Mr Salmon knew that DK wanted the Marist Brothers to respond during his facilitation to his concerns that many people at St Augustine’s knew of Brother Murrin’s behaviour and that there were other victims.

1981 incident involving Brother Murrin

Brother Burns did not tell DK about his knowledge of and involvement in the 1981 incident involving Brother Murrin, which is detailed above, during DK’s facilitation.1021

During the hearing, an issue arose as to whether the discussion during this pastoral session raised Brother Burns’ knowledge of, and involvement in, the 1981 incident.

DK gave the following evidence in response to questions from Senior Counsel representing the Marist Brothers:

Q. I want to ask you this, Mr [DK], for your comment more generally. Could this be the position: the abuse you suffered as a boy has obviously affected you very deeply?

A. Absolutely.

Q. For many years, you believed that some of the other brothers - not the abusers themselves, but some of the other brothers - either knew about it or should have suspected and investigated?

A. I think they knew of abuse. They may or may not have known about me, but I think they certainly knew about the abuse that was going on at St Augustine’s.

Q. Thirdly, at the facilitation meeting, two of those brothers - Brother Burns and Brother Moraghan - were there to face up to your accusations in that regard?

A. Absolutely, and I appreciated them being there.

Q. They both said that they had not known of the abuse, didn’t they?

A. About any abuse?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, they both said that.1022

DK agreed with Senior Counsel that he went into ‘considerable detail’ in the discussions he had with Brothers Burns and Moraghan during the facilitation.1023 DK gave evidence that ‘I always believed they knew what was going on at St Augustine’s’, and agreed with the proposition put by Senior Counsel that he said this ‘in very plain terms at the meeting.’1024

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

115

Brother Burns’ evidence

Brother Burns disputed that DK had asked the Brothers about whether they had known or suspected that Brother Murrin was abusing boys at St Augustine’s.

When asked why he did not raise his knowledge of the 1981 incident during DK’s facilitation, Brother Burns said, ‘I don’t remember any question to me from [DK] that would have elicited that response’ and ‘I wasn’t asked about it’.1025 He also said, ‘I don’t remember him ever saying directly did I know about that, or even indirectly’.1026

Brother Burns also gave the following evidence:

 he does not believe that he evaded this issue at DK’s facilitation1027

 if DK had asked a question ‘about whether I knew about the 1981 thing … I would have been open about it’1028

 ‘I can’t accept that at that session on the mediation morning, that I denied any knowledge of the other case of Ross Murrin dealing with those other two people’.1029

Brother Burns gave evidence that his overall memory of the pastoral session was that it was a frank and open discussion. He said, ‘Mr DK seemed to me to have prepared carefully the things that he wanted to talk about and my sense at the end was that he felt satisfied that he had raised his issues’.1030

Brother Burns stated that he and Brother Moraghan ‘responded at some length to questions and allegations made by Mr DK’ and that ‘I believed that it was a very honest and open exchange’.1031

Brother Burns said that his memory of the session was that it focused on DK and the abuse he had suffered. He believed that DK’s main line of questioning was about why he did not take steps to do something about the fact that DK’s marks in one subject declined enormously in the last semester.1032

Brother Burns said:

I presumed from the way he was talking that he knew what had happened, and I assumed he knew that I knew what had happened, but I don’t remember him questioning me in a way that would overtly have wanted me to say, ‘Yes, I do remember that at that time I was aware of it’, because I had to be aware of it. I talked to the boys.1033

He also said:

I was assuming at that session that he knew, and that he knew I knew about Murrin’s behaviour. He claims, you know, it was talked about among the boys at school.1034

When asked why he thought DK knew of the 1981 incident before the facilitation, Brother Burns said ‘One of the main things would be the fact that he says in his statements that the kids all knew’.1035 Brother Burns then gave evidence that he was ‘not sure’ what his source of knowledge was.1036 He said:

116

Report of Case Study No. 4

It may have been from discussion with Turton. It may - had that been the case, I’m obviously a bit confused about the dates of his first statement that I saw, and this was after the interview with Monahan. I’m finding it a bit hard to put those things together. But I see your point, that when I said before I saw it in his written statement that that may not be accurate. But I was very aware of it, and he wasn’t asking what did happen. I suspect, now that I come to think of it, when he was talking about us not protecting him, and so on - no, look, I’d better not say that because it’s fuzzy.1037

However, we note that:

 Brother Burns could not identify the source of this knowledge

 Brother Burns did not address this knowledge in his statement to the Royal Commission

 while DK’s Towards Healing statement says he remembered hearing that Brother Murrin had abused a grade 8 boy, the details he provides there are significantly different from Brother Burns’ evidence of the 1981 incident - in particular:

 the 1981 incident did not occur on camp

 Brother Murrin was not removed as dormitory master following this incident.

DK’s Towards Healing statement that was prepared in or around February 2010, and states:

I remember hearing that Br Ross had sexually abused a Grade 8 boy from his dorm on a school camp, and that the boy’s parents had reported it to the Brothers I remember finding out in front of the refectory before breakfast one morning. The whole school was talking about it. From memory, Brother Ross was removed as the dorm master following this incident.

At the end of 1981, Br Gerald and Br Murrin were transferred. It was generally known amongst the boarders that it was because of the Grade 8 boy’s parents complaining.1038

Mr Salmon’s evidence

Shortly after DK’s facilitation, Mr Salmon wrote a file note, which stated:

The first meeting was attended by all the persons noted above, and it was designed to allow DK the opportunity to air his issues directly with Brs Moraghan and Burns concerning his suspicion that they knew of Murrin’s inappropriate behaviour and did not act to protect DK.

The meeting also allowed the particular Brothers to respond which essentially was that at the time they had no knowledge of Murrin’s unacceptable behaviour and nor did they accept that they should have known.1039

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

117

In his initial statement to the Royal Commission, Mr Salmon wrote:

During this time, his [DK’s] primary concern appeared to be with the behaviour of the two Brothers who were present rather than Br Murrin. Mr DK said ‘You must have known about the behaviour of Br Murrin. You did not provide him with enough support. You did not help him and you did not help me.’1040

Either Br Burns or Br Moraghan or both said ‘I had no idea about the abuse. I regret that it is your view that we knew about Br Murrin’s behaviour. I had no idea that he was a risk. If I had known, I would have done something about it. I am shocked. I regret and am mortified that these things happened to you.’1041

Mr DK gradually accepted that the Brothers had not actually known about the abuse. However, he indicated that notwithstanding that knowledge of child sexual abuse in the late 1970s was less than it was now, he did not necessarily accept that they should not have been more perceptive about what was happening to him.1042

Around 6 pm on 23 January 2014, after Brothers Burns and Moraghan had given evidence before the Royal Commission, counsel for the Truth Justice and Healing Council requested that solicitors of Gilbert + Tobin speak to Mr Salmon about his file note of DK’s facilitation.1043 She stated, ‘Depending on his comments, we may wish to prepare a short supplementary statement for him tomorrow morning’.1044

Gilbert + Tobin were the solicitors for the Marist Brothers and the New South Wales Professional Standard Office, amongst others. They did not represent Mr Salmon personally.1045

Mr Salmon ultimately signed a supplementary statement on DK’s facilitation on the morning of 24 January 2014. Mr Salmon gave the following evidence in this statement:

In referring to whether the two Brothers had knowledge of Murrin’s ‘inappropriate behaviour’ and ‘unacceptable behaviour’ in the Mediation File Note, I was referring to whether they had knowledge of inappropriate or unacceptable behaviour by Ross Murrin towards Mr DK. I was not referring to whether they had knowledge of inappropriate or unacceptable behaviour by Ross Murrin towards any other persons …

I do not recall Mr DK asking Brs Moraghan or Burns at the mediation about whether they had knowledge of Ross Murrin having engaged in sexually abusive behaviour towards other students. Nor do I recall either Br Burns or Br Moraghan denying that they had any knowledge of Ross Murrin having abused other students.

The references in paragraph 48(c) of my First Statement to ‘the abuse’ are references to the abuse suffered by Mr DK.1046

Mr Salmon was questioned at length about his supplementary statement. During this questioning, the issue of whether DK had expressed concern at the facilitation about the abuse of others at St Augustine’s became contested.

118

Report of Case Study No. 4

Mr Salmon gave the following evidence:

 he wrote the file note dated 30 March 2010 on or about the day of DK’s facilitation1047

 the file note was a summary of the main parts of the facilitation that he remembered and thought were important1048

 when he wrote his first statement, the only record he had of DK’s facilitation was his file note

 when he wrote his first statement, the only record he had of DK’s facilitation was his file note

 to the extent that his statement includes details that are not in this file note, those details were based on his recollection at the time of drafting his statement1049

 paragraphs 48(b) and (c), cited above, of his first statement are a correct and accurate record of his recollection of what was said.1050

During questioning about his supplementary statement, the following exchange took place between the Chair of the Royal Commission and Mr Salmon:

Q. Questions were raised about general observations of Brother Murrin’s behaviour, what Brother Burns knew had to come to mind, didn’t it?

A. Well, that’s correct. That’s ---

Q. So that a statement, ‘I had no idea that he was a risk’, in the context as you put it, of a general discussion about observations of Brother Murrin’s behaviour is at odds with what Brother Burns knew?

A. Yes, I understand what you are saying.

Q. What you are now telling us is that there was a discussion about the school’s failure to observe Brother Murrin and protect children as a consequence of the knowledge they had?

A. Well, I don’t recall there being a discussion at the time about the knowledge that they had, but I ---

Q. Perhaps not the knowledge, but the obligation to ---

A. Yes, but I do recall a discussion about the fact that they should have been on alert, in terms of looking after Brother Murrin - it was very much predicated on looking after Murrin as much as looking after the students.

Q. Yes. And indeed, once that is raised, the context of the conversation, as you report it, plainly raised the question of what did they know?

A. Yes, absolutely. I don’t disagree with that.

Q. And what did they know beyond [DK]?

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

119

A. Yes. Yes.1051

The effect of this evidence is that, although DK may not have asked the Brothers specifically about the 1981 incidents, the context of the conversation during the pastoral session plainly raised the question of what the Brothers knew or suspected about Brother Murrin’s behaviour at St Augustine’s College.

To the extent there is any inconsistency between this evidence and Mr Salmon’s supplementary statement, we accept Mr Salmon’s oral evidence because:

 it is in response to a question that is not directly addressed in Mr Salmon’s supplementary statement - that is, whether the context of the conversation plainly raised the question of the Marist Brothers’ knowledge, and

 it is consistent with Mr Salmon’s contemporaneous file note of the facilitation and his first statement to the Royal Commission.

Brother Moraghan’s evidence

We consider that the evidence of Brother Moraghan and Brother Turton supports the conclusion that the context of the conversation during the pastoral session of DK’s facilitation plainly raised the question of what the Brothers knew or suspected about Brother Murrin’s behaviour.

Brother Moraghan gave evidence that the focus of DK’s questioning was about why the Brothers did not know about Brother Murrin’s behaviour towards DK himself.1052 However, he also gave the following evidence:

 At DK’s facilitation he said, ‘at no time while I was at St Augustine’s did I know about Br Ross’s behaviour. I was not aware of his behaviour until 2008 when charges were laid against him’.1053

 At the time of DK’s facilitation he was not aware of the allegations that were made against Brother Murrin in 1981.1054

 At DK’s facilitation, both he and Brother Burns had said words to the effect of ‘I had no idea about the abuse’, and ‘I had no idea that he [Brother Murrin] was a risk’.1055

 He agreed with the following sentence in Mr Salmon’s file note: ‘the meeting also allowed the particular Brothers to respond which essentially was that at the time they had no knowledge of Murrin’s unacceptable behaviour and nor did they accept they should have known.’1056

 During the facilitation DK said words to the effect of ‘You must have known about the behaviour of Br Murrin. You did not provide him with enough support. You did not help him and you did not help me’.1057

120

Report of Case Study No. 4

Brother Turton’s evidence

On 27 April 2010, Brother Turton sent an email to Brother Rodney about DK’s facilitation. He wrote that DK’s ‘concerns about people being aware of abuse at the time and not protecting children, were well and truly reviewed’.1058

Brother Turton agreed that during the pastoral session the Brothers told DK that they were not aware of any inappropriate behavior by Brother Murrin.1059

Brother Turton gave the following evidence about the 1981 complaints about Brother Murrin:

Q. My question to you is: if Towards Healing is about getting to the truth and ensuring victims are told the truth, why was Mr [DK] not informed about these events at his facilitation, when these are the very questions he had sought to have resolved?

A. I don’t really have any other comment. The fact that it was - not being ‘genital’, I assume, was not a sexual matter, that had been accepted, that it was not at the level of the allegations that [DK] was referring to for the facilitation.

Q. It was noted to be not inappropriate conduct to that degree, but it’s not noted to be appropriate conduct?

A. Yes, and I can’t make any other comment on that, because ‘inappropriate’ could refer to a number of areas.

Q. But you sought to take no action in correcting what [DK]’s understanding would be from what he was told on that day, that nobody - that’s Brother Moraghan, Brother Burns, and you didn’t say anything about Brother Rodney - had any knowledge of anything being alleged against Ross Murrin back at his time at St Augustine’s.

A. Well, I take your point. If that would have been helpful, then I wish I had noted that, yes.1060

Brother Turton was also asked whether he conveyed the contents of Brother Rodney’s letter - that is, that Brother Murrin had spoken to Brother Rodney about complaints that had been made about Brother Murrin’s behaviour - to DK. He replied:

I can’t say for sure one way or the other. I do remember reading this letter, and I noted that Brother Peter said, ‘I had no reason to suspect anything untoward’, and I suppose that stood out to me in terms of his knowledge.1061

In addition to the evidence set out above, DL agreed with Senior Counsel for the Marist Brothers that during the pastoral session DK spoke in detail at some length and that he ‘included assertions to the effect that Brother Burns and Brother Moraghan had either known about the abuse by Brother Murrin or should have known’.1062

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

121

DL also gave evidence that DK may have asserted ‘that Brother Murrin had been protected … by the Marist Brothers more generally, perhaps’, but that he did not recall.1063

Mr Monahan gave evidence that his recollection was that DK’s focus during the facilitation ‘was more on Brother Gerard and Brother Andrew and his criticisms of them, which he ventilated quite thoroughly.’1064

Mr Monahan gave evidence that he did not remember DK saying anything in the facilitation ‘to the effect of accusing either Brother Burns or Brother Moraghan of having been aware in 1981 of sexual abuse or misconduct by Murrin in relation to other boys as distinct from in relation to [DK] himself’.1065

Conclusion

Having weighed all the evidence, and the submissions of parties with leave to appear, we are satisfied that Brother Burns’ knowledge of Brother Murrin’s behaviour and the 1981 incident was plainly raised in discussion during the pastoral session.

