A 27 year old who was the victim of sexual abuse when he was aged just 14 but first reported the abuse after he was himself arrested over a domestic disturbance years later, has been awarded nearly $1.5 million in damages.  In assessing the claim the Court expressly considered the ‘delay’ in coming forward about the abuse commenting on why this was not unusual.

The claim was against former Bega Cheese boss Maurice Van Ryn and involved acts of abuse suffered at his hands by the victim dating back to 2011.  The victim claimed damages to compensate him for the pain and suffering caused by the horrendous abuse when he was between 14 and 15 years of age.  As at the date of the Court’s decision the victim was 27 years old.

The victim had moved to Bega around 2003 or 2004 with his mother and her new partner.  At school, at the age of 14 years, he befriended another student who lived across the road from Van Ryn’s home.  The school mate would regularly go to Van Ryn’s house without his parents, and if the victim was visiting he would also go along.

It was during these visits that abhorrent incidents of abuse occurred.  While the victim was able to relate some specifies, there were things he couldn’t remember as, he said, “I think I have just blocked it out.”

Notwithstanding this, the victim and his school mate continued to visit Van Ryn at his home.   In his evidence the victim said that he didn’t know why but that they had ended up staying the night there. This had happened previously because according to the victim, “It was more fun at his house that [sic] either of our houses because he had a pool, spa, tennis court and the Internet was a lot faster.”  After a number of incidents of such repugnant acts for which Van Ryn gave the victim money, at the age of 15 the victim moved to South Australia to live with his father and complete high school.  By that time he said he was, “very confused and depressed,” and had reached the point where he, “couldn’t deal with it anymore.”

The following year he returned to Bega to visit his school friend and they both went to Van Ryn’s house.  Van Ryn later drove the victim home and in the course of that journey he stopped the car and a further act of abuse occurred.  The victim described multiple other occasions when Van Ryn would engage in such acts of abuse while in the car with him.

To his credit, the victim completed school and enrolled in a mechanical engineering degree at university.

It was following his own arrest relating to a domestic incident involving his girlfriend that the victim first disclosed that he had been subjected to abuse from Van Ryn.  This resulted in Van Ryn being charged and convicted of four counts of child sex offences.  Notably, when sentenced, Van Ryn was already subject to a sentence of imprisonment for other child abuses offences for which he was to serve no less than 13 years, and his conviction on these matters added only another 12 months to his non-parole period.

In assessing the victim’s evidence, the Court addressed the question of whether there had been ‘delay’ in disclosing what had occurred to him and concluded that this was, “fully and comprehensively explained by the fact that the [victim] hid the abuse by reason of the shame and guilt that he felt.  The Court noted, “it is well to recall that perpetrators of child sexual abuse … have many ways, some subtle and some not so subtle, of making their victims keep quiet about what they have suffered.  The abuse itself is the reason why so many victims do not come forward until years after the event.”

The Court found that prior to the abuse the victim was a happy, well-adjusted, thoughtful and caring young man who was excelling at school and various sporting endeavours.  The abuse had a significant and detrimental impact upon him giving rise to feelings of embarrassment, shame, guilt and personal responsibility for what had occurred.  There was no doubt that he had experienced inner turmoil on an ongoing basis but simply hid his suffering.  He had experienced suicidal ideation, self-harming, depression, insomnia, loss of control, anger and aggression along with difficulties interacting with others in social and work settings and those symptoms were ongoing.

According to family members, the arrest in connection with the domestic violence disturbance with his girlfriend was out of character, and it was following that arrest that the victim disclosed the abuse he had suffered which had caused him to struggle to function across many aspects of his life.  On two occasions he had been hospitalised with mental health issues.

Medical evidence was given from a consultant psychiatrist that the victim suffered from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder and a major depressive disorder caused by the sexual abuse.

When it came to assessing the victim’s losses, the Court observed that although he had completed his SACE with a very high score and had been offered a place at university to study mechanical engineering, he had struggled with the academic demands of the course as a consequence of the psychiatric injures and disabilities taking more than double the time to complete his studies.  On this basis it was clear that the abuse had delayed completion of his degree and therefore delayed his entry into the profession.  In addition, there was uncertainty about whether he would be able to complete his degree and his ongoing symptoms would likely further interrupt his capacity to work.

As part of his claim the victim sought what are described as both aggravated damages and exemplary damages.  The first of these arises when the harm done to the victim by the wrongful act was aggravated by the manner in which the act was done.  There must be a ‘conscious wrongdoing in contumelious disregard of another’s rights,’ or in other words showing contempt for that other person’s rights.  The second type of damages are given, ‘to punish the defendant for conduct showing a conscious and contumelious disregard for the [victim’s] right and to deter him from committing like conduct again.  The victim’s claim was that Van Ryn, “took advantage of his position of control and domination over the [victim] to rape and sexually assault him in a manner calculated to cause maximum harm … while gratifying himself.”  The Court agreed to grant both of these additional awards of compensation in this case because of the, disgraceful and reprehensible sexual abuse of a child,’ that ‘demonstrates a deliberate and outrageous disregard of this rights by the defendant, over an extended period of time.”

The Court ordered that Van Ryn pay $1,416,829.85 in damages along with the victim’s legal costs.

The case of Van Ryn and has been a significant factor in the establishment by solicitor Andrew Carpenter of Websters Lawyers of the Super for Survivors campaign.  Despite the award of damages made against Van Ryn in this case, the victim might not see a cent of the money if the abuser doesn’t have the assets to satisfy the judgment.  As with many abusers, assets could have been hidden in a superannuation fund before being convicted.  The Super for Survivors campaign supports a submission to the Federal Government to change the law to allow victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to access the superannuation of their offender for unpaid compensation orders.  As at the date of this decision, the government is still considering the submissions.

Van Haren v Van Ryn [2023] NSWSC 776