IICSA - Benedictine Hearings 13 December 2017

91 Pages·2017·0.69 MB·English

IICSA - Benedictine Hearings 13 December 2017
1 Wednesday, 13 December 2017 1 diocese if Mr Martin Fisher could do it. He was the
2 (10.00 am) 2 safeguarding officer for the school, and it seemed to me
3 DOM RICHARD YEO (continued) 3 that to have the officers combined with the one person
4 Examination by MS KARMY-JONES (continued) 4 would help promote good safeguarding.
5 MS KARMY-JONES: Good morning, chair, members of the panel. 5 Q. If combined in one person, do you accept that the files
6 Father Richard, a question from someone else in the 6 should have been combined in one place?
7 room: if a victim of abuse or a victim of abuse's 7 A. I can see now the logic of it. It didn't occur to me at
8 parents state that they don't want statutory authorities 8 the time.
9 to be involved, are schools still obliged to inform 9 Q. When you became abbot, did you inspect all the files,
10 statutory authorities of possible abuse? 10 both of the abbey and the school?
11 A. I don't think they're obliged to by law. That's my 11 A. No. It would have been a mammoth task to do that.
12 understanding. Church policies indicate that they 12 Q. Or at least of those still present, the monks and the
13 should, and that has been the case, I think, since -- 13 teachers at the school and the abbey?
14 well, since the Children's Act and as regards church 14 A. I never did a systematic inspection of the school
15 policies since Bishop Budd's report in 1994. 15 archives. Over the years, I looked at everything
16 Q. Do you think it is appropriate for the 16 relating to the monks, but I didn't do it systematically
17 Charity Commission to inspect monasteries over 17 at the beginning of my time as abbot.
18 safeguarding concerns? 18 Q. What information would be contained within an abbot's
19 A. The short answer is: I don't know. I noticed that one 19 files on a monk?
20 of the -- your witnesses -- maybe Adrian Child, maybe 20 A. Could I just say first, you're asking me about Downside
21 Eileen Shearer -- suggested that Charity Commission 21 specifically rather than other monasteries?
22 involvement was unhelpful, but I really haven't got any 22 Q. I suspect you can only comment on Downside, in terms of
23 particular expertise in this area. 23 what would be contained in an abbot's files on a monk.
24 Q. We have heard that records were not kept centrally at 24 If you could tell us about Downside, I would be
25 Downside but were split between the abbey and the 25 grateful.
Page 1 Page 3
1 school, and you will be aware that it's been suggested 1 A. Fine. It would usually contain any correspondence which
2 that safeguarding records may have been kept separately 2 the abbot had had related to a monk, any communications
3 in brown envelopes. Was that something you were aware 3 from the monk to the abbot -- any significant
4 of? 4 communications, at least. I don't suppose abbots would
5 A. When I was abbot, I was aware that there were school 5 put every single note that they'd received in the file.
6 archives and that there were the abbey archives. It 6 Again, significant things about the monk.
7 didn't occur to me that there might be a difficulty with 7 Q. What about safeguarding material or information
8 safeguarding. It is only since the inquiry opened and 8 regarding abusive pasts or tendencies? Would that kind
9 I've seen some papers that I've realised that Downside 9 of information be in the abbot's files?
10 has changed its system. Again, it's only since I've 10 A. When I -- the first time that I saw material of that
11 heard -- since I was -- sorry, since I've seen papers 11 sort was when allegations were made against F66 and F77,
12 relating to the inquiry that I've heard about these 12 and I examined their files systematically at that stage,
13 brown envelopes. 13 including their files which were in the historic
14 Q. We touched on this a little yesterday, so forgive me if 14 section, and I found under F66's file material dating
15 there is a little repetition, but what mechanism was set 15 from the 1970s. I have to say, that was in a brown
16 in place to ensure that the abbot was informed of 16 envelope, so I don't know whether that's one of
17 safeguarding issues in the school and the school of 17 the things which you're concerned about.
18 safeguarding issues in the monastery? 18 Q. When you say "in the historic section", can I just be
19 A. We had a safeguarding representative for the monastery 19 clear about that: we have got the files in the
20 who was appointed in liaison with the Clifton -- sorry, 20 monastery; we have got the files in the school; we have
21 Child Protection Commission. 21 got files in an historic section as well?
22 The first safeguarding representative was Father Leo 22 A. Sorry, I'm talking about the abbot's files.
23 Maidlow Davis. He then became headmaster, and I asked 23 Q. Right.
24 Father Richard Mckay, who was then the safeguarding -- 24 A. You would have current files and historic.
25 sorry, the child protection officer, I think, for the 25 Q. Would it be possible for there to be a file in respect
Page 2 Page 4
1 (Pages 1 to 4)
DTI www.DTIGlobal.com 8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
([phone] London EC4A 2DY
IICSA - Benedictine Hearings 13 December 2017
1 of a current monk in the historic files -- 1 A. No. I read something in his evidence the day before
2 A. Yes. 2 yesterday, but very late at night and I wasn't paying
3 Q. -- if the allegation was old? 3 that much attention.
4 A. Yes. 4 Q. At one point, he says, he cleared a number of records
5 Q. So there could be a file in the school, a file in the 5 that he had not reviewed carefully beforehand and he
6 abbot's present filing system, and a file in a separate 6 took them to a field behind Downside, an area behind
7 area which was historic? 7 Downside, in a wheelbarrow and he burnt them, in several
8 A. Yes. 8 trips across several days. Do you have any observations
9 Q. Would information about any abusive or past tendencies 9 about that?
10 be passed on to the school in respect of a monk? 10 A. I remember, when I was down in the school archives on
11 A. As I say, that was the only occasion -- sorry, that was 11 one occasion, seeing that they looked in very poor shape
12 the first occasion when I saw something about abusive 12 and something needed to be done. But to destroy files,
13 tendencies. 13 unless you're certain that they are very old and if you
14 Q. Did you pass that on to the school? 14 haven't reviewed them I think is probably not very good
15 A. What happened was that Mr Fisher was involved, so 15 practice.
16 through him it would be passed on to the school. 16 Q. So did he discuss that with you before the destruction
17 Q. So you expected him, as safeguarding or child protection 17 took place?
18 officer, to pass it on to the school, but you would not 18 A. He didn't, but if I'm not -- I have no recollection of
19 have done anything yourself; is that correct? 19 this, and I wonder if it happened when I was abbot.
