Disgraced Teacher Gerard Byrnes Told His Boss He Never Had Inappropriate Contact with Children – They Approached Him!
By Michael Madigan
IN an attempt to defend himself against allegations of sexual abuse, disgraced teacher Gerard Byrnes wrote to his principal declaring he never had inappropriate contact with children, and in fact many approached him. The man who sexually assaulted 13 Toowoomba schoolgirls insisted he had always “upheld appropriate professional standards”. A 2?-page letter penned by Byrnes reveals an insight into how he tried to methodically dodge eight separate allegations of inappropriate behaviour. Tabled at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, sitting in Brisbane yesterday, the letter shows how Byrnes insisted his interactions with the girls were “friendly and innocuous”. School principal Terence Hayes wrote to Byrnes soon after the first allegations were made, the royal commission heard. Byrnes replied with a lengthy missive defending himself against allegations including handing out lollies, kissing a girl on the cheek and inappropriate touching. In it, he repeatedly begins his denials with the phrase: “I don’t recall.” “I don’t recall kissing any girl on the cheek,” he wrote. And again: “I don’t recall putting my hand through the buttoned part of the sports uniform shirt.” Later: “I don’t recall placing my hand on the upper leg of this or any girl.” Byrnes wrote that he “distributed lollies not only to girls but to all the boys and girls ... as a reward system mainly at the end of the week”. Boys and girls did approach him and make physical contact, he wrote. “I now realise in hindsight I shouldn’t have allowed this to happen,” he said. “However I assure you that my intentions were of a friendly and innocuous nature only and there was absolutely no inappropriate intention behind this.’’ The royal commission heard from Christopher Fry, senior education officer of the Catholic Education Office at the Toowoomba Diocese, who admitted fault for not taking allegations against Byrnes seriously. Mr Fry received the complaint from Mr Hayes, but ignored the allegation that Byrnes had put his hand up girls’ skirts, dismissing it as gossip. Counsel Assisting, Andrew Naylor, SC, told the royal commission the absence of that “gossip’’ gave Byrnes the benefit of the doubt. “The effect, was it not, of that information being omitted from the letter was to give the benefit of the doubt to the alleged perpetrator Mr Byrnes?’’ he said. “That was the effect of it, yes,’’ Mr Fry said. He told the royal commission: “In hindsight I failed. I deeply regret the harm, the suffering that students and their parents suffered and my heart goes out to them. I regret that my performance was found wanting.’’ Jane Needham, SC, for the Catholic Church, subjected both Mr Fry and Mr Hayes to torrid cross-examination. Mr Fry said an excessive workload at the CEO may have been behind his laxness in confronting the issue.
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.