# A System Under Scrutiny

An episode of [Badge of Betrayal](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1852919243), 26 May 2026, 24 min.

Audio: https://p.podderapp.com/2544644999/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/2fb3740d-3436-44af-8cc0-a91900716aa5/fbab9570-a7a3-4fd4-a673-b3940044b1b8/3b4ff98b-3ab4-4e46-9287-b45600477629/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=2f1fa4b5-119b-41b5-8749-b3940044b5a4

A serious concern was raised at a school. Students needed to be protected. The person accused needed a fair chance to respond. And the institution needed a process strong enough to withstand scrutiny. In this episode, we examine a publicly available 2006 Tasmanian Industrial Commission decision involving St Patrick’s College. It is not about Paul Reynolds, and it does not prove anything about him. But it does show how difficult and how important institutional process becomes when allegations involve children, trusted adults, missing evidence and career-threatening consequences Disclaimer: This episode discusses a publicly available Tasmanian Industrial Commission decision involving allegations made against a teacher in 2006. The teacher denied the allegations. The Commission ultimately found that the allegations were not proved on the balance of probabilities and recommended that the warning issued to the teacher be withdrawn. Nothing in this episode should be taken as a finding that the teacher engaged in wrongdoing. Our focus is on the process: how the concern was raised, how the school responded, how evidence was handled, and what the Commission said about procedural fairness. We are not suggesting wrongdoing by St Patrick’s College, its staff, students or any individual involved. We are reporting on a public decision and examining the broader institutional questions it raises about allegations, evidence, fairness and accountability. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:11] Speaker 1: In this episode, we will talk about Paul Reynolds, who
[0:14] Speaker 1: for a time in 2005 to 2009 was a coach
[0:19] Speaker 1: at St. Patrick's School. There is another St. Patrick's document
[0:22] Speaker 1: I want to take you through. And I need to
[0:25] Speaker 1: say this clearly from the start. This is not about Reynolds.
[0:28] Speaker 1: Reynolds was not involved in this matter. This decision doesn't
[0:32] Speaker 1: prove anything about him. It's a different person, different allegations
[0:37] Speaker 1: and a different process. But it did happen at St
[0:40] Speaker 1: Patrick's College and it happened in 2006. Now, that date
[0:45] Speaker 1: stood out to me because, as we've heard from two
[0:48] Speaker 1: whistleblowers and a news report, Reynolds was connected to St
[0:52] Speaker 1: Patrick's from 2005 to 2009. He was there through football.
[0:54] Speaker 1: He was a coach. And as we've heard from two
[1:00] Speaker 1: former students who alleged they were abused by Reynolds while
[1:04] Speaker 1: he coached them in the football team at school.
[1:07] Speaker 2: If we look at it now with all of us
[1:09] Speaker 2: getting older and also having children, you know, like where
[1:13] Speaker 2: it actually comes to light and you don't know that
[1:15] Speaker 2: something really wasn't right in those times is you think
[1:19] Speaker 2: about your own children and you think, you know, at
[1:21] Speaker 2: that age, what would you expect a man of that
[1:25] Speaker 2: caliber and also that sort of age bracket and also
[1:31] Speaker 2: indirectly away from a lot of these people within the
[1:34] Speaker 2: school premises sort of gaining such a role within that
[1:38] Speaker 2: system and the school system and obviously being around and
[1:41] Speaker 2: being able to sort of essentially do what he wants
[1:45] Speaker 2: and also set what he wanted and set whatever precedence
[1:49] Speaker 2: he really wanted to do too.
[1:54] Speaker 1: Reynolds is dead now. He can't respond to those allegations.
[1:58] Speaker 1: But the questions around him don't end with him. Because
[2:02] Speaker 1: when you start looking at trusted adults around children, when
[2:04] Speaker 1: you start looking at schools, sport, coaching, access and boundaries,
[2:09] Speaker 1: and the way institutions respond when something uncomfortable is raised,
[2:14] Speaker 1: the same questions keep coming back.
[2:16] Speaker 3: Who had access? Who was watching? What was recorded? What
[2:20] Speaker 3: was ignored? What was tested?