We are also satisfied that Brother Burns’ responses during this session caused DK to understand that he was not aware that Brother Murrin had acted inappropriately at St Augustine’s while Brother Burns was principal.

We note that Towards Healing (2010) includes the following principle:

Concealing the truth is unjust to victims, a disservice to accused people and damaging to the whole Church community.1066

 Finding 42: The discussion during DK’s pastoral session plainly raised the question of whether the Marist Brothers present had reason to suspect Brother Murrin’s behaviour at the time and, in particular, whether there had been complaints about Brother Murrin’s behaviour while he was at St Augustine’s.

 Finding 43: During the pastoral session, Brother Burns:

 did not inform DK about the 1981 complaints against Brother Murrin, of which he had personal knowledge

 caused DK to understand that the Marist Brothers were not, and had no cause to be, aware of Brother Murrin’s behaviour at St Augustine’s and did not know of any abuse.

DK raises concerns about Mr Salmon’s position

DK said that after his Towards Healing facilitation, he found out that Mr Salmon was the Director of the New South Wales Professional Standards Office, while watching television.1067 DK said, ‘The failure to disclose Mr Salmon’s position as Director of the New South Wales Professional Standards Office made me really, really angry because I felt that I was lied to’.1068

122

Report of Case Study No. 4

DK contacts Brother Turton

On 15 September 2010, DK wrote to Brother Turton asking whether Mr Salmon, the Director of Professional Standards for NSW/ACT, was also the independent mediator at his mediation.1069

Brother Turton responded to DK confirming that Mr Salmon was employed by the Church to supervise the implementation in New South Wales of the Towards Healing protocol. He also stated that Mr Salmon was also involved from time to time as a mediator in Towards Healing cases.1070 Brother Turton wrote, ‘Mr Salmon is an experienced and qualified mediator as we did discuss at one juncture prior to the facilitation’.1071

Brother Turton later wrote the following to Brother Rodney:

I also attach a copy from my notes regarding the use of Mr Salmon as mediator. I recall I had a draft email ready and before sending DK rang and we had a very long discussion. Certainly my intention was to communicate what was in the draft but from this distance I may not have made it clear.1072

DK gave evidence that Brother Turton asked him whether he would be happy for Mr Salmon to act as his Facilitator, but he was not told that Mr Salmon was employed by the Catholic Church.1073 DK said he knew Mr Salmon would be paid by the Catholic Church for acting as the Facilitator in DK’s facilitation.1074

We are satisfied that, although Brother Turton may have referred to Mr Salmon’s position in his conversation with DK before DK’s facilitation, he did not effectively communicate M Salmon’s position to DK.1075

We are satisfied that Brother Turton should have explained Mr Salmon’s position to DK in writing, given the potential for a perception that having a Director act as Facilitator gives rise to a conflict of interest.1076

 Finding 44: The Marist Brothers did not effectively communicate Mr Salmon’s position as Director of New South Wales Professional Standards Office to DK before the facilitation. They should have.

DK contacts Mr Salmon

On 28 May 2013, DK called Mr Salmon. A file note made by Mr Salmon records that during this conversation he told DK ‘that I had assumed at the time that Br Alexis had informed him of my role at the PSO’.1077 The note also records that Mr Salmon rang Brother Turton to brief him on DK’s call and that Brother Turton ‘confirmed that prior to the conference he had informed DK of MS’ standing and this is reflected on the file’.1078

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

123

Mr Salmon gave evidence that when he first met with DK and DL on the day of the facilitation he explicitly informed DK that he was responsible for managing Towards Healing in New South Wales.1079 In particular, Mr Salmon gave evidence that he said:

The Church has endeavoured to respond to these issues. One example is the Towards Healing process, which in my experience of managing complaints in NSW, has often delivered good outcomes to victims. The Marist Brothers are committed to that process.1080

DK gave evidence that Mr Salmon might have said this during the facilitation but that, if he did, ‘that did not convey to me at all any role that he had in the Church. And I don’t think, if he was intending to do that, that that would be a truthful way of telling me about it’.1081

DL, a barrister, also gave evidence that he was not aware of Mr Salmon’s employment when he attended DK’s facilitation and that this was not revealed or explained during the facilitation.1082 DL said:

The Mediator said nothing during the course of the mediation that suggested his independence was compromised in any respect. Had he made such a disclosure, I am confident I would now recall it, because it would be another extraordinary feature of an otherwise exceptional proceeding.1083

DL also said:

had the mediator said something that suggested to me that he was less than independent, that would have stood out to me. One assumes when one attends a mediation, almost because it goes without saying, that the mediator is independent … As I have said, the mediator said nothing to suggest to me that he was partial or lacking in independence in any respect.1084

We accept the evidence of DK and DL that Mr Salmon did not effectively communicate his position as Director of Professional Standards during DK’s facilitation.

We are also satisfied that Mr Salmon did not effectively communicate his position to DK before the facilitation because there are no file notes or other contemporaneous documents recording that Mr Salmon did inform DK of his position. Also, Mr Salmon’s file note of 28 May 2013 records that he told DK that he had assumed Brother Turton had told DK of his position as Director.

 Finding 45: Mr Salmon did not effectively communicate his position as Director of Professional Standards to DK or his barrister either before or during DK’s facilitation. He should have.

DK contacts Mr Monahan

Several years later, DK wrote to Mr Monahan, ‘All that I would like to know from you is were you aware that Alexis Turton and Michael Salmon lied to me and did not disclose that the so called independent mediator was the Director Professional Standards’.1085

124

Report of Case Study No. 4

Mr Monahan forwarded this email on to Ms Fenby of CCI, and wrote, ‘Emma: do you wish to instruct me to retrieve my old file and review it and respond to him?’1086 Ms Fenby responded, ‘I note that there is a signed deed of release and solicitors certificate. Therefore, please do not re-open your file’.1087

On the same day, before he received a response from Ms Fenby, Mr Monahan wrote to DK, ‘I certainly DO remember meeting you at this mediation and am saddened to read about your disappointment with the process - I will now have to recover my old file from archives and review it before I respond properly to your enquiries - I will get back to you shortly - all the best’.1088

On 30 May 2013, DK responded to Mr Monahan, ‘Patrick I really only have one question for you at my mediation in 2010 were you aware that Michael Salmon was the Director of Professional Standards?’1089 DK sent another email to Mr Monahan almost a month later, and said ‘Patrick, Please see your email below. Are you any closer in responding to my questions?’1090

On 3 July 2013, Mr Monahan wrote to DK:

Unfortunately, my secretary has now ‘given up’ on finding this old file in our archives. It seems to have been misfiled.

Can I therefore suggest that you might direct this enquiry to the Marist Brothers directly …

You are also correct that Michael Salmon was the mediator.

I am sorry that I am not able to help you any further with these enquiries.1091

On 16 August 2013, DK wrote to Mr Monahan:

I am going to ask you a question again …

In February 2010 you were present at a Towards Healing Facilitation involving my case. At the time of the meeting were you aware that the so called Independent Mediator Michael Salmon was in fact the NSW Director of Professional Standards?

I would appreciate a straight answer Patrick.1092

On 23 August 2013, Mr Monahan responded to DK:

Could I, though, refer you again to the email which I sent to you on 3 July 2013 confirming that we had ultimately been unable to find this old file in our archives. As I mentioned to you, it seems to have been misfiled …

I have since had further discussions with the legal representative of the Marist Brothers, who informed me that you had instructed lawyers (Maurice Blackburn Lawyers were mentioned) to act for you in the matter. He was waiting to make direct contact with them to open a process of discussion with you to address all aspects of your concerns.

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

125

In those circumstances, it would not be appropriate for me to respond directly to you in any event in regard to any substantive aspect of the matter, as I should rather be dealing directly with your lawyers …

The final point which I would like to make is that I am also reluctant to make any particular comment on this case, which was resolved about 3½ years ago, without full reference to my files.1093

Mr Monahan gave evidence that at the time of DK’s facilitation he was aware that Mr Salmon was the New South Wales Director of Professional Standards.1094

When asked why he did not answer DK accordingly, he gave the following evidence:

Much to my considerable embarrassment, my file had been misfiled and we couldn’t find it … It would not have been appropriate for me to respond without checking my file, because I couldn’t remember the facts.

… I needed to be sure of my facts before I responded to him. And then, before the file was found, it turned out that he now had engaged Maurice Blackburn Cashman as his lawyers and I should deal with them, and they have never approached me to do any such thing.1095

He also said, ‘I have since found my file, but only after a considerable search by a number of employees at my office. The file was only found on 15 November 2013’.1096

Mr Monahan agreed that he did not need to retrieve his file in order to answer DK’s question.1097 Mr Monahan gave evidence that he could have answered DK directly, but that ‘I chose not to, for the reasons I have given you’.1098 Mr Monahan accepted the proposition that a just and compassionate response to DK would have been to respond quickly to DK’s question. However, he stated that he took a different view.1099

Brother Murrin’s position in the Marist Brothers

Brother Murrin is still a Brother in the Marist Brothers, although he is currently in jail.1100 Brother Crowe, the current Marist Brothers Provincial, said that there had been no internal process in relation to Brother Murrin, but that the Marist Brothers have had discussions with Brother Murrin about his future.1101 He said, ‘we have put to Brother Murrin that we think that this is the time for a serious conversation on his future, and we want to know what he is anticipating, and we have our own reflections on that, too’.1102

Brother Crowe gave evidence that there are three options when a Brother has committed child sexual abuse: the Brother remains a Marist Brother, the Brother seeks to leave or resigns from the Order, or the Brother is dismissed.1103

Brother Crowe gave evidence that if a Marist Brother decides they no longer wish to be a Brother, they could move for dispensation from vows.1104 He said:

That process begins locally, but it does go to the superior general and then on to the Vatican in some cases. That person, in a sense, simply needs to say that he no longer

126

Report of Case Study No. 4

wishes to live as a brother, and he can give reasons for that. And then that comes - well, he has to write that letter to the superior general.

From my side, I have an obligation to write a bit of a report as to how I’ve helped the person to discern - that is the word that is used - to discern whether this is an appropriate action to be taking at this particular moment and the assistance that I have given that person to come to this decision, to come to this point.1105

Brother Crowe said that the involuntary removal of a Brother is technically called ‘dismissal’. He said that involuntary removal is at the initiative of the Provincial and his local council, who would decide whether, according to canon law, that person should no longer be a Brother.1106 The documentation is then sent to Rome for consideration.1107 Brother Crowe said, ‘For a brother to be dismissed is a process, which would involve quite a bit of paperwork’.1108

Brother Crowe also said:

It’s within my authority to say to somebody, ‘You are no longer to be known in public as a brother. You are no longer able to wear the religious garb or the religious indication of a brother. You are no longer to attend functions of the province’, things like that.

And then also in terms of the movement of people, there’s whole things around what we call safety plans.1109

Brother Crowe said that a decision about Brother Murrin’s future would not be made until he has been released from jail.1110 He said:

It’s a question of the responsibility for the future in terms of the risk to children and in terms of the risk of that person also of re-offending.

So in the case of Ross Murrin, or it could be the same for others, that is the question which is there. If you dismiss, the person is on his own. If you find a way of having the person in a supervised situation, then you are reducing the risk, because you can control the person’s access to children, and so on - you are reducing the risk to children; so that’s the prime concern.

I understand what you’re saying in terms of that dismissal seems natural in such a case, but I’m asking you also to think there in terms of what is best for children. Our read of it at the moment … is to have the person in a supervised situation and that that framework then, in terms of accountabilities, in terms of restrictions of movements, in terms of ongoing supervision, of therapy, and so on, that we have a way of doing our bit for society by controlling the situations of these people.1111

 Finding 46: Brother Murrin has been convicted and jailed for child sexual abuse. He remains a Marist Brother.

The issue of what should be done about priests and religious who commit child sexual abuse offences will be addressed further during the Royal Commission.

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

127

6 Systemic Issues

The following systemic issues arise from this case study and will be the subject of further consideration by the Royal Commission: a. the Church Authority’s separation of the pastoral response from the payment of reparation and the payment of or for services (that is, counselling)

b. The separation of the responsible Church Authority from investigation/assessment of a complaint

c. criteria for determining amount of reparation

d. the involvement of the responsible Church Authority in decisions about the amount of reparation paid

e. the role of legal and insurance advisers in negotiations and decisions about the amount of reparation paid

f. the role of apologies from the responsible Church Authority in healing for survivors

g. consultation with survivors about Facilitators/mediators in a redress scheme

h. the independence of decision makers in a redress scheme (that is, their independence from the institution where the abuse is alleged to have occurred)

i. the independence of Facilitators/mediators in a redress scheme (that is, their independence from the institution where the abuse is alleged to have occurred)

j. legal representation of complainants in a redress scheme

k. funding for legal representation of complainants in a redress scheme

l. disciplinary action against those accused of abuse.

128

Report of Case Study No. 4

APPENDIX A: Terms of Reference

Letters Patent

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.

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.

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

129

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.

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;

130

Report of Case Study No. 4

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;

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.

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

131

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.

