After reading about 3/4 through the Submissions of Senior Council I found this one says it all:
Mr O’Brien told the Royal Commission that the elders would meet with a person against whom an allegation of child sexual abuse had been made but not proven and ‘give very clear direction on what restrictions would apply to their association with children, with others in the congregation, and [the elders] would monitor that’.838 479 Mr O’Brien said that others in the congregation would not be aware of the restrictions placed upon a person against whom an allegation of child sexual abuse had been made.839 He accepted that in those circumstancessupervision of that person istherefore confined to when the elders or an elder is present to observe the person.840 480 Mr O’Brien gave evidence that the extent to which elders are able to discharge their obligation to care for the congregation is restricted by application of two‐witness rule and that ‘unless there is a second witness to a similar type of event, or the same event, then ‘the elders’ hands are tied with warning the person’.841 Evaluation of risk and treatment of offenders 481 Mr Spinks accepted that the processes used by secular society to evaluate the risk of re‐ offending were not used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.842 482 Mr Spinks also gave evidence that the Jehovah’s Witnesses did not offer any kind of programmes for the professional treatment of offenders.843 483 Dr Monica Applewhite, who was engaged by the Jehovah’s Witness organisation to provide expert evidence about its practices and procedures, told the Royal Commission that ‘once somebody abuses, once their internal mechanisms of control have allowed them to cross that line once, I don’t have confidence in those internal mechanisms of control for the future’.844
Available findings on the system of prevention of child sexual abuse- risk of reoffendingThe practices and procedures of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation for the prevention of child sexual abuse, and in particular for the management of the risk of an abuser reoffending, do not take account of the actual risk of an offender reoffending and accordingly place children in the organisation at significant risk of sexual abuse.