There is lots of interesting information in this document, and it raises lots of questions too.
It says that since 2000 four claims have been made against a congregation or legal entity of Jehovah’s Witnesses in England and Wales. Three of these were settled and one was decided at trial and damages were agreed in advance. Are the sums of money involved public knowledge?
The document says there are 13,846 elders in England and Wales. That would mean roughly 9 elders per congregation. On those figures I would suggest there doesn’t appear to be a great shortage of elders in England and Wales.
The document contains an odd mixture of JW language and non-JW language. For example on the one hand the document talks about the “deletion” of elders, meaning their removal from office. On the other hand the document freely uses the term “ecclesiastical” which is unfamiliar within the JW organisation. So it’s an odd mixture of insider and outsider language.
The document seems completely unaware of the weaknesses of their own policies as highlighted by experts during this enquiry. For example the document states their procedure of only reporting accused abusers to the authorities in cases where the alleged abuser poses an ongoing threat to children. Yet the author displays no awareness that neither the elders nor the branch have any relevant expertise in determining whether any such threat exists.
Why doesn’t the organisation simply report all allegations of abuse in England and Wales, as they do in Ireland? The document points out that they are not required to do so by law in England and Wales, but it offers no explanation why they don’t make it their own policy to report all allegations. It simply states that it’s not their policy to report all allegations without offering any reason why that is their policy.
The document gives a long list of things JWs don’t do, in order to prove there is no specific provision for children in the form of instruction, entertainment, outings, or any other activity. Yet the document at no point discusses the fact that children can go on the ministry with adults who are not their parents. Has the practice been revised? Why does the author not address this issue?
The document states that the branch keeps a file containing all abuse allegations made against members of the organisation. This is confirmation that a database of all potential abusers does exist centrally.
It further states that allegations are kept at a congregation level indefinitely in a sealed envelope. How does this comply with data protection laws? Do they it not apply in these circumstances?
It states that no allegation of abuse is ever considered as an instance of “slander” for judicial purposes, even if the allegation is never proved or corroborated. Even the law of the land acknowledges that an accusation may be proved malicious and false, but apparently not within JWs for judicial purposes.
It says that all elders are asked if they have ever been involved in child abuse before they are appointed as elders. This has applied to all new elders for a number of years. What the document does not appear to say is whether all 13,000 serving elders, many of whom have been elders for decades, have been asked this same question. Might there be long-standing elders who remain in position despite past crimes?
At a number of points the document is at pains to stress that abusers will wait a long time before receiving any responsibilities again, if they ever will. Why not be clear? Can an abuser ever be appointed again or not? If not, why not say so?
The document says that between 2009 and 2019 in the organisation there were 67 accused of abuse, 13 were convicted, 37 were reported to the authorities, 19 were disfellowshipped and 6 were reproved. This is not entirely clear, but would seem to imply that up to 30 accused abusers were not reported to the authorities.
The document also brackets outs 52 other alleged abusers whose crimes predated 2009, including 32 elders. It doesn’t appear to offer any information about whether any of these accusations were reported to the authorities, or indeed whether these people are still serving as elders.
These numbers appear to be relatively low compared with the numbers uncovered by the Australian Royal Commission, where around 1000 historic accusations were recorded and not reported to the authorities, from a smaller population. Is there a reason based in definition or in practice that would explain why these numbers appear to be of a different order of magnitude?
The document turns quite belligerent toward the end and accuses investigating authorities of acting in bad faith and being very slow to respond to correspondence.
Throughout the document the author is at pains to stress that Watch Tower charities do no set policies and it attempts to shield them from legal culpability. Are these credible manoeuvres or futile gestures? It would seem contrary to justice if organisations were allowed so easily to escape responsibility for harm they have caused.
