The Royal Commission has excused Bishop Michael Malone, who has completed his evidence. The Royal Commission has finished business for the day.

3.10pm Bishop Michael Malone is now being questioned about the response of insurers to Vince Ryan’s offending.

Insurers wrote: “The diocese has breached a policy condition. The failure by the diocese to ensure that Father Ryan was treated appropriately and removed from contact with children bearing in mind there was no official reprimand or sanction put in place, there were no steps to ensure that he was properly treated, there were no steps taken to obtain a report from his treater… no steps taken to monitor his activities subsequent to his return to parish work even though he was, at the time, sharing a residence with Monsignor Cotter who was well aware of his previous problems, there were no steps taken to ensure that proper record and reports were made and provided to Bishop Clarke concerning the complaints in 1975 and the subsequent actions taken. At best the activities of various agents of the diocese in that period can be described as reckless indifference. At worst, as you are aware, the police had considered charging Monsignor Cotter with criminal offences relating to his failure to deal with this matter appropriately.”

Insurers passed the kind of judgment that the church itself couldn’t do about itself.

Malone is being questioned by Justice McClellan about why the church hasn’t laicised – defrocked – Ryan. Malone has repeated his argument that it is for the good of the community that the church not defrock Ryan to protect the community, because it can continue to supervise Ryan.

McClellan: “If he was defrocked but otherwise had the level of dependency on the church that you’ve spoken of you could impose conditions on the continuing offer of that support, couldn’t you?”

Malone: “You could, yes.”

McClellan: “And still laicise him?”

Malone: “I think it would be less likely if we laicised him, then he would have no call on us nor would we on him, unless it was a kind of moral relationship.”

Malone is now being questioned about a letter sent by Malone to Brother Michael Hill in October 1996, confirming the appointment of Brother Anthony Robinson as principal of St Francis Xavier’s College.

Malone: “I am sorry to have been the bearer of questionable news, but I am happy with the outcome and very pleased with your prompt attention to the matter. I understand that any potential difficulties have been solved by your prompt action.

I don’t want to add to your worries but feel compelled to inform you of knowledge which has come to me about two other Brothers. I received a phone call in late August from a man who claimed inappropriate actions while he was a student at Marist Brothers, Hamilton in 1972-73.

He alleged that Brother Patrick and Brother Romuald were guilty of touching some of the pupils. It was “common knowledge among the kids": that both Brothers acted inappropriately. he claimed his performance at school suffered and when he informed his father he was taken out of school.

It seems unlikely that criminal activity took place. This report is from one person only. He declared that he did not want to take action but was only responding to my newspaper report urging victims of sexual abuse to come forward.”

Malone contacted Brother Michael about the possible appointment of a Marist Brother as principal. Malone has told the royal commission that he can’t remember the name of the possible principal, but it has been put to him that it was Brother Dominic.

Malone said there were “warning bells” about the man the Marists had proposed as principal.

It’s worth noting that Dominic was subsequently convicted of child sex offences, along with Romuald. Brother Patrick was charged with offences, and the Marists acknowledged he was a child sex offender after articles in the Newcastle Herald.

Malone acknowledged he was dealing with his own “quite explosive local problems of historical abuse” by priests.

Malone is now being questioned about what he did, on becoming aware of a Marist Brother who was “still active in his religious life because he was going to be the principal of the local high school”.

Free: “What about other responses? Put aside the police, did you inquire with Brother Michael about what else was being done to deal with the suggestion that one of his brothers had engaged in inappropriate behaviour of a sexual nature?”

Malone: “No, I didn’t. That was his bailiwick, not mine.”

Malone said Brother Michael Hill was a very competent man and he thought he would be capable of handling it.

Free: “Do you remember why you concluded that it was unlikely that criminal activities took place?”

Malone: “I could say the nature of the phone call was such that I got the impression that the touchy feely kind of things that were happening were of a non-criminal nature, as in not penetration or masturbation or anything of that nature, but rather perhaps hugging or whatever, but I don’t know.”

