Victim Requests Mediation-Abuser Sends Lawyer

Sarah McMillan/cvnznews.com

A survivor of clergy sexual abuse who followed Government advice to seek redress directly from the church that abused him was met not with dialogue, but with a lawyer — a response survivor advocates say is becoming increasingly common.

The man approached the Society of Mary earlier this year, asking for a review of the redress he received in 2019 so it reflected contemporary standards and the seriousness of the harm he suffered. His request followed guidance from the Crown Response Office after the Royal Commission into Abuse in Care.

However, Society of Mary Provincial Rev Mervyn Duffy SM declined to revisit the case. When the survivor proposed independent mediation, Duffy instead instructed lawyer Gerard Dewar of Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Letts to respond — rejecting mediation and indicating the firm would accept service if legal proceedings were initiated.

Advertisement

The refusal comes after Royal Commission hearings revealed the Society had assessed the abuse at the lowest redress tier, described by Counsel Assisting as “a simple case of a relatively minor matter.” For the survivor, the abuse was anything but minor. It was life‑changing sexual assault.

SNAP Aotearoa, a survivor‑led advocacy network, says this case is not isolated. The organisation reports a pattern of faith‑based institutions declining mediation or review when survivors seek updated redress, though privacy constraints prevent details from being made public.

Following the Royal Commission, the Government has encouraged survivors to return to the religious institutions where the abuse occurred, assuring them those institutions are committed to accountability and fair redress. SNAP says cases like this raise serious questions about that advice.

Barbara Taylor, spokesperson for SNAP Aotearoa, says the Society of Mary’s response reflects “exactly the pattern survivors have described for years.”

“The real issue is what happens when survivors follow the Crown’s advice only to find themselves facing lawyers instead of dialogue,” Taylor said. “The public was told these institutions had changed. Cases like this make it reasonable to ask whether they really have.”

SNAP is calling for the Government to stop directing survivors back to the institutions that abused them and to establish the independent redress body recommended by the Royal Commission without further delay.

Explainer: What an Independent Redress Body Would Mean for Survivors

The Royal Commission into Abuse in Care recommended the creation of an independent redress body — a national organisation that would handle claims of abuse without survivors having to return to the institutions that harmed them. But what would such a body actually do, and why does it matter?

1. A Single, Neutral Doorway for Survivors

Right now, survivors of faith‑based or state‑based abuse are often told to approach the institution where the abuse occurred. For many, that is retraumatising. An independent redress body would give survivors one place to go, regardless of where the abuse happened. It removes the need to negotiate directly with churches, charities, or government agencies.

2. Consistent Standards Instead of Variable Processes

Different institutions currently use different redress processes, criteria, and compensation levels. Some offer mediation; others decline it. Some reassess cases; others refuse. An independent body would apply uniform national standards, ensuring survivors are treated fairly and consistently.

3. Trauma‑informed, Survivor‑centred Practice

The Royal Commission found that many survivors felt unheard, dismissed, or pressured when dealing directly with institutions. An independent body would be designed around trauma‑informed practice, meaning survivors would be supported through the process rather than left to navigate it alone.

4. Independence from the Institutions Being Investigated

Perhaps the most important feature: independence. A redress body would not be run by the churches, charities, or state agencies being asked to account for past abuse. Decisions would be made by a neutral authority, reducing conflicts of interest and increasing public confidence.

5. Access to Mediation Without Litigation

Many survivors seek mediation — a safe, structured conversation aimed at resolution. When institutions decline mediation, survivors are left with only one option: civil litigation. An independent body would provide mediation as a standard pathway, avoiding unnecessary legal escalation.

6. A Clear Alternative to Returning to the Institution

For survivors who cannot face returning to the organisation that harmed them, an independent body offers something simple but profound: a different door to walk through.