Lonergan v Trustees of The Sisters of Saint Joseph & Anor [2021] VSC 651

Supreme Court of Victoria|2021-10-07|Before: Keogh J

PERSONAL INJURIES - Institutional liability - Allegations of historical sexual abuse of a child by a priest - Allegations of negligence against church and school - Liability admitted - Assessment of damages - Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 - Seltsam Pty Ltd v Ghaleb [2005] NSWCA 208 - Whether compensation paid on earlier claim should be offset against damages - Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s 27QE - Interest - Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) -

1 The plaintiff, Peter Lonergan, grew up as part of a devout Catholic family in the farming community of Ouyen in north-west Victoria. He attended St Joseph's Primary School located in the town ('the school'), and served as an altar boy at St Joseph's Church ('the church'). When he was a pupil at the school Mr Lonergan was sexually and physically abused on numerous occasions by parish priest, Father Bryan Coffey ('Coffey').

2 Ouyen is in the Catholic Diocese of Ballarat ('the Diocese'), and Coffey was appointed to the position of parish priest by then Bishop of Ballarat, Ronald Mulkearns.

3 The Sisters of Saint Joseph ('the Sisters') managed the school, and Mr Lonergan's class teacher at the time of the abuse was a nun. The school, the convent where the sisters resided, the church and the Catholic presbytery where Coffey resided were all located on the same grounds in Ouyen. Coffey was involved in school activities. He attended school council meetings, taught religious education, arranged and supervised sporting activities for the children, and was frequently at the school.

4 Mr Lonergan brought this proceeding alleging there was negligence by the Sisters and the Diocese which was a cause of the abuse and the resulting injury, loss and damage suffered by him, and that both organisations are vicariously liable for the acts perpetrated by Coffey. The first and second defendants are named as proper defendants under the Legal Identity of Defendants (Organisational Child Abuse) Act 2018 (Vic).

5 Mr Lonergan alleged he was abused by Coffey in two circumstances. First, Coffey regularly took Mr Lonergan and other boys on cross-country runs during school lunchtimes, requiring that they change clothes at the beginning and end of each run in the presbytery. On those occasions Coffey made each boy strip naked so that he could weigh them. Second, on a number of occasions Coffey requested that the class teacher release Mr Lonergan from class to attend with him at the presbytery, where he pulled down Mr Lonergan's pants and underpants, fondled his genitals, bent him across his knee, and spanked his bare buttocks.

6 Shortly before the trial commenced the defendants admitted Coffey abused Mr Lonergan. However, the frequency and particulars of the abuse remained in dispute.

7 On day seven of the trial the defendants admitted breach of duty by the Diocese and the Sisters which was a cause of the abuse and injury to Mr Lonergan.

8 It is not in issue that Mr Lonergan suffered a post-traumatic stress disorder ('PTSD') resulting from the abuse. However, there are disputes about whether the PTSD endured for the whole period since the abuse, or subsided only to re-emerge more recently in the context of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse ('Royal Commission') and the commencement of this proceeding, whether Mr Lonergan's symptoms also satisfy a diagnosis of depression, and whether the abuse was a cause of the alcohol abuse disorder from which he suffers.

9 Mr Lonergan left school after unsuccessfully completing form 5, had an itinerant work history until his mid-20s, and has worked in Ouyen as a farmer for most of his adult life. He claimed that his education and career were severely disrupted by the abuse and his injuries, and that he is entitled to a substantial award of pecuniary damages measured by the difference between average weekly earnings and his actual earnings. The defendants submitted Mr Lonergan's academic achievements were similar to those of his siblings, he was likely in any event to live in Ouyen and work as a farmer, and the evidence does not establish a substantial prospect that his earning capacity has been affected by the abuse. The defendants submitted, in the alternative that assessment of pecuniary damages should reflect the low probability that Mr Lonergan's earning capacity has been negatively impacted by the abuse.

10 Coffey was ordained as a Catholic priest in the Diocese in 1960. There is evidence that he was a prolific abuser of Catholic children in parishes to which he was appointed, but no direct evidence that the Diocesan Bishop or the Sisters were aware of his history of offending until the mid-1990s when formal complaints were made and Coffey was prosecuted and sentenced on charges of sexually abusing children. Mr Lonergan submitted it should be inferred from all the circumstances that the defendants knew before he was abused that Coffey had sexually abused other children in the course of his work as a Catholic priest, and was not an appropriate person to be appointed as parish priest of Ouyen. He argued that failure by the defendants to take any action to protect him despite circumstances which should have made them aware he and other children were at substantial risk from Coffey, and their continued support of Coffey after he was prosecuted and their neglect of those he abused, justify awards of aggravated and exemplary damages. The defendants argued the evidence does not support the inference of knowledge for which Mr Lonergan contends, or a conclusion that they have acted in deliberate, intentional or reckless disregard of Mr Lonergan's rights, and there is no basis for an award of either aggravated or exemplary damages.

11 In 2000 Mr Lonergan made a claim for compensation against the defendants and others for injury, loss and damage caused by the abuse, which settled by confidential agreement that he be paid $45,000 inclusive of costs. The second defendant seeks to set off the first payment of compensation against damages assessed in this proceeding. Mr Lonergan argued there should be no offset because breach of a confidentiality clause by the Diocesan Bishop warrants rescission of the settlement agreement, the manifest inadequacy of the compensation paid to him, and the collateral benefit obtained by the defendants under the release.

(a) Were the defendants aware in 1973 that Coffey had abused children in the course of his work as a Catholic priest?

(b) What acts of abuse did Coffey perpetrate upon Mr Lonergan?

(c) What is the nature and extent of injuries caused by the abuse?

(d) What is a reasonable assessment of damages for:

(i) pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life; and

(ii) pecuniary loss?

(e) Should aggravated and exemplary damages be awarded, and if so, what is the quantification of those damages?

(f) Should compensation paid to Mr Lonergan following his first claim be set off against damages assessed in this proceeding?

13 Mr Lonergan was born in 1961. He has two older siblings.

14 Mr Lonergan attended St Joseph's Primary School in Ouyen from grade prep in 1966 to form 2 in 1974.

15 When he was around 10 or 11 years old Mr Lonergan became an altar boy at St Joseph's Church in Ouyen. Coffey was appointed parish priest of Ouyen in May 1972.

16 Mr Lonergan lived with his family on a farm about 15 kilometres outside Ouyen. His grandparents and an aunt and uncle lived in Ouyen close to the school and the church. He went to his grandparents' house for lunch one or more times a week on school days. On Sundays after Mass his family often spent time at his aunt and uncle's house. Coffey became friendly with Mr Lonergan's family after he arrived in Ouyen, and was often present on those occasions.

17 Mr Lonergan said during primary school, before the abuse occurred, he was a conscientious student and took pride in his work, and was shy and well behaved. He said he had no thoughts or ambitions about what work he might do, but that he was just enjoying his time at school. Mr Lonergan said he had no particular interest in farming, and unlike his older brother he did not willingly follow his father around on the farm.

18 Mr Lonergan said Saturday was for playing sport, and he enjoyed tennis and football.

19 Mr Lonergan said on one occasion Coffey suggested to him and two other altar boys that they could be naked underneath their altar boy robes while they served at Mass. He said it made him feel uncomfortable to be asked to take his clothes off in the sacristy, it seemed a bit silly, and none of the boys agreed to do it.

