Re : New Evidence - Sexual Perpetrator Kevin Lynch in Royal Commission Case Study 34 had a previous conviction and was dismissed by NSW Department of Education by Premier Cahill Submission Statement 1. Victims in Royal Commission Case Study 34 have been totally dissatisfied with the investigation by the Commission and the single Case Study 34 hearing in November 2015. The arrogance of the Commission’s leadership in dismissing and refusing a 2nd hearing despite victim’s petition was totally ignored. This was disrespectful to the many victims who want all the evidence presented and considered by the Commission to be fully satisfied. 2. First and foremost victims seek a formal apology from the Royal Commission. Just as perpetrators need to accept responsibility for their actions, The Royal Commission needs to accept full responsibility for evidence contained in this submission that was missed in the haste to close the case file and issue findings in Royal Commission Case Study 34. 3. The discovery of the full truth and for that truth to be aired in public, is what is surely expected by the whole Australian community, including the hundreds of victims in this horrific case study. Only the full truth enables victims to even begin the process of healing and final closure. For so many victims in Case Study 34 who were certain despite the single hearing and findings that not all the truth was being told. 4. The refusal of the Royal Commission to accept the request by victims for a 2nd Case Study hearing in Case Study 34 has left so many victims feeling very bitter and cynical. It is as though the whole Royal Commission process was purely a ”legal jolly and little else.” From the eyes, hearts and minds of victims, it would not be so harsh to say that in essence $1/2 billion has been legally expropriated from the public purse in order to line the pockets of an army of already largely wealthy group of lawyers doing just enough to give the appearance, rather than in practice adequately supporting the needs of victims. 5. Detailed investigation, drawing statements from each and every victim in seeking the full truth and then presenting that information would have left , “No stone unturned.” But in practice Case Study 34 has been exactly the opposite with most stones left deep beneath the unturned soil. This does not give any victim in this complex Case Study any sense of real justice when most of the stones are left covering the evidence and truth buried beneath out of sight New Evidence 6. It is brought to the immediate attention of the Royal Commission, the Premier of Qld, Qld Education Minister and Qld Attorney General that there is a record that has now been located. The evidence is that the sexual perpetrator Kevin John Lynch in Royal Commission Case Study 34 was convicted of a felony. He was summarily dismissed as an officer of the Education Department of New South Wales by Premier J. J. Cahill in Government Gazette No 30, 14 March 1958 page 73. The dismissal notice states : Dismissals Department of Education It is hereby notified that Mr Kevin John Lynch, Teacher, Department of Education has been summarily dismissed from the Public Service pursuant to Section 61. (1) of the Public Services Act 1902 7. Section 61. (1) of the New South Wales Public Services Act 1902 specifically states : If any officer is convicted of any felony or other infamous offence he shall be summarily dismissed 8. From this new evidence, it has not been established exactly what felony the sexual perpetrator Kevin Lynch was in fact convicted of that caused him to be dismissed by the NSW Premier. Not to pre-empt, but given the large number of victims in Case Study 34 who have accused the sexual perpetrator Kevin Lynch of sexual abuse, it is highly likely the conviction may in fact relate to sexual abuse. The transcripts of Kevin John Lynch’s conviction should have been sought from the appropriate archives and tendered as evidence in Royal Commission Case Study 34 9. This evidence of conviction and dismissal from the NSW Department of Education should have informed the Royal Commission of the direction of the Case Study 34 in determining exactly why hundreds of young boys over decades were sexually assaulted and how it could have either been prevented or detected much sooner. To the hundreds of victims in Case Study 34 this was a glaring omission by the Commission that such a material and critical element of evidence was not investigated and tendered in Royal Commission Case Study 34, given the Commission’s terms of reference. 10. The CV for Kevin Lynch submitted as evidence and marked as ASQ.002.001.0165_R - ASQ.002.001.0170_R identifies his employment history as commencing teaching with NSW State Department in 1955, but leaving in 1956, but re-commences teaching again in 1961, at Edmund Rice College Wollongong. It is therefore not clear how Kevin Lynch re-commenced teaching several years after being dismissed from the NSW Department of Education. 