- Home
- Final ReportClose
- Previously redacted reports
- Commissioners
- Terms of Reference
- Recommendations
- Preface and Executive Summary
- Our inquiry
- Understanding child sexual abuse in institutional contexts
- Child safe institutions
- Support and treatment
- Particular institutions
- Beyond the Royal Commission
- Redress and civil litigation
- Criminal justice
- Working With Children Checks
- Interim report
- Case studies
- Previously redacted reports
- Research & Resources
- Private Sessions
- Previously redacted reports
Case Study 35: Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne
- You are hereHome
- Final Report
- Case Studies
- Case Study 35: Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne
Final report
- Previously redacted reports
- Commissioners
- Terms of Reference
- Recommendations
- Preface and Executive Summary
- Our inquiry
- Understanding child sexual abuse in institutional contexts
- Child safe institutions
- Support and treatment
- Particular institutions
- Beyond the Royal Commission
- Redress and civil litigation
- Criminal justice
- Working With Children Checks
- Interim report
- Case studiesClose
- First Sitting: April 2013, Sydney
- Case Study 1: Scouts and Hunter Aboriginal Children’s Service
- Case Study 2: YMCA NSW
- Case Study 3: North Coast Children’s Home
- Case Study 4: The Towards Healing process
- Case Study 5: The Salvation Army boys’ homes, Australia Eastern Territory
- Case Study 6: Toowoomba Catholic school and Catholic Education Office
- Case Study 7: Parramatta Training School for Girls
- Case Study 8: Mr John Ellis, Towards Healing and civil litigation
- Case Study 9: St Ann’s Special School
- Case Study 10: The Salvation Army claims handling, Australia Eastern Territory
- Case Study 11: Christian Brothers
- Case Study 12: Perth independent school
- Case Study 13: Marist Brothers
- Case Study 14: Catholic Diocese of Wollongong
- Case Study 15: Swimming Australia and the DPP
- Case Study 16: Melbourne Response
- Case Study 17: Retta Dixon Home
- Case Study 18: Australian Christian Churches
- Case Study 19: Bethcar Children’s Home
- Case Study 20: The Hutchins School
- Case Study 21: Satyananda Yoga Ashram
- Case Study 22: Yeshiva Bondi and Yeshivah Melbourne
- Case Study 23: Knox Grammar School
- Case Study 24: Out-of-home care
- Case Study 25: Redress and civil litigation
- Case Study 26: St Joseph’s Orphanage, Neerkol
- Case Study 27: Health care providers and regulators, New South Wales and Victoria
- Case Study 28: Catholic Church authorities in Ballarat
- Directions hearing: July 2015, Sydney
- Case Study 29: Jehovah’s Witnesses
- Case Study 30: Youth detention centres, Victoria
- Case Study 31: Retired Catholic Bishop Geoffrey Robinson
- Case Study 32: Geelong Grammar School
- Case Study 33: The Salvation Army children’s homes, Australia Southern Territory
- Case Study 34: Brisbane Grammar School and St Paul’s School
- Case Study 35: Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne
- Case Study 36: Church of England Boys’ Society
- Case Study 37: Centres for performing arts
- Case Study 38: Criminal justice issues
- Case Study 39: Sporting clubs and institutions
- Case Study 40: Australian Defence Force
- Case Study 41: Disability service providers
- Case Study 42: Anglican Diocese of Newcastle
- Case Study 43: Catholic Church authorities in Maitland-Newcastle
- Case Study 44: Catholic Church authorities in Armidale and Parramatta
- Case Study 45: Harmful sexual behaviours of children in schools
- Case Study 46: On the criminal justice consultation paper
- Case Study 47: Institutional review of YMCA NSW
- Case Study 48: Institutional review of Scouts and Hunter Aboriginal Children’s Service
- Case Study 49: Institutional review of The Salvation Army
- Case Study 50: Institutional review of Catholic Church authorities
- Case Study 51: Institutional review of Commonwealth, state and territory governments
- Case Study 52: Institutional review of Anglican Church authorities
- Case Study 53: Institutional review of Yeshiva/h
- Case Study 54: Institutional review of the Jehovah’s Witnesses
- Case Study 55: Institutional review of Australian Christian Churches
- Case Study 56: Institutional review of Uniting Church in Australia
- Case Study 57: Nature, cause and impact of child sexual abuse
- Final sitting: December 2017, Sydney
- Previously redacted reports
The public hearing inquired into the response of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne to allegations of child sexual abuse.
- Stage 1: Public hearing in Melbourne from Tuesday 24 November 2015.
- Directions hearing to consider Cardinal George Pell’s and Bishop Ronald Mulkearns’ capacity to attend the third part of the public hearing in Ballarat, in Sydney on Friday 5 and Monday 8 February 2016.
- Stage 2: Cardinal George Pell gave evidence from 29 February 2016 by video link from Rome. The Royal Commission sat in Sydney and, in accordance with a request from Cardinal Pell, the hearing commenced at 08:00am AEDT. The Trench Room at Ballarat Town Hall was made available for members of the community during the public hearing, including Cardinal Pell’s evidence.
- Directions hearing to set a further hearing date to receive the evidence of four former officers of the Catholic Education Office, in Sydney on Wednesday 13 April 2016.
- Stage 3: Public hearing in Sydney on Wednesday 27 April 2016. The purpose of the hearing was to receive the evidence of four former officers of the Catholic Education Office.
The scope and purpose of the public hearing is to inquire into:
- The response of relevant authorities within or associated with the Archdiocese of Melbourne to allegations of child sexual abuse against Catholic clergy associated with the Holy Family Parish, Doveton, and the Holy Family Primary School, Doveton.
- The response of the Archdiocese of Melbourne to allegations of child sexual abuse against other Catholic clergy, including Fr Wilfred Baker; Fr David Daniel; Fr Nazareno Fasciale; Fr Desmond Gannon; Fr Paul Pavlou; and Fr Ronald Pickering.
- Any related matters.
For more information on each stage, please see documents and transcripts below.
Exhibits
See all exhibits for this case study
Findings
The Royal Commission’s Terms of Reference required that its work did not prejudice current or future criminal or civil proceedings. For this reason, the Commissioners delivered an un-redacted and a redacted version of this report and recommended that the un-redacted report should be tabled and published at the conclusion of the relevant criminal proceedings. Both versions of the report can now be found below:
Opening address
Opening address
Submission
Submission
Transcript