Australian Priest Extradited From Thailand To Sue

[sriracha john]

John Mountford at a Bangkok police station in 2004

Priest suing Rann

The State Government faces litigation from an Anglican priest dramatically extradited from Thailand over child sex abuse allegations.

Former St Peter's College chaplain the Reverend John Mountford, 52, has instructed his lawyers to seek civil damages over his high-profile return to South Australia in 2005.

This follows a decision by his alleged victim, now aged in his late 20s, to withdraw a complaint that he was sexually abused by Mountford in the early 1990s.

SA police investigated the allegations after an independent inquiry found former Anglican archbishop Ian George visited Mountford hours before he left Adelaide in 2002.

Legal sources have confirmed that Mountford, who spent several months in a Bangkok jail after his arrest, wanted to sue the State Government over his extradition - and subsequent public comments made by Premier Mike Rann.

Mr Rann told a media conference following Mountford's return in February, 2005, that the allegations involving the British-born priest had "sickened me".

The Advertiser, which first revealed the victim's allegations in 2003, last week confirmed he had told prosecutors he no longer wanted to proceed with the case. Prosecutors this afternoon will seek a suppression order over those reasons when they notify District Court Judge Peter Herriman that eight child sex abuse charges against Mountford will formally be withdrawn.

He was due to face trial next month over five counts of indecent assault, two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse and one count of procuring an act of gross indecency.

The high-profile case has involved numerous hearings before the Adelaide Magistrates Court and District Court about the victim's credibility and ability to give evidence.

- Adelaide Now

[peter991]

The alleged victim has withdrawn his complaint - police will not offer any evidence. A man's reputation is in tatters - and the truth will never come out in court. Whether Reverend John Mountford is guilty or innocent - he deserves his day in court. If guilty - to have the full weight of the law on him ... if innocent - to have his name cleared and the chance to clear his name. Guilty or innocent now - mud has been thrown - and some of it will stick.

Peter

[londonthai]

spent several months in a Bangkok jail after his arrest

unless there was investigation in thailand - they should not keep him for that long in those conditions

[JetsetBkk]

The alleged victim has withdrawn his complaint - police will not offer any evidence. A man's reputation is in tatters - and the truth will never come out in court. Whether Reverend John Mountford is guilty or innocent - he deserves his day in court. If guilty - to have the full weight of the law on him ... if innocent - to have his name cleared and the chance to clear his name. Guilty or innocent now - mud has been thrown - and some of it will stick.

Peter

Exactly. He deserves his day in court and, if innocent, he deserves his name publicly cleared and appropriate compensation.

[jingjoe]

Australian courts cannot declare a person innocent.

Being found not guilty does not infer the accused is innocent, only that the standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) has not been met.

If he chooses to seek damages, he leaves himself open to;

a) the original complainant finding the courage to have charges re-instated. (a fresh indictement can be presented again at any time).

or

b ) the publicity bringing out another skeleton/complainant from his past.

He better be certain his slate is clean before he takes this any further.

Yeah mud sticks, but that's hardly a revelation.

Edited August 28, 2007 by jingjoe

[duchovny]

A Priest up on kiddy fiddling charges?

I'm shocked.

The total payouts to victims of child abuse by the Cathoilic Church has already reached the $Billions.(uncontested)

I don't know of any other organisation who can boast this and still be in operation.

[JetsetBkk]

Australian courts cannot declare a person innocent.

Being found not guilty does not infer the accused is innocent, only that the standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) has not been met.

If he chooses to seek damages, he leaves himself open to;

a) the original complainant finding the courage to have charges re-instated. (a fresh indictement can be presented again at any time).

or

b ) the publicity bringing out another skeleton/complainant from his past.

He better be certain his slate is clean before he takes this any further.

Yeah mud sticks, but that's hardly a revelation.

Well, you've clearly found him guilty on all counts.

I'll keep an open mind on it.

[GuestHouse]

Being found not guilty does not infer the accused is innocent

Being found Not Guilty in a court of law is precisely that NOT GUILTY - There is no room in the law for 'Oh well he might have been guilty'

This man deserves his day in court.

As an asside, under English law, alleged victims of sex crimes are afforded anonimity in the press, alleged perpetrators are not.

