It’s Thursday afternoon, and the commission has been going since Tuesday morning.

Counsel assisting, Naomi Sharp, has just taken Bishop Appleby through the evidence of others who insist they told him of child sexual abuse by some of the priests in the diocese when he was deputy to the bishop at the time, Alfred Holland.

Ms Sharp: “And you say none of those disclosures occurred?”

Bishop Appleby: “I can just repeat what I've said, that had such disclosures been made, I would be absolutely clear in that I would have been appalled and shocked that such behaviour was happening and I would have acted upon it.

“The fact that I have no recollection of it, the fact that I did not report the matter to Bishop Holland, and so on – there's no evidence of that – I can only say that even though they have said that they did report these matters to me in 1984 and 1987, I do not believe that that is true.”

There were a number of these exchanges on Thursday afternoon, as there were the following morning, on Friday, when Bishop Appleby returned for a final cross-examination.

Similar occasions came and went on the second day of the inquiry, on Wednesday, when Bishop Holland gave his evidence by video-link from Sydney.

At the end of one tense exchange with Ms Sharp, Bishop Holland insisted: “No. I had no knowledge at all that there were any allegations made of child sexual abuse from anybody in the diocese. I had no conversations at all.”

And that was just minutes after the commission had shown Bishop Holland a file note from February last year, in which a Central Coast solicitor, Keith Allen, was quoted by the diocese’s business manager, John Cleary, as saying: “Allen has previously advised me, as Holland's legal adviser, that he would be advising Holland to say that he cannot recall anything.”

That solicitor had his own stint in the witness box on Friday afternoon, and was questioned at length over whether or not he provided legal advice to the diocese or its bishops.

Eventually convinced by Commissioner McClellan to agree he had given “long and significant service to the diocese” for more than 40 years, he had initially said the only advice he had ever given the diocese had been on a couple of property conveyancing matters.

That was until the final, gripping exchange of the week, when Mr Allen was confronted with the contents of that same February 2015 file note, which appeared to show him acting for the Church, and for the complainant, in a sexual abuse matter.

Mr Allen agreed that “one can’t act for both parties”, to which Commissioner McClellan responded: “That would be beyond being unprofessional, it would just be dishonest, wouldn’t it?”

Mr Allen: “Yes.”

Even though the conversation detailed in the file note only took place about 18 months ago, Mr Allen was finding it hard to be specific about some aspects, saying that while he “may have” discussed the case, he had “no specific recollection of what was said”.

“And I don’t say, or not say, that the words in the last dot point [of the file note] were said or not said,” Mr Allen said.

But if the men on the church side of the ledger were choosing their words with great care, the stories came in torrents from the survivors, who were sometimes forced to stop and to compose themselves before continuing their statements.

The pain was palpable on the opening Tuesday when the first witness, Paul Gray, spoke of his sexual abuse at the hands of serial paedophile priest the late Peter Rushton and others.

 “I don't know if it's there somewhere, but I wanted to say that Father Peter was my godfather,” Mr Gray said.

“He wasn’t just a priest, he sort of was a big thing in my life.”

Resuming his written statement, Mr Gray then said: “When I was about 13 years old, Father Peter took me to St Alban's Home for Boys and left me with three men. The men led me into what they called 'the f---ing room'. The men took turns at raping me. I do not recall who these men were.”

After Mr Gray, another survivor of that late 1970s, early 1980s era, Phillip D’Ammond, told of his experience at St Alban’s, and of being abused by a lay church figure, James “Jim” Brown, as well as Rushton.

Mr D’Ammond’s case also made mention of Paul Rosser, QC, a well-known Newcastle barrister who was mentioned in Ms Sharp’s opening address as a former chancellor of the diocese and a defence counsel in some of the cases of interest to the commission.

Ms Sharp said “there will be evidence . . . of attempts by Mr Rosser QC and others through the Diocesan Council to alter and limit the powers of the Professional Standards Board and Professional Standards Director, Mr [Michael] Elliott”.

It is often said that the legal system is a mystery to those not versed in its ways and in this regard, the royal commission is no different.

The commission proceeds, generally, by having each witness field questions about those aspects of their written statements that either the commission itself – or the legal representatives of various church figures – are particularly interested in.

Sometimes, Commissioner McClellan has asked the survivors to read all, or most of, their statements. Otherwise, their contents are not available to those watching the commission until after the individual’s evidence has been heard, and the statements, along with any other relevant exhibits, are posted on the commission’s website.

Mr Allen, the final witness on Friday, was number 14 on a list that runs to 31 names, ending with the current Bishop of Newcastle, Greg Thompson, who will presumably will give evidence on the scheduled closing day, next Friday.