FORMER NSW Director of Public Prosecutions Nick Cowdery has accused the NSW Police Force of being ‘‘party ... to a Catholic Church conspiracy to thwart the criminal justice process’’. The church’s ‘‘blind reporting’’ of child sex allegations to police, with victims’ details withheld, allowed church representatives to escape prosecution for concealing serious crimes ‘‘because it was colluded in by the Police Force’’, Mr Cowdery said in response to the Police Integrity Commission’s Operation Protea report released on Friday. ‘‘It was the selective disclosure of information about crime that prevented the police force [with its agreement], from investigating and prosecuting crime,’’ he said. ‘‘Whether or not it served some other claimed purpose, it was a conspiracy to thwart the criminal justice process, and the police force was a party to it. ‘‘Giving it a fancy name did not change its nature.’’ The Police Integrity Commission Protea inquiry found NSW Police and the Catholic Church had an informal arrangement that meant ‘‘attempts would not be made on the part of the police force to contact victims of abuse in circumstances in which a blind report form had been submitted’’, without first contacting the church’s professional standards office. ‘‘Blind reports’’ meant ‘‘many of these complaints were not investigated’’, Protea Commissioner Bruce James, QC, concluded. The complaints were filed as information by police and, without victim and other details, were reduced to the level of hearsay. The Protea inquiry heard police ignored internal legal advice on a number of occasions warning that ‘‘blind reporting’’ breached section 316 of the NSW Crimes Act relating to concealing serious crimes. The Protea report backed reports by the Newcastle Herald and the ABC’s Lateline in October 2013, based on police documents obtained under freedom of information by Greens Justice spokesman David Shoebridge, alleging an informal arrangement between police and the church that breached section 316. Mr Cowdery criticised the police force in the wake of the Protea findings on ‘‘blind reporting’’. ‘‘Nothing good can be said about it as a matter of principle or practice. If an ordinary citizen tried it, he or she would be chased up by the police.’’ Mr Cowdery said he first became aware of the term ‘‘blind reporting’’ when he read the Protea report, and was first made aware of the practice when he was approached by Lateline in 2013. It was ‘‘highly likely’’ there would have been more prosecutions of historic child sexual abuse cases if corroborative material, which was held by the Catholic Church but not provided to police under ‘‘blind reporting’’, had been presented to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Cowdery said. ‘‘Each case would be decided on its merits, but the more and better the evidence in support of a conviction, the more likely would be the decision to prosecute,’’ he said. ‘‘Child sexual abuse matters may well be line-ball decisions and if there is corroboration or supportive evidence of some kind, in addition to the victim’s statement, the decision to prosecute may be made more easily.’’ The NSW Police Force did not respond to Herald questions after Survivors Network spokeswoman Nicky Davis expressed outrage at the Protea findings, and demanded an explanation and apology from the police on behalf of child sexual abuse victims. ‘‘I can’t believe that people aren’t up in arms about this,’’ she said. Mr Cowdery backed the need for a public statement from the police force about ‘‘its past conduct and future intentions’’. ‘‘It would certainly assist in gaining and maintaining the confidence of the community,’’ he said. NSW Police Force director of public affairs, Strath Gordon, said the 228-page Protea report was ‘‘a voluminous report that needs to be properly considered before any comment can be offered’’. ‘‘NSW Police will respond to the Protea report in due course,’’ Mr Gordon said. But in a letter for publication in the Herald on Monday, Mr Gordon accused the newspaper of ‘‘highly selective reporting’’ of the Protea findings in an article on Saturday which noted, in the article’s second last paragraph, misconduct findings against three named senior officers for their involvement with the blind reporting process. The lack of NSW Police comments in the article praising the officers’ dedication ‘‘leaves an unwarranted stain on the reputation of good officers who have spent many years devoted to the task of protecting children and prosecuting offenders’’, Mr Gordon said. The letter did not refer to an accompanying Herald commentary piece in which the officers were described as ‘‘scapegoats’’. The letter also did not include the words ‘‘blind report’’, or provide any response to issues raised in the bulk of the Herald’s articles dealing with the NSW Police Force’s informal agreement with the Catholic Church. Mr Shoebridge said police had questions to answer about blind reporting, and the public deserved a straightforward response. ‘‘For decades we saw the church and other institutions denigrate ... those brave enough to speak up about child abuse. Now the police seem to be doing the same,’’ he said. WHILE Joanne McCarthy is right to praise the work of Hunter Valley investigators (Herald 20/06/15) for their success in prosecuting child sex offenders, her account of the Police Integrity Commission’s Operation Protea report is highly selective. The PIC report was at pains to emphasise the fine record of those officers who were the subject of the Protea investigation, Inspector Beth Cullen in particular. She was commended for her dedication to investigating child sexual abuse. Indeed, she was described as “outstanding”. Those same officers were found to be well intentioned, did not set out to commit any misconduct and there were no recommendations of actions against them. None of this was reported. The Protea findings are a far cry from the sensationalist and conspiratorial overtones that preceded the report’s release. NSW Police will respond to the Protea report in due course. It is substantial and its recommendations need to be properly considered. Herald readers would be best served by reading the report for themselves from the PIC website rather than relying on the selective accounts provided to them to date. Strath Gordon, Director of Public Affairs NSW Police Force
Former NSW Director of Public Prosecutions Nick Cowdery.
