stacks

Grammar Chairman and Big Shot Lawyer Howard Stack – I wouldn’t give this bastard the time of day, or piss on him if he was on fire

Submissions on behalf of Brisbane Grammar

These submissions do not contain a response to all of the matters raised in the lengthy submissions made by Brisbane Grammar – it is neither necessary nor appropriate to respond to the lengthy submissions on the evidence and they properly can be addressed by the Royal Commission in its report.

However, it is submitted that many of those submissions are misconceived.

By way of example in relation to Brisbane Grammar’s submissions about the evidence of BQH and BQI:

(a) at paragraphs [54]-[55] and [61], Brisbane Grammar submits that there was uncertainty in the account of BQH about his meeting with Dr Howell and that BQH did not have a good recollection of the matter.

Brisbane Grammar relies on a difference between BQH’s account in his 2002 statutory declaration where he recalled his son saying to him that Lynch “fiddled with my penis” and his evidence to the Royal Commission that his son said that Lynch “fiddled with my dick”. Brisbane Grammar also submits that some significance attaches to the fact that BQH accepted that his memory was better in 2002 than at the time of the hearing and that BQH would not have been able to remember the exact words used by Dr Howell 20 years after the event.

It is submitted that none of the points raised by Brisbane Grammar adversely affect the credit of BQH or the reliability of his evidence. The minor difference between the words “dick” and “penis” was explained……

it is relevant to note that during the hearing Brisbane Grammar flagged an objection to the admission of some documentary evidence which bears upon [AF7], but that objection was not pressed.

It is submitted that in the circumstances there was no denial of procedural fairness to Brisbane Grammar. Whether the evidence supports the available finding proposed is another matter, which it is submitted is properly to be dealt with in the Royal Commission’s report……

Counsel Assisting accepts that Mr Stack’s evidence was that he understood that, ‘from the boy’s point of view’ the school had not acted fairly.

Mr Stack identified in his evidence that there were difficulties between the school and its insurer in the school admitting liability.

However, the fact is that there was no acceptance of legal liability by the school, and Mr Stack accepted that from the perspective of the boys, the school did not act fairly.

Having regard to what the school knew or ought to have known about the absence of any systems to supervise or monitor Mr Lynch,and the extent of Mr Lynch’s wrongdoing, it is submitted that it is open to find that the only way the school could have acted fairly (irrespective of the view of its insurer) was to admit liability.

Counsel Assisting therefore proposes to vary [AF 19] in the following way:

‘Brisbane Grammar, in its response to the claims brought by former students for compensation as a result of the abuse by Mr Lynch, did not act fairly towards those former students by failing to accept the school’s liability for Mr Lynch’s conduct’