Royal Commission Case Study 29 (Jehovah's Witnesses) — Hearing Transcript, Day 151 (2015)

Download: PDF — Royal Commission Case Study 29 (Jehovah's Witnesses) — Hearing Transcript, Day 151 (2015)

ROYAL COMMISSION INTO INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES TO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

Public Hearing - Case Study 29 (Day 151)

Level 17, Governor Macquarie Tower Farrer Place, Sydney

On Monday, 3 August 2015 at 10am

Before The Chair: Commissioner:

Justice Peter McClellan AM Professor Helen Milroy

Counsel Assisting:

Mr Angus Stewart SC

.03/08/2015 (151)

15533 Transcript produced by DTI MR STEWART: Your Honour, the first witness today will be Mr Ron de Rooy.

His statement should be at tab 3 of the statements bundle.

THE CHAIR: Will you take an affirmation or an oath on the Bible?

MR DE ROOY: The Bible.

<ALBERT RONALD DE ROOY, sworn: [10.05am]

<EXAMINATION BY MR STEWART:

MR STEWART: Q. Mr De Rooy, will you state your full names for the record, please?

A. Albert Ronald de Rooy.

Q. Do you have a copy of your statement dated 10 July 2015 with you?

A. Yes.

Q. Are there any amendments you'd like to make to that statement?

A. The only, perhaps, amendment was to a question about other allegations, if I can find where I've got that - on 4.

Q. Page 3, paragraph 4?

A. Page 3, 4.1. I know that it was - where I say "I recall I was involved in one other case of child sexual abuse in the early 1990s", I'm very vague. The only thing I do remember was other aspects of that that I dealt with that comes to my memory, and that there were other complaints and that he was disfellowshipped, but I'm vague on that. The only other, perhaps, case I remember that came back since I've written this is where I had to find out some other information about another person and delve into that. And so that's what I would add.

Q. I'll come back to what you do recall about that case, but as 4.1 is stated in its current terms, is there anything which is inaccurate or erroneous about that? A. No, that's all right. We can leave it like that, if that's the case, from what I've just said.

Q. Do you otherwise confirm that your statement is true and correct?

15534 A R DE ROOY (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI A.

Yes.

MR STEWART: I tender the statement.

THE CHAIR: That will be exhibit 29-016.

EXHIBIT #29-016 STATEMENT OF ALBERT RONALD DE ROOY DATED 10/07/2015

MR STEWART: Q. Mr de Rooy, you've been a Jehovah's Witness since a very young age; is that right?

A. That's right.

Q. How did you come to decide to be a Jehovah's Witnesses?

A. I made a personal decision at the age of 16 that I wanted to be baptised. I had studied the Bible and accepted that as the truth, and then I proceeded to get baptised as a Jehovah's Witness.

Q. Prior to that had you grown up in a Jehovah's Witness family?

A. That's right, my parents were Jehovah's Witnesses, and grandparents.

Q. You've been in the Mareeba congregation since 1981; is that right?

A. That would be right.

Q. You've been an elder there for 29 years?

A. That would be correct.

Q. In other words, consistently in Mareeba?

A. Yes.

Q. Before we come specifically to the case of [BCG], there are some more general aspects of your statement I'd like to deal with. Perhaps we can have paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 on page 2 up on the screen. Starting with 2.3, do you see it there before you?

A. Yes.

Q. You say that:

Child sexual abuse is absolutely not tolerated in the congregation. Any Elder or Ministerial Servant guilty of this is immediately removed from serving in that capacity.

An unrepentant child abuser will be disfellowshipped from the congregation, and others from the congregation do not associate with him.

So am I to understand that a repentant child abuser is not disfellowshipped?

A. If a person is repentant, yes, they will not be disfellowshipped.

Q. So they will be reproved; is that right?

A. That's true.

Q. The consequence of reproval is they remain in the congregation?

A. Yes, with certain restrictions.

Q. And the practice is that the reasons for reproval are not announced to the congregation; is that right?

A. Can you just repeat that, I didn't quite --

Q. The practice is that the reasons for someone's reproval are not announced to the congregation; is that right?

A. The reproof, if it's publicly known, they are reproved before the congregation, but not the things that they are reproved for; that's true.

Q. Given that a repentant child abuser remains in the congregation, do you still maintain that that practice shows or is consistent with zero tolerance for child abuse? A. Yes, because we would be certainly keeping an eye on someone who was guilty of that in the congregation and they would be monitored and certain restrictions would be in place with regards to their involvement with young children.

Q. You say you would keep an eye on them. I take it that's you and the other elders?

A. As elders in the congregation, yes.

Q. Because you would be the people who would know as to why the person was reproved?

A. That's true.

Q. You would accept, of course, you couldn't keep an eye on the person all the time?

A. No.

Q. And particularly if the repentant and now reproved child abuser had abused his own children, he would be back in the home where you would not be able to keep an eye on him?

A. That would be true in the home.

Q. In other words, back in the home with the very children whose abuse he had confessed to and, thereby, earned reproval rather than disfellowship?

A. I might get you to clarify that there.

Q. He would be back in the home with his own children whom he had abused and admitted to that abuse?

A. That's true. The family would know, though, that that had also been handled and that he had been reproved for that.

Q. The family might have known it even prior - by "the family", I presume you mean his wife?

A. His wife and children.

Q. She might have known it even prior to him being found out and reported to the elders, but the abuse had continued?

A. I can't add anything more to that.

Q. What steps do you take in a circumstance like that to protect the children in his home?

A. Well, the person has been reproved and repentant for what he had done,and the family know that. Of course,we would be able to talk with the family and monitor that as well. That's all I can add.

Q. So you don't, as a matter of course, report to the police or the child protection authorities, do you?

A. No.

Q. I suggest that that practice is not consistent with zero tolerance of child sexual abuse in your congregation. A. I believe that the person, the victim, has the right to go to the police and to report that, and we do not - and also in the sake of confidentiality, to protect confidentiality there, we feel that it's the person's right to go to the police.

Q. What about the case of a young victim who doesn't have the independence or confidence to report to the police; do you just leave it on the basis that it's that victim's right?

A. In a case like that, because I don't have the answers, I would myself ring the service desk and I would get direction on that, because a lot of that might be out of my scope.

Q. If we look at your 2.4 you say:

The procedures for preventing sexual abuse of children are:

Then you've got a few dot points. Firstly:

keeping the congregation clean by disfellowshipping unrepentant sinners;

teaching the congregation members the high moral standards of the Bible at our meeting;

being vigilant as elders to follow through on any accusation made.

I suggest that keeping repentant child abusers within your congregation is not keeping your congregation clean? A. As an elder in the congregation looking after the congregation, the divine law and God's word and what principles are directed there is what we then put forth. So if a person is repentant and really shows that repentance, then he can remain in the congregation.

Q. I'll come back to the meaning of "repentance" and its implications shortly. Perhaps we can take a look at your paragraph 4.1 in the meanwhile, at page 3. This is the paragraph that you mentioned earlier, that you are quite vague on this case. I'll ask a couple of questions in relation to them and you can see how much you can remember. You say:

I recall I was involved in one other case of child sexual abuse in the early 1990s. A brother in the congregation was strongly counselled and was deleted as elder when the allegation of abuse first came to light. However a number of other complaints were reported in the next couple of years and he was therefore disfellowshipped.

Am I to understand that the other complaints that were reported in the next couple of years were with regard to abuse that had occurred after he had been deleted as an elder, or committed after he had been deleted as an elder?

A. That I cannot recall and give you an answer on that, because what I've written there is from my vague memory. It's such a long time ago, I cannot recall details.

Q. The reasons for his deletion as an elder or removal as an elder would not have been announced; is that right?

A. It would just have been announced that he was deleted.

Q. He was not reported to the police or the child protection authorities by anyone, was he?

A. Not that I'm aware of.

Q. Am I to understand this correctly, that congregation members would not have been warned about his propensity for child abuse?

A. That I can't remember at all.

Q. Well, it stands to reason, doesn't it, because he was considered repentant and, therefore, not disfellowshipped and, therefore, the reasons would not have been announced and the congregation not made aware - is that not right?

A. I don't - the sequence of events there I don't really understand, because he was disfellowshipped.

Q. Ultimately?

A. Yes.

Q. I'm talking about prior to disfellowship.

A. I really have no memory of that. The only memory I have there is the vague memory of ones in the congregation coming to a meeting and having to face him and say what they had seen, and that I remember, because I remember about three or four doing that. That's all I remember. I don't remember anything else.

Q. So it was the case, was it, that there were a number of witnesses to the abuse - is that right? Is that what I'm to understand from what you've just said?

A. No. The memory I have was of this person - the ones from our congregation coming and saying how - the way he had been looking at - up people's skirts, and if they were sitting on the convention and looking up, and deliberately looking - that's what I remember, only, of that case.

Q. Now, you say you can't remember whether the further allegations, which surfaced after he had been removed but prior to him being disfellowshipped, occurred after he was removed; is that right?

A. I have no other memory.

Q. Coming to the case of [BCG] - you know who it is to whom I'm referring?

A. Yes.

Q. I'm going to endeavour not to use her name or the names of others involved, and I'm sure you'll understand and try and do the same?

A. I will very much try.

Q. Thank you. Did you watch or listen to [BCG]'s testimony last week?

A. Only very little glimpses of it. I didn't want to listen to it so I could be objective. That's how I thought last week.

Q. I'm struggling to understand that, Mr de Rooy. In what sense would you consider your objectivity might be changed or compromised by listening to her testimony? A. I wanted to be honest in any questions that you ask in this Royal Commission from my memory of it at the time, and in line with what I've written here as a statement. So I felt my forthright answers would be better just coming and listening from the questions you asked. So that's how I felt at that time.

Q. Do you remember how you first came to learn of [BCG]'s allegations of sexual abuse by her father?

A. We were handling a matter with the father with regards to another woman and we were looking at what was happening there, and it was in the context of that judicial meeting that now [BCG] and her fiance came, and then the allegations that were made against the father, so it's in that respect.

Q. At that stage, do you remember what the allegations were? In other words, what is it that [BCG] said that her A.

The specifics of it, no, I can't remember. I have been trying to remember from my own memories on that. The only thing that I do remember was part of it when it came to being in the shower and with the door and how he acted there, that part I do remember.

Q. What are you referring to? You're speaking in riddles. If you haven't heard [BCG]'s testimony, what is it that you're referring to exactly? What is it that you remember about the shower and the door?

A. No, you asked if I remember anything of that meeting and that's - that's - they're the things that - I remember little aspect of it.

Q. You just remember someone mentioned a shower and a door?

A. No, I remember that little aspect of it.

Q. What is the aspect? That's what I'm trying to get at. I'm asking you to say what is it that you remember that was said which involved a shower and a door. The way you've explained it so far --

A. I --

Q. Hold on, you and I must not speak at the same time.

A. Sorry about that.

Q. The way you've said it so far, you seem to be assuming that I know what you're talking about. I am asking you to not to assume that and just tell me what it is that you're talking about?

A. What I remember is the accusation at the time that the father was trying to get in through the bathroom door with [BCG] there in the bathroom. That I remember.

Q. Do you remember that it went further than that and [BCG] said she'd been sexually abused by her father?

A. Not at that particular time.

THE CHAIR: Q. Sorry, do you mean you don't remember her speaking of that other allegation, or you remember it being spoken of at a different time? A. What's - what I remember is that part of the allegation. It's only after all the years later that I know that there were other things as well. So, at that particular time, in the original meeting that we had, that's all I knew at that time.

Q. So you say the other matters weren't discussed at the meeting at all, do you?

A. Because I don't remember all the allegations at that time, it was because it was just between her word against the father. That is all I really remember of that. It's just so long --

Q. I'm not understanding. You mean other things were spoken about that you can't remember?

A. I can't remember. That's all - what I've said there is all I can remember.

Q. Very well.

A. Sorry, your Honour.

MR STEWART: Q. I'll come back to some documents, in a minute, which may assist in refreshing your memory on that. But before I get to that, can I ask you to look - and it will come up on the screen - at [BCG]'s statement to the Royal Commission, paragraphs 47 and 48, at the foot of Ringtail page 11. Do you see that [BCG] said:

After my mother told me about what my father had done to my older sister, it occurred to me that I should check with my two younger sisters if he had ever done anything to them. Together my mother and I spoke to my younger sisters. They were about five and seven or eight at the time. Both of them said to me, "Yes, dad has been rude." I remember my youngest sister saying words to the effect of, "He put his penis between my legs when we were laying down in the lounge room watching TV." I remember my other younger sister saying words to the effect of, "He made me have a shower with him and he touched me and massaged my pee in the shower."

