|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Archbishop accused of cover up. Slander?
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Dear friends and (beloved) enemies in Shippiness.
I am having trouble thinking clearly ( not unheard of ) and nobody seems to be able to set me straight for fear ( also not unheard of).
I require your estimable critical thinking skills.
The Archbishop of Perth, Roger Herft, has been accused by the media of a cover up of child sexual abuse. The article is here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-21/archbishop-allegedly-failed-to-report-paedophile-ring-'kingpin'/7649154
A close inspection of the letters included in the article do not (in my opinion) provide evidence for a cover up: in fact quite the reverse.
I can't understand if I'm missing something.
The two letters are shown as evidence to indict Roger of a cover up.
But both letters (in my opinion) show he wanted to do something about it but was prevented in both cases.
In the first instance the "unenviable" position he was in was because the victim and family did not wish to take the matter further and did not want anyone to know but that the third party was in a position to report so Roger was awaiting this. But as I understand NSW mandatory reporting, it is only in the case of minors. And in this case the victim was no longer a minor but married. So technically Roger had no legal requirement to report this abuse and as the family did not wish it, the moral obligation was difficult: law or family wishes.
The second shows he tried to remove the offending priest's license and called the actions "diabolical". He was then threatened with legal action. Which I suspect the priest would have won in civil courts as a private matter ( but probably not church courts?) so may have had his hands tied by the legal system.
What have I missed?
Is this simply slander?
[ 22. July 2016, 15:13: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Thread locked pending host and admin review.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Thanks for bearing with us. This thread is open for business again. The OP is fine, but subsequent posters' attention is drawn in particular to observing Commandment 7: quote:
Posting libellous material (...) puts us in legal hot water, which makes us very unhappy.
Please preview extra carefully before posting.
/hosting
[ 22. July 2016, 18:53: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I'm not going to attempt to answer either of the questions you have posited. The whole issue is far too complex and subtle to be discussed on a forum such as this. In addition, there is Commandment 7 and obeying that would become very difficult.
1 comment though - my understanding of the mandatory reporting laws is that the relevant age is that of the victim at the time of the offence, not at the time a person who is obliged to report is told of it.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
1 comment though - my understanding of the mandatory reporting laws is that the relevant age is that of the victim at the time of the offence, not at the time a person who is obliged to report is told of it.
In the note from Archbishop Herft, he says that one of his priests told him that someone else told him that that person's son had told him that he had been abused by the child abuser Rushton.
What are the mandatory reporting laws in Australia? That's a three-deep chain of hearsay - does that qualify? Or it it only mandatory to report abuse if you are a mandatory reporter and you hear an allegation of abuse directly from the victim?
Do I understand from that note that the father of the victim was himself a mandatory reporter, and so he is the one who would have been obliged to make a report?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
This is where it gets difficult. For a start, the laws in each State are probably different, at least in detail. In NSW, where ++ Roger Perth was + Roger Newcastle at the relevant time, the legislation is the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection Act) 1998. That Act provides (s.27) that:
(1) This section applies to:
(a) a person who, in the course of his or her professional work or other paid employment delivers health care, welfare, education, children’s services, residential services, or law enforcement, wholly or partly, to children, and
(b) a person who holds a management position in an organisation the duties of which include direct responsibility for, or direct supervision of, the provision of health care, welfare, education, children’s services, residential services, or law enforcement, wholly or partly, to children.
(2) If:
(a) a person to whom this section applies has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is at risk of significant harm, and
(b) those grounds arise during the course of or from the person’s work,
it is the duty of the person to report, as soon as practicable, to the Secretary the name, or a description, of the child and the grounds for suspecting that the child is at risk of significant harm.
I don't think there'd be much doubt that a diocesan was a person to whom the section applied. Did what ++ Roger heard give reasonable grounds to suspect? Perhaps not, but I'd say that the safer course, safer to the child and to the bishop, was to report and then leave it to those to whom the report was made to make that sort of decision. The section was amended in 2003 and again in 2009 and those amendments may give rise to further complications.