20 A. In that case, I certainly had to talk to Father Leo 20 Q. Were you aware of the issues that police had in
21 about it. He was then headmaster, and he was involved 21 obtaining disclosure from Downside during
22 in resolving that case, and I had to talk, yeah, to 22 Operation February?
23 several people about that. 23 A. No, I wasn't.
24 Q. Would that information have been passed on to an abbot's 24 Q. Do you have knowledge of the Stroud treatment centre:
25 successor, so in your case was that information 25 what happened there; who decided to send monks there;
Page 5 Page 7
1 specifically passed on to Father Aidan? 1 how reliable the risk assessments were that they
2 A. By that time, Father Aidan was my prior and I used to 2 produced?
3 discuss most of the things which I was currently 3 A. I sent two people to Stroud. I'd received
4 involved with with Father Aidan, and he knew about it. 4 recommendations that they were good. I knew the people
5 Q. What should happen in that handover meeting, if there is 5 concerned. I --
6 one, or did you just not have one with Father Aidan 6 Q. Which people were those, if they have ciphers?
7 because he'd been your prior? 7 A. No, they are --
8 A. It was a great deal easier with Father Aidan because, as 8 Q. Others? Other individuals? Is that right?
9 I say, he knew most of what I knew. As I mentioned in 9 A. No, Richard White and Desmond O'Keefe.
10 my witness statement, as regards safeguarding, the one 10 Q. Yes.
11 issue which I mentioned to him was the one issue which 11 A. And I knew other people who had been sent there as well.
12 I was -- which I hadn't -- which I thought I hadn't 12 Q. Did you hold Stroud in fairly high regard? Did you
13 spoken to him about, which was F65. 13 consider them to be a good centre?
14 Q. That you did mention to him, you say? 14 A. I did. By the time -- I was going to say, by the time
15 A. And I mentioned that to him. I think in his witness 15 Desmond O'Keefe was there, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation
16 statement he doesn't. It may be that I mentioned it 16 were also involved in it. I don't recall whether they
17 immediately after him becoming abbot. He may have had 17 were involved when Richard White was there, but I think
18 so many other things on his mind he forgot, I don't 18 they were. I'm not certain.
19 know. 19 Q. I'm going to move on to specific cases, beginning with
20 Q. So that's a difference between you: he says not, and you 20 Desmond O'Keefe. I think you said to us yesterday that
21 say you did? 21 you were not involved in the 1997 investigation?
22 A. Yes. 22 A. No.
23 Q. I don't know whether you were listening to the evidence 23 Q. But that you had reported the matter to the CDF in 2004?
24 of Father Leo yesterday, but did you hear him speak 24 A. Correct.
25 about destroying records? 25 Q. So when did you first become aware of the problems with
Page 6 Page 8
2 (Pages 5 to 8)
DTI www.DTIGlobal.com 8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
([phone] London EC4A 2DY
IICSA - Benedictine Hearings 13 December 2017
1 Dunstan or Desmond O'Keefe? 1 some was pictures involving young (possibly teenage)
2 A. I was told by a friend when visiting Downside, either 2 males."
3 1997 or early 1998, that pornography had been found on 3 So you had, then, seen some of the 1997 downloaded
4 his computer, or on a computer which he had used. 4 material; is that right?
5 Q. So you were told by a friend in 1997 or 1998? 5 A. A few images, yes.
6 A. Yes. 6 Q. Including some involving possibly young -- teenage
7 Q. Then, thereafter, did you take an active involvement in 7 males, young males?
8 the matter? 8 A. Pictures of people who I really could not say what age
9 A. Well, I became abbot in August 1998, and that was when 9 they were.
10 I, yes, became involved. 10 Q. You say:
11 Q. Ultimately, I think in your statement you say at 11 "Father Dunstan was taken off all work in the
12 paragraph 60 that you decided in or around 12 school. However, he was not forbidden to go into the
13 December 2003, in consultation with your council, to 13 school, or to talk to boys. The abbot of the time
14 remove Desmond from the role of novice master and 14 offered him psychological help; he declined the offer,
15 director of vocations, and you stopped him from being in 15 and the issue was dropped."
16 charge of Bainesbury House, the house which was let out 16 You then say:
17 to supervised groups, including people who were under 17 "Six months later I became abbot. Father Dunstan
18 18 years of age? 18 came to me very early and asked whether there was any
19 A. Yes. 19 chance of him ever returning to school work. After
20 Q. And thereafter instructed him to stay away from the 20 consulting those who had been involved in the case,
21 school? 21 I concluded that there had never been any suggestion
22 A. Excuse me, which number did you say? 22 that Father Dunstan had harmed a child, but that there
23 Q. Paragraph 60. 23 was some evidence that some boys in the school might
24 A. Yes, I think I'd actually informally told him to keep 24 know what he had been up to. There was also a minor
25 out of the school beforehand, and he said he would. 25 concern that, whilst Father Dunstan's own perception was
Page 9 Page 11
1 Actually, I think he said that he'd already decided that 1 that he had been a good housemaster, this perception was
2 he would. 2 not shared by those in authority in the school."
