I . ·

ANG.9310.01001.0640

N~rt LHWYtl<i:S + ~..:St:l.525030

I, cot lo e 1 N so N IA LL e·n s Ow.-1·ef: sm:HM:526432

'.29 No'Vember 2006

The Most Rev Phillip Aspinall Archbishop of Brisbane Anglican Church. of Australia BY FACSlMILE: 3832 5030

Deat Arohbishop Aspinall

t.AWYER5 UTAHISHEI> 1890

The Church of Engfa11d Nol'tb Coast Childrens H<>me Lismore

N0.317 Gl001

We write further to our recent telephone call with yoUl' office a.nd subsequent conversations witl.l Mr Rod MoLary, who we are due to meet with tomorrow .

As we ad"Vised we rep:rese.o.t fonner l'esidents of the above home: in respect of abuses they suffered whilst W. the oare of the Anglican Church. Whilst in the care of the Church our clients suffered physical, sexual and psyoll.ological abuses inflicted upon them by clergy a.u.d p1'l'Son(s) employed and engaged by the Church.

Out instructions were to investigate matters on their behalf and to try to reach an informal a.cCommodation with the Church which would allow the fbrtner l'esident~ to achieve closure, reconciliation and justice. ·

As we began to investigate these matte.r.s on behalf of the former residents we were eventuiilly able to secure a weight of su:pportm.g arohival docuxnentation 1111d other materials that enabled us to '1erify and cross~xeferenoe the allegations of abuse which then enabled us to advise them as to whether Court proceedings woµld also be a. viable option.

We undertook involved enquiries in the early to mid part of this y~a.r an.d as a result of those i_nvestigations we were in a position to advise the fonner residents that in our considered view they had a· strong case to pursue tbrough the ciiri.l courts and fuat this Fi.rm would fund such proceedings on a speculativEI basis.

The pref med option was , and at the present time still is, to try and fofonna11y and confidentially . resolve matters thereby avojc:li:ng J700tracted litigation with aJJ. the consequential haxm tbaf. this could ca11se to both our clients and the Church. Our clien.ts p:cefer to settle these matters in accordance with the tenets offue Anglican Church's protocols yet the Church appear at present

Thl8 eleotronto ~om•pondcnce is intended on'IYflll' lh~ use> oflt\eaddrmeo end m11)' ¢0\\tain leginy ptlvil~~o and oon1l&ntial infQttml\o!J. I! you :O'd ttt\ttll.eaddr~aiee, ~ ~ Mtftl.£1'1 tbat nny lrllll$mUSlon. <llstdbul!on or pho\Qe011yJtig o!tb.ls email is sltlc1lyprol\10Jtec1. The leg11l pri\>ill)ge and confidenliaUty attaollcd ~ 1hi$ ~l~ttouie OOl1.1!$po11dorn~' iHlOt waived, lost or~e$~ by reason oh mi$tal<etl delivery to YQU. !!you havn"eive1! th!~ tlec1Conlo correrponde11ce In tfto!'tileaso immediatiily notify \IS 'by <mJl!ll 1htients'lf'Y®o1b.oom.oo. llwlJ: )')"·

luv~! 10 f1S !:.sgh> Stu;rqt Orls~enc Queeng!~n4 4000 ~-ustrall~ ,. Gl'O Sox 3110 9rl~~M Clveensl•nd 4001

T 07 3B!!3 8888 I' 07 9$6~ !lllOO E Qllents .. rv®"rh.tom.3u www.nrh.com,eu OX 116 Brl$ban.-i A9N 72 18& &46 5Utl

I

I

'. I I

I

STAT.0066.001.0317_R

ANG.9310.01001.0641

Nl<H LHWYt:::H!::> 7 1'::lSd325030 N0.317 0002

-2-

Archbishop Aspjnall 17 November 2006

t.o have completely ignored its pi:evious and recent p.ronou.n.cements ~ its protocols and strict1.lres in r~ect of such matters .

