Re : Allegation of an act of Bribery by Mr Stack as Chair and on behalf of Brisbane Grammar School Trustees in Royal Commission Case Study 34. Submission Summary 1. Pursuant to the Royal Commission Act 1902 Part 3 Section DI as so amended, it is alleged that Mr Howard Stack as Chair of Brisbane Grammar School Board of Trustees with full approval and knowledge by the Board of Trustees who have full voting rights and senior School leadership including the headmaster who attend Board meetings, but do not have voting rights, but would have full knowledge of discussions and agreements, it is alleged an act of Bribery has been committed in Royal Commission Case Study 34. The Board of Brisbane Grammar School Trustees it is alleged offered and settled an agreement of a $1/2 million damages and costs each to witnesses BQK and BQG. The School has not offered to other victims a comparable level of financial assistance and compensation in Royal Commission Case Study 34. The alleged offer and settlement of $1/2 million is alleged to be an inducement during a time when Brisbane Grammar School had notification from the Royal Commission to disclose. The question over 100 victims would like to know and answered by the Royal Commission is why, if found to be true did BQK and BQG received $1/2 million each and was it therefore an inducement to withhold true testimony? 2. In communication Brisbane Grammar School claims they have been working with victims and over 100 claims have been settled. However apart from the alleged recent settlements agreed with BQK and BQG who seem pleased with their final agreements, other victims certainly do not see that claims have in fact been adequately settled anywhere near to the satisfaction of victims or nowhere near the levels alleged to have been recently agreed and received by BQK and BQG . 3. Other victims not privy to proceedings in Royal Commission Case Study 34 and therefore unable to cross-exam on this pertinent point , allege Brisbane Grammar School has not been transparent and therefore allege the offered amounts to BQK and BQG are in fact an inducement or in other words a “Bribe,” rather than a genuine Settlement, since all other claims for a review have been refused by the School including the School refusing to refund School fees to parents. 4. In the likely event it is accepted by the Royal Commission that BQK and BQG have in fact received in the order of $500,000 each as an alleged settlement, notwithstanding the allegation that they amount to a “Bribe,” that these agreements establish a minimum benchmark that all victims claims should in fact have been settled by Brisbane Grammar School. 5. The quoted average settlement of $75,000 by the School is invariable deceptive if the alleged two settlement payments of $1/2 million each are removed from the average calculation. Brisbane Grammar School have not been at all transparent and have merely disguised the true picture. It is apparent that by far the large majority of claims are in fact well below the Royal Commission’s published average of $65,000 based in 2014. 6. Victims are aware a number of claims relating to the 1970’s when Brisbane Grammar School had no insurance cover until September 1978 have had their previous claims refused. If those who have had their claims refused by the School were added to the average as having had No settlement at all, the average claim value would be even worse than it appears. 7. Mr Stack and Brisbane Grammar School are unfortunately attempting to hide the true financial cost to the School. The School are claiming in communication that over 100 claims have now been settled. If the Commission accepts that claims dating back to 2002 mediation may not have in fact settled if the School had been transparent at the time, then there are no grounds for the School to continue to claim in public communication that claims have in fact been settled. In practice victims are typically seeking since the November 2015 Case Study 34 hearing a review of their previous agreements which are being refused by Brisbane Grammar School. 8. Given the fact that there is evidence to suggested that both BQK and BQG both received a settlement of $1/2 million and on the face of their testimony while they certainly have been emotionally impacted, they did not appear to have been as financially impacted in comparison to a number of other victims, then a figure of $500,000 is not unrealistic to settle for each other victim. A figure therefore of $500,000 is a more realistic settlement, if in fact it were found BQK and BQG were offered an inducement to withhold true testimony that would in fact benefit all the 100 and more victims. 9. Testimony that would benefit all 100 victims would therefore almost invariably and significantly increase the Schools overall liability. The liability would likely trigger the need for Trustees of the Board to request the Minister under the Grammar School Act 1975 to appoint Administrators. This is something the Board have been very reluctant to do. This is despite the Minister being recently challenged on this issue. 10. St Pauls eventually removed their senior leadership to avoid potential conflicts of interest after the St Pauls 2003 Inquiry Report, however Brisbane Grammar have not. On the face of it the outcomes of Brisbane Grammar victims have in fact been far worse than that for St Pauls. It is submitted to the Commission that part of the problem is the need for senior leadership to accept responsibility for the complete and utter mess that has been created simply by poor management and governance of the School. It is beyond comprehension to most victims why Trustees and senior leadership of the School are still in post. The Trustees have ever since been digger a deeper financial hole, rather than accepting the need to appoint impartial administrators and so that victims could work collaboratively with the School in order to resolve claims to everyone’s satisfaction. 