LinearRCC liable for actions of its priests rules UK court (Main Forum)
by Englishwoman 
, Thursday, July 12, 2012, 22:17 (316 days ago)
Catholic Church loses child abuse liability appeal
A ruling that the Catholic Church can be held liable for the wr
ongdoings of its priests has been upheld.
Last year Mr Justice MacDuff decided in favour of a woman who claimed she was raped and assaulted as a child by a priest of the Portsmouth Diocese.
The Court of Appeal has upheld this decision, which raises "an issue of wide general importance in respect of claims against the Catholic Church".
A diocese spokesman said the case was about "fundamental legal principles".
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, says she was assaulted as a child by the late Father William Baldwin, a priest of the Portsmouth Diocese.
Lawyers for the claimant said of the ruling in November 2011 that it was the first time a court had been asked to rule on whether the "relationship between a Catholic priest and his bishop is akin to an employment relationship".
A spokesman for the diocese said after the latest hearing: "This case is not, and has never been, about seeking to avoid or delay the payment of compensation to victims with valid claims.
"This case is about fundamental legal principles involving the very nature of civil society and religious freedom.
"
That's the BBC report - Here's the PORTSMOUTH NEWS
Giving his decision on a preliminary issue in the damages action by the woman, who is now 48, the judge held that, in law, the Church "may be vicariously liable" for Father Baldwin's alleged wrongdoings.
The trustees of the Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust - the defendant "standing in the shoes of the bishop" - were given leave to appeal against his decision and that challenge was heard by three judges in London in May.
The appeal was dismissed by a two-to-one majority.
In a statement issued after the ruling, the trustees of Portsmouth Diocese said the appeal was brought to achieve clarity "as to the nature and extent of the bishop's liability for the actions of diocesan priests".
It added: "We had not just the right but the duty to ask the Court of Appeal to hear the different arguments in this case, not least because of the far-reaching implications to faith and other voluntary organisations of extending vicarious liability in this way."
Mary
lockedRCC liable for actions of its priests rules UK court--ABOUT TIME FOR COMMON SENSE!!
Since all Bishops officially give "faculties"to clergy who work in their areas, then they are accepting secondary responsibility for such actions. Primary responsibility, of course, goes with the doer.
Keeping an eye on the clergy's actions is only a part of responsible oversight. A much greater part is sifting out the reliability of the reports. The current prevalence of Temple Police influence is an example of lazy episcopal leadership.
Any decent parent knows that relying on "tattletales" isn't effective parenting. But parents must also teach their children about the importance of "whistleblowers" as well. This is best done by showing how verification of circumstances, not just the bald facts,is the key.
Sadly, based upon the experience of most laity, the current leadership of too many levels of the RCC is NOT REALLY PARENTAL at all, so they need to stop treating the Laity as their "children"!!
locked
RCC liable for actions of its priests rules UK court - A legal question.
by desi , Australia, Thursday, July 12, 2012, 22:50 (315 days ago) @ kaythegardener
Giving his decision on a preliminary issue in the damages action by the woman, who is now 48, the judge held that, in law, the Church "may be vicariously liable" for Father Baldwin's alleged wrongdoings.
This was a legal ruling in the UK but does it have any effect re Australia, being a part of the Commonwealth.
lockedRCC liable for actions of its priests rules UK court - A major ruling.
by desi , Australia, Thursday, July 12, 2012, 23:00 (315 days ago) @ desi
The high court has found in favour of the claimant. Lords Justice Davis and Justice Ward dismissed the appeal against the earlier decision by the Portsmouth diocese, opening a legal avenue for the claimant's lawyers to sue the church for the alleged abuse.
Ward said: "Father Baldwin is more like an employee than an independent contractor. He is in a relationship with his bishop, which is close enough, and so akin to employer/employee as to make it just and fair to impose vicarious liability ... It is just because it strikes a proper balance between the unfairness to the employer of imposing strict liability and the unfairness to the victim, leaving her without a full remedy for the harm caused by the employer's managing his business in a way which gave rise to that harm, even when the risk of harm is not reasonably foreseeable."
