Royal Commission Case Study 29 (Jehovah's Witnesses) — Hearing Transcript, Day 152 (2015)
Download: PDF — Royal Commission Case Study 29 (Jehovah's Witnesses) — Hearing Transcript, Day 152 (2015)
%20%E2%80%94%20Hearing%20Transcript%2C%20Day%20152%20(2015)/cover.jpg)
ROYAL COMMISSION INTO INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES TO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
Public Hearing - Case Study 29 (Day 152)
Level 17, Governor Macquarie Tower Farrer Place, Sydney
On Tuesday, 4 August 2015 at 10am
Before The Chair: Commissioner:
Justice Peter McClellan AM Professor Helen Milroy
Counsel Assisting:
Mr Angus Stewart SC
.04/08/2015 (152)
15640 Transcript produced by DTI MR STEWART: As your Honour pleases, the next witness is Mr Allan Pencheff.
His witness statement should be at tab 6 of the statements bundle and I believe that is Mr Pencheff, appearing from Brisbane on video.
MR PENCHEFF: Yes.
THE CHAIR: Mr Pencheff, can you hear me?
MR PENCHEFF: Yes.
THE CHAIR: It will be necessary for you to be sworn. Do you have a Bible there?
MR PENCHEFF: I do, yes.
<ALLAN CHRISTOPHER PENCHEFF, sworn: [10.05am]
<EXAMINATION BY MR STEWART:
MR STEWART: Q. Mr Pencheff, would you state your full name, please?
A. Allan Christopher Pencheff.
Q. Do you have a copy of your statement for the Royal Commission dated 10 July 2015 available to you? A. I do, yes.
Q. Are there any corrections you wish to make to that statement?
A. In terms of corrections, I - having read over the documents you have provided, it has brought back to my mind some information that I hadn't recalled, but not in terms of corrections, no.
Q. So the point is, you would say more, now, than what you said, but not say it differently; is that it?
A. Yeah, as I said, that information reminded me of what happened 12 years ago, whereas, it had been in my memory, quite dull at the time of the statement.
Q. Thank you for that. Perhaps some of that detail will emerge in the things I am to ask you about. Do you, then confirm your statement as true and correct?
A. Yes.
MR STEWART: I tender the statement, your Honour.
THE CHAIR: That will be exhibit 29-018.
EXHIBIT #29-018 STATEMENT OF ALLAN CHRISTOPHER PENCHEFF DATED 10/07/2015
MR STEWART: Q. You have been a Jehovah's Witness for the past 41 years, as I understand it; is that right? A. That's correct.
Q. How did you come to be a Jehovah's Witness?
A. I was contacted when I was 19 in the door-to-door ministry that the Witnesses conduct and started Bible study. I then studied the Bible with them for a period of time, was convinced of what I was being taught and, in turn, became a baptised, dedicated Witness.
Q. When were you first appointed an elder, Mr Pencheff? A. I don't remember the exact date, but I would say it would be around 35 years ago. I was baptised in 1973, so I'm thinking it was about six years later.
Q. So about 1979 or so?
A. In that time frame, yes.
Q. Have you served continuously as an elder since then?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your current congregation, Mr Pencheff?
A. Manly, Queensland.
Q. For how long have you served as an elder in that congregation?
A. Seven years.
Q. How big is that congregation?
A. Approximately 100 publishers.
Q. Do you recall the dates on which you were an elder in the Loganholme congregation?
A. I was there for 14 years. I left in 2005. So I guess that takes it, what, back to around 1991 through to 2005.
Q. How big was that congregation when you served there?
A. I think around - between 120 to 150.
Q. Thank you.In your statement,Mr Pencheff,at paragraph 4.1, you say that, to the best of your recollection, you have only dealt with a couple of cases of child sexual abuse within the church in your time, "as they are a very rare event amongst Jehovah's Witnesses".
Now, you will have heard that it has been presented in these proceedings that there were 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse within the Jehovah's Witness Church in 65 years - did you hear that?
A. Yes, I did see that.
Q. And in respect of a substantial number of those alleged perpetrators, there may be several allegations; do you accept that?
A. Sorry, can you repeat that, sorry?
Q. In respect of substantial numbers, or at least some of those alleged perpetrators, there may be several allegations, in other words, more than one case.
A. So more than one person accusing the perpetrator; is that what you are saying?
Q. Yes.
A. I guess so. I wouldn't know.
Q. But even on the figure of 1,006, that amounts to 15 perpetrators per year, on average, which is more than one a month. On that basis, would you still say that it's an extremely rare event amongst Jehovah's Witnesses? A. Considering the number of congregations and the number of cases, yes.
Q. If we look specifically at [BCG]'s case, as I understand it, you were an elder at the Loganholme congregation when [BCH]-that's [BCG]'s father - joined that congregation; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. He came to you from St George, after he had been reinstated by Mareeba; is that right?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. As I understand it, you then came to chair a judicial committee at Loganholme looking into the possible disfellowshipping of [BCH] once again; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. I would like you to have a look at tab 40?
A. Yes.
Q. If yours is the same as mine, that would be a letter dated 1 November 2002 from Watchtower Australia to the presiding overseer at Loganholme; is that the one you have? A. It is, yes.
Q. That was in the period that you were an elder at Loganholme. This particular letter is addressed to "Dear Brother Harrop". Was he the presiding overseer at that time?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. Did you become aware of this letter?
A. Yes.
Q. You will see on the second page the branch - sorry, before you go to the second page, just looking at the first page, who do you understand this letter to be coming from at the branch?
A. In terms of individual or persons, there's no person's name attached. It usually would come from the service department.
Q. Do you see it says "LLC", the reference that is given at the top, next to the date?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what that reflects?
A. No.
Q. But you would expect that it would come from the service department?
A. Yeah, the service department in the branch.
Q. You will see that the branch says:
We are writing to you in connection with Brother [BCH] who we understand associates with the Loganholme Congregation. [He] was disfellowshipped in the Mareeba Congregation in 1989 and reinstated in 1992...
