www.peterellis.co.nz : seeking justice for Peter Ellis : mail to: [email protected]

Accusations of Abuse in Institutions

Index: Home Page Peter Ellis
Index: Accusations in Institutions

The Evening Post
April 17, 2002

Suing Church harder now

Victims of religious sexual abuse who want to sue their Church have had their options severely narrowed, says a Wellington lawyer who specialises in ACC cases.

While New Zealand introduced a no-fault scheme for personal injuries - including victims of sexual abuse - in 1972, some limited areas for court action remained.

Barrister Hazel Armstrong said a Court of Appeal judgment late last year on the case of several Telecom workers who suffered occupational overuse syndrome significantly reduced the chances of anyone winning compensation for an injury if it was covered by ACC.

"Essentially, you can't really get any damages at all (unless) the negligence is so gross, so terrible that you will be able to get a small award. But it's very, very narrow."

A subsequent request to appeal the decision to the Privy Council in London was also turned down.

An ACC spokeswoman said that as ACC was a no-fault scheme that dealt with sexual abuse victims, the Church didn't face legal liability from ACC for clergy who committed such offences. ACC didn't keep statistics on the occupation of offenders, but 80 percent of abuse was by family members or close relatives, she said.

But Rape Crisis spokeswoman Margaret Crook said churches should pay compensation to their victims. "Compensation can come in many ways, but for people to recover from abuse costs a lot of money."

New Zealand's most senior Catholic cleric, the Most Rev Cardinal Tom Williams, said he wasn't aware if the New Zealand Church had paid compensation to victims.

However, it was reported in the media in 1999 that two men molested by Marist brother Bryan McKay, who was principal of a now closed school in Hamilton, were paid $30,000 and $20,000.

While Cardinal Williams said the Church was legally required to follow the law and the direction of the secular courts, he questioned its liability, given the ACC scheme. But he said it did have a moral liability. "We have a moral liability to assist a person (the victim) to the fullest extend possible."

It was also required to take immediate action to ensure the person responsible was not in a position to reoffend, he said.

While monetary compensation might be indicated, that would have to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Catholic Communications director Lyndsay Freer said it wasn't usual for compensation to be paid, but the Church did not carry insurance for it.