In April 2015, eight months before Frank Valentine would be interviewed by police and four years before his 2019 trial for sexual assault of teenage girls in the early 1970s, his wife Maris Valentine BA completed a thorough report exposing flaws in the relevant processes of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Sexual Child Sexual Abuse. It was that RC which named him as a perpetrator which ultimately led to him being charged and finally convicted – and eventually imprisoned for 22 years, cut short by his death five years into his sentence.
In the course of research for his new book about the case (to be published later this month), author Andrew L. Urban, sought to examine the Maris Valentine report. It reveals the gross errors that led the 2013 Royal Commission’s processes into failings against the fair application of the rule of law.
In the Abstract at the start of her report, Maris Valentine gives a glimpse how serious factual errors of a defamatory nature infected the Commission’s work.
ABSTRACT
The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse – Case Study No.7 (Parramatta Girls Training School), examined the testimonies of 16 witnesses who were former inmates at Parramatta GTS. However, this has been done in a one-dimensional way without reference to the experiences of people who were working in the Institution at the time, or of women who had different experiences as girls at Parramatta from those who gave evidence, or of people who had experience with the girls who were inmates at Parramatta and the behaviour many exhibited during the relevant time period. All of this information was available and is necessary.
Too many instances of serious factual errors of a defamatory nature have been uncovered in the records freely available on the Commission’s website. The records have largely been ignored and as a result serious injustices have occurred to some of the alleged perpetrators. A total of five men are involved and perhaps as many as eight men have been defamed. Seven and perhaps eight women are involved.
So many instances of serious factual mistakes of memory have occurred in the testimonies of the witnesses that grave concern exists about the justice of any move to consider totally removing the Statute of Limitations with regard to sexual assault. For the same reason, grave consideration needs to be given to the principle of ‘openness and transparency’ as it applies to the unfettered publication of untested allegations of heinous child sexual assault. Unfortunately, such allegations are too often assumed to be true. Newspapers should not be used as a de facto arm of the law by ‘naming and shaming’.
In order to achieve justice for future victims of child sexual abuse, strategies need to be in place so that early reporting of abuse is encouraged and likely. It is understood that now this is often the case.
The Commission is ethically obliged to restore reputations where possible and to seriously examine its modus operandi for future Public Hearings. The law should not inflict damage on innocent people.
Because the Commission has permitted unnecessary full media publication of alleged perpetrators’ names in the interests of “openness and transparency” the Commission is also ethically obliged to recommend compensation to people whose reputations and health have been damaged by false allegations of child sexual abuse that have occurred as a result of the conduct of this Commission. A false allegation of child sexual abuse is just as serious to the person falsely accused as real child sexual abuse is to the person abused.
# This Report has been written by Maris Valentine with advice from ten others who were employed by the Department of Child Welfare and Social Welfare under its various names at the times relevant to this Commission’s brief. None of those ten was the subject of allegations through the Commission.
## I write with experience, amongst many other things, as a former District Officer of the Department, having been employed on three separate occasions between 1967 and 1989 and I have considerable experience dealing with sexually abused girls and often their also abused mothers. I lived in at GTS Parramatta for a week as part of the Residential Care component of the District Officers’ Training Course in 1967 and I was a frequent visitor to the Institution during 1971-3 whilst my husband was employed there in the most junior administrative role of Relieving Deputy Superintendent.
Thank you Andrew and Mary, I have been very saddened to learn of Mr Valentine’s case.
RC Case Studies – Missing /Incomplete information yet “findings” made
At the time of Cardinal Pell’s release from jail, I started looking very closely at the voluminous material on the website of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse – in particular some of the Case Studies which had been frequently quoted by high profile journalists. In Case No 35, for eg, historical documents were missing – hyperlinks did not work, and witness statements indicate some VicPol officers had no recollection of documents referred to or could not recall the identity of the confidential source. A senior police officer reported questioning a retired officer about a 1990 Information Rept which “appears” to have been made by that officer; but the officer could not recall dealing with that particular complainant. The Royal Commissioners make “findings” in relation to historical matters where the supporting information is not supplied.
