Australia: Catholic Church wins High Court appeal against ruling it was vicariously liable for alleged sexual abuse by a priest

[danieldemol]

'The man claimed he was abused during two family events by Father Bryan Coffey.

He was awarded $200,000 when two earlier court rulings found the church was vicariously liable for the harm caused by Father Coffey.

In the High Court, the church argued it could only be vicariously liable for the actions of someone who was an employee, saying Father Coffey was employed in a different capacity.'

Source: Catholic Church wins High Court appeal against ruling it was vicariously liable for alleged sexual abuse by a priest

According to my understanding the church has given Father Coffey hierarchy, but not paid him financial compensation for his employment. But in my opinion it looks like if you give a person hierarchy you are giving them power over other church members that comes with the associated respect given to the position by church members, so I'm honestly not sure how they got away with denying vicarious liability.

Thoughts?

 

[stvdv]

so I'm honestly not sure how they got away with denying vicarious liability.

Thoughts?

The Church won't fool God
The Church might fool humans
The Church actions give the proof

Karma is a *****
Karma also applies to the Church
Even if they don't believe in Karma

 

[Estro Felino]

It's a crime punishable by the Australian law.
It has nothing to do with the Holy See...

PS. We miss the old times of Cardinal De Bricassart...who was straight.

 

[GoodAttention]

'The man claimed he was abused during two family events by Father Bryan Coffey.

He was awarded $200,000 when two earlier court rulings found the church was vicariously liable for the harm caused by Father Coffey.

In the High Court, the church argued it could only be vicariously liable for the actions of someone who was an employee, saying Father Coffey was employed in a different capacity.'

Source: Catholic Church wins High Court appeal against ruling it was vicariously liable for alleged sexual abuse by a priest

According to my understanding the church has given Father Coffey hierarchy, but not paid him financial compensation for his employment. But in my opinion it looks like if you give a person hierarchy you are giving them power over other church members that comes with the associated respect given to the position by church members, so I'm honestly not sure how they got away with denying vicarious liability.

Thoughts?

I think it would relate to employment laws in Australia when the offending happened in 1971, which was also the same year payroll tax became state governed.

Applying it today, I would imagine any “fringe benefit” of being a priest would be considered income and therefore employment, but perhaps not in 1971?

 

[danieldemol]

I think it would relate to employment laws in Australia when the offending happened in 1971, which was also the same year payroll tax became state governed.

Applying it today, I would imagine any “fringe benefit” of being a priest would be considered income and therefore employment, but perhaps not in 1971?

You'd have to ask a lawyer that I suppose, personally I can't see how it is relevant as its the offender's position that gave him power over his victim, not whether he recieved a wage for it in my view.

 

[GoodAttention]

You'd have to ask a lawyer that I suppose, personally I can't see how it is relevant as its the offender's position that gave him power over his victim, not whether he recieved a wage for it in my view.

Yes, he was empowered by the Catholic Church which itself was allowed to operate within Australia by the government, so where does the buck stop?

I mean, are they saying the priest didn’t pay a cent of tax in 1971?

High Court decisions, even the one against Pauline Hansen seem to protect the Commonwealth first and foremost.

 

[danieldemol]

Yes, he was empowered by the Catholic Church which itself was allowed to operate within Australia by the government, so where does the buck stop?

So the relevant question becomes did the church fail in it's duty of care in my view, employment has nothing to do with it.

The Australian government doesn't empower the church over anyone except when it makes a legal ruling based on irrelevancy in the Catholic Church's favor - then it may be liable in my view.

I mean, are they saying the priest didn’t pay a cent of tax in 1971?

Irrelevant as taxes dont entitle one to molest underage people in my view.

High Court decisions, even the one against Pauline Hansen seem to protect the Commonwealth first and foremost.

Well if you are saying this act of protecting the Catholic Church may have been an act of demagoguery and not strictly logical I would partly agree with you

 

[GoodAttention]

So the relevant question becomes did the church fail in it's duty of care in my view, employment has nothing to do with it.

I don't think you understand how the law works. There is no duty without employment or some form of relationship.

The Australian government doesn't empower the church over anyone except when it makes a legal ruling based on irrelevancy in the Catholic Church's favor - then it may be liable in my view.

Irrelevant as taxes dont entitle one to molest underage people in my view.

Again you are taking the moral high road, and not considering what the High Court has done.

Well if you are saying this act of protecting the Catholic Church may have been an act of demagoguery and not strictly logical I would partly agree with you

Apparently there is method to madness.

 

[danieldemol]

I don't think you understand how the law works. There is no duty without employment or some form of relationship.

Bingo, giving a person a position of authority is having, "some form of relationship" with them in my view.

Consider this hypothetical scenario;
Judge: Did you give this man a car to drive knowing he had no licence?

Defense: Yes but I didn't pay him to drive so it's not my fault he ran someone over.

Can you see how the defence's hypothetical argument is irrelevant?

The issue the court should be deciding is duty of care in my view.

 

[GoodAttention]

Bingo, giving a person a position of authority is having, "some form of relationship" with them in my view.