11. The Governance and Future viability of Brisbane Grammar School is now under threat. It is not the intention of victims to drive the School into the ground. This has in fact been done by the exceedingly poor governance and stewardship of Trustees of Brisbane Grammar School. Unfortunately the day of reckon has now come and decisions have to be urgently made prior to the School year commencing to avoid disruption to all current students attending Brisbane Grammar School and those prospective future parents and their children. 12. It is suggested that Brisbane Grammar School should have considered contingent future settlement liabilities may in fact be incurred when agreeing to settle with BQK in December 2014. It appears the Trustees as the financial governors of the School have not set aside any fund that could be drawn down as needed to settle claims and a conservative figure of $50 million given there are over 100 victims should have been budgeted at the outset. 13. It is submitted that it is not beneficial to any party for the Trustees nor Senior leadership to remain as governors or Senior leaders of Brisbane Grammar School, and doing so will continue to undermine both victims rehabilitation and restitution, but also jeopardise the longer viability of the School as a “Going Concern.” Central Legal Question 14. The Royal Commission is being requested in this submission to consider whether alleged agreed settlements to the victims known as BQK and BQG in Royal Commission Case Study 34 are in fact genuine settlements by Mr Howard Stack on behalf of Trustees of Brisbane Grammar School or do those settlements in fact constitute under the Act a “Bribe?” 15. It may serve the purpose under the circumstances of accepting this Submission to legally test the allegation of “Bribery” under the legal meaning of the 1902 Royal Commission Act as amended. A test case would firmly establish the legal boundaries that so often could in fact be easily blurred given there are on occasions a genuine need to agreed settlements in this complex Royal Commission. 16. Accepting this submission would also give greater clarity in the minds of victims who so far feel as though Royal Commission Case Study 34 has not by any stretch of the imagination delivered the promise it was suppose to bring to victims who are now more at “War” with the School than ever. Truth and Justice is the only way for peace and harmony to be restored to the over 100 victims the School has failed and continues to fail even to this day. Applicable Legislation 17. Relevant legislation Royal Commission Act 1902 as amended Part 3 Section 6I cites as : 6I Bribery of witness (1) Any person who: (a) gives, confers, or procures, or promises or offers to give or confer, or to procure or attempt to procure, any property or benefit of any kind to, upon, or for, any person, upon any agreement or understanding that any person called or to be called as a witness before any Royal Commission shall give false testimony or withhold true testimony; or (b) attempts by any means to induce a person called or to be called as a witness before any Royal Commission to give false testimony, or to withhold true testimony; or (c) asks, receives or obtains, or agrees to receive or obtain any property or benefit of any kind for himself or herself, or any other person, upon any agreement or understanding that any person shall as a witness before any Royal Commission give false testimony or withhold true testimony; shall be guilty of an indictable offence. Penalty: Imprisonment for five years. Legal Remedy 18. Royal Commission immediately investigate allegations as submitted of “Bribery” in Case Study 34. 19. Royal Commission in co-operation with Queensland Minister for Education use powers to immediately terminate the tenure of all Trustees of Brisbane Grammar School and appoint administrators prior to the commencement of the School year on the 23 January 2017. 20. Senior School leadership who have attended Brisbane Grammar School Trustee Board meetings noted in minutes and therefore are privy to confidential information and discussions in relation to the Royal Commission since November 2012 be immediately removed from their employment pending the outcome of this full investigation. 21. Royal Commission accept the need to call a 2nd hearing in Case Study 34 with further witnesses called and the admittance of new evidence in a future case hearing. 22. Mr Walter Sofronoff QC be excused from representing Brisbane Grammar School 23. Mr Walter Sofronoff QC produce to the Royal Commission the Barristers opinion he supplied to BQK and the brief BQK would have supplied for Mr Sofronoff QC to have drafted such an opinion and have based his opinion on. 24. The Solicitor Mr Bale who BQG admits he consulted be required to produce all notes and correspondence between him and BQG to the Royal Commission. 25. Shine Roche be requested to produce notes and testimony and explain why a victim who participated in Grammar 2002 mediation, but has not been called to testify before the Royal Commission had specifically named a victim that appears to be BQG to Shine Roche legal representative Mr Bruce Brown as the witness was specifically told by Mr Lynch that the victim BQG continued to visit him after leaving Brisbane Grammar. Therefore logically the witness concludes that BQG would almost certainly have significant and extensive knowledge of the activities of the sexual predator Kevin Lynch, beyond that of many other victims. 