>>23888045

Landmark high court ruling finds Catholic church had duty to protect NSW child from paedophile priest

Finding over abuse in Newcastle-Maitland diocese signals major shift in church’s liability to victim survivors

Christopher Knaus - 11 Feb 2026

The high court has delivered a landmark win for survivors of clergy abuse, finding the Catholic church had a duty of care to protect a child from one of its paedophile priests.

A man known only as AA sued the Catholic church’s Newcastle and Maitland diocese over abuse he suffered at the hands of Father Ron Pickin in 1969, when he was aged just 13.

The abuse took place in a presbytery after Pickin had offered AA and another boy alcohol and cigarettes.

AA argued the diocese was liable for his abuse because it owed him a non-delegable duty of care – in other words, a duty of care which could not be shifted to another entity or person – and had breached that duty by allowing his abuse.

The church said it owed no such duty of care, because there was no evidence it knew of the risks posed by priests at that time. It also argued it could not be held liable for intentional criminal acts committed by its priests.

The church was successful at New South Wales’s highest court, the court of appeal, but AA appealed to the high court, which delivered its judgment on Wednesday.

The high court ruled in AA’s favour, finding that the diocese owed him a duty of care and breached it by allowing the abuse.

“The duty the Diocese owed to AA in 1969 was a duty to a child to ensure that while the child was under the care, supervision or control of a priest of the Diocese, as a result of the priest purportedly performing a function of a priest of the Diocese, reasonable care was taken to prevent reasonably foreseeable personal injury to the child,” the court ruled.

Lawyers have been keenly watching the case, run by Koffels Solicitors and Barristers.

It represents a major shift in the liability of the church for abuse by its clergy.

Ross Koffel, executive chairman of Koffels Solicitors and Barristers, described the high court’s ruling as “huge” and said it had vindicated their client.

Koffel said the ruling would open up an avenue for more survivors to successfully sue the church.

“It’s a huge case and it will make a huge difference,” he said.

Plaintiff law firms said the ruling had “finally enshrined” the principle that churches should be held responsible for abuse by members of their clergy.

“The ruling of a non-delegable duty is significant because it means churches and other institutions will be held liable for abuse perpetrated by those to whom it entrusts the care of children, even when criminal conduct has occurred,” the Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer John Rule said.

“Importantly, the decision also clarifies the church’s duty of care to children, which confirms that institutions that place children in their care cannot wash their hands of responsibility when it comes to their safety.”

If you or anyone you know needs support, you can contact the National Sexual Assault, Domestic and Family Violence Counselling Service at 1800RESPECT (1800 737 732), Lifeline (13 11 14), the Suicide Call Back Service (1300 659 467), Beyond Blue (1300 22 4636) and Kids Helpline (1800 55 1800).

https://www.1800respect.org.au/

https://www.lifeline.org.au/

https://www.suicidecallbackservice.org.au/

https://www.beyondblue.org.au/

https://www.kidshelpline.com.au/

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/feb/11/catholic-church-duty-protect-child-paedophile-priest-ruling-ntwnfb

https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases-and-judgments/judgments/judgments-1998-current/aa-v-trustees-roman-catholic-church-diocese-maitland-newcastle

https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases-and-judgments/judgments/judgment-summaries?f%5B0%5D=Y%3A2026

>>23888045

>>24260283

High Court finds Catholic Church liable for priest's sexual abuse but halves compensation

Elizabeth Byrne - 11 February 2026

The High Court has found the Catholic Church liable for the harm caused to a 13-year-old boy who suffered abuse at the hands of a paedophile priest in the late 1960s.

Warning: This story contains details that may be distressing to readers.

The case has broken new ground in the fight for compensation by victims, relying on an argument about non-delegable duties.

The man at the centre of the case maintained that Father Ronald Pickin had committed the abuse in the presbytery of St Patrick's Catholic Church at Wallsend, in the diocese of Maitland-Newcastle.

He said Father Pickin would give him and his friend cigarettes and alcohol on Friday nights.

He said the abuse happened when he was "paralytic drunk" and after Father Pickin would send his friend away to buy cigarettes.

