Church dragged feet on priest who was known sex offender

Early years and abuse experience

Emery-James Wade, of Ngāi Tahu and Waikato Tainui descent, grew up in Hamilton, the second eldest of eight children, and attended St Mary’s Cathedral School.^[i] He and his siblings regularly went to St Mary’s Church and occasionally his parents and Nan went to Hui Te Rangiora marae at St Joseph’s Catholic Māori Mission where the Diocese of Hamilton performed a Māori Catholic service each month. 

Between 1982 and 1985, Emery-James served as an altar boy at St Mary’s Church for Father Mark Brown, who sexually abused him first when he was aged nine and several times after that until he was aged ten. He spent time with Brown during Sunday services and would also help him during the week. Brown would pick up Emery-James from his home to take part in parish events and retreats, often as frequently as every weekend. Emery-James also participated in various Catholic community events arranged by Brown. He travelled to Auckland for the visit of Pope John Paul XI and watched Brown serve as an altar server to the pope. Emery-James was an altar server in Tokoroa at the ordination of Max Mariu, the first Māori bishop, a ceremony Brown organised.

The first time Emery-James was abused was during a Sunday service when he began to feel ill and went to the back of the church, vomiting repeatedly. Another boy filled in for the service, while Brown took Emery-James upstairs to an area where he lived. Emery-James was vomiting into the toilet. Brown started to caress him and rub his back under his shirt. Brown’s hands went under Emery-James’ pants and started to rub his penis. Emery-James froze. He does not remember how long it went on, nor does he remember leaving the church or returning home that day. 

Father Brown continued to abuse Emery-James. The abuse occurred multiple times from age nine to ten.

The impacts of the abuse

Before the abuse, Emery-James was a very good and popular student and leader in his classes. He enjoyed scouts and rugby. After the abuse, his behaviour changed dramatically. He did not want to leave his house and would behave badly to avoid having to spend time with Brown. He told his parents he did not want to be around Brown, but they still sent him on trips with Brown. Emery-James said Brown was everywhere in his life: at school, at church and at home. Emery-James stopped being Brown’s altar server and stopped going to church when he was ten. He began running away and getting into trouble. 

Several years later, Brown was imprisoned for sexually abusing another altar boy. Emery-James’ parents learned of this through the media, but Emery-James was too scared to tell them about his own abuse. His father was a violent and unpredictable alcoholic. Once, while drunk, he asked Emery-James if Brown had done anything to him. Emery-James lied because he was scared of his father when he was drunk.

The impact of the abuse soon made itself felt in a variety of ways. Emery-James left school early, began taking drugs and alcohol, engaged in criminal behaviour, became a gang prospect, was imprisoned and ended up in transient jobs and housing. He attempted suicide while in prison. He grew apart from his whānau.

While in prison in 2010, Emery-James participated in the Department of Corrections’ Tūranga Māori Focus Programme. He learnt to speak fluent reo Māori and learnt about tikanga Māori and Māori religion. He enjoyed developing his understanding of his culture and felt it was an important part of his healing.

Redress

At one stage, Emery-James returned to live in the Waikato region and visited the grounds of St Mary’s Church for free community meals, which were held on Monday evenings. But, he couldn’t bring himself to enter the church itself. A caring stranger noticed his behaviour and asked about it. Eventually, over several meals, they discussed the abuse. Emery-James credits this person with helping him begin his real journey to wholeness.

Later, while living in Nelson, Emery-James made contact with the Male Survivors of Sexual Assault Trust and was introduced to Bernard Smith, a counsellor, who helped him get assistance from Work and Income and ACC, and also gave him information about reporting his abuse to the Catholic Church and Police.

With the Trust’s help, Emery-James approached the Waikato Diocese in 2014. In November of that year, Emery-James and his father met Bill Kilgallon from the National Office for Professional Standards, which was set up by the church to receive reports of sexual abuse. Mr Kilgallon took notes detailing what Emery-James reported, and Emery-James later approved them as accurate. Emery-James reported the first instance of abuse that occurred when he was nine in his complaint. Later, through counselling, he was able to recall other incidents of sexual assault and acknowledge his coping mechanism of blocking out the memories. This was something he had done naturally throughout his life to protect his wairua.

