St John’s College and the Anglican Church — who is guarding the guardians?
On 5 November 2024, the second anniversary of Julio Mordoh’s suicide, civil summonses were served on his alleged abuser; his former school and principal, on the secure facility where he died; on the doctor tasked with his care; and on interested parties including the Anglican church and Department of Education. For his grieving parents, the goal is simple — accountability.
is January, millions of parents dressed their children in their school uniforms, took back-to-school pictures and waved them goodbye as they started the new school year. In so doing, they acted on the expectation that their child’s school will be in loco parentis, safeguarding their children as they themselves would.
But what happens when children aren’t kept safe by their educators and coaches, and when the school tasked with stopping the harm fails in its duty of care?
According to the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC), in the 18 months from April 2023 to October 2024, 65 educators in South Africa were fired for sexual misconduct, prompting the disturbing News24 headline, Teachers are not meant to turn pupils into lovers.
Despite the 65 being reported to the Department of Social Development to be listed on the National Child Protection Register as persons deemed unfit to work with children, only 16 educators were deregistered by the South African Council of Educators (SACE), the registering body for educators.
Without deregistration, the upshot is that some of those fired educators may continue teaching, possible because the child protection register is notoriously out of date and not all schools have recent form 29s for their staff.
But even if educators are listed on the register, they could still be providing private extra lessons, music lessons or sports coaching because parents cannot access the register to check on a potential educator’s status.
Even more alarmingly, the ELRC said that while it is the Department of Education’s job to report sexual misconduct to the police in terms of Section 54 of the Sexual Offences Act and Section 110 of the Children’s Act, it has no way of confirming if these teachers were reported and how many cases have resulted in criminal proceedings.
The upshot is that even when educators are fired for sexual misconduct, they may still have access to children.
Varied school responses
And those are the ones reported – many aren’t. During 2024, we were inundated with stories about sexual misconduct by teachers. The schools’ reactions could not be more varied.
Some responded with active engagement and full disclosure. For example in one case, the alleged perpetrator’s sexual abuse was divulged by the affected children in mid-October 2024, the school immediately reported the matter to the police on the children’s behalf and within two weeks, the former educator was arrested and remanded in custody.
On the other extreme, some schools threatened whistle-blowers with legal action if they proceeded with their reports. And in one troubling instance, staff from a school were called into a meeting following an anonymous report to authorities about the sexual abuse of a learner which led to an investigation by the provincial department of education and SACE.
The staff were told by a senior member of the management team that he had contacts, and that not only would he make the case go away, but that he’d also find the whistle-blowers, and when he did, he knew where they and their families lived.
Most schools fall somewhere between these extremes however, quietly investigating allegations internally, and often, equally quietly, letting the alleged perpetrator move on to become another school’s problem. This enabling has in one instance allowed an alleged perpetrator to abuse children in at least two different countries for more than 50 years.
While responsibility for the sexual abuse of children lies with the perpetrator, accountability for the harm lies with the system that either enables them or holds them responsible.
In a series of articles I will be writing, I ask: who is guarding the guardians, and what should the consequence be for schools, government and other institutions that fail in their duty of care?
Julio Mordoh
Julio Mordoh. (Photos: Supplied)
It’s been two long years since Teresa and Marcio Mordoh lost their son. Julio died, aged 20, after he hanged himself with his belt in a restricted area at a secure psychiatric facility. His untimely death came less than a year after he first disclosed that he had been groomed and sexually abused by his former head of pastoral care and rock climbing coach, and only weeks after he deposed an affidavit against the man he accused of abusing him from the ages of nine to 12 while he was in the Preparatory School at St John’s College in Johannesburg, the elite boy’s school where he spent most of his schooling life.
After years of suppressed memories, Julio’s disclosure of the abuse first occurred when his psychologist read him a letter written by St John’s College after another of the school’s former pupils came forward to allege sexual assault by the prep school teacher.
Tragically, Julio’s response to the letter was, “Oh, so there were other boys, I thought I was the only one.”
Writing from Julio Mordoh’s diary. (Photo: Supplied)
Less than a year later Julio was dead, having lost his brave battle with the post-traumatic stress and depression that characterised more than half of his short life.
Despite criminal charges being initiated against the alleged perpetrator on 15 November 2021, he is yet to plead to charges. In June 2024, due to jurisdictional wrangles, the criminal charges against him were temporarily dropped so the case could be centralised. This finally occurred in November 2024. Up to two decades after the abuse began for many of the St John’s victims, they are still awaiting a set down date in the Johannesburg high court. Justice seems very distant.
But even when the criminal case proceeds, Julio’s affidavit cannot be presented as evidence because his premature death means he cannot be cross-examined. Giving Julio a voice, and achieving justice for him, is one of the main reasons why his parents initiated a civil case.
