Royal Commission Case Study 29 (Jehovah's Witnesses) — Hearing Transcript, Day 150 (2015)
Download: PDF — Royal Commission Case Study 29 (Jehovah's Witnesses) — Hearing Transcript, Day 150 (2015)
%20%E2%80%94%20Hearing%20Transcript%2C%20Day%20150%20(2015)/cover.jpg)
ROYAL COMMISSION INTO INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES TO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
Public Hearing - Case Study 29 (Day 150)
Level 17, Governor Macquarie Tower Farrer Place, Sydney
On Friday, 31 July 2015 at 10am
Before The Chair: Commissioner:
Justice Peter McClellan AM Professor Helen Milroy
Counsel Assisting:
Mr Angus Stewart SC
.31/07/2015 (150)
15431 Transcript produced by DTI MR STEWART: Your Honour, the next witness, Dr Monica Applewhite, is an expert witness who has been engaged by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Australia as an expert witness, and offered for testimony to the Royal Commission.
I call Dr Applewhite.
<MONICA LISA APPLEWHITE, sworn: [10.05am]
<EXAMINATION BY MR STEWART:
MR STEWART: Q. Dr Applewhite, I will start with a little bit of background. You are from the United States --
THE CHAIR: I think we need the witness's name.
MR STEWART: Q. Your full name, Dr Applewhite? A. Monica Lisa Applewhite.
Q. You have furnished a report to the Royal Commission; is that right, dated 22 July 2015?
A. That's correct.
Q. And two annexures to that report - one is your letter of instructions from Milton Bray and the other is a curriculum vitae for yourself; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Do you confirm that the report is true and correct?
A. Yes.
MR STEWART: I tender the report, your Honour.
EXHIBIT #29-0013 REPORT OF DR APPLEWHITE
MR STEWART: Q. You are from the United States of America; is that right, Dr Applewhite?
A. That's correct.
Q. You have been engaged by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Australia as an expert witness for the purpose of this hearing; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Your ordinary work is as a consultant broadly in the area of child sexual abuse; is that right?
A. I have worked in other fields beyond sexual abuse, I've also worked with physical abuse and neglect, but the majority of my work has been with sexual abuse in organisations.
Q. And not limited to children?
A. No, also vulnerable adults as well.
Q. Just by way of background, your primary and secondary education - in other words, your school education - what nature of institutions were you at school?
A. Sorry, did you say my primary and secondary?
Q. Yes.
A. I was --
Q. In other words, were they faith-based school education that you attended?
A. No, I attended - we would call public school, you would call State school, I think.
Q. Yes. And you are an active Catholic; is that right?
A. I am.
Q. Insofar as your tertiary education is concerned, you have a Bachelor of Science in social work from the Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, in 1990; is that right.
A. That's right.
Q. That university, Texas Christian University, is that particular to any particular denomination within the Christian religion more broadly?
A. It is. It is affiliated with the Disciples of Christ.
Q. The Disciples of Christ?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you have a Masters of Science in social work from the University of Texas at Arlington, 1992; is that right?
A. That's right.
Q. And a PhD in social work, also University of Texas at Arlington, 1995; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. In your CV, that is described as "clinical track", can you explain what that means?
A. Sure. When you work on your PhD in that particular program, you have two options, and one is a clinical track, which would focus more on therapeutic types of work and the other is an administrative track that would focus on being responsible for non-profit organisations that would provide social service to groups of people.
Q. Is that a PhD by dissertation alone or part dissertation and part course work?
A. There are - course work and then you do a dissertation at the end.
Q. Proportionately, how, insofar as qualifying for the PhD, how much is allocated to the dissertation as opposed to the course work?
A. It depends on the person, how long it takes them to get their dissertation completed, but roughly speaking I'd say two-thirds course third, one-third dissertation.
Q. The dissertation, how long is it?
A. How long is it?
Q. Yes, in words?
A. Oh, I have no idea.
Q. Your PhD, they didn't specify it has to be --
A. A certain number of words?
Q. Yes.
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Thank you. Your PhD dissertation is entitled "A logical regression model on the decision-making process of women in abusive relationships"; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. That is, I would understand from the title, not to do with or relevant to child sexual abuse particularly?
A. Not particularly. It was women who were in abusive relationships making decisions whether to stay or to leave an abusive partner.
Q. Did you publish your dissertation?
A. I did not.
Q. Have you published any peer-reviewed publications?
A. I have not.
Q. In your CV you mention a couple of publications that you do have, and that is on page 7 of the CV. That is at Ringtail 23.
A. Yes.
Q. You have only listed two there. I understand there are others; is that right?
A. Things that I've written have been published in online educational programs. I have a couple of chapters now that have been published, but none of those are peer-reviewed articles, if that's the question.
Q. The first one you have there, "Putting abuse in context", America Magazine, September 2006 - America Magazine is a magazine published by the Order of Jesuits; is that right?
A. Yes, it's a Jesuit publication.
Q. The second publication you have there, "Human Development Magazine", is a Catholic magazine; is that right, or journal?
A. Yes, it is a Catholic magazine.
Q. You are on the board of that, the editorial board of that journal?
A. Yes.
Q. Insofar as your work history and experience is concerned, I understand from your CV that you were first employed in 1992 in a consulting firm; is that right? A. That's correct.
Q. You worked with that firm until 2007?
A. That's correct.
Q. Thereafter, you have worked as an independent consultant in essentially your own consultancy; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. If I have it correctly, you have not worked in a service delivery organisation per se, have you?
A. I have worked in service delivery organisations while I was still working on my PhD, or working on my masters degree, or working on my bachelor's degree, throughout the time I was in school I had to work.
Q. Let's leave school aside. In the time period of your postgraduate education, what were the nature of the service delivery organisations you worked in?
A. They were residential treatment programs for children; day treatment programs for children, mostly for children who had experienced emotional, physical, sexual abuse and had emotional and behavioural problems as a result.