And then it goes on in the second paragraph to mention that he "has recently been prosecuted for sexually interfering with two of his daughters some years ago". Then various aspects of the history are set out.
But now, if you look at the second page and the third-last paragraph, the one that begins "Two elders" - do you see that? A. Yes.
Q. So it says:
Two elders should be appointed to approach Brother [BCH] and inform him that they are aware that he has been charged by two of his daughters ... of sexually molesting them. The elders should also inform him that they are aware it is a matter of public record...
And so it goes on. Were you then one of the two elders who was appointed to look into this matter?
A. I was.
Q. Was that the cause of a judicial committee then being established?
A. Yes.
Q. That's a judicial committee you served on?
A. That's correct.
Q. If you would then look at tab 41, on the face of it, it is a memorandum from Legal, V Toole, to the service department, 23 January 2003. I take it this didn't come to your attention at that time, back when you were dealing with the matter?
A. No, that was a branch memorandum; it wasn't sent to the congregation.
Q. If one looks at the last paragraph on page 3, the legal department is saying, as I understand it - and I want to know what your understanding was at the time- that the charge against [BCH] for your judicial committee was one of lying; is that right? Do you see the last sentence says:
The primary issue before present committee is the charge of lying.
A. Yeah, that's correct. The initial allegations by [BCG] had already been established, so we were dealing with whether he was continuing to tell the truth.
Q. I will come back to what had been established and what hadn't in a moment.Would you take a look at tab 42. This is the form, being the formal record of his now second disfellowshipping - that's [BCH]'s- on 11 March 2003; is that correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. I take it that that is your signature at the foot of the page?
A. It is, yes.
Q. You were chairman of that judicial committee?
A. That's correct.
Q. In the middle of the page it sets out the reasons for the disfellowshipping?
A. Yes.
Q. The previous disfellowshipping - that's the one in 1989 - was, amongst other things, in respect of child sexual abuse against one of his daughters, [BCG]; is that right?
A. I wasn't - I have - I believe so based on what I've read, yes.
Q. And you disfellowshipped him now for lying; is that right?
A. Yes. Yes, lying in relation to the allegations his daughter was making.
Q. So in your reasons you say he denies the child abuse allegations of his three daughters and lies about it; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. So you, as I understood it, accepted that the child abuse allegations in respect of the other daughters were true?
A. Well, in this instance, there were three individuals making the same claim, so on the basis of that, we were forced to believe that it was true, yes.
Q. So you accepted the evidence that was presented to you in relation to that and accepted that he had abused daughters in addition to [BCG]?
A. Based on their three testimonies, yes, but we - the courts would later establish that legally.
Q. Are you able to explain why the allegations by the other daughters were not considered for the disfellowshipping - in other words,why was he not disfellowshipped the second time for,as it would be put, I understand, porneia,in relation to his other two daughters,rather than for lying?
A. In the letter from the branch it asked us just to leave the other allegations from the other daughter until the legal case had been finalised. We were mainly to look at his current honesty with regard to what had happened and, as a result, when we questioned him, we felt we didn't have to wait to disfellowship him after it had been legally established; we could take action now on the basis of him lying about it.
Q. Then, if we have a look at tab 43, which is a document dated 23 March 2002, and it has three names across the bottom, including two signatures. I see there is not a signature adjacent to your name. Was this, nevertheless, the recorded decision of your judicial committee? A. Yes, that's an expanded explanation.
Q. Notwithstanding your signature is not there, are we to understand that you engaged in and supported the reasons that are set out in this document?
A. Absolutely.
A. Absolutely.
Q. Are you aware whether you signed another copy of the document?
A. No, I am surprised I haven't signed this one and I can't - I wouldn't - it must have just been an oversight.
Q. Did you, as chair of that committee, actually write the document?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. So there is no respect in which you disagree with it?
A. No, no, I fully agree with it.
THE CHAIR: Q. Mr Pencheff, a moment ago you said that you were forced to the conclusion that he was lying, and in this document you see towards the end of it you say, if you look at it with me:
... we had no choice but to disfellowship him.
What are you meaning? Are you saying that it was difficult to come to that conclusion, or what? A. No, not at all. As you know, we use the Bible principle of there being two or three witnesses to an allegation. In this case, there were three, so that drew us to what was a logical conclusion that something had happened, and we then decided that rather than wait any longer, we could remove him from the congregation to protect him and any other potential victims - or protect the congregation, rather, or any other potential victims. So we were - we weren't hesitant; we were just looking for the right grounds based on the direction we had been given at the time.
MR STEWART: Q. Mr Pencheff, just in relation to what you said a few minutes ago about why your judicial committee did not investigate the complaints of abuse of the other daughters, and your answer was that you had been instructed by the branch to leave those alone because they were the subject of the criminal trial - at least that's as I understood you; is that right?
A. Yes. If you go back to the document, the first letter that you read or you commented on --
Q. That's at tab 40.
A. Tab 40, yes.
Q. The letter of 1 November 2002.
A. That's correct. Yes.
Q. Yes. And what are you referring to in that letter?
A. I will just go through. At the top of the page, the first paragraph, it said:
We do not want you to follow-up on the matter involving [BCG] since it has already been handled to the extent possible at this stage. We simply provide it as background information to assist you to be aware of the kind of actions that Brother [BCH] has exhibited in connection with past wrongdoing.
And then it says:
As mentioned already, Brother [BCH] has pleaded guilty to sexually abusing another of his daughters, [BCL].
We understand that the incident occurred in 1988 when ... was approximately 6 years of age.
Et cetera. Then:
This is the first we have heard of this accusation --
A little further down --
which, we understand, has never been handled. We therefore want the elders in your congregation to handle the matter and we suggest that you proceed in the following manner.
