(Image screenshot childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au video link via @DailyMailAU)

Cardinal George Pell was not "exonerated" of claims of child sexual abuse, as has been claimed, by an independent investigation, writes contributing editor-at-large Tess Lawrence. Here, Independent Australia, republishes the Southwell Report in full.

CARDINAL GEORGE PELL WAS NOT "EXONERATED" of sex abuse allegations in the 2002 report by AJ Southwell QC.

If Pell and the Catholic Church had enough moral and legal fortitude or any sense of justice and fair play, it would immediately repost Southwell's findings in full.

But some time ago, Southwell's report was surreptitiously removed from various church websites.

Why?

Even the Wikipedia link to the report is dead.

Listen up, brethren.

Nowhere did Southwell's report state that Pell had been "exonerated".

Yet Pell himself and his 24/7 spin machine continue to force feed the media with a pate de faux gros claiming he was exonerated. He was not.

What part of he was not exonerated, doesn't the Pell propaganda unit and the Vatican get ?

Independent Australia catagorically states that it makes no imputation whatever against George Pell.

Hopefully, the Royal Commission will question Pell today about the Southwell Report and the false "exoneration" assertions and will already have in its possession documents pertaining to any police inquiry into Cardinal Pell and any allegations of child sex abuse and call for witnesses and all documents, independent of the Southwell Report, as well as all documents, statements and all materials relating to the Report.

Fortunately, the support group Broken Rites Australia, known for its conscientious research and archival postings, published most of Southwell's report and we republish that text in full to counteract the sophisticated planting of disinformation and redacting by Camp Pell's "black ops" division and also to facilitate access to the wider community.

Screenshot from start of the Southwell Report page of the Broken Rites website (accessed 29/2/16)

REPORT OF AN INQUIRY INTO AN ALLEGATION OF SEXUAL ABUSE AGAINST ARCHBISHOP GEORGE PELL

Commissioner: The Honourable A.J. Southwell Q.C.

INTRODUCTION

The National Committee for Professional Standards (N.C.P.S.) is a body set up by the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference to receive inter alia, complaints of sexual abuse by Catholic priests. I have been appointed as Commissioner by Archbishop Phillip Wilson and Brother Michael Hill (Chairpersons of N.C.P.S. - "the appointors") to inquire into an allegation by "C" ("the complainant") that at Phillip Island, in 1961, he was on several occasions sexually abused by George Pell, now the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney ("the respondent").

It is as well to set out part of para 2 of the Terms of Reference which requires me to 

"enquire into and report upon the Complaint in accordance with the following Terms of Reference: The Commissioner shall make such enquiries and hold such hearings as he considers are necessary and appropriate in order for him to be satisfied as to whether or not the complaint has been established ..."

In the event a hearing was conducted on 30 September, 1, 2, 3 and 4 October 2002...

Early in the hearing it became apparent that there was considerable doubt whether the alleged molestation of the complainant took place at a camp in 1961 or 1962. As will be seen, the complainant, who stated his belief that he went to only one camp (and that belief was much in issue) fixed the date by reason of the fact that a fire occurred nearby during the camp in question, and enquiries of the Country Fire Authority ("C.F.A.") showed that they had attended a fire in the vicinity on 13th January 1961 (during the 1961 camp); accordingly, the complainant fixed that as the date of the relevant camp. However, extraordinarily enough, there was also a fire nearby at the camp of 1962; this information was gleaned from Christus Rex, the monthly newsletter of Braybrook parish; included in the article is the information that both the complainant and the respondent were at that camp. To ensure that the merits of the complaint could be properly investigated, I sought, and in due course obtained, an amendment to the Terms of Reference so that after the expression "in 1961" was added "or 1962".

BACKGROUND OF THE COMPLAINT

The complainant was born on *** 1949. His second primary school was Christ the King in Braybrook. His mother was a strict and devout Catholic and was keen for the complainant to follow that path. He became an altar boy at the church.