Q. And the nature of your work in those institutions?
A. I did social work, I did social intake work,
I facilitated groups.
Q. Was some of that part of your training as a social worker?
A. Yes.
Q. In other words, linked to your academic work?
A. Some was part - I worked in practicums while I was in school, and I also worked to work to pay for school.
Q. One of the things that is important in this area of, broadly speaking, child safety or the prevention of child sexual abuse in organisations is the question of standards. Have you ever developed such standards - in other words, standards of practice for the reporting or prevention of child sexual abuse in religious organisations? A. Could I just clarify the language-standards of practice? I have worked to figure out and determine what were the standards of care in a particular time frame, and when I say "standard of care", I mean what would be a reasonable expectation of an organisation in a particular time frame, given the information that was available, the professional research, the guidelines that were available, the criminal justice systems. So that would be a standard of care. And then there is also best practice, which is recommendations that I would make, that I would advocate that a better way of doing things would be this type of a practice, and so I don't usually use the word "standard of practice", I would say standard of care and best practice.
Q. So insofar as standard of care is concerned, what you have indicated, if I understand you correctly, is you have looked back historically and identified what seemed to you to be the standards that were applicable at a particular time; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And insofar as best practice is concerned, that would be looking at any current point in time as to what you would regard to be best organisational practice; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Insofar as developing best practice is concerned, can you identify in your CV where you have outlined a lot of the work that you have done in different organisations which of those has involved that? In other words, which of that work has involved developing best practice or advising on best practice?
A. Sure. So even beginning back at the beginning of the work in 1992, the purpose - so from 1992 until today, the purpose of the educational programs that I provide and the consulting that I provide is to work with an individual organisation to help them figure out how to better prevent and respond properly to incidents of abuse. So that would be from the very beginning. Now, what we knew and understood when I started is different than what we know now, but that's always been the purpose, has been to push the organisation along to try to figure out how do you prevent, how do you respond if someone comes and says that they have had an experience of abuse. That's always been the purpose.
Q. So if I'm to understand you correctly, essentially throughout your consulting career at any particular point in time, you have consulted to organisations where, at that point in time, you have engaged with them as to what best practice is or should be for their organisation; is that right?
A. It is, and if I could just clarify, where that information first came from. Before I started consulting, I worked conducting root cause analysis of cases and analysing cases in organisations to figure out at what point did - at what point could this have been prevented; at what point could this have been responded to more quickly; were there warning signs? And, if there were, and typically you can find something that could be fixed, then to figure out how that could be implemented as a prevention process in an organisation. So once you put together 200 or 300 or 400 cases, you begin to see the patterns, I'm sure that you would see the patterns now, and when you follow along those patterns and you can figure out where is the piece that can be fixed in, for example, screening and selection or in supervision or in opportunities for people to come forward.
So that's always been the purpose. And I started consulting after conducting research.
Q. That research - in what way were those cases, the hundreds you have spoken of, cases presented to you and how did you get access to them?
A. Originally there weren't hundreds and hundreds. The way that we started was working with organisations that already - we had a group of consultants and already had contacts with organisations and asked them to help us identify cases that we could analyse. There were also some publicised cases that had been publicised through the legal system, and so you could use those cases. And as, we began consulting and as I began doing the work, we could add the cases - in the early days, when someone would call and say we want to figure out a prevention plan in 1993 or 1994, almost invariably there had been some cases in their organisation, and so we would accumulate those cases that way.
Q. I take it you learnt a lot from the analysis of those cases?
A. I did learn a lot from the analysis of those cases.
Q. You didn't publish the outcomes of that analysis, as I understand it?
A. We did not.
Q. Is there a reason for that? I would have thought that others might have found your work in that area valuable, had it been published?
A. That's true. The trouble was that the way that the cases were identified and the way that they could be analysed was not up to the rigours of empirical research in that way. When you begin to say - when you begin to make generalisations and publish an article that says "This is everything that we have found", you can have anecdotal evidence and say "This is what we have found in this case, this is what we have found in that case", but often times the amount of information you have about a particular case will vary from organisation to organisation - when you came along, were you able to do interviews and there was so much in research methodology that didn't bring it up to the standards to be published in a way.
Q. In the period post 2007 - in other words, when you had your own consultancy - with reference to the particular work identified in your CV, can you identify for us which of those items of work or engagements involved the review or presentation of best practice in the organisation?
A. From 2007 to the present?
Q. Yes. So, in other words, I'm looking at page 2 of your CV,Ringtail 18.
A. Yes. And your specific question is what involved the review and development?
Q. Yes, the review of or development of best practice in the organisation?
A. The review - the risk assessment in Milton Hershey School. It is a little bit difficult for me to talk about that, because so much of what I have to do isn't on behalf of a specific organisation. So, in order to continuously know what is best practice, you have to continuously read the empirical research, you have to continuously apply findings from various organisations. So it's - in some ways, it's all tied in. But I think what you are asking me is when was I reviewing their practices to give them feedback.
Q. To use your terminology, let me rephrase it - reviewing their particular standards of care and advising on their best practice - in other words, what their best or better practice should be.
A. Okay. So the way that I would do that normally - for example, the risk assessment at Milton Hershey School, that's a school that provides education for impoverished children, so what I would do - what I did - is look at everything that they are doing, in terms of their practices, how do they screen, how do they supervise, and then compare those with what would be the standard of care or what would be expected in an industry that is similar to theirs. And then, if there is anything from a risk management perspective, that could be helpful to bring them to an even better practice, then I would make that recommendation.
Q. Just before you go on and identify the next one, and so on, because I'm going to ask you to identify each one, but you mention there the standards of care in the industry. What do you have reference to to identify what is the standard of care?
