The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ policies, rules, standards and practices

144. During the Inquiry period, the Jehovah’s Witnesses relied primarily on passages from the Bible in setting policies and procedures, including those for responding to child sexual abuse.

145. The faith told the Inquiry that, since the early 1980s, Jehovah’s Witnesses have provided their congregations with scripturally based guidance (in the form of magazines, religious books, and videos) about protecting children from child sexual abuse.[195] From at least the 1990s, under the direction of the governing body, the branch office has periodically issued directives in the form of letters addressed to all bodies of Elders providing instruction on how to respond to allegations of child sexual abuse.[196]

146. From the 1980s to the 2000s, the Jehovah’s Witnesses continued to develop a child protection policy, as set out in various issues of The Watchtower and in letters from the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses, as well as in other publications such as the magazine Awake! and the book The Secret of Family Happiness.[197]

147. Items in the Awake! magazine referred to what the faith described as “combatting child sexual abuse”.[198] For example, a 1993 issue of Awake! had a section “Protect your Children!”:

“Your Child is in Danger: The molestation of children is an ugly reality ... it affects more of us than cancer.”[199]

148. That issue of Awake! went on to tell parents they should teach their children to know that sometimes adults do bad things, and that not even a child has to obey anyone, as well as teaching children to name body parts that are private.

149. In a later edition of Shepherd the Flock of God handbook,[200] the faith instructed Elders that child sexual abuse was captured by one or more of the following scriptural sins:

• ‘porneia’, which includes sexual intercourse, oral or anal sex, ‘immoral use of the genitals whether in a natural or perverted way, with lewd intent’,
• ‘brazen or loose conduct’, which is conduct that reflects ‘an attitude that betrays disrespect, disregard, or even contempt for divine standards, laws and authority’.[201]

150. The previous handbook Pay Attention to Yourselves and All the Flock (1991), also referred to the lesser scriptural offence of ‘uncleanness’, which included ‘an intentional momentary touching of sexual parts or caressing of breasts’.[202]

151. The policies, rules, and standards that were relevant to child sexual abuse during the Inquiry period were from various separate directives from the governing body, across many different issues of various Jehovah’s Witness publications, published at intervals over the Inquiry period, and all based primarily on passages from scripture or the Bible.

Processes available to raise concerns or make complaints about abuse in care

152. In this Inquiry’s redress report, He Purapura Ora, he Māra Tipu: From Redress to Puretumu Torowhānui, the Inquiry found many survivors faced significant barriers to disclosing abuse in faith-based care.[203] Historically, faith-based institutions have not done enough to reduce or resolve these barriers.[204] The barriers to disclosure within the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the cause of these are detailed above.

153. Inadequate disclosure processes can prevent abuse being disclosed and allow it to continue. It increases the risk of non-disclosure if children and young people are disempowered or do not feel able or safe to disclose harm . This prevents meaningful intervention and protection measures and can contribute to a situation of impunity for abusers.

154. As discussed above, in the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith specific factors that may have prevented or inhibited disclosures of abuse included the fearful environment described by former members, the belief they were under the faith’s control, the fear of shunning and the relative disconnection of Jehovah’s Witness members from secular authorities.

Processes for handling and responding to concerns or complaints and their effectiveness

155. During the Inquiry period, disclosures of child sexual abuse, or any other kind of “wrongdoing” within the Jehovah’s Witnesses, were required to be made to the Elders. Once an allegation of child sexual abuse was made to Elders, the organisation would open a ‘spiritual investigation’. Investigating Elders would take further action, including establishing a judicial committee if the truth of an allegation was established according to the scriptural standards of proof.[205]

156. Former members found the investigation and judicial committee process to be traumatising. Witnesses told the Inquiry that at the investigative meetings they were required to describe, in detail, the sexual abuse they had experienced to a group of Elders, all male, some with their abuser present at that meeting but no support person or parent.[206] They were fearful and intimidated by this practice.[207] These meetings were often arranged quickly, with no warning to the child or young person.

