Turn your screen sideways if
you can't read this post!
[This was first posted by akromo on http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5633567157649408/watch-towers-ridiculous-defence-otuo-v-morley-watch-tower?page=1 .
All I have done is tidied up the formatting a bit to make it a little easier to understand. To me, anyway. ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN:
FRANK KOFI OTUO
and
JONATHAN DAVID MORLEY
and
Claimant
1st Defendant
2nd Defendant
WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY OF BRITAIN
HQ14D02898
AMENDED DEFENCE
BY ORDER OF SIR DAVID EADY DATED 23 MARCH 2016 ________________________________________________________
The Parties
At the material time, the First Defendant served as an elder in the London, Wimbledon Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (hereinafter “Wimbledon Congregation”). An elder is an ordained and appointed religious minister in a local congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Second Defendant is a legal entity of Jehovah’s Witnesses, incorporated in 1999 as a company limited by guarantee and duly registered with the Charity Commission in England with charitable status (Charity number 1077961). It is one of the bodies that provide support in the United Kingdom and Ireland for the religious activities of
1
Jehovah’s Witnesses, a known Christian religion acknowledged as such by domestic authorities and many decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
The Claimant is a former Jehovah’s Witness. At the material time, the Claimant was “disfellowshipped” (or excommunicated) from the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses and he had requested reinstatement into the religion. The Claimant has never been a member of the Second Defendant.
As to paragraph 2 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim, it is admitted that the First Defendant is one of the appointed elders in the Wimbledon Congregation. The body of elders of the Wimbledon Congregation was responsible for the oversight of the spiritual activities of the Wimbledon Congregation.
It is further admitted that at the material time, the First Defendant served as the Co- ordinator of the Wimbledon Congregation body of elders. This is not a superior position to that of the other Congregation elders. The role of Coordinator involves chairing meetings of the body of elders and coordinating part of the spiritual programmes that are provided in the Congregation.
It is denied that the First Defendant was appointed to oversee any “affairs” of the Second Defendant in the Wimbledon Congregation. The Wimbledon Congregation is an independent charity with its own Trustees (who are appointed from among the elders serving at any given time).
It is further denied that there was any malicious slander of the Claimant at the meeting or at any other time.
It is admitted that at the material time the First Defendant acted within the scope of his duties and role as a congregation elder. However, it is denied that either the First Defendant or the Second Defendant are liable for malicious slander of the Claimant.
Background
9. Paragraph 3 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is admitted to the extent that the objective of the meeting was to discuss the Claimant’s request for reinstatement and that, in line with the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Claimant had been disfellowshipped in July 2012 as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses on the basis of the sin
2
of fraud (according to the religious teaching of Jehovah’s Witnesses). It is also admitted that the Claimant does not accept that he is disfellowshipped.
However, it is denied that the Claimant was seeking reinstatement into the “Second Defendant’s Organisation” since the Claimant has never been a member of the Second Defendant. It is also denied that the group of four congregation elders (the “Committee”) who made the decision to disfellowship the Claimant (the “Committee”) had any reason to believe that the allegation of fraud made against the Claimant by Mr Robert Wee was false or malicious.
Paragraph 4 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is not admitted save that:
it is admitted that the Claimant was invited to a meeting with the Committee – the invitation was given to the Claimant at a brief meeting with two elders on 8 January 2012;
the meeting with the Committee was convened on 13 January 2012;
it is denied the Claimant was “summoned” to the meeting with the First Defendant, he was invited;
and it is denied that the Claimant’s attendance at the judicial committee hearing was “mandated”, although it is admitted that pursuant to the beliefs and practices and internal religious procedures of Jehovah’s Witnesses he could have been disfellowshipped in his absence if he did not provide good reason for not attending.
Paragraph 5 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is admitted, save that:
A. the Claimant was informed of the decision to disfellowship him at a second meeting with the Committee on 30 March 2012, not at the meeting on 13 January 2012;
and
B. it is denied that the accusation of fraud was the only basis for the decision to disfellowship the Claimant. It is averred that disfellowshipping is a part of the Scripturally based internal religious procedures of Jehovah’s Witnesses which does not involve the determination of any private or public law rights and is therefore non- justiciable before a secular court.
3
Paragraph 6 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is admitted to the extent that the announcement of the Claimant’s disfellowshipping is the subject of a separate claim (No.HQ13D03735).
Paragraph 6 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied to the extent that it alleges that the announcement of the Claimant’s disfellowshipping defamed him.
The words complained of
15. As to Paragraph 7 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim, it is admitted that the words complained of were spoken by the First Defendant.
