Supreme Court rules Prince Alfred College not liable for abuse of student by former employee Dean Rollo Bain

A SUPREME Court judge has dismissed a sex abuse victim’s lawsuit against his former school — because she said Prince Alfred College’s handling of the matter had to be judged according to 1960s standards.

31/07/2009 NEWS: Courts. Dean Rollo Bain former Prince Alfred College teacher facing further child sex charges.

A SUPREME Court lawsuit by a former Prince Alfred College student who was sexually abused by a boarding master has been dismissed.

The man, now 65, claimed the elite Adelaide private school had employed Dean Rollo Bain, 77, after he had been fired from another school for molesting young boys — triggering “rampant” child abuse within its walls.

He said college administrators had also tried to cover up Bain’s crimes by holding a school assembly and advising students not to reveal the abuse they had suffered.

But in her judgment delivered today, Justice Ann Vanstone said the man had failed to prove the college was negligent in its handling of the incident or its employment of Bain.

“I found that the loss of his marriage and the loss of his previously successful business are substantially attributable to the sexual abuse he suffered,” she said.

“However, the plaintiff has failed to prove the defendant was negligent in employing Bain or in the level of supervision of him or in the steps it took to address the issue after it was discovered.

“I have been unable to make such a finding in the absence of evidence from a number of witnesses who had direct responsibility for the boarders and knowledge of the relevant circumstances and events.”

Bain was jailed by the District Court in 2009 for two years and five months with a non parole period of nine months over the abuse.

Justice Vanstone said the college’s handling of the abuse had to be judged on duty of care in the 1960s and not on today’s standards.

“I have been unable to find that what the defendant did to address the situation once discovered was other than in accordance with the standards of the time,” she said.

“I find that it was not proved that the sexual abuse occurred within the course of the perpetrators employment so as to make the defendant vicariously liable.”

During the trial, the man’s lawyer, Robert Cameron, said that if proper inquiries had been made they would have prevented Bain’s employment at the college and, in particular, his involvement with young boarders.

“If proper inquiries had been made, Mr Bain would not have, under any conceivable circumstances, been responsible for, or allowed to come into the boarding house and take care of young teenage boys like the plaintiff in 1962,” he said at the time.

Mr Cameron told the court the abuse of boarders happened under the senior boarding master’s “nose” and many of the students and schooling community knew Bain’s crimes were occurring on college grounds.

“It was continued and prolonged and it escalated and remained unabated until October 1962 when Mr Bain’s employment was terminated,” he said.

But defence lawyers told the court that as soon as the college became aware of the abuse, it had immediately reported it to authorities and did not have access to modern procedures such as police checks to background potential employees.

The court will hear arguments regarding who is liable for the legal costs of the claim later this week.