Malone received a response from Brother Michael Hill, saying: “I note with regret your information concerning the actions of two of our men at Hamilton in the early 1970s. This is not the first time that each of those has come to our attention. for your own peace of mind I can assure you that, after thorough investigation, it would seem that aspects of the behaviour of Brother Patrick were certainly injudicious and inappropriate, but not criminal in nature.”

Free: “Were you otherwise told about what was involved in their investigations?”

Malone: “No, I didn’t ask. As I say Brother Michael was a very competent man and I had every confidence that he would handle it the way he needed to handle it.”

Simon Harben, SC, for Bishop Malone is questioning him about his appointment as coadjutor bishop, a process that started in 1994. The bishop said he had no idea it was going on until he received a letter about it in 1994.

Harben: “Was it a surprise?”

Malone: “I’m still getting over the shock, Mr Harben.”

Malone said he was on holidays until the end of October 1995, and did not even receive a phone call from the diocese to let him know Vince Ryan had been charged with child sex offences.

Harben has questioned Malone about compensation for the Marist Brothers.

Harben: “In terms of payments of compensation with respect to abuse claims against Marist Brothers, is that something that the diocese was responsible for, or not?”

Malone: “No, definitely not. That is the responsibility of the Marist Brothers.”

Malone has repeated that he relied on Sister Evelyn Woodward for information about the diocese. The name Vince Ryan came up in “a very innocent kind of way, insofar as she mentioned to me that if there was anybody in the diocese that was going to be in trouble, it was Vince Ryan”.

Malone is now being questioned in general about his responses to allegations.

He said he was “out of my depth”.

Malone has just referred to a report prompted by the Australian Catholic Bishops and religious leaders, and looking at his handling of the Vince Ryan matter.

Malone: “You might have noticed that the report that was drawn up about the diocesan response to Vince Ryan was fairly critical of me insofar as it said that I kept too much to myself in terms of information and knowledge and future planning”.

2.09pm The Royal Commission has resumed after the lunch break. Bishop Michael Malone is giving evidence, and is being questioned by counsel assisting Stephen Free.

Malone is giving evidence about what happened after Vince Ryan was arrested at Taree and charged with child sex offences.

“One of the first things that happened was that I was given the name of Shane Wall, who was a Melbourne-based psychologist, and I understand from Bishop Clarke’s statement to police that he was given that name by Bishop Ron Mulkearns in Ballarat, who had his own history of abusive behaviour by priests.”

Malone is being questioned about a press release issued after Ryan was charged.

“Our primary concern must be the victims who have suffered such indignities, many of whom, if not all, still carry the scars of sexual abuse. Earlier when the problem in both church and society was poorly understood, such abusive behaviour was treated as a moral problem. We know a great deal more now than we did, of the complex nature of sexual abuse, and the assistance that all survivors and the community need in the healing process.”

Justice McClellan is asking Malone to explain why he wrote “We know a great deal more now than we did”, in the context of his previous statement that sexual assault of children was “treated as a moral problem”.

McClellan: “Whether a moral problem or a criminal act, the consequence for the survivor won’t be any different, will it?”

Malone: “No, there’s no difference, but I think...”

McClellan: “Tell me this – the moral problems which you refer to there, we know that in relation to Ryan the information given to your church was that he had anally penetrated boys. Was that thought previously to be a moral problem?”

Malone: “In the past, as in years ago, I think if a priest offended with regard to anybody, it was regarded as a moral problem and if he went to confession he’d be forgiven of his sins, he’d do his penance and he would be able to continue on. That’s how the moral problem was understood.”

McClellan: “And that understanding was extended to acts of rape of a child, was it?”

Malone: “I would think not.”

McClellan: “Because that’s what the penetration of a 10-year-old amounts to?”

Malone: “Of course it does, yes.”

McClellan has asked Malone if the touching of genitals of a child was seen as a moral problem or a criminal act by the church.

Malone: “I think in the past it was considered as a moral problem.”

McClellan: “How could that ever have been?”

