Reid v Trustee of the Vincentian Fathers [2021] NSWSC 877 (21 July 2021)

Last Updated: 21 July 2021

Supreme Court New South Wales

Case Name:	Reid v Trustee of the Vincentian Fathers
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2021] NSWSC 877
Hearing Date(s):	On the papers.
Date of Orders:	21 July 2021
Decision Date:	21 July 2021
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Walton J
Decision:	The solicitor for the plaintiff shall bring in short minutes of order reflecting this decision by 4pm on Wednesday, 21 July 2021.
Catchwords:	CIVIL LAW – procedure – leave to commence proceedings – plaintiff in custody at the time proceedings commenced – Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act – institutional abuse suffered as a child – orders
Legislation Cited:	Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	William Dacry Reid (Plaintiff / Applicant) Trustees of the Vincentian Fathers (Defendant / Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Wyatts Lawyers and Advisors (Plaintiff / Applicant) Wotton + Kearney (Defendant / Respondent)
File Number(s):	2020/263745

JUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: By a statement of claim filed on 10 September 2020, William Dacry Reid (“the plaintiff”) sought damages including aggravated damages for psychiatric and psychological injuries allegedly resulting from his sexual and physical abuse by a school chaplain/priest (“the chaplain”) during the course of his education as a pupil at the St Stanislaus College (“the College”) between October 2007 and February 2009.
2. At the time of the institution of the proceedings, the plaintiff was in custody as a result of having been convicted of a serious indictable offence, namely, murder. He remains in custody at this time. Accordingly, he was prohibited from instituting the aforementioned proceedings except by leave of this Court granted, on application, pursuant to s 4 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW).
3. The plaintiff has, in fact, made such an application by notice of motion, by which he sought that leave be granted to commence proceedings and that such orders be made nunc pro tunc and take effect from 9 September 2020.
4. Section 5 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act provides that the Court shall not grant leave pursuant to s 4 of that Act, unless the Court is satisfied that the proceedings are not an abuse of process and that there is a prima facie ground for the proceedings.
5. The matter comes before the Court in its Duty List upon the basis that the matter may be, at the discretion of the Court, considered in Chambers with recourse to the parties as required. The defendant, the Trustees of Vincentian Fathers, neither consents nor opposes the orders sought in the notice of motion, provided there is no order as to costs.
6. The plaintiff relied upon the affidavit of Shi Ping Qiu affirmed 1 July 2021 and written submissions filed in support of the motion. The affidavit of Shi Ping Qiu is taken as read, incorporating as it does a statement by the plaintiff dated 26 March 2021, records from the College and a report of Dr Samson Roberts, General and Forensic Psychiatrist, dated 31 May 2021.
7. Having considered the materials, it is unnecessary to further call upon the plaintiff. In my view, the notice of motion should be granted, thereby granting leave to commence civil proceedings pursuant to s 4 of the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act with such orders made nunc pro tunc and taking effect from 9 September 2020. My reasons for that conclusion may be shortly stated.
8. The plaintiff has provided detailed descriptions of the abuse that he claims to have been subjected to. His allegations are of a serious nature and involve instances of sexual abuse by the chaplain that occurred on the grounds of the College. Whilst he has not been able to identify the offender by name, he has provided a detailed physical description of that individual. The plaintiff outlined the psychiatric and psychological injuries sustained from that abuse thereby providing grounds for the claim of damages brought against the defendant.
9. The records of the College confirmed that the plaintiff was enrolled as a student between 29 October 2007 and 16 February 2009, during which he alleges the abuse occurred at the hands of the chaplain. I agree with the submission of the solicitor for the plaintiff that the records of the College are broadly consistent with the plaintiff’s complaints.
10. The report by Dr Roberts is also supportive of the grant of leave.
11. Dr Roberts acknowledged that the plaintiff experienced a difficult childhood prior to, and following the subject abuse at the College. Nevertheless, Dr Roberts is of the opinion that the subject abuse at the College had contributed to the plaintiff satisfying the diagnostic criteria for the following:

(1) Post-traumatic Stress Disorder;

(2) Episodes of Major Depressive Disorder; and

(3) Substance Use Disorder.

12. With respect to the diagnosis of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, Dr Robert's posited the causation was a combination of traumas the plaintiff experienced during his childhood, including the abuse he was subjected to at the College. In addressing one particular instance of abuse at the College, Dr Roberts reported:

... the incident of anal intercourse into which he was coerced was described by him as a frightening event and one which produced a significant adverse emotional response.

The above incident is considered by Dr Roberts to be a "circumstance of significance" in the development of the plaintiff's Post-traumatic Stress Disorder.

13. With respect to the diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, Dr Roberts accepted that the abuse at the College "contributed to its causation".
14. With respect to the diagnosis of Substance Use Disorder, Dr Roberts reported that:

There is an association between depressive illness, trauma and substance abuse. Therefore the events at St. Stanislaus' also contributed to the causation of Substance Use Disorder.

15. It is clear that there are inconsistencies between the history of abuse provided by Dr Roberts and the plaintiff’s statement accompanying the affidavit of his solicitor. However, Dr Roberts acknowledged these inconsistencies and noted that during the assessment the plaintiff had been “more frank in presenting an account than he had previously been”.
16. When asked his opinion as to whether the plaintiff presented with any evidence of functional overlay and/or malingering, Dr Roberts noted:

It is common that victims of sexual abuse are reticent to discuss such matters openly, in particular when there is a perception, as is the case with respect to Mr Reid, of partial complicity in the acts.

17. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the proceedings instituted by the plaintiff are not an abuse of process and there is prima facie ground for the proceedings based upon the evidence before the Court.
18. The solicitor for the plaintiff shall bring in short minutes of order reflecting this decision by 4pm on Wednesday, 21 July 2021.

**********