Allegation : Former Prime Minister John Howard, Political Strategist Sir Lynton Crosby acting as former Federal Director of Australian Liberal Party and others covered-up Institutional Child Sexual Abuse in Case Study 34 for Political Gain in the Federal Australian Election held in 2001. Submission Summary 1. Pursuant to the terms of reference of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, it would be wholly appropriate for the Royal Commission to convene a “Special Case Study Hearing,” to consider these most serious allegations contained in this Submission. Anything less and the Royal Commission would be deemed to have failed victims in Case Study 34 and the tens of thousands of Australian victims living with the daily torment of these heinous crimes of child sexual abuse committed over decades. 2. It is with deep regret that these allegations have to be submitted to the Royal Commission. However for completeness of the work of the Commission these very serious allegations contained should not go unanswered nor should they be ignored. That is despite the high profile nature of both the former Prime Minister of Australia John Howard and the political strategist and former Australian Liberal Party Director Sir Lynton Crosby being named in this submission. 3. It is alleged and this submission documents that there has been a “Political,” cover-up of child sexual abuse at the most senior level of the institution known as the Australian Liberal Party for political purposes of seeking to win the 2001 Australian Federal Election held on 10 November 2001 and maintain the integrity of Australian Governor General Dr Hollingworth. 4. A political party as an “Institution” defined in accordance with the meaning of an “Institution,” under the terms of Reference of the Royal Commission should be fully investigated by the Commission. That is when there is evidence that those in that institution either knew or ought to have known and ought to have responded to allegations of child sexual abuse, but failed to do so. 5. It is specifically alleged the former Prime Minister John Howard, aided by Sir Lynton Crosby as Australian Liberal Party Strategist, appointed Dr Hollingworth as Australian Governor General 6 months prior to the Australian Federal Election in Nov 2001, as a political communication message to quell public disquiet and therefore cover-up allegations of child sexual abuse and cover-up many paedophiles who have preyed on so many children. 6. A special hearing is sought to be convened by the Royal Commission prior to the Commission tabling a final report to the Australian Parliament in order for former Prime Minister John Howard and Sir Lynton Crosby and others to be summonsed to give testimony under oath before the Royal Commission. Accountability & Responsibility 7. Cardinal George Pell and Dr Peter Hollingworth, as the figureheads of the respective institutions of the Australian Roman Catholic Church and the Australian Anglican Church have been found in so many Case Studies to have failed victims across Australia. All leaders should share on behalf of their respective institutions a significant portion of the financial costs and burden of accepting the crimes and atrocities committed by members of the clergy and others the community trusted. This should equally apply to political leaders from political institutions who were important actors in the cover-up of child sexual abuse and cover-up of those paedophiles many who evaded justice. 8. Ultimate responsibility should fall at the feet of the former Prime Minister John Howard and the institution of the Australian Liberal Party who should have acted to investigate all the allegations that were surfacing publicly soon after John Howard assumed public office, as the Prime Minister of Australia in 1996. Sir Lynton Crosby and others should also be held accountable for their actions and in-actions and take responsibility given the positions of trust they held in Australia at the time in the period from 1996 and 2001-2002. 9. It is argued that it would be wrong in law for the “Institution,” known as the political party of the day, that being the Australian Liberal Party in 2001, not to be called by the Royal Commission in order to provide written and oral testimony. The former Prime Minister John Howard’s previous inaction on the subject of child sexual abuse should be subject to public scrutiny. 10. Religious institutions primarily the Australian Roman Catholic Church and Australian Anglican Church, together with other faith based institutions have largely accepted their responsibility and have provided testimony over the duration of the past 4 years to the Commission. A political institution and its senior leadership at the time should also be held to account by the Royal Commission and subject to similar cross-examination and scrutiny. No matter how embarrassing it might appear politically. 