Next steps for the Austrailian Royal Commission (page 2)

Coded Logic

TGND,

I think your timeframe is right. We wont see the legal repercussions from the ARC for at least a year or two. But it WILL come.

Zeb,

I hadn't really considered the idea that the Watchtower might close their branch in Australia. That'd be pretty damning. If they cut their loses there could we see the same thing happen with the investigations in the UK and Canada with those branches closing too? That's a nice thought.

Mephis,

I think what you said is perhaps the best case scenario. It would be nice if the courts were given some real teeth by legislature to deal with the Watchtowers disgusting policies.

SD,

In all fairness, I don't think the commission is going to allow themselves to be strung along. They were so on top of the hearings and so aware of the cheap tactics and double talk the Watchtower uses it was amazing. No doubt they'll use the same discretion when dealing with the Witnesses in the future.

steve2

Perhaps - just perhaps the organization will do its sums and realise there ain't no completely dignified way through this so actually consider it prudent to take on board some of the key recommendations such as assigning mature sisters strictly "support" roles for victims who come forward. Of course, those sisters will face zilch leadership or speaking rights before the ekders but will go some way to demonstrating the organization is "listening". I could imagine the organization giving this a loving and caring spin - and the rank and file swallowing it.

Don't dismiss this possibility as the organization has made surprising concessions in the service of getting authorities off their backs ( e.g, Chile and flags raised at Kingdom Halls).

smiddy

Whatever happens , it wont be anytime soon , and in the meantime , the abuse of children will continue to occur within the religion , and the Judicial system will be partly to blame for not acting promptly enough , allowing it to drag on for months or even years , by their own admission.

Part of the problem is that the ARC has no teeth , it , in itself cannot prosecute anybody , they can only make recomendations to the relevant authorities .

And they need not necessarily be acted upon.

Justice is a rare commodity in the real world .

smiddy

freddo

I may be wrong but I thought the commission would "only" be able to make findings and recommendations for lawmakers. It has the power to summon, fine and even imprison but only on grounds of "contempt of court" as in refusing to appear or provide requested evidence. Hence GB Jackson was dragged screaming and kicking to the stand.

It's (final) findings are "fact" I believe as in when the ARC has "found that" something is the case it carries the same weight as a law court finding and its findings can then be used (as a sort of precedent) to be used to support lawsuits for victims of abuse.

But I don't think that of itself it can (e.g.) say WT Oz must pay $50,000Aus to every victim but it can recommend financial redress amounts to the lawmakers (government?) of Australia.

Someone will be along to correct my thoughts I'm sure.

Edit: Sorry Smiddy - I didn't read your post before posting mine!

shepherdless

Smiddy and freddo are correct. To expand on that:

The ARC is not a Court. Its powers are limited. It is essentially an inquisitorial body, that has incredible powers to subpoena people and documents, and then cross-examine. With the information gathered, it writes a report. And that is it.

Sometimes, a Royal Commission will also refer matters to the appropriate State or Federal Public Prosecutor, but because of the nature of this RC, it is not likely.

Justice Peter McClellan is a judge of the NSW Court of Appeal, but his appointment as Royal Commissioner is a completely separate role. The Australian Federal Court has no role (apart from a technical role that I won't confuse you with). Jurisdiction in any likely civil or criminal case rests with the relevant State or Territory, and will be run independently of the RC.

There will be no negotiated settlement. It just does not work like that. This is not a USA-style investigation. Possibly, if Watchtower is able to demonstrate that it has changed its internal procedures, it might be mentioned in the final report.

I haven't been following developments closely, but my guess is that we wont know whether the submissions of Counsel assisting the Commissioner in relation to Watchtower were accepted, for a while yet. (The RC has been dealing with a number of other organisations, particularly the Catholic Church.) If the submissions are accepted, the effects as I see it, would be as follows:

1. PR

What more do I need to say! Further, any journalist will just report the outcome and findings. They treat it like a Court decision.

2. Civil proceedings

This is the biggest impact. If any victim wants to sue Watchtower (not just the the individual perpetrator) for civil damages in an Australian Court, then the task will be way way easier. No need to subpoena the relevant secret Elders Book or cross-examine an Elder on how a JC is run. The victim's lawyer could just submit the ARC report as evidence of Watchtower's flawed internal processes. 80% of the task is done for them, which of course dramatically reduces the costs and risks of running a case on behalf of a victim.

