Mandatory reporting and misprision

by Xanthippe 21 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse


    Justice McClellan asked Toole, the WTS's lawyer, if he is aware that there is a difference between an organisation being required to have mandatory reporting of child abuse to the authorities and misprision which is the concealment of a felony, itself a criminal offence?

    Toole says he is aware of it now but he wasn't before!

    ........................................... IN AUSTRALIA..

    .........................Image result for ignorance of the law is no excuse

    Queensland Consolidated Acts

    CRIMINAL CODE 1899 - SECT 22

    22 Ignorance of the law—bona fide claim of right

    (1) Ignorance of the law does not afford any excuse for an act or omission which would otherwise constitute an offence, unless knowledge of the law by the offender is expressly declared to be an element of the offence.

    (2) But a person is not criminally responsible, as for an offence relating to property, for an act done or omitted to be done by the person with respect to any property in the exercise of an honest claim of right and without intention to defraud.

    (3) A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission done or made in contravention of a statutory instrument if, at the time of doing or making it, the statutory instrument was not known to the person and had not been published or otherwise reasonably made available or known to the public or those persons likely to be affected by it.

    (4) In this section—


    (a) in relation to a statutory instrument that is subordinate legislation—means notify in accordance with section 47 (Notification) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992; and
    (b) in relation to a statutory instrument that is not subordinate legislation—means publish in the gazette.
  • kairos

    There has to be consequences for the level of accountability before Ceaser.


    The trial that put JF Rutherford in prison would be very interesting to review.
    Where are those transcripts?

    We all know the WT story, blah, blah, we're innocent, persecution, blah, Jehovah picked us to judge you for eternity or he will kill you and your family, blah, blah

    The spin WT lays out in desperation will very likely not be "sound or strategic from a human stand point"!!

  • OrphanCrow
    kairos: The trial that put JF Rutherford in prison would be very interesting to review.
    Where are those transcripts?

    You might be abel to find them on It sure would be interesting if we had a taped recording to watch those proceedings! Just think of all the body language and stuff we miss when we only have a written transcript. I have read parts of the Rutherford trial. I was interested in finding out who all were using aliases that were WT directors. A couple of the real names of Society members who used aliases were revealed, but the court documents never did name who C.S. Wise really was.

  • Xanthippe

    I thought it was interesting that counsel for BCB quoted Gal. 6:5,

    'Each one will carry his own load'

    in the context of an individual being responsible for reporting child abuse that they become aware of.

    Is she just speaking to the JW lawyer in his language or is she referring to what may happen if JWs continue to conceal crimes against children?

  • Heaven

    I'm still trying to wrap my head around how a lawyer can be ignorant of the law...

    edited to add.... and then admits that he is.

    This is astounding. I think I have to agree. Disbarment of this man should be considered.

  • OrphanCrow
    Heaven: I'm still trying to wrap my head around how a lawyer can be ignorant of the law.

    I think that they really do believe that Jehovah's law is all that matters. They don't think they have a need to know real law as it operates in the world at large. They truly think that their "divine law" is superior.

    This hearing is actually becoming a standoff between "Jehovah's Law" and "The Law of the Land".

    The Royal Commission has to challenge religious authority. They are into it now. The organizational procedures and policies in the WTS claim to be based on religious authority.

    This should get veerrrry interesting.

  • Vidiot

    @ OrphanCrow...

    Well said.

    If nothing else, this is demonstrating that even the highest-ranked WT reps really are "True Believers".

  • Xanthippe
    If nothing else, this is demonstrating that even the highest-ranked WT reps really are "True Believers". - Vidiot

    I'm not sure this is true. As I've mentioned before the Divine Right of Kings in Europe five hundred years ago gave religious authority to monarchs and as we know the most terrible atrocities resulted. Did they really believe they were ruling by divine right? Who knows, but it gave them tremendous power and who wants to give up that kind of power to bow to laws made in a democracy?

    'The divine right of kings or divine right is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries or during the reign of Henry VIII of England) the Catholic Church. According to this doctrine, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God," attached to the titles of a reigning monarch.'

    Only God can judge an unjust king. What does that remind you of - wait on Jehovah.

  • Max Divergent
    Max Divergent

    This letter of legal advice sets out the Australian law at the time as regard misprison of felony in respect church leaders who concealed confessions of child abuse..

    It is a compelling read in the context of the RC.

    If starts off...

    You have asked us to consider the possibility of charges being laid against individuals within the Church arising from their concealment of knowledge of the activities of paedophile Priests.

    and finishes with...

    It would appear accordingly that it is only in the States of Victoria and New South Wales that there may be consideration given to charging members of the Church hierarchy with Misprision in Circumstances where knowledge of a felony has been concealed.

    The branch is in New South Wales.

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    That sounds promising.

Share this