Introduction

71. Instances of child abuse within the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith around the world are well-documented.[93] This Inquiry received allegations of abuse in the care of the faith, although not in large numbers. The low number of allegations to this Inquiry should be assessed in light of the barriers to disclosure discussed below, and the fact that the scope of this Inquiry is limited to abuse in care rather than any abuse within the faith.

72. This chapter focuses on the factors that increased the risk of abuse in the care of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, together with the allegations of abuse during the Inquiry period.

73. Several features gave rise to an increased risk of abuse in the care of the Jehovah’s Witnesses during the relevant period. They include:

• the status of leaders and the power imbalance between them and members of the faith in the context of elevated level of influence within the faith
• the barriers to the disclosure of abuse, including the place of females in the faith, the fear of exclusion and relative disconnection from the secular world
• inadequate vetting and training in abuse prevention for Elders.

Status of leaders, power imbalance and elevated levels of influence

74. Religious leaders in all faiths have significant power.[94] Within the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Elders during the Inquiry period held significant status and power over members.

75. The 1980s Watchtower guidance (“Be Obedient to Those Taking the Lead”), relied on scriptures directing that members should be obedient and submissive. The guidance also suggested that if members had any doubts about the abilities of their leaders, they should self-reflect that they may be “overemphasising [the leaders’] imperfections”.[95]

76. In the Inquiry’s view, the power imbalance between male Elders and children or young people in their care, particularly females, heightened the risk of abuse in care.

77. That power imbalance existed within the context of the faith’s elevated level of influence over the lives of its members, as described by many witnesses to this Inquiry. Some former members said that they rarely socialised with people outside of the faith. One former member described the integration of faith and life:

“Limits were placed on who we associated with, what we wore, what we watched, what we read, how much education we received and our recreational activities. The JW church was not just a place of worship, it reached into the core of almost every aspect of our lives.”[96]

78. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ children attended State schools, but Elise Neame told the Inquiry they could not participate in Christmas, birthdays, and other holidays, as their mother told them they were to be “no part of the world”.[97] Other former Jehovah’s Witnesses’ members said they were usually prohibited from socialising with non-Jehovah's Witness children both in school and after school.[98] Two former members told the Inquiry their parents instructed schools to remove them from certain activities. Naomi Burnett said: “I remember that when I went to school, my parents took me there and always reminded me what my religion did not allow me to do at school ... for example: Easter celebrations and traditions, Christmas decorations, no standing up for the national anthem.”[99] Jasmine Grew said: “At school assemblies I was not allowed to be present to sing the Christmas carols. I was taken out to sit in a back room.”[100] Ms Grew also told the Inquiry she was taken out of sex education classes.[101] The faith submits that the scriptural teaching to be “no part of the world” does not mean that Christians must isolate themselves from the world: rather, they must not participate in practices that one may find in society such as crime, cruelty, oppression, and dishonesty,[102] and that it is appropriate to be politically neutral.[103]

79. As mentioned above, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that in the very near future, in a worldwide event called Armageddon, Jehovah will destroy the wicked elements of human society.[104] After Armageddon, Jehovah’s Witnesses will live in a paradise on earth. Ms Grew told the Inquiry that this belief was “ingrained in you from birth”[105] and that “fear is instilled in members from day one.”[106] The only way to avoid being killed in the godly retribution of Armageddon is to follow the guideline of the Bible in thought and actions as prescribed by the leaders of the Watchtower organisation.[107]

80. One witness said that they “believed that Armageddon was going to happen shortly, and [they] would die along with humans apart from faithful JWs.”[108] Ms Grew said that she felt “the fear of being destroyed in Armageddon ensures people remain faithful to the religion”.[109] An anonymous witness said:

“I was taught that if I did not uphold the beliefs of the JW Church and adhere to its practices, I would almost certainly die at Armageddon ... I was taught that the world was ending and that if I upheld the tenets of the JW religion, then I would not be likely to die but would live forever, however this was not guaranteed either. Essentially I was indoctrinated from an early age … based on fear and coercion.”[110]