The approaches that have been. made to the Church have been made in a genuine attempt to resolve matters.

The Churches actions to date, we are soey to say. have been completely at odds with its private and public positions. We have been requested by fonner residents of the Home to bring matters to your attention and ask for your assistance and intervention. as Primate of tlJ.e Anglican Church in Australia.

We are more thm willing to provide you with copies ofihe 41 Statutory Declarations attested by the fonner residents that detail the systematic and unrelenting abuse they ~e.i:ed. We axe also willing to pr.ov.ide copies oftne archive<! material that support5 these contentions and the wi1ness statements from l'~ and staff who worked at the Home and who can attest to what 1h.ey saw. We are also wilting to provide copies of 'the psychiatric rep-0rts that have also been obtained solely for t1iese pu.rposes.

The 41 former residents aJ:e mostly middle-aged and now nside in different dioceses throughout Australia.

The overwhelming majority have never spoken vr.ith tb.eir fonnerpeers since leaving the home.

Each fo.aner resident is an accwate historian of what they i:.-uff'ered.

They are entirely credible wit.iesses to both their own trauma and in corroborating abuses pexpetrated against their peers..

Should the Church's present perceived stance continue; then the fonner residents would be left with no other option than to litigate.

They found the pe1:S0nal courage to come forward having heeded what the Anglicm Church has said and what you more reGently bve con.Boned, as noted later in this correspoudence. Without your intexvention we believe that these matters will wevitably result in contested and lengthy litigation and we are a.t the l 1111 hour in that respect . .

The circumstances surrounding these abuses satisfy the Church's definition of Church A11tbority, Church Body and Church work.et.

The Church defines ~urch authoritf' as the Bishop or a person or body having ad.ntjnistrative authority of or in a Church. Body to . license, appoint, authorise, dis.miss or suspend a Church Worker.

We have provided significant proof of the role of both the Bishop and the Trustees in the nw>.a.gement of the Home, including documents that sought to protect the Trustees from 1fability (if the Trustees had no legal status as was being suggested then why try and protect 1hemselves?).

{OD14'1SO!r.1 }

!

STAT.0066.001.0318_R

ANG.9310.01001.0642

NRH LAWYERS ~ 038325030 N0.317 D003

Archbishop Aspinall 17 Nove.mber 2006

"Church Body'' is dofined by the Church itself as including a pari$b, school, any body co:rporate, organisation or association that exercises ministry within, or on behalf of, the Church. This would inoh1de the Chmch Home.

We have even been advised by tbe Rever<:md Comben in open correspon~ence that t.be ChUl·ch has seen no evidence 1hat this was a Church Home.

There is however a wealth of e-vidence supporting the fa.ot th.at this was a Church home a.ud we cau pro'Vide you. with the appropriate material that has alnmdy been given to the Church from the most basfo of evidence (we simply refer you. to the attaclied photograph) to more detailed evidence both docwnented md sworn.

Yet de$pite all of that the Rev~ C<>mben still contends that he saw no evidence to support the ''allegation'' that tro.s was a Church home! He also seems to ignore his own open letter to one of om· clients wl1en he advises that this should not have happened in "an Anglic0tl place that should have been safe b\lt which clearly was not".

The Church also defines l'Cburch Woxkei't as a persou. who is or who at any relevant time was:

(a) a member of the clergy; or

(b) a pe.rson employed by a Church body; or

(o) a person holding a. po11jtic>n or preforming a function with the actual or apparent authority of a Chm-ch authority or Church body.

Each of these de.furitions apply to the alleged peJ:petrators of the abuse.

A.$ reccmtly as this month our cllents we;r;e pleased to bear you again say that:

~'1 want victims to have confidence that any allega'tiun$ 't11at they make of sexual abuse will be treated thoroughly and :properly and expeditiously aa we can. Mj concern Is for the victim~ who might get the impreasion that nothing has changed from the bad old days and might not come forward as a result of that and nothing wukl be fo.tther from the truth." ·

Yet the e~periences of the fon:ae:i: residents after coming forward is convincing them that nothing has changed.

