Prince Alfred College takes student abuse case appeal to High Court

ONE of South Australia’s most prestigious private schools is taking High Court action to have an abuse victims’ compensation claim overturned.

Former Prince Alfred College boarding master Dean Rollo Bain outside court in 2009.

• Supreme Court: PAC not liable for abuse of student by ex-employee

ONE of South Australia’s most prestigious private schools is taking High Court action to have an abuse victims’ compensation claim overturned.

In an unprecedented case, Prince Alfred College will today seek to have an SA Full Court decision thrown out — quashing the man’s multi-million dollar damages claim.

The man, now aged 66, was sexually abused on at least 20 occasions by convicted paedophile Dean Rollo Bain, when he was a 12-year-old boarder at the college in 1962. He has since suffered a mental breakdown and alcoholism.

Rollo, who is now 77, was convicted in 2009 over the abuse and sentenced to two years and five months with a nine-month non-parole period. He was housemaster at the college at the time of the abuse.

Prior to being employed by the college Bain was convicted for gross indecency and was suspected of indecent behaviour involving students at another school. However, the college did not conduct any pre-employment checks before hiring him.

In 2008, after having already received compensation from Bain, the victim launched civil action against the school. In February last year this was dismissed by Justice Ann Vanstone, who ruled the man had failed to prove the school was negligent in its handling of the incident or its employment of Bain.

She also refused to extend the time period in which the victim could launch proceedings against the college.

However, the victim appealed Justice Vanstone’s ruling to the Full Court of the Supreme Court and last November it unanimously overturned her rulings.

In its finding the Full Court found Bain “was able to develop a close and familiar relationship with the appellant under the cloak and guise of the ordinary legitimate relationships the boarding house positively fostered’’ and that “the school created and enhanced the risk that Bain could abuse boarders.’’

The Full Court heard the victim had proposed to settle with the college for $1 million, but this offer was ignored.

Lawyers for the college argued the abuse had been reported to authorities as soon as it became aware of it and at the time it did not have access to modern procedures such as police checks on potential employees.

High Court documents reveal PAC is appealing on two grounds. The first being that the Full Court erred in finding the school was vicariously liable for the abuse inflicted on the victim by Rollo.

The second ground is that the Full Court erred in overturning the exercise of discretion by Justice Vanstone, who had refused to extend the time in which the victim could launch proceedings against the school.

In a written submission Mark Livesey, QC, for the college, states the approach of the Full Court “disregards the need for finality and the well known effects of delay on the quality of justice.’’

The victim’s barrister, Bret Walker, SC, says in his submission that “has never been any dispute’’ that Bain sexually assaulted a number of children including his client and that “the only question is whether or not the appellant should be liable for it.....’’

The appeal, being heard in Canberra, is set down for one day of argument.