(THEME MUSIC PLAYS)
(BELL RINGS) (CHILDREN CHATTER AT PLAY)
LOUISE MILLIGAN: The Royal Commission
into Institutional Responses LOUISE MILLIGAN: The Royal Commission
into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
was supposed to be a turning point for survivors.
was supposed to be a turning point For five years
it heard a terrible history of abuse
in orphanages and scout halls...
..presbyteries and playgrounds.
(KIDS SING INDISTINCTLY) ..presbyteries and playgrounds.
(KIDS SING INDISTINCTLY)
Organisations apologised.
ARCHBISHOP: I swear by almighty God...
ARCHBISHOP: OTHERS: I swear by almighty God...
It was a kind of OTHERS: I swear by almighty God...
It was a kind of criminal negligence.
It was a kind of It was a colossal fail of culture
that led to the colossal failure of leadership.
Scouts Australia has a responsibility to survivors of abuse
Scouts Australia has a and we will honour that.
I remember watching those videos.
Maybe sometimes I wish that I didn't.
And it just...
It makes me so angry.
Has everything changed?
Sure has. It's got worse.
As lawyers have taken to the courts to fight for compensation,
some institutions
have found different ways to deny victims justice.
PETER KARP: This decision today by the Supreme Court
flies in the face of everything
that the Royal Commission into child abuse stood for.
Organisations are in a ferocious battle
to block claims from even getting to court.
Why has your client sought to have a permanent stay?
JOANNE BYRNES: They lost my respect,
and I don't understand
why they won't just stand up and be accountable for what they've done.
It's disgraceful, really,
'cause what they're in effect doing,
they're hiding behind tombstones and throwing rocks
they're hiding behind tombstones at the victims.
Five years on from the historic
child-abuse Royal Commission
are survivors any closer to receiving justice?
As notorious perpetrators
begin to die off,
a fierce new battleground is emerging.
We go behind the scenes of the legal fight
as institutions employ extraordinary tactics
designed to shut down victims' rights to seek proper compensation.
(WAVES LAP)
On Sydney's Northern Beaches
barrister James Masur's day starts before dawn.
JAMES MASUR: I'm personally moved by the plight of survivors
and have seen first-hand the devastating effect
and have seen first-hand not only child abuse has
but the deployment of legal barriers
has on survivors.
Mr Masur is one of few barristers who do only institutional-abuse cases.
One of James Masur's clients
is former Marist Brothers' student Ted Kawicki.
At a school in Maitland in country New South Wales
that was notorious in the '60s and '70s
that was notorious Ted Kawicki alleges abuse
by a long-dead brother of the Catholic order.
TED KAWICKI: That place was a paedophile's paradise.
They acted with impunity, they did exactly what they wanted.
He's now on his way to meet up with James Masur
and instructing solicitor, Michelle Martin,
to discuss legal tactics in his case against the Marist order.
Ted, I'd like to introduce you to James Masur.
He's the barrister. How are you, James? Good to meet ya.
And come and take a seat there, Ted.
OK. Yep.
The Marist Brothers have threatened Ted
with what's known as a 'permanent stay' -
an attempt to stop his case from proceeding in court.
an attempt to stop his case The weapon of last resort.
They've dragged this stay, permanent stay, out of the gutter
and brought it out there now.
So, it's a one-size-fits-all.
That means convicted criminal thugs
are simply let off the hook once they die.
These lawyers have had to deliver difficult news to their client
These lawyers have had to deliver and manage his expectations.
It seems likely that the stay will be granted on the current law.
But, really, your options
are either capitulating and discontinuing your claim...
Which is not an option. ..or fighting it.
Oh, there's no way in the world will I ever give up. Never.
Alright. Never in a million years.
Alright. He's dead, he rests in peace,
and he leaves the misery behind.
And the doors close.
They hide behind tombstones, you know?
They hide behind tombstones, Dead priests. Dead brothers.
It's disgraceful.
The Royal Commission was supposed to fix this situation,
inspiring law reform that removed barriers,
inspiring law reform including the Statute of Limitations,
which had prevented survivors from suing if too much time had passed.
But, increasingly, survivors are now facing a new obstacle -
the permanent stay.
It's sometimes referred to by lawyers
as the 'dead man's defence'.
They come forward now and they're being told, "Well, it's too late.
They come forward now and they're "You suffered all those years,
"you didn't come forward before,
"and now your perpetrator has died, so, go away."
