Knox sued for $1m over inaction on sex victim Saffron Howden

In a new turn of events which just seem to go from bad to worse for know grammar school, the school is now being sued for more than $1 million over claims it neglected its duty of care to one alleged victim. In a statement of claim filed in the Supreme Court, a 40-year-old man, accused the North Shore private school of failing to provide a safe environment to ensure ”he was not exposed to the risk of sexual predation by teachers”.

As an employer, Know is obligated to provide a safe environment for anyone in public and the claim is that Knox failed to investigate complaints of abuse and was vicariously liable for some teachers’ conduct. Five former teachers have been charged with child sex offences dating back to the 1970s and ’80s. Of those, four have acknowledged guilt. Most recently, Adrian John Nisbett, 61, yesterday admitted to sexual assault to three boys then aged 16 and 17. The man suing the school states that when he was in years 5 and 6, a teacher twice groped his genitals in public. In the first instance another teacher watched on but did nothing, he said in a statement of claim.

”[The teacher] demonstrated to the school community a … tendency to inappropriately touch students by purporting to tuck their shirts into their trousers, fondling and by other means as opportunity presented,” his claim stated.

The man is now a disability pensioner living with depression caused, he said, by the damage and injury he suffered as a result of the alleged assaults.

”Their conduct was not in any way circumscribed or curtailed by the first defendant [Knox] despite its … nature and even when observed by other staff members,” he alleged. His total claim against the school and one former teacher is expected to amount to more than $1 million.

”It takes courage for our client to pursue his rights against the school and the teacher directly involved,” Ross Koffel, the director of law firm Koffels, said.

A new debate has blown up over the use of juries in civil trials against the merits of the use of judges for determining such disputes. Attitudes on the matter swing from viewing the jury as the rock upon which justice rests, the font of community standards, the watchdog of democratic rights and the great balancing mechanism. Others view juries as a pain the the arse, irrational, and observe that their reasoning cannot be subject to analysis or appeal, they create delay and expense and frequently botch the case.

Justice Peter McClellan of the Supreme Court thinks juries in defamation cases are a useless appendage in the struggle between free speech and the protection of reputation: ”I think defamation cases would be best determined by judges.” McClellan quotes Robert Menzies who said: ”The civil jury system ought to be abolished. I make no qualification on that, either. I regard the system as incompetent, unessential and corrupt.” However, Judge Judith Gibson is on the record as saying: ”Juries are such an important public barometer on many issues, particularly where there is a media defendant. The role of the jury must be energetically defended as it’s of very great benefit,” Gibson said. Recently, judges Michael Bozic and Michael Elkaim have been appointed. Another seven judges are to pack down in what is now known as the Defamation Panel: Colin Charteris, Andrew Colefax, Peter Johnstone, Len Levy, Ray McLoughlin, Stephen Walmsley and, for good measure, Gibson.

McClellan said: ”The demand on the resources of the Supreme Court should not be consumed by litigation which can be appropriately dealt with in the District Court.” Media lawyers are perplexed and concerned. What does this ”resourcing” of the District Court defamation jurisdiction tell you? From one judge, suddenly we have nine on defamation watch. This seems to indicate that there are a lot of defamation related cases appearing in the courts. Many of the cases appear to be related to social media and Facebook which make social interaction in a recordable form much more accessible and therefore make the risk of defamation much higher in the course of ordinary activities. So if you need to to print and file your amicus curiae brief for the U.S. Supreme Court, you may trust reliable amicus curiae brief printing services to print your important documents.

His Honour Solomon J, has commented that corruption in NSW “must be overcome”. The judge has dismissed an appeal by a Wollongong developer, Glen Tabak, convicted of lying to the corruption watchdog.

“The community must be told loudly and clearly that corruption in this state is a problem and must be overcome,” Judge Ronald Solomon said in Sydney’s Downing Centre District Court today.
In July, developer Glen Tabak pleaded guilty at the Downing Centre Local Court to making a false statement to the Independent Commission Against Corruption in a document dated June 2007. In that statement, Tabak denied being in a relationship with Wollongong City Council employee Beth Morgan, who was involved in the council’s construction approval process. Confirm the truth accurately with a lie detector.

“Persons who deal with ICAC must be full and frank with their disclosures, so deterrence is of great importance when it comes to these matters,” Judge Solomon said.

Tabak declined to comment to reporters outside court. The incident has highlighted the depth of the problem of corruption in New South Wales. The trust of ordinary people in the system is likely to sink to endemic lows as news of this incident reaches the community in general. The judge was, however, determined to sent a message that corruption and lying will not be tolerated by the legal system and that people who do this will pay the price for their actions. However, a fine of $2500.00 does not seem sufficient to account for the development profits which could have been reaped from the ability to sway the council through graft and corruption such as this. It leaves much doubt as to how government operates in a broader sense. Tabak had connections to senior people in the political process and other areas of government. It is unknown what other decisions may have been influenced by these nefarious dealings.