FATHER John Fleming engaged in criminal, predatory, deceitful and morally reprehensible sexual behaviour with a minor while working as an Anglican priest, the Supreme Court has ruled.

On Wednesday, the court dismissed the now-Catholic priest’s defamation lawsuit, ruling The Advertiser and Sunday Mail’s reports about his illegal sexual misconduct were true.

Auxiliary Justice Malcolm Gray ruled the newspapers had made out their defence to Fr Fleming’s claims they had defamed him and caused him to lose a lucrative job with a Catholic college.

He said the newspapers’ imputations that Fr Fleming — one of Australia’s most prominent priests — “engaged in criminal sexual behaviour” during his time with the Anglican Church were substantially true.

He also said the articles truthfully conveyed imputations that Fr Fleming was engaged in “sexual misconduct, predatory sexual behaviour, morally reprehensible and deceitful conduct, an immoral, adulterous, homosexual affair, hypocrisy, abuse of trust, moral cowardice and false denial of sexual involvement.”

media_camera Father John Fleming pictured in 2004.

After the finding, Fr Fleming’s relieved victims called for the Catholic Church to immediately suspend the priest, who is currently overseas.

“I feel the court and the media have delivered justice where, so far, the churches have failed to do so,” said the male victim, known as “Richard”.

“I am very pleased the Supreme Court has accepted and validated my version of events.

“I now call on the Catholic and Anglican churches to do the right thing by Fr Fleming’s victims.

“I also call on the Catholic Church to suspend Fr Fleming while it considers what disciplinary action to take against him.”

The Catholic Church promised a detailed response would be issued after it had read the judgment.

Under canon law, the 158-page document will be sent to The Vatican, and Fr Fleming given an opportunity to respond as part of any disciplinary process.

SA Police echoed the church’s comments but, in light of Auxiliary Justice Gray’s comments, has little choice but to reopen investigations.

The Anglican Church said it was prepared to reopen the inquiry it had “paused” during the lawsuit.

Fr Fleming is one of Australia’s best-known theologians, the author of several books on bioethics and a prominent contributor to newspapers, radio and television.

His case centred on a series of 2008 Sunday Mail articles reporting allegations he was inappropriately sexually involved with two women known as “Jane” and “Jenny”, and “Richard”.

media_camera Former Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide Leonard Faulkner ordains Father John Fleming as a Catholic priest at St Francis Xavier Cathedral. media_camera Father John Fleming gained a high public profile due to his expertise in bioethics and appearances in the media.

Fr Fleming asserted all allegations in the articles were false and a “material cause” in the termination of his position with Catholic liberal arts institute Campion College.

The Sunday Mail argued Fr Fleming was “a hypocrite” who “held himself out as a moral, trustworthy and righteous man” when he was actually “immoral, untrustworthy and sinful”.

The Sunday Mail is published by the same company as The Advertiser.

During the trial, the court heard those allegations included claims Fr Fleming had a ménage-a-trois with Jane and her friend when they were teenagers in the 1970s.

Jane has claimed in court her “role” was to service Fr Fleming’s sexual needs until marriage.

She said she and her friend were “children playing silly games” when they shared the “goal to seduce” Fr Fleming.

Jenny has claimed that, as a teenager, she noticed Fr Fleming was ejaculating when he asked her to massage his shoulders.

Richard has claimed he and Fr Fleming performed mutual sex acts “on at least a dozen occasions” and the priest asked him to say there was “never penetration”.

The priest, who has ministered for both the Anglican and Catholic Churches in his career, said he would “never in a fit” have sex with multiple partners.

He denied he told Richard that, without penetration, sex acts between males were “just two blokes mucking around”.

Fr Fleming also denied he “basked in the adulation” of teenagers in the 1970s, and that an Anglican deacon asked him to cease his alleged conduct toward Richard.

His counsel, meanwhile, asserted Jenny had “thrown herself” at the priest and was “chasing him” for a relationship.

Fr Fleming also denied he had discussed the ménage-a-trois allegations with Monsignor David Cappo, dubbing the senior clergyman’s recollections “absolutely wrong” and “creative writing”.

Monsignor Cappo, however, gave evidence that the conversation did take place and said he recalled it “clearly” because he did not know how to spell “ménage-a-trois”.

Fr Fleming subsequently conceded his memory of the conversation “was faulty”, but said he and Monsignor Cappo were discussing a different, unrelated rumour of a ménage-a-trois.

