akevl1.jpg

Good Afternoon

As the Royal Commission is aware I was a victim of child sexual abuse at St Paul’s School, one of the institutions that was the subject of Case Study 34 conducted by the Commission.

I am also a freelance journalist who has written extensively about the Royal Commission. The collection of my articles is published on the website www.itsnotnormalisit.com. Many have been used as the basis for pieces written by others and published or broadcast in the mainstream press.

During recent research I have uncovered clear and documented evidence that on 14 March 1958 the main actor in Case Study 34, the pedophile Kevin John Lynch, was dismissed from his then role as a teacher with the NSW Education Department after being convicted of an ‘infamous’ criminal offence in the NSW courts. It is believed that this ‘infamous’ offence involved indecent dealing with a student in his care.

In 1960 Lynch returned to teaching at Christian Brothers College in Wollongong after that religious order had acquired control of the school the year before. There is no evidence that his teacher registration was reinstated at any time in NSW.

Lynch was then transferred to the Christian Brothers owned and operated St Joseph’s College Gregory Terrace, where he worked as a teacher from 1968-1972. There is no evidence of him being registered as a teacher there either.

Of course in 1973 he gained employment at Brisbane Grammar, and thus his trail of known Queensland offences began and spiraled for the next decade.

I intend to write and publish further articles regarding these and other matters related to Case Study 34, and seek your response to the following question, which are posed with the intention of publishing the Royal Commission’s responses:

  1. Why was the examination of the institutional responses to child sexual abuse examined in Case Study 34 confined an examination of the period of Kevin Lynch’s employment from 1973-1997 at the St Paul’s School and Brisbane Grammar, and why did it not also examine Lynch’s employment at Christian Brother’s College Wollongong and St Joseph’s College Gregory Terrace?

2. Did the Royal Commission seek at any time to obtain records of Lynch’s employment with the NSW Education Department?

If yes:

(a) On what date?; and

(b) Why were the records obtained not tendered as evidence during Case Study 34?

If no, why not?

  1. Did the Royal Commission request the NSW police, the AFP or any other government organisation to conduct a search of State and Commonwealth police records for Kevin John Lynch, or did the Royal Commission conduct such a search by any other means?

If yes:

(a) On what date?; and

(b) Why were the records obtained not tendered as evidence during Case Study 34?

If no, why not?

  1. Did the Royal Commission obtain or seek to obtain records of Kevin Lynch’s registration as a teacher in NSW from the relevant authority, department or organisation in that State?

If yes:

(a) On what date?; and

(b) Why were the records obtained not tendered as evidence during Case Study 34?

If no, why not?

  1. Did the Royal Commission obtain or seek to obtain records of Kevin Lynch’s registration as a teacher in QLD from the relevant authority, department or organisation in that State?

If yes:

(a) On what date?; and

(b) Why were the records obtained not tendered as evidence during Case Study 34?

  1. Did the Royal Commission seek information from Edmund Rice College (formerly Christian Brothers College) in Wollongong NSW about Kevin Lynch’s employment, and did the Commission obtain his employment records from that institution?

If yes:

(a) On what date?; and

(b) Why were the records obtained not tendered as evidence during Case Study 34?

If no, why not?

  1. Did the Royal Commission seek information from St Joseph’s College Gregory Terrace in QLD about Kevin Lynch’s employment, and did the Commission obtain his employment records from that institution?

If yes:

(a) On what date?; and

(b) Why were the records obtained not tendered as evidence during Case Study 34?

If no, why not?

  1. A man named Matthew Joseph Foley, a former student of Lynch’s at St Joseph’s Gregory Terrace, gave one of the eulogies at the pedophile’s funeral.

Given that Mr Foley was the Attorney-General of Queensland from 1992 – 1996 and 1998 – 2001, and by virtue of his position responsible for the administration of the law and the appointment of judicial officers in the State of Queensland, on what basis did the Royal Commission make the decision not to summon Mr Foley to give evidence during Case Study 34?

9. During Case Study 34 recordings of a series of covert police recordings made of a conversation between Lynch and an identity protected Royal Commission witness were played in a public hearing and the transcripts of the recordings were tendered into evidence.

These recordings formed a crucial part of the evidence that led to Lynch’s arrest in January 1997.

In the recordings Lynch is heard clearly telling the Royal Commission witness that he has a close friend in the Queensland Police force who is an Assistant Commissioner of Police in that State, and that this person has perverted the course of justice to protect his (Lynch’s) interests. Lynch is also heard telling the witness that he can arrange for the course of justice to be perverted as required through his friend the Assistant Commissioner of Queensland Police. All of Lynch’s words are contained in the transcripts tendered into evidence.

Has the Royal Commission referred the serious allegations of police corruption made by Lynch to any person or body for investigation, including but not limited to the Qld Crime and Corruption Commission or the Queensland Police Service?

If yes:

(a) On what date?; and
(b) Why were the records obtained not tendered as evidence during Case Study 34?

If no, why not?

10. In the circumstances of the revelations that the employment of Kevin Lynch as a teacher was summarily terminated by the Premier of NSW due to Lynch being convicted of an ‘infamous’ crime, does the Royal Commission agree that its findings in Case Study 34 are now seriously compromised and/or highly likely to be inherently flawed?

If no, why not?

11. Does the Royal Commission intend to set aside the findings in Case Study 34 and reopen hearings of the Case Study so that a full examination of these serious and highly relevant matters can be conducted?

If no, why not?

I look forward to your prompt response to my questions about these most serious matters.

Regards

Archibald Jeebung Butterfly

International Federation of Journalists (IJF) Accreditation Number AU3821
Australian Journalists Association (MEAA) Accreditation Number 4004618
UNCLASSIFIED