I am not aware that the father falls within the definition of those bound to report.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I am not aware that the father falls within the definition of those bound to report.
And from your 2b above, even if the father was a mandatory reporter, his communication with his child is unlikely to be in the course of his work, so there's no reporting requirement.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think you have a clear duty of care if you hear an allegation of abuse directly from someone. I don't think you absolve yourself of duty of care responsibilities by seeking to hand them off to someone else to do the reporting to the authorities. And in general it isn't fair to try to hand off responsibilities in that way.
Normal counselling practice is to try and find out why the second hand reporter is telling you, rather than the authorities, and, unless there are exceptional circumstances, to encourage that reporter to exercise their duty of care. After all, they heard the story, not you. But the other normal standard is to create a clear note for the record of that conversation, and what you advice was, and lodge it with the counselling practice manager.
What are the exceptional circumstances? I think the most significant one is if the person reporting the abuse second hand is also at risk in some way, or shows signs of confusion because of controlling behaviour by the accused.
I don't think "better safe than sorry" necessarily means you should always report any allegation you hear second or third hand. You have to choose which of these possible courses of action is best under the circumstances and make sure your record your reasons for your choice.
Accusations of "cover up" often seem to me to gloss over the real complexities involved when you hear an accusation, first, second or third hand.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I don't think there'd be much doubt that a diocesan was a person to whom the section applied. Did what ++ Roger heard give reasonable grounds to suspect? Perhaps not, but I'd say that the safer course, safer to the child and to the bishop, was to report and then leave it to those to whom the report was made to make that sort of decision. The section was amended in 2003 and again in 2009 and those amendments may give rise to further complications.
.
The mandatory reporting requirement is for a child. When the complaint was made to the Archbishop in 2002 the victim was no longer a child but a married man.
The victim did not wish the issue to be reported.
It's my understanding in such circumstances that the wishes of the victim are of primary consideration to prevent further harm to the victim or their family.
The Archbishop was neither legally nor morally compelled to report the issue. He was morally compelled to protect the victim, hence the frustration evident in his letter.
The letter gives no indication of a cover up. The tone of the letter is that the Archbishop wanted to do something to protect from future harm but was frustrated in doing so.
The accusation of cover up stands on only one little thread: that the issue was not reported.
I cannot believe the media can hurl such tenuous allegations around with impunity. It's outrageous. Slander.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Slander is something verbal, in print would be libel. Just sayin.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
<snip>
The accusation of cover up stands on only one little thread: that the issue was not reported.
That seems to me to be a very important element. It might be the only thread but it's not a little one.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Fine. But by the evidence presented by the article itself, the Arch had good reason not to report it.
[ 23. July 2016, 12:28: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Slander is something verbal, in print would be libel. Just sayin.
Since the uniform defamation law came into effect, there's no such distinction here any more. The practical effect was, as best I recall, that special damage had to be proven for slander but not for libel. That effect was abolished in NSW 40 years or more ago. No idea of other states.
As for Evensong's comment, the Royal Commission is looking at reporting of allegations made even after the victim has become an adult. The theory is that a perpetrator may still be active and pursuing children. My recollection is that the report is still required by legislation in NSW, but at this time on a Saturday night (remembering that you're 2 hours behind time here) I'll leave that to you to pursue.
[ 23. July 2016, 12:28: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As for Evensong's comment, the Royal Commission is looking at reporting of allegations made even after the victim has become an adult. The theory is that a perpetrator may still be active and pursuing children. My recollection is that the report is still required by legislation in NSW, but at this time on a Saturday night (remembering that you're 2 hours behind time here) I'll leave that to you to pursue.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
If the commission is looking for allegations made after maturity and regardless of victim wish, then sounds like the Arch can tell the story. Which is great.
