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”.

DOWNLOAD: Legal Report executive summary on the Royal Commission into Jehovah’s Witnessess by David Bennett QC and James Gibson (8mb) – pdf

DOWNLOAD: 148-page submission prepared by James Gibson and Andrew Tokley for Watchtower & Ors in response to the Child Abuse Royal Commission – 9 November 2015 (3mb) – pdf

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” .

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.

David Bennett AC, QC barrister profile

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

Say Sorry (published 15 December 2019) Part 1 | Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Child Abuse Royal Commission – Criticism of the Jehovah’s Witnesses

.

.

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