The mysterious documents subpoenaed from John McMartin’s Inspire Church were at the centre of the Brian Houston hearing today. The trial of Brian Houston the founder of Hillsong church has entered its second week of hearings.
Witness John McMartin, formerly the pastor of Inspire Church, mentioned last week that his church kept documents, and the prosecution followed up with a subpoena to have some relevant documents produced. Today there were extra lawyers in court with representatives from McMartin and another witness, Keith Ainge of the Australian Christian Churches, discussing whether some of the papers involved legal professional privilege.
Defence barrister Phillip Boulten SC opposed McMartin’s counsel seeking leave to “conference with her client” who was still under cross-examination that was interrupted when the document issue was raised.
“I intend to cross-examine further on the topic,” Boulten said of McMartin. “I expect there is more evidence arising from the documents that will be relevant as to whether his evidence is untruthful or unreliable on some matters he has given evidence on…
“It may well be that what he said at the Royal Commission is wrong or worse than that.
“There may be issues that relate to issues of misconduct as described in the Evidence Act or fraud as described in common law.”
Boulten opposed giving McMartin’s counsel Ms Cameron leave to “conference her client” because he might “gain a window into my forensic cross-examination.”
But magistrate Gareth Christofi granted leave to Cameron to talk to McMartin “in general terms” and despite Boulten describing the conversation in court as “extremely frank” refused to grant a suppression order on the court discussion about the documents. “I can’t see that is necessary.”
Mr Grippi counsel for Keith Ainge and the Australian Christian Churches was also given access to the documents. (He returned at the end of the day’s hearing to say that the Australian Christian Churches will assert legal professional privilege over a part of the documents.)
The legal professional privilege discussion only applies to some of the documents from Inspire Church. The comments by Boulten were not based on the ones the privilege might apply to. boulten was clear he avoided reading those.
Witness Keith Ainge, the former national secretary of the Assemblies of God was recalled and continued giving evidence.
Ainge recalled a conversation with Brian Houston two days before Christmas in 1999. “We were talking about the Frank Houston situation. Frank Houston and an elder of the church had met with the complainant [Brett Sengstock] and had given him money. Brian Houston said ‘That is his business, I hope it does not look like it is hush money.'”
Asked by Crown Prosecutor Gareth Harrison why the Assembles of God national executive decided at their Sydney Airport meeting (December 22, 1999) not to make a public statement, Ainge responded “It was not part of our policy to make public statements in such situations. I am not sure why.”
Asked about a national executive meeting held the following December, Ainge is asked why Brian Houston left the room although he was national president. “Because we’d become aware of conflict of interest.”The minutes of that meeting included a warning to Frank Houston that if he failed to comply with an order not to preach, they would tell all pastors.
“We’ instructed him never to preach again. but we’d no way to enforce it,” Ainge said. “It was meant to be a hammer to have him comply.”
Ainge was asked about the wording of a draft statement from the national executive that described Frank Houston as committing “serious moral failure.” “Why not child sexual abuse?” Harrison asked.
“I wish I could answer that,” Ainge responded. “in hindsight it would be better to say child sexual abuse.”
“Some might say it was playing it down,” Harrison suggested.
“It was not playing it down,” Ainge answered. “I can’t say why that terminology was used.
In an official Assemblies of God 2004 letter to Ian Zerna, pastor of Coast Life Church on the Central Coast where Frank and Hazel Houston had moved, the term “serious sexual misconduct” was used. “Was this the first time that term had been used in a document?” Harrison asked. “It could be,” Ainge responded. “I am not sure.”
Boulten cross-examined Ainge asking how Brian Houston presented at the national executive meeting in December 1999 (the first discussion Ainge had with him on the matter.)
Ainge: “He was devastated.”
Boulten: “Describe how he appeared.”
Ainge: “Brian Houston is normally a very competent person but it seemed obvious he was struggling and seemed to be distraught.”
Ainge, asked to describe the members of the national executive, repeated his evidence at the Royal Commission that “Brian was an effective leader but one place he had people who would stand up to him was the national executive.”