But the dude is dead. So won't have much future bearing. And it was dealt with in 2010.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
So I read Gee D's statute again:
quote:
(2) If:
(a) a person to whom this section applies has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is at risk of significant harm, and
Given that, it seems clear to me that allegations of child abuse against someone who is now an adult can't in themselves trigger the reporting requirement - that victim is not now a child at risk of significant future harm.
There is, of course, a real risk that an abuser will go on to abuse other children, but as I read the statute, the reporting requirements are associated with a particular identifiable child, not a particular identifiable abuser.
So if what you know is:
1. A person was abused by a priest years ago whilst a child
2. That person is now an adult and not at risk of further harm
3. You have no knowledge of the present activities of the abuser
then I don't see how the requirements for mandatory reporting are met.
On the other hand, if you know 1 and 2 above, and you also know that the abuser in question has regular access to current children, it would seem to me that you ought to consider those children at risk, and so the reporting requirements are triggered in respect of the children to which the abuser currently has access (you may not know their names - you may only know them as "the children in the youth group run by the child abuser" but that's a description that meets the needs of the statute.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But the dude is dead. So won't have much future bearing. And it was dealt with in 2010.
Well, sure. But as I read the link you posted, the question is about what the Archbishop did in 2002, which was the date of his first memo saying that he had been informed that the abuser had abused a child many years earlier.
In 2002, the abuser was not dead. So the question is whether the Archbishop should have done something differently in 2002, and whether, had he done something differently then, the abuser wouldn't have been able to abuse children between 2002 and 2010.
[ 23. July 2016, 13:23: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
We know how the media work - once something becomes a news story everything else is interpreted through the prism of that story.
We don't know all the facts, so are not in a position to judge.
From the limited material here, it seems that in 2002 he was told in confidence of - and seems to have believed - an allegation of abuse 15 or 20 years earlier which the victim did not want made public.
Deciding to respect the victim's wishes may have been the wrong decision, but at this point there doesn't seem to be evidence of deliberate cover-up
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht, I do not practice in either crime or defamation, but when you look at the words of the sub-section you will see that the question to be asked is whether "a child" is at risk - not necessarily the same child previously the victim of abuse. So child X may have been abused 30 years before the information reaches the mandatory reporter; children Y and Z might now be at risk from the same abuser.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
So child X may have been abused 30 years before the information reaches the mandatory reporter; children Y and Z might now be at risk from the same abuser.
Isn't that what my last paragraph said? It would seem to require the reporter to be aware of the existence of children Y and Z, though.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I have re-read your post and can now see that interpretation. I don't think that the reporter has actually to know the particular Y and Z, just that there are children in general who may be at risk.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I'm afraid, Evensong, that the meta-narrative "priests cannot be trusted around our children and their bishops cover up their misdeeds" has such a hold now that even the most tenuous case will get publicity and reinforce that meta-narrative.
Is it slander? Well, I would have thought that the media lawyers would have looked at the stories and decided that they fell into the category of legitimate public comment.
Is it regrettable? Yes, I think so.
Is it unfair? It certainly appears so to me from what is in the public domain. But I'm not sure that fairness is a media standard when it comes to these kinds of meta-narrative stories. They provide reinforcing material for many 'itching ears' and so are good for circulation.
So far as I can see, if you fall victim of this sort of story your options are to put out a clarifying public statement then keep your head down, or threaten to sue. These scenarios are a modern play on 'Caesar's wife must be seen to be above suspicion'. Quite hard when this kind of suspicion is so easily believed.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Evensong, to pick up on what Barnabas 62 has said, it would not do ++Roger any good at all were you to spread out into the public arena. I'm not sure where you're at with your ordination and licensing, but comment would probably do you no good if there are any further steps you need to take, and even if that's all covered public comment would not be a good career move.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
The critical issue, it seems to me, is whether there was an ongoing risk to children between 2002 & 2010 - because that is what would override the wishes of a now adult victim.
