Event and Time
Event Description
- The court proceedings involved the tendering of evidence by both parties: DP and the Diocese, concerning allegations related to historical sexual abuse.
- Two main applications for tendering evidence were considered by the judge:
1. An extract from the interview of Gerald Ridsdale (a convicted pedophile) conducted in June 1994. 2. A medical report prepared by DP’s psychologist in March 2015.
Application and Claims
- DP aimed to tender the extract of the interview to demonstrate the Diocese's prior knowledge of potential sexual misconduct by its clergy, thereby establishing a pattern of behavior relevant to the current allegations.
- The Diocese opposed this on the grounds that the interview was conducted in contemplation of litigation, asserting that it fell under the hearsay rule (s 69 of the Evidence Act 2008).
- The Diocese also sought to tender Dr. Pagano's medical report, asserting its probative value, while DP opposed its admission under s 135 due to potential unfair prejudice.
Judicial Decisions
- The court allowed the tendering of the Ridsdale extract, ruling that it did meet the hearsay exception criteria.
- Conversely, the court also allowed the tendering of Dr. Pagano's report, giving weight to its probative value despite acknowledging concerns regarding DP’s inability to cross-examine the psychologist.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- DP's Claim:
- The extract from Ridsdale's interview was relevant to show the Bishop's knowledge of past misconduct and could indicate foreseeability of misconduct by other clergy members in the Diocese. - The relevance and admissibility of the evidence were argued under s 69(2) of the Act.
- Diocese's Argument:
- Contended that since the interview with Ridsdale was conducted amidst existing litigation, the business records exception did not apply as per s 69(3) because the representations were made in contemplation of litigation against the Diocese. - Argued against the admissibility of Dr. Pagano's report on the basis that it would unfairly prejudice DP due to the inability to challenge the report’s contents through cross-examination.