On a The Other Cheek report about another bishop standing down, reader Andrew Coffey commented “When will the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney step down?” This got a puzzled response from some readers whom The Other Cheek regards as particularly well informed. So here’s an explanation.

Andrew Coffey is a very special reader of this site, who has been battling the Anglican Shore School in Sydney, alleging that he was sexually assaulted by a teacher in 1974 when he was 15.

The Other Cheek believes that Kanishka Raffel is a great archbishop and does not believe that there is any reason he should stand down.

Crikey Journalist David Hardaker wrote a graphic account of a phone call he got from Coffey in 2021

“It was 4.43 pm on September 2 when Andrew called. The precise time matters because of what he had to say and what happened in the next 90 minutes…
“Andrew, in short, was raving. What I didn’t know at the start of the call was that he had driven to a headland and was now sitting alone with a canister of petrol next to him. He also had a lighter.

“There were several targets for Andrew’s rage, insurance companies prominent among them. But when you boiled it down, it was the system: being passed from department to department by employees of huge organisations that are meant to care, but don’t, and transfer your call on to people who don’t know anything about you and your case – which you then have to explain, again and again.

“It was about 10 minutes into the call that Andrew declared he’d had enough. When night fell, as he sat watching the ocean, he would douse himself with petrol and end it all….

“There are two heroes in this short 90 minutes of life. One is Andrew for having made it to the age of 62 given what he says happened to him at the age of 15. The other is the NSW police officer who got to Andrew fast and talked him down before darkness fell. There were minutes in it.

I only found out the next day when Andrew sent a message to say sorry and thanks. (He had also sent a suicide note by text to his lawyers, Koffels, who mobilised to track him down.) He had been taken to hospital and later released into the care of his family.

Hardaker reports what happened when Coffey tried to sue.

“The School, which takes in around $75 million a year in fees and government funds, on top of its $370 million in assets, handed the issue to the insurance company for the school’s owner, the Anglican archdiocese.

“Shore’s insurers appointed lawyer, John Dalzell, whose name is associated with the so-called Ellis defence which the Catholic church under then Sydney archbishop George Pell had used with devastating effect on victims of child sex abuse.

“Dalzell, now with Dentons lawyers, was then with Corrs Westgarth, the legal firm retained by the Catholic Church. The Church made the case that there was no legal entity that could be held responsible for the actions of its clergy, which meant there was no entity a victim could sue.

“Legally, it worked a treat, but morally, it was the antithesis of what a church should do. The church abandoned the defence in 2019 in the wake of the McClellan Royal Commission.

“From Andrew Coffey’s point of view, Shore was sending a signal. ‘Why Shore School and presumably the Church of England would think it a good idea to appoint Dalzell – given his past history – beggars belief. Whatever their reason, I interpret this as an aggressive step by the school and church, which is not what I had hoped for,’ Andrew Coffey said.

“It also triggered feelings of dread and despair that engulfed Andrew Coffey further.”

The Crikey account also contains stories of Shore Chaplain Dr Nick Foord and Bay Warburton, then a member of the school council, reaching out to Coffey. The Other Cheek believes these men would have been sincere in their discussion with Coffey. Foord, in particular, went the second mile, literally, driving to visit Coffey.

But the court case proceeded badly for Coffey. Justice Peter Garling vacated the Supreme Court hearings of the case in February 2024.

“Mr Coffey, who assured the Court that he was well enough to conduct today’s directions hearing, has provided to the Court a bundle of expert reports, which I have marked exhibit A dated 16 February 2024. It seems to me to be clear from that material that Mr Coffey is not presently capable by reason of his psychological state, to conduct this litigation and, at least based on the expert evidence, there is no realistic prospect of that state resolving at any identifiable time or by any identifiable future date. 

“It is abundantly clear from the expert material, and Mr Coffey’s communications with the Court, that the litigation is creating ongoing stress, anxiety and trauma for Mr Coffey. To have that continuing for some unidentifiable time in the future is not in Mr Coffey’s personal interests, nor is it in the defendant’s interest to continue incurring legal costs.” Neither is it in the interests of the administration of justice as they apply in the circumstances of claims of this kind, namely claims for damages for historical sexual abuse, where parties should be required to actively prosecute their claims or defend claims brought against them, where the circumstances are of the kind that presently exist.”

An account of the proceedings by Littles Lawyers adds background. “When the plaintiff commenced the proceedings, a solicitor was acting for him. After an unsuccessful mediation, the plaintiff’s solicitor ceased to act and the plaintiff then appeared for himself. The Supreme Court of New South Wales made orders directing the plaintiff to the pro bono scheme for legal assistance facilitated by the New South Wales Bar Association and a firm of solicitors and counsel were, as a consequence of that referral, appointed to appear for him. During the last few months of 2023, the solicitors and counsel for the plaintiff ceased to act for him and he conducted the litigation by himself since. In late January 2024, the plaintiff found himself in a position where he was unable to comply with the orders which the Court had made for preparation for trial in a timely way. He notified the Court that due to an exacerbation of his mental health condition, he did not feel able to conduct the trial listed for 15 April 2024.” 

The Other Cheek can not do what the court system was unable to do, and determine the truth of the Coffey case. But readers will now have an explanation of why Coffey commented, saying he feels the Archbishop of Sydney should stand down.