Submission says Pell missed the opportunity to deal with Peter Searson, and his evidence that he was intentionally deceived should be rejected

This article is more than 3 years old

This article is more than 3 years old

Australia’s most senior Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, had enough evidence to conclude that serious action was needed against a paedophile priest who worked under him, counsel assisting the royal commission have said.

During his evidence before the child sex abuse royal commission in March, Pell said investigating Peter Searson was not his responsibility because he believed the Catholic Education Office and the Bishop of Ballarat, Ronald Mulkearns, were handling allegations that Searson was abusing children.



'No one listened' to hundreds of complaints about priest, says principal Read more

But in a submission published on the commission’s website on Monday, counsel assisting the royal commission Gail Furness SC and Stephen Free concluded: “It was incumbent on Cardinal Pell, having regard to his responsibilities as Auxiliary Bishop, including for the welfare of children in the parish, to take such action as he could to advocate that Searson be removed or suspended, or, at least, that a thorough investigation be undertaken.”

Pell gave evidence that he was handed a list of incidents and grievances about Searson in 1989. These should have been “sufficient that he ought reasonably have concluded that more serious action needed to be taken in relation to Searson”, counsel assisting wrote.

In his evidence Pell said he believed the list, which included reports Searson had abused animals in front of children and was using children’s toilets, did not contain enough information for him to act.

Searson died in 2009 without facing charges. The commission has previously heard he abused children in parishes and schools across three districts over more than a decade, and displayed strange behaviours such as animal cruelty and carrying a gun to school.



The submission published on Monday urged the royal commission to reject evidence from Pell that senior officials within the Catholic Education Office kept him in the dark about the extent of Searson’s behaviour because they were afraid Pell would take action against him.

Was George Pell, now scourge of the Vatican, once hoodwinked by all around him? | David Marr Read more

“It is submitted that the Commission should reject Cardinal Pell’s evidence that officers of the CEO intentionally deceived him and did so for the reasons suggested by Cardinal Pell,” the submission read.

“Those CEO officers who are available to give evidence about these matters gave evidence to the effect that they had no interest in deceiving Cardinal Pell or in trying to protect Searson. That evidence should be accepted. It is generally consistent with other evidence available to the royal commission.”

They accused Pell of missing “an important opportunity to recognise and deal with the serious risks posed by Searson”.

Stephen Woods gave evidence that he was raped and sexually abused by three different members of the Ballarat clergy while he was a student at St Alipius Christian Brothers primary school and St Patrick’s college. He said on Monday he was “appalled” that Pell said he did not believe he had enough information to take strong action, and he was glad that the royal commission’s counsel agreed that Pell should have done more.

The chief executive of the Care Leavers of Australia Network, Leonie Sheedy, whose organisation represents victims of abuse within the Ballarat diocese, welcomed the submisison.

“I think the Catholic church can no longer fool the community, let alone the royal commission,” Sheedy said.

In a separate submission about child abuse in the Ballarat diocese, the commission’s lawyers said there was insufficient evidence Pell tried to bribe or silence the nephew victim of paedophile priest Gerald Francis Ridsdale.

But the lawyers for the commission said Pell and other consultors to Mulkearns in Ballarat knew by 1982 that Ridsale had been sexually abusing children for several years.

Ridsdale was moved several times between parishes by Mulkearns.

Pell, who was a Ballarat priest between 1973 and 1984, said in evidence that he never knew the true reason Ridsdale was moved and that paedophilia was not mentioned at consultors meetings held in the 1970s and 1980s.

However, counsel assisting the commission said it was the “common understanding” among consultors, including Pell, at a 1982 meeting to discuss moving Ridsdale away from the Mortlake parish that he had sexually abused children.

Any consultor who agreed to move Ridsdale, or indeed any priest, with knowledge of allegations of child sexual abuse made against them, had behaved in an “unnacceptable” way, the lawyers said.

Pell insists it wasn’t until some years later that he learned that Ridsdale abused children.

A submission prepared by his lawyers said the commission had not found “a single witness, nor a single document, which evidences that any person, lay or religious, provided information to Father Pell which would have indicated that Ridsdale was abusing children”.

“Ultimately, when one assesses all of the evidence placed before the royal commission, including that of Cardinal Pell, the commission could not be ‘comfortably satisfied’ that any one of the allegations made against Cardinal Pell has been made out.”

The submissions released by counsel assisting the royal commission run to more than 800 pages. Their recommendations do not have to be accepted.