Shopping Cart
Your Cart is Empty
There was an error with PayPalClick here to try again
CelebrateThank you for your business!You should be receiving an order confirmation from Paypal shortly.Exit Shopping Cart

Whistleblowers Network Australia


Summary of a Paedophile Case arguably inadequately examined by the NSW Royal Commission (PRC) from 1995 -96/7 into the Police Service and the NSW Police Service itself.

The terms of reference of the PRC were extended to include paedophilia. Although some of these practices were uncovered, much material, particularly that relating to ritualistic abuse ("RA") has arguably been covered up by the PRC, the Police.

There follows a summary of a case which has previously been submitted to various relevant public authorities for scrutiny including the NSW Police Service and the Royal Commission into the NSW Police Service etc in New South Wales Australia.

1. In 1989 a six year old at an inner city fundamentalist Christian church group in NSW (Christian Life Centre Waterloo - which has become absorbed into a lerger church with a different name at the same location ) was inveigled and taken into a back room where the child stated that "I remember a star on the had five points with a circle around it with candles on each point......they lined us up into a girl and a boy line...a girl went in and a boy went in..when I was in this room I saw the star on the ground...they told me to sit on the bed....a person in black cloak read from a book..then this big head came out from the star..then they told me to roll over onto my stomach then Ian L. stuck his dick in my bum...then later on they gave me magic crystals to put in my mothers drink and they told me not to tell anyone anything or they will kill my family".

[The childs seven year old sister was also present in the room at the same time that the alleged rape took place and told her Mother, DOCS officers and Doctors from the then Childrens Hospital at Camperdown]

Note : this statement was provided in original form previously but has been reproduced here in the form of "words to the effect" for the sake of clarity. 2. The subsequent Police investigation of this instance involving organised ritualistic abuse (RA) lasted some 16 months and although charges were laid against several people the particular abusers in this incident were not charged or subsequently convicted.

The children concerned disclosed to each person investigating and a medical examination found evidence of sexual abuse which was consistent with the stories told by the children.

3. Although the Police informed the Mother of the children that they could do nothing because of reliance on "children's evidence" there has never been a comprehensive explanation given by Police as to exactly why the perpetrators of this abuse in this instance were not the subject of criminal charges resulting in a conviction.

4. It is understood that although Mr Ian L. was spoken to by Police that he was never formally interviewed and a formal statement was never taken. [In fact it is understood that the Police did go the residences of the alleged offenders and spoke to them and no official or signed statement was taken].

5. In a letter dated July 9 1992 from Deidre Grusovin M.P to the Victims Compensation Tribunal it is stated that the family's General Practitioner clearly indicated his belief that the matter warranted thorough investigation..the letter also states that the children "were not ....... interviewed by Police until October and November 1990 twelve months after (the date of the original)..notification"

[ The Mother of the children first contacted Ms Deidre Grusovin M.P. in February 1990 as a result of difficulties she was encountering in having allegations of assault against the children concerned thoroughly investigated by Police. ]

6. It appears that neither the Police nor the former NSW Royal Commission into the Police Service have effectively or adequately dealt with this case and the complete account of all the relevant facts available has never been fully traversed or investigated.

The Police Officer who gave evidence to the Police Royal Commission stated incorrectly that the boy involved was not the subject of medical evidence, yet a Medical Report from the Sydney Childrens Hospital stated there was anal penetration. WHY ?

At a Sydney Conference on Paedophilia organised by the Australian Institute of Criminology Guillat attempted to downplay this case on the grounds of the unreliability of child evidence.

7. Mr Andrew Stewart a Solicitor at the Police Royal Commission and a seconded Police Officer Mr Phillip Hudson received the above information. NSW Police Officer Malcolm Cox who handled the previous Police investigation gave evidence to the PRC (exhibit number 2734) (Police Task Force Disk)

8. In a letter to the Victims Compensation Tribunal dated July 9 1992 Ms Deidre Grusovin M.P stated "My lasting impression is that (the mother) and her family have been subjected to extraordinary and unnecessary abuse by the system.At times during this whole sorry saga, there seemed to be concerted attempts by a number of agencies involved to discredit (the mother),presumably in order to justify their own inaction or inability to deal effectively with the genuine concerns of a parent who feared for the well being of her children,and of other children she believed to be in a situation of risk."


On Monday 18th August 1997 the NSW District Court found the above allegations were substantiated and awarded Victims Compensation (Criminal Compensation) in this matter.

The decision raises serious questions concerning the past and present efficacy of the NSW Police Royal Commission, the NSW Police Service and certain Journalists who it would appear have tended to disbelieved the allegations in the past.......... *********************************************************************

NSW Police Internal Affairs Officers worked in the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions Office on NSW Police Royal Commission material.

At the time ,NSW D.P.P. had Seconded Police Officers working on Police Royal Commission derived Prosecutions.

By way of arguable serious conflict of interest the NSW Directors of Public Prosecutions Office now has NSW Internal Affairs Police Officers working on prosecution briefs emanating from the work of the NSW Royal Commission into the NSW Police Service.

It appears innapropriate that Police Officers from the very Police Service which is the subject of scrutiny were involved in the preparation of Prosecution material in relation to fellow members of the NSW Police Service.