Jehovah's Witness church elders who refused to comment on a child abuse scandal did not "try to prevent a prosecution."

by Sol Reform 17 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Sol Reform

  http://tyneandwear.sky.com/news/article/90520/police-chiefs-letter-ignites-fresh-jehovahs-witness-child-abuse

  Police Chief's Letter Ignites Fresh Jehovah's Witness Child Abuse Row

  By Kevin Donald Location: Washington

  Gordon Leighton

  A police chief has controversially claimed that Jehovah's Witness church elders who refused to comment on a child abuse scandal did not "try to prevent a prosecution."

  The elders said they had a 'duty to God' to keep sex attacker Gordon Leighton's confession a secret - but were ordered to testify by a judge. Now Northumbria Chief Superintendent Kay Blyth has written to a child sex abuse campaigner about the case.

  In her letter to Mike Ellis she states: "At no time did any of the elders try to prevent a prosecution or conceal a crime." Mr Ellis is a member of the Ex Jehova's Witness United In Christ movement which seeks to expose child abuse scandals it claims are being concealed within the church.

  He said: "what we have now is a conflict between the police stance on such matters and that of a Crown Court judge which, unless addressed, will give license to still more cover-ups within the Churches of Jehovah’s Witnesses or any other organisation or walk of life for that matter."

  The development follows the jailing of paedophile Leighton, a Jehovah Witness ministerial servant, for 13 years. He admitted sexually abusing a child when he was confronted with allegations before elders at his church, Newcastle Crown Court heard in August.

  But during the official police investigation the 53-year-old, who hit the headlines in the 1990s when his wife Yvonne, 28, died after refusing a blood transfusion after childbirth on religious grounds, denied any illegal wrongdoing. When detectives asked elders Simon Preyser, Harry Logan and David Scott to make statements about the confession, all three refused and said what they had heard was confidential.

  The elders knew about the admissions for three years, but refused to cooperate with the criminal investigation, the court heard. The trio kept that stance when the case was brought before Newcastle Crown Court.

  Each was then issued with a witness summons. Excerpt from police chief's letter They then launched a court battle against the summonses but were ordered to testify by Judge Penny Moreland after months of legal wrangling. Their barrister Richard Daniels said the men had a 'duty to God' not to breach confidence.

  He added: 'Privileged communication between members of the congregation and ministers is an absolute right and duty and there is no power in law to breach such a confidence.' But Judge Moreland made an order that the men must reveal what they heard and said:

  “It is apparent that the three elders who were present when this conversation took place are in possession of relevant evidence as to a point which is of real significance in this case.

  'They claim the right of confidentiality, they claim that what they heard said by the defendant during the course of that meeting ought to be subject to privilege, as ministers of religion.' Judge Moreland refused to withdraw the summonses and said: 'Public interest is clearly in favour of this evidence being given. 'What was said by the defendant on that occasion is of great significance in the trial.'

  In her letter to Mr Ellis, Chief Supt Blyth continues: "In law it is not an offence not to provide evidence as a witness. This is a personal choice. At no time did any of the elders attempt to prevent a prosecution or conceal a crime from the police.

  "The victim in the case was 24 years old when the sexual allegations were made and as such she was in a position to report directly to the police and her ability to do so was never hinfdered by anty of the elders named." Chief Superintendent Blyth has gone on to issue a statement about her letter.

  She says: "I want to be clear that at no point was the victim in this case prevented or hindered in any way from coming forward and reporting this crime to police.
  
  "Following the report a thorough police investigation took place. Some members of the community came forward and actively provided information to police.
  
  "Wherever there was a situation during the investigation where religious privilege and public interest conflicted, the community sought legal advice, and we sought legal advice, and where determinations were made to provide information they complied without issue.
  
  "This legal process took place throughout the investigation up to and including some members giving evidence in court. Again, they complied with the judge's direction that public interest was the over-riding factor. There is no evidence to suggest that a crime has been committed.
  
  "Ultimately, through a careful police investigation, the bravery and determination of the victim, who received specialist support throughout, and due legal processes, Leighton was jailed for 13 years, a sentence which reflects the seriousness of his crimes."
• 

  Band on the Run

  I don't understand what the problem is. It would be nice if you the OP had some personal comments. It is impossible for me to read the post b/c of the formatting. It needs paragraphs inserted to be readable. The prosecutor's office seems to say that elders complied with prosecutorial efforts. This is confusing. A title is not enough. It is hard to read content on the Internet without the insertion of white space.
• 

  Band on the Run

  It seems that the elders refused to answer questions and asserted clergy/penitent privilege. A judge found they could not assert the privilege. They complied with the order. The victim was twenty-four years old at the time of reporting. She was free to go to the police. Evidently, she did. I don't see a story.
• 

  besty

  The story is do Jehovah's Witnesses put the interests of the victim, including the right to justice, before the interests of the Watch Tower corporation?

