A.     Like all inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2013, this Royal Commission does not have the power to make findings of criminal or civil liability – only the courts can do that.

B.     The Royal Commission of Inquiry finds:

Horopaki
Context

1.      Prior to the Order’s expansion into Aotearoa New Zealand in the 1950s, there is no evidence that the Order took steps to understand te Tiriti o Waitangi, te ao Māori, or the nature of the relationship between Māori and the Crown.

2.     In the 1950s societal views (supported by regulatory frameworks) of ableism and eugenics supported the removal of disabled children and adults from their whānau to place them in institutions, including residential special schools.

Ngā Ara Taurima
Pathways into care

I te Kura o Marylands
At Marylands School:

3.     Tamariki were referred to Marylands School by State agencies, health professionals and parents. It was established for disabled boys but many boys who attended were not disabled. Some of the boys were placed at Marylands as State wards, some had behavioural problems and were excluded from their local school, and some were placed at Marylands because their whānau were either advised or felt they would get a better education.  

4.     The psychological, learning and educational needs of tamariki placed at Marylands by the State, or privately, were often inadequately assessed at the time of placement. Their emotional and physical needs were not met nor was their need for a loving home.

5.     Private placements to Marylands were charged attendance fees and other associated costs that placed significant strain on some whānau and prevented enrolment and attendance.

I Te Tarati o Hebron
At Hebron Trust:

6.     During the earlier years of its existence, Hebron Trust was informal, largely unregulated and its operations were mostly unmonitored by the Order or by the Bishop of Christchurch.

7.     Police and the courts often referred rangatahi to Hebron Trust to receive services and guidance but without proper assessment as to the appropriateness of this placement. Many of the rangatahi were homeless, were in the justice system and suffered from substance abuse issues. The number of rangatahi Māori in the care of Hebron Trust was disproportionate to the population of Christchurch.

Te āhua me te whānui o te tūkino me te whakangongotanga 
Nature and extent of abuse and neglect in care

I te Kura o Marylands
At Marylands School:

8.     Extensive and extreme abuse and neglect of tamariki occurred including: 

›       sexual abuse by brothers

›       sexual and physical abuse by boys at the school towards other boys

›       physical abuse, sometimes of an extreme nature by brothers

›       pervasive neglect including neglect by brothers of basic needs as well as cultural, medical, emotional needs, as well as their need for a loving home

›       pervasive educational neglect by brothers, children’s development and progression in learning was not prioritised

›       emotional and psychological abuse, including witnessing violence and sexual abuse and perpetual fear

›       religious abuse

›       cultural abuse.

9.     Survivors experienced racism.

10.   Marylands had selection processes, policies around admissions and teachability, and standards of care for disabled children, that we now understand to be reflective of ableism.

I Te Tarati o Hebron
At Hebron Trust:

11.    Extensive and extreme abuse occurred including:

›       sexual abuse, by Brother McGrath

›       physical abuse, sometimes of an extreme nature

›       emotional and psychological abuse, including witnessing violence and sexual abuse, and perpetual fear

›       religious abuse

›       cultural abuse.

12.   Survivors experienced racism.

I ngā kura o Marylands me Te Tarati o Hebron
At both Marylands School and Hebron Trust:

13.   The evidence from survivors to be credible accounts of abuse and neglect occurring.

14.   The sexual abuse that occurred at Marylands and Hebron Trust was pervasive and in many cases, severe and extreme. It caused the children and young people subjected to it, mental and physical pain and suffering. There is evidence of sexual abuse being used as punishment, as well as to intimidate.

Te whānuitanga o ngā mahi tūkino me te whakangongotanga
The extent of abuse and neglect

15.   It is likely that more disabled boys were abused at Marylands than the Inquiry has knowledge of. There are significant barriers to disclosure and reporting of abuse by disabled survivors.

16.   Based on the evidence the Inquiry has received, approximately half of the rangatahi who used Hebron Trust’s services were rangatahi Māori. As set out in He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu: From Redress to Puretumu Torowhānui, Māori and Pacific people face high barriers to disclosing abuse.^[1] There are likely to be Māori and Pacific survivors who have never reported their abuse, neglect or both and who have not received assistance or support.

17.   Even on the basis of the incomplete data, and the known barriers to disclosure and reporting, when comparing Marylands and Hebron Trust to other inquiries around the world that have investigated similar abuse, we are aware of no other circumstances or institution where the sexual abuse has been so extreme or has involved such a high proportion of perpetrators over the same extended period of time.

