Nature of abuse in faith-based care

66. Of the faiths that were investigated by the Inquiry, the Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian and Anglican churches and The Salvation Army have acknowledged the abuse and harm that has been perpetrated within their institutions as being unacceptable.[46] Gloriavale Christian Community has acknowledged there has been intergenerational sexual abuse in its community, and that children were physically abused there.[47]

67. Many survivors did not know at the time what they were experiencing was abuse or how serious the abuse was. Due to barriers to disclosure and poor record-keeping, the true nature and extent of abuse in faith-based care is unlikely to ever be known.

68. In many instances, others were aware of, or even facilitated, abuse and neglect, but failed to take appropriate action. Children and young people who disclosed abuse were often disbelieved or punished. The status and perceived trustworthiness of clergy and religious leaders in society played a crucial role in people not believing survivors or intervening in abuse.

69. Survivors from faith-based settings reported all types of abuse and neglect with many variations of co-occurrence. Underpinning much of this abuse, however, was an abuse of religious and spiritual teaching and authority.

70. Sexual abuse was identified in many care settings. Survivors were subjected to grooming, inappropriate touching, inappropriate conversations about sex and masturbation, sexual assault, rape, being forced to perform sexual acts on others (including peers, themselves or the abuser), and combinations of these types of abuse. Survivors also witnessed (by seeing or hearing) the sexual abuse of others and, in some cases, were forced to do so. Some survivors spoke about instances of what seemed like organised sexual abuse.

71. There are examples of those in faith-based care being viewed through a religious lens as sinful or in need of redemption, which often dehumanised them and was used to justify further abuse. Survivors told the Inquiry they were being called ‘evil’, ‘daughter of Satan’, and sinners. Women in unmarried mothers’ homes were told they were ‘filthy’, ‘dirty’ and called ‘whores’.[48]

72. This was magnified for many in Māori, Rainbow and disabled groups, as religious teaching sometimes painted them as specific targets.

73. In some faith-based settings, Māori survivors were regularly subjected to whakaiti through being told that their culture and whakapapa was ’dirty’ and satanic, which was a co-occurrence with spiritual abuse.[49]

74. Pacific Peoples were also affected by the misuse of spiritual authority in unique ways. For many faith-based settings, this framing was woven into the purpose and systems of the institutions, which relied on their spiritual authority and standing in the community to legitimise their ‘care’ practices.

75. The Inquiry also heard of instances where Pacific survivors experienced sexual abuse in pastoral care. These instances demonstrate how pastoral sexual abuse transgressed tapuakiga / talitonuga for Pacific survivors. The actions of the abusers tarnished the sacredness of survivors’ spiritual relationship and the authority vested in the church by their communities. This disrupted the vā within their kainga and between their kainga and the church.

76. Pacific survivors had particularly strong challenges for disclosing pastoral sexual abuse within their kainga and communities. Religious leaders are often held in high esteem in Pacific communities and challenging this can bring individuals and their kainga into disrepute.

77. The Inquiry heard of religious leaders taking advantage of the trust and vulnerability within pastoral care to sexually, psychologically, emotionally and spiritually abuse survivors. Sexual abuse in pastoral care often involved grooming, particularly when survivors were in vulnerable states or when they were children. Survivors discussed abuse in pastoral care that occurred both as children and adults. Abuse for adults frequently occurred within pastoral or mentoring relationships, when survivors were experiencing a difficult period in their life, or when they were in a training programme such as a seminary.

78. The Inquiry heard from some survivors of faith-based settings who talked about the manipulation they experienced in the form of spiritual abuse, whereby religious leaders used religious authority and claims of closeness to God to dominate, control or coerce them. Examples included survivors believing the abuse was God’s will, that they were special because they were chosen by a religious leader, that it was their fault and they were a bad person, a sinner or evil. [50]

79. Religious abuse was extremely prominent as a part of clerical sexual abuse within churches. The power dynamics of relationships between religious leaders and those in their care were central to this abuse.[51] The Inquiry heard how religious leaders were not only powerful, but also trusted and respected by whānau, kainga and communities, which allowed them to have unique access to children, young people and adults. This enabled abuse to occur, and intensified barriers to reporting. This status, combined with the importance of obedience in faith-based care settings, often made it difficult for survivors to identify abuse or question the abusive behaviour. In some cases, abusers used their status and ‘closeness to God’ as a means or silencing survivors.

