AUSTRALIA
lewisblayse.net
One of the submissions to the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse which is worthy of close study is that by John and Nicola Ellis, both of whom are lawyers who have represented victims. John Ellis is himself a victim. A past court action against the Catholic Church by Mr. Ellis resulted in the finding that the Catholic Church could not be sued, because it, technically, does not exist (see previous postings on “Ellis Defence”).
The submission covered here is one on the general principles on which the “Towards Healing” process (see previous postings) errs. Mr. Ellis has, apparently, also made a personal submission on his own experiences with the Catholic Church, which is private. There exists considerable anticipation of Mr. Ellis’ evidence to the hearings on the “Towards Healing” process at the Royal Commission, beginning on 9th December.
As stated previously, this author is not a lawyer (and not even a “bush lawyer”) so there will undoubtedly be technical errors. Apologies are given to the Ellis’ in advance, for any misinterpretations of their submission. Despite these disadvantages, it is important to give a general idea of what they feel about the “Towards Healing” process, since they are the acknowledged experts on it.
The focus of this posting will therefore be the 25 main points they make, with little interpretation of them, in terms of consequences and necessary regulatory changes required to address the problems they raise. For those who have the time, energy and expertise to do so, a look at their submission, available on the Commission’s web-site, is encouraged.
1. Complainants have to go to church which abused them. The church won’t allow independent contact person e.g. counselor, on the basis that this is too expensive for the church. It does not allow for victims’ lawyers. As indicated in yesterday’s posting, the church’s submission appears to be very anti-lawyer in terms of victim support persons. As a result, the primary concern of victims is that they won’t be believed. The situation creates a power imbalance (see previous postings on this issue in general). For example, the church representative is referred to as the “church authority”. Sometimes, delays in the process can be used to create a legal limitations problem – e.g. normally, one has a certain amount of time after becoming aware of the effects of abuse on oneself, so if the church delays the process longer than this time (the victims is assumed to be aware of the effects of the abuse when he or she first approaches the church), the victim is disadvantaged in the legal process.
2. Victims are discouraged, or filtered out, at the first contact point with the Professional Standards Office, which runs the process. Victims are sometimes told to “go away and think about it [the complaint]” which is seen as a rebuff.
Note: This is an Abuse Tracker excerpt. Click the title to view the full text of the original article. If the original article is no longer available, see our News Archive.