One highly publicised case was about a priest who had a gun but the actual detail was that he had owned a gun which had been converted to a starters pistol, presumably for sports carnivals etc. The gun had been handed into Police in 1987 – not reported in media stories. There was a high profile complainant in this case against the priest – however, a teacher’s contemporaneous handwritten notes on the website reveal very serious sexual abuse in the domestic setting. In the statement made by that teacher for the Royal Commission, there is no reference at all to the domestic setting abuse, the Royal Commissioners reference the contemporaneous note that “It’s a Police Matter” but that is likely to refer to the domestic setting sexual abuse not what happened with the priest.
On the topic of Royal Commissions
Some other reports about the Royal Commission which may be of interest: https://www.mercatornet.com/cardinal-george-pell-and-the-high-court-of-public-opinion and https://www.mercatornet.com/was-the-royal-commission-hand-in-glove-with-the-get-pell-campaign, the latter includes: “Political cynics assert that no government ever establishes a Royal Commission without knowing what the result will be…and These flawed, unredacted “findings” suggest that the Royal Commission needs to be carefully scrutinised, not only in respect of its “findings” against Cardinal Pell, but more generally.”
The Private Sessions and the Private Narratives
There has been much media coverage about the private sessions during the RC. They were quite expensive to run: Private sessions: $67.6 million over the life of the Royal Commission (20 per cent of total expenditure). Expenditure included the cost of managing call centre services and survivor correspondence, and all costs related to facilitating and conducting private sessions. This included Commissioner and related staff costs; participant travel costs; costs associated with collecting witness statements; counselling and support services for witnesses; venue hire and logistical costs; IT and transcription services; and media costs including associated advertising and communication materials.” Other costs in millions were: Commissioners $13.938M Counsel Assisting $5.078M External legal fees $19.210M.
Appendix B FInances: https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/final_report_-_volume_1_our_inquiry.pdf
Note that each Private Narrative on the website has the following “Disclaimer: This is the story of a person who spoke with a Commissioner during a private session of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Real names of individuals have not been used, except of public figures in a public context. The information the person provided was not evidence, the person was not a witness, and did not need to take an oath or affirmation, although they were expected to tell the truth. Nothing in this story is a finding of the Royal Commission and any views expressed are those of the person, not of the Commissioners.”
Visits to Correctional Centres
It seems the Royal Commissioners visited about 31 Correctional Centres. One of the Private Sessions is here:https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/narrative/glenn-damiens-story. GD was about to be released from prison and for the first time told the Royal Commissioners what had happened to him, – abused by a supervisor in jail. He’d heard about the Redress Scheme a few years ago, but thought he’d finally speak up, even though he had never told doctors/nurses about the abuse he had received.
Many of the complainants featured in the case studies have pseudonyms, eg AWR, PZQ, JDB – would this be because they are deemed a particular class of persons – perhaps they are or have been in a prison? In her book Witness, Louise Milligan, wrote about the secret hearing she attended with Justice Peter Kidd during Cardinal Pell’s committal – it was to protect her sources – and key personnel from the ABC attended.
A 2019 ARC grant awarded to Uni Canberra researchers reveals that a team of creative writers and journalists was employed by the RC to write up the “Private Narratives” and “synthesise” them. See page 14: https://irp.cdn-website.com/fa47174b/files/uploaded/After%20the%20Silence%20report.pdf
The National Redress Scheme was one of the main recommendations from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and it was set up in 2018. Applicants can receive up to $150,000 in compensation, although organisations such as CLAN wanted the amount to be $200,000. No JP or stat dec signatures are required. The compensation costs are sheeted back to the Institution but tax payers funding the program and “Independent Decision Makers”. In 2024, it was agreed that physical and emotional abuse could be included in the application form. In February 2025, NSW Police made several arrests in relation to fraudulent claims, describing this as the “tip of the iceberg”: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-13/nsw-police-child-sexual-abuse-alleged-fraud-claims-seven-charged/104932648. No news reports since.