20 Mr Lonergan described Coffey as being 'everywhere' at school, always in and out of the school, kicking the footy with the children, taking choir practice, and coming to the classroom. He said when he was in form 1 and 2, in 1973 and 1974, Coffey came to the classroom between 10 and 20 times and spoke to his teacher who then told Mr Lonergan to go and see Coffey at the presbytery. He said he was reluctant to go, but he had to do what he was told, and as he walked to the presbytery he tried to stay out of view. He said being made to go to Coffey was embarrassing, humiliating and 'absolutely gutting'. He remembered thinking 'what the hell is going on?'. When he arrived, Coffey would talk about footy or sport or something to do with the church. Mr Lonergan described what happened in the kitchen at the presbytery:

The whole initial thing was when you got in there and it was ritualistic where you ended up and you'd distance your way away from him and then, yeah, he'd have to reach out and grab you by your belt, grab you by your waist, put his hand in front of your pants and pull you over to - because you didn't want to be where he was and he'd undo your pants and, yeah, pull your pants down and in the process of how you were standing, he'd put his hand down the front of your pants and pull your jocks down and fondle and grope your crutch area, your penis or your testicles or whatever, he'd put his hand - and that was in the process of actually pulling your underwear down and then he'd place you over his knee and - - -

...

Where would he touch you after he'd placed you over his knee?---He'd place you over his knee and when he put you over his knee, your backside would be straight over his crutch and then he'd playfully talk - do whatever he - talk, whatever he was doing as he's playfully spanking you on the backside.

Apart from the spanking, would Father Coffey at that time touch you anywhere else?---He'd rest his hand on the crack of your backside and, yeah, just in between spanking and whatever he'd have his finger in the crack of your backside and that's in between spanking and playfully talking to you and doing what he was doing, just placed his hand - you'd feel his finger on the crack of your backside and it's just spank, spank, rest his hand on your backside.

After Coffey finished spanking him he would pull his pants up, leave the presbytery and sneak back to school through the peppercorn trees, which he described as the walk of shame. He said it was embarrassing and shameful, and that he felt he had no control, and could not stop what was going on. He walked around, trying to come up with a solution, but there was no solution, so he just switched off.

21 Mr Lonergan said a couple of times each week Coffey took groups of boys for a run at lunchtime. No other adults ran with them. The boys changed into their running clothes in the presbytery before each run. Coffey had scales in the lounge room and weighed each of the boys after the run. Mr Lonergan said Coffey required him and the other boys to be naked when they were weighed, and stood in front of each boy as he stood on the scales. After they were weighed the boys dressed and went back to school.

22 On one occasion after a run Coffey took him into the presbytery bathroom, locked the door and told Mr Lonergan to have a shower. Mr Lonergan said he refused. He said Coffey was very demanding, and it was getting scary, his mood changed and he kept saying 'Get your clothes off and get in the shower', and became angrier when Mr Lonergan refused. The bathroom was small, and Coffey was standing close to him. Coffey kept asking 'What are you doing?', and he just mumbled a reply and delayed. He said he was down to his shorts, but then there was a stand-off, and he did not have a clue how it was going to end, and was surprised when Coffey left. He had never seen Coffey so scary and demanding before. He said that was the scariest time of his life, and a defining moment for him.

23 Mr Lonergan said sexual matters were never discussed in his family home when he was growing up, and that everyone was modest and always clothed. He described himself as naïve, and said he was unaware of sex at that age, and could not say what pleasure Coffey was getting out of abusing him.

24 Mr Lonergan said he did not have a sexual reaction when he was in the kitchen with Coffey, but later it played on his mind, triggered different things going through his head, and made him wonder about his own sexuality. He said he developed a fetish for water, and felt he could never have enough showers to try and get himself clean, and in the bath at home he would see how long he could hold his head under water. Mr Lonergan said he developed anger and frustration, and:

Like I used to get home from school and get the gun and go and shoot anything I could, any bird, any kangaroo, any emu, anything, I'd go and shoot it.

He said he had no thoughts of talking to anyone about what Coffey was doing, and had to deal with it himself.

25 Mr Lonergan said after the abuse started, if Coffey was at his grandparents' place when he went for lunch, he would eat quickly and go back to school. He loved going to his grandparents, so that was upsetting.

26 Mr Lonergan said he stopped going to church when he was 14 or 15 years old. He stopped being an altar boy before that. He wanted to have nothing to do with the church, and rebelled against his parents.

27 Mr Lonergan started form 3 at the local high school in 1975. He said he had no direction at school, was rebellious, and getting into trouble. He had no respect for older people, or those in positions of authority, no connection with the teachers, and that the abuse virtually stopped his education. At the end of form 5 the school said it would be best if he did not come back the following year. He said at that time, his application to school was minimal.

28 Mr Lonergan said he valued education, and made sure his children had the best education they could get, even if he could not afford it. He wished he had not finished school at form 5, but the lifestyle he was living was pretty toxic, and it was inevitable.

29 Mr Lonergan said his brother finished school at form 5 and went home to work on the farm, and his sister completed form 6 then moved to Melbourne to work in a bank.

30 Mr Lonergan said he started drinking when he was about 12 or 13 years old. He said he binged most weekends, drinking a bottle of Stone's Ginger Wine, which was the cheapest alcohol he could get. He drank at least half a bottle at youth dances which were held about once a month. He agreed on those occasions he drank with friends. He said his alcohol consumption through his teenage years was 'pretty bingey', by which he meant 'just paralytic and spewing ... most weekends'. He said his peak alcohol consumption was probably at age 15 or 16, and that he cut back dramatically after he started seeing his wife Michelle when he was about 17 years old. Mr Lonergan said he continued to drink on weekends, but his consumption was nowhere near what it had been.

31 Mr Lonergan said he started playing seniors football when he was about 15 or 16 years old. He agreed he got on well with his teammates, but said he got into trouble a couple of times because of drinking. They would have a drink at the club after the game and might go to the pub for a little while. He agreed there was a pretty heavy drinking culture at the club, and he enjoyed having a drink with the team after the game.

32 Mr Lonergan said when he was 13, 14 and 15 years old he drank to feel numb, because there is a period of time when you drink that you feel good. He said he was not feeling good at that age because of what had happened to him. Other members of his peer group were drinking, but not like him, and he did not know when to stop.

33 Mr Lonergan said he continued playing football until he was 30 years old. When he was 16 years old he had an opportunity to train with the Essendon Football Club, but when he turned up there was an older guy in the change rooms. He left. He did not want to be around older people. He said he was pretty anxious being out of his comfort zone. When he was 16 or 17 years old he played tennis at State level. He said he did not continue playing throughout his 20s, he had anger issues and broke a lot of tennis racquets.

34 After leaving school Mr Lonergan worked on the family farm with his father and brother, for which he did not get paid. He said the farm was not productive enough for him to be working there. To his knowledge his brother did not get paid either. He sometimes did grain handling work with GrainCorp for a month or six weeks, and labouring work for his cousin who was a builder in Ouyen.

