|
|
Allegations
of Abuse in Institutions |
|
|
|
|
A High Court jury in
Christchurch has retired to ponder the fate of Bernard Kevin McGrath, 58, who
denies 44 charges of sodomy and indecency at Marylands, a residential school
on the outskirts of Christchurch. The jury was last night
sent to a hotel after deliberating for about nine hours after being asked to
consider its verdicts. It was the first day of the fourth week of the trial. When Justice Lester
Chisholm summed up to the jurors yesterday, he asked them 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 had been jailed in 1993 for sexually abusing boys at Marylands during
his time as a dorm master and teacher with the St John of God order. McGrath
later admitted more offending while in jail, a process known as a custody
clearance. The jury was also told
it was accepted that other Catholic brothers, whose names are suppressed, had
also molested boys there. The question was not whether McGrath was a child
molester, but how many and how seriously he offended. The judge urged the
jurors to use their collective common sense when assessing the conflicting
claims by the prosecution 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 contended 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." |