Ngā panga o te tūkino me te whakangongotangaa
The impacts of abuse and neglect

18.   All survivors of abuse and neglect from Marylands, Hebron Trust and St Joseph’s Orphanage who the Inquiry has heard from have experienced significant and lifelong impacts to many facets of who they are, their relationships, their potential, and the life they lead. These impacts include:

›       physical injury, health and illness

›       devastating mental health impacts, including self-harm and suicidality

›       criminal offending and addiction including substance abuse

›       struggles with sexual and gender identity

›       loss of faith and spirituality

›       financial hardship and homelessness

›       lack of education, leading to further financial hardship and employment insecurity

›       inability to trust and difficulties in relationships with children, partners and whānau.

19.   Some Māori survivors were also harmed by targeted racial abuse and cultural neglect which resulted in additional harmful impacts.

20.   Disabled survivors experienced additional trauma from targeted abuse, that we now understand to be ableist abuse. Where survivors weren’t able to verbalise their trauma, inadequate supports were in place to assist them, such as supported decision-making or the use of augmented alternative communication.

21.   We have received evidence to suggest that some of those tamariki and rangatahi who were abused, neglected or both at Marylands, Hebron Trust and the orphanage have taken their own lives, or have died as an indirect result of their experiences.

Te Kawenga
Accountability

Te mahi o te Kāwanatanga
The role of the State

22.   The State registered Marylands as a private special residential school with knowledge that the brothers were not suitably qualified to teach, but could train and care for disabled boys enrolled at Marylands. The State only carried out minimal monitoring of Marylands.

23.   The Order’s operating model was dependent on State funding. If State funding had not been provided, the Order would have not been able to establish, nor continue operating, Marylands school in Aotearoa New Zealand.

24.   The Crown failed to ensure the care provided at Marylands and Hebron Trust was consistent with the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi, specifically tino rangatiratanga, partnership, active protection, kāwangatanga, mutual recognition, respect and equity.

25.   Police made poor decisions in 1993 by agreeing not to interview Brother McGrath if he returned to Aotearoa New Zealand, and by later ‘custody clearing’ additional allegations of sexual offending received when he was imprisoned.

26.   Social Workers and police failed to investigate, document or act on reports of abuse by boys who ran away, or were wards of the State attending Marylands school and Hebron Trust.

27.   The criminal justice system did not ensure access to justice for tamariki and rangatahi Māori, and especially for disabled children and young people, including through the provision of accommodations, such as communication assistance or navigations, and there was a lack of culturally appropriate support.

28.   The State has failed to accept any responsibility for the harm caused to those abused at Marylands and Hebron Trust.

29.   Police failed to provide culturally appropriate processes when engaging with Māori and Pacific survivors during the 2002/2003 Operation Authority investigation.

Te mahi o te Hāhi Katorika
The role of the Catholic Church

Te mahi o te Pīhopa Katorika o Ōtautahi
The role of the Catholic Bishop of Christchurch

30.   The Bishop of Christchurch failed to properly assess the Order’s suitability to run Marylands as an educational facility.

31.   The Catholic Church, Bishop of Christchurch and the Order did not ensure the Order’s members recognised the relevance of te Tiriti o Waitangi when caring for tamariki and rangatahi Māori and did not provide care that was consistent with te Tiriti o Waitangi.

32.   The Bishop of Christchurch failed to ensure the Order responded adequately to reports of abuse and claims for redress from 1993, and appeared to be mostly concerned with minimising any harm to the Catholic Church’s reputation.

Te mahi o te Rangapū Hato Hoani o te Atua
The role of the Order of St John of God

33.   The Order failed to prepare the boys placed at Marylands for inclusive community living to enable full and ordinary lives. The education and training provided was not tailored to recognise their different skills and experiences. Students at Marylands spent a lot of their time working in the laundry, kitchen or on the grounds of the school.

34.   The Order repeatedly failed to pass allegations of sexual abuse against brothers on to police, in some instances. Instead the Order’s leadership transferred perpetrators elsewhere while taking no steps to safeguard other potential victims from these individuals.

35.   The Order missed a clear opportunity to respond to reports of abuse by Brother Moloney and Brother McGrath in 1977. Had the Order taken appropriate action at that time, later prolific offending by these two brothers could have been prevented.

36.   If the Order had responded appropriately to the allegations of abuse by Brother DQ in Australia, he never would have been transferred to Marylands to carry out further abuse.

37.   The Order’s three provincials at the time, Brother Brian O’Donnell, Brother Joseph Smith and Brother Peter Burke, all failed to act on known allegations of sexual abuse involving its members.

38.   The Order appeared to have a practice of not making or keeping records of reports of abuse it received about brothers, and more generally. This absence of documentation prevented the Order’s ability to see the true extent of the issues and take appropriate steps in response. It has also meant limited records were kept regarding the ethnicity or disability of boys at Marylands and Hebron Trust.

