Cardinal George Pell testimony at Australian Royal Commission – Day one

Share Button

Day Two:  Click here to access Cardinal Pell testimony Day two (Transcript 26 March 2014)

Day Three:  Click here to access Cardinal Pell testimony Day three (Transcript 27 March 2014)

Click her to access Cardinal George Pell statement for the Australian Commission of Inquiry 

……………………………………………………………

 ROYAL COMMISSION INTO INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES TO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

 

Public Hearing – Case Study 8 (Day 60)

Level 17, Governor Macquarie Tower

Farrer Place, Sydney

 

On Monday, 24 March 2014 at 10am

Before the Chair:        Justice Peter McClellan AM Before Commissioners:    Professor Helen Milroy

Mr Andrew Murray

 

Counsel Assisting:  Ms Gail Furness SC Mr Angus Stewart

 

1       THE CHAIR:  Yes, Ms Furness.

2

3       MS FURNESS:  Thank you, your Honour. I call

4       Cardinal Pell.

5

6       <GEORGE PELL, sworn:                         [10.05am]

7

8       <EXAMINATION BY MS FURNESS:

9

10       MS FURNESS:  Q.  Would you tell the Royal Commission your

11       full name and occupation?

12       A.  My full name is George Pell. I am Emeritus Archbishop

13       of Sydney and my present position is I am Prefect for the

14       Secretariat of the Economy in the Vatican, in the Holy See.

15

16       Q.  When do you take up that position, cardinal?

17       A.  Next Monday.

18

19       Q.  You have prepared two statements in relation to this

20       case study, cardinal?

21       A.  Two statements? Yes, I have.

22

23       Q.  The first statement is dated 24 February 2014. Do you

24       have a copy of that with you?

25       A.  I do.

26

27       Q.  Are there any amendments you wish to make to that

28       statement?

29       A.  No.

30

31       Q.  Are the contents true and correct?

32       A.  Yes. In one or two cases, I will develop them, but

33       they’re true and correct as they are.

34

35       Q.  True and correct and incomplete in one or two cases?

36       A.  In one or two cases.

37

38       Q.  What are those cases, cardinal?

39       A.  That’s a good question.

40

41       Q.  Perhaps if you could tell us the topics?

42       A.  Yes. Pardon me, I’m just focusing. I’m sorry about

43       that. When you get a little bit older, sometimes things

44       come up slowly. Certainly, one of them is on the question

45       of the $20,000, $30,000 and the $100,000, and I’m just

46       trying to think of what the other one – yes, the other one

47       is about the amendments to the letter that Mr Davoren

 

1       drafted and which I amended. I think, having studied it

2       and studied it, I think I can explain why I amended them in

3       the way that I did, but my apologies for being a bit slow.

4

5       Q.  Thank you, cardinal, we’ll come to both of those

6       matters.

7

8       MS FURNESS:  I tender the statement.

9

10       THE CHAIR:  That statement of February will be

11       exhibit 8-14.

12

13       EXHIBIT #8-14 STATEMENT OF GEORGE PELL DATED 24/2/2014

14

15       MS FURNESS:  Q.  Cardinal, you prepared a supplementary

16       statement dated 22 March 2014?

17       A.  Yes.

18

19       Q.  Are the contents of that true and correct?

20       A.  Yes.

21

22       MS FURNESS:  I tender that statement.

23

24       THE CHAIR:  That will be exhibit 8-15.

25

26       EXHIBIT #8-15 Supplementary statement of George Pell

27       DATED 22/3/2014

28

29       MS FURNESS:  Q.  In relation to your first statement,

30       cardinal, who assisted you in the drafting of that

31       statement?

32       A.  Gilbert+Tobin Lawyers and Richard McHugh.

33

34       Q.  Paragraphs 152 to 155 of that statement relate to the

35       overall conduct of the litigation. Do you recall that?

36       A.  Yes.

37

38       Q.  The views you express in those paragraphs – were they

39       views that you expressed now or views that you held before

40       preparing your statement?

41       A.  Some of them would represent views that I’ve long

42       held. Others were views that – judgments that I made when

43       I actually discovered what had happened.

44

45       Q.  Did you prepare paragraphs 152 to 155 in association

46       with Mr McHugh?

47       A.  I did, and I – yes, I did.

 

1

2       Q.  If we can turn to, firstly, the question of an oath.

3       Were you or are you under any oath in respect of the

4       evidence you can give today?

5       A.  Limiting what I might say?

6

7       Q.  Affecting what you might say.

8       A.  No, no, not at all.

9

10       Q.  Have you relieved any person from any oath they might

11       think they are or were under in respect of evidence given

12       before this Royal Commission?

13       A.  I think a couple of people might have mentioned it to

14       me, or quite correctly presumed that the law of the land

15       prevails.

16

17       Q.  So it is the case, is it, that no-one within the

18       archdiocese is, to your knowledge, under an oath which

19       would affect the evidence they could give before this

20       Royal Commission?

21       A.  Yes, no-one should be, and I don’t believe anybody is

22       in such a condition.

23

24       Q.  Thank you, cardinal. Just turning to paragraphs 50 to

25       52 of your statement, if we could have that on the screen,

26       just to understand your background, cardinal. You were

27       ordained a Catholic priest for the Diocese of Ballarat on

28       16 December 1966?

29       A.  That’s correct.

30

31       Q.  Subsequently appointed an assistant priest in the

32       parishes of Swan Hill and Ballarat in the early 1970s

33       through to the early 1980s?

34       A.  That’s right.

35

36       Q.  Appointed as parish priest of Mentone in 1985?

37       A.  Yes. Could I add one other important fact —

38

39       Q.  Certainly.

40       A.  — that isn’t there, I’m not too sure if it is, but

41       from 1974 to 1984, while I was a full-time academic, I was

42       director of the Aquinas Campus of the Institute of Catholic

43       Education for all that time and principal of the Institute

44       of Catholic Education at three campuses with a couple of

45       thousand students. It’s now part of ACU. So I helped out

46       at the weekends at Ballarat East, from 1974 to 1983, and

47       for half of 1984 I was still principal of the Institute of

 

1       Catholic Education, as well as being administrator of the

2       Bungaree parish. I just do that for questions of accuracy.

3

4       Q.  And the ACU is the Australian Catholic University?

5       A.  It wasn’t then. The Institute of Catholic Education

6       has now become the Victorian part of the Australian

7       Catholic University.

8

9       Q.  You held the position of parish priest at Mentone

10       until 1996?

11       A.  I did. I was titular parish priest, as auxiliary

12       bishop.

13

14       Q.  On 16 July 1987, you were ordained as auxiliary bishop

15       of the Archdiocese of Melbourne?

16       A.  I was.

17

18       Q.  And you were installed as Archbishop of Melbourne on

19       16 August 1996?

20       A.  Mmm-hmm.

21

22       Q.  And on 10 May 2001, you were installed as the

23       Archbishop of Sydney; that’s right?

24       A.  Correct.

25

26       Q.  On 28 September 2003, you were elevated to the Sacred

27       College of Cardinals by announcement of Pope John Paul II?

28       A.  Yes.

29

30       Q.  As part of your work as an auxiliary bishop,

31       you attended meetings of the Australian Catholic Bishops

32       Conference?

33       A.  I did.

34

35       Q.  At paragraph 16 of your statement, you refer to having

36       been regularly involved as the bishops of Australia worked

37       to deal with “this scandal, these crimes”. Do you see that

38       in paragraph 16?

39       A.  Yes.

40

41       Q.  By “this scandal, these crimes”, are you referring to

42       sexual abuse of children by clergy?

43       A.  Clergy and teachers and Catholic personnel.

44

45       Q.  You refer to discussions at the Australian Catholic

46       Bishops Conference on this issue during your nine years as

47       auxiliary bishop. Do you see that?

 

1       A.  Yes.

2

3       Q.  I want to take you to some minutes of those meetings.

4       They can be put up on the screen, if you would prefer,

5       cardinal.

6

7       THE CHAIR:  I think we should put them on the screen.

8

9       MS FURNESS:  Q.  The first is the November/December 1988

10       minutes, if we can have those up. If we can start at the

11       beginning, on the first page, do you see under “Attendance”

12       at this meeting of 28 November to 2 December 1988, if we

13       scroll down to the second-last name, that you were in

14       attendance?

15       A.  Yes.

16

17       Q.  Then if we can turn to the page with 1437 at the top,

18       the Ringtail reference, do you see there is a motion put:

19

20            That Conference establish a Special Issues

21            Committee on an interim basis for two years

22            to advise on matters relating to child

23            sexual abuse …

24

25       A.  Yes, I do.

26

27       Q.  And “the following Terms of Reference”. Can you help

28       us, cardinal, with why it was called a “Special Issues

29       Committee”?

30       A.  I suppose, you know, “sexual abuse” is an ugly term,

31       and this was a euphemism. I wasn’t involved in devising

32       the terminology, but I would suggest that’s the answer.

33

34       Q.  If we scroll down that page, various functions are set

35       out of that committee, including, third from the bottom:

36

37            To establish a protocol to be observed by

38            bishops and major superiors if an

39            accusation is made against a priest or

40            religious alleging criminal behaviour …

41

42       Do you see that?

43       A.  Yes.

44

45       Q.  And there are various other functions. That was the

46       first occasion, was it not, that the Australian Catholic

47       Bishops Conference passed a motion in respect of this

 

1       matter, that is, child sexual abuse?

2       A.  To the best of my knowledge. I had only been there

3       for a year before that.

4

5       Q.  If we can then turn to the minutes of the meeting of

6       April 1991, again, we’ll see scrolling down, cardinal, that

7       you were present. You’re the third-last name. Do you see

8       that?

9       A.  I do.

10

11       Q.  These minutes were of a meeting held on 23 to 30 April

12       1991. If we can turn to 1654, do you see the first motion

13       which was carried:

14

15            That the “Protocol for dealing with

16            allegations of Criminal Behaviour” as

17            amended … be accepted … and

18            implemented …

19

20       Do you see that?

21       A.  I do.

22

23       Q.  You voted in favour of that motion?

24       A.  I did.

25

26       Q.  That there be an annual review of the protocol?

27       A.  Mmm-hmm.

28

29       Q.  Secondly:

30

31            That the proposal presented by Catholic

32            Church Insurances Ltd for “Special Issues

33            Liability Insurance” … be implemented …

34

35       Do you see that?

36       A.  Yes.

37

38       Q.  You voted in favour of that motion as well?

39       A.  I did.

40

41       Q.  On the next occasion, July 1993, if we can have those

42       minutes on screen, you will see this was a meeting that was

43       held on 16 July to 22 July 1993, and if we can scroll down,

44       cardinal, we will see your name a dozen or so from the

45       bottom?

46       A.  Mmm-hmm.

47

 

1       Q.  On this occasion, reference was made to the special

2       issues subcommittee at page 1874. Do you see there that

3       the report was presented by Bishop Connors under the

4       heading “Sexual offences”? Do you see that, or just above

5       the heading?

6       A.  I can’t see the reference to Bishop Connors.

7

8       Q.  Above the heading “Sexual offences”, cardinal.

9       A.  Yes, you’re correct, sorry.

10

11       Q.  Then two motions were carried – the first, that the

12       statement “Sexual Offences and the Church” be released,

13       and, second, that the Special Issues Committee conduct

14       a consultation with interested persons and groups in

15       drafting a new protocol which will be presented to the

16       conference for approval at its next meeting?

17       A.  Yes.

18

19       Q.  Then there is a two-page document, which begins on the

20       next page, and that’s the statement referred to in the

21       motion, is it not?

22       A.  I believe so.

23

24       Q.  The first paragraph is:

25

26            The Catholic bishops of Australia … have

27            devoted considerable attention to recent

28            allegations of sexual offences on the part

29            of some clergy, religious and Church

30            workers.

31

32       You would have agreed with that proposition then, I take

33       it?

34       A.  That’s correct.

35

36       Q.  If we can scroll down to the end of that page, there

37       is reference to:

38

39            The bishops and leaders of religious

40            congregations have been developing

41            procedures for dealing with allegations of

42            sexual offences against minors and adults.

43

44       Again, that was something that you agreed with in 1993?

45       A.  Mmm-hmm.

46

47       Q.  And, indeed, there had been significant work done at

 

1       the national level at that time, hadn’t there, cardinal?

2       A.  Yes, yes.

3

4       Q.  The next minutes are April 1994, and again, you were

5       present at that meeting. If we can turn to page 1975, do

6       you see that first motion is:

7

8            That a new Bishops’ Committee of three be

9            established for “Special Issues”, and that

10            a more appropriate name be given to it.

11

12       Do you see that?

13       A.  Yes.

14

15       Q.  Do you remember that discussion about the need to

16       change the name?

17       A.  Not in any particular detail, no.

18

19       Q.  It doesn’t surprise you, given your earlier evidence

20       that it was euphemistic, to refer to it as

21       “special issues”?

22       A.  Yes.

23

24       Q.  If we can scroll down, we can see that the second

25       motion on the screen is:

26

27            That the new Committee be known as the

28            Bishops‘ Committee for Professional

29            Standards.

30

31       A.  Yes.

32

33       Q.  And then the motion below that:

34

35            That Fathers Brian Lucas and John Usher be

36            appointed as consultants …

37

38       A.  Yes.

39

40       Q.  You would have known by that stage that John Usher had

41       some expertise and interest in this area?

42       A.  Absolutely.

43

44       Q.  He subsequently became your chancellor?

45       A.  He did.

46

47       Q.  Is he still the chancellor of the archdiocese?

 

1       A.  Very much so.

2

3       Q.  You would recognise that his thoughts and concerns in

4       the area of child sexual abuse should be listened to

5       carefully?

6       A.  Very much so, and I think generally he needs to be

7       listened to – he deserves to be listened to carefully. But

8       he also has a great gift to be able to bring consolation to

9       people who are suffering, to do it in a genuine way, that

10       they’re not off-put, and he’s helped many, many people.

11

12       Q.  And he has done that by meeting with complainants very

13       early on in the process, hasn’t he?

14       A.  He has.

15

16       Q.  So that he can form a view himself as to what they’ve

17       suffered and what their needs might be?

18       A.  I think that is correct.

19

20       Q.  That’s an important part of the healing process, too,

21       cardinal, isn’t it?

22       A.  Absolutely.

23

24       Q.  If we can then turn to the November/December

25       1995 minutes, you were not present at this meeting,

26       cardinal. However, the minutes of it would have been

27       subsequently made available to you?

28       A.  Yes.

29

30       Q.  If we can turn to 2269, you will see that the

31       committee – that is, the professional standards committee –

32       distributed a draft of a document entitled “Sexual Abuse by

33       Priests and Religious: a Statement of Principles”?

34       A.  Yes.

35

36       Q.  And seeking comment and advice to be forwarded to

37       Bishop Robinson?

38       A.  Mmm-hmm.

39

40       Q.  Bishop Robinson at that time was playing a significant

41       role in relation to professional standards matters,

42       wasn’t he?

43       A.  Very much so.

44

45       Q.  Do you now recall whether you provided any comments

46       and advice on that document to Bishop Robinson?

47       A.  I don’t think I did. I didn’t have responsibility in

 

1       Melbourne for that area.

2

3       Q.  Who did?

4       A.  I think the vicar general of the day.

5

6       Q.  While not having responsibility, you would have been,

7       I take it, deeply interested in the contents of this

8       document and to make sure that it properly set out the

9       principles that the church should follow?

10       A.  Yes.

11

12       Q.  If we can turn to the last page, it is noted there

13       that a process had commenced for a review of the procedures

14       which are to be used?

15       A.  Mmm-hmm.

16

17       Q.  And, further, that arrangements are being made to meet

18       representatives from English speaking conferences dealing

19       with child sexual abuse?

20       A.  Mmm-hmm.

21

22       Q.  And finally, that Bishop Robinson, Father Usher and

23       Sister Ryan would conduct a workshop?

24       A.  Mmm-hmm.

25

26       Q.  And each of those, Bishop Robinson, Father Usher and

27       Sister Ryan, at this time were well regarded in this area,

28       weren’t they?

29       A.  Absolutely.

30

31       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Cardinal, it’s clear from this statement

32       that by this stage the church in Australia was talking with

33       churches in other parts of the world in relation to these

34       issues; is that right?

35       A.  That’s correct.

36

37       Q.  Now, can you tell me at this stage, if you know, what

38       was the discussion, if any, between the Australian churches

39       and the Holy See about the issue?

40       A.  Well, one, I don’t know. The congregation for the

41       clergy had responsibility in the area, and I don’t know

42       quite what level of conversation there was between this

43       group and him, the congregation for the clergy. One useful

44       I think piece of information is that the Roman

45       understanding of this, particularly perhaps on the part of

46       the cardinal in that congregation, was, we would say now,

47       way behind our understanding of the challenge.

 

 

1
2 Q. Way behind in what sense?
3 A. It was inadequate. I think —
4
5 Q. Well, again in what sense inadequate?
6 A. It’s a little bit difficult to – the attitude of some

7       people in the Vatican was that if accusations were being

8       made against priests, they were made exclusively or at

9       least predominantly by enemies of the church to make

10       trouble, and therefore they should be dealt with

11       sceptically. And I think there was more of an inclination

12       to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant rather

13       than to listen seriously to the complaints.

14

15            I’m not quite sure when it happened – I think it was

16       quite a deal later, but there was a deputation of American

17       cardinals who came over, it was in the time of John Paul

18       II, and they explained vigorously to the Vatican that it

19       wasn’t just the enemies of the church who were doing this

20       for some political purpose, as the Nazis had done and

21       possibly the communists, but that in fact there were

22       genuine complaints, and good people, people who loved the

23       church were saying that it’s not being dealt with well

24       enough.

25

26       Q.  Were there sentiments similar to those in the Vatican

27       at that time apparent in parts of the church in Australia –

28       that’s the early 1990s?

29       A.  Not to anything like the same degree, I don’t think,

30       but it’s a little bit difficult to know what people think

31       on these issues unless they’re discussed directly or,

32       through incidents, they’re challenged on it, but I never

33       heard – I think in many ways the English-speaking world

34       made a significant contribution to the universal church in

35       this area, and I think even within the English-speaking

36       world, through the efforts of this committee and

37       Bishop Robinson, in dealing adequately with this, whatever

38       the deficiencies, I think we were ahead of some countries.

39

40       MS FURNESS:  Q.  Just turning to the minutes of the

41       April 1996 meeting of the Australian Catholic Bishops

42       Conference, again, you were present at this meeting,

43       cardinal; do you accept that?

44       A.  Yes, yes, if that’s shown to be there.

45

46       Q.  Yes. If we can then turn to page 2333 of those

47       minutes. While that is coming up, cardinal, the heading is

 

1       “Professional standards” and it notes that the conference

2       received the committee’s report, which was presented by

3       Bishop Robinson and consideration of the motions which

4       followed was preceded by a joint meeting on the topic with

5       40 leaders of religious institutes.

6       A.  Mmm-hmm.

7

8       Q.  Do you recall that meeting?

9       A.  I certainly recall such a meeting. I’m not quite

10       sure – I’d have to see the minutes to recall what happened

11       at that meeting.

12

13       Q.  Do you understand that consideration of the motions,

14       which we’ll come to, were preceded by that joint meeting

15       with those present as indicated?

16       A.  Yes.

17

18       Q.  If we could turn to the next page, which is 2334, the

19       principles and procedures which were the subject of motions

20       which were carried are set out. This was a significant

21       meeting, was it not, cardinal?

22       A.  That’s correct.

23

24       Q.  The first motion was:

25

26            That the Professional Standards Committee

27            … review and update its draft statement

28            of principles …

29

30       A.  Yes.

31

32       Q.  And update its draft document setting out the

33       procedures to be followed?

34       A.  Mmm-hmm.

35

36       Q.  And then, in doing so to:

37

38            … do all in its power to bring into

39            harmony the concerns of

40            complainants/victims and all proper and

41            appropriate measures for the defence of

42            claims before the courts and the fulfilment

43            of the Church’s civil obligations.

44

45       That is the third motion?

46       A.  Yes.

47

 

1       Q.  Then fourth, to commit themselves to making their

2       first priority a response to complainants and victims that

3       is both just and compassionate. Do you see that?

4       A.  I do.

5

6       Q.  The term “just and compassionate” flowed through to

7       subsequent editions of Towards Healing; do you recall that?

8       A.  Mmm-hmm.

9

10       Q.  And a further motion in respect of publishing

11       documents in the name of the conference, and then,

12       significantly, under number 84, the needs of the victims

13       and communities, which is on the next page, 2335, do you

14       see that the motion which was carried was:

15

16            That dioceses and religious institutes be

17            asked to engage professional and

18            independent persons to make a study of how

19            an incident of sexual abuse has been

20            handled in relation to the community in

21            which it occurred …

22

23       A.  Yes.

24

25       Q.

26            … what lessons might be learned …

27

28       A.  Mmm-hmm.

29

30       Q.

31            … what effects both the abuse and the

32            Church body’s response have had on the

33            community, and what the Church body might

34            now do to assist the community.

35

36       Do you see that?

37       A.  Yes.

38

39       Q.  They were not matters that had been done by the church

40       before then, were they, that is, engaging professional and

41       independent persons to conduct studies of that sort?

42       A.  I couldn’t answer with certainty to that question, but

43       I suspect not, but those working parties might have

44       consulted such people.

45

46       Q.  Might have consulted such people, but for this

47       conference to have asked that they engage professional and

 

1       independent persons to do such things suggests that this

2       was an endeavour that had not been sought to be achieved at

3       this level prior to 1996?

4       A.  Yes, it certainly suggests that.

5

6       Q.  Then further down, under 85:

7

8            That a committee be established to prepare

9            one or more Codes of Conduct …

10

11       Do you see that?

12       A.  Very definitely.

13

14       Q.  And that was the first time a code of conduct had been

15       established; is that right?

16       A.  Yes.

17

18       Q.  And over the page, motion (xi), to consult in relation

19       to those codes?

20       A.  Mmm-hmm.

21

22       Q.  And next, in (xii), to seek the advice of victims of

23       sexual abuse by priests or religious in preparing the code

24       or codes of conduct?

25       A.  Mmm-hmm. Mmm-hmm. Yes.

26

27       Q.  Then further, under 86, which is just beneath that on

28       the screen:

29

30            That the ACSWC …

31

32       Do you see that?

33       A.  Yes.

34

35       Q.  What is ACSWC?

36       A.  Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission.

37

38       Q.  And Centacare be asked to coordinate a study of those

39       factors peculiar to the church?

40       A.  Mmm-hmm.

41

42       Q.  And that the study include literature, interviews

43       with experts, and the like?

44       A.  Yes.

45

46       Q.  And then over to the next page, motion (xv) is:

47

 

 

1 That meetings be arranged through the
2 counselling services of the Church in which
3 bishops and religious leaders might meet
4 with persons who have suffered sexual abuse
5 at the hands of a priest or religious and
6 hear directly of their stories, hurts,
7 concerns and needs …
8
9 Do y ou see that?
10 A. I do.
11
12 Q. And that was carried?
13 A. Mmm-hmm.
14
15 Q. Did you, after this period – that is, after this

16       motion was carried – yourself meet with persons who had

17       suffered sexual abuse in response to this motion?

18       A.  Yes, I certainly did.

19

20       Q.  And that was arranged through the counselling services

21       of the church?

22       A.  Yes, I think you would say that, yes. It was

23       arranged, yes, through the people who were working in that

24       area, so it would not just be counselling, but they would

25       be helping the – yes.

26

27       Q.  In April 1996 you were still the auxiliary bishop in

28       Melbourne?

29       A.  I think so, yes.

30

31       Q.  You were installed as the Archbishop of Melbourne in

32       August 1996, so some few months later?

33       A.  Mmm-hmm.

34

35       Q.  After you were installed as the Archbishop of

36       Melbourne on 16 August 1996, what did you do in respect of

37       that archdiocese concerning child sexual abuse by clergy

38       and religious?

39       A.  I moved very vigorously to improve what was a chaotic

40       situation. There were very good people, principally

41       Monsignor Gerry Cudmore, who was the vicar general of the

42       diocese – he was running the diocese and he was also having

43       to deal with these procedures, with the help of some other

44       people, and I felt that that was manifestly not working.

45       I felt that I had a mandate, in the light of the previous

46       motions which we have read together, and they referred

47       there to a procedure or procedures – I felt there was no

 

1       impediment to setting out what we were doing together, and

2       by a combination of circumstances, a number of very good

3       suggestions were made to me. I canvassed those on a number

4       of occasions with a very, very high-level committee, and

5       within 100 days we had put together what is known as the

6       Melbourne Response.

7

8       Q.  In your statement at paragraph 57, you say that in

9       light of the urgent need for an effective system to respond

10       to victims of abuse and the uncertainty at that stage about

11       initiatives for a national response, you took the steps

12       that you’ve just described. In fact, there had been

13       significant work done over a period of years at the

14       national level, hadn’t there?