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. vi. any representative (however described) of the institution or a related entity; and

132

Report of Case Study No. 4

ii. vii. any member, officer, employee, associate, contractor or volunteer (however described) of the institution or a related entity; and

iii. viii. 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. ix. 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:

require you to begin your inquiry as soon as practicable, and

require you to make your inquiry as expeditiously as possible; and

require you to submit to Our Governor-General:

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

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

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

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

133

APPENDIX B: Public hearing

The Royal Commission

Commissioners who presided

Justice Peter McClellan AM (Chair) Justice Jennifer Coate Mr Bob Atkinson AO APM Mr Robert Fitzgerald AM Professor Helen Milroy Mr Andrew Murray

Justice Peter McClellan AM Professor Helen Milroy Mr Andrew Murray

Date of hearing 9-19 December 2013; 22-24 January 2014

Legislation Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth)

Leave to appear Mrs Joan Isaacs

Mr Joseph Bucci

Ms Emma Fenby

The Truth, Justice and Healing Council

The Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane

The Catholic Diocese of Lismore

The Marist Brothers

The Professional Standards Office (QLD)

The Professional Standards Office (NSW/ACT)

The Catholic Church Insurance Limited

Mr Barry Shonhan

Ms Jennifer Ingham

Mr Ronald McKiernan

Father Francis Derriman

134

Report of Case Study No. 4

Legal representation Gail Furness SC, Senior Counsel Assisting the Royal Commission and Mr Angus Stewart, Counsel Assisting the Royal Commission

Pages of transcript: 1,373 pages

Notices to Produce issued under Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth) and documents produced:

40 notices producing 1,900 documents

Summons to Attend issued under Royal Commissions Act 1923 (NSW) and documents produced:

22 notices producing 13,000 documents

Requirements to Produce issued under Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950 (Qld) and documents produced:

2 requirements producing 300 documents

Summonses to Attend issues under Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 (Vic) and documents produced:

3 summonses producing 8,500 documents

Number of exhibits: 70 exhibits consisting of a total of 783 documents tendered at the hearing

Witnesses 1

2

3

4

5

6

Joan Katherine Isaacs Towards Healing participant Dr Kenneth Robertson Former Convenor, QLD Professional Standards Office Mary Bernadette Rogers Facilitator, QLD Professional Standards Office Reverend Dr Adrian Farrelly Chancellor, Archdiocese of Brisbane Laurie Rolls Manager, Special Projects, Catholic Church Insurances Very Reverend Dr James Spence Former Chancellor, Archdiocese of Brisbane

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

135

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Most Reverend John Joseph Gerry DD Former Auxiliary Bishop, Archdiocese of Brisbane Most Reverend Mark Coleridge Archbishop, Archdiocese of Brisbane Jennifer Ingham Towards Healing participant Patrick James Mullins Former Director, QLD Professional Standards Office Professor Roger Dooley Clinical Psychologist Colin Desmond Riches Former husband of Jennifer Ingham Father Francis Michael Mulcahy Retired Catholic priest Emma Miranda Fenby Former Special Issues Case Manager, Catholic Church Insurance Limited Michael John Salmon Facilitator, NSW Professional Standards Office Reverend Deacon Christopher John Wallace Chancellor, Diocese of Lismore Most Reverend Geoffrey Hylton Jarrett DD Bishop, Diocese of Lismore DG Towards Healing participant Brother Alexis Turton Former Director for Professional Standards, Marist Brothers Brother Michael Anthony Hill Former Provincial, Marist Brothers DK Towards Healing participant Joseph Bucci Former Special Issues Case Manager, Catholic Church Insurance Limited

136

Report of Case Study No. 4

Endnotes

1 Exhibit 4-1, Tab E (Towards Healing 1996), CTJH.0001.001.0104 at .0117 [4.1]. 2 Exhibit 4-1, Tab E (Towards Healing 1996), CTJH.0001.001.0104 at .0117 - .0118 [4.6]. 3

Exhibit 4-1, Tab D (Towards Healing 2000), CTJH.0001.001.0073; Exhibit 4-1, Tab B (Towards Healing 2010), CTJH.0001.001.0005 at .0023 [35.3]. 4 Exhibit 4-1, Tab B (Towards Healing 2010), CTJH.0001.001.0005 at .0025 [36.3]. 5

Exhibit 4-1, Tab B (Towards Healing 2010), CTJH.0001.001.0005 at .0028 [38.4, 38.5]. 6 Exhibit 4-1, Tab B (Towards Healing 2010), CTJH.0001.001.0005 at .0029 [38.9]. 7

Exhibit 4-1, Tab B (Towards Healing 2010), CTJH.0001.001.0005 at .0033 [41.1]. 8 Exhibit 4-1, Tab B (Towards Healing 2010), CTJH.0001.001.0005 at .0033 [41.1]. 9

Exhibit 4-1, Tab B (Towards Healing 2010), CTJH.0001.001.0005 at .0034 [41.3, 41.4]. 10 Exhibit 4-1, Tab B (Towards Healing 2010), CTJH.0001.001.0005 at .0034 [41.4.3]. 11

Exhibit 4-1, Tab B (Towards Healing 2010), CTJH.0001.001.0005 at .0034 [41.4.1]. 12 Exhibit 4-1, Tab B (Towards Healing 2010), CTJH.0001.001.0005 at .0035 [41.4.8]. 13

Truth Justice and Healing Council, Submission to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Response to Submissions of Counsel Assisting, Case Study 4:Towards Healing, 14 April 2014, pp. 5-6, Section 1.3. 14

Truth Justice and Healing Council, Submission to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Response to Submissions of Counsel Assisting, Case Study 4:Towards Healing, 14 April 2014, p. 5 [16]. 15

Truth Justice and Healing Council, Submission to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Response to Submissions of Counsel Assisting, Case Study 4:Towards Healing, 14 April 2014, pp. 8-11, Section 1.7. 16

Truth Justice and Healing Council, Submission to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Response to Submissions of Counsel Assisting, Case Study 4:Towards Healing, 14 April 2014, pp. 6-7, Section 1.4. 17

Truth Justice and Healing Council, Submission to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Response to Submissions of Counsel Assisting, Case Study 4:Towards Healing, 14 April 2014, p. 12 [77]. 18

Truth Justice and Healing Council, Submission to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Response to Submissions of Counsel Assisting, Case Study 4:Towards Healing, 14 April 2014, p. 12 [77]. 19

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [4]; Exhibit 4-2, Tab 6, CTJH.100.01250.0171_R. 20 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [4]; Exhibit 4-2, Tab 6,

CTJH.100.01250.0171_R. 21 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [4]; Exhibit 4-2, Tab 6,

CTJH.100.01250.0171_R. 22 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [4]. 23

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 6, CTJH.100.01250.0171_R [5]. 24 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 6, CTJH.100.01250.0171_R [4]. 25

Exhibit 4-2 Tab 6 CTJH.100.01250.0171_R at .0172_R [6]. 26 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [4]; Exhibit 4-2, Tab 6 CTJH.100.01250.0171_R .0172_R [10]. 27

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [4]. 28 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [5]. 29

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [7].

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

137

30 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [11]. 31 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [12]. 32

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [12]. 33 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 3, STAT.0077.001.0019_R; Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [13]. 34

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 4, STAT.0077.001.0020_R. 35 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 9, CTJH.100.01250.0182. 36

Exhibit 4-2 Tab 9, CTJH.100.01250.0182. 37 Exhibit 4-2 Tab 9, CTJH.100.01250.0182 at .0183 to .0184. 38

Exhibit 4-2 Tab 9, CTJH.100.01250.0182 at .0184. 39 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [14]. 40

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [14]. 41 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [15]. 42

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [15]; Exhibit 4-5, Statement of Dr Kenneth Robertson, STAT.0081.001.0001_M [26]. 43 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 10, STAT.0077.001.0021_R. 44

Exhibit 4-3 Tab 10, STAT.0077.001.0021_R. 45 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [16]; Exhibit 4-2, Tab 10, STAT.0077.001.0021_R. 46

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 46, STAT.0081.001.0065; Exhibit 4-5, Statement of Dr Kenneth Robertson, STAT.0081.001.0001_M [30]. 47 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 46, STAT.0081.001.0065; Statement of Dr Kenneth Robertson, STAT.0081.001.0001_M [30]. 48

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 15, STAT.0077.001.0026_R. 49 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 11, STAT.0087.001.0013. 50

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 46, STAT.0081.001.0065; Exhibit 4-5, Statement of Dr Kenneth Robertson, STAT.0081.001.0001_M [31]. 51 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 12, Exhibit 4-2, Tab 13, STAT.0077.001.0023_R and Exhibit 4-2, Tab 13A, IND.R-

004128.PS.0212. 52 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 12, STAT.0077.001.0022_R; Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M

[19].

53 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 12, STAT.0077.001.0022_R. 54 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 46, STAT.0081.001.0065; Exhibit 4-5, Statement of Dr Kenneth Robertson,

STAT.0081.001.0001_M [36]. 55 Exhibit 4-5, Statement of Dr Kenneth Robertson, STAT.0081.001.0001_M [42]. 56

Exhibit 4-5, Statement of Dr Kenneth Robertson, STAT.0081.001.0001_M [42]. 57 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [20]-[21]; Exhibit 4-2 Tab 15, STAT.0077.001.0026_R. 58

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 15, STAT.0077.001.0026_R. 59 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 15, STAT.0077.001.0026_R. 60

Exhibit 4-10, Statement of Father Adrian Farrelly, STAT.0086.001.0003 [14]. 61 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [21]. 62

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 15, STAT.0077.001.0026_R. 63 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 46, STAT.0081.001.0065; Exhibit 4-5, Statement of Dr Kenneth Robertson, STAT.0081.001.0001_M [38]. 64

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 17, STAT.0077.001.0028. 65 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 16, STAT.0086.001.0012. 66

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 16, STAT.0086.001.0012 and Exhibit 4-2, Tab 17, STAT.0077.001.0028. 67 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 17A, STAT.0091.001.0074_R. 68

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 18, STAT.0087.001.0015. 69 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 18, STAT.0087.001.0015.

138

Report of Case Study No. 4

70 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 18, STAT.0087.001.0015. 71 Exhibit 4-10, Statement of Father Adrian Farrelly, STAT.0086.001.0003_E_M [21]. 72

Farrelly T2634:13-17 (Day 25); Exhibit 4-10, Statement of Father Adrian Farrelly, STAT.0086.001.0003_E_M [22]. 73 Exhibit 4-10, Statement of Father Adrian Farrelly, STAT.0086.001.0003_E_M [23]. 74

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 19, STAT.0086.001.0021. 75 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 19, STAT.0086.001.0021. 76

Transcript of Father Adrian Farrelly, T6235:30-40 (Day 25). 77 Transcript of Father Adrian Farrelly, T2636:32-45 (Day 25). 78

Transcript of Father Adrian Farrelly, T6236:37-39 (Day 25). 79 Transcript of Father Adrian Farrelly, T2637:22-25 (Day 25). 80

Transcript of Father Adrian Farrelly, T2632: 21-29 (Day 25). 81 Transcript of Father Adrian Farrelly, T2644:39-41 (Day 25). 82

Transcript of Father Adrian Farrelly, T2644:45-T2645:2 (Day 25). 83 Transcript of Father Adrian Farrelly, T2637:40-2638:2 (Day 25). 84

Exhibit 4-10, Statement of Father Adrian Farrelly, STAT.0086.001.0003_E_M [45](b). 85 Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2732:32-43 (Day 26). 86

Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2732:32-43 (Day 26). 87 Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2732:20-30 (Day 26). 88

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [22]. 89 Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2565:2-5 (Day 24). 90

Exhibit 4-5, Statement of Dr Kenneth Robertson, STAT.0081.001.0001_M [43]. 91 Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2564:31-38 (Day 24). 92

Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2564:31-42 (Day 24). 93 Transcript of Joan Isaacs, T2534:21-23 (Day 24). 94

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [18]. 95 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [18]. 96

Transcript of Joan Isaacs, T2534:24-26 (Day 24). 97 Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2561:40-43 (Day 24). 98

Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2561:45-47 (Day 24). 99 Exhibit 4-5, Statement of Dr Kenneth Robertson, STAT.0081.001.0001_M [34]. 100

Exhibit 4-5, Statement of Dr Kenneth Robertson, STAT.0081.001.0001_M [34]. 101 Exhibit 4-5, Statement of Dr Kenneth Robertson, STAT.0081.001.0001_M [34]; Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [18]. 102

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 17, STAT.0077.001.0028. 103 Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2565:43-46, T2566:1-15 (Day 24). 104

Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2578:14-23 (Day 24). 105 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 46, STAT.0081.001.0065. 106

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 46, STAT.0081.001.0065. 107 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 23, STAT.0077.001.0029. 108

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [23]. 109 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [23]. 110

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [23]. 111 Exhibit 4-5, Statement of Dr Kenneth Robertson, STAT.0081.001.0001_M [44]. 112

Exhibit 4-5, Statement of Dr Kenneth Robertson, STAT.0081.001.0001 [33]; Exhibit 4-Exhibit 2-2, Tab 11, STAT.0087.001.0013. 113 Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2563:8-12 (Day 24). 114

Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2563:14-18 (Day 24).

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

139

115 Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2562:8-12 (Day 24). 116 Exhibit 4-1, Tab E (Towards Healing 1996), CTJH.0001.001.0104 at .0121 [7.2]. 117

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 16, STAT.0086.001.0012. 118 Transcript of Joan Isaacs, T2535:28-31 (Day 24). 119

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [24]. 120 Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2564:3-7 (Day 24). 121

Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2564:9-11 (Day 24). 122 Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2563:19-22 (Day 24). 123

Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2564:26-29 (Day 24). 124 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [25]. 125

Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2616:23-28 (Day 25). 126 Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2617:43-T2618:1 (Day 25). 127

Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2617:25-27 (Day 25). 128 Exhibit 4-8, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.001.0001 at 0005 [21]. 129

Exhibit 4-8, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.001.0001 at 0004 [17]. 130 Exhibit 4-8, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.001.0001 at 0004 [18]. 131

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [29]. 132 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 20, STAT.0087.001.0022. 133

Exhibit 4-2 Tab 20, STAT.0087.001.0022. 134 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [29]. 135

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 20, STAT.0087.001.0022. 136 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [31]. 137

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [31]; Exhibit 4-2, Tab 17, STAT.0077.001.0028. 138 Exhibit 4-5, Statement of Dr Kenneth Robertson, STAT.0081.001.0001_M [46]. 139

Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2619:38 -T2620:1 (Day 25). 140 Exhibit 4-7, Statement of Laurie Rolls, STAT.0091.001.0002_E_M [32]-[33]. 141

Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2567:9-13 (Day 24). 142 Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2567:15-17 (Day 24). 143

Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2567:38-46 (Day 24). 144 Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2567:29-36; T2568:22-26 (Day 24). 145

Exhibit 4-5, Statement of Dr Kenneth Robertson, STAT.0081.001.0001_M [55]. 146 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001 [32]. 147

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 29, STAT.0081.001.0067. 148 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001 [37]; Exhibit 4-2, Tab 40, STAT.0077.001.0037_R. 149

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 23, STAT.0077.001.0029; Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [32]. 150 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 25, STAT.0077.001.0032_R. 151

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 20, STAT.0087.001.0022. 152 Exhibit 4-2. Tab 25, STAT.0077.001.0032_R. 153

Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2620:21-23 (Day 25). 154 Ex 4-5, Statement of Dr Kenneth Robertson, STAT.0081.001.0001_M [47]. 155

Ex 4-2, Tab 28, STAT.0077.001.0031. 156 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [24]. 157

Exhibit 4-5, Statement of Dr Kenneth Robertson, STAT.0081.001.0001_M [45]. 158 Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2569:17-19 (Day 24). 159

Transcript of Dr Kenneth Robertson, T2570:18-26 (Day 24). 160 Exhibit 4-10, Statement of Father Adrian Farrelly, STAT.0086.001.0003_E_M [27]. 161

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 20, STAT.0087.001.0022.