That's the message that they get, and it's devastating.
That's the message that they get, More and more institutions
are fending off claims More and more institutions
are fending off claims in sexual-abuse cases
are fending off claims by applying for permanent stays.
A permanent stay essentially puts a stop to a case
where it's considered so oppressively unfair to a party
that it would be an abuse of process.
A permanent stay is supposed to be used
only in exceptional circumstances.
How often only in exceptional circumstances.
How often are threats of permanent stays
flying into the inboxes of solicitors?
From particular organisations flying into the inboxes of solicitors?
From particular organisations
where there is a dead abuser, From particular organisations
where there is a dead abuser, alleged abuser,
or an infirm alleged abuser,
they are almost in every case where those facts exist being threatened.
Like it or not, they are almost in every case where those facts exist being threatened.
Like it or not,
and it doesn't matter about
what you think about the merits or ethics or morals of the defendant,
everybody in Australia - plaintiffs and defendants -
they've got a right to a fair trial under our judicial system.
And this is a reflection of that governing theory.
And it doesn't matter whether you're a good guy or a bad guy,
you're entitled to invoke it.
Barrister Geoffrey Watson has acted for both sides in these cases.
Typically, the worst problem is the absence of witnesses, live bodies.
People have died, people have become infirm,
People have died, and they're unable to respond to it.
Quite often you will find that and they're unable to respond to it.
Quite often you will find that the records kept by the institutions
about the attendance of particular individual claimants
about the attendance are themselves scanty.
And you'd be surprised how often it pops up
that there are no school records of a person being in a particular class
in a particular year or being taught by a particular person.
One of the dead men's graves belongs to Father David Perrett.
Father Perrett hurt so many children,
you know, and Indigenous children, families that were vulnerable.
On a chilly May night in 1973
at an imposing building in Armidale On a chilly May night in 1973
at an imposing building in Armidale in country New South Wales
at an imposing building in Armidale a car pulled up
and deposited a four-year-old Aboriginal girl and her siblings.
MIIMI: It was very terrifying
and probably like something out of a horror movie, I would say.
St Patrick's Orphanage was run by the Sisters of Mercy,
St Patrick's Orphanage and from time to time
it would be home to Miimi, her two sisters and her brother.
MIIMI: It was very petrifying, actually,
you know, to be removed from our family and our community
you know, to be removed in the night-time.
I recall those massive, big...
..I would say, like a European-style staircase,
and just remember walking up and down those stairs.
I just felt very small in that space, you know?
During her stay there
what seemed to be a friendly face often appeared on the scene.
His name was Father David Perrett.
All the kids called him Father Dave.
He had a predilection for Aboriginal children.
MIIMI: When Father Perrett came to the orphanage
MIIMI: When Father Perrett I can remember thinking as a child,
"Why do all the Indigenous kids run up to him?"
So, he had a particular way with Indigenous children.
He paid a lot of attention to us.
Father Dave began to abuse Miimi in her dormitory and an attic room.
MIIMI: I remember being in the attic upstairs
and the feeling that I wasn't meant to be there.
It seems like 'trauma' is not a strong enough word
for what it felt like.
I don't know, but the feeling still stays. It's still in my body.
(BIRD TWITTERS)
So, you were only five... Yep.
..when he raped you? Yeah.
And he did it on multiple occasions?
Yep. Yeah.
I can recall a massive change coming over me,
my whole being and my whole sense of safety in the world disappeared
and I had no trust in anyone, really,
and I just went so much inside of myself
and I just went and I actually stopped talking.
I'm acting for a number of people whose lives have been ruined
by what Father Dave Perrett has done to them.
by what Father Dave Perrett It ranges from all sorts of areas.
It's not just in Armidale.
He, unfortunately, continued abusing It's not just in Armidale.
He, unfortunately, continued abusing children across New South Wales.
Five years ago
Miimi was contacted Five years ago
Miimi was contacted by Armidale Police,
who had spoken to other Perrett victims from Aboriginal communities.
I want their lives to mean something, you know?
To hold him and them accountable.
It's not OK that he hurt so many of, you know, us kids.
Vulnerable kids? Yeah.
He was criminally convicted in 1996
for abuse in relation to Aboriginal children in Walgett.
for abuse in relation He was consequently charged again
with, I believe, 140 different offences
against 40 different children,
mainly men, but there was also three girls.
mainly men, And Miimi was one of those girls?
Yes.
