Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorStevenson, Kim
dc.contributor.authorRowbotham, J
dc.contributor.authorLowther, Jason
dc.date.accessioned2016-05-04T14:45:33Z
dc.date.accessioned2016-05-04T14:46:37Z
dc.date.available2016-05-04T14:45:33Z
dc.date.available2016-05-04T14:46:37Z
dc.date.issued2015-12-31
dc.identifier.issn1320-0968
dc.identifier.issn2204-0064
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/4574
dc.description.abstract

Feminist challenges to the traditional principles of vicarious liability highlight the difficulties facing claimants seeking redress via a doctrine largely developed in relation to the corporate model reflecting masculine traits of institutional power and control embedded in the traditional enterprise employer/employee relationship. This article explores the ways in which the recent spate of claims made against UK religious authorities regarding present and historic acts of child sexual abuse perpetrated by clergy have forced a paradigm shift requiring the courts to consider influences on the legal process associated with tropes of restorative justice, powerfully supported and explained by feminist legal theorists. The position of the Roman Catholic Church, however, is shown to be very different to that of the Church of England, highlighting the need for the paradigm shift to develop further and to consider the role of validation and vindication as elements in reparation, institutional as well as individual.

dc.format.extent253-270
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTaylor and Francis
dc.relation.replaceshttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/4573
dc.relation.replaces10026.1/4573
dc.subjectChild sexual abuse
dc.subjectClergy abuse
dc.subjectReparation
dc.subjectFeminist tort theory
dc.titleReparation for Betrayal of Trust in Child Sexual Abuse Cases: The Christian Duty of Care, Vicarious Liability and the Church of England
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeArticle
plymouth.issue2
plymouth.volume41
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalAustralian Feminist Law Journal
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/13200968.2015.1077553
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Business
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA18 Law
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Research Groups/Marine Institute
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role/Academics
dcterms.dateAccepted2015-07-16
dc.rights.embargodate2015-12-31
dc.identifier.eissn2204-0064
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1080/13200968.2015.1077553
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2015-12-31
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
plymouth.oa-locationhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13200968.2015.1077553


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV