High Court Declares Royal Commission’s Jehovah’s Witnesses Case Study Unlawful

The High Court has ruled that the entire case study on Jehovah’s Witnesses published by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care was unlawful. In the case *Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia) Ltd v Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions* [2026] NZHC 1295, Justice Boldt declared the Commission exceeded its terms of reference. The ruling was issued on 15 May 2026, but the rest of the Commission’s 3,000-page final report remains unaffected, including its references to the faith in volumes one and two.

The Commission devoted a 57-page standalone case study to Jehovah’s Witnesses, making them the only faith group singled out in this manner. Of the faiths investigated, Jehovah’s Witnesses had the smallest number of registered survivors, at 24. Despite this, the Commission’s focus extended beyond the narrow scope of abuse in care, delving into practices such as shunning, the two-witness rule, and the faith’s views on homosexuality and blood transfusions.

Justice Boldt dismissed most of the faith’s grounds for challenging the Commission’s actions. He found that the Commission did not breach the faith’s right to freedom of religion under sections 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. He reasoned that being free from state interference does not mean being free from state criticism, provided the criticism relates to matters of legitimate state interest.

The court’s decision was based on the Commission’s failure to adhere to its terms of reference. The inquiry’s focus was on abuse in care, yet the Commission identified only one instance during the 50-year inquiry period in which a congregant was physically or sexually abused while in the care of an elder. Instead of confining its case study to this narrow intersection, the Commission produced a broader critique of the faith’s practices, many of which were not directly related to the provision of care.

Boldt J emphasized that because the faith rarely assumed responsibility for others, abuse in care was correspondingly rare. He held that the Commission’s harshest criticisms concerned practices that, while arguably abusive, had nothing to do with the provision of care. This, he concluded, was a misalignment with the Commission’s stated purpose.

The court also rejected the attorney-general’s argument that declaratory relief would serve no purpose two years after the Commission’s report. Justice Boldt stated that a declaration would affirm the law and clarify the proper boundaries of the Commission’s terms of reference, even though the court cannot order Parliament to remove or suppress any part of its official record.

On costs, Boldt J indicated the proceeding falls under category two, band B. He suggested the faith’s award should be reduced by perhaps between a third and a half, recognizing that most of its grounds of challenge failed. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to legal boundaries and the need for institutions to act within their defined roles, as reflected in Proverbs 18:17, which reminds us that the one who speaks the truth will be established in the earth.

Source: Read the original report