In short:
The Tasmanian government will introduce new vicarious liability laws, which will make organisations liable for the actions of individuals that aren’t formally employed by them.
Victim survivor and advocate Steve Fisher says the legislation is a step forward, and will overcome the hurdle created by a 2024 High Court decision.
[I]n November 2024, a High Court decision, known as Bird v. DP, meant priests were not considered employees of churches and, therefore, some churches could not be sued for their actions.
The decision affected victim-survivors of child sexual abuse who already had civil cases before court, as well as those yet to bring cases.
On Saturday, Attorney General Guy Barnett said the state government would be introducing legislation to “fix that anomaly” and provide opportunity for victim survivors to take action with respect to child sexual abuse in the past.
Tasmanian victim-survivor, advocate and chief executive of Beyond Abuse, Steve Fisher, said the reform was an important move.
“It needed to happen so people who have been abused by institutions can finally get the compensation they deserve,” Mr Fisher said.
[Ed: Lets hope other states and territories follow their lead. This does not inspire confidence in the High Court.]
A former neurologist accused of sexually assaulting 48 of his female patients has been acquitted.
Justice Craig Parry ruled that he is satisfied there was a valid medical reason for examinations Jeffrey Sloka performed at his Kitchener clinic.
The verdict comes nine years after the first complaints were made about the doctor to Ontario’s regulatory body, and following a four-and-a-half year criminal trial.
The complainants in the case were all female patients who were seen at Sloka’s urgent neurology clinic between 2010 and 2017.
In court, they described receiving vaginal exams, breast exams or exams of other intimate areas during appointments for neurological concerns.
The criminal trial began in September 2021. The Crown made the case that Sloka used medical examination as a ruse to gain access to the bodies of female patients for sexual purposes.
The defense said Sloka had a valid medical justification for his investigations, examinations and treatments.
After listening to more than 160 days of evidence, and going through thousands of pages of written submissions from the Crown and defense, as well as verbal arguments in court, Justice Craig Parry reached his verdict. The written decision was 1,002 pages long.
Parry largely rejected the expert testimony of Dr. Vera Bril, who told court in her opinion, the exams Sloka did aren’t typically done by neurologists.
As for the women who testified, Parry said he found their evidence unreliable.
After the judge announced he had acquitted Sloka on all counts, some of the women in the courtroom began crying. A number got up and walked out. One called out “shameful, shameful” as she left.
Source: Former neurologist Jeffery Sloka acquitted on all count of sexual assault
All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not originally generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.
For the first time ever, women have united to file a Complaint claiming they are being discriminated against in custody cases.
Why is this revolutionary?
It changes everything. It is the beginning of women taking back their power with their children after millennia of being deprived of it.
Most people don’t know that women have never had the power to keep or protect their children after divorce—well, not since Patriarchy took hold anyway. No, not even during the era of the Tender Years Doctrine.
For 10K years, until the 1800’s, children were legally men’s property and women had zero power to keep them. After women gained a right to custody, men would simply claim their ex-wife was immoral, malicious, crazy, a witch, or whatever. The judge would credit men’s false allegations and grant them custody.
The press conference for the filing of our discrimination lawsuit will be held at the Hilton Albany on May 19th at 2pm. A celebration of the beginning of the Empowerment of Women in custody matters will follow!
Plaintiffs make the claim that women’s state, federal, and universal right to equal protection of the laws has been violated in custody cases, i.e. they have been systemically discriminated against in family courts.
Plaintiffs also claim that the systemic sex discrimination has resulted in a myriad of due process violations. In other words, women’s rights to procedural and substantive due process are being violated because they are women.
These violations include a pattern of judicial misconduct. The pattern is characteristic of all courts and establishes the systemic nature of the discrimination.
The relief requested is declaratory and injunctive: a declaration affirming the systemic discrimination and an injunction for it to cease. Another injunction requested is for Plaintiffs with minor children to have right to a de novo (entirely new) case with an impartial process.
If you have experienced discrimination in a New York custody case (past or present) and want to join the lawsuit, fill out this form.
Source: Women Making History May 19th with Revolutionary Discrimination Lawsuit
All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.
NSW courts can now issue a new type of protection order against domestic violence offenders.
Under the scheme, courts can order that perpetrators be subjected to phone monitoring by police.
The NSW government says it has invested $9.3 million into the scheme.
The orders can allow police to monitor an offender’s phone and download its contents in real time.
Domestic violence perpetrators can also be ordered to notify police if they open dating profiles or enter into new relationships.
[Ed: I do not recall any women’s groups agitating for this and considering that these DV laws are often being weaponised against female victims, I am not even sure these provisions are benevolent. Furthermore, inexplicably we still do not have a functional Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme which would play a more vital preventative role in helping women avoid forming relationships with these men in the first place.]
Source: NSW Police can monitor phones of DV offenders under new protections for victim-survivors – ABC News
Safeguarding children’s right to an open future through ethical care standards.
