The questions that remain unanswered after St Kevin’s grooming scandal
As one of Melbourne’s most exclusive schools, St Kevin’s College, reels from explosive insight into how it handled child groomer athletics coach Peter Kehoe, many details still remain unclear, writes Susie O’Brien.
Susie O'Brien
Don't miss out on the headlines from Susie O'Brien. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Many questions remain about what went on at exclusive Melbourne private school St Kevin’s.
With principal Stephen Russell stepping aside amid growing concern from parents and students about its handling of child groomer athletics coach Peter Kehoe, these are some of the issues that need to be addressed.
Why did St Kevin’s get rid of Peter Kehoe in 2013?
Kehoe was an old boy at the school.
His mates from his school athletics days in the late 1970s include convicted rapist and writer Ray Mooney. Kehoe had been coaching at the school for nearly 40 years and was much lauded, even after he was let go.
The school started investigating his conduct in September 2014 – so why did he leave under a cloud in 2013? And why did the school do nothing to stop him from being hired by another school, Trinity Grammar?
How could principal Stephen Russell say in a Feb. 17 letter to parents that Kehoe was “never a member of the teaching or general staff at St Kevin’s College?”
It’s almost a moot point. Kehoe was considered a staff member by many.
He was intimately involved with the school for nearly four decades as their external athletics coach. For example, the 2015 Associated Public Schools Old Collegians Amateur Athletics Association yearbook states that one boy has been a “perennial schoolboy champion at St Kevin’s under the guidance of Peter Kehoe”.
After he was let go in 2013, Kehoe was allowed to coach St Kevin’s students on school grounds through the St Kevin’s Amateur Athletics Club.
He was not working in a “private coaching setting away from the college” as Russell asserts.
How was Russell helping the victim by providing a “factual reference” to the court about Kehoe?
Russell said Kehoe’s lawyers asked for the reference and he provided it “considering both the interests of the (victim)” and to help the court for “sentencing purposes only”.
So why offer a positive account of Kehoe’s unblemished record at the school?
Why didn’t the school report other allegations of grooming and social media use by teachers to the police or Victoria Institute of Teachers?
The VIT is now demanding answers from the school, as are parents. One teacher is already under investigation by the VIT for alleged misconduct. The teacher is still employed and parents say the school has a history of failing to respond appropriately to their complaints.
Did Luke Travers speak in court as Dean of Sport at St Kevin’s?
Russell says Travers offered support for Kehoe in court in 2015 without the knowledge or consent of the school. Yet the judge identified Travers as Dean of Sport at St Kevin’s. According to a witness who was in the courtroom, Travers endorsed Kehoe as reliable and honest at the trial stage, when the issue was whether Travers or the 15-year-old victim should be believed.
Travers was arguing against the best interests of one of his own students.
What did Russell and then deputy head Bill Doherty do in May 2015 when the former head of the St Kevin’s Amateur Athletics Club wrote to them about Russell and Travers’ conduct?
The letter even mentions previously undisclosed concerns about Kehoe’s conduct with another male student dating back to 1986. The issue was known by a St Kevin’s staff member in 2014 and should have been a red flag for the school.
What was done about it? Where was the duty of disclosure for someone who was coaching students one-on-one?
How is what Russell and Travers did any different?
Russell says Travers’ actions in defending Kehoe’s character in court was “absolutely unacceptable”. Russell says Travers was subjected to formal steps as a result. What formal steps?
At the time of writing, Travers is still in place.
How could Russell say Kehoe’s victim “was given enormous support by the college both academically and pastorally, during this extremely difficult time for him and his family”?
The victim has told the ABC the school’s actions in relation to Kehoe left him gutted and made it apparent the school didn’t care about him.
They didn’t speak to them in the lead up to the harrowing court case. Another boy giving evidence in court to support the victim says he was only contacted by the school to ask if he was going to wear his blazer to court.
MORE SUSIE O’BRIEN
PRIVATE SCHOOLS ARE FAILING THEIR STUDENTS
GEORGE’S STAFF ARE THE ONLY ONES WE SHOULD FEEL SORRY FOR
SHAMING THE GOVERNMENT IS THE ONLY PATH TO CLIMATE ACTION
How could Russell defend himself by saying character statements “are not heard by the victim?
This is factually incorrect. The victim did know and did learn the contents of statements about Kehoe that Russell and Travers submitted to the court. The victim had just as much right as anyone to know what was being used in his own trial.
Who paid for Kehoe’s QC Robert Richter?
Who funded Kehoe’s legal defence headed by one of the state’s top lawyers?