11.54am The royal commission has resumed with Marist Brother Peter Carroll.
He has just delivered an apology from the Marist Brothers.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
“I have been here since the opening day of this case study and have listened to the many terrible stories told with courage and determination. I want to apologise again to all those survivors but before I do I want to say something specific about the evidence I have heard about the death of Andrew Nash.
“I acknowledge the pain carried by the Nash family for the past 40 years. I express my admiration for the way they have summoned the courage to give evidence this week. Andrew’s family has honoured his memory and expressed their enduring love and grief.
“I heard what Audrey Nash and CQT (her surviving son) said. Yesterday with the evidence of CQS I think we gained more information about the terrible events of 1974. I want to acknowledge today in public that I accept on behalf of the Marist Brothers that all the evidence points to it being due to having been sexually abused and the evidence also points to Andrew having taken his own life.
“Importantly, it is obvious that many things have been said about the circumstances of Andrew’s death, some of which must be corrected.
“It has been suggested in some places that Andrew’s death was a prank gone wrong involving a family member. And yesterday we heard that the school at the time told the students that Andrew might have died by an accident involving another family member.
We cannot deny the unpalatable truths that have been revealed about the Marist Brothers’ responses to child sexual abuse. Vulnerable young people were sexually abused by brothers. Criminal activity took place. Our response was entirely inadequate.
- Marist Brothers provincial Brother Peter Carroll
“To me it is obvious that no member of the Nash family was involved in causing his death. Any suggestion that they were is completely wrong and hurtful to the family. These ideas must be totally rejected. Such comments have immeasurably compounded the family’s pain and loss.
“I am concerned about what was said at the school at the time about Andrew’s death and what information was given to the students. I have agreed with the Nash’s request to look into this further and find out what I can for them. I have already taken steps to start the process.”
Carroll has moved on to a more general statement to child sex survivors of abuse by Marist Brothers.
Carroll: “We cannot deny the unpalatable truths that have been revealed about the Marist Brothers’ responses to child sexual abuse. Vulnerable young people were sexually abused by brothers. Criminal activity took place. Our response was entirely inadequate, the serious effects of sexual abuse were unrecognised, leaders failed to take strong decisive action, and victims were offended against again by means of legal processes. Our responses were naive, uninformed, even callous at times.
“I know that this case study has revealed similar patterns – failures, inadequacies and ignorance.
“What happened in the past should not have occurred. Children should not have been abused by those into whose trust they were willingly placed. Our response to victims and their families should have been immediate, compassionate and authentic.
“As a religious order we have failed to protect the young people for whom we were founded and for whom many thousands of men have dedicated their lives.
“Our commitment today is what it should have been in the past: full cooperation with authorities, thorough, professional and effective processes.”
Carroll is being questioned about an email to Maitland-Newcastle Bishop Bill Wright in December 2012, in which former provincial Brother Geoffrey Crowe responded to an article that appeared in the Newcastle Herald about Brother Romuald being charged with child sex offences.
The Marist Brothers told Bishop Wright: “Up until two weeks ago we had known of claims of physical abuse against this man but not sexual abuse. We have no knowledge of his response to the claims.”
Carroll has told the royal commission that that information was incorrect.
Counsel assisting Stephen Free put to Carroll that although there had been multiple complaints of sexual abuse by Romuald, “they just hadn’t been documented”.
Carroll: “Yes, I think that would be a fair way of putting it and I don’t know why that statement was made erroneously. It certainly doesn’t reflect any sort of research of the files which were all available and all of that material was on file.”
Free has just asked Carroll about requests from the Nash family to have Romuald asked whether he sexually abused Andrew Nash before his death.
Carroll was asked if anyone within the Marist Brothers had tried to facilitate that.
After a Newcastle Herald article in which Audrey Nash raised the issue, Brother Crowe wrote to Mrs Nash through Zimmerman Services, offering to make inquiries about whether Romuald – known by his real name of Francis Cable since he left the order in 1978 – would speak.
Carroll: “I believe one of our lawyers contacted his Legal Aid representative, but the request was declined.”
This is the letter, dated 16 April, 2015, sent to the Marist Brothers by Cable’s Legal Aid representative: “I am instructed that our client will not meet with any member of the Marist Brothers leadership team. I therefore trust that neither your client nor your clients’ representatives will attempt to facilitate contact with Mr Cable.”