The 40 complainants were devastated
when Father David Perrett died
six months before the trial was due to start.
six months before With lawyer Alessandra Pettit,
Miimi commenced legal proceedings With lawyer Alessandra Pettit,
Miimi commenced legal proceedings against the Diocese of Armidale.
The Diocese of Armidale needs to take responsibility.
Regardless of the fact if he's dead or not,
they need to acknowledge the harm that he's done, the ongoing harm,
the trauma that, you know, his victims are still suffering.
But, despite all the evidence
of Perrett's offending at this place and elsewhere,
the Diocese of Armidale sought a permanent stay.
ALESSANDRA PETTIT: I was genuinely gobsmacked
because Father David Perrett had been charged with the abuse,
he has a record of abusing other children,
and I really didn't think that a wealthy institution
would file a state application on a First Nations woman's case
for being sexually abused as a child while she was in their care.
MIIMI: I'm scared because I know how much power and wealth they hold.
MIIMI: I'm scared because I know And I'm also frightened
because the legal system...
..seems to be aligned with that power, yeah.
And I'm expecting that nothing's going to come out of it,
that this is going to be eight years of my life
of being re-triggered and re-traumatised
just to be, you know, bitterly let down.
But I guess the reason why I'm talking to you today
But I guess the reason is for other victims
because I'm not the only one from that orphanage
that is, you know, trying to bring that diocesan to justice.
In the case of another Indigenous woman
who alleges historical abuse when she was a state ward in Queensland,
a permanent stay was two weeks ago granted by the state's Supreme Court.
This was the first time that a state government
rather than a private or religious institution
was prepared to use these legal tactics in a sexual-abuse case
was prepared to use these since the Royal Commission.
There are some cases where a stay is appropriate
even though there is a high probability that the abuse occurred
and that's because, normally, you're not suing the perpetrator,
you're suing somebody else and saying,
"You are responsible for the acts of the perpetrator,"
which might mean that the ultimate defendant
is not capable of getting a fair trial,
and that's despite the fact that the perpetrator may be guilty as sin.
Is there a cognisance, in your experience, on behalf of institutions
of how devastating this is on the other side of the ledger?
Oh, I mean, I'll just tell you at a personal level,
Oh, I mean, I'll just tell you oh, you bet there is.
They're not inhuman bastards,
I can assure you.
The question many will be asking
is why don't survivors apply The question many will be asking
is why don't survivors apply under the national redress scheme
that was set up after the Royal Commission?
Why bother suing anyway?
The answer is money.
The maximum amount that victims can claim under redress is $150,000.
The average amount granted is $88,000.
The average amount granted And if you apply for redress
you give up your right to sue.
Melbourne plaintiff lawyer Judy Courtin
Melbourne plaintiff lawyer acts for many victims
of some of Victoria's acts for many victims
of some of Victoria's most infamous paedophile clergy.
Some of these offenders have cost their institutions
millions of dollars in settlements to Dr Courtin's clients alone.
What do you think is the primary motivation
for these institutions seeking permanent stays?
for these institutions Money.
You can't get any more basic than money. Money.
You can't get any more basic than money.
They're having to pay out big dollars now in many claims,
and they're getting scared, basically.
You know, they're getting scared.
These institutions will often say,
you know, particularly when you've got prolific offenders,
"You're just gonna bleed us dry."
My response to that is let's bleed them dry.
My response to that They should be bled dry. I'm sorry.
They should be bled dry.
How much harm over how many decades They should be bled dry.
How much harm over how many decades have the institutions caused?
Not just the little child. Their families.
How many suicides and the impacts on families?
I'm sorry, they SHOULD be bled dry.
In a seedy part of Melbourne's St Kilda
In a seedy part we meet 54-year-old James.
He's living in a run-down bedsit.
He doesn't want his face to be seen
because he doesn't want He doesn't want his face to be seen
because he doesn't want his family to be ashamed of him.
JAMES: I don't deny that I'm an alcoholic.
I've had to use alcohol my whole life so I could survive.
If not, I would've been dead years ago.
If not, It's just a survival technique.
When do you start drinking every day?
JAMES: About three o'clock.
James's life started out in a place of privilege
where his future was supposed to be golden.
And that's you there? JAMES: That's me.
And that's your mum? JAMES: That's Mum.
She's pretty glamorous.
JAMES: Yeah.
James came from a very wealthy part of Melbourne.
JAMES: We grew up in the Toorak-South Yarra area.