At that time an agency of the Catholic Church conducted a holiday camp during the summer at Phillip Island. In January 1961 and 1962, altar boys from the Braybrook church attended, probably 42 of them in 1961, and somewhat more in 1962. The camps were supervised by Father Donovan, assisted in 1961 by 4 seminarians from Corpus Christi College, Werribee, and about 6 in 1962. The respondent was present on each occasion, although probably not for the whole of the week in 1961. There was a bunkhouse in which some of the younger boys and some seminarians slept, the remainder sleeping in army style tents, which are depicted in photographs…

The complainant went to Grade 6 at the primary school, and then went to *** Technical School, he thinks in 1961…

THE COMPLAINT

The details of the complaint are as follows: at the camp, during some form of activity in a tent (such as pillow fighting or wrestling), the respondent, while facing the complainant, put his hand down the inside of the complainant's pants and got "a good handful" of his penis and testicles. There were other altar boys in the tent at the time, who were participating in the other playful activities. The complainant was shocked, since before that incident he had regarded the respondent as "a fun person, a gentle person, a kind person, he was a terrific bloke". On each of the few occasions this occurred, the complainant pulled the respondent's hand away. On two occasions, in a tent, the respondent took the complainant's hand, and guided it down the front of and inside the respondent's pants; the complainant pulled his hand away without having touched the respondent's genitals. In another incident, which "is not as clear as the other episodes", they were in the water, jumping the waves, when from one side the respondent put his hand down and inside the complainant's bathers and touched his genitals.

On another occasion, during a walk away from the camp at night, they were walking in Indian file when the respondent grabbed the complainant from behind and put his hand down and inside of the complainant's pants.

The complainant said that on each occasion in the tent, other boys were present, but the respondent so positioned himself that they may well have not been in a position to have seen it.

I should interpolate that other evidence showed that it would occasion no surprise that a seminarian would be in a tent occupied by the boys - it could be in fun, or perhaps to restore order or otherwise settle the boys down.

The complainant agreed that he then made no complaint to any person other than his friend "A" (who died in 1985).

The complainant said that on one occasion he saw the respondent similarly molest "A", who turned away and told the respondent to "fuck off".

The complainant said that apart from the physical opposition, he did not remonstrate with the respondent; indeed he said that the only conversation with the respondent that he could actually recall was of the respondent telling him (and, I gather, possibly others) that he had played football in the ruck with Richmond reserves. The respondent denied having said that; he had indeed signed to play with Richmond in his final school year, but had not in fact trained or played with Richmond. V.F.L. (now A.F.L.) records have no trace of the respondent having so played.

The complainant (and other witnesses, including adults) said that among the boys the respondent was known as "big George", understandably enough. The respondent was not so addressed to his face, and said he was unaware of the nickname.

The respondent was born on 8 June 1941; he ended schooling as captain of St. Patrick's College in 1959; he studied for the priesthood and was ordained in 1966; after various positions, he was in 1987, at the age of about 46, appointed Auxiliary Bishop of the Melbourne Archdiocese; among other posts he was a member of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1990 to 2000; in 1996 he was appointed Archbishop of Melbourne; on 26 March 2001 his appointment as Archbishop of Sydney was announced and he was installed as Archbishop on 10 May 2001…

The respondent wholly denied every allegation of having touched the complainant or "A”…

The complainant said that he used to discuss the molestation with "A"; that one day "A" ran away from the camp; the complainant found him, and "A" said he could not stand any further molestation; "A" had a box of matches, and said he was "going to burn the place down"; they lit a fire which became a grass fire out of control but which was brought under control by the C.F.A. At the hearing it was proven that in fact the C.F.A. extinguished a grass fire in that area on 13th January 1961.

The complainant said that in about 1975 he had told his then wife (from whom he has been separated for some years) and much later his children, of the molestation; and that one night in about May 2000 he was watching television, when news came on concerning the respondent; that he immediately recognised his molester - "the same face and the same loping walk"; he was shocked - he did not think it right that someone who had acted as the respondent had should lead the Church…

In about 2000, after attending with a friend, "D", a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous, at which sexual abuse was discussed, he told "D" of the molestation, and was advised by him to consult his parish priest.

In May this year {2002] he decided to make a formal complaint; he discussed it with his friend, Father "F", the parish priest at *** and he thereafter was referred to the N.C.P.S., where he was interviewed by "G", the executive director…

THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

In his final address, although not specifically abandoning his earlier concession that the inquiry was "not bound by the rules of evidence," Mr. Sher submitted that the question of admissibility should be considered as if the inquiry was a proceeding "analogous to a criminal trial". He underlined the obvious fact that "an adverse finding would be nothing short of disastrous for (the respondent) and the Church". . .

THE STANDARD OF PROOF

Although this is not a criminal proceeding requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, I must bear in mind that serious allegations are involved, and that an adverse finding would in all probability have grave, indeed devastating, consequences for the respondent. . .

EVIDENCE PUT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT

. . ."H", a patently honest witness, said that he left Christ the King school at the end of 1960, and the 1961 camp was the last he attended. "A", the complainant and the respondent were among those present. He remembers various frolicking activities, and a night walk where the boys were spread out.

