ABC News (Australia)
17 May 2013
By Dan Cox
Documents tendered to an inquiry into child sexual abuse in the NSW Hunter Valley reveal a senior member of Australia’s Catholic Church refused to be questioned over an alleged abuse cover-up.
Ian Lloyd, QC, who was asked by the special commission of inquiry to assess Strike Force Lantle’s brief of evidence, found “all but one of the still living” persons of interest was interviewed.
Mr Lloyd’s report into the strike force said a “serving member” of the Catholic clergy “exercised his legal right to refuse to be questioned by police”.
In a statement tendered to the inquiry at Newcastle Supreme Court earlier this week, NSW Sex Crimes Squad manager Detective Inspector Paul Jacob said Adelaide Archbishop Philip Wilson declined to be interviewed.
Inspector Jacob said he did not regard this as “any obstruction but merely [Archbishop Wilson exercising his] legal rights”.
The special commission of inquiry is examining claims that abuse whistleblower Detective Inspector Peter Fox was asked to stop investigating allegations made against Father Dennis McAlinden and Father James Fletcher of the Catholic Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle.
Earlier today, former Newcastle police local area commander, Assistant Commissioner Max Mitchell, denied he had ordered Inspector Fox to stop investigating the allegations.
The inquiry has heard Mr Mitchell and Detective Inspector Dave Waddell had done so.
When asked by counsel assisting if he directed, instructed or requested Inspector Fox to stop investigating, Mr Mitchell responded: “I never said any words to that effect”.
‘Appropriate and fair’
Mr Lloyd told the inquiry that Strike Force Lantle, which was established in 2010 to investigate the abuse claims, “could have gone on forever”.
The court has heard that the strike force was set up to fail, but Mr Lloyd told the court its brief of evidence “was as good as any he had seen in any country”.
Mr Lloyd described the investigation’s methodology as “entirely appropriate and fair”, and he said it was crucial that terms of reference were kept in mind when establishing a strike force.
But he also said many alleged victims had come forward, and if all their claims were investigated the strike force may not come to an end.
Mr Lloyd said the length of time taken by the strike force to investigate the allegations was “not surprising or unreasonable” given their historical nature and complexity.
He also told the court Detective Fox did “a fine job taking statements from traumatised witnesses”.
The inquiry continues late next month.
___________________________________
Church abuse victim required to repay compo
ABC News (Australia)
Updated Thu May 16, 2013 1:42pm AEST
By Suzie Smith and Dan Cox
http://youtu.be/-yIct7bKDvI
It has been revealed that police expressed concern about the terms of a compensation settlement between an abuse victim and the Catholic Church.
The documents, which were obtained by the Lateline program, show a victim was required to repay his compensation payment plus 10 per cent a year if he decided to take the matter to the police for criminal action.
A police intelligence report, which was tendered at the special commission of inquiry into sexual abuse in the Hunter region, says police objected to the arrangement between a victim of Father Guy Hartcher of Gresford Parish and the Catholic Church.
But the charges were withdrawn and the trial did not proceed.
The inquiry is investigating Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox’s claims that in 2010 the Catholic Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle and NSW Police tried to protect two priests.
At the time, Detective Inspector Paul Jacob was an investigator with the state’s Sex Crimes Squad and he is scheduled to give evidence first this morning.
Detective Superintendent John Kerlatec has already given evidence to the inquiry, describing Detective Jacob as one of the country’s best sex crimes investigators.
The court has heard that Detective Jacob told local detectives the squad would not be able to assist but was able to “provide consultancy”.
The former manager of Strike Force Lantle, Brad Tayler, yesterday told the court he did not “know of any police officer who would not agree with investigating allegations of child sexual abuse”.
Mr Tayler also said claims of a cover-up were “destroying reputations” and “the public’s perception” of NSW Police.
And he told the inquiry he was told he should obtain a warrant to search for documents in the office of the Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell.
The suggestion was made at a meeting in November 2010 by victims’ lawyer Andrew Morrison SC.
___________________________________
Police wanted more information in abuse cases
ABC News
Updated Thu May 16, 2013 7:15pm AEST
By Dan Cox
An inquiry into child sexual abuse in the New South Wales Hunter Valley Catholic Church has heard an investigator did not want to examine allegations of abuse because he was waiting for more information.
Detective Inspector Paul Jacob, manager of the NSW Sex Crime Squad, said after a discussion with former Lake Macquarie commander Dave Waddell he believed there was no prospect of “criminal investigation outcomes” as key people were dead.
In an email, Detective Jacob said he was asking the Commissioner’s Executive Team (CET) “not to investigate”, but was quick to tell the Newcastle Supreme Court today that should “not be interpreted as the position taken by NSW Police”.
