Crikey

• Why did Lateline refer to the abuse of “12 year old boy” in its May 17 story on Archbishop Philip Wilson, when it knew the boy, Peter Gogarty, to be 15 at the time of his abuse?

It was an error which was corrected as soon as it was discovered. There WERE allegations from Peter Gogarty that he was abused from the age of 12, but these earlier instances of abuse were not alleged to have occurred at a time when Archbishop Wilson would have been in the Old Bishop‘s House. These matters were conflated during the writing process and later corrected.

• Is supposition a solid enough evidence base from which to suggest Archbishop Wilson saw Peter Gogarty with Jim Fletcher descending the stairs in the Bishop’s House at Maitland?

It is not supposition, it is evidence from Peter Gogarty and Archbishop Wilson’s response was published.

• Why did Lateline wait, after months of research, until the morning its story ran to contact Wilson for comment?

The research did not take place over “months”, but there was a lot of detail, documentation and checking required. The program contacted the Archbishop’s office once it had all of its information and facts properly checked, in good time to allow him to respond.

• Is it reasonable to assume Wilson would be able to prepare a response to detailed questions on 30-year-old events at such short notice?

The story had already been published in the Newcastle Herald, and the Archbishop had already been asked similar questions on the same issues by that newspaper some weeks before our story went to air.

Nevertheless, the program would, of course, have provided the Archbishop with more time to respond if he had sought it. In fact, a response to the questions sent to Archbishop Wilson’s Communications Director was returned several hours before the deadline. They did not ask for extra time, and they declined our offer of an interview.

• Why did Lateline include only two of Archbishop Wilson’s responses to written questions in its May 17 story?

The program included the key responses in the story, as well as advising the audience that the full response from the Archbishop was available on the program website. All the answers were published on the site.

• Is Lateline concerned by Suzanne Smith’s line of questioning in relation to Peter Gogarty?

More Information required to answer this question. However, the ABC has no concerns about the way the story was researched and produced by any of those involved.

• How is the evidence of a former student of St Pius X High School relevant in explaining what was in Archbishop Wilson’s mind at a particular point in time?

It is an important interview regarding the atmosphere at the school where Sidney John Denham, who recently received a 25 year sentence for sexual assaults against children at the school, operated and worked. The interview is backed up by documents and evidence from the Sidney John Denham court case. 49 victims gave evidence and the court heard that it was well known that Sidney John Denham was a risk to students at the school. Archbishop Wilson worked at the school for some of the time while the abuse occurred, which made it a relevant issue to raise.

• How long before the Lateline’s second story aired on June 16 did the ABC contact the Catholic Church for official comment?

The reporter started talking to the Communications Manager, Jennifer Brinkworth , early in the morning on June 15^th. She rang several  times to talk through the story and outlined all the issues. When the request for an interview or a response to the issues weren’t answered, the reporter  faxed the same questions early on Friday morning of June the 16^th.

• Given the non-urgency of the story, why didn’t Lateline wait until it received official comment before it went to air?

In relation to the first story, official comment WAS received. In relation to the second story, the program held off until it was clear that no further comment was forthcoming.

• In its June 16 report, Why did Lateline fail to include information that Archbishop was studying in America for the majority of the period between 1990 and 1995, despite that information  being previously provided to Lateline?

The Archbishop’s answers contained a mistake. In his first statement to Lateline he said he was in the United States from 1990 to 1995. However his official CV has him in the Maitland-Newcastle diocese for the year of 1993. He again returned to the diocese in 1995. Lateline asked for an official response on the issue but none was forthcoming. Lateline is still waiting for a response to this question.