81. Debbie Oakley told the Inquiry that members were encouraged not only to report their own sins to Elders, but also the sins of other members. Explaining that: “Even at primary school age, you are expected to report on other JWs. And it’s better to tell on others, because you get into worse trouble if you don’t tell in the first place.”[111] Members were sometimes disciplined for things that would be considered normal for people of their age. For example, Elise Neame was disciplined for having a boyfriend at 17 years old and for “partying and drinking a little”.[112]

82. Witnesses described education and future employment options as limited, with a general disdain for higher education within the faith.[113] An anonymous witness described how he left school at the age of 14. He was a bright student, but he was strongly discouraged from continuing his education due to the church needing him to do its work.[114]

83. Witnesses told the Inquiry they were not allowed to pursue further education.[115] Ms Oakley said:

“For JWs, secular education is dangerous because it makes you think. University education is even more dangerous from the elders’ point of view. JWs consider that jobs and education get in the way of JW meetings and other JW activities.”[116]

84. Ms Oakley also explained how Jehovah’s Witnesses had limited access to information, that she wasn’t allowed to use the library and only had old encyclopaedias, and that all the other reading material was “JWs’ publications”.[117] She said she was only allowed to watch Sunday Disney movies on TV, and not the programmes that her classmates watched.[118]

85. Jasmine Grew said that Elders "strongly advise against reading Internet content” and told members that they were “to avoid the dishonest content of the news”.[119]

86. The faith sometimes gave Bible-based advice on personal decisions such as relationships and marriage. Former member, Ms IU told the Inquiry how in the faith, dating was only allowable for those on a path to marriage and then it must be chaste, chaperoned, and heterosexual.[120] She explained that engagements were to be short, marriages were at a young age, and the faith did not condone separation or divorce.[121] Ms IU explained how these beliefs, in addition to the prohibitions on associating with anyone outside the faith, took away further opportunities she could have had for support and left her feeling isolated.[122]

87. The faith did not require tithing, but former Elder Robert (Bob) Ker said that he “poured a lot of my physical and monetary resources into the Jehovah’s Witnesses.[123]

88. At the Inquiry’s Takatāpui Rainbow wānanga, one witness explained their experience of the faith’s approach to healthcare:

“Jehovah’s Witnesses have a strict doctrine of not allowing blood transfusions, even if not accepting it would result in death. This also applies to very young children. When I was one year old I had to have a kidney surgery to save my life. I know my parents were prepared to let me die rather than let Doctors give me blood should the need arise. When I was 18 and was mentally ill and couldn’t move out of home, my parents with the support of church elders and wider church community coerced me into signing an advance medical healthcare directive stating that I would not accept a blood transfusion even if it was to save my life. I didn’t want to sign this. When discussing it with my parents I was in tears. They still made me sign it and they got two witnesses from the church to act as witnesses to say that I had signed it without duress or coercion. They tried to make me carry it around all the time, so that if I had an accident it would be found. I destroyed it as soon as I could. I did not feel I had a choice in signing the document: I felt that if I disobeyed, I would be made homeless and at the time I did not feel that I had the means to survive on my own.”[124]

89. Another witness who spoke at the Takatāpui Rainbow wānanga, described the impact of his sexuality on his whānau:

“One of the Elders … told my Mum ‘I think your son has the demon of homosexuality and needs to be exorcised’ – so it was instilled in me from very young that it was a disease that required treatment – but you believe it, right, cause you’re a child – you say ‘OK what do I need to do?’ They did all these things, not speaking in tongues, but some kind of ritual … but I still liked boys after that. Eventually my Mum disassociated from the church in support for her queer son. That was a very courageous step for my Mum because overnight she lost all her friends and whānau … and I saw that grief and loss.”[125]

90. Debbie Oakley said: "There is a lot of fear and obligational guilt – you’re never doing enough. Jehovah is always watching you, he knows what is in your heart, what is in your mind."[126] She said that members expected Armageddon to arrive imminently and that because of that, nothing except Jehovah’s Witnesses meetings was considered important.[127]

91. The level of influence the faith exercised over members in the Inquiry’s view increased the risk of abuse in care during the Inquiry period. Power imbalance and status, together with elevated levels of influence, created a greater risk that abusers could misuse their power to perpetrate abuse and silence those they abused.