However, no-one at the inquiry suggested that the references in the Christus Rex parish newsletter of February 1962 were other than accurate, and the lengthy note of the 1962 camp included "H"'s name among the altar boys present. It follows that his honest recollection as to the date of his last camp is in all probability mistaken, a fact which underlines the great difficulty of fact finding in relation to incidents occurring 40 years ago.

He said he had a clear recollection of "A", who, although about seven months younger, "always tended to look after me a bit and he came up to me and he said to me one day, "just watch out for Big George", and thereafter "I didn't get too close to him". . .

DELAY IN COMPLAINING

As has been stated, the complainant first complained to anybody in the Church when he spoke to Father "F"; the latter arranged the meeting with "G", which took place on 11 June 2002. Accordingly the first formal complaint was made more than 40 years after the event, and it follows that the respondent thereafter first heard of it.

Common sense and high legal authority tell us of the unfairness which may arise from long delay, because of the difficulty in defending such a stale complaint. . .

Accordingly I accept as correct (as do the other counsel in this inquiry) the submission of Mr. Sher that I should give myself a warning along the lines of what would be required in a criminal trial. To say that is not to change my view that the strict rules of a criminal trial do not apply, but to acknowledge that common fairness demands that to keep such a warning in mind.

THE EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINT

The first complaint was said to have been made to Mrs. "C", the wife of the complainant, in about 1975, that is, some 14 years after the incident. She separated from the complainant about 10 years ago; they see each other occasionally (she has lived in *** for some time) in relation principally to visits by or matters concerning their off-spring.

Mrs. "C" said that in about 1975 or 1976 the complainant told her that when he was an altar boy at a camp at Phillip Island he had been interfered with by a "big bastard called George". He said that "A" was involved in it".

She had a clear recollection of the conversation; she was shocked by it; she could not recall how the subject first arose, or the conversation immediately preceding the statement. After that, the matter was "swept under the carpet" and was not further discussed until much more recent times.

Although Mr. Sher offered a number of criticisms of her evidence as to interest and recollection ("how could she remember a common name like "George" after all those years"), as I indicated during the final address of Mr. Sher, I regarded her as impressive witness, who had a clear recollection of a startling statement.

As stated, Mr. Sher objected to the evidence; the principal thrust of the submission was that upon the authorities, evidence of a complaint could not be admitted unless it was made at the first opportunity - R. v. Freeman [1980] V.R.I.

It is perhaps a moot point whether the evidence would have been admissible upon a criminal trial to rebut a suggestion of recent invention. It was the complainant's version that, although he always knew his molester as "big George", it was not until he saw the respondent on television in the year 2000 that he identified the respondent as "big George". (There can be no doubt that "big George" was the respondent). . .

As to motive, it should be noted that extensive enquiries made on behalf of the respondent have unearthed no evidence of any other matter or incident which might have aroused spite or malice on the part of the complainant towards either the respondent or the Church. On the other hand, the respondent has had a strong motive to push memory (if there ever was memory) of these fleeting incidents by a 19 year old into the recesses of the mind, from which there could be no recall.

CREDIBILITY OF THE COMPLAINANT

The complainant's credibility was subjected to a forceful attack. By the age of about 20 years, the complainant had an alcohol problem; at some later stage, he had become an alcoholic; in 1984 his wife took him to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, but he had not been drinking then for about 18 months. He has attended such meetings intermittently ever since; it appears that he has not had any problem with alcohol since 1979.

The complainant has been before the court on many occasions, resulting in 39 convictions from about 20 court appearances. Most of the convictions involved drink-driving or assaults, between 1969 (when he was aged 20 years) and 1975…

Mrs. "C" said that in about July 2000 the complainant rang her expressing astonishment that he had just recognised his molester as "George Pell". She did not know who that was so she asked, and was told by the complainant that "he is an Archbishop".

She fixed the date, first, by believing it was more than two years ago and secondly, by the fact that she had then just started a new job, and that was in July 2000, a job about which she was "bit agitated". I have earlier said that I accept Mrs. "C" as an honest witness, and I believe that she is probably correct in fixing the date of the relevant conversation.

"D" has been a friend of the complainant for over 20 years; they met at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting; they meet every few months, perhaps at a meeting, perhaps for dinner or coffee. In June or July 2000, after an A.A. meeting, they went to Williamstown cafe for coffee, where the complainant told him that at a camp years ago George Pell had molested him (he described the act complained of); "D" suggested the complainant should seek counselling from his parish priest...

The other criticisms of the complainant's credit made by Mr. Sher do not persuade me that he is a liar…

I did not form a positively adverse view of him as a witness

I accept as correct the submission of Mr. Tovey that the complainant, when giving evidence of molesting, gave the impression that he was speaking honestly from an actual recollection.