26. All Brisbane Grammar School Shine Roche mediation agreements signed in 2002-2003 be recommended to be reviewed, if as alleged both BQK and BQG have received settlement awards of $1/2 million each. 27. All Grammar claims be treated equally, fairly and that claims in 1970’s that have been refused by Brisbane Grammar School either on the basis that the School had no insurance coverage prior to September 1978 and or the School are denying liability, be recommended to be processes alongside all other claims. Mental Health Remedy 28. While under normal circumstances some form of therapy should be sought and recommended. However special consideration to Brisbane Grammar School victims needs to be given careful consideration on an individual basis in developing a comprehensive level of rehabilitation support to each victim. This is primarily because for many victims the trust has been so badly damaged that seeing a therapist is still the last thing victims may in fact want. Seeing a “therapist or counsellor” may in fact heighten the trauma suffered as simply the thought of going to a counsellor or therapist is enough to trigger emotions and flashbacks. Brisbane Grammar School seem totally incapable of working at an individual level to support rehabilitation in whatever way each individual feels comfortable. Some victims may respond well to clinical type therapy, but certainly not all victims who attended Brisbane Grammar. 29. Brisbane Grammar are only offering clinical type therapy, as a first and only option. The School simply provides a “Take it or leave it approach,” to therapy. That is, this is what we are offering, but that is it. Many victims have not in fact taking the offer of therapy by the School, simply because of the approach currently taken by the School. Longer term this is not going to result in particularly positive outcomes if victims are not receiving the type of mental health support they would desire. The approach to therapy by the School does not offer any alternatives that may offer far better outcomes than traditional forms of therapy in this particularly context of Case Study 34, where the perpetrator was in fact a counsellor. 30. “Art or music therapy” for example has been evidenced as an alternative and or to work in parallel with more traditional forms of clinical therapy in supporting mental health. Brisbane Grammar School have not been accommodative in working with each victim at all. This needs to be urgently addressed by the Royal Commission. 31. Rehabilitation should be at the forefront of the minds of Brisbane Grammar School, but the School have totally failed on this most basic and important front. It is therefore requested that the Commission as part of this submission immediately recommend to Brisbane Grammar School that the School work with each individual victim in developing a bespoke level of therapy that fits in with what an individual thinks may work best for them, rather than a “Take it all leave it approach.” The recommendation of the appointment of someone other than Mr Stack as Chair would be a step in the right direction at the most basic level. Submission Main Body Statement 32. Allegations of “Bribery” levelled at Mr Howard Stack, as Chair of Brisbane Grammar School and all Trustees in Royal Commission Case Study 34 together involving legal counsel Mr Walter Sofronoff QC, Shine Roche as legal mediator, Solicitor Mr Bale and two witnesses BQK and BQG are certainly not made lightly. The allegations contained are submitted with grave hesitation in terms of the likely consequences, if the allegations are found to be true. It is with deep regret to even have to make such serious allegations. 33. After all that has so far been uncovered in one of the most horrifying Royal Commission Case Studies, victims would have expected the Royal Commission to have granted the requested 2nd hearing, as per victims petition for further witnesses and testimony in order for the full truth to emerge in Case Study 34. The allegations contained may have been given full consideration had that request for a 2nd hearing been granted. 34. For victims in Royal Commission Case Study 34 who still feel traumatized by events, seeking the full truth and nothing but the truth is the only way victims can in fact heal and restore some degree of normality to so many shattered lives. While there has been some discovery of the truth in Case Study 34, it is alleged that much of the truth is still masked behind closed doors, particularly Mr Stack as Chair of the School closed door. It is exactly those closed doors victims still feel so terrified and victimized, as those in powerful positions such as the Trustees still have a hold over victims. 35. For the over 100 victims of Kevin Lynch, known to Brisbane Grammar School and likely to be scores more who feel betrayed by the School, it is only right that these allegations be submitted to the Royal Commission for full investigation and given their utmost and immediate attention. 36. As Brisbane Grammar School have refused to consider how best to support all victims, A Change.org Petition seeking a refund of School Fees paid by parents has now attracted in excess of 5200 signatures including from victims, parents of victims, family and friends, Old Boys of the School and the School Community. https://www.change.org/p/the-board-of-trustees-of-the-brisbane-grammar-school-refund-of-tuition-fees-to-parents-of-kevin-lynch-s-brisbane-grammar-school-victims/c?source_location=petition_show 37. An allegation of “Bribery” levelled at Mr Stack, trustees and Brisbane Grammar School most certainly would not have been submitted to the Commission, if the School had in fact treated all victims equally and fairly in supporting their needs subsequent to the originally Case Study 34 hearing in November 2015. It is alleged a further Royal Commission investigation is likely to concur with this assertion. Furthermore if the School had agreed and accepted without any hesitation the need to review previous and future needs of victims including a refund of School fees, as a comprehensive rehabilitation support package, there would not be such public outcry from significant numbers of victims and their parents who are being refused their requests by the School. Victims are therefore left yet again with an Institution that has already been found to have failed so many but yet again continues to fail them, despite the November 2015 Royal Commission hearing. 