Malone: “Membership of the church is a bit of a strange beast insofar as the church has its own culture, its own law, its own way of obeying structures within the church, its own sacramental system, and as such, it’s divorced from society and that divorce sometimes from society has meant that the church has gone along parallel lines with society, so that civil law somehow was not seen as impinging on the life of the church, in the past. All of that, thank God, has changed.”

Asked what brought about the change, he said the second Vatican Council “went a long way to bring the church back into the mainstream life of society”.

Stephen Free is now questioning Malone about another media release issued by Malone in May, 1996 after Ryan was sentenced.

The media release takes its starting point from October, 1995, with no mention of the extent of church knowledge about Ryan’s offending in the early 1970s.

McClellan: “Bishop, I assume the purpose of publishing this timeline was to demonstrate to the community that the church had acted appropriately; is that right?”

Malone: “Yes, I think so, your Honour, yes.”

McClellan: “In not telling everyone what the church knew in 1975, you weren’t being frank, were you?”

Malone: “Well, I was being frank about what the response had been to the arrest of Vince Ryan.”

McClellan: “Yes, I know, but the point was the church knew an awful lot more than you revealed in this document, didn’t it?”

Malone: “Yes.”

McClellan: “And you didn’t tell the public that you knew that?”

Malone: “I didn’t tell them, no.”

Malone has just told the royal commission that “I think it’s pretty obvious that the church responded very badly.”

“Because there was nothing put in place to monitor Vince Ryan on his return from Melbourne and there were no checks and balances, there was no supervision of him, that to me was a gross neglect of duty and it was obvious that he is a perpetrator allowed back into the community where he had the possibility and did reoffend.”

Free: “A gross neglect of duty on whose part?”

Malone: “On the part of the current bishop and on the part of the diocese, yes.”

Malone is now being questioned about a radio interview he gave at the time, at which he said: “Yes, I take your point, though I hear words like ‘cover up’ and that the church has been responsible for sweeping these things under the carpet, and perhaps to those looking in that’s seemed to be the case.”

Justice McClellan: “Now, are you saying that you now accept that the church did cover up?”

Malone: “Cover up is probably a word that I would not use, but due diligence was not followed through.”

Malone also said at the time in the interview: “I again, and I suppose you’d expect me, you’d expect me to come to the defence of the church a bit, but again, I see it as a situation where the church is trying to do some damage control.”

McClellan: “Now, it doesn’t want the general public out there to be so shocked by this sort of situation that people will be adversely affected against the church and perhaps turn away from their faith and the practice of their faith.”

Malone: “Yes.”

McClellan: “That’s covering up, isn’t it?”

Malone: “Well, it is, yes.”

McClellan: “So the church was covering up?”

Malone: “There was – I mean who do you mean by church here?”

McClellan: “They’re your words, Bishop.”

Malone: “I understand that, your Honour, but there was a sense in which, you know, we needed to come to the defence of the church if we could possibly do that and as you know, as my time in the diocese progressed, there were other situations of sexual abuse by priests that came forward and I ended up having a bit of an epiphany where I said publicly in the Newcastle Herald that I could no longer sit on the fence with these matters, but you either had to try to defend the church or you had to try to serve the needs of survivors, and I chose the latter.”

McClellan: “Why was it ever a choice?”

Malone: “You know, I think loyalty to the church goes very deeply, particularly in priests and bishops and religious, and anything that might be done to minimise harm to the church we would think that’s probably a way to go, at the same time giving justice to survivors.”

McClellan: “Bishop, you finished that response to the interviewer by saying: ‘There was, I think, in the mind of the church then, a sense where it’s best to cover up the scandal and the risk of scandal, rather than just publicise everything.”

McClellan: “What you’re saying is that was the view of the church, as you say, back then, cover it up?”

Malone: “I think in bland terms, yes.”

McClellan: “Bishop, you say you wouldn’t have used the cover up but that’s the very word you used in your response in that last sentence, isn’t it?

Malone: “Well, in this interview it was, yes.”

Malone is being questioned about a statement he made to Aurora.

