1 REPORT OF CASE STUDY NO. 29 The response of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia Ltd to allegations of child sexual abuse OCTOBER 2016 2 ISBN: 978-1-925289-89-3 © Commonwealth of Australia 2016 All material presented in this publication is provided under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence (www.creativecommons.org/licenses). For the avoidance of doubt, this means this licence only applies to material as set out in this document. The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the Creative Commons website as is the full legal code for the CC BY 3.0 AU licence (www.creativecommons.org/licenses). Contact us Enquiries regarding the licence and any use of this document are welcome at: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse GPO Box 5283 Sydney, NSW, 2001 Email: 3 Report of Case Study No. 29 The response of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia Ltd to allegations of child sexual abuse October 2016 CHAIR The Hon. Justice Peter McClellan AM COMMISSIONERS Professor Helen Milroy 2 .oN ydutS esaC fo tropeR 9 5 Table of Contents Preface 4 Executve Summary 8 1 The Jehovah’s Witness Organisaton 13 1.1 Establishment 13 1.2 Organisatonal structure 14 1.3 The Jehovah’s Witness organisaton in Australia 16 1.4 The practces of Jehovah’s Witnesses 17 2 Scriptural Basis for Child Sexual Abuse Policies 20 2.1 Policy formaton 20 2.2 Scriptural wrongdoing and child sexual abuse 23 3 Process for Responding to Allegatons and Preventon of Child Sexual Abuse 24 3.1 Reportng and inital response 24 3.2 Investgaton of a complaint 25 3.3 Judicial commitee and sanctons 26 3.4 Risk management 28 4 BCG 30 4.1 BCG’s sexual abuse by her father, BCH 30 4.2 BCG’s atempted disclosure to the elders 30 4.3 Investgaton and judicial commitee 31 4.4 The decision to disfellowship BCH 38 4.5 Alleged ongoing investgaton 39 4.6 BCH’s appeal 40 4.7 Impact of the investgaton and judicial commitee process on BCG 42 4.8 The reinstatement of BCH 42 4.9 BCG’s correspondence with the Branch Ofce 44 4.10 BCG’s report to the police and BCH’s convicton 44 4.11 The second disfellowshipping of BCH 45 4.12 BCH’s contnued requests for reinstatement 47 4.13 Impact of the abuse on BCG 47 5 BCB 49 5.1 BCB’s sexual abuse by Bill Neill 49 5.2 BCB’s disclosure to the elders 49 5.3 Investgaton of BCB’s allegaton 50 5.4 Removal of Bill Neill as an elder 53 5.5 Risk management in relaton to Bill Neill 53 5.6 Support for BCB 55 2 .oN ydutS esaC fo tropeR 9 5.7 BCB’s disclosure in 2012 55 5.8 The impact of the abuse and the process on BCB 57 6 Child Sexual Abuse Data Held by the Jehovah’s Witness Organisaton 58 6.1 Historical data 58 6.2 Internal reportng of child sexual abuse 59 6.3 External reportng of child sexual abuse to authorites 60 7 Problematc Policies, Procedures and Practces 61 7.1 General practce of not reportng child sexual abuse to secular authorites 61 7.2 Complainant to face abuser 64 7.3 The two-witness rule 65 7.4 The absence of women from the process 66 7.5 No clear provision for a support person 67 7.6 Sanctons and risk management 68 7.7 Shunning 70 8 Expert Evidence for the Jehovah’s Witness Organisaton 73 8.1 Dr Monica Applewhite 73 8.2 Dr Applewhite’s report 74 9 Key submissions made by the Watchtower & Ors 76 10 Response of the Jehovah’s Witness Organisaton to the Sexual Abuse of Children 77 11 Systemic Issues 78 Appendix A: Terms of Reference 79 Appendix B: Public Hearing 86 Endnotes 89 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au 4 Preface The Royal Commission The Leters Patent provided to the Royal Commission require that it ‘inquire into insttutonal responses to allegatons and incidents of child sexual abuse and related maters’. In carrying out this task, we are directed to focus on systemic issues but be informed by an understanding of individual cases. The Royal Commission must make fndings and recommendatons to beter protect children against sexual abuse and alleviate the impact of abuse on children when it occurs. For a copy of the Leters Patent, see Appendix A. Public hearings A Royal Commission commonly does its work through public hearings. A public hearing follows intensive investgaton, research and preparaton by Royal Commission staf and Counsel Assistng the Royal Commission. Although it may only occupy a limited number of days of hearing tme, the preparatory work required by Royal Commission staf and by partes with an interest in the public hearing can be very signifcant. The Royal Commission is aware that sexual abuse of children has occurred in many insttutons, all