Bernard and I both hugged Detective Peter Fox and then moved over to where Daniel was sitting, Luke’s arms still around him. I remember looking at Luke who was sobbing and saying that he was crying more than his brother and Daniel just looked up at me and said “but Mum, I knew he was guilty.”
26
Relief! Relief and hugging. Tears and more hugging of the police, the media, the sheriff and each other. Daniel’s face was transformed as he smiled through his tears. We jostled about in the narrow passageway outside the courtroom for a few minutes and then were overcome with the need to tell the close family who weren’t with us that day. Bernard went outside to ring Dominic and saw his father moving towards the steps of the Courthouse. He sensed immediately there was news because of all the people outside on phones and hurried inside after Bernard told him the verdict. I saw him coming up the stairs and the look we exchanged was pure relief. I know we cried on each other’s shoulders for quite a few minutes.
I stood in a quiet spot and tried to ring my sisters. After several attempts to dial with shaking fingers I managed connections but all I could sob out were the words “he’s guilty of everything, all nine charges” and I asked them to contact their daughters, the much loved cousins.
Somehow we were back in the room and our legal team came in. They were thrilled with the verdict of course and we were very grateful for their dedication. I know they work to prosecute criminals every week but to us, it had been unfamiliar territory and we were very impressed.
The media waited outside and we did appreciate them for not being intrusive but they did want a comment from the victim or his family. Daniel said he couldn’t speak and so I fossicked in my bag for a prepared statement that I had shown John earlier in the day, along with one that expressed our dismay if the verdict had been Not Guilty. Detective Peter Fox agreed to read my statement and walked outside with me.
He read “I would like to say that justice has been served today. The years of pain and suffering for the victims and their families can now be put behind. We hope that all of us can now move forward unhindered by these dreadful events. We commend the jury for their verdict.”
He was too modest to read the rest of my statement and so I took it from him and read
“Detective Sergeant Peter Fox has shown my son and our family, commitment, compassion, diligence and integrity throughout this investigation and Trial and we thank him and commend him as well.”
Detective Fox also said that he was very pleased with the result and called it a vindication of the courage of the two men who gave evidence during the trial.
He said “Their absolute courage in coming forward and being prepared to come along and say what they did before a packed court room took a hell of a lot of courage…I think today’s result vindicates what they actually did…. I’m obviously very pleased with the result. I have worked closely with these families for two and a half years. I suppose in some ways, police do go a little bit through the ordeal and share some of the emotion with it…I personally feel the result vindicates the effort put in by these two families.”
Later a media person asked would we be celebrating and I replied that the sentiment was relief not joy because a paedophile had just been convicted of abusing my son and there was nothing to celebrate in that.
We gathered in the room for the last time and I had a half hearted attempt to have a bite of the lunchtime sandwich and a mouthful of tea but I responded very readily to the suggestion that we all adjourn to the nearest pub. Once there, we took stock of the last few hours and debriefed I suppose. We welcomed the presence of Peter Fox and supporters as we reflected on the trial and started to remember that Christmas was less than three weeks away.
Workers finished for the day started to gather at the hotel and the sheer ordinariness of the day for other people amazed me. I thought that because our lives had been so dreadfully connected to the trauma of the past few weeks, the effect would have been visible to strangers but I was wrong. There we were gathering after years of major upset and the rest of the world didn’t know and probably wouldn’t have cared if they did. Such is the nature of our insular society.
The mobile phones were ringing and we took turns using them ourselves as we informed the extended family of the verdict. I noticed John on his phone over under a tree and then he gestured for Daniel to take it. John walked over to me and told me that Daniel was talking to the Bishop. It was one hour after the verdict.
Daniel spoke for a few minutes and I wondered how his conversation was going and became increasingly distracted the longer he talked. John said the bishop had expressed concern for all the family and praised our courageous son and we both wondered what the message would have been if the verdict had gone the other way. When Daniel walked over to us after talking with the Bishop, he was upset and also queried what would have been said if Fletcher had been found Not Guilty. I remember his father saying not to waste time thinking about it as there wouldn’t have been a phone call at all.
This boy has struggled along without moral support from the very organisation that had helped mould his soul and psyche. Its agent and employee, the priest, had destroyed his belief in it as well as his innocence. A double loss was sustained by my boy who had yearned for some kind of faith mantle to protect him through the painful months that had just passed.
We were astounded then when he told us that the Bishop had told him to “keep his faith” and praised him “for having the courage to come forward and bring this terrible man to justice.” No sorry words and that’s what he had wanted to hear from the Bishop and of course Fletcher himself.
The media had plenty to write about and there was scope for many angles of commentary. The Bishop faced a very hostile community as people realised that a paedophile had worked in their midst while facing very serious charges of sexual assault. He admitted that he could have handled the James Fletcher controversy in a better manner, and publicly apologised for failing to stand down the convicted paedophile immediately after being told of the child sex allegations.
“It is easy to have 20-20 vision after the event,” he said.