38. It is submitted yet again to the Commission that currently most victims in this case study feel totally dissatisfied with the manner in which Royal Commission Case Study 34 has been conducted and highlight to the Commission : A. Key witnesses who should have been called were not called, B. 2002 Grammar mediation Statements, the Royal Commission could have accessed prior to the November 2015 hearing were not even accessed nor reviewed prior to hearing, so therefore how could the hearing cover and or cross examine on particular points if even available evidence was not reviewed by the Commission? Surely the Royal Commission team managing Case Study 34 should have first reviewed all the evidence prior to hearing in November 2015 as a fundamental basic assumption? C. Key evidence has not been admitted particularly Walter Sofronoff’s Barrister opinion and brief given by and to witness BQK and BQG correspondence with Solicitor Mr Bale. D. Most victims apart from a select few were not even aware of the Royal Commission hearing until it was publicly announced on 25 September 2015. E. It would appear from evidence both BQK and BQG are likely to have known about the prospect of a Royal Commission Case Study 34 hearing from soon after 12 March 2014 when the School received a Notice to Produce from the Commission. Other victims certainly have not had the same opportunity in order for the Case Study to cover relevant evidence that appears most certainly to have been over-looked. F. Brisbane Grammar claim to have kept all victims fully informed, but this is certainly not the experience of the large numbers of victims. Victims feel very distanced and have in fact being kept at arms length from the School and the hearing. G. Significant numbers of witness statements tendered as evidence by Brisbane Grammar teachers have never been signed nor have they been witnessed, so why have they been accepted and tendered as evidence when the contradict what all the victims claim that it was common knowledge what visiting Mr Lynch meant? H. The affidavits alleged to be true testimony by Dr Max Howell do not contain a legal witness who could in fact verify them. For all victims know Dr Howell could have simply signed the affidavits himself without having them witnessed at all. I. This submission is now an opportunity for the Commission to make the necessary amends in order for victims to feel the Commission has in fact “Left No Stone Unturned, in the search for Truth and Justice for Victims in Case Study 34 who have been so wronged and lives completely shattered.” 39. For victims to feel that justice is seen to be served, that such a serious allegation of “Bribery,” be put to those involved contained in this submission. The School’s recent actions in refusing to consider a review of claims against the School apart from the two identified as BQK and BQG, speaks volumes in terms of the Schools priorities to continue to protect the truth that the School most certainly knew about the sexual perpetrator Kevin Lynch, but has continued to deny that the School in fact knew.” Moral Restitution and Financial Consideration 40. There is no denying the level of impacts Case Study 34 has had on a larger number of victims, this includes BQK and BQG. While some victims have done reasonably well despite the level of sexual abuse and it is suggested that both BQK and BQG are more in this category, unfortunately large numbers of victims most certainly have not and their voices most certainly have not been heard by the Commission or the School. It is troubling to all victims in Case Study 34 that the very people who might in fact be more deserving of significantly higher financial support in order to restore and rehabilitate their shattered lives are exactly the people being refused offers to reconsider and review settlements previously reached by Brisbane Grammar School and or have been denied any settlement. 41. It is submitted that victims have different reactions to events. It would appear on the face of it that both BQK and BQG began the process of moving forward with their lives and healing at about the time of the death of Nigel Parodi in May 2000. It is the death of Nigel Parodi that marks a significant turning point for many victims in Case Study 34 where either their lives significantly improved for the better, as evidenced by BQK and BQG in their testimony or for many their lives have continued to spiral out of control and have never ever recovered. 42. It is the group of victims in Case Study 34 who have never recovered, the Royal Commission should in fact be most concerned about and by and large have been left out of the equation by the Royal Commission and Brisbane Grammar School. It is argued the significantly higher levels of compensation should in fact be more directed towards the group who have not recovered unlike the success now enjoyed by BQK and BQG in their own testimony. 43. As evidenced by both BQK and BQG they have each enjoyed high levels of success since 2000 with extensive travel around the world, almost certainly high incomes together with accolades and awards for their success. It begs the question as to why Brisbane Grammar School it is alleged has agreed settlements of $1/2 million at time the School received a Notice to Produce? 