The friend agreed they were given alcohol and cigarettes but said others were present and he was never sent away.

Father Pickin knew the boys because he had taught religious education at Wallsend High School.

First ruling overturned on appeal

The man won his first case when a judge found the church was vicariously liable for the damage done to him.

The court awarded him $636,840.

The judge accepted the assaults had happened, despite the inconsistencies with the evidence.

But the finding was undermined by a High Court ruling that the church was not vicariously liable for the actions of priests, because they were not strictly employees.

The body representing the church, the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle, overturned the ruling on appeal.

In the High Court the man's lawyers argued the church did have what is called a non-delegable duty to the children abused by clergy, even in circumstances when they were not aware there was a danger to children.

A non-delegable duty is used to justify the imposition of liability on one person for the negligence of another who is entrusted with a task.

The High Court agreed with the case.

"The duty of the Diocese owed to [the man] in 1969 was a duty to a child to ensure that while the child was under the care, supervision or control of a priest of the Diocese … purportedly performing a function of a priest of the Diocese, reasonable care was taken to prevent reasonably foreseeable personal injury to the child," the majority of the High Court found.

The court also said the Diocese knew that by virtue of their immaturity, children were vulnerable to harm, and it alone had the practical capacity to supervise and control Father Pickin's performance.

The court said that included intentional criminal acts including sexual abuse.

Father Pickin died in 2015, before the first hearing in the case.

The High Court awarded costs against the church, but also halved the man's payout to $335, 920.

Vicarious liability

The case comes as the states and territories contemplate imposing vicarious liability on bodies like the churches and other groups, including Scouts, for the actions of paedophiles.

The ACT was the first to introduce a law making it possible for victims to sue on that basis.

The moves were prompted by a High Court ruling against a man claiming vicarious liability for his abuse by a paedophile priest.

The court said for the church to be vicariously liable the priest would have had to be a formal employee, but that the clergy had a different relationship to the church, which was only akin to employment.

The new laws will target not just clergy, but volunteers and sporting coaches who are also in positions akin to employment.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-11/high-court-catholic-church-liable-priest-sexual-abuse/106329926

>>24201399

>>24205958

>>24218894

>>24240246

Virginia Giuffre law could bring flood of sex abuse claims

Josie Ensor - February 10 2026

1/2

Democrats in Congress have submitted a draft law that would remove the statute of limitations on sex-abuse claims, named the Virginia Giuffre’s Survivors’ Act after the late Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor accuser.

The bill, if enacted in law, would mean victims will no longer be barred from bringing federal sex trafficking and other related charges after a set number of years.

At present, each US state has its own laws guiding the amount of time within which a victim must make a claim against their alleged abuser.

The draft legislation, submitted on Tuesday, states that “there shall be no time limit for the filing of a complaint” on “any claim or action arising after the date of the enactment of this act”.

Chuck Schumer, Senate minority leader, worked on the bill with Giuffre’s lawyer Sigrid McCawley, who represented the late Epstein victim in her civil lawsuits against Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell.

The bill will need to go through a full vote in both chambers of Congress but Schumer, a Democratic senator for New York, is said to be confident he has the support needed for it to pass.

It is modelled on New York state’s Adult Survivors Act, a 2022 law that created a one-year “lookback window” allowing victims of sexual abuse to file civil claims that would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. During that time some 3,700 legal claims were filed.

Included among those was a high-profile suit brought against President Trump by E Jean Carroll, the writer who alleged the real-estate mogul sexually abused her in a department-store dressing room in 1996. She was awarded a $83.3 million judgment against Trump for defamation. Trump has appealed against that ruling in the Supreme Court.

Other lawsuits lodged included ones against Sean “Diddy” Combs, Bill Cosby and Andrew Cuomo, the former New York governor.

Giuffre’s lawsuit against Andrew was filed under New York’s Child Victims Act, and ended in a $12 million settlement paid by the former prince to Giuffre in 2022.

As a result of the #MeToo movement survivors were coming forward with their stories — but had no form of legal recourse. After the New York law expired, other states had been looking to the legislation as a roadmap for how they might give survivors the opportunity to retrospectively seek justice.

