Royal commission into child sex abuse asked to accept account of Brisbane Archbishop Phillip Aspinall

ABC News
November 29, 2016

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-29/child-sex-abuse-inquiry-urged-to-exonerate-phillip-aspinall/8075040

Phillip Aspinall was a young man in a church youth group when allegations were raised.

Daniels was jailed for molesting 10 boys between 1973 and 1993.

The child sex abuse royal commission has been urged to find current Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane, Phillip Aspinall, had not been wrong in his response to abuse allegations three decades ago.

In January the inquiry heard a suggestion that he had known about a rector's abuse of another boy when they were youth group members in the 1980s.

Hobart hearings lasting over a week examined allegations of a multi-state paedophile ring operating within the Church of England Boys Society (CEBS).

The royal commission investigated the responses of CEBS and the Dioceses of Tasmania, Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane to allegations of abuse — particularly against multiple known paedophiles involved with the youth group.

Archbishop Aspinall gave evidence on what he knew about allegations as a young man in the CEBS youth group in Tasmania, and as he rose through the clergy, holding positions in Adelaide and ultimately Brisbane.

An abuse survivor known as BYF told the hearings that in the 1980s he tried to disclose abuse at the hands of rector Garth Hawkins to the now-Archbishop.

In closing submissions published today, Counsel Assisting Naomi Sharp said it was not open to find Archbishop Aspinall picked up the clues or understood an allegation was being reported to him.

BYF also told the hearings Phillip Aspinall had been aware of a predatory invitation to him from Hawkins.

"It is open to find that BYF's recollection is true and correct," she wrote in closing submissions.

"However, on the evidence it is not open to find that Archbishop Aspinall was aware at the time that Mr Hawkins was making sexual advances towards BYF.

"With the benefit of hindsight, it may have been prudent to take the concerns of his friend more seriously, but due account should be made for the fact Archbishop Aspinall was at that time a young man, with no experience in handling sex abuse allegations."

A closing submission from the lawyers for Archbishop Aspinall wrote he was not in a position of authority until much later, and he took active steps to redress abuse in the church when he was in a position of significant authority.

"Any adverse finding against Archbishop Aspinall should only be made on the clearest and most cogent of evidence and where no other, more favourable, inference is open," the submission said.

Lawyers also submitted that it was unfair and inappropriate to make a finding that Archbishop Aspinall had even been aware of the incident BYF said he witnessed, given his evidence was that he did not recollect it.

Ms Sharp was critical of another high-profile clergy to front the hearings, Phillip Newell, who was Bishop of the Diocese of Tasmania from 1982 until his retirement in 2000.

In June 1987, Bishop Newell was made aware of abuse allegations from three boys against then-priest Louis Daniels, but did not encourage them to go to police.

He "verbally rebuked" Daniels and sought an assurance that the conduct had not been repeated.

"In view of the fact that Bishop Newell was aware that three separate boys had complained, it is difficult to understand how he could have been assured that the conduct would not be repeated," Ms Sharp wrote in her submission.

Two years later Bishop Newell promoted Daniels to Archdeacon of Burnie, a leadership position within the diocese.

Allegations against Daniels resurfaced when one of the survivors brought legal action against him in 1994.

Bishop Newell told another bishop there was not sufficient evidence to proceed to a Diocesan Tribunal, which Ms Sharp called an unreasonable position.

Bishop Newell's action was to write a letter, referred in church terms as of solemn admonition, to Daniels, who was later jailed over child sex crimes.

Ms Sharp said it was an inappropriate way for Bishop Newell to respond.

"The letter failed to disclose that multiple complainants had made allegations and had the effect of covering up the allegations," her submission said.

"Bishop Newell's approach had no regard for the need to protect children from further sexual abuse from Mr Daniels."

The commission also heard evidence from a former girlfriend of one of Bishop Newell's sons, that Bishop Newell had once joked about CEBS members with "sore bottoms" at a family dinner.

Ms Sharp's closing submission ruled that while the former girlfriend's evidence had a "ring of truth", it could not be found that the words were heard or understood by the members of the Newell family.