FORMER NSW Director of Public Prosecutions Nick Cowdery has accused the NSW Police Force of being ‘‘party ... to a Catholic Church conspiracy to thwart the criminal justice process’’.
The church’s ‘‘blind reporting’’ of child sex allegations to police, with victims’ details withheld, allowed church representatives to escape prosecution for concealing serious crimes ‘‘because it was colluded in by the Police Force’’, Mr Cowdery said in response to the Police Integrity Commission’s Operation Protea report released on Friday.
‘‘It was the selective disclosure of information about crime that prevented the police force [with its agreement], from investigating and prosecuting crime,’’ he said.
‘‘Whether or not it served some other claimed purpose, it was a conspiracy to thwart the criminal justice process, and the police force was a party to it.
‘‘Giving it a fancy name did not change its nature.’’
The Police Integrity Commission Protea inquiry found NSW Police and the Catholic Church had an informal arrangement that meant ‘‘attempts would not be made on the part of the police force to contact victims of abuse in circumstances in which a blind report form had been submitted’’, without first contacting the church’s professional standards office.
‘‘Blind reports’’ meant ‘‘many of these complaints were not investigated’’, Protea Commissioner Bruce James, QC, concluded.
The complaints were filed as information by police and, without victim and other details, were reduced to the level of hearsay.
The Protea inquiry heard police ignored internal legal advice on a number of occasions warning that ‘‘blind reporting’’ breached section 316 of the NSW Crimes Act relating to concealing serious crimes.
The Protea report backed reports by the Newcastle Herald and the ABC’s Lateline in October 2013, based on police documents obtained under freedom of information by Greens Justice spokesman David Shoebridge, alleging an informal arrangement between police and the church that breached section 316.
Mr Cowdery criticised the police force in the wake of the Protea findings on ‘‘blind reporting’’.
‘‘Nothing good can be said about it as a matter of principle or practice. If an ordinary citizen tried it, he or she would be chased up by the police.’’
Mr Cowdery said he first became aware of the term ‘‘blind reporting’’ when he read the Protea report, and was first made aware of the practice when he was approached by Lateline in 2013.
It was ‘‘highly likely’’ there would have been more prosecutions of historic child sexual abuse cases if corroborative material, which was held by the Catholic Church but not provided to police under ‘‘blind reporting’’, had been presented to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Cowdery said.
‘‘Each case would be decided on its merits, but the more and better the evidence in support of a conviction, the more likely would be the decision to prosecute,’’ he said.
‘‘Child sexual abuse matters may well be line-ball decisions and if there is corroboration or supportive evidence of some kind, in addition to the victim’s statement, the decision to prosecute may be made more easily.’’
The NSW Police Force did not respond to Herald questions after Survivors Network spokeswoman Nicky Davis expressed outrage at the Protea findings, and demanded an explanation and apology from the police on behalf of child sexual abuse victims.
‘‘I can’t believe that people aren’t up in arms about this,’’ she said.
Mr Cowdery backed the need for a public statement from the police force about ‘‘its past conduct and future intentions’’.
‘‘It would certainly assist in gaining and maintaining the confidence of the community,’’ he said.
NSW Police Force director of public affairs, Strath Gordon, said the 228-page Protea report was ‘‘a voluminous report that needs to be properly considered before any comment can be offered’’.
‘‘NSW Police will respond to the Protea report in due course,’’ Mr Gordon said.
But in a letter for publication in the Herald on Monday, Mr Gordon accused the newspaper of ‘‘highly selective reporting’’ of the Protea findings in an article on Saturday which noted, in the article’s second last paragraph, misconduct findings against three named senior officers for their involvement with the blind reporting process. The lack of NSW Police comments in the article praising the officers’ dedication ‘‘leaves an unwarranted stain on the reputation of good officers who have spent many years devoted to the task of protecting children and prosecuting offenders’’, Mr Gordon said.
The letter did not refer to an accompanying Herald commentary piece in which the officers were described as ‘‘scapegoats’’.
The letter also did not include the words ‘‘blind report’’, or provide any response to issues raised in the bulk of the Herald’s articles dealing with the NSW Police Force’s informal agreement with the Catholic Church.
Mr Shoebridge said police had questions to answer about blind reporting, and the public deserved a straightforward response.
‘‘For decades we saw the church and other institutions denigrate ... those brave enough to speak up about child abuse. Now the police seem to be doing the same,’’ he said.
WHILE Joanne McCarthy is right to praise the work of Hunter Valley investigators (Herald 20/06/15) for their success in prosecuting child sex offenders, her account of the Police Integrity Commission’s Operation Protea report is highly selective.
The PIC report was at pains to emphasise the fine record of those officers who were the subject of the Protea investigation, Inspector Beth Cullen in particular. She was commended for her dedication to investigating child sexual abuse. Indeed, she was described as “outstanding”.
Those same officers were found to be well intentioned, did not set out to commit any misconduct and there were no recommendations of actions against them. None of this was reported.
The Protea findings are a far cry from the sensationalist and conspiratorial overtones that preceded the report’s release.
NSW Police will respond to the Protea report in due course. It is substantial and its recommendations need to be properly considered.
Herald readers would be best served by reading the report for themselves from the PIC website rather than relying on the selective accounts provided to them to date.
