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
New Zealand Herald
February 28, 2004
Bishop disputes liability for sex abuse
by Eugene Bingham
The
Catholic Bishop of
Bishop Patrick Dunn's comments have stunned the three men and surprised
lawyers, who say the church is liable - regardless of whether it knew about the
offending at the time.
The three brothers, Mike, Gerry and Chris Ledingham, have reached a $150,000
settlement over abuse they suffered in an
In an email to one of the brothers, Bishop Dunn said he was willing to make an
ex gratia payment to express sorrow although he had reservations about how
responsible the church was for the actions of Father Frank Green decades ago.
"The issue with which I struggle most is the idea that the church [ie
presumably the Parish of Onehunga or the greater Diocese of Auckland] is
somehow 'liable' for harm about which ... no one actually knew anything,"
said Bishop Dunn's email.
The Ledingham brothers, three of eight children from a deeply religious family,
were molested by the late Father Green in the late 1950s and early 1960s
although they did not tell each other, their parents or siblings for decades.
Mike and Gerry shared their secret with each other about 15 years ago, but
learned about Chris only when he told the two of them that he had laid a
complaint with the church in April 2002.
The church knows of at least three more victims of Father Green.
The Weekend Herald revealed the Ledinghams' plight in December 2002. Though the
church had accepted the truth of their claim, there had been unacceptable
delays in dealing with their complaint.
Bishop Dunn made a pre-Christmas mercy dash to apologise to the brothers in
After considering taking the church to court, the Ledinghams opted to reach a
settlement because two of them did not feel emotionally strong enough.
They received $50,000 each.
The brothers said they believed the church's approach was insensitive.
"The church kept insisting that although they admitted the abuse took place
they had no responsibility towards the victims nor could they be held to blame
for the subsequent pain and lost life experiences," they said.
Bishop Dunn told the Weekend Herald the church had moral obligations, but no
legal liability. "I cannot see that a later generation is in some way
liable for the harm done by a deceased person," he said.
"Church authorities cannot be aware of misconduct, or do anything about
it, if no one complains or expresses concerns about a person's behaviour.
Should present-day teachers accept responsibility for the actions of a teacher
who abused children 40 years ago? If no one knew about the abuse at the time, I
cannot see in what way people today can be held to be responsible."
But Patrick McPherson, a lawyer with
"Under canon law, the bishop is liable for the actions of all his priests
and that is strict liability and ... he doesn't have to know these things took
place.
"Under the notion of vicarious liability, you don't require knowledge
either. A principal can be vicariously liable for the actions of their agent,
even if the actions were something the agent was not required to do."
Mr McPherson said there were no precedents in
Chris Ledingham has encouraged other victims to confront the church for their
own self-preservation.
"Going through this process, although difficult at times, was for me
ultimately a cleaning-out and getting-rid-of-it exercise."
Mike Ledingham said he was in the process of finding a publisher to write a
book about the ordeal.