11. Senior political leadership including former Prime Minister John Howard, Sir Lynton Crosby and other members of the governing body of the Australia Liberal Party need to be held to account for their reluctance to act that would invariably have saved lives, almost certainly would have prevented further crimes from occurring and would have brought many paedophiles to justice. That is if action on this highly sensitive and emotive issue of child sexual abuse had been accepted in 2001, as a major social problem, rather than the pretence that it was very isolated or did not exist. Australian Constitutional Crisis 12. This submission has constitutional significance. It should be given the utmost consideration by the Royal Commission to accept the need to convene a special Case hearing and call Mr John Howard and Sir Lynton Crosby and others. 13. It is such an important issue in terms of reviewing the accountability of the position of Governor General of Australia and the role played by the former Prime Minister of Australia John Howard and the political strategist and Australian Liberal Party Director at the time, Sir Lynton Crosby in the appointment of Archbishop Hollingworth to the position of Governor General of Australia. 14. It is alleged in the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Dr Hollingworth, that it is tantamount to a systemic cover-up of all the multitude of allegations of child sexual abuse that had already surfaced at the time of the appointment of Archbishop Hollingworth to the position of Australian Governor General. This includes the allegations in Case Study 34 that appeared and were publicly known in May2000. Public knowledge is well documented by newspaper articles with one appearing in the Courier Mail on 3 May 2000 alleging that Nigel Parodi may have been sexually assaulted while attending Brisbane Grammar School identified in Case Study 34 as DOC500.001.0115_R 15. Soon after the 2001 Australian Federal election questions began to be raised about the suitability of Dr Hollingworth, to continue as Australian Governor General. John Howard as the Prime Minister of the day ignored those concerns despite claims at the time of a constitutional crisis. The report by Linda Tenenbaum on 2 March 2002 “Scandal surrounding Australia’s Governor General threatens a Constitutional Earthquake,” is one of many who questioned the authority of Dr Hollingworth. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/03/holl-m02.html?view=article_mobile 16. The constitutional crisis is such that unless the Australian Prime Minister sought the Queen’s approval for the removal of Dr Hollingworth, as Governor General there was and still is little ability under the Australian Constitution to hold to account and or depose the Governor General. Under circumstances when a potential conflict of interest and the position held by a Governor is untenable, there is little ability to hold a Governor to account. In contrast for example to the Whitlam Government dismissal in 1975, where the Governor General had the power to remove the Australian Prime Minister, but not vice versa. 17. Australian victims of child sexual abuse and all citizens deserve to know why John Howard, as the former Prime Minister of Australia was not prepared to instigate the removal of Dr Hollingworth by seeking the Queen of England’s approval and why it took a further 12 years for such an outcome of a Royal Commission into child sexual abuse that has now run for over 4 years. It is the longest running Royal Commission and the most costly, although significant numbers of victims are still yet to see any financial compensation. 18. The institution of the Australian Labor Party led by Julia Gillard accepted the plea by so many across Australia to hold a Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2012. 19. The question on every victims lips is : Why was John Howard, the political strategist Sir Lynton Crosby and the institution known as the Liberal Party of Australia not prepared to instigate a Royal Commission when the opportunity arose in 2001 / 2002 to do so? Constitution & State Governors 20. This issue of a constitutional question mark over the accountability of a Governor equally applies to State Governors. Power to ultimately depose a State Governor also rests solely with the Queen of England. 21. The appointment of Queensland Governor Paul De Jersey is a current case in point that requires clarification of the constitutional issues surrounding both selecting, appointing and holding a Governor to account. Victims in Case Study 34 question the appointment of Paul De Jersey. A clear conflict of interest has arisen in his executive approval as Qld Governor to reappointment the Trustees of Brisbane Grammar School on the 17 June 2016. 22. Qld Governor Paul De Jersey held the position of Chancellor of the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane from 1990 to 2014 and this was during an 11 year period Archbishop Hollingworth was Archbishop of Brisbane from 1990 to 2001. Paul De Jersey therefore had access and would have advised Archbishop Hollingworth on certain legal matters almost certainly likely to include the Anglican Diocese response to child sexual abuse within the clergy. Governor De Jersey almost certainly has come into contact with privileged information directly relating to Case Study 34 and therefore his ability to remain as Qld Governor is called into question. 23. Since 1998 until Paul De Jersey’s resignation in 2014 and appointment as Qld Governor, he also held the position of Qld Chief Justice. It is alleged there is a clear conflict of interest and Paul De Jersey should never have been appointment as Qld Governor given his close access to privileged information and the claims that Archbishop Hollingworth covered-up allegations of child sexual abuse within the Anglican Church. The fact that Paul De Jersey was a legal advisor in the position as Chancellor to Archbishop Hollingworth should mean that he should be under a similar level of scrutiny, as has been the case with Dr Hollingworth as the Archbishop of Brisbane. Appointment of Dr Hollingworth as Australian Governor General 24. It should not escape the attention of the Royal Commission the reasons surrounding the highly political appointment of the then Archbishop of Brisbane, Dr Peter Hollingworth to the position of Australian Governor General on 29 June 2001 and his forced resignation on 28 May 2003. The appointment of Dr Hollingworth was at a time in 2001 when the Brisbane Anglican Diocese knew or ought to have known that it faced significant numbers of claims of historical child sexual abuse including those involving Case Study 34 Brisbane Grammar School / St Paul’s 25. The question that needs to be asked and requires an answers from both John Howard, as the former Prime Minister of Australia at the time of Dr Hollingworth’s appointment as Governor General of Australia and Sir Lynton Crosby as the senior Liberal Party Director and strategist is : Why was Archbishop Hollingworth selected and why was his appointment to the most senior position in Australian Public Office approved when significant questions have been raised in recent hearings by the Royal Commission in respect to Archbishop Hollingworth’s handling of child sexual abuse cases prior to his appointment as Australian Governor General? 26. Who were the 4 people John Howard accepts he consulted prior to announcing the appointment of Dr Hollingworth and what did they have to say about the suitability of Dr Hollingworth’s appointment? 27. It is documented in the proceedings of the Anglican Church of Australia “12th General Synod 2001,” held in Brisbane on 21 to 27 July 2001 that Archbishop Hollingworth had been the expected host. However due to his appointment at the time as Australian Governor General he was not in attendance. One notable absence from this General Synod, is that of our anticipated Brisbane host, Archbishop Peter Hollingworth. Given the new and important responsibilities that now claim his attention, we take this opportunity to wish him and his wife Ann well during their time at Yarralumla. Indeed, during the next five years of time out from full time episcopal ministry, but close continuing engagement with the affairs of the nation, we assure them both of our regular prayers 28. The statement given at the 12th Anglican General Synod would tend to suggest that Archbishop Hollingworth’s appointment as Governor General of Australia was not expected. This is considering the Synod gathered in Brisbane in 2001 and likely expected Archbishop Hollingworth to be the host when the meeting was originally planned. The appointment as the next Australian Governor General was announce on 19 April 2001, some 10 weeks before swearing in on the 29 June 2001. 29. Between the period of announcement and swearing in of Dr Hollingworth, as Australian Governor General, the House of Lords case of Lister and Others V Hesley Hall Limited on the 3 May 2001 in Judgement, established the concept of vicarious liability of employers for the sexual abuse of children. This had consequences for Australian Institutions faced with legal claims of child sexual abuse. The Anglican Church faced significant damages claims at the time of Dr Hollingworth’s appointment as Australian Governor General. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200001/ldjudgmt/jd010503/lister-1.htm 30. The Anglican Diocese of Brisbane was without a senior cleric leader for a period of over 6 months until the appointment of Dr Phillip Aspinall, in February 2002 as Archbishop of Brisbane. 31. It is submitted to the Royal Commission that Paul De Jersey acting as the Chancellor of the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane would have had authority to act on behalf of the Anglican Diocese in legal matters during the period July 2001 – February 2002 when the Diocese was without a senior clergy member. 32. Dr Hollingworth’s forced resignation as Australian Governor General came soon after the publication of the May 2003 Report, “Of the Board of Inquiry into Past Handling of Complaints of Sexual Abuse in the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane,” identified in Royal Commission Case Study 34, Document ASQ.0001.001.0001 - ASQ.0001.001.0160 33. In considering the appropriateness of Archbishop Hollingworth at the time of his appointment ,as Australian Governor General, a question that should be posed : Was the Australian Prime Minister John Howard made aware of pending legal actions against the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane that may have necessitated Archbishop Hollingworth being required to provide legal testimony and therefore result in possible conflicts of interest in the position of Governor General of Australia? 