Barriers to the disclosure of abuse

92. The power imbalances and high levels of influence described above were among the barriers to the disclosure of abuse during the Inquiry period. Further barriers to disclosure included inflexible disclosure processes, fear of exclusion or shunning, and the relative disconnection from non-Jehovah’s Witnesses that many experienced. These barriers are further discussed below.

The position of females within the faith and rigid disclosure processes

93. There are no women Elders or ministerial servants in the Jehovah’s Witnesses. One article commenting on the Australian Child Sexual Abuse Royal Commission case study on the Catholic Church highlighted how the roles and the absolute authority of male clergy within the Catholic Church contributed to abuse occurring and the failure to respond to it.[128] An obvious analogy exists with the Jehovah’s Witnesses: with only men as Elders, it was less likely that women could feel able to disclose to an Elder.[129]

94. Patriarchal leadership structures result in what has been described (in relation to the Catholic Church) as “unchecked, divinely sanctioned patriarchal power”.[130] One academic has found patriarchal hierarchies within faith-based institutions contribute to a culture where disclosing abuse is discouraged, and victims are unsupported.[131]

95. A former female member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses told the Inquiry:

“The effect of being brought up as a JW was that as a young adult and older, I believed I was secondary to men and boys and that I had to do what they said, especially older men, especially white men. I believed I was not good for anything and I was not a good JW.”[132]

96. Another former member described the impact of all positions of authority being held by men:

“The leadership structure in the JW church does not lend itself to the identification or elimination of abuse. In particular the church does not encourage or reward education so most of those in positions of authority have only a basic school education and no particular skills in detecting or discouraging abuse ... Further all of the positions of authority … are held by men ... Many female survivors of sexual abuse will feel too uncomfortable to disclose the fact of their abuse to a man and therefore this leadership structure operates as a further form of suppression.”[133]

97. Witnesses described being unable to say no to sex because of the teaching that women are inferior to men and cannot speak back to them.[134] One former member said that sexual abuse was not a topic spoken of in the Jehovah’s Witnesses and that survivors were isolated by the feeling there were no other victims and so it must be their fault.[135] They described not learning that there were other survivors of sexual abuse in the Jehovah’s Witnesses until after they left.[136] The Inquiry heard evidence of female survivors of abuse being led to believe that the sexual abuse was their fault, or that they were complicit in it.[137]

98. Jasmine Grew said, “They put the blame on me. They said I was wearing seductive clothing. I was aged from five to eight years old at the time [he] was sexually abusing me.”[138] Another witness, Naomi Burnett, said:

“Although he admitted to the abuse, he tried to shift the blame onto myself, saying that I looked and acted older than I was. He suggested that I might have liked what he had done to me. There could not have been anything that I put out there as a 10 year old girl, to sexually entice him, but, in the judicial meeting, he made me feel like I had asked for it.”[139]

99. Documents the faith provided to the Inquiry show the types of attitudes towards female victims in situations of sexual abuse. For example, documents refer to 14 and 15 year old girls developing an “infatuation” with an abuser.[140] In one matter where an Elder had sexual intercourse with a 15 year old girl, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ summary notes read “the Elders all felt great shock at the seriousness of the sin, the repercussions to the congregation should the girl become pregnant and the sin thus become known”.[141]

100. All decision-making in a congregation was by Elders and so women could not be part of any process that would require a decision to be made. Overseas inquiries have found that female and male abuse survivors will not always be comfortable disclosing abuse or speaking with a male about abuse.[142] Failure to accommodate a survivor’s preference can further traumatise them or prevent disclosure.[143]

101. The Inquiry’s redress report He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu: From Redress to Puretumu Torowhānui found that disclosure processes need to be flexible, trauma-informed and survivor focused which requires flexibility about how victims of sexual abuse disclose abuse, and to whom.[144] That was not the case for the processes in the Jehovah’s Witnesses during the Inquiry period, which in the Inquiry’s view contributed to the risk of abuse in care.