Two elders should be appointed to approach Brother [BCH] and inform him that they are aware that he has been charged by two of his daughters ... of sexually molesting them. The elders should also inform him that they are aware that it is a matter of public record that he has entered a plea of guilty to three charges of sexual assault ... and to one charge of sexually interfering with [one of his daughters] when she was 6 years of age. He should be asked to explain his actions. We would like to think that he would be forthcoming with sufficient information to enable the matter to be handled judicially. If he is not prepared to cooperate and provide the elders with an admission of his wrongdoing, even though he has already done so on public record, he should be told that when he is sentenced on January 24, 2003, without any further contact with the elders, he will likely be disfellowshipped ...
Once the two brothers have met ... we would like them to contact the legal department before proceeding any further ... If you have any questions ... please do not hesitate to contact us.
I think a bit earlier there were some comments, too.
Q. Mr Pencheff, the bits that you've read, including the bit that you cut short at the end of the last sentence you read, which said "he will likely be disfellowshipped for sexually abusing [BCL]", in other words, another daughter as a child, as well as for being dishonest, seems to suggest that the branch was telling you that you should now handle the matter that had not previously been handled, in other words, the abuse of [BCL] - in other words -- A. I will just read back a little further, because I didn't highlight the point, but I felt in that letter the direction was clear. Just give me a moment. I think I was - had reference to that - the first paragraph that I read, that we weren't to follow up on the matter regarding [BCG]:
We provide this as background to assist you to be aware of the kind of action that he has exhibited.
The second daughter was not involved with Jehovah's Witnesses at the time and the matter was before the courts, so based on that, it wasn't - we were to leave it to when the court took action, to make that final decision. So we were more looking at his honesty in this particular instance as opposed to dealing with the second allegation.
Q. It certainly suggests, Mr Pencheff, doesn't it, that in the view that your judicial committee took of matters, a charge of dishonesty is more serious and pressing to be investigated and resolved than a charge of sexual abuse of a daughter?
A. No, the two go hand in hand. We were looking at his honesty in regard to the sexual abuse of the daughter. We weren't looking at whether he stole something from the corner shop; we were talking about some serious allegations to which he had already confessed and now was denying, so we were very serious about that matter. But we were leaving the legal side of it, or the legal system to establish it legally. We couldn't establish it by talking to his second daughter, because she wasn't one of Jehovah's Witnesses at the time, so we had to go by what the legal system would come up with and what the gentleman involved here was prepared to say about it. But the two were extricably [sic] linked. We weren't divorcing one from the other.
Q. I have to say that your professed seriousness with regard to how you dealt with the question of the abuse of [BCL] is not supported by the reasons that you gave.
A. In what way?
Q. It put the dishonesty front and centre and not the sexual abuse.
A. But can't you see that the two are the same, it's dishonesty in regard to that, and we left the matter to the legal system to establish it legally?
Q. Perhaps we will leave that, Mr Pencheff, as a matter for submissions in due course. Can I ask you to have a look at tab 46. This is a letter that came from the branch in May of 2006 to the judicial committee at Loganholme, but on the basis of what you told us earlier, am I to understand that you had left Loganholme by that time?
A. Yes, I left in 2005, so I never saw this correspondence.
Q. There is further correspondence with regard to the Camira congregation, and then subsequently the Kalamunda congregation, from where [BCH] was seeking reinstatement. I take it you were not involved in any of that? A. No.After 2005,that would have been all handled by the then Body of Elders in Loganholme.
Q. Do you nevertheless know what the ultimate outcome has been? In other words,has [BCH] been reinstated,or not?
A. To my understanding, no.
MR STEWART: Thank you, your Honour. Those are my questions.
THE CHAIR: Does anyone else have any questions?
MS DAVID: No, your Honour.
MR COYNE: Yes, your Honour.
<EXAMINATION BY MR COYNE:
MR COYNE: Q. For the record, my name is Coyne. I represent Mr Pencheff and others. Could we bring up tab 46, please.
You have a copy of that, do you? A. I do, yes.
Q. That was the letter that you were just directed to?
A. Yes.
Q. Your committee disfellowshipped [BCH] in 2003; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. So if you look at that letter,if you go to the second-last paragraph of the first page,that is what is stated there at the beginning of that paragraph:
[BCH] was disfellowshipped again in 2003.
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. If you then go to the following paragraph, it says:
After corresponding with the branch office, the judicial committee decided to disfellowship him on the charge of lying. The S-77 report stated that he "has continued to change his story depending on what he thinks is the most expedient at the time" and that on 3 separate occasions he denied the charges but later confessed. They wrote ...
When they say "they wrote", that's talking about your committee; is that correct?
A. Yes, that's a quotation from those earlier documents.
Q. And you have said:
... he "has 3 daughters claiming he molested them and he continues to deny their claims and lies about it to the judicial committee and law courts to suit his own ends". Although the judicial committee were aware of further allegations of sexual abuse being raised by two other daughters, it appears that they did not make any statements to the elders at the time. Apparently, they received legal advice not to disclose this information as it may have prejudiced the legal case against their father.
Correct?
A. Yes, that's what it reads, yes.
Q. Is that your understanding of the advice received by the committee when you were dealing with this matter?
A. Yes.
Q. At the next paragraph, it says:
In summary, it is our understanding that the allegations of sexual abuse made against Mr [BCH] have been clearly substantiated.
A. Right, yes.
Q. That's your understanding of the view of the committee?
A. Yes, definitely.
MR COYNE: Thank you. Nothing further, your Honour.
THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Pencheff. That concludes your evidence and you are excused.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW
MR STEWART: Your Honour, the next witness will be Mr Rodney Spinks.
THE CHAIR: Mr Spinks, it will be necessary to have you sworn to tell the truth. I see you have a Bible with you; is that right.
MR SPINKS: Yes
<RODNEY PETER SPINKS, sworn:
[10.35am]
<EXAMINATION BY MR STEWART:
MR STEWART: Q. Mr Spinks, would you state your full name, please?
.04/08/2015 (152)
15653 R P SPINKS (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI A.
Rodney Peter Spinks.
Q. Do you have a copy of your statement for the Royal Commission dated 10 July 2015?
A. Yes.
Q. Are there any amendments you wish to make to the statement?
A. No.
Q. Do you confirm the statement to be true and correct?
A. Yes.
MR STEWART: I tender the statement, your Honour.