0.o. 15 March 2002 the Standing Committee of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Austral;a published the following statement on behalf of the General Synod:

''The church regrets that there have been instances of abuse involving some Anglican clergy, chur.oh officers and. institutions and apologises 10 all victims of su.oh m.isco;uduct for their ongoing hurt and the breakdown in pastoral relation~hips.

The church is sorry that in some places it has failed iu the past adequately to respond to claims of abuse. It has now initiated steps to ensure that appropriate protocols are in plaoe aoroas Auatmlfo. and commits. itself to be open. and tl.'allsparent io. dealing with this matter."

(0014'7609:1}

I

STAT.0066.001.0319_R

ANG.9310.01001.0643

N0.317 G1004

-4-

. Archbishop Aspinall 1.1November2006

The Statement then provided at paragraph 1.3 that :

"Dioceses have been handling a wide range of complaints under a wide variety <>f protocols for some years. From Wfon:nal mquiries in some dioceses it would appear that:

1.3. 1 Existing p:rotocols sometimes have not been used by the Church.. Bishops, clergy, church organizations and others b.ave dealt with sexual abuse issues in their own way ·without reference to t.he diocesan. protocol;

1.3 .2 Church officials have acted on a perceived requirement on their pm to act in accordance with inswan.ce covenantst

l.3.3 There has been. a defensive a.u.d legalistic attitude to tb.e protection of Church assets."

Yet almost five y~ later these are precisely the pl'oblems that we are faced with. Indeed one could imagine that paragraphs 1.3.l 'through to 1.3.3 could hllve 'been written after the experience of the North Coast matters, but sad to say it of comse pre-dates them.

In addition it is exactly the sam.e position our clients find themselves in. that 1.4 was meant to addre$S. Paragraph 1.4provjdes:

''Bani.er& which appear to EOO.st to people using the Church's protocols include:

1.4.l A misplaced belief by some Chur.ch officials that they have the ability to deal with these issues satisfactorily in their own way.

l.4.2 Lack of awareness in the ChUl'ch about what sexual and other abuse is and its impact;

1.4.3 Lack of awareness that there is a Church protocol for handling complaints.

We would also refer ro paragraph l.5 which states:

.. There appears now to be a clear tecognition1 both in the Church and in the wider community. that the Church. in its e~sting system$ !or dealing with complaints about CJmrch workers, hf!S not been. but $hould be:

1.5.1 De<!ling empathically, px'Ofessjonally, respectfuJ.ly, fairly and in a tin:iely way, witb. the needs of complainants and respondents, their families au.d cor1grega1ions;

l.S.2 Open, tr~usparent and accountable, while respecting the rights of complain.ants to privacy;

1.5.3 Easily ~cessible;

1.5.4 Consistent ftom. diocese to diocese;

(00147!!(19:lf

STAT.0066.001.0320_R

ANG.9310.01001.0644

ND.31'7 ~005

Al'Chbis11op Aspinall 17 Novemb~r 2006

1. .5.5 Dealing with all aJlegations of misconduct by Church workers as appropriate."

We have innuro.e:rable exam:ples where ea.ch one of the provisjons in paragraph 1.5 have b~en completely ignored. We w.IU. not exacerbate tlte situation by referring to examples in this letter. Sh()Uld Mr McLary or yourself request more information iu that regard then it wit\ be provided.

Atohbishop Jensen in an intervi~w with. Ray Hadley on 2GB radio had stated (as he has on innumerable occasions before aud smce) that the Chui-ch was in relation to the Wl'ongf\11 and "sjnful" nature of abuse;

ArcbbishQP Jenaen: ." ...... too inclined to, sort of, believe the best ... ...

Ar.d not tc belkve victims ... ...