Fear of exclusion practices (shunning)

102. As noted earlier in this report, the fear of being shunned was a significant factor for witnesses during the Inquiry period. Jasmine Grew said:

“When you are a Jehovah’s Witness you only know the ways of the Witnesses. They are your friends and family. A lot of people within the religion work for each other ... To break away, and start a life outside the religion, after being under its control, is extremely difficult ... This fear prevents people from leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses.”[145]

103. Elise Neame described the fear of being disfellowshipped and shunned as follows:

“I wanted to avoid being disfellowshipped because I knew the serious repercussions, which would include losing my family. This was a fear that stayed with me for a long time … [The Jehovah’s Witnesses] torture members with fear of the end of the world and the fear of what will happen if you break their rules – the fear of being disfellowshipped (excommunicated) and losing family and friends.”[146]

104. At the Inquiry’s Takatāpui Rainbow wānanga, a witness described having to decide whether to stay and hide his sexuality or to come out and be shunned:

“For a long time I was completely feeling alone. If I came out I would be having to choose between my family and my life – being able to continue to live. Or being able to live but not have family support.”[147]

105. The fear of shunning would inevitably have been felt strongly by Māori because of the importance of connections to whānau, hapū and iwi, and similarly for Pacific Peoples and other minorities with strong ties to family and their broader communities.

106. The fear of shunning was a barrier to the disclosure of abuse because any such disclosure risked the loss of connection to family, friends and community. Ms SC, who was sexually abused in the care of the faith, was unable to disclose her identity publicly for this reason. She said, “my identity can never be known – I would lose everything”. She explained that others shared the same fear:

“I belong to a few survivor groups within [Jehovah’s Witnesses] and I know there are just so many of us out there who have similar experiences. I would say we sit on the periphery because the threat of loss is so great … there’s a lot of people that sit in the same boat and the people that I’ve talked with and there are a lot of them who still see their abusers daily. They go to a meeting on a Sunday and their abuser is also there.”[148]

107. Witnesses explained the deep impact of shunning, which inevitably fed into the fear that prevented the disclosure of abuse. Former Elder Shayne Mechen talked about the impact leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses had on young people:

“When young people are disfellowshipped or shunned, their whole support system is taken away … Some [Jehovah’s Witness] leavers are so impacted by being separated from everything they know that they become suicidal.”[149]

108. Elise Neame explained that through her research and finding a Facebook group of former Jehovah’s Witnesses, she had learned of many people who had taken their lives because of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ families shunning them after they had been disfellowshipped.[150] She also described her own experience of the impacts of leaving the faith and being shunned as follows:

“I would be at the supermarket and see my auntie or a long-time childhood friend and they would see me, only to completely ignore me or walk the other way. I … saw my mother doing street preaching and she looked the other way. Family would have gatherings, wedding events, and celebrations, and completely shun me. I would find out about new additions to the family through others. …I went four years without seeing or speaking to my mother or any of my [Jehovah’s Witness] family. I spent four years in a deep depression; I was suicidal, and completely lost. I have seen many therapists and counsellors, and no one can ever understand the terrible damage that this religion’s shunning of people causes”.

“I now have nothing to lose. There is nothing more that the Jehovah’s Witnesses can take away from me. This religion has destroyed my life and if I had not been a stronger person, I would have taken my own life a long time ago. I often daydream of what it is like to be part of a normal family, what it is like to have a support system.”[151]

109. Another witness described the impact of being shunned by their whānau, feeling as if their world crumbled, losing everybody including their hero, and it destroying them.[152] The witness also talked about her own children craving to see their grandparents, and the difficulty of them not being able to do so.[153]

110. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses into Child Sexual Abuse in Australia found that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ practice of shunning members who disassociate from the organisation had the very real potential of putting an abuse survivor in the untenable position of having to choose between the retraumatisation of having to share a community with their abuser, or losing that community altogether.[154]

111. In short, the Inquiry has no doubt that the fear of being shunned was a barrier to the disclosure of abuse in care and increased the risk of abuse occurring in the care of the faith during the relevant period.

