Newcastle Anglicans Examined at Royal Commission

By Ian Kirkwood
Newcastle Herald
November 16, 2016

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4296388/robert-caddies-examined-at-royal-commission-into-newcastles-anglican-diocese/

THE Royal Commission has reopened in Sydney with a combative cross-examination of Newcastle solicitor and prominent lay Anglican figure Robert Caddies over letters that he and others signed complaining about the Bishop of Newcastle, Greg Thompson.

One letter was sent to the Royal Commission and others were sent to senior Anglican figures known as the Metropolitan and the Primate.

In the letter to the commission, Mr Caddies had complained that Bishop Thompson had potentially put youth in the church at risk by not reporting an allegation that he had been groomed and sexually abused by Bishop Ian Shevill and another senior priest of the diocese when he was 19 years old.

Under intense questioning from the commission chairman, Peter McClellan, and from counsel assisting, Naomi Sharp, Mr Caddies denied he was trying to “undermine” the bishop, although he agreed he was “drawing attention to” matters he believed were impairing Bishop Thompson’s performance as bishop.

In subsequent evidence Mr Caddies was also taken to letters he had signed or written that complained about Bishop Thompson’s predecessor, Bishop Brian Farran, who succeeded Bishop Roger Herft and who was in Newcastle from 2005 to 20012.

Wednesday’s hearings are a resumption of the Royal Commission’s case study number 42, which ran in Newcastle during August.

During questioning in the first, morning, session on Wednesday, Mr Caddies said that he, too, had been involved in a sexual incident as a 19-year-old by a medical doctor.

Mr Caddies made the admission after Ms Sharp asked him if he had ever accused other 19-year-olds of withholding evidence they had been sexually abused.

“I’ll be honest with you. Something not as bad as this happened to me at this age. So I understand where Bishop Thompson is coming from. I had something like that happen with a medical doctor who was training to be a specialist, so I understand his concerns. I certainly reported the comment to friends of my age but I believed at the time that no-one would believe me as a 19-year-old going against a medical person in a post-graduate fellowship, so I do understand,” Mr Caddies said.

Asked by Ms Sharp why he was holding Bishop Thompson to a different standard to himself, he said there was a difference because his elevation through the church would have “undoubtedly” made him aware of such abuse and the need to stop it.

Mr Caddies repeatedly defended the letters that were written about Bishop Thompson and Bishop Farran, saying there was a “great unhappiness” in the Anglican Diocese of Newcastle after the defrocking of the Dean of Newcastle, Graeme Lawrence.

At one point, as Mr Caddies would not agree with either Ms Sharp or Mr McClellan that he had been pushing to have Bishop Thompson removed, Ms Sharp said: “Are you making this up as you go along?”

Mr Caddies denied this, saying he had been a solicitor for 45 years and took his responsibilities very seriously.

He also denied he had complained about Bishop Farran speaking publicly about the problems inside the diocese, as they related to the sexual misconduct of clergy including the late Peter Rushton, who was exposed after his death as a serial paedophile.

Mr Caddies said it wasn’t the matters being aired that worried him and others at the cathedral, but the way that they were being aired. He believed there were other ways of doing it than going on to ABC radio or issuing media releases to various newspapers.

After the early section on the letters against Bishop Thompson and Bishop Farran, Mr Caddies was questioned about his involvement on a diocesan committee, the Committee to Consider Allegations of Sexual Misconduct, Harassment and Abuse, known as CASM.

Mr Caddies said he believed CASM was a committee aimed at settling, by reconciliation, cases of sexual harrassment or similar conduct “between adults”, rather than children, believing that cases involving priests abusing children should have been – and were – handled by the bishop of the day.

He was also taken to the “yellow envelopes” containing allegations of abuse that were examined at length during the August hearings.

Here, Ms Sharp said 26 of the 32 cases contained in the yellow envelopes were child abuse cases. Asked if he thought this was a high number, Mr Caddies said yes, and said he did not know there were as many as that and questioned whether they should have been “yellow envelope matters at all”.

Mr Caddies was then asked about another matter examined back in August, the discovery of a cache of homosexual pornography owned by subsequently disgraced cleric Peter Rushton.

The commission has heard allegations that much of this cache – possibly including an amount of child pornography – was destroyed, and Mr Caddies was involved in correspondence between the diocese and solicitors for the removalists who discovered the material, owned by Hunter firm Farragher’s.

Asked whether Rushton “might not have been candid” when asked about the material, Mr Caddies said "we were within 24 to 48 hours of reporting him to the police” before another minister investigating the situation, Colvin Ford, came back and told them it was not child pornography.

On Bishop Farran’s 2012 defrocking of Graeme Lawrence, Mr Caddies said he believed Mr Lawrence had been ill-advised not to take part in the proceedings but he was not involved in providing Mr Lawrence with legal advice.

He said that he personally contributed $1500 to Mr Lawrence’s legal costs, which he said ran into the hundreds of thousands of dollars and probably exhausted the inheritance that Mr Lawrence had received after the death of his parents.

Mr Caddies confirmed to Mr McClellan that he was on the diocese’s audit committee at the time that he was also contributing to Mr Lawrence’s court action challenging the defrocking, but he did not believe it was a conflict of interest because he had not thought that Mr Lawrence would win his case.

He did not.

Asked whether he thought Mr Lawrence had been unfairly treated, he said Mr Lawrence had “been our priest for 24 years” and had provided “wonderful pastoral care” that he and his family would never forget.

The hearing continues.