Davis said: "It may be that the bishop had no 'formal legal responsibility' for Father Baldwin, but in my view his responsibility for, and control over, the parish priest whom he had appointed was real and substantial. I would ... attach importance to the fact that Father Baldwin had been appointed by his bishop as parish priest: that is not simply to be equated with his status as ordained priest."
But Lord Justice Tomlinson found in favour of the diocese, declaring that the relationship between church and priest was not comparable to a normal employer/employee relationship. "If Father Baldwin can be properly regarded as undertaking his ministry for the benefit of anyone," he said, "I should have thought it was for the benefit of the souls of his parish."
Refusing the diocese permission to appeal to the supreme court, Ward said the highest court in the country was due to hear a similar case in the coming weeks.
"The court's judgment in this case has widen the scope of vicarious liability, extending it from well-established situations of employment to relationships that are 'akin to employment'," he added. "This has ramifications in other areas of the law, and to that extent this case does raise a matter of some public importance."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/12/catholic-church-loses-apeal-liability
lockedAnd its application to Australia
The decision of the English Court of Appeal is an important one. Australian courts are not bound by any such decisions, but they are influenced by decisions made in the rest of the common law world.
In Ellis's case, this issue was left open. It was not necessary to decide it because the issue was different - whether or not the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church could be liable and whether or not George Pell could be liable for the sins of his predecessor. The NSW Court of Appeal said no in both cases.
However, the situation would have been entirely different if Pell had been the bishop at the time of the abuse. Then the issue of vicarious liability would have had to have been faced squarely.
However, I couldn't help smile at the spin doctoring by the bishops after the ruling,
A spokesman for the diocese said after the latest hearing: "This case is not, and has never been, about seeking to avoid or delay the payment of compensation to victims with valid claims.
"This case is about fundamental legal principles involving the very nature of civil society and religious freedom
In a statement issued after the ruling, the trustees of Portsmouth Diocese said the appeal was brought to achieve clarity "as to the nature and extent of the bishop's liability for the actions of diocesan priests.
It added: "We had not just the right but the duty to ask the Court of Appeal to hear the different arguments in this case, not least because of the far-reaching implications to faith and other voluntary organisations of extending vicarious liability in this way.
What, might I ask were the "far reaching implications to faith" by "extending" vicarious liability. When this woman sued the Church, she was seeking compensation under tort law for the damage done to her by the priest. The Court can only award money. It cannot tell the Church what to believe in or not believe in. It cannot tell the Church how it should train its priests to stop this happening. It cannot order the Church to adopt some other form of supervision of its priests different to what happened in the past. It can only make a ruling that in the particular circumstances of this case, the priest failed in his duty of care to the woman, and for that the diocese has to be liable to pay her compensation. That's it.
It's about money and nothing else. The Church's defence of it was about money. Not only this woman's claim, but other potential claims which might also affect the Church's money.
Why can't these clerics who claim to preach the truth, not be truthful when it comes to making statements like this? And of course, they had to throw in the American thing about religious freedom...I suppose that means that they don't have as much money to spread the word if they have to pay compensation to victims of clergy abuse.
lockedAnd its application to Australia
by desi , Australia, Thursday, July 12, 2012, 23:05 (315 days ago) @ James
This from the 'abused' woman's solicitor:
JGE's solicitor, Tracey Emmott of Emmott Snell, welcomed the ruling. "This is absolutely the right decision," she said. "The relationship between a bishop and a priest of a Roman Catholic diocese has many of the hallmarks of an employment relationship, and therefore it is right and proper that the church should be held legally accountable for abuse by its priests.