Carroll is being questioned about the Marist Brothers’ responses to sexual abuse allegations against Brother Dominic, including an attempt to send Dominic to Fiji “to a position which wouldn’t have involved contact with children”.
Face: “What’s your reaction to that as a way of dealing with the problem?”
Carroll: “I suppose it was a matter of looking for something that he could productively do and he felt that possibly he could contribute in some sort of administrative way, but if there was an ongoing issue, there would have been a need to address the issue, I think, that’s very clearly the case.”
The response does not appear to consider child protection issues relating to Fijian children.
Minutes in the provincial council in 1997 show the council considered the possibility of appointing Brother Dominic to schools at Dundas or Ashgrove, but the principals at those schools objected.
Carroll: “It is hard to reconcile that there would be some thought of putting him back into a school if he was deemed to be unsuited to being around children. I concluded from that that they were talking about a non-teaching role in the schools, such as he later had at another school.”
Carroll has conceded that although the provincial at the time concluded Brother Dominic should no longer be considered suitable to have unsupervised access to children, there was no record of it.
Free: “That presents great difficulties, doesn’t it, Brother Peter, in terms of any subsequent provincial council or any subsequent provincial trying to deal with Brother Dominic?”
Carroll: “Yes, I think it’s – I think that seems to have been a major problem with the lack of continuity going from one person, from one leader to another.”
Brother Dominic was given a position as assistant to the principal at Ashgrove in 2005, despite the earlier assessment.
Carroll is now being questioned about Brother Patrick. The two men lived and worked together at Ashgrove between 1990 and 1996, although Patrick worked in a separate building for older brothers.
Carroll was assistant principal at the school for some of that period. From his evidence it appears the position was one of the top four positions at the school.
Carroll said he was unaware of historic complaints against Brother Patrick. He was unaware of the incident in 1992 where two boys left the school and were found in the bush. When they were found they said the didn’t want to go back to class because “we don’t like the way Brother Patrick touches us”.
Carroll said he was unaware of any need for special supervision or vigilance. There was nothing that he was aware of to suggest Patrick was to be treated differently from any other brother.
Carroll has just been shown a Catholic Church Insurance document showing “the Marist Brothers became aware of Brother Butler’s propensity to offend in early 1991”.
Carroll said he was not aware that a father had once pretended to be a plumber to gain access to Brother Patrick at a Marist Brothers school in Eastwood after his son complained Patrick had sexually abused him.
Carroll is just being questioned about a letter sent by a man identified as CNJ to Audrey Nash in 2013.
It includes: “When I get down on myself for having not spoken up at the time, I have to remind myself of the enormity of a child facing off with a Marist Brother. Up until that time I was taught that a brother, nun or priest was ‘God’s representative on earth’. So when God’s agent sticks his hand down your pants, life gets seriously confused.”
Free: “Does that encapsulate a sentiment that you’ve encountered generally?”
Carroll: “I think it was a church culture issue where brothers, nuns, priests were put on pedestals. They were regarded as special and therefore people were less likely to speak out against them. I believe that’s very much what was part of the history of all this.”
Free: “So there is a sense of spiritual intimidation that boys feel?”
Carroll: “Well, the term spiritual intimidation, yes, I’ve not heard it before, but I think there was probably, hearing the stories as I’ve heard about the use of physical punishment, it was probably very much intimidation.”
Justice Peter McClellan is now questioning Carroll about clericalism.
McClellan: “The church, through its education programs, and all of its multitude of charitable enterprises, has a very important role to play in Australian society, you understand that?”
Carroll: “Yes, I hope so.”
McClellan: “But of course in carrying out those roles it has a responsibility to ensure that all parts of its structure are appropriate for that society?”
Carroll: “Yes.”
McClellan: “And I assume you accept that?”
Carroll: “Yes.”
McClellan said he was pleased that the Marist Brothers were undertaking research to try to find out why there were so many child sex offenders in the order, and “the why question is one of great concern for the commission”.
McClellan is now questioning Carroll about celibacy as a relevant issue. It will be considered as part of the Marist research project.
McClellan is also asking if the role of the confessional will be considered.