[2:23] Speaker 1: And when something serious is raised, did the institution search
[2:27] Speaker 1: for the truth or did it simply try to manage
[2:29] Speaker 1: the situation? That's why this document matters. It's a Tasmanian
[2:34] Speaker 1: Industrial Commission decision from 2006. On paper, it sounds pretty boring.
[2:40] Speaker 1: An industrial dispute, procedural fairness and a first and final warning.
[2:45] Speaker 1: But inside that dry legal language is a very uncomfortable story.
[2:54] Speaker 1: It's the 17th of February 2006, the senior school swimming
[2:59] Speaker 1: carnival at St Patrick's College in Launceston. According to the decision,
[3:05] Speaker 1: there are about 600 students, staff and parents at the event.
[3:09] Speaker 1: Teachers were trying to keep races running, parents were watching
[3:13] Speaker 1: and students in their house groups cheering on. The teacher
[3:17] Speaker 1: at the centre of this decision and the document we
[3:20] Speaker 1: found publicly has been at St Patrick's for more than
[3:23] Speaker 1: two decades. That day he was working as a house
[3:26] Speaker 1: marshal near the starting blocks, helping get students ready for races.
[3:32] Speaker 1: He also had a digital camera, and that camera becomes
[3:36] Speaker 1: the whole story. The allegation later put to him was
[3:40] Speaker 1: that he had been seen with that digital camera, without permission,
[3:44] Speaker 1: and had secretly been taking photographs of female students while
[3:48] Speaker 1: they were marshalling for swimming events. Now I want to
[3:53] Speaker 1: stop there, because sometimes when you read these tribunal decisions,
[3:57] Speaker 1: the language makes everything feel distant. Words like alleged, inappropriate behaviour,
[4:03] Speaker 1: procedural fairness and balance of probabilities. But if you strip
[4:07] Speaker 1: all that back and imagine being a student at that carnival,
[4:09] Speaker 1: you're standing near the marshalling area. Girls are waiting for races.
[4:15] Speaker 1: Some are in swimsuits. And you believe a teacher is
[4:18] Speaker 1: holding a camera low, pointed in their direction. If that's
[4:23] Speaker 1: what you think you're seeing, then that's serious. And if
[4:26] Speaker 1: you're at school, you can't ignore it. They gave details.
[4:31] Speaker 4: I estimate that approximately five to ten minutes after I
[4:34] Speaker 4: sat down, I realised that he, who was standing near
[4:38] Speaker 4: the pool in the vicinity of where the girls were marshalling,
[4:41] Speaker 4: was holding a digital camera just above waist height. He
[4:44] Speaker 4: held the camera in front of him, pointed towards the girls,
[4:48] Speaker 4: and it looked to me like he had his thumb
[4:50] Speaker 4: on the top of the camera. I did not see
[4:53] Speaker 4: any lights operating on the camera and I did not
[4:55] Speaker 4: see any parts moving. However, I did see him look
[4:59] Speaker 4: at the rear of the camera on occasions, as if
[5:01] Speaker 4: checking a viewing screen on the camera. I watched him
[5:05] Speaker 4: do this for about five to ten minutes, basically to
[5:08] Speaker 4: make sure that he really was doing what I thought
[5:10] Speaker 4: he was doing, and then I told.
[5:12] Speaker 5: * * *.
[5:12] Speaker 3: * what I had seen.
[5:14] Speaker 1: Another student later said that the camera lens was extended
[5:19] Speaker 1: and facing towards the marshalling area. They believed he was
[5:24] Speaker 1: taking photographs of the girls in their swimsuit without making
[5:28] Speaker 1: it obvious. The Industrial Commission into these allegations later said
[5:33] Speaker 1: that they had no reason to question the truthfulness of
[5:36] Speaker 1: the students' evidence. This decision they made was not saying
[5:40] Speaker 1: the students lied, and it was not saying they made
[5:42] Speaker 1: it up, and it was also not saying the school
[5:45] Speaker 1: should have ignored them. What it became about was more complicated.
[5:50] Speaker 1: What did the students see? And what did it mean?
[5:53] Speaker 1: And was the evidence strong enough and the process fair
[5:56] Speaker 1: enough to justify the warning that followed? The decision, says
[6:00] Speaker 1: the principal, acted after information was presented to him by
[6:05] Speaker 1: one student supported by two others. An investigation was started.
