On Thursday 13 April 2023, JW LEAKS received a direct email from Mr Daniel Scott of Peake Legal Solicitors, on behalf of one of his Australian-based clients, informing us that documents, relating to…
the ABC Four Corners program “Bearing Witness” (first aired on 13 September 2021);
the complaint made by Jehovah’s Witnesses Congregations Limited, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia Limited, and the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia) Limited directly to the ABC about the above program;
the Raglan Kingdom Hall Fire and police correspondence;
the Bathurst Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses; and
the complaint and correspondence made by two Jehovah’s Witnesses legal entities to the Australian Communications and Media Authority about the ABC Four Corners program,
…have recently been published on the official government website of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).
JW LEAKS extends its gratitude for the exclusive ‘tip off’ to Mr Daniel Scott – whom we understand is an active Jehovah’s Witness and the current lawyer for Jehovah’s Witnesses Congregations Limited (his client referred to in the opening paragraph), in addition to also being the lawyer representing Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia Limited, and the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia) Limited.
The documents released under the Freedom of Information Act by ACMA reveal the extensive lengths that Jehovah’s Witnesses Congregations Limited, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia Limited, and the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia) Limited, went to in trying to have the ABC Four Corners program on the Jehovah’s Witnesses
“removed from any website on which it appears and [to] never be rebroadcast.”
[Doc 8. Attachment E to complaint – Part 1_Redacted. Item F. Conclusions, “Complaint to ABC …” page 46 of complaint.]
Ironically, they requested that the ABC say sorry for the program.
The documents released evidence the extent, and the lengths of deception, i.e. ‘theocratic warfare’, and potential defamation (libel), that Jehovah’s Witnesses Congregations Limited has engaged in while trying to launch their planned “civil proceedings” [email sent obo Jehovah’s Witnesses Congregations Limited by Peake Legal to NSW Police, dated 5 November 2021].
The documents also reveal the complete, total and utter failure of Jehovah’s Witnesses Congregations Limited to prove or establish any of its complaints in relation to, not just the broadcast itself, but also in relation to comments made by the numerous persons who appeared in the ‘Bearing Witness’ program.
What is of serious concern is that Jehovah’s Witnesses Congregations Limited, a company trust, was a party to the original complaint to the ABC. This 46-page complaint [Document 8. Attachment E to complaint – Part 1_Redacted] goes to great lengths in trying to individually and collectively discredit those persons who appeared on the ABC Four Corners program.
Due to the defamatory nature of the written complaint by Jehovah’s Witnesses Congregations Limited, JW LEAKS has decided not to publishDocument 8 [Doc 8. Attachment E to complaint – Part 1_Redacted – as read in conjunction with – Doc. 9 Attachment E to complaint – Part 2_Redacted].
Instead, we have provided below a link directly to the ACMA website for downloading of all documents in one convenient zip file. (Note: this is an Australian government website).
The actions and conduct of Jehovah’s Witnesses Congregations Limited also raise serious questions as to whether they have engaged in massive unlawful breaches of privacy laws and the Australian Privacy Principles, both in the collection of personal and sensitive information, and in the use of this information, in relation to those that appeared as part of the ‘Bearing Witness’ program.
Among those also singled out for criticism and attack included Lisa Flynn of Shine Lawyers and Irwin Zalkin of The Zalkin Law Firm.
We strongly recommend all those that appeared on the ABC Four Corners program ‘Bearing Witness’ seek legal advice in relation to the conduct and actions of Jehovah’s Witnesses Congregations Limited, specifically in relation to:
Defamation (libel) laws in the jurisdictions of Australia and the USA; and
Privacy laws within Australia (specifically the Information Privacy Principles in the Australian Privacy Act 1988).
According to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, a breach of an Australian Privacy Principle is an ‘interference with the privacy of an individual’ and can lead to regulatory action and penalties.
Disclosure: JW LEAKS provided documents and other information, including footage, to ABC Four Corners for use in the ‘Bearing Witness’ broadcast.