My early life was very good.
We had a live-in nanny.
James was sent
to perhaps the most prestigious Anglican school in the country -
to perhaps the most prestigious Geelong Grammar.
From his first year
the little boy's life From his first year
the little boy's life set on a terrible course.
He later defaced his class photo,
depicting himself as the devil.
James's legal documents allege horrendous abuse
by four primary school teachers at Geelong's Toorak campus.
KIM PRICE: What was done to James
is really one of the most appalling and devastating
cases of abuse is really one of the most appalling and devastating
cases of abuse
that I've come across.
James never told his parents.
Discussing it causes him extreme distress.
These fucking arseholes! The fucking monsters!
They fuckin'... Fuckin'...
(CRIES)
(EXHALES HEAVILY) You're doing fine, James.
They destroyed my fucking whole fucking life.
In July last year
Geelong Grammar's lawyers told solicitor Kim Price
they accepted James was abused and they would admit liability.
But when a compensation figure was calculated in the millions,
James and his lawyer were shocked at what happened next.
Well, they took a look at it and they said,
"We revoke our admission in relation to the allegations
"and we revoke our admission of liability,"
"and we revoke our admission and on top of all of that,
"We're now going to seek and on top of all of that,
"We're now going to seek to shut down this entire case."
With a permanent stay? That's right.
So, let me get this straight -
Geelong Grammar admitted liability,
but when they saw how much it was going to cost them
but when they saw how much they revoked that liability?
Well, that was the sequence of events. Yep.
Geelong Grammar delivered this news to James
Geelong Grammar in the days before Christmas.
JAMES: I was sitting there, and I was like...
.."Fuck! What?"
And it's like... It's like, "How can this happen?"
And it's like... The case is meant to be over.
I told them that I was outraged and appalled.
In my view, the admission of liability
In my view, was always disingenuous
and, really, just conditional
upon James approaching his claim in a manner that suited them.
Which was in a way that they would save money?
Which was in a way Absolutely.
Good to see you. All good? Absolutely.
Good to see you. All good? You too, mate.
With the permanent-stay hearing looming,
With the permanent-stay hearing Kim Price meets up with James,
who'll have to make a tough decision.
Given the state of the law,
we really face some serious risks...
..of the case being shut down.
So, it's time to make a decision, really, about what you want to do.
So, it's time to make a decision, Mm-hm.
So, they're making us roll the dice.
OK.
As your lawyer,
I would hate to see you walk away with nothing out of this.
I would hate to see you walk away No. Yeah, I...
I also don't want to No. Yeah, I...
I also don't want to settle the case.
I also don't want to No.
But... Oh, gosh.
..ultimately, you've gotta do what's in your best interests.
I know.
(SIGHS HEAVILY)
If... If we...
If we fight, what happens if I lose?
You'll get nothing.
Right.
James decides to settle.
Where do I sign, mate?
There? Yep.
Thanks, mate.
I didn't want it to end like this.
I wanted my day in court.
Thanks, mate.
By raising the prospect of the permanent stay,
By raising the prospect Geelong Grammar saved $4 million
from the amount James's lawyers assessed he needed
because his life had been so comprehensively destroyed.
But it did agree to pay him more than $2 million.
The school declined to discuss James's case,
but in a statement made a general apology to victims
but in a statement for harms suffered.
(BIRDS TWITTER)
Permanent stays aren't the only tactic deployed against victims.
In a small country town outside of Canberra
we meet survivor Josh Byrnes and his aunty Joanne.
It's good to be able to talk about it,
It's good to be able you know, talk about my story,
talk about our story.
They have an astonishing story
of what an institution did They have an astonishing story
of what an institution did in order to limit its liability.
It felt like they wanted to protect their own skin,
like, their own reputation.
But definitely, to me, the protection of children
seemed extremely low on their list of priorities.
The Byrnes were extremely committed Catholics.
The family was delighted
when Joanne's cousin Dennis Byrnes was ordained a priest.
So, when, each school holidays,
young Josh and his brothers So, when, each school holidays,
young Josh and his brothers would go to stay with Aunty Joanne,
young Josh and his brothers Father Byrnes was more than welcome.
JOANNE BYRNES: He was a priest -
he's even more trusted
and even more revered, he's even more trusted
and even more revered,
so, there was no question
that he was an adult looking after so, there was no question
that he was an adult looking after these precious little children.