[6:10] Speaker 1: The teacher was told there had been an allegation. He
[6:13] Speaker 1: was told it involved a digital camera at the senior
[6:16] Speaker 1: swimming carnival and that this teacher had allegedly been observed
[6:20] Speaker 1: inside taking secret photos of female students while they were
[6:23] Speaker 1: marshalling for swimming events. The teacher denied it and he
[6:28] Speaker 1: denied it at every stage. He said he had the
[6:31] Speaker 1: camera for a school-related reason. He said he took some
[6:34] Speaker 1: photos in the normal way. He said he did not
[6:37] Speaker 1: secretly take photographs of the girls in the marshalling area.
[6:41] Speaker 1: But there were facts that made that difficult. He did
[6:44] Speaker 1: have the camera and he did hold it at waist
[6:47] Speaker 1: height at times. and the students said that the lens
[6:50] Speaker 1: was extended. They said they believed it was pointed towards them.
[6:55] Speaker 1: And then there was the thing that should have been
[6:57] Speaker 1: able to help answer all of those questions.
[7:00] Speaker 3: The images.
[7:01] Speaker 1: Because if photos from that day existed, then maybe someone
[7:05] Speaker 1: could look and say, okay, this is what was taken.
[7:08] Speaker 1: Photos of the races, photos of house groups, photos across
[7:11] Speaker 1: the pool, or maybe something else. But the photos were
[7:16] Speaker 1: not available. And the SD card that photos sit on
[7:21] Speaker 1: inside a camera was gone. We've used an AI voice
[7:25] Speaker 1: actor to read this letter.
[7:28] Speaker 5: Do you have any photographs taken of the day?
[7:31] Speaker 2: No.
[7:32] Speaker 3: Why not? I've never seen them as photographs.
[7:36] Speaker 6: I've seen some of them on the viewfinder here on
[7:38] Speaker 6: the day to know that, you know, I would know
[7:40] Speaker 6: enough to remember the sort of photos that were taken.
[7:43] Speaker 6: But I've never had in my possession any photographs of
[7:45] Speaker 6: the day from the day. When I went home, I
[7:49] Speaker 6: didn't think about downloading them straight away. I think it
[7:52] Speaker 6: was some two days later. On 19th February, I attempted
[7:56] Speaker 6: to connect this to the computer and download the photographs. Now,
[8:00] Speaker 6: normally you get a dialogue box that's part of the
[8:02] Speaker 6: program that downloads the photos.
[8:04] Speaker 3: That didn't appear.
[8:06] Speaker 6: There was no dialogue box, and when I looked at
[8:08] Speaker 6: the back of the camera, the message that was on
[8:10] Speaker 6: there was, no image or sound. So at that point
[8:14] Speaker 6: in time, my understanding, My presumption was, due to the
[8:17] Speaker 6: low battery levels, it just hadn't been able to communicate.
[8:21] Speaker 6: But I am not a technician, so I don't know
[8:23] Speaker 6: the reason, I just know that I couldn't complete download,
[8:26] Speaker 6: or even start it. And at that point in time,
[8:29] Speaker 6: that was my understanding of why the photographs had not downloaded,
[8:33] Speaker 6: that it was due to low battery levels. It was
[8:35] Speaker 6: probably two weeks after the carnival that I took some
[8:38] Speaker 6: photographs at home in the garden, and when I went
[8:41] Speaker 6: to download those, I found that was impossible to do
[8:43] Speaker 6: as well. and I got a message on the back
[8:46] Speaker 6: of the screen at that point that said, memory card error.
[8:53] Speaker 1: He said that later, after taking other photos outside of
[8:57] Speaker 1: the swimming carnival, back at home, he realised there was
[9:00] Speaker 1: a memory card error, and rather than try to recover
[9:03] Speaker 1: the material, he replaced the SD card. The original SD
[9:07] Speaker 1: card was later discarded. Now, if you're listening to this
[9:12] Speaker 1: and thinking, hang on, that sounds important, It is.
[9:17] Speaker 3: It's very important.
