NEWCASTLE Anglican investigator Michael Elliott has stood by his belief that former registrar Peter Mitchell had “tampered” with one of the yellow envelopes in the church’s abuse files.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Resuming his evidence after lunch, Mr Elliott had a testy exchange with Mr Mitchell’s representative, Maria Gerace, who asked him to withdraw his assertion that Mr Mitchell had tampered with the file.
Ms Gerace said Mr Elliott had given the royal commission a one-sided account of his meeting with Mr Mitchell, saying Mr Mitchell had told Mr Elliott “abhored” child sex abuse.
“You didn’t include that in your statement, did you,” Ms Gerace said.
“No,” Mr Elliott said.
Mr Elliott had said the file was tampered with by Mr Mitchel but Ms Gerace pointed out that it could have been an “innocent” error but Mr Elliott said he was satisfied with Ms Sanders’s belief.
Mr Elliott said he had a lot of difficulty in accepting that the names had been transposed innocently given the nature of the case.
Ms Gerace described it as “peer to peer” sexual assault in that it was one child against another child and Mr Elliott said both families were heavily involved in the church.
Mr Elliott agreed with Justice McClellan’s observation that “it wouldn’t be in the file unless there was some association with the church”.
Mr Elliott confirmed that the yellow envelope system was used for filing and management of sexual misconduct from 2002 and January 2009.
He said he did not know what system was used before 2002 but he agreed that some of the matters had been started before 2002 and then transferred into the yellow envelope system.
He confirmed that the royal commission had started in 2014 when he created the yellow envelope report but he said he did the report for Bishop Greg Thompson without the royal commission in mind.
Ms Gerace put it to Mr Elliott that the yellow envelopes only came into existence in 2002 and that Mr Mitchell left the diocese by that time.
Mr Elliott said Bishop Peter Stuart and the diocese business manager John Cleary had told him Mr Mitchell had been involved.
Todd Alexis for Mr Elliott objected at this stage pointing out that Mr Mitchell had acknowledged in evidence that he kept the yellow envelopes under lock and key in his own safe.
Mr Elliott acknowledged he did not vigorously investigate the tampering issue but he said he pointed out in his report where his evidence had come from.
Ms Gerace put it to Mr Elliott that he should have said the file had been “inappropriately recorded” by Mr Mitchell rather than say he “tampered” with the file.
But Mr Elliott said he was comfortable using the word tampering because of his concerns about the register being altered and Mr Mitchell being convicted for fraud.
“I was satisfied enough to put in a report of this nature to go to the bishop,” Mr Elliott said.
He refused to withdraw the conclusion, as Ms Gerace asked him to do.
On other matters, Ms Gerace asked Mr Elliott when he became aware that Mr Mitchell gave a reference to CKC.
He said it was about 2009 or 2010.
He acknowledged telling CKA about the reference, and argued – against Ms Gerace’s contention – that he had acted appropriately.
He denied Ms Gerace’s assertion that to tell CKA about the reference amounted to “contamination” of a witness.
On his 2012 meeting with Mr Mitchell, he told Ms Gerace that he believed Mr Mitchell may have been complicit in covering up child sexual abuse.
Mr Elliott said he knew Mr Mitchell was distressed at their meeting and that he had mentioned his potential “criminality” in relation to church abuse.
He said he disagreed with aspects of Mr Mitchell’s account of their meeting but he confirmed he had said he’d be happy to accompany Mr Mitchell to a police station to make a statement.
He said he may have mentioned the case of someone’s five-year-old son had been molested by a priest and he confirmed speaking of concerns about the work of Keith Allen and Paul Rosser in defending clergy.
“I was concerned about the outcomes and the [CKC] case,” Mr Elliott said.
Mr Mitchell’s statement about his meeting with Mr Elliott was displayed to the commission, including the line: “You made the point that it would be easier to give me a list of priests who were not involved in paedophilia than a list of those who were.”
Mr Booth for Mr Rosser questioned Mr Elliott about an incident known as the Gumbley matter, and two journals that Professor Patrick Parkinson described as “pastoral” although Mr Elliott said he would not describe them that way, although he accepted they were “highly personal”.
Mr Booth said he wanted to talk about these journals because he believed they may have been illegally obtained, which was a relevant matter when it came to the church’s professional standards.
Mr Booth questioned Mr Elliott about the difficulties he said he was having in implementing his risk management strategy.
Mr Elliott had previously described the barrister and diocese chancellleading lay figure Paul Rosser as someone who was opposed to his efforts to change attitudes in the church.
But Mr Booth showed Mr Elliott and amendment to the professional standards ordinances that was prepared by Mr Rosser that Mr Booth said would have helped Mr Elliott achieve his aims.
“Have you been labouring under a misapprehension in respect to him, perhaps?” Mr Booth asked.
“I don’t think so,” Mr Elliott said.
He said he had never seen the document Mr Booth had referred to.
Mr Booth asked Mr Elliott why he had gone to a Sydney lawyer for advice when he had very skilled lawyer in the form of Mr Rosser to get legal advice from.
Mr Elliott said: “The chancellor’s role is to be a legal adviser to the bishop [and] he should not be involved in professional standards.”
“Indeed he hasn’t, except where concerns in terms of process have arisen and apparently in exactly the same terms as Professor Parkinson,” Mr Booth said.
“Yes, and I don’t accept the concerns that both of them have raised in many respects,” Mr Elliott said.
Mr Elliott was taken by Mr Watts for husband and wife Keith Allan and Sandra Smith about a section of his statement regarding Ms Smith, who was a psychiatrist treating an offending priest, CKM. Her husband, Keith Allen, had acted as CKM’s legal representative but Mr Elliott conceded that Allen and Smith were not married at the time of his trial.
“The conflict is that i believe Mr Allen has obstructed my attempts to facilitate meaningful contact with CKM in order to investigate the matter, provide support to him and address some of the issues that surround the case,” Mr Elliott said.
When Mr Watts said that Mr Allen was not his legal representative Mr Elliott said that may well be the case that he still tried to “prevent me having contact with CKM”.
Mr Elliott disputed an assertion by Mr Watts that he did not immediately report his files to police when he began his job in 2009.
“I reported that to police immediately in 2009 and . . . I reported to police many times after that, every opportunity . . . and it culminated when I didn’t see there was a significant response from police in me scanning the entirety of my files and providing them to the police,” Mr Elliott said.