The final complaint outcome
On 4 July 2022, ACMA informed the Jehovah’s Witnesses about the outcome of the official investigation into the ABC Four Corners broadcast ‘Bearing Witness’. The correspondence stated in part:
Thank you for your correspondence, received by the ACMA on 13 May 2022, on behalf of Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia) Limited, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Australia and Jehovah’s Witnesses Congregations, about the compliance of the Four Corners episode, ‘Bearing Witness’, with the ABC Code of Practice 2019 (the Code). I appreciate your patience while the ACMA has considered your clients’ complaint.
We have reviewed the complaint and note that, in summary, it expressed concerns relevant to Standard 2 (Accuracy), Standard 4 (Impartiality), Standard 5 (Fair and Honest Dealing) and Standard 7 (Harm and offence) of the Code.
I appreciate that this matter is of concern to your clients, and I thank you for taking the time to raise it with us.
When we receive a complaint about a broadcast, we weigh up a number of factors to help us decide whether to investigate further.
We have undertaken a detailed assessment of the complaint, a copy of the broadcast, the broadcaster’s response and the relevant rules in the Code. Based on those assessments, we have concluded that there were no issues that raised fundamental concerns with the ABC’s compliance with the Code and we have decided to take no further action.
[Doc 15. Email from ACMA to the complainant 4.0.02022_Redacted]
Watch the ABC Four Corners program “Bearing Witness”
.
.
Why did the Jehovah’s Witnesses Congregations Limited trust get involved?
Jehovah’s Witnesses Congregations Limited was established in 1982 to hold title to real property, namely all Kingdom Halls of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia. The properties are held in trust on behalf of individual congregations and/or beneficiaries.
In the ABC Four Corners program footage was shown of the Raglan Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses, NSW (see above). This hall is used by the Bathurst Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Five days after the ABC Four Corners program aired, in the early morning hours of Saturday 18 September 2021, the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Raglan, NSW, was completely destroyed by fire. The premises were not in regular use at the time due to the COVID pandemic.
A crime scene was immediately established by detectives from Chifley Command (Chifley Police District, NSW Police) and an investigation commenced with the assistance of Fire and Rescue NSW and the NSW Rural Fire Service. The investigation is still ongoing.
Image via Facebook
The fire correspondence
On Friday 5 November 2021, some seven weeks after the fire, NSW Police received an email from Peake Legal Solicitors representing Jehovah’s Witnesses Congregations Limited. This email exchange is included within the bundle of documents released by ACMA [Doc 10. Attachment E to complaint – Part 3_Redacted].
The email exchange states:
Dear Constable [redacted],
I refer to our telephone conversation this afternoon.
We act on behalf of Jehovah’s Witnesses Congregations Limited, the legal title holder of the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses premises located in Raglan NSW, which was recently the site of a fire. Our client holds the property on trust for the Bathurst Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which is an unincorporated association.
Our client is seeking any information or evidence that the Police have been able to uncover, or conclusions that they have drawn, which tend to establish whether or not the fire was started accidentally or intentionally, and if so by whom. Such evidence is critical to civil proceedings which our client wishes to commence as soon as possible.
We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
NSW Police did not immediately acknowledge receipt of the email. On the morning of 10 November 2021, NSW Police received a follow up email from Peake Legal Solicitors which stated:
My client [Jehovah’s Witnesses Congregations Limited] has also asked me to ensure that the Police are aware, that only days before the Bathurst (Raglan) Kingdom Hall was burned down, an article was published on the ABC news website and a Four Corners report was aired on the ABC, both of which contained inflammatory falsehoods about Jehovah’s Witnesses, which in our view were capable of inciting hatred. The report and news article also featured footage of the Raglan Kingdom Hall.
…
We look forward to receipt of your advice regarding any evidence the police may have, that the fire was intentionally started.
Detective Senior Constable [redacted] of NSW Police responded to the email that afternoon, stating:
I am aware of the media articles surrounding the Jehovah’s Witnesses featuring the Raglan Kingdom Hall.
The investigation in relation to the circumstances surrounding the fire at the Raglan Kingdom Hall is ongoing.