39.   The Order misrepresented that it had acted as soon as allegations were made against Brother McGrath in 1992. Contrary to what the Director of Hebron told the media in 1993, Hebron Trust had not “acted immediately” in relation to the 1992 Aotearoa New Zealand reports of abuse against Brother McGrath. Allegations were made in May and June 1992. Brother McGrath was not removed from his role at Hebron Trust until a brother came from Australia in August 1992 to take him back after an allegation of abuse was made there.

40.  The Order’s redress to survivors through its pastoral process had the potential to transform the lives of those traumatised by the abuse. The retraction of the pastoral process in 2004 caused further harm.

41.   Neither the Catholic Church nor the Order have ever proactively sought out survivors who attended Hebron Trust facilities and offered help or redress. Neither has any successive bishop or Catholic Church entity.

42.   Neither the Catholic Church nor the Order have ever initiated any form of investigation into why abuse at Marylands was so prolific.

Ngā take i takakinotia ai ki ngā mahi tūkino me ngā whakangongo i te wā o te noho taurima
Factors that caused or contributed to abuse and neglect in care

43.   The Royal Commission finds many factors together, contributed to abuse and neglect being able to occur for decades across Marylands and Hebron Trust.

Ngā take pāpori
Societal factors

44.  The societal factors that the Royal Commission finds caused or contributed to abuse and neglect in care are:

a.     At times society idealised the church and those who represented it were revered, resulting in a misplaced high trust of the Order by the State, the public and whānau. This resulted in the church, the Order and the brothers holding a degree of impunity.

b.     Social attitudes and a lack of understanding of sexual abuse of boys and disabled children prevented and delayed the disclosure of abuse.

c.     Social attitudes, evident in regulatory frameworks, were reflective of eugenics, ableism, disableism, discrimination and institutionalisation of disabled children or children with any learning support needs.

d.     Racism and discrimination, particularly towards tamariki and rangatahi Māori was continued in the Order’s institutions, evident in targeted racial abuse and neglect.

Ngā take whakahaere
Institutional factors

45.  The institutional factors that the Royal Commission finds caused or contributed to abuse and neglect in care are:

a.     There was a lack of monitoring and oversight by the State, the Order and the church from the date of application to establish Marylands and the development of Hebron Trust, until Brother McGrath’s departure.

b.     There were inadequate safeguarding policies for the tamariki and rangatahi at Marylands and Hebron Trust.

c.     The State failed to act on abuse disclosures by the boys to social workers and police. Tamariki and rangatahi Māori and disabled boys in particular, were not understood or believed.

Rangapū Katorika o Hato Hoani o te Atua
Hospitaller Order of St John of God:

46.   The factors that the Royal Commission finds the Order caused or contributed to abuse and neglect in care are:

a.     The Order in Aotearoa New Zealand had, at times, a culture of normalised, sexualised and abusive behaviour and sometimes perceived child abuse as a sin that could be forgiven, rather than a crime.

b.     The Order valued its reputation, its institutions and its brothers above all. A strong hierarchy within the Order perpetuated a culture of silence.

c.     The State and the public were successfully convinced that the Order was operating a superior facility, which was the best place for boys, disabled boys and rangatahi, to give them the strongest chance of positive life outcomes.

d.     The Inquiry saw no evidence brothers and teaching staff possessed the necessary skills and expertise to: care for or teach children; support disabled children or those with learning support needs; understand te ao Māori; te reo Māori or te Tiriti o Waitangi or the nature of the relationship between the Crown and Māori.

Ngā parata o Hato Hoani o te Atua
The St John of God brothers:

47.   The factors that the Royal Commission finds the brothers caused or contributed to abuse and neglect in care are:

a.     Some brothers within the Order exploited religious beliefs, fear of God and religious teachings to abuse and prevent disclosure of that abuse.

b.     The abusive brothers were predatory and manipulative, deliberately targeting at-risk children and young people and exploiting safeguarding inadequacies for their own sexual gratification.

Ngā tamariki i tukiontia
Children exploited

48.   The factors that the Royal Commission finds that caused or contributed to abuse and neglect in care of exploited children are:

a.     The environmental, emotional and cultural removal of children from whānau and communities and placement in physically remote Marylands and the orphanage meant that, in the event of abuse, disclosure opportunities were reduced.

b.     Children, especially Māori and disabled children, were undervalued, had no voice and were not understood or believed.

c.     The Order and its brothers had control over every aspect of the children’s and young people’s lives. Children and young people and their whānau, hapū and iwi were disempowered from being involved in decision making.

Next page --->