[9:18] Speaker 1: Because that card could have answered questions. Maybe it would
[9:22] Speaker 1: have supported his version. Maybe it would have shown normal
[9:25] Speaker 1: school carnival photos. Maybe it would have shown there was
[9:28] Speaker 1: nothing improper at all. That question was put to the
[9:32] Speaker 1: teacher by school representatives. It was put to him that
[9:36] Speaker 1: by throwing out the SD card, he'd thrown away the
[9:39] Speaker 1: very chance to verify his story.
[9:41] Speaker 5: So notwithstanding this misconduct matter had been alleged against you,
[9:45] Speaker 5: and you were aware of it, and you may have
[9:47] Speaker 5: sought legal advice about it, you threw out the SD
[9:50] Speaker 5: card which could have completely verified your story? You didn't
[9:54] Speaker 5: seek any advice from a camera shop, did you?
[9:57] Speaker 2: No.
[9:58] Speaker 5: I suggest you didn't want the SD card found. I
[10:01] Speaker 5: suggest that those photographs on the SD card would have
[10:05] Speaker 5: incriminated you?
[10:07] Speaker 1: He denied that. His answer was that the photos would
[10:10] Speaker 1: have cleared him. And that's where this case becomes genuinely uncomfortable.
[10:15] Speaker 1: Because if you tell this story badly, it becomes too simple.
[10:20] Speaker 1: You can make it sound like students raised a concern
[10:22] Speaker 1: and the school overreacted. Or you can make it seem
[10:26] Speaker 1: like something untoward happened. That's not the whole picture. There
[10:30] Speaker 1: was a camera. There were girls in swimsuits. Students said
[10:34] Speaker 1: they saw it being held low. They said it was
[10:37] Speaker 1: pointed towards the marshalling area. The teacher said there was
[10:41] Speaker 1: an innocent explanation. But then the images that were taken
[10:44] Speaker 1: were gone. And the SD card was gone as well.
[10:49] Speaker 1: so the one piece of physical evidence that might have
[10:52] Speaker 1: helped clear things up was no longer there. Now, that
[10:55] Speaker 1: doesn't prove an allegation, and it doesn't prove the teacher
[10:58] Speaker 1: did anything wrong. But it does explain why the school
[11:02] Speaker 1: still had questions, and it explains why this didn't just
[11:06] Speaker 1: go away. It also explains why the school decided to act,
[11:11] Speaker 1: but the process had to be very careful, because when
[11:14] Speaker 1: the clearest physical evidence is missing, what are you left with?
[11:18] Speaker 1: You're left with witness accounts, memory, interpretation, timing, and that's messy.
[11:25] Speaker 1: When facts are messy, process matters even more. The school
[11:30] Speaker 1: told the teacher there would be an internal independent investigation.
[11:35] Speaker 1: The correspondence to the teacher said witness statements would be collected.
[11:39] Speaker 1: It said the teacher would be invited to respond in
[11:42] Speaker 1: writing and it said he would be offered an interview
[11:45] Speaker 1: with the investigator. On paper, that all sounds reasonable. But
[11:50] Speaker 1: the fight later became about how that actually happened. Because
[11:54] Speaker 1: the teacher wanted more information. He wanted statements. He wanted
[11:58] Speaker 1: the identities of the complainants and the witnesses. But the
[12:02] Speaker 1: school refused to provide the identities. And the principal later
[12:06] Speaker 1: explained why. He said he was worried about protecting the students.
[12:10] Speaker 1: They were in year 12 and he was worried there
[12:13] Speaker 1: could be pressure put on them. He was also worried
[12:16] Speaker 1: that other teachers close to the teacher might put pressure
[12:19] Speaker 1: on them. And to be honest, I get that. If
[12:22] Speaker 1: you're a student making a complaint about a teacher, or
[12:25] Speaker 1: anyone in a position of power, you could feel exposed.
[12:29] Speaker 1: You could feel scared. You could worry about who knows.
