Have any questions? Call us: 
Mary (a pseudonym) is an abuse survivor who was made a ward of the state in 1967 at the age of four and placed with long-term foster carers, the Phelans.
After a stable period, changing circumstances led to her relocation at age 16 to the home of Geoffrey and Sandra Croft. During that placement in 1979 and 1980, Geoffrey Croft committed multiple sexual offences against her: two rapes and three indecent assaults.
He was ultimately convicted of these offences, and of separate offences against another foster child in 2019. His appeals were exhausted, and he died in 2022.
Mary subsequently initiated civil proceedings against the State of NSW, Geoffrey Croft’s estate, and Sandra Croft, seeking compensation for the abuse and for the state’s breaches of duty in its care, placement and monitoring decisions.
She also alleged negligence on the part of Sandra Croft for failing to prevent or report the abuse.
At first instance, the Supreme Court dismissed her claims, finding her allegations unproven. The trial judge placed no weight on the convictions in part because Mary – who was self-represented litigant for significant portions of the proceeding – had not formally tendered the conviction certificates.
Mary appealed.
The appeal court observed that conviction certificates are admissible in civil proceedings not only as evidence of the conviction itself, but as evidence of the commission of the offence — including its constituent elements, the identity of the offender and the identity of the victim.
The court further held that the trial judge’s misapprehension as to the evidentiary use of the convictions fatally compromised his assessment of the appellant’s credibility.
The certificates, properly admitted, would have established the acts constituting the offences for which Mr Croft had been convicted. The absence of any probative contradictory evidence from the estate meant that liability was established against the second respondent.
The appeal was allowed in respect of the estate, with judgment entered for Mary in the amount of $1,346,000, which included aggravated damages reflecting the cruel and degrading nature of the abuse.
However, the court dismissed the claims against both the state and Sandra Croft.
It concluded that none of the placement, adoption, or reunification decisions met the threshold of being so unreasonable that no authority could have acted similarly.
As to Sandra Croft, the judges found no evidence that she knew of the abuse, nor was there any duty obliging her to act on allegations once Mary had been removed from her care.
MTH v State of New South Wales [2025] NSWCA 122 Mitchelmore JA, Adamson JA, Price AJA, 6 June 2025
Categories: sexual abuse