Then in paragraph 48:

My mother came with me to tell the elders about my younger sisters. I remember that Ron de Rooy said to us, "We don't want to talk to your sisters because they are too young to know what they are talking about."

This response made me so upset because irrespective of their ages, my sisters were victims too and the abuse should have been considered by the elders.

Do you remember that report by [BCG] and her mother to you and the other elders about her younger sisters? A. No, I do not.

Q. I take it in saying you don't remember it, you're not saying that [BCG] is wrong about her memory of it?

A. See, my recollection is that we were handling that situation at that judicial committee, and I don't recall that at all coming out of that judicial committee.

Q. So you just don't recall it - is that it?

A. I do not recall it.

Q. You're not saying that it didn't happen?

A. If that had happened, that would have given us more witnesses to follow through on, and then we would have handled that, but my recollection is that is not the case.

Q. Let me understand. You had a judicial committee already formed, chaired by you; is that right?

A. That's right.

Q. And it had Mr Bowditch and Mr Ali as the other two members?

A. That is correct.

Q. And it was considering some allegations with regard to [BCH] - that's [BCG]'s father - and [BCH]'s intentions with regard to another woman; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. You were in the process of investigating the issues that arose around that?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you recall that in the context of that, [BCG] and her then fiance, who I think is [BCJ], reported what you remember as an incident about the father trying to break the door to get into the shower while [BCG] was in the shower; is that right?

A. I do recall that.

Q. And you say that you don't remember more?

A. I don't remember more than that.

Q. About [BCG]'s allegations with regard to her father?

A. No.

Q. But you remember enough to say that it was her allegations against his and, on that basis, you weren't able to resolve them?

A. That's right. It was one person's word against another.

Q. Now, those allegations came to you as part of a judicial committee already formed; is that right?

A. That's true.

Q. So, in hearing them and dealing with them, you didn't go through the step of a preliminary investigative process by two elders and then a report to the elders who then decided to form a judicial committee, you just subsumed it into the existing judicial committee; is that right?

A. I understand that's what happened.

Q. In the process of that judicial committee, you questioned [BCG] about what she was alleging about her father; is that right?

A. That's true.

Q. And you did that in the presence of her father?

A. Her father - when we were talking with [BCG] it would have only been us, as three elders, talking with her.

Q. So are you saying you did not require her to make those allegations also in the presence of her father?

A. At the time, from memory, she also faced [BCH] and made that accusation straight to him.

Q. So, in other words, it was in the presence of her father?

A. Then it was yes.

Q. That was part of your judicial committee?

A. It was. That was part of our committee.

Q. The father got aggressive; is that right?

A. He was quite angry at her.

Q. And he had to be restrained?

A. I don't remember that at all.

Q. If we go back in [BCG]'s statement to paragraph 43, firstly, she says:

At the first committee meeting ...

It was the case that there was more than one meeting with [BCG] in relation to these allegations; is that right? A. Yes.

Q. She says:

At the first committee meeting, the elders sat me in a room at the Kingdom Hall and came in one at a time and asked me to tell them what had happened.

Do you recall it like that?

A. I don't really recall that. All I recall is that we, as a committee, would have asked her in to talk to the whole three of us there.

Q. Perhaps that's captured in the next sentence:

After that they came in together and asked me more questions.

In other words, the three of you asked her questions? A. The three of us asked her questions.

Q. Then she said:

They repeated this process several times.

Do you recall that?

A. No, but that possibly would be correct.

Q. She says:

It felt like I was being interrogated and that the elders were trying to find inconsistencies in my story to catch me out.

Would that be right?

A. I don't believe that's correct. The three of us as elders there, we were also fathers. I have three daughters as well, and we felt sickened by what a father would do to his daughter. So when we were talking with [BCG] there, that's how we felt - because we had known her for such a long time, she was like our family, so the way that we talked with [BCG] was to try to put her at ease, to help her to be able to really make it clear to us what exactly happened, so she'd feel comfortable to do that. So that's the view.

Q. Mr de Rooy, what sickened you?

A. That a father would do anything like that to his daughter.

Q. Anything like what?

A. Abuse his daughter.

Q. Abuse in what way?

A. In what way? In the - because my memory is so unclear from that long ago, I know already how I felt towards a father doing that to his children, so when the allegations were made, which I can't remember much of, as I said, you know, a father doing that was not what a father should do.

Q. So whilst you can't remember what it was exactly you were told, certainly it sickened you - is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. It repulsed you?

A. That's - that would be - for me as a father, I view it as despicable. So we - you know, here we were as three family men, having someone who has been hurt by her father, and we felt very much for her - every - that's the way how we felt.

Q. So the allegations that were made to you then were serious allegations?

A. They were very serious allegations.

Q. They were more than forcing a door open?

A. Well, I can't remember any more of that, but they were serious enough, but because they were - it was one person's word against another, regardless of whether we believed it, we could only go so far.

THE CHAIR: Q. Did you believe it? A. Did I believe it?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. So you believed it,you were sickened by it,but you couldn't do anything about it?

A. No,the Bible principle --

Q. Do you think that's a fair position to end up in for a young lady who, you say, was abused in a way that sickened you?

A. No.

Q. No.

A. But it's - we are following the well-established principle that we've got to have - it cannot be just one witness.

Q. What's the Bible reference that underpins that?

A. Deuteronomy, chapter 19 verse 15,your Honour.

Q. No, what does it actually say?

A. Can I look it up for you?

No single witness may convict another for any error or any sin that he may commit. On the testimony of two witnesses or on the testimony of three witnesses the matter should be established.