15       A.  Yes, and implicitly we – I drew on that and so did our

16       committee.

17

18       Q.  When you say you “drew on that”, you obviously were

19       present at the meetings that we’ve discussed and

20       participated in the motions that were carried?

21       A.  Mmm-hmm.

22

23       Q.  You were aware, when you were installed as the

24       Archbishop of Melbourne, that the Towards Healing protocol

25       was very close to being published?

26       A.  I’m not sure that’s accurate.

27

28       Q.  Are you referring to your knowledge or when the

29       Towards Healing protocol was being published?

30       A.  I don’t think there had been any decision taken as to

31       when it would be published. There was not unanimity in the

32       bishops conference about the nature of what should be

33       agreed, and it has even been suggested to me that by doing

34       what we did in Melbourne, it was a useful stimulant to the

35       conference to agree on a set of protocols.

36

37       Q.  Did you consider, during the time you were a member of

38       the bishops conference prior to being the Archbishop of

39       Melbourne, that a national response was appropriate in

40       respect of the issue of child sexual abuse?

41       A.  I in no sense ever regarded a single response as being

42       a high priority. I thought what was necessary was to deal

43       with the suffering of the victims in an effective way and

44       of course by acting the way we did, we were able to put

45       into practice a system, which began three or four or

46       five months before the national system began.

47

 

1       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Cardinal, you said there was a lack of

2       unanimity amongst the bishops. What were they not

3       unanimous about?

4       A.  On the best way to go forward. Everybody agreed it

5       was a terrible problem, but —

6

7       Q.  Again, can I ask you for the particulars? What do you

8       mean?

9       A.  I can’t be – I’m afraid I can’t – well, I can give you

10       one thought that I have. I can’t be particular about

11       others, unfortunately. I was very keen that if there be an

12       inquiry, that it be manifestly independent of the church

13       authority, and that I think is one of the great advantages

14       of the Melbourne Response as against the slightly more

15       melded response of Towards Healing.

16

17       Q.  We will, on a later occasion, discuss the

18       Melbourne Response in greater detail, but are you referring

19       there to the role of Mr O’Callaghan?

20       A.  I’m referring to the role of the independent

21       commissioner, Mr O’Callaghan.

22

23       Q.  Yes. You appreciate many people don’t see him as

24       independent, don’t you?

25       A.  Yes, and I think that is most unfortunate and very

26       unjust to Mr O’Callaghan. He accepted 97 per cent of the

27       complaints that were placed before him. Never at any stage

28       did Archbishop Hart or myself in any way attempt to

29       influence him, and actually I feel very strongly for

30       Mr O’Callaghan and I very much regret that his integrity

31       has been impugned, if that’s happened.

32

33       Q.  I understand that. You do appreciate that perceptions

34       are very important in areas such as this?

35       A.  I certainly agree that perceptions are very important,

36       but perceptions can sometimes be quite wrong, and they need

37       to be corrected even though it’s an unpopular task.

38

39       MS FURNESS:  Q.  Just coming back to the lack of

40       unanimity issue, cardinal, the minutes I just took you

41       to —

42       A.  Could I rudely interrupt? Probably it’s uncertainty

43       rather than lack of unanimity. I wouldn’t want to over –

44       they were united we had to do something. People were

45       uncertain what was the best thing to do.

46

47       Q.  Referring, then, to the April 1996 minutes, and

 

1       perhaps if we could have 2334 on the screen, I took you to

2       this earlier, do you see the various motions – that there

3       be a statement of principles and a statement of procedures?

4       A.  Mmm-hmm.

5

6       Q.  If we can move to the bottom of that page, to the

7       fifth motion, that the conference authorises the

8       professional standards committee to publish those documents

9       in the name of the conference. Do you see that?

10       A.  Yes.

11

12       Q.  That was carried?

13       A.  Mmm-hmm.

14

15       Q.  That suggests, doesn’t it, that the conference was as

16       one in respect of the content of those two documents, that

17       is, the principles and procedures for dealing with

18       allegations of sexual assault?

19       A.  I think that would be – I think that would be

20       premature. I’d obviously have to see what the facts of the

21       situation are, but my understanding is that there wasn’t

22       a comprehensive agreement on principles and procedures.

23

24       Q.  So the motion of publishing the two documents in the

25       name of the conference doesn’t suggest that to you?

26       A.  But they hadn’t been published. They were to do that,

27       and I don’t think they did that until later in the year,

28       after the Melbourne Response was established. I don’t –

29       that’s my – I’m not sure of that, but I think that’s the

30       case.

31

32       Q.  Generally, there were two Australian Catholic Bishops

33       Conferences a year, in April and November of each year; is

34       that right?

35       A.  Yes, yes.

36

37       Q.  If we can come to the November minutes – I’ll come

38       back to the Melbourne Response in a moment, cardinal. You

39       were present at this meeting and you had been elevated in

40       the list of attendees, cardinal, to near the top?

41       A.  Mmm-hmm.

42

43       Q.  If we can turn to page 2416, “Professional Standards”

44       is the heading, you see, and it is noted that the

45       conference received the report presented by Bishop Connors,

46       and it was reported that the Towards Healing document of

47       principles and procedures had been approved by the national

 

1       committee. Do you see that?

2       A.  I do see that, and I also note that it didn’t say when

3       this was done. It had been approved by the national

4       committee. Obviously it hadn’t been approved by the full

5       council.

6

7       Q.  The full council?

8       A.  Of the bishops, conference of the bishops, I should

9       say.

10

11       Q.  This was the November meeting of the conference for

12       1996, was it not?

13       A.  That’s correct.

14

15       Q.  There were only two meetings a year?

16       A.  That’s correct.

17

18       Q.  This was the next meeting after the April meeting?

19       A.  That’s correct.

20

21       Q.  It was at this next meeting that Towards Healing was

22       approved; do you see that?

23       A.  That’s correct.

24

25       Q.  Then there is reference to a need for there to be

26       a footnote, that is, in respect of the Melbourne Response.

27       Do you see that?

28       A.  I do.

29

30       Q.  The Melbourne Response had been announced by you

31       I think just short of a month prior to this; is that right?

32       These minutes —

33       A.  Yes, I’m not sure it was a month or more or less, but

34       certainly before.

35

36       Q.  These minutes refer to a meeting of 27 November to

37       29 November, and I think the Melbourne Response was

38       launched on, was it 30 October?

39       A.  That’s – it was an October date, mmm-hmm.

40

41       Q.  So, as it were, by introducing yours in October had

42       the effect that Towards Healing, which was approved a few

43       weeks later, was not a national response?

44       A.  That’s correct.

45

46       Q.  It also had the effect, didn’t it, that you were able

47       to state correctly that the Melbourne Response was the

 

1       first of its kind?

2       A.  Yes.

3

4       Q.  And in developing the Melbourne Response, as you’ve

5       said, you drew heavily on the work that had been done

6       through the national bishops conference for years?

7       A.  I certainly was mindful of it and drew on it, yes.

8

9       Q.  Did you consult the professional standards committee

10       as to the content of the Melbourne Response?

11       A.  I asked one of the Melbourne auxiliary bishops to

12       liaise with the national committee so that the two

13       approaches would be compatible. That was Bishop Peter

14       Connors. He wasn’t successful in that, because some people

15       were very much committed to having a singular response, but

16       as we noted when we went through the earlier

17       recommendations, there was an explicit reference to one or

18       more responses, and also at that stage the Jesuits order

19       did not endorse the national program.

20

21       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Cardinal, I understand a little of the

22       structure of the church in Australia, if I can call it

23       that, and you know a lot more about that than I do, but do

24       you understand that people who may not have the knowledge

25       that you have see the Roman Catholic Church in Australia

26       as, effectively, one organisation?

27       A.  And I think that, with respect, is a grossly

28       misleading understanding.

29

30       Q.  But do you accept that people outside the church see

31       it in that way?

32       A.  Yes, and I’ve seen it as part of my task to regularly

33       correct that misunderstanding.

34

35       Q.  Well, whether or not you’ve been successful I don’t

36       know, but do you see that to people looking at the church

37       from outside, they might see benefit in there being

38       a national response to an issue such as the abuse of

39       children by members of the church?

40       A.  Yes, but I don’t think that is the prior question.

41       The prior question is to try to devise the best response or

42       the better response. I regarded it as – I mean, you might

43       extend your principle to have one response around the

44       world, but that’s not possible. I don’t – I can’t see any

45       detriment, significant, apart from perhaps image, in there

46       being a couple of responses.

47

 

1       Q.  I’m not sure what the next diocese to Melbourne

2       Diocese is in Victoria. Is it Ballarat?

3       A.  Yes, yes.

4

5       Q.  Do you think that people looking in might see

6       a difficulty if the way someone who is abused by a priest

7       in Ballarat is dealt with differs from the way a person

8       abused by a priest in Melbourne is dealt with, because the

9       systems are different? Do you see that that might cause

10       people a difficulty?

11       A.  I see it certainly might, but the important question

12       is whether the victims were dealt with justly in both

13       systems.

14

15       Q.  We’ll come later to discuss the question of justice,

16       but if there’s a different outcome for the same form of

17       abuse and same damage, that would not be just, would it?

18       A.  Well, if the damage was exactly the same, it wouldn’t

19       be just. It hasn’t been brought to my notice so far that

20       there were significantly different results for similar

21       offences. There very well might have been, but it’s not

22       a problem I’ve had to wrestle with.

23

24       Q.  But it’s potentially a problem created if you have

25       different systems dealing with the same issue, isn’t it?

26       A.  Yes, but there are State jurisdictions in the law,

27       there are different areas of law. I don’t think, because

28       there are different systems, that that’s any conclusive

29       argument against there being different approaches. And

30       obviously I wouldn’t have persisted or implemented the

31       Melbourne Response if I didn’t think it was better.

32

33       Q.  Your comment, of course, accepts that people shouldn’t

34       see the church as one body in Australia?

35       A.  Simply because it isn’t.

36

37       Q.  Well, I understand what you say about that.

38

39       MS FURNESS:  Q.  Did you consult Bishop Robinson about

40       the content of the Melbourne Response?

41       A.  No, but I did ask Bishop Connors, I sent my emissary,

42       but I didn’t – I don’t think I directly consulted with

43       Bishop Robinson.

44

45       Q.  Who was your expert adviser or advisers?

46       A.  Could I give you a little explanation of how the

47       system developed and then I’ll – who – and when I talked to

 

1       my advisers – perhaps – well, I’ll start with the advisers.

2

3       Q.  Thank you, I would appreciate that, cardinal.

4       A.  There were a number of people from our finance

5       council: Barry O’Callaghan, who was a senior partner,

6       I think, at Corrs; Ted Exell, who was our finance officer;

7       Jim Gobbo; Joseph Santamaria. There were other people, but

8       I’m struggling to list their names, some of whom would have

9       been from our finance council.

10

11       Q.  Did you take expert advice from anyone in the welfare

12       area with experience with dealing with victims of sexual

13       abuse?

14       A.  We certainly – probably the answer to that is not

15       sufficiently. We did that indirectly. Certainly, I was

16       vividly aware of what people like Monsignor Cudmore,

17       vicar general, and Helen Last were doing. I don’t think we

18       consulted or I, at least, consulted directly with them.

19

20       Q.  You indicated earlier that the Jesuits stayed outside

21       of Towards Healing in the early days, but of course you

22       know they’re now within the Towards Healing umbrella,

23       don’t you?

24       A.  Mmm-hmm.

25

26       Q.  You referred earlier, in response to a question from

27       his Honour concerning data, as to the differences or

28       similarities between outcomes for people in similar

29       situations.

30       A.  Yes.

31

32       Q.  As the Royal Commission understands it, cardinal, the

33       data that has been kept has not been sufficiently uniform

34       to be able to form very firm views as to outcome,

35       particularly across dioceses and, more particularly,

36       between Towards Healing and the Melbourne Response. Would

37       you accept that?

38       A.  Yes, I think it’s something which follows from the

39       nature of the church, because, see, we’re not like an

40       international corporation where you have a general manager

41       Asia, a manager Southeast Asia and a manager Australia.

42       The structure of the Catholic Church is unusual by modern

43       corporate standards, because it’s flat.

44

45       Q.  But you do have a National Committee for Professional

46       Standards, don’t you?

47       A.  We do. We do.

 

1

2       Q.  And through that structure, it’s possible for data to

3       be collected in a way that enables it to be useful to those

4       interested in such things?

5       A.  Yes, and I would encourage that to be done, but the

6       conference has no power to coerce an individual diocese who

7       chooses not to go in that direction.

8

9       Q.  No, persuasion is available if coercion isn’t, isn’t

10       it, cardinal?

11       A.  Yes, of course, and what you’re advocating is

12       certainly desirable.

13

14       Q.  Another issue in respect of having different systems

15       in different States is, as you would be aware, there has

16       been concern expressed about the movement of priests from

17       one diocese or parish to another after adverse material was

18       known about them; you’re aware of that?

19       A.  Mmm-hmm, yes.

20

21       Q.  In the event of a national response through

22       Towards Healing, a consistent approach to that might be

23       more easily attained, do you think?

24       A.  It might have been, but the general principles to be

25       applied were very, very clear.

26

27       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Cardinal, do you accept that priests have

28       been moved, with knowledge of allegations having been made

29       against them in one place, and moved to another without any

30       action being taken?

31       A.  Unfortunately, that was the case. My understanding is

32       that at least since the middle 1990s, if that happened, it

33       would have been very much by way of exception.

34

35       MS FURNESS:  Q.  You took up the position of Archbishop

36       of Sydney in May 2001?

37       A.  Mmm-hmm.

38

39       Q.  Having had the experience of the Melbourne Response

40       for some years?

41       A.  Mmm-hmm.

42

43       Q.  Did you revisit, when you took up that position in

44       May 2001, whether there were features of the

45       Towards Healing process you wanted to change based on,

46       firstly, your establishment of the Melbourne Response and,

47       secondly, your experience with it?

 

1       A.  I thought long and hard about introducing the

2       Melbourne-type response to Sydney because in some senses it

3       was superior. For example, it had established

4       a compensation panel, which doesn’t exist in the

5       Towards Healing. I had some reservations about the

6       independence of the Towards Healing, the investigations,

7       and two factors reassured me on this. One was that in New

8       South Wales, unlike Victoria, you had to report to the

9       police that an offence had taken place. The person being

10       accused had to be nominated, and if the victim did not want

11       to be nominated, their name wasn’t given, and I strongly

12       believe in that, that the rights of the victim should be

13       respected there.

14

15            So, barring legislation, if somebody came to a church

16       process and did not want their name to go forward, I would

17       certainly support that decision.

18

19            The second reassurance on the question of independence

20       was that for priests or teachers who continued to be

21       involved with young people, or might be, all these cases

22       had to be reported to the ombudsman, who would monitor

23       them. Once again, that wasn’t the case in Victoria, and

24       I think New South Wales was very usefully ahead of Victoria

25       in this matter and I think that that was a – the role of

26       the ombudsman is a very good insurance for everyone,

27       especially for the victims.

28

29       Q.  You say in your statement, at paragraph 19, that you

30       decided to follow the Towards Healing procedures in 2001

31       because you were reassured by their basic adequacy.

32       A.  Mmm-hmm.

33

34       Q.  Do I take it that you weren’t assured of the work that

35       had been done to date, up to October 1996, as discussed and

36       expressed in the bishops conference as to what was likely

37       to be the result of those discussions?

38       A.  I was uneasy. I hadn’t been involved in the area.

39       And, of course, as you put together something like the

40       Melbourne Response and talk to people and listen, you

41       become clearer and clearer, but I was – I think everybody

42       was uneasy about the situation, and they were increasingly

43       clear about the inadequacies of the situation before 1996.

44       That’s why there was this push to get protocols.

45

46       Q.  The Towards Healing protocol, as you understood it

47       when you began as Archbishop of Sydney, involved the

 

1       receipt of a complaint —

2       A.  Mmm-hmm.

3

4       Q.  — which was similar to the Melbourne Response?

5       A.  Mmm-hmm.

6

7       Q.  It required that complaint to undergo a process of

8       assessment?

9       A.  That’s correct.

10

11       Q.  And that was similar to the Melbourne Response, in

12       that there was a process of investigation and assessment.

13       In Melbourne, that was done by a person engaged for that

14       purpose?

15       A.  Mmm-hmm.

16

17       Q.  And in the Towards Healing protocol, that was also

18       done by a person engaged for that purpose?

19       A.  In a particular case, it was done by a variety of

20       persons.

21

22       Q.  A variety of people. It wasn’t the same person?

23       A.  No.

24

25       Q.  But it was nevertheless a person engaged by the church

26       for the purpose of assessing a particular complaint?

27       A.  Yes, and one of my concerns there was my fear that the

28       accuracy of those assessments varied. Now, in this Ellis

29       case, if we had had an accurate assessment from the start –

30       in other words, one that was validated by successive

31       examinations – the trajectory of the case certainly would

32       have been different. Where we finished up I don’t know,

33       but I think in my representations to Professor Parkinson,

34       I made a number of suggestions for improvements, but one of

35       them was to try to ensure that the quality of the first

36       assessment – well, ultimately, if it went to court, it

37       would be validated by the court.

38

39       Q.  That’s in 2009 that you put those submissions in to

40       Professor Parkinson; that’s right?

41       A.  Yes, I think it was one of them.

42

43       Q.  Let’s come back to 2001, if we can.

44       A.  Mmm-hmm.

45

46       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Before you do that, you speak about

47       “validated by successive assessments”. What do you mean?

 

1       A.  Well, for example, if you take the Ellis case, in

2       a technical sense Mr Davoren’s recommendations on that

3       weren’t an assessment, although I believe they were. Then

4       Mr Eccleston was appointed as an assessor and made his –

5       which I accepted, and then the procedures were reviewed by

6       the national committee, and you might say that’s another

7       assessment.

8

9       Q.  Not of Mr Ellis.

10       A.  No, of the way the matters were handled.

11

12       Q.  That’s right, but you were talking in the context of

13       an assessment, I assume, of the validity of the complaint?

14       A.  No, I was talking primarily about how the complaint

15       was dealt with.

16

17       Q.  That’s what I mean. The starting point for that, as

18       I understand you, cardinal, was that there be an

19       assessment, and then you said “an assessment that is

20       validated by subsequent assessments”. I want to understand

21       what it is that you’re talking about?

22       A.  I have been trying to explain that.

23

24       MR GRAY:  If I may respectfully assist? If your Honour

25       looks at the transcript, the evidence was slightly

26       different and might affect your Honour’s question.

27

28       THE CHAIR:  Let’s have a look at it.

29

30       Q.  I just want to make sure I understand what you’re

31       saying, you see. Yes, you see, you said:

32

33            Now, in this Ellis case, if we had had an

34            accurate assessment from the start – in

35            other words, one that was validated by

36            successive examinations – the trajectory of

37            the case certainly would have been

38            different.

39

40       I’d understood you to be talking about an assessment of the

41       validity of the complaint. Is that right?

42       A.  That’s correct.

43

44       Q.  Well, what do you mean, “an accurate assessment

45       validated by successive examinations”? What are you

46       talking about?

47       A.  I’m talking about the successive and different

 

1       evaluations of Mr Ellis’s complaint that were made by

2       Mr Davoren and Mr Eccleston.

3

4       Q.  Mr Eccleston was the person who made the assessment,

5       wasn’t he?

6       A.  I’ve already explained that, that I believed that

7       Davoren had made an assessment. That was a mistaken view

8       of mine. Although he’d been told to appoint an assessor,

9       I didn’t advert to the fact that he hadn’t appointed an

10       assessor but had made recommendations to me.

11

12       THE CHAIR:  We’ll come back to that in detail.

13

14       MS FURNESS:  Q.  Back to 2001, cardinal.

15       A.  Mmm-hmm.

16

17       Q.  So you understood that the broad process under

18       Towards Healing was receipt of a complaint, assessment of

19       the complaint, and if the truth of the complaint was

20       accepted by the church authority, then there would be

21       a process of facilitation?

22       A.  Yes, I think that’s right.

23

24       Q.  And the facilitation would be attended by

25       a facilitator appointed by the Professional Standards

26       Office, in consultation with others?

27       A.  Mmm-hmm.

28

29       Q.  And the church authority’s representative present, as

30       well as the complainant and various support people, if

31       desirable; that’s right?

32       A.  I think that’s correct, yes.

33

34       Q.  The facilitation had two components, one being

35       pastoral and the other meeting the needs of the

36       complainant, however they might be expressed?

37       A.  Yes.

38

39       Q.  In the event that those needs involved the payment of

40       money by the church authority or through some other means,

41       then there would be a deed of release signed by the

42       complainant. You understood that was the general process

43       when you began?

44       A.  I think that’s correct.

45

46       Q.  And you considered that general process to be

47       basically adequate?

 

1       A.  I did.

2

3       Q.  Just turning to another topic, cardinal, you have on

4       occasions expressed views in respect of what I might call

5       prevalence. Do you understand what I mean by prevalence?

6       A.  Frequency of crimes, or something?

7

8       Q.  Well, the prevalence of child sexual abuse allegations

9       by members of the clergy and religious in Australia or in

10       dioceses within Australia; do you understand that?

11       A.  Mmm-hmm.

12

13       Q.  You have on occasions expressed concern that these

14       numbers might be exaggerated and that they should be made

15       with proper reliable data?

16       A.  I would certainly say they must be made accurately.

17       I wouldn’t say – I’m not – I can’t remember ever saying

18       that the numbers were exaggerated. What I probably did say

19       was that they were taken out of context and not compared to

20       the very significant number of offences that occur in other

21       institutions and the overwhelming majority of such offences

22       which occur outside institutions.

23

24       Q. Given your clear interest in this area for decades and

25       involvement leading up to Towards Healing and the Melbourne

26       Response and the evidence you’ve just given, what have you

27       done to understand the prevalence of child sexual abuse

28       within your church, that is, the Catholic Church?

29       A.  Oh, I’ve studied and talked and thought about it for

30       years. I’ve met quite a number of victims. I’ve attended

31       public meetings with victims. I’ve tried to read the

32       literature. Of course, it’s a mighty issue for us because

33       it’s so contrary to what we should be about.

34

35       Q.  Cardinal, you say “the very significant number of

36       offences and the overwhelming majority of such offences

37       which occur outside institutions”. What data do you point

38       to to support that evidence?

39       A.  Well, there was a recent press report on this, and

40       I don’t think it’s contested anywhere, that about

41       80 per cent of these offences are committed outside

42       institutions. I’d have to – I couldn’t pull up chapter and

43       verse. But within the last few months, there was a press

44       report saying that 55 per cent of the offences of

45       paedophilia occurred in so-called blended families and

46       45 per cent occurred with natural parents. That’s quite

47       wrong, but that was the way the report was written, because

 

1       the sample of natural parents was eight or nine times as

2       great as the sample for the blended parents. So in other –

3       I think United States statistics, it’s four or five times,

4       I might be wrong on that, the rate of natural families as

5       distinct from blended families. I think, according to this

6       survey, it would have been eight or nine times, but that

7       did not appear in the press reports.

8

9       Q.  Are you referring to the press reports of a published

10       data or survey, are you?

11       A.  Yes, yes.

12

13       Q.  Not the actual published data or survey itself?

14       A.  I’m referring to the press reports and I’m – I might

15       have got my secretary to actually get hold of the report

16       and if there was – I can’t remember that directly, but from

17       somewhere reliable, I got accurate information about the

18       size of the samples.

19

20       Q.  So somewhere reliable, but you can’t tell us where

21       that is at the moment?

22       A.  Not with absolute certainty, but I think that I would

23       have got my secretary to access the actual report which was

24       the basis for the press account.

25

26       Q.  Can you help us with the title of the report?

27       A.  No, I can’t, but I can get that to you later today.

28

29       Q.  Thank you. You know about the work that was done by

30       John Jay College in the United States which was published

31       in 2004?

32       A.  I do, and I’ve read it. I don’t have a crystal-clear

33       recollection of it at all.

34

35       Q.  If I can assist you, it was a report done of work done

36       for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It

37       was a very significant piece of published work, but if

38       I can reduce it to a sentence, it found, as a result of its

39       significant work over some period of years, that 4 per cent

40       of priests and deacons in active ministry between 1950 and

41       2002 have been accused of the sexual abuse of a youth under

42       the age of 18 years.

43       A.  Yes, I recall that.

44

45       Q.  As you would know, cardinal, the Royal Commission has

46       sought data from Catholic Church Insurance, the

47       Professional Standards Office, as well as the Archdiocese

 

1       of Sydney in relation to allegations of child sexual abuse

2       against priests within the archdiocese, and that

3       information reveals that the earliest incidence of child

4       sexual abuse the subject of a complaint since your

5       appointment, so since March to May 2001, was alleged to

6       have occurred in 1952. Are you aware of that?