35 Mr Lonergan described an occasion when his father took him to see about a job. He said when they arrived he just could not make himself get out of the car and face up to the older guy who would be his employer. He said there were other opportunities for him to work as a mechanic, electrician or builder that he did not pursue, or that did not work out. When he was in his late teens and 20s, he did not really think about what work he wanted to do, the whole focus was security, and he only felt safe at home on the farm.

36 After Michelle Lonergan finished secondary school she went to Melbourne to study teaching. In those years their relationship was off and on. Mr Lonergan said he had dreams of using his skill at football to move from Ouyen. When he was 24 or 25 years old he was going to move to live with Michelle in Melbourne, but he injured his knee, and required an operation, and that stopped him. Later Michelle came home to Ouyen, and they married in 1987.

37 Mr Lonergan said when he was about 25 years old his grandmother arranged for him to get a job with family friends at the local hardware store. He worked there full-time for about a year and a half. He said he found it hard to face people and to deal with them, but he was able to tolerate the work. He said he felt he had lost a bit of faith in people, and just did not want to be around them.

38 He and Michelle then purchased a roadhouse business in Ouyen with her parents, which they operated together for about seven years. Mr Lonergan said he worked in the roadhouse seven days a week, and developed a sense of confidence dealing with people. His role in the business was taking money at the console for the sale of petrol, and stacking the fridges. He earned $440 a week, which he said was basic. Eventually he had had enough, and wanted to go home to the farm and to see more of the children. Michelle returned to teaching and was the only breadwinner for two years. Mr Lonergan worked on the farm, but his brother did not pay him any money. After two years on the farm he worked intermittently for an agricultural machinery sales business in Ouyen for about 12 months.

39 Mr Lonergan said about a year or two after they got out of the roadhouse Michelle's father gave them six acres of land on which to build a house, which is where they have lived since.

40 Mr Lonergan said his grandfather had a farm comprising of three blocks which he left to his two sons. They farmed together for a time, before Mr Lonergan's father bought out his uncle.

41 Mr Lonergan said he and his brother both started helping out on the farm when they were nine or 10 years old. He said his brother was more receptive to the farm work.

42 When he was 23 years old and his brother was 25 years old their parents purchased another farm block to add to the family farm, and put it in their joint names. Mr Lonergan said if he had got a job and not returned to work on the farm the block would not have been his. In 1997 his mother purchased another block of farmland with money from his grandmother's estate that was also put in the joint names of him and his brother.

43 In 2000 his parents divided the family farm between him and his brother, he received two blocks of farmland and his brother received three. In the same year he and Michelle purchased a block of farmland from her parents. His father gave him $20,000 to put towards the purchase because his brother had not paid him when he had gone back to work on the farm after the roadhouse. He purchased further land in 2003 and 2015, and the farm is now made up of five blocks.

44 Mr Lonergan said during the period of his early marriage he hardly drank. When he worked at the roadhouse, and later when he returned to work on the farm, he drank mildly, about two or three stubbies a night. At the farm he drank in the shed by himself before going up to the house. He said more recently, since his children left home, he has been drinking too much, three or four cans or more of mixed drinks seven nights a week. He said he has a tendency not to sleep and drinking at the end of the day can help. He still wakes at two or three o'clock, and finds it hard to get back to sleep because of things going through his head.

45 Mr Lonergan said the abuse by Coffey had been on his mind since it occurred. He said it forever goes through his head that when Coffey had a chance to stand up at the criminal case he lied. He said the fact that he buried his parents without telling them what went on really played on his mind, and that when his parents died it was a relief because he did not have to ruin their lives by telling them. When he was working in the roadhouse he thought about Coffey driving into the driveway. In the early days of his drinking he sometimes ended up in the trees across the road from the church, wanting to burn it down.

46 Mr Lonergan said his children, who are now 31, 29 and 24 years old, attended St Joseph's Primary School at Ouyen. His wife wanted them to go there, and she did not know what had happened to him. When he picked his children up at the school bus stop each day he asked them questions, such as: What happened at school today? Did the priest come over to school? Did you have to go over to the presbytery?

47 Mr Lonergan described a number of aspects of his Catholic upbringing which it took him many years to deal with in the context of the abuse. He said his parents are buried in the Catholic section of the cemetery, and he would like to be buried with them, but wants nothing to do with the church so worries about how he can fix that. He grew up thinking that when he died he would need a priest, and for a long time he felt reliant on the Catholic church because '... being a Catholic, you need that line of passage ...'. He said those were the sort of things that he could not get out of his mind, and made it difficult to sleep.

48 Mr Lonergan said he hates watching TV because there may be something about abuse, and theories about abusive relationships, or abusive households. When his grandchildren came along he wondered whether he would be a perpetrator. Recently he innocently touched his granddaughter, but these thoughts immediately came into his head, and he had to leave her and go outside. He said 'That's what keeps you awake'.

49 Mr Lonergan said for about the last 18 months he had employed someone to work on the farm with him. He said his employee did whatever needed doing, often provided him with direction, had become his friend. He said if this employee was not around he would be thinking of getting out of farming now because he has grandchildren, the life he is living at the moment is probably not sustainable, and he has to change. He said he talks about retirement with his wife. His father-in-law has dementia. He said he would rather they find him in a paddock than find him in a nursing home.

50 Mr Lonergan said he had not had any psychological treatment. He said treatment would probably be to his benefit, but did not know whether he would pursue it.

51 Mr Lonergan said in the 2019 and 2020 financial years he was able to make a lot of money selling hay at high prices to farmers in New South Wales and Queensland who needed it because of the drought. He said that market is not there now. Later Mr Lonergan said there was still demand for hay because there were more feedlots being built in Queensland and New South Wales.

52 Mrs Lonergan said that she started going out with Mr Lonergan in 1978 when she was in form 5, and he had already left school. Her first impression of him was that he was a bit of a bad boy, a ratbag, and a young drinker. She said when Mr Lonergan was 17 years old he hung around with a group of boys who drank a lot, but he was also a bit of a loner.

53 She was not really aware of Mr Lonergan's employment opportunities other than the farm. There was some mention of mechanics as a possible career path, but she did not know whether that was something he had wanted to do.

54 While she was at teachers college in Melbourne their relationship was on and off. She said he came to see her once or twice, but usually they would reconnect over holidays when she was back in Ouyen. Her teaching degree took four years, then she taught for a year in Altona before returning to live in Ouyen. Mrs Lonergan said teaching in the city was enjoyable and challenging, but she felt the country might be better for her. She wanted to find out if there was going to be a long-term relationship there with Mr Lonergan, so she applied for teaching positions in the north of Victoria. She and Mr Lonergan reconnected when she returned to Ouyen, and married a couple of years later. She said when she returned to Ouyen Mr Lonergan was drinking a lot, and used to go out with a group of other boys who would drive around and find parties, or dances in small towns around Ouyen where they would drink and make mischief. He was working in the hardware store, and she was teaching.

55 Mrs Lonergan said going into the roadhouse business was primarily her father's idea. She was on maternity leave, and did the bookkeeping for the business. They were in the roadhouse business for about seven years. She said when they got out of the roadhouse her husband was worn out, it was not sustainable for him to keep doing that level of work and he wanted to see more of the children.