A. So it depends on the industry. In a place where there is accreditation standards, those would clearly be the standards of care. Many of the organisations I work with don't have accreditation or don't have a particular set of standards that have been imposed; they have to figure those out. So the other places that I would look would be the guidelines that have been given through a governmental entity, the publications that are available for those types of organisations, what similar organisations are doing. If it's been found, for example, the education - the Department of Education has published a study, perhaps, on peer-to-peer, student-to-student abuse and they have recommendations - so any of those would be reference points for the particular type of organisation.
THE CHAIR: Q. Can I just understand something. Your CV includes a list of the organisations which you refer to as "Specific client organisations"?
A. Yes.
Q. Just taking the religious organisations, I haven't counted them up - there is a lot of them.
A. There is a lot. I have worked a great deal with religious organisations.
Q. Are you telling us that you have gone in and done separate work with each of these separate religious organisations?
A. Yes.
Q. Truly? How many are there?
A. Well, one of the reasons that there are so many is that when - in the United States when the Catholic Church developed programs for the dioceses under the Charter For Protection of Children and Young People, the Conference of Major Superiors of Men also developed a program and I oversaw the implementation of that program and during that time worked with many, many individual religious orders and congregations of men.
Q. So when you say you oversaw the program, a program was developed and then you participated in its implementation; is that what you are saying?
A. I worked to - I worked with them to develop the program of accreditation, and then --
Q. Who did you work with for that?
A. The Conference of Major Superiors of Men.
A. It is. And we had a specific - we had a specific advisory body of individual leaders from within that to develop standards, and then I went to regional meetings with the leadership of those orders and congregations, with the standards --
Q. So you have been to meetings of each of these organisation?
A. The ones that I have listed are the ones that I've actually been to - either went to their - where they live to do an accreditation audit or I went and did an educational program with them, or I did a risk assessment with them or developed policies with them. So each one of those would be an individual meeting most of the time, at the place where they function.
Q. Individual meeting or series of meetings or what?
A. Sometimes for weeks. Sometimes for months.
Q. You must have been very busy.
A. You can see why I decided I was travelling too much and had to make some changes.
Q. What about all of the other organisations - are you saying to us that you have been one-on-one with each of the other organisations as well?
A. Yes.
Q. Sorry?
A. Yes, sir, I am.
Q. To do what?
A. It depends. Sometimes, a risk assessment; sometimes an educational program, sometimes policy development.
Q. Do you have assistance?
A. Much of this work took place before 2007. I still do a great deal of work now. I had a team, when I was working with Praesidium.
Q. You had a team of people working with you?
A. Yes.
Q. So when was that? That was up until -A.
Up until 2007.
Q. So can we assume that all of the work that was done up until 2007 has been done by you with others; is that right?
A. Up until 2007?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. And that, when I look at these organisations, seems to be all of it; is that right?
A. Up to 2007? No.
Q. Which ones are after 2007?
A. Are we working - are we looking at religious or are we looking at just throughout?
Q. Well, I was looking at organisations under the heading "Specific client organisations", then trying to relate that back, but have I missed something?
MR STEWART: Q. To help you, Dr Applewhite, would it be those that are listed from the middle of page 2 through to the foot of page 3 - that page and a half?
A. Sure.
Q. In the post-2007 period?
A. Yes.
THE CHAIR: Q. I was just trying to relate - you have identified particular organisations, September 2007, and then "Research" you have also identified. Then we go, I think, to everything that has been done before 2007. And then I was trying to relate that back to the particular organisations you mentioned.
A. Mmm-hmm.
Q. My guess was that they were all before 2007. A. So I can - the work that I've done since 2007 has focused on independent schools, private schools - so they would be, if you look under "Schools", Buckingham Brown & Nichols School.
MR STEWART: Q. You are looking at page 11?
A. Yes.
Q. Hackley School, Marlborough School For Girls, Milton Hershey School.
THE CHAIR: Q. So the schools might be after 2007?
A. Yes.
Q. And then I have also focused on a couple of international projects that - in the Catholic church, the in Missionaries of the Sacred Heart, Holy Cross Fathers and Brothers, and the Monfort Missionaries.
Q. What have you done for them?
A. I have worked with those to develop standards that could be applied to their organisations, so there would be congregations of men that would have men in anywhere from 20 to 40 countries. So I've worked with them to develop standards that could be applied to their organisation throughout the world.
Q. What do you mean "standards"?
A. Standards - so, for example, that - just a standard that I would use as an example would be that anyone who has ever had a sexual offence against a minor would never be in public ministry again, and that would be a standard that I would work with them to educate people about, to try to make sure that each part of the world where they are working would uphold that standard. So we would develop the standards and then do education about it and work with them to figure out what the policy differences might be because the law is so different in so many different places, and then go to those countries, if we need to, and make sure that they are being implemented.
MR STEWART: Q. Dr Applewhite, if you go back to page 2 of your CV, you had identified the Milton Hershey School that is a second, as it were, sub-bullet point, as being work that you did which included the identification of their standard of care and advising on best practice. Do you recall when that was; Milton Hershey School? A. I have worked with Milton Hershey School off and on since 2007, so when I did that actual risk assessment, I did a risk assessment and then I did a review later to see if they had implemented the recommendations. So probably I did the review maybe a year ago, and the original risk assessment maybe two years ago. It could have been a little longer, but about that.
Q. And then which of these others here involved the identification of their standards and advice on best practice?
A. I don't see any more that specifically had that as the function of the work. Conducting a risk assessment is one of those types of tasks that takes quite a bit of time, and so that's something that, if I'm asked to do that, I often refer that to my former company and say "Maybe need a team to do that".
Q. If we take a look at page 10 of your CV, you do list a number of institutions in Australia?
A. Mmm-hmm.
Q. Three-quarters of the way down we see Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, Victoria, and there are some others. But starting first with Melbourne, can you explain what work you did for that archdiocese and when it was? A. Melbourne, in particular, I have not worked closely with. They asked me to do a video - an educational video, where they had someone come in and ask certain questions, they came to Austin, where I live, and I answered those questions, and I don't know if they've actually ever used that or not. So that would be one that I have not worked very closely with.
