If your child is sexually
abused by a teacher
while in the care of a
South Australian
school, should the state
government be held
legally responsible?
According to legal arguments offered to the High
Court on behalf of Attorney-
General Michael Atkinson,
the answer is: Not unless sex
assault is specifically mentioned in teachers' job
description.
In the next fortnight, the
High Court will rule on
whether or not it agrees with
South Australia's logic - including dire warnings that
schools face an insurance
nightmare if the dice falls any
other way.
While South Australia's
legal logic may come as a
surprise to parents, the argument runs that as
state governments don't encourage or
ask teachers to abuse children in their care. it's not the
state government's fault if it
happens.
At least, that's what former
SA Solicitor-General Brad
Selway, a recent appointee to
the Federal Court, argued
when he appeared before the
High Court last year.
After South Australia
sought leave to intervene in
hearings designed to determine whether state
governments should pay compensation for sex abuse by
teachers, Mr Selway argued
the state should not be held
liable.
Rape, the QC argued, isn't
listed as an official classroom
activity.
"There is no way that could
be seen as part of the duties
of the teacher," Mr Selway
explained to the High Court.
"We would say that mere
requirement in law for
students to attend school, or
for their parents to send
them, does not impose any
duty of care upon the state
or parliament."
So there you have it. Don't
think that the fact school
attendance is required by law
extends the state's liability.
"We say it is a duty to
prevent injury from negligence, it is not a duty to
prevent injury from assault."
Mr Selway said.
The High Court has been
asked to rule on whether an
educational institution is "vicariously liable" to a pupil for
intentional assaults upon the
pupil by a teacher.
The case centres on a compensation claim by a New
South Wales man, Angelo
Lepore, which is being heard
alongside a second matter
because it involves similar
questions of liability.
The second case is to determine the compensation
claims of two victims of former Queensland MP and
teacher Bill D'Arcy, a convicted pedophile.
Convicted in 2000 of three
counts or rape, and 15
charges of indecently dealing
with boys and girls, D'Arcy
raped one of the female
students in front of her class.
The Rann Government also
points to dire warnings over
spiralling insurance in its official submissions to the High
Court.
According to an affidavit
submitted by SAICORP,
SA's insurance and risk management experts, private
schools may be forced to
close if the price of insurance
and compensation for victims becomes too high as a
result.
"In the event that this
Honourable Court holds that
school authorities are generally liable for sexual assaults
committed by school
teachers on school children,
I expect the state of South
Australia ... is likely to be
exposed to an increase in
claims," SAICORP general
manager Brian Daniels
warns in his affidavit.
"SAICORP already is experiencing difficulties in
obtaining appropriate and
affordable reinsurance due to
a world-wide shortage in the
current market.
"In particular, risks involving children appear to be
unattractive to reinsurers.
"In this market, an increase
in the state's liability in relation to sexual assaults on
children is likely to result in
an increase in premiums
from the reinsurers or,
alternatively, may lead to exclusion of cover by reinsurers
arising from the criminal acts
of employees."
Mr Daniels goes on to warn
that in the worst case,
reinsurance may be unavailable altogether.
It will be interesting to hear
the High Court's view of
South Australia's legal logic.
Adelaide Advertiser (2-2-2003)
Samantha Maiden
|
|