In November 2024, they served civil summonses on the alleged perpetrator, on St John’s College and its board, on the former headmaster of the preparatory school where the abuse is alleged to have occurred, on the facility where he died and the psychiatrist treating him and on the Anglican Church, Anglican Board of Education, Department of Education and South African Council of Educators as interested parties.
John Smyth case
The timing of the case is significant. Summonses were served on the second anniversary of Julio’s death, only 10 days before the case would have prescribed. Unlike criminal cases, civil cases prescribe three years after the victim’s first disclosure. It was also initiated just days before the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, resigned.
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby addresses General Synod delegates during the debate on gay marriage at The Church House on February 08, 2023 in London, England. (Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images)
Welby’s resignation came after revelations about the Anglican Church and his own personal failure in the duty of care to as many as 130 young men in the United Kingdom, Zimbabwe and South Africa who were victimised by the late John Smyth for 40 years.
For Julio’s parents, the latter is particularly significant given that one of the goals of the civil case is to hold those who failed in their duty of care towards Julio accountable. As the Mordohs acknowledge, even if Julio’s alleged perpetrator is found guilty, it will not necessarily result in systemic change.
Schools and other institutions often swiftly close ranks against those who abuse children, but are less quick to recognise their own role in allowing predatory teachers and coaches to flourish, often for decades, and their failures to stop them when presented with evidence of wrongdoing.
Horrific beatings
This is painfully clear in the John Smyth case. Reports abound of Smyth’s sadistic and perverse behaviour towards the boys in his care. This included making them strip naked or taking their clothes off himself to acknowledge their sinfulness, and then lashing them for atonement, sometimes hundreds of times, depending on the “sin”. He was reported to have meted out 100 lashes for masturbation, 400 for pride and 800 for some undisclosed “fall”.
The stories told by victims read like tales of torture, blood splattering, long-term damage, adult nappies and attempted suicides. But at the end of every beating, Smyth would rub lotion on their wounds, kneel beside them to pray and kiss them on the shoulders and back.
These horrific beatings, often in his garden shed or in “bash camps”, became interspersed with careful grooming, team skinny-dips, showers and naked prayer sessions while Smyth decried masturbation and homosexuality.
Smyth’s son PJ, who was one of his father’s first victims, reports that the Anglican Church initially became aware of Smyth’s abuse in 1982 through the Rushton report which detailed the beatings of 22 young men over a four-year period, the same period that Smyth had been beating his son. The report resulted in a tearful Smyth, fearful of consequences, apologising to his son.
PJ’s beatings stopped, but there were no further sanctions or consequences for Smyth.
Despite the bravery of the victims who came forward and told the stories detailed in the Rushton report, the church did not act on it. Instead, they covered it up. Smyth was sent to Zimbabwe as a “missionary” in 1984. There his behaviour continued until in 1992, one of the young men in his care, Guide Nyachuru drowned in “suspicious circumstances”. The resultant culpable homicide case against Smyth collapsed, and again, he avoided consequences. But in 2001, he was forced to move, this time to South Africa after being barred from re-entering Zimbabwe.
Even when an investigative documentary by Channel 4 in the UK aired in 2017, the church was still slow to act. Smyth died in 2018 without having ever been disciplined or prosecuted for his 40 years of crimes.
Church failure
In his exposé book, Bleeding for Jesus, the author Andrew Graystone reported that Smyth’s abuse was known to many of the most senior clerics and clergy in the church but “obfuscation, cover-up, delay, words ‘on the quiet’, the side-lining or shutting out those who raised warnings, and straight enabling” were the order of the day.
Shielding Smyth, they failed to report his crimes to the UK police, to let authorities including church authorities in Zimbabwe and South Africa know about the crimes, to support the victims, or to give them justice.
These failures were confirmed by the 2024 Makin review which outlined the extent of Smyth’s crimes labelling them as “prolific and abhorrent”. Makin stated that “words cannot adequately describe the horror of what transpired”.
It also highlighted the church’s failure in its leadership, accountability and duty of care. The report reflected that “The Church’s reaction to the exposé of John Smyth’s abuse by Channel 4 in February 2017 was poor in terms of speed, professionalism, intensity and curiosity. The needs of the victims were not at the forefront.”
The Makin report’s key themes are the impact of failures of leadership, accountability and safeguarding; the effect of an extended cover-up of harm; and that abuse can be hidden in plain sight.
Significantly, when former Archbishop Justin Welby was forced to resign, it was the first time that anyone other than Smyth’s victims had experienced any consequences for his crimes.
It telegraphed a significant change in thinking, specifically that punitive actions should follow institutional failures and failures of leadership.