157. Even when the abuser admitted to the abuse, the witness was required to detail the abuse in front of several men, including the abuser. Naomi Burnett said:

“I was petrified. Having to talk in front of the male elders, about what my uncle had done to me, as a child, and being on my own and fearing that I was going to be in trouble. All these men were present and there was no one supporting me. I was made to feel like I had done something wrong…There were seven chairs in a circle. Two Elders, my father and I…on one side; and two elders from my uncle’s congregation and him – on the other side. In this judicial process, the allegations were put to my uncle, and he admitted to the offending, so a second witness was not required … I was made to share and describe, in detail, the abuse in front of these men, including my abuser ... I had no support person, my mother was not allowed in, and I was absolutely petrified throughout the meeting.”[208]

The two-witness rule

158. During the Inquiry period, the Jehovah’s Witnesses had a rule that before a judicial committee could be formed, there must be “sufficient evidence” to establish the wrongdoing, and that sufficient evidence meant a confession, or two or more eyewitnesses to either the same incident of wrongdoing or separate incidents of the same kind of wrongdoing.[209]

159. This rule, sometimes referred to as the “two-person rule”, was stated in the Elders’ handbook Shepherd the Flock of God.[210] As authority for the rule, the Jehovah’s Witnesses cite ancient scriptures including Deuteronomy 19:15 which states that ”[o]ne witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”[211] The two-witness rule was conceived more than 2000 years ago.[212]

160. In practice the two-witness rule meant an abuser would face no consequences unless they committed the abuse in front of another person or another witness came forward and reported similar conduct by the abuser.

161. The faith submitted that even if a judicial committee is not formed, there are other consequences permitted by their guidelines, such as the survivor or their family reporting the matter to the Police if there is a legal obligation to do so, or the child is at risk. However, as discussed below, the Inquiry heard that in practice there was a lack of reporting to authorities and inadequate consequences for abusers.

162. This policy and practice may have allowed abusers to continue abusing because of the unlikelihood of there being two witnesses to an offence, and because of barriers to disclosure reducing the likelihood of multiple survivors disclosing the same kind of offending. If an abuser did not confess, as the second witness under the two-person rule, then it was possible no further action would be taken.

163. The policy stated in the more recent handbook, Shepherd the Flock of God, appeared to reflect an ongoing hesitation to accept the evidence of children and young people:

“The testimony of youths may be considered; it is up to the elders to determine whether the testimony has the ring of truth. The testimony of unbelievers and disfellowshipped or disassociated ones may also be considered, but it must be weighed carefully.”[213]

164. This reflected the reality during the Inquiry period that evidence from anyone other than an adult Jehovah’s Witnesses member was treated with caution, making it difficult to reach the threshold of “sufficient evidence” to call a judicial committee. This inevitably undermined the response of the faith to abuse in care.

165. One witness described the usual effect of the two-witness rule:

“In effect this means that, unless two people see or hear something it does not happen. This obviously mitigates against complaints of sexual abuse being taken seriously because, by its very nature, this form of abuse is likely to occur when there is no audience.”[214]

166. Former Elder Robert Ker said:

“The Jehovah’s Witnesses take the bible literally and it talks about there needs to be two or more witnesses to an event. Obviously, with deviancy there are not any other witnesses. In my experience this is a faith that does not like scrutiny and is not transparent. Given that the members are so subservient it is the ideal playground for deviants, as the saying goes, ‘a wolf in sheeps clothing’.”[215]

Lack of reporting to external authorities

167. Former Jehovah’s Witnesses said that during the Inquiry period complaints and concerns of abuse were not often reported to secular authorities. Parents and survivors typically reported abuse directly to the Elders, rather than to any secular authority. Elders handled these reports internally, without any training, [216] and did not usually involve police.[217] Naomi Burnett said:

“There was no mention of going to the Police and reporting this to the authorities. It was dealt with in-house. Involving the authorities would bring shame to Jehovah. It would shame the religion. This is the reasoning for the Jehovah’s Witnesses religion intentionally concealing crimes like this from the Police.”[218]

168. Former Elder Shayne Mechen said that members were discouraged from reporting matters to police, because the faith considered the police to be part of the “worldly” population outside the Jehovah’s Witnesses: “the police are seen as evil and under Satan’s control”.[219]

169. Particularly because of this practice of rarely reporting abuse to police,[220] being in the Jehovah’s Witnesses sometimes gave abusers additional protection and a place to hide.[221]

170. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ official guidance on child sexual abuse requires Elders to report to secular authorities “if the victim or another minor is still in danger of abuse”.[222] However, Debbie Oakley said she continued to be sexually abused by her step-father despite reporting the abuse to Elders: the Elders did not report the abuse to secular authorities or do anything else to protect Debbie from further abuse by her step-father.[223]

171. The Inquiry heard an example where a former member had reported abuse to the Elders of her congregation, who said they could not help and that she must write to the governing body in America, which she did. Two years later she received a reply from the governing body telling her they couldn’t help and that she needed to see her local Elders. At this point she gave up in taking the disclosure any further.[224]

172. The Inquiry has not seen any evidence of the Jehovah’s Witnesses referring sexual abuse allegations to police during the Inquiry period in Aotearoa New Zealand. This is consistent with Inquiry findings in Australia and the United Kingdom.[225]

Inadequate consequences for abusers

173. If the outcome of a judicial committee was disfellowshipping, the Elders would formally announce to the congregation that the wrongdoer was ‘no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but would not give the congregation the reason.[226] The Inquiry heard that sexual offending was often not made known to other congregation members, but instead kept quiet.[227] One witness said that the Jehovah’s Witnesses culture was to “hush cases like that up and keep it in house so as not to tarnish the JW squeaky clean image.”[228]

174. Witnesses also explained that abusers would be allowed back into the congregation after being are disfellowshipped.[229] For example, Debbie Oakley’s abuser had been disfellowshipped for abusing a seven year old girl before Debbie but had been allowed back into the faith and appointed as a ministerial servant.[230]

175. The result of an abuser being readmitted, or never facing consequences in the first place, was that it would often be the victim who left the faith. They might no longer be able to tolerate staying while their abuser was still within the organisation, and would choose to disassociate themselves.

176. Documents provided by the Jehovah’s Witnesses confirmed that abusers are allowed back into congregations after they are disfellowshipped as in the case of a particular abuser,[231] who was “deleted“ as an Elder, and had his activity restricted after he confessed to sexually abusing a 15 year old girl in the Aramoho congregation. Documents show he had earlier been involved in ‘serious wrongdoing’ in Auckland before he arrived in Aramoho,[232] and that after the Aramoho abuse he went on to a Halswell congregation where he was disfellowshipped for adultery but reinstated.[233] He was then disfellowshipped again from an Avonhead congregation for ”pornei’a” (illicit sexual activity),[234] but then reinstated to that congregation, with a restriction that he did not qualify for privileges in the congregation and did not again serve as an Elder or ministerial servant. Throughout all of this there is no evidence the man was reported to the Police.

177. In one case, the only reason the Jehovah’s Witnesses informed other members about abuse was because ‘family members knew what had happened and others would likely get to know of it’.[235]

Record-keeping practices during the Inquiry period

178. Creating and retaining accurate records of abuse allegations is fundamental to preventing and responding to abuse in care, as well as redress processes. Incomplete, inaccessible or inaccurate records can make it difficult for an organisation to know whether someone has previously committed or been accused of sexual abuse and is a safeguarding risk. Without sufficient and accurate information about past behaviour, an organisation cannot ensure it responds appropriately to risk. In addition, for many survivors of abuse in care the first step in seeking closure is to request records from the institution.[236] If it is difficult to do so, this can be traumatic for survivors.

179. The approach of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to record keeping of allegations of abuse was mixed at best during the Inquiry period. Former Elder Shayne Mechen described the position for judicial committees in the mid-1990s:

“Elders take personal notes but these are later destroyed … A judicial committee would send a blue envelope to the Auckland Bethel, and it would be kept in their database. There would be a record of the perpetrator, and what’s he done to prove he’s sorry.”[237]

180. Mr Mechen said he expected that formal records would be retained.

181. Shane McNeil, a former Australian Elder, said that one of his initial duties in his Australian congregation was to maintain all of the congregation’s paperwork. He said the paperwork in his Australian congregation was in a state of disarray:

“When I went through the paperwork, many of the policies were missing, including the most important letters relating to allegations of abuse. I don’t know how the local elders had handled the reports of abuse before us.”[238]

182. The approach of the Jehovah’s witnesses appeared to rely on a brief summary document being retained, with the notes of the Elders on judicial committees being destroyed.