Carroll: “I wouldn’t have thought so, but I am aware that in some of the writing recently there has been a recognition that one of the errors made has been spiritualising responses to offences and I suppose a false understanding of forgiveness of perpetrators would be part of that.”
McClellan: “You’re ahead of me, but that’s where I was going to go, because the confessional is but a step along the way to an appropriate application of a concept of confession and forgiveness and restoration of a person to society in a civil society that has criminal sanctions for criminal conduct?”
Carroll has just agreed with McClellan’s proposition that people who deliberately disclose in the confessional in the expectation the disclosure cannot be taken to authorities “raises a very serious question, if the confessional is capable of being abused in that way”.
McClellan: “That, of course, is bound up in the larger question of the role of the spiritual in the proper order of civil society, doesn’t it?”
Carroll: “Yes, I imagine it is.”
McClellan: “You may not know, but one of the final hearings of the commission will look at the question of why, in an endeavour to understand in the Australian context why this has happened, not just in the Catholic Church, we hasten to add, but in other parts of society, which of course the commission has discussed in its various case studies.”
Carroll: “Yes.”
Commissioner Andrew Murray has asked Carroll if the Marist research look at risk management, given that “it is possible that the nature of particular types of religious institutions is regarded as an attraction for some individuals with an unhealthy interest in children, a sexual interest in children”.
Murray: “Do you think you’ll explore that area?”
Carroll: “I think that will be part of it. I think we’ll be looking at the case studies of some of these men who have offended. I would expect that some information we look at will indicate there have been people who were paedophiles who found easy access to children through being a brother and being a teacher.”
11.15am The royal commission has adjourned for the morning tea break.
11.04am Survivor Peter Russ is giving evidence.
Russ grew up in a devout Catholic family. His father fought for him to attend Hamilton Marist College because it was prestigious.
He started at the school in 1971. He has told the royal commission that physical abuse at the school was routine. Brother Cassian, in particular, was notorious for his physical punishments.
Russ said it was well known among students that Brothers Dominic, Romuald and Patrick were “touchy”, and people should not be alone with them.
“Brother Dominic had an office and there was a general understanding amongst the students that you didn’t want to be alone with him because you could be touched up,” Russ said.
Brother Patrick sexually abused Russ in 1975.
“My shame at what had happened made me unable to tell any of my classmates. I felt isolated and wondered whether anyone had been in this position,” Russ said.
He never told his parents while it was happening.
“My parents’ Catholicism was unwavering and their commitment to the school absolute. When I once questioned my father about a particular Catholic teaching, his reply was, ‘I believe what the Catholic Church tells me to believe’.”
Russ became a Catholic school teacher.
My parents’ Catholicism was unwavering and their commitment to the school absolute. When I once questioned my father about a particular Catholic teaching, his reply was, ‘I believe what the Catholic Church tells me to believe’.
- Survivor Peter Russ
He never told his father, now deceased, about the abuse.
“I once broached the subject of physical abuse with him. He told me that he was caned at school and it made him ‘The man I am today’.”
Russ said the abuse had had two major effects on his life.
“First, the feeling that I am worthless and in some sense don’t deserve to be alive. I believe that I am unable to achieve anything of worth. The second effect has been on my working life. I have always felt that I am unable to relate to authority. I have been unable to express an opinion or feel worthy to contribute.
“After a career of over 35 years as a high school teacher in the Catholic system, I had to stop teaching due to the culmination of many issues and have not taught for over two years.”
Russ said the Survivors and Mates Support Network (SAMSN) had changed his life.
“I have attended their eight week course in Newcastle twice and cannot speak highly enough of their ongoing support and encouragement. They are a life-saving service to survivors.”
Russ said he no longer went to church.
“I do believe in a God, but despair at what his representatives on earth have allowed to happen.
“My one hope is as follows: it is my wish that high school students in the Catholic system today feel they are able to come forward and tell of sexual abuse. It is my wish that they feel they will be believed.”
10.50am Survivor Terry Skippen is giving evidence.
Mr Skippen was born in 1947, and grew up in Newcastle.
His parents were devout Catholics. He started high school at Hamilton Marists in 1960. His father died in August of that year.
“It was an emotional time for me and I was pretty vulnerable,” he said.
