|
Geelong Grammar acted quickly to hide student abuse
By Tessa Akerman
Geelong Grammar has been exposed cynically dealing with child sexual abuse, including a cover-up and ruse where the school manufactured concern to limit the fallout of the decades-long scandal. The child sex abuse royal commission has revealed explosive evidence detailing how the school council in 2004 had a policy of hushing up abuse and that in 2006 incumbent principal Stephen Meek was fully aware of confidentiality clauses used by the institution in deals with victims. In damning evidence, the commission released a facsimile from 1997 written by the then head of the Toorak junior campus, Phillipa Beeson, detailing the legal strategy of dealing with a victim. Ms Beeson told then Geelong headmaster Lister Hannah that the school should not admit liability to the victim but instead ingratiate itself with the victim, who was assaulted as a child in 1980 but the complaint was made in 1997. Ms Beeson states in the facsimile that she sought legal advice as requested by the headmaster regarding the complaint and was told the school should quickly meet the victim. “We should be sensitive, caring, helpful, etc and offer to do whatever we can to help but on no account should be (sic) make an admission that the claim could be true,” she wrote. “We should do it quickly and with lots of ‘concern and clucking’.” The commission also released documents stating how Mr Meek had described as a “very satisfactory financial outcome’’ for the elite school, having insurers cover the settlements for several abuse cases regarding one offender which amounted to about $350,000, including legal fees. In her facsimile to Mr Hannah, Ms Beeson went on to say that the victim did not want a “witch hunt” but wanted the school to acknowledge the assault had happened and accept responsibility — “which is exactly what we can’t do”. She also wrote that there had been staffroom gossip that the abuser “was dodgy”. Counsel assisting the commission David Lloyd said on Tuesday that the abuser, known as BIM, was sacked from Geelong in 1974 following an incident described by the school as BIM “blotting his copybook’’. The details of this have not been published but BIM was later rehired by the school as an emergency teacher. After the 1980 incident, BIM was convicted of an unknown number of offences involving children, as noted in a letter by lawyers to Geelong Grammar. The commission also released notes from school council meetings dating back to 2004. In March 2004, the council noted a case had arisen between a staff member and a number of students in the 1970s. “There is no record, no allegation and no individual has come forward on this yet but it is felt that the school should take action to resolve it as quickly and as quietly as possible,” the note states. “Whilst the statute of limitations does protect the school to a degree from financial outcomes, it does nothing to protect the school from a negative reputation outcome.” The principal’s report from a council meeting in November 2006 stated the school was close to a resolution with a former student who was abused by former boarding house assistant Philippe Trutmann in the 1980s. “The agreed sum is $120,000 and we are close to finalising the confidentiality clause,” Mr Meek advised. “He will not be able to say that he approached the school for money, nor be able to say whether or not he was successful. However, we are not able to stop him from writing a book about his experiences.” Mr Meek advised the council in 2007 that the school had settled all the civil cases arising from the actions of Trutmann and the overall amount paid would be about $350,000, including legal fees. He said the insurers who were covering the school at the time of the offences had agreed to cover the school and reimburse it for the money paid. “Overall, this has been a very satisfactory financial outcome for the school,” he said.
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.