Mr Kilgallon passed on all the information he had gathered to the Sexual Abuse Protocol Committee that had been established by the Diocese of Hamilton to respond to reports of abuse. After that, matters stalled. In December 2014, the chair told Emery-James the committee would make inquiries and then forward a recommendation to the bishop. In March 2015, Emery-James emailed the committee to ask about progress. Mr Kilgallon also expressed concern at the “unacceptable delay”.^[ii] Nothing happened until April 2015 when investigators were assigned to look into the report of sexual abuse by the Sexual Abuse Protocol Committee.^[iii] The person who compiled the investigators’ Terms of Reference was the Bishop of Hamilton’s Sexual Abuse Protocol Committee delegate under the church’s then current policy for dealing with sexual abuse reports.^[iv]

Emery-James met the investigators, Monsignor David Tonks^[v] and Patsy Gordon, in Hamilton in May 2015.[vi] Although Emery-James had shared everything he knew with Mr Kilgallon five months earlier, the investigators said he had to repeat it. The church now acknowledges that this practice was inappropriate and it has now changed. The Director of the National Office of Professional Standards does not carry out investigative interviews.

Emery-James told us he knew Monsignor Tonks was from the same parish as Brown and felt that Monsignor Tonks did not believe his allegations. The investigators recorded, however, that they found Emery-James to be a gentle, respectful man, who told his story with apparent deep sincerity.^[vii] At the interview, Emery-James also gave permission for his counsellor to release any relevant information to the investigators.^[viii]

The Sexual Assault Protocol Committee considered the investigators’ report at its meeting in June 2015 but felt there were still many unanswered questions. Later that month, Monsignor Tonks sent Emery-James an email asking further questions, including:

• What counselling had Emery-James had, where, when and with whom?
• Was any of the counselling in prison?
• In the course of that counselling, did Emery-James reveal he had been sexually abused by Brown or anyone else?
• Had he ever made a complaint to anyone that he was sexually abused before he told his father about the abuse on 3 November 2014? If he made such a complaint, details about the circumstances were to be provided.[ix]

Emery-James answered these questions in a phone call on 10 July 2015. Following the phone call, there was a process to record the details of the call. Emery-James tried to follow up on what was happening but felt he was being fobbed off. Monsignor Tonks and Emery-James approved the written record of their phone call in August 2015. Later in August 2015, Emery-James hired a lawyer to try to force some progress, as he felt disbelieved and that the process was taking a long time. The lawyer wrote to Monsignor Tonks on 28 August 2015 asking for an update.[x]

On 10 September 2015, the Sexual Assault Protocol Committee delegate emailed back to say that he was not happy with the “messy” record the investigators had compiled, and he wanted to rewrite it into a single document.[xi] He said he hoped to get the document to Emery-James’ lawyer by 28 September 2015, despite Emery-James’ lawyer saying he was not happy with further delay.[xii]

On 7 October 2015, 10 months after Emery-James’ complaint, the Sexual Assault Protocol Committee delegate emailed Emery-James’ lawyer to say he had now merged the various documents into a single document. However, he said that he still considered the investigation incomplete, and noted that Emery-James had produced no “corroborative evidence”.[xiii] He said that in the absence of corroborative evidence he needed more information, such as:

• Was Brown the only person who had ever abused him or attacked him sexually?
• Had Emery-James been sexually abused by any other person, such as his father or any of his siblings?
• Had Brown groomed Emery-James before he attacked him?
• Was Emery-James part of Brown’s “special group”?
• Was Emery-James still vomiting when Brown put his hands into his pants during the first assault, and did Brown do this through the front or back of his pants?
• What was Emery-James doing while this was happening?[xiv]

These questions reflected the church’s criminal investigation mindset. The church also sought corroboration against a person known by the church to have been convicted of sexually abusing another altar boy.