140

Report of Case Study No. 4

162 Transcript of Father Adrian Farrelly, T2643:7-9 (Day 25). 163 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [28]. 164

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 20, STAT.0087.001.0022. 165 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [28]. 166

Exhibit 4-10, Statement of Father Adrian Farrelly, STAT.0086.001.0003_E_M [35]-[36]; Exhibit 4-2, Tab 22, STAT.0087.001.0019 and STAT.0087.001.0020. 167 Transcript of Father Adrian Farrelly, T2644:37-T2645:2 (Day 25). 168

Exhibit 4-10, Statement of Father Adrian Farrelly, STAT.0086.001.0003_E_M [36]. 169 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 32, STAT.0077.001.0034_R. 170

Exhibit 4-7, Statement of Laurie Rolls, STAT.0091.001.0002_E_M [49]; Exhibit 4-2, Tab 36, CCI.0039.00006.0225 and Exhibit 4-2, Tab 37, CCI.0039.00006.0353. 171 Exhibit 4-7, Statement of Laurie Rolls, STAT.0091.001.0002_E_M [49]. 172

Transcript of Bishop John Gerry, T2701:3 -10 (Day 26). 173 Exhibit 4-0012, Statement of Bishop John Gerry, STAT.0087.001.0003_E_M [30]. 174

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 32, STAT.0077.001.0034_R. 175 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [35]. 176

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [35]. 177 Transcript of Bishop John Gerry, T2719:19-31 (Day 26). 178

Transcript of Bishop John Gerry, T2719:33-40 (Day 26). 179 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [23]. 180

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [30]. 181 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [31]. 182

Exhibit 4-11, Statement of Father James Spence, CTJH.500.01001.0002_E_R_M [60]. 183 Transcript of Father James Spence, T2659:15-17 (Day 25). 184

Transcript of Father James Spence, T2658:47 (Day 25). 185 Exhibit 4-11, Statement of Father James Spence, CTJH.500.01001.0002_E_R_M [50]. 186

Exhibit 4-11, Statement of Father James Spence, CTJH.500.01001.0002_E_R_M [60]. 187 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 40, STAT.0077.001.0037_R. 188

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [39]. 189 Exhibit 4-11, Statement of Father James Spence, CTJH.500.01001.0002_E_R_M [59] - [60]. 190

Exhibit 4-7, Statement of Laurie Rolls, STAT.0091.001.0002_E_M [57]-[58]. 191 Exhibit 4-11, Statement of Father James Spence, CTJH.500.01001.0002_E_R_M [68]-[69]. 192

Exhibit 4-7, Statement of Laurie Rolls, STAT.0091.001.0002_E_M [57]. 193 Exhibit 4-7, Statement of Laurie Rolls, STAT.0091.001.0002_E_M [58]. 194

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 45, CTJH.100.01250.0129. 195 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 56, STAT.0077.001.0045. 196

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [39]. 197 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [40]; Exhibit 4-2, Tab 64, STAT.0077.001.0047_R. 198

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [41]. 199 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 66, STAT.0077.001.0048_R 200

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [41]. 201 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 70, STAT.0077.001.0049_R 202

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [42]. 203 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 71, STAT.0077.001.0050_R 204

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 74, STAT.0077.001.0051. 205 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 77, STAT.0077.001.0053. 206

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [48].

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

141

207 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [48]. 208 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 81, STAT.0077.001.0057. 209

Transcript of Bishop John Gerry, T2710:10-11 (Day 26). 210 Transcript of Bishop John Gerry, T2710:5-8 (Day 26). 211

Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2731:34-T2732:18 and T2736:30-32 (Day 26). 212 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 97, STAT.0077.001.0055. 213

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [45]. 214 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [44]; Exhibit 4-2, Tab 91, STAT.0077.001.0054. 215

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [45]. 216 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [45]. 217

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 98, STAT.0077.001.0056. 218 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [46]. 219

Transcript of Joan Isaacs, T2514:36-40 (Day 24). 220 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [54]. 221

Transcript of Father James Spence, T2675:25-28 (Day 25). 222 Transcript of Father James Spence, T2675:33-36 (Day 25). 223

Transcript of Father James Spence, T2675:38-T2676:2 (Day 25). 224 Transcript of Father James Spence, T2675:33-T2676:2 (Day 25). 225

Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2752:15-18 (Day 26). 226 Transcript of Bishop John Gerry, T2718:3-7 (Day 26). 227

Transcript of Bishop John Gerry, T2716:1- 40 (Day 26). 228 Exhibit 4-12, Statement of Bishop John Gerry, STAT.0087.001.0003_E_M [39]. 229

Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2730:40-T2731:15 (Day 26). 230 Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2731:17-26 (Day 26). 231

Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2731:34-T2732:18 (Day 26). 232 Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2749:31-37 (Day 26). 233

Exhibit 4-1, Tab A, CTJH.0001.002.0001 at .0062 - .0063 [133] - [136]. 234 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 103, STAT.0077.001.0059. 235

Exhibit 4-2 Tab 103, STAT.0077.001.0061 at .0062-.0063. 236 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [53]. 237

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 105, CTJH.100.01250.0046. 238 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 105, CTJH.100.01250.0047 at .0049. 239

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 108, CTJH.100.01250.0036. 240 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 112, CTJH.100.01250.0028. 241

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [50]. 242 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 113, STAT.0077.001.0072. 243

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 113, STAT.0077.001.0072. 244 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 115, STAT.0077.001.0074. 245

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [51]. 246 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 121, STAT.0077.001.0076. 247

Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [52]. 248 Exhibit 4-3, Statement of Joan Isaacs, STAT.0077.001.0001_R_M [52]. 249

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 114, STAT.0077.001.0073_R. 250 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 116, CTJH.100.01250.0019. 251

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 116, CTJH.100.01250.0020_R. 252 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 7A, IND.R-004128.PS.0187. 253

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 114, STAT.0077.001.0073_R. 254 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 114, STAT.0077.001.0073_R.

142

Report of Case Study No. 4

255 Transcript of Father James Spence, T2687:30-40 (Day 25). 256 Exhibit 4-2, Tab 122, CTJH.100.01250.0010. 257

Transcript of Father James Spence, T2681:10-16 (Day 25). 258 Transcript of Father James Spence, T2681:21-23 (Day 25). 259

Transcript of Father James Spence, T2681:25-32 (Day 25). 260 Transcript of Father James Spence, T2681:25-32 (Day 25). 261

Transcript of Father James Spence, T2680:31-37 (Day 25). 262 Transcript of Father James Spence, T2682:29-32 (Day 25). 263

Transcript of Father James Spence, T2682:34-38 (Day 25). 264 Exhibit 4-1, Tab D (Towards Healing 2000), CTJH.0001.001.0073 at .0097[41.4]. 265

Exhibit 4-2, Tab 122, CTJH.100.01250.0010. 266 Transcript of Father James Spence, T2686:39-T2687:12 (Day 25). 267

Transcript of Father James Spence, T2687:15-28 (Day 25). 268 Exhibit 4-4, EXH.004.004.0001. 269

Transcript of Joan Isaacs, T2539:1-T2540:17 (Day 24). 270 Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2757:16-27 (Day 26). 271

Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2754:28-43 (Day 26). 272 Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2757:16-27 (Day 26). 273

Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2754:28-43 (Day 26). 274 Exhibit 4-14, EXH.004.014.0001. 275

Exhibit 4-14, EXH.004.014.0001; Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2733:10-11 (Day 26). 276 Exhibit 4-14, EXH.004.014.0001. 277

Exhibit 4-14, EXH.004.014.0001. 278 Exhibit 4-14, EXH.004.014.0001.; Archbishop Coleridge gave the following evidence in relation to the effect of a priest entering into a civil marriage:‘A priest who has abandoned the ministry, abandoned orders, as in

the case of Frank Derriman, and who, in the somewhat peculiar language of the church, ‘attempts marriage’, automatically incurs excommunication from the church. It is called ‘excommunication latae sententiae’ which just means automatic.’ (Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2755:10-18 (Day 26)). 279 Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2755:26-33 (Day 26). 280 Exhibit 4-6, CTJH.100.01569.0001. 281 Exhibit 4-14, EXH.004.014.0001; Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2733:19 (Day 26). 282 Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2733:19-25 (Day 26). 283 Exhibit 4-14, EXH.004.014.0001. 284 Exhibit 4-14, EXH.004.014.0003. 285 Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2756:18-23 (Day 26). 286 Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2755:7-8 (Day 26). 287 Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2734:1-10 (Day 26). 288 Transcript of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, T2733:27-40 (Day 26). 289 Transcript of Bishop John Gerry, T2723:17-24 (Day 26). 290 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [4]. 291 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [5]. 292 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [6]. 293 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 18, STAT.0074.001.0022_R. 294 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [6]. 295 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [7]. 296 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [7]. 297 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 18, STAT.0074.001.0022_R. 298 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 18, STAT.0074.001.0022_R.

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

143

299 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 18, STAT.0074.001.0022_R. 300 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [9]. 301

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [8]. 302 Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [96]. 303

Exhibit 4-17 Tab 5, STAT.0080.001.0068; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 7, STAT.0080.001.0071 and Exhibit 4-17, Tab 9, STAT.0080.001.0246_Combined. 304 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 8, STAT.0080.001.0073. 305

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 10, STAT.0080.001.0308 and STAT.0080.001.0309. 306 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 12, STAT.0080.001.0312. 307

Transcript of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, T3047:9 - 39 308 Exhibit 4-28, CCI.0026.00001.0314_R. 309

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 3, STAT.0080.001.0066 and Exhibit 4-17, Tab 4, STAT.0080.001.0067. 310 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 35, STAT.0080.001.0034; Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [4]. 311

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 13, STAT.0080.001.0064. 312 Transcript of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, T3047:2-13 (Day 29). 313

Transcript of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, T3047:20-28 (Day 29). 314 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [12]. 315

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [14]. 316 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [14] and Exhibit 4-17, Tab 15, STAT.0074.001.0019_R. 317

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [15]. 318 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 15, STAT.0074.001.0019_R. 319

Exhibit 4-17 Tab 15, STAT.0074.001.0019_R. 320 Exhibit 4-17 Tab 16, STAT.0074.001.0021_R. 321

Exhibit 4-17 Tab 16, STAT.0074.001.0021_R; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 19, STAT.0083.001.0058_R; Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [17] - [18]. 322 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 23, CTJH.102.05002.0071_R. 323

Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [21]. 324 Exhibit 4-17 Tab 24, CTJH.102.05002.0107_R; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 26, STAT.0083.001.0069_R and Exhibit 4-17, Tab 27, STAT.0088.001.0031. 325

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [19]. 326 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [19]. 327

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [20]. 328 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [20]. 329

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [20]. 330 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 33, STAT.0080.001.0024_R. 331

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 38, STAT.0083.001.0095. 332 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 31, STAT.0074.001.0025_R. 333

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 40, STAT.0083.001.0110_R. 334 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 41, STAT.0083.001.0111_R; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 42, CTJH.102.05002.0100_R; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 43, STAT.0083.001.0113; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 44 STAT.0083.001.0115_R and Exhibit 4-17, Tab 45,

STAT.0083.001.0114. 335 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 48, STAT.0088.001.0052. 336

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 76, STAT.0088.001.0062. 337 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 87, STAT.0088.001.0089; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 95, STAT.0082.002.0077 and Exhibit 4-17, Tab 114, STAT.0088.001.0103. 338

Exhibit 4-17 Tab 100, STAT.0088.001.0092; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 102, STAT.0082.002.0089; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 105, STAT.0082.002.0091_R; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 110, STAT.0082.002.0094_R; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 111, STAT.0082.002.0098_R and Exhibit 4-17, Tab 112, STAT.0082.002.0100_R.

