Abuse in Care: Marylands abuse was 'horrific and indefensible', says head of St John of God order
Tuesday, 15 February 2022
The Royal Commission of Inquiry has heard that by the time the leadership of the St John of God order became aware of allegations of abuse at Marylands School against 23 of its brothers, 10 of them had died and three had left the order.
Brother Timothy Graham testified via video-link before the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care on Tuesday about the St John of God order’s knowledge of the extensive sexual and physical abuse that took place at Marylands in Christchurch, and how abuse allegations were responded to.
Graham is the Provincial of the Oceania Province of St John of God which includes the order’s work in Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. Graham joined the order in 1977 and was appointed as Provincial in 2007.
The order has not had an active ministry presence in New Zealand for years – the only two St John of God brothers who still remain in Aotearoa have retired.
**READ MORE:
* 'This is my justice': Witness tells inquiry about multiple rapes at Christchurch school
* Abuse in care: Survivor says abuser showed him corpse to silence him
**
Graham’s testimony illustrated that the order holds very little records from the time it was in charge at Marylands.
He said the order holds no records about ethnicities of the boys who attended the school, the medical treatment provided to the children by external medical practitioners, any visitation reports, or records of the school’s annual budgets.
Any student files “to the extent they existed” were passed to the Ministry of Education when it took over the running of the school in 1983, he said.
The abuse at Marylands
Graham did not make any qualms about the severity of the abuse that occurred at Marylands, acknowledging it as “egregious”.
“These services should have been places of nurture and safety for vulnerable young people. The fact that [it was] a place of sexual, physical and psychological abuse is horrific and indefensible.”
Graham said the order’s records show that 118 complaints of abuse at Marylands were recorded. Some of the victims suffered this abuse continuously over several years.
The allegations were made against 23 members of the order. Of those 23, four are still alive. Only one is still a St John of God brother, but he is retired. Of the three ex-brothers, two have been jailed.
While the available records show that some complaints already surfaced in the 1970s, the bulk of the complaints were made from 1992, Graham said.
He said it was to the order’s “deep regret and shame” that the abuse was partly supported by a system of routinely rotating brothers between schools and communities, as this allowed for the abuse to be covered up. The reason brothers were rotated between different locations was for “operational reasons” and based on the needs of each facility, Graham said.
In his written statement, he said while the order’s leadership were aware of some allegations of abuse in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, brothers were nevertheless moved between institutions or allowed to remain within the institutions where the alleged abuse occurred.
“The order recognises that this was wrong.”
Graham clarified that a brother’s removal from the order did not mean the order was washing its hands of that brother’s wrongdoing.
“We still have a responsibility for the historical acts committed while they were a member of the order.”
When asked about the reason why St John of God would allow a convicted offender to remain a St John of God brother, Graham said it was “the socially responsible thing to do”.
He said expelling a convicted offender from the order would mean the order had no jurisdiction or capacity to supervise them and put “safeguarding measures” in place.
In a letter Graham wrote after Rodger Maloney was convicted of sexually abusing boys at Marylands, Graham said to the recipient that “irrespective of personal beliefs”, a jury decided that Maloney should be held accountable.
“However, what is at stake now is the support and care required by Rodger from all in his life to bring him through this experience relatively unscathed,” Graham wrote.
Royal Commission chairman Judge Coral Shaw asked Graham how he thought an abuse victim would feel reading that sentence.
Graham acknowledged that they would be upset, but said he was “in the difficult position” as a religious leader and a Christian to not only support people who have been harmed, but also people who have done the harm.
Dealing with victims
Responding to a claim made by Dr Michelle Mulvihill that there is a culture of “organisational denial” within St John of God about the abuse claims, Graham said this statement was “grossly unfair”.
“The brothers feel the pain and the anger of the victims very deeply. Personally, I feel the sorrow and shame daily for what was done to these vulnerable young people,” he said.
He also denied that the order was “outsourcing their empathy” by having lawyers deal with the complainants rather than interacting with them themselves. Graham said most victims chose to follow a civil litigation pathway which required the involvement of lawyers.
He said the extent or duration of the order’s relationships with victims depended on the victim and what they wanted from the process. Asked how much counselling the order offered to victims, he said it offered as many sessions as the individual’s therapist thought was necessary.
Graham said St John of God made financial redress available to victims and these amounts were agreed upon by the legal representatives. “My understanding is that lawyers attempt to provide the most just compensation available, and they don’t sign off on [the amount] if it is not a just and reasonable redress.”
He said he didn’t know why redress payments were less in New Zealand than in Australia.
When asked about Mulvihill’s testimony that many victims were promised ongoing relationships with and support from the order which never occurred, Graham recounted his recollection of Mulvihill’s resignation from her role within the order in 2007.
He said Mulvihill just handed him a letter of resignation and did not present any files, any lists of cases that were still being dealt with, or any other form of a handover of her work.
“I really don’t know if that can be described as best practice.”
The hearing continues.