80. Pākehā survivor Helen Mafi, who experienced sexual abuse while attending Baradene College of the Sacred Heart (Catholic) in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland, told the Inquiry:

“I really believed that Jesus was going to come and save me but I couldn’t understand why he didn’t come down and say something like, ‘Leave that little girl alone’. But none of that happened and I couldn’t understand why he didn’t save me and I hated him.”

81. The abuse and neglect suffered in faith-based children’s homes and residences was similar to those experienced in social welfare residences and institutions. This Included psychological and physical abuse and neglect, being separated and isolated from their families and whānau, sexual abuse perpetrated by staff and peers, and abuse being used to control and reform survivors

82. Survivors discussed widespread neglect in faith-based children’s orphanages and residences, some of which was religiously justified as part of the harsh treatment that was supposed to reflect the sinful nature of those in care and reform them.[52] Across various denominational settings, survivors were deprived of basic needs including nutrition,[53] hygiene[54] and clothing.[55]Some remember having to eat rotten food,[56] or food being withheld as punishment.[57] Māori survivors of faith-based children’s orphanages and residences sometimes experienced racism with spiritual or religious overtones.

83. Some disabled survivors described experiencing neglect in faith-based residences, similar to State residences, where their basic needs were not met. Survivor Tracy Peters, who was sent to The Nest (The Salvation Army) located in Kirikiriroa Hamilton by her mother, said that because of injuries, she “couldn’t play with the other kids. The staff gave up using my homemade wheelchair and would just leave me in the same spot for hours. I often wet myself because I couldn’t get an adult’s attention to go to the bathroom.”[58]

84. Racism and cultural neglect appeared in many forms for Māori and Pacific survivors in faith-based orphanages and residences. At times, this co-occurred with spiritual abuse and neglect.

85. Many Māori survivors told the Inquiry their identity was stripped from them while in care at faith-based orphanages and residences. The Inquiry heard that in some locations this abuse and neglect was informed by a religious belief that Māori culture was inferior to Pākehā Christian culture. Some Māori survivors in care were led to believe they were inherently ‘sinful’.[59] Māori survivor Dinah Lambert (Ngā Rauru, Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Porou) said:

“[We] were brought up very ‘Pākehā-fied’ within the children’s homes. There was no encouragement to say where you were from, none of that. It was never ever spoken that I was Māori, and it never occurred to me that I was, unless it was pointed out, usually in a derogatory way.”[60]

86. Many survivors of faith-based foster care were placed in foster care through arrangements made by the children’s orphanage or other faith-based organisation they had been in. This occurred in centres run by the Anglican Church, Catholic Church, Methodist Social Services,  Presbyterian Support Southland and Dingwall Trust.

87. The formality and oversight of these arrangements is unclear. Some survivors discussed being fostered out to families on holiday placements, others also had permanent foster arrangements through faith-based services. Survivor Ms TC recalled being picked up from the Methodist Children’s Home in Ōtautahi Christchurch by strangers: “We don’t even know who these people are. They just pick us up and take us.” In one of these family settings, she was sexually abused by another child.[61]

88. In unmarried mothers’ homes, the Inquiry heard that women and girls were subjected to psychological and physical abuse and neglect throughout their pregnancy and childbirth, including physical and financial abuse such as forced labour, being demonised and degraded, denied adequate food, denied information about their medications and procedures, and being beaten during and after childbirth.

