Catholic Bishop Criticises Ruling on Church Liability for Actions of Priests, by Riazat Butt, The Guardian, November 15, 2011

Catholic Bishop Criticises Ruling on Church Liability for Actions of Priests

By Riazat Butt
The Guardian
November 15, 2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/15/catholic-bishop-liability-church-priests?newsfeed=true

Crispian Hollis, the bishop of Portmouth, has criticised a high court judge for ruling that the church can be held liable for the misconduct of priests. Photograph: UPPA

A Roman Catholic bishop has criticised a high court judge for ruling that the church can be held liable for the misconduct of priests, a judgment that could make it easier for victims of clerical sexual abuse to bring compensation claims.

The Right Rev Crispian Hollis, from the diocese of Portsmouth, made the remarks in response to the decision by Mr Justice Macduff in favour of a woman, known as JGE, who claims she was sexually assaulted by the late Father Wilfred Baldwin at a children's home in Hampshire.

The church has always maintained that it is not "vicariously liable" for the actions of priests, arguing that they are not employees as they have no contracts of employment, they pay self-employed taxes and their positions are never advertised.

But the judge last week rejected this argument and said Baldwin, who is accused of abuse, was appointed "by and on behalf of the defendants", the diocese of Portsmouth.

In a statement Hollis said: "The claimant has the benefit of a court order whereby she cannot be identified; unfortunately, the same consideration has not been extended to Fr Baldwin, who was a priest of unblemished character until these allegations were made shortly before his death and who had no opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him.

"The diocese accepts that where a bishop has, for example, failed to prevent a priest from committing an act of wrongdoing, he will be liable in negligence.

"However, this case was not concerned with negligence, it was concerned with whether a bishop should be automatically liable for the actions of a priest simply by virtue of the fact that he or one of his predecessors appointed the priest. The diocese is aware of no other organisation which can be held liable for the actions of its office holders in this way.

"There are clear problems with the judgment of the high court in this case."

The diocese has leave to appeal, but has not announced whether it will or not. The next steps would be taken "following receipt of legal advice and bearing in mind the sensitivities of these issues for those who have suffered abuse perpetrated by a Catholic priest", added Hollis.

In his decision Macduff said although there had been no formal contract between the church and Baldwin, there were "crucial features" that should be recognised.

"He [Baldwin] was provided with the premises, the pulpit and the clerical robes. He was directed into the community with that full authority and was given free rein to act as a representative of the church.

"He had been trained and ordained for the purpose. He had immense power handed to him by the defendants [the trustees of the Roman Catholic diocesan trust]. It was they who appointed him to the position of trust, which (if the allegations be proved) he so abused."

It is the first time a court has ruled that the relationship between a Catholic priest and his bishop is akin to an employment relationship and it sets a precedent for similar cases, by providing further guidance for such trials in the future, while also putting the church in uncharted territory.