Q. And when was that?
A. That was maybe a year and a half ago.
Q. A couple further down it says Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney.
A. Yes. I've done work with the Catholic Education Office in Sydney and --
Q. You list that separately on the bottom of the next page. Perhaps we can deal with the Catholic Education Office separately, but insofar specifically as the Archdiocese of Sydney is concerned, what work did you do with them and when?
A. I don't - I think that I must have done - I must have listed that incorrectly, because the work - I've done several different educational programs for the Catholic Education Office, but not the archdiocese separately from them.
Q. Can you tell us what work you did for the Catholic Education Office?
A. Sure. I have conducted educational programs on general prevention awareness of the dynamics of relationship-based abuse; types of people who offend, who sexually abuse, in faith-based organisations; and warning signs that we would see in faith-based organisations and how to act on those warning signs, in terms of prevention.
I've also done a program on pastoral response to people who come forward.
Q. And by "done a program", do you mean you came here and ran a program with people from that institution? A. I have actually conducted programs for them in two separate ways, and that would actually be - other Catholic dioceses from throughout New South Wales were invited to come to or plug in to video conference training that I conducted, and that - and then I also came here and conducted programs.
A. Yes.
Q. -- when were those?
A. I think that the last one I did was three years ago.
THE CHAIR: Q. Is this with teachers or priests or -- A. I haven't done a program for priests in the Archdiocese of Sydney. Some priests may have come, but it would have been for principals and leadership within Catholic education.
Q. So lay people?
A. They would be lay people, unless there is a principal that happens to be a religious.
MR STEWART: Q. And the Catholic Diocese of Adelaide? A. Yes.
Q. What work did you do for them?
A. Similar types of programs where we - I usually try to start with the basics of the dynamics of how abuse happens, the experiences that people who are abused describe, and then go into what leadership can do when they learn of warning signs, how they can make it easier for people to come forward.
Q. Was that by video conferencing or did you come and do programs in Adelaide?
A. I did programs in Adelaide.
Q. When was that?
A. Maybe the first one was in 2010-2010/2011.The other - yes.
Q. And then you have got the Catholic Diocese of Cairns.
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do with them? Obviously, if it is the same as you did with Adelaide, you can say it is the same and it will cut it short.
A. It is the same that I did with Adelaide, but - I believe that I conducted more in-depth seminars in Adelaide and have only done basic programs, so far, in Cairns.
Q. Over the page, about 8 or 10 dot points down, we have the Roman Catholic Diocese of Toowoomba, in Queensland. A. Yes. That's actually another one where I should be specific. That's with the Catholic Education Office in Toowoomba.
Q. What did you do with them?
A. I did a seminar - a full-day seminar that they videotaped, where we went from the basics all the way through to what leadership can do to prevent in the future, as well as what ordinary people who are receiving services in the organisation, which in this case would be the parents and students, need to know; and they used those videotapes to also conduct educational programs for new staff that are coming in now.
Q. I missed one on the previous page - Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane. You have done a couple of educational programs for that archdiocese, have you not? A. I have. I've been-I went there this-on this trip and I also have been there previously, two years ago.
Q. If I understand it correctly, the work you have done in Australia has, for the most part, been educational - educational programs of one form or another; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Has that really become more the focus of your work since you have been in your own consultancy - educational programs, that is?
A. I do more educational programs now because of the time that it takes to do risk assessments and the amount of time being away from home that it takes to do risk assessments especially if you are just one person.
So I do more educational programs, but I also do individual consultancy so that if somebody's dealing with a particular situation for example, somebody has boundary violations and it is not a criminal behaviour but they are worried about them, then they can get advice and I can review it and walk them through the steps.
Q. To use your terminology, the standards of care that apply at any particular time are changing, aren't they - in other words, this is quite a fast-moving area insofar as standards are concerned; is that right?
A. Yes, I've seen tremendous change since I began the work.
Q. So if one was to talk about current standards, one would be talking what sort of time frame - the last two, three years, five years? What would "current standards" be?
A. I really put the current standards in a time frame from about 2000 to today. Even though things are changing rapidly, I would call the current era a different time frame from 2000 to today.
I think after two or three more years go by, we're going to be able to separate out 2010 from the others because things are beginning to formulate and become more clear, seeing more consistency, but I'm sure we have a long way to go.
Q. Returning to your report itself and paragraph 4 in particular --
THE CHAIR: Q. Can I just pause for a moment. You speak about current standards or standards, what are you talking about?
A. When I'm speaking about current standards or standards, I'm really saying given everything that we know today, what are the reasonable expectations for an organisation today, and in a sense, if they are not holding up to those standards that we could expect from everybody, given everything that we know now, what would be falling short of expectations, reasonable expectations by society.
Q. But in relation to what?
A. In relation to how they prevent abuse, particularly in sexual abuse; how they prevent sexual abuse; how they respond to warning signs; how they respond if somebody actually discloses abuse; how do they - do they fix things afterwards? How do they follow up? I mean, the prevention piece of it, in itself, is where I'm focusing attention now in my educational programs, because I feel like we're past the point of just responding properly, that we really should be using what we know to prevent it from happening in the first place. So that's what I mean.
MR STEWART: Q. Just to develop that a little bit further, insofar, then, as current standards or current expectations of standards are concerned, let's deal perhaps slightly more narrowly with the question of raising and responding to child sexual abuse allegations or complaints or concerns within an organisation. Would one of those standards or requirements be what I might describe as child centred?
A. That how we respond should be child centred?
Q. Yes.
A. Or - I would probably make it a bit more broadly, that the individual - because a lot of people who come forward, at least in a faith-based organisation, come forward later, and so I would hope that even if they weren't a child any more, that we could have a victim or survivor-centred response.
Q. Yes.I take that point. Thank you.In other words would that be the best interests of the child or adult survivor is foremost in the way in which we respond? A. Yes.