7       A.  I knew that the accusations go back a long time, yes.

8       I couldn’t have said ’52.

9

10       Q.  Next, the data shows that 55 ordained clerics within

11       the archdiocese have been the subject of a claim of child

12       sexual abuse, again in the same period of time, since March

13       2001. Now, is that a piece of information that you were

14       aware of?

15       A.  I’m aware, but I’m also aware that, according to our

16       statistics, it’s inaccurate. I have the document and I’ll

17       be able to proffer it after the break, or I could obtain it

18       now, if you wanted it. I think there were 91 complaints,

19       but quite some of those were multiple complaints against

20       individuals, individual priests, so that rather than

21       55 priests, our information is that there were 29 priests

22       so accused.

23

24       Q.  In the event there were multiple complaints against

25       individual priests, that might affect the number of

26       complainants, but it won’t affect the number of priests,

27       will it?

28       A.  Yes, logically I think it does.

29

30       MS FURNESS:  The information that the Royal Commission has

31       obtained has been obtained from the sources that I’ve

32       indicated. I call for any data that is inconsistent to the

33       data which has been produced to the Royal Commission by the

34       Archdiocese of Sydney, the Professional Standards Office or

35       Catholic Church Insurance.

36

37       THE CHAIR:  Mr Gray?

38

39       MR GRAY:  Your Honour, I will have inquiries made. These

40       are rather complicated concepts.

41

42       THE CHAIR:  The cardinal suggests there is a document

43       here.

44

45       MR GRAY:  If there is, at the morning tea break I will try

46       to find it. I don’t know where it is.

47

 

1       THE WITNESS:  Your Honour, it is on the table in the room

2       where I was, I think, and it’s marked number 9. There’s

3       a list of documents there.

4

5       THE CHAIR:  Do you want to pause or go on?

6

7       MS FURNESS:  I’m happy to go on, your Honour.

8

9       Q.  Just continuing with the data that has been received

10       from the institutions I’ve referred to, cardinal, the Royal

11       Commission has been told that about 842 priests have held

12       an appointment in the Sydney Archdiocese since 1952?

13       A.  That would be accurate. I haven’t checked that.

14

15       Q.  Assuming for the moment the figure of 55 priests that

16       I referred to earlier is accurate – and we’ll look at

17       whatever document it is that is produced —

18       A.  Well, that would not be my assumption.

19

20       Q.  I understand that. For the purposes of my question,

21       I’m asking you to make that assumption, cardinal. Would

22       you do that?

23       A.  Mmm, certainly.

24

25       Q.  So on the basis of that assumption, therefore

26       6.5 per cent of clerics who have held an appointment since

27       1952 have been the subject of a complaint of child sexual

28       abuse on or after the time that you became archbishop; you

29       would accept that as a mathematical matter?

30       A.  Yes, I can’t do the maths just at the moment, but

31       that’s right.

32

33       Q.  That data has been obtained and considered in respect

34       of your period of appointment as archbishop. You would

35       understand that if one was to look back before your

36       appointment, it must be the case that that 6.5 per cent is

37       the lowest possible number; do you accept that?

38       A.  I’m not sure of the logic of that, because I know when

39       our stats nationally were being put together, I believe the

40       figure was around 4 or 5 per cent historically. I’m aware

41       also that the Sydney Archdiocese has had fewer of these

42       crimes than some other areas, so I would be surprised –

43       it’s not impossible, but I would be surprised if we were,

44       in the Sydney Archdiocese, 2 per cent higher than the

45       national average, if the national average is 4 or

46       5 per cent.

47

 

1       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Cardinal, you know that there’s a very

2       significant underreporting of sexual abuse in the

3       community, don’t you?

4       A.  This is commonly alleged right across every

5       institution, and I think that’s correct.

6

7       Q.  You also know that there will be a very significant

8       delay, longer for men than women, but a very significant

9       delay, in many people ever reporting their abuse?

10       A.  Yes, I understand that, and to some extent that

11       continues, but the whole general atmosphere on this matter

12       has changed radically. We’re able to talk about it. The

13       parishes and schools encourage people to report their

14       problems, and they’re doing so. In quite a number of

15       cases, say, for example, in the schools, the incidents are

16       found not to be validated and to some extent they’re less

17       serious than others. But there is an enormous change of

18       atmosphere in the Catholic Church, and I think that is one

19       of the fruits of our consistent efforts for the last

20       18 years to wrestle with this problem.

21

22       Q.  Thank you, cardinal. You know that we’ve spoken to

23       well over 1,000 people; you know that, don’t you?

24       A.  Yes.

25

26       Q.  And there are literally thousands more wanting to talk

27       to us.

28       A.  Mmm-hmm.

29

30       Q.  We are learning of the people who have never reported

31       their abuse before, and we’ll talk about that in due

32       course.

33       A.  Good. I welcome your work there.

34

35       MS FURNESS:  Q.  Cardinal, you say:

36

37            In quite a number of cases, say, for

38            example, in the schools, the incidents are

39            found not to be validated …

40

41       What do you mean by that?

42       A.  Well, I gather there’s a process and the accusation

43       was either insufficient or frivolous or —

44

45       Q.  So what data do you have to support that statement in

46       respect of schools and the number of claims that have not

47       been validated?

 

1       A.  The Catholic Education Office would certainly have

2       those claims.

3

4       Q.  But that data must have been made available to you for

5       you to give that evidence, so what data do you have?

6       A.  I don’t have the data. That’s my recollection. It

7       wasn’t asked for in this circumstance, but such data

8       I think is available.

9

10       MS FURNESS:  Let me just press you, if I can, cardinal.

11       You’ve said:

12

13            In quite a number of cases, for example, in

14            the schools, the incidents are found not to

15            be validated …

16

17       I call for the data that supports that evidence.

18

19       THE CHAIR:  Mr Gray —

20

21       THE WITNESS:  Well, I —

22

23       THE CHAIR:  Just a minute, cardinal.

24

25            Mr Gray, I assume you can take that on board?

26

27       MR GRAY:  I’ll take that on notice, your Honour.

28

29       MS FURNESS:  Q.  Cardinal, you understand that

30       Monsignor Usher gave evidence last week to the Royal

31       Commission?

32       A.  I do.

33

34       Q.  He indicated that in his time as chancellor, he has

35       not disbelieved one person who has made a claim. Do you

36       understand that to be his evidence?

37       A.  I do.

38

39       Q.  Is that something that has come to your attention in

40       the archdiocese, that is, that all claims that have been

41       received and dealt with through Towards Healing in

42       Father Usher’s time have been believed?

43       A.  I don’t think he said that – well, he might have, but

44       my own position is that you never disbelieve a complaint.

45       But then it has to be assessed to see just whether it is

46       valid and true and plausible. But the starting point must

47       never be that they are disbelieved, that the allegations

 

1       are taken very seriously and examined. I don’t think it’s

2       just to the person accused for automatically an accusation

3       to be accepted until there’s some sort of examination.

4

5       Q.  I’ll come back to Father Usher’s evidence shortly,

6       cardinal. Between May 2001 and June 2002, which is when

7       Mr Ellis’s complaint was received, are you able to help us

8       as to how many complaints had come to your attention

9       through Towards Healing?

10       A.  No, I can’t recall that.

11

12       Q.  Do you remember now whether, when you read Mr Ellis’s

13       complaint, it was a new process for you, reading

14       a complaint, or it was a process that you had been through

15       a number of times before, since being installed as the

16       Archbishop of Sydney?

17       A.  I’d be inclined to say – well, I can’t remember how

18       many instances there were. Certainly I would always, when

19       the things were reported, or sometimes the letters would be

20       to me – I can’t recall clearly, but certainly when any

21       accusation came in, I would examine it and then refer it

22       immediately to professional standards.

23

24       Q.  In the event that complaints came firstly to the

25       Professional Standards Office, they would send them to you

26       when they were within the archdiocese?

27       A.  Yes, yes.

28

29       Q.  During the time that Mr Ellis’s complaint was being

30       dealt with by the archdiocese – that is, between June 2002

31       and July 2004 – the main people involved with the handling

32       of that complaint were, firstly, the chancellor at the

33       time, Monsignor Rayner?

34       A.  Mmm-hmm.

35

36       Q.  The director of the Professional Standards Office,

37       firstly, Mr Davoren?

38       A.  Mmm-hmm.

39

40       Q.  Followed by Mr Salmon from May 2003?

41       A.  Mmm-hmm.

42

43       Q.  And, to a lesser extent, your private secretary, who

44       from time to time became involved because of his position?

45       A.  I’d put them in a different order. I think, first of

46       all, the matter was the responsibility of the Professional

47       Standards Office, and the professional standards officer is

 

1       not an employee – or, no, that’s not the word, but he does

2       not answer to me. He answers to the New South Wales

3       bishops and religious and he should be independent.

4       Obviously, the vicar general would be involved to some real

5       extent. And at this stage, though, I would not be sure how

6       much involvement there ever was from my personal secretary,

7       Dr Casey, at this stage.

8

9       Q.  But you would accept there was some involvement of

10       him, based on the documents that you reviewed to prepare

11       your statement, cardinal; isn’t that right?

12       A.  Yes, but on this particular stage of the proceedings,

13       I’m just not sure.

14

15       Q.  In terms of the stage of the proceedings I’m asking

16       you about, it is the handling of the complaint within

17       Towards Healing from June 2002 to July 2004.

18       A.  Well, that would primarily be the responsibility of

19       the Professional Standards Office, and I had a very

20       hands-off approach to that. I did not want to be accused

21       of interfering in that assessment.

22

23       Q.  We’ll come to the detail of the handling of that

24       complaint. But from time to time during that two-year

25       period, any one of those three or four people would keep

26       you informed from time to time, depending upon their role

27       and your interest?

28       A.  It’s very difficult to say what people would do. What

29       we have to ascertain is what they did. What is true at

30       that time – for some of that time, Mr Davoren was unwell;

31       he had a bypass. Mr Davoren is a very good man. He worked

32       hard to help the victims, but he was a muddler and

33       sometimes he wasn’t logical. And also I think, if I could

34       put a – I don’t think it’s a misleading brand – his

35       approach to these matters was pre-1996. He didn’t seem to

36       have a scrupulous understanding or commitment to exactly

37       following protocols.

38

39       Q.  Was he in place when you became archbishop?

40       A.  Yes, yes.

41

42       Q.  Did you take any measures to have him removed from the

43       position in the time that you were archbishop?

44       A.  I was very pleased when he retired through ill health.

45

46       Q.  Of his own volition?

47       A.  Of his own volition.

 

1

2       Q.  It’s the case, isn’t it, that none of those – that is,

3       Monsignor Rayner, Mr Davoren or Mr Salmon or, indeed,

4       Dr Casey – was authorised in relation to a financial

5       delegation to make payments of money?

6       A.  No, I don’t think that’s correct at all.

7

8       Q.  Who of those people was authorised in relation to

9       a financial delegation to make payments of money?

10       A.  The chancellor.

11

12       Q.  And that was in relation to Towards Healing or in

13       other respects?

14       A.  Certainly in relation to Towards Healing. In court

15       cases, sometimes the matter would be brought to me,

16       especially if the money that was being sought was way

17       beyond the prevailing norms.

18

19       Q.  So in relation to the financial delegation, I take it,

20       being a financial delegation, that that was in writing?

21       A.  The vicar general has – does not need delegated

22       authority. The canon law says that the vicar general has

23       authority of his own, like that of a bishop, except in

24       those areas which are precluded by his superior bishop. So

25       in no sense does a vicar general have to be delegated for

26       a specific task, and —

27

28       Q.  Can I ask you the question again, cardinal. Is there

29       in writing a delegation to the vicar general in respect of

30       the payment of moneys to complainants going through the

31       Towards Healing process?

32       A.  I don’t believe there’s any explicit authorisation

33       under that head, nor do I believe that it’s absolutely

34       necessary, because the accepted practice was that the

35       chancellor would deal with those things. As a matter of

36       interest, I can’t remember ever being asked my opinion on

37       how much money might be paid in reparation/compensation to

38       a Towards Healing victim. I’ve thought very carefully

39       about this. I’ve got no such recollection. And certainly

40       in Monsignor Usher’s time, he handled all those questions.

41

42       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Cardinal, you, as the head of the diocese

43       in Sydney, no doubt had an acute concern that people who

44       had survived abuse by clergy would be justly dealt with?

45       A.  Absolutely.

46

47       Q.  Do you say that that concern didn’t extend to knowing

 

1       about monetary negotiations for compensation and whether

2       those monetary amounts were adequate to meet a just need?

3       A.  Until demonstrated otherwise, I had confidence in the

4       person who was doing the job. In many cases, they weren’t

5       enormous amounts of money. And I’m not a micro-manager.

6       It’s quite impossible in an archdiocese the size of mine –

7       or what mine was. I’m very confident that, for example,

8       Monsignor Usher handled these matters justly, and I can

9       scarcely remember a complaint about his work in this area.

10

11       MS FURNESS:  Is that a convenient time, your Honour?

12

13       THE CHAIR:  We’ll take the short adjournment.

14

15       SHORT ADJOURNMENT

16

17       MS FURNESS:  Q.  Cardinal, you gave evidence earlier –

18       and it will be found – in relation to your knowledge of

19       amounts of money that was offered in relation to

20       Towards Healing matters. My recollection is that your

21       evidence was specific to Mr Ellis’s complaint. Is that the

22       case, or was it more generally in relation to —

23       A.  No, it was more generally.

24

25       Q.  So in relation to all Towards Healing matters since

26       you began in May 2001; is that right?

27       A.  Let me —

28

29       Q.  Let me interrupt you, if I may, cardinal, because

30       I now have the transcript. Your answer was:

31

32            I can’t remember ever being asked my

33            opinion on how much money might be paid in

34            reparation/compensation to a Towards

35            Healing victim. I’ve thought very

36            carefully about this. I’ve got no such

37            recollection. And certainly in

38            Monsignor Usher’s time, he handled all

39            those questions.

40

41       Leaving aside Monsignor Usher’s time for the moment and

42       looking back to Monsignor Rayner’s time in that position,

43       and looking specifically in relation to Mr Ellis’s

44       complaint, can I indicate to you the evidence that has been

45       given thus far in respect of your involvement, and I’m sure

46       that you’re aware of each of these, cardinal.

47

 

1            Firstly, Mr Davoren – who was then director of the

2       Professional Standards Office and was in that position when

3       Mr Ellis made his complaint, up until about April or

4       May 2003 – gave evidence that the decision whether

5       a complainant should receive compensation was made by the

6       archbishop in every case. Now, is he wrong in the evidence

7       he gave?

8       A.  I think he is. The presumption would be that I would

9       have to approve such figures, within a range, but I don’t

10       recall ever having a list of such figures. If I could –

11       I would – we have our finance committee meetings eight or

12       nine times a year, and often for special issues, as it was

13       called, we would have the amount we’d paid out. I didn’t

14       have a list of individual payments, and actually

15       some months ago I asked for that to be drawn up so that

16       I could see how much was going to individuals. That was

17       something that was left to the chancellor.

18

19       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Cardinal, you said, “The presumption

20       would be that I would have to approve such figures, within

21       a range.” What did you mean?

22       A.  I was speaking imprecisely, because my thought is

23       imprecise. There was certainly no cap. I’m not quite sure

24       of the range of money offerings that Monsignor Usher would

25       have made and would have been accepted, and I can’t

26       remember any complaints I’ve received about the moneys that

27       Monsignor Usher allocated. And I might be mistaken – I’d

28       say $20,000 to $50,000, that that would have been – the

29       presumption would have been, and was, that that’s all okay.

30       But anyhow, I can’t remember being consulted on that and

31       I’ve thought carefully about it.

32

33       MS FURNESS:  Q.  Did you make a decision as to whether

34       a complainant should receive compensation, in respect of

35       Towards Healing complaints?

36       A.  The presumption was that if there is a complaint —

37

38       Q.  I’m sorry, let me start again. I’m not talking about

39       a presumption. I’m asking whether you made a decision as

40       to whether a complainant should receive compensation in

41       respect of Towards Healing complaints?

42       A.  There was a general rule that if their complaint was

43       established, they would be paid something.

44

45       Q.  The question is: did you make a decision as to

46       whether a complainant should receive compensation in

47       respect of Towards Healing complaints?

 

1       A.  Not in individual cases, because my permission wasn’t

2       needed. That was given generally. That was the

3       presumption, and that was the fact of the way these matters

4       were conducted.

5

6       Q.  Your private secretary, Dr Casey, has given evidence

7       that it was the role of the chancellor to discuss money

8       matters in relation to Towards Healing with you and to seek

9       instructions. Is Dr Casey wrong in the evidence he gave?

10       A.  He’s partly complete. It is the role of the

11       chancellor to do that. It was very rarely done.

12

13       Q.  When you say that he’s partly complete, he’s correct,

14       is he, in saying that the role of the chancellor was to

15       discuss money matters in relation to Towards Healing; is

16       that the accurate part?

17       A.  No, no, that didn’t happen. Where he’s correct is

18       that the chancellor handles these things.

19

20       Q.  Dr Casey also gave evidence that he agreed with the

21       proposition that considering your involvement – and we’ll

22       come to the detail of that – you would have sought

23       information about reparation discussions up to the

24       facilitation and that information would normally be

25       provided to you by the chancellor and the director of the

26       Professional Standards Office. Now, that was his opinion

27       as to the way in which matters were arranged. Is his

28       opinion wrong?

29       A.  Yes, I don’t think it occurred like that.

30

31       Q.  Dr Casey had been your private secretary in Melbourne;

32       is that right?

33       A.  He had, mmm-hmm.

34

35       Q.  And you brought him with you to Sydney?

36       A.  Mmm-hmm.

37

38       Q.  He has been your private secretary in Sydney since May

39       2001, up until perhaps last week?

40       A.  Yes.

41

42       Q.  He would know your arrangements very well, would he

43       not, cardinal?

44       A.  Not – he is completely honest and completely reliable,

45       but he’s not the archbishop and he knows what he knows, and

46       there are some things that he didn’t know.

47

 

1       Q.  Dr Casey also gave evidence that all matters requiring

2       instruction or concerning child sexual assault or abuse

3       would have been discussed with you. Is he wrong in that

4       view?

5       A.  Could you repeat that? All?

6

7       Q.  Significant matters were put to you and all matters

8       requiring instruction or concerning child sexual abuse or

9       assault would have been discussed with you?

10       A.  All matters requiring discussion, instruction —

11

12       Q.  Or concerning child sexual assault, was his evidence.

13       A.  I think that’s a bit too universal.

14

15       Q.  So he’s wrong there, is he?

16       A.  Incomplete.

17

18       Q.  Which part is right?

19       A.  Sometimes these matters were discussed with me. On

20       many occasions they weren’t, because I’m not

21       a micro-manager, it’s impossible, and my practice was to

22       give people a job and to let them get on with it, and until

23       they established that they were mucking things up, that’s

24       exactly what I did. And I didn’t have complaints on these

25       scores, although I wasn’t regularly informed of the

26       particular amounts.

27

28       Q.  Dr Casey also said that he would assume that

29       Monsignor Rayner and Monsignor Usher had to get

30       authorisation from the archbishop – that is, you – for

31       anything to do with amounts of money, but he wasn’t sure of

32       the arrangements that you had with them. Now, is his

33       assumption wrong?

34       A.  It is.

35

36       Q.  Monsignor Rayner has given evidence, cardinal, and his

37       evidence is that he received authorisation from you in

38       relation to the offers he made in respect of Mr Ellis’s

39       complaint; is that right?

40       A.  He has made those allegations, yes.

41

42       Q.  It’s not an allegation. It’s evidence he has given.

43       A.  But it is not correct.

44

45       Q.  So Monsignor Rayner is wrong in the evidence he gave?

46       A.  I certainly did not participate in any extended

47       discussion on this matter. I certainly did not nominate

 

1       any amount of money. There’s a whole lot of things wrong

2       with the account. There was no cap. And the suggestion

3       that after a man has lost a job of $300,000 a year, I would

4       agree to offer him $5,000 extra by way of compensation

5       I regard as grotesque.

6

7       Q.  Monsignor Rayner also gave evidence that the

8       decision-making process was that he would go to you and

9       discuss the amounts with you and agreement was reached with

10       you. Is he wrong in that regard?

11       A.  Yes, he is.

12

13       Q.  Mr Salmon, as you know, is the current director of the

14       Professional Standards Office.

15       A.  Mmm-hmm.

16

17       Q.  He gave evidence that he expected that you would have

18       had some knowledge of the $100,000 put forward by Mr Ellis.

19       Now, is he wrong in that regard?

20       A.  He was.

21

22       Q.  Coming back to the handling of Mr Ellis’s complaint,

23       on 7 June 2002 you read his complaint?

24       A.  Mmm-hmm.

25

26       Q.  That’s right?

27       A.  Yes. I don’t know about the day, but, yes, I read his

28       complaint.

29

30       Q.  Can I take you to that complaint. It’s behind tab 4.

31       Does that refresh your memory of the complaint that you

32       received, cardinal?

33       A.  Yes, generally. Yes.

34

35       Q.  You’ll see that Mr Ellis’s complaint, under the

36       heading of “Nature of complaint”, sets out that the

37       complaint is in relation to conduct that occurred on many

38       occasions over a period of years. Do you see that?

39       A.  I do.

40

41       Q.  Do you now recall receiving this complaint and reading

42       it, cardinal?

43       A.  Yes, I think I do. I was certainly aware of the

44       general content, I think. I was aware of the content.

45       I can’t remember reading this particular page one way or

46       another.

47

 

1       Q.  Perhaps we can have tab 6 on the screen first, and

2       we’ll come back to the complaint. Do you see this is

3       a letter to you from the Professional Standards Office on

4       5 June 2002?

5       A.  Mmm-hmm.

6

7       Q.  As we scroll up, it’s clear that you were given the

8       statement of complaint from Mr Ellis?

9       A.  Mmm-hmm.

10

11       Q.  Do you see there are some handwritten notes?

12       A.  Yes.

13

14       Q.  That reads “attached enclosed read by”, and is that

15       you, cardinal?

16       A.  Yes, absolutely.

17

18       Q.  “On 7 June 2002”?

19       A.  Good. Yes.

20

21       Q.  So do you accept that you read the complaint on 7 June

22       2002?

23       A.  I do, yes. Yes. Yes.

24

25       Q.  Coming back to the complaint itself, which is tab 4,

26       you’ve said in your statement that the complaint was

27       plainly very serious; do you recall that?

28       A.  Mmm-hmm.

29

30       Q.  Can I suggest to you that your view that it was

31       plainly very serious was formed because of a number of

32       aspects of complaint – firstly, looking at what’s on the

33       screen, that the conduct occurred on many occasions over

34       a period of years?

35       A.  Mmm-hmm.

36

37       Q.  And that over that period, Mr Ellis was an altar boy.

38       Do you see that?

39       A.  Yes, yes.

40

41       Q.  And the description of the sexual abuse indicates that

42       it escalated?

43       A.  That’s correct.

44

45       Q.  That the sexual abuse occurred at the presbytery?

46       A.  Mmm-hmm.

47

 

1       Q.  And also occurred in the bedroom of the priest?

2       A.  Mmm-hmm.

3

4       Q.  And further —

5

6       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Cardinal, when you say “mmm-hmm”, do you

7       mean you accept that, yes, that makes it serious?

8       A.  Yes.

9

10       MS FURNESS:  Q.  That the priest gave Mr Ellis, then

11       a boy, alcohol?

12       A.  Yes.

13

14       Q.  And that he took him away on holidays with him?

15       A.  Yes.

16

17       Q.  Do you accept that each of those matters contributed

18       to, as you say, it being a plainly very serious complaint?

19       A.  I do.

20

21       Q.  You will see over the next page Mr Ellis sets out his

22       expectations, the second being that he would receive from

23       the church a personal acknowledgment of the wrong done to

24       him?

25       A.  Yes.

26

27       Q.  Thirdly, that Father Duggan will be confronted with

28       the complaint and will acknowledge the wrong done?

29       A.  Mmm-hmm.

30

31       Q.  And finally, the church will provide assistance and

32       support in addressing the effects of the abuse; do you see

33       that?

34       A.  I do.

35

36       Q.  So when you read this complaint on 7 June, you

37       understood what Mr Ellis’s expectations were, as set out in

38       this document?

39       A.  I understood those four points, and of course things

40       developed beyond that, but I understand and saw those four

41       points.

42

43       Q.  If we can turn to page 3, do you see there in the

44       first full paragraph Dr Ellis is telling you that he

45       commenced at the Marist Fathers Novitiate at Toongabbie?

46       A.  Yes.

47

 

1       Q.  You would have understood from that, would you not,

2       when you read it, that that indicated that spirituality was

3       important to Mr Ellis?

4       A.  Of course.

5

6       Q.  After reading the complaint on 7 June, over the next

7       few weeks you had a discussion with Mr Davoren about the

8       complaint, did you not?

