I'm Ruby Jones and you're listening to seven AM. A year ago, the High Court handed down a decision that was a blow to survivors of child sexual abuse everywhere. In a case against a man who was abused as a little boy, the Catholic Church's Diocese of Ballarat argued they couldn't be sued for the actions of one of their priests because priests are employed by God, not by the Church. The ruling in the church's favor left thousands of survivors devastated, but the Court said it was now
up to parliaments to act. Recently, the Act Government went first, legislating to overrule the High Court decision in a major win for victim survivors. Today, lawyer and advocate Judy Corton on when the other states will follow and how the Catholic Church will fight back. It's Friday, November fourteenth, all right, so duty to begin with. Let's talk about the Bird case. How did the Catholic Church argue its side?
Now, the church was not saying that the sexual abuse didn't happen. They accept it and admitted that one of their priests did commit those crimes. What they argued was that because the church argues that priests are not employed in a normal employment relationship. Therefore the diocese of the church could not be held legally liable. There are two
main types of legal liability in these claims. One is called negligence, and for negligence we have to prove that an institution breached its duty of care to a child. So if we can't find the evidence that a duty of care was breached in other words, there had been prior complaints, we cannot a claim that the institution was negligent. That used to leave a second legal hook, called a vicarious liability, where we don't have to prove the church
was at fault at all. We have to show that the relationship between the pedophile or the offending priest, for example, and the institution was one of employment. Now, up until this High Court decision in Canada in nineteen ninety nine, the UK twenty ten to twenty twelve and subsequently have found that a Catholic archdioces, for example, can be vicariously liable in that the relationship between the offending priest and the institution is one that is akin to an employment relationship.
The High Court didn't agree with that everyone assumed the High Court would take on the law from all the other common law jurisdictions. That didn't happen. The High Court agreed with the Catholic Church. Priests, brothers, nuns, Catholic clergy are not employed. Therefore there's no vicarious liability and if we don't have negligence, there is no claim.
Right, okay. And so when that decision came down, obviously it would have affected the individual bringing the case, But what about other people in a similar position. What's the precedent that was set there?
So not only does it affect people who were assaulted by Catholic clergy, you know, Christian brothers and nuns and so on, there is a huge cohort of people who are volunteers, for example, that have also now been carved out. So for example, the Scouts, Salvation Army, there are volunteers in all sporting organizations. Basically wherever children gather, pedophiles will go. So there's another huge cohort of saviva victims who have
no access now to justice. Example, I use if you have two brothers from one family going to a Christian brother's primary school. One is raped by a Christian brother, the other by a lay teacher. The boy that's raped by the lay teacher will have access to justice, but not the other. So we have two tiers of justice. Since that High Court decision, we have had many many, a third of my practice alone, a third of people have been directly impacted by the Bird decision.
And so when you look at the way the Catholic Church approached this, the defense that they mounted, and the way that they took that all the way to the High Court, what does that say to you about the way this particular institution is thinking about how to respond to its responsibility when it comes to child sexual abuse that's happened.
What the churches have demonstrated is that they do not give a rats about victims of They treat these as commercial matters. There is no compassion, it's everything, but you know that Christianity that they are supposed to practice. And on that point, each year, the beginning of the legal year, beginning of the judicial year, there is something called a red mass. Members of the legal profession, parliamentarians who are
Catholics attend this maths. And what I find quite extraordinary as we have the Catholic Church engaging lawyers to be highly legalistic, highly adversarial to further crush these victims survivors. We have Bishop Vincent earlier this year saying, and I'll quote, as we pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit on our work at this Red Mass, we recommit ourselves to God's vision of justice, mercy and the fullness of life for all humanity.
Let it be a time in which we as a church reclaim the powerlessness of Christ and the fundamental ethos of care for the week, justice for the excluded. Then we can truly be servants of justice, the conduits of mercy and signs of hope.
For now, it's not for all humanity at all. You know, there is no justice often for the vulnerable, the harmed, the psychiatrically harmed, victim survivors.
Coming up justice for victim survivors in one small part of the country, and so Judy. When the High Court found in the Catholic churches favor, it called on state and territory governments to act that it was our parliaments that needed to address this. It was now out of the Court's remit. Recently we have started to see that begin. So tell me about what's been happening.