JingJoe's assertion regarding being found Not Guilty is the reason why the two parties in sex crimes ought both to be treated to the same rights of anonimity.

[Neeranam]

He's guilty - look at his eyes.

[sriracha john]

spent several months in a Bangkok jail after his arrest

unless there was investigation in thailand - they should not keep him for that long in those conditions

As I recall, that (investigation) was what did happen concerning the time he was working at international schools in Bangkok.

Not universally revered

The Nation / Published on Jun 4, 2004

An alleged paedophile Anglican priest who fled Australia and ended up working in top international schools in Bangkok is lying low in the capital in order to escape extradition to face child-sex allegations.

Reverend John Mountford was forced to resign from his most recent teaching job at St Stephen’s International School in Bangkok in April after the school’s director, Richard Ralphs, travelled to Adelaide and was told of the decade-old scandal.

Mountford previously worked at Harrow International School in Don Muang, but was asked to leave after an Australian journalist contacted the school and informed them of the allegations.

Mountford told The Australian newspaper on Wednesday that he had no comment on suggestions he had been advised by Adelaide Archbishop Ian George to leave Australia in June 1992 to avoid prosecution for allegedly abusing two students at Adelaide’s exclusive St Peter’s College.

The South Australian Premier Mike Rann had demanded his extradition from Thailand to face prosecution.

Reverend Mountford refused to say whether he would willingly return.

[sriracha john]

Sex abuse charges against chaplain dropped

Child sex charges against a former Anglican chaplain of an exclusive Adelaide boys school have been dropped, more than two years after his extradition from Thailand.

Reverend John Mountford, 52, said the decision by the Crown to enter a Nolle Prosequi today had taken him by surprise, but maintained the allegations against him were fabricated.

He had been charged with five counts of indecent assault, two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse and one count of procuring an act of gross indecency, but today walked from the South Australian District Court a free man.

The charges related to the alleged abuse of a 14-year-old boy between 1991 and 1992, when Mr Mountford was a chaplain at Adelaide's St Peter's College.

He pleaded not guilty to all the allegations last year.

"The last three years have taken an enormous toll on me and my family," Mr Mountford said in a statement.

"I have spent my life savings defending maliciously fabricated allegations. I have now been deprived of an opportunity to clear my name."

Mr Mountford, a British citizen, said he intended to return to the UK to live with his family and be with his father who was seriously ill.

"Although I have steadfastly maintained that the case should never proceed, the eleventh hour abandonment of the case has taken me somewhat by surprise," he said.

"I haven't had time to think about my future, my immediate concern is the health of my father."

Mr Mountford said that for reasons unclear to him, the director of public prosecutions (DPP) had not explained why the charges had been dropped.

But in a statement, DPP Stephen Pallaras said the decision not to take the case to trial followed recent consultation with the complainant.

Mr Pallaras said following those discussions, which included issues related to the man's health, he had decided it was no longer in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.

"The complainant and the police were fully consulted prior to this decision being made and they understand and support the reasons for the decision," Mr Pallaras said.

Mr Mountford said he remained bitter about the lack of closure and also raised the prospect of taking legal action against the "person responsible for this fiasco" if he was not held accountable for his actions.

"If the South Australian authorities do nothing about it, I will ask my solicitors for advice about remedies available to me," he said

The allegations against Mr Mountford were detailed in an independent report in 2004 into the handling of sex abuse claims in the Anglican Church.

The report forced the resignation of then Adelaide Anglican Archbishop Ian George because it revealed Dr George met Mr Mountford on the day he fled to Thailand in 1992.

Mr Mountford was extradited to Australia in March 2005 after spending six months in Bangkok's Klong Prem prison fighting his return.

- AAP

[Scott]

That has got to be one of the most serious of situations one could face. I've known of people who have been falsely accused--fortunately this came out long before it became public or was in the hands of the judicial system. The difficulty is that everyone who knows about it or hears about treats the person like they were a leper.

In a couple of cases, it was ex-wives who (in order to gain or keep custody), filed charges of child-sex abuse against the ex-husband. Even judges then view the man very suspiciously.

[jingjoe]

Well, you've clearly found him guilty on all counts.

I'll keep an open mind on it.

Not at all. I'm just making clear that innocence is not an outcome of a criminal trial. The closest thing would be an accuser confessing to making a false accusation or being convicted of perjury at a later time.