I can confirm the following-
[redacted]
The email exchange reveals a potential strategy of Jehovah’s Witnesses Congregations Limited to launch “civil proceedings” in relation to the ABC Four Corners program ‘Bearing Witness’.
The very day before, on 9 December 2021, the Jehovah’s Witnesses submitted a formal ‘complaint’ to the Australian National Office for Child Safety in relation to the ABC Four Corners report that also featured the Bathurst Congregation’s Kingdom Hall.
The complaint stated:
False Media Reports Regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses
On 14 September 2021[sic], the ABC Four Corners report on Jehovah’s Witnesses focused on sensational and unchallenged accounts of hostile ex-Witnesses. The program made false and defamatory statements about the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A number of false representations have arisen based on a gross misinterpretation of the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse[sic] data that was recklessly and maliciously perpetuated by ABC Four Corners.
JW Leaks is about openness, transparency and accountability within the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society.
JW Leaks shines a light on, and holds to account, the Watch Tower Society and those leaders within the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization that disregard or violate the laws of the land, or that cause religious harm to sections of the community.
Jehovah’s Witnesses . . . Proclaimers of “soon” since 1879
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc. v Truth and Transparency Foundation
On April 30, 2020, in the United States District Court Southern District of New York ,civil action was authorised by the governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses against the Truth and Transparency Foundation and its founders over allegations of breaches of copyright laws.
Screenshot of Gerrit Losch in a leaked video on the FaithLeaks website
.
ACCORDING TO THE COMPLAINT
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, by its attorneys, Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., for its Complaint against Defendants The Truth and Transparency Foundation, Ryan C. McKnight, and Ethan G. Dodge alleges:
1.This is a civil action for copyright infringement in violation of the Copyright Act,17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. This litigation seeks relief against the ongoing wholesale infringement of Plaintiff’s registered copyrights in 74 original motion pictures. Defendants, without authorization or permission from Plaintiff, have made unauthorized copies of Plaintiff’s motion pictures, and are reproducing, publicly displaying, publicly performing and distributing Plaintiff’s works online. Plaintiff, accordingly, seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages for willful copyright infringement.
…
12. Watch Tower over decades has created and published thousands of original works of authorship, including literary works, works of visual art, musical works, and motion pictures, and has secured over 3,300 federal copyright registrations for its original works. Under the Copyright Act, Watch Tower has the exclusive rights, among other things, to “reproduce the copyrighted work[s],” to “distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work[s] to the public,” and in the case of its “motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work[s] publicly,” as well as to authorize or license others to engage in such activities. 17 U.S.C. § 106.
13. In mid-2018, Watch Tower learned that 487 of its copyrighted literary works were being reproduced, displayed and distributed without license or permission by Defendants on the faithleaks.org website.
14. On December 31, 2018, Watch Tower’s counsel notified Defendants that their unauthorized publication of Watch Tower’s literary works on the faithleaks site was in violation of Watch Tower’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act, and demanded that such infringing materials be removed from the faithleaks site.
15. Defendants, through counsel, declined Watch Tower’s demand that its literary works be removed from the faithleaks site. Defendants did not contest Watch Tower’s ownership of valid copyrights, or its prima facie case of infringement of those copyrights, but instead asserted “the defense found in 17 U.S.C. § 107,” claiming that Defendants’ wholesale reproduction and distribution of complete works, unaltered and unaccompanied by new matter, was protected as fair use.
16. In May 2019, Watch Tower learned that a large number of motion pictures created by Watch Tower, including the 74 motion pictures at issue here, had been uploaded to and made available for public performance on Rutube, a Russian online video streaming service located at rutube.ru and available to users worldwide.
17. Watch Tower submitted to Rutube notices of claimed infringement, objecting to the unauthorized posting of its copyrighted works on the Rutube site and demanding their removal. In response, Rutube removed the Watch Tower videos from its site.
18. Shortly thereafter, Defendants posted the Watch Tower videos that had been “taken down” from Rutube to Defendants’ faithleaks.org site.
