ROYAL COMMISSION INTO INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES TO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASE STUDY 34: BRISBANE GRAMMAR SCHOOL & ST. PAUL S SCHOOL

Transcription

1 SUBM ROYAL COMMISSION INTO INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES TO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASE STUDY 34: BRISBANE GRAMMAR SCHOOL & ST. PAUL S SCHOOL SUBMISSIONS OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND 1) The State of Queensland makes the following submissions in response to the submissions of Counsel Assisting in relation to the Royal Commission s case study 34 hearing. 1 2) These submissions have been prepared on the basis that the Commission does not propose to make any findings concerning the State of Queensland beyond those identified as available findings in the submissions of Counsel Assisting. If the Commission does intend to go beyond the submissions of Counsel Assisting, the State of Queensland requests the opportunity to addresses such further findings (or comments) before they are made and published. 3) The Commission conducted a public hearing in relation to Case Study 34 over 11 days between 3 and 30 November 2015 under the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth). The State of Queensland was granted leave to appear, and did so on each day of the public hearing. 4) The scope and purpose of the public hearing was to inquire into: The experience of former students of Brisbane Grammar School in Spring Hill, Queensland. 1 SUBM , referred to below as CAS. SUBMISSIONS OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND G R Cooper Crown Solicitor 50 Ann Street Brisbane Qld 4000 Per: Ben Cramer T (07) F (07) E ben.cramer@crownlaw.qld.gov.au CRS/PRE052/1993/GRC

2 SUBM The experience of former students at St Paul s School in Bald Hills, Queensland. The response of the Board of Trustees, Headmasters and other members of staff of Brisbane Grammar School to complaints about the behaviour of Kevin Lynch, a former school counsellor at Brisbane Grammar School. The responses of the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane Diocese, the School Council, Headmasters and other members of staff of St Paul s School to concerns raised, or complaints made, about the behaviour of Kevin Lynch and Gregory Knight, former members of staff at St Paul s School. The past and current systems, practices, policies and procedures in place at Brisbane Grammar School and St Paul s School in relation to raising and responding to concerns and complaints about child sexual abuse. The circumstances relating to Gregory Knight s employment and registration as a teacher in Queensland. Any related matters. 5) It is noted that this case study primarily examines the way in which Brisbane Grammar School, Spring Hill (Brisbane Grammar) and St Paul s School, Bald Hills (St Paul s) in Queensland responded to allegations of child sexual abuse of former students. 2 6) The State of Queensland does not make any submissions as to the matters set out in the Parts 1 to 11 of the submissions of Counsel Assisting. 7) Available findings AF13, AF14, AF34, and AF35, proposed by Counsel Assisting, each involve to varying degrees an acknowledgement that the relevant

3 SUBM teacher registration authorities in Queensland were not notified as they should have been about allegations of child sexual abuse concerning Kevin Lynch or Gregory Knight. 3 8) Those acknowledgements are consistent with and supported by the evidence before the Commission. 4 9) There does not appear to be any suggestion or criticism, much less an available finding, that the Queensland teacher registration authorities improperly failed to take any action with respect to either Lynch or Knight, or that they failed to notify any relevant authorities in the Northern Territory about allegations of child sexual abuse concerning Knight, since they were never informed of any such allegations. 10) Of the 48 available findings proposed by Counsel Assisting, AF48 appears to be the only available finding which concerns the State of Queensland. It provides: AF48 The regulations governing the circumstances in which schools are required to notify the teacher registration authorities of complaints of child sexual abuse do not appear to be consistent between the States and Territories in Australia. There does not appear to be a consistent approach among the States and Territories towards the regulations governing in what circumstances schools must notify the relevant teacher registration authority in their State or Territory of a complaint of child sexual abuse and what information the teacher registration authorities provide to each other when a notification of a complaint of child sexual abuse is received. 2 Submissions of Counsel Assisting the Royal Commission ( CAS ) at [2]. 3 See also CAS at [210], [285], [331] and [335]. 4 see Transcript 05/11/2015 (C117) C , C , C , C ; 06/11/2015 (C118) C ; 09/11/2015 (C119) C ; 10/11/2015 (C120) C , C , C , C , C , C , C , C , C , C , C , C , C , C , C , C , C ; 12/11/2015 (C122) C , C , C , C ; 13/11/2015 (C123) C , C , C , C