THE CHAIR: That will be exhibit 29-019.
EXHIBIT #29-019 STATEMENT OF RODNEY PETER SPINKS DATED 10/07/2015
MR STEWART: Q. What is your current occupation,
A. I'm a full-time volunteer minister at the headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses here in Sydney.
Q. In particular, what position or role do you occupy at those headquarters?
A. In the service department, caring for service desk responsibilities as a senior service desk member.
Q. Are you the senior service desk member?
A. We explain it that way so everyone can understand it. I'm the longest serving, consulted by other service desks. I have no different title but, yes, the senior service desk.
Q. That's a full-time responsibility, is it?
A. Correct.
Q. Is that an employed position?
A. No, no salary. I'm provided with accommodation, basic necessities. No salary.
Q. Is that through being a member, or are you a member of the worldwide Order of Special Full-Time Servants of Jehovah's Witnesses?
A. That's correct.
Q. That's an organisation that provides for people in full-time positions such as yourself; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. So do you live at the branch office premises?
A. Yes, my wife and I have a room there.
Q. Is there some sort of stipend attached to that?
A. Around $10 per day, yes, for - to cover incidental personal hygiene expenses, et cetera.
Q. As I understand it, you have been at the branch office since 2007; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you have been associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses since 1965?
A. Yes, that's when my parents first became Jehovah's Witnesses.
Q. And you were baptised as a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses more than 40 years ago?
A. Yes.
Q. Would it be fair to say that membership of the Jehovah's Witnesses has been a defining feature of your whole life?
A. Absolutely.
Q. You served as a ministerial servant from the early 1980s; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And as a congregation elder since 1987?
A. Yes.
Q. In your statement, you say you were a member of the Beenleigh East congregation from 1978 to 1990. When were you an elder there, at Beenleigh East?
A. I was first appointed as an elder in Beenleigh.
Q. And when was that?
A. I think from recollection it was 1987.
Q. Do you recall when it was in 1990 that you left Beenleigh?
15655 R P SPINKS (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI A.
Yes. September/October 1990 I moved to North Queensland.
Q. You have mentioned there is a service desk at the branch office. How many people work at the service desk? A. In the eight and a half, nine years I have been there, it has varied according to workload. Recently, five members specifically service desk. It has been more, but currently five.
Q. How many people work at the branch office in total?
A. Again, it varies. They are all volunteers. Between 350 to 400 at any time.
Q. How many are actually accommodated there?
A. Most of those. We have a few commuters, but the majority of those would be accommodated there.
Q. So since 10 July and now, 4 August, has the number of people at the service desk changed considerably?
A. No, not "considerably". I think one older member has gone to other duties, but it has been a similar number in the time that I've been there - maybe one or two more at various times.
Q. Perhaps you can clarify for me, is there a distinction between the service department and the service desk? A. A small distinction. The service department is the entire group that effectively interface with the congregations. So the duties all relate to what we would call the service or ministry. So the five I have spoken of specifically deal with congregation spiritual-type matters, but we have a desk, an assistant caring for conventions, for the formation of new congregations, for maintenance of the jw.org website, et cetera.
Q. And the legal department, is that separate from the service department?
A. It's located separately within the branch office there, with its own staff.
Q. So what other departments are there beside service and legal?
A. So there is - we have a large printery, so there is a significant number of the volunteers that are engaged with our large printing presses. We have a large shipping department, where - trucks coming and going and literature coming in and out.
In addition, we obviously have a graphics department for the preparation of materials. A number of support services - large housekeeping contingency, we have a large kitchen and dining room that are all well staffed. We have volunteer engineering, gardening, et cetera, and we also have a large design/build office for construction of Kingdom Halls and branch offices in the regions. So they are all - that's just a few of the departments. There are others, too.
Q. The 350 to 400 volunteers who reside at the branch headquarters, if I might refer to it as that, are they separately members of congregations, or is there a congregation there? What do they do for their ordinary weekly worship?
A. They are all members of different congregations, I guess from Sydney City to Penrith to - down to Wollongong. So a few in each congregation within travelling distance.
Q. Can you explain, what is the responsibility of the service department as a whole and, in particular, distinguishing it from the legal department?
A. So how we would define it, internally, and I'm happy to expand on that, but the service department deals with the theocratic or spiritual aspects, particularly of the work. The primary role of the legal department is obviously there are corporations, there are property issues, et cetera, and also advice in relation to legal matters that the service department might deal with. So there is certainly an integration between the legal department and the service department on some matters.
Q. Perhaps you can help me, because in some of the correspondence it's not clear - to me at least - who it has come from, who has generated it. So a number of the documents or correspondence have the initials "SD". What are we to understand that to refer to?
A. That certainly comes out of the service department.
Q. But not necessarily the service desk?
A. No.
Q. And in others, sometimes in combination with "SD", there are the initials "SSA". How are we to understand that?
A. So work flow related, so depending on what work flow an individual is working on, it's all electronic now,the work flow comes in electronically and out electronically so it's what I would refer to as a work flow assignment method for distributing the work around the department.
Q. This particular initial "SSA" goes back a long time, I imagine long before it was all digitally or electronically done, but perhaps I'm wrong. Can you just explain that because there is "SSA", I've seen "SSD", "SSG", "SSB". Are those particular individuals given that cypher, or how does it work?
A. It would certainly be a particular individual on a day or a week, perhaps a month. The work flow, for example, that I've generated in the time that I've been there has been with four or five different desk symbols, depending on which particular work. But it's true to say that on a particular day the department would know who is handling the SSA work flow.
Q. So if there was a particular letter on a particular date which said "SD:SSA", you would be able to go back and know who was responsible for that letter?
A. I would know who did it now, and probably in recent history. It would be extremely difficult to work out which individual - one, whether they are still there, and, two, which individual it was that was using that desk symbol at the time, but that would be possible.