On 15 April 2016, 16 months after Emery-James disclosed his abuse, the Sexual Assault Protocol Committee delegate wrote to his counsellor, Mr Smith, saying it would be helpful if he could obtain copies of all the reports from the various counsellors Emery-James had seen. The delegate asked Emery-James’ counsellor to get that information, or, if that was not possible, to provide Emery-James’ authorisation for the counsellors to release those reports.^[xv] The delegate indicated in a later email that it was likely new investigators would be appointed to review what had already been done and carry out further inquiries.[xvi]

On 14 June 2016, another committee member, apparently concerned with the delegate’s intention to appoint new investigators, sought advice from Mr Kilgallon. They said the committee was concerned that the delegate seemed intent on appointing new investigators when the real problem was that ACC had not provided the reports the committee had asked for and so it could not make a decision.^[xvii]

On 30 June 2016 Emery-James made a formal complaint to Police. Police were already investigating Brown’s sexual abuse of other boys. The church also had three other reports of sexual abuse against Brown at various stages of investigation.^[xviii]

On 11 July 2016, Emery-James gave a detailed account of Brown’s sexual abuse of him to Police in an interview lasting nearly two hours.^[xix] Police suspected Emery-James had been subjected to more sexual abuse than he had disclosed at the time.^[xx] 

On 15 July 2016, Mr Kilgallon advised Emery-James the church always suspended any investigation once a report had been made to Police.^[xxi] 

On 30 May 2017, Brown appeared in Hamilton District Court where he pleaded guilty to four charges relating to three victims, one of them Emery-James.

The three victims were offered restorative justice meetings. Only Emery-James accepted the offer, and the sentencing hearing was postponed until 21 August 2017 to allow that to happen. 

Emery-James attended a restorative justice meeting with Brown in July 2017. Brown told Emery-James he tried to raise the issue of his “difficulty” during his training as a priest, but the church did not want to hear about it.[xxii] He also told Emery-James he chose him because he was Māori, and although he was not Māori himself, he had been brought up in Te Mata in a family similar to Emery-James.

Brown was sentenced to 26 months’ imprisonment following the restorative justice meeting. The sentencing judge applied discounts for Brown’s apparent remorse, age and early guilty plea, together with his participation in the restorative justice process.^[xxiii]

In December 2017, three years after disclosing the abuse he experienced to the church, Emery-James met Mr Kilgallon and Bishop Stephen Lowe at a restorative justice conference, organised by Project Restore.

Project Restore hosted a preparation meeting with Bishop Lowe prior to the restorative justice conference. Emery-James prepared questions, which were answered by Bishop Lowe in a letter as well as during the conference. Emery-James talked about a range of redress options at the meeting.[xxiv] This appeared to mark a turning point in the case where Emery-James’ redress needs were able to be considered by Bishop Lowe directly. Bishop Lowe later acknowledged that the “investigation” phase of Emery-James’ redress process was “a fiasco”.[xxv]

Emery-James said that, as part of his healing process, he wanted to go back into St Mary’s Church where the offending took place. They discussed a hīkoi that could start at Hui te Rangiora, followed by a walk to the church. Emery-James wanted to try to go inside St Mary’s Church, although trying to enter any church made him physically ill.

Emery-James talked about Bishop Lowe and Mr Kilgallon meeting his father and telling him about the abuse and what steps the church had taken. He said it would mean more to his father, and he would take it in better, if the message came from the bishop. They talked about Bishop Lowe visiting Emery-James’ mother’s grave to tell her what had happened.[xxvi] This request was not detailed in the summary of agreed outcomes from the restorative justice conference, although it was outlined in the full transcript, which was retained by the church. Bishop Lowe regrets that it was overlooked.

Bishop Lowe offered Emery-James $10,000 to cover some of his immediate debts. He also said the diocese would contribute $20,000 towards the construction of a house on whānau land.[xxvii]

Bishop Lowe would get a copy of the restorative justice report and place it in the church’s files so Emery-James could, if he wished at any time in the future, share it with his whānau.[xxviii]

The first payment of $10,000 was made immediately. Of the $20,000 earmarked as a contribution toward the future building of a house for Emery-James, $10,000 was advanced so Emery-James could purchase a car he needed for a new job. The remaining $10,000 was advanced, at Emery-James' request, in April 2018 at a time when Emery-James was suffering financial hardship and plans to build a house on his whānau land no longer seemed viable. Emery-James told us of his experience of having to chase Bishop Lowe for the money. He said he had to beg for it and the bishop “came up with all the excuses under the sun not to give it to me. He told me it wasn't a good idea to give it to me cause I'd waste it".

