Wednesday, March 02, 2011

Anger over church inquiry delays

AN Anglican Church inquiry into allegations of sexual misconduct has been put on hold, outraging alleged victims.  

The Professional Standards Office in December refused a request by Father John Fleming to suspend the inquiry, but has now opted not to proceed until after Supreme Court action he has launched against the Sunday Mail  is finalised.

Father Fleming launched the defamation action complaining a series of articles alleged he had unlawful sexual intercourse or, alternatively, that he was reasonably suspected of doing so.

He also complained the articles were "a material cause" in the termination of his employment as president of Campion College in Sydney in April, 2009.

The stories sparked an investigation by the Adelaide diocese of the Catholic Church into its handling of the allegations after they were reported, which subsequently found there were shortcomings in its processes, and the inquiry by the Anglican Professional Standards Office.
The Anglican investigation entered its final stages late last year when the Professional Standards Committee received a report from an investigator appointed to examine the allegations against Father Fleming.

Documents obtained by the Sunday Mail  reveal the committee determined that "in relation to all three complaints, further action was called for" and it appointed a solicitor to prepare a "complaint document" detailing the allegations.

Under the process, Father Fleming was given 21 days to respond. At a meeting on February 15, the committee considered his response, in which he denied the allegations. 

He also disputed the committee's jurisdiction to investigate the allegations.

The committee determined the allegations would need "to be proven" before the Professional Standards Board. 

However, the committee determined that it would not refer the complaints to the board for examination until after the Supreme Court action was concluded.

The complainants have been told that the decision was made following legal advice and because the committee was also "mindful that if the matter was referred to the board at this stage, the board may make a determination at odds with findings made in the court proceedings, which would be an unsatisfactory outcome".

"In December, the committee was showing courage and leadership, but that has now vanished. I don't know what they are scared of; all I know is they let us down again," complainant Jenny said.

"What's new? No one wants to take accountability."