Royal Commission Hears of Failure to Prosecute Paedophile Steven Larkins
By Helen Davidson
Testimony given by Newcastle police at the royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse on Tuesday revealed an excessively long and disorganised investigation which failed to lead to the prosecution of paedophile Steven Larkins, despite it being recommended by the director of public prosecutions (DPP). Police officers Nigel Turney and Pamela Amloh gave evidence on their 1998 inquiries into the allegations of abuse of “witness AC” by Larkins before the commission on Tuesday afternoon. Senior constable Turney told the hearing that the investigation was transferred from the sex crime squad to Newcastle police and aspects of the investigation assigned to him. It was Turney's first child sexual assault case, and one of the first times he had used his training from two years earlier. The hearing also heard that despite the case coming with a recommended follow-up timeframe of 28 days, there were extensive delays and the victim himself was not interviewed for almost six months. "I would probably expect all child matters to be dealt with as fast as they could now. Back then, I don't think I could really. Clearly it wasn't done in an adequate timeframe back then," said Turney. It also took police three months to send the case file to the DPP, which Turney said he "wouldn't think it would be acceptable, but it was never questioned". Turney cited a lack of physical evidence as reason for why they did not proceed immediately with prosecution, and said that Larkins admitted under questioning that he had been in his bedroom with the child, but denied allegations of abuse. Turney also conceded that he did not inquire whether Larkins had been suspended from the scouts when interviewing the then regional commissioner, Allan Currie. The commission was told that an examination of the police logging system used for the investigation also revealed missing entries, entries not made for weeks after actions taken, and entirely incorrect information entered as fact. According to the senior counsel assisting the commission, Gail Furness, the misinformation and delay was likely to have led to Larkins's victim, AC, deciding not to go ahead with his complaint of sexual abuse. According to the testimony at the commission, a July 1998 entry to the police log – about 12 months after AC’s mother, AB, first went to the police – incorrectly stated that the DPP had advised not to proceed with prosecution. According to the entry, the information was relayed to Turney by senior constable Pamela Amloh, domestic violence liaison officer at the time of the investigation. However, the commission was told that there was no written advice presented as was usual practice from the DPP. Turney could not recall what specific inquiries he had made as to why there was no written advice from the DPP. "I can't say what I was doing or what I did," said Turney, who accepted that there was no record that he had made any inquiry. Amloh told the hearing that she had "no memory whatsoever" about the entry. She said she had not seen the entry until the royal commission inquiry began, and she accepted that the entry indicated that she had given Turney the advice. "I have to,” she said. “I don't recall. He's put it there." The commission was told that in August 1998 the investigation received a letter from the solicitor of public prosecutions recommending that a charge be referred, in direct contrast with the information recorded in the log. Turney conceded that there was no record that he updated AB and AC on the new information and Turney could not recall if this occurred. He also could not recall discussing the letter with Amloh. Even if he had, "I don't think it would have been an extensive conversation," he said. Amloh told the hearing that when interviewing Larkins in regards to an AVO, Larkins told her that he was a regional leader and not a group leader. She took this to mean that he was not in as much contact with children and was rarely in Stockton. Amloh told the hearing that her involvement in the case ended after an interim AVO against Larkins was withdrawn – likely with the support of AB – due to undertakings made by Larkins. Amloh also told the hearing that if she had been told by AB that the withdrawal was due to undertakings offered she would have recommended against it, because “you can’t enforce [undertakings]”. Tuesday morning heard further evidence from current and former high-level Scouts NSW employees, who said there was little confidence in reporting abuse allegations to the Department of Community Services (Docs) and that Larkins was asked to resign quietly in 2003 to avoid bad publicity for the scouts. It was also revealed that “sizable” payments were made to victims through scouts’ insurance. The commission continues.
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.