The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse has examined a case study of child abuse at a school in 2007 and found multiple failures of duty of care, policy and regulation. The case study, which can be found in full here, was conducted on a school in Toowoomba. The events occurred in 2007 at the Catholic primary school which cannot be named for legal reasons. We will refer to the primary school simply as 'the School'. In 2010, Gerard Byrnes was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment after pleading guilty to 44 offences relating to the sexual abuse of 13 girls. The offences were serious.
Throughout this article, we have used pseudonyms.
The Royal Commission asked why and how an institution, with trained and experienced staff, and with a raft of procedures, operating in a legal environment with mandatory reporting, could employ and re-employ a teacher who was the subject of child abuse allegations.
In 2007, Mr Byrnes was one of two Student Protection Contacts appointed at the School. In Queensland, Student Protection Contacts are required to be appointed under non-government school registration guidelines. He was appointed to teach a year 4 class.
In September 2007, the father of a student rang the Principal, Mr Patrick, and said that his daughter had said that Mr Byrnes put his hand inside her school shirt in a way that made her feel uncomfortable. Mr Patrick, at this point, formed an opinion that he was dealing with a serious allegation of sexual abuse against a child.
The Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 (Qld) requires that a staff member who reasonably suspects that a student has been sexually abused must immediately make a written report to the Police. Mr Patrick did not make a police report.
On the same day, Mr Patrick spoke with the other Student Protection Contact, Ms Quinn. Ms Quinn made remarks to the effect that Mr Byrnes needed to stop giving out lollies to the children. Mr Patrick recognised this as potential grooming behaviour.
In accordance with the procedure of the school, he rang the Catholic Education Office, Diocese of Toowoomba (TCEO) to speak with a Senior Education Officer. He was put through to Mr Chaucer. In the course of the conversation it was alleged that a distinction was drawn between a 'formal' and an 'informal' complaint, and it was discussed that it was the responsibility of the person making a child protection complaint to do so in writing. In any case, the distinction between a 'formal' complaint and an 'informal' complaint was illusory - there was no such distinction in the child protection kit provided to the School.
Mr Patrick met with Mr Byrnes to outline the nature of the allegation. A further meeting was had where the student who made the complaint was asked to demonstrate the conduct. Mr Patrick justified this meeting by saying that it was to 'authenticate' what the student was saying. In talking with the child's father, a distinction was again drawn between a 'formal' and 'informal' complaint. Importantly, the distinction meant that an 'informal' complaint would be dealt with internally, without a report being made to the Department of Child Safety, or Police. The child's father agreed to the 'informal' option as he did not have the impression that his daughter had been 'molested'.
The Royal Commission would ultimately go on to make adverse findings about Mr Patrick. This included that he:
Following these events, Mr Patrick had a conversation with Mr Chaucer, the Senior Education Officer in the Toowoomba Catholic Education Office. According to a statement tendered by Mr Chaucer, Mr Patrick provided him with information about inappropriate behaviour by Mr Byrnes, but Mr Chaucer was not told of the inappropriate touching that the student had described.
Despite this, Mr Chaucer and a colleague at the TCEO, Mr Young, then formed the view that the behaviour of Mr Byrnes breached professional teaching standards and advised Mr Patrick to send a disciplinary letter to Mr Byrnes.
Around the time of the first events, the Assistant Principal at the school, Ms Austen, had received a report from a parent that her daughter had heard an allegation about Mr Byrnes. Ms Austen did not regard this as a disclosure of sexual abuse, but made notes about the conversation. Ms Austen spoke to the other Student Protection Contact and then spoke with Mr Chaucer. Mr Chaucer did not recall this conversation.
In evidence, Mr Patrick accepted that Ms Austen told him the substance of the serious allegations - that Mr Brynes had engaged in further inappropriate conduct with a student involving touching them under their skirts. Ms Austen did not make a child protection report.
A series of draft letters were then exchanged between Mr Patrick, Mr Chaucer and Mr Young, another official at the TCEO. The exchange is detailed in the report, but the relevant point is that the correspondence revealed that Mr Patrick did not inform Mr Chaucer or others at the TCEO of the most serious disclosure - the skirt allegation. Other allegations contained in the final letter included that Mr Byrnes:
Mr Byrnes replied to this letter, accepting some allegations but otherwise said he did not recall what had happened.
Following a complaint by a parent about Mr Byrnes's 'bullying', 'intimidatory', 'humiliating' and 'threatening' behaviour towards her daughter, Mr Byrnes resigned. However, he was re-engaged as a relief teacher. He performed these duties on at least 15 separate days.
In November 2008, Mr Byrnes was arrested following a complaint by a parent to police that Mr Byrnes had put his hands down her daughter's pants and touched her chest.
In interviews Mr Byrnes admitted the offences against six girls and ultimately pleaded guilty to offences against 13 girls. In February 2013 the Diocese which oversaw the school, established a Child Abuse Response Team 'to develop a pastoral and professional response' to the incident, and retained a law firm to investigate.
Following these events, Mr Patrick was charged with failing to comply with mandatory reporting obligations under s 366(4) of the Education (General Provision) Act 2006 (Qld). He was ultimately found not guilty on the basis that he reported the allegations to the TCEO in accordance with the Act (a gap in the law that would later be closed by a 2011 amendment). Despite this, he agreed at the time that he suspected sexual abuse had occurred.
Upon obtaining legal advice, the employment of Mr Patrick, Mr Chaucer and Mr Young was terminated.
The head of the Diocese of Toowoomba, Bishop Francis, then wrote to the families of affected students and a civil mediation process was put in place. More than $2.25 million was paid out as a result of this process.
The Royal Commission ultimately found that Bishop Francis's response was appropriate. Specifically, his actions in:
The Royal Commission investigated the surrounding circumstances of the incident, including the role of the Non-State Schools Accreditation Board which registered the School.
In 2006, the School's child protection policies were assessed as part of it's accreditation (re-registration). The Royal Commission heard evidence that these policies were assessed against a checklist. Attention was focussed on criterion in the checklist requiring the governing body of the school to demonstrate that the policies were being implemented effectively. It heard evidence that this was assessed using the documents provided - essentially that training would be conducted bi-annually.
Following the incidents with Mr Byrnes, the Accreditation Board again assessed the School's child protection policies. It found that they were inadequate, stating that:
As part of the School's next accreditation, the policies were again reviewed. The Royal Commission heard evidence that the adequacy or efficacy of the training or implementation was not evaluated by the Accreditation Board.
There are ultimately many lessons from this report. The failings, from a legislative, regulatory and human behavioural point of view, all contributed to the breach of child protection duties.
One of the most glaring failures in this case, however, appears to be a failure of policy. Policy that was unclear, poorly implemented and not understood was ineffective in achieving its objectives.
Unfortunately, the new raft of Queensland Child Protection Laws does not appear to remedy this situation. As we recently wrote, the January 2015 changes only add to the policy mess, rather than resolving the confusion. A minimum of 5 policies are required to comply under the new legislative scheme. Worryingly, the new scheme also removes the obligation of staff members who are not teachers or registered nurses to report harm that is not sexual abuse.