4 SUBM ) To some extent, the proposition that the regulations governing the notification of teacher registration authorities of complaints of child sexual do not appear to be consistent between the States and Territories in Australia, involves a finding of law rather than a finding fact to be ascertained from the evidence before the Royal Commission in this case study. To that extent, Counsel Assisting has not set out the relevant regulations as they exist or existed in each State and Territory at the relevant time. The proposition may well be correct as a matter of law but the basis for it has not been set out in the submissions of Counsel Assisting. 12) Further, to the extent the proposed available finding arises from the evidence adduced, there does not appear to be any evidence before the Royal Commission, at least in this case study, to support such a finding. 13) There was evidence before the Royal Commission regarding the obligations in Queensland to notify the teacher registration authorities of allegations of child sexual abuse involving teachers: see DOC , 5 DOC , 6 DOC , 7 STAT _R, 8 STAT , 9 ASQ , 10 ASQ , 11 ASQ , 12 ASQ , 13 ASQ , 14 ASQ , 15 STAT , 16 STAT , 17 and STAT Exhibit , BGS Tender Bundle, at Tab Exhibit , BGS Tender Bundle, at Tab Exhibit , BGS Tender Bundle, at Tab Exhibit , pages Exhibit , pages Exhibit , St Paul s Tender Bundle, at Tab Exhibit , St Paul s Tender Bundle, at Tab Exhibit , St Paul s Tender Bundle, at Tab Exhibit , St Paul s Tender Bundle, at Tab Exhibit , Attachments at Tab Exhibit , Attachments at Tab Exhibit , Attachment Exhibit , Attachment Exhibit , Attachment See also DOC , DOC , DOC , DOC , ASQ , ASQ , which were not tendered in evidence in this case study.

5 SUBM ) The statement of John Ryan, 20 of the Queensland College of Teachers, does not address the differences or inconsistencies, if any such differences exist, between the approaches among the various States and Territories towards such regulations. It does address: a) the mutual recognition of teacher registration; 21 b) the current practice of the QCT upon receiving notification about disciplinary action against teachers from various interstate registration authorities; 22 c) the current practice of the QCT regarding notification of QCAT disciplinary orders to interstate registration authorities ) None of the witnesses who gave oral evidence in the public hearing gave any evidence about the differences or inconsistencies between the approaches of the States and Territories towards such regulations, and Counsel Assisting did not put any such issue to any witness for comment. Mr Ryan was not required for cross-examination upon his statement or supplementary statement ) Queensland and South Australia were the only States that sought and were granted leave to appear before the Royal Commission in this case study. However, AF48 appears to relate to all Australian States and Territories. 17) Further, AF48 arguably goes beyond the identified scope and purpose of this case study, which was to inquire into, relevantly, the circumstances relating to Gregory Knight s employment and registration as a teacher in Queensland. 20 Exhibit (STAT ) 21 Exhibit at paragraph [144]-[155]. 22 Exhibit at paragraph [156]-[159]. 23 Exhibit at paragraph [160]-[161]. 24 Exhibit (STAT )

6 SUBM ) It is accepted that the scope and purpose of this case study included any related matters and on that basis, it was open to the Royal Commission to have explored the regulations governing the circumstances in which schools are required to notify the teacher registration authorities of complaints of child sexual abuse. However, an issue of that breadth did not emerge from the evidence received by the Royal Commission in this case study and was not considered in a comprehensive way in the submissions of Counsel Assisting. 19) On that basis, the State of Queensland does not resist AF48 in principle but submits that it may be preferable for the issue identified in AF48 to be the subject of more detailed and thorough consideration by the Royal Commission before any such finding is made. Such a consideration might include: a) The possibilities and practicalities of developing a nationally consistent approach as to when schools, principals, and teachers should notify the local teacher registration authority of a complaint of child sexual abuse; and b) The extent to which such a complaint and/or the details of that complaint should be shared with the teacher registration authorities of other States and Territories either before or after the complaint is investigated and/or substantiated. B I McMillan Counsel for the State of Queensland