Brian Houston directly refuted the evidence of Brett Sengstock the victim of his father Frank Houston’s pedophilia under cross examination today.
“You accused him [Sengstock] of tempting your father?” Crown Prosecutor Gareth Harrison asked Brian Houston speaking of a phone call between the two.
“That’s not true at all,” said Brian Houston.
Harrison circled back to the route a few minutes later.
“I say as strongly as I can that I did not say that.” Brian Houston responded.
Harrison circles back again.
“I have told you twice and I will tell; you again I did not say that” Brian Houston replied.
When Harrison put it again, Houston reponds “Who would say that of a seven-year-old boy? That’s an absurd notion.”
And when Harrison tries again, Magistrate Gareth Christofi says “That’s five.”
As the cross-examination proceeded in a courtroom across town at Liverpool Local Court a key witness in the Brian Houston case was facing judgement. Pastor John McMartin was found guilty of assault with an act of indecency and common assault.
The charges relate to an event in 2013 when McMartin invited his 19-year-old personal assistant to his home in Pleasure Point, because he was too drunk to pick up his wife from the airport.
Fellow blogger David Ould was in the court. “The magistrate was scathing in his description of McMartin’s testimony and behaviour in the courtroom during the trial. He noted that some of his interactions with his own counsel ‘can and does impact upon his credibility’. He went on to describe the manner of McMartin’s response to one question as ‘creepy’ and went on to state that McMartin’s activity during much of the trial (including flossing of teeth and reading notes from an electronic device for significant periods of time) showed ‘a level of arrogance that was consistent with how he answered questions.’
“Summing up, his honour stated that McMartin had created an opportunity to act out his sexual attraction towards the victim, having made a clear attempt to have her alone and isolated. He described this as ‘not inconsistent with grooming behaviour’”.
Back at the Houston trial Crown Prosector took Brian Houston methodically through the events of 1999 onwards.
Concentrating on the period between the allegations being raised on November 2, 1999 and an Assemblies of God national executive meeting on December 22 Harrison drilled into the details of Brian Houston’s early response. The issue of what Brett Sengstock meant when he told Pastor Barbara Taylor to make sure that Brian Houston was aware he was considering “legal proceedings” was the subject of a lengthy exchange.
“He meant financial compensation,” Brian Houston replied. “She told me he did not want to go to the police.”
“Were you concerned that if Brett Sengstock went to court it might create a scandal that would impact the prosperity of your church?” Harrison asked. Brian Houston responded that he thought Brett Sengstock was thinking of Frank Houston. [rather than getting compensation from the church.]”
Harrison pursued the point. “Did you think about the impact if became public that Frank Houston was a pedophile?
“It is possible I had the thought,” Brian Houston responded.
“You must have known that if it became public that Frank Houston was a pedophile it would damage the reputation of the church?” Harrison pressed.
“Not Necessarily…” Brian Houston began, then paused. “It would damage the church.”
“What if it became public now that an AOG leader was a pedophile?”
“It would damage the individual, Brian Houston replied. “The church is resilient.”
Brian Houston explained that “when it became public Frank Houston was a pedophile it had little impact on the church. The church is resilient.” But he agreed that the church would be damaged.
When Brian Houston spoke with Brett Sengstock on the phone, Harrison suggested “your attitude was defensive of your father.”
“I’d say it wasn’t true.” Brian Houston responded.
“I would suggest to you that you were staying to seperate the abuse Brett had suffered at the hands of your father from your church?” Harrison said.
“I would accept that,” said Brian Houston.
“You were trying to defend your father in that phone call,” said Harrison.
“I wasn’t defensive,” said Brian Houston.
After a debate about whether there was one phone call (Sengstock’s version) or three (Brian Houston’s version), Harrison asks “was there ever an occasion when Brett called you about not receiving $10,000?”
“Yes,” Houston responded.
“Did he say he would forgive your father and comply with his wishes?” Asked Harrison.
“I can’t remember that,” Brian Houston replied.
“Is it possible you have forgotten that?” Harrison asked.
“I can’t remember what I have forgotten,” Brian Houston replied.
Harrison probed Brian Houston on why he reported his father’s crime to the church but not the police.
“If you reported it to the national executive you would have control over what information was supplied.” said.Harrison.