56 Mrs Lonergan said her husband was a lot busier and was not drinking as much in the early years of their marriage, but his drinking gradually increased from the time the children were going through high school, and now he drinks a lot. He has his drinks in a fridge in the back of his ute and in the shed, and drinks before he comes into the house and hides the cans, but she can see them. Mrs Lonergan said she had expressed disapproval of her husband's drinking in the past, but not recently, because for the last two or three years she has seen it as a coping mechanism.

57 Mrs Lonergan said her husband does not socialise a lot. He will not go to her staff functions, and does not like going to places where there are a lot of people. If they do go to an event he will find somewhere else to be and disappear, and she will not see him for most of the night. She said often he will be outside drinking where there are fewer people. Mrs Lonergan said their children would become frustrated because he would not go to school functions or sporting events, or if he did go he would just try to be invisible, watching from a distance, so they did not even know he was there.

58 The first time Mr Lonergan told her anything about being abused by a priest was when he had to go court for Coffey's prosecution. Mrs Lonergan said he did not tell her any details or describe what happened in any depth, and that he was very private about it. She remembered driving down to Geelong so that he could go to court, but she did not go into court because he did not want her there.

59 Mrs Lonergan described her husband as being very distant, as if he was not there, and said he tunes out a lot of the time. When he does have a conversation he cannot keep track, and jumps from one topic to the next. At home he is oblivious to the fact that she might need help, and will go to bed leaving her with housework and schoolwork to do. Mrs Lonergan described her husband as being very much within himself a lot of the time, more unhappy than happy, and a troubled person who is very short tempered.

Complaints made about Coffey's conduct, and criminal prosecution

60 In November 1995 Dean Cross and another former pupil of the school detailed allegations of abuse by Coffey in interviews conducted by a Diocesan Special Issues Committee.

61 Coffey remained parish priest at Stawell until December 1997 when Victoria Police charged him with offences, and he agreed to take administrative leave from duties as a priest within the Diocese.

62 In late 1997 Mr Lonergan became aware Coffey had been charged with child abuse offences and rang the investigating officer, Detective Colin Ryan to suggest that he should dig around in Ouyen to see if there were any other victims. Mr Lonergan intended to remain anonymous, but during the conversation he gave Detective Ryan his name and details, and agreed to make a statement, which he did in January 1998. Mr Lonergan's brief police statement, which is just over a page in length, described the abuse which occurred in the presbytery kitchen as follows:

On every occasion when this would happen, Father COFFEY would have you in the kitchen, and he would be sitting on a kitchen chair pulled out from the table. He would then take you and put you over his knee. He would be talking light hearted banter to you as he was doing it, and as it was happening he would be pulling your shorts and under pants down. Once you were across his knee he would have one of his hands resting on your back and with the other he would proceed to spank you on the bare backside. He would be talking and joking all the time as he was spanking you. The spanking didn't actually cause physical pain, but it was very humiliating (sic) and embarrassing.

Mr Lonergan said that was the first time he had told anyone about what Coffey had done to him.

63 Coffey contested the charges, was found guilty after a jury trial in the County Court of Victoria, and on 15 February 1999 was convicted of 13 counts of indecent assault and one count of false imprisonment. One of the counts of indecent assault concerned Mr Lonergan. Mr Lonergan said when he went to court he saw Coffey smiling and joking with his mates, who were other priests, and he thought he should have been taking it more seriously. Mr Lonergan said he was happy to know that Coffey had been charged and was convicted, but he thought the sentence was on the lesser scale.

64 Mr Lonergan said the purpose of the interview with Detective Ryan was to give him information about what Coffey had done, and so that charges would be brought against Coffey. He agreed he did not tell Detective Ryan about Coffey fondling his genitals. He said this was out of embarrassment, and that there was a bit of difference between spanking and being fondled. He disagreed that his failure to mention fondling of his genitals was because he did not remember it at the time. He said it took a lot for him to get in touch with Detective Ryan in the first place. He just wanted Coffey to be made accountable for what he had done, and he was just sort of doing the basics to make him accountable.

65 Coffey resigned his position as parish priest of Stawell in March 1999. The Diocese continued to provide financial support and assistance to Coffey throughout the criminal proceeding and following his conviction.

The first claim for compensation by Mr Lonergan

66 Mr Lonergan said no one from the Diocese or the school contacted him after the criminal proceeding. He contacted Hollows Lawyers ('Hollows') in 1999 to make a claim, and completed a sexual abuse questionnaire at Hollows' request, describing the abuse as follows:

I used to be put over Coffey's knee and have my bare backside spanked.

The questionnaire required that Mr Lonergan comment on what were described as 'numerous medical conditions common to sexual assault victims'. Mr Lonergan wrote the following responses:

(a) Sleep disturbances

When I was younger I did have problems getting to sleep.

...

(c) Addiction to alcohol

Up until 17, 18 I had a drinking problem. 20 to 22 or 23 it was there again but not any more.

...

(i) Preoccupation with the sexual assault

It always on your mind (Why?). More so since I have children. You put yourself in their position.

(j) Avoidance phenomenon

I am good at getting around things. Avoiding problems. My problems.

...

(ee) Reclusiveness

I am very much a loner in my head.

In response to a question about when he became aware he had suffered psychiatric injury Mr Lonergan wrote:

I know I have had things going on in my head for a lot of years. As far as psychiatric injury I'm very interested in speaking to your psychiatrist to get his opinion.

Further in relation to the abuse Mr Lonergan wrote:

I didn't ask to have my bare backside spanked. He manipulated me away from the school to the presbytery to do what he wanted to. I used to stand out of arm's reach and he used to reach out and coerce me closer.

...

Fr Coffey would come to the school with some excuse to get me over to the presbytery where he would undo my pants, pull them down, put me across his knee and spank me.

Approaching older people (employers) I had no ability to do. I had opportunity to leave home for work through my teens but I didn't want to leave the security I had at home. I had a fear of older people I didn't know how to deal with.

67 The reports of psychiatrists Dr Michael Epstein and Dr Paul Kornan, and clinical psychologist Gerald Purchase, obtained when Mr Lonergan made his first claim through Hollows, were tendered at trial. Mr Lonergan did not tell any of these medico-legal examiners that Coffey had fondled his genitals.

68 Dr Epstein saw Mr Lonergan in July 1999 at the request of Hollows.

69 Dr Epstein recorded being told by Mr Lonergan that he had occasional flashbacks, and that he did not drink alcohol. He described Mr Lonergan's manner on psychiatric examination as 'rather laconic'. Dr Epstein expressed the following opinion:

Since the matter came to a head in December 1997 these matters have been more on his mind and have been associated with occasional flashbacks.

Although he has some features of a mild post-traumatic stress disorder, they do not reach the intensity of that particular diagnosis.

The impression I gained is that he has had some mild phobic responses to a number of situations which remind him of what has occurred and that there has been some sexual inhibition, but this hasn't reached the level of being a formal psychiatric diagnosis.

He did not touch his genitals or attempt to penetrate his anus.

