- Priest had child porn
- Church investigation says files listed more than 70 cases
- Removalist says he saw child porn in Rushton’s rectory
- Church investigator says files listed more than 70 cases
- Solicitor Allen grilled for third day on abuse
- Solicitor denies “fixing” statement to Royal Commission
- Do nothing approach revealed
- Royal Commission hears of “brown envelope” cases
- Lawyer admits tearing up priest’s resignation letter
- Bishop, lawyers in stand
- Sex with priests began at age 14
THE director of the Newcastle diocese’s professional standards unit has told the commission of threats against him and about the support that the defrocked dean of Newcastle, Graeme Lawrence, received from people in high places.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Asked about what “risk management strategies” the church had put in place in relation to Graeme Lawrence, Greg Goyette and Graeme Sturt, Mr Elliott confirmed that Lawrence and Sturt continued to worship at the Adamstown parish under Reverend Chris Bird, after Lawrence had been deposed from holy orders and Sturt suspended for five years.
Mr Elliott confirmed that Bishop Brian Farran wrote to Reverend Bird on September 17, 2012, about the issue, but that no formal risk management was put in place until November 14, 2014.
He said he made “significant efforts to ensure that there was risk management put in place”. He said Reverend Bird “did not want to co-operate and did not appear to be taking [the issue] seriously”.
At this point, Mr Elliott was asked about his assertion that “a core group of people . . . were linked to, and supporters of, a number of abusers within the church”.
Mr Elliott said he had a list that could go to the commission.
Speaking about the “high level of interference” he had received in doing his job, Mr Elliott talked about screws, nails or spikes put under his tyres, his car was damaged, pot plants were tipped over, clothes were pulled from his clothesline, flyscreens were removed from his childrens’ bedroom windows and his dog went missing, “never to return”.
He said he had received harrassing phone calls and texts.
He said he had reported about 20 incidents to police and that such incidents had only begun after his appointment as professional standards director.
“I have no doubt they’re linked to my work within the diocese,” Mr Elliott said.
Asked about his July 2012 meeting with former diocese registrar Peter Mitchell, Mr Elliott agreed he wanted to “apply pressure” to him.
He said he wanted Mr Elliott to “be uncomfortable about the circumstances he was in” but he denied that he bullied him.
He agreed with counsel assisting the inquiry, Naomi Sharp, that he believed professional standards records had been improperly altered or destroyed by members of the dicoese
“There were documents that appeared to be missing or tampered with, and I also formed that view based on intelligence and information that had come to my attention,” Mr Elliott said.
He was then examined by Lachlan Gyles for the present Bishop of Newcastle, Greg Thompson, about the professional standards board that deposed the former dean of Newcastle, Graeme Lawrence.
That board was chaired by magistrate Col Elliott, with psychologist Trevor Waring and Reverend Barbara Howard.
At the same time, Mr Elliott agreed with Mr Gyles that a number of people with prominence in Newcastle were seeking to pressure Bishop Farran in favour of Lawrence.
He agreed that this prominent group “in fact did make things difficult for Bishop Farran after making that decision” to depose Lawrence and that they wrote to the archbishops of Sydney and Melbourne about the subject.
The commission then briefly discussed a letter written to the archbishop of Sydney dated April 13, 2016, although it was not shown or tabled and Mr Gyles said he would return to it later.
Mr Elliott said many of the people who signed that letter were on the list he provided Bishop Farran “some ago”.
Questioned by Emmanuelle Kerkyasharian for the former diocesan solicitor, Robert Caddies, Mr Elliott insisted he had maintained his autonomy from the present bishop, Mr Thompson, whose only input was to refer matters to him.
He said he had autonomy from the diocese business manager John Cleary.
He was then asked about the yellow envelopes, his initial review of them when he began the job in 2009 and his later formal report on the envelopes that Bishop Thompson had asked him to produce.
The cover of this report has been shown to the commission in various evidence.
A summary table from the yellow tables report included the phrase “ACTUAL ON HAND”.
Asked how he believed that one of the files had been tampered with, Mr Elliott said Mr Mitchell had changed the name of the complainant and the name of the respondent and swapped them.
You say Mr Caddies provided certain advice that the file should be destroyed.
“Yes, a document saying that the file should be destroyed from Mr Caddies,” Mr Elliott said.
Mr Elliott was then examined by Mr McMahon for former Newcastle lord mayor John McNaughton, who is well-known as a prominent lay member of the Newcastle diocese.
Mr McMahon provided a 2010 email from Mr McNaughton in which he raised concerns with the 2005 professional standards ordinances.
Mr Elliott said Mr McNaughton’s concerns related to “what he perceived as a lack of support for respondents”.
Maria Gerace, appearing for former registrar Peter Mitchell, took Mr Elliott to a claim by victim CKA in the CKC matter that the church register had been fabricated.
Mr Elliott confirmed he told CKA that he believed the register had been fabricated and that he had obtained that information from the former diocesan archivist, Tim Mawson, in a telephone conversation.
He said another factor in his belief that the register had been tampered with was a letter that solicitor Keith Allen had written to bishop Roger Herft “expressing concern about the documents produced under subpoena” in the CKC case.
Ms Gerace took Mr Elliott to that letter, and its note that: “The year books of the diocese provide an exact public record which may produce problems in connection with the documents produced under subpoena.”
Mr Elliott denied there was any impropriety in telling CKA of his suspicions.
“CKA had formed that view before I raised that with him,” Mr Elliott said.
“I dont believe I told him that they had ‘beaten him’,” Mr Elliott said.
“I believe I told him that Mr Mawson had told me that he had overheard the conversation that indicated there were concerns about the evidence produced at his trial.”
Ms Gerace said that Mr Elliott, as a former police officer, would have known it was a serious matter to suggest that Mr Mitchell had been involved in tampering with the register on the basis of “an untested assertion”.
Ms Gerace asked Mr Elliott if he had seen the register and he said he had, it had been in his possession for a “significant period of time”.
