Katrina Munting is coming to the end of her third major legal process since reporting to police in 2018 that she had been sexually abused by one of her high school teachers in the 1990s.
First there was the criminal case against her teacher, Marcus Pollard, now aged 66, who pleaded guilty in 2020 and was convicted of persistent sexual abuse of a young person. He was sentenced to three years in jail.
At the end of those proceedings, which had required her to give evidence, Mrs Munting chose to identify herself in the media.
"That was liberating," Mrs Munting told the Supreme Court in Hobart on March 22.
"I did that to take back power … but equally it was to publicly say, 'It was me, I'm not a faceless person, I'm a real person.'"
Second, Mrs Munting shared her experiences with the Tasmanian child sexual abuse commission of inquiry.
And now she is involved in civil court proceedings — suing Pollard and Tasmania's Education Department for damages.
It is understood to be the first civil historical child sexual abuse case involving the state to go to trial.
Since the limitation period for such cases was removed in 2018, some others have been settled out of court.
Pollard has not participated in the civil trial.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court in Hobart heard closing submissions from lawyers representing Mrs Munting, and lawyers representing the Education Department, or the state.
Several main themes have been recurring during the judge-only trial, which heard evidence last week.
The abuse and its impact on Mrs Munting
The state accepted vicarious liability for Pollard's abuse from the outset.
"The state does not and has never disputed that Mrs Munting was sexually abused by [Pollard] in the years 1998 and 1999," barrister for the state, Kate Cuthbertson SC told the court on Wednesday.
"There is no dispute … that Mrs Munting has been injured as a consequence of [Pollard's] abuse," she said.
"The state accepts that Mrs Munting has suffered and continues to suffer from complex post-traumatic stress disorder."
Last week, her barrister Ken Read SC told the court the abuse destroyed the happy and safe position Mrs Munting had as a child.
Clinical psychologist Damien Minehan told the court Mrs Munting would be dealing with aspects of what occurred to her for "most of the rest of her life", and that she would need ongoing psychotherapy and medication.
Pollard's response to the civil case
Pollard, while not participating in the trial, did file a defence with the court, in which he denied that he, on repeated occasions, sexually assaulted and battered Mrs Munting and denied that any sexual assaults and battery occurred during school hours on school premises, on a school camp at Maria Island, and at Pollard's home.
Pollard denied he had what the court has been referring to as an "unlawful relationship" with Mrs Munting.
He admitted some physical contact, but this was "limited", said Mrs Munting's barrister, Chris Dockray, despite Pollard's guilty plea in the criminal case.
"Mrs Munting was really put to proving her claim in its entirety in light of [Pollard's] defence," Mr Dockray said.
Department's response to the abuse in 2000
Mrs Munting's husband, Danny, told the court on Thursday he made a partial disclosure of the abuse on Mrs Munting's behalf to then-Rose Bay High principal Rodney Radford in February 2000.
Mr Radford gave evidence on Friday about his response to the disclosure. He told the court he took the allegation seriously, and immediately told the school's assistant principal and the Education Department's Bowen district superintendent, then contacted a departmental grievances officer.
The court heard the allegation was put to Pollard, who denied it twice, then tendered his resignation in March 2000.
Mr Dockray told the court on Wednesday if Mr Radford had fulfilled his obligations properly, the abuse would have been reported to police in 2000.
The state's legal team disputes this.
Kirsten Hodgson, appearing alongside Ms Cuthbertson, said "it wasn't a duty of Mr Radford to report to police" and "there was no breach of Mr Radford's duty of care".
Ms Hodgson said Mr Radford did not know about the abuse before the disclosure was made to him in 2000.
One of the disputed elements of the case is a conversation Mrs Munting said occurred between her and teacher Greg Sawyer in 1999, in which Mr Sawyer told her "it has been noticed that you and Pollard are spending time together and that is not normal".
Ms Hodgson said the state did not accept that conversation happened, and, even if it did, it did not suggest that there was knowledge of Pollard's abuse of Mrs Munting.
The court heard Mr Sawyer died several years ago.
Mrs Munting's career potential
Mrs Munting's lawyers have told the court she was an excellent student and was on a career path to becoming an academic.
"She was ambitious and would have achieved to the highest levels of her ambitions … she would have obtained the position of professor by 2022," Mr Dockray told the court on Wednesday.
Mr Dockray said Pollard's abuse stopped Mrs Munting from achieving her full potential for two reasons: firstly, she changed her career path to one of teaching so that she could "change the world" and help protect children.
Secondly, when she was offered a funded PhD place at the University of Tasmania in science, she turned it down because Pollard was working in the same department.
He told the court Mrs Munting's lost future earnings amounted to $1.6 million. Mrs Munting is also claiming past lost earnings.
The state does not accept the abuse stopped Mrs Munting from reaching her full potential. Ms Cuthbertson said Mrs Munting made a "conscious choice" to become a teacher.
She did, however, accept Mrs Munting's earning capacity in recent years had been affected by the impacts of the abuse.
The court heard Mrs Munting had been particularly affected since she went to police in 2018 and while the various legal processes have unfolded, and that she had taken unpaid leave in 2020, and reduced her hours last year, because her mental health was such that she was unable to work full time.
What happens now?
Acting Justice David Porter has reserved his decision in this case.
While the state has accepted vicarious liability for Pollard's actions, Justice Porter will need to decide how much should be paid.
He also needs to make a decision on Pollard's liability, and whether the state has additional liability beyond what it has accepted.
The case will return to court when Justice Porter has decided on damages.