But when Josh was 12, in 1999,
Father Byrnes But when Josh was 12, in 1999,
Father Byrnes began to betray the family's trust.
Josh says the priest would go on to abuse him over an eight-year period.
I've got a lot of emotions that come up
when I start thinking about that.
When I think about...
..what it could take
a man to take a child that was that innocent
and to do the things that he did to me
knowing very well that he had all the power,
that there was no authority that I had to say no.
I didn't even know that what we were doing was wrong.
In 2016 Josh Byrnes went to police.
Father Dennis Byrnes was convicted.
There was no doubt whatsoever that he did what he did to you?
No, there was no doubt whatsoever.
He pleaded guilty.
I watched him stand in the courtroom and say, "Yes, I did these things."
Files were found in the Lismore archives
revealing the diocese had known the priest was a danger to children
revealing the diocese had known 15 years before he ever abused Josh.
The files made notice, made comment,
that he offended back in 1984 against another little boy
under very similar circumstances.
That little boy came forward as an adult
to complain of the abuse to the church in 2006
while Father Dennis Byrnes was still abusing Josh.
When Josh Byrnes used this prior knowledge
as the basis of a civil claim against the diocese,
he and his aunty were gobsmacked at the response.
So, all of a sudden, I get a phone call one afternoon
from Joshua's lawyers,
and Joshua's on the phone
saying there's a cross-claim and Joshua's on the phone
saying there's a cross-claim coming against me,
saying there's a cross-claim that it was MY negligence
because I should have reasonably foreseen
that a priest would have abused a child
and that I was negligent
for leaving this priest with unsupervised time with a child,
and that I could be up for compensation, interest,
all the costs and anything else the court deems.
It didn't sit with me that I would have known that.
And then when I found out later that THEY actually DID know that,
I thought, "Oh, 'reasonably foreseeable'
"are the words that apply to them,
"not me."
How would you characterise what they did?
Oh, well, 'evil' is the first word that comes to me.
The evidence clearly showed that they were aware of what he was like,
The evidence clearly showed that that he was a predator,
and for them to turn around and suggest to my aunty
it should have been foreseeable to her that this might happen
it should have been foreseeable seems extremely hypocritical.
It just seemed like they were just not interested in people,
just not interested in us and who we were or what we'd been through.
What do you think they WERE interested in?
Just protecting themselves.
Ultimately, the Diocese of Lismore
agreed its cross-claim against Joanne should be dismissed.
It settled with Josh.
It declined to speak to Four Corners.
They lost my respect.
And I don't understand
why they won't just stand up and be accountable for what they've done.
I don't understand why they can't just go, "I'm sorry. We messed up."
As they battle their way through these complex cases,
plaintiff lawyers say
some institutions are more robust litigants than others.
The Marist Brothers were raised by most lawyers Four Corners spoke to.
The Royal Commission found
historically a staggering one Marist Brother in five
historically a staggering was an alleged perpetrator.
You are an old boy of a Marist school.
How would you describe the approach of the Marist Brothers
when it comes to permanent stays?
I personally am... when it comes to permanent stays?
I personally am...
..quite confronted with some of the tactics
that I have seen deployed in relation to some cases.
that I have seen deployed I've encountered examples
where the threat of a stay I've encountered examples
where the threat of a stay has been made
simply upon giving notice
of an intention to bring a claim against a well-known abuser.
At their core, they talk about kindness and moral values, of an intention to bring a claim against a well-known abuser.
At their core, they talk about kindness and moral values,
but then this is how people are getting treated,
and we really want to raise this issue
because there are many people who are part of these institutions,
they send their children to the school,
and then do they know that this is what's happening
when it gets to this, when a claimant comes forward,
and it's contrary to the assurances that they've given publicly?
And we think that it's something that people need to know about.
Marist Brothers Australia declined to be interviewed for this program.
In a statement it says stays are "an accepted part of our legal system,
In a statement it says stays are "an "are available to all parties
"and have been exercised by many organisations."
It says, "The Marists Brothers only apply for permanent stays
"when it seems a fair trial is not possible."
One man who has been dealing with the Marists for a long time
is Ted Kawicki.
The Marists say they've been trying to mediate with him in good faith.
They've just made him a low offer, which Ted will not accept.
So, he's taking his fight to Canberra.
TED KAWICKI: I was a little boy then, a little innocent little boy.
But I don't wanna play the victim here.
I want to go in there and expose these bastards, you know?
How're you going, David? Good to meet you.