89. Survivor Maggie Wilkinson described St Mary’s Home for Unwed Mothers (Anglican) in Ōtāhuhu, Tāmaki Makarau Auckland, as a “prison for sad girls”.[62]

90. Patricia Salter, who was sent to Childhaven Home for Unwed Mothers in Epsom, Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland, at age 14, remembered feeling “a lot of shame in Childhaven. Nobody stopped to ask how a 14-year old child had become pregnant or whether I had been abused or  traumatised.”[63] Patricia also shared how she was dehumanised and neglected while she was giving birth to her child:

“When I went into labour, I was sent to Auckland Hospital. I was treated like dirt. While I was having the baby, the doctor or nurse slapped me across the face. After the baby was born, they stitched me up with no anaesthetic or pain relief. The baby was taken away from me straightaway. I had no say. I have never seen that baby again. I have blacked out a lot of what happened at that time because it was so traumatic.”[64]

91. Women and girls in unmarried mothers’ homes were forced to work, often while heavily pregnant, including cleaning and providing food for residents of other wings at the hospital. The Inquiry heard evidence of women at St Mary’s Home for Unwed Mothers (Anglican) being forced to pay board through their sickness benefits and to work as domestics.[65]

92. Churches facilitated adoptions through the unmarried mothers’ homes they ran, including the Catholic Church, The Salvation Army and the Anglican Church. Survivors from these homes told the Inquiry that they were pressured, bullied or coerced into adopting out their babies. This pressure stemmed from the premise that having children outside of wedlock was ‘sinful’ and shameful, and that their babies were to be saved through adoption. Susan Williams, who was in The Salvation Army’s Bethany Home in Te Whanganui-ā-Tara Wellington, said:

“We were all brainwashed into adoption. It was the only option we were ever told about … finding out years later I could have got the Domestic Purposes Benefit … never any mention that we had options.”[66]

93. Many adoptions were ‘closed’ adoptions to strangers conducted according to the ‘clean break’ theory, which held that it was better for adopted children to have no idea of their origin or whakapapa (genealogy and background). The ‘clean break’ approach was supported by the Pākehā view that if a child was ‘illegitimate’ this should be kept hidden for the benefit of the child.[67]

94. In faith-based education, survivors experienced similar abuse and neglect to those in faith-based residential settings. Boarding schools in particular were risky environments due to their regimented and closed nature, where staff had unrestricted access to students. Abuse was often justified as corporal punishment and discipline. In some schools, sexual abuse was pervasive and organised between staff members.

95. In faith-based schools, abusers were clergy, priests, religious leaders, religious brothers and nuns, and lay people who were in the positions of mentors, teachers and disciplinarians. These roles were used as opportunities to physically, sexually and psychologically abuse children. The Inquiry heard about entrenched cultures of physical, psychological and emotional violence at faith-based schools, enforced and encouraged by school staff and students. Survivor Patrick Cleary, who attended St Patrick’s College, Silverstream run by the Society of Mary (Catholic) in the early 1950s explained how “some of the benighted priests enjoyed cultivating a reign of terror”.[68] Abuse occurred in boarding and day schools.

96. Some survivors who were sexually abused in Christian Brothers schools told the Inquiry that some of the abusers were aware of one another’s sexual offending. In some instances, survivors experienced co-offending where they were sexually abused by more than one brother at the same time. Mr KT, who was sexually abused by Brother Victor Sullivan and Brother Desmond Fay, told the Inquiry: “On two separate occasions, while being ‘smacked’ across Brother Sullivan’s knee, I had my head held by Brother Fay and pulled forward to force my mouth around his limp penis.”[69]Steven Fraser gave evidence of being fondled by Brother Sullivan while Brother Fay watched and laughed.[70]

97. Survivors also experienced abuse in faith-based schools from peers. Senior students were used or instructed by staff to ‘discipline’ juniors in sometimes violent ways. This abuse could be sexual in nature or feature sexual aspects within violent physical assault. Peer abuse was common as part of initiations (or ‘hazing’), especially at boarding schools.[71]Initiations were often violent and involved psychological, physical and sometimes sexual abuse.[72] This was amplified by a ‘no narking’ culture.[73]

98. Survivors of Māori faith-based boarding schools reported abuse that was similar to other settings, including physical, psychological and sexual abuse, as well as cultural and educational neglect that was specific to Māori culture. Some physical abuse in these settings featured inappropriate applications of cultural practices. Māori survivors of mainstream boarding schools experienced common types of abuse as well as racial discrimination.

