Event and Time
Event Description
- Claimant: DP
- Defendant: The Diocese
- Timeframe of Alleged Assaults: Early 1971 to Boxing Day 1971
- Nature of Claim: Two parts — vicarious liability for the actions of Father Coffey and negligence causing direct liability for the Diocese.
- Background: Allegations of sexual abuse by Father Coffey, a priest, who was convicted in 1999 of indecent assault against young boys.
Application and Claims
1. Vicarious Liability Claim: - DP claims the Diocese is liable for Father Coffey’s unlawful actions under the doctrine of vicarious liability.
2. Negligence Claim: - DP must establish that the Diocese had a duty of care towards him and breached that duty by failing to protect him from Father Coffey, who allegedly posed a risk to young boys.
Judicial Decisions
- The court considers whether extracts from the sentencing of Father Coffey are admissible as evidence to establish the Diocese's knowledge or constructive knowledge regarding the risk posed by Father Coffey.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Plaintiff (DP) Position:
- Asserts that the extracts from the sentencing reasons are relevant in demonstrating that the Diocese knew or ought to have known about Father Coffey’s prior offenses. - Argues that the similarity of past offenses increases the likelihood of the Diocese's awareness of the risk to children.
- Defendant (The Diocese) Position:
- Contends that the extracts should be excluded under the Evidence Act 2008 (ss 55 and 91) due to irrelevant findings and potential inadmissibility of past convictions. - Maintains that admitting this evidence would violate the prohibition against using prior findings to establish material facts in a current proceeding.