Ted Kawicki, mate. Yeah, yeah, heard a lot about you.
Ted sees the only hope
for survivors like him threatened with permanent stays
for survivors like him is a change in the law.
Parliament must - MUST - remove this obscenity off the statute books
because that denies hundreds and hundreds of innocent victims
because that denies hundreds their right to due process
whilst affording known paedophile criminals
sanctuary in the grave.
Greens Senator David Shoebridge has already written
to the New South Wales and Commonwealth Attorneys-General,
and agrees to raise it in the next Senate Estimates hearing.
Obviously, when the law is misfiring,
when the common law in this case is misfiring, Obviously, when the law is misfiring,
when the common law in this case is misfiring,
and it's not providing just outcomes,
that's when you need parliaments to step up.
That's what parliaments were asked to do by the Royal Commission.
That's what parliaments were asked And it's exactly the same now.
This is history repeating.
I very much doubt that a legislature would be minded This is history repeating.
I very much doubt that a legislature would be minded
to allow cases to go to trial if they were unfair trials
in the sense that it was wrong or bad
or the evidence was insufficient to permit a fair trial being had.
That would be strange legislation to allow that to occur.
The use of this kind of procedure for a stay of proceedings
is perfectly consistent with what the Royal Commission had to say.
is perfectly consistent with what But barrister James Masur
says permanent stays were little more than a footnote
in the Royal Commission's final report.
Before that, they were used in exceptionally rare circumstances, in the Royal Commission's final report.
Before that, they were used in exceptionally rare circumstances,
Before that, they were used in particularly in civil litigation.
And how often are they being used now?
In the historical-abuse space
it seems that they are being used -
insofar as that the reported decisions are coming through -
almost on a weekly basis.
It really is a situation which is grave,
It really is a situation and the effects of it are untold
in terms of the personal toll on survivors.
It makes me question why taxpayers spent $370 million in terms of the personal toll on survivors.
It makes me question why taxpayers spent $370 million
It makes me question on a Royal Commission
when we are almost
what seems to be in pre-Royal Commission days.
what seems to be It...
I find it offensive on a moral basis
that a technical legal argument
is able to take precedent over what should happen.
We want to have a trial.
We're not saying we've won yet,
but you've got to give someone the opportunity to have a trial
but you've got to give someone because that is part of the healing
and that is part of having the ability
to stand up for the little girl or the little boy
to stand up for the little girl that they're there for.
Politicians are waiting until the High Court of Australia has spoken.
A crucial case will be heard next week.
The High Court judgement
survivors and their lawyers The High Court judgement
survivors and their lawyers are anxiously waiting for
concerns a complaint of abuse by a woman known only as GLJ.
concerns a complaint of abuse GLJ alleges that when she was 14
she was sexually assaulted GLJ alleges that when she was 14
she was sexually assaulted by a Father Clarence David Anderson,
a Catholic priest from Lismore in northern New South Wales,
who was known to have abused children, but only boys.
The Diocese of Lismore is arguing for a permanent stay
on the basis that it can't possibly get a fair trial
on the basis that it can't possibly because Anderson died in 1996,
long before GLJ ever came forward.
GLJ, in many respects,
has frozen in time the hopes of most survivors
whose cases either face or may face a stay
as to whether or not there is any viability
in them bringing a case into the future.
(BIRDS SQUAWK)
(WAVES CRASH)
One survivor who is nervously anticipating
One survivor the High Court's decision in GLJ
is Matt Barker.
MATT BARKER: I have been very anxiously watching it.
You know, the result of that court case
literally changes the course of my world, you know?
It's no exaggeration to say
Matt's own case has sent shockwaves through the legal community.
The institution he's suing has no tombstone to hide behind.
MATT BARKER: The perpetrator's still alive.
And in jail? Yeah, and in jail.
So, they could speak to him about this?
So, they could speak to him Yeah. They could speak to him, yes.
And he's already pleaded guilty to this?
Yes, yes. He's pleaded guilty. Yes.
Matt was first abused at 11 years old.
Matt was first abused He was a scout.
His abuser was a scoutmaster in Sydney's west.
Offering to help Matt work towards his scout badges,
the man brought the boy to a lonely caravan.
MATT BARKER: When we first arrived back at that caravan,
MATT BARKER: When we first arrived pretty soon it just moved on
to where he, you know, pretty soon it just moved on
to where he, you know, started abusing me.
