Jehovah's Witness church spends 3 years fighting scrutiny of Royal Commission of Inquiry, New Zealand

[Srecko Sostar]

In June, the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses Australasia, which oversees 170 New Zealand congregations, filed for a judicial review to exempt itself from the inquiry, arguing it does not have historical abuse cases within the inquiry's scope. 

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/497240/jehovah-s-witness-church-spends-3-years-fighting-scrutiny-of-royal-commission-of-inquiry

 

The High Court in Wellington has dismissed a legal bid by the church to be excluded from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/500982/jehovah-s-witness-bid-to-be-excluded-from-abuse-inquiry-dismissed     25 October 2023 

[Srecko Sostar]

Statement from the Abuse in Care Royal Commission of Inquiry

https://www.abuseincare.org.nz/our-progress/news/statement-from-the-abuse-in-care-royal-commission-of-inquiry/#:~:text=The High Court has announced,Australasia) Ltd has been dismissed

[Many Miles]

There are multiple perspectives to analyze an event like this. One perspective is legality. From a purely legal perspective an organization would make a business decision about whether to seek legal relief. More often than not, it boils down to protecting assets. These could be capital assets, cash, investments, or it could be reputational (like protecting a brand). But if a business weighs a potential loss against the cost of seeking legal relief and finds seeking legal relief is cost effective, that’s what the business is probably gonna do. It is legal to do this.

[Many Miles]

45 minutes ago, George88 said:

Possibly. However, standing up for a position or principle can be as simple as this. Although the business is not covered by New Zealand laws, the inquiry has taken the bold step of expanding its scope to include institutions that were not originally considered. This move seems highly unconventional and may not be legal. Also, If it were a matter of assets, the organization would undoubtedly be vigorously pursuing the return of its property from Russia. However, it appears unlikely those efforts are being made.

Regarding Russia, the cost analysis takes on a whole new dimension because of its dictatorial government. There, you can't count on statutory law or case law. You are always at the mercy of political expedience, which is difficult to calculate.

I'm not sure about the legalities of what can or cannot be expanded regarding scope. I'm not really too familiar with this event as much as I was about a similar event in Australia, and I only followed that latter event in a rather cursory way. It might be the case that the whole effort is more politically driven than legally driven. What I mean is that investigators and prosecutors may have discretion to pursue what was not seen earlier as needing pursuit, and if current politics encourages this additional pursuit that might be a (or the) compelling factor. In New Zealand presumably its laws can keep political pressures within boundaries that already exist as black-letter law or case law.

[Srecko Sostar]

Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia) Limited v Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse - [2023] NZHC 3031

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/christian-congregation-of-jehovahs-witnesses-australasia-limited-v-royal-commission-of-inquiry-into-historical-abuse-

 

Decision

Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia) Limited v Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse (PDF 795 KB)