144

Report of Case Study No. 4

339 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 54, STAT.0074.001.0031_R. 340 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 58, STAT.0083.001.0121_E_R. 341

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 56, STAT.0083.001.0120_E_R; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 57, STAT.0083.001.0125_R; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 60, STAT.0083.001.0128, STAT.0083.001.0129; STAT.0083.001.0132_R; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 61, STAT.0083.001.0132_R; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 62, CTJH.102.01444.0140_R, CTJH.102.01444.0155, CTJH.102.01444.0156; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 63, STAT.0083.001.0135_R; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 65 STAT.0083.001.0136 and Exhibit 4-17, Tab 67, STAT.0074.001.0034. 342

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 69, STAT.0083.001.0141_R. 343 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 69, STAT.0083.001.0141_R. 344

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 74, CTJH.102.01444.0035. 345 Exhibit 4-26, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.002.0001_M [41]-[42]. 346

Exhibit 4-21, Statement of Patrick Mullins, STAT.0083.001.0001_M [67] 347 Exhibit 4-26, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.002.0001_M [39]. 348

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 72, STAT.0083.001.0144. 349 Exhibit 4-17. Tab 72, STAT.0083.001.0144. 350

Transcript of Patrick Mullins, T2898:5-7 (Day 27). 351 Transcript of Patrick Mullins, T2898:11-12 (Day 27). 352

Exhibit 4-26, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.002.0001_M [40]. 353 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [26]. 354

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [26]. 355 Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2925:12-20 (Day 28). 356

Exhibit 4-21, Statement of Patrick Mullins, STAT.0083.001.0001_M [78]-[79]. 357 Transcript of Patrick Mullins, T2900:45-47 (Day 27). 358

Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2925:25-31 (Day 28). 359 Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2926:12-18 (Day 28). 360

Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2925:39-43 (Day 28). 361 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 75, STAT.0083.001.0147_R and Exhibit 4-17, Tab 98, STAT.0083.001.0148_R. 362

Exhibit 4-21, Statement of Patrick Mullins, STAT.0083.001.0001_M [70]. 363 Exhibit 4-21, Statement of Patrick Mullins, STAT.0083.001.0001_M [71]. 364

Transcript of Patrick Mullins, T2900:16-26 (Day 27). 365 Transcript of Patrick Mullins, T2900:28-30 (Day 27). 366

Exhibit 4-21, Statement of Patrick Mullins, STAT.0083.001.0001_M [72]. 367 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 98, STAT.0083.001.0148_R. 368

Exhibit 4-26, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.002.0001_M [50]. 369 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 98, STAT.0083.001.0148_R. 370

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 98, STAT.0083.001.0148_R. 371 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 103, STAT.0074.001.0039_R. 372

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 106, STAT.0074.001.0041_R. 373 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [33]. 374

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [33]. 375 Exhibit 4-26, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.002.0001_M [52]. 376

Transcript of Patrick Mullins, T2898:34-40 (Day 27). 377 Exhibit 4-26, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.002.0001_M [67] 378

Exhibit 4-26, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.002.0001_M [51] 379 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [28] and [33]. 380

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 93, STAT.0074.001.0038_R; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 94, STAT.0082.002.0079_R; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 99, STAT.0082.002.0088_R; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 103, STAT.0074.001.0039_R; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 106, STAT.0074.001.0041_R; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 112 STAT.0082.002.0100_R and Exhibit 4-17, Tab 113, STAT.0082.002.0103_R.

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

145

381 Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2924:39-42 (Day 28). 382 Truth Justice and Healing Council, Submission to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child

Sexual Abuse in Response to Revised Submissions of Counsel Assisting, Case Study 4:Towards Healing, 15 September 2014, p. 73 [51]. 383 Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2924: 44-T2925:-2 (Day 28). 384

Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2930:8-16; T2938:41-2939:4 (Day 28). 385 Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2938:18-22; T2939:11-12; T2939:24-27 (Day 28). 386

Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2924:44 - T2925:2 (Day 28). 387 Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2925:35-43 (Day 28). 388

Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2928:29-47 (Day 28). 389 Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2939:5-9 (Day 28) and Exhibit 4-17, Tab 159, STAT.0082.002.0060. 390

Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2934:38-47 (Day 28). 391 Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2939:20-24 (Day 28). 392

Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2929:34-44 (Day 28). 393 Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2930:5-16 (Day 28). 394

Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2924:44 - T2925:2 (Day 28). 395 Truth Justice and Healing Council, Submission to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Response to Revised Submissions of Counsel Assisting, Case Study 4:Towards Healing, 15

September 2014, p. 74 [53]. 396 Exhibit 4-1, Tab B (Towards Healing 2010), at CTJH.0001.001.0005 .0034 [41.4.1]. 397

Transcript of Emma Fenby, T2950:30-34 (Day 28). 398 Transcript of Emma Fenby, T2982: 15-19 (Day 28). 399

Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2921:31-34 (Day 28). 400 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 76, STAT.0088.001.0062. 401

Exhibit 4-26, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.002.0001_M [41]-[42]. 402 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [26]. 403

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 93, STAT.0074.001.0038_R. 404 Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2922:17-24 (Day 28). 405

Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2923:9-12 (Day 28). 406 Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2936:6-20 (Day 28). 407

Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2936:39-46 (Day 28). 408 Revised Submissions of Counsel Assisting the Royal Commission in relation to Jennifer Ingham, Case Study 4:Towards Healing, 12 August 2014, p. 26 [135]. 409

Truth Justice and Healing Council, Submission to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Response to Revised Submissions of Counsel Assisting, Case Study 4:Towards Healing, 15 September 2014, Section 6.14, pp. 74-76. 410

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [39]. 411 Exhibit 4-26, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.002.0001_M [47]. 412

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 99, STAT.0082.002.0088_R. 413 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [28]-[30]; Exhibit 4-26, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.002.0001_M [55]-[62]. 414

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [28]. 415 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [28]. 416

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [55]. 417 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [36]. 418

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [36]. 419 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [29]. 420

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [29]. 421 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [28]. 422

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [30].

146

Report of Case Study No. 4

423 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [30]. 424 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [30]. 425

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [30]. 426 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [30]. 427

Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2830:7-23 (Day 27). 428 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [28]. 429

Exhibit 4-26, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.002.0001_M [54]. 430 Exhibit 4-26, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.002.0001_M [55]. 431

Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2927:6-9 (Day 28). 432 Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2927:17-19 (Day 28). 433

Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2928:19-22 (Day 28). 434 Exhibit 4-26, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.002.0001_M [56]. 435

Exhibit 4-26, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.002.0001_M [58]. 436 Exhibit 4-26, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.002.0001_M [59]. 437

Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2926:35-42 (Day 28). 438 Exhibit 4-26, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.002.0001_M [62]. 439

Exhibit 4-26, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.002.0001_M [61]. 440 Exhibit 4-26, Statement of Bernadette Rogers, STAT.0082.002.0001_M [54]; Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2936:25-27 (Day 28). 441

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 106, STAT.0074.001.0041_R. 442 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 102, STAT.0082.002.0089 and Exhibit 4-17, Tab 105, STAT.0082.002.0091_R. 443

Transcript of Bernadette Rogers, T2927:23-27 (Day 28). 444 Exhibit 4-17 Tab 111, STAT.0082.002.0098_R and Exhibit 4-17, Tab 112, STAT.0082.002.0100_R. 445

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [34]. 446 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [34]. 447

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [34]. 448 Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2787:9-17 (Day 26). 449

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [34]. 450 Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [59]. 451

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 104, STAT.0080.001.0058. 452 Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [60]. 453

Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [60]. 454 Transcript of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, T3060:18-23 (Day 29). 455

Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [89]. 456 Exhibit 4-1 Tab A, CTJH.0001.002.0001 at .0057 [96]. 457

Exhibit 4-31, Statement of Deacon Christopher Wallace, STAT.0088.001.0003_E_M [31] 458 Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [47] 459

Exhibit 4-31, Statement of Deacon Christopher Wallace, STAT.0088.001.0003_E_M [31]; Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [49]. 460 Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [51]. 461

Exhibit 4-31, Statement of Deacon Christopher Wallace, STAT.0088.001.0003_E_M [31]; Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [54]. 462 Transcript of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, T3077:8-12 (Day 29). 463

Transcript of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, T3077:14-17 (Day 29). 464 Transcript of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, T3054:21-27 (Day 29). 465

Transcript of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, T3077:19-22 (Day 29). 466 Transcript of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, T3078:4-7 (Day 29). 467

Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3005:15-31 (Day 28).

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

147

468 Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3005:15-31 (Day 28). 469 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [33]. 470

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 113, STAT.0082.002.0103_R. 471 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [37]; Exhibit 4-59, Statement of Michael Salmon, STAT.0084.002.0001_M [44]-[48]. 472

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [40]. 473 Exhibit 4-31, Statement of Deacon Christopher Wallace, STAT.0088.001.0003_E_M [48]. 474

Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3007:40-43 (Day 28). 475 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [37]. 476

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [37]. 477 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [38]. 478

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [39]. 479 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [39]. 480

Transcript of Emma Fenby, T2990:15-24 (Day 28). 481 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [40]. 482

Transcript of Emma Fenby, T2989:27-36 (Day 28). 483 Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3026:34-36 (Day 28). 484

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [40]. 485 Exhibit 4-31, Statement of Deacon Christopher Wallace, STAT.0088.001.0003_E_M [63]. 486

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [42]. 487 Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3006:35-44 (Day 28). 488

Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3006:46-47 -T3007:1 (Day 28). 489 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [44] 490

Exhibit 4-27, Statement of Emma Fenby, STAT.0089.001.0001 [118]; Transcript of Emma Fenby, T2975: 36 (Day 28). 491 Transcript of Emma Fenby, T2976: 12-21 (Day 28). 492

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jannifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [44]. 493 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 117, STAT.0074.001.0045. 494

Exhibit 4-59, Statement of Michael Salmon, STAT.0084.002.0001_M [88]; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 120, STAT.0084.002.0064. 495 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 115, STAT.0080.001.0059. 496

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 126, STAT.0074.001.0046_R. 497 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [48]. 498

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 126, STAT.0074.001.0046_R. 499 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 127, STAT.0074.001.0047_R. 500

Exhibit 4-27, Statement of Emma Fenby, STAT.0089.001.0001 [12]. 501 Exhibit 4-27, Statement of Emma Fenby, STAT.0089.001.0001 [14]. 502

Exhibit 4-27, Statement of Emma Fenby, STAT.0089.001.0001 [35]-[37]. 503 Transcript of Emma Fenby, T2951:23-31 (Day 28). 504

Exhibit 4-27, Statement of Emma Fenby, STAT.0089.001.0001 [78], Transcript of Emma Fenby, T2955:40-T2956:1-12 (Day 28). 505 Transcript of Emma Fenby, T2956:28-37 (Day 28). 506

Transcript of Emma Fenby, T2957:35-39 (Day 28). 507 Transcript of Emma Fenby, T2966:29-42 (Day 28). 508

Exhibit 4-17 Tab 108A, CCI.0026.00001.0180, CCI.0026.00001.0181_R, CCI.0026.00001.0187 and Exhibit 4-27, Statement of Emma Fenby, STAT.0089.001.0001 [100]. 509 Exhibit 4-17 Tab 108A, CCI.0026.00001.0180, CCI.0026.00001.0181_R, CCI.0026.00001.0187. 510

Transcript of Emma Fenby, T2964:1-5 (Day 28). 511 Transcript of Emma Fenby, T2963:9-10 (Day 28).

148

Report of Case Study No. 4

512 Transcript of Emma Fenby, T2963:13-17 (Day 28). 513 Transcript of Emma Fenby, T2960:24 -31 (Day 28). 514

Exhibit 4-27, Statement of Emma Fenby, STAT.0089.001.0001 [101]. 515 Transcript of Emma Fenby, T2964:33-45 (Day 28). 516

Transcript of Emma Fenby, T2965:28-32 (Day 28). 517 Exhibit 4-27, Statement of Emma Fenby, STAT.0089.001.0001[120] 518

Transcript of Emma Fenby, T2972:21-24 (Day 28). 519 Exhibit 4-31, Statement of Deacon Christopher Wallace, STAT.0088.001.0003_E_M [82]-[93]. 520

Exhibit 4-31, Statement of Deacon Christopher Wallace, STAT.0088.001.0003_E_M [82] . 521 Exhibit 4-31, Statement of Deacon Christopher Wallace, STAT.0088.001.0003_E_M [83]-[88]. 522

Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3013:4-14 (Day 28). 523 Exhibit 4-31, Statement of Deacon Christopher Wallace, STAT.0088.001.0003_E_M [92]. 524

Exhibit 4-31, Statement of Deacon Christopher Wallace, STAT.0088.001.0003_E_M [90]. 525 Exhibit 4-31, Statement of Deacon Christopher Wallace, STAT.0088.001.0003_E_M [90]; Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3014:30-37 (Day 28). 526

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 144, STAT.0088.001.0143 and STAT.0088.001.0145. 527 Exhibit 4-31, Statement of Deacon Christopher Wallace, STAT.0088.001.0003_E_M [97]. 528

Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [85]. 529 Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [68] and [85]. 530

Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2835:40-44 (Day 27). 531 Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2786:4-12 (Day 26). 532

Transcript of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, T3060:23-31 (Day 29). 533 Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2789:25-33 (Day 26); Exhibit 4-31, Statement of Deacon Christopher Wallace, STAT.0088.001.0003_E_M [100]. 534

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [51]; Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [83]. 535 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [51]; Exhibit 4-36, Statement of

Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [83]. 536 Exhibit 4-31, Statement of Deacon Christopher Wallace, STAT.0088.001.0003_E_M [100] 537

Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2789:35-44 (Day 26). 538 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [52]. 539

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [53]; Exhibit 4-17, Tab 149, STAT.0074.001.0048_R. 540 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 149, STAT.0074.001.0048_R. 541

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 150, STAT.0074.001.0049_R. 542 Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2835:40-44 (Day 27). 543

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 153, STAT.0080.001.0063_R. 544 Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [86]. 545

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [55]. 546 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [55]. 547

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [56]. 548 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [10]. 549

Exhibit 4-25, Statement of Father Francis Mulcahy, STAT.0093.001.0001 [15]. 550 Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2876:34-36 (Day 27). 551

Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [55]. 552 Exhibit 4-22, Statement of Professor Roger Dooley, STAT.0095.001.0001_M [1]. 553

Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2819:9-18 (Day 27) and Exhibit 4-17, Tab 18, STAT.0074.001.0022_R at .0023_R. 554 Exhibit 4-22, Statement of Professor Roger Dooley, STAT.0095.001.0001_M [4].