3 Q. Can we bring up EMA000074_001. Do you recognise this? 3 They said he had favourites, talked with boys late
4 A. I do, and I rather think this is a report I sent to 4 into the night:
5 the -- I included this in my report to the Holy See. 5 "I told him that he must stay out of the school for
6 Q. It is dated 2 January 2004. That's on the very last 6 at least five years ..."
7 page? 7 Which is what you told us earlier.
8 A. In that case, it is not the one I sent to the Holy See. 8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Let's go through it. It is in fact signed off by 9 Q. "... the time needed for all the boys who had been under
10 Richard Yeo, Abbot of Downside, dated 2 January 2004. 10 his care to have left the school. Another factor was
11 It is a few pages long, but if we can just look through 11 the great hurt caused to the person who had discovered
12 it, you set out a history for Father Dunstan O'Keefe in 12 the offence and to his wife; I was conscious of the need
13 the first paragraph. You say that you heard late in 13 to respect their feelings."
14 1998 "an uncorroborated hearsay report that when he was 14 Over the page, you speak about the shock to him of
15 a student in Rome (1992-1995, I think) he used to take 15 the five-year ban. Partway through the top paragraph
16 photographs of children. I was myself in Rome at that 16 you say:
17 time and I had heard nothing of this." 17 "... I told him that I would want him to see
18 You give his history with the school, being 18 a psychiatrist, and asked him to see Dr Danny Rogers, of
19 appointed a housemaster in 1996, and then you say: 19 Bristol ... Dr Rogers was not an expert in this area,
20 "I have seen some of the material he downloaded; he 20 but told me that he was ready to see him.
21 does not know that I have seen some of this material, 21 "Dr Rogers' report indicated that Father Dunstan
22 and I should prefer if he continues not to know, to 22 suffered from no psychiatric disorder, and that he did
23 protect the person who showed it to me. None of 23 not think his involvement with children posed any
24 the material that I saw involved pre-pubescent children. 24 serious risk to those children, but that there was
25 Some of the material was text with indecent language, 25 a small but potentially overwhelming risk of public
Page 10 Page 12
3 (Pages 9 to 12)
DTI www.DTIGlobal.com 8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
([phone] London EC4A 2DY
IICSA - Benedictine Hearings 13 December 2017
1 scandal if he were ever involved in the teaching of 1 I found it rather frustrating that the two
2 children again. He reported that Father Dunstan had 2 psychologists -- psychiatrists to whom I had referred
3 told him that he was attracted to boys below the age of 3 Desmond O'Keefe both gave reports which didn't really
4 16 and to women above that age. 'He sees that as 4 challenge him.
5 a positive attribute, which has helped his teaching'. 5 Q. Do you include Elizabeth Mann in that? Is she the other
6 Father Dunstan had also told him that he had never been 6 psychiatrist?
7 involved in any overt behaviour involving others." 7 A. No, she's not, sorry, the other one was a Dr Blackman,
8 Do you recall that report? 8 I think.
9 A. If you say that it was 2 January, I think it may be an 9 Q. Going back to EMA000074_002, you go on to say:
10 earlier version which I gave to Dr Elizabeth Mann, but 10 "Father Dunstan was disappointed with his meeting
11 I'm not certain. 11 with Dr Rogers ..."
12 Q. We will come back to this in a moment. 12 Yes?
13 A. I wouldn't have done such a formal report just as an 13 A. Yes, he was.
14 aide-memoire for myself. 14 Q. You continue with the chronology and you say:
15 Q. I'm talking about Dr Rogers' report? 15 "This was March 1999. The very day he was seeing
16 A. Oh, I do remember Dr Rogers' report, yes. I was talking 16 Dr Rogers, evidence was brought to me that he appeared
17 about the document as a whole. 17 to be returning to the habit of internet abuse.
18 Q. Sorry, it was my being unclear. "Dr Rogers' report 18 I confronted him, again he admitted guilt, though he
19 indicated ..." Do you remember that report? 19 said that when he had sought some of the pornographic
20 A. I do. 20 sites he had visited previously, he had found that these
21 Q. Can we turn up BNT002343_004. We will come back to the 21 had been closed down. I imposed a small punishment on
22 other one in a moment. Is this the report you're 22 him, as well as a ban on use of the internet in his
23 speaking of? Oh, no, I think I've given you the wrong 23 cell."
24 reference. I'm sorry, it -- yes, it was that one. 24 Did you think of doing anything else?
25 A. I haven't seen it before, for 20 years, so the short 25 A. Well, the following paragraph says what I did do.
Page 13 Page 15
1 answer is, I don't recall it. But -- 1 I went back to the GP and thought that we needed to take
2 Q. I just wonder, because there is a direct quote in the 2 it further.
3 middle. It may be that it was taken from the report. 3 Q. In the paragraph below, you say:
4 It is a letter to Dr Rye from D Rogers, it says in the 4 "I did not see how I could draw any conclusion from
5 middle: 5 these two reports, other than that Father Dunstan had no
6 "Since the age of 10 he has been sexually attracted 6 psychological issues which needed professional help ..."
7 to boys below the age of 16 and to women above that age. 7 Is that right?
8 He sees this as a positive attribute which has helped 8 A. That is what those two reports indicated, and I was
9 his teaching. He has discussed his sexuality with 9 dissatisfied with those two reports, as I indicate
10 others since first thinking of a monastic life." 10 below.