34. It is noted that prior to Dr Hollingworth’s resignation as Australian Governor General, there was occasion he had to stand aside due to pending legal action that compromised his position as Australian Governor General. It therefore begs the question, as to why Dr Hollingworth was appointed in the first instance? 35. If the former Prime Minister John Howard was aware that Archbishop Hollingworth may not have been suitable, under Australian constitutional convention was this information relayed to the Queen of England, as the Constitutional Monarch of Australia, before approving his appointment? 36. If question marks had been raised over the suitability of Archbishop Hollingworth’s candidacy as Australian Governor General why was he appointed when other candidates may have been more suitable? 37. While the former Prime Minister John Howard and Sir Lynton Crosby may argue to the contrary, however given all the evidence now available, it would appear on the face of it and it is alleged that it was politically expedient at the time leading up to the Australian General Election in November 2001 for the appointment of Archbishop Hollingworth to cover-up child sexual abuse and cover-up the many paedophiles who preyed on so many children. Allegation Political Cover-up of Child Sexual Abuse 38. It is alleged and this submission documents that there has been a “Political,” cover-up of child sexual abuse at the most senior level of the Australian Liberal Party. A political party as an “Institution” defined in accordance with the meaning of an “Institution,” under the terms of Reference of the Royal Commission should be fully investigated by the Commission. That is when there is evidence those in that institution either knew or ought to have known and ought to have responded to allegations of child sexual abuse, but failed to do so. 39. The Royal Commission has largely focussed on religious institutional responses to child sexual abuse. However political masters, primarily the former Australian Prime Minister John Howard who was elected on the 2 March 1996 and held that position for 11 years and the institution of the Liberal Party along with the political strategist and Liberal Party Director at the time, Sir Lynton Crosby and other party members who many have became aware of cases of child sexual abuse, but ignored the problem should not be immune from facing questions under oath by the Royal Commission. John Howard avoided Royal Commission in 2002 40. In fairness to Archbishop Dr Phillip Aspinall who’s term commenced in February 2002 and has faced giving testimony to the Royal Commission on behalf of the Australian Anglican Church, he wrote to the Australian Prime Minister John Howard on the 5 April 2002 not long after his appointment as Archbishop seeking the Prime Minister’s support for a Royal Commission. The Australian Prime Minister John Howard responded voicing his reservation on the 17 April 2002, as documented in Case Study 34 ASQ.261.001.0002. Dear Archbishop Your letter of 5 April 2002 was drawn to my attention yesterday. As you will be aware from my public comments yesterday, I am considering the matters that you have raised regarding the appropriateness of a Royal Commission at a Federal level into the incidence of sexual abuse of children and the means of protecting children. I do have reservations which I have expressed publicly. The matter will, nonetheless, receive careful attention. I should, however, observe that if you as Archbishop believe that there are matters within the Brisbane Archdiocese that should be addressed then this should occur whatever the Federal Government does. 41. It is not entirely clear why the Prime Minister John Howard had reservations of a Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse, as he did not document those reasons in his response letter to Archbishop Aspinall. Given the scale of the problem and the crimes committed that have been uncovered by holding a Royal Commission, it is only just that the former Prime Minister John Howard and Sir Lynton Crosby and other senior members of the Australian Liberal Party be called to testify before the Royal Commission. 42. Victims across Australian had to wait a further 12 years before an Australian Prime Minister led by the Julia Gillard Australian Labor Party provided the mandate to hold a Royal Commission. In the interim further crimes were committed and justice for so many victims was eluded. 43. As far as victims are concerned, the former Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his political advisors and political strategist Lynton Crosby must take fully responsibility for previous inaction in not holding a Royal Commission. 44. The holding of a Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse may not have been politically palatable in 2001 or soon after the Nov 2001 Federal Election, but was certainly very necessary. A leader with integrity should accept full responsibility for the failure of ordering a Royal Commission when the clear need arose in 2001-2002 and has been clearly demonstrated by the current Royal Commission. 