RC Personnel
Many of the very senior personnel from the 2012 – 2018 have gone on to hold appointments at the National Anti Corruption Commission. Mr Philip Reed, CEO of the RC is now CEO of NACC, Counsel Assisting who questioned Cardinal Pell for 19 hours during the RC is now the Inspector of NACC, the person who wrote the Victorian Govt Response to the RC is a Deputy Commissioner, as is the former head of AUSTRAC who reported on Billions of $ from the Vatican being transferred to Australia and then corrected this to an order in the millions explaining there had been a coding error.
National Survivors Foundation (NSF)
There is now an organisation called The National Survivors Foundation: https://survivors.org.au/ The name has changed as the organisation was formerly In Good Faith Foundation (IGFF) – the founder Helen Last had been employed by the Archdiocese of Melbourne when Cardinal Pell set up the Melbourne Response. Last was a vocal critic of Cardinal Pell and established her organisation In Good Faith Associates to help survivors. This then became the charity IGFF, and she and current NSF CEO made submissions to the Victorian Inquiry in 2012, eg: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/4918da/globalassets/sections-shared/get-involved/historical-inquiries/betrayal-of-trust/submissions/jilliane-mather.pdf
Governor-General Patron of NSF
The Joint Patrons of the National Survivors Foundation are the Governor General Sam Mostyn and her husband (who was Counsel Assisting in the Gillard 2012 – 2018 Royal Commission Case No 13 – Marist Brothers). Looking at Julia Gillard’s Wikipedia page, there does not appear to be any reference at all to her calling the RC into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2012, or her involvement over the period 2012 – 2018 eg, ABC television programs made with victims advocates and other high profile events and activities.
Andrew. Not being jocular – a serious concern..!
An ambitious Royal Commission prosecutor would rip Churchill’s story to shreds.! Did you observe the described door without any toilet or meal break ?
They would scream at you – “you must take more than 60 seconds in the John!!.. Was your coffee and sandwich bought to your observational position..?
How good was the lighting – was it dimmed at night ? ? A grey door may have appeared white/ black or closed..”
Is it normal for Hospital Legal Eagles to come to your home ? What kind of bloody union representation does your work place have ?
Do these investigators have a right to enter your home ?
Your Hospital employs interrogators ?- Or are these contractor heavies from the Commissioner seeking victory and justification for their heavy fees ? Did the young male admit guilt after a 7 day shouting match at another location ? How can you be sure that these potential prosecutors were not actually after your scalp..? Name / rank / serial number – way to go..!
Does Vanuatu have an extradition agreement .?
Thank you (?) for this gobbledygook. Readers are invited to translate it into coherent English.
Andrew. Hesitate even to think such a ….
Churchill – 50 years time “they” might come after YOU.
However You may have just rescued the young male from a 20 year prison term..just
don’t get confused as to which
day and time you were at Bunnings.. for crysake..
I have worked with children who I do not doubt were either sexually or physically abused by carers, parents or others. However on one particular night shift as a nurse, caring for 3 children, one of whom I had grave concerns for his welfare, so much so,that I spent the whole night watching his doorway along with caring watching the other two. On completion of my shift and last round, I sensed that one lass was up to something. Intuition, no, experience and knowledge. This same lass accused the young male of sexual assault which in no way was possible. He had not left his room, or bed at all overnight. On being questioned on arrival home by hospital legal eagles……I detailed my overnight vigilance and why it did not happen. Records told of previous claims of abuse by carers by this lass. In this instance it did not occur. The matter was dropped. It has made me wary of all such claims, especially from disturbed persons.