11 Did you actually have a report, or did you just have 11 Q. The other report, was that from Dr Rye, Dr Stephen Rye?
12 this letter? 12 A. Dr Rye wrote me a letter, which I rather think was
13 A. I think I just had that letter. 13 handwritten, giving his view that Desmond was suffering
14 Q. Because there is another matter that you quote from it 14 from cognitive distortion. The other psychological
15 over on page 2: 15 report was Dr Blackman -- it was Blackman, I think --
16 "I do not think his involvement with children poses 16 Blackwell, which was very unhelpful, because it
17 any serious risk to those children, but there is a small 17 suggested that he could return to being a housemaster in
18 but potentially overwhelming risk of public scandal if 18 the school.
19 he was ever involved in the teaching of children again." 19 Q. We will look for that. I don't think we have seen that.
20 So, in fact, was it not a report, but just a letter 20 But can I take you to BNT003777_122. This
21 written to Dr Rye? 21 is "July 199" -- from the context -- "9". It is to you
22 A. I think that is the case, and copied to me. 22 from Dr Rye.
23 Q. But a letter that you placed great weight on, in fact; 23 He says in the first paragraph:
24 is that right? 24 "I realise that the contents of this letter will
25 A. No, I don't think I did place great weight on it. 25 concern you and that, until now, I have only an outline
Page 14 Page 16
4 (Pages 13 to 16)
DTI www.DTIGlobal.com 8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
([phone] London EC4A 2DY
IICSA - Benedictine Hearings 13 December 2017
1 knowledge concerning paedophilia -- enough, I hope, to 1 A. I still don't think it was a bad idea, in itself, but
2 sense when children may be at risk and to get something 2 actually, it didn't work as well as I -- in the
3 done about it." 3 beginning of the next paragraph, I say that this
4 He goes on to outline that he has done a little bit 4 appointment was quite successful. Further conversation
5 of research, reviewed Father Dunstan's interview and 5 with the one novice who he had, suggested to me that
6 speaks of cognitive distortion. Is this the letter that 6 actually it was a mistake, not because of any
7 you are speaking about? 7 safeguarding reasons.
8 A. I think it is, yes. 8 Q. In principle, do you think that it was a good idea?
9 Q. If we can just go to the next page, 123, the last 9 A. In principle, no, and I don't think I thought it was
10 paragraph on that page, he says: 10 a very good idea in principle then, but I thought I'd
11 "... I think that is probably enough. I am really 11 got to do something.
12 only passing on information to you about paedophilia 12 Q. Was he still your secretary at this point, in 2002?
13 which I have obtained recently. I obviously do not feel 13 A. I think, by that stage, that was one of the things he'd
14 competent to give a view about its relevance to 14 said he needed to get out of, and I think by then I had
15 Father Dunstan. Frankly, I found it so worrying that 15 probably relieved him of that.
16 much of it could apply to Father Dunstan that I felt 16 Q. I think, in 2003, Richard White became your secretary;
17 I had to share it with you. I am sorry to burden you in 17 is that right?
18 this way. You may want to discuss this further -- if 18 A. You could well be right. But I had -- he didn't take
19 so, I would be happy to do so." 19 over immediately from Desmond O'Keefe.
20 Did you do anything as a result of that letter? 20 Q. It may have been that F123, another master whose name
21 A. At this distance of time, I can't remember the exact 21 for various reasons is ciphered, filled the gap?
22 sequence of events. But I think it was after this that 22 A. Yes. If Richard White took over in 2003, I would think
23 we got Dr Blackwell involved and asked him to do an 23 that Desmond O'Keefe would have finished probably 2000,
24 assessment. 24 maybe 2001.
25 Q. Did you keep Father Dunstan as your secretary? 25 Q. In respect of this appointment as novice, at
Page 17 Page 19
1 A. Yes. 1 paragraph 50 of your statement, you describe Desmond as
2 Q. You say, going back to EMA000074_002, at the bottom, in 2 a very manipulative person who did not appreciate the
3 the last paragraph, that in the years 1999 to 2002, 3 gravity of his offences, and so was particularly
4 Father Dunstan was not an easy person to deal with. He 4 difficult to control. Was the way he was being dealt
5 was clearly not happy with the work I gave him, and 5 with at all appropriate?
6 while he did the work well, he made it difficult for me 6 A. Yes, I think it was. I was trying and other people were
7 to keep him in that work." 7 trying as well to bring out the best in him.
8 What was the other work that you gave him? 8 Q. He then was arrested in 2003 and charged with a Public
9 A. I'm not certain about dates, but I made him 9 Order Act offence, which had involved masturbating
10 Guest Master. 10 outside a school.
11 Q. Over the page, at EMA000074_003: 11 At that stage -- you mention that in this document:
12 "In 2002, I needed to appoint a new novice master. 12 "On 17 October, he came to see me to tell me that he
13 Back in 1999, Father Dunstan had mentioned to me in 13 had been charged by the police with an offence ... he
14 passing that this was the job he would really like, 14 indicated that this was not true. Two days later, he
15 though he never expected to be given it, bearing in mind 15 came and told me it was true and that he would be
16 what had happened. I decided in 2002 to take the risk 16 pleading guilty.
17 of appointing Father Dunstan to the post of novice 17 "A few days after that, rumours started circulating
18 master. There had been no evidence of any wrongdoing in 18 among the teaching staff ... that he had been found
19 the intermediate years." 19 masturbating in a car ... when I told him this, he did
20 So since 1999? 20 not react greatly but remarked that the rumours were
21 A. Yes. 21 less good than they might have been. I told him that he
22 Q. Not a very long period of time. 22 should lie low and specifically keep out of the school."
23 A. Indeed. 23 Why did you tell him to lie low? What did that
24 Q. Do you have any observations to make about that decision 24 mean?
25 in 2002? 25 A. Keep out of sight.