99. Racial targeting also occurred for Māori in mixed-ethnicity faith-based schools. NZ European, Māori survivor Mr SW (Ngāi Tahu) described being part of a generation of Māori who were targeted for abuse by staff at St Edmund’s School (Catholic) in Ōtepoti Dunedin. He said: “It was so endemic back then. In my time at that school there were three Māori pupils. We were targeted like those few Asian or Polish pupils because we were different.”[74]

100. Deaf survivors and disabled survivors, including both tāngata Turi and tāngata whaikaha of faith-based boarding schools reported abuse and neglect that devalued them, disregarded their inherent human value and denied and disrespected their diverse learning needs. Survivor Maurice McGregor, who is of Fijian and NZ European descent, described an experience at a Catholic school where he was made to stand in front of the class and read. This was humiliating as he could not read or write. The teachers did not realise that he was dyslexic:

“The worst thing was, like, sometimes the teachers try and make me stand up and try and read in front of the class, and I couldn’t, and it was embarrassing. I still don’t read, today, very much, you know, it was like the class would ridicule me and laugh at me and stuff like that. Same with writing and that, it was – my knuckles were forever getting rapped from the teachers.”[75]

101. The Inquiry heard of abuse and neglect occurring in Gloriavale Christian Community. Much of the abuse stemmed from the authoritarian control leadership had over the community and co-occurred with spiritual abuse. Survivors spoke about the psychological and spiritual abuse community leaders perpetrated, including through the use of shame, manipulation, humiliation and isolation; the economic and educational neglect suffered; discrimination suffered by Rainbow, Māori, and disabled survivors; and the normalised and pervasive physical and sexual abuse.

102. The exclusive nature of Gloriavale also led to economic abuse [76] and educational neglect. Due to their separation from society, Gloriavale members view work that supports their community economies as essential. This is conducted through either community or family-owned businesses or activities, which can also deal with the general public. Education and training of community members is therefore geared towards these ends, usually along strict gendered lines.

103. Survivors from Gloriavale report being made to work long hours with no compensation from as young as 4 years old.[77] Isaac Pilgrim, who worked for the community from 7 years old, said: “Everyone was used to working in a perpetual state of exhaustion.”[78] After being injured at work at 15 years old, he had to keep working and was denied outside help due to community rules against drawing ACC, reflecting medical neglect.[79]

Extent of abuse and neglect in faith-based care

104. The Inquiry is not aware of any research conducted to try to understand the extent of abuse and neglect across faith-based care settings in Aotearoa New Zealand. As a result, there is no reliable figure on the extent of abuse in faith-based care during the Inquiry period.

105. As discussed in the Inquiry’s interim report He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu, From Redress to Puretumu Torowhānui, faith-based institutions were found to have poor access to information and record-keeping processes.[80] This included where information was withheld from survivors, accidentally or deliberately destroyed by the institution, lost, incorrectly recorded or incomplete. Any data on abuse in faith-based care should therefore be considered in the context of inadequate recordkeeping, as well as the high barriers to disclosure as identified in Part 7 of the Inquiry's final report, Whanaketia – Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light.

106. The Inquiry commissioned MartinJenkins to write a report assessing the numbers of people in care, and numbers who were abused in care, within the scope of the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference. The report, which used the timeframe of 1950 to 2019, estimated that approximately 254,000 people were in faith-based care settings (excluding pastoral care) over the Inquiry period. Of this number, 143,000 (56 percent) were in faith-based children’s homes, orphanages, and foster homes; 1,600 (0.6 percent) were in faith-based residential disability care settings; and 109,000 (43 percent) were in faith-based boarding schools.[81]

107. MartinJenkins also determined how many people probably experienced abuse in faith-based care settings. Their analysis of available data provided a low estimate of 53,388 (21 percent of the survivors who experienced these settings from 1950 to 2019), as well as a high estimate of 105,713 (41.6 percent).[82] The report also confirmed that faith-based settings probably had the highest prevalence of abuse, with 33 to 38 percent of those who experienced these settings probably abused.[83]