44. In one sense the alleged compensate amounts to BQK and BQG for their losses might well be justified, with their current levels of success including financial should surely be applauded, but perhaps now not so financially needy to warrant $1/2 million each? 45. Questions are certainly being raised by other victims when they are not been adequately compensated by the School to a similar degree. This is particularly so when it would seem Brisbane Grammar School have agreed such high settlements with BQG and BQK well in excess of others who are possibly more deserving and more in need of financial assistance from the School. 46. BQK in his written testimony admits he did not even need any money and has not even used any of his settlement para 80 STAT.0730.001.0014_R So the obvious question for Mr Stack and the Trustees of Brisbane Grammar School is why was BQK’s claimed settled for $1/2 million? Para 80. STAT.0730.001.0014_R When I received my cheque I put the money in a separate bank account and haven't touched the money since. I don't know what to do with it. I don't need it and pursuing Brisbane Grammar has never been about money for me. I settled my claim because I felt that the school finally, after almost 15 years, were showing that they were accountable and faced the prospect of shame and ridicule on par with the shame that victims of abuse feel. 47. Other victims in Case Study 34 who are certainly more deserving are being left abandoned by the School to this very day. The financial compensation alleged to be awarded to BQK and BQG is in stark contrast to many other victims fortunes. Many other victims are living in poverty, debt and social deprivation, but have been refused financial assistance by Brisbane Grammar School, since the Royal Commission Case Study 34 hearing in November 2015. Morally this is certainly not acceptable that by far the large majority of victims in Case Study 34 have not in fact been adequately compensated for their real financial losses, particularly their loss of income earning capacity in comparison to their peers or for that matter the alleged significant awards to BQK and BQG. Grammar 2002 Mediation Process 48. The Brisbane Grammar School mediation process conducted in October 2002 only considered the immediate damage of the sexual abuse while victims attended the School and prior to the death of Nigel Parodi in May 2000. 49. A significant number of victims report “Consequential damages and losses” directly as a result of Brisbane Grammar Schools negligence in not conducting a thorough investigation in November 1998. Early intervention is almost certainly likely to have significantly reduced the longer term impacts to victims post May 2000. This includes immediately reducing possible recurring damages if action is not immediately taken as per this submission. 50. Longer term quantum for consequential damage and loss of earnings, post 2000 have only became apparent to a number of victims after the 2002 Grammar mediation process. The previous claims settlement certainly do not reflect the global damages up to the 2015 Royal Commission hearing in Case Study 34. Although it has to said the alleged settlements to BQK and BQG might well include such consideration post May 2000, but further investigation is needed on this point. 51. The true extent of the School’s deception including the deception and allegation that both BQK and BQG have recently received settlements each of $1/2 million has only become apparent since the publication of evidence produced in Royal Commission Case Study 34. As per the 2002 mediation agreements most victims originally accepted the School’s version of events as claimed by the School that the School was not aware of the actions of Kevin Lynch and therefore could not be held liable. Therefore at the time of mediation in 2002 most victims accepted the terms of the mediation agreement, as they accepted the word and evidence produced by the School at that time. However new evidence that has only been made possible by Royal Commission now casts doubt on the legality of those original mediation agreements signed during the 2002 Grammar mediation process. 52. For victims who have been impacted financially to much higher levels than first agreed at 2002 mediation and therefore highly likely if the mediation agreements themselves were legally overturned would in fact be awarded significantly higher awards for damages and losses. In fairness to all victims, Brisbane Grammar School as part of their submissions to the Royal Commission in Case Study 34 should have agreed as a matter of course to review each and every previous settlement, rather than considering as they obviously do from their communication that each and every claim has in fact been settled. Therefore from Mr Stack’s and the Schools point of view “Case Now Closed.” 53. Victims certainly do not see claims now as being fully and adequately settled. This is particularly true when as it is alleged both BQK and BQG have in fact been awarded settlements in the order of $1/2 million each without any questions asked, as to why these settlements in particularly are certainly not in line with most other agreements. 