“In retrospect, the matter could have been handled better and we have learned that we have to respond more appropriately to these issues. To this end we are establishing a diocesan child protection unit to respond more professionally in future.” he added.
Bishop Malone wrote to Daniel, John and me the next day. I guess by then he had had time to digest the news and reflect on the awful ramifications for the Church. He said in his letter to me,
“On behalf of the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle, I apologise profoundly to you for the trauma, pain, and suffering you have experienced at the hands of Fr. Fletcher. There is no room in the priesthood for such a man: he will never return to ministry as a priest. The Police investigation and subsequent Trial have been very difficult for you. I can only imagine a fraction of the trauma you must have felt knowing that you would have to speak of these matters publicly. I applaud your courage and thank you for coming forward so that this criminal could be put away.”
He offered further support in the way of counselling and a meeting with him if I so desired.
I am pleased the Bishop rang after the Trial and I did appreciate his letter and the spirit in which it was written. Not to have heard from the Church would have been the final thud in a long line of bitter disappointments, breach of trust and recriminations I had experienced because I had kept the faith of my parents and had tried to pass it on to my sons, my beloved sons.
Epilogue
Gosford Court March the 29th 2005
Prisoner James Patrick Fletcher was brought before the Court for sentencing. He looked dishevelled and was stooped, had long hair and unsteady gait.
We sat through another summary of the crimes. This time there was a representative of the Maitland- Newcastle Catholic Diocese to support us if necessary. Detective Fox spoke warily with her. Daniel did not attend. The Defence had talked about prospect
s for rehabilitation and the Crown immediately rebutted that request, saying that as Fletcher did not acknowledge his guilt, rehabilitation was not an issue at all. The program offered by Corrective Services to educate sex offenders and to endeavour to rehabilitate them was obviously viable for those criminals who admitted their crimes.
Distressingly, Ian Barker QC for Fletcher, argued that there were mitigating factors for the judge to consider when sentencing Fletcher. They were the public humiliation for the priest and the lack of victim impact statement from my son, meaning long term trauma may not be suffered. We were appalled as Daniel and his family had been told that such statements were not necessary.
Judge Armitage questioned Barker’s argument saying that in evidence about the first time my son was molested by Fletcher, Daniel had said it “was excruciating and he’d never felt anything like it.”
“He made it abundantly plain he was traumatised.” Judge Armitage said.
After lengthy legal representations from both sides, the judge announced that the sentencing would take place at Sydney’s District Court’s Downing Centre on April the 11th, 2005
The Downing Centre, Sydney
Sydney District Court heard that in a “gross and inexcusable misuse of trust” James Patrick Fletcher had ingratiated himself with the boy and his family, had meals at their home and had lured him away at night for sex. Judge Graham Armitage said the now former Hunter parish priest continued to protest his innocence in the face of some of the most compelling evidence he had heard from a young victim. He said the victim had presented as a down-to-earth young man who was truthful. Fletcher showed no emotion as Judge Armitage sentenced him to serve a maximum of ten years in gaol. He would not be eligible for parole until the 4th of June, 2012, after which he would have served seven and a half years.
Judge Armitage said when sentencing Fletcher that he had taken into account the priest’s age, health and the fact he had no previous convictions.
My media statement was “This man’s assaults on our son were premeditated and evil, and for our family the sentence is lifelong. No amount of time in prison can restore the joy in faith that was embraced and has now been lost by the victim, his family and the wider Catholic communities of our extended family and friends.”
An Appeal against the conviction was lodged.
Bishop Michael Malone released a statement on the afternoon of April 12 saying he accepted the sentence as the judgement of the court. He also said his primary consideration was the care extended to the victim.“Victims of sexual abuse and their families must be supported by their parish and community and not be subjected to victimisation or damaging innuendo,” he said.
“We must not let them be criticised or ostracised for coming forward. In fact, they should be thanked for bringing abuse into the open.”
He also strongly urged victims of sexual abuse to contact the police.
He announced the establishment of a Diocesan Child Protection Unit to deal with issues of sexual abuse and to monitor and comply with child protection legislation. A healing component of the unit was to be included.
Well done Bishop Michael!
First attendance at the Court of Criminal Appeal
The Appeal was based on the legality of the original Trial Judge allowing the similarity and tendency evidence of Fletcher’s other victim. More summations of the whole trial. No decision reached. Diocesan representative, Helen Keevers criticised for not outwardly supporting the priest and his friends. I appreciated her attendance.
Second attendance at the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Another summation. Fletcher’s counsel had argued the Trial Judge had erred in law because he had admitted evidence from a former alleged victim of Fletcher that was prejudicial to the case. His defence counsel had also argued that the judge had erred when instructing the jury about the use of evidence to show that the priest had a tendency to commit the offences. Justice Carolyn Simpson and Justice Peter McClellan agreed the prejudicial effect of the evidence against Fletcher was substantially outweighed by the probative value. Court rejected appeal by 2 votes to 1. I tried to be relieved but heard murmurings of an action to seek leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia.
