Cardinal George Pell's private secretary has told the royal commission into child sexual abuse the Catholic Church's vigorous cross-examination of a victim during litigation was wrong.
Australia's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse is examining allegations made by altar boy John Ellis, who was abused by Father Aidan Duggan in Sydney between 1974 and 1979.
Mr Ellis failed in his attempt to sue the Catholic Church in 2007, with the Supreme Court ruling the church was not an entity that could be sued.
Dr Michael Casey, who is Cardinal Pell's private secretary, was the main contact point for lawyers defending the church against the compensation claim from Mr Ellis.
Though a church-appointed assessor concluded Mr Ellis had most likely been abused, when the case came to trial, the church decided to fight him on that.
In email exchanges with lawyers, Dr Casey said they should "knock him (Mr Ellis) out". Cardinal Pell now describes that as legal abuse.
Dr Casey on Thursday faced hours of intense questioning about the church's handling of the claim.
"I would have relied on the legal advice of our legal advisers," he said.
"And my understanding, I certainly understood I was acting honestly and fairly and the issue of not admitting the abuse in Mr Ellis's case, I always understood it more as a matter of non-admission."
He said it was Cardinal Pell, who was Sydney Archbishop at the time, who directed the legal team to be aggressive.
But under intense questioning from Justice Peter McClellan, Dr Casey admitted the church mishandled the case.
"As a model litigant, it was wrong to do that, wasn't it?" Justice McClellan asked.
Dr Casey replied: "Yes, it was."
In recent weeks, Cardinal Pell and the broader church leadership have publicly shifted position on whether victims of abuse should be able to sue the Catholic Church in Australia.
Dr Casey was quizzed on when that shift occurred.
"Your honour, I can't say with precision, but expressed in those terms I think it was in recent times," he said.
"It may have been perhaps in the context of preparing for the Victorian parliamentary inquiry in discussing the Ellis case; in preparation for that."
So there was never any real guilt or conviction of wrong-doing, just trying to find an expedient way to get through the inquiry. I think that says something about their relationship (or lack thereof) with Jesus Christ.
Earlier on Thursday, a member of the legal team advising the church also appeared at the inquiry but denied any unethical conduct during the litigation.
Justice McClellan questioned John Dalzell's ethics after the lawyer admitted to doubting the credibility of the victim in court even though he knew he was telling the truth.
Justice McClellan asked: "Could you explain how, ethically, you could sit there and do that?"
Mr Dalzell replied: "Your honour, I don't think it was ever put to Mr Ellis that he was lying about the abuse."
Mr Dalzell was also criticised for failing to recall many details of the case.
On Monday, Cardinal Pell is expected to front this hearing and answer questions about his involvement in this litigation process.
After close to two weeks of conflicting evidence about exactly what the cardinal knew, his testimony is keenly anticipated.
Australia's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse is examining allegations made by altar boy John Ellis, who was abused by Father Aidan Duggan in Sydney between 1974 and 1979.
Mr Ellis failed in his attempt to sue the Catholic Church in 2007, with the Supreme Court ruling the church was not an entity that could be sued.
Dr Michael Casey, who is Cardinal Pell's private secretary, was the main contact point for lawyers defending the church against the compensation claim from Mr Ellis.
Though a church-appointed assessor concluded Mr Ellis had most likely been abused, when the case came to trial, the church decided to fight him on that.
In email exchanges with lawyers, Dr Casey said they should "knock him (Mr Ellis) out". Cardinal Pell now describes that as legal abuse.
Dr Casey on Thursday faced hours of intense questioning about the church's handling of the claim.
"I would have relied on the legal advice of our legal advisers," he said.
"And my understanding, I certainly understood I was acting honestly and fairly and the issue of not admitting the abuse in Mr Ellis's case, I always understood it more as a matter of non-admission."
He said it was Cardinal Pell, who was Sydney Archbishop at the time, who directed the legal team to be aggressive.
But under intense questioning from Justice Peter McClellan, Dr Casey admitted the church mishandled the case.
 |
| John Ellis |
 |
| Cardinal Pell |
Dr Casey replied: "Yes, it was."
In recent weeks, Cardinal Pell and the broader church leadership have publicly shifted position on whether victims of abuse should be able to sue the Catholic Church in Australia.
Dr Casey was quizzed on when that shift occurred.
"Your honour, I can't say with precision, but expressed in those terms I think it was in recent times," he said.
"It may have been perhaps in the context of preparing for the Victorian parliamentary inquiry in discussing the Ellis case; in preparation for that."
So there was never any real guilt or conviction of wrong-doing, just trying to find an expedient way to get through the inquiry. I think that says something about their relationship (or lack thereof) with Jesus Christ.
Earlier on Thursday, a member of the legal team advising the church also appeared at the inquiry but denied any unethical conduct during the litigation.
Justice McClellan questioned John Dalzell's ethics after the lawyer admitted to doubting the credibility of the victim in court even though he knew he was telling the truth.
Justice McClellan asked: "Could you explain how, ethically, you could sit there and do that?"
Mr Dalzell replied: "Your honour, I don't think it was ever put to Mr Ellis that he was lying about the abuse."
Mr Dalzell was also criticised for failing to recall many details of the case.
On Monday, Cardinal Pell is expected to front this hearing and answer questions about his involvement in this litigation process.
After close to two weeks of conflicting evidence about exactly what the cardinal knew, his testimony is keenly anticipated.
No comments:
Post a Comment