In March 2018, Emery-James met with Bishop Lowe to try and find closure by returning to St Mary’s Church (now the cathedral). Bishop Lowe told us that he spoke to a local kaumātua and with the priest who celebrated the Miha Māori, mass in Māori, at Hui te Rangiora marae, in preparation for this meeting. Bishop Lowe asked for information about the form and function of a simple pōwhiri for Emery-James’ return to the church. Emery-James did manage to walk back into the cathedral. Later that afternoon, with the support of his whānau, he went to the cathedral to receive Bishop Lowe’s apology. Bishop Lowe told us he welcomed the whānau with a mihi.[xxix]

Bishop Lowe apologised to Emery-James’ father and whānau, and the group went into the cathedral for karakia and to acknowledge the abuse that had occurred. They did not share a meal together to lift the rāhui, which Emery-James said had been agreed. Bishop Lowe said that going to dinner was not suggested or agreed to, but that he would have been happy to do this.[xxx]

Brown had two previous convictions in 1990 for indecent assault.^[xxxi] At the time of those earlier convictions, the church’s response was focused much more on supporting Brown and avoiding scandal than on supporting the people he had abused.

Bishop Edward Gaines was the Bishop of the Diocese of Hamilton at the time of Brown’s convictions in 1990. Local bishops like Bishop Gaines had the power to limit a priest’s ministry, but not to remove them from the priesthood. As well as limiting Brown’s ministry, Bishop Gaines could have applied to the pope for Brown’s dismissal from celibacy, which is the process of removing a priest from the clerical state.

There is no indication that Bishop Gaines, or his successor Bishop Dennis, ever considered initiating a canonical process to have Brown dismissed from the priesthood, despite his conviction (including assessing whether the five-year limitation period under Canon law would be an obstacle).

After Brown’s release from prison, he sought support from Bishop Gaines and his successor Bishop Dennis, who continued to try to find alternative positions for Brown, including in church roles overseas, by supporting his visa application and agreeing to pay his travel expenses and costs while overseas.^[xxxii] The Bishops did not support Brown taking on an overseas position without disclosing his offending. Ultimately, the church became concerned the media might track Brown down even if he left the country, so the overseas positions were not pursued.^[xxxiii]

Ultimately Bishop Gaines and Bishop Dennis did encourage Brown to voluntarily give up the priesthood, but he refused, despite the church offering to pay his university fees and living expenses during retraining.^[xxxiv]

As of 2017, Brown was not engaged in any ministry but was still receiving a regular stipend (payment from the church) and medical claims coverage. Because he was still formally listed as a priest of the diocese, he was receiving the same benefits as other retired priests, plus some government superannuation payments.^[xxxv]

In December 2017, Bishop Lowe wrote to the Apostolic Nuncio to say Brown was the diocese’s most prolific and high-profile sex offender, but his case had never been referred to the Holy See (pope).^[xxxvi] He recommended that Brown be dismissed from the priesthood. In relation to another survivor, he highlighted difficulties obtaining relevant documents from the protocol committee, which had made strenuous efforts to keep them confidential, even in the face of court orders.^[xxxvii] He also said it was a “scandal that he is still a priest. I am deeply distressed that no significant action has been taken against him to date”.^[xxxviii]  

Summary and findings

Uncertainty, delay, confusion

In summary, we find: 

• The delays by the church in responding to Emery-James’ disclosure of abuse were unacceptable. This is fully acknowledged by the church.
• Further and additional delay arose when the church suspended investigation of Emery-James' disclosure during the police investigation. 
• Even with the assistance of a lawyer and no objection to extensive and irrelevant questions, a final decision was not made until 18 months after Emery-James disclosed his abuse to the Church.
• Although the restorative justice meeting was helpful, as was the ongoing engagement with Emery-James, some agreements made in principle were not acted on by the Church. Emery-James felt he needed to “chase” Bishop Lowe for full payment, which resulted in delay and caused him unnecessary distress. (Bishop Lowe says that he would have loved Emery-James to use the money to build a home, and he was worried about it being used for short-term measures.)
• We acknowledge the approach and initiative taken by Emery-James and Project Restore and the church response in attending. It is clear that Bishop Lowe for the Hamilton Diocese and Bill Kilgallon for the National Office of Professional Standards participating in a survivor needs-led and trauma-informed restorative justice conference hosted by a neutral party was of assistance in this case.

