High Court Rules that Priests ARE employees

Back in July I put up a post about Portsmouth Diocese and its appalling attempt to avoid its liability for the sexual abuse performed by one of its priests. Had it been successful it would have effectively been impossible for anyone to claim damages for sexual abuse performed by any priest in England and Wales. Essentially Portsmouth Diocese had tried to worm its way out of liability for abuse by claiming that the relationship between a priest and diocese is not the same as that of an employer and an employee.

However there is good news! The high court has ruled against Portsmouth Diocese.

Mr Justice Macduff gave a decision in favour of a woman, known as JGE, who claims she was sexually assaulted by a Portsmouth priest at a children's home in Hampshire.

The judge said although there had been no formal contract between the church and the priest, the late Father Baldwin, there were "crucial features" that should be recognised.

He said: "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. 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. The church has been granted extended leave to appeal the decision.

Lord Faulks QC, on behalf of the defendants, said the church was not seeking to evade responsibility for paedophile priests. "My clients take sexual abuse extremely seriously and are very concerned to eradicate and investigate it," he said. "This case has been brought as a point of law that has never been decided." (Oh yes I believe that totally. Of course they were trying to slither out of their responsibilities!)

JGE told the Guardian she was pleased with the judgment but angry about the church getting leave to appeal. She said: "I'm fuming. I've had no support from the church whatsoever. Nobody has contacted me. They are ignoring victims. It feels like being on a rack, turning the screws tighter and tighter, over hot coals."

A victory for the the church would have meant it could avoid paying any compensation to victims of clerical sexual abuse.

I feel sorry for the many priests who do a great job working for their communities. Their bishops (and the hierarchy) seemed not to give a shit about them, spending far more time protecting rapists and their reputations. Portsmouth Diocese's action  was nothing but a cynical attempt to avoid paying up for the crimes of one of its priests. If this bankrupts the Diocese then I will shed not a single tear.

A priest is not an employee, diocese claims

A lot of stories have slipped by in the slipstream of the NOTW scandal, largely unnoticed by the media. One of these stories (covered by Channel 4, the Guardian and local papers) has potentially huge ramifications for sex abuse claims against the Catholic Church.

At present the Roman Catholic church's is testing its liability for the wrongdoings of its priests. According to theGuardian, Mr Justice MacDuff has been asked to decide if the relationship between a bishop and a priest is similar to that between employers and their staff.

The case relates to an abuse claim being brought against the diocese of Portsmouth. A woman has alleged that one of its priests had abused her while she was a resident at a Catholic children's home, The Firs, in Waterlooville, Hampshire. A trial in respect of these claims is scheduled to take place in December.

The hearing does not focus on the abuse claims but on the issue of corporate liability.

The basis of the case against the diocese is that Father Wilfrid Baldwin was able to gain access to The Firs and have contact with its residents through his work as a priest. These duties establish a connection between the diocese and the priest.

"In effect, priests are carrying out their working assigned to them by their bishop and furthering the cause of the diocese," Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel QC, counsel for the woman, argued. "As the correspondence between Father Baldwin and his bishop demonstrates, he was dependent on the bishop to assign him a post and to control when he moved from one post to another and even to control when he was permitted to retire. The degree of control was, if anything, in excess of that in the typical employer/employee relationship."

Lawyers for the alleged victim say it is the first time a court has been asked to rule on whether the "relationship between a Catholic priest and his bishop is akin to an employment relationship".
If the answer is "no" there would be "no circumstances where the Roman Catholic church is liable for the actions of one of its priests whether deliberate or careless and however closely connected those actions were to the role of priest".

Gumbel told the judge this would place the church "in a unique position as far as avoiding responsibility for the acts or omissions of any priest working within the church organisation in whatever role".


The diocese denies it is vicariously liable and is defending itself against the claim. A ruling in its favour would mean the church could avoid paying compensation to victims of clerical sexual abuse.

And it is not just sexual abuse. If the court rules that there was no employment relationship between a priest and his diocese then the diocese could be immune from liability from any act perpetrated by a priest in the course of his normal duties.

Given the that some bishops seemed to move heaven and earth to cover up the gross criminal acts of some priests complicity a decision in their favour would be an utter disgrace.

This is a Bishop Brennan that deserves a kick up the arse

Unsurprisingly victims of clerical sex abuse in the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland have reacted angrily to an appeal by a bishop for parishioners to help to pay spiralling compensation claims.

According to the Times Bishop Denis Brennan of the diocese of Ferns (South east Ireland) told parishioners that the diocese had so far paid €8 million (£7.5 million) to settle 48 civil actions arising from decades of sexual abuse by priests. He said another 13 actions against the diocese were pending.

Dr Brennan is the first bishop to give details on how much compensation has been paid to victims. He said that his official residence had been remortgaged to cover nearly €2 million in legal fees. A request for financial help from parishioners was not about sharing blame, he said, but about “asking for help to fulfil a God-given responsibility”.

Eugene Doyle, the chief financial officer of the diocese, said that the Church had no option but to ask its members to help to foot the bill. He estimated that the diocese’s 100,000 members in 80 parishes would be asked to collectively contribute €60,000 a year for the next 20 years. No money would be taken from normal weekly collections, he said.

What barefaced nerve of the bishop to ask parishioners to bail the church out after the church singularly failed in its duty to deal with abusive priests. As for calling the enormous costs a God-given responsibility, Bloody hell!

The Catholic chirch got itself into this mess, so its first port of call should be its own assets and not the pockets of parishioners who I bet are disgusted at the behaviour of the priests in question, as well as the leadership that brushed the abuse under the carpet.