SUBM.1023.001.0001
ROYAL COMMISSION INTO INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES
TO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
AT SYDNEY
STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
ROYAL COMMISSIONS ACT 1923 (NSW)
PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO
THE RESPONSE OF KNOX GRAMMAR SCHOOL
(CASE STUDY 23)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN REPLY ON BEHALF OF
THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Introduction
1.
These submissions are made in response to the written submissions of counsel
assisting the Royal Commission served on 16 May 2015 concerning the public
hearing into the response of Knox Grammar School (Knox) to allegations of
child sexual abuse of a number of former students.
The information given by John Weeks to Inspector Cullen in March 2007
2.
In section 4.5 of the written submissions, counsel assisting refers to evidence
given by Mr Weeks that in March 2007 he informed Inspector Cullen of NSW
Police of what he knew about the incident involving Mr Treloar, namely, the
allegation involving Mr Treloar showing a pornographic video to a student.
3.
At paragraph 168 of the submissions, counsel assisting states that "[i]t is
unnecessary to resolve any controversy that exists between the evidence of
Inspector Cullen and Mr Weeks" as to what Mr Weeks told Inspector Cullen, yet
goes on to submit that Inspector Cullen's "evidence ... could not be preferred to
SUBM.1023.001.0002
the sworn evidence of Mr Weeks", noting that the evidence of Mr Weeks
"accords with the apparent logic of events".
4.
Inspector Cullen's evidence on this issue is that, had she been provided with
such information by Mr Weeks, she would have included it in her file note of the
meeting. 1 Inspector Cullen's contemporaneous file note records discussion at
the meeting concerning Adrian Nisbett but makes no mention of Mr Treloar.
5.
The State of New South Wales submits that it would not be appropriate for the
Commission to express a preference in the evidence on this topic in
circumstances where counsel assisting took the position during the public
hearing, and in written submissions, that it is unnecessary to investigate or
resolve any apparent inconsistency between the evidence of Inspector Cullen
and Mr Weeks as to the information given to Inspector Cullen during their
meeting in March 2007. Counsel assisting's position on this issue resulted in
neither Inspector Cullen nor Mr Weeks being cross-examined on the topic.
6.
In any event, the State of New South Wales submits that the preference
expressed at paragraph 168 of the written submissions cannot be sustained in
the face of significant contemporaneous documentation and oral evidence,
which is not referred to in counsel assisting's written submissions. It is
submitted that the weight of the following evidence would not support a
conclusion (or preference for a conclusion) that Mr Weeks told Inspector Cullen
about any allegation concerning Mr Treloar at their meeting of 8 March 2007:
•
Inspector Cullen's contemporaneous file note of the meeting makes no
reference to Craig Treloar. 2 The meeting concerned allegations against
Adrian Nisbett;
•
Mr Weeks made no contemporaneous note of the meeting;
•
On 21 March 2007, less than 2 weeks after the meeting between
Inspector Cullen and Mr Weeks, Mr Weeks reported to a Knox School
Council meeting that he had informed the NSW Sex Crimes Unit in
Parramatta about ASA's allegation against Adrian Nisbett. 3 The minutes
make no mention of any allegation concerning Mr Treloar being
communicated to Police4 ;
1
STAT.0518.001 .0001 at [26)
2
STAT.0518.001.0016_R on page 2
3
TEN.0020.001.001 O_R (Tab 144AA of the tender bundle).
4
The nature of the discussion at the school council meeting with respect to Mr Treloar, as recorded,
suggests that Police were not informed of the allegation against Treloar. For example, "... concerns
2
SUBM.1023.001.0003
•
Mr Robert Wannan, who was a member of the Knox School Council
between 2000 and 2013 and Chairman in 2007, ·gave evidence that he
does not recall any reference being made at a school council meeting in
2007 to the allegation about Treloar being referred to police.5
•
On 12 February 2007, Mr Weeks had a meeting with the Assistant
Ombudsman and a Senior Investigation Officer of the Ombudsman's
office. A contemporaneous file note of that meeting prepared by the
latter does not mention Craig Treloar. 6 There is no mention of an
allegation being reported by Mr Weeks that, according to information he
had received, Mr Treloar had shown pornography to a boy. Such an
allegation, in respect of a current teacher of Knox, would have been a
"reportable allegation" within the meaning of the Ombudsman Act 1974
(NSW). The fact that it was not made a reportable allegation by the
Ombudsman suggests that specific information of this nature was not
conveyed at this time (although it is noted that in an email of 2009 the
former Assistant Ombudsman stated that "they mentioned Treloar" at the
meeting 7). Further, the file note records that Grahame Wilson of the AIS
would contact Inspector Cullen regarding allegations concerning Adrian
Nisbett, which were the subject of that meeting. This document supports
a conclusion that the information was not reported to police three weeks
later.
•
Mr Weeks obtained the offending video from Stuart Pearson through
Ruth Mitchell in August 2007. 8 In August 2007 Mr Weeks asked Mr Bob
Thomas to record information regarding the Treloar allegation. 9 These
two items suggest that Mr Weeks was pursuing the matter in August
2007, rather than March 2007 and also support a conclusion that he did
not raise the allegation with Inspector Cullen on 8 March 2007.
that Mr Treloar was still on academic staff", "All hard evidence to be reviewed" and "Legal advice
needed to be received first before any action on Mr Treloar".
5
Transcript p 12160-12161, 27 February 2015 . Mr Wannan also gave evidence that if a discussion
about Mr Treloar occurred at a council meeting, and the topic of discussion included Mr Treloar
having shown a pornographic video to boys in the 1980s, it would be the usual practice for that matter
to be recorded in the minutes, being either the general minutes or minutes of an in camera meeting if
the discussion occurred there: p 12158.
6
OMB.0009.003.0267_ R. See also OMB.0009.008.0002_ R.
7
See page 37 of the Ombudsman's statement: OMB.0010001.0035_R
8
TEN.0019 .001.0056_R; ALZ.0001.001 .0016_R
9
STAT.0480.002.0228
3
SUBM.1023.001.0004
Mandatory reporting obligations
7.
Part 5 of counsel assisting's written submissions summarise the mandatory
reporting obligations applying to school principals, deputy principals and school
teachers during the period relevant to this case study. The State of New South
Wales agrees generally with the summary. It is noted however that in relation
to paragraph 175, clause 74 of the Child Welfare Regulations 1940 (NSW)
prescribed those classes of person for the purpose of s 1488(1) (school
principal, deputy principal and teacher and others) only "in relation to an assault
on a child that consists of a sexual assault'', where the term "sexual assault"
was defined in clause 2(a) by reference to specified offences under the Crimes
Act 1900 (NSW) .
Registered non-government school
8.
As to [16], the. State of New South Wales simply notes that the Education and
Public Instruction Act 1987 was repealed and replaced by the Education Act
1990 (formerly known as the Education Reform Act 1990). A school registered
under the repealed Act is to be read as a registered non-government school
(see transitional provisions in Sch 3, Pt 1, cl 5 to the current Act).
19 June 2015
Georgina Wright
Counsel for the State of New South Wales
4