108. Some churches have undertaken their own exercises to understand the extent of the abuse within their own faith. For example, Te Rōpū Tautoko (Catholic) as part of its Information Gathering Project, analysed information provided by Catholic entities. From 1950 to 2022, it found a total of 7,807 diocesan clergy and religious present in Aotearoa New Zealand, and a total of 1,680 reports of alleged abuse held by church entities. These reports of abuse were made against 1,122 individual clergy members – 14.4 percent of the total number from 1950 to 2022.[84]

109. The Inquiry heard from more than 800 survivors who had experienced abuse and neglect while in the care of faith-based institutions.[85] Analysis of accounts from survivors of faith-based care showed that the abuse types most commonly experienced varied between different groups. Sexual abuse was the most commonly experienced type in this setting (48 percent), followed by emotional abuse (40 percent) and physical abuse (38 percent).[86]

110. Sexual abuse was found to be more prevalent in faith-based settings as opposed to State settings, in particular at Dilworth School (Anglican) and Marylands School (Catholic).[87] In addition, more than half of survivors who provided evidence to the Inquiry after going through a Catholic institutional setting were sexually abused.[88]

111. Dr Christopher Longhurst, a survivor who was 11 years old when he started at a private intermediate school (Catholic), shared his experience with the Inquiry:

“I do not identify as a victim. I am a person who has survived clerical child sexual abuse and other kinds of abuse at the hands of Catholic priests and members of the clergy, including bishops, and I am proud to have survived that abuse.”[89]

112. Further data analysis can be found in Part 4 of the Inquiry's final report, Whanaketia – Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light.