Q. What's the context for that discussion?

A. I would like to read it all right through to get the context, I'm sorry.

Q. We won't stop to do that now.I understand where the Jehovah's Witnesses place their confidence, but do you accept that we have a true conflict between an understanding that we all have of human behaviour and, as you say, your capacity to believe that she was telling the truth, and what might be, by reason of adherence to that particular piece in the Bible, a conflict?

A. I put a lot of store by what that principle says, and I have a lot of store, also, to believe that other things will come out that would provide that, but on the ground of one person's word against another, we cannot act judicially any further.

Q. No, but you appreciate the civil courts can?

A. Well, that's - that's where there's the difference for the civil court then.

Q. Well, do you appreciate the civil courts can?

A. On one person's word?

Q. Yes.

A. I'm not - I don't know about the civil court, your Honour.

Q. You don't know?

A. No.

Q. What I'm trying to get to is whether you accept that there is a conflict between what the Bible is telling you and what your experience as a human being tells you about capacity to accept one person's word against another, based upon your own assessment of what they're saying. A. I don't believe that's correct, your Honour. I - I really believe the saying there: having one witness, you can't establish it beyond any doubt. You can't act on that. If you have another witness to something similar that that person has done, yes, then we've got two witnesses, but on the evidence of one, that's my understanding, is that we cannot act, and I - yes, that's how --

Q. You say that in the face of telling me that you believed what she told you?

A. Yes.

Q. Even though, at that point, it was word on word?

A. Yes, we believed her.

MR STEWART: Q. Mr de Rooy, if it was in your own rules, you couldn't act internally.

If you believed her, what you could have done,surely, is to report her allegations to the authorities? A. The other principle that very much would apply is that we're concerned about confidentiality and for the benefit of the victim,and we feel that, well, it was the victim's right, then,to go to the authorities to report that- not our right.

Q. Did you ask her whether you had her consent to take the matter to the authorities?

A. I have no recollection of that.

Q. Did you encourage her and support her to enable her to take it to the authorities?

A. There's a few things, perhaps, in that answer - to answer that, because years later, when it went to court, I was very happy to be part of that arrangement to have him prosecuted. So we supported that voluntarily. So whenever it was her decision to want to take him to court, we were behind her.

Q. That's quite a different time period and quite a different set of considerations. I'm dealing with the time of your judicial committee, when you believed her in respect of very serious allegations that sickened you, yet the rules governing the way in which your judicial committee operates meant that you could not take any action internally with regard to the father - that is, internal to the church. My question is why did you not encourage her and support her, then, to take the matter to the authorities, who could have acted without those restrictions?

A. Perhaps the only answer I could give was that if she had wanted to at that time, we would have supported her.

Q. Isn't it the case --

A. But it wasn't our - we weren't --

THE CHAIR: Q. Mr de Rooy, I understand what you say about that, but tell me this: what would you do in the situation where, if you had an allegation such as this against a father, and the daughter, for understandable reasons, did not want to go to police, she didn't want to make it a public trial, but you believed her and you, therefore, knew that this girl was in grave danger of further abuse by her father - what would you do if it was still just word on word but you believed her?

A. Well, if I'm answering this correctly, your Honour, from what we did actually do from that time, we straightaway were able to make provision for her to get out of that home. So she was, I think, about 18 years of age at that time, but straightaway we made provision for her to be out of the family, to be somewhere safe with another family, and she was there for a while and so, in that way, straightaway we did act. So we did believe her, we tried to protect her then.

Q. That means separating this hypothetical daughter from any siblings and her mother, doesn't it?

A. It did at the time, yes.

Q. Well, is that the right way to go? The girl hasn't committed an offence?

A. But she needed protection, and we were giving that protection by doing that.

Q. Do you think that that's the right thing to do, as opposed to saying to the father that things have got to change as far as he's concerned?

A. Well, if he cared about his daughter, he would have made it a lot easier for her. I can't answer any more than that, your Honour. But what we did at that time was try to care for her, to get her out of that situation, and we saw that that was the best way to do that at that time, in a family that cared for her and looked after her and that would also give her the support that she needed until the time that she got married. So that was helping her.

MR STEWART: Q. I'd like to show you some manuscript notes, exhibit 29-008. Mr de Rooy, you are also being handed an unredacted copy of those notes. Before you look at the notes, Mr de Rooy, I want to say something I want you to understand. It's unredacted. In other words, there are a lot of names that appear there, and the effort you and I are going to make - because I have got the same copy - is to not mention the names. We can perhaps identify people by their relationship? A. I'll try and do that.

Q. Thank you. Firstly, do you recognise these notes?

A. I haven't seen them for 26 years --

Q. But that implies you do recognise them?

A. I recognise that my name is there, yes.

Q. When you say you haven't seen them for 26 years, you have seen them before, I take it - these notes?

A. Only - well, I'm really seeing this properly for the first time right now, so --

Q. Do you recognise that that's the manuscript of Mr Ali?

A. I recall that, because that was brought up, yes.

C. Violet

Q. What do you mean, it was "brought up"?

A. I was watching the camera when these things were brought up, so I saw these - these are the notes, yes.

Q. So last week when Mr Ali testified?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see his testimony?

A. No.

Q. Well, how --

A. Parts of it, but no, I couldn't.

Q. Were you not concerned by seeing some of his testimony, it might jeopardise your objectivity?

A. I wanted to be able to honestly say what I - what you ask me, so --

Q. But you still saw part of his testimony?

A. I saw part of it, but I had to go.

Q. These are Mr Ali's notes. At the beginning it says "Notes of investigating committee" and it is dated 1 June 1989, and he records that it's Ron de Rooy, chairman; Kevin Bowditch, and himself, Mr D Ali, to distinguish him from the other Mr Ali, also some-time member in your congregation. I invite you to page through the notes, but you'll see that he records various things - various meetings with different people, it would appear, and things being said to the elders, which he then notes down. Is it the case that he was the scribe on the secretary for your

the case that he was the scribe or the secretary for your three-person committee?

A. Yes.

Q. So he was taking notes for the committee?

A. Yes, according to this - yes.

.03/08/2015 (151) 15551 A R DE ROOY (Mr Stewart)

Transcript produced by DTI Q.

And are you aware - he explained to us that these notes then went into the congregation files. Are you aware of that?

A. I would understand that, yes.

Q. Would that have happened in the ordinary course?

A. That would happen, yes.

Q. So that they could be referred to in the future, should the need arise?

A. Yes.

Q. Should the need arise to determine who said what and when, then the notes could be referred to for that purpose?

A. That would be the case.

Q. That's why they would be filed.

A. Mmm.

Q. Yes. If you look at page 4, Ringtail 1481, do you see about a third of the way down two names appear - [BCG] and that of her mother, and it's underlined? Do you see that, Mr de Rooy?

A. Yes.

Q. Adjacent to that, it says:

Molesting!

Then it says "4-5 times", do you see that? A. Yes.

Q. And then there are various - some of it I need not go through. Various things are said there. Near the end, about five lines up from the end on the left-hand side, you'll see the name of [BCG]'s mother and a colon, and it is underlined - do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Then a number of points are made adjacent to that. Would you understand those to be notes of what her mother told your committee? Is that how you would understand the note?

A. I don't really understand the notes.

Q. Do you see at the very last line of the page there is a dash?

A. Yes.

Q. And I'll quote:

[BCH] has abused two younger children, possibly at age 2.

And then immediately above that it's got the name of the eldest daughter and then her name and then "too", as in "as well". Do you see that? A. Yes, I see that.

Q. At face value, those notes suggest that during your investigation process you were told by [BCG]'s mother that the father had also abused her younger daughters and, also, the elder daughter. Does that help you remember? A. No, it doesn't. I - I don't really recall that. It never came up like that in our first - in that judicial meeting that we conducted with - because that - if that had been the case, we would have been able to say, well, there's not only one witness; we would have been able to then act on that. So that's - yes, it's --

Q. It's exactly that that's troubling me. On the face of these notes, if they are to be accepted as recording what they appear to be recording, then it would show you up for not having acted as you should have acted; is that not so? A. The only thing is it's notes of an investigating committee that would have been perhaps ongoing. So at that particular time when we were handling with [REDACTED] and the father - when we were handling the matter with [BCH] and the other woman, that did not - all this other wasn't something that we - had come to our attention. If it had, it wasn't just one person's word against another that we had at that time, and we would have been able to add that well and truly as part of the judicial committee.

Q. How do you respond to the suggestion that given all that you've said about how vague your memory is on this question, that the notes are likely to be a more reliable record of what you were told than what your memory is? A. True, my memory is not good, but I do remember very precisely that at our first judicial meeting we only had [BCG]'s word against her father. We did not have all these other accusations.

Q. If you look at the next page, page 5, do you see at the top of the page it's got the name of the eldest daughter?

A. Yes.

Q. [BCK] and then in brackets it says "by herself", and then it seems to record various things, or make a note of various things, that she informed you, including, on that, do you see where it says halfway down the page:

On abuse of ...

It's got her name again and a question mark and a dash and then an arrow pointing down?

A. Yes.

Q. It says:

Yes, at age 3 remembers vividly.

Do you see that that seems to be a note that the eldest daughter informed you and the other members of your committee that she also had been abused at a young age? A. I see that.

Q. What do you say to that?

A. What I would say to that is, yes, that these things occurred, but they were not part of the information at the first judicial meeting.

Q. By which you mean it's not information that you took account of, albeit that you had been told it, but - as part of an investigation?

A. No, we did not know of that information.

Q. And by "the first judicial meeting" that you refer to - by that, do you mean all of the meetings of the judicial committee that ended up in the decision to disfellowship [BCH] for his conduct in relation to the other woman, or do you mean just the first meeting of that judicial committee in a process of meetings that culminated in the decision to disfellowship?

A. I'll see if I can decipher that, but when I talk about the judicial meeting, I refer to it as the whole judicial meeting, as any meetings that would be part of that judicial meeting that were involved, then to come to that conclusion. But at the conclusion of that judicial meeting, we could only disfellowship [BCH] for loose conduct and lying and not for child abuse.

We still only had [BCG]'s accusation against her father. This information would have had to have come in a lot later after that, because that wasn't part of that meeting and the information at that time, as I understand it.

Q. Do you recall that the date on which you took the decision to disfellowship [BCH] was 12 July 1989?

A. I don't remember the exact date, but, yes.

Q. I'll show it to you. If we can look at tab 26 of volume 1 of the tender bundle. This is the formal Notification of Disfellowshipping or Disassociation. This is a form that's completed in every case of disfellowshipping, isn't it? A. Yes

Q. You'll see there the name of [BCH] has been redacted and the pseudonym inserted, do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Adjacent to that towards the right, above the words "Date of disfellowship." It's got 12 July 1989 - do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. And then if we scroll down, you'll see that this is the form that you've signed - at least, I take it that's your signature?

A. Yes.

Q. It would seem that you took your decision on 12 July 1989. If we can go back to Mr Ali's notes that we were looking at a moment ago and, in particular, to page 13(a), Ringtail 1491 - do you have that?

A. Page 13, is it?

Q. Page 13(a)?

A. Yes.

Q. So it's the one that comes after page 12 and before page 13 itself. It's the one that's on the screen. Perhaps you can compare that the hard copy you're looking at and the one on the screen is the same?

A. Yes.

Q. You see it has a date right at the top 12 July 1989 do you see that?

A. Yes, I see that.

Q. And that's the same date that I mentioned a moment ago, being the date of your decision?

A. Yes.

Q. And then various things follow. It starts with the name of the other woman's husband, if I'm not mistaken? Do you see that immediately below the date?

A. Yes, I can see that.

Q. Then various things are recorded. You can have a look through page 13 and the reverse of page 13 and then to the top of page 14. Do you see that in that period, so far as I can see, no subsequent date, or indeed other date, is recorded on those pages - 13(a), 13, the reverse of 13, and then on 14. So this would appear, on the face of it, to have all occurred on 12 July - do you see that? A. I can see that.

Q. Then at the top of the page, page 14, so it's Ringtail 1494, do you see it has [BCH]'s name underlined and a dash and then it says:

Told of charges loose conduct and lying.

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. It suggests that he was told that those were the charges?

A. Right.

Q. That would stand to reason - you would put to him what charges you were ultimately settling on; would that be right?

A. That'd be the case.

Q. Then various things are recorded. Then, further down on the left-hand side, just below halfway, you'll see it says:

Lying!