1946-1950 Secondary Education : St Mary’s Cathedral College Sydney 1951-1952 Customs Clerk - Yellow Express carriers Pty Ltd Sydney 1953-1954 Teachers' College - Sydney 1955-1956 Teaching - N.S.W. State Department 1957-1960 Customs & Transport Management - J .J. Woods & Sons Pty Ltd - Sydney 1961-1965 Teaching - Edmund Rice College Wollongong N.S.W. 1966-1972 Teaching - St. Joseph's College Gregory Terrace, Queensland 1973-1976 Teaching - Brisbane Grammar School 1977-1988 Student Counsellor - Brisbane Grammar School 11. It should be highlighted to the Commission that Mr Coote who the Commission in Case Study 34 findings accepted that a disclosure by BQA to Mr Coote should have prompted him to take action, made the following statement contained in Eulogy to Kevin Lynch at his funeral ASQ.002.001.0016 - ASQ.002.001.0017 But he also loved corny and sick jokes. most of which could not be repeated here even if I could remember the punch lines. He had the storyteller's capacity to rework jokes in a fresh setting and he was always happy to tell jokes against himself. Most of you will remember the story of how, a young teacher in a NSW Catholic school, he wrote a vitriolic letter to Cardinal Norman Gilroy, then Roman Catholic archbishop of Sydney, about some matter which had upset him. Kevin alleged that he received a reply which said : Dear brother Kevin, Thank you for your letter. Its contents have been noted. Yours in Christ, Norman, Sydney 12. It is not exactly clear why Mr Coote may have thought Mr Lynch’s attempt at humour was funny. That is if there is an once of truth that Mr Lynch did in fact write to Cardinal Norman Gilroy and the matter related to allegations of a sexual nature during the time Mr Lynch was teaching at Edmund Rice College between 1961-1965 13. It is respectfully requested that the Royal Commission on behalf of victims in Case Study 34 issue a Notice to Produce to both the Catholic Arch-Diocese of Sydney and Edmund Rice College to ascertain, if either holds any records that may shed light on the possibility that Kevin Lynch had been accused of sexual misconduct when he was teaching at a NSW Catholic School likely between the years 1961-1965. Addendum Case Study Hearing 14. It is the conclusion of victims in this horrifying sexual abuse case study 34, that Brisbane Grammar School was not the first School that the sexual perpetrator Kevin Lynch commenced offending. It would be a travesty and total an injustice for so many victims if the Royal Commission now did nothing and continued to refuse at the very least an Addendum Case Study hearing for this new evidence to be presented and tendered as evidence in Case Study 34. Removal of Brisbane Grammar School Trustees 15. Victims draw to the Qld Premier and Education Ministers attention to review the stance still taken that Brisbane Grammar School Trustees can’t be removed. It is the opinion of so many victims that at the very least the Premier should consider the failings of Trustees in fully investigation the allegations of sexual abuse and the financial obligations the School now faces. 16. Victims contend that Trustees of Brisbane Grammar School should be removed without any further delay and administrators appointed to the School that has failed so many. Anything less is seen in the eyes of victims as perpetuating the “Cover-up of Sexual Abuse.” 17. Victims accept that it is a difficult decision in terms of accepting the need to place Brisbane Grammar School into administration and one that the Minister has reiterated on a number of occasions can not force the School to appoint administrators. Nevertheless if Trustees are not able to accept the inevitable who will? 18. Strong leadership can be rewarded by taking those very unpopular decisions. Somehow or other there needs to be acceptance by Trustees of Brisbane Grammar School, that there is a legal liability to settle financial claims against the School. It would be far better for that process to begin sooner rather than later, as the School can’t continue to shirk the financial responsibility of cleaning up the mess that has devastated so many lives. 19. Victims have lost all Trust in the leadership of Brisbane Grammar School. In particular victims have “No-Confidence” in Mr Howard Stack who has acted as Chair for some 27 years and not so long after both Mr Kevin Lynch and Max Howell left Brisbane Grammar School. The Board of Trustees as currently constituted have failed so many victims. The least they could do for victims is to tender their resignations and accept the appointment of administrators is the only possible scenario that is in the best long term interests of the School and Victims in drawing a final closure, rather than have it drag on for years to come. 20. It is after all Trustees exceedingly poor governance of the School that has destroyed the value of the School and not victims. Victims would be prepared to work constructively and collaboratively with an administrator in order to resolve the significant debts, likely in the order of $50 million that are yet to be settled by the School with so many victims. Statement made by victims of Kevin Lynch as litigants in person who attended Brisbane Grammar School in Royal Commission Case Study 34 on this Day 1st May 2017 Lynch Victim Signature Lynch Victim Respond via email to : lynchvictim@gmail.com