Duty of Care and the Investigation of Child Sexual Abuse–the Ultimate Australian Solution.

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorBates, F.
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-09T18:35:43Z
dc.date.available2014-05-09T18:35:43Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.description.abstractIt is so well established as really not to need detailed documentation that the fact-finding process as it applies to allegations of child sexual abuse has been somewhat confused, at least insofar as it has been interpreted by the High Court of Australia. As is, by now, notorious, that court in M v. M (1988) 166 CLR 69 at 75 devised the test of "unacceptable risk" in such cases without specifying the nature of unacceptability and, indeed, of risk. Unfortunately the general solution has not been clarified or illuminated by the recent decision of that Court in Sullivan v. Moody; Thompson v. Connon (2001) 183 ALR 404, which concerns the existence of a duty of care resulting from investigations into allegations of sexual abuse. Sullivan v Moody involved appeals to the High Court of Australia from two decisions of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia in Hillman v. Black (1996) 67 SASR 490 and CLT v. Conno (2000) 77 SASR 449.en_US
dc.identifier.citationBates, F. (2013). Duty of Care and the Investigation of Child Sexual Abuse–the Ultimate Australian Solution. Newcastle Law Review, 6(1).en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2321448_code581861.pdf?abstractid=2321448&mirid=1
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11212/1384
dc.publisherNewcastle Law Reviewen_US
dc.subjectInternational Resourcesen_US
dc.subjectAustraliaen_US
dc.subjectduty of careen_US
dc.subjectchild sexual abuseen_US
dc.subjectlegal casesen_US
dc.subjectrisk factorsen_US
dc.titleDuty of Care and the Investigation of Child Sexual Abuse–the Ultimate Australian Solution.en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Files

Collections

CALiO Collection of Resources