16. On 18 March 2016, Sir David Eady ruled that the words spoken by the First Defendant were capable of meaning:
a. The Claimant had been disfellowshipped a year before the reinstatement meeting on the ground of fraud.
b. The Claimant was guilty of fraud.
c. The Claimant was unrepentant.
Sir David further ruled that these meanings are capable of being defamatory of the Claimant.
It is averred that in the particular circumstances in which the words were spoken, the words in fact meant that:
The Claimant had been disfellowshipped for the sin of fraud (according to the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses) a year before the reinstatement meeting.
The Committee had decided that the Claimant had committed the sin of fraud (according to the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses), a year before the reinstatement meeting.
The Claimant did not accept that the conduct for which he was disfellowshipped constituted the sin of fraud (according to the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses).
19. The relevant circumstances were:
The reinstatement meeting was convened by religious ministers, solely for religious purposes.
The dealings between the Committee and the Claimant were at all material times governed by and based on the Holy Scriptures and the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Committee had no remit to adjudicate on secular, legal definitions or concepts of fraud.
Paragraph 8 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is admitted. The persons in attendance at the meeting were the Committee.
Paragraph 9 is denied. It is averred that the words in fact carried the meanings pleaded at paragraph 18 above.
It is averred that, in the particular circumstances in which the words complained of were spoken, the natural and ordinary meaning of the words, as pleaded in paragraph 18, does not give rise to a real and substantial tort.
As a matter of fact, the only other persons who heard the words spoken were the same three individuals on the Committee that decided that the Claimant he would be disfellowshipped on the basis of the sin of fraud. There was nothing new to those three individuals in:
A. a statement that the Claimant had been disfellowshipped for the sin of fraud (according to the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses);
B. a statement that the Committee and others had found that the Claimant had committed the sin of fraud (according to the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses); or
C. a suggestion that the Claimant did not accept the Committee’s decision;
that would adversely affect the claimants reputation.
5
Accordingly, any damage to the Claimant’s reputation in the minds of the listeners, that is, the Committee members was insignificant and the Claimant’s claim does not therefore disclose a real and substantial tort.
Defence of Qualified Privilege
Further or in the alternative, it is averred that the words complained of were spoken under circumstances to which qualified privilege attached and the Claimant has not provided any particulars or evidence of malice.
The relevant circumstances are as follows:
In September 2011, a third party who was a fellow believer of the Claimant complained to the elders in the Wimbledon Congregation that the Claimant had defrauded him.
The Committee carefully considered the third party’s complaint and found sufficient evidence to uphold the complaint and disfellowship the Claimant (an announcement was made in July 2012 that the Claimant was no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses).
The Claimant made several requests to be reinstated as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses during the period after his disfellowshipping.
A reinstatement meeting was convened on 22 July 2013 following an express request for reinstatement by the Claimant.
The purpose of the meeting was to assess whether the Claimant was now fit, in accordance with the religious practices and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, to be reinstated as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The only persons present at the meeting, other than the Claimant, were the Committee of four elders who had decided to disfellowship the Claimant a year earlier for the sin of fraud in accordance with the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
All in attendance were aware that the focus and intention of the Committee was to assess the Claimant’s attitude towards the conduct for which he had been disfellowshipped.
The individual members of the Committee, had reciprocal religious and moral duties and interests to explore in a full and frank manner how the Claimant felt about the decision to disfellowship him and the basis for that decision, in order to determine whether he was now fit, in accordance with the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses, to be reinstated to the religion.
The Claimant was fully aware that the elders on the Committee were acting in their capacity as religious ministers and in fulfillment of their ecclesiastical duties would have to examine spiritual issues involving sin and repentance, how the Claimant felt about the disfellowshipping decision, and the steps he had taken since the decision. The Claimant knew that the reinstatement meeting was private and confidential and involved only the Committee and the Claimant.
Defence of Truth
Further or in the alternative, if (which is denied) the natural and ordinary meaning of the words spoken, as pleaded in paragraph 18 above, was defamatory of the Claimant, it is averred that the meaning is true.
As a matter of fact, the Claimant had been disfellowshipped on the basis that the Committee found he had committed the sin of fraud (according to the religious practices and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses), the Committee found him unrepentant, and the Claimant did not accept that decision or the basis for it.
It is averred that whether or not the Committee was correct to find that the Claimant had committed the sin of fraud (according to the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses) is not justiciable before a secular Court.
Innuendo
Paragraph 10 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is admitted, save that it is averred that the basis for the disfellowshipping was the sin of fraud (according to the religious beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses).
