BishopAccountability.org
	Man Wins Compensation for Sex Abuse ‘Not Connected to Church’ By Frances Gibb The Times March 17, 2010 http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7064737.ece A man who was abused by a Roman Catholic priest more than 30 years ago won ?32,500 damages yesterday even though he was not a member of the church congregation. The Court of Appeal ruled that the Church could not escape liability on the grounds that the man was not Roman Catholic and the abuse occured outside church duties. The man, 46, identified only as Maga, said he was sexually abused by Father Christopher Clonan, who served at the Church of Christ the King in Coventry, over many months in about 1976. Maga, who has learning difficulties and has never worked, only complained about the abuse in 2006 after hearing that another man obtained compensation for abuse by Fr Clonan, whose whereabouts are unknown. The Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church denied liability, arguing that the church was not responsible because the abuse by Father Clonan occured outside his church duties. Last year Mr Justice Jack, at London’s High Court, upheld the man’s claims of sexual abuse. But he ruled that the assaults by Fr Clonan were not so closely connected with his employment or quasi-employment by the Church that it would be fair and just to hold the Church liable. He said that Fr Clonan’s association with Maga was founded on his use of the teenager to wash his car, do cleaning in the Presbytery and other houses and to iron his clothes. “That employment was not a priestly activity. Fr Clonan did not do anything to draw the claimant into the activities of the Church.” Yesterday the Court of Appeal disagreed. Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, Master of the Rolls, sitting with Lord Justice Longmore and Lady Justice Smith said that the Church was vicariously liable for the assaults on Maga. The Church was also negligent because a complaint allegedly made about Fr Clonan in 1974 was not followed up. Lord Neuberger said: “It is true that Father Clonan sexually abused the claimant away from the presbytery, at least once in one of his houses and at least once in a car. The abuse started in the presbytery and continued there, albeit not exclusively. “Anyway, as a priest, Father Clonan could justify and explain why he was alone with the claimant, whether in one of his houses or one of his cars.” Another of the judges, Lord Justice Longmore, said: “What is said in this present case is that while the Church would accept responsibility for abuse of an altar boy and [probably] a member of the congregation, this case is different because the victim of Father’s Clonan’s abuse came into his ambit in a non-church manner, by admiring his sporty Triumph car, by taking part in disco evenings to which all were welcome, clearing up afterwards and then doing jobs in the presbytery where Father Clonan lived with Father McTernan.” But, he added, the “progressive stages of intimacy were to my mind only possible because Father Clonan had the priestly status and authority, which meant that no-one would question his being alone with the claimaint.” “It is this that provides the close connection between the abuse and what Father Clonan was authorised to do.” The appeal judges allowed Maga’s appeal on vicarious liability and dismissed the Church’s cross-appeal. Carlton Rae, a solicitor instructed by the Court of Protection for Maga, said: “The victim is a vulnerable individual who has been put through five years of legal argument before achieving some measure of justice. “This judgment makes clear that when a church its priests or pastors with a special status in the community, then the church has to ensure that the trust that is placed on them is not subverted.” The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, sitting with Lord Justice Longmore and Lady Justice Smith, said that, as Fr Clonan appeared to have been a “predatory sexual abuser of boys”, it was not unlikely that Maga’s evidence was true. He said that Fr Clonan was a Roman Catholic priest and Maga was not a Roman Catholic and at no time had anything to do with the Church itself, other than doing some cleaning work. To that extent, his case was weaker than a successful claimant who was a Roman Catholic who had worked as an altar server. But, he added: “There are a number of factors, which, when taken together, persuade me that there was a sufficiently close connection between Father Clonan’s employment as priest at the Church and the abuse which he inflicted on the claimant to render it fair and just to impose vicarious liability for the abuse on his employer, the Archdiocese.” Fr Clonan was normally dressed in clerical garb and, as a priest, had a special role which involved trust and responsibility in a more general way even than a teacher, doctor or nurse. “He is, in a sense, never off duty; thus, he will normally be dressed in ’uniform’ in public and not just when at his place of work. “So, too, he has a degree of general moral authority which no other role enjoys; hence the title of ’Father Chris’, by which Father Clonan was habitually known. “It was his employment as a priest by the Archdiocese which enabled him, indeed was intended to enable him, to hold himself out as having such a role and such authority.” Given that Maga was 12 or 13 when his association with Fr Clonan started, it was significant, said the judge, that the priest was given a special responsibility for youth work at the church. “It underlines the point that, when getting to know, when effectively ’grooming’, the claimant, Father Clonan was ostensibly carrying out one of his specifically assigned functions in the church.” Also, Fr Clonan developed his relationship with Maga by inviting him to a disco on church premises, which he organised as a priest of the church, getting him to help clear up afterwards. “Thus, Father Clonan’s role as priest in the Archdiocese gave him the status and opportunity to draw the claimant further into his sexually abusive orbit by ostensibly respectable means connected with his employment as a priest at the church.” Lord Neuberger said it was true that much of the paid work which Maga subsequently did for Fr Clonan was not connected with his priestly role, but the fact that he was working at the priest’s request on premises owned by the priest’s Archdiocese was relevant. It was also clear that the sexual abuse started in the Presbytery and continued there, albeit not exclusively. Lord Neuberger also said that the church’s failure to monitor Father Clonan once allegations of sexual abuse had been made was “unforgiveable.” The Church was refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.