Submitted by crinadmin on
Summary: Appeal court rules that Portsmouth diocese is liable to pay for alleged wrongdoings of its clergy, paving way for similar claims.
[12 July 2012] - A Roman Catholic diocese is liable to pay compensation for alleged beatings inflicted by a nun and sexual abuse perpetrated by a priest on a young girl, the court of appeal has ruled. The decision, by a majority of two judges to one, will have far-reaching implications for the responsibilities of all employers, significantly widening the scope of their "vicarious liability" for the actions of employees. The claim was brought by a 48-year-old woman known as JGE, who cannot be named for legal reasons. She said that as a child she was beaten by a nun at a convent-run care home and later raped and sexually assaulted by a priest. Father Wilfred Baldwin, who has since died, was said to have abused her in the robing room on the day of her first communion. The facts of what took place are disputed: the Portsmouth diocese denies there was any abuse and insists a priest is an office holder not an employee. The judges said it was difficult to agree on the issue of liability when what had occurred had not yet been established, but they were forced to explore the complexities of canon law governing the structure of the church. 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 widened 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." 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." Further Information:
pdf: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/12/catholic-church-loses-apeal-li...