Malone: “None of us were aware of the triggers deep within Vince Ryan which were to lead to his dysfunctional and criminal behaviour. When earlier incidents were reported to the then diocesan authorities, steps were taken to remove him from his pastoral duties and treatment was recommended. On his return to the diocese his previous ‘misdemeanors’ were considered to have been treated.

“It was not until 1995 that a tragic scenario of sexual abuse emerged. Some of his victims had gone to the police. A subsequent investigation lead to a conviction in 1996. Vince Ryan later confessed to a substantial number of other crimes.”

Free has put to Malone that “The distinct impression being created is that the church had been kept in the dark about the level of the abuse in 1975. Do you agree that that’s the impression conveyed by this statement.”

Malone: “The leaders of the diocese did know of Vince Ryan’s propensities back in 1975.”

Free is now questioning Malone about a letter he sent to the Newcastle Herald after a column written by Herald journalist Jeff Corbett: “For Mr Corbett to accuse church authorities of covering up this case is both incorrect and a slur on the integrity of those authorities. Church authorities learnt of a complaint made against Vincent Ryan in the mid-1970s and sought help for him. Subsequent church authorities definitely did not know of the nature and extent of his abusive behaviour.”

Free: “It seems, Bishop, that you were bristling at the suggestion of a cover up in the past and also trying to suggest that although the church had some knowledge back in the 1970s of a complaint you say: ‘Subsequent church authorities definitely did not know of the nature and extent of his abusive behaviour’. Why did you think to characterise the church’s conduct as a cover up was unfair and an incorrect slur on the integrity of the authorities?”

Malone: “I’d have to say that the attention of the Newcastle Herald towards the diocese and towards myself was unrelenting, hardly a day went by when there was not some kind of challenge, some criticism, some negative comments about what we were not doing in these matters, so this letter was written with a degree of anger, perhaps I should say, and I think it needed to be nipped in the bud that constant harping on what we hadn’t done was not helping, that’s why I wrote the way I did.”

Free: “But Bishop, wasn’t part of the reason that there was constant harping that there was a degree of avoidance in the church’s response in term of acknowledging the level of awareness that it had had back in the 1970s.”

Malone: “Yes, but you know, as I mentioned earlier, there was a sense in which I was trying to defend the church itself from criticism.”

McClellan: “Look at the last par: ‘For Mr Corbett to accuse church authorities of covering up is both incorrect and a slur on the integrity of those authorities’. That statement by you is not correct, is it?”

Malone: “No, it is not correct, your Honour.”

Malone is now being questioned about a media release he issued in September 2007 after the Newcastle Herald carried a series of articles showing Monsignor Patrick Cotter, Bishop Leo Clarke and others had known about Ryan’s offending in the 1970s, and the articles included Cotter saying he “decided to say nothing”.

In the statement Malone wrote that “Victims of child sexual abuse will tell you … now we know how wrong it was to be so disbelieving”, giving the impression that Ryan’s victims weren’t believed by church leaders when they reported his abuse in the 1970s.

McClellan: “Leaders in the case of Ryan had real knowledge, they knew what he’d done?”

Malone: “Some people had known what he’d done, yes.”

McClellan: “It’s just not true to say that he (Cotter) did not know the true position, is it?”

Malone: “No, it’s not true.”

1.03pm The Royal Commission has adjourned for the lunch break.

12.47pm Retired Maitland-Newcastle Bishop Michael Malone has just taken to the witness stand.

After Malone took an oath to tell the truth, Justice Peter McClellan said to him: “I take it, Bishop, what you say in that statement is true, is it?”

Malone answered, yes.

Malone has just told the royal commission he was at Gosford parish, in Broken Bay diocese, when he was made coadjutor bishop to Maitland-Newcastle diocese, waiting in the wings for Bishop Leo Clarke to retire.

Malone said his relationship with Clarke was “interesting”. He had not had a good relationship with him.

He felt that Clarke hadn’t expected the appointment, and had expected to have some say in who would follow him.

