Times of Malta
November 13, 2011
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20111113/local/UK-ruling-on-clerical-child-abuse-ineffective.393455
 |
| Archbishop Paul Cremona and victim’s lawyer Patrick Valentino addressing a news conference last summer. |
It was branded a landmark decision but the English high court ruling that the Catholic Church is responsible for abuse by priests did not establish any revolutionary doctrine, according to a former human rights judge.
The High Court ruled last week that although there had been no formal contract between the Church and a priest accused of sexual abuse at a children's home, the relationship between the two was akin to an employment relationship.
But former European Human Rights Court judge Giovanni Bonello does not believe this decision confirms that the Church is responsible for priests unless it can be proven that the institution's actions or lack of them contributed to the damage suffered by the victim.
Although the British media pounced on the judgment, describing it as a first, Dr Bonello played down the significance, insisting that the decision did not establish any "revolutionary or even novel doctrine".
The test case was brought by a woman who claimed sexual assault by a priest, who died in 1996, while residing at a children's home in the 1970s.
The Guardian newspaper said the judgment set a precedent for similar cases while putting the Church in uncharted territory. The Church has been given leave to appeal against the decision.
"I do not accept as good law the sweeping statement that this judgment confirms that the Church is responsible for priests since it is not," Judge Bonello said, though he made it clear he had not read the full judgment.
The Church may be found responsible for its own misdeeds and negligence, he added, if it can be proved that by its own actions or inaction the victim suffered damages.
"To find an institution responsible for the acts of an individual, it first has to be established that the acts or negligence of that institution had a sufficiently strong causal link with the harm suffered by the victim of that individual, and that is neither new nor revolutionary doctrine," Dr Bonello said.
The English High Court judge seems to have been convinced that the Church, as a separate entity, was also somehow at fault, he added.
The ruling has no direct significance for Maltese victims of sex abuse by priests, according to Dr Bonello, because the courts in Malta are not bound by precedents established by other courts.
For different reasons lawyer Patrick Valentino, who represents local victims of sex abuse by priests, believes the UK ruling is insignificant.
With reference to the abuse cases at the St Joseph Home in Santa Venera run by the Missionary Society of St Paul, in which two priests were found guilty this year, Dr Valentino said Archbishop Paul Cremona had publicly accepted responsibility and also met the victims and discussed compensation.
"Unfortunately, we did not agree on financial compensation and this will have to be decided by the courts when a civil case is filed. But by offering help in the form of social workers and psychologists, the Church clearly accepted responsibility for what happened at the home," he said.
In August, two priests – Godwin Scerri and Charles Pulis – both members of the MSSP since defrocked – were sentenced to five and six years imprisonment respectively for sexually abusing boys over a period that spanned the 1980s through to 2003. Both appealed against their convictions and are currently out on bail.
Subsequently, the Archbishop held talks with the victims on compensation but in a surprise statement in September the Curia said it had been given legal advice that in this particular case, as an institution, the Church did not have any legal responsibility for the actions of these individuals.
Contact: ksansone@timesofmalta.com
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.