|
|
Allegations
of Abuse in Institutions |
|
|
|
|
A High Court jury in
Christchurch was to resume deliberations today in the trial of Bernard Kevin
McGrath, 58, who has denied 44 charges of sodomy and indecency at Marylands,
a residential school on the outskirts of Christchurch. The jurors were last
night sent to a hotel after deliberating for about nine hours, on the first
day of the fourth week of the trial. When Justice Chisholm
summed up to the jury yesterday, he asked it to ``judge McGrath's innocence
or guilt with your head and not your heart'', and to put aside prejudice and
sympathy. The court was told that
McGrath was jailed in 1993 for sexually abusing boys at Marylands during his
time with the St John of God order. He later admitted more offending while in
jail. how seriously he offended. The judge urged the
jury to use their collective common sense when assessing the conflicting
claims by the prosection and the defence. "The Crown says
that McGrath didn't come clean in 1993 or in the custody clearance. (The
Crown says) the complainants who have come forward are reliable witnesses and
you should accept their evidence and convict McGrath on each of the counts,''
he said. "The defence says
he came clean in 1993 and in the custody clearances. (The defence says) the
evidence you've heard is unreliable in many respects and doesn't stand up
against verified facts in other respects and the Crown have failed to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt.'' The judge said the
prosecution contends that the length of time since the alleged offending, the
age of the complainants at the time, and inaccuracies in some of their
evidence does not necessarily make their evidence unreliable. "This was
extremely significant offending and would've stuck in the children's minds.
It's not surprising they are wrong in some times and some details (the
prosecution says). "And you need to
remember that they are remembering events as children, even though they are
recounting them as adults. Don't read too much into what might seem to be
exaggeration on their part. "The defence says
it's been near 30 years since the offending and there have been
complications, including publicity, payments of compensation to complainants,
and moreover history has not been particularly kind to some of the
complainants. "Many of them have
their own difficulties which reflect on their reliability. The fact they
might believe what they are saying to be true isn't enough. The Crown must
prove it beyond reasonable doubt.'' |