THE CHAIR: Q. Does that mean that the process should be one which is designed to ensure that the child or adult survivor feels able to come forward and comfortable in reporting what has happened?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Is that a critical thing to an effective response from an institution?
A. Not in my opinion.
Q. Sorry?
A. You are saying is it critical - you are saying is it important?
Q. Yes.
A. Oh, absolutely.
Q. Is it one of the primary factors, as it were, that must be found in any system of response?
A. For a faith-based organisation, I think how the person feels about being able to come forward and how they are treated once they are coming forward is absolutely essential.
Q. Why just faith-based, why isn't that true of any organisation?
A. The difficulty is - because I work with so many organisations that - I work with so many organisations that don't have the resources to have that set up for themselves - social service organisations that are going to need to use an outside entity to be able to come forward. They might not be fully equipped to have a program for someone to come into or to be prepared for that to come forward to them.
Q. Even then, shouldn't they have in place a process even if it involves engaging an outside organisation?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Shouldn't they have in place a process which allows a child or an adult survivor the capacity to come and feel safe in reporting?
A. Yes, definitely.
MR STEWART: Q. And that is partly about being child-centred, about making the child or the survivor feel safe and secure, but it's also to do, I suppose, with achieving an environment where full disclosure is possible or more likely?
A. You are asking if part of the way you create a victimor survivor-centred response system is to create an environment where people feel comfortable to disclose? Is that right?
Q. I'm saying they are two reasons why one may - perhaps there are many others - at least two reasons why it is important to create that environment. One would be for the health and wellbeing of the survivor, but another, and related one, is that in that environment, they are more likely to be able to disclose what actually happened so that the organisation can properly deal with it; would that be right?
A. Yes. We could probably come up with other reasons as well.
Q. Would another aspect of best practice be an ability by the organisation to take effective child-safe action once a report has been made and upheld?
A. It really depends on the organisation. For example, a school may not be able to take child-safe action themselves; they have to rely on child welfare entities to assist them with that.
Q. So would it be right, then,either an ability themselves to take child-safe action, or a relationship with other authorities that have that ability?
A. Yes.The question of how is the child going to be safe is a question that must be answered.
Q. And that would depend on the facts justifying it - in other words, if there were - on the information available, the reasonable conclusion was that abuse had taken place, then the organisation should have the ability to act on it; is that right?
A. I don't think that's what I'm saying, merely because many times when it's time for an organisation to make a report to the child welfare authorities,the facts of the matter have not yet been established.
Q. That is an important qualification so far as reporting is concerned, I see that. Insofar as the organisation taking its own action, child-safe action internally is concerned, that ability would be required once sufficient facts are available to determine that there has been abuse; would that be right?
A. I'm just sort of getting hung up on whose responsibility it is to take child-safe action, because that really varies from the situation - who the perpetrator is, who the child is. So, for example, if we're talking about a resident camp and a child reports abuse out at an overnight camp, and the allegation is that the person who is working at the camp has abused, then being able to separate that child from the person who abused them is absolutely has to be part of the response. You don't want to give the person further access to that child and that's an action that the organisation can take.
But sometimes, for example, in a school, they make a report, but the child is still going home that day and the report was about a person who abused them at home, and so it's not - unless the police say "Don't send that child home", or the child welfare entity says, "Don't send that child home", then the school can't just say "We're taking the child home with us, we're not going to let them go back to the house". That just can't be done.
THE CHAIR: Q. But the starting point is either the school or the camp or any other institution has to have, within its own operation, a process which makes it possible for the child or adult survivor to come and tell what happened, isn't it? That's the starting point?
A. Yes. That's - I think that's --
Q. And great care has to be taken by the institution to ensure that what it has in place, so far as it can, will ensure that the child or adult survivor will come and tell their story?
A. I think when we were talking about, you know, what do we consider part of this current era, I think that's one of the most critical pieces of the current era.
Q. And if an institution doesn't have that, it is seriously failing in its obligation to those within its care? Isn't it?
A. If there is not a way for someone to come forward?
Q. If there is not a safe way where people, children or adults, feel that they can come forward and report the abuse, then the institution is failing.
A. They wouldn't be meeting the current standards of care.
THE CHAIR: No.
MR STEWART: Q. I take from what you say, too, that there should be strong and cooperative relationships with child protection authorities. In other words, between the organisation and child protection authorities and, indeed, criminal justice authorities; would that be right? A. Certainly in a country like this. Not in every country is it easy to have strong relationships with the criminal justice system, but in a country like this certainly.
Q. In the case of the identification of an offender, to have a proper risk assessment to inform what is then to be done - that would be another important component, wouldn't it?
A. Well, are you talking about on the part of the organisation?
Q. Yes, and an offender within the organisation. So the example you gave of someone teaching at camp or a teacher or a minister in a church.
A. There are scenarios where having a risk assessment is critical, but from my perspective, we don't - if a teacher or a minister or someone has behaved improperly, crossed the line with repeated boundary violations and/or there has been a disclosure of abuse, then that individual continuing to be in a position of trust with children is not acceptable, and whether there is a risk assessment or not I wouldn't want to have to wait for a risk assessment if we know what the behaviour is.
Q. I understand from your CV that you have given evidence as an expert witness for the Jehovah's Witnesses on previous occasions; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Three in the US and one in the UK?
A. That's correct.
Q. In each of those cases, was the Jehovah's Witness organisation in one form or another a defendant?
A. Yes.
Q. And those were civil claims for damages arising from abuse; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Each of them?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. I take it you were paid for your services?
A. Yes.
Q. As you are today?
A. That's correct.
Q. At your usual consultancy rates?
A. Yes.
Q. Following any of those cases, have you advised or made recommendations to the Jehovah's Witness organisation, in whatever formation, as to ways in which it can or should change or adapt to better meet best practice?