Malone knew Ryan, who was behind him at the seminary. Malone was on holidays in the period just before Vince Ryan was charged in late 1995.

Malone said Clarke “suddenly and unexpectedly” retired on about November 3. Malone was informed by the Apostolic Nuncio that Clarke had resigned, and the Vatican agreed.

Malone said Clarke was about 72, and it was his belief that Clarke had retired because he was tired.

Free: “Did you have any reason to believe that his resignation was connected with ather Ryan’s arrest?”

Malone: “No. No clue whatsoever about that.”

Malone is talking about the handover with Clarke. Clarke pushed a cross made by the gold miners of Coonamble, which was then in the diocese, and said: "This is yours now” and I said “Thanks very much. Is there anything else I need to know.”

Malone: “He said: ‘On no, you will find out. So I eventually found out.”

Malone said he thought there would be a more detailed handover, but there wasn’t.

12.19pm Teacher Dr Christopher Hallinan is giving evidence. He was the young teacher at St Joseph’s Merewether in 1975 when young boys disclosed Vince Ryan had sexually abused them. 

Sister Margaret-Anne Geatches was school principal at the time.

Hallinan: “She directed me to stop talking to the children and the parents. I don’t recall her exact words but she said something like it was a church matter and I was not to take any further part in it”.

Gerard McDonald, who was 10 at the time and a victim of Ryan’s, has already told the royal commission the nun looked angry and waving her arms around. Hallinan said he can’t remember her waving her arms around.

Counsel assisting Stephen Free is questioning Hallinan about any conversation he might have had with teacher Patrick Roohan, who made a statement to the royal commission this week about his recollections of what happened in 1975.

Hallinan said he told Roohan: “In light of what had happened, it (being told by Geatches to cease) was unexpected, and there was a clear, firm direction to cease my involvement in investigating the matter and taking it forward.”

Free: “So you perceived that the situation, or you being involved in any further investigations, could be a risk to you in terms of your future employment?”

Hallinan: “Yes, as would any breach of a direction from any employer – if you, after being issued a warning or a direction, contravene that direction or warning, then there could be adverse consequences.”

He has told the royal commission he thought Sister Margaret-Anne was a good principal, and kind.

Hallinan is now being questioned by Jane Needham, SC, for the diocese, about events on the day when there was a “commotion” on the sports field which led boys to talk about being sexually abused by Vince Ryan.

Needham: “I put it to you she only spoke to you over two days – December 10 and 11 – about Ryan and the incidents with the boys?”

Hallinan: “She spoke to me clearly and firmly on one day primarily.”

Hallinan agreed that it was a “matter of great upset” to have the disclosures made.

Needham: “I suggest to you that she didn’t say to you, ‘This is a church matter’ and that you weren’t to discuss it any more?”

Hallinan: “Not on that day, no.”

The day after the commotion Sister Margaret-Anne came to see him, “confirmed that I was in fact talking to the children about what had happened, and she told me that I should stop talking to the children, and the parents and to take no further part, and in an assured way said it was a church matter and provided to me sufficient confidence at the time that the church would take care of it.”

Hallinan has just told the royal commission of trying to talk to one of Ryan’s victims, Scott Hallett, the day after the “commotion”.

Hallinan: “On the next available school day I sought to get enough detail, sufficient detail, to make sure that when I reported the matter, that I would be very clear and make sure that it was reported and carried further. But I must say that the interview, the conversation, barely got started.”

Hallinan said he cannot remember Sister Margaret-Anne telling him to desist, and he doubted that she said the word “cease”.

Hallinan: “The word I remember is ‘stop’.”

He was just asked how he felt after Sister Margaret-Anne spoke to him.

Hallinan: “I was surprised the class was disrupted, or interrupted.”

He was asked how he felt after he was told to stop talking to the children and parents in the “clear, firm way”.

Hallinan: “I – my emotions were mixed and at some point there might have been a fair bit of relief that the burden no longer rested exclusively with me to report this case without any assistance and – because of my inexperience and because of my probationary status. And she had been a good professional and assisted me in professional development.”