[12:33] Speaker 1: You could also worry about what other teachers think. You
[12:36] Speaker 1: could worry what people say. But that's only one side
[12:40] Speaker 1: of it. Because the teacher facing the allegation... it could
[12:44] Speaker 1: seriously damage his career. If the school was going to
[12:48] Speaker 1: discipline him, he needed enough information to respond properly. And
[12:52] Speaker 1: there's the tension. Protect the students, but be fair to
[12:56] Speaker 1: the person accused. And it's easy for institutions to say
[13:00] Speaker 1: they can do both, but in reality, it's much harder
[13:04] Speaker 1: to do. Now I want to stop and relate this
[13:08] Speaker 1: back to Reynolds for a moment. You'll remember there was
[13:11] Speaker 1: a reason in 2008 the allegations of what happened in
[13:15] Speaker 1: the police bar that night were never put to Reynolds,
[13:18] Speaker 1: and from what the documents we obtained via RTI say,
[13:22] Speaker 1: that it was a serious allegation that could both ruin Reynolds'
[13:25] Speaker 1: career and also ruin relationships of those reporting him.
[13:30] Speaker 3: Of course, we know how that ended. Nobody reported.
[13:34] Speaker 1: No further investigation was done, and Reynolds continued with his behaviour.
[13:38] Speaker 1: for another 10 years. Back to this story at St Patrick's.
[13:45] Speaker 1: The principal of the school eventually found that the complaints
[13:48] Speaker 1: from the students were sustained. That means that in the
[13:51] Speaker 1: balance of probability, they believed there was a case to answer.
[13:56] Speaker 1: He sent the teacher his report and said the conduct
[13:58] Speaker 1: was serious enough to justify a first and final warning.
[14:03] Speaker 1: A kind of warning doesn't just sit quietly in a file.
[14:06] Speaker 1: It follows someone. It changes how people look at them
[14:10] Speaker 1: and it changes their reputation. It can change their future.
[14:14] Speaker 1: The teachers' union argued the warning and said it was
[14:17] Speaker 1: both wrong substantively and procedurally and should be withdrawn. The
[14:23] Speaker 1: school argued the principal's finding was reasonably open and that
[14:26] Speaker 1: procedural fairness had been observed. So by the time it
[14:30] Speaker 1: reached the Tasmanian Industrial Commission, the question was not simply,
[14:34] Speaker 1: was the complaint serious?
[14:36] Speaker 3: Of course it was serious. It was not simply, should
[14:39] Speaker 3: the school have acted? Of course they should have.
[14:42] Speaker 1: The question was whether the evidence and the processes were
[14:45] Speaker 1: strong enough to justify the outcome. And should the warning
[14:50] Speaker 1: safely stand? That became the real issue. The Commission looked
[14:55] Speaker 1: closely at the procedural fairness. Now that's the thing that
[14:59] Speaker 1: stops institutions from deciding first and explaining later. It's the
[15:04] Speaker 1: thing that says... If you're going to make a serious
[15:07] Speaker 1: finding against someone, they need to know the case against them.
[15:11] Speaker 1: The commission focused on two questions. Was the teacher given
[15:14] Speaker 1: full particulars of the complaint? And should he have been interviewed?
[15:19] Speaker 1: The commissioner accepted that there can be a genuine tension
[15:22] Speaker 1: between protecting witnesses and procedural fairness to the accused person.
[15:28] Speaker 1: This was not a decision saying the school should just
[15:30] Speaker 1: hand over students' identities and forget about their welfare. The
[15:34] Speaker 1: commissioner accepted that there may have been circumstances where identities
[15:38] Speaker 1: are withheld during the investigation, as long as the detail
[15:41] Speaker 1: of the complaint are provided properly. But this is where
[15:44] Speaker 1: the commission said the problem was. The fuller summaries of
[15:47] Speaker 1: the witness material were provided only when the principal released
[15:51] Speaker 1: his report. And by that point, the principal had already
[15:54] Speaker 1: found all complaints sustained. So the teacher did receive more detail,
[16:00] Speaker 1: but it was too late. The commission said in essence
[16:05] Speaker 1: the principal's findings were based on information that had not
[16:08] Speaker 1: been available to the teacher and the commissioner said that
[16:12] Speaker 1: it constituted a denial of procedural fairness and that's the
[16:16] Speaker 1: turning point. When the school moved from investigation to discipline
[16:20] Speaker 1: it relied on information the person accused had not been
[16:23] Speaker 1: given a fair chance to answer before the finding was made.
[16:27] Speaker 1: The commissioner said the outcome had potentially career-threatening implications and
[16:32] Speaker 1: in that situation or relevant information needed to be made available.