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

149

555 Exhibit 4-22, Statement of Professor Roger Dooley, STAT.0095.001.0001_M [8]. 556 Transcript of Professor Roger Dooley, T2857:13-25 (Day 27). 557

Exhibit 4-22, Statement of Professor Roger Dooley, STAT.0095.001.0001_M [8]. 558 Exhibit 4-22, Statement of Professor Roger Dooley, STAT.0095.001.0001_M [9]. 559

Exhibit 4-22, Statement of Professor Roger Dooley, STAT.0095.001.0001_M [6]. 560 Exhibit 4-22, Statement of Professor Roger Dooley, STAT.0095.001.0001_M [6] and Exhibit 4-17 Tab 13A, STAT.0095.001.0005_R, STAT.0095.001.0003_R. 561

Transcript of Professor Roger Dooley, T2860:27-36 (Day 27). 562 Exhibit 4-22, Statement of Professor Roger Dooley, STAT.0095.001.0001_M [7] and Exhibit 4-17 Tab 13A, STAT.0095.001.0005_R, STAT.0095.001.0003_R. 563

Transcript of Professor Roger Dooley, T2858:21-47 and T2859:1-8 (Day 27). 564 Transcript of Professor Roger Dooley, T2856:38-43 (Day 27). 565

Transcript of Professor Roger Dooley, T2856:42-47 (Day 27). 566 Transcript of Professor Roger Dooley, T2856:23-32 (Day 27). 567

Father Francis Mulcahy, Submission to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Response to Revised Submissions of Counsel Assisting, Case Study 4:Towards Healing, p. 4 [3.6]. 568 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [10]. 569

Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2806:3-7 (Day 27). 570 Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2806:10-29 (Day 27). 571

Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2806:37-39 (Day 27). 572 Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2808:32-38 (Day 27). 573

Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2825:27-28 (Day 27). 574 Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [10]. 575

Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2805:10-36 (Day 27). 576 Exhibit 4-25, Statement of Father Francis Mulcahy, STAT.0093.001.0001 [15] and [18]. 577

Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2884:30-35 (Day 27). 578 Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2891:34-T2892:2 (Day 27). 579

Exhibit 4-17, Tab 15, STAT.0074.001.0019_R and Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2814:36-44 (Day 27). 580 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 15, STAT.0074.001.0019_R. 581

Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2813:33-T2814:9 (Day 27). 582 Exhibit 4-35, Statement of Bishop John Satterthwaite, STAT.0096.001.0001 [9]. 583

Exhibit 4-35, Statement of Bishop John Satterthwaite, STAT.0096.001.0001 [14]. 584 Exhibit 4-31, Statement of Deacon Christopher Wallace, STAT.0088.001.0003_E_M [85]. 585

Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2815:38-40 (Day 27). 586 Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2815:42-47 and T2816:1-1 (Day 27). 587

Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2816:15-21 (Day 27). 588 Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2816:15-21 (Day 27). 589

Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2815:30-36 (Day 27). 590 Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2815:18-21 (Day 27). 591

Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2800:17-22 (Day 26). 592 Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2816:15-29 (Day 27). 593

Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2799:42-46 (Day 26). 594 Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2799:45-47 and T2800:1-3 (Day 27). 595

Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2872:20-27 (Day 27). 596 Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2872:16-18 (Day 27). 597

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [10]. 598 Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2810:27-34 (Day 27). 599

Exhibit 4-18, Statement of Jennifer Ingham, STAT.0074.001.0001_R_M [5]. 600 Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2881:10-19 (Day 27).

150

Report of Case Study No. 4

601 Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2890:31-40 (Day 27). 602 Exhibit 4-25, Statement of Father Francis Mulcahy, STAT.0093.001.0001 [20]. 603

Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2870:39-47 and T2871:1-13 (Day 27). 604 Exhibit 4-25, Statement of Father Francis Mulcahy, STAT.0093.001.0001 [20]. 605

Exhibit 4-25, Statement of Father Francis Mulcahy, STAT.0093.001.0001 [21]; Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2877:29-33 (Day 27). 606 Exhibit 4-25, Statement of Father Francis Mulcahy, STAT.0093.001.0001 [22]; Transcript of Father Francis

Mulcahy, T2877:35-37 (Day 27). 607 Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2877:47-T2878:20 (Day 27). 608

Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2878:15-33 (Day 27). 609 Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2811:9-36 (Day 27). 610

Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2812:17-22 (Day 27). 611 Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2881:2-43 (Day 27). 612

Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2798:1-11 (Day 26). 613 Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2826:34-44 (Day 27). 614

Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2826:46 - T2827:1 (Day 27). 615 Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2827:40-46 (Day 27). 616

Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2827:2-28 (Day 27). 617 Exhibit 4-25, Statement of Father Francis Mulcahy, STAT.0093.001.0001 [19]. 618

Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2890:5-7 (Day 27). 619 Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2890:13 (Day 27). 620

Transcript of Jennifer Ingham, T2828:34-46 (Day 27). 621 Exhibit 4-25, Statement of Father Francis Mulcahy, STAT.0093.001.0001 [11] 622

Exhibit 4-20, EXH.004.020.0001. 623 Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2878:35-47 (Day 27). 624

Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2879:3-6 (Day 27). 625 Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2880:44-47 (Day 27). 626

Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2886:45-47 (Day 27). 627 Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2880:28-32 (Day 27). 628

Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [56]. 629 Transcript of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, T3055:3-15 (Day 29). 630

Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [55]. 631 Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [46]-[47]. 632

Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [47]. 633 Exhibit 4-36, Statement of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, STAT.0080.001.0001_M [51] 634

Transcript of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, T3053:35 - 47 (Day 29). 635 Exhibit 4-25, Statement of Father Francis Mulcahy, STAT.0093.001.0001 [12] - [14]. 636

Transcript of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, T2873:16-26 (Day 29). 637 Exhibit 4-25, Statement of Father Francis Mulcahy, STAT.0093.001.0001 [12]. 638

Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2873:40-42 (Day 29). 639 Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2874:30-35 (Day 29). 640

Transcript of Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett, T3054:2-19 (Day 29). 641 Exhibit 4-25, Statement of Father Francis Mulcahy, STAT.0093.001.0001 [14]. 642

Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2874:7-18 (Day 27). 643 Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3011:32-34 (Day 28). 644

Exhibit 4-31, Statement of Deacon Christopher Wallace, STAT.0088.001.0003_E_M [61]. 645 Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3008:16-20 (Day 28). 646

Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3008:22-24 (Day 28).

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

151

647 Exhibit 4-17, Tab 141, STAT.0088.001.0141. 648 Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3015:8-19 (Day 28). 649

Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3019:28-30 (Day 28). 650 Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3013:6-12 (Day 28). 651

Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3013:11-14 (Day 28) and Exhibit 4-31, Statement of Deacon Christopher Wallace, STAT.0088.001.0003_E_M [89]. 652 Exhibit 4-31, Statement of Deacon Christopher Wallace, STAT.0088.001.0003_E_M [89]. 653

Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3022:15-17 (Day 28). 654 Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3013:38-47 and T3014:1-4 (Day 28). 655

Exhibit 4-46, Supplementary Statement of Father Francis Mulcahy, STAT.0093.002.0001_Combined [10]-[11]. 656 Exhibit 4-46, Supplementary Statement of Father Francis Mulcahy, STAT.0093.002.0001_Combined [10]-

[11].

657 Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3020:24-30 (Day 28). 658 Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3014:15-18 (Day 28). 659

Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3021:15-26 (Day 28). 660 Exhibit 4-25, Statement of Father Francis Mulcahy, STAT.0093.001.0001 [6] 661

Transcript of Deacon Christopher Wallace, T3015:24-29 (Day 28). 662 Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2875:42-47 and T2876:1-19 (Day 27). 663

Transcript of Father Francis Mulcahy, T2876:15-32 (Day 27). 664 Transcript of Colin Riches T2864:14-16 (Day 27). 665

Exhibit 4-24 EXH.004.024.0001_R. 666 Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [4]; Transcript of DG, T3092:15-18 (Day 29). 667

Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [4]; Transcript of DG, T3092:15-18 (Day 29). 668 Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [5]; Transcript of DG, T3092:20-21 (Day 29). 669

Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [6]-[7]; Transcript of DG, T3092:23-32 (Day 29). 670 Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [8]; Transcript of DG, T3092:34-36 (Day 29). 671

Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [9]; Transcript of DG, T3092:38-39 (Day 29). 672 Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [9]; Transcript of DG, T3092:38-47; T2093:1-5 (Day 29). 673

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 1, STAT.0079.001.0011_R. 674 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 1, STAT.0079.001.0011_R. 675

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 1, STAT.0079.001.0011_R. 676 Exhibit 4-40, Statement of Brother Alexis Turton, STAT.0085.001.0001_R [26]. 677

Exhibit 4-39, Statement of Brother Michael Andrew Hill, STAT.0079.001.0001_R [20-21]. 678 Exhibit 4-39, Statement of Brother Michael Andrew Hill, STAT.0079.001.0001_R [28]. 679

Exhibit 4-40, Statement of Brother Alexis Turton, STAT.0085.001.0001_R [38]; Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3199:40-44 (Day 30). 680 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3199:46-T3200:7 (Day 30). 681

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 71, CTJH.0002.001.0001 at .0003. 682 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 4, STAT.0079.001.0012; Exhibit 4-38, Tab 9, STAT.0079.001.0013_R. 683

See Exhibit 4-38 Tab 1, STAT.0079.001.0011_R; Exhibit 4-38, Tab 9, STAT.0079.001.0013_R. The names are so similar that it is possible that they refer to the same person and that the difference between them is merely an error in one of the records. 684

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 9, STAT.0079.001.0013_R. 685 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 4, STAT.0079.001.0012. 686

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3200:38-45 (Day 30). 687 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3201:46-T3202:27; T3203:5-9 (Day 30). 688

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3202:39-47; T3203:1-3; T3232:21-26; T3233:1-36 (Day 30). 689 See Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3201:4-6 (Day 30).

152

Report of Case Study No. 4

690 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 5, STAT.0079.001.0014_R. Exhibit 4-40, Statement of Brother Alexis Turton, STAT.0085.001.0001_R [40]; Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3203:34-47; T3204:1-33; T3204:45-47; T3205:1-2; T3211:9-15 (Day 30).

691 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3204:40-43; T3206:15-19; T3234:1-3 (Day 30); Exhibit 4-40, Statement of Brother Alexis Turton, STAT.0085.001.0001_R [40].

692 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 5, STAT.0079.001.0014_R. 693 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 5, STAT.0079.001.0014_R. 694

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 5, STAT.0079.001.0014_R. 695 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3214:1-13; T3206:1-43 (Day 30). 696

Exhibit 4-40, Statement of Brother Alexis Turton, STAT.0085.001.0001_R [40]. 697 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3206:21-27 (Day 30). 698

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3206:39-46 (Day 30). 699 Exhibit 4-1, Tab P, CTJH.0001.001.0295. 700

Exhibit 4-1, Tab P, CTJH.0001.001.0295 [2]. 701 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3201:15 - 21; T3208:20-T3209:11 (Day 30). 702

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3208:20-T3210:7 (Day 30). 703 Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [11]. 704

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 7, IND.0002.001.0023_R. 705 Exhibit 4-40, Statement of Brother Alexis Turton, STAT.0085.001.0001_R [41]. See also Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3212:36-38 (Day 30). 706

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3213:1-20 (Day 30). 707 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3215:1-7 (Day 30). 708

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3214: 38-46 (Day 30). 709 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 7, IND.0002.001.0023_R; Exhibit 4-38, Tab 8, IND.0002.001.0026_R. 710

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 6A, CTJH.053.14001.0190. 711 See Exhibit 4-39, Statement of Brother Michael Andrew Hill, STAT.0079.001.0001_R [43]; Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3129:31-36 (Day 29). 712

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 13, STAT.0079.001.0019. 713 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 13, STAT.0079.001.0019. 714

Exhibit 4-39, Statement of Brother Michael Andrew Hill, STAT.0079.001.0001_R [45, 47]. 715 Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [19]. 716

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 14, STAT.0079.001.0020_R. 717 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 14, STAT.0079.001.0020_R. 718

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 14, STAT.0079.001.0020_R. 719 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3189:34-T3190:8 (Day 30). 720

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3131:15-38 (Day 29). 721 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3130:8-T3131:43 (Day 29). 722

Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [20]. 723 Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [20]. 724

Exhibit 4-39, Statement of Brother Michael Andrew Hill, STAT.0079.001.0001_R [50-52]; Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3133:19-28 (Day 29). 725 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill T3133:25-34 (Day 29). 726

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill T3135:40-47 (Day 29). 727 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 17, STAT.0064.001.0013_R. The letter is dated 29 January 2000 (on the first page) and 29 February 2000 (on the second page). 728

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3230:35-40 (Day 30). 729 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 17, STAT.0064.001.0013_R. 730

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 18, STAT.0079.001.0034_R. 731 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 19, CTJH.053.07008.0091_R.

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

153

732 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3146:38-40; T3147:1-16 (Day 30). 733 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3148:37-41 (Day 30). 734

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3148:30-35 (Day 30). 735 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3148:21-28; 43-47 (Day 30). 736

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3149:17-31 (Day 30). 737 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 20, CTJH.053.07008.0056_R. 738

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 20, CTJH.053.07008.0056_R. 739 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 21, CTJH.053.07008.0087_R. 740

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 22, STAT.0064.001.0016_R. 741 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3154:30-36 (Day 30). 742

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3153:43-T3154:5; T3154:42-T3155:1 (Day 30). 743 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3154:16-36 (Day 30). 744

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3154:38-40 (Day 30). 745 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 23, CTJH.053.07008.0083_R. 746

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 25, STAT.0064.001.0018_R. 747 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3155:10-42 (Day 30). See also Exhibit 4-39, Statement of Brother Michael Andrew Hill, STAT.0079.001.0001_R [60]. 748

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3155:10-T3156:18 (Day 30). 749 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3156:14-18 (Day 30). 750

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3155:44-T3156:26 (Day 30). 751 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 26, STAT.0079.001.0046_R. 752

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 27, CTJH.053.07008.0079_R. 753 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 28, STAT.0079.001.0047_R. 754

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 30, CTJH.053.07008.0073_R. 755 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 30, CTJH.053.07008.0073_R. 756

Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [25]; Exhibit 4-39, Statement of Brother Michael Andrew Hill, STAT.0079.001.0001_R [64]. 757 Exhibit 4-39, Statement of Brother Michael Andrew Hill, STAT.0079.001.0001_R [67]. 758

Transcript of DG T3107:12-16 (Day 29). 759 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 31, STAT.0079.001.0049_R; Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3192:20-24 (Day 30). 760

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3159:8-22 (Day 30). 761 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3159:24-T3160:34 (Day 30). 762

Exhibit 4-39, Statement of Brother Michael Andrew Hill, STAT.0079.001.0001_R [68]. 763 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3161:3-5 (Day 30). 764

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3179:29-32 (Day 30). 765 Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [27]. 766

Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [25]. 767 Transcript of DG T3101:6-14 (Day 29). 768

Exhibit 4-39, Statement of Brother Michael Andrew Hill, STAT.0079.001.0001_R [70(a)]. 769 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3165:1-1; T3157:22-25 (Day 30). 770

Exhibit 4-39, Statement of Brother Michael Andrew Hill, STAT.0079.001.0001_R [70(b)]; Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3157:36-43 (Day 30). 771 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3157:45-T3158:8 (Day 30). 772

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3158:10-26 (Day 30). 773 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3158:28-32 (Day 30). 774

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3162:21-T3165:17 (Day 30); Exhibit 4-38, Tab 14, STAT.0079.001.0020_R. 775 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3165:12-16 (Day 30). 776

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3165:17 (Day 30).