Relative disconnection from people outside the faith and from secular authorities

112. The relative insularity of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their distrust of government agencies meant that issues were commonly dealt with internally. Naomi Burnett told the Inquiry that “[m]embers are discouraged from reporting matters to the Police” and “elders within the faith hold their own processes for dealing with issues that arise”. She also explained how the faith views things differently from the secular world. For example, “[t]hey consider child abuse within the faith as a ‘sin’ rather than a ‘crime’ and they have a ’two witness’ rule when it comes to establishing guilt”.[155] Elise Neame echoed this point, noting that “[c]rimes like child abuse are not reported to Police, instead, those affected must report such matters to the church elders”.[156] Ms Neame also explained how Jehovah’s Witness members could not look into issues on their own accord:

“Under no circumstances are JW members allowed to conduct online research. Jehovah’s Witnesses forbid members from accessing information other than what is published on their own website. They misrepresent that anything else on the internet is a lie, and if members are caught researching you are labelled an apostate”.[157]

113. An anonymous witness described his childhood as “characterised by social isolation and religious fear.”[158] Some former members said being in the Jehovah’s Witnesses taught them to distrust government agencies, including police.[159] Debbie Oakley said, “We were taught that those outside our JW religion were bad people, including the government.”[160]

114. Jehovah’s Witnesses were taught not to associate with “worldly” people (people outside the faith),[161] and that those people were part of “Satan’s world”.[162] Former members described how they did not often see their wider family who were outside the faith.[163] They said that while the faith did not completely cut off all contact with people outside the faith, they were not allowed to have friends or relationships outside the Jehovah’s Witnesses,[164] and were “discouraged from forming any bonds with non-faithful.”[165]

115. Elise Neame told the Inquiry “I felt in isolation as a child, and even though I have now left the religion, I still feel in isolation as an adult. The feeling of being an outcast and different to others never leaves you.”[166]

116. Jasmine Grew said she was not allowed to go to the homes of her school friends after school or have sleepovers.[167] Ms Grew said her mother was very social, but as a Jehovah’s Witness, “the only thing she could do to socialise was to host potluck dinners and fancy-dress parties ... The guests had to be Witnesses”.[168] Debbie Oakley said:

“As a JW child, I recognised that life was different. We were not allowed to play with outsiders or visit their homes. I thought other kids were very lucky. Other parents were so nice, yet they were supposed to be evil … Our household was very strict. We were questioned when we got home about whether we’d played at school with any non-JW kids.”[169]

117. An anonymous witness told the Inquiry:

“I believed all ‘Worldly’ people were wicked, and the only ‘good’ people were the JWs and the organisation. (I was alienated from both sets of people in every degree once I was disfellowshipped.) I believed Armageddon was going to happen shortly and I would die along with all humans, apart from faithful JWs.”[170]

118. Similarly, former Australian Elder, Shane McNeil who was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness from the early 1980s said Jehovah’s Witnesses believed the entire non-Jehovah’s Witness world was under the Devil’s control, and anything outside the organisation was influenced by the Devil. “Ultimately, the Devil wants Jehovah’s Witnesses to leave the ‘Truth’ and die at Armageddon”.[171] He said this made it difficult to interact with the world in a relaxed and trusting way, that “we were always on guard that Satan might be trying to weaken our faith somehow through the worldly people we interacted with”.[172]

119. The evidence received by the Inquiry is consistent with a study from the United Kingdom, which found that “at an early stage of an individual’s involvement with the community, the person is encouraged to live separate from mainstream society, with minimal interaction from outsiders, including family members who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses.”[173]

120. The faith provided statements from current members to show that many current members live their lives fully integrated with society, and that different experiences are a reflection of individual parenting choices.[174]

121. The Inquiry accepts that Jehovah’s Witnesses did not live fully isolated lives. But evidence from former members indicates there was for some a degree of disconnection or insularity from mainstream society. This is supported by the faith’s published guidance from 1971 which stated: “Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits.”[175]

122. Such relative disconnection from those outside the faith or congregation inevitably increased the barriers to the disclosure of abuse in care. It limited the potential range of people to whom abuse could be reported. Reporting to an Elder in the Church would not have been either easy or appropriate for all.