[16:38] Speaker 1: There should have been an interview. The initial outline said
[16:41] Speaker 1: the teacher would be offered an interview with investigators. But
[16:45] Speaker 1: then the commission narrowed the whole thing down to one question.
[16:48] Speaker 1: Was the teacher taking photographs of girls in swimsuits in
[16:52] Speaker 1: a way where he was trying to conceal it or
[16:54] Speaker 1: not make it obvious?
[16:56] Speaker 3: That was the question.
[16:57] Speaker 1: Not did he have a camera, not did he hold
[16:59] Speaker 1: it at waist height, not did students feel concerned.
[17:02] Speaker 3: They did.
[17:04] Speaker 1: The question was whether the allegation as framed was proved
[17:09] Speaker 1: and the commissioner said he had no reason to question
[17:11] Speaker 1: the truthfulness of the student's evidence. However, the teacher gave
[17:14] Speaker 1: an innocent explanation. The commissioner accepted that the student's interpretation
[17:18] Speaker 1: was open to them and he also accepted the teacher's
[17:21] Speaker 1: explanation was plausible and that's where the whole case sits.
[17:26] Speaker 1: Two interpretations, both plausible, but only one could justify a
[17:30] Speaker 1: first and final warning. Then came the findings On the
[17:35] Speaker 1: available evidence, the Commissioner found the students' conclusions and the teachers'
[17:39] Speaker 1: explanations were both reasonable and equally open.
[17:43] Speaker 3: Because of that, it would be.
[17:44] Speaker 1: Unsafe to prefer one conclusion over the other, particularly given
[17:49] Speaker 1: the seriousness of the consequences. The Commission didn't make an order.
[17:54] Speaker 1: It made a recommendation, and the Commissioner said, In the.
[17:57] Speaker 5: Circumstances, I refrain from making an order, but make the
[18:01] Speaker 5: following recommendation in the strongest possible terms. One, the first
[18:07] Speaker 5: and final warning be withdrawn. Two, the teacher be counselled
[18:12] Speaker 5: on the imperative to avoid behaviour which might give rise
[18:16] Speaker 5: to a perception of impropriety.
[18:19] Speaker 1: The Commissioner also said if an institution is going to
[18:22] Speaker 1: turn a serious concern into a disciplinary finding, especially one
[18:26] Speaker 1: that could threaten someone's career, the process has to be
[18:29] Speaker 1: strong enough to carry that decision.
[18:31] Speaker 3: In this case, the Commission said it was not.
[18:38] Speaker 1: So why am I talking about this in Badger Betrayal,
[18:41] Speaker 1: a podcast that's obviously about Paul Reynolds and his offending?
[18:45] Speaker 1: So just imagine for a second, if we go back
[18:47] Speaker 1: to 2008, when that incident in the bar had occurred.
[18:52] Speaker 1: Imagine if there had been an interview by police professional standards,
[18:56] Speaker 1: not just with the officers that were there in the bar,
[18:59] Speaker 1: we've heard about those three memos, but the wider force.
[19:03] Speaker 1: What if Reynolds was asked to come in to give
[19:05] Speaker 1: a statement? What if the rumours were looked into more?
[19:08] Speaker 1: Maybe the boy that was mentioned by the wife of
[19:11] Speaker 1: one of the police officers. Imagine if he was interviewed
[19:14] Speaker 1: with his parents. Maybe if they talked to other people
[19:17] Speaker 1: and organisations like St Patrick's School where Reynolds was a
[19:21] Speaker 1: coach in 2005 to 2009. I think that was like
[19:26] Speaker 1: probably year 10, year 11.
[19:28] Speaker 2: It did make me feel special and validated me and yeah,
[19:32] Speaker 2: I guess I trusted Paul. You know, that was a
[19:34] Speaker 2: really nice thing for someone to do and.
[19:37] Speaker 1: The case we've just mentioned doesn't involve Reynolds, but it
[19:44] Speaker 1: does give us one public, documented example of how a
[19:48] Speaker 1: serious concern involving students and an adult was handled at
[19:52] Speaker 1: St Patrick's during the same broad period. we've been told
[19:56] Speaker 1: that Reynolds was connected to the school through football as
[20:00] Speaker 1: we know Reynolds is dead he can't answer those allegations
[20:04] Speaker 1: but the institutional questions don't die with him because if
[20:07] Speaker 1: adults are moving through school connected spaces coaching helping volunteering
[20:12] Speaker 1: becoming part of the furniture then there should be systems
[20:15] Speaker 1: around that access. Who's allowed near students? What boundaries exist?
