News


Judgment may deny clerical sex abuse victims the right to sue Catholic Church

Church in Britain denies priests are employees in High Court case



Guinness PubFinder Ad

The Catholic Church in Britain is attempting to force through a legal precedent which would deny victims of clerical sexual abuse the right to sue the church for damages. The Irish church may seek to follow.

If the landmark judgment in the UK’s High Court goes in favor of the Church, then victims of sexual abuse by priests will no longer be able to seek compensation from the Catholic Church.

A little publicized case in London’s High Court has heard lawyers for the Church claimed that it is not ‘vicariously’ liable” for the actions of its priests.

The argument has been utilized by the Church in the past but never in an open court and both lawyers and victims fear it will set a legal precedent with repercussions across the world.

Observers also claim the attempt to use the liability argument questions whether or not the Vatican is prepared to accept culpability for the sort of abuse outlined in the Cloyne Report.

Irish President Mary McAleese has already said the Church needs to: “Urgently reflect on how, by coherent and effective action, it can restore public trust and confidence in its stated objective of putting children first.”

British victims of clerical sex abuse have reacted with dismay to the defiance presented by their Church at the High Court hearing.

“As children, we weren’t given an innocent, carefree and safe environment,” one victim told the Guardian newspaper.

“We weren’t given a peaceful structure in which to grow and develop normally. By some miracle, some of us are still here to voice the words of so many who can’t.

“Only a small number of victims ever come forward. The full potential of who we could have been as adults has been stolen.”

Legal representatives of the victims have also condemned the Church’s defense in this case.

Lawyer Richard Scorer, who specializes in abuse cases, said: “I think the Catholic Church’s attempt to avoid responsibility for the abhorrent actions of one of its priests is nothing short of scandalous.

“The Catholic church would be better served by facing up to its responsibilities rather than trying to hide behind spurious employment law arguments.”

The argument has been presented by the Church at a preliminary hearing into the case of a victim who claims to have been sexually abused on a regular basis by a visiting priest while a six-year-old resident at a children’s home in Portsmouth run by nuns belonging to the English Province of Our Lady of Charity.

“If we fail, it would mean that no other victims of Catholic priests would be able to be compensated,” said Tracey Emmott of Emmott Snell, a specialist in working with sexual abuse claims who is representing the victim in the case.

“They claim that the relationship between the bishop of the diocese and the parish priest in question does not amount to anything akin to a relationship of employment, and therefore there cannot be any ‘vicarious liability’ for the priest’s acts.


Nster.com


28 Comments

See all comments

I'm glad you enjoyed the book 'murphia, it's an eye opener and I recommend it to any seriously minded person on these issues; maybe Trealach.
GRMACollette2: I've just read Robertson's condemnation of the Vatican response to the Murphy and subsequent reports...his take on the Vatican/Holy See's claim of Papal immunity for a fictional State of 0.17 sq mile is quite devastating...It also undermines the Intercession granting Sovereign Immunity by Dubya when the abused tried to file suits against the Pope in the States...Robertson is of the opinion that the ICC provides no protection for Heads of State where crimes against humanity are concerned of which systemic sxual abuse of children is one...WOW!
Yes themurphia, the same Geoffrey Robinson QC, he was brilliant. His book, The case of he Pope; Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse is well worth reading too, very inexpensive considering the research making it accessable to all.
@keneconnor Jesus himself would be ashamed and disgusted by what has become of the Church he founded. The organization that professes to act in His name has lost all track of what the doctrine of Chrisitanity. @Trealach, nothing like defending the indefensible. Why is the organization more important to you than the individuals harmed by the officials of the organization?
The Church should pay ITS THE LEAST they can do for the harm they caused to the victims and there families. The church has always thought more of money than the victims, having said this, it wont change what happened to us, but it will help us to feel we have got something back from them.
Collette2:I think you mean Geoffrey Robertson QC...Are you referring to the interview on BBC/24..I didn't see it but heard he had appeared..what is his take...? However on the issue of Human Rights he's definitely one of the best...Still like to know where all the Irish Human Rights lawyers have been for the last God knows how long...!
Of course the church should be liable. They are the ones who cover up the diabolicle behavior of its priests/nuns.Money cant really compensate anyway. They should go after the person solely on criminal charges.
It's laughable when people call for the church to be subject to the law of the land, and then try to deny them the church right to have that law applied - sick hypocritical idiots!!
Is this intrisically evil or is it not. Where are all the loyalties now? Better get Geoffrey Robinson QC onto it, there's no flies on him as far as the Holy See is concerned; he even has their claim to diplomatic immunity worked out.
Note the defensiveness of church deflectors. Their statements ignoring the culpability of the church speaks more of their psychologocical whinging than a focus on what this cult has done. It is the selfish psychology of people who can brook no criticism of their obviously ethically corrupt church because it is wrapped up in a defense of their own psychology. An inability to admit ethical failure for their church and a sinking into wild accusations of atheism 'attacking' their church and by extension themselves. Seek treatment.
Yeah I think that the church should not defend itself at all but just bow to the lynch mob of atheists and haters and do whatever they say and give the greedy lawyers money. It is bad enough and maybe fitting that we are now bankrupt since we welcome the Queen and scorn the church that Jesus himself founded. Shame on us as we are becoming the ugly atheistic soulless society that we should all fear.
Sexul abuse by the Priests remains a disgusting example of how the Vatican on down evades the consequences of their of sick actions. Where's the justice!!!
Before all victims are compensated the Swiss guards will be terminated, the budget for candles will be reduced 50%, the popes wardrobe slashed and the pope-mobile reduced to a Vespa scooter. A vow of poverty may be necessary.
AengusOg, Here in the U.S., there is a principle known as "ex posto facto"-after the fact. Even if a law was passed, which would prohibit one group from suing another, that law would only cover offenses which would occur AFTER the law was passed. Prior victims could still sue. I'm not a lawyer, but that is the way that I understand this matter.
Looks like Trollgate is back...along with his munchkin... trying to avoid employers vicarious liablitiy for his vicious and misleading commentry...ignorance is no defence in law..m'lud!




Log into IrishCentral with your Facebook account


or sign-in directly

E-Mail:
Password:
 Remember me Forgot my password
Not a member? Register Now!
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail