Geoffrey Jackson. Seems he will be compelled to front up.

by umbertoecho 86 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Dumplin

  @possum We don"t have a 5th amendment. Whew! I was concerned about that, too!

  @possum WT needs some serious chemo. THAT (hopefully) is what is going to do the damage.

  @ umbertoecho: Perhaps he is a nice man. Yet, that is not sufficient to allow for him to deliberately claim ignorance....Someone posted a fantastic post about how the JW religion behaves and how it should not toward those who are molesters....

  1) there were many no doubt who thought Jim Jones was a nice man. Angus knows this - so no worries.

  2) I would very much like to read that fantastic post. My JW son stated he disagrees w/ JW child safeguarding policies but still won't follow through.

  @ umbertoecho It came to the Justice's attention that they had been mislead as to the role and functions of Mr Jackson. They had accepted the illness of his father for a while, but they had also been misled about his status

  Exactly!! Mislead TWICE!! As the old saying goes: "...shame on me!" - the commission must be saying that amongst themselves now... so I'm not really concerned that Geoffrey will be called out on the carpet.

  Hey! umbertoecho! I am grateful for the good research you do and the links...keep up the good work!
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Here's what wiki says about "The Right to Silence" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence)
  in Australia:

  Australia has no constitutional protection for the right to silence,[2] but it is broadly recognized by State and Federal Crimes Acts and Codes and is regarded by the courts as an important common law right. In general, criminal suspects in Australia have the right to refuse to answer questions posed to them by police before trial and to refuse to give evidence at trial. However a person must answer questions related to their name and place of residence if asked to by police. As a general rule judges cannot direct juries to drawadverse inferences from a defendant's silence (Petty v R) but there are exceptions to this rule, most notably in cases which rely entirely on circumstantial evidence which it is only possible for the defendant to testify about (Weissensteiner v R). The right does not apply to corporations (EPA v Caltex).
  There are numerous statutory abrogations of the right, particularly in the area of bankruptcy. It is also not available to witnesses testifying before a Royal Commission. There are also abrogations of the right in recent Federal anti-terrorism and Victorian organised crime Acts.[3] Each of these acts set up coercive questioning regimes which operate outside the normal criminal processes. Direct testimonial evidence gained from this coercive questioning cannot be used in any subsequent criminal trial of the person providing the evidence, however a witness who testifies in his defense at a subsequent criminal trial who provides a different testimony to that during the questioning may face prosecution for perjury.
  The state of New South Wales passed the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013 [4] which allows the judiciary to direct the jury to draw unfavourable inferences against a defendant who omits a fact during police questioning that they later rely on in court in a bid to be found not guilty.[5] The law strictly applies to those over the age of 18 and who have an Australian legal practitioner physically present and available. The change is designed to reflect reforms made in the United Kingdom in 1994 and will apply to indictable offences that carry a penalty of five or more years imprisonment.
• 

  Max Divergent

  Relevant extracts from the law under which the RC operates:

  ROYAL COMMISSIONS ACT 1902 - SECT 2

  Power to summon witnesses and take evidence

  (1) A member of a Commission may summon a person to appear before the Commission at a hearing to do either or both of the following:

  (a) to give evidence;

  (b) to produce the documents, or other things, specified in the summons.

  ROYAL COMMISSIONS ACT 1902 - SECT 3

  Failure of witnesses to attend or produce documents

  (1) A person served, as prescribed, with a summons to appear as a witness at a hearing before a Commission shall not:

  (a) fail to attend as required by the summons; or

  (b) fail to attend from day to day unless excused, or released from further attendance, by a member of the Commission.

  Penalty: $1,000 or imprisonment for 6 months.

  ROYAL COMMISSIONS ACT 1902 - SECT 6

  Penalty for refusing to be sworn or to give evidence

  (1) If any person appearing as a witness before the Commission refuses to be sworn or to make an affirmation or to answer any question relevant to the inquiry put to him or her by any of the Commissioners, the person shall be guilty of an offence.

  (2) The penalty for an offence under subsection (1) is a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 6 months.

  (3) Subsection (1) is an offence of strict liability.

  Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .

  ROYAL COMMISSIONS ACT 1902 - SECT 6A

  Self incrimination

  (1) It is not a reasonable excuse for the purposes of subsection 3(2B) or (5), or section 6AB, for a natural person to refuse or fail to produce a document or other thing that the production of the document or other thing might tend to:

  (a) incriminate the person; or

  (b) make the person liable to a penalty.

  ROYAL COMMISSIONS ACT 1902 - SECT 6DD

  Statements made by witness not admissible in evidence against the witness

  (1) The following are not admissible in evidence against a natural person in any civil or criminal proceedings in any court of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory:

  (a) a statement or disclosure made by the person in the course of giving evidence before a Commission;

  (b) the production of a document or other thing by the person pursuant to a summons, requirement or notice under section 2 or subsection 6AA(3).

  (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the admissibility of evidence in proceedings for an offence against this Act.
• 

  SecretSlaveClass

  Max Divergent

  (2) The penalty for an offence under subsection (1) is a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 6 months

  Hmm perhaps that's were ol' Jackson will disappear through a squirm hole: $1000 fine, provided that's what the JW office bets on and that's what tje ARC decides to enforce. Otherwise ol'Jackson could get a view between bars up to six months.
  
  
• 

  pepperheart

  If he dosent show though that will be great PR though and they have a charity commision is australia and even if i knew nothing about the JWs just the fact that one of their top people didnt show up would set big alarm bells off
  
• 

  Max Divergent

  SSC: Hmm perhaps that's were ol' Jackson will disappear through a squirm hole: $1000 fine

  If he committed any offence in respect the RC, whatever the penalty imposed if any, what would that say about the prior witnesses testimony that the JWs would obey secular law and cooperate with the RC in respect child abuse?
• 

  Village Idiot

  @ Max Divergent: "Penalty: $1,000 or imprisonment for 6 months."

  Is that and/or or can it be both? I'm thinking the 6 months in jail should be the penalty chosen because Jackson could easily cough up a 1,000 bucks.
• 

  oppostate

  I'm thinking the 6 months in jail should be the penalty chosen because Jackson could easily cough up a 1,000 bucks.

  I agree.

  And aren't Australian $ half of a USD $ ?

  Can you imagine the JW Broadcasts about Jackson going to jail?

  No really, I can't see that ever happening. He'll squirm out of it with WT lawyers help or give some assurances on the stand about making WT procedure changes that the Royal Commission suggests.

  If they change the rules just for Australia, something like what they pulled in Bulgaria with the blood issue, then that's going to hurt them big time considering how it would spread through the internet like wild fire.
• 

  Max Divergent

  Surely he'll comply with a summons rather than commit an offence, whatever the penalty. It's a matter of him finding a legal way to get out of it, if he can.

  For one thing, I assume he is on a visa of some sort to live in the US. The US takes a dim view on giving visas to foreigners with criminal convictions. He might find himself in exile!
• 

  SecretSlaveClass

  Max Divergent
  If he committed any offence in respect the RC, whatever the penalty imposed if any, what would that say about the prior witnesses testimony that the JWs would obey secular law and cooperate with the RC in respect child abuse?

  Sure. But they have to weigh the consequences nevertheless. Face penalties and pass it off as persecution and retain loyalty or face questions, ruin the Disneyland dream and lose a massive portion of followers ...