19. In a May 2019 article titled “2019 Jehovah’s Witness Convention Videos Published Again After Successful Takedown Request,” published on Defendants’ truthandtransparency.org website, Defendants boasted not only about their past infringements and refusals to comply with Watch Tower’s efforts to enforce its copyrights, but also about these new infringements, leaving no doubt as to Defendants’ willfulness.
20. The Watch Tower videos remain available on the faithleaks site to the present day.
.
.
About JW Leaks
JW Leaks is about openness, transparency and accountability within the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society.
JW Leaks exposes and holds accountable the Watch Tower Society and those leaders within the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization that disregard or violate the laws of the land, and that cause religious harm to sections of the community.
Jehovah’s Witnesses . . . Proclaimers of “soon” since 1879
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has published, as part of court proceedings, a copy of the newly revised secret Jehovah’s Witnesses elder’s manual ‘Shepherd the Flock of God’.
Commencing in 2018, various legal corporations under the direction of the governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses commenced a campaign of legal action, corporate bullying, threats, and intimidation against numerous web sites, Facebook accounts, YouTube channels, and private social media accounts.
Among those targeted through 60 DMCA subpoena legal actions, commenced in the Federal Court by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc. and subsidiary corporations, was JW LEAKS who are not involved in these current proceedings.
On April 15, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in the matter of DMCA Subpoena to Google, LLC, Case No.: 7:20-mc-00119, a ‘Supplement in Support of the Motion to Quash DMCA Subpoena’ was filed by anonymous Jane / John Doe which included a full copy of the recently revised version of the Jehovah’s Witnesses elder’s manual, ‘Shepherd the Flock of God’.
On April 16, 2020 District Court Judge Cathy Seibel issued the following order:
“The Court will not accept any further filings except Watch Tower’s 4/17/20 submission and Doe’s 5/1/20 response. Any other filings will be disregarded, so do not bother sending any.”
.
.
About JW Leaks
JW Leaks is about openness, transparency and accountability within the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society.
JW Leaks exposes and holds accountable the Watch Tower Society and those leaders within the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization that disregard or violate the laws of the land, and that cause religious harm to sections of the community.
Jehovah’s Witnesses . . . Proclaimers of “soon” since 1879
Documents relating to the application by the ‘Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Netherlands’ to stop the publication of the academic paper “Sexual Abuse and Willingness to Report Sexual Abuse within the Jehovah’s Witnesses Community”
According to Utrecht University, the academic study commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security:
“focuses on the influence that patterns, rules, customs and structures within the Jehovah’s Witness community in the Netherlands have on the manner in which sexual abuse or alleged sexual abuse are dealt with as well as the willingness to report sexual abuse or alleged sexual abuse. One important conclusion of the study is that the manner in which the abuse is handled within the Jehovah’s Witness community leaves victims or alleged victims of sexual abuse feeling insufficiently recognised and supported.”
The study was commissioned by the Research and Documentation Centre (WODC) of the Ministry of Justice and Security, which requested a study be conducted in response to a motion of the Netherlands House of Representatives submitted by Van Nispen et al. (Motion 31015 no. 154). This motion served as main impetus for the WODC and the research project.
On 23 January 2020, the Ministerie van Justitie en Veilgheid (Ministry of Justice and Security) issued a internal government letter which presented and summarised the history of the report and the attempts by Jehovah’s Witnesses to suppress the report. In the letter, De Minister voor Rechtsbescherming, Sander Dekker, wrote:
“The report on willingness to report within the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses paints an extremely worrying picture. The investigation shows that there are reasons to believe that making a report is hampered by the closed nature of the community and the risk that the victim will be released. According to the respondents, the problems in dealing with reports of sexual abuse are also related to the closed culture of the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The research shows that elders of the community are strongly focused on keeping the community together by reconciling the perpetrator and the victim. The result of the experienced way of handling the report is that this leads to secondary victimization. Victims feel insufficiently heard, ignored, stigmatized and isolated.
