In a landmark judgment that represents a seismic shift in institutional responsibility, Australia's High Court has ruled that the Catholic Church owed a duty of care to protect a child from one of its paedophile priests. The decision overturns previous legal arguments from the church and establishes significant new precedent for abuse survivors seeking justice.
Case Background: Abuse in Newcastle-Maitland Diocese
The case centred on a man known only as AA, who suffered abuse at the hands of Father Ron Pickin in 1969 when he was just 13 years old. The abuse occurred in a presbytery after Pickin had offered AA and another boy alcohol and cigarettes. AA subsequently sued the Catholic Church's Newcastle and Maitland diocese, arguing the institution was liable for his abuse because it owed him a non-delegable duty of care.
Church's Legal Arguments Overturned
The Catholic Church had previously maintained two key positions in its defence. Firstly, it argued it owed no duty of care because there was no evidence it knew of risks posed by priests at that specific time. Secondly, the church contended it could not be held liable for intentional criminal acts committed by its priests, suggesting such actions fell outside institutional responsibility.
These arguments proved successful at New South Wales's highest court, the Court of Appeal. However, AA appealed to the High Court, which delivered its decisive judgment on Wednesday, completely overturning the church's position.
High Court's Groundbreaking Ruling
The High Court ruled decisively in AA's favour, finding that the diocese indeed owed him a duty of care and had breached that duty by allowing the abuse to occur. The court's judgment stated clearly: "The duty the Diocese owed to AA in 1969 was a duty to a child to ensure that while the child was under the care, supervision or control of a priest of the Diocese, as a result of the priest purportedly performing a function of a priest of the Diocese, reasonable care was taken to prevent reasonably foreseeable personal injury to the child."
Legal Significance and Institutional Implications
Legal experts have been closely monitoring this case, recognising its potential to reshape institutional liability across Australia. The ruling establishes that churches and similar institutions will be held responsible for abuse perpetrated by those to whom they entrust the care of children, even when criminal conduct has occurred.
John Rule, principal lawyer at Maurice Blackburn, emphasised the decision's importance: "The ruling of a non-delegable duty is significant because it means churches and other institutions will be held liable for abuse perpetrated by those to whom it entrusts the care of children, even when criminal conduct has occurred. Importantly, the decision also clarifies the church's duty of care to children, which confirms that institutions that place children in their care cannot wash their hands of responsibility when it comes to their safety."
Broader Impact on Abuse Survivors
This judgment represents a major victory for survivors of clergy abuse across Australia and potentially internationally. Plaintiff law firms have described the ruling as having "finally enshrined" the principle that churches should be held responsible for abuse by members of their clergy.
The decision clarifies that institutions cannot avoid responsibility by claiming ignorance of risks or by arguing that criminal acts fall outside their purview. This establishes a clearer pathway to justice for survivors who have previously faced significant legal barriers when seeking accountability from religious institutions.
The case specifically addresses abuse that occurred in 1969, but its implications extend to contemporary institutional responsibility, potentially affecting how all organisations caring for children approach their duty of care obligations.
