AA v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle (No 2)

Case •

[2024] NSWSC 1233

•

01 October 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: AA v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1233
Hearing dates: 1 October 2024
Date of orders: 1 October 2024
Decision date: 01 October 2024
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Schmidt AJ
Decision:

(1) Upon the grounds that the plaintiff and BB are victims of child sexual assault; the personal sensitivity of the complaints about which they have given evidence; the potential for disclosure or publication of their names to identify and cause them and as a result, their family members undue distress or embarrassment; and in order to protect their psychological safety, I am satisfied that it is necessary, in the public interest, within the meaning of section 8(1)(c) & (d) of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010, to order pursuant to Section 7 of the Act that:

(a)   The name of these proceedings be changed to AA v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle.

(b)   The name of the plaintiff be known by the pseudonym AA and the name of the witness by the pseudonym BB.

(c)   Their full names and any particulars which might enable AA and BB to be identified is not to be disclosed to any person other than the parties to the proceedings, their legal representatives or the Court, except as may be necessary for the proper conduct of these proceedings.

(d)   The plaintiff be referred to in all documents or records by the pseudonym AA and the witness by the pseudonym BB.

(e)   The publication of their names or any particulars which might enable them to be identified, is prohibited.

(f)   These orders are to apply throughout the Commonwealth of Australia for a period of 40 years.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE — suppression and non-publication — orders — public interest in non-publication of plaintiff’s name — where plaintiff was victim of child sexual abuse

Legislation Cited:

Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), s 8

Cases Cited:

AA v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2024] NSWSC 1183

WJT v Trustees of the Marist Brothers & Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta [2024] NSWSC 983

Category:Consequential orders
Parties: AA (Plaintiff)
Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
S Prince SC and PA Tierney (Plaintiff)
C Robertson (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Koffels Solicitors & Barristers (Plaintiff)
Makinson d’Apice Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2024/100043
Publication restriction: Pursuant to ss 7 and 8 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) there is to be no publication of information that identifies the plaintiff referred to as AA or the witness referred to as BB.

JUDGMENT

  1. When I gave judgment in this matter on 20 September, for reasons there explained, I ordered that the judgment not be published before 2 October 2024, other than to the parties and the two tendency witnesses, or their legal representatives. This order was made so that submissions could be advanced about whether further orders should be made under s 8 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW): AA v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2024] NSWSC 1183.

  2. The parties have now agreed that pseudonym orders should be made in relation to the plaintiff and one of the witnesses who gave evidence at the hearing.

  3. Having considered the affidavit evidence relied on, which explains the position and concerns of the plaintiff and the witnesses and having further heard the parties, I am satisfied that justice does require that the pseudonym orders be made. That being the case, the published judgment will refer to the plaintiff as AA and the witness as BB.

  4. Instructions had also been obtained from the other witness, Mr McClung. He did not seek the protection of a pseudonym order, with the result that the published judgment continues to refer to him by name.

  5. The reasons for my conclusions in relation to AA and BB again rest in the child sexual abuse with which the judgment deals, which the plaintiff and the witnesses dealt with in the evidence which they gave in open court; the distress and embarrassment it obviously caused AA and BB; and their ongoing concerns about their public connection with this abuse and its potential consequences, including for their health.

  6. I am satisfied that it is in the public interest to make the pseudonym orders that the parties sought, albeit not precisely in the terms proposed. That is because I have been persuaded that the public interest in the orders I propose to make significantly outweighs the public interest in open justice: s 8(1)(e). The purpose of a pseudonym order being to protect the subject of the order.

  7. Such orders are not infrequently made in cases such as this, even though that necessarily detracts somewhat from the principle of open justice, one of the most fundamental aspects of our system of justice. That is what the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act addresses.

  8. In this case I am satisfied, as was Faulkener J in WJT v Trustees of the Marist Brothers & Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Parramatta [2024] NSWSC 983, that the detraction from the principle of open justice which will result from the pseudonym orders I intend to make will be minimal and take proper account of the time at which they are made, after the hearing. They not otherwise interfering with these proceedings, having been conducted in accordance with the principle of open justice, or with the public’s right to scrutinise the conduct of the Court, or with the implementation of justice in these proceedings: at [61].

  9. The orders which I will make will apply throughout the Commonwealth and for a period of 40 years, in order to ensure their efficacy.

Orders

  1. For these reasons I order that:

  1. Upon the grounds that the plaintiff and BB are victims of child sexual assault; the personal sensitivity of the complaints about which they have given evidence; the potential for disclosure or publication of their names to identify and cause them and as a result, their family members undue distress or embarrassment; and in order to protect their psychological safety, I am satisfied that it is necessary, in the public interest, within the meaning of section 8(1)(c) & (d) of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010, to order pursuant to Section 7 of the Act that:

  1. The name of these proceedings be changed to AA v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle.

  2. The name of the plaintiff be known by the pseudonym AA and the name of the witness by the pseudonym BB.

  3. Their full names and any particulars which might enable AA and BB to be identified is not to be disclosed to any person other than the parties to the proceedings, their legal representatives or the Court, except as may be necessary for the proper conduct of these proceedings.

  4. The plaintiff be referred to in all documents or records by the pseudonym AA and the witness by the pseudonym BB.

  5. The publication of their names or any particulars which might enable them to be identified, is prohibited.

  6. These orders are to apply throughout the Commonwealth of Australia for a period of 40 years.

**********

Decision last updated: 01 October 2024

Most Recent Citation