154

Report of Case Study No. 4

777 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3161-3162; T3167 (Day 30); Exhibit 4-39, Statement of Brother Michael Andrew Hill, STAT.0079.001.0001_R [72]; Exhibit 4-38, Tab 31, STAT.0079.001.0049_R at .0050_R.

778 Exhibit 4-39, Statement of Brother Michael Hill, STAT.0079.001.0001_R [85]. See also Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3179:4-27 (Day 30).

779 Exhibit 4-39, Statement of Brother Michael Hill, STAT.0079.001.0001_R [85]. See also Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3179:4-27 (Day 30).

780 Transcript of DG, T3109:23-26 (Day 29). 781 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 36, STAT.0064.001.0020_R. 782

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 36, STAT.0064.001.0020_R. 783 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3168:33-37 (Day 30). 784

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3170:16-T3171:11 (Day 30). 785 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3171:13-20; T3172:26-29 (Day 30). 786

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 38, STAT.0079.001.0059_R. 787 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 38, STAT.0079.001.0059_R. 788

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 37, STAT.0079.001.0061_R. 789 Exhibit 4-39, Statement of Brother Michael Andrew Hill, STAT.0079.001.0001_R [77]. 790

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 42, STAT.0079.001.0063_R. 791 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 42, STAT.0079.001.0063_R. 792

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 45, CTJH.053.01084.0033_R. 793 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 45, CTJH.053.01084.0033_R. 794

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3177:40-47 (Day 30). 795 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3178:1-7 (Day 30). 796

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3178:24-27 (Day 30). 797 Exhibit 4-1, Tab D (Towards Healing 2000), CTJH.0001.001.0073 [36.1, 38.2]. 798

Exhibit 4-1, Tab DD (Patrick Parkinson, ‘Review of Towards Healing:Report for the National Committee for Professional Standards’ 2000), USYD.9100.01002.0049, page 6. 799 See Exhibit 4-1, Tab D (Towards Healing 2000), CTJH.0001.001.0073 [38.2, 38.3, 38.4]. 800

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3175:27-41 (Day 30). 801 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3175:21-41 (Day 30). 802

Exhibit 4-1, Tab D (Towards Healing 2000), CTJH.0001.001.0073 [36.1]. 803 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3139:12-18 (Day 29). 804

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3174:16-37 (Day 30). 805 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3169:8-16 (Day 30). 806

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3168:33-37; T3170:1-14 (Day 30); Transcript of Brother Michael Hill T3172:14-29; T3174:10-14 (Day 30). See also Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3175:43-T3176:1 (Day 30). 807

Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3168:32-46 (Day 30). See also Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3170:2-14; T3174:1-14 (Day 30). 808 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3231:5-21 (Day 30). 809

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 40, STAT.0064.001.0023_R. 810 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 40, STAT.0064.001.0023_R. 811

Exhibit 4-38, Tabs 46, STAT.0079.001.0064_R; Exhibit 4-38, Tab 47, CTJH.053.07008.0037_R. See also Exhibit 4-63, Statement of Patrick John Monahan, CTJH.500.02001.0002_E_R [14]. 812 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 49, STAT.0064.001.0025_R at .0026_R. 813

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 49, STAT.0064.001.0025_R. 814 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 57, STAT.0064.001.0034_R. 815

Exhibit 4-38 Tab 57B at CCI.0015.00004.0134_R-CCI.0015.00004.0135_R. 816 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 57B, CCI.0015.00004.0134_R-CCI.0015.00004.0135_R. 817

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 57B, CCI.0015.00004.0134_R-CCI.0015.00004.0135_R.

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

155

818 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 57B, CCI.0015.00004.0134_R. 819 Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [34]. 820

Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [35]. 821 Exhibit 4-63, Statement of Patrick John Monahan, CTJH.500.02001.0002_E_R [23]. 822

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 58B, CTJH.500.02001.0016_E_R. 823 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 58B, CTJH.500.02001.0016_E_R. 824

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 58B-1, CCI.0015.00004.0108_R. 825 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 58A, CCI.0015.00004.0108_R. 826

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 58C, CTJH.500.02001.0017_E_R. 827 Exhibit 4-40, Statement of Brother Alexis Turton, STAT.0085.001.0001_R [47]; Exhibit 4-38, Tab 59, CTJH.500.02001.0017_E_R. 828

Exhibit 4-40, Statement of Brother Alexis Turton, STAT.0085.001.0001_R [47]. 829 Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [36]. 830

Transcript of DG, T3121:24-34 (Day 29). 831 Transcript of DG, T3114:3-14 (Day 29). 832

Transcript of DG, T3113:20-35; T3114:42-T3115:2 (Day 29). 833 Transcript of DG, T3120:42-T3121:22 (Day 29). 834

Transcript of DG, T3113:20-35 (Day 29). 835 Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [36]. 836

Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [36]; Exhibit 4-38, Tab 59C, CCI.0015.00004.00005_R. 837 Transcript of Patrick Monahan, T3712:41-45 (Day 35). 838

Exhibit 4-40, Statement of Brother Alexis Turton, STAT.0085.001.0001_R [51]-[52]. 839 Exhibit 4-40, Statement of Brother Alexis Turton, STAT.0085.001.0001_R [53]; Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [38]-[39]. 840

Exhibit 4-40, Statement of Brother Alexis Turton, STAT.0085.001.0001_R [55]. 841 Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [38]-[39]. 842

Exhibit 4-40, Statement of Brother Alexis Turton, STAT.0085.001.0001_R [62]. 843 Exhibit 4-40, Statement of Brother Alexis Turton, STAT.0085.001.0001_R [63]. 844

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3218:9-36; T3220:24-30 (Day 30). 845 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3218:1-36; T3220:24-44 (Day 30). 846

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3218:30-36 (Day 30). 847 Exhibit 4-38, T59C, CCI.0015.00004.0005_R. 848

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3220:21-22 (Day 30). 849 Exhibit 4-40, Statement of Brother Alexis Turton, STAT.0085.001.0001_R [52], [62]-[63]; Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3220:15-44 (Day 30). 850

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 61, STAT.0085.001.0015_R; Exhibit 4-38, Tab 61A, CTJH.500.02001.0028_E_R; Exhibit 4-38, Tab 62, STAT.0085.001.0022_R. 851 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 36, STAT.0064.001.0020_R. 852

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 58C, CCI.0015.00004.0005_R at .0006_R. 853 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 59C, at CCI.0015.00004.0005_R; Transcript of Patrick Monahan, T3712:37-39 (Day 35). 854

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 59C, CCI.0015.00004.0006_R; Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3223:38-46 (Day 30). 855 Exhibit 4-38, Tab 59C, CCI.0015.00004.0006_R - CCI.0015.00004.0007_R. 856

Transcript of Patrick Monahan, T3713:9-37 (Day 35). 857 Transcript of Patrick Monahan, T3713:36-44 (Day 35). See also Transcript of Patrick Monahan T3714:7-27 (Day 35). 858

Transcript of Patrick Monahan, T3715:35-41 (Day 35). 859 Transcript of Patrick Monahan, T3715:35-44 (Day 35). 860

Transcript of Patrick Monahan, T3714:16-21 (Day 35). See also Transcript of Patrick Monahan, T3715:27-30 (Day 35).

156

Report of Case Study No. 4

861 Transcript of Patrick Monahan, T3714:29-40 (Day 35). 862 Transcript of Patrick Monahan, T3715:14-25 (Day 35). 863

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3225:23-31 (Day 30). 864 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3224:9-15 (Day 30). 865

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3227:16-45 (Day 30). 866 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton T3224:17-23 (Day 30). 867

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton T3228:3-6 (Day 30). 868 Transcript of Brother Michael Hill, T3178:9-12 (Day 30). 869

Exhibit 4-38, Tab 36, STAT.0064.001.0020_R. 870 Exhibit 4-38. Tab 36, STAT.0064.001.0020_R at .0021_R. 871

Exhibit 4-37, Statement of DG, STAT.0064.001.0002_R [45]. 872 Exhibit 4-1, Tab W (Patrick Parkinson, ‘Final Report: Towards Healing Review’ 2009), CTJH.0001.001.0357, page 16. 873

Exhibit 4-1, Tab W (Patrick Parkinson, ‘Final Report: Towards Healing Review’ 2009), CTJH.0001.001.0357, page 17. 874 Truth Justice Healing Council, Submissions to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child

Sexual Abuse, Issues Paper 2: Towards Healing, 30 September 2013, page 67 [164]. 875 Exhibit 4-1, Tab B (Towards Healing 2010), CTJH.0001.001.0005 [36.5]. 876

Exhibit 4-43, Statement of DK, STAT.0075.001.0001_R [4]. 877 Exhibit 4-43, Statement of DK, STAT.0075.001.0001_R [5]. 878

Exhibit 4-43, Statement of DK, STAT.0075.001.0001_R [6]. 879 Exhibit 4-43, Statement of DK, STAT.0075.001.0001_R [6]. 880

Exhibit 4-43, Statement of DK, STAT.0075.001.0001_R [7]; Exhibit 4-42, Tab 24, STAT.0085.002.0029_R at .0029-.0030. 881 Exhibit 4-43, Statement of DK, STAT.0075.001.0001_R [8]. 882

Exhibit 4-61, Statement of Brother Gerald Burns, CTJH.500.05001.0002_E_R [25]. 883 Transcript of Brother Andrew Moraghan, T3694:14-19 (Day 35); Exhibit 4-62, Statement of Brother Andrew Moraghan, CTJH.500.06001.0001_E_R [23]. 884

Exhibit 4-62, Statement of Brother Andrew Moraghan, CTJH.500.06001.0001_E_R [23]. 885 Exhibit 4-43, Statement of DK, STAT.0075.001.0001_R [10]. 886

Exhibit 4-43, Statement of DK, STAT.0075.001.0001_R [12]. 887 Exhibit 4-61, Statement of Brother Gerald Burns, CTJH.500.05001.0002_E_R [27]. 888

Exhibit 4-61, Statement of Brother Gerald Burns, CTJH.500.05001.0002_E_R [27-28]. 889 Exhibit 4-61, Statement of Brother Gerald Burns, CTJH.500.05001.0002_E_R [29]. 890

Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3645:28-31 (Day 34). 891 Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3643:6-37 (Day 34). 892

Exhibit 4-61, Statement of Brother Gerald Burns, CTJH.500.05001.0002_E_R [30]. 893 Exhibit 4-61, Statement of Brother Gerald Burns, CTJH.500.05001.0002_E_R [31]. 894

Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3641:22-T3643:1 (Day 34). 895 Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3650:1-27 (Day 34). 896

Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3650:1-27 (Day 34). 897 Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3651:27-38 (Day 34). 898

Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3650:29-40 (Day 34). 899 Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3650:46-T3651:11 (Day 34). 900

Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3651:6-11 (Day 34). 901 Exhibit 4-43, Statement of DK, STAT.0075.001.0001_R [11]. 902

Exhibit 4-61, Statement of Brother Gerald Burns, CTJH.500.05001.0002_E_R [35]. 903 Exhibit 4-43, Statement of DK, STAT.0075.001.0001_R [19]. 904

Exhibit 4-43, Statement of DK, STAT.0075.001.0001_R [21]. 905 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 15, CTJH.053.01071.0390_R; Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3333:33-T3334:33; T3338:39-42; T3341:20-24 (Day 31). 906

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 15B, CTJH.500.04001.0057_E_R. 907 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 15, CTJH.053.01071.0390_R.

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

157

908 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 19, STAT.0085.002.0021_R. 909 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 19, STAT.0085.002.0022_R. 910

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 19, STAT.0085.002.0021_R. 911 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 20, STAT.0085.002.0024_E_R. 912

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 20, STAT.0085.002.0024_E_R. 913 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 23, STAT.0075.001.0017_R. 914

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 23, STAT.0075.001.0017_R. 915 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 20A, STAT.0085.002.0023_E_R. 916

Exhibit 4-45, Statement of Brother Alexis Turton, STAT.0085.002.0001_R [29]. 917 Exhibit 4-45, Statement of Brother Alexis Turton, STAT.0085.002.0001_R [31]. 918

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3332:20-23 (Day 31). 919 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3333:1-8 (Day 31). 920

Exhibit 4-45, Statement of Brother Alexis Turton, STAT.0085.002.0001_R [40]. 921 Exhibit 4-45, Statement of Brother Alexis Turton, STAT.0085.002.0001_R [40]. 922

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3344:2-18 (Day 31). See also Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3475:1-19 (Day 32). 923 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3475:21-39 (Day 32). 924

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3474:31-46 (Day 32). 925 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3338:36-T3339:5 (Day 31). 926

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3341:34-T3343:1; T3338:24-34 (Day 31); Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3599:13-T3600:26 (Day 34). 927 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3342:30-T3343:1 (Day 31). 928

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3339:14-27 (Day 31). See also Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3341:47-T3342:43 (Day 31). 929 Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3601:11-18 (Day 34). 930

Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3599:34-T3601:18 (Day 34). 931 Exhibit 4-60, Statement of Michael John Salmon, STAT.0084.001.0001_R [33]. 932

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3477:10-28 (Day 32). 933 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 26, STAT.0085.002.0014_R. 934

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 44, STAT.0084.001.0081_R at .0082_R. 935 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 44, STAT.0084.001.0081_R at .0082_R. 936

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 44, STAT.0084.001.0081_R at .0082_R. 937 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 44, STAT.0084.001.0081_R. 938

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 7, CTJH.053.09001.0422_R. 939 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3459:11-T3460:14 (Day 32). 940

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3460:16-37 (Day 32). 941 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 49, CTJH.053.07010.0038_R. 942

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 49A, CCI.0076.00009.0188_E_R. 943 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 54, CTJH.053.07010.0011_R. 944

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 59B, CTJH.053.07010.0009_R. 945 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 69, CTJH.053.09006.0201_R. 946

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 97, CTJH.300.01000.0002_E1_R; Exhibit 4-42, Tab 98, CTJH.300.01000.0002_E2_R; Exhibit 4-42, Tab 99, CTJH.053.08001.0001_E3_R; Exhibit 4-42, Tab 100, CTJH.053.08001.0001_E4_R. 947 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 101, CTJH.9000.01001.0005_E1_R. 948

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3462:30-T3463:20; T3362:19-24 (Day 32). 949 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3463:11-14 (Day 32). 950

Exhibit 4-67, Statement of Brother Anthony Henry Hunt, STAT.0097.001.0001_R [7]. 951 Transcript of DK, T3261:11-17 (Day 31). 952

Transcript of DK, T3261:11-17 (Day 31). 953 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3466:25-T3467:29 (Day 32). See also Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3470:24-33; T3481:40-46 (Day 32). 954

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3481:36-38 (Day 32); Transcript of DL, T3319:17-34 (Day 31). 955 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 25, STAT.0085.002.0034_R. 956

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 25, STAT.0085.002.0034_R. 957 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 25, STAT.0085.002.0034_R. 958

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 27, STAT.0075.001.0019_R.