  If they truly had the interests of the victim at heart, they wouldn't need a Judge to order them to give evidence.

  "did not try to prevent a prosecution" is quite different in meaning to "proactively trying to bring an alledged paedophile to justice"
• 

  wizzstick

  It is a serious matter.

  They claimed:

  they had a duty to God' to keep sex attacker Gordon Leighton's confession a secret

  This is a lie. There is no scriptural basis for declining to answer questions by a due process of law. There is a scriptural basis for doing so:

  But there is nothing carefully concealed that will not be revealed, and nothing secret that will not become known.Therefore, whatever you say in the darkness will be heard in the light, and what you whisper in private rooms will be preached from the housetops.

  They tried to hide behind clergy/penitent privilege which again is not Biblical.

  So yeah - there was a valid story here.
• 

  Band on the Run

  The legal process resolved it. What I would like to see is the judge's analysis denying them clergy/pentinent religion. While we love to hate the WT, every religion would assert confidentiality and privilege. The Roman Catholic Church would. This was the same claim in the Conti case. It appears that courts are routinely denying such claims. Privileges are being removed in many areas b/c they hinder the search for truth. As long as courts quickly dispense with the claim of privilege, I see no harm. The material comes in. Not every sexual abuse claim will be valid. I wonder, too, if notice will not apply in other cases. This is how the law works in every instance. Without research requirements for privilege again, I believe the courts rule that confidential confessions protected by privilege must be made to one clergyperson. The Witnesses employ several clergy members. This breaks the rules for privilege. The modern rule is to allow testimony and evidence to be heard by the jury or judge. Again, there is nothing extraordinary in this case.

  The two-witness rule must be changed within the Witnesses. I find it odious. Scientific studies find that children rarely lie. Pedophilia is illegal in the extreme. It is done in secret. It is ridiculous to apply a scripture meant generally to the specific facts of pedophilia. They have a First Amendment right to do so if they wish. Why anyone would wish for such a rule is beyond me. Courts will not order them to change the rule, however.
• 

  Scott77

  He added: 'Privileged communication between members of the congregation and ministers is an absolute right and duty and there is no power in law to breach such a confidence.' But Judge Moreland made an order that the men must reveal what they heard and said: “It is apparent that the three elders who were present when this conversation took place are in possession of relevant evidence as to a point which is of real significance in this case...'They claim the right of confidentiality, they claim that what they heard said by the defendant during the course of that meeting ought to be subject to privilege, as ministers of religion.' Judge Moreland refused to withdraw the summonses and said: 'Public interest is clearly in favour of this evidence being given. 'What was said by the defendant on that occasion is of great significance in the trial.'

  Excerpt from the case above.

  OMG! Iam bewildered. What kind of god is this one they claim to have a duty? When did their god tell them to withold information from secular authorities that are injurious to the victim?

  Scott77
• 

  Captain Blithering

  Is Daniels a WT appointed lawyer? If so then this is fairly damning considering the advice he gave the elders was to withhold information about a crime that had been committed. Where's SFPW when you need him? I'd like to hear the argument for the elders keeping schtum..
• 

  Band on the Run

  Scott,

  In fairness, I believe almost all ministers would decline to reveal a confession. The basic model is based on Roman Catholic confessionals. It never traveled well when applied to other religions. It must be made in confession and not just as a general talk with clergy. Since the Witnesses are adamant that they have no confession, I fail to see how they ever argue that it is privileged. It seems Bethel flexes its legal muscle with a pro-forma declaration. Judges then immediately hold that the privilege is not present. We don't even have mention of the judge analyzing the elements of confession at law here. It must take all of two minutes to deny the claim. In this case, the victim was a grown woman who could help the police. A victim coming forth under age is a much more vulnerable state.

  Being a born-in, I can't begin to imagine the emotions coming forward entails. They don't have to assert their legal rights. The elders could waive them in the interest of justice. No one is saying that the Witnesses are on the right side. The doubt should always go to the victim. Their first duty is to the WT. This is nothing new. As I've pointed out before, these same elders could be sued. They should act on their conscience and in their financial interest which would be revealing the information to law enforcement. I always knew the elders were WT people. It must be hard for believers to realize that justice is not in the works.
• 

  hamsterbait

  But but but but-

  The Watchtower has always said they HAVE NO CLERGY CLASS!!!!

  So how can they claim clergy penitent privilege - especially as this is defined as between the clergyman and his parishioner and DOES NOT INVOLVE ANOTHER PARTY to the info???

  This was shot down in US courts, as the WT requires elders to inform Beth Hell of all confessions to sin or crime, thus nullifyong any so - called "clergy privilege."

  Two faced a$$holes.

  HB