He said he had “no information at all” and had not yet seen a report that looked at the value of the investigation.
The inquiry is examining claims by abuse whistleblower Detective Inspector Peter Fox that NSW Police and the Catholic Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle tried to cover up allegations of child sexual abuse by two priests.
The inquiry also heard contact between Detective Fox and local Fairfax Media journalist Joanne McCarthy was considered “a risk” that needed to be managed.
Detective Jacob told the court he met investigators in December 2010 and discussed the suspected contact between Detective Fox and Ms McCarthy.
He said it was determined their “communication needed to be managed” during the investigation, but rejected claims police did not do enough to investigate.
Detective Jacob said officers “attacked the investigation with vigour”, and he denied allegations that Strike Force Lantle, which was established to investigate the allegations, was designed to fail.
_____________________________________________
Crucial documents were in George Pell’s office
ABC News (Australia)
By Dan Cox in Newcastle
Updated Wed May 15, 2013 8:26pm AEST
The former head of a police strike force has told a child sexual abuse inquiry he was made aware of crucial church documents in the office of Sydney’s Archbishop, Cardinal George Pell.
The Special Commission in Newcastle is investigating Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox’s claims the Maitland-Newcastle Catholic Diocese and NSW Police covered up allegations of child sexual abuse by two priests.
Brad Tayler, a former Newcastle crime manager, is giving evidence at the public hearings.
The court has heard in a meeting in 2010 Mr Tayler was told by Andrew Morrison SC from the Australian Lawyers Alliance that there were important documents in Cardinal George Pell’s office.
Under cross examination Mr Tayler was asked what attempts were made to obtain the church documents from the Archbishop of Sydney.
He said processes were underway, but he could not get a search warrant without a witness statement.
The court has heard that witness, who was a victim of child sexual abuse by a Hunter Valley Catholic Priest, had made a complaint about how she was treated by an investigator.
Mr Tayler has told the court he was not trying to intimidate the victim when he called her in regards to the complaint.
Under cross examination Mr Tayler said without the evidence the investigation was “dead in the water”.
Peter Fox’s barrister Mark Cohen told the court the victim was “distressed” and asked Mr Tayler what he did to help her.
Mr Tayler rejected claims there was a conflict of interest in him investigating the victim’s complaint as he was the Strike Force Lantle manager.
Mr Tayler said “it is rubbish” that he was trying to “avoid an embarrassing situation” for police.
He rejected claims he was “reluctant to take the case on”, and denied he considered it a political “hot potato” despite it involving senior clergy members.
He said he wanted the sex crime squad to investigate because it fell under their charter.
The inquiry continues tomorrow.
This is three days of coverage of the inquiry. Scroll down to the second article for the video.
For me the whole thing truly is all shades of Cornwall. It’s different, but somehow it’s the same. I feel hamstrung in my lack of familiarity with the criminal code of Australia, but have no trouble understanding that a gagged victim is a gagged victim.
Does this case violate the Criminal Code in Australia?
Remember David Silmser? Eventually it was determined that Dave was illegally gagged.
I wonder how many victims world-wide are silent because they were unwittingly subjected to an illegal gag order with a pay-off?
How, I often wonder, can the lawyers who orchestrate and/or oversee these deals look themselves in the mirror?
Speaking of lawyers involved in these deals, remember lawyer Malcolm MacDonald? He was eventually charged for obstructing justice in the David Simser gag order. He got off with an absolute discharge.
Malcolm was himself eventually identified as a molester and charged. He died before standing trial.
I’m not for a moment saying that lawyers who are involved in brokering these deals are molesters, only that this is an instance whereby one was.
A settlement that requires a victim or a witness of a crime to hide such a crime can only be viewed as an “obstruction” of Justice. I don’t believe the Laws of Australia would be so different from Canadian law, both with our common British origins. The “civil” matter in any case doesn’t trump the “criminal” and to suggest it would is just a form of intimidation which shouldn’t hold a single drop of water.
I don’t understand or believe that any Court would or should uphold such an arrangement that borders on “criminal interference” on its own.
The document itself should be a part of the prosecution proof and should be considered invalid: void and null!…if they truly are aiming for “Justice” and not a mockery!
Any one else with such arrangements would be considered as part of the “offense”, with criminal “intent” to obstruct. Simply because a member of the “Justice Club”prepared the “settlement”, it shouldn’t make it legal if the arrangement in any other similar situation would be to prevent the prosecution of a crime.
A situation modeled on the attempts to have Canon Law override or equate our Criminal Justice system, just to avoid prosecution and protect the institution!
If this “settlement” is deemed “legal”, it just means that anyone who can afford to “pay”(lawyer and hush money!) can get away from “Justice”??!!…
Then again, maybe that is just how it works and I am just a dreamer!
jg