- Priest had child porn
- Prominent people supported Lawrence after his defrocking
- Removalist says he saw child porn in Rushton’s rectory
- Confidential report on yellow envelopes
- 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
THE man in charge of Newcastle Anglican investigations from 2009 has raised the possibility that there were more priest misconduct cases in the diocese beyond the 36 identified in the “brown envelope” system.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
Michael Elliott, the director of professional standards since 2009, became the 18th person to give evidence when he took the stand at the start of Thursday’s proceedings, the eighth day of this hearing.
Shortly before the morning tea adjournment, Mr Elliott was taken by the counsel assisting the commission, Naomi Sharp, to some documents including an index of names that referred to a “black book” that Mr Elliott had been unable to find.
“You have only located the yellow envelopes, but you haven’t located the small envelopes referred to in this document?” Ms Sharp asked Mr Elliott.
“No, that’s right, and I also haven’t located any of the files that are listed that were not put into a brown envelope which, I think, totals around 73,” Mr Elliott said.
He said references to “envelopes” on the list corresponded to the 36 envelopes that he had been given by Bishop Brian Farran soon after Mr Elliott took up his role as director of professional standards in 2009.
Thursday’s hearings opened with an examination of the diocese’s disciplinary system.
From 2005 the diocese had a Professional Standards Committee, which was able to refer matters involving clerical misconduct to a higher-up Professional Standards Board.
Mr Elliott confirmed this arrangement supplanted an earlier system of a board of inquiry and a diocesan tribunal.
He agreed with counsel assisting the inquiry, Naomi Sharp, that the diocesan council appointed an external body in May 2010 to review the post-2005 process, which resulted in a report by Professor Patrick Parkinson.
The “strictly confidential” report was shown on the commission’s video screens as being “a report to the bishop”, completed on September 27, 2010.
Professor Parkinson’s investigation related to professional standards actions against two priests, “Reverend G” and “COJ”: neither matter was a child sex abuse case.
Professor Parkinson found that the Reverend G matter was handled appropriately but he said COJ’s suspension was “not warranted”, although things could have been a lot simpler if COJ had “admitted at the beginning” what he eventually conceded.
Mr Elliott said that after the Parkinson report, he had conducted every subsequent investigation.
Moving to the allegations against the former dean of Newcastle, Graeme Lawrence, Mr Elliott confirmed receiving on October 7, 2009, a detailed letter of complaint by the person code-named CKH.
Mr Elliott confirmed he told the police of this matter on the same day.
Lawrence, Andrew Duncan, Bruce Hoare and Graeme Sturt were all stood down by October 13 and while Lawrence was no longer dean he had still had “permission to officiate” within the diocese.
The commission heard the police contacted Mr Elliott on October 26, 2009, saying they were investigating and asking the church to suspend any investigation it was undertaking.
But on August 2 the following year, the police told Mr Elliott they were not proceeding.
The professional standards committee then asked Mr Elliott to investigate CKH’s allegations, and the commission was shown a letter Mr Elliott sent to Lawrence setting out the allegations against him.
He confirmed that similar letters were sent to the other four people involved in the case.
Ms Sharp then took Mr Elliott to a legal opinion obtained from a senior counsel, Garth Blake, who said the case was “sufficiently serious” to “bear upon the fitness” of the four priests – Mr Goyette was not a priest, but a teacher – to “continue in the ministry”.
The commission then saw an infamous card that Lawrence had sent to CKH in 1984, which featured a muscle-bound young man on the cover – his genital area redacted by the commission – with the slogan “thank heaven for little BOYS!” on the cover.
Inside, the commission was told Lawrence had written: “Now isn’t that true. Thank heavens. Enjoy the card. Much love, G.”
Mr Elliott confirmed the professional standards board investigated the allegations against all but Hoare – that came later – and that Sturt was the only one who took the opportunity to appear before the board, and then only briefly.
The allegations against Lawrence, Duncan, Goyette and Sturt were unanimously sustained and then in December 2010, Lawrence and Sturt went to the NSW Supreme Court seeking to quash the case.
Their effort failed but it meant that until the court’s decision was published in April 2012, Mr Elliott was unable to proceed against the fifth respondent, Bruce Hoare, although this subsequently took place and the allegations against Hoare were in turn upheld.
The commission heard that during a meeting between Mr Elliott, CKH and Bishop Farran, the bishop initially said he did not intend to follow the professional standards board’s recommendations to depose Lawrence and Sturt. Mr Elliott said CKH “threw [Bishop Farran’s documents] on the floor in disgust” when he learned this.
Mr Elliott said Bishop Farran then “broke down in tears” and left the meeting to make a phone call and he when he returned he said he would depose Lawrence after all.
Bishop Farran deposed Lawrence, Hoare and Duncan and prohibited Goyette from any official function in the diocese. He suspended Sturt for five years which was “not in accordance” with the board’s recommendation that he be deposed.
Answering a question from the commission’s chair, Justice Peter McClellan, Mr Elliott said he was never told why Bishop Farran did not depose Sturt.
Mr Elliott told the commission he had concerns about changes that Bishop Farran wanted made to the rules governing the professional standards process, especially one that meant the board’s decisions would be made privately to the bishop, rather than publicly, which meant “the bishop may not then follow the recommendation, but that no-one would know, and I think that was the intent”.
He said at the time these changes were instituted, he had been working with complainant CKA against priest CKC and that CKA withdrew from making his complaint “because of [the changes made to] section 77”.
Mr Elliott said these amendments were introduced in 2012 but then repealed in 2015.
About an hour into his evidence, Mr Elliott said that soon after he commenced his duties (in 2009) Bishop Farran gave him the “brown envelopes” that had been stored in his safe.
He said there were 36 of them and that the bishop “wanted for me to have those”.
Questioned by Justice McClellan, he said there was only one set, no duplicate, and that there were a lot of issues with them that concerned him.
He said they had white stickers on the front and sometimes on the back and they were sealed with sticky tape and people had to sign them if they wanted to access them.
They contained “letters, file notes . . . court documents . . . things of that nature . . . there were generally internal communications as well”.
The commission heard the matters in the 36 envelopes had been lodged between 1993 and 2004.
Ms Sharp took Mr Elliott through a document he described as an index of names which he said totalled 73 cases.
It was unclear from the short amount of evidence that Mr Elliott gave on this whether this total of 73 included the 36 cases in the brown or yellow envelopes or whether he meant there were another 73 cases that were not in the envelopes.
The commission then adjourned for the morning break.