Overly invasive investigative behaviour

In summary, we find: 

• Emery-James’ report of abuse could have been upheld on the information he initially provided to Bill Kilgallon and the interviewers appointed by the Sexual Abuse Protocol Committee. It appears to have been materially similar information to that provided to Police, and which led to Father Brown’s criminal conviction. The Diocese of Hamilton acknowledges there were issues with how investigations were conducted by the Sexual Abuse Protocol Committee at the time. Changes have since been made, including that the Director of the National Office for Professional Standards does not undertake investigation work, there is one national process for dealing with complaints, and there is a policy to encourage survivors to make a complaint with Police when the alleged perpetrator is still alive.
• The series of questions relating to Emery-James’ counselling history, whether he had reported his abuse to anyone else, whether he had been abused by anyone else, information from ACC claims or other corroboration were unnecessary. The material obtained from answers to those questions was not relevant in the assessment required by the Protocol Committee to uphold the report of abuse.
• An undue focus on “truth seeking” and a survivor needing to be able to corroborate a claim is evident in the approach taken by the Sexual Abuse Protocol Committee. 

Tikanga Māori and collective needs

In summary, we find: 

• The church should have inquired after, and been led by, not only Emery-James’ needs as an individual but any whānau, hapū or iwi needs identified in redressing the abuse. The church gave insufficient consideration to Emery-James’ cultural background and the importance of his whānau, hapū and iwi to him and to Māori generally, and reo Māori me ōna tikanga for Emery-James’ healing. Emery-James’ 2017 requests to the church expressed a clear need for redress to include not just his living whānau, but also his deceased mother, in a collective response to the abuse and its redress. It is also clear that Emery-James highly valued his relationship with reo Māori and tikanga Māori and this was an important part of his healing journey.
• It was appropriate to seek tikanga Māori expertise about what might be meaningful to offer as a part of the redress process and apology, or how to support Emery-James in the requests that he made. Bishop Lowe sought advice of this nature in his preparation for the planned meeting at the cathedral and the delivery of his apology to Emery-James and his whānau. It is recommended that the National Office of Professional Standards, as a matter of routine, engage cultural expertise and monitors ahead of any meeting with a survivor what a culturally-informed practice of apology-making or redress needs might look like in the specific case. This would support church leaders in being able to offer culturally-informed options in  engagements with survivors. We acknowledge that tikanga Māori varies, as does a survivor’s experience of their culture, in any given context. 
• Proactivity in discussing whānau involvement with a survivor prior to undertaking the apology would have been best practice. Difficulties may arise given privacy constraints and that the National Office of Professional Standards or church leaders cannot overreach into disclosure to whānau members. This does not preclude the offer being made to survivors privately of the ability to involve wider whānau in any process, and the ability of institution leaders to be flexible to suggest or include cultural norms within a formal apology event. Whānau involvement earlier in the process may also have contributed to certainty around the agreements made, next steps and likely timeframes.
• It is impossible to meet the cultural needs of survivors in redress without proactive measures to understand, from the survivor’s perspective, how they view themselves, their relationship to their culture and their cultural needs. In addition, when considering redress for survivors from collective cultures within a faith community, it should be incumbent on the institution to take expert advice on how the redress of the specific case might be assisted by cultural precepts.