3. Criminal proceedings

It may possibly assist some criminal proceedings, but this is a complicated topic.

Listener

Smiddy - Whatever happens , it wont be anytime soon , and in the meantime , the abuse of children will continue to occur within the religion , and the Judicial system will be partly to blame for not acting promptly enough , allowing it to drag on for months or even years , by their own admission.
Freddo - It's (final) findings are "fact" I believe as in when the ARC has "found that" something is the case it carries the same weight as a law court finding and its findings can then be used (as a sort of precedent) to be used to support lawsuits for victims of abuse.

These are interesting points and although there hasn't been a final finding the Commission has prepared a (preliminary?) submission. This should be of great assistance to any lawyer who is preparing a case (and in negotiations). It will likely hold more strength in Australian Courts but it can be of great benefit to other countries by providing a valuable source of information. Having had a Governing Body member testify makes it even more relevant universally.

Although this is a slow process, I would think there are already benefits that are flowing from the hearings.

Sheperdless - The victim's lawyer could just submit the ARC report as evidence of Watchtower's flawed internal processes. 80% of the task is done for them, which of course dramatically reduces the costs and risks of running a case on behalf of a victim.

You are spot on. There are lawyers like Zalkin who have done a lot of groundwork into how the organization functions but due to the nature of their business, would possibly not share it with other law firms. There are many law firms that are not as well equipped, focused or even have lawyers as qualified/experienced as this law firm does and would be unlikely to ever present a case with as good of a chance of winning. With all this groundwork available to them through the RC, the odds are way more in their favor.

talesin

In Canada, a Royal Commission is one 'type' of Public Inquiry. Similar to Australia's RC, they can make findings and recommendations, but not prosecute.

I remember one Public Inquiry that yielded far-reaching results, and that would be the disbanding of the Canadian Airborne Regiment (of course, it still operates, under CSIS, in the shadows). This was because of abuses to prisoners (I believe they involved murder) and really disgusting and abusive hazing rituals that were practiced by the units (eg, being anally raped with a cigar by your CO as part of the hazing). It was a shameful chapter in Canada's military history.

Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces in Somalia (1994-97): This commission investigated the events surrounding the torture and murder of a black prisoner by Canadian peacekeepers in Somalia. The Canadian Airborne Regiment, which was stationed in Somalia, was disbanded during the course of this public inquiry.
For more information on the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces in Somalia: Canadian Department of Defence – Final Report of the Commission

The WT lawyer has already been reported for misconduct. Perhaps there will be recommendations from the ARC that lawmakers and/or law enforcement will find actionable. That would be most excellent! xx tal

Sheperdless - excellent post, and great information, thanks. That the victims could be helped so greatly by the ARC report, is a good thing. I wonder if this could be helpful in establishing a class action suit? Oh, my! How many would one need to file such a suit in AU?

Coded Logic

Smiddy; Freddo; Shepherdless; Listener; Talesin,

Thanks for clarifying the ARCs role as an advisory group. I wonder how many lawsuits we'll see against the Watchtower in the next four to five years? Sounds like a PR nightmare coming their way.

talesin

If my understanding of the Australian sensibility is correct, they may be in big trouble. I could see that bold and straight-forward spirit that I admire, helping many to come forward. Think positive thoughts.

shepherdless

Coded Logic: No problem. My guess is most cases will be settled quietly, so maybe not a lot of PR.

Listener: I think we are in complete agreement.

Talesin:

(1) Yes, it sounds like a Canadian RC is similar.

(2) Being the in-house lawyer for WT must be one of the worst legal jobs out there. Your status among your colleagues would be about one notch above being a lawyer for a cigarette company, and you would probably get a tenth of the pay.

(3) In relation to a class action (very complicated topic), given the cases are spread across around 6 jurisdictions, a class action is probably not feasible. In any event, I think the claimants will be as well off, if not better off, claiming individually. (By the way, Australian Courts don't award punitive damages except in extreme cases, if that is what you are thinking.)

Next steps for the Austrailian Royal Commission

Share this