Mr Mountford was extradited to Australia in March 2005 after spending six months in Bangkok's Klong Prem prison fighting his return. - AAP

Hmm Six months in a Thai gaol fighting extradition vs probable residential bail in South Australia and a speedy opportunity to defend the accusation(s)?

As an asside, under English law, alleged victims of sex crimes are afforded anonimity in the press, alleged perpetrators are not.

JingJoe's assertion regarding being found Not Guilty is the reason why the two parties in sex crimes ought both to be treated to the same rights of anonimity.

Fair enough.

[UKGal55]

Excuse me for adding a reply, but I saw this article and found myself needing to add something. John Mountford is my cousin and I have to say that all the things that he has faced coming up to and during his 'trial' were hard enough without the press clinging to his every move.

There have got to be more important things than something that happened perhaps ten years ago involving a man that had left the country and had a life elsewhere. If not then the world is a very very sad place to be and it is a pity that we all lead such introverted lives.

Why this has caused such a fuss I can understand however... There were a lot of claims made and nasty ones at that. As a character witness, I can say that my cousin is many things, but a peodophile he is NOT. If anyone knew what all this had done to his family then maybe they might have been able to see past allegations that were unfounded and unfair.

If it had been serious at the time, would the child's parents not have known? If anything had happened, wouldn't there have been signs before now, nearly ten years on?

I present these questions not only as a family member, but also as someone that believes in other people, and hope that someone somewhere may actually look at both sides rationally and without prior bias.

[Glasses]

MEDIA STATEMENT

28 August 2007

“MOUNTFORD CHARGES DROPPED”

In the District Court this afternoon the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Stephen Pallaras QC, “no billed” the high profile prosecution of Anglican Priest Reverend John Mountford.

Reverend Mountford, who was employed as Chaplain at St Peter’s College in 1991, left Australia in June 1992. Eleven years later a former pupil at the school wrote to his mother alleging for the first time that he had been sexually abused by Reverend Mountford and asking his mother to engage lawyers to sue the school for approximately $3 million in damages. Two years later these allegations were relied upon by the DPP to charge Reverend Mountford and the Attorney-General sought the extradition of Reverend Mountford from Thailand to face trial.

In a statement issued through his lawyers today, Reverend Mountford said that, while looking forward to returning to the UK, he remained bitter about the process he had been subjected to and the lack of closure.

“The last three years have taken an enormous toll on me and my family. I have spent my life savings defending maliciously fabricated allegations. I have now been deprived of the opportunity to clear my name”, he said.

“Appreciating the pressure of my preparation for the aborted trial, my family back in the UK had chosen not to alarm me with news of my father’s seriously deteriorating health. I am now anxious to return home as soon as possible to be at his side” said Reverend Mountford.

Reverend Mountford’s solicitor, Matthew Selley of Iles Selley Lawyers, commented on an article in this mornings Advertiser which suggested that his client was intending to sue the Premier for comments the Premier made at the time of Reverend Mountford’s extradition:

“I don’t know who the journalist’s “legal sources” were, but they were misinformed. No doubt Reverend Mountford may ask me to consider what, if any, remedies may be available to him to seek redress for what has happened but suing the Premier hasn’t been contemplated” said Mr Selley.

Reverend Mountford also denied the rumours:

“Although I have steadfastly maintained that the case should never proceed, the eleventh hour abandonment of the case has taken me somewhat by surprise. I haven’t had time to think about the future. My immediate concern is the health of my father” said Reverend Mountford.

“I am not, however, happy with the prospect that the person responsible for this fiasco is not held accountable for his actions. If the South Australian authorities do nothing about it, I will ask my solicitors for advice about remedies available to me.”

Reverend Mountford also remarked:

“For reasons not clear to me, the DPP has not explained why the charges have been dropped. But it is implicit in the absence of an application to extend the earlier suppression order regarding the complainant’s suicide attempt in February that ill health was not the reason.”

Reverend Mountford took the opportunity to thank the friends who have supported him throughout the legal process.

“I am very grateful to have had wonderful friends who have helped me tremendously throughout what has been a trying three years. I thank them sincerely”, said Reverend Mountford.

Reverend Mountford and those representing him declined to make any further comment.

Issued by Illes Selley with the authority of Reverend John Mountford.

[londonthai]

sorry to hear about your cousin - but if somebody acted badly you can't say that what he did 10 years ago doesn't count now or that we should tolerate somebodies wrongdoing because there are more important things in the world to worry about.

because of this guy some archbishop had to resign when all cover up was blown up by the press.

majority of sex crimes never appear in the police records, as the victims are too shy, traumatised or terrorised by the invironment to talk publicly about them - they might start talking after the time, when the memories are not that terryfying to them

There have got to be more important things than something that happened perhaps ten years ago involving a man that had left the country and had a life elsewhere. If not then the world is a very very sad place to be and it is a pity that we all lead such introverted lives.

If it had been serious at the time, would the child's parents not have known? If anything had happened, wouldn't there have been signs before now, nearly ten years on?

[sriracha john]

MEDIA STATEMENT

“MOUNTFORD CHARGES DROPPED”

Issued by Illes Selley with the authority of Reverend John Mountford.

Do you have a link to the above, please?

[sriracha john]

because of this guy some archbishop had to resign when all cover up was blown up by the press.

The archbishop's resignation is what I wonder about as well.

The article referenced that he resigned simply from meeting with Rev. Mountford. Seems so drastic an action if innocence was so assured or at the least, he had not even been found guilty of anything.

Edited August 30, 2007 by sriracha john

[lazeeboy]

John Mountford at a Bangkok police station in 2004

Priest suing Rann

The State Government faces litigation from an Anglican priest dramatically extradited from Thailand over child sex abuse allegations.

Former St Peter's College chaplain the Reverend John Mountford, 52, has instructed his lawyers to seek civil damages over his high-profile return to South Australia in 2005.

This follows a decision by his alleged victim, now aged in his late 20s, to withdraw a complaint that he was sexually abused by Mountford in the early 1990s.

SA police investigated the allegations after an independent inquiry found former Anglican archbishop Ian George visited Mountford hours before he left Adelaide in 2002.

Legal sources have confirmed that Mountford, who spent several months in a Bangkok jail after his arrest, wanted to sue the State Government over his extradition - and subsequent public comments made by Premier Mike Rann.

Mr Rann told a media conference following Mountford's return in February, 2005, that the allegations involving the British-born priest had "sickened me".

The Advertiser, which first revealed the victim's allegations in 2003, last week confirmed he had told prosecutors he no longer wanted to proceed with the case. Prosecutors this afternoon will seek a suppression order over those reasons when they notify District Court Judge Peter Herriman that eight child sex abuse charges against Mountford will formally be withdrawn.

He was due to face trial next month over five counts of indecent assault, two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse and one count of procuring an act of gross indecency.

The high-profile case has involved numerous hearings before the Adelaide Magistrates Court and District Court about the victim's credibility and ability to give evidence.

- Adelaide Now

damage is done ,he will always be guilty in the eyes of most ,if he was innocent i do feel sorry for him ,if guilty ,well we will never know........

[jingjoe]

If it had been serious at the time, would the child's parents not have known?

If anything had happened, wouldn't there have been signs before now, nearly ten years on?

I present these questions not only as a family member, but also as someone that believes in other people

Welcome to Thai Visa. Allow me to address your questions.

1. Not necessarily.

2. Yes, but who was watching?

There have got to be more important things than something that happened perhaps ten years ago involving a man that had left the country and had a life elsewhere.

I hope we never return to a culture where ignorance in matters of this nature is the norm.

As a character witness, I can say that my cousin is many things, but a peodophile he is NOT.

Family loyalty is admirable, but surely you're not in a position to vouch absolutely for his every action over the last 10 or 15 years?

...and hope that someone somewhere may actually look at both sides rationally and without prior bias.

Most comments expressed in this thread have tried to do just that. What about you?

[s7909]

Australian courts cannot declare a person innocent.

Being found not guilty does not infer the accused is innocent, only that the standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) has not been met.

If he chooses to seek damages, he leaves himself open to;

a) the original complainant finding the courage to have charges re-instated. (a fresh indictement can be presented again at any time).

or

b ) the publicity bringing out another skeleton/complainant from his past.

He better be certain his slate is clean before he takes this any further.

Yeah mud sticks, but that's hardly a revelation.