71 Mr Lonergan attended with Dr Kornan in August 2000 at the request of the solicitors for the Diocese.

72 On mental state examination Dr Kornan said Mr Lonergan appeared to have a rather self-contained, taciturn manner, with some avoidant mannerisms, was emotionally a little labile, could be irritable, and whose mental faculties tended to vary and wane as the interview went on.

73 Dr Kornan said Mr Lonergan presented with some anxiety and phobic avoidance, some depression, problems with confidence and self-esteem, with likely ongoing psychosexual tensions from time to time. He diagnosed an anxiety state with some phobic features, some depression, and some PTSD features but without an ongoing PTSD syndrome. He considered Mr Lonergan's psychiatric state was at the upper level of chronic mild severity. He said the prognosis was for Mr Lonergan to be left with a permanent mild residual psychiatric deficit, and that the criminal trial had thrown his symptoms into focus.

74 Mr Lonergan saw Mr Purchase at the request of Hollows in October 2000.

75 Mr Purchase said the following about Mr Lonergan's presentation:

Mr. Lonergan presented as a casually but neatly dressed thirty nine year old man of average stature. He proved to be a very private man who spoke with great intensity about his experiences. In spite of being articulate, he was often quite difficult to follow, probably because he chose not to share his thought processes which were ongoing during his silences. The overall impression gained was of an intense man who was a loner. He held strong ethical views of the world which he was quick to assert were not 'religious views'. I believe that Mr. Lonergan gave an accurate account of his history and his state of psychological well-being.

The details of abuse recorded by Mr Purchase did not include genital fondling. He recorded that after the abuse Mr Lonergan seemed to have set about rebelling against the church, and:

After finishing school Mr. Lonergan worked with his father on the farm. He became markedly reclusive to the extent that if a car was seen approaching the farmhouse he would find some excuse to hide. He largely avoided social gatherings. He could frequently be found wandering the town on his own. He tended to binge drink, usually to the state of oblivion. When he was working at the service station and after Father [Coffey] had left the district he constantly worried that the priest would return to the town for funerals or weddings or that he would bump into him or have to serve him. Later, when he worked the farm on his own, he would actively enjoy isolating himself in the tractor and enjoyed the solitude of the broad acres. He reported that he would often swear and rage against the Catholic Church and Father [Coffey].

Under 'current status' Mr Purchase reported Mr Lonergan slept heavily and had no dreams or nightmares, often had flashbacks to the abuse, and ruminated endlessly on the abuse, the church and the protection of children.

76 On mental status examination Mr Purchase recorded that Mr Lonergan's mood tended to be quiet and private, his affect appeared to be slightly restricted and marked by an intensity and noticeable lack of levity, and anxiety appeared to be within normal limits. He noted Mr Lonergan drank alcohol mildly.

77 Mr Purchase diagnosed chronic PTSD. He said Mr Lonergan was markedly over-protective of his children, and spoke with great intensity about the need to raise his children in a caring and protective way. He considered Mr Lonergan had been significantly influenced by the abuse, which had shaped and would continue to shape his life.

78 Of the three earlier examiners I was most impressed by the assessment of Mr Purchase, who obtained a more detailed history than either Dr Epstein or Dr Kornan, and whose analysis and opinion was insightful, and best reflects the consequences of the abuse which were being experienced by Mr Lonergan at the time. Dr Epstein's assessment, in particular, lacked depth.

79 Genital fondling was not included in the particulars of abuse set out in a statement of claim dated February 2000 drafted by counsel instructed by Hollows.

80 A deed of release dated 8 November 2000 between Mr Lonergan and parties including Bishop Mulkearns and the Sisters records an agreement that he be paid a settlement sum of $45,000 inclusive of costs for Coffey's abuse. Mr Lonergan said he received $28,000 after payment of costs. The deed includes the following term:

The parties to this Release agree to keep this Release and the contents thereof confidential to themselves and to their legal advisers, save as otherwise required by law.

Mr Lonergan said he had not breached the confidentiality requirement.

81 In 2012 a cousin of Mr Lonergan, referred to in this proceeding as BC9, contacted the Diocese alleging she and her siblings had been abused by Coffey. Bishop Connors, who was then Bishop of the Diocese, told BC9 there had been a settlement of $45,000 with Mr Lonergan. It is apparent Bishop Connors conveyed this information under the misapprehension Mr Lonergan was BC9's brother, not her cousin.

82 Mr Lonergan agreed it took a significant amount of courage for him to go to Hollows. He said he was not there to get as much compensation as he could, but to try and get satisfaction, and that Coffey's sentence on the criminal charges was not just. It was suggested to Mr Lonergan that if he wanted justice he would have given a fulsome account of what Coffey did to him in the kitchen at the presbytery, and he replied:

Where I would have been at that time - I know where you're - what you're - where I'm at now is not where I was at then, it's - yeah. Yeah, okay.

He disagreed that in order to get justice he needed to tell the full story, said at the time he was not comfortable telling anyone that Coffey fondled his genitals, and explained:

The whole time I've never told anyone what went on until now and it's just the embarrassment. I never told my wife, my family, my kids, anything that went on and just - yeah, it's just the age that I'm at now, I'm not afraid to say what went on, I've got no fear of saying what went on.

...

... it's only as you sort of got older and, yeah, you're trying to, yeah, make peace of what's gone on, yeah, it's naivety, yeah, the embarrassment of it all, it's just - yeah, I've got no fear of what I'm saying now. There's things there that I'd never tell anyone and I've - yeah, I'm telling someone now, so - - -

Psychiatric evidence obtained in this proceeding

83 Evidence was given by two medico-legal psychiatrists who prepared reports for the purposes of this proceeding, Dr Michael Diamond for Mr Lonergan, and Dr Alan Jager for the defendants.

84 Dr Diamond prepared two reports, the first following a three-hour consultation with Mr Lonergan in October 2019, and the second following a one-hour 15-minute reassessment via Skype in May this year.

85 Dr Diamond obtained a history that Mr Lonergan was a settled, happy and secure child growing up on a farm with his siblings and parents; his entry to school was untroubled and he was confident to go to school; his academic work was good and he took pride in spelling, handwriting and being good with numbers; he described himself as being a quiet farm boy as compared with the more boisterous town children; he enjoyed sports at primary school where he played tennis and football; he was obedient and had respect for adults.

86 Dr Diamond set out the history of abuse described by Mr Lonergan, which included:

his distress at the repetitive experience of abuse, intense anxiety and fear, the desire to flee, and the inability to defy Coffey;
feeling trapped, and developing an 'I'm not there' state;
feeling self-conscious, weak and vulnerable, confused and distressed;
feeling blame because the abuse kept happening, and feeling ashamed.

Dr Diamond recorded that following Coffey's abuse Mr Lonergan did poorly at school, had difficulty concentrating and focusing, struggled to learn new material, and felt disconnected, detached and apathetic; and his school career floundered; he felt he remained totally in the control of Coffey while he was at school; refused involvement with the church, resulting in his parents' disapproval causing him considerable distress; he felt angry towards Coffey and fantasised about burning the church down.

87 In relation to psychosocial and psychosexual development Dr Diamond recorded Mr Lonergan progressively became an isolated and unattached youth, a loner, and lost his place in his social group; his wife was instrumental in helping him gain some control over his life; he was unable to cope with social interaction without being significantly intoxicated; he lacked confidence with girls and in relation to his sexuality; as a parent he was anxious about protecting his children from sexual abuse.