Page 18 Page 20
5 (Pages 17 to 20)
DTI www.DTIGlobal.com 8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
([phone] London EC4A 2DY
IICSA - Benedictine Hearings 13 December 2017
1 Q. Out of whose sight? 1 of our charitable trusts: his term of office will come
2 A. If rumours were going around -- the rumours actually 2 to an end in mid February, and rather than humiliate him
3 started, if I recall rightly, because one of the people 3 by removing him, I prefer simply to allow these
4 who had caught him outside the school was married to 4 appointments to lapse."
5 a lady who worked as a cleaner at Downside, and so she 5 So not only had he been your secretary and, it would
6 was telling her friends and so it then started spreading 6 seem, was continuing for some time to be your secretary,
7 around the school like wildfire. 7 he wasn't removed from the post of novice master, as you
8 Q. Did you think he should just leave the school and the 8 say he was in your statement; he was on the abbot's
9 abbey at that point? 9 council and he was a trustee of the charitable trust.
10 A. No. 10 How was that allowed to continue?
11 Q. He agreed, but your paragraph goes on to say: 11 A. Well, if I made a mistake about novice master, I'm
12 "While he did not go to the school as far as I am 12 sorry, I had forgotten that. He certainly continued in
13 aware, he seemed quite unaware of the danger of speaking 13 the novice master's role. Though, as I indicate, there
14 with boys and even of taking a prominent role in the 14 was not much -- it didn't involve anything, since there
15 liturgy." 15 weren't any novices at the time.
16 So he still had access to boys during this period, 16 Q. But knowing what you knew, what it is plain you knew
17 and you had to intervene on more than one occasion to 17 from this document, having seen images even that
18 keep him out of this. He wasn't abiding by any promise 18 suggested that there might be teenage boys, how could
19 or any agreement with you, was he? 19 that be allowed to carry on?
20 A. I think what had happened was that if he was 20 A. I think there are some different issues here.
21 legitimately in the church, he would feel quite happy 21 Membership of the abbot's council and trustee of our
22 about talking to a boy who came into the church, 22 charitable trusts. I think it was only at the end of my
23 something like that. I don't think he went down to the 23 time as abbot that I realised that this was really
24 school. But the point is that he didn't take the matter 24 incompatible with being -- should not be permitted for
25 seriously. 25 a person who was a safeguarding risk. I can only say in
Page 21 Page 23
1 Q. You say at the bottom of the page: 1 my defence that I didn't realise it at that time.
2 "After consultation with my council, I decided to 2 The post of novice master, he certainly shouldn't
3 remove him from the post of junior master, of director 3 have responsibility for novices. But because there
4 of vocations, and also from the charge of 4 weren't any novices, I didn't see any need to remove him
5 Bainesbury House ..." 5 immediately.
6 That's where you point out again that it was a house 6 Q. But even before that point that you came to the decision
7 which you let out to groups, including young people: 7 that there should be a change and you observed there
8 "... access to which is necessarily through the 8 weren't any novices so it's not a problem, there was
9 school." 9 a period before that point where he did have contact
10 So that would have been access that he had had 10 with novices?
11 during this period? 11 A. Not since July, and the offence took place
12 A. Through school grounds, not through school buildings. 12 in September -- the novice had left in July.
13 Q. As we saw in your statement, you said that you had 13 Q. The offence that resulted in the public order
14 decided to remove him in December 2003 from the role of 14 conviction?
15 novice master, but in this document, if we go over the 15 A. Took place in September.
16 page, EMA000074_004, at this stage you say: 16 Q. But you were aware of the 1997 matter?
17 "I did not remove him from the post of novice 17 A. Yes.
18 master ..." 18 Q. You go on in that to say you will need to re-examine
19 The reason you give at the top is that: 19 Dr Rogers' assessment that he does not pose a serious
20 "... there are at present no novices, and I don't 20 risk to children, in this note. This note, in effect,
21 see the need to humiliate him more than is necessary; if 21 was a form of explanation, or it was seeking to be
22 novices were to come, I should probably have to change 22 a form of explanation, as to how you had come to leave
23 that." 23 him in those positions, wasn't it?
24 You then go on to say: 24 A. If I'm right that this note was written for
25 "He is a member of the abbot's council and a trustee 25 Elizabeth Mann, it was explaining to her the background
Page 22 Page 24
6 (Pages 21 to 24)
DTI www.DTIGlobal.com 8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
([phone] London EC4A 2DY
IICSA - Benedictine Hearings 13 December 2017
1 of why I was asking her to do a psychological 1 Whether it is true that everyone knew that it was
2 assessment. 2 child pornography back in 1997 -- as I say, I'm confused
3 Q. But it's plain from that last line, "I will need to 3 about what I knew at what time.
4 re-examine Dr Rogers' assessment" that you had placed -- 4 Q. But it is plain --
5 or you were saying you placed weight on Dr Rogers' 5 A. That's all I can say.