Vetting, recruitment and training

123. This is no evidence of any secular vetting before Jehovah’s Witness leaders or Elders were appointed during the Inquiry period. Instead, Elders were appointed based on scriptural qualifications “inspired by the Holy Spirit”.[176]

124. There was also no secular training on child safety, safeguarding or abuse prevention within the faith. The faith told the Inquiry that Elders received training in child safety that was commensurate with their role as spiritual shepherds. This is a one-day course known as the Kingdom Ministry School for Elders, which the faith says includes reminders of current policies on a range of issues, including child safeguarding. This school has been operating since 1959.[177] Late in the Inquiry period, a section of this school was specifically dedicated to discussing a 1997 Watchtower article on Child Sexual Abuse entitled: “Let Us Abhor what is wicked.”[178] Similarly, the faith says that all Circuit Overseers also attended a school that year discussing the same article. During 1998 to 1999 the Circuit Overseers also met with all elders in their respective congregations to review child protection policies including the need for children not to be asked to confront their abusers in order to form a judicial committee.[179]

125. Former Elder Shane McNeil, who was an Elder for three years, said of his experience in Australia: “I did not have any expertise in helping victims or investigating reports of abuse … Elders have no formal training outside of the organisation and I feel they are not adequately qualified to investigate such matters”. He went on to say he received minimal formal training on how to investigate allegations or interview victims, “I can assure you, elders are ill-prepared to handle such complex issues. I am horrified that I was part of a process that can cause more harm than good”.[180]

126. Mr Mechen became an elder at 28 years-old in 1995. He was an Elder for 12 years and told the Inquiry:

“There is no formally recognised training for elders in dealing appropriately with child sex abuse complaints, no psychology training or qualification requirement. The only training is in simple JW procedure. There is nothing on mental health, drug abuse or dealing with victims.”[181]

127. The faith submitted that “Elders are trained to provide spiritual comfort and pastoral support. Elders are not trained to be psychologists, therapists or counsellors and do not purport to offer such professional assistance.”[182] The faith submitted that its members are aware they can access mental health support services. One Elder told the Inquiry that he would ensure victims and their guardians know that it was okay to accept professional help, he said he would make sure to:

“Let the victim and parents/guardians know it is alright to accept professional help. Recognise that our role as elders is a spiritual/congregational role. I certainly recognise the value of services in New Zealand such as the various help lines such as "Lifeline" and professionals such as medical doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists or therapists of their choice.”[183]

128. Inadequate vetting and training increases the risk of people in care being exposed to abuse. Without proper vetting, the potential exists for high-risk individuals to be given positions of responsibility where they can care for children or young people. Without adequate training, those in positions of authority can fail to act to prevent abuse, or mishandle reports of alleged abuse. All these factors existed for the Jehovah’s Witnesses during the Inquiry period.

Alleged sexual abuse in the care of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Aotearoa New Zealand

129. The Inquiry received at least one allegation of sexual abuse against a child in the care of the Jehovah’s Witnesses during the Inquiry period, a relatively low level of alleged abuse that must be viewed in the context of the barriers to disclosure described above.

130. In the early 1980s when Ms SC was 15 years old, “she was not behaving well” due to being abused by her brother and his friends. In response to this, Ms SC said that “the Elders considered I needed to be built up spiritually by attending tutoring or Bible study”. Ms SC stated that she felt like she didn’t have a choice but to attend:

“So I think [I] was really under the care and control of the Jehovah’s Witnesses as I believed I had to do what I was told by the Elders.”[184]

131. Ms SC did regular Bible studies in an Elder’s home. These sessions were conducted by the Elder’s wife. Ms SC said she would “often be at their place after school or to go on outings”.[185] As well as the one-on-one Bible studies, she would join the Elder’s family regularly for their family Bible study, for witnessing practice and for witnessing.[186]

132. Ms SC’s mother trusted this Elder because of the authority the faith conferred on him. Speaking of her abuse by the Elder, Ms SC said:

“The Elder would drive me home [after Bible studies in their home] but instead of going home, he took me to another area nearby where there were no houses or anything at that time. This was when the abuse took place. It happened many times over a period of 4-5 months. At first he touched my genitals, then he digitally penetrated me, then he had full sexual intercourse with me.”[187]

133. The faith’s position is that it has never assumed responsibility for the care of children in their homes nor condoned or had any policy to support an Elder being alone in a child’s home. Consistent with this, the faith submitted that this example was not evidence of abuse in the care of the faith, and that the faith had not assumed responsibility for Ms SC when the abuse occurred.