I was in shock. to where he, you know, started abusing me.
I was in shock.
You know, I was completely shocked about what was going on.
I didn't really understand what was happening.
And, you know, I still have a very clear...
And, you know, ..feeling of...
..right at that moment of the first abuse beginning
..right at that moment of just something breaking inside.
In June 2020
the man pleaded guilty to abusing four scouts,
including 24 charges in relation to Matt.
So, there was absolutely no doubt
that your perpetrator actually did this to you and to the other boys?
No. No doubt whatsoever.
Scouts NSW went to the Supreme Court
and they sought a permanent stay.
It definitely makes me very angry when I think about their behaviour.
I really don't think that Scouts
have lived up to the commitments they made to the Royal Commission.
How does it feel from a survivor's point of view
when you're trying to, as you say, take back agency
and the institution just pulls down the shutters?
and the institution It's incredibly frustrating
and it...
..it just feels like that any of the words and apologies
that Scouts have made about doing better in this area
that Scouts have made are empty.
It doesn't go Matt's way.
Supreme Court Justice Peter Garling awards a permanent stay to Scouts
Supreme Court Justice Peter Garling because too much time has passed
and some Scouts decision-makers are dead.
and some Scouts decision-makers Justice Garling says
Matt's convicted perpetrator, who Justice Garling says
Matt's convicted perpetrator, who offered to give evidence from jail,
Matt's convicted perpetrator, who is self-serving.
Justice Garling awards costs AGAINST Matt
TO Scouts.
To contextualise,
Scouts NSW's net assets
are worth $187 million. Scouts NSW's net assets
are worth $187 million.
PETER KARP: This decision today by the Supreme Court
PETER KARP: This decision today flies in the face of everything
that the Royal Commission flies in the face of everything
that the Royal Commission into child abuse stood for.
that the Royal Commission My client is devastated.
My client is calling upon the Attorneys-General My client is devastated.
My client is calling upon the Attorneys-General
to look into this law again and rectify it
to go back to what the Royal Commission wanted it to be -
to go back to what the Royal victim-orientated,
survivor-orientated,
to support them, survivor-orientated,
to support them, not the institutions,
once again allowing the abusers to slip through the fingers of justice.
Despite Four Corners' repeated conversations
with their corporate-communications representative,
Scouts NSW declined requests for an interview.
But we approached Scouts' lawyer, Patrick Thompson, outside court.
I just wanted to ask you
will you be enforcing costs
against this victim of a convicted paedophile?
Oh, thank you for asking that question,
but I can't make any comment on that.
Scouts is an organisation which is responsible
Scouts is an organisation for the care and safety of children.
Why has your client sought to have a permanent stay
against a victim of a convicted paedophile who's in jail
and is alive and is competent and is in his 60s?
Excuse me. Excuse me. Can you explain why that's the case?
In a statement
Scouts NSW acknowledged In a statement
Scouts NSW acknowledged Matt was the victim
of "an inexcusable and abhorrent crime,"
of "an inexcusable and said it had apologised to him.
Matt was gutted when he got the news of the judgement.
I was trying to sleep at night
when you're shaking, trembling with anger about this decision.
You know, you're trying to get through each day
You know, you're trying just on the verge of tears.
Keeping him awake at night now
is that the judge ordered HIM to pay Scouts' costs.
Scouts aren't challenging the judge's decision to award them those costs.
Meeting those costs would literally mean I lose my house
Meeting those costs and face bankruptcy.
So, yeah, and face bankruptcy.
So, yeah, I don't know what to do next.
This decision, it doesn't just affect me.
It affects all the other victims in my case.
It affects so many other people that have got claims live
It affects so many other people against organisations like Scouts.
So, this decision really needs to be appealed.
You know, I don't know how I'm going to gather
You know, I don't know the financial resources to do that.
I don't know how I'm going to gather
the emotional and psychological resources to do that.
But I just have to.
What would you say to the politicians who are watching this story?
This judgement...
This judgement is a perfect example of why the law needs to be changed.
The Scouts, you know, they said to the Royal Commission
that they were going to treat victims of sexual abuse
with consideration and mindfulness that litigation can be traumatising.
They said they were going to consider meeting legitimate claims
without litigation.
They're not doing that. That's not what they're doing here.
They're not doing that. Instead, they're re-victimising me.
They're treating me with unspeakable cruelty.
And it hurts.
So, what the legislators need to do is change the laws
so organisations can't behave like that.