Most obvious first concern with an elderly alleged abuser would be grandchildren.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
(Press reports seems to indicate Rushton worked as a parish priest right up until his death in 2007 - which would presumably have meant he had potentially ongoing access to children.)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The critical issue, it seems to me, is whether there was an ongoing risk to children between 2002 & 2010 - because that is what would override the wishes of a now adult victim.
Most obvious first concern with an elderly alleged abuser would be grandchildren.
I agree. But I noted from the first letter that Roger Herft has got agreement from the person who informed him (at second hand) that his informant should go back to the original source of the story and speak to him about that person's duty of care. That seems proper to me. The failure to report consequential risk (if indeed there was any) lies with the original source of the story who was the one with the mandatory duty.
What are are our moral and legal responsibilities in such a situation if we have grounds to believe that the one with the mandatory duty isn't exercising it? They seem very cloudy to me.
It does look from the second letter that Roger Herft had tried and failed to get Rushton de-licenced on the basis of other evidence to hand, but he clearly could not use third hand information directly in disciplinary procedures as well.
I suppose he could have informed the authorities of his suspicions that the original source was failing in a duty of care. It might be legitimate to ask further whether he had some kind of secondary duty of care in this respect - and failed to exercise it. Also, I'm not sure what his duties were to inform upwards in the Catholic chain of responsibility, nor is it clear whether in fact he did anything like that.
From what is in the public domain, however, I think the article is unfair to him.
[ 24. July 2016, 09:46: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Evensong:
[qb]
In 2002, the abuser was not dead. So the question is whether the Archbishop should have done something differently in 2002, and whether, had he done something differently then, the abuser wouldn't have been able to abuse children between 2002 and 2010.
Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
We know how the media work - once something becomes a news story everything else is interpreted through the prism of that story.
We don't know all the facts, so are not in a position to judge.
From the limited material here, it seems that in 2002 he was told in confidence of - and seems to have believed - an allegation of abuse 15 or 20 years earlier which the victim did not want made public.
Deciding to respect the victim's wishes may have been the wrong decision, but at this point there doesn't seem to be evidence of deliberate cover-up
The voice of reason. Thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The critical issue, it seems to me, is whether there was an ongoing risk to children between 2002 & 2010 - because that is what would override the wishes of a now adult victim.
I've wondered about that. Can the wishes of the victim be overridden? I always understood they were the primary consideration in such matters but I don't know the legalities.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Evensong, to pick up on what Barnabas 62 has said, it would not do ++Roger any good at all were you to spread out into the public arena. I'm not sure where you're at with your ordination and licensing, but comment would probably do you no good if there are any further steps you need to take, and even if that's all covered public comment would not be a good career move.
My colleagues have been very silent about this publicly. After a few days I couldn't stand it. I knew everyone was thinking the worst so I spoke up about my doubts of the spin the media was presenting with selective facts and highlighted the full context of the letters and brought everyone's attention to them.
The resultant conversations have been very beneficial because most people were not aware of the letters and the selective evidence used in the original screening.
I may get into trouble. But I refuse to be ruled by fear.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
The critical issue, it seems to me, is whether there was an ongoing risk to children between 2002 & 2010 - because that is what would override the wishes of a now adult victim.
Most obvious first concern with an elderly alleged abuser would be grandchildren.
The statistics show that the majority of child abusers are within the victim's extended family. Many of these abusers have multiple victims. Multiple victims are probably a bit more common when the abuser knows the victims through an institution - church, school etc. The ones where there are many, many different victims are these institutional abusers.
Barnabas 62, ++ Roger is an Anglican cleric, not Catholic.
Evensong, you may have no concerns for your own future. Have some thought for that of ++ Roger, and let him be the judge of what he wants said in his support.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Evensong, I would have thought that current risk to children trumps confidentiality - certainly does in the UK.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Barnabas 62, ++ Roger is an Anglican cleric, not Catholic.
Sorry. I did know that; a senior moment.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Evensong, I would have thought that current risk to children trumps confidentiality - certainly does in the UK.