54. In Mr Stack’s Witness Statement dated 29 September 2015 para 83 STAT.0380.002.0015_R he accepts BQG in fact reached a settlement with the School in 2005, but specifically offered BQG a new opportunity to meet on the 20th of November 2015 to review his previous settlement. This was in fact only days after the November 2015 Case Study 34 hearings. Mr Stack and Brisbane Grammar School have not been so accommodating with other victims and certainly have not offered a review of previous settlements to other victims. The question for Mr Stack is why has he been so accommodative to BQG? Para 83 STAT.0380.002.0015_R I refer to paragraph 145 or my First Statement and footnote 167, in particular the matter of Mr lBQG I- Mr BQG approached the School early this year requesting to revisit the settlement he reached with the School in 2005. Because Mr l BOG l did not take part in a formal mediation when he approached the School in 2005, BGS has agreed to take art in a mediation with Mr BQG on 20 November 2015. The insurer on risk for Mr BQG 's claim does not accept that there is a compelling reason to reopen Mr BQG 's settlement as the insurance policy responds to legal liability only. 55. It is to be inferred from Mr Stack’s para 83 Statement that the insurers most certainly would not be picking up the tab for any further offer of enhanced settlement of BQG claim and therefore the School would most definitely be funding 100% of any further settlement to BQG. So why does it appear that Mr Stack is being over accommodating to BQG? 56. The Royal Commission should be aware of the insurance underwriting issue that transpired in Case Study 34. Mr Stack accepts in his 29 September 2015 Statement, para 78 STAT.0380.002.0014_R that due to the inability to produce insurance documents and prove the insurers were liable, the School was 100% liable for any claims of sexual abuse prior to September 1978. It might in fact be news to the Royal Commission, but contrary to what Mr Stack claims, Brisbane Grammar School has in fact refused settlements on a number of 1970’s claims on such basis as the School would be required to fund 100%. The School is very much aware of those claims but has not yet settle them and therefore has not financially accounted for those claims. So again why does it appear Mr Stack is being over accommodating to BQG when on the face of it any further offer to BQG, if Mr Stack was to be consistent in his decision and treatment of settling claims should have been denied to BQG to seek any further financial assistance? Para 78 STAT.0380.002.0014_R Due to the inability to identify the School's underwriters for any period prior to September 1978, the School was effectively uninsured for that period. 57. It begs the question if Brisbane Grammar School are 100% funding the agreed 2nd settlement to BQG after Mr Stack met with BQG on the 20 November 2015 why is the School not settling those 1970’s claims where the School is 100% liable? Or for that matter why has not the School offered everyone the opportunity to review their claims? 58. A witness who has not been called by the Royal Commission nor given any statements to the Royal Commission, but participated in the Grammar mediation process as a victim, specifically named a victim of Kevin Lynch to Shine Roche. That person is almost certainly the witness known as BQG. 59. BQG admits in his witness Statement para 29 STAT.0723.001.0006_R that there were 3 other victims who regularly visited him at his residence. One of them he accepts he knew well. What BQG has not admitted that he knew BQK. Neither has BQK admitted to knowing BQG. It should be highlighted that both BQG and BQK are in the same year group at Brisbane Grammar from 1983-1987 and therefore would almost certainly likely to know each other. Para 29. STAT.0723.001.0006_R At some point, when I was around 15 or 16 years old, LYNCH split from his wife and told me where he hid the spare keys to his apartment. He said to me, "If you need somewhere to go, come here". There were three of us that had access to his apartment. We were all students at Brisbane Grammar. I was good friends with one of the other boys who I know was also sexually abused by LYNCH because he recounted very similar stories to what I was experiencing with LYNCH. 60. If as it is almost certain to be true, the named witness BQG had previously been named to Shine Roche as a person who continued to visit Kevin Lynch regularly after BQG left Brisbane Grammar School in 1987 and Mr Lynch had moved to St Pauls, then logically BQG is almost certain to hold relevant information about Mr Lynch and his activities at Brisbane Grammar School. The witness who has not been called by the Commission, alleges on a visit to Mr Lynch’s private residence in approximately May of 1990 he was told directly by Mr Lynch that a person matching the profile of BQG continued to visit after leaving Grammar. It is also alleged on this occasion that Mr Lynch advise that he would be attending a 21st Birthday Celebration as the guest of honour. 61. Questions need to be asked of Shine Roche and Brisbane Grammar School as to why if BQG is the victim named by another victim participating in mediation, BQG did not in fact form part of final mediation and why BQG after contacting Shine Roche as he claims in his statement Para 58 STAT.0723.001.0011_R he left them unhappy ? 58. STAT.0723.001.0011_R Not long after that the media attention surrounding LYNCH, I decided I wanted to do something about it. I made some phone calls to solicitors. The first group I spoke to were Shine Roche McGowan who had run the group action and I really didn't like them. I then found AW Bale and Sons and Stewart BALE. 62. There is no denying each and every victim in Case Study 34 has been emotionally scare and this submission does not want to discredit the anger and hurt felt by BQG and BQK and all victims, however as alleged financially BQG has in fact done far better than most other victims as per BQG admission PAR 60 STAT.0723.001.0012_R. The question remains why have so many other victims, some who are financially destitute, not been as adequately and financially compensated at least to the level BQG and BQK appear to have been, and possibly well in excess of those sums agreed ? Par 60 STAT.0723.001.0012_R I spoke to BALE and we exchanged some emails. Then he stopped returning my calls.Eventually I flew over to see him from Perth. During that meeting, BALE said to me, "Mate, you're running an International business, you're doing pretty well, you've goto wife, you've got a family, where's the damage?" I was horrified. Just because that part of my life worked okay didn't mean that I didn't struggled every day in the other parts of my life, in particular the emotional side, the anger side, the sexual side, the gambling side, you just become adept at compartmentalising it and saying I'll work really hard because that's a really great escape for me. The things I have lost can never be replaced through hard work. 63. It is respectfully requested that the Royal Commission request the communication between BQG and Mr Bale as per the admission in Par 60 STAT.0723.001.0012_R in order to clarifying BQG’s testimony and ascertain logic behind BQG’s settlements. 