[20:20] Speaker 1: Who supervises these boundaries? What records are kept? What happens
[20:24] Speaker 1: if a concern is raised? When we talk about Reynolds,
[20:28] Speaker 1: it's easy to focus only on him, and I understand why.
[20:32] Speaker 1: The Weeks Review found that sport facilitated Reynolds' access to
[20:35] Speaker 1: teenage boys.
[20:37] Speaker 5: Reynolds used sport to find and groom his victims and
[20:41] Speaker 5: then eventually sexually abuse some of them Sport was his
[20:45] Speaker 5: hunting ground.
[20:49] Speaker 1: That is the pattern we keep hearing about. Trusted roles,
[20:52] Speaker 1: community status and access. And then years later, people like
[20:57] Speaker 1: me and others are asking how it went on for
[21:00] Speaker 1: so long. The question can't just be, what did Reynolds do?
[21:05] Speaker 1: The question also has to be, what existed around him?
[21:09] Speaker 1: What systems were in place? Who had the responsibility to
[21:13] Speaker 1: Did the school know, if anything? This decision is uncomfortable
[21:17] Speaker 1: because it doesn't give anyone a clean ending. Students raised
[21:21] Speaker 1: a serious concern. We've actually had people reach out to
[21:24] Speaker 1: us anonymously to talk about this particular instance. The school
[21:28] Speaker 1: had to act. The teacher denied the allegation. The images
[21:32] Speaker 1: were gone, as was the SD card. The principal issued
[21:36] Speaker 1: a first and final warning and the commission later found
[21:39] Speaker 1: that allegations were not proved on the balance of probability.
[21:43] Speaker 1: The recommendation was that the warning be withdrawn. It's messy.
[21:47] Speaker 1: Institutional stories normally are. They're rarely clean. They're rarely one document,
[21:54] Speaker 1: one answer, one villain, one mistake. More often, they're made
[22:00] Speaker 1: up of moments. A conversation not recorded. A decision made internally.
[22:06] Speaker 1: A file no one sees. A process that sounds good
[22:10] Speaker 1: on paper... It doesn't hold up when tested, and that's
[22:13] Speaker 1: why this decision matters to Badger Betrayal.
[22:17] Speaker 3: Not because it's about Reynolds. It's not.
[22:20] Speaker 1: But because it shows the standard institution it should be
[22:23] Speaker 1: held to when serious concerns involve students and adults in
[22:27] Speaker 1: positions of trust and power. The complaint has to be
[22:31] Speaker 1: taken seriously. The students have to be protected. The accused
[22:36] Speaker 1: person has to be treated fairly. And the evidence has
[22:39] Speaker 1: to be tested. And finally, the records have to exist.
[22:44] Speaker 1: And the process has to be strong enough to survive scrutiny.
[22:47] Speaker 1: Because the truth can't be left behind closed doors. And
[22:50] Speaker 1: when institutions ask for trust, they should also be ready
[22:54] Speaker 1: to show their work. This episode refers to a publicly
[23:03] Speaker 1: available Tasmanian Industrial Commission decision of 2006. The teacher involved
[23:08] Speaker 1: in that decision is named in the public record We've
[23:11] Speaker 1: chosen not to name him because our focus is the
[23:14] Speaker 1: Commission's reasoning and the institutional process, not the person. This
[23:19] Speaker 1: 2006 decision is separate from the Reynolds allegations. Reynolds was
[23:23] Speaker 1: not involved in this matter and we don't suggest the
[23:25] Speaker 1: decision proves anything about Reynolds. Reynolds is now deceased and
[23:29] Speaker 1: can't respond to allegations made about him. Equally, we're not
[23:33] Speaker 1: saying anybody at St Patrick's School did anything wrong. We're
[23:37] Speaker 1: simply reporting on a Tasmanian Industrial Commission decision publicly available
[23:43] Speaker 1: from 2006. All allegations should be treated as allegations unless
[23:48] Speaker 1: until determined by the appropriate legal process.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.