- Confidential report on yellow envelopes
- Prominent people supported Lawrence after his defrocking
- Removalist says he saw child porn in Rushton’s rectory
- Church investigator says files listed more than 70 cases
- Solicitor Allen grilled for third day on abuse
- Solicitor denies “fixing” statement to Royal Commission
- Do nothing approach revealed
- Royal Commission hears of “brown envelope” cases
- Lawyer admits tearing up priest’s resignation letter
- Bishop, lawyers in stand
- Sex with priests began at age 14
A FORMER long-time registrar of the Anglican diocese of Newcastle has been unable to recall anything meaningful about the “brown”, “yellow” or “golden” envelopes containing details of child sexual abuse by priests despite a range of documents showing he was closely involved with the management of these files.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Peter Mitchell, who was jailed in 2002 after stealing more than $190,000 from the diocese, told the Royal Commission that he had spent more than a decade blocking out all thoughts of the church until the director of the diocese’s professional standards unit, Michael Elliott, contacted him in 2012 to talk about his knowledge of child abuse matters.
Mr Mitchell said he was troubled by Mr Elliott’s approach, which he described as “the ends justifies the means” in pursuing offenders.
Like other church figures, Mr Mitchell had trouble recalling any knowledge of abuse by priests, even when confronted with a document in his own hand that described how he, as registrar, was to determine “at regular intervals” whether anything in the “brown envelope” files need investigating.
Questioned over matters including serial paedophile priest Peter Rushton’s pornography hoard, the collapsed child abuse trial of priest CKC and the way that former Newcastle bishop Roger Herft dealt with abuse matters, Mr Mitchell was told by commission chair Peter McClellan that some of his evidence was “extraordinary”.
A solicitor for three victims, Peter O’Brien, put it to Mr Mitchell a number of times that his evidence consisted of “lies”.
Wednesday’s seventh day of Anglican evidence began with a Farragher’s removalist, Gary Askie, telling the commission that one video he saw when packing up priest Rushton’s possessions at the Maitland rectory had a picture of a boy aged about 12 on the cover.
Mr Askie was told to sign an agreement saying he wouldn’t talk about what he saw.
With Mr Mitchell in the stand, the commission spent a considerable time examining correspondence between Newcastle law firms Sparke Helmore for Farragher’s and Rankin and Nathan for the church, with both sides agreeing there was no child pornography.
The commission heard a suggestion that someone may have removed the offending video before two bags of tapes were examined by Rushton’s lawyer, Greg Hansen, who decided the material was legal.
Justice McClellan said taking Mr Hansen’s word was “extraordinary” but Mr Mitchell said: “I think we viewed it that as a solicitor he would be trustworthy to do that.”