"The wider implications of this judgment are significant, such that it is now settled that there no longer has to be a formal employment relationship for legal responsibility to attach to one party for the wrongdoings of another ... It is hoped that this ruling will now be accepted, and that victims of abuse by Catholic priests can be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve."
It will be interesting to see if there is any comment on the decision from Rome (or even Sydney).
lockedAnd its application to Australia
by Beehive , Brigadoon West Australia, Saturday, July 14, 2012, 04:18 (314 days ago) @ desi
"The relationship between a bishop and a priest of a Roman Catholic diocese has many of the hallmarks of an employment relationship[/b], and therefore it is right and proper that the church should be held legally accountable for abuse by its priests."
This looks like a lucky break to me. I guess it blows away the OZ Catholic Church argument "that it is not a legal person and therefore cannot be sued" hiding place. Have got it wrong?
Beehive
Brian Pitts
lockedAnd its application to Australia & elsewhere
James,
"Spindoctoring" in response to the court's decision sounds much like the typical reaction during the past few decades by the RCC.
Same-oh, same-oh...
lockedSeriosly, does anyone have any idea what this means?
by desi , Australia, Thursday, July 12, 2012, 23:19 (315 days ago) @ kaythegardener
The diocesan spokesman said re the reason for persuing the appeal:
...not least because of the far-reaching implications to faith
lockedSeriosly, does anyone have any idea what this means?
As a real test of faith, there has to be faith in sexual criminals and their protectors. Isn't that clear enough?
lockedAnd its application to Australia
If a Bishop is not the "employer" of a priest, then who has the responsibility for appointment and dismissal of a priest? We know who dismisses Bishops - Bishop Morris" case showed this, but who has ultimate authority and responsibility for priests in a Diocese or Order?
you don't have to be very bright to work out who has moral and financial responsiblity but the hair-splitting over other areas is nauseating.
J A Holznagel
lockedAnd its application to Australia
by Englishwoman , Saturday, July 14, 2012, 01:49 (314 days ago) @ judith
Judith,
I'd better not be too specific, but where I live there's been a situation of flagrant, deliberate and sustained disobedience of a priest in relation to his Bishop for (to my knowledge) 7 months now.
The local clergy know, the Dean knows, the Vicars General know and the Bishop has been informed of the situation by the deacon, the Dean, the VGs and some layfolk writing either individually or in a group.
The only response made by the Bp has been a two-liner (received today, oddly enough) saying he understands and is addressing the matter and that the lady who wrote to him is in his prayers.
We can but guess why the Bp has done nothing, knowing he sees the problem in much the same terms as do distressed and downtodden parishioners. He can do nothing because the matter impinges on the reform of the Reform and so if he tried to oust, I mean transfer, the disobedient priest, the said priest would appeal to the Rome commission which oversees "differences" arising from the implementation of SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM which 5 years ago loosened the allowance for the tridentine liturgy.
So, Rome would back the priest and overrule the Bp. And. the priest has said,"The Bishop needs me more than I need the Bishop." Whatever you think of that sentiment, it is factually true.
The Bishops are cyphers. The Yes-Holy-Father bunch will keep their pensions and the plaudits of their wealthy and adoring client-sheep; any Bp raising his head, or even a croak, above the parapet can expect condign retribution for his hubris. And probably loss of pension.
Mary
locked
And its application to Australia ......& Findings of English Court
by Roy , Friday, July 13, 2012, 22:06 (315 days ago) @ James
edited by Roy, Saturday, July 14, 2012, 02:34
The decision of the English Court of Appeal is an important one. Australian courts are not bound by any such decisions, but they are influenced by decisions made in the rest of the common law world.
Ann Barker recognised this very early on and went to ireland for these reasons James mentions
Have a listen to Ann on ABC News24 from April
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg8yPTSh_L0
In this case, ........
.......the Defendants should be held responsible for the actions which they initiated by the appointment and all that went with it. Accordingly, this preliminary issue is determined in favour of the Claimant.
locked