A. What I've done is ask the questions along the way as to particular things that I saw in the case and asked whether or not those had changed, if the scenario had changed; had they already changed their practices in particular areas, and I can't think of a time when I asked anything that they hadn't already resolved. So each of those cases was going back in time, and so they have had quite a few changes to their practices over the past 10 years.
THE CHAIR: Q. Have you ever given evidence that is critical of the Jehovah's Witnesses? A. In terms of a lawsuit or --
Q. In any forum where you have given evidence, have you given evidence critical of the Jehovah's Witnesses? A. I haven't in a particular - I haven't been hired to do that. I'm sure that when I was testifying or something I wrote, I may have said something that was critical or negative.
Q. When you say you haven't been hired to do that, what have you been hired to do?
A. Well, what I was originally hired to do by the Jehovah's Witnesses was just review their literature and asked - they asked me to give my opinion of what it was that they were giving as advice and then subsequently they asked me to review a case, and also to provide the testimony regarding my opinions about their literature.
Q. And was any of the evidence you have ever given critical of the Jehovah's Witnesses?
A. Not specifically that I know.
Q. Have you given evidence in any court case on behalf of any other organisation?
A. I have.
Q. Which other organisations have you given evidence on behalf of?
A. The State of Washington child welfare system.
Q. Anyone else?
A. That's all that I know now.
Q. Were you critical of the State of Washington?
A. No, I - well, I was saying that they had met the standards of care.
Q. When did you give that evidence?
A. About seven months ago.
Q. Seven months. Has the case been decided by the judge?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened?
A. They found for the defence.
Q. Do you know the name of the case?
A. That is Hamrick, H-A-M-R-I-C-K v State of Washington.
Q. Which court was it in, do you know?
A. Washington State.
MR STEWART: Q. You also provided testimony, at least by affidavit, in a case for the Boy Scouts of America; isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. In September 2013?
A. In a court case? In a court testimony case.
Q. United States District Court of Washington, by affidavit?
A. Oh, okay.
Q. At least - I don't know whether there was oral -- testimony after that.
A. Yes.
Q. For the Boy Scouts?
A. That's right.
Q. Are there others where you have provided written evidence, although you may not have given oral evidence?
A. Yes.
Q. For what other organisations?
A. So - for other organisations or other cases?
Q. Well, other organisations and then in respect of each, the cases?
A. Okay, because generally what happens, if somebody wants me to provide expert consulting or expert testimony, then I ask them to send me the case and I review the case and then I tell them orally what I think, and then they either ask me to write a report or offer testimony or they don't. And so, that's generally how I determine or how they determine whether or not they want me to move forward and testify.
Q. In respect of those that you have given a report to be used in a case, for which organisations?
A. There was a - I would have to go back to make sure that I'm not missing anything.
Q. Well, as best you can remember, Dr Applewhite? A. Yes. I've offered testimony by way of deposition in a case that was - well, it was against the United States government, the defence department. But in that case it was testimony for the plaintiff. And there was also one that was - I just would have to look, I'm sorry. I would have to go back to my notes.
Q. Other than that one you have mentioned against the US Government Department of Defence, are there others in which you have acted for the plaintiff?
A. Yes. I can recall one in which - it was against a school district in which a volunteer had come in and he volunteered, and then he stayed and started taking students to the bathroom and he sexually abused them in the bathroom, and in that case, I testified that they had not met the standard of care.
Q. There is reference in some of the correspondence, I see, to the Baker case. Is that one of the cases that you worked in for the Jehovah's Witnesses?
A. That was for the Jehovah's Witnesses, yes.
Q. What was that case?
A. I was asked really to provide testimony regarding the structure and governance of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and that was a case in which a girl was sexually abused by a man who had once been a ministerial servant.
Q. Is that one of the cases that you refer to as the A.
That's the one in the United Kingdom.
three in the United States and one in the United Kingdom is that one of those?
Q. In this particular case, when were you first asked in other words, this hearing - by the Jehovah's Witnesses whether you would provide an opinion?
A. I don't remember the exact date. I'm sure there is a letter. But I know that it was just before I left for Australia, so it would have been --
Q. I've seen correspondence going back to 25 May. Would it be as long ago as that?
A. Okay. It could be that there was something. I don't recall it being something that I thought about having to look at until I was preparing to leave for Australia. So it would have been either May or June of this year.
Q. One of the things you mention in your report is the Federal Court Code of Practice for Expert Witnesses. That is in paragraph 8. You say you have been provided with it and you say you have considered all the matters contained in these guidelines when formulating the opinions set out in your statement, and you acknowledge that your opinions are based on your expertise as set out above. Are we to understand from are that that you consider you have complied with the requirements of that guideline? A. Yes.
Q. I would like to show that guideline to you.Do you have a copy of it? We can provide one to you.
A. Thank you.
Q. In particular, with regard to paragraph 2.1, under the heading "The form of the expert's report" - do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. It says:
An expert's written report must comply with rule 23.13...
We won't trouble you with that: ... and therefore must ...
And then there are various requirements, (a), be signed by the expert, (b), contain an acknowledgment, and so on. The key ones are possibly starting at (e):
Set out separately each of the factual findings or assumptions on which the expert's opinion is based.
So do you consider in your report you have set out each of the factual findings or assumptions on which your opinion
A.
I believe so.
Q.
And (f):<br><br>Set out separately from the factual findings or assumptions each of the expert's opinions.
Do you believe your report sets out your opinions separately from the factual findings and assumptions?<br>A. Some are set out separately and then I can think of a couple of opinions that are in the same section with what I consider to be the factual bases.
Q. We will come back to those when we look at your report in more detail. And (g):
Sets out the reasons for each of the expert's opinions.
So to find your reasons, we will find them in the report; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. The reasons for your opinions?
A. Yes.
Q. At 2.3, it says:
.31/07/2015 (150)
15457
M L APPLEWHITE (Mr Stewart)
Transcript produced by DTI
thank you for that.