It does if you have first hand evidence, that's for sure. But that wasn't the situation here.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Evensong, you may have no concerns for your own future. Have some thought for that of ++ Roger, and let him be the judge of what he wants said in his support.
You are a remarkably clear headed thinker Gee D. I didn't think of this. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Feels like a case of damned if I do, damned if I don't.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Evensong, you may have no concerns for your own future. Have some thought for that of ++ Roger, and let him be the judge of what he wants said in his support.
You are a remarkably clear headed thinker Gee D. I didn't think of this.
Feels like a case of damned if I do, damned if I don't.
Thank you. Can I refer you to my first post on this thread? These are but some of the reasons behind my comments.
Barnabas the relevant statutory test is having reasonable grounds to believe that abuse has occurred. Now the source of the information here was rather remote, and another of the difficult questions is whether that gives reasonable grounds for belief.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Evensong, I would have thought that current risk to children trumps confidentiality - certainly does in the UK.
It does if you have first hand evidence, that's for sure. But that wasn't the situation here.
I was responding to Evensong's comment that she thought that the victim's wishes might be paramount.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Barnabas the relevant statutory test is having reasonable grounds to believe that abuse has occurred. Now the source of the information here was rather remote, and another of the difficult questions is whether that gives reasonable grounds for belief.
I think the ethical question, which may in the end determine the legal interpretation, is whether the hearer of hearsay has discharged their responsibilities by pointing out to the person who heard the allegation that they have a clear responsibility to inform. And where it is second hand hearsay, as in this case, to encourage the reference back through the hearsay chain.
The principle does seem to me to be that hearsay is not evidence of wrongdoing.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Hearsay, in general, is not evidence at all, but for reporting we're not looking at admissible evidence, but having reasonable grounds for thinking that abuse has occurred. That seems to me a different way to look at it. And of course the intermediary need not be someone with a statutory obligation to report.
These are all questions that have yet to be worked through in the courts. The general impression here is that churches and other institutions did not look closely at the statutory provisions, nor give much in the way of training.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
That word "reasonable" again. Case law will I guess decide what it really means in specific circumstances.
The legal guidance I got, under UK law, as part of counsellor training, was precisely what I've passed on here, and seems to be fair. To be honest, I'd be quite surprised if case law clarifications re the Australian law didn't draw distinctions about the degrees of remoteness from evidence.
[ 26. July 2016, 05:47: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Here. it will turn on what is reasonable, and the number of intermediate messengers, deliberately using a non-statutory term, and the strength which the ultimate recipient ought to have placed on each of their accuracy in passing on a message, will play their part. For example, a victim may tell her/his father; the father being a clergyman in a remote parish may go and speak to his archdeacon who in turn will tell the diocesan. I think that that message will probably be one which would give reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is at risk. On the other hand, a report of abuse directly to the diocesan by someone with a very poor record of accurate reporting might safely be ignored.
Apart from the wording of the legislation and what might be the result of any proceedings against an alleged perpetrator, the safe course from the perspective of possible further abuse, and to guard against allegations of a cover-up would be to report.
BTW, I am only speaking of NSW law, with no idea of the requirements in other States or the Territories. A matter such as this is not one for federal legislation.
[ 26. July 2016, 11:28: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
If you receive information second or third hand and you may have a legal duty of care, you will tend to pass on dubious information to authorities, rather than encourage the tale tellers to do their duty.
If I was part of the local social services I would expect an increase in assessment and investigation work without any corresponding increase in support staffing. Quite possibly there might be two or three separate references in respect of a single account.
I suppose one might argue that fewer cases of genuine abuse will slip through the net. But if authorities get overburdened by sheer report volumes this is likely to prove counter-productive, producing delays and/or report-skimming.
It will be interesting to see how effective these forms of words turn out to be in practice.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
This is the problem with having two threads open at once - I just posted my response to this on the hell thread. Probably for the best anyway, as this discussion is probably going to be pretty Hellish anyway.