11.52am Sister Evelyn Woodward has completed her evidence and a survivor known as CNE is about to give evidence.

CNE was born in Maitland and was one of a large family, with a very devout father and a mother who followed along with him.

Roohan has told the royal commission that Hallinan told him the principal had said “If anyone finds out about this we’ll all get the sack.”

There were general discussions when “the topic came up”.

Hallinan: “It was probably me particularly and others who would be considered to be interfering with school business and meddling in an unwelcome way, I was definitely aware of my novice status, my probationary status, and that I was an employee and the people – those that were directing – well, I assumed it was the church, correctly or incorrectly, that had issued the edict to cause my involvement, and they were the employer.”

The local church was Sacred Heart at Campbell’s Hill. The priests he remembers are fathers Joe and Kevin Carroll and Father Donovan. At the pro-cathedral were Bishop Leo Clarke, Father Jim Fletcher, Father Brock.

He attended Sacred Heart School and Marist Brothers Maitland.

He became an altar boy at 7.

His grandparents were also devout Catholics and lived in the Hunter. Vince Ryan became parish priest while he was an altar boy.

CNE has described the first time Ryan helped him take off his altar boy’s robes, pulled him close, and rubbed his genitals. He just froze in shock.

Ryan turned his back to him and nothing was said.

“I was very confused about the priest touching me. I knew my grandfather thought very highly of Ryan, yet here he was touching me,” CNE said.

Ryan did it again the following week, then at a youth night at the presbytery.

CNE has told the royal commission of Ryan sexually abusing him during a visit to his grandparents’ house and a more serious offence in the sacristy where Ryan attempted to have intercourse with the boy.

CNE is struggling to recount what happened to him.

“He was telling me what he was doing was natural, but he was also telling me not to tell anyone because we were special friends, and noone would believe me anyhow,” CNE said.

On the car drive home his grandfather kept telling him what a great priest Ryan was.

On another occasion a male parishioner walked in on Ryan trying to force CNE to have oral sex with him. The boys was on his knees. Ryan had his penis in his hand, CNE said.

The parishioner “looked directly at Father Ryan standing there, holding my head with his erect penis in his other hand. He turned around and walked away. He didn’t even say a word. Ryan looked a bit shocked and embarrassed at being caught.”

On the second last occasion when Ryan tried to abuse the boy, CNE said “Don’t do that. Don’t touch me anymore”.

When Ryan tried again CNE said “No more.”

In 1986 Ryan left the parish. CNE did not see Ryan again until his grandfather’s funeral.

After 2000 CNE disclosed to his mother, after she asked him if he had been sexually abused. She was angry when he told her.

When CNE was a teenager and being sexually abused by Ryan, he sexually abused another child.

“I was 14 years old and did not understand that what I was doing was wrong. Because a priest was doing these things to me, and because I had grown up believing that everything priest did was godly and righteous, I just thought my actions were normal,” CNE said.

The other child made a complaint in 2008, CNE was charged, convicted and jailed.

“I was sent to Long Bay Jail. While I was there, Father Ryan was also in Long Bay for some of his sexual crimes. He was actually living in the wing next to me and we went to the same exercise yard. I wanted to kill him. He stayed right away from me. He knew who I was.”

When CNE spoke to a prison guard about the feeling that he wanted to kill Ryan, he was told if he made a commotion he would be put on the next truck to Junee prison.

While in jail CNE was contacted by Charlestown Detective Kristi Faber, and made a statement to police about Ryan’s offences.

CNE has told the royal commission he is often suicidal. On one occasion when his wife and children were away, he planned to attempt suicide. His mother appeared.

“She told me she was sitting at home on the lounge when she suddenly got an urge to come around and see me. She saved my life,” CNE said.

“My childhood was taken away from me, as well as my innocence. As a result, I have had to spend time in jail. My marriage has failed. I have attempted suicide, suffer from depressiong and struggle to have normal relationships with other people. It is not just me who has suffered, but also those close to me who are also victims.”

11.39am The Royal Commission has resumed after the morning tea break.

