Student awarded $1,228,000 in damages for years of abuse by teacher

The Supreme Court of NSW recently held that ex-teacher Mr Darryl Reineker is to pay $1.3 million in damages to a former student after he subjected her to years of grooming and sexual abuse from the age of 13.

The student, now 27-years-old, was referred to as ‘B’ in the proceedings that began in November 2010. The original proceedings involving B also included a claim in negligence against Moree Christian Community School (the School) but this was settled out of court.

Mr Reineker pleaded guilty to six criminal charges of aggravated indecent assault and unlawful sexual intercourse and is now serving his sentence. The Supreme Court heard evidence last Monday to support a trespass to person claim against Mr Reineker, who did not appear in court or defend the matter.

The facts as heard by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court heard that B’s claims against Mr Reineker arose out of events that occurred in the period between 1 August 2001 until 2008.

In particular:

• ‘B’ first met Mr Reineker in 2000, before he became a teacher at her school in 2001;
• Mr Reineker taught B in maths, design and technology and PE;
• he began to train B after school in athletics, and tutor her privately in maths;
• he began to indecently assault B in late 2001 when she was 13-years-old; and
• Mr Reineker then began a sexual relationship with B in late 2001, just before she turned 14.

When asked to describe the first instance of indecent behaviour by Mr Reineker towards her, which occurred after a swimming training session and involved Mr Reineker giving B a massage as his home, B told the Court: “I thought that because Darryl was my school teacher and swim coach, and he was an adult that he wouldn’t be doing the wrong thing. I trusted him”.

B had a poor relationship with her father and the Supreme Court heard that Mr Reineker encouraged her to call him ‘Dad’. B reported Mr Reineker’s conduct to police in October 2009.

The decision

The Court heard evidence from both B and her husband, referred to as ‘J’, and expert evidence from psychologist Ms Alison O’Neill.

Ms O’Neill described B’s experience as “innumerable acts of sexual abuse over a period of nearly ten years by a trusted member of the community” that has led to long term effects including: depression, self-destructive behaviour, anxiety, feeling of isolation and stigma, poor self-esteem, difficulty trusting others and sexual maladjustment.

B, in her victim impact statement, revealed that she suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, flash backs and anger, sometimes resulting in violence.

The damages

Justice Adamson found that through his actions, Mr Reineker abused his position of trust and authority towards B while she was still a minor and in his class.

General damages were awarded to B, including aggravated damages due to the nature of the trespass claim which gave rise to substantial hurt and damage.

The Court decided that due to Mr Reineker’s imprisonment, exemplary damages – damages to substantially punish for conscious wrongdoing – were not necessary.

The Court also awarded damages for out of pocket expenses, and damages for past and future loss of earning capacity.

In summary, B’s damages were assessed at $1,228,000 payable by Mr Reineker and included:

• General Damages: $350,000;
• Past out of pocket expenses:  $33,000 (Including past medical expenses; therapy dog expenses; and a gym membership considered beneficial to B’s mental health);
• Future out of pocket expenses:$183,000 (Including future psychological treatment for the next 2 year; 2 psychiatric consultations per year for the rest of B’s life; the weekly cost of a gym instructor for 5 years; and a weekly therapy dog allowance for the rest of the B’s life);
• Past loss of earning capacity: $325,000; and
• Future loss of earning capacity: $160,000.

The School’s liability

B sued the School for negligence as four out of the six allegations of sexual assault took place in or about the School’s grounds.

The School was also accused of negligence in relation to some incidents that occurred off-site, for example at a nearby swimming event where B was participating as a pupil of the school.

The School was not held liable in this case and it settled the negligence claim out of court. An agreement was reached with the plaintiff and the proceedings against the School were discontinued. The details of the agreement were not released to the Court.

This case, although an awful tragedy for the female student who suffered the abuse, is a hopeful example of how the court process can work for victims seeking redress.

At the beginning of the year, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse released a consultation paper on redress and civil litigation seeking to examine issues of effective compensation and civil litigation to survivors of child sexual abuse in institutions. Their final report and recommendations on this topic are yet to be released.

Lessons for all schools 

Although the School was not found liable in this case, the facts act as a warning to other schools that they can find themselves the subject of a negligence claim when there is a case of sexual abuse against students in their care. It is also a warning to teachers that victims of abuse can achieve justice.