Members of Congress had been working on making permanent the look-back window for the law. If it becomes law, the bill could allow more Epstein victims to launch legal action against any living abusers who took part in Epstein’s sex-trafficking ring.

However the approximately 135 women who already received compensation from the Epstein victims’ compensation fund signed away their right to lodge any legal action against the Epstein estate and any accomplices as part of their settlement agreement.

(continued)

>>24260342

2/2

Giuffre was one of the most prominent and outspoken accusers of Epstein, alleging she was trafficked by him and Maxwell to more than a dozen high-profile friends. Survivors often cite Giuffre as the reason they later came forward.

Since her death in April, many of them have worked with sympathetic members of Congress to push for transparency into the government’s investigation into Epstein’s vast trafficking ring. They were instrumental in the passing of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which has seen the Trump administration release millions of files that had previously been classified.

Giuffre’s family welcomed the bill on Tuesday, saying: “We send a message to perpetrators everywhere. This is more than legislation. We are changing how we see, confront and respond to sex abuse and sex trafficking in this country.

“We do not take this moment lightly. We hold an overwhelming mix of grief, loss and pride. If our voices shake and our tears fall, it is only because of the depth of our love for our sister. Grief without action is another kind of silence, and Virginia did not survive what she survived to be silenced again.

“Virginia’s Law does more than honour her legacy. It protects the future of every survivor. Legislatively and legally, it promises that survivors that they are seen, believed and understood. It promises them the right to seek justice, no matter the status, wealth, or power of the person who harmed them and no matter when the abuse occurred.”

McCawley said: “Virginia’s Law rights the stubborn and punitive wrong of burdening survivors with the weight of arbitrary timetables to come forward publicly. It stands for the principle that those who have suffered the indignity of abuse and its debilitating pain deserve to heal on their terms and their timetables.

“The clock will no longer be weaponised to silence survivors. It is beyond heartbreaking that Virginia is no longer with us. Yet today her brave voice is being heard loud and clear.”

https://www.thetimes.com/us/american-politics/article/virginias-law-epstein-victims-sgv36bkjq

>>23996448

>>24210120

Daniel Andrews claims ‘bike boy’ defamation case is politically motivated

Rachel Eddie - February 13, 2026

Former premier Daniel Andrews claims he is being pursued for defamation by a road crash victim and his “cohort” for media attention and to advance political agendas.

Andrews and his wife, Catherine, are defending Federal Court action launched by Ryan Meuleman, known as “bike boy”, who was 15 when he was struck by the Andrews family’s 4WD drive on a trip to the beach in January 2013.

Meuleman is seeking damages from the pair, claiming a public statement they made implied he lied about the circumstances of the collision, and that he was using legal proceedings for financial gain.

But in a defence released by the court on Friday, the pair argue they have only ever sought to protect themselves from public attacks that painted them as liars and party to a cover-up.

Their lawyer, Leon Zwier, argues that Meuleman’s defamation proceedings were launched for “collateral” purposes, to court public and media attention and “inflict reputational damage”.

The defence papers further allege the motivation for the case is “to advance the personal or political agendas” of Meuleman’s supporters, or to seek evidence against the couple for use in a private criminal prosecution.

Meuleman suffered serious injuries when his bike collided with the couple’s car in Blairgowrie more than a decade ago while it was being driven by Catherine Andrews. Daniel Andrews, opposition leader at the time, was in the passenger seat.

Police cleared the pair of any wrongdoing. The two police officers who attended the scene did not breathalyse anyone, in breach of standard operating procedures, and were counselled as a result.

In September 2024, the Herald Sun published details of a report by a former police officer, Dr Raymond Shuey, in his capacity as an expert witness.

Shuey, who died before his report was published publicly, alleged that authorities engaged in an “overt cover-up to avoid implicating a political figure in a life-threatening crash”.

The couple issued a joint media statement in response to that reporting, declaring they did nothing wrong.

“We completely reject conspiracy theories dressed up as journalism,” their 2024 statement said.

“This so-called report was commissioned by lawyers on behalf of their clients who are seeking money through the courts by suing their former lawyers. We are not a party to this legal action.