88 In relation to vocational history Dr Diamond recorded that Mr Lonergan left school with no aspirations and no vocational plans; he was highly avoidant of people and could not place himself in a position of being subordinate to an authority figure; he felt unable to follow through with employment opportunities, and required the assistance of his grandmother to obtain a job at the hardware store; he ended up being a farmer by default, and ran the farm in a solitary and isolated fashion; he has negligible outside interests and few friends.

89 Dr Diamond recorded being told by Mr Lonergan that he remained indifferent and detached, and regretted never being capable to pursue anything of substance in his life; he continued to drink in a hazardous and excessive way; he lives with a heightened state of arousal with symptomatic anxiety, feels tense, agitated, wound up, unable to relax, chronically emotionally numb and disconnected; he has consistent images of the scenario of being abused which causes him anguish; he is preoccupied with information about sexual abuse of children, suffers disturbing dreams and is markedly avoidant; he has recurrent periods of being low in mood and has trouble sleeping.

90 Dr Diamond diagnosed Mr Lonergan as suffering chronic PTSD, persistent depressive disorder with episodes of major depressive disorder, and substance use disorder, all of which he said were directly caused by the abuse and had been present since. Dr Diamond said the abuse and resulting psychiatric disorders had a negative impact on Mr Lonergan's education and work history, and social and personal relationships. He described the need for psychiatric and psychological treatment.

91 Dr Diamond said at the second consultation Mr Lonergan was tense, and that engagement with the litigation was very difficult for him and had stirred him up with reminders and re-experiencing of the abuse that he could not handle. Mr Lonergan said he was ashamed and guilty that so many people were aware of what happened to him and how he was affected. Dr Diamond recorded Mr Lonergan describing the soothing effects of water, of perpetually feeling dirty and the need to cleanse himself, difficulties with his sexuality and tolerating intimacy. Dr Diamond recorded that Mr Lonergan continued to consume alcohol at hazardous levels; his sleep pattern was disturbed; he suffers dissociative episodes; he does not pursue social activities; he is constantly reminded of how vulnerable children can be, and intensely aware of the need to protect his grandchildren, and was plagued by thoughts that he could be an abuser; he described his mood as 'flatline', and said he seldom experienced joy or fulfilment, and there were times when his mood state deteriorated significantly.

92 In oral evidence Dr Diamond said Mr Lonergan began drinking at a precocious age, and that his use of alcohol was inconsistent with his development up until the time of the abuse. He said Mr Lonergan described alcohol as an agent that gave him emotional numbing and respite from feelings of distress. He said on the balance of probabilities the sexual abuse and Mr Lonergan's consumption of alcohol were linked, because of the sedative or tranquilising effect of alcohol, and the temporal connection which indicated the use of alcohol was very much an attempt to be able to function.

93 Dr Diamond said he was not sure whether Mr Lonergan would be capable of continuing farming, and that he did not present as having long-term aspirations as a farmer.

94 Dr Diamond explained the trauma associated with the abuse as follows:

Well, in this case specifically, I think the trauma was of the betrayal by a trusted, revered religious figure, in the first instance. The experience of that sexual abuse was one of humiliation, it was one of embarrassment, it was the precocious exposure to sexual activity and it was followed by feelings of self-doubt, shame, guilt, isolation, inability to share the experience with anyone and to have to then live with these concepts of himself as a flawed and damaged person, in the absence of being able to have any support or encouragement to regain a more functional developmental pathway. So the trauma had overwhelming ramifications for Mr Lonergan because he was displaced from his peer group, his school group, his family, his religion and he ended up being an isolated, shamed, embarrassed, fearful, anxious young person.

95 Mr Lonergan attended a one-hour Zoom consultation with Dr Jager at the request of the second defendant's solicitors in December 2020. Dr Jager recorded a similar but less detailed history than Dr Diamond.

96 Dr Jager concluded Mr Lonergan fulfilled the criteria for alcohol abuse, male erectile disorder and chronic PTSD. He said:

Alcohol Abuse has been present on-and-off since adolescence. Chronic PTSD was present in adolescence and re-emerged around the time of the Royal Commission in recent years. Anxiety around sex and Male Erectile Disorder has been a significant problem over the last 20 or more years.

Dr Jager attributed development of chronic PTSD to the abuse, and concluded the abuse was the predominant cause of the male erectile disorder. He said it was more likely than not that Mr Lonergan would still have developed alcohol abuse absent the abuse by Coffey, and that alcohol use contributes to the erectile disorder.

97 Dr Jager concluded Mr Lonergan's failure to achieve academically was caused to a significant degree by the abuse, but that from age 13 alcohol abuse had also been a contributor.

98 In evidence in chief Dr Jager said alcohol is ubiquitous particularly surrounding sporting clubs and adolescent boys. Precipitants for starting drinking include peer pressure and advertising, and once started people feel the euphoric and pleasurable effects of alcohol and have an urge to be cool, and the pattern of drinking tends to habituate. He said cherry picking reasons for people drinking in Australian society is fraught and speculative, and the cause and effect relationship does not stand up when it is considered that so many non-abused people follow exactly the same pattern. In Mr Lonergan's case the prolonged periods of not abusing alcohol suggest that peer pressure and circumstances such as parties and football functions played a big role in the initial perhaps non-hazardous consumption of alcohol which led to alcohol abuse.

99 Dr Jager said Mr Lonergan had long periods of relative stability, with a long marriage and consistent employment history, suggesting at least reasonable functioning in those domains, which played a role in retrospective diagnosis and in determining whether there had been signs and symptoms of mental disorder over the whole of Mr Lonergan's lifetime, or whether it had been episodic. Dr Jager noted that in a statement made in October 2019 Mr Lonergan said he started having nightmares and trouble sleeping after the abuse, but this more or less stopped after the age of 25 or 30 except when he was under stress, and came back when the Royal Commission was on.

100 Dr Jager said Mr Lonergan's ability to undertake his role as a farmer was not limited.

101 Dr Jager said Mr Lonergan's symptoms of depression were sufficiently explained by the diagnosis of chronic PTSD. A diagnosis of major depressive disorder requires being depressed most of the time most days, or being unable to experience pleasure or joy, or both. When he saw Mr Lonergan, he did not satisfy either of these diagnostic criteria.

102 I conclude there is substance to the defendants' criticism of Dr Diamond. The following are examples. Dr Diamond said Mr Lonergan 'failed in every employment', endured the hardware store and roadhouse positions as long as he could, but was not coping with the responsibilities of work or the need to interact with customers, then withdrew into farming where he 'never developed great success ... but he's always found refuge in the role'. Dr Diamond said Mr Lonergan had to leave the hardware store because he was unable to relate to customers, lacked confidence and became dysfunctional. When the evidence that Mr Lonergan remained in the hardware store job until he entered the roadhouse partnership was put to Dr Diamond he said:

Yes, but in between that was he was failing in that job and they rescued him with the purchase of the service station.