Brother Romuald was his class master.
“It was in the early part of 1960, before my father passed away, that Brother Romuald first abused me. I was in our regular classroom with the rest of the class and Brother Romuald was at his desk at the front of the room. He called me to his desk,” Skippen said.
“When I got up beside Brother Romuald, he said something to me then he reached out and put his hand inside my pants and fondled my genitals. He did this for what seemed like an eternity, but it was probably only a few minutes.”
He said no-one said anything, including other boys, but he was embarrassed and frightened.
“For the rest of the year, Brother Romuald regularly abused me in the same manner. He would call me up to the front of the class and fondle my genitals, in front of the class. I was always scared that someone might see what he was doing.
“Brother Romuald continued to abuse me after my father’s death, even though he knew what had happened and that it was a difficult time for me.”
Skippen said he did not tell anyone because Romuald was a brother and “I was scared that I wouldn’t be believed”.
He has told the royal commission about the extraordinary impact on himself, his life and his family.
He disclosed to a nun in August, 2012, and was supported by Maureen O’Hearn from Zimmerman Services.
He made a statement to Detective Sergeant Kristi Faber, and is the first of 21 men to have made the statements that led to Romuald’s conviction and jailing for 16 years.
“I feel totally let down by the church as a result of all of the above. I have been regularly seeing a psychologist since late 2012. This treatment is supported with antidepressant medication. I have just had that medication dose doubled to address the level of my depressive state. I never ever thought that I would be dependent on antidepressant medication for my wellbeing.”
9.38am The royal commission has resumed its public hearing into Maitland-Newcastle Catholic diocese.
Solicitor Hilbert Chiu is questioning former Hamilton Marist principal Christopher Wade, about a letter written to Brother Romuald in 1975 by a former provincial (a leader of the order), Brother Kieran.
The provincial wrote: “I was quite worried about you at Hamilton – it seemed to me that there wre some of the preliminary signs of danger ahead. As I mentioned to you yesterday, there is the danger that at a certain age people tend to feather their nest, gather ‘things’ around themselves, run their own show, ride roughshod over people etc – we both know the whole score.
“It seems to me that the move to Dundas has helped you to reassess things in your own life and you have had the courage and openness to look at these squarely. Not that that solves everything (!) and I think you still have to be very careful of these tendencies but an honest, open look at them in the coming 15 months will be a wonderful preparation for Fribourg. Again, quite frankly, I would have been quite concerned about your going to Fribourg 12 months ago feeling that the glossy side of it (the travel etc) would loom far too large.
“So, my hope for you is that the next 15 months will be a time for reflection and prayer, for growing in sensitivity to others, for a greater understanding of yourself and why you do things.
“Needless to say, the relationship with Terry saddens me and something has to be done about this. I am asking you both to think and pray about it for the next two weeks and then to write to me to suggest what you might do. It imposes strains and tensions on the community that should not be there.”
Brother Christopher was asked what Brother Kieran might have been referring to in relation to “preliminary signs of danger” and “gathering things around him”.
He said Brother Romuald had acquired a speedboat, which was uncommon.
Wade is now being asked about Romuald’s reputation for being a dominant, confrontational person. Romuald was six foot three. On Wednesday Wade said he feared confronting Romuald and questioning him about an allegation he had sexually abused a child.
Chiu: “Brother, if you, being his superior, were afraid of him, did it occur to you that the children at the school might have been absolutely terrified of him?”
Wade: “I can’t recall at this stage whether I made that conclusion or not. It sounds reasonable.”
Wade said he never saw Romuald cane a boy.
Chiu is questioning Wade about his cane (flexible), whether he knew if other brothers had less flexible canes (“I can’t answer that question. I don’t know”).
Chiu: “When a brother would cane a boy, would the brother raise his cane over his shoulders almost as if he was about to bowl a cricket ball?”
Wade: “I don’t know that I ever observed any other brother at Hamilton in the act of giving corporal punishment.”
Wade said he caned boys by raising his cane to the vertical, over his head, and bringing it down on the palm.
He said the boy’s hand didn’t immediately bruise, and the boy would not have been hit so hard that he could not hold a pen afterward.
Chiu: “But you would agree that you are a man of relatively short stature?”