Q. Some of the documents have the letters "CA" on them. What does that represent?
A. I believe it relates to correspondence. It's not one I've commonly seen, but I believe that that is a general correspondence desk, meaning when general inquiries come in.
Q. Would you take a look at tab 26. You will see that this is a disfellowshipping or disassociation S-77 form in relation to [BCH] recording the date that he was disfellowshipped and later reinstated. It has in the top right-hand corner "CA 18 Jan 1993". What are we to make of that stamp?
A. That's the elder that opened the mail on the day. Each letter that came in physically would be opened by the elder at the correspondence desk, and he has date stamped it. So that would be whoever was opening correspondence on 18 January 1993.
Q. But the "CA" representing that it was the correspondence desk, or representing that it was a particular elder?
A. To my knowledge - sorry.
Q. Carry on.
A. To my knowledge, there has only ever been, certainly in my time - it's not a large task - one elder opening the mail, so whoever it was at that time, that's certainly way before my time, but it would have been the elder who was opening the mail that day.
Q. So that's really to be taken as a receipt stamp for when the particular document arrived at, or at least was opened at the branch office?
A. Yes, primarily as a date stamp to say that's the date we received it.
Q. Now, "SSB", I take it is another work flow designation, as with "SSA"; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And "LLC"?
A. "LLC" would generally be from the legal department, if it starts with an L.
Q. And then "LLB" similarly, I assume?
A. Yes.
Q. And "LLF"?
A. Yes.
Q. What about "SF"?
A. That would be out of the service department.
Q. On the same basis as "SSB" or "SSA", or designating something different?
A. Just - I'm not sure why the different designation there. Sometimes, the additional symbol related to an elder who was a secretary. That has not been constant. But "SF" is definitely a service department desk symbol that has been used.
Q. I would like to take you to paragraph 26 of your statement. You will see you say there:
If congregation elders become aware of
15659 R P SPINKS (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI a child abuse allegation, they are instructed to contact the Legal Department in relation to reporting requirements and then the call is transferred to the Service Department.
So just to understand that, does that mean that if the authorities are to be informed, that is a matter for the legal department to advise on, and not the service department; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. So the service department does not involve itself in giving advice with regard to informing authorities?
A. Correct.
Q. So would there be any circumstances, in your experience, in which the service desk would be involved in advising elders in a congregation to report an allegation to the authorities?
A. The legal department advises in relation to mandatory reporting, because they would be fully aware of which States and what the requirements are. It wouldn't be correct to say that the service department doesn't advise elders on that at a spiritual level, because invariably the opening discussion with elders, once they come through to the service department, is, if we're dealing with a current allegation or abuse that is alleged to be currently taking place, the first part of the conversation is in relation to where is the victim, what has been done to protect the victim. So certainly at a theocratic level and out of concern for the family, that is certainly part of our discussion, but not the mandatory reporting requirements.
Q. I just want to understand that, then. You say the first issue to be addressed is where is the victim in relation to a current allegation. How does that then relate or transform itself into a reporting issue? How do you deal with that with regard to reporting to authorities? A. Right. It relates simply to what needs to be done to ensure that a child, a minor, is not left in a position where they could be exposed to further abuse - not from a legal perspective or requirement, but from the fact that the guardian/parent, the elders and each of us are primarily concerned about what is being done to protect the child. This abuse that has been reported - is the child currently in a situation where that could continue?
Q. And advice that is given by the service desk to the elders when they make a call, on this first-call basis, is that advice then put in writing to them or confirmed in writing?
A. I would say no, because we go through the same process each time, simply referring the elders to the printed advice that has been given in that regard, and so we just simply go through that same process. Generally, correspondence starts when we give that generic advice to the elders, remembering that often when the elders call in they have very little, if any, information; they may be passing on a second- or third-hand - or some rumour, some allegation. So in that first instance, we don't always even have names or details. So we provide the same advice each time from the published material, then ask the elders to provide us with, in writing, the details that we can assist them with.
Q. Let me just understand that. This generic advice you supply on each occasion, what is it? What is the substance of that advice?
A. If I can, I would read from the Elders' Handbook the bit that - by rote - I read each time.
Q. By all means, please refer us to it. So that would be at tab 120 - I take it that's Shepherd the Flock of God that you are referring to?
A. Yes. Because I've been permitted to use the hard copy - excuse me on the Ringtail reference, but it is page 131.
Q. Yes.
A. So we refer the elders - they've already obviously called in, and then obviously the sentence at the end of paragraph 18 says:
The branch office will then give direction based on the circumstances involved in each situation.
So we ask the elders at that point just to give us what basic information or detailed information that they have. Then, reading the following portion, have the elders have their handbook and follow along, where it says "Child abuse is a crime": Never suggest to anyone that they should not report an allegation of child abuse to the police or other authorities.
And myself and the other service desk elders, we always go and get a second elder, so that we can both assist, so these calls are taken with two elders from the congregation, two elders in the service department. We then say, I think as I've mentioned in my statement, and I say with absolute conviction, that I'm a father, I'm a grandfather of two little children, and you brothers, if there is any concern that a child, a minor, remains in a situation where they are in threat of harm - to go back to the guardian/parent and assist them to do all they can, including going to the authorities, if that's what the parent - the guardian/parent is willing to do, including going to the authorities, and remind them that they - the individual, that they will have the full support of the elders in doing that.
Then we read on:
If you are asked, make it clear that whether to report the matter to the authorities or not is a personal decision for each individual to make and that there are no congregation sanctions for either decision. Elders will not criticise anyone who reports such an allegation to the authorities. If the victim wishes to make a report, it is his or her absolute right to do so.
So in reality, in the vast majority of phone calls that we get, they would relate to historical events or events where the guardian/parent has already extracted the child from the situation. But we repeat the advice in every case: do whatever it takes to make sure that the child is not in a situation where they can come to harm. And I quite passionately express that to the elders, because I know what I would do if that was my grandchild, and I know from the elders that we've heard from over the last few days, that that's what they would do.
Q. Mr Spinks, that's the generic advice that you give and then it is over to the elders as to what they do. Is that how we are to understand it?