“This matter has already been comprehensively and independently investigated and closed by Victoria Police and integrity agencies. We will not dignify these appalling conspiracy theories by commenting further at this time.”

Meuleman alleged this statement was defamatory, a claim the former premier and his wife reject.

They argue their statement did not harm Meuleman’s reputation because it has long been known there is an “intractable” factual dispute between the parties about who was at fault for the collision, and it was a proportionate response to the attacks upon them.

The defence claims Meuleman initially sought $550,000 in damages but then revised that to $50,000 and $7000 in costs.

The court documents argue the couple have endured a campaign from Meuleman or his supporters since at least 2022.

These supporters, the defence argue, “have no personal interest in the proceedings and whom, it may therefore be inferred, have personal or political agendas or motives for involving themselves in Mr Meuleman’s affairs”.

It names the Meuleman “cohort” as including, “from time to time”, his father Peter, PR veteran Rohan Wenn, design engineer-turned-amateur-detective Colin Robertson and retired members of Victoria Police Kel Glare and Shuey.

The case is due back in court next month.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/daniel-andrews-claims-bike-boy-defamation-case-is-politically-motivated-20260213-p5o24t.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErEhe2U_tNA

https://qresear.ch/?q=Ryan+Meuleman

https://qresear.ch/?q=Daniel+Andrews

>>23887868

>>23947379

>>24227906

US man jailed over links to Wieambilla police shooting deaths

Rex Martinich - Feb 13, 2026

An American man who spent a year discussing extreme conspiracies with a family behind the Wieambilla shootings has been sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

Donald Day, 58, was arrested in the United States after a year-long investigation into his contact with Gareth, Nathaniel and Stacey Train before the trio killed two police officers and a neighbour at their rural Queensland property.

Day faced the US Federal Court in Arizona on Friday AEST after making a deal with prosecutors in October 2025 to plead guilty to a charge of possessing firearms as a convicted felon.

His prior charges of threatening World Health Organisation figures and FBI agents as well as possessing an illegal shotgun were dropped.

Day used the name "Geronimo's Bones" to exchange comments and videos on YouTube with the Trains between May 2021 to December 2022, US District Judge John Tuchi heard.

Brothers Nathaniel, 46, and Gareth, 47, used high-powered rifles during an ambush to kill Constables Matthew Arnold, 26, and Rachel McCrow, 29, at Wieambilla in December 2022.

Gareth Train's wife Stacey, 45, and the brothers fatally shot neighbour Alan Dare, 58, soon afterwards.

Day was mentioned in the last video the Trains ever made, filmed before they were killed in a shootout with tactical officers hours after the Wieambilla ambush.

"They came to us, and we killed them," Gareth and Stacey Train said in the video.

"We'll see you when we go home. We'll see you at home, Don. Love you."

Day responded to the video saying: "those bastards will regret that they ever f*cked with us".

Queensland Police officers had been due to testify at Day's now aborted trial about the alleged serious danger the American's threats posed due to his association with the Trains.

Day had prepared a sniper's nest for a confrontation with police and told the Trains to do the same with "determination and fury", saying he looked forward to "taking the scalps of our enemies".

Day encountered the Train family through public comments and videos posted around a "similar, distrustful view of society".

A Queensland inquest in November 2025 found the Trains were delusional and believed "war had reached their gates" in the form of a battle to the death with Satanic entities disguised as police.

"It was the Trains' shared psychotic disorders, not their communications with Mr Day, that explained their actions," Day's lawyer, Jon Sands, told the US court.

Mr Sands called for his client to be sentenced to two years and three months with 12 months of supervised release.

Prosecutor Timothy Courchaine asked for a sentence of three years and 10 months with three years' supervised release.

Day was sentenced to 36 months' imprisonment minus time already served.

He had spent two years and three months in custody since his December 2023 arrest by the FBI in Arizona.

Day will be on supervised release for three years after serving at least 90 per cent of his term.

