These men of god will give you three years of struggle, stress and worry.

The Society of Jesus has a well formulated policy/method for responding to complaints.
Simon Davies is the point man. What is not known is who is making the decisions that he represents.
Probably all those in the graphic above , and the lawyers, are involved except for the Superior General.

The amount the survivor is asking for makes a big difference.
Our guess is that if its an informal complaint and the amount being asked for is small, like $50-100,000 they will negotiate a settlement to get rid of the problem quietly.
But if you lodge a civil suit for a large amount then the full force of their defence is in play.
The standard response is to deny everything. Deny the abuse happened, deny all liability if it did happen which they don't admit, and threaten to apply for a permanent stay of proceedings (i.e. kill the whole thing).

Its all about the money.
The survivor's pain and suffering and lost income does not matter to them.
Everything they do is simply to limit the amount of money they will have to pay to settle the claim.
The Australian Province of the Society of Jesus is a registered charity, as are the schools and about 40 other charities they have.
In total they receive nearly $90 million a year in grants from the federal government.
Add to this the income and donations they receive and you have a very big business.

Charities are supposed to be open and transparent.
The Society of Jesus acts in complete secrecy with no independant oversight of their behaviour.
They say they conduct an investigation into any complaint but won't tell you about it.
Even in Supreme Court required discovery documents they do not disclose their "investigation".
That is actually a serious breach of legal duty.

Survivors of abuse are a bloody nuisance and the Society of Jesus does not care about them and treats them as enemies.
The Society of Jesus has no system or protocol in place to help survivors. A few have been known to ask for monetary help with bills and psychological help and have recived small amounts after a lot of begging.
Xavier College does nothing to help survivors, this is a deliberate policy.
Xavier College pushes survivors away to see the In Good Faith Foundation. . Goodbye... Don't come back ...

To them its a storm they have ride out with the least possible damage to finances and reputation until the seas become tranquil again.
A very curious thing is the head office has no sign outside or on the entrance to show what it is.

This is the official statement the Society of Jesus has made about making a complaint.
Reporting, remedy and redress
How to bring a complaint of abuse against any past or present Jesuit, staff member or volunteer at a Jesuit school or other ministry.
If anyone wishes to bring a complaint of abuse against any past or present Jesuit, staff member or volunteer at a Jesuit school or other ministry, they may do so in any of the following ways.

1. To report a non-urgent crime call 131 444, or in Victoria contact your local police station. For emergency assistance call 000.
Otherwise:

2. Contact the office of the Professional Standards Resource Group (established jointly by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference and the Australian Conference of Leaders of Religious Institutes) at the appropriate number as listed below.

3. Contact the Director of Professional Standards, Mr Simon Davies, on 03 9810 7300 or email professionalstandards@sjasl.org.au.

4. Contact the Head of the relevant school or relevant ministry
♦ jesuit.org.au

ACSL was established in December 2020
From January to June 2021, ACSL worked to transition the functions and services of the two previous bodies – Australian Catholic Centre for Professional Standards and Catholic Professional Standards Ltd – into one organisation.

Catholic Religious Australia (CRA) is a member of ACSL.
The Society of Jesus is a member of CRA.
ACSL invites entities to pledge to implement the National Catholic Safeguarding Standards

As when they ignored the Royal Commission Recomendation about Complaints Handling Policies "the need for independent oversight of complaint handling by institutions.".
Even though then Povincial, Brian McCoy, in 2018 said
"We are likely to accept all the Royal Commission’s recommendations unless any of them conflict with Canon or Jesuit Law (which is unlikely)".


ACSL Standard Six
Effective complaints management
6.1 The entity has an effective Complaints Handling Policy and procedures which clearly outline the roles and responsibilities, approaches to dealing with different types of complaints, reporting obligations and record keeping requirements.
INDICATORS

6.1.1 The entity’s policies, procedures and practices ensure that all mandatory reporting obligations are met.

6.1.2 There are clear procedures that provide step-by-step guidance on what action to take for different types of complaints, including breaches of Codes of Conduct, disclosures, allegations or concerns of abuse of a child, be they historic or current.