Sure, you're right, the High Court has handballed, if you like, or suggested that state and territory parliaments now deal with this problem. In other words, we need legislation to reverse that High Court decision. The Act Parliament passed a bill unopposed a couple of weeks ago, and this bill, I won't call it the big beautiful bill, but it is a bill that does tick all the requisite boxes for victim survivors.
This bill is required to ensure survivors who are abused by people in positions akin to employment are able to access justice. It is necessary because without it, institutions that have had children abusing their care can avoid responsibility for the actions of those they effectively employed.
So first thing this bill does is it will apply retrospectively. It has to do otherwise it's futile. It redefines the role of someone who is an employee and it says I'm not going to use a word for word, but it says basically, a person who is akin to an employee is a person who carries out the role of the purposes of the institution and for the benefit of the institution.
We are discussing today will have the effect that children who are abused by people carrying out a role in the organization or activities for the benefit of the organization can access justice.
Now, that could be someone who's a volunteer. It could be a priest, it could be a teacher, it could be anyone belonging to an organization or institution. No particular group is carved out. Every case will be taken on its facts, and the court will determine whether that person is akin to an employee and whether or not the institution provided that person with the power of the authority
and the occasion to commit the crime. The other really critical element of the Act Bill is it gives the courts the power to throw out or set aside any settlements that have been unfair and unjust on the back of that Bird decision. So that's what we've got in the Act Bill, and it's a model bill, I would say for the whole country.
Okay, So it sounds like then, at least in cambro there will be this avenue for survivors. But where is the rest of the country up to When it comes to looking at legislation.
Victoria, our Attorney General made an announcement a few weeks ago that there will be a bill tabled before the end of the year. The announcement did say that it would be retrospects and it would have what we call the set aside provision in it, so for those who have settled unfairly and unjustly on the back of bird can have another go. What we don't know yet is how the Victorian bill is going to look at volunteers. So
we're hoping to get that bill at well. We've been told we'll get the bill before the end of the year, so we're going to wait and see the wording of it. It should and must I'd say not carve out volunteers because that is a huge cohort of pedophiles. So that's only two jurisdictions. We haven't heard anything from New South Wales. What I will say is that New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory have existing legislation vicarious liability legislation.
But the problem with it it is only prospective. It's not retrospective, so it's of no use to anyone that was assaulted before the bill was asked what those for jurisdictions need to do is they need to amend those pieces of legislation, make them retrospective, including that set aside provision, and make sure that they don't carve out, as I say, volunteers, the examples been set by the Act. They're very brave in the Act. They've stood up, proud and tall and
supported survivor victims. So states do need the courage to stand up. This is what we expect of our parliamentarians to stand up and do the right thing. By thousands and thousands of very traumatized people who were sexually assaulted and rapist children.
And you've spent your life fighting for those people, for people who were assaulted, often by people associated with the Catholic Church. And so as a result, you've also seen the ways in which this institution fights back. So when it comes to this legislation in the Act and potential other legislation in other states, how do you think the Church is going to respond to these laws? What is the next move for them?
Well, Monce's legislation is legislation, but of course they will continue vigorously fighting and defending every individual claim. So each claim is a battle, a huge battle, and they fight it to the end. It's okay we fight it when I'm for never giving up, but they shouldn't be such big battles. Bishop Bird should never have taken that all the way to the High Court. The costs, the costs, the financial costs, the people. You know, some of our clients when they found out, became suicide or we had
one client who was on suicide watch for weeks. It is causing an enormous amount of harm and there are a lot of people involved. I estimate, I don't know the actual number, but I estimate in Victoria alone there would be about two thousand people who have been impacted by the Bird decision. So what does that mean around the country. It's very hard to say, but many thousands of people. And it has created, as I say, this dual system of justice or injustice as it turns out.
Well, Judy, thank you so much for your time.
Great, thank you very much.
Also in the news, the Liberal Party has scrapped net zero, as widely expected. One source told the ABC the party would keep language in its climate policy that suggests that zero would be a welcome outcome, but will abandon it as a formal goal. The move follows the National's earlier decision to walk away from the target. The Liberal Party will meet with them National's colleagues on Sunday. And Neo
Nazi Thomas Saul has been released from prison. The thirty two year old was deemed too dangerous to live in the community just two months ago. It was also found at the time that there was a risk he could interfere with witnesses in a criminal case if given the opportunity. Saul faces twenty one charges, including violent order and a fray, and is one of more than a dozen people charged over the attack on Camp Sovereignty, a sacred place for First Nations people. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am.
Thanks for listening.