St John’s obligation
The timing is key given that St John’s is an Anglican school, and the church is named as an interested party in the summons. The civil summons reinforces the school’s legal obligation to report physical harm and sexual abuse to the police, and the Department of Social Development, or a designated child protection agency if it is aware of it.
For this reason, whether the school was aware of Julio’s abuse and that of other victims is one of the pivotal issues in the civil case.
St John’s declined to comment for this article stating that, “the subject matter involves ongoing legal considerations, and as a matter of principle and confidentiality, we are unable to disclose details concerning the civil claim. This position is essential for ensuring the legal integrity of the process. We remain committed to transparency where appropriate and will provide updates or information to the St John’s Community in a manner consistent with our legal and ethical obligations.”
However, in a previous right of reply sent to Daily Maverick in October 2023, the school stated that it only became aware of the sexual abuse on 13 October 2021 when one of the victims, as an adult, disclosed the abuse to his parents.
Despite the law stipulating that anyone with reasonable suspicion that a child had been sexually abused should report it, and St John’s being aware that the alleged perpetrator was a deputy head at another private school who therefore continued to have access to children, the matter was only reported a month later after an independent investigation instigated by the school resulted in other victims coming forward.
Case opened
The victims then opened a case with the SAPS’ Family Violence, Child Protection and Sexual Offences (FCS) unit on 15 November 2021. Once charges had been laid, St John’s reported the teacher to the South African Council of Educators and informed its school community.
Nonetheless, it is not the school’s response to the first disclosure that is at issue. The key question to be answered in the civil trial is, was the school aware of inappropriate behaviour from the alleged predator, including sexual grooming, when he was teaching at the school, and did it act to stop that behaviour?
St John’s is adamant that it wasn’t aware. In its 2023 reply, it cited the independent inquiry into the matter conducted by retired Constitutional Court Justice Johan Froneman. A redacted summary of the report was sent to the school community in May 2022. In it, Judge Froneman concluded that: “There is nothing to indicate that the staff, Headmasters of the Prep and the College, or the Council failed to report criminal conduct that came to their knowledge. No boy or parent had reported any conduct of the kind to the school during the relevant period.”
‘Carefully groomed’
While that seems definitive, it’s worth noting that the boys in question were between the ages of nine and 13 and if Julio’s story is reflective of others, they had been carefully groomed by the alleged predator. I asked St John’s if its preparatory school boys had been educated about sexual grooming, about how to spot a potential predator and how to report someone if they had concerns. It was one of the questions that the school chose not to answer.
But, in the absence of an understanding about grooming (and even with it), we should not expect young boys who had been groomed to disclose abuse because they would typically feel isolated, confused and complicit, as evidenced by Julio’s belief that he was the only victim and therefore somehow to blame.
Equally, if the abuse took place on school property or at school events such as camps, tours and hikes, and the boys did not disclose, their parents would have no way of knowing that their boys were being abused.
Reports
For this reason, the lack of reporting from pupils and their parents is not convincing evidence that the school wasn’t aware of the abuse. What is more significant is if the school received reports from staff members raising concerns about the alleged predator.
The Froneman report seems to indicate that it did. The summary states that “two complaints were taken by Prep staff to their Head during the former teacher’s tenure at the Prep, and these were appropriately dealt with by the Prep Head at the time.”
The summary further states that: “Judge Froneman felt it important to stress that his review did not uncover improper management of the complaints against the former Prep teacher, by the Prep and Executive Headmaster or staff, given the knowledge available at the time regarding sexual and other abuse.”
St John’s has elected not to share the full report, even in redacted form, so it’s hard to know how these complaints were handled. In questions posed to the school, we asked if the boys who were referenced in these complaints had been interviewed in the presence of their parents, if the teacher had been disciplined, if a form 22 had been completed and if the school had instituted an investigation through SACE and, or the police. The school declined to answer, but Froneman’s reference in his report to “available” knowledge about sexual abuse raises red flags.
Sexual grooming has been a crime since 2008, so knowledge about it was available when Julio was at the preparatory school. If the complaints brought to management by staff members could have been construed as grooming behaviour by the alleged perpetrator, and the school did not follow due process as specified by the legislation, it could certainly be deemed to have failed in its duty of care.
The civil case will probably be lengthy and challenging for the Mordohs, and regardless of the outcome, nothing will make up for the loss of their son, nor the painful aftermath of their efforts to help him prior to his death and their own psychological challenges and permanent loss of earnings following his suicide.
But as Teresa emphasises, their goal is to ensure that “although Julio died in pain, he did not die in vain”.
No matter the outcome, if their civil case results in even one more institution prioritising the protection of their children over reputational risk, it will already be a victory.
First published in the Daily Maverick: 29.02.2025