158

Report of Case Study No. 4

959 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 28, STAT.0075.001.0020_R. 960 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 28, STAT.0075.001.0020_R. 961

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 28B, CTJH.053.07009.0362_R. 962 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 40, CTJH.402.03004.0214_R; Exhibit 4-42, Tab 47, STAT.0075.001.0025_R. 963

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 47, STAT.0075.001.0025_R. 964 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 36, STAT.0085.002.0175_R. 965

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 41, STAT0075.001.0027_R. 966 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 38, CTJH.053.07009.0349_R. 967

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 42, STAT.0084.001.0080_R. 968 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 46, STAT.0085.002.0180_R. 969

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 51, STAT.0085.002.0181_R. 970 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 56, STAT.0084.001.0087_R. 971

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 59, STAT.0085.002.0189_R. 972 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 31, STAT.0085.002.0128_R; Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3350:26-9 (Day 31). See also Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3351:26-34 (Day 31). 973

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 32, STAT.0085.002.0129_R. 974 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3485:2-14 (Day 32). 975

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 32, STAT.0085.002.0129_R. 976 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 32, STAT.0085.002.0129_R. 977

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 32, STAT.0085.002.0129_R. 978 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 35, STAT.0084.001.0079. 979

Exhibit 4-60, Statement of Michael John Salmon, STAT.0084.001.0001_R [35]. 980 Exhibit 4-60, Statement of Michael John Salmon, STAT.0084.001.0001_R [36]. See also Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3580:17-34; T3585:20-34 (Day 34). 981

Exhibit 4-60, Statement of Michael John Salmon, STAT.0084.001.0001_R [36]. 982 Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3610:3-35 (Day 34); Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3611:13-36 (Day 34). 983

Exhibit 4-43, Statement of DK, STAT.0075.001.0001_R [22]; Transcript of DK, T3296:4-T3297:27 (Day 31). 984 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 49A, CCI.0076.00009.0188_E_R. 985

Exhibit 4-1, Tab B (Towards Healing 2010), CTJH.0001.001.0005 [41.4.2]. 986 Exhibit 4-1, Tab B (Towards Healing 2010), CTJH.0001.001.0005 [39.5]. 987

Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3588:3-27 (Day 34). 988 Exhibit 4-60, Statement of Michael John Salmon, STAT.0084.001.0001_R [32]. See Transcript of Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3588:3-27; T3592:36-T3593:29 (Day 34). 989

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3347:34-41 (Day 31). See also Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, 3350:1-8 (Day 31). 990 Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3586:3-23; T3593:18-22 (Day 34). 991

Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3584:11-37; T3626:43-T3627:8 (Day 34). See also Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3572:46-T3574:10 (Day 34). 992 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3348:23-43 (Day 31). 993

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3349:21-46 (Day 31). 994 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3349:5-T3350:8 (Day 31). See also Exhibit 4-42, Tab 78, STAT.0085.002.0201_R. 995

Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3573:46-T3574:10 (Day 34). See also Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3585:20-24 (Day 34). 996 Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3579:20-46; T3602:25-29 (Day 34). See also Transcript of Michael Salmon,

T3582:22-27 (Day 34). 997 Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3602:14-23 (Day 34). 998

Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3607:3-T3608:2 (Day 34). 999 Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3571:36-40; T3577:41-T3578:15 (Day 34). See also Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3601:36-T3602:3 (Day 34). 1000

Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3572:8-44 (Day 34). See also Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3578:5-15; T3583:37-42 (Day 34); T3574:12-46 (Day 34).

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

159

1001 Truth Justice Healing Council, Submissions to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Issues Paper 2:Towards Healing, 30 September 2013.

1002 Truth Justice Healing Council, Submissions to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Issues Paper 2:Towards Healing, 30 September 2013, page 128 [53]-[55].

1003 Exhibit 4-59, Statement of Michael John Salmon, STAT.0084.002.0001 [28]. 1004 Exhibit 4-44, Statement of DL, STAT.0093.001.0001_R [21]. 1005

Exhibit 4-1, Tab B (Towards Healing 2010), CTJH.0001.001.0005 [6]. 1006 Truth Justice Healing Council, Submissions to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Issues Paper 2:Towards Healing, 30 September 2013, page 57 [108]. 1007

Exhibit 4-44, Statement of DL, STAT.0093.001.0001_R [21], [23]-[24]. 1008 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 60, STAT.0075.002.0029_R. 1009

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 66, STAT.0075.001.0035_R. 1010 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 61, STAT.0084.001.0098_R. 1011

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 65, CTJH.053.07009.0247_R. 1012 Transcript of DK, T3300:5-44; T3309:10-43 (Day 31). 1013

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 70, STAT.0085.002.0194_R. 1014 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 10, STAT.0085.002.0018_R. 1015

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 16, CTJH.053.07009.0098_R. 1016 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 19, STAT.0085.002.0021_R. 1017

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 23, STAT.0075.001.0017_R. 1018 Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3800:31-36 (Day 36A). 1019

Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3653:46-T3654:12 (Day 35). 1020 Transcript of Patrick Monahan, T3695:8-T3696:11 (Day 35). 1021

Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3654:38-41 (Day 34). 1022 Transcript of DK, T3297:34-T3298:5 (Day 31). 1023

Transcript of DK, T3303:8-9 (Day 31). 1024 Transcript of DK, T3303:11-18 (Day 31). 1025

Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3659:6-24 (Day 35). See also Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3659-3660; T3666:26-36; T3672:13-20; T3679:43-46; T3674:5-22 (Day 35). 1026 Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3674:5-22 (Day 35). 1027

Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3680:3-18 (Day 35). 1028 Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3680:34-T3682:11 (Day 35). 1029

Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3663:16-25; T3660:8-23 (Day 35). 1030 Exhibit 4-61, Statement of Brother Gerald Burns, CTJH.500.05001.0002_E_R [40]. 1031

Exhibit 4-61, Statement of Brother Gerald Burns, CTJH.500.05001.0002_E_R [42]. 1032 Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3655:13-30 (Day 35). See also Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3664:21-32; T3672:22-44 (Day 35); Exhibit 4-61, Statement of Brother Gerald Burns,

CTJH.500.05001.0002_E_R [40]. 1033 Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3659:26-45 (Day 35). See also Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns,

T3662:42-T3663:8 (Day 35). See also Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3664:11-19; T3676:35-T3677:7 (Day 35). 1034 Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3662:42-T3663:8 (Day 35). See also Transcript of Brother Gerald

Burns, T3664:11-19; T3676:35-T3677:7 (Day 35). 1035 Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3682:47-T3683:5 (Day 35). See also Transcript of Brother Gerald

Burns, T3677:9-T3679:8; T3684:25-T3686:26 (Day 35). 1036 Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3682:47-T3683:38 (Day 35). 1037

Transcript of Brother Gerald Burns, T3682:47-T3683:38 (Day 35). 1038 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 24, STAT.0085.002.0029. 1039

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 61, STAT.0084.001.0098_R; Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3796:29-T3797:24 (Day 36A). 1040 Exhibit 4-60, Statement of Michael John Salmon, STAT.0084.001.0001_R [48]. 1041

Exhibit 4-60, Statement of Michael John Salmon, STAT.0084.001.0001_R [48]. 1042 Exhibit 4-60, Statement of Michael John Salmon, STAT.0084.001.0001_R [48]. 1043

Exhibit 4-70, Document 1, at EXH.004.0054.0002_R. 1044 Exhibit 4-70, Document 1, at EXH.004.0054.0002_R. 1045

Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3797:26-45; T3809:46-T3810:1 (Day 36A).

160

Report of Case Study No. 4

1046 Exhibit 4-69, Supplementary Statement of Michael Salmon, STAT.0118.001.0001_R [6 - 9]. 1047 Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3796:29-T3797:24 (Day 36A). 1048

Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3796:29-T2797:24 (Day 36A). 1049 Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3797:47-T3798:44 (Day 36A). 1050

Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3808:11-16 (Day 36A). 1051 Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3799:38-T8000:29 (Day 36A). See also Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3831:15-43 (Day 36A). 1052

Exhibit 4-62, Statement of Brother Andrew Moraghan, CTJH.500.06001.0001_E_R [30]; Transcript of Brother Andrew Moraghan, T3697:18-36 (Day 35). See also Transcript of Brother Andrew Moraghan, T3702:29-33; T3699:2-20 (Day 35). 1053

Exhibit 4-62, Statement of Brother Andrew Moraghan, CTJH.500.06001.0001_E_R [30]. 1054 Transcript of Brother Andrew Moraghan, T3692:21-37 (Day 35). 1055

Transcript of Brother Andrew Moraghan, T3701:34-T3702:1 (Day 35). 1056 Transcript of Brother Andrew Moraghan, T3702:35-T3703:9 (Day 35). 1057

Transcript of Brother Andrew Moraghan, T3701:21-32 (Day 35). 1058 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 68, STAT.0085.002.0193_R. 1059

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3478:43-T3479:29 (Day 35). See also Exhibit 4-45, Statement of Brother Alexis Turton, STAT.0085.002.0001_R [89]. 1060 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3481:2-34 (Day 32). 1061

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3478:43-T3479:29 (Day 32); Exhibit 4-42, Tab 51, STAT.0085.002.0181_R. 1062 Transcript of DL, T3322:24-37 (Day 31). 1063

Transcript of DL, T3322:24-43 (Day 31). 1064 Transcript of Patrick Monahan, T3723:11-45 (Day 35). 1065

Transcript of Patrick Monahan, T3736:47-T3737:9 (Day 35). 1066 Exhibit 4-1, Tab B (Towards Healing 2010), CTJH.0001.001.0005 [14]. 1067

Exhibit 4-43, Statement of DK, STAT.0075.001.0001_R [43]. 1068 Exhibit 4-43, Statement of DK, STAT.0075.001.0001_R [44]. 1069

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 73, STAT.0075.001.0036_R. 1070 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 74, STAT.0075.001.0037_R. 1071

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 74, STAT.0075.001.0037_R. 1072 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 81, STAT.0085.002.0212. 1073

Exhibit 4-43, Statement of DK, STAT.0075.001.0001_R [22]; Transcript of DK, T3291:45-T3295:41 (Day 31). 1074 Transcript of DK, T3293:36-T3294:15 (Day 31). 1075

Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3355:15-23 (Day 31). 1076 Transcript of Brother Alexis Turton, T3355:15-23 (Day 31). 1077

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 85, STAT.0084.001.0101_R. 1078 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 85, STAT.0084.001.0101_R. 1079

Transcript of Michael Salmon, T3580:17-34; T3585:20-34 (Day 34). 1080 Exhibit 4-60, Statement of Michael John Salmon, STAT.0084.001.0001_R [46]. 1081

Transcript of DK, T3296:43-T3297:23 (Day 31). 1082 Transcript of DK, T3317:3-9 (Day 31). 1083

Exhibit 4-44, Statement of DL, STAT.0093.001.001_R [33]. 1084 Transcript of DL, T3329:36-T3330:6 (Day 32). 1085

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 82, CTJH.053.07009.0052_R. 1086 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 82, CTJH.053.07009.0051_R. 1087

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 82, CTJH.053.07009.0051_R. 1088 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 84, STAT.0075.001.0038_R. 1089

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 86, STAT.0075.001.0040_R. 1090 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 87, STAT.0075.001.0041_R. 1091

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 88, STAT.0075.001.0042_R. 1092 Exhibit 4-42, Tab 92, STAT.0075.001.0043. 1093

Exhibit 4-42, Tab 94, STAT.0075.001.0045_R. 1094 Transcript of Patrick Monahan, T3734:9-13 (Day 35).

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

161

1095 Transcript of Patrick Monahan, T3734:15-T3735:39 (Day 35); Exhibit 4-65, Statement of Patrick Monahan, CTJH.500.03001.0002_E_R [39].

1096 Exhibit 4-65, Statement of Patrick Monahan, CTJH.500.03001.0002_E_R [40]. 1097 Transcript of Patrick Monahan, T3735:28-46 (Day 35). 1098

Transcript of Patrick Monahan, T3735:15-46 (Day 35). 1099 Transcript of Patrick Monahan, T3736:1-7 (Day 35). 1100

Transcript of Brother Jeffrey Crowe, T3773:17-21 (Day 36A). 1101 Transcript of Brother Jeffrey Crowe, T2772:23-35 (Day 36A). 1102

Transcript of Brother Jeffrey Crowe, T3774:8-13 (Day 36A). 1103 Transcript of Brother Jeffrey Crowe, T3774:15-25 (Day 36A). 1104

Transcript of Brother Jeffrey Crowe, T3753:11-44 (Day 36A). 1105 Transcript of Brother Jeffrey Crowe, T3753:11-44 (Day 36A). 1106

Transcript of Brother Jeffrey Crowe, T3754:1-38 (Day 36A). 1107 Transcript of Brother Jeffrey Crowe, T3754:1-38; T3757:5-19 (Day 36A). 1108

Transcript of Brother Jeffrey Crowe, T3774:15-25 (Day 36A). 1109 Transcript of Brother Jeffrey Crowe, T3758:34-T3759:4 (Day 36A). 1110

Transcript of Brother Jeffrey Crowe, T3775:8-T3779:21 (Day 36A). 1111 Transcript of Brother Jeffrey Crowe, T3775:8-T3779:21 (Day 36A).

Commonwealth of Australia

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

ISBN 978-1-925289-00-8 Published January 2015