The court has also heard evidence from Jane’s former friend who said claims of a sexual encounter were “absolutely untrue” and the incident had not happened “at all”.

A police officer who investigated the claims gave evidence she told Fr Fleming the case “was not going anywhere” without an admission or confession.

Having deliberated for more than 12 months, Auxiliary Justice Gray handed down his judgment on Wednesday.

He found each of the Sunday Mail articles “conveyed the imputation” that Fr Fleming had “engaged in criminal sexual behaviour while an Anglican priest”.

"Criminal, predatory, morally reprehensible, moral cowardice": Supreme Court on Fr John Fleming. @theTiser pic.twitter.com/IfvjbRT8np — Sean Fewster (@SeanFewster) February 24, 2016

Justice Gray also said those articles would be defamatory, had the Sunday Mail not succeeded in its defence argument and proven them to be “substantially true”.

“Whilst the publications do not specifically label Fr Fleming as a hypocrite, the very nature of sexual misconduct alleged against him ... serves to convey that imputation,” he said.

“The role of a priest carries with it an expectation or presumption of moral righteousness or rectitude, which is clearly not consistent with any form of sexual impropriety.”

Justice Gray said Fr Fleming’s concession, on the rumour of the ménage-a-trois, was concerning, given his initial “emphatic and positive denial”.

He said it “strongly” worked against “any confidence that I might have in accepting or giving weight to his emphatic and positive denials” about the rest of the evidence.

He said he accepted Richard’s evidence about the homosexual affair, rejecting both Fr Fleming’s assertion that it was “a fabrication” and his claim the men never discussed the incidents.

“That is a finding which seriously affects Fr Fleming’s credibility and the reliance that I can place on his evidence generally,” he said.

“I do not accept Fr Fleming’s denials of the sexual contact deposed to by Richard.”

Justice Gray also rejected the priest’s criticisms of Jane, saying they had no effect upon her reliability as a witness.

“There is every justification for Jane to feel wounded, vulnerable and resentful as a result of what she says was her experience with Fr Fleming,” he said.

“I similarly am not prepared to accept (the former friend’s) denial of the occurrence of (the ménage-a-trois).

“To my mind, there is considerable force in the fact that Jane has steadfastly persisted in her account of this incident ... I am satisfied it took place as she has described.

“The effect of my finding is that the Sunday Mail has made out its defence that the imputation that Fr Fleming engaged in criminal sexual behaviour while an Anglican priest is substantially true.”

Justice Gray was not prepared to act on the evidence of Jenny but, in the context of Richard and Jane’s evidence, found the defence was “substantially true”.

He declined Fr Fleming’s request for both damages and aggravated damages, and said the newspapers’ decision to report about the trial as it progressed was justifiable.

He adjourned the case until Friday, when he will hear the Sunday Mail’s application for costs.

Fr Fleming did not attend the hearing — a fact that Jenny said she found disappointing.

“I’m sad he wasn’t there to take responsibility ... that’s all I have ever wanted, and for him to say sorry to me,” she said.

“I no longer feel shame or ashamed because the court has told me his behaviour was wrong.”

Jane said churches and institutions must change their response to abuse.

“No one deserves to go through what I have been through, but we all have a responsibility to speak out so that such perpetrators lose their power,” she said.

“This perpetrator controlled me for so many years with feelings of shame — he always made the abuse my idea — but I was a child.

“I hope this decision today gives courage to others to speak out and tell their stories.”

She said she had endured an “immeasurable” mental and physical cost over the past eight years.

“No perpetrator should be able to use the law as this person has done,” she said.

“By 2002, both churches knew of the abuse ... since then, they, and the police, have had the same information that was presented to the court.

“But he was actively working as a catholic priest until recently, and would have been able to get a police clearance to work with children.”

Vicar General of the Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide Fr Philip Marshall said he “took this matter very seriously”.

He said he expected a detailed statement would “be made in coming days”.

Anglican Archbishop of Adelaide Jeffrey Driver said there had been allegations against Fr Fleming in the Professional Standards Committee “for some time”.

He said that inquiry had been “paused” during the lawsuit and could now resume.

Consideration of these matters was paused while there was a court case in progress.

“Should the committee choose to do this, it would need to look carefully at all the facts, including any relevant matters that may have emerged through this court case,” he said.

An SA Police spokesman said the judgment would be reviewed so investigators could “make an assessment of any further action in due course”.