6.1.3 There are clear procedures for identifying and mitigating conflicts of interest in complaint management.

6.1.4 The entity works in cooperation with relevant organisations and seeks specialist advice from the statutory child protection services when necessary.

6.1.5 Key roles and responsibilities in relation to handling complaints are articulated within the Complaints Handling Policy and procedures.

6.1.6 The Complaints Handling Policy and procedures differentiate, where appropriate, between a child victim and an adult bringing forward a complaint of abuse suffered as a child.

6.1.7 A process is in place to record all child abuse complaints, incidents, allegations, disclosures, concerns and referrals. The system must be secure so that confidential information is stored, protected and retained for 50 years [refer to Indicator 1.6.2].

Even the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference in November 2020 accepted that an independant investigator was the only way to get trust in the process.

Procedures for responding to concerns and allegations of
contemporary and historical child abuse
Stage 1: Receive and Acknowledge the Concern or Allegation
Stage 2: Report to External and Internal Authorities
Stage 2A: Report to External Authorities
Stage 2B: Report to Internal Authorities and Bodies
Stage 3: Determine Course of Action
Stage 4: Investigate
Stage 4A: Appoint an Investigator
A suitably qualified external investigator with experience investigating child abuse — historical and/or contemporary — is appointed as soon as possible.
Stage 4B: Plan the Investigation
Stage 4C: Conduct the Investigation
Stage 4D: Consider the Evidence
Stage 4E: Complete the Report
Stage 5: Assess the Report and Make Determination
Stage 6: Address and Communicate Outcomes
Stage 6A: Communicate with and Support Affected Persons
Stage 6B: Communicate with and Support Affected Communities
Stage 7: Continuous Improvement

The net result of having no Complaints Handling Policy is that the Society of Jesus remains a law unto itself with no independant oversight whatever.

The Society of Jesus has studiously and deliberately avoided any independant oversight of all their actions and behaviours, most especially complaints handling.
An institution does this when they have something to hide.

The one exception being the Marilyn Warren inquiry into the Victor Higgs move from Adelaide to Sydney.
Then they completely ignored her recommendations.

Professor Stephen Smallbone a member of the Society of Jesus Consultative Panel with Professor Tim McCormack conducted an inquiry into the Tasmanian Education Department's handling of sex abuse complaints.
They made 21 recommendations, which the government has fully accepted.
They found the DoE response was "to ignore students, shield abusers and protect itself from legal, financial and reputational risks "
(which is historically exactly the same as the Society of Jesus and the Jesuit schools).

This website emailed Professor Smallbone on Nov. 11, 2021 asking about Recommendation 1.
"Will you recommend to the Society of Jesus that they also do the same?"
We have not not received a reply.

Recommendation 1.
1. We recommend that all sexual abuse concerns, complaints, responses and outcomes be systematically recorded by the Department of Education, and that these records are periodically analysed to monitor patterns and trends.

" There is an urgent need for complete and analysable records of all sexual abuse concerns, including substantiated and unsubstantiated incidents and episodes, and all types of abuse (e.g. teacher-student; student-student; online abuse).

A database established to capture this information should be able to produce quantitative (averages; ranges etc) and qualitative data on,
for example: types of abuse; when and where incidents occurred; how incidents first came to light;
the time between incidents occurring and complaints being made; ages of complainants and respondents; outcomes for complainants and alleged abusers; and the outcomes of any system
reviews following the resolution of complaints."

Good for the goose but not for the gander ????

But they do have GUIDING PRINCIPLES for Civil Claims
♦ Society-of-Jesus-Common-Guiding-Principles-Child-Sexual-Abuse-Civil-Claims

So, after your complaint has not been substantiated and if in informal negotiations the compensation offered was not realistic you have to go to a civil claim (Supreme Court).

The main objectives of these Guiding Principles are:
• To make litigation a less traumatic experience for people who have experienced sexual abuse and ensure a compassionate and consistent approach across the Province when dealing with civil claims for child sex abuse.