Sister Evelyn Woodward is being questioned by Jane Needham, SC, for the Catholic Church’s Truth Justice and Healing Council.

Woodward is being asked about her various statements to police, church insurers and the royal commission about what she did and didn’t do in relation to priest Vince Ryan, who she spoke to and what she did.

It is clear from the documents that there was no clear line of responsibility in the diocese on the issue of Ryan. On Woodward’s account to the church insurers in 1997, when she spoke to Bishop Leo Clarke about likely charges against Ryan, she told him police were likely to speak to him, and he answered “Well, they’d better talk to Monsignor Cotter”.

Woodward told Clarke he had better speak to Cotter, and Clarke told her: “No, you get in touch with Monsignor Cotter.”

Justice Peter McClellan is now questioning Woodward about a section of her statement to the royal commission referring to a phone call from Father Brian Lucas who “told you the police would want you to look at or collect documents or files from the Bishop’s office, and that I should head over to the Bishop’s office immediately”.

McClellan: “Do you know why it was that Father Lucas phoned you to discuss that matter?”

Woodward: “Your guess is as good as mine.”

McClellan: “I assume the bishop had a secretary.”

Woodward said there was no reason for her to be there because the secretary asked police to wait until the bishop arrived, which they did. Woodward said she believed they arrived with a warrant.

Woodward is being questioned about her contact with Phyllis McDonald, the mother of Gerard McDonald, who gave harrowing evidence on Wednesday about being sexually abused by paedophile priest Vince Ryan for more than a year in the mid 1970s. Woodward said she had promised confidentiality to Phyllis McDonald.

Woodward is now being questioned about her contact with Father Brian Lucas, who was on the professional standards committee.

Free: “What was his role in relation to these matters?”

Woodward: “Well, he didn’t have a role until I gave him one. I thought that I should speak to the bishop.. but I needed somebody who understood the ethics of it to help me make a choice, to speak or not to speak.”

Free: “Did you understand him to have some particular role in relation to child sexual abuse?”

Woodward: “No.”

Woodward confirmed she spoke to Bishop Leo Clarke about Ryan in 1975, after allegations were made against him, and again in 1995 when Ryan was about to be charged by police. Woodward said Lucas recommended she speak to Clarke.

Free has just asked Woodward if Clarke was critical of her for having spoken to Lucas, and she replied “No.”

Free is questioning Woodward about a statement Leo Clarke made to police in 1995 or 1996. Clarke said Woodward “told me she’d been down to see Father Brian Lucas in Sydney, the priest who was – to whom these cases were referred and he told her to get this priest to come down and see him, because Brian Lucas has a great gift of being able to interrogate some of these people and find out whether or not the allegations are true or not”.

Clarke told police that Woodward had “run off down to Sydney to see a priest down on another diocese down there in Sydney. And ah, oh well, he’s in charge there – he’s in charge of all that sort of thing. But, I said, I’m in charge of a diocese. I’m the bishop. This is my – well I’m supposed to be the first one to hear this so that I can do something about it. You run off down there. ‘Oh, I’m sorry about that,’ she says. ‘I suppose I should have come to see you.”

Clarke finished by saying: “So I says to meself, well, what’s new, you know, you heard about the mushroom treatment, don’t you?”

Free explained to Woodward that “mushroom treatment” meant Clarke was indicating he had been kept in the dark about Ryan.

Woodward said she told Clarke about it in 1975.

She also spoke to the incoming Bishop Michael Malone in 1995. Bishop Leo Clarke retired at virtually the same time that Vince Ryan was charged, and another notorious Hunter paedophile priest, Denis McAlinden, was the subject of a secret defrocking attempt by the diocese.

Woodward said Clarke “rather dismissively” told her “You should tell Michael that”, in response to her request whether she should advise the incoming bishop.

Woodward said she told Malone “the whole story”, but not in the graphic detail she relayed to the royal commission on Wednesday.

Woodward said Brian Lucas told her when Ryan was about to be arrested.

