The court heard an application to set aside a witness summons, raising an important issue about the circumstances in which disclosure can be resisted on grounds of a religious duty of confidentiality, in the context of allegations of child sexual abuse within the Jehovah’s Witness community. The summonses had been issued to church elders who had received notice of the allegations of abuse, but delayed reporting them to police for over two years.
Held: The Church’s policies had not been followed by the witnesses, but they had acted with the knowledge of the higher church. The application was rejected.
There was no evidence that the material sought through the witness summons was in any sense a confession or akin to a confession. The allegation of sexual abuse came to the elders’ attention because the Mother reported it, not because the Father confessed to the elders, or sought spiritual counselling. The elders then carried out some form of investigation and met with the Father, probably on more than one occasion.
The material that the Council seeks also does not, on the evidence, amount to ‘spiritual counselling’. There was an investigation into E’s allegations.
In any event, the Congregation’s own policies indicated that where a conversation amounts to spiritual counselling but indicates that a child may be at risk of harm, then it ‘will be conveyed to the extent necessary to ensure that the policies and procedures herein expressed shall be properly followed so as to safeguard children.’ In the 2018 policy at para 5, it says that the elders will be told to report the matter if the child is still at risk of abuse. It seems highly likely that E was still at risk of abuse up to July 2019, yet the elders did not report the allegations.
There does appear to be a strong suspicion that the Congregation’s own published guidance, both 2013 and 2018 was not followed, not just by A and B, but also by more senior figures in the Congregation. From a child safeguarding viewpoint this is deeply troubling, not least because the policy documents are ones which seem to be produced for public consumption but not to be effective to protect children.
Judges:
Mrs Justice Lieven DBE
Citations:
[2020] EWHC 182 (Fam), 418542
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – H and Others v Regina CACD 21-Dec-2018
The crown sought to adduce additional evidence on the defendant’s appeal of the content of discussions between the defendant and a social worker from the council youth offending service.
Held: The evidence should not be admitted. Such . .
Cited – Regina v Hay 1896
A Roman Catholic priest had received, doubtless unknowingly, a watch that had been stolen. The priest was called to give evidence and was asked from whom did he receive the watch. He refused to answer saying that the reply would implicate the person . .
Cited – Regina v Gruenke 1991
(Canadian Supreme Court) The issue was whether the communications between the Defendant, who was accused of murder, and her pastor were protected by common law privilege or under the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Held: The Court not apply a strict . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Family, Human Rights
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.648624