Dr Diamond maintained that was the history he had been given by Mr Lonergan, despite it not being set out in his report. When it was put to Dr Diamond that Mr Lonergan's evidence was that interacting with customers at the roadhouse was not really a problem for him, and that he developed a sense of confidence in that work, he agreed that was not the history he obtained. Dr Diamond was asked:

What you've said, Dr Diamond, is it became so distressing for him to have to interact with the public that he had to leave the job and I'm suggesting to you the evidence to this court was that he didn't have any worries about interacting with the public in the context of the service station. They're two very different histories, aren't they?---No, they're not different at all. It depends on what he actually said. He may not have had overt difficulties at certain times, but his working at the roadhouse was not successful. He told me that he found it stressful, he found it difficult and he found it not to be sustainable and that's why he sought refuge, returning to the farm, where he could be alone and away from people.

I see. And you say that that's consistent with him saying that he didn't have any worries interacting with the public at the service station?---It is consistent because the missing bit is that nobody asked him how did he succeed in interacting with people and I don't know what his answer would have been, but it could have been one of a number of answers to do with avoidant behaviour - - -

Well, let's not try and predict what he would have said to questions he wasn't asked. What the evidence before this court has been is that the reason that Mr Lonergan left the roadhouse business is because he was working seven days a week, his kids wanted to see him more and it was also the end of a lengthy period of maternity leave and his wife returned to full-time teaching work and he was then available at home to meet the children after they came home from school. That was not a history that you obtained, was it?---No.

I note Dr Diamond was provided with the transcript of Mr Lonergan's evidence which he called in aid when being cross-examined on other issues, but not on this issue. Dr Diamond's opinion that Mr Lonergan was dysfunctional, unable to cope and failed in every job, which he left for those reasons, and was unsuccessful as a farmer, is inconsistent with the evidence of Mr Lonergan and his wife. While I accept, for reasons I will come to, that the abuse had an adverse impact on Mr Lonergan's education and work history, he has been in settled employment at most times since his mid-20s, left each job for reasons other than the abuse, and has had reasonable success as a farmer.

103 Dr Diamond was not provided with the reports of Drs Epstein and Kornan, and Mr Purchase. Dr Diamond was initially reluctant to accept that his assessment of the lifelong impact of the abuse on Mr Lonergan might be assisted by information about how he was feeling and coping in his 30s, and said it was of no particular interest to him what Mr Lonergan may have told someone else when he was in his 30s. Dr Diamond's apparent unwillingness to engage with information which may have informed his assessment of Mr Lonergan's condition over time was unimpressive.

104 In oral evidence Dr Diamond said that before the abuse Mr Lonergan had friends and liked spending time with groups of children at school. When challenged on the basis that was not in his report Dr Diamond said he presumed from the history he recorded of Mr Lonergan engaging in and enjoying sport that he was a sociable boy with friends. However when questioned about Mr Lonergan's sporting activities after the abuse Dr Diamond maintained that he was not an engaged member of his football team, did not socialise or drink with the group that much, that he went to training and then went home, and that his behaviours were changed, severely restricted and limited. I accept this evidence overstates the contrast between Mr Lonergan's personality and experience of life before and after the abuse.

105 I accept that Dr Diamond has considerable experience treating and assessing victims of child abuse, and that he obtained a comprehensive history and undertook what in many ways was a careful analysis of Mr Lonergan's psychiatric condition and the effects of the abuse on him. However, I conclude that in some respects Dr Diamond overstated the impact of the abuse on Mr Lonergan.

106 Dr Jager's assessment of Mr Lonergan was less comprehensive than that of Dr Diamond.

Lay evidence relevant to knowledge of and conduct by the defendants

107 Coffey was interviewed by police on 11 December 1997 about offences he committed when he was a priest serving in the Terang and Port Fairy parishes between 1963 and the early 1970s. Coffey admitted that he abused witnesses known as SK and FGT, whose statements were tendered in this proceeding, and six to 10 other altar boys in the church at Port Fairy by pulling down their pants and spanking and rubbing their bare buttocks, from which he said he derived sexual pleasure.

108 Mr Cross was a pupil at the school two grades below Mr Lonergan. In November 1995, Mr Cross was interviewed by a Special Issues Committee of the Diocese about Coffey's abuse. During the interview, Mr Cross was asked whether anyone had the opportunity to put allegations of abuse to Coffey while he was in Ouyen, and said:

No. He was the parish priest. He called all the shots that was it. You ran it like he wanted to run it and if they didn't like it, well that was too bad.

Commenting on the role of the Sisters, and Coffey as parish priest, Mr Cross said:

He ran the school basically. The sporting, the physical education side of things, he ran. They had no say in it. If he wanted us to go running at 2:00 in the afternoon, we went running. If he wanted us to do it first thing in the morning, that is what you did.

109 In evidence, Mr Cross described cross-country runs with Coffey and other boys from the school during lunchtimes, after which Coffey required each boy to be weighed naked. He said the boys showered in Coffey's bathroom after each run, and returned to the school classroom with wet hair, and that he could not recall any other shower facilities at the school. Mr Cross said on one occasion when they were alone in the presbytery bathroom after a run, Coffey grabbed him in a bear hug, forcibly threw and pinned him down on the bed, and attempted to undo the zipper of his school pants which became caught on the skin in his genital area causing him great pain. Mr Cross said he broke free, ran home and told his mother, Valerie Cross about the incident. He said Coffey's attack occurred before a medical procedure he required for a retracted testicle, which it was agreed took place on 5 March 1973. However in cross-examination Mr Cross conceded he was mistaken about the timing of that incident, and it was likely it occurred some time later, when he was in Grade 6, which was in 1975.

110 Mrs Cross said after her son told her he had been assaulted, she went to the presbytery and confronted Coffey, who rolled his eyes and did not answer her. She said either that night, or very soon afterwards, she reported the attack to Mr Brian Morrison, who was then head of St Joseph's School Council. Mrs Cross said Mr Morrison was shocked, and she imagined he would have reported the matter to the Diocese, but was unsure if he did, and she did not hear from anyone further about the matter. Mrs Cross said after the attack her family stopped going to church, and if other mothers asked why, she told them about the incident, but she said people did not really want to know about it. She said she thought the incident happened when Mr Cross was in Grade 5 or 6.

111 Coffey's abuse of other children is described in statements tendered by Mr Lonergan, which are summarised in the following table. The earliest statements were made in 1997. None of the witnesses were called to give evidence.

A boy from ages 11 to 12 was sexually abused by Coffey in the presbytery of St Joseph's Church in Ouyen during School hours. Coffey went on cross country runs with the victim during lunchtimes on school days, after which the victim was required to change in the presbytery and be weighed naked by Coffey near the shower. Coffey stared at the victim while undressed and touched the victim's bottom. On one occasion Coffey falsely imprisoned the victim in the presbytery bedroom, threw him onto the bed, fondled his genitals and tried to remove his clothes.

The victim was required to go on cross country runs, and then to change and shower in Coffey's bedroom in the presbytery.

A boy was sexually abused by Coffey at St Joseph's Church Yambuk in the sacristy, in the shower after football games, and at the boy's home. He was also physically abused by Coffey during lessons in St Patrick's Church and in the sacristy. Coffey rubbed his erect penis against the victim, fondled his genitals, bottom and thighs, and struck him.

The victim saw Coffey touching other boys in the showers after football.