__untford_letter.doc

[s7909]

Having read the comments on this site I find myself asking the question "what happened to the phrase innocent until proven guilty?" Mr Mountford was arrested & held for nearly three years while his accuser & the Australian Government 'dug' for evidence/skeletons that may have been in his closet. Surely if he was a paedophile more cases would have emerged from the woodwork? It has been observed by numerous experts in the field that abuse of the kind that these unfounded & scandalous allegations inferred does not stop with just one victim, it normally has a string of victims involved. Was this the purpose of continually delaying the trials in hope that sufficient evidence would arise? All this time an innocent- yes innocent person & his family were suffering due to one persons supposed claims that he had been abused ten years previous! I feel as a responsible parent that I would have noticed any changes in my child caused by this sooner rather than later?

Mr Mountford had a distinguished & unblemished career prior to these allegations arising. Can you blame a person for fleeing when accused of these allegations? Surely anybody would have been horrified/scared to have been accused of an offence like this. Not everybody has the strength of character & substance to face such charges in a foreign country knowing that they would face a trial by media as well as by law? Having followed this case throughout don't you think Mr Mountford has already served a sentence already? Nearly three years! As for the comments that not being found not guilty in a court of law does not mean that somebody is innocent- fair enough comment. But if the trial had gone ahead & Mr Mountford had been found Guilty would that also mean that he was not guilty? Would it mean that the the way that the evidence had been presented & the continual back stabbing that is being posted on sites like this was enough to tilt the jury into passing a guilty decision? I am afraid the person that made these comments 'would like their cake & eat it'. I would also like to encourage Mr Mountford to pursue his right to sue the people responsible for these false allegations & to seek compensation for all the trauma that he as been put through during all this. I am sure comments like "he had better make sure his slate is clean" & "skeletons in the closet" will not put him off pursuing this matter. It seems as though the person making these comments has more to fear than Mr Mountford from him taking legal action?

Sorry to go on but postings like the one I continually refer to make you realise what Mr Mountford has been put through & continues to put up with even though the claimant & the Australian government have had three years to try & rake up dirt on Mr Mountford. Surely enough is enough!

Let's hope Mr Mountford pursues the legal routes open to him & some of the people who have unfairly made his life a living hel_l for the past three years suffer at least a few sleepless nights of their own!

I can also assure you that if there had been enough firm & convincing evidence to convict Mr Mountford that I would be the first person to say "lock him up & throw away the key"

Now I have had my say it is cases like this & the continual hounding like in the posting that I previously referred to that make you loose your faith in human nature & being held for three years & not being given your day in court that makes you loose faith in the Australian justice system.

Good luck Mr Mountford lets hope that you are able to get over this ordeal & enjoy what remains of your life.

[Pomana]

I know some of the people involved in this case and I have information that the man who made the false allegations is a scum bag. He is spoilt rich kid from a wealthy powerful family who went off the rails at an early age. He has had mental problems almost all his life, drug addict, brought legal actions against people before and dropped in the last minute. He is heavily involved in criminal activities and wanted by the police in another State. He is well known as a liar and a cheat and all he was after was money - $3millions. He should be out behind bars for making untrue allegations but we can't even mention his name. Because of supression orders nothing can come out about him at all - mores the pity!

Wait and see what will happend next!!!

[jingjoe]

Can you blame a person for fleeing when accused of these allegations?

Welcome to Thai Visa.

It's called "flight" and in Law, suggests guilt and/or the Consciousness of Guilt.

As for the comments that not being found not guilty in a court of law does not mean that somebody is innocent- fair enough comment. But if the trial had gone ahead & Mr Mountford had been found Guilty would that also mean that he was not guilty?

No, that would mean he was found guilty.

REF: The Advertiser - Adelaide

What the court didn't hear

Article from: The Advertiser

COLIN JAMES, LEGAL AFFAIRS EDITOR

August 31, 2007 02:15am

A PARLIAMENTARY report that accused priest John Mountford of sexually abusing a private school student was not presented to court by prosecutors.

The child sex case against Mr Mountford collapsed through lack of evidence this week.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions instead decided that the student would be a hostile witness if he was called to give evidence.

Mr Mountford's trial for allegedly molesting another student was aborted on Tuesday, just weeks before it was due to start.