He was also ordered to forfeit his firearms and ammunition, including military-style rifles, shotguns and handguns.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/wieambilla-donald-day-us-man-jailed-over-links-to-queensland-police-shooting-deaths-court-news/cffde790-019c-4404-8b9b-117816b8c19a

https://www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/arizona-man-sentenced-illegally-possessing-firearms-after-communicating-online

https://x.com/USAO_AZ/status/2022455917795815627

>>24243846

>>24248847

Bailed Chinese ‘spies’ are a flight risk, says AFP

ELIZABETH PIKE - February 12, 2026

Two Chinese nationals allegedly directed by the People’s Republic of China to spy on and collect information about a Canberra Buddhist group have been released on bail, despite police raising concerns Chinese officials could provide the couple with fake travel documents to flee the country.

Zheng Siru, 31, and a 25-year-old man known by the pseudonym “Joseph Vance” faced the ACT Magistrates Court on Thursday morning where they pleaded not guilty to charges of reckless foreign interference, which carries a maximum 15-year prison term.

Police alleged the pair, who are permanent Australian citizens, targeted the Canberra branch of the Guan Yin Citta Buddhist Association since 2022 with another female Chinese national known as “Thomas Tyler,” who was arrested on the same charges last August.

The Chinese Communist Party considers the association an “evil cult” and police alleged in court that Ms Zheng and Mr Vance were directed by the PRC to collect information about the “current methods and structure” of the group following the death of its founder in late 2021.

Amid public scrutiny of the case, police documents alleged there were concerns the PRC might seek to help Ms Zheng and Mr Vance flee the country by giving them “fake travel documents”.

In Mr Vance’s case, police noted their concerns were based on the fact the “capacity to abscond is in proportion to the abilities and resourcing of the PRC, in so far as it can be exerted in Australia and their willingness to assist the defendant”.

Under cross-examination, an Australian Federal Police informant alleged the pair and Ms Tyler had been the subject of a “long-running investigation” and warned that should they leave Australia, extradition would not be possible.

The court heard that members of Guan Yin Citta told the AFP they were in “fear” due to the alleged spying. In the police facts, this centred on a phone call Ms Tyler allegedly directed Ms Zheng to make to the group in 2022 to “check in on their activities”. However, the call did not connect.

The informant said the AFP were still investigating more than 23 terabytes of data seized from Mr Vance’s electronic devices in a search warrant last December, when the 25-year-old was also charged with two unrelated matters.

Mr Vance’s lawyer, Anthony Williamson SC, said his client did not pose a flight risk and should be released on bail, as he was already on bail for separate charges and had not attempted to leave Australia during this time.

“He was on notice that he was squarely in the crosshairs of police,” Mr Williamson said.

“There is no evidence whatsoever that he has done anything to flee the jurisdiction.”

Mr Williamson said his client also had “nothing to achieve” by contacting the Buddhist group, addressing concerns that members could be intimidated or harassed upon his release.

Travis Jackson, representing Ms Zheng, made a similar case to the court and argued his client would not flee the country as she had strong ties to Australia.

“She is not just in the ACT as a transient being,” Mr Jackson said.

He further argued that there was no evidence in the police facts of Ms Zheng engaging in “covert” conduct since a text message exchange four years ago.

In his submission for Ms Zheng’s bail, Mr Jackson said his client had also been tipped off that police were on her tail for foreign interference charges when they raided her residence last July, and yet she had made no attempts to leave the country.

Magistrate Glenn Theakston raised concerns about the evidence but accepted that investigations were ongoing into the data seized from the couple.

“I am having trouble seeing where the offending is when I go through the facts,” Mr Theakston said.

“The facts describe research on the internet and the collecting or harvesting of open information about the group … a bit like what a high school student might do for an assignment.”

The police prosecutor argued this information was scraped and put “effectively into a package” to be passed on.

In handing down his decision, Mr Theakston granted the pair bail with strict conditions that they report to police four times a week, surrender their passports, and not contact the Chinese government, embassy or any diplomatic staff except through their lawyers.

A special carve-out was made allowing the pair to contact family members after the court heard Ms Zheng’s father was a “senior civil servant in China” and she needed to be able to contact him.

Ms Zheng, Mr Vance and Ms Tyler are expected to return to court in April.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/bailed-chinese-spies-are-a-flight-risk-says-afp/news-story/c71640d07d082da8ec1d3add0cd3aa40