“I expect every board of an organization, including the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses, to show signs of sexual abuse, to make every effort to prevent sexual abuse. This is especially true with regard to children. As Minister for Legal Protection, it strikes me that so many vulnerable victims felt that they were on their own, had not experienced recognition, and had not, or only recently, found their way to justice and official aid agencies.
“Following the report, a discussion has recently taken place at my ministry with the board. In addition, the board was urged to actively take up the recommendations from the report. In particular, it was about setting up a hotline within the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses where victims of (alleged) abuse can go.
“To my dismay, the board responded negatively to this. Instead of focusing on creating more openness and recognition for the position of victims within the community, it denied the need for this. In the meantime, the board has spared no time, resources or effort to prevent publication of the report. However, in the summary proceedings that were submitted to that effect yesterday at the Midden-Nederland District Court, the administration has been unsuccessful. For the Board’s complete response to the report, I refer you to the appendix.
“Now that the reports are public, I want to call on the board to adopt the recommendations from the reports in a last intrusive conversation. After all, change prompted and propagated by the Community of Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves is the most effective. This is independent of the possibilities that the government has in terms of legislation and official assistance to be able to take action against abuses. Following the final reports and the verdict of the Midden-Nederland court, I will personally discuss the measures to be taken from the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves.” – English translation [non-authorized version]
Court documents submitted by Jehovah’s Witnesses to stop the publication of the report
As part of the court application to stop the publication of the academic report the Jehovah’s Witnesses submitted an “Expert Opinion” prepared by Holly Folk, Massimo Introvigne, and J. Gordon Melton. The opinion, written in English, stated in the opening paragraph:
“We have been requested by the law firm of Mr. Shane Brady, representing the “Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Netherlands”, to examine the report “Sexual Abuse and Willingness to Report Within the Community of Jehovah’s Witnesses,” authored by Kees van den Bos, Marie-Jeanne Schiffelers, Michèlle Bal, Hilke Grootelaar, Isa Bertram and Amarins Jansma, with the cooperation of Stans de Haas, and commissioned by the Research and Documentation Centre of the Ministry of Justice and Safety (Utrecht, December 2019: hereinafter “the Report”), and to comment on it based on our experience of several decades in the study of minority religions and the Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
The expert opinion, as used by Jehovah’s Witnesses, is interesting in that the authors define the word ‘apostates’ as a “technical term not implying value judgment” as used “by some sociologists”. (par. 11.)
A finding from the authors of the expert opinion highlight a complete lack of understanding about the structure of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation at the most basic level, that of a congregation. The authors state:
“It is also worth noting that the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not sponsor or provide any activities that separate children from their parents or otherwise take custody of children.” (par. 24.)
Jehovah’s Witnesses do indeed sponsor and provide activities that separate children from their parents. Examples of this are congregation field service, child mentoring programs, personal bible studies, Kingdom Hall cleaning, volunteer construction work, and even in the area of Scripturally-based discipline.
Secret legal report critical of the Australian ‘Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse’ used as evidence by Jehovah’s Witnesses to stop publication of the academic paper
On 14 November 2018, Australian-based barristers David Bennett AC, QC and James Gibson presented to Watchtower Australia and the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation their commissioned review and opinion on the findings and recommendations of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse as it related to Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The report was used by the ‘Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Netherlands’.
JW Leaks is about openness, transparency and accountability within the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society.
JW Leaks exposes and holds accountable the Watch Tower Society and those leaders within the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization that disregard or violate the laws of the land, and that cause religious harm to sections of the community.
Jehovah’s Witnesses . . . Proclaimers of “soon” since 1879
Jehovah’s Witnesses and Watchtower Australia have commissioned a secret legal report critical of the Australian ‘Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse’
On 14 November 2018, Australian-based barristers David Bennett AC, QC and James Gibson presented to Watchtower Australia and the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation their commissioned review and opinion on the findings and recommendations of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse as it related to Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The review entitled “Review of the Commission’s Investigation into Jehovah’s Witnesses and its ensuing reports” was divided into four Parts, as follows:
Part One considered the history and powers of royal commissions in general.
