It was the first day of Brian Houston’s trial, but the day belonged to Brett Sengstock, the Victim at the centre of the Frank Houston pedophilia case, Brian Houston is charged with failing to report his father’s sexual abuse of boys including Sengstock to police.
Brian Houston was accompanied by his wife Bobble as he appeared in the Local Court, courtroom number 2.5 in the Downing Centre in Sydney. The tiny courtroom was soon full, but most media used the video link.
One of the key things the magistrate Gareth Christofi will have to determine is whether Brett Sengstock or Brian Houston is most credible on the crucial issue of whether Sengstock said that he did not wish his assault to be reported to the police.
Brian Houston, the founder of Houston Church, is changed with “Conceal serious indictable offence of another person between 15 September 1999 and 9th of November 2004” under section 316 (1) of the Crimes Act.
The first date is when Brian Houston first heard of his father’s offence against Sengstock and the last is the date of Frank Houston’s death.
The description of the offence in the court papers reads, “Whereas in 1970 Frank Houston committed a serious indictable offence namely indecent assault of a male [between the charge dates, Brian Houston] at Baulkham Hills and elsewhere believing that Frank Houston committed that offence and knowing that he had information that he had information that might be of material assistance in securing the prosecution of Frank Houston for that offence, without reasonable excuse failed to bring that information to the attention of the NSW Police.”
Gareth Harrison, the crown prosecutor, made an application to the court to bring many of the Royal Commission witnesses to this trial, Although they had not made statements to the police, as normally required, their statements and transcripts to the Royal Commission would be available. At this point, the reason for 14 days of the hearing, running almost to Christmas, becomes clear. The events of 1999 to 2004 are going to be gone into in detail. This impression was reinforced when it was confirmed that Brett Sengstock would be the first witness.
In his opening address, Harrison for the Crown (the prosecution) listed what was agreed open both sides – and what needed to be resolved. There was no doubt that Frank Houston had committed sexual assaults. There was no doubt that the accused, Brian Houston “had material knowledge” of this offence from September 15, 1999.
The court needed to determine two other matters, whether Brian Houston knew the magnitude of this serious indictable offence – defined as a crime punishable by a five-year sentence or longer.
And whether Brian Houston had failed to report it to the police.
Probing Brian Houston’s media interviews
“The prosecution case is that the accused knew the offence had been committed from September 15 1999, knew the details of the offender, and that the complainant had been a child,” the Crown Prosecutor told the court.
Harrison ran through the timeline of the Frank Houston case. Brett Sengstock turned eight in January 1970. Frank Houston stayed with his parents in Coogee when he visited from New Zealand, and Sengstock was assaulted at his home. Sengstock did not tell anyone about the abuse until he was in his late teens. At the stage, he did not want anyone to know.
We were taken through the events of 1999 as Sengstock’s mother disclosed the abuse to two pastors, one of them Brett’s Aunt Pastor Barbara Taylor. and the convoluted story of how the allegations went up the Assemblies of god structure until they reached the national president, Brian Houston.
The Crown prosecutor pointed focused most of his address on comments made by Brian Houston over the years to various media, previewing what will be key evidence. For example in an interview with 2GBs Ben Fordham who asked Brian Houston about reporting to the police.
Fordham: “Why didn’t you?”
Brian Houston: “ It was complicated. You have a victim survivor who doesn’t want any church investigation. I believe a 36-year-old man, if he wants to go to the police he can go to the police.”
And at a press conference in New York in the same year.
“In Australia there is a law that if it is a crime punishable by five years you have to report it.I did not know that then. I know that now.”
“We did not cover it up. We did take his credentials from him. He did not preach again. What we did not does report it to the police.
Harrison commented: “The prosecution case is that Brian Houston did not report it for other reasons apart from the complainant not wanting it reported. The primary reason he did not report it was to protect his father and the church.”
Tens of thousands: the defence responds
In his opening segment, Phillip Boulten, SC the defence barrister went to reasonable doubt.
“An element of the charge is that the prosecution needs to prove is that he (Houston) did not act without a reasonable excuse.
“You have to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act without a reasonable excuse.”
That is a reasonable excuse for not reporting his father’s crimes. “The Crown has to prove that there is not a reasonable excuse that could be raised.”
“Manny many people people who knew about the victim’s abuse in the charge period, none of whom reported it to the police. There were tens of thousands of people who knew Frank Houston had abused a boy thirty years before.”
“Including police officers who attended Hillsong.” Which drew an interjection from the magistrate. “Including the commissioner of police.”
Boulten said they would not seek to establish that point, whether the Police Commissioner had attended Hillsong a week the offences were discussed from the stage.
“There was one person who never went to the police – the complainant,” Boulten added.
He then turned to the history of section 316 of the Crimes Act under which Brian Houston is charged. In 2020 a change provides a defence that in the case of a sexual assault, and the victim at the time of a disclosure being an adult “where the defendant believes on reasonable grounds that the informant does not want it reported to the police.”
“The question arises what the community expectation is about a reasonable excuse.” Boulten put it to the court that despite the amendment only coming into force in 2020, it could be taken as reflecting a community view of what is a reasonable excuse for not reporting a crime.
“Brian Houston is honest,” Boulten told the court. “That is important. There will be differences between has account and others’ accounts of the same occurrences”
At the end of his address, Boulten previewed the evidence that was to come from Brett Sengstock. “I can tell you that Mr Sengstock gave evidence at the Royal Commission. He was quite clear in his evidence that he did not want to go to the police. He was determined no-one find out about it. His mother, his aunt Barbara Taylor did not want to go to the police.
“Did Sengstock wish not to go to the police? That is a fact that needs to be disproved beyond reasonable doubt.”
Brett Sengstock in Court
Frank Houstons’s victim was put to the test in a cross-examination by defence barrister Boulten. Sengstock was taken slowly through his evidence at the Royal Commission. Boulten would quote a question and answer from the royal commission transcript. The manner was gentle. the questions had a brutal pattern.
An example “Alright. What did you understand about the secular court…?” “The secular courts as I understood it was the courts of the Earth… So we went to the church. The secular courts and police were for unbelievers.”
After each quotation, Boulten asked Sengstock if he had given true and honest evidence. And each timer Senggstock answered, softly, “yes.”
Except for one time, when Sengstock jumped ahead in the transcript to an answer he had given. Saying “you have to see the context,” and reading an answer, “I said I couldn’t tell you what I was thinking at that stage.”
Boulten ploughed on through the transcript until he revealed that the question the answer Sengstock had read out was answering “you did not wish there to be any investigation by the church authorities as of Nov 1999?” After a series of transcript answers saying Sengstick saying he did not want public disclosure, this quote did not quite balance the scales.
At a key moment. Boulten asked “At the time of the Assemblies of God meeting in December 1999 you did not want your identity to be revealed. Sengstock answered “yes”.
(Correction : spelling of Boulten)