6 assessment, but it appears that Dr Rogers' assessment 6 Q. -- as we have seen in your own note from that time,
7 was in fact a letter received, not a formal report? 7 isn't it, that you were aware of at least the
8 A. Well, that's what he gave me. 8 possibility --
9 Q. From this, do you agree that it appears that you placed 9 A. Yes, I was aware of the possibility, certainly.
10 a significant amount of weight on the need not to 10 Q. At the penultimate paragraph, she says:
11 humiliate Dunstan O'Keefe? 11 "It seems to me that Dom Dunstan's addiction to
12 A. If this was 2 January, what was happening at that stage 12 child pornography was continuing all the time and I find
13 was actually quite painful to watch. Reality was 13 it so difficult to understand why his internet actions
14 setting in. The time of Christmas, he became ill as the 14 were not being monitored to prevent this happening
15 enormity of his offences started to become clear to him. 15 again. Why oh why wasn't the situation all nipped in
16 It wasn't a time to humiliate him further. 16 the bud at the very beginning?"
17 Q. Can I ask you to look at BNT003777_069. A letter from 17 Can you answer that question?
18 Frances Daniels, dated 6 September 2004. Do you 18 A. I can't, and I couldn't then.
19 recognise the name Frances Daniels? 19 Q. You in your statement at paragraph 61 say that you had
20 A. I do. 20 assured the police that you intended to ask O'Keefe to
21 Q. "Dear Father Abbot. 21 undergo a psychological assessment, and you commissioned
22 "I was very saddened, and if I am honest, angry to 22 Dr Elizabeth Mann. Do you remember that in her
23 see the news regarding Dom Dunstan ... 23 assessment she told you not only that some of the images
24 "We all know that Dom Dunstan was downloading and 24 he viewed were of minors, but also that he had admitted
25 looking at child pornography while he was a housemaster. 25 that the images in 1997 were of minors?
Page 25 Page 27
1 He was relieved of his position as housemaster, and was 1 A. I don't recall that.
2 confined to monastic duties. It was during that time 2 Q. Do you want to see it? Or will you accept it?
3 that Dom Philip had a long discussion with me and also 3 A. I will accept it. In a sense, this confirms what I was
4 Dom Dunstan himself came to see me and to apologise for 4 saying, that I'm afraid I am confused.
5 the distress it had caused me and it still does. 5 Q. We have seen it. She made it clear that he had made
6 "I was assured by Dom Philip and subsequently by 6 that admission to her.
7 yourself that Dom Dunstan was receiving counselling and 7 She then reminded you there was a section in her
8 help ... I was also given assurances that no harm had 8 report which quite firmly indicated that you should be
9 been done to any boy in the school. At one stage you 9 informing the police. Did you need that push from
10 even asked what Malcolm's and my thoughts would be if 10 Elizabeth Mann to do so?
11 you decided to re-introduce him into the school. 11 A. It was very helpful to have that push.
12 I wasn't happy about him being brought back into the 12 Q. You went to see the police on 24 January 2004 with
13 school, if you remember." 13 Dr Mann?
14 Do you remember this letter? 14 A. Yes.
15 A. I remember the letter, and I remember the meeting with 15 Q. He was arrested in February. Indeed, when police seized
16 her. 16 his computer, they found that he'd downloaded 12,000
17 Q. Do you agree with her observation: "We all know that 17 images?
18 Dom Dunstan was downloading and looking at child 18 A. I can't remember the -- yes, something like that.
19 pornography while he was a housemaster"? 19 Q. I think it is actually in your statement at
20 A. I think that is not quite certain. As I said to you at 20 paragraph 61?
21 the beginning of my evidence, I'm rather confused today 21 A. Yes.
22 about what I knew at what time. I certainly had an 22 Q. You were told he'd downloaded 12,000 images, of which
23 assurance from Desmond in 1999 that any pornography was 23 less than 2 per cent related to adult males?
24 adult pornography, and I remember seeing that written 24 A. Yes.
25 down somewhere, which gave me reassurance. 25 Q. The rest children?
Page 26 Page 28
7 (Pages 25 to 28)
DTI www.DTIGlobal.com 8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
([phone] London EC4A 2DY
IICSA - Benedictine Hearings 13 December 2017
1 A. Well, including minors in their teens. 1 A. I would think among people of a certain age, it was
2 Q. So 2 per cent related to adult males. The rest are 2 probably -- and both those men were 70.
3 children or minors in their teens; yes? 3 Q. Was it a view that you shared?
4 A. Presumably, yes. 4 A. At that time, I just didn't -- I don't know what
5 Q. It also included 16 images onto which the heads of boys 5 I thought. Today, I would not share that view.
6 at the school had been superimposed; is that right? 6 Q. In your statement at paragraph 68, you say this -- you
7 A. Again, that's what I heard later on, yes. 7 speak about:
8 Q. That's what you heard later on. At the time, he was 8 "... in January 1999, Richard White returned from
9 arrested for those matters and subsequently prosecuted, 9 Fort Augustus to Downside. This had been arranged by
10 and that's what you have put in your statement? 10 Abbot Charles Fitzgerald-Lombard before I became abbot;
11 A. Yes. 11 when I became abbot he gave me a note in which he
12 Q. Is that right? 12 informed me that it had been arranged that he should
13 A. Yes. Sorry, all I'm saying is that I heard about the 13 return then. In particular I have a vivid memory of an
14 pseudo images a bit later on. 14 occasion when, in response to some careless remark of
15 Q. Yes. In any event, in August 2004, he was imprisoned, 15 mine, Dom Philip Jebb stopped me, and reminded me that
16 and then requested a dispensation, I think, from his 16 the reason Richard White should be at Downside was to
17 vows? 17 keep children safe, not to keep Richard safe."
18 A. Yes. 18 What was your careless remark?
19 Q. Can we turn to look, please, at Richard White, whom you 19 A. I can't remember, but I might have said something about
20 deal with in your statement at paragraphs 65 to 75. In 20 keeping Richard safe, where he rightly pulled me up.
21 your statement -- can I just put a couple of things to 21 Q. Do you accept that, despite the fact that the
22 you -- at paragraph 67 you say that Philip Jebb had made 22 arrangement was made by Abbot Charles, you, as abbot,
23 it clear to you that he felt that Abbot John Roberts had 23 made the decision to accept Richard White back?