Part Two considered particular aspects of the Child Abuse Royal Commission relevant to Jehovah’s Witnesses, including the Commission’s Terms of Reference.
Part Three considered the Commission’s findings and recommendations regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the basis of such findings and recommendations.
Part Four considered the responses, as at 14 November 2018, of the Commonwealth and State Governments to the Final Report of the Child Abuse Royal Commission.
Following receipt of the commissioned review and opinion, Watchtower Australia requested from Bennett QC and Gibson that they prepare an Executive Summary of their review, with a focus on “the Commission’s findings and recommendations regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses and the basis of such findings and recommendations”.
On 11 February 2019 Bennett QC and Gibson presented to Watchtower Australia and the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation their signed eight-page executive summary: “Jehovah’s Witnesses in Australia and The Final Report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse”.
Extracts from the executive summary written by David Bennett AC, QC and James Gibson:
“The Commission’s dissection of the religious beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses … failed to discriminate between religious beliefs (and the obligations imposed by such beliefs) and the requirements of secular law”
.
“The Commission’s criticism of Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible-based religious beliefs and practices was misplaced”
.
“[W]e consider a large part of the Commission’s investigation into and evidence led about Jehovah’s Witnesses, which related to child sexual abuse within families of members of Jehovah’s Witnesses, was outside the Commission’s Terms”
.
“[A] more balanced and fair approach should have been adopted by the Commission”
.
“[T]he Commission considered that it had carte blanche to inquire into allegations of child sexual abuse [within Jehovah’s Witnesses]”
.
“[I]t is questionable whether proper regard was had by the Commission when coming to its findings on its analysis of the data, to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Submissions regarding the case files”
.
“There was an inherent unfairness in the Commission’s investigation of Jehovah’s Witnesses”
.
Report of Case Study No. 29 and summary of findings image courtesy of SaySorry.org
Facts vs ‘Apostate-driven lies’
In the “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” the Child Abuse Royal Commission wrote the following in relation to the submissions from Watchtower & Ors:
“As noted in the Preface to this report, the Royal Commission received two sets of combined submissions made on behalf the Watchtower & Ors. We consider it appropriate to specifically address here two of the key submissions that were made … We do not accept that the child sexual abuse revealed in this case study has no connection with the activities of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation … We do not agree with this submission … The Royal Commission’s Terms of Reference require us to consider such matters and other ‘related matters in institutional contexts’. The definitions in the Terms of Reference of both ‘institution’ and ‘institutional context’ are not exhaustive and, in our view, they encompass the institution of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation and its activities.” – page 76. Download Case Study Report into Jehovah’s Witnesses published by the Child Abuse Royal Commission
The governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses continue to deny the findings of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
Despite the above cited statement published by the Child Abuse Royal Commission, Bennett QC and Gibson wrote in their commissioned report to Watchtower Australia and the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation that,
“In our opinion the Commission’s rejection of … two ‘key submissions’ made by Jehovah’s Witnesses led the Commission to conflate impermissibly, and contrary to its Terms of Reference, familial and institutional sexual abuse”.
Key paragraphs from the Executive Summary written by Bennett QC and Gibson
“2.14 In our opinion, had a challenge been made to a Court, it is reasonable to conclude that an Australian Court, applying the plain and ordinary meaning of the words and defined terms used in the Terms of Reference and applying conventional rules of construction, would have found that an examination of child sexual abuse in families of people who also happened to be members of Jehovah’s Witnesses, was beyond the scope of the Commission’s mandate”.
“2.15 We understand that while Jehovah’s Witnesses did not agree with the Commission’s reasons, they did not wish to exacerbate the trauma of either of the survivors or of their own witnesses and did not consider that their interests would be advanced by such a challenge – which would only have added to the damaging publicity surrounding the Commission”.
“2.19 In our view, even allowing for the Commission’s interpretation of the scope of its Terms of Reference, a more balanced and fair approach should have been adopted by the Commission to its presentation of the case file data. As it is, it is questionable whether proper regard was had by the Commission when coming to its findings on its analysis of the data, to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Submissions regarding the case files”.