9       A.  Yes.

10

11       Q.  Perhaps we could have tab 10 on the screen. This is

12       a letter from Mr Davoren on 15 July to Mr Ellis, telling

13       him, in the second paragraph, that he had discussed his

14       complaint with you. Do you see that?

15       A.  Yes.

16

17       Q.  You don’t doubt that that occurred, do you?

18       A.  No.

19

20       Q.  Going down that page, the third paragraph, Mr Davoren

21       is telling Mr Ellis that Father Duggan’s mental state had

22       deteriorated and that the next step is usually to appoint

23       an assessor. Just stopping there, you would accept that

24       the Towards Healing protocol at that stage said that the

25       next step was to appoint an assessor?

26       A.  Certainly.

27

28       Q.  Then he goes on to say:

29

30            I would like to discuss with you what we

31            might do now that it appears pointless to

32            have [Father Duggan] interviewed.

33

34       Now, you say in your statement that this shows

35       a misunderstanding by Mr Davoren; is that right?

36       A.  That’s correct, yes.

37

38       Q.  Because indeed there was no need to discuss anything

39       with Mr Ellis, was there? It should have just gone

40       straight to an assessment?

41       A.  It should have gone to an assessment, yes.

42

43       Q.  And that was Mr Davoren’s misunderstanding of the way

44       that the protocol worked then?

45       A.  Yes.

46

47       THE CHAIR:  Q.  And the assessment was to be by someone

 

1       who was not Mr Davoren; is that right?

2       A.  I didn’t – that’s certainly what should have happened.

3       I mistakenly thought that, in some sense, what Davoren was

4       doing was the assessment, but I was mistaken in that.

5

6       Q.  You understood Towards Healing required someone other

7       than Mr Davoren to do the assessment, didn’t you?

8       A.  I did, but I didn’t – the way things developed,

9       I followed Mr Davoren’s advice but I should have done

10       things differently. As a partial explanation – not

11       a partial —

12

13       Q.  At the moment, I’m just interested in or concerned to

14       understand that you knew at the time that Towards Healing

15       required someone other than Mr Davoren to do the

16       assessment; is that right?

17       A.  This had been – yes, this was stated quite explicitly

18       and the point was lost on me as we went ahead.

19

20       Q.  Nevertheless, your understanding of Towards Healing

21       would lead you to the assumption that any assessment would

22       be done by someone other than Mr Davoren; correct?

23       A.  That’s a correct understanding of Towards Healing.

24

25       Q.  Yes, and that was your understanding at the time?

26       A.  In a – yes, in a somewhat confused way, yes – but that

27       – yes.

28

29       Q.  Was it a confused way or was that your understanding?

30       A.  That’s a difficult question. If I’d been asked the

31       question, did there have to be an assessment, I would have

32       said yes. When Davoren didn’t appoint an assessor,

33       I didn’t advert to that fact.

34

35       Q.  No, but nevertheless all of your dealings were on the

36       assumption that someone other than Mr Davoren would do the

37       assessment?

38       A.  Yes. My assumption was that the procedures should be

39       followed.

40

41       MS FURNESS:  Q.  And that was consistent with your

42       experience in Melbourne, wasn’t it, that there was an

43       independent assessment done of the complaint?

44       A.  Very much so.

45

46       Q.  Towards Healing was no different in that respect,

47       leaving aside consistency as to who made the decision?

 

1       A.  Yes, yes.

2

3       Q.  Now, the next —

4       A.  If I could – one difference from Melbourne is that

5       Mr O’Callaghan, in some ways, had the role both of

6       Mr Davoren and the assessor, because the complaints were

7       referred immediately to Mr O’Callaghan, the independent

8       commissioner, and he dealt with them. In the Towards

9       Healing, there is the intermediate person, for pastoral

10       reasons, who then hands it on to an assessor.

11

12       THE CHAIR:  Q.  In one sense that’s an advantage,

13       isn’t it, because the assessor is totally divorced

14       otherwise from the process?

15       A.  Yes, I agree very much.

16

17       Q.  I’m not sure I understand – was there a panel of

18       assessors who could be drawn upon to do this work at the

19       time?

20       A.  I gather – I don’t know whether it was formally

21       a panel, but there was a list of such people, certainly.

22

23       MS FURNESS:  Q.  Another few weeks later, you agreed for

24       Mr Ellis to meet with Father Duggan, provided that

25       Father Duggan was reasonably able to participate; do you

26       recall that?

27       A.  I do.

28

29       Q.  And your agreement was necessary for that meeting,

30       wasn’t it?

31       A.  Yes.

32

33       Q.  Were you conscious, at the time you agreed that the

34       meeting should take place, that some months had passed

35       without an assessment being done?

36       A.  No, not explicitly. I realised at some stage that

37       things were going very, very slowly, but I didn’t advert to

38       the fact that there hadn’t been a formal assessment.

39

40       Q.  You were then on leave from 20 August to 13 October

41       2002?

42       A.  Mmm-hmm.

43

44       Q.  But shortly after you returned, and by 1 November

45       2002, you had sought Mr Davoren’s advice regarding there

46       being a meeting between Mr Ellis and Father Duggan because

47       it was now clear that he had dementia?

 

1       A.  Yes.

2

3       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Cardinal, I’m sorry to do this, but

4       a number of times you’ve just gone “mmm-hmm”.

5       A.  I’m sorry, I’ll try to do better.

6

7       Q.  Should we understand you, whenever you do that, to be

8       saying yes?

9       A.  I’ll try not to do it again. Yes.

10

11       Q.  Just when we come back to look at the transcript —

12       A.  Yes, surely, surely. I understand that.

13

14       MS FURNESS:  Q.  You were open to Mr Ellis meeting

15       Father Duggan. Can you now tell us what purpose you

16       thought such a meeting might achieve?

17       A.  I wasn’t sure what it might achieve, but Mr Ellis

18       wanted it.

19

20       Q.  A couple of weeks later – and we’re now at 19 November

21       2002 – Mr Ellis’s complaint was discussed at a bishops

22       meeting. Do you remember that?

23       A.  Only vaguely.

24

25       Q.  Perhaps if we can have tab 23 up on the screen. You

26       will see this is an email from Father Doherty to Mr Davoren

27       stating that the matter was discussed at the last bishops

28       meeting. Do you see that?

29       A.  Yes, I do.

30

31       Q.  Was it the case that complaints made were discussed at

32       bishops meetings as a matter of course?

33       A.  Not as a matter of course.

34

35       Q.  So there was something about Mr Ellis’s complaint that

36       took it out of the ordinary?

37       A.  Well, it was out of the ordinary.

38

39       Q.  What were the features that took it out of the

40       ordinary?

41       A.  Well, it was dragging on; that the priest had

42       dementia; that – I’m not quite sure at what stage Davoren

43       was suggesting it couldn’t be established. We had to try

44       to – would it be helpful or not for the meeting to take

45       place? And I was keen to do the right thing.

46

47       Q.  The fact that it was dragging on was, if I can

 

1       suggest, the fault of the Professional Standards Office,

2       not Mr Ellis, wasn’t it?

3       A.  That’s right, and it was a surprise to me to read

4       Mr Ellis’s submission that the only time when there was

5       progress was when he pushed the office. I was totally

6       unaware of that.

7

8       Q.  Why was it discussed at the bishops conference?

9       A.  Because – I can only repeat what I’ve said before, so

10       that I could be clear on what was the best thing to do, and

11       it was already emerging as a muddle and I didn’t want to

12       make anything worse and we wanted to try to accommodate

13       Mr Ellis’s wish as much as that was appropriate to do.

14

15       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Cardinal, I think what you’re being asked

16       is rather than the matter just being discussed with you,

17       which could have happened, it was discussed at the bishops

18       conference. I think Ms Furness would like to know why it

19       took that course rather than just being discussed with you?

20       A.  Oh, no, it’s not the bishops conference. It’s

21       a meeting of —

22

23       Q.  Well, bishops meeting.

24       A.  It’s a meeting of the Sydney bishops.

25

26       Q.  I understand that; that’s what she’s asking you. You

27       see, the matter could have come straight to you, and you

28       alone —

29       A.  Yes.

30

31       Q.  — but it went to this bishops meeting, I’m sorry,

32       meeting.

33       A.  That would indicate that I wasn’t quite sure what we

34       should be doing, and I would value their advice.

35

36       Q.  So you would have directed it to go on to the agenda

37       for that meeting; is that right?

38       A.  That’s correct, yes, and, for example, Bishop Cremin

39       was very, very good with people and I was interested in

40       hearing what he had to say, and I presume Bishop Robinson

41       was there, too, because right through, I was keen to do the

42       right thing, whatever errors I might have made.

43

44       MS FURNESS:  Q.  The email continues to say “GP” – and

45       I take it that’s you, cardinal?

46       A.  Yes.

47

 

1       Q. “Wanted to get a briefing before he made any decision

2       about facilitation”.

3       A.  Mmm-hmm.

4

5       Q.  It was the case, wasn’t it, that it was your decision

6       as to whether to go, and if so when, to a facilitation?

7       A.  It was my decision on the recommendation of the

8       Professional Standards Office, and my presumption was

9       overwhelmingly that I would follow any advice from the

10       Professional Standards Office and not interfere or differ

11       from what they recommended. I think even in the

12       professional standards – Towards Healing protocols, if you

13       don’t agree with what is recommended, you have to,

14       I believe, give reasons for not following the advice. So

15       I repeat, my overwhelming inclination would have been to do

16       exactly as I was asked.

17

18       Q.  With respect, cardinal, this email suggests that

19       instead of just accepting the advice of Mr Davoren, you

20       wanted to discuss it with your bishops to get their advice,

21       that’s right, according to this email?

22       A.  That’s correct.

23

24       Q.  And you wanted to get a briefing before you made the

25       decision that you were going to take in respect of

26       facilitation?

27       A.  Yes, and I think that is perfectly compatible with my

28       ambition to comply with the recommendations from the

29       Professional Standards Office, and I wanted the advice of

30       others as to whether we were heading in the right

31       direction.

32

33       Q.  When you say you had an ambition to comply with the

34       recommendations from the Professional Standards Office,

35       surely you would have applied your own mind, cardinal, to

36       those recommendations and only acceded to them if you

37       thought they were sensible?

38       A.  Yes, but the presumption in my mind was that they were

39       sensible and I would have needed very, very clear

40       indications that they were not sensible before I would have

41       been tempted to disagree with them.

42

43       Q.  You’ve said in paragraph 75 of your statement that you

44       proceeded on the assumption that the director is

45       undertaking the process in a manner that is consistent with

46       the Towards Healing document, and then you say “unless

47       a recommendation from the director appeared to me to be

 

1       plainly wrong”. Do you see that in the last sentence of

2       paragraph 75 on the screen?

3       A.  Yes.

4

5       Q.  So it’s obvious, cardinal, as one would expect, that

6       you would apply your own mind, and if it appeared to you to

7       be plainly wrong, you wouldn’t accept it, would you?

8       A.  That is correct.

9

10       Q.  The next occasion is a few weeks later when you

11       received a letter from Mr Davoren, and if we can have

12       tab 25 on the screen. This is a letter you received dated

13       10 December 2002?

14       A.  Yes.

15

16       Q.  From Mr Davoren?

17       A.  Yes.

18

19       Q.  At this stage, you knew there hadn’t been an

20       assessment, didn’t you?

21       A.  I hadn’t adverted to that at this stage.

22

23       Q.  When you say you hadn’t adverted to it, did you know

24       or not know?

25       A.  I thought Mr Davoren’s work was the assessment.

26

27       THE CHAIR:  Q.  But you knew that Towards Healing

28       required a person other than Mr Davoren to do the

29       assessment, didn’t you?

30       A.  I did, and I was inconsistent in that, but I didn’t

31       advert to that fact at that stage.

32

33       MS FURNESS:  Q.  I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you

34       mean by “advert to that fact”, cardinal?

35       A.  I didn’t realise that at that stage. I was simply

36       mistaken.

37

38       Q.  You will see the first sentence of this letter is:

39

40            It is now clear the facts of this case can

41            never be satisfactorily clarified.

42

43       Do you see that?

44       A.  I do.

45

46       Q.  Now, that’s just plainly wrong, isn’t it?

47       A.  That was not the recommendation of Davoren. I think

 

1       Davoren generally proceeded on the basis that some sort of

2       corroboration was necessary.

3

4       THE CHAIR:  Q.  No, but Cardinal Pell, you were asked

5       your view.

6

7       MS FURNESS:  Q.  That sentence is just plainly wrong?

8       A.  In the light of present information, that’s correct.

9

10       THE CHAIR:  Q.  No, you’re being asked, back then?

11       A.  No, of course I didn’t believe it was plainly wrong.

12       I wouldn’t have accepted it if I thought it was plainly

13       wrong.

14

15       MS FURNESS:  Q.  You accept it is now. You didn’t know

16       it to be then; is that right?

17       A.  That’s correct.

18

19       Q.  What information do you have now that you didn’t have

20       then?

21       A.  Well, Mr Eccleston’s report, for a start.

22

23       Q.  But that postdated it?

24       A.  Of course.

25

26       Q.  So in terms of the information that was available at

27       the time he wrote that letter, it was only Mr Davoren’s

28       assessment of Mr Ellis and his complaint, wasn’t it?

29       A.  That’s correct.

30

31       Q.  And you accept now that you misunderstood Mr Davoren’s

32       role in relation to the assessment process?

33       A.  Yes.

34

35       Q.  Continuing down, do you see the third sentence:

36

37            I note that the alleged events commenced

38            when he was under age and continued for

39            a period of some ten years.

40

41       A.  Yes.

42

43       Q.  Is that a fact that you had taken into account in

44       forming any view of Mr Ellis’s complaint?

45       A.  I was told the fact that it continued after the age of

46       consent, if that’s the phrase, was legally irrelevant.

47

 

 

1 Q. Was it irrelevant for every purpose?
2 A. So I was told.
3
4 Q. What was your belief?
5 A. My initial reaction was that, in some sense, it was

6       relevant, but I was told very explicitly that it wasn’t and

7       that was it.

8

9       Q.  In what sense did you believe it to be relevant?

10       A.  Obviously, the original – the crimes that the priest

11       committed in foisting himself on a young boy – there’s no

12       ifs and buts about that, that’s plainly wrong. It’s

13       different from many other cases in as much as that conduct

14       continued for quite some time beyond the time when Mr Ellis

15       was a minor.

16

17       Q.  But isn’t it the case that priests take a vow of

18       celibacy?

19       A.  Of course.

20

21       Q.  Isn’t it the case that what the priest did was wrong

22       after Mr Ellis attained adulthood?

23       A.  Of course. Of course.

24

25       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Cardinal Pell, I’m not sure I’m

26       understanding. You have spoken, as have I, to many people

27       who have been victims of abuse by either a cleric or

28       another person when they’re under age.

29       A.  Mmm-hmm.

30

31       Q.  It’s not uncommon that the hold that the abuser has

32       over the abused enables that relationship to continue

33       beyond the point where the person achieves the age of

34       consent.

35       A.  Yes.

36

37       Q.  That would be your experience?

38       A.  Yes, and I certainly don’t dispute that. I was asked

39       what my initial reaction was. I thought it was of some

40       significance. I didn’t dispute the gravity of the crime

41       early on, the way it contradicted the promises of celibacy

42       of the priest, and I was told quite explicitly it was

43       legally irrelevant and I accepted that.

44

45       Q.  It would be the position, wouldn’t it, in your

46       experience, that if you are told that the relationship did

47       continue, it would make it more likely that if the person

 

1       alleged it started before they reached the age of consent,

2       that that was the fact, wouldn’t it?

3       A.  That is correct.

4

5       Q.  And given what you knew of Mr Ellis’s complaint and

6       his discussion about having been abused over a very

7       significant period of time, that made it almost, in your

8       experience, undoubtedly correct, didn’t it?

9       A.  I would say so explicitly now, and I should have been

10       much more vigilant about the advice that was given to me

11       then, but my instinct, as I said, was unless an advice was

12       plainly wrong, and I think Mr Davoren had a general

13       requirement – that mightn’t be the correct word – for some

14       sort of corroboration, but the details as listed obviously

15       were persuasive.

16

17       Q.  Cardinal, going back to the letter, as Ms Furness has

18       done – before I take you to it, can I ask you this, it

19       would be your experience that it’s very common that an

20       allegation of sexual abuse, when pursued in a criminal

21       court, has only the evidence of the abused person as far as

22       the prosecution is concerned; correct?

23       A.  I wasn’t completely aware of that, but I take your

24       word for it, of course.

25

26       Q.  Is it not your experience that, for obvious reasons,

27       abuse will occur in private where only the abused and the

28       abuser know that it has happened?

29       A.  Yes, but very obviously also, people will talk about

30       that to somebody; there’s some contemporary witness,

31       somebody they’ve mentioned it to.

32

33       Q.  I regret to tell you, cardinal, that’s very often not

34       the case. And you know that from your own experience with

35       people who have been abused by clerics, don’t you?

36       A.  I wouldn’t have said what I did if I did know that.

37

38       Q.  Well, you know that it’s very common that young people

39       who report abuse many years later say that they felt unable

40       to report the abuse to anyone because of the authority

41       position of the abuser?

42       A.  Yes, that is correct.

43

44       Q.  That’s correct, isn’t it?

45       A.  Mmm, yes.

46

47       Q.  So that what one could expect very commonly would be

 

1       that there would be no other person who could give evidence

2       that you would call corroborative of abuse which has

3       happened to a child?

4       A.  Yes, that is correct.

5

6       Q.  Then when we look at this letter, in the second

7       sentence:

8

9            It does not appear that Mr Ellis can

10            corroborate his version of events in such

11            a way that it would be possible to conclude

12            on the balance of probabilities that the

13            situation that he described did in fact

14            take place.

15

16       Now, as we just discussed, it was to be expected that there

17       would be many cases where there would be no other evidence

18       of the abuse other than the abused person’s account;

19       correct?

20       A.  That’s my understanding.

21

22       Q.  What that means is that in order to be satisfied that

23       the abuse has occurred, what you have to do is talk to the

24       person who alleges they were abused and see whether or not

25       their story is one that you can accept; correct?

26       A.  That is correct. Now, my perhaps muddled ignorance on

27       this, failures in this area, is one reason why I was always

28       very keen for the assessor to have the appropriate legal

29       ability to assess accurately, so that when these points

30       were made, they would be correct.

31

32       Q.  Then when we look at the first sentence:

33

34            It is now clear the facts of this case can

35            never be satisfactorily clarified.

36

37       That statement cannot be correct, can it, because, as we’ve

38       just agreed, in these circumstances what you do is talk to

39       the person who alleged they were abused?

40       A.  And that had happened, and we agree that that first

41       sentence is incorrect.

42

43       MS FURNESS:  Q.  It hadn’t happened, had it, in terms of

44       speaking to Mr Ellis?

45       A.  I would have thought that Davoren would have spoken

46       with Ellis by this time.

47

 

1       Q.  I see. So your answer is in respect of Mr Davoren

2       having spoken with Mr Ellis?

3       A.  Yes, yes.

4

5       Q.  You said earlier that you were told that the

6       continuation of the abuse was irrelevant. Who told you

7       that?

8       A.  I can’t remember, but some legal authority.

9

10       Q.  So you were involved with someone with some legal

11       authority at this time, or is this a subsequent —

12       A.  I can’t remember when.

13

14       Q.  So it may well have been subsequent to the

15       Towards Healing complaint being dealt with?

16       A.  Subsequent to the lodging of the Towards Healing

17       complaint, but fairly early on in the story, the sad story,

18       it was made very clear to me that it wasn’t relevant, for

19       all the reasons we’ve rehearsed here.

20

21       Q.  Just coming back to the letter, what Mr Davoren is

22       saying to you is that he recommends that there not be

23       a meeting with Father Duggan, notwithstanding that he

24       recognised that might be a pastoral response that might be

25       of assistance to Mr Ellis. Do you see that in the second

26       paragraph?

27       A.  Yes.

28

29       Q.  And says that if Mr Ellis wants to meet with

30       Father Duggan, he can organise it himself?

31       A.  Yes.

32

33       Q.  And then suggesting to you that if you agree, it would

34       be better for the message to be communicated to Mr Ellis,

35       and we know that that message was, “We can’t do anything

36       more”?

37       A.  That I’m not sure is exactly the message in that

38       letter. I think that letter concludes, “We cannot do

39       anything more towards that end”, which is to have the

40       matter satisfactorily clarified. I think that’s the case.

41

42       Q.  Perhaps if we can have tab 26. Cardinal, this is the

43       letter that Mr Davoren sent to you as a draft?

44       A.  Yes.

45

46       Q.  You’re familiar with that letter, aren’t you?

47       A.  I am. I am.

 

1

2       Q.  If we can turn to the final paragraph, Mr Davoren

3       suggests that you consider saying words to the effect of:

4

5            I very much regret any hurt that you have

6            experienced, but under these circumstances

7            I do not see that there is anything the

8            Archdiocese can do to help you bring this

9            matter to some resolution.

10

11       A.  I do.

12

13       Q.  That letter came to you on or about 10 December;

14       that’s right?

15       A.  Yes.

16

17       Q.  You ultimately sent a letter to Mr Ellis on

18       23 December 2002, did you not?

19       A.  Yes.

20

21       Q.  The letter that you sent is behind tab 30, and if we

22       might have that on the screen. Just before we go to the

23       detail of that, cardinal, with draft letters coming to you

24       from the Professional Standards Office, who in your office,

25       if anyone, did you confer with in respect of the content of

26       those letters?

27       A.  I would on occasion confer with Dr Casey, perhaps the

28       chancellor, but I would – a letter like this, I closely

29       examined myself.

30

31       Q.  If I can have on the screen the tracked changes – to

32       make it clear, cardinal, the changes that were made to the

33       letter that you signed from the draft that was given to

34       you – you would have seen this or something similar, I take

35       it?

36       A.  I have.

37

38       Q.  Can you now say that the changes that were made you

39       take responsibility for?

40       A.  I do.

41

42       Q.  Thank you. If we can deal with the first paragraph,

43       you amend it by deleting “on the balance of probabilities”.

44       Can you tell us why?

45       A.  No, I’m not clear why I did that, although

46       I understood that it was on the balance of probabilities.

47

 

1       Q.  That was the test, as you knew it, wasn’t it?

2       A.  Yes, yes.

3

4       Q.  You’ll see that Mr Davoren had suggested, and I quote:

5

6            As you are aware this is not to suggest

7            that you are disbelieved, but that it has

8            become a matter of one person’s word

9            against another.

10

11       Do you see that?

12       A.  I do.

13

14       Q.  You deleted that?

15       A.  I did.

16

17       Q.  And replaced it with:

18

19            On the one hand, there is your allegation,

20            and on the other Father Duggan cannot

21            respond and we have no other record of

22            complaints of this kind against him.

23

24       Do you see that?

25       A.  Correct.

26

27       Q.  Why did you remove the reference to not suggesting

28       that Mr Ellis was disbelieved?

29       A.  Because it’s plainly inconsistent with the conclusion.

30       If you say to somebody, “I’m not suggesting you are

31       disbelieved”, it means you are believing him, and the whole

32       point of this letter was to say the matter couldn’t be

33       resolved and I don’t like talking out of both sides of my

34       mouth, especially to a victim. So I wasn’t going to say,

35       in effect, that we believe Mr Ellis when the point of

36       Mr Davoren’s advice was that this couldn’t be established.

37

38       THE CHAIR:  Q.  And I take it you accepted the advice

39       and, therefore, you didn’t believe that Mr Ellis’s story

40       could be established; is that right?

41       A.  That’s correct.

42

43       Q.  You express it in the letter that that was the case

44       because Father Duggan couldn’t respond; do you see that?

45       A.  I do.

46

47       Q.  That’s not right, is it?

 

 

1 A. That was my belief at the time.
2
3 Q. But it’s not right, is it?
4 A. No, no, I concede now that it’s quite mistaken.
5

6       MS FURNESS:  Q.  It’s mistaken because it’s plainly

7       inconsistent with the words of the protocol; isn’t that

8       right? Perhaps we can have the Towards Healing protocol

9       for December 2000, which is in the general tender bundle at

10       tab E. It’s on page 16. Just before we get to page 16, if

11       we can go back to the front cover, I take it you’re

12       familiar with this document?

13       A.  Certainly.

14

15       Q.  This is the document that was in place at the time of

16       Mr Ellis’s complaint; you understand that, cardinal?

17       A.  Yes.

18

19       Q.  Just turning back to page 16 now, moving down to

20       paragraph 40.4, can I tell you, cardinal, that this is the

21       assessment provisions of the protocol that were in place,

22       and do you see that 40.4 clearly says:

23

24            If the accused does not wish to cooperate

25            with the assessment, the assessment shall

26            still proceed and the assessors shall

27            endeavour to reach a conclusion concerning

28            the truth of the matter so that the Church

29            authority can make an appropriate response

30            to the complainant.