Underlined. Then some further things are recorded. Then in the last sentence it says:

15556 A R DE ROOY (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI [BCH] has admitted to all things and also said that whatever [BCG] had said on molesting was true.

Do you recall that?

A. I can't see that page?

Q. The foot of the same page.

A. I've got page 14.

Q. Page 14, the bottom, the last two lines?

A. Yes, yes, thank you.

Q. So it says:

[BCH] has admitted to all things and also says that whatever [BCG] had said on molesting was true.

Do you see that? Is that something you were told during your judicial committee hearing?

A. I recall that wording.

Q. During your hearing?

A. I recall that wording at the end of the appeals committee meeting, yes.

Q. Just above that, do you see the two lines immediately above that and it says:

Call in ...

That's what it looks like. Then there are two names without saying the names, I'm not sure - perhaps it's one name:

Call in on ...

and there's a name, and then that name again:

... tells ...

the initial for [BCH], it says "the something". That name that's there, without saying it, are you able to identify who that is?

A. Yes, they were members of the congregation.

Q. Did that person perhaps tell you what's then recorded immediately below that; in other words,

[BCH] has admitted to all things and also said that whatever [BCG] had said on molesting was true.

A. No. The bottom line, where he has admitted to - no, that was not - that applied directly to the allegations, accusations, that [BCG] had made about her father. Those words are etched into my brain as to - I know for sure that that's what I heard. That's something I'll always remember.

Q. Because you'll see over the page, the following page, right at the foot of the page it says:

19 July 1989 [BCH] appeals, fax to Kevin.

Do you see that? That suggests, on the ordering of these notes, that what is recorded before that occurred prior to him appealing - in other words, during the judicial committee stage; do you accept that?

A. The sequence is not - not how I remember it, what you're saying as far as - or what I'm understanding the sequence there. I'll have to read it- go right through. I can't answer any more than that.

Q. Perhaps we can look at the report of your decision at tab 3. Do you recognise this. Perhaps we can ask that it be scrolled down and you can see the bottom of the page as well.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recognise this being the report of your decision to disfellowship? Mr de Rooy, who wrote this report, do you remember?

A. Looking at the typing, I'd say I most probably did that.

Q. Then Mr Bowditch and Mr Ali signed off on it as well; is that right?

A. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. You'll see there that there is no mention of [BCG]'s complaint - do you see that?

A. That's right.

Q. So there is no mention of the complaint that you believed, that sickened you, that was very serious, albeit that you felt that you couldn't uphold it because of the two-witness rule, but you don't report back to the branch office in this report that you at least had received that complaint. Why is that?

A. My memory, from what I understand, we've dealt whatever I've written here has dealt with what - the grounds, and so on, for the disfellowshipping of [BCH], so, from memory, I cannot say anything else from there.

Q. The process at that time, as I understand it, was that in the event of receiving allegations which could not be spiritually proved, or proved in accordance with the requirements that are set out from which you take the scriptures as your authority, they were then, nevertheless, to be reported to the branch, in case similar allegations might be made again, by someone else, and then the previous ones could be used to form the proof. Isn't that the process?

A. Look, I can't answer that now, off the spur of my head, but this was an ongoing investigation into those things. We - this was part, now of - we had dealt with [BCH] to be able to carry through on that judicial matter, but it was an ongoing investigation with regards to these things. So by all those notes, we were obviously still also doing further investigation, so this dealt primarily with why he was now disfellowshipped and the grounds for that. That's all I can say.

Q. Perhaps you can clarify for me, Mr de Rooy: do your procedures provide for you to hold a judicial committee into allegations against non-members of the Jehovah's Witness Church?

A. Would you say that again, please?

Q. Do your procedures provide for your judicial committee to have a hearing or make investigations into allegations against non-Jehovah's Witnesses?

A. Well, we deal - the judicial matters are there with regards to ones who are in the congregation, not those who are not. But the members of the congregation, if they bring accusations and there are other things that come out well, we are there to be able to go further on that.

Q. If I live in Mareeba and I'm not a Jehovah's Witness and a member of your congregation has some allegation against me and they take it to the elders, the elders are not going to form an investigative committee to investigate me, are they?

A. No, not you. No.

Q. So now you've taken a decision here to disfellowship [BCH]; he's no longer a member of your congregation, is he? A. No.

Q. He's not a member of any congregation?

A. No.

Q. He's outside of the church?

A. That's true.

Q. So how can it be that you regarded the child sexual abuse allegations against him to still be subject to a continuing investigation?

A. Because [BCG] is very much a part of our congregation, along with her fiance, who became her husband. So we would be supporting and helping them all the way through, because the pain of everything hasn't gone away. So we are still helping in that respect with them. And if the person then, as in this case, wanted to bring it to the law, then we give them that dignity that they bring that to the law and we will fully support that, as was in this case.

Q. Mr de Rooy, I suggest you're avoiding the point?

A. I don't mean to, sorry.

Q. The point is this: you say that the reason why the child sexual abuse allegations are not recorded or reflected in this report is because they were the subject of an ongoing investigation - that's what you said a few moments ago. But there can be no ongoing investigation of allegations against someone who is out of the church. A. For the person who's disfellowshipped, yes, they're disfellowshipped, but all I can say is that, as elders, we're still helping the victim in this case, so --

Q. That I understand. But, you see, what appears to have happened here - and I suggest it is what happened and I'll give you the opportunity to respond - is these serious child sexual abuse allegations were made. For whatever reason, you decided to disfellowship on different grounds, and the child sexual abuse allegations were then just left - isn't that what happened?

A. No, it's not. I may be looking at - through how I recall it, but he was disfellowshipped. We had that meeting, he was disfellowshipped for lying, for loose conduct, and we had [BCG]'s word against [BCH]. We had enough information to be able to say, yes, we will disfellowship him from the Christian congregation. He then, within seven days, appealed our decision of disfellowshipping on the grounds of loose conduct and lying.

So the appeals committee then is arranged and, from my memory, it's at that time that now, really, the child allegations - child molestation/abuse there, and those words that I recall, that everything that [BCG] has said is true by [BCH] - I recall that, and it was then, on that, from my memory, that now this is added as the basis for on top of lying and loose conduct that was previously. So from one week to then seven days and then having the appeals, that's how I understand. So that was added then.