St Joseph's Church Yambuk, various sports change rooms, the victim's home in Yambuk

While the victim was engaged in altar boy duties, during Latin lessons held in St Joseph's Church, and in the showers following football games.

A boy in year 6 was sexually abused by Coffey at St Patrick's School, Port Fairy. The victim was directed to meet Coffey in a room at the School, where Coffey spanked his bare bottom, rubbed his backside and anus, and penetrated the victim's anus with his finger.

The victim was directed to meet Coffey in a room at the school for punishment.

A boy throughout years 3 to 6 was sexually abused by Coffey at St Patrick's School, Port Fairy and the sacristy of the Port Fairy Church. Coffey grabbed the plaintiff when naked in the shower, fondled and rubbed his penis, and penetrated the victim's anus with his finger. During altar boy service, Coffey held the victim from behind, placed his hand in the victim's pants, and fondled his penis and testicles.

The victim saw Coffey touching other boys in the showers after football.

Sports change rooms, sacristy of the Port Fairy Church

Following school football games, and during altar boy service.

A girl from ages 12 to 14 was sexually abused by Coffey:

in the presbytery and sacristy of St Joseph's Church Ouyen;
at her home, including when she was saying night-time prayers;
in her bed when she was ill, under the guise of giving her a blessing;
at an overnight camp;
following lunchtime cross country runs when the girls from St Joseph's School were required to change and shower in Coffey's presence in the St Joseph's Convent.

The victim was harassed by Coffey while staying overnight at the St Joseph's Convent. The sexual abuse consisted of Coffey repeatedly placing his hands up her top and down her pants and touching her sexually, and watching her while showering after cross country runs and when the victim stayed at the Convent.

Presbytery and sacristy of St Joseph's Church Ouyen, at the victim's home, at a camp at Lake Cullulleraine, in St Joseph's Convent, Ouyen

The abuse occurred in the course of church youth group activities, pastoral visits, overnight stays by the victim with the Sisters at St Joseph's Convent, lunchtime cross country runs during school hours at St Joseph's School and an overnight camp.

A girl approximately from ages 7 to 9 was sexually abused by Coffey. The sexual abuse consisted of Coffey:

repeatedly placing his hands up her top and down her pants in the course of horseplay;
enclosing her in a sleeping bag, and putting his hands down her pants at her home;
following lunchtime cross country runs when victim and other girls from St Joseph's School were required to change and shower in Coffey's presence in the St Joseph's Convent;
when Coffey took the victim, then aged 8, and her 10 year old sister for a three day visit to his mother's house in Ballarat.

The victim witnessed Coffey physically abuse boys during classes of St Joseph's School Ouyen held in the presbytery, by pulling down their pants in front of the class and slapping their buttocks for several minutes.

Presbytery and sacristy of St Joseph's Church Ouyen, at the victim's home, in St Joseph's Convent, Ouyen during school hours

The abuse occurred in the course of youth group activities, pastoral visits, an overnight stay at Coffey's mother's home in Ballarat, and lunchtime cross country runs during school hours at St Joseph's School.

A boy from ages 10 to 13 was sexually and physically abused by Coffey at St Joseph's School, Ouyen.

The victim was required to shower and change in Coffey's bedroom in the presbytery after cross country runs in school hours. Coffey raped the boy on several occasions by inserting his erect penis into the boy's anus in the presbytery, following the runs. On other occasions Coffey ogled and leered at him, brushed his hand against the victim's leg and buttock, tried to touch and fondle his penis and rubbed his body against the victim's body. During altar boy service Coffey rubbed his body against the victim's body when he was changing. Coffey also physically abused the victim by belting him across the head.

After cross country runs during school hour, before and after altar boy duties

Presbytery and sacristy of St Joseph's Church, Ouyen

The abuse occurred following cross country runs and in the course of the victim's altar boy duties.

A boy was sexually abused by Coffey at St Patrick's School Port Fairy. The boy was directed to meet Coffey in a room at the School, where Coffey put his hand inside the victim's pants, and fondled his penis and testicles.

The victim was directed to meet Coffey in a room at the school.

A boy was sexually abused by Coffey at the boy's home during pastoral visits. Coffey fondled the victim's penis and testicles.

During pastoral visits by Coffey to the victim's family home.

A boy aged about 8 years was sexually abused by Coffey at the boy's home. Coffey put his hands down the victim's pants, pretended to smack him and pushed his finger into the victim's anus.

In the course of horseplay between Coffey and the boy.

A boy from ages 6 to 7 years was sexually abused by Coffey at Coffey's mother's home, and on a second occasion in the victim's home during a visit by Coffey. On each occasion Coffey put his hands down the victim's pants, kneaded his buttocks, and rubbed around his anus.

Coffey's mother's home in Ballarat, the victim's home in Ballarat

In the course of horseplay between Coffey and the victim.

A boy aged 6 years was sexually abused by Coffey at the boy's home. Coffey put his hands down the victim's pants, fondled his genitals, and pushed his finger upon the victim's anus.

In the course of horseplay between Coffey and the boy.

A boy from ages 11 to 14 was sexually abused by Coffey in the sacristy of the Port Fairy Church. Coffey took the victim's pants down and pretended to smack him, and the victim felt Coffey's erect penis press against him.

In the course of horseplay during altar boy duties.

A boy was sexually abused by Coffey in the sacristy of the Port Fairy Church. Coffey took off the boy's pants, put him over his knee and spanked and massaged his bare bottom.

The abuse occurred in the course of the victim's altar boy duties at Port Fairy Church.

A boy from ages 9 to 14 was sexually abused by Coffey in Noorat. The sexual abuse involved Coffey fondling, touching and rubbing around the victim's buttocks and genital area.

Various places including the sacristy of the Noorat Church, in the victim's home, at the church and St Joseph's School Noorat, at sporting events, in Coffey's car

The abuse occurred in the course of the victim's altar boy duties at Noorat Church.

112 It is relevant to consider the evidence in some of the witness statements in greater detail. MJG said:

18. During 1965, 1966 and 1967, I was an altar boy, and I came into contact with Father Coffey in that context.

19. When I was an altar boy, he would get me alone in the sacristy, get up behind me and rub himself against my back. I could feel his erect penis underneath his pants. I would often be trapped between him and the draws while he had his arms around me so that I couldn't get away. He did that about 5 to 10 times in 1965 until I worked out ways to make sure that I would not be in position where he could do it.

20. Sometimes he would stick his hands down my pants on the pretext that he was fixing up my altar boy gear. He would put his hands underneath my underpants and fondle my backside. He did this 4 or 5 times until I managed to work out how to avoid being in situations where he could do it. He also did this on one occasion when he came to my parents' house for lunch.

22. In about 1967 or 1968, I was playing in the Sunday football competition. He wasn't the coach of the team, but he was always there because he was the organiser of the competition. One day, he came into the change rooms while I was having a shower. While I was naked, he started rubbing my things saying that he wanted to make sure he got all the mud off. He only did that to me once, but he was in the showers often doing the same thing to one kid or another.

113 PFS described abuse by Coffey which occurred at the Port Fairy Catholic Primary School in 1968:

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (369 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (12)

Cases Cited (13)