24 betrayed him in not telling him about Richard White. Is 24 A. I could have stopped him coming back, but if I didn't do
25 that right? 25 anything, he was going to come back, and, actually, the
Page 29 Page 31
1 A. Yes. "Betrayed" is my word, but I think he obviously 1 arrangements made by Father Charles have been overtaken
2 felt very strongly and was quite emotional about it. 2 by events, inasmuch as Fort Augustus I think closed down
3 Q. You have told us about your relationship with 3 at the beginning of January. I'm not quite certain of
4 Richard White and the history with him. Can I ask 4 that. But I think it was overtaken by events.
5 a question from someone else in the room, please? 5 Q. In November 2000, the governors found out that he'd
6 BNT003371_159. Do you know this letter? Have you seen 6 returned and concerns were expressed? Do you recall
7 this before? It is a letter -- 7 that?
8 A. No, I haven't seen it before, but I have heard about it. 8 A. Yes.
9 Q. It is a letter dated 25 February 1989 from the Abbot of 9 Q. Was the main concern about damaging publicity?
10 Buckfast Abbey to the then Abbot of Downside, and the 10 A. No, I don't think so. I think the main concern was the
11 Abbot of Buckfast says: 11 possibility of danger to children.
12 "There were no queries from outside and of course 12 Q. Just so that we can look at how it is expressed, can we
13 nothing was asked inside. 13 look at BNT003371_094, please.
14 "... 14 The bottom paragraph, "Several governors":
15 "These things happen and there is something 15 "Several governors have recently received
16 radically wrong if we cannot help each other in need. 16 information about this matter, and have also heard
17 Let's hope that all is forgotten soon." 17 concerns expressed about my policy in dealing with this
18 Is that in relation to Richard White? 18 case. It is clearly imperative that I should address
19 A. I assume so. 19 the matter ..."
20 Q. Was that in relation to Richard White going to Buckfast? 20 You say you are seeking Mr Tabachnik's advice. Over
21 A. "That all is forgotten" -- presumably, it is after 21 the page, you say:
22 Richard White has left Buckfast from the tone of 22 "Needless to say, I should be grateful if you would
23 the letter, yes. 23 keep this matter confidential. I have no reason to
24 Q. Was this a view that was shared across the Benedictine 24 think that there is any imminent danger of damaging
25 Congregation at the time? 25 publicity ..."
Page 30 Page 32
8 (Pages 29 to 32)
DTI www.DTIGlobal.com 8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
([phone] London EC4A 2DY
IICSA - Benedictine Hearings 13 December 2017
1 Your concern was to keep things quiet and to limit 1 to deal with that hurt."
2 publicity about it? 2 And then refers to, "That person could tell the
3 A. I think that was a concern of mine. I'm not -- if 3 press or put it in an autobiography or something
4 governors were concerned, which I think was your 4 similar, and the matter could come at any time into the
5 question, I assume that their main concern was the 5 public arena". Do you remember her saying that?
6 protection of children, but we also had an additional 6 A. I don't actually recall that, but yes.
7 concern, namely, avoidance of bad publicity. 7 Q. She also, finally, concluded:
8 Q. Had you, just before this letter, received an advice or 8 "An educational establishment having a duty to
9 an opinion from Christina Kirkpatrick? 9 protect and safeguard children in its care must, in my
10 A. Yes, I had, and that was what prompted this letter. 10 view, both act and be seen to act compatibly with that
11 Q. The letter somewhat underplays the allegations, 11 responsibility. Failure to comply with that duty could,
12 I suggest. Do you agree that? If we go back to the 12 I am of the opinion, cause local
13 first page. The middle paragraph: 13 authority/Secretary of State intervention and scandal
14 "... allegations of this nature were made against 14 with far-reaching consequences not only to the
15 a member of the Downside community. The case never went 15 particular establishment but also to the wider group
16 to court, since the parents did not wish to take the 16 already under severe criticism for similar failures to
17 matter to the police, but the matter was known 17 react appropriately."
18 throughout the school. The monk concerned was sent 18 Did you do anything as a result of that letter?
19 away." 19 A. Yes, I did.
20 It is a bit dismissive of the allegations, do you 20 Q. What did you do?
21 think? 21 A. I think the first thing I did was -- well, the letter to
22 A. It could be read like that. I don't think it was 22 the governors which you saw was the first reaction, and
23 intended to be read in that way. 23 Mr Tabachnik's advice followed it. After that, I took
24 Q. The opinion that you received from 24 some further legal advice.
25 Christina Kirkpatrick, I think a barrister who dealt 25 Q. Who from?
Page 33 Page 35
1 with family law, related to the implications for an 1 A. From Mr Gregg in Bristol.
2 independent educational establishment should they become 2 Q. Can we go -- we will come to that. Can we go in
3 aware that a member of their wider group is not fit to 3 chronological order to BNT004908_056. Are those your
4 be in the proximity of children. You had actually asked 4 notes on Richard White?
5 specifically for that matter to be addressed? 5 A. I think these are Christina Kirkpatrick's notes, aren't
6 A. No -- 6 they? No, maybe they are my notes. I'm sorry, I don't
7 Q. Oh, no, you didn't, forgive me. It was actually 7 know. Again, I haven't seen them recently.
8 commissioned by a group of Old Gregorians. That was the 8 Q. Can I ask you to go to page 59. These are dated
9 focus of the advice. Was it actually given to you, the 9 5 December 2000. Is that your handwriting?
10 advice? Did you receive a copy of it? 10 A. It is, yes.