January, 4th 2006 Helen Keevers, the Manager of the Diocesan Child Protection Unit rang our family to inform us that James Fletcher had suffered a severe stroke and was not expected to live.
James Patrick Fletcher died on 6th January, 2006
Funeral of Fletcher was held at Branxton Catholic Church on 13th January. Thirty-four Catholic priests attended. A quiet reflective lunch was held in Hamilton for victims and their families while the funeral was taking place. This was organised by the Manager of the Child Protection unit, Helen Keevers and was appreciated by us. No messages from any of the clergy for the victims and families. We also pained.
The Appeal to the High Court was announced by Father Des Harrigan who said it was his duty as executor of Fletcher’s will. He also said he sought peace for everyone associated with the case.
10th March, 2006 The High Court of Australia
The High Court of Australia rejected an appeal application on behalf of paedophile priest James Fletcher. Chief Justice Murray Gleeson and Justice Ken Hayne, sitting in Sydney, dismissed a special leave application by Father Des Harrigan to appeal against the dead priest’s conviction. Barrister Ian Barker QC, for Father Harrigan, said that much of the evidence in question related to “different acts of a different sort in different circumstances” to those which Fletcher was found guilty. Chief Justice Gleeson disagreed saying, “We are of the view that the evidence in question was correctly admitted in the particular circumstances of this case and we are not persuaded there has been any miscarriage of justice.”
Detective Sergeant Peter Fox said in a media interview that he shared the victims’ relief and was pleased the High Court decision would benefit other child abuse victims. He reiterated that the appeal application was not about whether Fletcher had abused children or not but rather it was based on a legal technicality about tendency evidence being admitted to Fletcher’s District Court trial.
He said “This decision means that the highest court in the land accepts that it was correct for the District Court to have allowed evidence from a second altar boy whom Fletcher abused and that will flow on to other courts so that they too can accept similar tendency evidence.”
Zimmerman House opened on September 4th, 2007 and is the new premises for the Diocesan Child Protection Unit, established in 2005. This is a specialized, diocesan wide unit working in the areas of child protection, professional conduct and healing. Unit manager, Helen Keevers stated that the victims and survivors of abuse will be supported and “walked with…forever how long it takes!”
In an interview with Newcastle Herald journalist, Joanne McCarthy, Bishop Michael Malone was described as “an outspoken advocate for victims of paedophilia.” That was in July, 2008 and followed the Bishop’s “lone stand as a senior cleric in calling for the Pope to apologise during World Youth Day.” He also said that the abuse of Daniel brought the whole issue home to him.
“It was a case of here’s a priest invited into the Feenan home, shown love and friendship, and he abused that friendship so badly,” Malone said “…I’d have to say my level of empathy has altered considerably from being fairly defensive of the Church, to where my primary responsibility these days is to the victims, and not the Church.”
That change in attitude after seven long years in our lives is welcome and gives some hope for closure to my campaign to firstly seek recognition and ownership by the Catholic Church of the crime of clergy sexual abuse and secondly, compassion and Christ’s love for the victims.
Well done Daniel! Your courage is amazing! You sought and secured justice and by doing that you have ensured that the pursuit of justice for others to come will have a better chance of success because of the change in the law. In addition, we hope that the Catholic Church will acknowledge the pain of the vic
tims and will walk with them on the journey to recovery, for however long it takes.
Postscript
In the last few years, there have been numerous police charges of sexual abuse of children by more than five priests in the Maitland Newcastle Catholic Diocese. In addition, there have also been many allegations about priests who are now deceased. It would appear that the prosecution of James Fletcher was not the end of matters at all and the floodgates are open as victims find the strength to come forward and tell what happened to them. Certainly, victims are treated with respect and compassion, as Bishop Michael Malone promised, but the numbers are many and the Catholic communities are dismayed. Particularly stressful is the knowledge that there appears to have been many cover-ups by the Church hierarchy as they sought to protect the good name of the Church.
On the 16th of September 2012, a public meeting at Newcastle, attended by over 500 concerned people, endorsed the request to the Premier of New South Wales to establish a Royal Commission into the Catholic Church’s handling of child sexual abuse within the church.
On the 8th of November 2012, Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox was interviewed on ABC TV’s Lateline program. In his interview, he asserted that his investigations had been hampered by the Church and in fact he was removed from another clergy sexual abuse case he was working on. He then proceeded to talk about the brutal rape of a young boy and the callous behaviour of the priest after the event. That boy was my son, and the public outcry after Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox’s interview resulted in the Premier of New South Wales announcing a special commission of inquiry in response to these claims on the next day, the 9th of November.
Responses to this announcement were varied. Whilst victims and families welcomed the inquiry, there were many statements from them, including mine, reported in the media, saying that a Royal Commission was what was needed to restore trust and to effectively examine the Catholic Church’s handling of clergy sexual abuse. Many asserted that an inquiry centred on the Hunter region was too narrow.
Holy Hell Page 12