However, what your report might have done - and this is not a criticism, I'm just trying to work out what we are now going to do about this - is identify those materials. So are you able to identify for us what materials you have had regard to in formulating the opinions that you state in your report? There are obviously those that are specifically mentioned or referenced, but are there others?
A. The ones that I specifically relied upon I tried to note, and I do apologise, because I was already fully scheduled when I started working on this, and so I may not have been as conscientious about being sure that those attachments were there. There wouldn't be another source that I know of now that I really relied upon that I didn't include.
Q. Perhaps you can help us, in any event, as to what the total corpus or total body of the materials was that you had available to you and which you consulted?
A. The Jehovah's Witnesses have published much of their material online, and so those are available readily online, and so I consulted some of those materials. I couldn't put my finger on a particular document that I relied upon that I haven't identified. If I saw something that - so because the Jehovah's Witnesses publish so much information about what they believe, it's not uncommon, if you are talking about a particular part of what they do or an aspect of their life, that they might have 40 references to that.
Q. We've found that.
A. So I have - just trying to narrow that down to a particular one that clearly states- that's what I tried to do in the report. It doesn't mean that there aren't other references to it in other places.
THE CHAIR: Q. Doctor, I think one of the difficulties with the report in the way it has been written is, for example, in paragraphs 45 and 46, where you proffer an opinion, we actually don't know what you have looked at to compare the Jehovah's Witnesses with. Do you see? A. Right.
Q. We understand what you say about looking at Jehovah's Witnesses material, but before you can proffer an opinion, we need to know what the comparison is, don't were?
A. So the way that I structured it, I was trying to - in that whole section, identify the materials that I'm speaking about and then have kind of a concluding --
Q. That's the Jehovah's Witnesses material.
A. Right, you are saying from other organisations.
Q. You are offering an opinion to us, asking us to accept the opinion that they are better than anyone else, but we don't know what you have looked at, do we, to make that comparison?
A. Right.I understand.
Q. What can we do with that?
A. It depends on how much time I have to prepare a response, but I can say, and maybe I should have said here, during the 1980s and 1990s, most religious organisations, faith-based organisations, weren't preparing materials to give to parents and families about sexual abuse, and so --
Q. Do you know that for Australia? You see, we have to look at Australia, and before we could accept these opinions, I think we would need some foundation for them. A. Sure. And again, it's - these are anecdotal things. I have asked organisations that I have worked with throughout Australia about what is already in place because I don't like to ignore things that have already happened. So I've asked for those materials and I've seen - for example, there's quite a bit of material available now through governmental entities about normal sexual development in children, and so that's a piece that I would use and say, "Well, you know, you can go to this source". So throughout the time I've worked in Australia, I've always asked for what kinds of materials are the organisations providing, and that's where I arrived at that.
Q. Yes, but you understand our difficulty, don't you?
A. Of course.
Q. At the moment, I'm afraid we just couldn't --
A. You can't accept that.
Q. -- for ourselves accept that as necessarily the correct outcome, because we don't know what you have looked at.
A. Sure.
Q. Which is one of the things that the Federal Court guidelines were trying to deal with, you understand, when an expert gives evidence?
A. Sure.
MR STEWART: Q. Just returning to the materials on the Jehovah's Witness side of the comparison, I understand that publicly available - in other words, on the internet - the materials are from the period 2000 onwards, and not prior to that; is that your experience?
A. 2000 and onward with the materials being available online?
Q. Yes.
A. I wouldn't be able to put a year to that, when it became available online - the publications available online, but approximately.
Q. You say one of your sources of access to Jehovah's Witnesses material is what is published online, and so then, insofar as materials prior to 2000 are concerned, it would then be materials provided to you by those instructing you, I presume?
A. I thought that you were asking me what I had available to me when I was writing the report.
Q. Yes.
A. And those materials were available now, I was writing the report last month.
Q. Yes, but last month and this month, so I understand, and I'm asking whether this is your experience, what is publicly available on the internet is Jehovah's Witness publications from 2000 onwards. In other words, if you go on to the internet today,jw.org,you are not going to find a resource of pre-2000 publications?
A. Sometimes you can, yes, they are from far back.
Q. So some you can?
A. Some you can.
Q. So some of these articles that you referred to that are back in the 1970s and 1980s, for example, did you access those online or were you provided them separately? A. No, I asked for them.
Q. How did you know to ask for them?
A. Because I had prepared other reports that had to go back in time as well.
Q. You had seen them previously?
A. I had seen those articles previously. So I reviewed a large body of publications in my initial review, and I picked out the pieces that I thought were critical and those were the ones that I already had references to.
Q. And you also refer to some publications - some documents, letters, for example - from the branch office to elders, which are not available publicly, I take it - those were provided to you?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there other material available to you or provided to you, such as witness statements in this case study, for example?
A. No.
Q. Were you not furnished with Mr O'Brien and Mr Toole's witness statements?
A. Oh, yes, there was - Mr O'Brien. I'm sorry, when you say case study, I had forgotten that you are calling each one of these case studies, so case study 29. There were three witness statements that I was provided and I don't recall all of the names but they were the director of the branch and the service director and the legal department director.
Q. Were you furnished with the statements of either of the survivors who had been the subject of this case study?
A. No.
Q. And did you consider any independent studies or research about the Jehovah's Witnesses?
A. No.
MR STEWART: I'm not sure what time your Honour would like to break?
THE CHAIR: We will go through until 11.30.
MR STEWART: Q. There are really two issues that you address in your report, and you identify them as issue 3 and issue 4, taken from the terms of reference, and issue 3 you identify on page 4 of your report. Do you see that: Issue 3 Case Study 29 Information regarding the systems, policies and procedures in place within the Jehovah's Witnesses Church for raising and responding to allegations or concerns about child sexual abuse ...
So that's the first issue you were asked to form and provide an opinion on; am I right?