It is averred that an allegation of fraud was made by Mr Robert Wee against the Claimant in September 2011. The allegation was put to the Claimant by the Committee and ultimately lead to the decision to disfellowship the Claimant.
7
Malice
Paragraph 11 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is admitted to the extent that the Claimant denied and continues to deny the allegation made by Mr Wee.
Paragraph 11 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied to the extent that it alleges the First and Second Defendants conspired to harm the Claimant, by “being indifferent to the truth or falsity of the defamatory allegations complained of” or at all.
It is not understood whether the Claimant wishes to advance a plea of malice. In any event, no facts or matters are provided to support such a claim. For the avoidance of doubt, any assertion of malice on the part of the Defendants is denied. It is averred that the Committee followed the standard procedures of Jehovah’s Witnesses for handling sin and acted with honesty and integrity throughout.
Claimant’s Alleged Damage
Paragraph 12 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied.
Paragraph 13 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied.
Paragraph 14 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied. It is averred that the Claimant’s fitness to be reinstated as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is not relevant to a claim for defamation and in any event non-justiciable before a secular court.
Paragraph 15 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied to the extent that it alleges that the alleged slander has been “republished” in the London Evening Standard (the “Standard”) and that the alleged republication has “subjected the Claimant to further ridicule and humiliation in his neighbourhood and community-at-large”.
Paragraph 15 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is admitted to the extent that the Standard published a report dated 23 September 2014 which stated that the Claimant had issued proceedings against the First and Second Defendants for defamation.
It would appear that the Standard obtained its information from documents filed at Court by the Claimant and/or from the Claimant himself. The Defendants note that the report does not contain the alleged defamatory words complained of in this claim. In so far as the article contains any defamation of the Claimant, which is not admitted, it is denied that the Defendants are responsible for the same.
8
Paragraph 16 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied. Further, the Claimant did not provide any “notice of proceedings in a pre-action protocol” before issuing the instant claim and therefore the Defendants do not understand the Claimant’s assertions in this paragraph.
Paragraph 17 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is admitted to the extent that a report on the Claimant’s claim was published in the Standard on 23 September 2014. However, it is denied that there was any republication of the alleged slander which is the subject of this claim. It is further denied that the Defendants were responsible for anything written in the report which caused the Claimant loss or damage.
45. Paragraph 18 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied. The Defendants repeat paragraph 39 above and aver that the Claimant’s disfellowshipping and the consequences thereof is not the subject of this claim and would not be justiciable before a secular court in any event. Further, none of the matters pleaded constitute special damage.
Paragraph 19 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is not admitted, save that it is denied that the alleged slander of the First Defendant has caused the Claimant any “spiritual harm” or “mental distress”.
Paragraph 20 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied. The Defendants repeat paragraph 45 above.
Paragraph 21 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied that the Defendants have “barred” any members of the Claimant’s family from seeing him.
Paragraph 22 of the Amended Particulars of Claim is denied. The European Convention of Human Rights is not directly binding on the Defendants. In any event, even if the Claimant could establish that the words complained of constituted actionable slander and were not spoken on an occasion protected by qualified privilege, which is denied, given the context in which the words complained of were spoken, the words spoken could not and did not interfere with the Claimant’s right to respect for his private and family life.
Paragraph 23 is not admitted and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the matters pleaded. The Defendants repeat paragraph 45 above.
Paragraph 24 is not admitted and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the matters pleaded. The Defendants repeat paragraph 45 above.
9
52. Paragraph 25 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied. The Defendants repeat paragraphs 45 and 49 above.
53.Paragraph 26 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied. The European Convention of Human Rights is not directly binding on the Defendants. Furthermore, the Claimant’
Paragraph 26 of the Re-Amended Particulars of Claim is denied. The European Convention of Human Rights is not directly binding on the Defendants. Furthermore, the Claimant’s claim under Article 9 appears to arise in relation to his disfellowshipping which is not the subject of this claim and is in any event non-justiciable before the secular court. The Defendants aver that Article 9 in conjunction with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to determine the membership of a religious community as held by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Sindicatul “Păstorul cel Bun” v. Romania (no. 2330/09, 136, 137, 165, 9 July 2013).
For all of the reasons in this Amended Defence, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to any relief claimed at paragraphs 27-29 or at all.
As to paragraph 28, the Defendants make no admission of the damages claimed by the Claimant and put him to strict proof of his alleged loss.
56.As to paragraph 29, the Claimant has failed to provide any details of alleged “unreasonable behaviour” on the part of the Defendants. In the absence of any particulars, this allegation is denied.
Legal Department Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Britain Solicitors for the Defendants 7 April 2016