183. In August 2019, after the commencement of this Royal Commission, the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia) wrote to all bodies of Elders in New Zealand and Australia reminding them of existing guidance that during Elders’ meetings:

“There should be no need for any Elders to take extensive notes … When decisions have been implemented by the assigned Elder(s), there is generally no need for the notes to be retained.”[239]

184. The letter went on to say that in judicial committee hearings, members would usually not need to make ‘personal notes’ but if they did, the notes should be destroyed. The letter asked that each Elder review the records they held to ensure “that no confidential correspondence is retained outside the congregations confidential file”. The letter also reminded Elders that, at the conclusion of a matter “a written record should be prepared” containing “a brief summary” of “only pertinent facts and the final determination of the person's standing in the congregation.[240]

185. The faith said that its data retention policy was to keep enough information for their religious purposes, to provide a safe environment for children. It said if someone is guilty of child abuse “we don’t need to know all the gory details … but we need to know enough to ensure that if they move to another congregation, there will be a letter that follows them to say that this is the situation, these are the restrictions that are imposed ... The second purpose for record keeping is to ensure no one is appointed as ministerial servant or elder who is guilty of these matters.” It said there is no need for extensive records, and once an offender has been ‘dealt with’ there is no need for background notes to be kept.[241]

186. The Inquiry’s review of the records the Jehovah’s Witnesses provided indicates the types of “brief summary” retained by the faith were inadequate to ensure sufficient information was available to inform proper decision-making. For example:

a. The records of an Elder disqualified from serving in the late 1970s simply indicated that the relevant conduct was “inappropriate behaviour with a minor (details not known)”.
b. The records of a man deleted as an Elder in 2002 for child abuse consisted of a one-page letter with very little information about the underlying conduct. The letter indicated the conduct involved two girls aged around 15 or 16 years old, and that the Elder had been involved in “serious wrongdoing” in Auckland prior to moving to the relevant location. He had been alone with the girls at his home, at times naked and aroused sexually. The man was twice disfellowshipped and once deleted over a 13-year period, but the entire record of his conduct appeared to consist of the one-page letter. The man was reinstated some years later, with a recommendation that Elders should call the service department before extending any privileges.

187. The combination of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ practices as described above, and the records the Inquiry has reviewed, indicate an inadequate approach to the documenting and retention of information about alleged cases of abuse. The information documented and retained did not provide an adequate basis for well-informed risk-based decision making to ensure the safety of children and young people in the care of the faith. The lack of detail in records retained by the faith also inhibited the Inquiry’s ability to assess the extent of abuse in the care of the faith because of the lack of detail about the nature of the relationships between Elders and abused children.

Conclusions on steps by the Jehovah’s Witnesses to prevent and respond to the risk of abuse in care

188. In response to complaints or concerns about abuse, there would be an internal investigation by Elders, and sometimes, if the Elders decided there was sufficient evidence, a judicial committee would be formed.

189. The investigation and judicial committee process was rigid, inappropriate and daunting for victims of abuse, with limited flexibility and very little consideration for the trauma or support needs of the victim and has likely prevented other disclosures of abuse.

190. The 2000 year old two-person rule showed a lack of understanding of the nature of sexual abuse, and the policy guidance suggesting that the words of adults should be believed over the words of children was misguided and likely caused further harm to children and young people in the faith.

191. In short, the Inquiry concludes that the faith’s processes for handling and responding to concerns or complaints of abuse in care were inadequate. Moreover, the faith’s approach to this Inquiry was premised on the basis that no children or young people were ever in its care. The ongoing failure of the faith to recognise that children and young people were in its care and adapt its approach to child safety gives the Inquiry significant concern about the faith’s overall approach to the safety of children and young people in its care.