Q. If he had not appealed, then what would have become of the sexual abuse allegation?

A. Well, from my understanding, [BCG] - we felt [BCG] had the right to go to the police.

Q. Of course she had that right, but no-one was assisting her or encouraging her to do that, were they?

A. I - I do not - cannot give any other reason.

Q. She wasn't, herself, able to do it until many years later - you know that?

A. That's true. That's true. And may I add, I would think that that would be the case, because, you know, it was leading up to getting married, and then from there. So that would have occupied a lot of the time.

Q. Well, it was many years later, and she's explained it wasn't about because she got married; it was because no-one helped or supported her, and it wasn't until she left the Jehovah's Witness Church that she felt able to go to the police?

A. See, I - I look - my memory is totally different to that, as far as supporting her. We were very close, as families. My younger children were very close. We had many years of association afterwards, not only while the two children were born there at Mareeba, and then later when they moved further south to Townsville, we still had very close association there with the family.

We stayed in their home. My wife had visited them - [BCG] - when the baby was born.

Q. I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr de Rooy, but we've got limited time available and it's taking a lot of resources to pursue this inquiry, which is obviously an important one. I'm not asking you generally about your support of [BCG]. I'm asking you specifically about whether you supported or encouraged her to go to the authorities to take her allegations further, since you, as the judicial committee, felt you were unable do so -- A. I have no recollection of saying yes or no for her to do that.

Q. Let's deal with the appeal. If we look at tab 4 of the tender bundle, and dealing with the appeal, that is [BCH]'s handwritten appeal document. Do you recognise that. We can scroll it down if that will help you. You see it's dated 19 July 1989 and is signed by [BCH]. Is it that you don't really remember, it was too long ago - is that the point?

A. I find it - I would have to really look at that, because I can't even quite read it, sorry.

Q. Let's not delay on that. If we look at the next tab, tab 5, this is now the report from the appeal committee Just before you take time reading that, I'll just clarify a few things. As I understand it, you and the other members of your judicial committee were present as observers in the appeal committee hearing; is that right? A. That's correct.

Q. In the appeal hearing, [BCH] confessed to the sexual abuse allegations in respect of [BCG]; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And then this, as you'll see, if we can scroll down a little, you'll see coming on to the screen now, which has been highlighted, it says:

Fresh evidence under questioning of witnesses and appellant produced further more serious reasons for disfellowshipping.

And that covers the child sexual abuse allegation, is that right,the bit that's highlighted?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall what it is that was said in the meeting which amounted to the admission or confession by [BCH] of the abuse by him of his second daughter?

A. Did you say the second daughter?

Q. Yes, [BCG]. As I understand, [BCG] is the second daughter?

A. Sorry, yes. As I said previously, the memory I have was where [BCG] admitted to everything that -[BCH], sorry, admitted to everything that [BCG] had said, so as far as specifics, no, I have no memory.

Q. Perhaps I can show you tab 32. You'll see this is a statement taken by the Queensland Police Service of James Bennett. He was a member of the appeal committee, wasn't he?

A. That's right.

Q. This was then a statement for the purposes of the prosecution of [BCH]. If we look on the next page, paragraph 6, this is talking about the appeal meeting when Mr Bennett said:

When [BCH] was confronted by the statement made by his daughter [BCH] admitted that they were true.

Would that accord with your memory? A. Yes.

Q. If we look at tab 36, you'll see this is a Queensland Police Service statement of Donald Angus Wilson. He was another member of the appeal committee; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. On the following page at paragraph 7, also speaking in relation to the appeal committee meeting, Mr Wilson says:

Initially [BCH] denied his daughter's allegation, but I recall that he finally admitted that he had done what [BCG] alleged.

Is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. That's what happened?

A. That's correct.

Q. Following the appeal, which, of course, confirmed the disfellowshipping and added the extra ground - not so? That's right, isn't it?

A. That's right.

Q. So, following the appeal, you had confirmed allegations of serious child sexual abuse and incest by [BCH] - not so?

Q. That he had admitted?

A. He admitted.

Q. And the approach taken by the elders was that [BCH] should give up his pursuit of the other woman and return to the family home - would that be right?

A. That would have been a decision for him.

Q. In the light of the information that you had at that stage following the appeal, did you not then consider reporting to the authorities or to the police?

A. No.

Q. Are you able, now looking back, to explain how it is that that was not something you considered?

A. I would still go back to - for the sake of confidentiality and, also, for the persons involved, that it is their right to go to the police. We didn't say one way or the other, but that's their right to do that.

I didn't feel it was mine.

Q. Whose confidentiality was that - in other words, who had a claim, in your mind, for confidentiality in relation to this information?

A. Very much for [BCG].

Q. It was [BCG]. So she could have consented for you to take it to the police - not so?

A. At any time.

Q. And did you ask her whether she would like you to take it to the police?

You didn't?

A. I - I have no recollection one way or the other.

Q. Do you recall there was an occasion on which [BCG] attempted suicide? This is in the period you say you were caring for her a lot?

A. I don't have a recollection of that.

Q. Perhaps we can look at her paragraph 60. Do you see that after the introductory sentences, in the second line she says:

Not long after I married [BCJ] I still felt worthless and alone and I tried to commit suicide by taking an overdose. I had to report my suicide attempt to the elders as it was a sin against Jehovah.

Attempted suicide is regarded as a serious sin, isn't it, Mr de Rooy? A. For someone to commit suicide, really, we want to give all the help we possibly can.

Q. You're not answering my question, Mr de Rooy. I'm asking you, it's a serious sin, isn't it, attempted suicide?

A. To answer that, for someone in their right mind to kill themselves, yes, but this is totally different. This is - this is someone who has been very much affected by what's happened. It's different.

Q. Well --

A. It doesn't apply.

Q. I have to say I am not sure that I ever saw an exception to it being a very serious sin in the documentation. Perhaps that's something that the documents will show one way or the other. We'll see how [BCG] continues there. She says:

I remember that I spoke to Ron ...

Do you remember that she spoke to you about her attempted suicide?