11 A. I did, yes. 11 Q. If you look at the top -- sorry, at the top, it says:
12 Q. I may not need to bring it up, but do you agree she 12 "Some members of my council ..."
13 said: 13 A. Yes, I accept that's mine.
14 "It's accepted generally, and I've heard many expert 14 Q. This is your handwriting. Are you able to read any of
15 witnesses give evidence to the fact, sadly, that once an 15 this out to us?
16 offence relating to children has occurred, there is 16 A. The handwritten notes?
17 a continuing danger of a repeat offence by the 17 Q. If you look to the fourth line down. Does it say:
18 offender." 18 "Can't rely on fact police didn't prosecute in
19 A. I don't remember the exact words, but I remember that 19 1990s. Doesn't mean they wouldn't today. Now, if
20 was what she wrote, yes. 20 a complaint is made, a prosecution takes place. The
21 Q. She also wrote: 21 view is that it is not up to police or CPS to decide
22 "In spite of public scepticism about late 22 whether it should go to court."
23 complaints, it is often the case that a child puts 23 A. Yes.
24 upsetting matters to the back of the mind and it is only 24 Q. What did you mean by that?
25 when something happens in adult life that they are able 25 A. That last comment, presumably that it is automatic that
Page 34 Page 36
9 (Pages 33 to 36)
DTI www.DTIGlobal.com 8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
([phone] London EC4A 2DY
IICSA - Benedictine Hearings 13 December 2017
1 it goes to court. You don't have a consideration of 1 A. I asked a person who I knew, who was a senior partner in
2 whether it should go to court or not. 2 another firm in Bristol which did not deal with criminal
3 Q. You go on to say: 3 matters, for a recommendation for a solicitor dealing --
4 "Go to Budd." 4 to deal with a criminal matter.
5 , I think the last line -- oh, under the longer 5 Q. But did they have any expertise in child protection, as
6 passage in the centre, you say: 6 far as you were aware?
7 "I have responsibility for reporting to police." 7 A. The conversation which I had with Mr Gregg made it clear
8 A. Yes. 8 to me that he had dealt with other cases.
9 Q. Then: 9 Q. You sought advice, and in your statement you say they
10 "Go to Budd. He might tell me to go to ..." 10 advised you that there was no duty to report the matter
11 A. "Cormac", which is Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor. 11 to police; is that right?
12 Q. "... Cormac. 12 A. I believe so, yes.
13 "Think laterally about problem." 13 Q. Just so that we have it, we should perhaps look at
14 What does the middle line say? 14 BNT003371_089. 15 December 2000. We see this is the
15 A. "Making fire break unbreachable". 15 letter from Gregg Galbraith & Quinn, setting out the
16 Q. What does that mean? 16 history.
17 A. Making the wall between the offender and presumably the 17 A. Yes.
18 school unbreachable. 18 Q. Presumably this is the history that you gave him after
19 Q. And the last line: 19 your meeting?
20 "No obligation to go to police." 20 A. Yes.
21 A. I think so, yes. 21 Q. It refers to a meeting last Tuesday. Over the page, in
22 Q. Why did you write that? 22 the course of setting out the legislation, he expresses
23 A. It looks as though I was taking notes of a discussion 23 the view that -- I'm sorry, it is BNT003371_090, is the
24 which was going on. 24 second page. Halfway down, having referred to The Care
25 Q. Did you go to Budd or Cardinal? 25 Standards Act of 2000, he says -- which states:
Page 37 Page 39
1 A. I went to Bishop Budd. 1 "Where a school or college provides accommodation
2 Q. You did. What were you told? 2 for any child, it shall be the duty of the relevant
3 A. My recollection -- it was not a meeting at which we took 3 person to safeguard and promote the child's welfare."
4 notes, and I went to see him about something else as 4 He says:
5 well. My recollection is of him stressing the 5 "I am of the view that you, as the Abbot of Downside
6 importance of keeping an offender away from temptation 6 Abbey, could be regarded as 'the relevant person' and
7 to reoffend. 7 that you are therefore under a duty to safeguard and
8 Q. So that's 5 December. Did you feel obliged to go to the 8 protect the welfare of the pupils at Downside."
9 police? 9 He highlights that concerns remain, even though
10 A. No. I felt that I needed to get some more advice. 10 there appear not to have been any further allegations of
11 Q. What did you mean by "think laterally"? 11 impropriety, and he says:
12 A. I don't know. That's one of the reasons why I suspect 12 "Notwithstanding that the alleged offences took
13 that I was making notes of the conversation which was 13 place over 10 years ago, I am in no doubt that if
14 going on. 14 a formal complaint were to be made to the police today,
15 Q. You mentioned that you went to see a solicitor, or you 15 that complaint would result not only in a full
16 sought advice from a solicitor, Gregg Galbraith? 16 investigation but also a prosecution."
17 A. Yes. 17 You were clear on that point, weren't you?
18 Q. Is that of Quinn Solicitors? 18 A. Yes.
19 A. Gregg Galbraith Quinn, I think they were. 19 Q. At the bottom of the next paragraph, he says:
20 Q. Gregg Galbraith Quinn. A firm based in Bristol? 20 "... the result could be devastating on the
21 A. Yes. 21 community at Downside and would undoubtedly harm the
22 Q. A criminal firm of solicitors; is that right? 22 excellent reputation of the school."
23 A. Yes. 23 He provides advice as to the course you should take,
24 Q. Did you enquire as to what expertise they had in child 24 and at page BNT003371_091, that advice includes the
25 protection matters? 25 commissioning of an up-to-date medical report from
Page 38 Page 40
10 (Pages 37 to 40)
DTI www.DTIGlobal.com 8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street
([phone] London EC4A 2DY