A. That's right.
Q. The second issue is regarded as that labelled at issue 4, which commences towards the foot of page 7 of the report.
A. That's right.
Q. Dealing with the first issue, as I read and understand the report, firstly, you set out in paragraphs 9 to 21 some background material which presumably forms some basis or substratum to your opinion; is that right?
A. That's right.
Q. And then, in paragraphs 22 to 35, you identify the facts on which you rely to then express the opinion in 36; is that right?
A. Yes, and as I'm reading this, I see that I've - I'm sorry, I see that in paragraph 23, I cited the wrong- I cited the wrong resource.
Q. That "Brief Review of Contemporary Sexual Offence"-- A. Yes, it's actually the history that has been published. So I didn't mean to interrupt you, but - yes, those would be the ones that I used to formulate those- the opinion on 36.
Q. And the opinion you express - well, firstly, perhaps to get it out of the way, in the second sentence of paragraph 36, you say:
Because I have not reviewed any specific cases, I am not able to offer opinions regarding whether the implementation of these guidelines have ultimately resulted in law-abiding responses, good practice of child protection or compassionate care of those who have experienced abuse.
So as I understand it, you are putting aside the question of implementation, what you have done is essentially a documentary review; is that correct? A. That's correct.
Q. The first sentence of paragraph 36, then, expresses your opinion with regard to that documentary review; is that right?
A. That's right.
Q. On issue number 3?
A. That's right.
Q. What you do is you really do a comparison. On the one side of the comparison you have got the Jehovah's Witnesses, and on the other side of the comparison you have got religious organisations throughout the world; is that right - this is in the third sentence of paragraph 26?
A. Yes.
Q. So you say:
... the current messages to those who have experienced abuse and the guidelines that have been provided to elders in congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses are consistent with, and in some respects better than, the current practices of religious organisations throughout the world.
A. That's right.
Q. Dealing with the second side of the comparison first, the current practices of religious organisations throughout the world, it's really the same point that was raised by his Honour in relation to another paragraph - you will see the difficulty there: we don't know what those current practices are. You haven't identified them. A. Right.
Q. Or what religious organisations they are?
A. That's right.
Q. It's quite a big claim, "religious organisations throughout the world" - I take it you would like to limit that in some way?
A. Sure.
Q. You don't claim to have knowledge of current practice of religious organisations throughout the world, do you?
A. No.
THE CHAIR: Q. Can I just understand, what do you mean by "current messages"? A. What I mean by "current messages" is what they say in their publications to people who have experienced abuse; about the healing process and the need to talk with other people; even to the messages, for example, if somebody has experienced abuse and they see in a publication that people are being told to be kind to those who have experienced abuse, and things of that nature. That's what I mean.
Q. Back at paragraph 25 you talk about elders being instructed to treat victims with kindness and to follow the established internal ecclesiastical procedures for allegations of abuse?
A. Yes.
Q. When you speak of "current messages",are you capturing those matters as well in current messages? A. When I speak of current messages I'm speaking less about the procedures that they have in place for their internal governance questions and more about the general publications for individuals.
Q. Because procedures send messages too, don't they?
A. Yes.
Q. In fact, the procedures that are followed may be much more powerful in giving a message than a publication.
A. It's possible.
Q. Have you looked at the procedures?
A. The current procedures?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you look at past procedures as well?
A. I have.
Q. We will come to those.
A. Okay.
MR STEWART: Q. Insofar as the first half of the comparison is concerned, the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves, of course, if any of the factual matters you have identified as underpinning that opinion ultimately turn out to be mistaken, then that would throw the opinion into question, wouldn't it?
A. We're speaking about opinion 36?
Q. Yes.
A. If information were to arise that shows that that is not correct, then the opinion would be incorrect.
Q. Well, let's be clear about it: if information is to arise or be presented which shows that one or other of the factual matters set out preceding paragraph 36 is incorrect, then that would throw the opinion expressed in the first paragraph of 36 into question?
A. Into question, yes.
Q. Can I take you to paragraph 10 of your report. You can read that paragraph, but, in particular, when you get to the last sentence, which says:
Elders are viewed as fellow workers by their Fellow elders and by other congregational members.
Congregational members are referred to as publishers; is that right?
A. In some cases, yes.
Q. I will use that terminology interchangeably with congregational members. Of course, you can't say, really, how congregational members view their elders, can you? A. I would say based on publications.
Q. Well, there is no empirical study, is there, as to how congregation members view their elders, is there?
A. If there is an empirical study, I'm not aware of it.
Q. Ultimately, that's a subjective question, in the sense that it's what is going on in the minds of the congregation members that you are addressing yourself to?
A. What I'm really addressing is the messages that are in the materials for elders and the materials that are in the publications that speak to that particular question.
Q. And those materials are published by the Governing Body in Brooklyn?
A. That's right.
Q. And distributed throughout the world?
A. That's right.
Q. They are certainly not published by the congregation members?
A. No, they are not.
Q. You are aware, I take it, that in the Jehovah's Witness faith elders are regarded as being appointed by the holy spirit?
A. My understanding was that they are appointed but with the guidance of the holy spirit.
Q. Let's take a quick look at that. I would like you to look at tab 109 of our tender bundle, which will go up in front of you on the screen.
A. Okay.
Q. We can show you the first page of that. You will be familiar with this textbook, I take it, "Organised to Do Jehovah's Will"? A. Yes.
Q. You have looked at this before formulating your report?
A. Yes.
Q. This applied from 2005 and thereafter?
A. There was a previous version of it, but it wasn't called the same name.
Q. Yes, the previous version and testimony that you have given in one of the other cases really concerned the previous version; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is given to - if we just scroll down a little bit, you will see it says "This book is issued to", and there is space to fill it in, and the place and date of baptism. It is given to baptised publishers in the Jehovah's Witness Church, as I understand it, on the occasion of their baptism; is that your understanding?
…