31

32       Do you see that?

33       A.  I do.

34

35       Q.  You weren’t sufficiently familiar with the protocol at

36       the time, were you, to understand that this was

37       a requirement; is that the case?

38       A.  I believed that the assessment had been proceeding,

39       had proceeded and that Mr Davoren was proposing

40       a conclusion, and I regret my mistake on that matter.

41

42       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Cardinal, the letter that you ultimately

43       sent to Mr Ellis you would understand was a rejection of

44       any complaint or any response from the church under

45       Towards Healing; correct?

46       A.  It was a rejection, in the sense that it said quite

47       clearly it could not be satisfactorily established.

 

1

2       Q.  Did you not think that before you wrote such a letter,

3       or signed such a letter, you yourself should make sure that

4       it was right to reject the complaint?

5       A.  Yes, I would, and I did, but my overwhelming

6       presumption was that if I got advice from the Professional

7       Standards Office, I followed it.

8

9       Q.  But this was not a question of presumption. This was

10       a question, surely, of satisfying yourself that it was

11       right to reject a man’s complaint, which we’ve already

12       discussed was obviously a serious complaint?

13       A.  I regret what I did. It was a mistake. To say that

14       something could not be satisfactorily established is one

15       form of rejection. It’s not a denial necessarily that it

16       took place.

17

18       MS FURNESS:  Q.  Can we perhaps have the tracked changes

19       letter back up on the screen. Do you see the final

20       paragraph says:

21

22            … a clear resolution of this matter is

23            not possible, but under the circumstances

24            I do not see that there is anything the

25            Archdiocese can do towards this end.

26

27       A.  Which is the clear resolution of this matter.

28

29       Q.  Well, any resolution. You’re not offering anything,

30       are you?

31       A.  No, I’m sorry, a clear resolution of this matter is

32       what the letter says.

33

34       Q.  But you weren’t offering anything to Mr Ellis, were

35       you?

36       A.  I was not able to suggest any measure that would bring

37       greater clarity than what Mr Davoren proposed. Now, in

38       retrospect, that was a mistake.

39

40       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Well, cardinal, you could have asked him

41       whether there had been an assessor appointed and any view

42       that the assessor had, couldn’t you?

43       A.  I didn’t, because that distinction was lost on me.

44

45       MS FURNESS:  Q.  Mr Ellis has given evidence that

46       receiving this letter was like a door slamming in his face.

47       Can you understand that, cardinal?

 

1       A.  Yes, I can.

2

3       Q.  That was the effect of the letter, wasn’t it?

4       A.  Yes.

5

6       Q.  Just coming back to the changes that were made, and

7       turning to the second paragraph, Mr Davoren had suggested

8       that there be reference to some peace of mind being

9       achieved. Do you see that? It’s in the second paragraph,

10       at the beginning, cardinal.

11       A.  Yes, yes.

12

13       Q.  What purpose were you achieving by removing that?

14       A.  I can’t recall exactly, except I didn’t want to be

15       saying contradictory things. I didn’t want him to be

16       feeling that something was going to be done which wasn’t

17       going to be done. Obviously, I was keen for him to have

18       peace of mind, but I didn’t want to – I didn’t want to

19       mislead him.

20

21       Q.  By suggesting that anything was going to be done for

22       him when it wasn’t?

23       A.  If – yes, yes. If it couldn’t be done towards

24       clarifying – if we couldn’t clarify the situation, I didn’t

25       want to suggest to him that we were.

26

27       Q.  In the last paragraph, Mr Davoren suggested:

28

29            I very much regret any hurt that you have

30            experienced …

31

32       Do you see that?

33       A.  Yes.

34

35       Q.  You didn’t share that view, and you limited your

36       statement of regret:

37

38            … that a clear resolution of this matter

39            is not possible …

40

41       A.  I also felt that that was quite illogical, because if

42       hurt had been caused, that would indicate that the case was

43       believed, that the case was established. I didn’t think

44       that the letter could have it both ways. If the case

45       couldn’t be established, then the hurt couldn’t be

46       established. That was my reasoning. I was attempting to

47       be honest.

 

1

2       Q.  Is it the case when you were archbishop, either at

3       Melbourne or here, you apologised to a victim, which I’m

4       sure you’ve done on many occasions —

5       A.  Mmm-hmm.

6

7       Q.  Who were you apologising for?

8       A.  For – on behalf of the archdiocese, on behalf of

9       myself as head of the archdiocese.

10

11       Q.  And what were you apologising in respect of – what

12       conduct or other thing were you apologising for?

13       A.  If there had been failures in procedure, but this is

14       not a formal letter of apology.

15

16       Q.  No, I’m interested in your view as to statements of

17       regret. In circumstances where you have offered an apology

18       to a victim, is it the case that you only offered apologies

19       or statements of regret where you believed their account?

20       A.  Yes, and I would do that as a result of the procedures

21       that had been followed, so I wouldn’t check every case.

22

23       Q.  When you made an apology in respect of a victim who

24       had been abused by a priest within your archdiocese, what

25       were you apologising for?

26       A.  Well, the wrongdoing, for the hurt that had been

27       caused.

28

29       Q.  So you were apologising for the wrongdoing of the

30       priest?

31       A.  Yes.

32

33       Q.  You were accepting responsibility for that wrongdoing

34       by expressing an apology for it; is that right?

35       A.  We don’t accept the principle of vicarious

36       responsibility.

37

38       Q.  I didn’t use the word “vicarious”, cardinal. I just

39       used the word “responsibility”?

40       A.  No, but I am, in an attempt to reply to your question,

41       if I may.

42

43       Q.  Certainly.

44       A.  There are different levels of responsibility, and if

45       the procedures were wrong, if there had been negligence, if

46       the authorities had been informed and done nothing, there’s

47       a much greater responsibility. Because a person is an

 

1       official of the church, leaving aside the questions of

2       legal liability, I think it’s appropriate and necessary for

3       the bishop to acknowledge the wrongdoing done by such an

4       official.

5

6       THE CHAIR:  Q.  And that’s the church acknowledging – the

7       bishop acknowledging, on behalf of the diocese, is it?

8       A.  That is correct.

9

10       Q.  I take it you accept that responsibility because of

11       the way the church will be perceived by the abused and

12       other people?

13       A.  I don’t proceed in any matters according to public

14       perceptions. I proceed in church matters according to what

15       is the nature of the church and what is right and proper in

16       a particular circumstance.

17

18       Q.  Am I right in thinking that any parish priest will be

19       the priest of that parish as a result of appointment by the

20       archbishop or bishop of that diocese?

21       A.  That is correct.

22

23       Q.  Do you think, in that context, there’s any burden

24       placed upon the archbishop or bishop to apologise on behalf

25       of the church when that priest offends?

26       A.  There are many different burdens, many different

27       levels of responsibility, and I’ve already answered that if

28       a parish priest has offended, it is appropriate and

29       necessary for me to apologise.

30

31       Q.  Yes, I know, but what Ms Furness was seeking was, when

32       you do that, who, in your mind, are you apologising on

33       behalf of?

34       A.  On behalf of the archdiocese.

35

36       MS FURNESS:  Q.  And you’re apologising for the conduct

37       of the offending priest?

38       A.  Yes, which is contrary to all the teachings of Christ

39       and the church.

40

41       Q.  And you’re apologising for the consequences of that

42       conduct on the person?

43       A.  I am.

44

45       Q.  You answered a question earlier in relation to those

46       who were responsible for aspects of the complaint handling

47       in relation to Mr Ellis concerning Mr Davoren, and you

 

1       described Mr Davoren as a muddler and that sometimes he

2       wasn’t logical. You also said his approach to these

3       matters was pre-1996 and he didn’t seem to have

4       a scrupulous understanding or commitment to exactly

5       following protocols. Do you see that?

6       A.  I do.

7

8       Q.  Was that a view that you formed during your time as

9       archbishop when he was the director?

10       A.  Increasingly.

11

12       Q.  At the time of this letter, December 2002, had you

13       formed that view?

14       A.  No.

15

16       Q.  Was this letter – that is, his draft and the

17       consequences – part of what caused you to form that view?

18       A.  Probably.

19

20       Q.  About a month later, on 20 January, a meeting took

21       place to discuss the letter that Mr Ellis had written in

22       response to your letter of 23 December and to discuss what

23       would happen next. If I can turn to tab 32, and we need to

24       turn to page 0028, it’s a string of emails. Perhaps if we

25       could have 0029 first. The first is from Michael Hill.

26       You understood he was an employee within the Professional

27       Standards Office?

28       A.  Yes.

29

30       Q.  And it’s with reference to a call from Mr Ellis and

31       his shock about receiving the letter on Christmas Eve?

32       A.  Yes.

33

34       Q.  And he sounded disappointed rather than angry – do you

35       see that?

36       A.  Yes.

37

38       Q.  And he says that even though there’s no point in

39       trying to interview Duggan, he would still like to proceed

40       with the Towards Healing process?

41       A.  Yes.

42

43       Q.  And he wanted a facilitated meeting with you or your

44       representative?

45       A.  Yes.

46

47       Q.  If we can then scroll back up the email to page 0028,

 

1       do you see at the bottom of that page there is an email

2       from Mr Cudmore, who was the assistant to the chancellor —

3       A.  Yes.

4

5       Q.  — to Dr Casey asking, “Is it possible to arrange

6       a meeting ASAP” with you; do you see that?

7       A.  Yes.

8

9       Q.  And that meeting ultimately occurred?

10       A.  It didn’t occur with me.

11

12       Q.  Well, the meeting with you in order to discuss what

13       would happen in respect of Mr Ellis’s letter occurred, did

14       it not?

15       A.  I presume so.

16

17       Q.  Then if we can scroll up, do you see by this email, it

18       had been decided that a facilitated meeting would be set up

19       between Mr Ellis and Bishop Cremin?

20       A.  That is correct.

21

22       Q.  Why did you not agree to attend a facilitated meeting

23       with Mr Ellis at this stage?

24       A.  Because I have a general – I developed a general rule

25       that I myself would not participate in such meetings until

26       the cases were concluded because I had attended two or

27       three public meetings; I’d had a couple of occasions when

28       I had spoken before the conclusion of the process with

29       victims. There had been considerable misunderstandings on

30       those occasions, and I concluded it was much better to keep

31       out of it until the matter was over, so I would not provoke

32       misunderstandings or just add to the confusion.

33

34       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Did you think that Bishop Cremin could do

35       it better?

36       A.  I did, very definitely.

37

38       MS FURNESS:  Q.  What did you mean by “concluded”? You

39       say that you wanted to stay out of it until the matters

40       were concluded. What did “conclusion” mean in respect of

41       Mr Ellis’s complaint?

42       A.  When the whole process was concluded, then I would

43       speak with him, as I —

44

45       Q.  So did you understand he was back in Towards Healing

46       at this stage?

47       A.  I don’t think I ever understood that he was really out

 

1       of it.

2

3       Q.  Notwithstanding the letter of 23 December?

 

56

7

anything to clarify the matter, but we never said, you know, “You keep on going. You can – if you want to try” and we did continue to cooperate as he did this and did
8 that.
9
10 Q.  Only because he persisted; isn’t that the case?
11 A.  That’s correct, that’s correct.
12
13 MS FURNESS:  Is that a convenient time, your Honour?
14
15 THE CHAIR:  Yes, we’ll take lunch.
16
17 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47

 

4       A.  Yes, but, I mean, if he – we said we couldn’t do

 

1       UPON RESUMPTION:

2

3       MS FURNESS:  Q.  Cardinal, before the luncheon

4       adjournment, I was asking you about a meeting on 20 January

5       2003. Can I now take you to a couple of weeks later, on

6       4 February 2003, and perhaps we could have tab 33A on the

7       screen. Cardinal, this is an email from Mr Davoren to,

8       among others, your private secretary, Dr Casey. If we can

9       scroll down, that’s your handwriting, I take it, cardinal?

10       A.  It is.

11

12       Q.  What are you indicating by having endorsed that

13       document?

14       A.  I believe that I am in a general sort of agreement,

15       especially with the last, if I could just have a bit of

16       time to read it – certainly the last paragraph, and I think

17       if you could scroll back a little bit so I can have a look

18       at the first half, I think this is a passage where I felt

19       we were a little bit all over – Mr Davoren was a little bit

20       all over the place.

21

22       Q.  It is an email of 3 February and Mr Davoren is saying

23       to a number of people, including ultimately yourself, that

24       he recommends – and do you see that’s in the fourth

 

26 A. Yes.
27
28 Q.
29 It is my recommendation that there not be
30 a facilitated meeting if there is no
31 corroboration of the complaint.
32
33 Do y ou see that?
34 A. Yes.
35
36 Q. And further that:
37
38 The only way that such a corroboration can
39 be obtained is either through the archives
40 revealing that there were similar
41 complaints received against Duggan … or
42 Fr Duggan has made some fairly dramatic
43 recovery and he can be interviewed.
44
45 Do y ou see that?
46 A. I do.
47

 

25       paragraph?

 

1       Q.  So there was that recommendation, and then two

2       paragraphs down there was a suggestion:

3

4            … that we seek to obtain a clear picture

5            of Duggan’s health …

6

7       A.  Mmm-hmm. Yes.

8

9       Q.  Just coming back to the recommendation, you knew at

10       this time, February 2003, that it was plainly wrong that

11       corroboration could only be obtained through the archives

12       revealing other complaints or Duggan making some admission,

13       didn’t you?

14       A.  I accepted that line of reasoning at that time. I now

15       realise it’s quite wrong.

16

17       Q.  You didn’t realise it at the time, cardinal?

18       A.  No, I wouldn’t have said “Okay” if I did.

19

20       Q.  From your understanding of the Melbourne Response and

21       Towards Healing, you understood that there could be an

22       assessment of the complaint regardless of the state of mind

23       of the priest, didn’t you?

24       A.  In general terms, put like that, I certainly did.

25

26       Q.  You also understood, didn’t you, that the absence of

27       any other complaints didn’t mean that one then disbelieved

28       the current complainant?

29       A.  I believed that – the recommendation was that it could

30       not be satisfactorily established. That’s what I believed

31       at the time, and that is now an incorrect understanding.

32

33       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Cardinal, what did you think at the time

34       of the circumstance where the alleged abuser was dead and

35       there was nothing else in the archives to suggest that that

36       abuser had abused someone else; what did you think would be

37       the position then?

38       A.  I think the evidence would have to be carefully

39       assessed. I refused – it’s only too easy, when somebody is

40       dead, just to accept everything that is said about them.

41       They haven’t got an opportunity to defend themselves. So

42       some people are tempted to say, “He’s dead. There’s an

43       accusation. It doesn’t matter.” I always was of a mind

44       that there should be some examination of the intrinsic

45       probability of the accusation, and, in most cases, that was

46       established.

47

 

1       Q.  That was your view back then, was it?

2       A.  I was always, right back from then, for various

3       reasons – if a person is accused, they’re innocent until

4       they’re proven guilty, and I think in fairness to the dead,

5       there must be some sort of intrinsic evidence, not

6       a disbelief, but just some sort of establishment of the

7       plausibility, likelihood of the accusation.

8

9       Q.  If the person is dead and there’s no other record in

10       the archives, the way you do that is by speaking with the

11       person who makes the allegation, isn’t it?

12       A.  That’s correct.

13

14       Q.  And assessing whether or not they’re credible?

15       A.  That’s correct.

16

17       Q.  That was your view back in 2003 in relation to people

18       who were dead?

19       A.  Yes.

20

21       Q.  There’s no difference, is there, between that

22       situation and someone who unfortunately has dementia and

23       can’t speak?

24       A.  That is correct.

25

26       Q.  Why, then, wasn’t the same process the one to be

27       adopted in 2003, in your view?

28       A.  Well, I think we did. There was no automatic

29       acceptance of the charge against Father Duggan. There was

30       an incorrect assessment of the evidence from Mr Ellis.

31       I regret that. I say that was wrong and Mr Davoren’s

32       estimate of the balance of probabilities was mistaken.

33

34       Q.  This paragraph that Ms Furness has taken you to, “It

35       is my recommendation there not be a facilitated meeting”,

36       and so on, is based upon that false understanding of how

37       you establish that something may have occurred, isn’t it?

38       A.  Yes.

39

40       Q.  But you said “Okay” to it?

41       A.  I did, not because I thought it was incorrect then.

42       I thought it was correct. It was my mistake. This is one

43       of the very few instances in my life where I was too

44       reverential. I gave too much of an onus of – I was much

45       too inclined to take at face value what was presented to me

46       because of the status of the person saying it to me, my

47       keenness not to muck up the procedures. Certainly in

 

1       retrospect now, I would look at this much, much more

2       thoroughly.

3

4       MS FURNESS:  Q.  But you say that it was your view then

5       that if somebody was dead and there was no corroboration,

6       then it would be difficult to accept a complaint?

7       A.  To some extent, difficult, yes. It would depend on

8       the story and no contradictions in it, but not impossible.

9       Now, of course, I would be much more open to an

10       uncorroborated account.

11

12       Q.  When you say “Now, of course”, what has occurred that

13       changed your view, cardinal?

14       A.  First of all, Mr Eccleston’s assessment and then –

15       Mr Eccleston’s assessment, first of all, and then when

16       there was the review by the professional standards, they

17       pointed out all the faults that were made, and then later,

18       when the court case started, I was quite clear that we

19       couldn’t deny something that had been accepted. But that

20       comes later.

21

22       Q.  It is the case, is it, that Mr Eccleston’s assessment

23       had an impact on you in terms of his reasoning and

24       conclusions?

25       A.  That’s correct.

26

27       Q.  Further on in February, on 20 February, there was

28       a discussion within the chancellor’s office, and if we can

29       have tab 37 on the screen, this email of 20 February

30       follows, cardinal, from your agreeing to there being an

31       assessment of Father Duggan’s state?

32       A.  Yes.

33

34       Q.  Do you see there that Mr Cudmore, who was

35       Father Doherty’s assistant, was going to draft a letter to

36       be run by yourself? Do you see that? I’m assuming that

37       “HG” refers to you, cardinal?

38       A.  That is correct.

39

40       Q.  You don’t doubt that that occurred, do you, that

41       a letter was drafted and run by you?

42       A.  I don’t dispute it. I can’t particularly remember it.

43       I presume that it was.

44

45       Q.  By May 2003, you had become aware that the result of

46       the assessment was that Father Duggan was incapacitated?

47       A.  Yes.

 

1

2       Q.  That’s right, isn’t it?

3       A.  Yes.

4

5       Q.  Monsignor Rayner has told the Royal Commission that he

6       was the person who told you that. You don’t doubt that, do

7       you?

8       A.  No.

9

10       Q.  At about the same time, there were discussions with

11       you about who held the power of attorney for Father Duggan

12       in order to make arrangements for the assessment to have

13       taken place?

14       A.  That is correct.

15

16       Q.  The next month, in June 2003, you approved the

17       appointment of Mr Eccleston as the assessor; that’s right?

18       A.  Yes.

19

20       Q.  So it had come to your attention by June, had it, that

21       what Mr Davoren had done was indeed not an assessment as

22       required in the protocol?

23       A.  Yes.

24

25       Q.  How did that come to your attention, cardinal?

26       A.  I can’t recall exactly. I presume Michael Salmon

27       would have said so. I can’t recall.

28

29       Q.  In the meantime, Mr Davoren had left and Mr Salmon had

30       taken over as director of professional standards?

31       A.  As I was replying, I thought it was about that time.

32

33       Q.  Your understanding is that Mr Salmon understood that

34       this fundamental process hadn’t occurred and put in train

35       for it to occur?

36       A.  Exactly.

37

38       Q.  Part of doing that was to seek your approval of the

39       person to be appointed as assessor?

40       A.  That’s correct.

41

42       Q.  And you gave that approval?

43       A.  Yes.

44

45       Q.  The next event was a couple of weeks later, on

46       2 July —

47

 

1       THE CHAIR:  Q.  I’m sorry, just pause for a moment. You

2       accept that your approval was sought of the appointment of

3       the assessor; is that right?

4       A.  Yes. I don’t remember him exactly asking me, but

5       certainly.

6

7       Q.  Do I take it that that was the procedure that was

8       normally followed?

9       A.  Yes, it should have been followed. It was normally

10       followed in Towards Healing.

11

12       Q.  I take it that you would then have been aware that

13       until you were asked about Mr Eccleston, no-one had

14       previously been appointed to do the assessment?

15       A.  That is correct.

16

17       Q.  So that the position must be that you knew there had

18       been no assessment?

19       A.  Your Honour, I have answered this a number of times.

20

21       Q.  Yes.

22       A.  And that was – at this stage, I realised I had been in

23       error.

24

25       Q.  But you must have known before; if you had never

26       approved the appointment of an assessor, you must have

27       known?

28       A.  In an historical sequence, there are no “musts”.

29       I didn’t realise before, and I did realise when it was

30       pointed out to me. What I should have thought, what

31       I should have realised, was different from what I did.

32

33       Q.  I take it that it is usual, when an assessment is

34       done, for there to be a written report?

35       A.  That is correct.

36

37       Q.  Did you ask for any written report from Mr Davoren?

38       A.  I did not.

39

40       MS FURNESS:  Q.  You became aware at some stage, probably

41       in July, that a visit had occurred between Mr Ellis and

42       Father Duggan, accompanied by Monsignor Rayner?

43       A.  Yes.

44

45       Q.  Monsignor Rayner told you after that visit, didn’t he,

46       that he believed Mr Ellis’s account?

47       A.  I’ve got no clear recollection of that, and so

 

1       I can’t – I can’t remember how that fits into the sequence.

2       Is this after Eccleston or before?

3

4       Q.  This is before Mr Eccleston had reported and after he

5       had been appointed.

6       A.  I can’t recall explicitly what Monsignor Rayner said

7       when. I do know subsequently from the documents that he

8       said a couple of things, but I don’t dispute if he claims

9       that. I just don’t recall it.

10

11       Q.  So if Monsignor Rayner gave evidence that he told you,

12       you wouldn’t disagree with that evidence, would you?

13       A.  That he told me that he – no, I wouldn’t disagree with

14       it, but I couldn’t confirm it.

15

16       Q.  He told you that he believed Mr Ellis after that

17       visit?

18       A.  That he?

19

20       Q.  That he believed Mr Ellis after the visit with

21       Mr Ellis and Father Duggan?

22       A.  I’m not disputing that evidence.

23

24       Q.  The report from Mr Eccleston was received in November,

25       and if we can go to that document, which is at tab 66. You

26       received and read that report, did you not, cardinal?

27       A.  Yes, I did.

28

29       Q.  If we can turn to page 12 of the report, which is

30       0176, and if we can scroll to the bottom of that page,

31       after setting out the interview that Mr Eccleston had with

32       Mr Ellis, he then sets out a number of matters relevant to

33       his investigation. Do you see that the first matter at the

34       bottom of that page is that he determined that there were

35       no records kept of the names of altar boys?

36       A.  Yes.

37

38       Q.  Do you see that?

39       A.  Yes.

40

41       Q.  But he had confirmed that Father Duggan was at Christ

42       the King Parish?

43       A.  Yes.

44

45       Q.  The parish where Mr Ellis said he had been abused?

46       A.  Yes.

47

 

1       Q.  Could we turn to the next page. You can see about

2       five paragraphs down, Mr Eccleston refers also to

3       a reference Mr Ellis submitted, written by Father Duggan,

4       which clearly indicated that Father Duggan had known

5       Mr Ellis for five years?

6       A.  Yes.

7

8       Q.  Then Mr Ellis submitted a copy of an inscription he

9       says was handwritten by Father Duggan in the front of

10       a bible that Father Duggan had given him. Do you see that?

11       A.  Yes.

12

13       Q.  Do you know Latin, cardinal?

14       A.  I do. I do. I hope I pass.

15

16       Q.  I certainly won’t be competing with you, cardinal. It

17       is in tab 1. Perhaps we can make that a little larger.

18       A.  Could you drop it down a bit?

19

20       Q.  Perhaps we can see if we can make it clearer.

21       A.  “May the joy and” – would you like me to translate it?

22

23       Q.  Yes, I would. Thank you.

24       A.

25            May the joy of life, light of the

26            Holy Spirit keep your heart in peace all

27            the days of your life, and before God

28            always I’m your dearest friend.

29

30       Q.  Thank you, cardinal. Can I show you a transcription

31       that the Royal Commission has obtained. It has come up on

32       the screen.

33       A.  Yes, yes.

34

35       Q.  Do you accept that that is an accurate transcription

36       of what you have just —

37       A.  I think it’s substantially the same as what I said –

38       a bit better expressed.

39

40       Q.  Do you see reference to “your dearest beloved friend”?

41       A.  Yes.

42

43       Q.  Would that have caused you concern, reading that, as

44       something that a priest had written to an altar boy?