,., ... we tended to dlibellevc when people came to US', •• .•••

... . .• making· sure that there is justice for the victim is well it's an essential pa.,..t of real compassion ...... ... . .. some. of the cotmt1y dtqcese may not he doing as wrtll as the olty diQcese are ... ...

... . .. ifvou h<TVe b~en ahu4•e.d bi a11v wav t1ien vle.a.re comeforwm·d. " Ray Badley: · "And if you get enough to coopemte then you get some .vort of a picture

and ~ome sort o.l credence to tl1e comp/amt?"

Arobbishop Jensen: "That's exactlv true."

Ray Hadley ":.43 ormosed to a Jone complaint? 11

Arohbishop Jensen: "Exaatty. Getting evidence # very diffloutt, but to get two or lhr~e people •..... w verv valuable. "

You will no doubt app:recjafo that when 41 independent witnesses come forward with the level of c:ori:obor1tion they and we have produced it undexnriues the good wo1·k being done by the . Axchl>:\shop and rtUlS the risk of mllking thfo and oth6': quotes Ting sadly hollow for our cli~nts •

We have put initial offers to the Cb.urcl1 to resolve these matters but received no more than a cursory one paragraph rejection of our attempts to conf~ence and negQtiate.

The_ xeoen.t reaction fr~m one <?four clients is fypioal of tlle reaction <>f alt when he wrote:

"l can only ta)' that previously we were. angry. l sli$pect that if thi3 attitude of the Church'&< continues, we may becom(J o/Qody minded as well"

That reaction was provided to us prior to the Church.' s one patagraph response wbicb we have yet to mfonn these fonner residents of.

We were ala(} copied. an Gpen lettel which 'the R~vexend Co:mben sent to the Most Reverend Peter Jensen ou 20 Apri.12006. In that letter Reverend Comb6ll states :

"We believe it is tragic that a matter· whtck the Profes~torutl Standards CQmmittee o.ft-Tte Di0¢¢9e t:lnd I wiwe working U) see 1·1Jsolved as rapidly as prMsible ts now delayed with

{OOl4n09:1}

STAT.0066.001.0321_R

ANG.9310.01001 .0645

NRH LAWYERS ~ 039325030 N0.317 0006

-6-

Arcb\>ishop Aspinall 17November 2006

any resolution possibly fi1rther frustrated, for th<t litigants, b;1 poten~ially costly, wastefal and lengthy legal processes".

Thltt letter is completely at odds With the stance that the Church has actually adopted throughout these matters. Indeed so:roe five months after he wrote that letter (and when the number of our clients we were representing rem<ii:n,ed the same) he maintained to our clients his actual position wa.s when he wrote a further open letter dated 10 October 2006 stating:

"[the Church] does n.ot cxmsider that the protocols set up lJJ,1 the Anglican Church are an appropriate procedure in thfl present case given the large number of allegations made by some 42 claimants."

We have done al! we can to try 1o colllnlence negotiation but to no avail. We now seek your assistance.

Our clients would like to see these matters resolved amicably be.fore Christmas ~md everything is in place to do just thaty

In the writers lengthy experience in dealing with matters such as this there has never been a set of circumstances th.n more properly fits with what you) tbe Most Reverend Archbishop Jensen and the Church have been trying to do in terms of abuse matter.s Similarly there has also never been a matter which bas seen suoh a departur<l from lhe Church•s stated position than this wmch is demonstrating to these fonner residents "that nothing has cb.anged from the bad old days .. (to

· paraphrase yow recent statem.e.nt).

We look forward 1c n1eeting wit:h Mr McLary tomorrow and trust that these matters can now be readily addressed in a manner which would provide closure and even reconciliation for these fooner: residents.

Yours faithfully NICOL ROBINSON HALLETTS

SIMON HARRISON Partner

Direct L ine: REDACTED

Email: REDACTED

CC: Archbishop Jensen - By facsimile: (OZ) 9265 t543 Mr Rod Mct.ary-By facsimile: 3831 9873

{001478119~1}

STAT.0066.001.0322_R