134. However, the Inquiry finds that Ms SC was in the care of the faith at the time of the abuse. The faith conferred power and authority on the Elder. He assumed responsibility for Ms SC through an informal pastoral care relationship, related to the faith’s work, namely Bible studies and caring for ‘fatherless children’ within the congregation. The faith’s assumption of responsibility for Ms SC flowed from it conferring authority and trusted status on the Elder, and the actions of the Elder in taking Ms SC into his care, unsupervised.

135. In addition to this one case, other children and young people were sexually abused within the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith, although not clearly in care situations as defined in this Inquiry. Most were abused by male family members who were also members of the faith.[188] One was abused by a man that their family trusted,[189] another witnessed his brother being sexually abused by a man that his family were friends with because they were also Jehovah’s Witnesses.[190]

136. The faith supplied information relating to sexual abuse by four Elders:

i. An allegation that an Elder took advantage of his position as an elder to abuse and rape a girl aged between 8 and 12-years old
ii. An Elder developing an “inappropriate relationship” with a 15 year old girl
iii. An Elder engaging in sexual activity with a 15 year old girl
iv. An Elder removed from office for “inappropriate behaviour involving a minor”.

137. The records supplied were limited and it is not possible to be certain whether the children were abused in the care of the faith. The faith maintains that none of these children were in its care, and the evidence does not permit any clear conclusions.

138. In summary, there is evidence of at least one case of sexual abuse in the care of the Jehovah’s Witnesses during the Inquiry period. Because of barriers to disclosure and the faith’s approach to record keeping, this is unlikely to reflect the number of people who suffered sexual abuse in the care of the faith during that period.

Other alleged abuse in the care of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Aotearoa New Zealand

139. The Inquiry’s Terms of Reference are not limited to sexual abuse.[191] Former members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses also made allegations of psychological and emotional abuse during the Inquiry period, which they said they experienced when in the care of the faith while undergoing judicial investigation and committee processes.

140. Witnesses described their experience of judicial committees as emotionally and psychologically abusive in and of themselves, particularly after they had been sexually assaulted or abused. As a 12 year old, Jasmine Grew was questioned by three male elders after she disclosed sexual abuse:

“I went into the back room and the elders (males) were there. I had no support, no friend, no mother, nothing. My mother did not know, at the time, what was happening. The elders interrogated me. They were asking the worst questions you can imagine, for someone who was just 12 years old. They asked me, ‘Was it hard,’ referring to my abuser physically. They wanted to know everything. Their questions were inappropriate. At that age it was a terrifying experience for me. It seemed as abusive as the sexual abuse itself ... I was honest, and I told them everything because I had to be honest. I was fearful of the consequences of Armageddon. The two words that come to me still now are humiliation and embarrassment ... [The elders] were very intimidating. They made no attempt to support or comfort me in this process.”[192]

141. As described earlier, three Elders questioned 16 year old Debbie Oakley and her sister in a car, in the absence of her mother, about sexual abuse by her step-father. Ms Oakley described shaking at the time she disclosed the abuse.[193]

142. Elise Neame also described attending disciplinary meetings at around 17 years old with her mother, and three or four male Elders. Ms Neame told the Inquiry, “they asked me inappropriate personal questions and I found myself having to describe the sexual acts my boyfriend and I had been involved in.” Ms Neame described being “grossly traumatised” by having to give intimate details.[194]

143. As set out above, the Inquiry found that the Jehovah’s Witnesses assumed the responsibility for the care of children and young people interviewed by Elders during judicial investigations or committee processes without their parents present. There is credible evidence that the practice of questioning children or young people, particular those who were victims of sexual abuse, during such investigations and judicial committee processes was inappropriate and emotionally or psychologically abusive. The evidence showed the severe impact that such practices had on the individuals concerned.

Footnotes

[93] Jehovah’s Witnesses interview transcript with the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care (8 March 2023, page 16); Watchtower Tract and Bible Society Pennsylvania, Watchtower magazine (May 2019, page 8).