“2.23 Although the information obtained by the Commission in the private sessions clearly assisted the policy objectives of the Commission’s Terms of Reference, there are significant difficulties in relying on any findings based on private sessions”. [JW Leaks notes: for a discussion on the private sessions see the SaySorry.org article Private Session Narratives. To understand the scope of the alleged ‘significant difficulties in relying on any findings based on [all 8,013] private sessions’, as stated by Bennett QC and Gibson, refer to the Child Abuse Royal Commission’s Final Report Volume 5 Private sessions which publishes the findings of all private sessions].
“2.26 In our assessment the Commission paid little regard or appeared to give no weight to the historical context in which the two incidents investigated occurred. At the very least, the Commission should have considered whether the Scriptural requirement of corroboration in the so called “two-witness rule”, was comparable to what the police and the courts required at a similar historical period as that being examined in the two cases”.
The executive review and opinions of Bennett QC and Gibson are currently being used by the governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the various legal entities that they provide direction to, as an attempt to prevent or undermine current law enforcement and governmental investigations around the world into allegations concerning the prevalence of, and the mishandling of, child sexual abuse within the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation. It is unknown as to whether Bennett QC and Gibson are aware of this. Both Bennett QC and Gibson have been contacted and formally invited to comment on this.
Recently the document produced by Bennett QC and Gibson was used by the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in The Netherland as an attempt to try and stop the publishing of the official academic report on the “Sexual Abuse and Willingness to Report Within the Community of Jehovah’s Witnesses,” authored by Kees van den Bos, Marie-Jeanne Schiffelers, Michèlle Bal, Hilke Grootelaar, Isa Bertram and Amarins Jansma, with the cooperation of Stans de Haas, and commissioned by the Research and Documentation Centre of the Ministry of Justice and Safety.
Who is David Bennett AC, QC and what is his relationship with the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation?
Barrister David Bennett AC, QC, was the former Solicitor-General of Australia. Bennett QC has represented the interests in Australia of both the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation and the Scientology organisation over many years.
In 2013, Bennett QC represented a 17-year-old Jehovah’s Witnesses child in a blood transfusion case before the Supreme Court of NSW against the Sydney Children’s Hospital (see The Sydney Children’s Hospital Network v X [2013] NSWSC 368 and also X v The Sydney Children’s Hospital Network [2013] NSWCA 320). The Supreme Court ordered the blood transfusion (Download judgment). The instructing solicitor in those proceedings was Vincent Toole, legal counsel for Watchtower Australia and a Jehovah’s Witness elder. Counsel assisting Bennett QC in those proceedings was barrister Andrew Tokley SC. During the Child Abuse Royal Commission Tokley SC represented Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia, Geoffrey Jackson of the governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the interests of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation.
In Australia, Bennett AC, QC won the historic Supreme Court case that redefined religion and granted religious recognition for Scientology. In a speech at the opening of the new Australian-headquarters for Scientology Australasia in 2016, Bennett QC said:
“Out of all the cases that I have been involved in, I count your victory affirming that Scientology is a religion as the one that makes me the most proud, because since that time, courts around the world have relied on the Australian definition. And so, to be here celebrating with all of you, well, I see just what can result from a dramatic and revolutionary court victory in the name of religious freedom. And, it makes me even more proud to know that what began as a fight for what is fair, led to a decision that has spread across the world to guarantee the rights of people of all faiths.” – Scientology.org.au
.
“It is apparent from our Review that Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Commission shared common goals, namely, to ensure, as far as it is possible, that children are kept safe from predatory sexual behaviour”. – David Bennett AC, QC and James Gibson
.
Further information on the evidence-based criticism levelled at the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation by the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse see the review published by Say Sorry
JW Leaks is about openness, transparency and accountability within the Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society.
JW Leaks exposes and holds accountable the Watch Tower Society and those leaders within the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization that disregard or violate the laws of the land, and that cause religious harm to sections of the community.
Jehovah’s Witnesses . . . Proclaimers of “soon” since 1879
JW LEAKS 