The international context

192. The faith’s approach to abuse in care during the Inquiry period was in many ways related to its overall approach to abuse. In recent years, international inquiries and studies have investigated and made findings about the faith’s systems, practices, and procedures for raising and responding to allegations of child sexual abuse. Each of these inquiries had different terms of reference and scope, and all differed from this Inquiry to a greater or lesser extent. Caution is therefore needed in assessing the relevance of the findings of those inquiries. However, despite the differences, the work of these inquiries also overlapped with this Inquiry to some extent. In particular, the inquiries in Australia and England and Wales considered the historical period address by this Inquiry as well as the more recent period. The findings of those inquiries are referred to below to provide some additional context for the findings this Inquiry has made.

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Australia)

193. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Australia explored in detail the experiences of two survivors of child sexual abuse within the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the response of the organisation to those survivors’ complaints. The Australian Child Sexual Abuse Royal Commission also examined more broadly the systems, policies and procedures in place within the Jehovah’s Witness organisation for raising and responding to allegations of child sexual abuse and for preventing child sexual abuse within the organisation.

194. The terms of reference for the Australian Child Sexual Abuse Royal Commission were confined to child sexual abuse. Other forms of abuse such as physical, psychological and spiritual abuse were not considered if they happened separately from sexual abuse. The abuse or neglect of adults in care was also outside the Inquiry’s scope.[242] The Australian Child Sexual Abuse Royal Commission was also not restricted to historical abuse or abuse ‘in care’.

195. There was however, some crossover between the two inquiries and those common elements make the findings relevant:

a. Both New Zealand and Australia have domestic legislation and international obligations that provide for the protection of children, which is one of the reasons each inquiry was established.
b. Both inquiries were tasked with identifying best practice to ensure that children are protected and that institutions respond appropriately to child sexual abuse.[243]
c. The centralised organisational structure of the Jehovah’s Witnesses means that the policies, beliefs, and practice of the faith in Australia and New Zealand are the same, and both share the same branch office (with the same service and legal desks).
d. Like the Australian Inquiry, the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference also require reporting on factors that contributed to abuse, including the processes for handling complaints and their effectiveness.[244]

196. In total, the Australian Child Sexual Abuse Royal Commission received 70 complaints about child sexual abuse in the Jehovah’s Witness organisation. Its relevant findings on abuse allegations were that:[245]

a. Since 1950 there had been allegations, reports or complaints received by the Jehovah’s Witness organisation in Australia, relating to at least 1,800 alleged victims of child sexual abuse.
b. About 11 percent of the alleged perpetrators were Elders or ministerial servants at the time of the first instance of alleged child sexual abuse.
c. About 3 percent of the alleged perpetrators were subsequently appointed as Elders or ministerial servants after an allegation of child sexual abuse was made against them.
d. Although 40 percent of the alleged perpetrators were disfellowshipped as a result of an allegation of child sexual abuse, about 57 percent of those disfellowshipped were later reinstated, and 19 percent of the total who were disfellowshipped were disfellowshipped more than once as a result of an allegation of child sexual abuse.

197. In 2015, before the final report of the Australian Child Sexual Abuse Royal Commission was published the Jehovah’s Witnesses provided submissions addressing the terms of reference, the approach of the faith to sexual abuse matter, and its view on the appropriateness of the suggested findings and systemic considerations.[246] In summary, the faith submitted:

a. In response to the proposed finding that it was the policy or practice not to report allegations of child sexual abuse to the police, the faith said that this finding was unsupported by facts. It specifically said: “From an uninformed view, it is easy to say that a crime should always be reported to the authorities, but the legal system is not that simple. A number of factors may be involved, for example: What does the law require? What does the victim or his/her parents want to be done about the matter? What is the morally right thing to do? What do the Scriptures say about the matter? Ignoring any of these questions oversimplifies relevant considerations and results in positing a simplistic, untenable solution.[247]
b. Whether a sinner’s guilt is determined by congregation Elders (men) appears to have no causal connection to whether child sexual abuse occurs within a family or outside the family. Male judges determine the guilt or innocence of defendants all over the world and there is no empirical evidence suggesting men are not intellectually or emotionally equipped to determine the guilt of someone accused of child abuse. The faith also submitted that “repentance takes into account the risk of reoffending”.
c. “It would, however, be unfortunate if findings or recommendations had the effect of denying to members of a faith the right to adhere to their beliefs or to freely exercise their religious choice. For example, an adherent may prefer that a matter be cared for within his/her faith. It would be unfortunate if findings or recommendations of the Royal Commission had a ‘chilling effect’ on the disclosure of cases of abuse to ministers”.[248]
d. Changes have been made, and it would be unfair to judge what occurred in 1982 and 1988 in light of contemporary attitudes, values and beliefs.