However, the respondent, also, gave me the impression that he was speaking the truth.

CONCLUSION

In the end, and notwithstanding that impression of the complainant, bearing in mind the forensic difficulties of the defence occasioned by the very long delay, some valid criticism of the complainant's credibility, the lack of corroborative evidence and the sworn denial of the respondent, I find I am not "satisfied that the complaint has been established", to quote the words of the principal term of reference.

I so advise the appointors.

Hon. A.J. Southwell Q.C.

The above extracts from Mr Southwell’s report were downloaded in October 2002 from the website of the Catholic Church at: http://www.catholic.org.au/statements/pell_judgement.htm

*****

This ends the Broken Rites extract.

However, you will see for yourselves the above link to the Catholic Church is now dead. Instead, there is this page not unsurprisingly devoted to making payments to the church — and enquiries. Presumably, not about Southwell's report.

(Screenshot of catholic.org.au/statements/pell_judgement.htm downloaded 29/2/16)

The link was dead as far back as November 2, 2014, when Independent Australia ran an article headlined 'Ted Baillieu halted Cardinal Pell's wet dreams'.

It was no surprise that retired judge Alec James Southwell QC (an Anglican) who served with the Royal Australian Naval Reserve in New Guinea in 1944, was hired by the Catholic Church to perform its in-house investigation into the allegations of sex abuse by Pell.

Independent Australia catagorically states it makes no imputation whatever against AJ Southwell.

It is surely mere felicitous coincidence that the carefully anointed "Ginger" Southwell just happened to be the albeit dissenting judge in a dispiriting decision that quashed the conviction of the notorious serial paedophile priest, Father Michael Charles Glennon, asserting that pre-trial media and publicity precluded a fair trial.

The predatory rapist and smiling assassin of childhood innocence, Father Michael Glennon, holding Jesus close while he raped children.

One cannot speak enough ill of the now dead predatory rapist Glennon, yet another industrial strength Catholic priest abuser whose depraved activities, like so many of his fellow clergy were condoned by the church, whether through default, facilitation and sometimes even collaboration and whose sexual violence made life a living hell for little children  girls also among the majority of boys.

Then 3AW broadcaster, Derryn Hinch, the self described "Human Headline" mounted a courageous and controversial campaign against Glennon, and in 1985 identified him by name, finding himself in contempt of court for breaching a suppression order.

Hinch was to be imprisoned and fined for his "transgression". And his principles. After Hinch named and shamed Glennon, a number of other victims took heart and came forward.

SOUTHWELL'S SHAMEFUL JUDGEMENT

Alec James Southwell QC

Writing in The Age in August 2002 about Southwell's appointment, then Law Reporter Fergus Shiel also pointed out that 

'...in 1991, Justice Southwell was one of three appeal judges who controversially upheld a County Court decision that raping a prostitute was less grave a crime than raping a "chaste" woman. The judges did, however, increase the prison sentence of the man who had forced the prostitute to perform oral sex at knifepoint.'

This repugnant and dangerous notion causes distress, anger and offence to this day, and continues to be both ridiculed for its patronising sexism and outrageous presumption and generalisation, and used as an instrument for judicial argument and debate, as in Dr Jocelynne Scutt's document 'Judicial Vision: Rape, Prostitution and the "Chaste Woman".'

The Catholic Church's in-house so-called "investigations" are mostly farce and cover-ups, as is obvious.

Even on this day of Pell's long awaited appearance from Rome by video, by any measure the victims/survivors remain the last among equals and have been treated with contempt by the church's executives, including Pell.

Even though lawyers for victims/survivors were not granted leave to appear in Rome because the sitting is now in Sydney, IA understands several lawyers are already in Rome and will be attending the video livestream of Pell's testimony, as observers and supporters.

It is a triumph for Justice that the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse will now hear evidence from Cardinal Pell on neutral ground at the Hotel Quirinale.

Of course, the Vatican state itself is a monument to its inseparability of church and state, and makes a mocker of any exortation to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God, the things that are God's.

As if. 

DISCLOSURE: Tess Lawrence has worked for the Christian Brothers in matters specific to child sexual abuse, and continues to do pro bono work for victims/survivors, families, friends, supporters, carers, and legal and other advocates.

(Screen shot from Royal Commission website. Click on the image to access the webcast)

 

Support lines and Information

Bravehearts: 1800 272 831

Lifeline: 13 11 14

Broken Rites: 03 9457 4999

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

Monthly Donation

$

Single Donation

$

 

Share this article:   

Join the conversation Comments Policy

comments powered by Disqus