The Petal — High Court of Australia: February 2026

A High Court of Australia special, looking back over February 2026. Two landmark decisions: the Court overrules a 23-year-old authority and reopens institutional responsibility for historic child abuse; and it settles how a conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office can be charged and proved. Produced by BarNet OpenLaw, the creators of JADE, from The Petal. The voices in this program are AI-generated. Nothing in this program is legal advice. One matter concerns the abuse of a child — we report the law, not the detail.In this episode:AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026] HCA 2 — a non-delegable duty reaches a delegate's intentional criminal acts; New South Wales v Lepore overruled (5:2). https://jade.io/article/1182103Obeid v The King [2026] HCA 1 — conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office; the object may be described by the character of the agreed conduct, not a pre-agreed list of acts (7:0). https://jade.io/article/1181207— CASE NOTES —AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle [2026] HCA 2Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ · 11 February 2026Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1182103Signal: Doctrine · 5 stars · Tort — Non-delegable Duty of Care.Provisions: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 3B(1)(a), 5B, 5Q, 6F.Held (appeal allowed; Steward and Gleeson JJ dissenting): To the extent New South Wales v Lepore (2003) 212 CLR 511 held that a common-law non-delegable duty to ensure reasonable care cannot extend to a delegate's intentional criminal act, Lepore is overruled. In 1969 the Diocese owed a non-delegable duty to ensure reasonable care was taken to prevent reasonably foreseeable injury to a child under the care, supervision or control of a priest who was purportedly performing a function of a priest of the Diocese; the position was not distinguishable from a school authority's; and the duty extended to harm from the delegate's intentional criminal acts. The Court of Appeal erred in disturbing the trial judge's findings.Why aired: The most consequential civil-liability decision of the month — it overrules a 23-year-old authority and reopens institutional responsibility for historic abuse nationally.Obeid v The King [2026] HCA 1Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ · 4 February 2026Read on JADE: https://jade.io/article/1181207Signal: Doctrine · 5 stars · Criminal Law — Conspiracy to Commit Misconduct in Public Office.Provisions: Mining Act 1992 (NSW), Pt 5; common-law conspiracy and misconduct in public office.Held (appeals dismissed; 7:0): The object of a conspiracy need not be reduced to particular specified acts; it may be described by cumulative characteristics that necessarily amount to the predicate offence. A conspiracy may be complete though the precise means are not yet agreed — here, an agreement to act "if and when the occasion arose". Whether the contemplated misconduct is serious enough to merit criminal punishment is a matter for the tribunal of fact, not a matter on which the conspirators must agree. Convictions affirmed.Why aired: Settles how the object of a conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office may be pleaded and proved — the leading public-integrity authority of the month.Produced by BarNet OpenLaw — the creators of JADE — from The Petal (High Court of Australia Edition, February 2026), and reviewed under OpenLaw's content and podcasting standard. The voices in this program are AI-generated, using the latest combobulation technology. Nothing in this program is legal advice; consult the judgments before relying on them.