Consider this hypothetical scenario;
Judge: Did you give this man a car to drive knowing he had no licence?

Defense: Yes but I didn't pay him to drive so it's not my fault he ran someone over.

Can you see how the defence's hypothetical argument is irrelevant?

The issue the court should be deciding is duty of care in my view.

Your hypothetical is all over the place.

It doesn't make sense since it implies a crime being committed BEFORE he "ran someone over".


Here is a better analogy.

You are given a taxi voucher by a charity as a "thank you" so you can get home. The voucher is funded by the government.

You use the voucher, and the taxi driver hits and kills a pedestrian.

Now, are YOU at fault? Did you "employ" the taxi driver by using the voucher?

 

[danieldemol]

Your hypothetical is all over the place.

I note you completely ignored the first paragraph of post #9 which suggests to me bad faith debate.

It doesn't make sense since it implies a crime being committed BEFORE he "ran someone over".

Failure to ensure duty of care is a crime in my view.

Here is a better analogy.

You are given a taxi voucher by a charity as a "thank you" so you can get home. The voucher is funded by the government.

You use the voucher, and the taxi driver hits and kills a pedestrian.

Now, are YOU at fault? Did you "employ" the taxi driver by using the voucher?

No one is not at fault if they enlisted the service of a license driver and yes they have employed him using the voucher, but this analogy is irrelevant because it does not show a failed duty of care in my view

 

[GoodAttention]

I note you completely ignored the first paragraph of post #9 which suggests to me bad faith debate.

I beg to differ.

Failure to ensure duty of care is a crime in my view.

What you are implying is the priest was hired by the church knowing he wasn’t fit for duty.

No one is not at fault if they enlisted the service of a license driver and yes they have employed him using the voucher, but this analogy is irrelevant because it does not show a failed duty of care in my view

My analogy fits with the High Court decision.

 

[stvdv]

In the High Court, the church argued it could only be vicariously liable for the actions of someone who was an employee, saying Father Coffey was employed in a different capacity.'

I think the Church should add 1 Commandment:

The 3 Commandments:
1) Thou shalt not have sex with kids
2) Love the Lord, your God ...
3) Love thy neighbor as thyself

2 Commandments should have been enough I would think, and God must have thought when giving Them, but obviously it's not, as there has been to much child abuse in the name of God

 

[danieldemol]

I beg to differ.

Well you laid out the law and in the first paragraph of post #9 I showed how the situation fit that law, everything that came after that was just icing on the end of story cake and I note you dissent without pointing out which words of yours addressed the first paragraph. That's dissent in the place of refutation in my view.

What you are implying is the priest was hired by the church knowing he wasn’t fit for duty.

im paraphrasing what vicarious liability means;

'Employers can be held legally responsible for acts of discrimination or harassment that occur in the workplace or in connection with a person’s employment.

This is known as vicarious liability.

In order to minimise their liability, employers need to demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination or harassment from occurring in their workplaces and that they have responded appropriately to resolve incidents of discrimination and harassment.'

Source:

Vicarious liability

Learn how employers can be held legally responsible for acts of discrimination or harassment in the workplace, which is known as vicarious liability.

humanrights.gov.au

The lower courts found vicarious liability, in other words they found that the Catholic Church has not done one or more of the following which can be summarised as failing in their duty of care;
'employers need to demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination or harassment from occurring in their workplaces and that they have responded appropriately to resolve incidents of discrimination and harassment.'

My analogy fits with the High Court decision.

Your analogy doesn't even fit their non sequitur conclusion, because they didn't disagree with the lower courts that the church failed its duty of care, their dissent was over his different category of non renumerated employment in my view.

 

[GoodAttention]

im paraphrasing what vicarious liability means;

'Employers can be held legally responsible for acts of discrimination or harassment that occur in the workplace or in connection with a person’s employment.

This is known as vicarious liability.

In order to minimise their liability, employers need to demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination or harassment from occurring in their workplaces and that they have responded appropriately to resolve incidents of discrimination and harassment.'

Source:

Vicarious liability

Learn how employers can be held legally responsible for acts of discrimination or harassment in the workplace, which is known as vicarious liability.

humanrights.gov.au

The lower courts found vicarious liability, in other words they found that the Catholic Church has not done one or more of the following which can be summarised as failing in their duty of care;
'employers need to demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination or harassment from occurring in their workplaces and that they have responded appropriately to resolve incidents of discrimination and harassment.'

No, your example was an extremely poor one, and is therefore ineffectual to describe what you wanted it to.

By hiring an unlicenced driver, the employer becomes more than just "vicariously liable".

You need to accept your example is flawed, since the premise of hiring an unlicenced driver in the first place would be considered illegal.

Your analogy doesn't even fit their non sequitur conclusion, because they didn't disagree with the lower courts that the church failed its duty of care, their dissent was over his different category of non renumerated employment in my view.

My example explains the "arms length" type arrangment between the church and the priest, amounting to a "contractor" setup, rather than employee-employer.