of which could be investgated in a public hearing. However, if the Royal Commission were to atempt that task, a great many resources would need to be applied over an indeterminate, but lengthy, period of tme. For this reason the Commissioners have accepted criteria by which Senior Counsel Assistng will identfy appropriate maters for a public hearing and bring them forward as individual ‘case studies’. The decision to conduct a case study will be informed by whether or not the hearing will advance an understanding of systemic issues and provide an opportunity to learn from previous mistakes, so that any fndings and recommendatons for future change which the Royal Commission makes will have a secure foundaton. In some cases the relevance of the lessons to be learned will be confned to the insttuton the subject of the hearing. In other cases they will have relevance to many similar insttutons in diferent parts of Australia. Public hearings will also be held to assist in understanding the extent of abuse which may have occurred in partcular insttutons or types of insttutons. This will enable the Royal Commission to understand the way in which various insttutons were managed and how they responded to allegatons of child sexual abuse. Where our investgatons identfy a signifcant concentraton of abuse in one insttuton, it is likely that the mater will be brought forward to a public hearing. Public hearings will also be held to tell the story of some individuals which will assist in a public understanding of the nature of sexual abuse, the circumstances in which it may occur and, most importantly, the devastatng impact which it can have on some people’s lives. 2 .oN ydutS esaC fo tropeR 9 5 A detailed explanaton of the rules and conduct of public hearings is available in the Practce Notes published on the Royal Commission’s website at: www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au Public hearings are streamed live over the internet. In reaching fndings, the Royal Commission will apply the civil standard of proof which requires its ‘reasonable satsfacton’ as to the partcular fact in queston in accordance with the principles discussed by Dixon J in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336: it is enough that the afrmatve of an allegaton is made out to the reasonable satsfacton of the tribunal. But reasonable satsfacton is not a state of mind that is atained or established independently of the nature and consequence of the fact or facts to be proved. The seriousness of an allegaton made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given descripton, or the gravity of the consequences fowing from a partcular fnding are consideratons which must afect the answer to the queston whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satsfacton of the tribunal...the nature of the issue necessarily afects the process by which reasonable satsfacton is atained. In other words, the more serious the allegaton, the higher the degree of probability that is required before the Royal Commission can be reasonably satsfed as to the truth of that allegaton. Private sessions When the Royal Commission was appointed, it was apparent to the Australian Government that many people (possibly thousands) would wish to tell us about their personal history of child sexual abuse in an insttutonal setng. As a result, the Commonwealth Parliament amended the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to create a process called a ‘private session’. A private session is conducted by one or two Commissioners and is an opportunity for a person to tell their story of abuse in a protected and supportve environment. As at 16 September 2016, the Royal Commission has held 5,925 private sessions and more than 1,687 people were waitng to atend one. Many accounts from these sessions will be recounted in later Royal Commission reports in a de-identfed form. Research program The Royal Commission also has an extensive research program. Apart from the informaton we gain in public hearings and private sessions, the program will draw on research by consultants and the original work of our own staf. Signifcant issues will be considered in issues papers and discussed at roundtables. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au 6 This case study In Case Study 29, the Royal Commission into Insttutonal Responses to Child Sexual Abuse explored in detail: • the experiences of two survivors of child sexual abuse within the Jehovah’s Witness Church (hereinafer, the Jehovah’s Witness organisaton) in Australia and the response of the organisaton to those survivors’ complaints • the systems, policies and procedures in place within the Jehovah’s Witness organisaton for raising and responding to allegatons of child sexual abuse and for the preventon of child sexual abuse within the organisaton. The public hearing was held in Sydney from 27 July to 5 August 2015 and on 14 August 2015. The scope and purpose of the public hearing of the case study was to inquire into: a. The experience of survivors of child sexual abuse within the church of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (the Jehovah’s Witness Church) in Australia. b. The responses of the Jehovah’s Witnesses Church and its corporaton, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia Ltd (Watchtower Australia), to allegatons, reports or complaints of child sexual abuse within the Church. c. The systems, policies and procedures in place within the Jehovah’s Witnesses Church and Watchtower Australia for raising and responding to allegatons of or concerns about child sexual abuse within the Church. d. The systems, policies and procedures in place in the Jehovah’s Witnesses Church and Watchtower Australia to prevent child sexual abuse within the Church. e. Any related maters. The Royal Commission heard from two survivor witnesses, 12 insttutonal witnesses and an expert engaged by the Jehovah’s Witness organisaton to give evidence about the organisaton’s policies, procedures and practces. The Royal Commission received combined submissions on behalf of Watchtower Australia and the 1 Jehovah’s Witness elders who gave evidence at the public hearing (the Watchtower & Ors). We also received submissions on behalf of BCG. The Royal Commission served additonal draf fndings on 2 the Watchtower & Ors and received combined submissions in response. 2 .oN ydutS esaC fo tropeR 9 7 We have carefully reviewed and considered all submissions made in this case study and have taken them into account in preparing this report. We have addressed two key submissions made by the Watchtower & Ors in secton 9. Along with the fndings and recommendatons in this report, we have identfed some issues of general signifcance (see secton 11). We have considered these issues and will consider these issues further in other public hearings and roundtables. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au 8 Executve Summary Introducton In Case Study 29 the Royal Commission examined the insttutonal response of the Jehovah’s Witness organisaton in Australia to child sexual abuse. As a part of its examinaton, the Royal Commission considered: • the experiences of two survivors of child sexual abuse and, in partcular, their experiences of the Jehovah’s Witness organisaton’s internal reportng and disciplinary process • evidence before the Royal Commission of case fles held by the organisaton recording allegatons of child sexual abuse made against 1,006 members of the organisaton • the policies, practces and procedures of the organisaton on: a. responding to allegatons and/or reports of child sexual abuse b. the protecton of children. The Royal Commission heard evidence from: • BCG and BCB – two survivors of child sexual abuse whose complaints of abuse were frst handled by the Jehovah’s Witness organisaton in or around 1989 and 1992 respectvely • the Jehovah’s Witness elders involved in responding to BCG’s and BCB’s complaints of abuse • three senior members of the Jehovah’s Witness organisaton in Australia • one senior member of the Jehovah’s Witness organisaton internatonally • an expert engaged by the Jehovah’s Witness organisaton. The Royal Commission received two sets of submissions made on behalf of the Watchtower & Ors. Two key submissions made by Watchtower Australia and the Jehovah’s Witness elders who gave evidence at the public hearing (Watchtower & Ors) are as follows. The frst key submission made on behalf of the Watchtower & Ors was that: • familial child sexual abuse is not insttutonal sexual abuse, as has been acknowledged by the Royal Commission. Similarly it is self-evident that, when child sexual abuse occurs outside ‘insttutonal’ contexts as defned, the response to it does not fall within the Terms of Reference of this Royal Commission • the Royal Commission proceeds on the basis that, when an allegaton of familial sexual abuse becomes known to an elder and is subsequently scripturally investgated by congregaton elders, it ceases to be familial abuse and becomes insttutonal abuse. This confaton of familial and insttutonal sexual abuse does not accord with the Terms of Reference. 2 .oN ydutS esaC fo tropeR 9