64. As Brisbane Grammar School have accepted there are now at least 100 victims in Case Study 34, in fairness to all victims, it is submitted to the Royal Commission that each and every claim should be considered on their merits of loss. Drawing clarity to the allegations that two victims BQK and BQG have received $1/2 million each when they both have successful businesses and significant income earning capacity that is in stark contrast to larger numbers of other victims who have been denied settlement. Nor have other victims been offered an opportunity to review their previous settlements denies appropriate justice to each and every victim. Alleged Settlement BQK for $1/2 million 65. BQK admits he sought a Barrister opinion from Mr Walter Sofronoff QC in para 69 STAT.0730.001.0013_R of his witness statement. 69. It was important to me that the school not get off lightly, I wanted to maximise the pain the school felt by ensuring they paid the highest amount a Court would make them pay if I took the claim to Court. I spent thousands of dollars paying a new barrister, Walter Sofronoff QC, to advise me how much the school would have to pay if I won in Court. 66. Mr Walter Sofronoff represented the client Brisbane Grammar School in Royal Commission Case Study 34 proceedings. At the commencement of proceedings on the hearing day of 3rd November 2015 there was a question over Mr Sofronoff’s ability to represent Brisbane Grammar School from the public gallery from BQK’s brother. Para 9-12 03/11/2015 C11962 SPEAKER FROM THE PUBLIC GALLERY: Mr Sofronoff, weren't you the lawyer that my brother and I went to for litigation advice 15 years ago when we first wanted to take on Grammar 67. From the actions by Mr Sofronoff not to immediately excuse himself at the time of the Royal Commission Case Study 34, as perhaps he should have done, as he responsibility would in fact be to his first client known as BQK rather than Brisbane Grammar School. Therefore it now opens the legal argument with this allegation that the settlement received by BQK was in fact a “Bribe.” Under such circumstances both BQK and Mr Walter Sofronoff QC could not simply rely on legal privilege in order to prevent the disclosure of the contents of Mr Sofronoff’s Barristers opinion and BQK’s brief to the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission have no choice under this submission, but to immediately request the disclosure of the said documents between BQK and Mr Sofronoff QC. In order to ascertain the truthfulness of BQK’s testimony. 68. In Mr Howard Stack’s witness Statement dated 29 September 2015 para 82 STAT.0380.002.0015_R he accepts a settlement agreed in December 2014 with a single victim. He claims it was one of the 65 Shine Roche claimants but does not specifically name who it was agreed. 69. BQK in Statement accepts he was originally offered $30,000 Para 65 STAT.0730.001.0012_R in the Grammar mediation 2002 process, but did not accept it. It is submitted to the Commission that the figure of $30,000 offered to BQK is in fact in parallel with the average Shine Roche settlement amount 65. STAT.0730.001.0012_R I think I was offered around $30,000. There was no room for negotiation let alone a chance for me to say my peace. I told them to stick their offer and left the mediation even more disenchanted by the whole thing than I ever was. I believe I was one of the only victims who did not accept the insulting offer made that day. 70. BQK admits in his witness statement Para 78 & 78 STAT.0730.001.0014_R that he settled his claim in December 2014 78. Eventually a mediation was scheduled to take place in December 2014. 79. I settled my claim at that mediation. 71. It can be inferred from both Mr Stack para 82 STAT.0380.002.0015_R and BQK statements Para 78 that the sum of $500,000 refers to an agreed single settlement sum for BQK and yet he accepts he originally turned down the average mediation settlement of $30K in 2002. 72. If as this submission suggests, this large sum of $1/2 million was agreed at a time Brisbane Grammar had received notification to disclose and BQK had received a Barristers opinion from Walter Sofronof QC who incidentally was representing Brisbane Grammar School, questions need to be raised. The question is why such a large single settlement to an individual was in fact agreed with BQK in December 2014 when the School knew the likelihood of a future Royal Commission hearing at that point in time? 73. Logically it should follow that a very similar amount to what was originally offered of $30k during Shine Roche mediation should in fact have been awarded to BQK even if it was in 2014. This in fact does not appear the case, as the agreement is for $1/2million split as $350,000 damages and $150,000 costs. Mr Stack gives no explanation for why this amount was agreed. For many other victims involved in the Shine Roche mediation it is certainly well in excess of what was offered to the majority of Shine Roche claimants even accounting for a degree of inflation. 74. In fairness to all victims and for transparency Brisbane Grammar School should in fact have offered all victims the opportunity to review their previous settlement agreements if the offered settlement is not in fact a “Bribe.” 