It was a devastating afternoon for former pastor John McMartin, a major part of whose evidence at the hearing into Brian Houston, on trial for failing to report the crimes of his father Frank, has been shown to be false.
Having maintained that he had not received a series of letters from pastor Barbara Taylor, in particular, one from 16 September 1999 giving the name of both the perpetrator Frank Houston and his victim Brett Sengstock, documents discovered at his Inspire Church proved him wrong.
He had received the letters. They were in the files at Inspire Church, his church. A search following a subpoena bought them to court. And after the lawyers worked out which parts of a bundle of documents discovered had legal professional privilege, the remainder could be used in the case.
Defence barrister Phillip Boulten SC methodically took McMartin through a series of “documents from the white envelope” which turned out to be letters from Taylor. Each time Boulten pointed out the differences which showed these were not the copies Taylor supplied to the Royal Commission in 2014, but separate copies kept at McMartin’s church.
For example, regarding the first letter McMartin is asked “Did you check your file before preparing your statement to the Royal commission? “I saw it at the Royal Commission,” McMartin answers.
Boulten: “You must have viewed it as an important letter. Did you check to see if you had the letter?”
McMartin: “I go back to my statement. I did not receive the letter.”
Taken through five letters from the “white envelope”, with Boulten pointing out that they had differences such as handwritten notes or underlining from the ones tendered at the Royal Commission McMartin had to agree he had received them.
“It is obvious I have the letters but I can’t remember when I received them,” he said. Boulten challenged him on his memory.
Boulten: “If you have no memory of getting the letter your memory is faulty.”
McMartin: “Obviously.”
Boulten then returned to the issue of a phone conversation with Brian Houston, suggesting that McMartin’s memory of him initiating contact was wrong. He was questioned closely about his evidence that Brian Houston responded to his saying “I have bad news about your father” and disclosing the abuse. “How do you know it’s true?” McMaster said Brian Houston replied.
Boulten asked “Could he have said “How do YOU know it’s true?” emphasising the “you.”
“I am raising the possibility that you misconstrued what he said to you”
McMartin: “Disagree.”
This afternoon’s evidence goes to establish Barbara Taylor’s timeline of hearing about the abuse of Brett Sengstock in 1998, and it only being disclosed to Brian Houston in late 1999. It also casts doubt on whether McMartin’s testimony about his interactions with Brian Houston is reliable.
We should have investigated
The Assemblies of God should have done their own investigation when the national executive first heard of allegations and a confession by Brian Houston’s father Frank of child sexual abuse, Keith Ainge the denomination’s national secretary told the local court.
Asked about a meeting of the Assemblies of God national executive on Dec 22, 1999, at Sydney airport Ainge was asked whether they had thought about independently checking the information that Brian Houston had given them – that his father Frank Houston had confessed following an allegation of child sexual abuse.
Phillip Boulten SC for the defence asked “Given the conflict of interest, did someone think about verifying the evidence about the victim by someone [who was] not Frank Houston’s son?”
“With the benefit of hindsight we should have done so,” Ainge replied. “Perhaps we would not be here today []in court] had we done so. But it did not happen.”
Taken to his Royal Commission evidence about the same meeting Ainge said he could not recall who had said there was legal advice that they did not need to go to the police.
Another key point raised in Boulten’s cross-examination was about the mental condition of Frank Houston. “I was aware in 99 that there was some diminishment of cognitive functioning,” Ainge said. “I am not sure if it was significant. I had heard him preach over several years and he had less clarity [than before]. By the time of the 2000 meeting he had diminished significantly.”
Ainge was asked about his Royal Commission evidence of a phone call with Brian Houston about money being given to the victim/survivor Brett Sengstock.
Boulten: “Brian Houston told you he was concerned that any payment of money came from the church?”
Ainge: “Yes.”
Boulten “ And that it should be seen there would be no payment on the basis of silence?”
Ainge: “I remember that conversation clearly.
Ainge was asked to visit New Zealand in 2000 with the deputy chair of the national executive John Lewis when further allegations against Frank Houston were raised. After they gathered info in New Zealand they went straight to Frank Houston’s house to confront him
Boulton: “It seems you had the names of two of the NZ victims?”
Ainge: “We knew the names of at least four of the victims.
Boulton: “Did you tell him who they were?”
Ainge: “Yes. He said he did not remember their names but with one he said something did happen. He seemed quite vague…. On the fourth, he confessed there was improper conduct.
Magistrate Gareth Christofi asked “‘”Did you ask him if he had committed acts on other children since?”
Ainge: “Yes. He said no.”
Christofi: “Did that reassure you?”
Ainge: “No, Because we did not know”
A letter from Ian Zerna of Coastline Church where Frank and Hazel Houston started attending asked for clarification about Frank Houston being prohibited from exercising public ministry. By then a letter sent to all Assemblies of God ministers had made it clear Frank Houstons ministerial credential had been withdrawn.“
Zerna asked what if Frank Houston “is called on to offer a prayer at the altar or a prophetic word.” Ainge explained that in many Assemblies of God churches people would stay for prayer after the service “around the altar” and this would consist of people praying for each other. In Pentecostal churches, people did not “lead in Prayer” in unison because they did not have set prayers.
As for words of prophecy, “We are a Pentecostal church believing in the gifts of the spirit.”’”
Boulten asked about the letter Ainge wrote back to Zerna. “I was really emphasising that Frank Houston was not to be engaged in public ministry, although we had no authority to tell an autonomous church what to do,” Ainge recounted.
Boulten: “The inference was ’don’t do it but I can’t tell you not to do it.’”
In a critical exchange, Boulten pointed out that the national executive took the action of removing Frank Houston’s credentials without the support or consent of the complainant [Brett Sengstock].
Magistrate Gareth Christofi asked whether the motive was to protect the people in the church.
Ainge: “Yes.”
Christofi: “Did it occur to you that the same steps could be taken to protect the community by supplying the police with the name of the perpetrator?”
Ainge: “I don’t think it was done. I am not making excuses… I don’t think the extra protection [of the wider community] by going to the police was considered…
Boulten: “You gave evidence that you did discuss going to the police.”
Ainge: “We did discuss going to the police but not about protecting the community.”
Boulten: There was consideration about going to the police but in consideration of the victim’s wishes there was a decision not to?”
Ainge: “Yes.’”
Crown Prosecutor Gareth Harrison asked Ainge about the relationship between Frank and Brian Houston after the 1999 meeting.
“My feeling was that Brian Houston would hate what had happened to his father but that he would want to do the right thing.”
(Corrected sentence under heading “We should have investigated” to include Brian Houston’s father Frank”)