Apology and lifting of the rāhui

In summary, we find: 

• Emery-James’ requests around how the apologies should take place were only partly met:
• Lifting of rāhui: This concept indicates the restrictions Emery-James felt applied to him around the location where he was abused and churches generally. To whakanoa in the sharing of kai together following Emery-James’ re-entering of St Mary’s Church was appropriate and would ordinarily be expected in any process involving lifting tapu or rāhui in te ao Māori. In addition to completing the process from a tikanga Māori perspective, the Church would have displayed respect and acknowledgement for his whānau in doing so, and contrition and accountability in a tikanga Māori context.
• We acknowledge that this was not discussed previously at the Project Restore conference and Bishop Lowe’s recollection that this wasn’t discussed on the day he met with Emery-James and his whānau. Regardless of whānau direction, the offer could have been made if Bishop Lowe had been supported with additional cultural expertise, rather than being led by survivor self-advocacy during the apology event. With additional cultural training and support, church leaders should be in a ready position to offer to share in the experience and reciprocal exchange of cultural norms.    
• Apology to Emery-James’ parents: Emery-James' father received an in-person apology from Bishop Lowe, however the visit to Emery-James' mother’s grave and apology to her was not completed. We note Bishop Lowe’s regret that this was overlooked.
• Virginia Noonan from the National Office of Professional Standards gave evidence to us that where survivors identify specific needs, these needs would be able to be met. Yet, Emery-James was able to articulate his needs of both a cultural and pastoral nature, and these were neither given due consideration nor met.

Discipline and lack of action around Brown

In summary, we find: 

• Brown refused to seek voluntary laicisation (removal from being a member of the clergy). The church should have acted swiftly to discipline and sanction Father Brown. They failed to do so.
• After Brown’s conviction in the 1990s, Bishop Gaines should have immediately restricted any further ministry of Brown to ensure that the risk of further sexual abuse was minimised.
• Immediately after Pope John Paul II issued the decree Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela in 2001, the Diocese of Hamilton should have referred all the information relating to Brown to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and sought Father Brown’s dismissal.

Next: David Crichton: Dealing with ministry an “appalling” experience

[i] Witness Statement of Emery-James Wade, WITN0292001 (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 16 March 2021).

[ii] Notes of meeting with Bill Kilgallon, National Office of Professional Standards, and Sexual Assault Protocol Committee, regarding complaint of Emery-James Wade, CTH0002976_00024 (30 March 2015).

[iii] Letter from Rev. Father Leonard Danvers to appointed investigators regarding terms of reference for the complaint of Emery-James Wade, CTH0002976_00023 (14 April 2015).

^[iv] New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference and Congregational Leaders, Te Houhanga Rongo – A Path to Healing: Principles and procedures in responding to complaints of sexual abuse by Clergy and Religious of the Catholic Church of New Zealand, CTH0001154 (2007).

[v] Monsignor is a canonical title given to senior priests of a diocese.

[vi] Interview notes of Emery-James Wade with Patsy Gordon and Monsignor David Tonks, investigators, CTH0002841 (14 May 2015).

[vii] Ibid., p. 2. 

[viii] Ibid., p. 1.

[ix] File note of telephone conversation between Monsignor David Tonks and Emery-James Wade, CTH0002842 (10 July 2015).

[x] Letter from Emery-James Wade’s lawyer to Monsignor David Tonks, investigator, regarding Emery-James Wade, WITN0292005 (28 August 2015).

[xi] Email from Sexual Assault Protocol Committee delegate to Emery-James Wade’s lawyer, regarding Emery-James Wade, WITN0292006 (10 September 2015).

[xii] Letter from Emery-James Wade’s lawyer to Monsignor David Tonks, investigator, regarding the progress of Emery-James’ claim, WITN0292005 (28 August 2015), p. 2.

[xiii] Email from Sexual Assault Protocol Committee delegate and Emery-James Wade’s lawyer, regarding Emery-James Wade, WITN0292007 (7 October 2015), p. 2.

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Email correspondence between Sexual Assault Protocol Committee delegate and Bernard Smith, counsellor, regarding Emery-James Wade, CTH0002976_00015 (15 April to 31 May 2016), pp. 7, 9.

[xvi] Ibid., p. 1.

[xvii] Email from Sexual Assault Protocol Committee member to Bill Kilgallon, National Office of Professional Standards, regarding the Hamilton Sexual Assault Protocol Committee concerns in relation to the Emery-James Wade investigation, CTH0002976_00014 (14 June 2016).