“It was never about control,” Brian Houston resplied.
“Why didn’t you do the same thing to the police, tell them that your father had confessed but not disclose the name of the complainant?” Harrison asked.
“I had no option but to tell the church executive, but I could respect Brett’s wishes with respect to the police.”
Magistrate Christiofi intervened. “ Did you ever say to Brett that if you go to the police I will support you?
“I do not remember saying those words.”
“You agree that you did have an option to report to the police?” Asked Harrison.
“I have free will.” Brian Houston replied, with an answer that was cast back at him several times with Harrison suggesting “You did not use your free will to report it to the police because you wanted to conceal this criminal offence from the police.”
“That’s not right,” Brian Houston responded.
And even later, “You exercised your free will and against Brett’s wishes decided to report to the national executive and not the police because you regarded the church as the ultimate authority.”
Brian Houston’s response was “I did not compare the church and the police as to which was the supreme authority.”
For the rest of today’s cross-examination, Brian Houston was taken through minutes of key meetings of the Assemblies of God national executive, his own church boards and notes that pastor Barbara Taylor, made of meetings and phone calls.
He was questioned closely about how Frank Houston’s crimes were referred to, in the minutes as “serious moral failings” and similar terms.
For example, at the national executive meeting of Dec 22 1999, Brian Houston was asked details of why Frank Houston’s credentials had not simply been cancelled. He responded that he believed due process was involved in a 12-month suspension, but that he was “emotional;” and did not take much part in discussions. At later meetings, he was excluded from discussions about his father.
Referring to the date of a letter from Barbara Taylor, Harrison asked Brian Houston “You accept by June 18 2000 your father’s abuse of children had not been made public?”
“Yes I accept that,” said Brian Houston.
“I am all for mercy but where is justice,” Barbara Taylor was quoted. “It is not seen to be done.”
“Were you seeking justice to be done?” Asked Harrison.
“I believe I was,” said Brian Houston. “If I weighed it against Brett’s wishes, I was.”
In a line of questioning Harrison suggested that in recounting what had been done to help Sengstock, Brian Houston was trying to influence Barbara Taylor.
“I suggest you were trying to make her feel guilty.”
“I don’t accept that,” said Brian Houston.
“You were trying to make her had for following up,” Harrison suggested.
“I was not trying to make Barbara Taylor feel bad.”
Throughout the cross-examination Harrison suggested a pattern of Brian Houston trying to control the flow of information. This is vital to the prosecution case that Brian Houston attempted to conceal his father’s crimes.
So in response the Barbara Taylor noting that Brian Houston asked her to phone rather than write, Harrison suggested he did not want a paper trail.
Referring to when When the national executive drafted a statement citing “serious moral failure”, Harrison suggested that Brian Houston agreed with the wording.
“I can’t tell you that is true at all. I oversaw everything except for issues around my father.” And when pressed, “I had nothing to do with the choosing of those words. “
Harrison accused Brian Houston. “I suggest those words were chosen to conceal the actions of your father.”
“I considered myself as separated from that statement.” By then he was not attending national executive meetings when his father was discussed.
Two preconditions were set for the release of the statement, Frank Houston being found to continue to minister or the rumours about him becoming widespread.
Brian Houston agreed that it was the second reason that prompted a letter to all the accredited and probationary ministers in the AOG on December 24, 2001. He rejected the assertion that the delay was to conceal what Frank Houston had done.
“I trusted the national executive to do the right thing under God,” Brian Houston said.
Earlier a special elder’s meeting at the Sydney Christian Life Centre was trickier territory. Although Frank Houston had been away from the church for nearly 12 months the minutes include a resignation letter from him.
“These minutes were designed to make it look like Frank Houston had resigned rather than be sacked” Harrison suggested.
I didn’t read it that way, Brian Houston responded It was [SCLC General Manager]John Meys setting things up administratively.
“He’d had his credentials cancelled,” Harrison pointed out.
“That was well known,” said Brian Houston.
Pointing out there was nothing in the retirement announcement that Frank Houston was a pedophile, Harrison suggested “It was being covered up.”
“That’s not true.’ Brian Houston insisted.
The lawyers in the case agreed that they were unlikely to be through by the end of Thursday. Both sides want transcripts before they finalise their final addresses.
This case will now run past Christmas