3 days ago
2
It’s taken Sam* decades to reckon with the abuse he allegedly suffered as a child. At six years old, he says he was flogged, raped and abused by a nun at a boys’ home in NSW. The nun later introduced him to a man affiliated with the religious organisation who also allegedly abused him.
Now in his 70s, Sam wants accountability from those he believes failed him.
But like many survivors, he faces a significant legal hurdle. Priests and nuns are not considered “employees” of their diocese, and due to a 2024 High Court ruling, institutions cannot be held vicariously liable for abuse perpetrated by non-employees.
Last month, a landmark High Court decision opened a new avenue for justice.
Sam’s alleged abuse began in the mid-1960s at the Murray-Dwyer Boys’ Home in the Newcastle suburb of Mayfield, run by the Catholic Church’s Daughters of Charity of Saint Vincent de Paul.
Dropped off at the boys’ home by his mother, he remembered a “large, aggressive, and bossy” nun. After sexually abusing him in a secluded room, he says she would publicly punish him in front of the other boys, flogging him for trivial “misdemeanours”.
Later, the nun introduced Sam to a man who lived in a retirement village with priests, who allegedly abused him during weekly outings.
Sam became withdrawn, unfocused and angry. By age 15, he was sent to the state government-run St Heliers boys’ home in Muswellbrook and was allegedly raped and beaten by older boys. He said staff witnessed and were told about the abuse, but did nothing to stop it.
Sam said the alleged abuse changed his life. “I find it hard to say ‘I love you’ to my kids. I’ve never had a close relationship with my mother. Every time I’ve got to talk about this, it just cuts me up and brings me to tears,” he said.
During a recent stint in jail, Sam met with other survivors, reckoned with the alleged abuse and decided to take legal action.
“I wanted justice. I wanted something done with the nuns, the people in that orphanage, and out at Muswellbrook for what they did to me. I wanted some type of punishment,” he said.
Both the nun and the man in the retirement village have since died, so Sam turned his attention to civil lawsuits, suing both the Daughters of Charity of Saint Vincent de Paul for the alleged abuse at the boys’ home and the state of NSW for the alleged abuse at St Heliers.
Survivors’ legal struggle
In a blow to survivors, in late 2024, the High Court handed down a contentious decision ruling the Catholic Church was not vicariously liable for a priest who sexually abused a child, as they could not be legally considered an employee of the church. The court said it could not expand the doctrine of vicarious liability to relationships “akin to employment”.
The judgment upended thousands of legal cases, forcing survivors of historical sexual abuse to accept reduced financial settlements or proceed to trial, where they faced significant legal hurdles.
However, a recent landmark decision has shifted the landscape.
Last month, the High Court ruled the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle owed a survivor, who was abused aged 13 by assistant priest Father Ronald Pickin, a special form of duty of care known as a non-delegable duty. Schools also owe their pupils a non-delegable duty of care.
The landmark case allows survivors to hold institutions accountable for those acting on their behalf.
But the ruling halved the survivor’s settlement payout, from the initial $636,840 awarded by the NSW Supreme Court, which was overturned on appeal, to $335,920.
Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer John Rule said that where this type of duty is established, it will be easier for the plaintiff to prove their case.
A non-delegable duty was a special or “heightened duty of care”, he said.
“Before this decision, it was usually reserved for contexts like the duty that a school owes to a student or that a hospital owes to a patient,” he said.
“One of the very interesting things about this decision is a priest is not an employee, and so it’s looking at ... the underlying relationship between the institution and the potential plaintiff. The perpetrator, the delegate of the institution, doesn’t have to be an employee necessarily.”
Rule said the decision was “encouraging for plaintiffs who, for example, might want to try to pursue a scout leader” in a similar context, but the limits of the law would need to be tested in future cases.
North Star Law principal lawyer Michelle Martin said the ruling was a “welcome decision” but warned that institutions could still be shielded from full accountability, as the vicarious liability loophole from the 2024 ruling remained.
While Victoria and the ACT have passed laws to ensure institutions can be held vicariously liable for abuse perpetrated by people in roles akin to employees, NSW has yet to take action.
“This leaves a very unfair situation. Sexual abuse by a priest or a school teacher causes the same harm, yet the legal outcome for the survivor is different [because the teacher is an employee]. In our modern secular society, how is this fair?” she said.
“The postcode where you are abused shouldn’t matter.”
Sam is disappointed that his perpetrators won’t face criminal charges, but said the High Court’s decision paves the way for accountability.
“It destroyed me, what they did to me. I’m the one who’s got to live with it,” he said.
“They have to answer for what they’ve done.”
*Name changed for privacy.
Anyone needing support can contact 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732), National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028, Lifeline 13 11 14, and Kids Helpline 1800 55 1800.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
