Lawyers for two Indigenous abuse survivors have called for reforms to address the “horrendous” Catholic church strategy of seeking to permanently block cases where alleged paedophile priests have died.
On Wednesday, the church was successful in permanently blocking a claim made by two Indigenous survivors relating to alleged abuse committed by David Joseph Perrett, an Armidale assistant priest and convicted child abuser, whose crimes the church has known about since 1995.
The Indigenous men sought civil compensation through the courts five months after Perrett’s death, but the church on Wednesday obtained permanent stays, preventing their cases from going to trial. They successfully argued the death of Perrett and other witnesses meant it could no longer obtain the material it needed to prepare a defence and fairly participate in the trial, despite allegations from the survivors’ lawyers that it had ample opportunity to anticipate and prepare for civil claims while Perret was alive.
The diocese has known he was a convicted child abuser since 1995, heard a confession from Perrett that he was a paedophile in 2016, and knew of more criminal charges against him in 2017, three years before his death. Those charges included the allegations made by the two Indigenous men who later sued, though the church says it was oblivious to their identity.
An investigation by the Guardian earlier this year revealed the church and other institutions are now routinely seeking permanent stays where perpetrators have died, a strategy widely condemned – including by the former head of the church’s response to the royal commission, Francis Sullivan – as a moral failing, a failure of leadership and another layer of abuse for survivors.
This is bad law, not simply amoral (my opinion). Surely in any event the inability of the church to ‘defend’ itself is evidence against it, confirming its liability. The failure to follow up after the criminal conviction is evidence of a lack of duty of care. It is not simply a ‘moral failing’ or a ‘failure of leadership’ – although that, too, as well as further abuse – but that the courts should apply the law so as to support this spurious ‘defence’ is inexcusable and – as before – wrong law.