A. That's correct, although they would ring us back if they needed further discussion.
Q. So you don't give specific advice in a particular situation and say "You should do this or that"; you put it at the level of generic advice, as you have explained to us?
A. Yes, I think we've consistently said, and we appreciate that that is a matter under discussion, but we're not claiming to have said that we have instructed elders to go to the authorities, and I'm certainly not stating that that's the case now.
THE CHAIR: Q. The material we have, as you know, indicates more than 1,000 allegations, not one of which has been reported to the authorities. I assume you know that in different States there will be varying responsibilities to report under the civil law when you know or believe that someone has committed a serious offence. Can you help us to understand why it should be that none have ever been reported to the authorities?
A. Again, your Honour, we are not going to at any point suggest that we have telephoned the authorities or have instructed elders to do that, but as the Commission would be aware, almost 400 of those 1,000 cases, over 65 years, have had the intervention of the authorities, and we are not taking the high ground there and saying that we have telephoned the authorities, but realistically, almost 400 of those have been dealt with by the authorities, of which less than half have resulted in convictions. If I can, with respect, I don't want to in any way diminish the number, because I hate it as much as you do in saying it. Those 1,000 cases over 65 years - and I took great respect at your observation the other day that this is not a competition, so I'm loath to say anything that would- none of us want to go there. This is about making sure that organisations, Jehovah's Witnesses especially, do all we can, and more than we've done, to make sure that we are addressing this, and we welcome the opportunity. Those 1,000 cases, as the Commission is aware, 199 of those relate to individuals - and I don't want to diminish the number, I'm just presenting the facts - 199 of those relate to individuals that were either not Jehovah's Witnesses or likely may not have been Jehovah's Witnesses at the time. More than half of the allegations - well over half of the allegations - are familial, and in the context with no comparison, where we're looking at ministers, clergy, those allegations include everyone who has ever walked into a Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses; every individual who has ever studied the Bible with us in prison; every person out of the community that associates with us where we've become aware that there is a child abuse allegation, we have followed it up, recorded it and that's the reason there are those numbers.
In the last - and I take no pride in this number; it disappoints me and it is why we want to cooperate fully - in the last 10 years, according to the statistics - that we've not done with the accuracy that the Commission has done, and so that is a lesson for us, too - in the figures that the Commission has provided, in the last 10 years, two elders have committed child abuse offences - in 10 years, two elders. And both were dealt with by the police. In the last 10 years, four ministerial servants have been involved in child abuse offences, and three of them have been dealt with by the police. And that includes child pornography - not just sexual assault, but child pornography.
Now, I only say those to put some context to it. We agree totally, we're not trying to disguise the figure. We have willingly handed over - perhaps one of the only organisations that has kept extensive records on visitors and parishioners, and we just look at it in that context your Honour.
Q. Well, I don't want to get into a complex discussion with you about this, but you do understand that the way your church is structured means that you have an internal process which looks at allegations of abuse and, for that reason, the collection of your files will capture abusers, whoever they might be - you understand that? A. Yes, I do.
Q. And the fact that you have an internal process of adjudication means that within your church you are establishing a true belief in the guilt of someone of a criminal offence; do you understand that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you understand that carries with it obligations Irrespective of whether a matter otherwise goes to the police or other authorities,it carries with it an obligation upon those who make the decision that an offence has been committed to tell the authorities that they have come to that belief. Do you understand that?
A. I've been made aware of that since the Commission started, your Honour.
Q. Because at the end of the day, whatever might be the church processes and consequences,the State has an interest in ensuring that the criminal law is enforced. A. Absolutely.
Q. And that hasn't been the case in the past, I assume? A. I think we've acknowledged the fact that, as an organisation, while we've cooperated with the authorities and certainly in mandatory reporting, but I think we've acknowledged the fact that we have not had a practice against the wishes of the victim or otherwise to directly report to the police. I acknowledge that.
Q. Even when you know that an offence has been committed?
A. We've acknowledged the fact that we've not taken away from the family, and while we are happy to accept whatever recommendations come - and I think your Honour would be aware that we have no issue with mandatory reporting. That doesn't excuse anything, it's not suggesting that we're transferring the responsibility. But our challenge as it has been for religious organisations, and I read it - as I have waited over the last number of days, I read it in the publication that is given to victims here at the Commission from NSW Health, that says, "The victim should be given the right to determine whether it is to go to the authorities or not", and that booklet that is handed to the victims says, "And their wish in that matter should be respected." Now, that's religiously the approach that we have taken for the reasons that have only been sort of briefly described, but what we recognise is once there is mandatory reporting, regardless of our strongly held religious belief that individuals should have the right to determine what is done with that information, that's how we feel, it's based on scripture, but we accept, when the State says, "You are required to mandatorily report that offence", that Jehovah's Witnesses will do it, and if and when there are mandatory reporting requirements with some sort of uniformity across this country, we will willingly and happily comply. In the meantime, we've got that ethical challenge of respecting the individual's right, as the New South Wales brochure says, and as the scripts say.
Q. There is a subtlety in the proposition I put to you that may have escaped you.
You see, what is happening within your church is you are actually determining whether or not you believe an allegation to be true. Do you understand?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you determine that it is true, the state of knowledge of your elder ceases to be knowledge of an allegation but becomes knowledge or belief that something has actually happened by way of a criminal offence. Do you understand?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. I know that you may have some idea of mandatory reporting, but what I was seeking to direct your attention to was that, in those circumstances, there will be some State laws - they won't be uniform across the country; they will differ from State to State - which will impose a criminal sanction on a person who knows and does not report; do you understand?
A. It's been very well explained to me in recent weeks,
A. It's been very well explained to me in recent weeks, your Honour. So, yes, I do.
Q. But you won't get, at the moment, anyway, a national response to this; it will vary from State to State. Do you understand?
A. Yes, I think I've come to that conclusion, too.
Q. What that means is that people like you and others in the church need to have a very good look, maybe with the help of your lawyers, at what the law actually provides. A. Yes.