75. It is alleged that by far the large majority of victims who participated in Shine Roche mediation were offered a similar figure of $30K damages and cost contribution in the order of approximately $10K-$15K. Referring to Mr Stack’s statement para 84 just below para 82 STAT.0380.002.0015_R the Commission will find an agreement settlement amount for BQC of $30K and $8K costs that is more in line with global and average settlement amounts. 76. BQK accepts in Witness Statement para 78-80 STAT.0730.001.0014_R that he settled his claim at mediation in December 2014. He appears satisfied with settlement and so satisfied in fact that he claims he did not need the money, so the question on ever other victims lips is why did BQK receive such a large settlement when he does not need the money and what is the money for? 77. Brisbane Grammar School Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 December 2015 Notes to the Financial Statements No 6 on page 14 identifies an agreed settlement amount of $498,000 paid during the year. It is logical to conclude that this settlement amount is likely to be accounting for BQK’s settlement payment. 2.2 During the year ended 31 December 2015, the School also made payments in settlement of claims made by past students amounting to $498,000 (2014: $40,000). Refer Note 7. Expenditure in relation to settlements is only recognised 'when it can be measured reliably, which is typically at the point of settlement Alleged Settlement BQG for $495,000 78. Brisbane Grammar School Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 December 2015 Notes to the Financial Statements No 18 on page 21 identifies an agreed settlement amount of $495,000 due to be paid after end of year December 2015. That is it would be paid in early 2016. At 31 December 2015, all settled claims have been paid. Since 31 December 2015 a number of claims have progressed to the stage where they can be reliably estimated and are expected to result in net settlements of approximately $495,000. 79. Mr Stack admits to agreeing to meet with BQG on the 20 November 2015 to review his settlement para 85 STAT.0380.002.0015_R It can be inferred that the amount of $495,000 is almost certainly an agreed settlement between Brisbane Grammar School and BQG 80. In a communication dated 12 February 2016 from Brisbane Grammar released only a week after Mr David Lloyds Submission in Royal Commission dated School dated 5 February 2016 SUBM.0034.001.0001 - SUBM.0034.001.0141 Mr Stack States Contrary to other figures recently published, the average compensation payment by the School, including contribution to claimants’ legal costs, is on average $75,000. Most of the payments were made in late 2002 and 2003. Of that total payment, some $61,000 represented agreed compensation, with the balance being the School’s contribution to claimants’ legal costs. The Royal Commission in its Redress and Civil Litigation Report released on 14 September 2015 recommends an average compensation payment of $65,000 (assessed in real 2014 dollars). http://www.brisbanegrammar.com/About/RoyalCommission/PublishingImages/Pages/default/Community%20Update%20Friday%2012%20February%202016.pdf 81. It is submitted to the Royal Commission that a single claim of $1/2 million and or a couple of claims near to this settlement value will significantly distort the average settled claim value, if most other claims are in the order of $40,000 including costs. It is therefore submitted to the Commission that the figures put forward by Mr Stack are very misleading in terms of what in fact the large majority of claims were in fact settled for. That is if you exclude two settlements at $1/2 million each relating to BQG and BQK 82. Brisbane Grammar claims in Community update in February 2016 that 76 claims had been settled. It can be inferred that BQG was therefore included in this total As at February 2016, BGS has reached agreement with 76 claimants. Allegation Submission Summary 83. It is with sincere and the deepest regret to have to even put forward this submission. As a victim it makes me feel incredibly sick in doing so. I have wanted to believe that Brisbane Grammar School would do the right thing for all victims. This analysis as submitted clearly needs the Royal Commissions most urgent attention and investigation for the benefit of all victims in Case Study 34. 84. For the benefit of myself as a litigant in person who has been damaged so severely BQK and BQG might realize there are many other victims who in fact could very well do with some extra financial support, but have not received the needed support to restore some form of normality to their lives. 85. A moral compass can only be restored to Brisbane Grammar School with the immediate removal of Trustees and Senior School Leadership and appointment of Administrators to review all settlements to verify the true liability the School is actually facing. 86. A period until 9am Brisbane time on Monday 23 January 2017, will be given before this submission is formally published on the petition Change.org. For the long term benefit of Brisbane Grammar School, I urge the Royal Commission and the Minister and Premier to do what is now needed to safeguard the Schools future by removing Trustees and appointing Administrators. 87. The School could have a prosperous future. I am certain victims will want to work with the School, rather than against it. So far Mr Stack has alienated many in the Brisbane Grammar School Community and this longer term will certainly be problematic for the viability of the School if immediate and swift action is not taken. Statement made by victim of Kevin Lynch as a litigant in person who attended Brisbane Grammar School in Royal Commission Case Study 34 on this Day the 19th of January 2017 Lynch Victim Signature Lynch Victim Respond via email to : lynchvictim@gmail.com