45       A.  Yes.

46

47       MS FURNESS:  I tender the transcript.

 

1

2       THE CHAIR:  It will be exhibit 8-16.

3

4       EXHIBIT #8-16 TRANSCRIPTION OF HANDWRITTEN LATIN

5       INSCRIPTION BY FATHER DUGGAN

6

7       MS FURNESS:  Q.  Coming back to Mr Eccleston’s report at

8       tab 66, in the second-last paragraph of that page, there’s

9       reference there, do you see, to Mr Ellis having sought

10       professional counselling from 2000 and having made

11       disclosures to two counsellors?

12       A.  Yes.

13

14       Q.  And that the assessor, Mr Eccleston, had obtained

15       reports from each of those counsellors?

16       A.  Yes.

17

18       Q.  And then further, over the second page, which is the

19       next page, 0178, there’s reference to what the counsellors

20       said, and do you see that the first counsellor is quoted at

21       the top as saying:

22

23            It is my opinion that many of the feelings

24            and behaviours reported by Mr Ellis are

25            consistent with adult survival of child

26            sexual assault.

27

28       A.  Yes.

29

30       Q.  Mr Murray, the second counsellor, also refers to his

31       view. Do you see that?

32       A.  Yes.

33

34       Q.  Then the next piece of information that the assessor

35       had obtained was an extract from a survey report from

36       Mr Ellis, and that’s about halfway down the page, if we can

37       scroll down. That’s in relation to Mr Ellis’s skills in

38       terms of his interpersonal skills, although it has been

39       redacted, in detail, but it is certainly, as you can see,

40       the partnership report on how some of Mr Ellis’s peers and

41       staff think of him. Do you see that?

42       A.  I do.

43

44       Q.  Then finally, the assessor refers to biographical

45       details provided by Mr Ellis?

46       A.  Yes.

47

 

1       Q.  That is reference to a very intelligent man, who has

2       had one, possibly two, failed marriages, and then reaching

3       a high level in his careers?

4       A.  Yes.

5

6       Q.  And then dealing with the rest of his view in relation

7       to his careers and study. Do you see that?

8       A.  Yes.

9

10       Q.  Then over the next page is the assessment. Having

11       obtained the various pieces of information I’ve taken you

12       to, Mr Eccleston states whether or not there are grounds

13       for concluding on the balance of probabilities that the

14       complaint is justified?

15       A.  Yes.

16

17       Q.  And do you see that Mr Eccleston notes that

18       Father Duggan was not able and not capable of providing

19       a response?

20       A.  I do.

21

22       Q.  So the assessor clearly took that into account in

23       coming to his view?

24       A.  That’s correct.

25

26       Q.  Then do you see there is reference there to:

27

28            The allegations are very serious being

29            criminal in nature and as such require a

30            proof close to or approaching “beyond

31            reasonable doubt”.

32

33       A.  I do.

34

35       Q.  When you read that, cardinal, what did that mean to

36       you?

37       A.  The consequence was that I accepted Mr Eccleston’s

38       conclusions and that the earlier conclusions from

39       Mr Davoren were not correct.

40

41       THE CHAIR:  Q.  You’re not quite being asked that,

42       cardinal. You’re being asked what did you understand from

43       that sentence?

44

45            The allegations are very serious being

46            criminal in nature and as such require a

47            proof close to or approaching “beyond

 

1            reasonable doubt”.

2

3       What did you understand from that sentence?

4       A.  I understood that we’re talking about criminal

5       activity and that it was going beyond – it needs proof

6       beyond the balance of probabilities to something close to

7       or approaching beyond reasonable doubt; in other words,

8       that he was quite clear in his mind that these events had

9       occurred.

10

11       MS FURNESS:  Q.  He set out the reasons or the basis for

12       coming to that view in his report, didn’t he?

13       A.  He did.

14

15       Q.  So that the reader could look at each piece of

16       evidence to understand how he had reached the view?

17       A.  Yes.

18

19       Q.  There’s then reference to:

20

21            The level of proof … relies upon

22            Mr Ellis’s statement and corroboration of

23            his disclosure … made to counsellors some

24            23 years later.

25

26       Do you see that?

27       A.  I do.

28

29       Q.  Do you recall earlier an exchange with his Honour in

30       respect of when people report, and do you see that in this

31       case it was 23 years later?

32       A.  Yes, I accepted – I accept his Honour’s reasoning.

33

34       Q.  And this assessment knew that and nevertheless came to

35       the conclusion that it did?

36       A.  Yes.

37

38       Q.  Further in that paragraph, the assessor notes that:

39

40            The counsellors’ reports indicate that the

41            symptoms displayed … are consistent with

42            the adult trauma of child sexual assault.

43            Based on the available evidence it is more

44            likely than not that the allegations as

45            alleged occurred.

46

47       A.  Yes.

 

1

2       Q.  Could we scroll down. There is reference to

3       Father Duggan being unavailable. Do you see that?

4       A.  Yes.

5

6       Q.  Could we scroll to the next page. He was asked:

7

8            Are there any other matters that came to

9            your notice that could have some bearing on

10            the final determination of this matter?

11            What are those matters?

12

13       His response is:

14

15            All available information is contained in

16            this report.

17

18       A.  Yes.

19

20       Q.  Then the conclusion is as indicated, that the sexual

21       conduct from age 14 to 17 and continuing on into his young

22       adult years more likely than not occurred and the impact

23       has more likely than not adversely affected Mr Ellis with

24       regard to his mental, emotional and physical health.

25       A.  Yes.

26

27       Q.  You understood all of that when you read the report in

28       November 2003?

29       A.  I did.

30

31       Q.  It must have struck you, cardinal, in reading that

32       report, how different it was from the various

33       communications from Mr Davoren to you over the preceding

34       period, June 2002 to May 2003?

35       A.  It did.

36

37       Q.  What did that cause you to reflect?

38       A.  That Mr Davoren’s recommendations were not adequate,

39       not correct.

40

41       Q.  It shows, doesn’t it, from Mr Davoren, a fundamental

42       misunderstanding of, firstly, the process of Towards

43       Healing; would you agree with that?

44       A.  Unfortunately, yes.

45

46       Q.  And also a fundamental misunderstanding of how child

47       sexual abuse affects people and affects when and to whom

 

1       they report?

2       A.  That’s correct.

3

4       Q.  Did that understanding in November 2003 cause you to

5       implement any changes in respect of the Professional

6       Standards Office to the extent that you could?

7       A.  I think Mr Salmon had come on board by then, and I had

8       a lot of confidence, and still do, in Mr Salmon, and I’m

9       not – was it in 2003, later, that Mr Davoren finished, or

10       did he go for a while?

11

12       Q.  Mr Davoren finished, the evidence reveals, in about

13       April 2003, and Mr Salmon began about then or early May

14       2003?

15       A.  Yes. Well, then, I had become increasingly

16       disenchanted – that’s not quite the correct word – with

17       Mr Davoren, so I was delighted that Mr Salmon was on board,

18       and I think he has done and continues to do an excellent

19       job, and he started to unravel – not to unravel – yes, to

20       unravel the mess in which we – where we were in this case.

21

22       Q.  Did you take any particular steps to satisfy yourself

23       that Mr Salmon had an appropriate understanding of the

24       Towards Healing protocol and, indeed, of the effect of

25       child sexual abuse on survivors?

26       A.  From my regular interaction with him, I understood and

27       accepted that, and in speaking with other people who were

28       working with him, my high estimate of his abilities was

29       confirmed by them.

30

31       Q.  Was any audit conducted after Mr Davoren left to

32       ensure that indeed the matters he dealt with had been dealt

33       with properly?

34       A.  Not for some years, but there was.

35

36       Q.  When?

37       A.  I think about 2008.

38

39       Q.  Was that in regard to your then views on Mr Davoren’s

40       competence or for some other reason?

41       A.  For a couple of reasons. There was an incident in

42       which I signed two contradictory letters on the same day

43       and through some – quite unrelated to this. I felt –

44       I concluded Mr Davoren probably drafted the letters. They

45       were examples of that muddle. We had evidence of the

46       muddle in this case, and so I asked for all the previous

47       work that had been done before Mr Salmon to be examined by

 

1       Corrs.

2

3       Q.  As a result of that examination, was any complainant

4       approached and offered a different process or outcome from

5       the one they had experienced under Mr Davoren?

6       A.  One complainant was approached, and corrections or

7       clarifications were made by Monsignor Usher.

8

9       Q.  When was that?

10       A.  It would be after 2008 or late in – I’m not sure.

11

12       Q.  So some five or so years after Mr Davoren had left?

13       A.  Yes, yes.

14

15       Q.  Was one of the complaints that Corrs looked at the

16       Ellis complaint; is that right?

17       A.  Yes, it was.

18

19       Q.  Was Mr Ellis contacted in respect of his complaint?

20       A.  I simply don’t know. Possibly not. I don’t know.

21

22       Q.  Was a view formed by Corrs as to the Ellis complaints

23       handling by Mr Davoren?

24       A.  I’d have to check, but I think that it was concluded

25       that it was – well, in the light – there was no option.

26       Once you accept Eccleston’s report, Davoren’s is manifestly

27       inaccurate.

28

29       Q.  I think you knew before 2008, didn’t you, of the

30       inadequacies in Mr Davoren’s handling of the complaint

31       because Mr Ellis had sought a review, hadn’t he?

32       A.  That is correct.

33

34       Q.  The review report, initially by Mr Landa and then by

35       an interim review panel, revealed significant flaws?

36       A.  That is correct.

37

38       Q.  Did the receipt of either or both of those reviews

39       cause you earlier than 2008, that is, closer to 2005 when

40       the reviews were provided, to have an audit of Mr Davoren’s

41       work as the director?

42       A.  At that stage, no, and certainly from the Ellis case

43       I think it had been clearly established that his work was

44       mistaken, deficient.

45

46       Q.  After having read the assessment report of

47       Mr Eccleston, you understand that there was a process of

 

1       discussions about a facilitation taking place?

2       A.  Yes.

3

4       Q.  And a facilitator was appointed, Mr Brazil?

5       A.  Yes.

6

7       Q.  Did you have any role in appointing Mr Brazil?

8       A.  I’m not sure whether I appointed him – I presume

9       I would have; I can’t recall exactly – or whether it was

10       done through Mr Salmon, but the normal thing would be

11       I think that I would have done it.

12

13       Q.  That you would have approved the appointment of

14       Mr Brazil as facilitator?

15       A.  Yes, yes.

16

17       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Why would you undertake that role rather

18       than leave it to Mr Salmon?

19       A.  I’m not sure that I did officially, but I would have –

20       I mean, Salmon would have said, “I’m proposing to do this

21       and it’s a good thing”, and I would have said, “Yes, go

22       ahead.” But I can’t recall one way or the other whether

23       I was explicitly asked for permission or he said he was

24       going to do it and I said it was a good thing.

25

26       Q.  It would be usual to ask for your permission, would

27       it?

28       A.  Yes, it certainly would, for the appointment of

29       something like that, for sure.

30

31       MS FURNESS:  Q.  In fact, the Towards Healing protocol

32       provided, didn’t it, that the church authority and the

33       victims shall mutually agree on a facilitator?

34       A.  Yes.

35

36       Q.  So it was the case, wasn’t it, that you, the church

37       authority, either approved or agreed the appointment of

38       Mr Brazil?

39       A.  That’s correct.

40

41       Q.  It is the case, isn’t it, also that you appointed

42       Monsignor Rayner as your representative to attend the

43       facilitation on behalf of the archdiocese?

44       A.  Yes.

45

46       Q.  There were various discussions between

47       Monsignor Rayner and Mr Brazil and the Ellises in April and

 

1       May 2003; you’re aware of that?

2       A.  Yes.

3

4       Q.  I take it that Monsignor Rayner kept you informed as

5       to those discussions?

6       A.  I can’t remember what he informed me about.

7

8       Q.  Given that you had, firstly, appointed the assessor

9       and read the assessor’s report and agreed or appointed

10       Mr Brazil as the facilitator, you would have been most

11       interested to hear of the discussions that were being had

12       to move Mr Ellis’s complaint to resolution?

13       A.  Yes, that was certainly my ambition.

14

15       Q.  When you say it was your ambition, you are referring

16       to moving his complaint to resolution?

17       A.  Yes.

18

19       Q.  My question was, in order to satisfy that ambition,

20       you would have been most interested to hear of what

21       discussions were taking place moving towards the

22       facilitation?

23       A.  What substantial progress or redress was made in those

24       discussions.

25

26       Q.  Part of the progress or redress was the process of

27       working out Mr Ellis’s needs; isn’t that right?

28       A.  That is the normal procedure, that’s correct.

29

30       Q.  It is the case, isn’t it, that a facilitation normally

31       operates on the basis that the facilitator needs to

32       understand what the needs of the victim are?

33       A.  That is correct.

34

35       Q.  And the facilitator needs to tell the church authority

36       representative what those needs are; is that right?

37       A.  That is correct.

38

39       Q.  That’s intrinsic to the Towards Healing process, isn’t

40       it?

41       A.  That’s correct.

42

43       Q.  The facilitator needs to then convey to the

44       complainant the church authority’s position?

45       A.  That’s correct.

46

47       Q.  That’s the process that usually happens?

 

1       A.  That’s right.

2

3       Q.  When the victim or complainant indicates what their

4       needs are, that usually involves a process of calculation,

5       doesn’t it?

6       A.  It does.

7

8       Q.  Because you would understand, from both your

9       experience in Melbourne and now your several years of

10       experience in Sydney, that the needs of victims invariably

11       involve counselling?

12       A.  Correct.

13

14       Q.  Because the Melbourne Response had free counselling

15       made available, didn’t it?

16       A.  Absolutely.

17

18       Q.  But you knew that in Sydney, there wasn’t a free

19       counselling available in quite the same way as the

20       Melbourne Response, was there?

21       A.  Not in quite the same way, but I never set any limit

22       on what counselling would be provided.

23

24       Q.  So you would understand that the complainant in this

25       case, Mr Ellis, would be toting up the counselling he had

26       had, forming a view, with the benefit of expert advice, as

27       to the counselling he would require into the future?

28       A.  Yes.

29

30       Q.  And coming up with a figure?

31       A.  Yes.

32

33       Q.  You would also expect him to think about what other

34       needs that he had that he was able to view as being

35       consequent upon the abuse?

36       A.  Yes.

37

38       Q.  And coming up with a figure?

39       A.  Yes.

40

41       Q.  And then expressing that figure to the facilitator and

42       the church authority?

43       A.  That’s correct.

44

45       Q.  Knowing what the needs were as defined by the

46       complainant is a critical part of this process?

47       A.  Yes.

 

1

2       Q.  You knew, didn’t you, what Mr Ellis had said amounted

3       to a figure representing those needs?

4       A.  No, I was never informed of his request for $100,000.

5       I was never informed of a counter-offer of $25,000 or

6       $30,000.

7

8       Q.  Let’s firstly come to your statement, if we can,

9       cardinal. Could we have paragraph 97 up on the screen. In

10       paragraph 97, you say that you were aware that the

11       facilitation occurred on 20 July?

12       A.  Mmm-hmm.

13

14       Q.  And that Monsignor Rayner attended as your

15       representative; is that right?

16       A.  Yes.

17

18       Q.  You say about halfway down that to the best of your

19       recollection, you were not made aware at the time of any of

20       the figures or offers, as set out above. Do you see that?

21       A.  I do.

22

23       Q.  Then you say:

24

25            I was not consulted, as best I recall,

26            about what financial amount should be

27            considered.

28

29       A.  I do.

30

31       Q.  Just stopping there – at this time, that is, 20 July

32       2004, you had had a significant role in the handling of the

33       complaint by Mr Ellis, had you not?

34       A.  I had some significant role, yes.

35

36       Q.  You had been provided with and read the complaint;

37       that’s right?

38       A.  Yes.

39

40       Q.  You had formed the view that it was plainly a serious

41       complaint?

42       A.  Correct.

43

44       Q.  You had discussed with the director, Mr Davoren, the

45       complaint soon after it arrived?

46       A.  Yes.

47

 

1       Q.  You had agreed that Mr Ellis could meet with

2       Father Duggan?

3       A.  Correct.

4

5       Q.  You had made the decision that the meeting with

6       Mr Ellis and Father Duggan could continue, notwithstanding

7       that Father Duggan had dementia?

8       A.  Correct.

9

10       Q.  You discussed the complaint at a bishops meeting?

11       A.  Correct.

12

13       Q.  You did that because it was a complaint that was out

14       of the ordinary?

15       A.  Yes, there were different features about it.

16

17       Q.  And you needed the advice of your bishops as to how to

18       handle it?

19       A.  I chose to ask their advice.

20

21       Q.  And they gave it to you?

22       A.  That’s correct.

23

24       Q.  You then formed your own view about the status of the

25       complaint in December 2002, did you not?

26       A.  Yes.

27

28       Q.  And you recast a letter drafted for you by Mr Davoren

29       to Mr Ellis, did you not?

30       A.  I did, in the interests of logic and honesty.

31

32       Q.  By “honesty”, you’re saying it was clear that if it

33       was to be at an end, it was because he hadn’t been believed

34       and he should be told that; that’s what you mean by

35       “honesty”, isn’t it?

36       A.  The letter stated that this matter could not be

37       satisfactorily resolved, and it is incompatible to say it

38       couldn’t be satisfactorily resolved if you concede that

39       hurt has occurred and that you don’t disbelieve him.

40

41       THE CHAIR:  Cardinal, the question was different. Could

42       you put it again, Ms Furness.

43

44       MS FURNESS:  Q.  By “honesty”, you’re saying that it was

45       clear that if the complaint was to be at an end, it was

46       because he hadn’t been believed, and he should be told

47       that; that’s what you meant by “honesty”, isn’t it?

 

1       A.  I don’t think that’s quite the same as what the letter

2       says. It says it can’t be established, and that’s – it

3       can’t – I suppose that’s almost the same as he’s not

4       believed, but it can’t be established that he’s telling the

5       truth. There is some logical difference between those two.

6

7       Q.  Coming back to the events you were involved in, you

8       wrote that letter dated 23 December to Mr Ellis?

9       A.  I did.

10

11       Q.  You met with others when Mr Ellis was disappointed

12       with the letter; do you recall that?

13       A.  Yes.

14

15       Q.  You agreed to a medical assessment of Father Duggan?

16       A.  Yes.

17

18       Q.  You were informed of Father Duggan’s incapacity after

19       having been medically assessed?

20       A.  Yes.

21

22       Q.  You approved the appointment of an assessor; is that

23       right?

24       A.  Yes.

25

26       Q.  You read the assessor’s report?

27       A.  I did.

28

29       Q.  You understood the evidence that the assessor had

30       relied upon in forming the views he expressed?

31       A.  I did.

32

33       Q.  And you appointed or agreed to the appointment of

34       a facilitator?

35       A.  Correct.

36

37       Q.  In all of those circumstances, cardinal, I suggest to

38       you that it is inconceivable that having been involved in

39       each of those steps, you were not made aware of the amount

40       offered or put forward by Mr Ellis and the responses by the

41       church authority?

42       A.  Once again, it’s not a question of what’s conceivable

43       or logically possible. The fact is that I wasn’t.

44       I wasn’t informed about any of this. Now, my recollections

45       have hardened a little bit on this beyond what is written

46       there, and it’s hardened by this thought and that is that

47       I can’t recall ever being consulted on deciding how much

 

1       might be offered in a Towards Healing offer for reparation

2       or compensation.

3

4       Q.  In addition to the various steps that you approved or

5       were involved in along the way, I took you, after the

6       morning tea adjournment, cardinal, to the evidence given by

7       each of those with an involvement in the Towards Healing

8       process. Do you recall that?

9       A.  I do.

10

11       Q.  In respect of each of those who gave evidence which

12       differs from the evidence you’ve just given, your evidence

13       is that they were wrong?

14       A.  Two of those pieces of evidence were hearsay. They

15       thought, and correctly, that would be the usual procedure.

16       The other piece of evidence is directly contradictory.

17

18       Q.  When you say, “They thought, and correctly, that would

19       be the usual procedure”, are you referring to the evidence

20       that the usual procedure would be that you were involved in

21       discussions about money in relation to Towards Healing

22       matters?

23       A.  Not quite that, but if there was a matter of $100,000,

24       I think, as distinct from smaller amounts, it was not

25       unreasonable for them to surmise that I would have been

26       told or asked about that.

27

28       Q.  You are referring to Mr Salmon’s evidence, aren’t you?

29       A.  I think so, yes.

30

31       Q.  So you’re not saying that Mr Salmon was wrong, or are

32       you saying that he was wrong?

33       A.  Well, if Mr Salmon was saying that I would normally

34       have been told when there was an amount out of the

35       ordinary, that’s quite a reasonable assumption, but —

36

37       Q.  But he was wrong, was he?

38       A.  No, no, he was right about his assumption, but it

39       never occurred like that.

40

41       Q.  So he was right in assuming that you would normally

42       have been told; and your evidence is that on this occasion,

43       it wasn’t normal and you weren’t told?

44       A.  He was right in the assumption that if there was an

45       amount of money beyond what is normal, I would have been

46       told. He might even have thought that all the sums were

47       cleared with me. They weren’t.

 

1

2       Q.  If he thought that, it would have been because that

3       was usual practice; is that right?

4       A.  No, not at all. I’ve explained a number of times what

5       the usual practice was.

6

7       Q.  The event of Mr Ellis putting forward the sum of

8       $100,000 was unusual because of the amount; is that right?

9       A.  It depends how you view it, but it was bigger than the

10       amounts of money that were generally awarded, if that’s the

11       word, in this system.

12

13       Q.  Given that it was bigger than the amounts normally

14       awarded, wouldn’t that mean that one or more of those

15       engaged in the process would want to let you know?

16       A.  Well, they didn’t.

17

18       Q.  Because this was a matter you had been significantly

19       involved in, cardinal?

20       A.  Yes, they didn’t. The only other factor is that I was

21       away off and on for quite an extensive period, which

22       overlapped, not entirely – there were some times when I was

23       home, but I was away a lot during this period.

24

25       Q.  When you were away, you were in contact with the

26       archbishop’s office, weren’t you?

27       A.  I was.

28

29       Q.  Is it your evidence, cardinal, that not only did you

30       not know about the $100,000, you were not aware of the

31       offer put my Monsignor Rayner, as your delegate, of

32       $25,000?

33       A.  That is correct.

34

35       Q.  And you did not participate in any discussions whereby

36       that amount was ultimately raised to $30,000?

37       A.  I did not.

38

39       Q.  What did you understand to be the role of Catholic

40       Church Insurance in determining amounts to be offered under

41       Towards Healing?

42       A.  They were very much involved, and what I think

43       happened was that Monsignor Rayner, following usual

44       practice, dialogued with Catholic Church Insurances about

45       the amounts.

46

47       Q.  Would you expect Catholic Church Insurance to be part

 

1       of the discussions as to what amount should be offered?

2       A.  Yes.

3

4       Q.  And that that would be conveyed to you, that is, their

5       view of what should be offered?

6       A.  No, I don’t think – they hardly ever did that, either.

7

8       Q.  I’m sorry, you don’t think?

9       A.  They didn’t do that as a regular basis at all.

10

11       Q.  But they did from time to time?

12       A.  Well, I’m not even sure of that.

13

14       Q.  If they didn’t do it as a regular basis, they must

15       have done it from time to time?

16       A.  No, not necessarily. I’m trying to be cautious in my

17       replies, just in case my memory is a little bit faulty.

18       I don’t recall them asking my permission for a particular

19       sum under Towards Healing. And I repeat what I said

20       earlier: in court cases when there was a very big

21       difference between the norm and the claim, these were

22       mentioned to me.

23

24       Q.  Isn’t this similar to a court case where there was

25       a very big difference between the norm and the claim,

26       except it was under Towards Healing?

27       A.  No, it’s a Towards Healing procedure.

28

29       Q.  The principle doesn’t apply – no?

30       A.  Ms Furness, I’m – the logic is all over the place.

31       All I can tell you is that I wasn’t told about any of these

32       three sums.

33

34       Q.  You say in paragraph 98 of your statement that you

35       have no recollection of being informed of the result of the

36       facilitation at the time, although it’s possible that you

37       were?

38       A.  Mmm-hmm. That’s correct.

39

40       Q.  Do you now have a recollection of when you were told

41       the result of the facilitation?

42       A.  No.

43

44       Q.  What do you understand now to have been the result of

45       the facilitation?

46       A.  That $100,000 was offered; that it was proposed by

47       Mr Ellis; that $25,000 was offered by the archdiocese; and

 

1       when it was learned that Mr Ellis had lost a position of

2       earning $300,000 a year, that that was increased by $5,000,

3       which of course is grotesque and totally inappropriate; and

4       finally, too, that there was a dispute about whether

5       $100,000 might or might not be offered with or without

6       a release; and I think the documents show that Mr Ellis was

7       not prepared to accept $100,000 and give a release.