• To acknowledge that an adversarial civil litigation system is not an effective way of dealing sensitively or compassionately with people who have experienced sexual abuse.

• To promote cultural change across and within the Province.

• To finalise all claims as quickly as possible, and, where practicable, to agree to a single expert, which should reduce the necessity of plaintiffs having to repeat painful experiences to multiple people.

These are lovely objectives but the problem is they all fall apart when in discussion with Simon Davies (who wrote these objectives) and his lawyer, you are offered something like 10% of what your independant forensic accountant has calculated as your economic loss.

In other words its a lot of rubbish.
e.g.

"where practicable, to agree to a single expert"

This is never done. They always have their own chosen psychiatrist do a report on you.
They never accept an independant forensic accountant's report.
.
When dealing with civil claims related to child sexual abuse, the Province should always act honestly, fairly and compassionately by:.

3.3 "not ordinarily rely on the period of time between the incidents reported and the time of disclosure as a reason why a proceeding should be stayed."

The Tony Hargreaves lawyers defence to my own claim states:

"37.It says further that the Defendant is entitled to a permanent stay of the proceeding on the basis that the proceeding is an abuse of process, as the proceeding is manifestly unfair to the Defendant in view of the delay of approximately 50 years since the alleged acts of abuse."

What does "ordinarily" mean? When they put in the exfluxion of time defence all the time.

"3.9. facilitating access to records relating to the claimant..."

They have to provide you with your personal information because that's privacy law.
But my request to view my exam results from Xavier College in the actual physical book has not been granted.

" 3.12. paying legitimate claims without litigation "

What is "legitimate"? They say nothing about any process or method of deciding that.
Mr. Davies has previously stated that he has had survivors deal directly with him and they have agreed on a compensation amount and the survivor has gone away happy.
It seems that the amount of compensation is the arbiter of this being successful.
We think that the Society of Jesus is very comfortable with paying an amount of say $50,000 or less to get rid of a complainant.

"3.17.2. not contesting liability if it is known the dispute is only about the amount of compensation;"

That has to be completely untrue.
The Tony Hargreaves lawyers defence to my own claim states:
"Even if Father A and Father B were employees of the Defendant (which is denied), it would not be vicariously liable for their alleged conduct (which conduct is not admitted)."
and
"denies paragraph 22 insofar as it may refer to vicarious liability...
"denies paragraph 22 insofar as it refers to the existence of vicarious liability for the acts of its “servants or agents”;"

"3.21. apologising if the Province is aware that it or its representatives or lawyers have acted wrongfully, improperly or in breach of these guidelines."

Early days yet.

Child Sex Abuse Royal Commission.
Improving institutional responses to complaints
Recommendation 7.7
Consistent with Child Safe Standard 6: Processes to respond to complaints of child sexual abuse are child focused, institutions should have a clear, accessible and child-focused complaint handling policy and procedure that sets out how the institution should respond to complaints of child sexual abuse.
The complaint handling policy and procedure should cover:

• making a complaint
• responding to a complaint
• investigating a complaint
• providing support and assistance
• achieving systemic improvements following a complaint.

The Society of Jesus ignored this recommendation.
They have no independant oversight of anything they do.

---

Diocese of Buffalo agrees to deal requiring secular oversight of abuse allegations
♦ cruxnow.com

NEW YORK – The Diocese of Buffalo has agreed to enact more secular oversight of its response to complaints of clergy sexual abuse in a legal settlement with New York State attorney general Letitia James, resolving a 2020 lawsuit that accused the diocese of long mishandling the allegations.

Per the settlement, the diocese has appointed a child protection policy coordinator to ensure child protection policies and protocols are followed, and it has committed to a step-by-step documented process to ensure full transparency in addressing sexual abuse complaints.

The diocese’s lay review board must also now provide its recommendation for each investigated case in writing.
And the diocese has to make public disclosures throughout the process, including posting the lay review board’s recommendation on its website, publicly disclosing names of accused clergy who are suspended pending investigations, and reporting on all substantiated complaints.

The diocese will refer all complaints it receives to law enforcement and cooperate with any investigations as well.