Q. What you are doing is, in many respects, different to what other churches might be doing, because you are actually taking allegations and resolving, as you see it, the truth of the allegation by reason of your process. A. Yes, I understand.
Q. You understand?
A. Yes, I do.
MR STEWART: Q. Mr Spinks, you will understand that your service desk, located in New South Wales, if it receives information from elders in a congregation also in New South Wales, then there may be, under compulsion of the criminal law, section 316, an obligation on the service desk to report to authorities, never mind the elders.
Do you understand that? A. As I mentioned to his Honour, that has been recently brought to my attention, yes.
Q. So prior to that having been brought to your attention, I take it there may be cases where the elders at the service desk have received information from elders at a congregation which, under threat of criminal sanction, should have been reported, but wasn't? A. Well, I'm not qualified to answer, but if I understand your question, if you are suggesting that when a victim reports perhaps to a guardian or an associate and that is reported to an elder who reports to another elder, who contacts the legal department, is transferred through to the service department, and that each step of the way there are legal sanctions that could result in criminal prosecution - if that's what you are saying, yes, I do understand what you are saying.
THE CHAIR: Q. It doesn't quite work like that. You will need to have - and everyone needs to have - a good look at it. The section in New South Wales speaks in terms of knowledge or belief. A. Mmm-hmm.
Q. Now, that is a state of mind.
A. Mmm-hmm.
Q. Not created by hearing of an allegation - do you understand?
THE CHAIR: But I think maybe, Mr Stewart, we need to put this into the ultimate report. I'm not sure we're going to get very far.
MR STEWART: Yes, your Honour.
Q. I just have one further question in relation to clarify what it is that I am meaning, Mr Spinks. A scenario, for example, of someone against whom allegations are made then confesses to the elders in his congregation, who then report that confession to you, or one of your colleagues at the service desk, and on the basis of that, you would have the belief that the allegation was true - not so?
THE CHAIR: You would have the knowledge.
MR STEWART: Q. You would have the knowledge that the man had confessed?
A. Can I ask you to repeat? I apologise. Could you just repeat that again?
THE CHAIR: Q. What is being put to you is that there may be an allegation.
A. Yes.
Q. But when the allegation is confirmed by the alleged abuser confessing --
A. Yes.
Q. -- admitting that he did the act --
A. Yes.
Q. -- then it ceases to be an allegation, but it becomes an offence of which the person receiving an understanding of the confession has knowledge.
A. I understand that.
Q. And the Act will then operate.
A. Yes. And, your Honour, with respect, does that apply just to ministers, or would that apply to every person --
Q. It applies to anyone.
A. To every person in the State of New South Wales.
Q. Yes, who has the relevant knowledge.
A. Thank you. Thank you.
MR STEWART: Q. Just getting back to the generic advice you offer, you will appreciate that - and particularly in relation to the right, as you put it, of the victim to report to the police - there may be a distinction, on the one hand, between a situation where a child has been a victim and is still a child, in other words, a recent allegation, and they are still a child; and, on the other hand, an adult reporting with regard to some allegation some time back when he or she was a child; do you see that distinction?
A. I do.
Q. Dealing, then, with the first scenario, as I understand it, you would see that as being up to the parent of the child to exercise that right, or not, to report to the authorities; would that be right?
A. Scripturally, that would be our position.
Q. In circumstances where, let's say, for example, the allegation of abuse is against the father, and the mother doesn't want to report, for whatever reasons, but one can imagine easily there may be reasons that she doesn't want her husband to go to gaol, and so on, but the child remains vulnerable as a consequence, as I understand it, you, at the service desk, would not advise the elders to report to the authorities?
A. Again, we have been transparent in what we are saying: we have not instructed elders to say, at arm's length in the office, "You must go and tell the authorities." The language that we have used, as I've explained - and we ask them repeatedly to do it, if that's the situation, "Could you go back to the guardian/parent and reinforce with them that if the child remains in a dangerous position that we need to do all we can to make sure that the child is protected." Now, I could make a statement now to the effect that, well, we know that that has always happened and that no child has been harmed further - I would love to say that. But I can say that, to my knowledge - and certainly in the time that I've been there - we have not allowed a situation to go unaddressed if the elders had that as a concern, and it has been my knowledge only - and again, I'm not suggesting evidence to this effect or listing off names - I'm saying to my knowledge the care of the guardian/parent would have already extricated the child from that situation, and repeatedly in situations over the years, that's with the assistance of the elders, the assistance of the congregation elders. But the short answer to your question: have we instructed elders to go to the authorities? We've transparently said we have not done that.
Q. And, Mr Spinks, have you followed the evidence of this case study over the last week and a bit?
A. I have.
Q. So you would have heard one elder after another that's a congregational-level elder - saying that they depend on advice and direction from the service desk? A. Yes.
Q. You accept that that is, in reality, what happens they do depend on advice and direction from the service desk?
A. I do.
Q. Is there not a gap then created between the generic advice you give and their expectation of being advised and directed where it leaves, from your side, them with discretion as to how to handle it, but from their side leaves them with an expectation of direction with regard to how to handle it?
A. If I understand the point there correctly, I do agree that we have said clearly that we haven't given that instruction to the elders, so for me to say that there is an expectation that the elders would have received that as an instruction and acted on it would be inconsistent. So the point you make is correct.
Q. Just taking this point a little bit further, if we take a look at your paragraph 30, you are dealing here perhaps we can scroll down a bit so we can see the heading of this section, "Branch Office response: Victim Safety and Support" You say there that you ask the current circumstances, as you explained previously - that's in paragraph 28. Then if we go down to paragraph 30, you say:
I explain that, as a father and a grandfather, if this was my child or grandchild, I would do everything necessary to ensure that the child is safe. For the elders, that may involve supporting the parent/guardian in contacting the authorities or personally contacting the authorities.
Then you cite an August 28, 2002 letter, and you extract a quote from that letter. Do you see that? A. Yes.