45. It is alleged that Liberal Party political strategist Lynton Crosby who commenced his early career as executive assistant to the South Australian Minister for Education Harold Allison in 1980 would have almost certainly known as far back as 1980, the systemic covering up of child sexual abuse, that was occurring and became so endemic. Lynton Crosby Knowledge of Child Sexual Abuse 46. Lynton Crosby commenced his early political career as President for 3 years (1979-1981) of the South Australian Young Liberal Movement. This would have inevitably put him into contact with the current Australian Attorney General Senator George Brandis. At the time George Brandis was President of the Qld Branch of Young Liberals in 1981. 47. George Brandis was first appointed as an Australian Senator on 16 May 2000. Lynton Crosby as a senior Liberal Party strategist at the time is likely to have supported the selection of George Brandis as the preferred candidate replacing Senator Warwick Parer. The appointment of Senator Brandis was in the same month of May 2000 that Nigel Parodi shot 3 Qld Police Officers and resulted in the public airing of allegations of sexual abuse at the School Brisbane Grammar Nigel Parodi had previously attended in the early 1980’s 48. The shooting of 3 police officers and the questions that were raised as to why it occurred It most surely would have been a memorable moment for all in the Australian Liberal Party. This is particularly so, as Nigel Parodi’s father, Dr Peter Parodi had been a senior Qld Liberal Party member in the early 1980's. Dr Parodi had been a senior Qld Liberal Party member at the time the corrupt MP and former Police Officer Don Lane and MP Brian Austin had defected to the National Party in 1983. 49. It should not have escaped the attention of Lynton Crosby in May 2000, when a former senior Qld Liberal Party member’s own son shot 3 police officers, took his own life and allegations surfaced corroborated by 100 other victims that a serial sex offender had been sexually assaulting young boys at Brisbane Grammar School and St Pauls during the 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s. As far as victims are aware there was no police investigation subsequent to May 2000 to corroborate the allegations being made publicly by so many victims. 50. The allegations that surfaced in May 2000 have formed Case Study 34 : Brisbane Grammar School / St Pauls. Both Schools publicly denied all knowledge of sexual misconduct by the former student counsellor in May 2000. It is only recently on the 15 February 2017, via the publication of the Royal Commission’s report into Case Study 34, that the Commission has accepted that the Schools of Brisbane Grammar and St Pauls were aware of allegations of sexual abuse, but chose to do deny all knowledge. 51. Lynton Crosby as Federal Director of the Australian Liberal Party most surely would have been fully aware and briefed in his position when Senator George Brandis was appointed in May 2000 that Nigel Parodi’s father, Peter Parodi had in fact been a senior Qld Liberal Party member in the early 1980’s. 52. The former Qld Liberal Party leader, Sir William Knox 1976-78 and 1983-1988 had been a founding member of the Qld Young Liberals in the 1940’s together with the late Sir James Killen who attended Brisbane Grammar School coincidentally in the same year as Qld MP Neville Harper. Sir William Knox served as President of Qld Young Liberals from 1953-1957. Sir Lynton Crosby most certainly would have known Sir William Knox when Crosby was appointed as State Director of the Qld Liberal Party in 1991. 53. Coincidently Sir William Knox’s son, Andrew Knox worked as a partner in the same law firm as the Brisbane Grammar School Chair of Trustees, Mr Howard Stack. Mr Howard Stack was a highly respected media lawyer and therefore Lynton Crosby, as a proficient political media communication strategist is certain to have been aware of the Brisbane Grammar School Chair of Trustees Mr Stack and Sir William Knox’s son Andrew Knox. Andrew Knox in a Statement to the Anglican Board of inquiry in 2003 review of the Churches response into the allegations of the sexual perpetrator Kevin Lynch states as documented in CASE Study 34 ASQ.015.026.0084_R 2. I hold the degrees of Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Economics and a Master of Business Administration. I am a solicitor by profession and a partner in the legal firm of Aliens Arthur Robinson, having been a partner of that firm (and Its. predecessor firms) since 1986. I have practised as a corporate/commercial lawyer exclusively. 3. I am a past student of St Paul's (1971-1975), and have had at least 1 child (4 currently) at St Paul's continuously since Grade 6 1995. 