A. No.I don't.

A. No, I don't.

Q. If we carry on to the next page, she says that she was

15565 A R DE ROOY (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI chastised by you, because attempting suicide is viewed as a serious wrongdoing within the church.

You say you don't recall that?

A. No.

Q. Are you saying you did not chastise [BCG]?

A. My recollection of the times that I spoke with [BCG], on occasions with her husband, was always to encourage, to help her to think positively, to give her comfort and support. I would not have - at all think of chastising someone who felt like that. That is just not part of how I shepherd and help ones who are distressed like that. So, no, I don't believe that's correct.

Q. Could we look at tab 80, Ringtail page 24. Mr de Rooy, you can see the document that you're going to be shown - you're familiar with this document - Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock. That was the guide to the elders that applied from 1991; is that right? A. Yes, I believe so.

Q. You'll see here various forms of wrongdoing are set out. Perhaps this is what you had in mind. Do you see under "Manslaughter"? A. Yes.

Q. In the second main paragraph it says:

Attempted suicide may be the result of deep despair or major depression; deal carefully and compassionately with such a person. In most cases a judicial hearing is not required.

Is that what you had in mind?

A. That's what I had in mind.

Q. The right response to [BCG], in the event that her attempted suicide came to your knowledge, would have been to deal carefully and compassionately with her; is that right?

A. Very much so.

Q. But you say you don't remember that --

A. I have no memory of that.

Q. If we can go back to tab 6 and scroll that up so the whole letter can be seen.

You'll see on 7 August 1989 [BCH] wrote to the Body of Elders and said:

Dear Brothers,

I felt I must write to ask your forgiveness for the trouble I have caused and the reproach on Jehovah's name and the Congregation.

Please forgive me.

Do you recall receiving this letter? A. No, I don't.

Q. Subsequently - and I'll take you to the correspondence in a moment-[BCH] sought reinstatement into the Jehovah's Witnesses; is that right?

Q. Can you explain what are the principal considerations when someone applies for reinstatement?

A. They would write a letter to want to be reinstated and then that would - then a judicial - well, a judicial committee would look at that plea for reinstatement.

Q. In deciding whether or not reinstatement should be granted, what are the principal considerations? What is it in your inquiry or your investigation in that judicial committee - what is it that you have to consider?

A. The things to very much consider are: is he truly sorry for the things that he has done; is he able to say that to the ones that he has hurt; can he correct anything that possibly can be corrected; is his being sorry sorry because he got caught out and had the punishment, or is he sorry because now he wants to actually be forgiven by our creator, Jehovah, God. So we have a term for whether he's really godly sorry for that, is he godly repentant. So by his attitude and his repugnance for the terrible things he had done, how that would all be conveyed is what it would be based on.

MR STEWART: Would that be a convenient time, your Honour?

THE CHAIR: Q. Just before we do rise, you referenced the book of Deuteronomy as the source of the need for there to be two witnesses. The book of Deuteronomy, of course, has some other fairly strong demands, including a murderer being executed and an adulterous woman stoned to death.

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses accept those statements as appropriate today?

A. Your Honour, no, we can't kill someone for adultery or stone people to death, but under the Christian arrangement we can disfellowship people for those things, which really, if they want to make things right with God, they've got to then change, to have that relationship back. So we can't do that, but the principle of it is that we remove them from the congregation.

Q. But, leaving aside that you can't do it, do the Jehovahs think the appropriate punishment today for a murderer is that they be put to death?

A. That's for the law to decide.

Q. I know, but what's the Jehovahs' position on it?

A. Our position?

Q. Yes.

A. Our position is that superior authorities, in whichever country we are in, make the law on that, so whichever country we're in makes the law on whether someone should be put to death. That's my understanding.

Q. But that would override the Bible dictate in that respect?

A. Well, we don't have the right to take someone's life ourselves.

Q. No, but in terms of the principle, the civil law will override the biblical injunction - is that the way it -- A. In this situation, the civil law has the right to do that.

THE CHAIR: We'll take the morning adjournment.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT

(The hearing resumed in the absence of the court reporters.

Mr Stewart had asked a question of the witness to the following effect: "You said to the judge before we broke that the Jehovah's Witnesses do not stone a woman to death because you can't.

Is the reason that you can't because it is a serious crime in the civil law?" The witness had commenced his answer, but continued below.)

THE WITNESS: ... That would be wrong, so we are not under the Mosaic law with all its penalties for death and stoning. We are not under that law at all. We are under the law of Christ, and it's then, in that way of applying those principles of Christ, that we do apply that in the congregation.

THE CHAIR: Mr Stewart, we have made a grievous error. We didn't have any transcription. We do now.

MR STEWART: I am not sure that it matters terribly much on that one. We can take that up with the members from the branch committee.

THE CHAIR: It is a matter for you, Mr Stewart.

MR STEWART: Q. Mr de Rooy, I'm not going to ask you to give that explanation again. We'll ask people from the branch office about that relationship that I asked you about.

A. Thank you.

Q. Getting back to the question of reinstatement, I'd like you to take a look at page 130, Ringtail 0060 of tab 80. You'll understand that this is from the Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock guide to elders that applied from 1991 until 2010. You see there it says:

If it is determined that the wrongdoer is sincerely repentant,has discontinued his former wrong conduct,and is doing works that benefit repentance,he can be reinstated.

The decision to reinstate is made by a judicial committee of the congregation that took the disfellowshipping action. The secretary should sign and return [the form].

Are we to understand that reinstatement is a question of A.

Yes.

repentance?

Q. In that period, at any rate, in 1991 to 2010, these are the principles that would apply in any reinstatement request?

A. Yes.

Q. In this particular case, as we'll see in a minute because I'll take you to the documents, there were a number of reinstatement requests from [BCH] via other congregations whose meetings he was attending; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Was it the case that the decision, though, on whether or not to reinstate still lay with the original congregation who had disfellowshipped him?

A. It comes back to the original congregation.

Q. So, in other words, it lay with Mareeba through all this?

A. That's right, yes.

Q. If we can look at tab 7, and while that's coming up, can I ask you, Mr de Rooy, have you had the opportunity in the last two or three weeks to go through these documents, the letters backwards and forwards, about [BCH]'s requests for reinstatement?

…