BishopAccountability.org

Police case against Catholic Archbishop Philip Wilson ‘foredoomed to fail’, court told

By Neil Keene
Advertiser
December 8, 2015

http://tinyurl.com/hv8jagw

Catholic Archbishop Philip Wilson.

Ian Temby, QC, who is representing Archbishop Philip Wilson, pictured outside the Newcastle Local Court.

THE “extraordinary” police case against Adelaide Archbishop Philip Wilson is both unprecedented and “foredoomed to fail”, a court heard this morning.

An application to grant a permanent stay on proceedings against Wilson got under way in the Newcastle Local Court in NSW on Tuesday, with Wilson’s barrister, Ian Temby QC, arguing there were no grounds for the case to proceed to trial.

Wilson is the highest ranking member of the Catholic Church to be charged with concealing child sex offences.

Police allege a teenage victim of paedophile priest Jim Fletcher told Wilson in 1976 about his abuse - five years after the incident took place in Newcastle.

Fletcher was convicted of child sex offences in 2004 and died in jail in 2006.

Police charged Wilson in March this year, alleging that when aged 25 and a newly ordained priest in 1976, he concealed the serious indictable offence of another person.

In his opening address to the court on Tuesday, Mr Temby said the prosecution case was bound to fail, “or alternatively, continuation of the prosecution will constitute an abuse of the court’s process”.

He added that the case was unprecedented in Australian legal history in that Wilson was not a witness to the offence, nor was he complicit in it.

“The delay in this case is also unprecedented,” Mr Temby said.

“The period between the predicated offence and hearing, if the matter proceeds, will be about 45 years.”

“It is approaching 40 years since the alleged conversation between (Fletcher’s victim) and the applicant (Wilson).”

Mr Temby pointed out that the victim had waited until 2013 to tell police about his alleged conversation with Wilson 37 years prior.

He submitted that the entire case was legally invalid, the proceedings were foredoomed to fail and continuation of the case was an abuse of the court’s proceedings.

“It is manifestly clear that an element of the offence cannot be proven,” he said.

“We say firstly that the prosecution cannot prove that the applicant did subjectively know or believe as opposed to suspect, that Fletcher had actually committed a crime.”

“Secondly, and separately, that the prosecution cannot establish the absence of a reasonable excuse, and thirdly it cannot establish that Fletcher committed a serious indictable offence.”

Mr Temby cited previous legal cases to make the point that “mere suspicion of a crime is not enough”.

“What the Crown must prove is something more than mere suspicion,” he said.

The hearing continues.




.


Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.