Speaking exclusively to the Newcastle Herald, Mr Fox vigorously defended himself and his actions following yesterday’s final report handed down by Commissioner Margaret Cunneen SC.

The report found there was no evidence to support claims that a ‘‘Catholic mafia’’ existed within police ranks, nor Mr Fox’s claims that a strikeforce set up to investigate alleged cover-ups was a ‘‘sham’’ designed to fail.

Mr Fox, who has been on stress leave since the middle of 2012 and is close to finalising his employment with the NSW Police Force, said much of his evidence to the commission had been distorted.

He suggested the commission had served more as a witch hunt against him than an investigation into the cover-up of child sexual abuse.

‘‘Much of my original submission was redacted with instruction from the Special Commission not to raise certain matters at the public hearings,’’ Mr Fox said.

‘‘I understood and accepted some was for legitimate legal reasons, but most I am still unable to fathom as it obscured important aspects of evidence.

‘‘I am saddened by the process and findings, but do not shy away from my comments of 2012. Throughout the special commission I felt more like a criminal on trial than a witness.’’

Mr Fox also revealed that he had been threatened and harassed throughout the inquiry by a former police officer.

‘‘During the hearings my wife and I were subjected to intimidation and harassment within and outside the court,’’ he said.

‘‘Threats of physical violence resulted in a local court issuing a personal violence order to protect us, the offender being an ex-police officer and associate of senior police present at the hearings.

‘‘The special commission knew I was receiving treatment for stress before subjecting me to a final day of 5  hours of cross-examination ending at 7pm.

‘‘That final onslaught left me mentally and physically broken.’’

Then-NSW premier Barry O’Farrell announced the Special Commission of Inquiry following claims made by Mr Fox on ABC-TVs Lateline program, and in the Newcastle Herald.

But Mr Fox said the commission became ‘‘fundamentally superfluous’’ given the royal commission later announced by then-prime minister Julia Gillard. Because of the royal commission, much of the evidence he presented to the special commission was redacted, or restricted, he said.

‘‘Watching proceedings, one might be forgiven for thinking I was critical of all police for not doing enough about child abuse,’’ Mr Fox said.

‘‘Nothing could be further from the truth. My criticism was aimed at the failure of senior police to target, investigate and take action against those covering up child abuse.

‘‘My submission on that aspect was redacted by the special commission. Conversely, the royal commission has already exposed the systemic institutional concealment of child abuse.

‘‘My disquiet was that such concealment was allowed to flourish, unmolested by law enforcement and others who failed so many. That is what needs to change.

‘‘I was one of countless voices calling for a royal commission. I expected some criticism that was fair, balanced and without apprehended bias. I do not believe that happened.’’

Victims’ rights groups have also rallied behind Mr Fox, although he told the Herald he feels uncomfortable with being regarded as a whistleblower.

‘‘I’d like to say I am not comfortable with the term whistleblower,’’ he said. ‘‘I never have been. I don’t think many who speak out are.

‘‘History has shown many whistleblowers do not survive the reprisals and smears of those they sought to expose. My journey has been no different.

‘‘Nevertheless, I would not hesitate to walk the same path.’’

Mr Fox is currently overseas with his wife Penny. He said the trip was planned last year for a time well after the commission’s findings were originally scheduled to be handed down. Delays in their release meant it coincided with him being overseas.

In 2012 I asked Premier O’Farrell to establish a Royal Commission into child abuse. Instead he announced the NSW Special Commission with narrow terms of reference closely mirroring those of a police strike force.

The Premier thereafter resisted calls for a Royal Commission saying ‘‘it would interfere or delay the Special Commission’’.

Days later Prime Minister Gillard announced a National Royal Commission with wide ranging powers. Notwithstanding many believing this made the Special Commission fundamentally superfluous, Mr O’Farrell insisted it continue.

From my first contact with the Special Commission, behind closed doors, I was attacked. Material I considered relevant and tried to present was rejected. Much of my original submission was redacted with instruction from the Special Commission not to raise certain matters at the public hearings.

I understood and accepted some was for legitimate legal reasons. Most I am still unable to fathom as it obscured important aspects of evidence. I am saddened by the process and findings, but do not shy away from my comments of 2012.

Throughout the Special Commission I felt more like a criminal on trial than a witness.

This hostile treatment continued over an unprecedented and oppressive 14 days of repetitive cross-examination. During the hearings my wife and I were subjected to intimidation and harassment within and outside the court. Threats of physical violence resulted in a local court issuing a personal violence order to protect us, the offender being an ex-police officer and associate of senior police present at the hearings.

The Special Commission knew I was receiving treatment for stress before subjecting me to a final day of five and a half hours of cross examination ending at 7pm. That final onslaught left me mentally and physically broken.

Much of what I said in 2012 has been distorted.

Watching proceedings one might be forgiven for thinking I was critical of all police for not doing enough about child abuse. Nothing could be further from the truth. I made clear my support of police in my letter to the Premier and the ABC interview.

My criticism was aimed at the failure of senior police to target, investigate and take action against those covering-up child abuse. My submission on that aspect was redacted by the Special Commission.

Conversely the Royal Commission has already exposed the systemic institutional concealment of child abuse. My disquiet was that such concealment was allowed to flourish, unmolested by law enforcement and others who failed so many. That is what needs to change.

I was one of countless voices calling for a Royal Commission. I expected some criticism that was fair, balanced and without apprehended bias. I do not believe that happened.

Former Prime Minister Gillard said “we must do everything we can to make sure that what has happened in the past is never allowed to happen again’’. I wholeheartedly agree. Sadly that view is not held by everyone, particularly powerful organisations and individuals.

The Royal Commission has already exposed serious institutional failures. With more likely to follow, it’s not surprising some institutions still place organisational reputations above Ms Gillard’s commitment.

Surely the central issue for the Special Commission should have been the future protection of children. I am therefore at a loss as to what the Special Commission attained that could not have been achieved by the Royal Commission. In time that may become apparent. However, after the example of my ordeal I can only imagine the effect on others who might have contemplated coming forward.

Finally, I’d like to say I am not comfortable with the term ‘whistle-blower’. I never have been. I don’t think many who speak out are. History has shown many whistle-blowers do not survive the reprisals and smears of those they sought to expose. My journey has been no different.

Following the Special Commission I now stand at the end of that long but honourable queue. Nevertheless, I would not hesitate to walk the same path again.

Peter Fox