4. I Joined the School Council in 1988 and became its Chairman In June 1993. I continue to serve as the Council's Chairman. Dr Max Howell Affidavit and Lynton Crosby resignation 27 September 2002 54. A direct question that needs to be asked of Sir Lynton Crosby : was it mere coincidence that he tendered his resignation on the 27 September 2002 to John Howard, as the Australian Prime Minister, that is on the same day the former Brisbane Grammar School headmaster Dr Max Howell signed an affidavit documented in Case Study 34 as DOC.370.002.0597_R – DOC.370.002.0599 denying all allegations of sexual abuse and which the Royal Commission in final report on 15 February 2017 has found was not truthful? 55. Considering the position held by Dr Hollingworth as Australian Governor General, at the time the former headmaster of Brisbane Grammar School signed the affidavit DOC.370.002.0597_R – DOC.370.002.0599 on the 27 September 2002, it is logical to conclude that it is entirely possible external political pressure was applied to Dr Max Howell. 56. It is accepted that Dr Max Howell is now diseased and therefore victims may not know for certain the reasons for Dr Max Howell signing an affidavit on the 27 September 2002, that the Royal Commission has accepted was not truthful in view of the findings tabled in the Australian Parliament on 15 February 2017 in Case Study 34. There was evidence that a number of complaints against Mr Lynch were made to senior staff at Brisbane Grammar, most significantly to Dr Howell (deceased), who was the headmaster of the school between 1965 and 1989. We find that in 1981 BQH told Dr Howell that Mr Lynch had sexually abused his son BQJ. Dr Howell did not investigate the allegations and did not report the matter to the police or the board of trustees. In not doing so, he failed in his obligations to protect the safety and wellbeing of the students. We find that BQA disclosed to Mr David Coote, the then deputy headmaster, that he loved Mr Lynch more than his own parents. There is no evidence that Mr Coote took any actions to investigate the nature of Mr Lynch’s relationship with BQA after this disclosure was made. This disclosure should have prompted Mr Coote to take action given Mr Coote’s qualifications in psychology. We find that during Dr Howell’s period as headmaster there was a culture at Brisbane Grammar where boys who made allegations of sexual abuse were not believed and allegations were not acted upon. 57. Given the possibility that the integrity of Dr Hollingworth’s position as Governor General of Australia and the ability of the Government of the day led by John Howard’s to govern could have been seriously compromised, if Dr Max Howell had not signed the affidavit denying the allegation of sexual abuse, the Royal Commission has no choice, but to call before the Commission, Sir Lynton Crosby and John Howard to answer this most serious allegation that political pressure was likely applied to Dr Max Howell to sign an affidavit DOC.370.002.0597_R – DOC.370.002.0599 on 27 September 2002 in order to protect the integrity of Dr Hollingworth as Australian Governor General and in so doing protect the integrity of Australian Government led by the Prime Minister John Howard. 58. John Howard as the Australian Prime Minister had this to say as recorded by the Australian Parliament about Lynton Crosby on accepting his resignation on the 27 September 2002 : http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media/pressrel/ALI76%22 Lynton Crosby has been an outstanding Federal Director of the Liberal Party. I will greatly miss his skill and professionalism. Although I am very sorry that he is leaving the post, I fully understand his reasons. We have discussed his projected move on a number of occasions in recent months. Lynton’s support and guidance was quite crucial to the Liberal Party’s victories in 1998 and 2001. Since he became Federal Director, Lynton and I have worked in close liaison and partnership on every aspect of the political challenges faced by an incumbent national government at a time of great economic reform and development, as well as testing international circumstances. The trust and confidence between Lynton and my private office has been a key ingredient of the party’s political success in recent years. Lynton’s departure ends 11 years of service to our party. Although he will pursue a new career in the private sector our friendship will remain and as always his political counsel will be welcome. On behalf of the Liberal Party, I thank him for his service and dedication. I wish him well in his new career and also record my thanks to his wife Dawn and daughters Tara and Emma for the support they have given in so many ways in recent years. Prime Minister John Howard Submission Summary 59. In summary the work of the Australian Royal Commission would not be complete without responding to the fundamental questions and allegations posed in this submission. 60. It is respectfully requested that a Special Hearing be convene to hear evidence and consider the allegations documented in this submission. 61. It is submitted that both John Howard, Sir Lynton Crosby and other senior members of the institution known as the Australian Liberal Party should be called to appear before the Royal Commission and respond to these and other very serious allegations. 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 1st of June 2017 Lynch Victim Signature Lynch Victim Respond via email to : lynchvictim@gmail.com