Q. That letter is at tab 105, if we could take a look at that. Do you see that is a letter from the branch "To All Congregations in Australia". Do we understand that to be to the elders of all congregations, or would it go to all the publishers?
A. When it is not addressed to the Body of Elders, when it is addressed to All Congregations, it goes to all publishers as a letter read out at the congregation and posted on the noticeboard.
Q. On the second page, page 2, is the quote that you have extracted, which says:
We have long instructed elders to report allegations of child abuse to the authorities where required by law to do so even where there is only one witness. ... In any case, the elders know that if the victim wishes to make a report, it is his or her absolute right to do so ...
Of course, what that doesn't say is that the elders should themselves contact the authorities in any particular circumstances? A. Correct
A. Correct.
Q. Do you accept that, indeed, it implies the contrary in other words, it implies that it is really up to the victim or, in certain circumstances, the victim's parents but really, it's not saying anything to the elders about the elders reporting?
A. Yes. You are right. I don't know that I'm saying that. I believe that the sentence in paragraph 30 is not a letter to the congregation but me explaining to the Commission what I do. As I've written there, I explain that as a father and grandfather, not the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society writing - as a father and grandfather I know what I would do, and I'm explaining that for the elders that may involve supporting the parent/guardian, or personally contacting the authorities, because in the same way that, as an organisation, as a faith, we are respecting the rights of the individual, we also respect the individual consciences of the elders who, as we've seen, they are all family men, children, grandchildren, whatever - we respect their conscience. We don't dictate, in that sense, what the elders can --
Q. But if the elders are to have reference to the material, as opposed to what you have said to them on the phone, you would accept that, certainly in relation to this letter, there is nothing that would encourage them under any particular circumstances to report,themselves,to the authorities?
A. I think we've said very clearly, in several questions you have asked now, we've not claimed to have instructed the elders to go to the authorities, and we acknowledge that.
It's somewhat different to, as we've said, when the elders call in, encouraging them to do all that they can with the parent/guardian, their own conscience, et cetera, to do what needs to be done to protect the child. I can see the clear difference that you are making and I accept it fully.
Q. Just understanding where this letter fits in, is it current? It is a 2002 letter. What significance are we to give it? The reason why I ask that is: is it not the case that the current position is governed by Organised to Do Jehovah's Will of 2005 - that's the baptismal handbook for all publishers; am I right?
A. Correct.
Q. And then, also, Shepherd the Flock of God, 2010, which is the handbook for elders; is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. And then the letter of 1 October 2012. Do those documents not supplant this 2002 letter, or is there an expectation that this 2002 letter still has some currency? A. That's pretty subjective to say. I mean, the letter wouldn't be on notice boards now, but I don't see anything in that sentence there that is any different to what we would do now. But I'm not sure of the point you are making.
Q. I am just seeking to understand why you draw on a 2002 letter in support of the point or part of the point you are making in paragraph 30, when, as I would understand it but I'm giving you the opportunity to show me where I've gone wrong - that letter is in the relatively distant past and has no currency?
A. I think that was an expectation on our part that you wanted us to establish that what we are now clearly saying in the publications is what we said in 2002, and we have long instructed elders - so elders have been contacting the legal department for beyond the last couple of decades. So I think we've simply tried to say, as we have with the other documents we've provided, that we've tried to establish a pattern of these principles over a period of time. But what you say is true: we could have easily put a more recent reference there.
Q. If we can go back to your statement, this time at paragraph 32, you will see that you say there: Spiritual comfort provided by elders to a victim is not viewed as a substitute for professional therapy.
You will have heard me ask some questions of Dr Applewhite about this. It is still the case, though, that there are restrictions imposed by the Jehovah's Witness Church on its members with regard to the types of therapy that they can, at least with the blessing of the church, engage in? A. I disagree with that completely. If I can show my reason for saying it, and that's in chapter 4 of the Elders' Handbook.
Q. That's tab 120.
A. Yes. Page 55.
Q. That's at Ringtail 56.
A. So when this point was previously brought up, with respect, I thought to myself when I read that paragraph, I would like to write it for a publication that was to be presented for the general public, so I acknowledge the fact that this is written in the language of and written for elders, but it says there are times, paragraph 25 - the section is on helping child abuse victims, by the way:
There are times when an emotionally distressed Christian may seek professional help. Whether a Christian or his family pursues treatment from psychiatrists, psychologists or therapists is a personal decision. An elder should not assume the responsibility of recommending a specific practitioner or facility. He may draw attention to or discuss material in the publications that provides cautions regarding therapies that may conflict with Bible principles.
So he draws attention to some references. It continues:
While participating in group therapy by a professional therapist is a matter for personal decision...
And then there is a caution, again: There could be a revealing of confidential facts about other members of the Christian congregation during such sessions if a Christian does not exercise discretion.
So there are some comments to the elders to say, "Those are personal decisions." As you are probably aware, there are a good number of psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, welfare workers, that are Jehovah's Witnesses and have good knowledge. There are, on occasion, a professional that has no respect for an individual's faith in or belief in Bible principles, and we absolutely respect their right to make that decision. Whether that's, in that individual case, the best person to help a devout Christian who wants psychiatric help, wants therapy, but doesn't want their faith mocked or undermined - that's the balancing comment in there. But we have no objection to professional treatment and I would say that a good number of those that have been affected by past child abuse have sought and received help - the ones that I'm aware of.
Q. Mr Spinks, let's break this down a little bit. In the latter aspect, the bit about:
While participating in group therapy by a professional therapist is a matter for personal decision, there could be a revealing of confidential facts about other members of the Christian congregation during such sessions ...
Is this not to be understood as a caution to members that if they are to participate in group therapy, they must not reveal confidential facts? A. I'm not sure where you are reading that. To me, the word "discretion", or "a matter for personal decision" I see the point that you are trying to make and where you are trying to lead, but what I read is "a matter for personal decision" and "a matter for discretion". It says "there could be a revealing of confidential facts" I don't see the "don't", or "can't", or whatever. I see "discretion", and I see "a matter for personal decision". But I agree, the sentence could be better written to be read in this context.
…