8

9       Q.  When did you gain the understanding you’ve just

10       provided?

11       A.  Well, after I met with Mr Ellis and his wife very late

12       in the piece.

13

14       Q.  In 2009, you’re referring to?

15       A.  Yes.

16

17       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Cardinal Pell, Ms Furness is going to

18       take you to the history of the litigation and your

19       involvement in that process. You understand that will

20       happen. Do you say you didn’t know of the $100,000 offer

21       or the result of the facilitation until you ultimately

22       spoke with Mr Ellis?

23       A.  I knew that the facilitation had failed or didn’t

24       resolve the matter. I didn’t know about the sums.

25

26       Q.  I was going to ask you that. You say you now have

27       a recollection earlier than speaking with Mr Ellis that the

28       facilitation had failed, do you?

29       A.  Well, the whole process would not have continued if it

30       had been successful.

31

32       Q.  Did it not occur to you to ask why it had failed and

33       what had happened?

34       A.  If I did, and I can’t recall – it’s a bit of a mystery

35       to me that, if I was told anything about it, why I don’t

36       remember it, but I don’t remember it, full stop. I said:

37

38            I have no recollection of being informed of

39            the result of the facilitation at the time,

40            although it is possible that I was.

41

42       It is remotely possible that somebody said to me,

43       “He wanted to settle for $100,000 but wouldn’t give a

44       release”, and I would have said, “Yes.” That’s

45       unexceptional, I can understand that, because he would have

46       wanted a release. I have no recollection of that

47       happening. It’s possible that something like that was said

 

1       and I put it into an “expected” basket and forgot about it,

2       but I have no recollection of $25,000 or $30,000 or

3       $100,000.

4

5       Q.  You, in your role in the litigation, knew that the

6       church would have to spend a lot of money in court

7       defending its position, didn’t you?

8       A.  Of course. We never instigated these —

9

10       Q.  I know that, but you knew that to defend it was going

11       to cost a lot of money?

12       A.  Exactly.

13

14       Q.  Because you had been involved in engaging solicitors

15       to defend actions both in Melbourne and in Sydney

16       previously?

17       A.  That’s correct.

18

19       Q.  Do you say that it didn’t occur to you to ask your

20       people, “Before we spend all this money, how much does he

21       really want?”

22       A.  I think that had been made clear. There was a request

23       for $750,000.

24

25       Q.  No, that’s after the litigation started. Before the

26       litigation, when you committed yourself – and Ms Furness is

27       coming to this – to a large city firm to act on behalf of

28       the church, did it not occur to you to say to your people,

29       “Can you tell me, what does he really want? What happened

30       in the facilitation? What does he want?”

31       A.  I can’t remember doing it exactly in those terms.

32       I had good advisers. I had plenty of other things on. And

33       also it’s on the record, Monsignor Rayner, for better or

34       worse, felt that he wasn’t interested in settling.

35

36       Q.  But surely you were? Surely you were interested in

37       minimising the risk to the church and also in a just and

38       compassionate way helping Mr Ellis, weren’t you?

39       A.  I was, and now I’m aware I should have done more in

40       that direction.

41

42       Q.  I’ll just put it to you again: are you saying that it

43       did not occur to you to ask your people, “What does

44       Mr Ellis really want? What did he want in the

45       facilitation?”

46       A.  No, I couldn’t agree with that, because that would

47       have been implicit in all our discussions, and if there had

 

1       been any possibility of settling in what we regarded as

2       a reasonable amount, we would have taken it.

3

4       Q.  If you had asked that question, you would have been

5       told that he had asked for $100,000, wouldn’t you?

6       A.  Very likely, yes.

7

8       Q.  So we’re now in the position where you accept that you

9       did ask the question. Aren’t we in the position where you

10       have to accept you were told of the $100,000?

11       A.  Certainly not, because it didn’t happen.

12

13       MS FURNESS:  Q.  It is certainly possible, isn’t it, that

14       you now don’t recall it, but you did ask the question and

15       were told that Mr Ellis had put forward $100,000?

16       A.  A very remote possibility. The only way in which that

17       remote possibility might have come about is if he put

18       forward $100,000 and refused to give a release, I might

19       have put that into only too normal a basket, but I’ve got

20       no such recollection.

21

22       MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC:  You should be ashamed of yourself,

23       cardinal.

24

25       THE CHAIR:  Sir, if you wouldn’t mind.

26

27       MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC:  I’m sorry, your Honour.

28

29       THE CHAIR:  Please leave us.

30

31       MS FURNESS:  Q.  Cardinal, can I suggest that you would

32       not have been able to properly instruct your lawyers in the

33       litigation without knowing how the facilitation ended up in

34       terms of the putting forward and rejection of offers?

35       A.  I did not know about the sums of money.

36

37       Q.  Do you accept that to properly instruct your

38       solicitors, you needed to know that information?

39       A.  At the time, I didn’t and it wasn’t pointed out to me.

40

41       Q.  I’m sorry, at the time, you didn’t what?

42       A.  I didn’t realise that I should have inquired to try to

43       find out why that facilitation failed.

44

45       Q.  When you say it wasn’t pointed out to you, who should

46       have pointed it out to you?

47       A.  Well, there was a whole host of people. I talked to

 

1       the lawyers, the professional standards person, perhaps the

2       chancellor, perhaps Dr Casey. They – anyhow, whatever,

3       whatever it is – and I don’t recall any of that.

4

5       Q.  It is the case, isn’t it, that a number of those

6       people – and I’ve taken you to this earlier – in fact do

7       and have given evidence of your knowledge of these amounts

8       and you have said that each of them is wrong?

9       A.  I don’t – I haven’t said that at all.

10

11       MR GRAY:  I object. With great respect, he has not said

12       that.

13

14       MS FURNESS:  Q.  I’ll take you back to that evidence,

15       cardinal. Do you recall that you gave evidence this

16       morning in relation to your knowledge of those amounts?

17       A.  I did.

18

19       Q.  I put to you the evidence of various people in respect

20       of your knowledge of those amounts?

21       A.  Yes.

22

23       Q.  You indicated that each of those, now with the

24       exception of Mr Salmon, who you have given further evidence

25       about this afternoon, was wrong. Now, can I put those back

26       to you again?

27       A.  Please do.

28

29       Q.  Dr Michael Casey gave evidence that the role of the

30       chancellor was to discuss money matters in relation to

31       Towards Healing with you and seek instructions?

32       A.  He did say that.

33

34       Q.  Is he wrong?

35       A.  In the second part, he was. The chancellor should

36       have been in dialogue with me.

37

38       Q.  But not seek instructions in relation to money

39       matters; is that where he’s wrong?

40       A.  Well, he might have done that, but he didn’t, and he

41       would only be expected to do that if it was outside the

42       ordinary.

43

44       Q.  You referred to professional standards people before.

45       Mr Davoren gave evidence that the decision whether

46       a complainant should receive compensation was made by you

47       in every case. Was he wrong about that?

 

1       A.  He was. It was endorsed by me and that was done

2       automatically within – well, in just about every case.

3

4       Q.  What was endorsed by you?

5       A.  The fact that the chancellor had the authority to

6       decide on these sums with the Catholic Church Insurance.

7

8       Q.  Dr Casey gave evidence that he agreed that considering

9       your involvement in Towards Healing, you have sought

10       information about reparation discussions up to the

11       facilitation, and that information would normally be

12       provided to you by the chancellor and the director of the

13       Professional Standards Office?

14       A.  Yes.

15

16       Q.  So is his understanding wrong?

17       A.  It is inaccurate in this case and, actually,

18       generally, as I have said, about the way the money was

19       handled under the Towards Healing.

20

21       Q.  So he’s generally wrong in respect of how the money

22       was handled under Towards Healing?

23       A.  Yes, and that’s not surprising. I mean, I didn’t –

24       I don’t inform one adviser what I’m doing necessarily with

25       other advisers, and it’s not an unreasonable assumption,

26       but in this case, and in fact generally with Towards

27       Healing, it was inaccurate.

28

29       THE CHAIR:  Q.  But, cardinal, he’s speaking from his

30       knowledge, isn’t he?

31       A.  He is surmising that that’s what would have happened

32       and should have happened. He’s not speaking from any

33       knowledge that I did it, because I didn’t.

34

35       Q.  But he’s speaking from his knowledge as to how you

36       worked?

37       A.  How I would normally work.

38

39       MS FURNESS:  Q.  But on this occasion, you didn’t work as

40       you would normally work; is that your evidence?

41       A.  No, that’s not my evidence, with respect. I’ve

42       repeatedly said that in the Towards Healing payments, I was

43       not consulted, to my recollection, ever and I certainly

44       wasn’t consulted on this occasion.

45

46       Q.  Monsignor Rayner gave evidence that he would discuss

47       with you a figure, and the final discussion would be with

 

1       you as to what figure would be offered. Is he wrong?

2       A.  I’m sorry, that’s quite wrong.

3

4       Q.  Monsignor Rayner also said that from discussions with

5       Mr Salmon or the business manager or you, he would come up

6       with an offer; is that right?

7       A.  Not from discussions with me.

8

9       Q.  Did you understand him to have discussions with

10       Mr Salmon or the business manager in determining amounts to

11       be offered to claimants?

12       A.  A good deal of the time, I wouldn’t have been quite

13       sure what Monsignor Rayner was doing. The general – I do

14       believe the evidence shows that he spoke with Catholic

15       Church Insurances on these matters. Whether he spoke with

16       Mr Salmon, that wouldn’t be unusual.

17

18       Q.  Cardinal, notwithstanding that you weren’t told of the

19       outcome or the results of the facilitation at that time,

20       you were told, were you not, that Mr Ellis had sought

21       a review of Towards Healing?

22       A.  Yes.

23

24       Q.  Can I have paragraph 40 of your statement on the

25       screen. Can you see paragraph 40?

26       A.  Yes.

27

28       Q.  It refers to your fundamental belief that where

29       a person, such as Mr Ellis, has been abused by a priest,

30       then he should be treated consistently with the

31       requirements of justice and compassion. Do you see that?

32       A.  Absolutely.

33

34       Q.  You would agree that Mr Ellis was not treated

35       consistently with the requirements of justice and

36       compassion during the Towards Healing process?

37       A.  Actually, I would.

38

39       Q.  Do you agree to that?

40       A.  Yes.

41

42       Q.  It continues to say:

43

44            … including among other things with an

45            appropriate financial response in the

46            circumstances of that person’s case …

47

 

1       A.  That’s correct.

2

3       Q.  Mr Ellis was not offered an appropriate financial

4       response, was he?

5       A.  I didn’t know about that at that stage, so that

6       section is not relevant to —

7

8       THE CHAIR:  Q.  No, cardinal, that was not the question.

9       A.  I’m sorry.

10

11       MS FURNESS:  Q.  The question was: Mr Ellis was not

12       offered an appropriate financial response, was he?

13       A.  The $25,000 or $30,000 – no, that’s correct. That’s

14       not appropriate in any sense.

15

16       Q.  You indicated earlier that the $30,000 wasn’t

17       appropriate – in fact, I think you used the word

18       “grotesque” – because it was an increase of $5,000 in

19       circumstances where he’d lost a job with significant salary

20       attached to it?

21       A.  Yes, and that’s a further indication that I had

22       nothing to do with it.

23

24       Q.  What about the $25,000 initial offer – what do you say

25       about that?

26       A.  Oh, it was mean.

27

28       Q.  Had you been approached – and your evidence is that

29       you haven’t – what would you have said as an offer to

30       Mr Ellis in 2004?

31       A.  I really don’t know, but I would have asked for advice

32       about what was a reasonable thing.

33

34       Q.  What would you think?

35       A.  Well, I mean, this is with the virtue of hindsight.

36       If Mr Ellis had been satisfied with $100,000, it would have

37       been an excellent outcome.

38

39       Q.  That was out of the normal at that time, wasn’t it, to

40       offer $100,000 under Towards Healing?

41       A.  Yes, it was, it was.

42

43       Q.  But you’re saying that in Mr Ellis’s case and with the

44       benefit of hindsight, you would have offered him $100,000

45       or accepted his offer?

46       A.  I didn’t quite say that. I said that I would have

47       inquired as to what was reasonable, and I think – you see,

 

1       I was always aware that Mr Ellis was a brilliant lawyer and

2       therefore that he would be aware, much more aware than most

3       victims, and that it didn’t make any sense for him to be

4       going down this path without hoping for a significant

5       amount of money.

6

7       Q.  I’m sorry, this is the view you held then or now?

8       A.  No, that’s a view I’ve held from very early days of

9       the case.

10

11       Q.  So “it didn’t make sense for Mr Ellis to be going down

12       this path”, “this path” being Towards Healing; is that

13       right?

14       A.  No, not at all.

15

16       Q.  You’re talking about the litigation, are you?

17       A.  No. I’m talking about it didn’t make sense, once we

18       started to talk about reparation or compensation, and

19       especially in the litigation, for him to – not to expect

20       significant moneys. So I would have been open to the

21       discussion, that given these circumstances – I would have

22       asked advice about the $100,000. That’s the way I would –

23       I act when there’s something of some significance and a big

24       difference, I would discuss it with my three or four

25       trusted advisers.

26

27       Q.  You must have been very annoyed, cardinal, when you

28       later found out that you could have settled it for

29       $100,000, and you would have had those around you told what

30       was going on, that they hadn’t told you, were you?

31       A.  Yes. Well, I was annoyed if I’d – because I think

32       I said, when meeting with Mr Ellis, the thought that we

33       could have concluded the thing for $100,000 and that

34       opportunity slipped away was most unfortunate.

35

36       Q.  Who have you taken to task for not having told you

 

38 A. I haven’t taken anybody to task, except in my mind.
39
40 Q. Who have you taken to task —
41 A. Monsignor Rayner. Monsignor Rayner should have told
42 me.
43
44 Q. Of course, as you know, he says he did tell you?
45 A. Yes, I’ve read that, and I know that.
46
47 Q. Anyone else other than Monsignor Rayner?

 

37       about the $100,000, cardinal?

 

1       A.  Well, you see, the others – they thought I probably

2       knew.

3

4       Q.  And they thought that reasonably?

5       A.  It wasn’t unreasonably, but it was just not accurate.

6

7       Q.  And who are “they”?

8       A.  Well, the chancellor, the Professional Standards

9       Office, secretary, but you know, I’m not the sort of fellow

10       who runs around blaming people for misunderstandings.

11

12       Q.  It cost the church or its insurers an awful lot of

13       money not settling for $100,000, didn’t it?

14       A.  I’m more aware of that than most people.

15

16       Q.  In those circumstances, cardinal, you haven’t sought

17       to take to task those who you thought were responsible for

18       not telling you the information you think you should have

19       had?

20       A.  There was only one person primarily responsible for

21       that, and I asked him to finish up and move on, and I was

22       keen not to further worsen what had become a very difficult

23       relationship.

24

25       Q.  When did Monsignor Rayner leave?

26       A.  I think 2005, March or April 2005. I could – I think

27       that’s right.

28

29       Q.  Why did you ask him to leave?

30       A.  Because things were going from bad to worse. Let me

31       give a little background. The monsignor is a good person.

32       He’d had a high office in the chaplaincy in the navy.

33       I thought he was capable of doing this job. I put him into

34       the job, and it was completely beyond him and he sort of

35       disintegrated. He would consistently get hold of the wrong

36       end of the stick. One of the roles of a vicar general is

37       to put out bushfires – I mean, when there are difficulties,

38       people complain about priests. In fact, the opposite was

39       happening. I was putting out the fires that inadvertently

40       the monsignor was starting. Let me give you an example of

41       how —

42

43       Q.  Just before you do that, can I ask you whether he got

44       the wrong end of the stick in relation to the Ellis matter?

45       A.  Well, he certainly did on the matter of these sums of

46       money.

47

 

1       Q.  What did he do that was wrong?

2       A.  One, he didn’t tell me. And secondly – well, firstly,

3       he didn’t tell me, and then the $25,000 or $30,000, in that

4       particular case, wasn’t likely to be helpful at all.

5

6       Q.  Because it was too low in the circumstances?

7       A.  Yes, yes.

8

9       Q.  You became aware, cardinal, in August 2004 that

10       Mr Ellis had commenced litigation against you, the trustees

11       and Father Duggan?

12       A.  Yes.

13

14       Q.  I take it that you were told that the nature of the

15       litigation was that he was seeking to extend the limitation

16       period to enable him to make a claim. Did you understand

17       that?

18       A.  I do.

19

20       Q.  And did you understand then – that is in August 2004 –

21       that the extension would not be granted if a prospective

22       defendant – you, the trustees, Father Duggan – would incur

23       significant prejudice? Did you understand that that was

24       what the court would be considering?

25       A.  Could you say that again so I can understand it?

26

27       Q.  Certainly. Did you have an understanding then that

28       the extension of time within which Mr Ellis could bring his

29       action —

30       A.  Yes.

31

32       Q.  — would not be granted, that is, he would not be able

33       to take his action, if a prospective defendant – you, the

34       trustees, Father Duggan – would incur significant

35       prejudice?

36       A.  Which is financial disadvantage or something or?

37

38       Q.  Well, significant prejudice, however one —

39       A.  Difficulty in defending the case or?

40

41       Q.  Yes, the passage of time is one obvious prejudice that

42       one could call upon.

43       A.  Yes.

44

45       Q.  And the passage of time by reference to needing to

46       investigate the claim that was made – did that come to your

47       attention early on in the litigation?

 

1       A.  I’ve got no clear recall of that. That’s a – I asked

2       very good lawyers to deal with it. I left the running of

3       the case to them. I was very clear on what I thought were

4       a couple of very fundamental points, but overwhelmingly for

5       the rest of the time, I let them get on with the case.

6

7       Q.  Yes, but this was no ordinary case, was it, cardinal?

8       You were actually one of the defendants?

9       A.  Well, I’d been the defendant before, and to go to

10       court like this was – we’ve done it a few – we’ve had to do

11       it a few times. We’ve always settled, or nearly, so this

12       was unusual.

13

14       Q.  So you were a defendant in your own right as

15       archbishop and you were a defendant as one of the trustees?

16       A.  That’s correct.

17

18       Q.  Isn’t that right?

19       A.  Yes.

20

21       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Cardinal, when you say you’ve always

22       settled, you always settled cases like this one?

23       A.  I don’t know whether mathematically it would be

24       always, but I’m careful to say we nearly always have, if we

25       haven’t always.

26

27       Q.  Cases like this one?

28       A.  Like this one, when it goes to court.

29

30       Q.  What was unusual that made you not settle this one?

31       A.  I think the amounts of money asked, the $750,000, was

32       too much and also our lawyers were saying that on the

33       matters of the trustees, there’s no chance that the case

34       will be successful.

35

36       Q.  And you’d never been told that before?

37       A.  Never been told that before?

38

39       Q.  You said you’ve settled mostly previously. You’d

40       never been told?

41       A.  No, we had been told about the trustees argument, but

42       in other cases the sums of money were able to come together

43       and people were able to settle.

44

45       Q.  You never made a counter-offer to the $750,000, did

46       you?

47       A.  No, we didn’t and I regret that now.

 

1

2       Q.  I assume in other cases, you did?

3       A.  That’s correct.

4

5       Q.  Why didn’t you do it in this one?

6       A.  Because I think we were advised not to. I think we

7       were – well, we were advised not to.

8

9       Q.  You ultimately had control over the instructions,

10       didn’t you?

11       A.  I do and did.

12

13       Q.  Why didn’t you then make a counter-offer?

14       A.  I don’t know whether I was away at that stage, but

15       I didn’t. I accepted the advice, and it was a mistake.

16

17       MS FURNESS:  Q.  When you’d settled previously, cardinal,

18       had the lawyers for the Catholic Church Insurance been

19       acting for you?

20       A.  In most cases. I couldn’t say that they were in every

21       case. I don’t know.

22

23       Q.  This was the first case that Corrs had acted for you

24       in a case like this, a child sexual abuse case, wasn’t it?

25       A.  Yes.

26

27       Q.  Generally the Catholic Church Insurance had acted for

28       you in the past?

29       A.  Yes.

30

31       Q.  The cases which settled were generally those where the

32       Catholic Church Insurance were advising you, by their

33       lawyers?

34       A.  Yes, I’m not sure that’s always the case, but that’s

35       right.

36

37       Q.  You have indicated in your statement that you

38       understood that Towards Healing would not continue once

39       a legal avenue had been chosen?

40       A.  That is correct.

41

42       Q.  Why did you think that?

43       A.  The parallel that came to my mind – in hindsight, it

44       might not be appropriate – was, say, if there is a Towards

45       Healing investigation and the police become involved, you

46       immediately get out of it. And my feeling was that if the

47       litigation commenced, the appropriate thing to do was to

 

1       leave the Towards Healing to one side and let the

2       litigation go ahead, and I received certainly some

3       significant confirmation of that instinct of mine from our

4       advisers.

5

6       Q.  The Towards Healing process had two components, didn’t

7       it?

8       A.  It did.

9

10       Q.  It had a pastoral component?

11       A.  Yes.

12

13       Q.  And it had a quantification of needs, if I can put in

14       those terms, component?

15       A.  That’s for the latter part of it, yes.

16

17       Q.  Yes. Why can’t the pastoral elements, that is,

18       talking to the complainant, listening to them, dealing with

19       any counselling needs they have, maybe any other spiritual

20       needs they have – why can’t those elements continue?

21       A.  Certainly the counselling by other people, spiritual

22       direction – that certainly should have been made available.

23       I was frightened that if – my knowledge of the law is not

24       expert – that if the dialogue kept going within the Towards

25       Healing while the litigation was on, it risked grievous

26       confusion. If a judge had ordered a mediation, that would

27       have been entirely – or suggested, it would have been

28       entirely different. In retrospect, I don’t know whether my

29       decision there was correct or not, but a number of advisers

30       agreed with it.

31

32       Q.  Father Usher certainly didn’t agree with that, did he?

33       A.  I can’t remember what he said on that, but I always

34       take an enormous amount of notice of Monsignor Usher.

35

36       Q.  There’s no reason of principle, is there, leaving

37       aside the law, as to why you can’t engage in a pastoral

38       way, as the church intends, with a complainant?

39       A.  There’s no Christian reason why not to. I thought

40       that it was not good legal practice.

 

4243 Q. A. But you’re a church man, aren’t you, cardinal? I was engaged in litigation.
44
45 Q. You are, but you’re not a lawyer, are you?
46 A. No.
47

 

41

 

1       Q.  Why didn’t the church man come to the fore?

2       A.  Because it was a legal case. If it had been – when

3       you go to court, you employ lawyers and you generally

4       follow their advice, especially if you’re inexpert. If

5       it’s a matter of pastoral counselling or care, I’d have

6       much more confidence in my ability to influence things.

7

8       Q.  Lawyers act on instructions, don’t they?

9       A.  Yes, they do, but generally they advise what the

10       instructions should be.

11

12       Q.  Did you feel unable to take any action that was not

13       consistent with what you were advised you should do?

14       A.  Not really. I’m not suggesting for a minute that our

15       lawyers did anything contrary to instructions. In

16       retrospect, our surveillance and our instructions would be

17       much more extensive.

18

19       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Cardinal, you may not have this

20       experience, but is it within your knowledge that many

21       executives of major corporations who became involved in

22       litigation – that is, their companies do – see a need to

23       ensure that the litigation doesn’t have the effect of

24       disproportionately breaking the relationship between that

25       company and the company they’re litigating with? Do you

26       understand that?

27       A.  I do understand what you’re saying. We now have our

28       in-house lawyer who, if we’re involved in any court cases,

29       sits in on all the court cases precisely to avoid the sort

30       of mess we got into.

31

32       Q.  What the executives of those companies do, of course,

33       is agree to mediate and try to sort out their problems in

34       a mediation rather than let it become a complete contest in

35       the court?

36       A.  And we usually did that, and I very much regret we

37       didn’t try to do it more than we did in this case.

38

39       Q.  You rejected the prospect of mediation here, didn’t

40       you?

41       A.  I did.

42

43       Q.  Why?

44       A.  Because we were so advised.

45

46       Q.  But, you see, what I’m saying to you is that

47       executives of major companies, notwithstanding the advice

 

1       they may get that they’re going to win, nevertheless see

2       a need to ensure that there’s an ongoing relationship and

3       so will mediate and settle. Do you understand that?

4       A.  I certainly do. I’m not the executive of a major

5       company. I’m not – I haven’t regularly been involved in

6       this. You might say that there was more of an onus on me

7       to seek mediation than perhaps in a company, and I would

8       have to accept that.

9

10       Q.  That’s right. What I was going to put to you is that

11       central in your thinking surely was the need to preserve

12       Mr Ellis’s spiritual welfare and connection with the

13       church; is that right?

14       A.  Yes, certainly his personal wellbeing was – should

15       have been and was to some extent my first concern. Whether

16       you’d put it in specifically spiritual or religious terms

17       I don’t know.

18

19       Q.  It was very important that, if possible, there be an

20       ongoing relationship between him and the church?