Mr Mountford, 52, yesterday flew out of Australia at taxpayer expense after emphatically denying he was a pedophile who sexually abused students while he was employed by St Peter's College in the early 1990s.

But an Anglican Church-commissioned report, tabled in State Parliament in 2004, said he was sacked by former principal Richard Burchnall in June, 1992, after Mr Mountford admitted attempting to have sex with a Year 10 boarder in his house on the school's grounds at Hackney.

The report said Mr Burchnall confronted Mr Mountford after he was formally reported for giving alcohol to the student before getting into bed with him and a 27-year-old Balinese man.

Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Pallaras, QC, has become embroiled in another heated dispute with the State Government after being publicly rebuked by Treasurer Kevin Foley and Attorney-General Michael Atkinson for suggesting limited resources contributed to the withdrawal of eight child sex charges against Mr Mountford.

Mr Pallaras yesterday insisted the principal reason for his decision had been the deteriorating mental health of his alleged victim, who was admitted to hospital earlier this year after attempting suicide following repeated courtroom attacks on his credibility. Mr Mountford yesterday told The Advertiser he wanted to take legal action against the former student and the State Government over his arrest and extradition from Thailand in February, 2005, but he had no money.

He confirmed he had spent at least $300,000 on legal costs defending allegations he sexually abused the former student in the St Peter's chapel and his home on the school's grounds between 1991 and 1992.

This included the cost of hiring private detectives to obtain damaging information about the former student.

He yesterday refused to comment because of an ongoing $3 million damages claim against St Peter's College.

Mr Mountford said he expected public sympathy because he was an innocent man who had been prosecuted "for political reasons by the Rann Government".

He had wanted his trial to proceed so he could clear his name.

"I am a homosexual and I make no apologies about being a homosexual. But homosexuals are not pedophiles," he said.

"I am not a pedophile. I am not a child sex offender. But I have not been given the opportunity by the state of South Australia to make this crystal clear."

Mr Mountford said his life had been destroyed by his arrest and extradition from Thailand.

"I can sue the Government, I can sue my accuser, I can sue his mother, but I can't afford it," Mr Mountford said.

"I have no money, three years of my life have gone, I have no job, I have spent all of my life savings, I have used all of my private pensions. I am against the power and funding of the state. I can't take that on."

Mr Mountford said he would visit his terminally ill father in England before returning to Thailand, where he had a long-term partner.

He rejected suggestions made in the report to Parliament that he had flown overseas in 1992 less than 24 hours after being sacked from St Peter's College after senior Anglican Church officials, including former Adelaide archbishop Ian George, told him to leave the country within 48 hours or they would call police.

"The decision to leave Australia in 1992 was mine and mine alone, nobody else's," he said.

"I had resigned my job, I was not an Australian citizen, I have no family here. The sensible thing to do was leave."

[toptuan]

A Priest up on kiddy fiddling charges?

I'm shocked.

The total payouts to victims of child abuse by the Cathoilic Church has already reached the $Billions.(uncontested)

I don't know of any other organisation who can boast this and still be in operation.

The coffers of His Holiness are indeed deep.

[sceadugenga]

Can you blame a person for fleeing when accused of these allegations?

Welcome to Thai Visa.

It's called "flight" and in Law, suggests guilt and/or the Consciousness of Guilt.

As for the comments that not being found not guilty in a court of law does not mean that somebody is innocent- fair enough comment. But if the trial had gone ahead & Mr Mountford had been found Guilty would that also mean that he was not guilty?

No, that would mean he was found guilty.

REF: The Advertiser - Adelaide

What the court didn't hear

Article from: The Advertiser

COLIN JAMES, LEGAL AFFAIRS EDITOR

August 31, 2007 02:15am

A PARLIAMENTARY report that accused priest John Mountford of sexually abusing a private school student was not presented to court by prosecutors.

The child sex case against Mr Mountford collapsed through lack of evidence this week.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions instead decided that the student would be a hostile witness if he was called to give evidence.

Mr Mountford's trial for allegedly molesting another student was aborted on Tuesday, just weeks before it was due to start.

Mr Mountford, 52, yesterday flew out of Australia at taxpayer expense after emphatically denying he was a pedophile who sexually abused students while he was employed by St Peter's College in the early 1990s.