[xviii] Email correspondence between Bill Kilgallon, National Office of Professional Standards, and Anthony Baker, New Zealand Police, regarding New Zealand Police investigation into Mark Brown, CTH0002962 (4 July to 10 August 2016), p. 3.

[xix] Transcript of New Zealand Police Interview with Emery-James Wade, NZP0002101 (11 July 2016). 

[xx] Much later, this suspicion was proved correct. In 2020, Emery Wade disclosed to police that he had been repeatedly abused by Brown over many years. New Zealand Police Report Form for Emery Wade, regarding sexual abuse by Mark Brown, NZP0002203 (21 July 2016); New Zealand Police Jobsheet, NZP0001550 (4 May 2019). In his statement for the Royal Commission into Abuse in Care Emery-James indicated he knew the abuse happened multiple times in his ninth and tenth years, but that he had blocked it out as a coping mechanism: Witness Statement of Emery-James Wade, p. 6.

[xxi] Email from Bill Kilgallon, National Office for Professional Standards, to Emery-James Wade, regarding his complaint to New Zealand Police, CTH0010324 (15 July 2016). 

[xxii] Project Restore, Transcript of Restorative Justice Conference between Emery-James Wade and Mark Brown, PRN0000002 (20 July 2017), p. 7.

[xxiii] Letter from R.G Dough, Crown Solicitor, to Senior Sergeant Faulkner, New Zealand Police, regarding Mark Brown sentencing for sexual offending, NZP0002169 (21 August 2017).

[xxiv] Project Restore, Transcript of Restorative Justice Conference between Emery-James Wade, Bishop Steven Lowe and Bill Kilgallon, EXT0016122 (19 December 2017).

[xxv] Letter from Bishop Steve Lowe, Diocese of Hamilton, to Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care regarding Emery-James Wade case study (9 November 2021), p. 1.

[xxvi] Project Restore, Transcript of Restorative Justice Conference between Emery-James Wade, Bishop Steven Lowe and Bill Kilgallon, p. 28.

[xxvii] Ibid., pp. 28-29.

[xxviii] Ibid., p. 30.

[xxix] Letter from Bishop Steve Lowe to Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care regarding Emery-James Wade case study, p. 6.

[xxx] Ibid.

[xxxi] New Zealand Police, Summary of Charges for Mark Brown, NZP0041688 (4 August 2020).

[xxxii] Letter from Bishop Edward Gaines to Tony Ward, Department of Justice at Rolleston Prison, regarding dismissal of Mark Brown, NZP0001809 (20 September 1990); Letter from Fr Pat Lynch, President of Sion Catholic Community, to Bishop Denis Browne, regarding Mark Brown operating with the Sion community in England in a limited capacity, NZP0001976 (26 May 1995); Letter from Monsignor Des McCarthy to the British Embassy in Wellington, regarding Mark Brown’s expenses and visa application, NZP0002003 (30 June 1995).

[xxxiii] Letter from Bishop Denis Browne to Fr Pat Lynch, Sion Community, regarding decision not to provide Mark Brown with an opportunity at the Sion Community in England given widespread public attention of his “sexual misconduct”, NZP0001959 (30 September 1996).

[xxxiv] Briefing paper on Mark Brown, NZP0001892 (19 August 1996), pp. 3-4.

[xxxv] Correspondence between Bishop Steve Lowe and the Holy See regarding Fr Mark Mannix Brown pleading guilty to sexual crimes against children and requesting urgent laicization, CTH0002891 (September to December 2017), pp. 10, 12.

[xxxvi] The Apostolic Nuncio is a diplomatic post of the Holy See. The Apostolic Nuncio has the rank of ambassador and he is Holy See’s representative to New Zealand. All correspondence to the Vatican goes through the Apostolic Nuncio who ensures what is being sent goes to the right office. Correspondence between Bishop Lowe and the Holy See regarding Fr Mark Mannix Brown pleading guilty to sexual crimes against children and requesting urgent laicisation, p. 1.

[xxxvii] Correspondence between Bishop Lowe and Holy See, regarding Fr Mark Mannix Brown pleading guilty to sexual crimes against children and requesting urgent laicization, p. 5.

[xxxviii] Ibid., p. 13.