198. Later, in October 2016, the Australian Child Sexual Abuse Royal Commission published Case Study 29 into the Jehovah’s Witnesses and found that the organisation does not respond adequately to child sexual abuse.[249] That case study also noted that children were not adequately protected from the risk of sexual abuse and that this was because of the following factors:

a. The organisation’s policies and practices for responding to child sexual abuse were outdated and ‘by and large’ wholly inappropriate and unsuitable in cases of child sexual abuse. The fact that the organisation continued to apply policies such as the two-witness rule in cases of child sexual abuse showed a serious lack of understanding of the nature of that abuse.[250]
b. The organisation’s internal disciplinary system for addressing complaints of child sexual abuse is not child or survivor-focused in that it is presided over by males and offers a survivor little or no choice about how their complaint is addressed.[251]
c. The sanctions available within the organisation’s internal disciplinary system are weak and leave perpetrators of child sexual abuse at large in the organisation and the community.[252]
d. In deciding the sanctions to impose and precautions to take in relation to a known or suspected perpetrator, the organisation has inadequate regard to the risk that they might reoffend. This demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of the nature and impact of child sexual abuse.[253]
e. The organisation’s general practice of not reporting serious instances of child sexual abuse to police or authorities – in particular, where the complainant is a child – demonstrates a serious failure by the organisation to provide for the safety and protection of children in the organisation and in the community.[254]

199. In 2018, after publication of the Final Report and Case Study 29, the Jehovah’s Witnesses provided a further report to the Australian Child Sexual Abuse Royal Commission.[255] The Jehovah’s Witnesses report criticised the Australian Child Sexual Abuse Royal Commission, and said in particular that:

a. The Commission’s criticism of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Bible-based beliefs and practices were misplaced and should have been directed instead to a lack of uniform mandatory reporting laws.
b. A large part of the Commission's investigation into Jehovah’s Witnesses and the evidence it heard were outside the Commission’s terms, because they related to child sexual abuse within families of members of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
c. The Commission had conflated familial and institutional sexual abuse.
d. The Commission gave little or insufficient weight to the evidence of the education provided to parents and to the journals, pamphlets and literature published and disseminated by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
e. There were significant difficulties in relying on any findings based on private sessions.
f. The Commission’s investigation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses was inherently unfair.

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (England and Wales)

200. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales (IICSA) published an investigation report on child protection in religious organisations and settings, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

201. The IICSA had different terms of reference from the current Aotearoa New Zealand Inquiry and was limited to the sexual abuse of children. Despite this, it is helpful to consider their findings given their review of the failures of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to identify abuse, the gaps in the child protection procedures of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their recommendations, which are all relevant to the Inquiry.

202. The IICSA found that the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation had the third highest number of sexual abuse victims (15 or 11 percent) after the Catholic and Anglican churches.[256] It further found:

a. The two-witness rule is not intended to be a safeguarding measure; it is part of an internal religious process for determining whether someone should remain a congregant. Nevertheless, the application of the rule in the context of child sexual abuse is likely to increase the suffering of victims and fails to reflect the reality that by its very nature child sexual abuse is most often perpetrated in the absence of witnesses.
b. The Jehovah’s Witnesses do not carry out vetting and barring checks on Elders, ministerial servants, or those who run the organisation regionally or at a national level. This is because they maintain that they do not separate children from their parents during religious worship or practice or when children are in the company of someone in a position of trust, and so checks are not permitted by law. This fails to recognise that the mere presence of parents does not prevent those in position of trust from developing inappropriate relationships with children or being able to groom both their children and their families.[257]
c. The Jehovah’s Witness child protection policy, consisting of four core documents, are rooted in religious text and written in ‘scriptural language’. Two of these documents fail to provide practical guidance, including on how to contact statutory authorities.[258]

Footnotes

[195] Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia), Response to Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care Notice to Produce 1 (1 December 2021, Annexure – G. Summary of beliefs and practices, page 6).