But an Anglican Church-commissioned report, tabled in State Parliament in 2004, said he was sacked by former principal Richard Burchnall in June, 1992, after Mr Mountford admitted attempting to have sex with a Year 10 boarder in his house on the school's grounds at Hackney.

The report said Mr Burchnall confronted Mr Mountford after he was formally reported for giving alcohol to the student before getting into bed with him and a 27-year-old Balinese man.

Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Pallaras, QC, has become embroiled in another heated dispute with the State Government after being publicly rebuked by Treasurer Kevin Foley and Attorney-General Michael Atkinson for suggesting limited resources contributed to the withdrawal of eight child sex charges against Mr Mountford.

Mr Pallaras yesterday insisted the principal reason for his decision had been the deteriorating mental health of his alleged victim, who was admitted to hospital earlier this year after attempting suicide following repeated courtroom attacks on his credibility. Mr Mountford yesterday told The Advertiser he wanted to take legal action against the former student and the State Government over his arrest and extradition from Thailand in February, 2005, but he had no money.

He confirmed he had spent at least $300,000 on legal costs defending allegations he sexually abused the former student in the St Peter's chapel and his home on the school's grounds between 1991 and 1992.

This included the cost of hiring private detectives to obtain damaging information about the former student.

He yesterday refused to comment because of an ongoing $3 million damages claim against St Peter's College.

Mr Mountford said he expected public sympathy because he was an innocent man who had been prosecuted "for political reasons by the Rann Government".

He had wanted his trial to proceed so he could clear his name.

"I am a homosexual and I make no apologies about being a homosexual. But homosexuals are not pedophiles," he said.

"I am not a pedophile. I am not a child sex offender. But I have not been given the opportunity by the state of South Australia to make this crystal clear."

Mr Mountford said his life had been destroyed by his arrest and extradition from Thailand.

"I can sue the Government, I can sue my accuser, I can sue his mother, but I can't afford it," Mr Mountford said.

"I have no money, three years of my life have gone, I have no job, I have spent all of my life savings, I have used all of my private pensions. I am against the power and funding of the state. I can't take that on."

Mr Mountford said he would visit his terminally ill father in England before returning to Thailand, where he had a long-term partner.

He rejected suggestions made in the report to Parliament that he had flown overseas in 1992 less than 24 hours after being sacked from St Peter's College after senior Anglican Church officials, including former Adelaide archbishop Ian George, told him to leave the country within 48 hours or they would call police.

"The decision to leave Australia in 1992 was mine and mine alone, nobody else's," he said.

"I had resigned my job, I was not an Australian citizen, I have no family here. The sensible thing to do was leave."

Thanks Jingjoe, I was just about to post that, took me thirty seconds to find it.

I'm a former Adelaide guy and I had no trouble finding a lawyer who would wait till for his money when I got divorced, or when I sued a former employer a few years back.

But then maybe Mr Mountford never made any inquiries.

Edited August 31, 2007 by sceadugenga

[sriracha john]

Mr Mountford admitted attempting to have sex with a Year 10 boarder in his house on the school's grounds at Hackney.

... after he was formally reported for giving alcohol to the student before getting into bed with him and a 27-year-old Balinese man.

... eight child sex charges against Mr Mountford.

...the deteriorating mental health of his alleged victim, who was admitted to hospital earlier this year after attempting suicide following repeated courtroom attacks on his credibility

He confirmed he had spent at least $300,000 on legal costs

Mr Mountford said he would visit his terminally ill father in England before returning to Thailand, where he had a long-term partner.

he had flown overseas in 1992 less than 24 hours after being sacked from St Peter's College after senior Anglican Church officials, including former Adelaide archbishop Ian George, told him to leave the country within 48 hours or they would call police.

didn't know being a priest was so lucrative....

as for all the other quotes... well... they seem to be contradicting the "character witnesses" newly posting...

as for his returning to Thailand soon... well... we shall see if he's allowed in...

Edited August 31, 2007 by sriracha john

[s7909]

Can you blame a person for fleeing when accused of these allegations?

Welcome to Thai Visa.

It's called "flight" and in Law, suggests guilt and/or the Consciousness of Guilt.

As for the comments that not being found not guilty in a court of law does not mean that somebody is innocent- fair enough comment. But if the trial had gone ahead & Mr Mountford had been found Guilty would that also mean that he was not guilty?