Free: “Do you know why he knew that that was about to occur?”

Woodward: “No, I don’t.”

Woodward became Ryan’s support person through the criminal process.

Woodward told church insurers in 1997 that “he actually talked about having known of his sexual attraction to boys for a considerable time, in fact before he entered the seminary”.

Ryan was told by a priest before joining the seminary that he was reassured if he said his prayers “God would look after him” and his attraction to boys would end.

10.34am Woodward is being questioned by Colin Heazlewood, on behalf of survivor Scott Hallett. 

Woodward said when Ryan returned to the Hunter from Melbourne in 1977 after he was sent away following serious child sex allegations, she did not see that she had any role in terms of oversight of Ryan.

Woodward said she didn’t hear any rumours or innuendo of Ryan, apart from hearing he was “very friendly” with two adolescents while Ryan was at Cessnock.

She “took it on board” but did nothing about it.

Heazlewood: “Did you ever think that perhaps it might be an idea to perhaps go and talk to some altar boys?”

Woodward: “No, I don’t think I did.”

There were quite a few things happening in the diocese at the time, she said.

10.38am Woodward is being questioned by Simon Harben, SC, for retired Bishop of Newcastle Michael Malone.

Woodward is being questioned about her statement to police in 1995 after Ryan was charged.

Woodward told police: “There was no discussion of reporting this matter to the police because the discussion with me as a psychologist focused on the kind of assistance I could suggest as an expert in the field of welfare, rehabilitation and psychiatric side of this incident. Basically it wasn’t my place or position to discuss or advise in relation to the criminal side of this matter.

“I had no further input or knowledge of this matter.”

Harben has put to her that her statement “I had no further input or knowledge” wasn’t true.

Woodward: “I think it was.”

Woodward has conceded she did have further knowledge because she had already told the royal commission that a mother rang her in the middle of 1995 saying her son was about to go to police.

Harben: “So to say you had no further knowledge, when you completed this statement, without mentioning that, that wouldn’t be true, would it?”

Woodward: “No, I think you are right.”

She has agreed there was no mention in her statement of speaking to Bishop Malone.

Harben has taken Woodward to a number of different statements she has made to police and church insurers, and the royal commission.

The statements contradict Woodward’s position, made in at least one statement, that she played a lesser role, and that she actually played quite a significant role in speaking to people like Clarke, Cotter, Malone and Lucas.

After documenting, in a statement in 1997 to insurers, about a series of phone calls she made in 1995 just before Vince Ryan was arrested, she ended the statement by saying Ryan was arrested and “It was all over for us after that.”

Woodward has accepted that there was no reference in her statements to talking to Michael Malone.

Harben: “I want to suggest to you that the only thing you ever said in relation to Father Ryan was ‘Bishop Malone, if there is ever to be any trouble within the diocese, it will be Father Ryan who is in trouble’, or words to that effect?”

Woodward: “Words to that effect, yes.”

Harben: “And that was the entirety of any discussion you had with Bishop Malone about Father Ryan before his arrest in October of 1995?”

Woodward: “I can’t be sure of that. It’s a possibility, but I’m not sure.”

11am Stephen Free is questioning Woodward.

Dr Peter Evans has provided the royal commission with a statement after Woodward’s evidence to the royal commission about Ryan being sent to Melbourne in 1975, where he was supposed to see Evans for treatment. We now know Ryan only ever saw Evans once.

Evans said he spoke to Woodward and it was not a long conversation.

“Sister Woodward asked whether I would be willing to see Father Vince Ryan. She asked me to see him because she said he had been involved sexually with adolescent boys. She did not go into any detail about what the allegation was,” Evans said.

She denied saying “adolescent”, because the children involved were in primary school.

10.00am

Good morning. It’s Joanne McCarthy back at the Royal Commission hearings in Newcastle, with the focus today on the response of Catholic Church authorities in the Maitland-Newcastle region to allegations of child sexual abuse. 

Get a recap of what happened on day one below.

To read more about the hearings into the Newcastle Anglican diocese, check the video and links below.