Wade: “Yes.”
Chiu: “If you had a brother who was six foot three doing the same thing, that would bring a lot more force to the caning?”
Wade: “I presume that’s correct.”
Chiu: “If you had a brother who started not at the vertical but beyond the vertical and followed through, that would bring an incredible amount of force to the caning?”
Wade: “That’s correct.”
Wade said he believed parents sent their sons to the school for discipline and control, but “I don’t think they necessarily sent them there for the reason of corporal punishment”.
Commissioner Andrew Murray is now questioning Wade about his responsibilities as principal of the school, for setting standards.
Wade has told the royal commission he did not ever “specifically address the question” of providing instruction or supervision to brothers and lay teachers as to how they should administer corporal punishment.
Wade was asked what law or regulation or Marist Brothers process he followed in terms of corporal punishment.
Wade: “There was an expectation among us, I believe, that punishment should be reasonable and should be always administered on the palm of the hand.”
Murray: “Where did that expectation arise?”
I believe it’s certain that on occasions, on too many occasions, there was excessive punishment.
- Brother Christopher Wade
Wade: “I think that was our tradition.”
Murray: “So you gave them (brothers and lay teachers) free licence to discipline as they saw fit?”
Wade: “Well, I think I didn’t – I certainly didn’t restrict them or put out regulations about punishment.”
Murray: “Having heard the witness evidence on this topic throughout this case study, are you now inclined to take, as the former principal, responsibility for what occurred on your watch?”
Wade: “I believe it’s certain that on occasions, on too many occasions, there was excessive punishment.”
Mr Chiu has resumed his questions.
Wade has just agreed with Chiu that many of Romuald’s students were afraid of him, and for many of the boys targeted by Romuald for sexual abuse, life in the school must have been a nightmare.
Chiu: “Would you also agree that for any of those boys it would have taken an incredible amount of courage to make a complaint about that sexual abuse?”
Wade: “That would be correct.”
Chiu: “And if one of those boys came to you with a complaint, it must have been your job as the principal to do something about it?”
Wade: “Correct.”
Chiu: “In fact, if the complaint was about a brother, you might have been the only person who could have done something about it because you would have been the superior of the brother?”
Wade: “Well, there was always the possibility, of course, of going higher (to the provincial).”
Wade has agreed there was the “possibility or duty” for him to go higher if there was obvious conduct, or suspected conduct.
Chiu is now questioning Wade about his “confrontation” with Romuald after allegations, and Romuald’s response that “I thought I had been good in that area recently”.
Wade on Wednesday conceded that was an admission by Romuald, and he should have gone to the provincial and police.
Chiu has asked Wade further questions, until the following:
Chiu: “Can I suggest to you that you wanted to avoid any further confrontation with Brother Romuald?”
Wade: “I think it’s true that I wanted to avoid confrontation with anybody.”
Chiu: “And you were relieved with what he said to you?”
Wade: ”I was.”
Chiu: “And in your mind you had discharged what you perceived to have been your duty to look into the complaint?”
Wade: “That’s correct.”
Chiu: “In your mind the case was closed?”
Wade: “That’s correct.”
Chiu: “And the problem had gone away?”
Wade: “That’s correct.”
Wade has told the royal commission he did not go back to the person who made the complaint.
Chiu: “So the case is closed, the problem had gone away?”
Wade: “Correct.”
Chiu: “I suggest to you that you didn’t want trouble within your community between yourself and Brother Romuald?”
Wade: “That would be correct.”
Chiu: “And you didn’t want to open a can of worms by delving into what he might have done in the past?”
Wade: “That’s correct.”
Chiu: “Brother, sitting here today, do you agree that that line of thinking, which I’ve just described, is not very far away from concealing child abuse?”
Wade: “In my view it is far away.”
Wade is now being questioned about the death of Andrew Nash, 13, in October 1974 at his Hamilton home.
Andrew’s mother Audrey Nash has told the royal commission she believes her son was sexually abused by a Marist brother. Andrew Nash had Brother Romuald and Brother Dominic as his teachers in 1974. Both men went on to be jailed for sexually assaulting multiple boys.
Justice McClellan is questioning Wade.
Wade has told the royal commission this was the only suicide he remembered, and it would have been devastating for all pupils in the school.