Footnotes

[46]Transcript of opening statement from the Catholic Church on Education at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 17 October 2022, page 109); Transcript of closing statement from the Catholic Church at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (20 October 2022, page 582); Transcript of evidence for the Methodist Church and Wesley College at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 18 October 2022, pages 271 and 280); Transcript of evidence of Jo O’Neill for Presbyterian Support Otago at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 October 2022, page 278); Transcript of the opening statement by Dilworth School and Dilworth Trust Board at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 19 October 2022, pages 332– 334); Transcript of Right Reverend Ross Bay, Most Reverend Donald Tamihere and Most Reverend Philip Richardson at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 20 October 2022, pages 544, 550); Witness statement of Colonel Gerald Walker on behalf of The Salvation Army (18 September 2020, para 2.1–2.3); Transcript of evidence of Colonel Gerald Francis Walker for The Salvation Army New Zealand at the Inquiry’s FaithBased Redress Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 15 March 2021, pages 20–21, 33).
[47]Transcript of Howard Wendell Temple and Rachel Stedfast Joint Questioning at the Inquiry’s Faith-based Institutional Response Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 13 October 2022, pages 61, 68)
[48]Witness statement of Nikky Kristoffersen (21 October 2020, page 24).
[49]Witness statements of Dinah Lambert (1 December 2021, para 81) and Ms KM (10 June 2021, page 5); Private session transcript of a
survivor (17 February 2021, page 5).
[50]Witness statements of Mr MO (4 May 2022, page 5); Peter Hart (25 July 2022, pages 4–6); Maggie Wilkinson (17 September 2020, para 71); Jacinda Thompson (30 September 2020, page 3) and Melody Pilgrim (8 May 2021, pages 2, 6–7).
[51]Transcript of evidence of Dr Peter Wilkinson and Professor Desmond Cahill for the Inquiry’s Contextual Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 8 November 2019, page 1103)
[52]Private session transcript of Mr NO (11 October 2019, page 25); Witness statement of June Lovett (14 December 2021, page 6).
[53] Private session transcripts of Michael Ellis (2 March 2020, page 5); Raewyn Davies (9 March 2020, pages 4–5); Elizabeth Petersen and Sandra MacDonald (26 August 2021, pages 6–8) and Thomyris Cameron (15 October 2019, page 13); Written accounts of Ms CQ (7 September 2021, paras 15–16, 28); Dale Batchelor (10 September 2019, paras 24, 25) and Cathie Manchester (28 May 2019, page 25);Witness statements of Linda Taylor and Janice Taylor (11 March 2021, paras 13–15); Ann Thompson (15 February 2022 para 14); Mr NO (14 April 2021, para 22) and Mr N (8 September 2021, para 44).
[54]Private session of Dale Batchelor (10 September 2019, page 41); Witness statements of Linda Taylor and Janice Taylor (11 March 2021,para 113); Ann Thompson (15 February 2022, para 16) and Nikky Kristofferson (21 October 2020, para 128).
[55]Witness statements of Linda Taylor and Janice Taylor (11 March 2021, para 113); Ann Thompson (15 February 2022, para 16); Mr N (8 September 2021, para 50) and June Lovett (14 December 2021, para 94).
[56]Witness statement of Ann Thompson (15 February 2022, pages 4–5, para 28).
[57]Letter from Cooper Legal to the National Office for Professional Standards (23 May 2018, page 4); Private session transcript of Mr UA (27
January 2021, page 21).
[58]Witness statement of Tracy Peters (7 October 2021, para 3.2).
[59]Witness statement of Dinah Lambert (1 December 2021, para 81); Private session transcript of Rexene Landy (17 February 2021, page 5).
[60]Witness statement of Dinah Lambert (1 December 2021, para 81)
[61]Private session transcript of Ms TC (23 June 2021, page 15).
[62]Witness statement of Maggie Wilkinson (17 September 2020, page 6).
[63]Witness statement of Patricia Salter (20 September 2022, para 3.2).[64] Witness statement of Patricia Salter (20 September 2022, paras 3.5–3.6).
[65]Transcript of evidence of Maggie Wilkinson for the Inquiry’s Faith-based Redress Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 9 December 2020, page 754).
[66]Witness statement of Susan Williams (16 February 2022, page 4).
[67]Statutory Declaration on behalf of Oranga Tamariki, Response to Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse In Care Notice to Produce 340
(25 February 2022, page 8).
[68]Letter from Patrick Cleary regarding abuse at St Patrick’s (1 August 2018, page 2).
[69]Witness statement of Mr KT (14 September 2020, page 6).
[70] Written account of Steven Fraser (17 September 2021, page 14).
[71]Witness statements of Rodney Anderson (20 September 2021, page 4); Nooroa Robert (13 August 2022, page 8) and Mr TE (14
September 2022, page 3).
[72]Witness statements of Reverend Heidi Nayak (5 September 2022, pages 7–8) and Mr TE (14 September 2022, page 3).
[73]Witness statement of Mr TE (14 September 2022, page 3).
[74] Witness statement of Mr SW (9 September 2020, page 7).
[75] Private session transcript of Maurice McGregor (19 January 2022, page 14).
[76]See Pilgrim v The Attorney-General [2023] NZEmpC 105 and Pilgrim v The Attorney-General [2023] NZEmpC 227.
[77]First witness statement of Mr QM (16 August 2021, pages 20–21); Witness statement of Louise Taylor (15 September 2022, para 2.1.1.3).
[78]Witness statement of Isaac Pilgrim (8 July 2021, page 3).
[79]Witness statement of Isaac Pilgrim (8 July 2021, page 2).
[80]Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu: From Redress to Puretumu Torowhānui (2021, pages 257–260).
[81]MartinJenkins, Indicative estimates of the size of cohorts and levels of abuse in State and faith-based care – 1950 to 2019 (2020, page 45).
[82]MartinJenkins, Indicative estimates of the size of cohorts and levels of abuse in State and faith-based care – 1950 to 2019 (2020, page 44).
[83]TDB Advisory, Peer review of MartinJenkins report: A report prepared for Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care (2020. page 4).
[84]Te Rōpū Tautoko, Information Gathering Project Fact Sheet (1 February 2022) https://www.catholic.org.nz/assets/Uploads/20220201-Tautoko-IGP-Fact-Sheet-1-Feb.pdf
[85]DOT Loves Data, Final report: Quantitative analysis of abuse in care (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, September 2023, page 56).
[86]DOT Loves Data, Data request addition (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, September 2023, page 9).
[87]DOT Loves Data, Final report: Quantitative analysis of abuse in care (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, September 2023, pages 64–65).
[88]DOT Loves Data, Final report: Quantitative analysis of abuse in care (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, September 2023, pages 64–65).
[89] Witness statement of Dr Christopher Longhurst (24 May 2023, para 39)