No, that would mean he was found guilty.

REF: The Advertiser - Adelaide

What the court didn't hear

Article from: The Advertiser

COLIN JAMES, LEGAL AFFAIRS EDITOR

August 31, 2007 02:15am

A PARLIAMENTARY report that accused priest John Mountford of sexually abusing a private school student was not presented to court by prosecutors.

The child sex case against Mr Mountford collapsed through lack of evidence this week.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions instead decided that the student would be a hostile witness if he was called to give evidence.

Mr Mountford's trial for allegedly molesting another student was aborted on Tuesday, just weeks before it was due to start.

Mr Mountford, 52, yesterday flew out of Australia at taxpayer expense after emphatically denying he was a pedophile who sexually abused students while he was employed by St Peter's College in the early 1990s.

But an Anglican Church-commissioned report, tabled in State Parliament in 2004, said he was sacked by former principal Richard Burchnall in June, 1992, after Mr Mountford admitted attempting to have sex with a Year 10 boarder in his house on the school's grounds at Hackney.

The report said Mr Burchnall confronted Mr Mountford after he was formally reported for giving alcohol to the student before getting into bed with him and a 27-year-old Balinese man.

Director of Public Prosecutions Stephen Pallaras, QC, has become embroiled in another heated dispute with the State Government after being publicly rebuked by Treasurer Kevin Foley and Attorney-General Michael Atkinson for suggesting limited resources contributed to the withdrawal of eight child sex charges against Mr Mountford.

Mr Pallaras yesterday insisted the principal reason for his decision had been the deteriorating mental health of his alleged victim, who was admitted to hospital earlier this year after attempting suicide following repeated courtroom attacks on his credibility. Mr Mountford yesterday told The Advertiser he wanted to take legal action against the former student and the State Government over his arrest and extradition from Thailand in February, 2005, but he had no money.

He confirmed he had spent at least $300,000 on legal costs defending allegations he sexually abused the former student in the St Peter's chapel and his home on the school's grounds between 1991 and 1992.

This included the cost of hiring private detectives to obtain damaging information about the former student.

He yesterday refused to comment because of an ongoing $3 million damages claim against St Peter's College.

Mr Mountford said he expected public sympathy because he was an innocent man who had been prosecuted "for political reasons by the Rann Government".

He had wanted his trial to proceed so he could clear his name.

"I am a homosexual and I make no apologies about being a homosexual. But homosexuals are not pedophiles," he said.

"I am not a pedophile. I am not a child sex offender. But I have not been given the opportunity by the state of South Australia to make this crystal clear."

Mr Mountford said his life had been destroyed by his arrest and extradition from Thailand.

"I can sue the Government, I can sue my accuser, I can sue his mother, but I can't afford it," Mr Mountford said.

"I have no money, three years of my life have gone, I have no job, I have spent all of my life savings, I have used all of my private pensions. I am against the power and funding of the state. I can't take that on."

Mr Mountford said he would visit his terminally ill father in England before returning to Thailand, where he had a long-term partner.

He rejected suggestions made in the report to Parliament that he had flown overseas in 1992 less than 24 hours after being sacked from St Peter's College after senior Anglican Church officials, including former Adelaide archbishop Ian George, told him to leave the country within 48 hours or they would call police.

"The decision to leave Australia in 1992 was mine and mine alone, nobody else's," he said.

"I had resigned my job, I was not an Australian citizen, I have no family here. The sensible thing to do was leave."

[s7909]

as i said previously you want your cake & eat it, you seem to have the worst case of double standards that i have ever come accross! you are prepared to accept a charge of guilty & that it means that he is guilty but if he is found not guilty he isnt innocent?? Mmmm i will let the people make their mind up themselves regarding your opinions as they are plain for all to see. also regarding the issue you address as flight in law & that it suggests guilt or conciousness of guilt, you can continue to suggest as much as you like but that is all it does 'suggest' & you cant convict a man on a suggestion. i also sugest that you stop trying to confuse people with legal terms & jargon & just stick to the facts of the matter & the facts are that Mr mountford was falsely accused & was not allowed to have his day in court.

[Neeranam]

Mr Mountford said he would visit his terminally ill father in England before returning to Thailand, where he had a long-term partner.

I thought he was a priest.