McClellan: “Was it not incumbent on you to do what you could to assist the family of the child who had committed suicide?”
Wade: “I think expectations in that area, your Honour, have changed radically, and I think there’s also a great distinction to be made if the student of a school suicides at the school (as opposed to at home).”
Asked if he accepted that as principal he had a role to help students who were grieving, Wade responded: “I don’t think that understanding was clear, your Honour, in the 1970s.”
McClellan: “Was it not incumbent on you to do what you personally could to help all the students through the grieving process?”
Wade: “I don’t think I would have understood that then.”
McClellan: “Some might say that’s just a normal human response as the leader of a body of young people?”
Wade: “Mmmm.”
McClellan: “You don’t see it that way?”
Wade: “I could understand that being said.”
McClellan: “You don’t see it that way?”
Wade: “I do see it that way, I very much see it that way currently.”
McClellan: “But you didn’t back then?”
Wade: “I don’t believe I did, no.”
Mr Chiu is now questioning Wade.
Wade has just told the royal commission he can’t remember if he made an announcement to the school after Andrew’s death. He remembers the death of a brother killed in a road accident, and remembers visiting the families of a boy who died in a cycling accident. He also remembers visiting a hospital to see boys injured in a road accident.
Chiu: “But you’ve got no recollection at all of visiting the Nash home in 1974 after Andrew’s death?”
Wade has repeated that he can’t recall it.
Chiu: “How many times do you recall being in a room in a house with a waiting mother whose son had just died?”
Wade: “I don’t recall ever having been in that set of circumstances.”
And you’re pretending you don’t remember that evening (when Andrew Nash, 13, committed suicide) because you’re a coward and you’re a liar...
- Lawyer Hilbert Chiu for Andrew Nash's family.
Chiu: “Isn’t it implausible, Brother, that you’ve got absolutely no memory of visiting the Nash household on the evening of 8 October, 1974?”
Wade: “I can’t say whether it is implausible or not. All I can is that it’s the truth.”
That’s not true.
- Brother Christopher Wade.
Chiu: “Are you lying about that?”
Wade: “Of course I’m not lying.”
Justice McClellan is just asking Wade about the mass that was held after Andrew’s death.
Wade can provide no information about that mass, including whether he spoke, whether there as a eulogy, or who conducted the mass.
Chiu has resumed his questions, in relation to evidence by Audrey Nash and her surviving son, that when Brother Romuald was at their home on the night of Andrew’s death, he asked if Andrew had left a note. Wade has already said he has no memory of being there.
Chiu: “If you had heard those words, you must have at least suspected that Andrew’s death had something to do with Brother Romuald’s interference?”
Wade: “I can’t speculate about that.”
Chiu: I suggest to you brother, you knew that at the time, you in fact knew that at the time?”
Wade: “Knew what?”
Chiu: “That Andrew’s death had something to do with Romuald’s interference?”
Wade: “I did not know that.”
Chiu: “I suggest to you that you were relieved that Andrew had told nobody before he died.”
Wade: “That’s not true.”
Chiu: “And you were relieved because in your mind the problem had gone away?”
Wade: “That’s not true.”
Chiu: “And when Brother Romuald moved schools two months later you were even more relieved because he was no longer your problem?”
Wade: “That’s not true.”
Chiu: “And you’re pretending you don’t remember that evening because you’re a coward and you’re a liar?”
Wade: “That’s not true.”
‘
9.30am
Good morning. It’s Joanne McCarthy back at the Royal Commission hearings in Newcastle, with the focus today on the response of Catholic Church authorities in the Maitland-Newcastle region to allegations of child sexual abuse.
Here is a wrap up of day six:
To read more about the hearings into the Newcastle Anglican diocese, check the video and links below.
- AS IT HAPPENED: Royal Commission day one
- AS IT HAPPENED: Royal Commission day two
- AS IT HAPPENED: Royal Commission day three
- AS IT HAPPENED: Royal Commission day four
- AS IT HAPPENED: Royal Commission day five
- AS IT HAPPENED: Royal Commission day six
- AS IT HAPPENED: Royal Commission day seven
- AS IT HAPPENED: Royal Commission day eight
- AS IT HAPPENED: Royal Commission day nine