21       A.  I certainly agree with that.

22

23       Q.  Did that not suggest to you that there was a higher

24       obligation on you than the chief executive of a major

25       company?

26       A.  I would put in – yes, I can see that now very clearly.

27

28       Q.  You didn’t see it back then?

29       A.  No, I didn’t think in those terms.

30

31       MS FURNESS:  Q.  Dr Casey was the primary instructor,

32       based on the instructions you gave him, to the lawyers in

33       the litigation, wasn’t he?

34       A.  The chancellor should have been the primary

35       instructor. One way or another, it emerged that Dr Casey

36       was the link between the archdiocese, between myself, and

37       the lawyers. In retrospect, if I had adverted to this, to

38       the extent that this was happening, I would have encouraged

39       the lawyers to speak with the chancellor, who was much more

40       experienced in these matters than Dr Casey.

41

42       Q.  When you say he was the “link”, I take it you mean

43       that he conveyed your instructions to the lawyers and

44       conveyed back to you what the lawyers had told him?

45       A.  Yes, and there weren’t too many instructions. My

46       instinct was to follow the advice of the lawyers.

47

 

1       Q.  Perhaps if we can have your statement back up on the

2       screen at paragraph 109. You state in paragraph 109 what

3       your advice was, that is, that it couldn’t succeed as

4       a matter of law. Do you see that?

5       A.  I do.

6

7       Q.  And then in paragraph 110, relying on such advice and

8       also because of your understanding that Mr Ellis was

9       seeking many millions of dollars in compensation from the

10       archdiocese, the instructions given to Corrs on your behalf

11       were to resist the proceedings brought by Mr Ellis. Do you

12       see that?

13       A.  I do.

14

15       Q.  If Mr Ellis had been entitled to compensation because

16       of the harm that had befallen him, you would have thought,

17       would you not, that that compensation should reflect the

18       damage?

19       A.  Yes, there’s always a question of where the damage

20       comes from, of course, but —

21

22       Q.  That’s right, but —

23       A.  But as a general sort of rule – and my general norm

24       was that we certainly should acknowledge our responsibility

25       within the parameters of what is done in Australian

26       society.

27

28       Q.  It didn’t matter whether Mr Ellis was seeking many

29       million of dollars or not, did it?

30       A.  Of course it mattered. Of course it mattered.

31

32       Q.  In the event that the claim, as you were advised,

33       couldn’t succeed as a matter of law, what difference did it

34       make what he was seeking in terms of quantum or damages?

35       A.  They’re two logically distinct things. The

36       hypothesis, of course, as to whether you pay millions or

37       not is consequent on the hypothesis that it was going to

38       succeed. Because it’s unlikely to succeed, it doesn’t

39       prevent you from considering what might be the financial

40       consequences.

41

42       Q.  If it succeeded – the ultimate claim, not just the

43       limitation claim – if it succeeded, it would mean that

44       a court of law had found that, in broad terms, the church

45       was responsible for the damage caused to Mr Ellis arising

46       from the sexual assault by Father Duggan, do you accept

47       that, if he had succeeded – if he had succeeded?

 

1       A.  Not in those terms.

2

3       Q.  If he had succeeded, his ultimate claim was a claim of

4       damages against the church for what had happened to him?

5       A.  No, it wasn’t. It was a claim for damages against the

6       trustees, who are the property holders.

7

8       Q.  Leave aside how he identified the church for the

9       moment. My questions are based on the assumption that if

10       he succeeded – do you understand that? So if he succeeded,

11       then it would be a court finding that the church, however

12       described, was responsible for the damage suffered by him

13       as a result, in broad terms, of the actions of

14       Father Duggan. Do you accept that?

15       A.  Well, I think to keep talking about “the church” is

16       not helpful.

17

18       Q.  Just bear with me for the moment, cardinal.

19       A.  Certainly.

20

21       Q.  If in fact that’s the case, then it shouldn’t matter

22       to you in the church as to how much was necessary to

23       compensate him, because you should have been willing to pay

24       whatever a court ordered was necessary to compensate him;

25       isn’t that the case?

26       A.  Two parts to that. Of course we would have paid

27       whatever the court ordered. But of course it is important

28       to me about the amounts, because I have a number of duties

29       and one important duty is not to spend the money of the

30       church unnecessarily or – in other words, to preserve the

31       patrimony of the church, provided that can be done justly.

32       I don’t apologise for being aware of the need not to spend

33       church money excessively, provided we acted justly.

34

35       THE CHAIR:  Q.  Cardinal, you say to Ms Furness it’s not

36       helpful to talk about “the church” in this context.

37       A.  Mmm.

38

39       Q.  In paragraph 155(d) of your statement, that’s what you

40       do, isn’t it?

41       A.  We’d have to have a look at that.

42

43       Q.  Yes. Do you see there you say in the third-last line

44       that your own view is that the church in Australia should

45       be able to be sued in cases of this kind?

46       A.  Yes, but that’s one passing reference said in a whole

47       set of other references.

 

1

2       Q.  It is a reference to the church being able to be sued.

3       A.  I agree that that’s now my position. I believe the

4       church always can be sued through its officials. That I —

5

6       Q.  There’s much more discussion we need to have about

7       this to help us work out what we need to say, but for the

8       moment Ms Furness was putting to you that the result of an

9       order by a court would be that the church was liable?

10       A.  The court could only give an order if it identified

11       which element within the church had responsibility. The

12       church – what has been established is that the property

13       holders of the church cannot be held liable – that’s the

14       trustees – if they do not appoint and supervise staff. So

15       to that extent, it’s different from the moral

16       responsibility of the church, which I’m prepared to

17       concede.

18

19       Q.  We’ll discuss that, too. When you said that your own

20       view is that the church in Australia should be able to be

21       sued, who did you have in mind should be able to be sued?

22       A.  I’m proposing that we never want to repeat the amount

23       of time and tears and that went into this fight over

24       trustees. I think it has been established beyond doubt

25       that the trustees, as property owners, cannot be sued if

26       they don’t appoint —

27

28       Q.  I understand that, but who did you have in mind should

29       be able to be sued when you said that?

30       A.  I was suggesting that we set up a corporation sole and

31       that that corporation sole would have perpetuity and would

32       appoint and supervise people so that if – so that the

33       successors, if God forbid there were any after Mr Ellis,

34       would have somebody to sue.

35

36       Q.  That’s your suggestion as to the future?

37       A.  That’s right.

38

39       Q.  Why doesn’t justice require the same response for the

40       past?

41       A.  Because as an Australian citizen, the church has the

42       same rights as any other citizen. In other words, we have

43       every right to defend ourselves in law, we have every right

44       to do that and we have done that, recognising the legal –

45       we didn’t devise the law – the legal limitations. As well

46       as that, we recognise our moral obligations, and these are

47       met with money in a non-legal way. But we – I do not

 

1       accept that the church should somehow be penalised

2       different from other Australian citizens in the way it

3       defends itself.

4

5       Q.  What you are saying, for the future, is that there

6       should be a structure so that people like Mr Ellis are able

7       to sue and receive a verdict from a court; isn’t that

8       right?

9       A.  For the future?

10

11       Q.  Yes.

12       A.  Yes.

13

14       Q.  What I’m putting to you is that if that’s justice as

15       you see it for the future, as you sit there now, why

16       wouldn’t it be just for the same response to have been made

17       previously?

18       A.  Because that wasn’t the law.

19

20       Q.  So justice is measured only through the civil law, is

21       it?

22       A.  I would imagine when you go to litigation, there’s no

23       alternative. But there’s another more formidable barrier

24       to the successful suing, and that is the non-acceptance of

25       vicarious liability. I think in many ways, both victims’

26       and defendants’ lawyers have overestimated the importance

27       of suing the trustees, because the assets of the church

28       were always available to pay damages, but if there was no

29       negligence, if there was no earlier information, if decent

30       protocols were put in place, then in a legal sense the

31       church is not liable. We don’t accept the legal principle,

32       but we do accept the moral responsibility, and we’ve paid

33       and expressed our acceptance of that moral responsibility

34       through payments.

35

36       Q.  Can I just read this to you. It’s a quote, and it is

37       talking about a priest who abused. It says:

38

39            The relationship has facilitated the

40            commission of the abuse by placing the

41            abusers in a position where they enjoyed

42            both physical proximity to their victims

43            and the influence of authority over them

44            both as teachers or priests and as men

45            of God.

46

47       Do you understand what that’s saying?

 

1       A.  Of course.

2

3       Q.  What it is saying, isn’t it, is that the church

4       structure creates the opportunity for the relationship

5       between the priest and the abused for that abuse to occur?

6       A.  In a somewhat similar, not necessarily exactly

7       similar, way as a child at a rugby league club or a

8       scouts —

9

10       Q.  Yes, quite.

11       A.  But there’s no doubt that that is true.

12

13       Q.  That is true. As far as the church is concerned, of

14       course, it makes the offer, if I can put it in those terms,

15       to parents of children that they should bring their

16       children to the church, where they will be cared for,

17       nurtured spiritually and helped to grow as human beings;

18       correct?

19       A.  Yes, in a way that is done in other churches, other

20       communities, other sporting groups, that so invite the

21       children. They’re not an exact parallel, but they’re quite

22       similar.

23

24       Q.  What the church does, of course, through the many ways

25       it carries out its activities, it provides an opportunity

26       for the priest to be alone with the child; do you agree?

27       A.  Well, no longer.

28

29       Q.  What do you mean?

30       A.  I mean, all the protocols now would counsel against

31       a priest being alone with a child.

32

33       Q.  That’s right. Nevertheless, that, for as long as

34       there is a memory, would have been the opportunity that was

35       provided to a priest, would it not?

36       A.  That’s correct, yes, yes. Like that of a family

37       friend when that trust is abused.

38

39       Q.  That’s right, but the church also, of course,

40       traditionally has vested a position of authority in its

41       priests, has it not?

42       A.  It has.

43

44       Q.  And, as you know, priests are held in the highest of

45       esteem by members of the church?

46       A.  Yes, that’s a little bit of an overstatement at the

47       moment, but —

 

1

2       Q.  Maybe.

3       A.  — I understand exactly what you’re saying.

4

5       Q.  For that reason, children, as you no doubt have been

6       told many times, as have we, have found it impossible to

7       complain to anyone about the abuse that’s being inflicted

8       upon them by a priest?

9       A.  Have found it impossible to?

10

11       Q.  Impossible to complain to anyone about what was

12       happening to them?

13       A.  What, because nobody would listen?

14

15       Q.  That’s right, no-one would believe them, because the

16       priest was held in such high esteem by everyone that no-one

17       would listen, and we’re told that, I can tell you,

18       cardinal, over and over again?

19       A.  Yes, and I obviously regret that and I hope that

20       that’s not the case any more.

21

22       Q.  But you accept that it was the case in the past, do

23       you?

24       A.  Yes, I do. If I could follow a thought, in this

25       country we have the separation of church and State, and

26       there was a secular authority – I’m not sure how

27       appropriate it is for a secular authority to impose higher

28       standards on a Christian group because of a Christian

29       self-understanding. I think it is absolutely appropriate

30       for us – I think the questions of trust that you’ve

31       outlined are certainly true, but I believe, considering the

32       particular things, we have a right to be treated just like

33       any other Australian community or citizens. I’m not sure

34       what practical consequences might follow from that, but we

35       do live in a State which is religiously neutral.

36

37       Q.  As I understand it from things you have said in the

38       past, you accept that the church’s processes of recruitment

39       and training of priests were not adequate in relation to

40       sexual matters; is that right?

41       A.  That’s correct.

42

43       Q.  So when we’re looking back at the past, we’re looking

44       at a circumstance where the church did not have appropriate

45       screening in place?

46       A.  That’s correct, and they weren’t unique in that. It

47       was a general failure of understanding and the conspiracy

 

1       of silence, but that’s correct.

2

3       Q.  You’re aware of the position in relation to vicarious

4       liability in Australia?

5       A.  Mmm-hmm.

6

7       Q.  Are you aware that there has been some disagreement

8       amongst judges about it?

9       A.  In Australia or overseas?

10

11       Q.  In Australia.

12       A.  I’m not well versed on the differences in Australia.

13

14       Q.  I’m not expecting that you would be; you understand.

15       A.  Mmm-hmm.

16

17       Q.  Are you aware of the position in England?

18       A.  To some extent, yes, I’ve read about it.

19

20       Q.  You know that it is different to Australia, don’t you?

21       A.  I do.

22

23       Q.  The English have moved, effectively, to impose

24       vicarious liability.

25       A.  My understanding is that they’ve redefined the role of

26       the priest to something like an employer. My own view

27       would be like that of the dissenting judge in that case,

28       who said that because the paedophilia was so contrary to

29       everything that the church stood for and it wasn’t in the

30       normal – couldn’t be appropriately described as being in

31       the normal course of his duties, the imposition of

32       vicarious responsibility in that case was not appropriate.

33       I mean, I suspect it’s going to be a big issue.

34

35            The only other thing I would say is that if this is

36       changed, it should be changed right across the board, not

37       just for church organisations but for the other

38       organisations, too, and lawyers have told me that it will

39       be difficult to achieve this. But if I could go back, my

40       position is clearly that if, for example, a priest offends,

41       it is appropriate – even if you don’t accept vicarious

42       liability, it is appropriate for the remorse and sorrow of

43       the church to be expressed in monetary terms.

44

45       Q.  Of course, it’s always possible to sue the priest,

46       isn’t it?

47       A.  That’s correct.

 

1

2       Q.  Do you think there might be wisdom in the Royal

3       Commission recommending that priests should be insured?

4       A.  I think that might be a very useful development.

5

6       Q.  And it would solve a lot of problems very quickly,

7       wouldn’t it?

8       A.  I think so.

9

10       Q.  And you understand that many professionals are

11       required by law to carry insurance?

12       A.  Yes.

13

14       Q.  The second limb of this, since we have started down

15       this path, is moral responsibility. What does that mean to

16       you?

17       A.  It says, yes, it happened; it is contrary to the

18       church’s teachings; it damages and wounds, and the church

19       is obliged to acknowledge that; and it’s appropriate to

20       attempt to acknowledge that by providing counselling

21       services, spiritual direction, if it’s needed, and

22       financial help.

23

24       Q.  How does one define the principles for the financial

25       help when the church accepts moral responsibility? What

26       are the principles that the financial help should rest

27       upon?

28       A.  I think to some extent the Towards Healing is a bit

29       underdeveloped in that area. If you move predominantly or

30       perhaps exclusively from needs, I think you should also

31       consider the gravity of the offence. I myself support,

32       I think it is the position of the Truth, Justice and

33       Healing Council of the Catholic church. I would prefer an

34       independent body set up by the government to investigate

35       these things and recommend compensation, not damages,

36       independent, away from the church, that would bring –

37       there’s always a difficulty if you’re – even if you’re just

38       paid for by the church, that people will query the

39       independence.

40

41       Q.  Cardinal, that’s the process by which one might do it,

42       and the Royal Commission needs to consider that. What I’m

43       interested in, though, is the principles that would inform

44       the money sum that you believe moral responsibility

45       requires. What are the principles that this independent

46       body, if you like, should apply?

47       A.  Certainly the damage done to the spiritual,

 

1       psychological, human wellbeing. It’s a more difficult

2       question, but it should be considered – the capacity for

3       earnings. For two reasons that’s difficult, because

4       sometimes it’s difficult to work out to what extent the

5       crime contributed or there were other personal factors.

6

7       Q.  That’s a problem the courts face every day.

8       A.  That’s just what I’m pointing out. Secondly, of

9       course, some people who are very badly damaged are still

10       able to work very, very successfully. I’m pleased that I’m

11       not involved in that, but I do wish you well in that,

12       because this is an enormous expense. It’s a very good

13       thing that the victims are being heard; they have an

14       opportunity to say their piece. It will be even more

15       useful if processes can be put in place for the future

16       which will significantly reduce the hurt and the trauma.

17

18       Q.  I’m sorry to press you, because I still don’t really

19       understand what you say the principles should be, but are

20       you saying that if there’s a separate body, moral

21       responsibility would extend to providing appropriate

22       compensation for income lost where it can be established

23       that the lost income was a result of the abuse by a cleric?

24       A.  Yes, I think I would.

25

26       Q.  That’s the common law position, isn’t it?

27       A.  I’m not aware of that, but I presume – I simply don’t

28       know.

29

30       Q.  You’re also indicating, as I understand it, that moral

31       responsibility would extend to a sum of money for the hurt,

32       spiritual or otherwise, that a person has suffered?

33       A.  I would.

34

35       Q.  Do you know that that’s a concept also recognised by

36       the civil law?

37       A.  I’m not surprised.

38

39       Q.  Over and above that, as I understand it, you accept

40       a need to provide the funds to meet the medical needs,

41       mostly counselling or psychiatric care; is that right?

42       A.  Yes.

43

44       Q.  We’re pretty much where the common law would take us;

45       do you understand that?

46       A.  Yes.

47

 

 

1 Q. They’re the elements of a moral response?
2 A. Mmm-hmm.
3
4 Q. Towards Healing goes nowhere near that response, does
5 it?
6 A. I think that’s correct.
7
8 Q. Nor does the Melbourne Response?
9 A. That’s correct.
10
11 Q. You’ve often described, though, the obligation of the

12       church as being a moral one, haven’t you?

13       A.  I have.

14

15       Q.  Does it follow that what has been devised so far does

16       not meet that moral responsibility?

17       A.  I would agree with that, but I would qualify it by

18       saying two things, that in this future system, there has to

19       be equality across the communities and institutions, and

20       the other thing I would say, while according to the

21       standards we’ve agreed on, it’s inadequate, it’s much less

22       inadequate than quite a number of other systems, other

23       systems of payments. In many cases, they’re quite

24       undeveloped. At least we’ve got something in place under

25       which we were trying to do something. We took the best

26       advice at the time. We’re probably more generous than

27       governments – that might be inaccurate. But we’re keen to

28       do better in the future.

29

30       MS FURNESS:  Q.  Just returning to the litigation, if we

31       can have paragraphs 43 to 44 of your statement on the

32       screen, cardinal. You say in paragraph 43 that a major

33       part in your decision to defend the legal claim was your

34       conviction that he was now seeking exorbitant damages of

35       millions of dollars by way of an ambit claim. Do you see

36       that?

37       A.  Yes.

38

39       Q.  What’s the reference to “ambit claim”?

40       A.  Back to the exorbitant damages.

41

42       Q.  What did you mean by “ambit claim”?

43       A.  “Ambit” is an attempt to set a new standard as far as

44       you might possibly go beyond the present prevailing norms.

45

46       Q.  But you also understood that the damages that he would

47       ever recover would be those that were determined by a court

 

1       as representative of the loss he’d suffered; isn’t that

2       right?

3       A.  Yes, that would be correct and that would depend on

4       the losses he did suffer, on the hurt he suffered, and to

5       what extent his earning capacity was diminished.

6

7       Q.  But to the extent that his earning capacity was

8       significantly diminished and therefore the amount to put

9       him in a position had he not been abused was millions of

10       dollars, that wouldn’t be exorbitant, would it; that would

11       be fair and just?

12       A.  Not necessarily, because there are other factors to be

13       considered, such as his basic health and wellbeing apart

14       from this incident, and also his capacity to earn, despite

15       the terrible things that had happened to him.

16

17       Q.  That’s right, but if a court determined that the loss

18       of his employment was causally related to the injury caused

19       by the sexual abuse, then the amount of money that he was

20       awarded would be an amount that was fairly in compensation

21       for what he had suffered, wouldn’t it?

22       A.  Yes, and we would have endeavoured to contribute to

23       the court proceedings to try to ensure that they gave an

24       adequate and accurate answer to that, but whatever the

25       court awarded, of course, the church would pay.

26

27       Q.  The reference to the damages being exorbitant and by

28       way of an ambit claim, when the claim was in relation to

29       having lost the probability of promotion, is, I suggest to

30       you, cardinal, a very emotional way of expressing what was

31       a commonplace claim for damages. What do you say to that?

32       A.  I don’t think the amounts were commonplace at all.

33       They were considerably, to my knowledge, much higher than

34       was generally being paid.

35

36       THE CHAIR:  Q.  No, you’re not being asked that,

37       cardinal. I think you misunderstand the question.

38       A.  Sorry.

39

40       Q.  What you’re being asked is this, that if Mr Ellis was

41       able to prove, as you rightly point out, that his earning

42       capacity had been lost or diminished by reason of the

43       abuse, then the law would provide for him damages to

44       compensate him for that loss?

45       A.  That’s right.

46

47       Q.  You understand that?

 

1       A.  Yes.

2

3       Q.  When you say that he was asking for more than had been

4       commonly provided, you’re not speaking, are you, in terms

5       of other common law claims that succeed; you’re talking

6       about Towards Healing?

7       A.  I thought I was talking about other common law cases

8       that succeed or are settled.

9

10       Q.  Do you not know that many times every year throughout

11       Australia, cases are settled or resolved by a court where

12       people receive loss of earning capacity compensation in the

13       millions of dollars?

14       A.  For sexual, paedophilia offences?

15

16       Q.  For anything that causes that loss – maybe a car

17       accident, maybe an accident at work, it may be all sorts of

18       things that happen.

19       A.  Mmm-hmm.

20

21       Q.  And people receive compensation which can run into –

22       I’ve done it myself; I’ve awarded $10 million to people.

23       A.  Yes.

24

25       Q.  That happens, doesn’t it?

26       A.  Yes, yes.

27

28       Q.  If Mr Ellis could prove that his loss was occasioned

29       by the abuse, why should he be any differently treated to

30       someone whose loss was occasioned by a motor car accident

31       or negligence in some other way?

32       A.  That wasn’t my point of comparison, but granting your

33       point, your point of comparison, you’d have to concede that

34       that is reasonable. But when I said it was exorbitant and

35       ambit, I was not comparing it to those common law cases in

36       other areas but to what I thought were the prevailing norms

37       across society for the crimes of paedophilia. In other

38       words, I —

39

40       Q.  You had in mind victims compensation schemes, did you?

41       A.  That was one of the points of comparison that we used

42       in Victoria. It has been pointed out, of course, that many

43       victims were not the victims of crimes.

44

45       Q.  They’re the victims of crimes but not committed by the

46       State.

47       A.  State, yes.

 

 

1
2 Q. It’s not really a fair comparison, is it?
3 A. That point has been made and I’d have to take it.
4
5 Q. So where do we end up – that to describe Mr Ellis’s

6       claim, as you did, was, on reflection, not correct?

7       A.  I think I correctly described my understanding. In

8       the light of our reasoning, you’d have to say that given

9       the considerations you’ve now made explicit, it could well

10       be that the claims weren’t exorbitant, but my comparison

11       was with the prevailing norms.

12

13       MS FURNESS:  Q.  The claims weren’t exorbitant, nor were

14       they by way of an ambit claim; isn’t that right?

15       A.  In terms of the reasoning that his Honour has just

16       explained, that is correct. They weren’t the terms – that

17       wasn’t my intention. They weren’t the terms, the

18       terminology, the sense of what I was saying.

19

20       Q.  Nor was Mr Ellis seeking to introduce new ways of

21       seeking very large damages, was he?

22       A.  I’ve been – I did understand that at the time. I’m

23       told that that is certainly not the case.

24

25       Q.  You weren’t told any of those matters, that is, that

26       they were exorbitant claims by way of an ambit claim or new

27       ways of seeking very large damages by your lawyers, were

28       you?

29       A.  I think the lawyers certainly were very, very well

30       aware of the largeness of the claims, and they contrasted

31       that with their conviction, which was held up by the

32       courts, that he couldn’t succeed against the trustees.

33       Now, I presume no lawyer had told me that because they were

34       excessive earnings, therefore these were new grounds,

35       because apparently that’s not legally the case. I’m not

36       quite sure where I got that from.

37

38       Q.  And they didn’t tell you they were exorbitant claims

39       or that it was an ambit claim, did they?

40       A.  They might not have used those words, but they

41       certainly didn’t encourage us to think that this claim was

42       a normal one where we should settle.

43

44       Q.  When you say “a normal one”, you mean they didn’t give

45       you the understanding that you would be able to settle it

46       for a small amount of money?

47       A.  That’s correct.

 

1

2       MS FURNESS:  Is that a convenient time, your Honour?

3

4       THE CHAIR:  Yes.

5

6       A.  Cardinal, I understand that you’re available again on

7       Wednesday; is that right?

8       A.  Certainly.

9

10       Q.  10 o’clock in the morning?

11       A.  Certainly.

12

13       THE CHAIR:  Thank you. We’ll see you then. Otherwise,

14       we’ll sit at 10 o’clock tomorrow and talk to other people.

15

 

17 TO TUESDAY, 25 MARCH 2014 AT 10AM
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47

 

16       AT 4.06PM THE COMMISSION WAS ADJOURNED

Leave a Reply