Probably the accusation of a cover-up is a beat-up, but as I said in Hell, there is definitely more to be investigated here.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Probably the accusation of a cover-up is a beat-up, but as I said in Hell, there is definitely more to be investigated here.
What accusation of a cover-up? The article Evensong linked to doesn't call it that; it just says "Anglican Archbishop of Perth Roger Herft allegedly failed to report paedophile Peter Rushton to police". The ABC included the document upon which the allegation is based, checked with the diocese to see if there was any record of a report to police, and offered Herft the opportunity to reply. It doesn't seem terribly unfair to me.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
This is where it gets difficult. For a start, the laws in each State are probably different, at least in detail. In NSW, where ++ Roger Perth was + Roger Newcastle at the relevant time, the legislation is the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection Act) 1998. That Act provides (s.27) that:
(1) This section applies to:
(a) a person who, in the course of his or her professional work or other paid employment delivers health care, welfare, education, children’s services, residential services, or law enforcement, wholly or partly, to children, and
(b) a person who holds a management position in an organisation the duties of which include direct responsibility for, or direct supervision of, the provision of health care, welfare, education, children’s services, residential services, or law enforcement, wholly or partly, to children.
(2) If:
(a) a person to whom this section applies has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is at risk of significant harm, and
(b) those grounds arise during the course of or from the person’s work,
it is the duty of the person to report, as soon as practicable, to the Secretary the name, or a description, of the child and the grounds for suspecting that the child is at risk of significant harm.
I don't think there'd be much doubt that a diocesan was a person to whom the section applied. Did what ++ Roger heard give reasonable grounds to suspect? Perhaps not, but I'd say that the safer course, safer to the child and to the bishop, was to report and then leave it to those to whom the report was made to make that sort of decision. The section was amended in 2003 and again in 2009 and those amendments may give rise to further complications.
I am not aware that the father falls within the definition of those bound to report.
Wouldn't the law that applies in this case be the law as it was written at the time of reporting rather than the amendments?
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Almost certainly yes, that would be the expected position - there is the general presumption against retrospectivity particularly in criminal law. But there might be something in an argument that there is an ongoing duty to report if a child then may become at risk.
Trying to think of an example, let's say that a bishop receives a report that Fr Jim Bloggs has engaged in paedophile activity in the past. That report is a credible one. At the time the report is received, Fr Jim is in gaol for drink-driving, and thus no child is at that date likely to be at risk. (A bishop may consider that the better course would be to report immediately as Fr Jim will in due course be released, but that's another question.) 6 months down the track Fr Jim is back in the community and a child may now be at risk. Is there an obligation to then make a report? Probably yes, given that the duty to report is when on reasonable grounds you consider that there is a risk. That may be enough make the law applicable that at the time of release rather than at the time you receive the report. If that be a correct argument, then even if there had been no obligation to report at the time you received information, but subsequent legislation creates that obligation, then you must report.
This sort of question will be one of those which require judicial determination. Tied up in all this is that in a general sense the legislation is remedial in that it is designed to protect children; traditionally of course. remedial legislation is interpreted liberally. OTOH, there are all the arguments for the strict interpretation of criminal statutes.
I'm lucky that no-one in their right mind would brief me in such a matter.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
To put my rather rambling post more succinctly, the NSW legislation deals with having reasonable grounds to believe that a child is at risk, rather than the receipt of a report or some other information.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Today's reporting from the Royal Commission may shed some light on the reason that +Roger is implicated.
quote:
"It is expected that former archdeacon Colvin Ford will tell the royal commission that he perceived that Rushton was protected by the gang of three," counsel assisting the commission, Ms Sharp, said.
"Being dean Graeme Lawrence, archdeacon Bruce Hoare and diocesan registrar of the time Peter Mitchell."
Those three men were Herft's primary advisors during his tenure as Bishop of Newcastle.
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Let's wait and see how the evidence actually comes out.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
