Day 13 Houston
Frank Houston’s Australian victim, Brett Sengstock returned to court today to witness Brian Houston being cross-examined. Brian Houston is on trial for a failure to report the crime of his father who sexually assaulted Sengstock.
Crown prosecutor Gareth Harrison took Brian Houston through the Assemblies of God letter to all their ministers of Dec 24 2001, and Brian Houston’s own announcements of what his father had done.
Harrison suggested that the language of these announcements concealed the true nature of Frank Houston’s offending and that it was deliberate concealment.
Brian Houston was shown the letter the AOG sent to all its ministers on December 24 2001, and taken to a line asking the ministers not to tell their congregations.
“Did you think the restriction was a good idea?” Harrison asked.
“I had no input into the decision,” said Houston who earlier evidence had shown had withdrawn from decisions about his father.
“Did you abide by it?” Asked Harrison. “What par?” Asked Brian Houston. Harrison pointed to a line about “we can’t see any reason to announce it further afield.”
Brian Houston is then taken to his announcement at Hillsong Church on march 10, 2002 and other public statements.
It began with this exchange. I suggest to you that when you begin to make public announcements to your congregation, you did not talk about sexual abuse of a child… You did not hit the nail on the head.
“I agree. I did not say ‘of a child.’” Houston responded.
Concerning the announcement to the Hillsong Church congregation, when Brian Houston described George Aghajanian saying there had been a “serious moral accusation” Harrison asked, “You choose those words to describe the truth.”I don’t agree,” Brian Houston responds.
“Why didn’t you say ‘my father had assaulted a child?’’ Harrison asked.
“It would have been better if I had,” Brian Houston responds.
Harrison suggested “what you were doing is disclosing to your congregation what they already knew [from the letter to ministers]?’ The cat was out of the bag as far as the moral accusation was concerned.’…
Defence Counsel Phillip Boulten objected to the question.
“It’s actually inconsistent with the evidence. There is an inference that all the people in the congregation already knew.’
Magistrate Gareth Christofi agreed, pointing out that the letter had been marked “highly confidential” adding “I agree with Mr Boulten there is a logical disconnect there.”
The letter had not been addressed to the congregation.
“Why did you not say the nature of the allegation?” Harrison pursued.
“I don’t know,” Houston responds.
Harrison: ”You were trying to conceal the nature of your father’s crime.”
Brian Houston: “I never tried to conceal.”
On several occasions, Crown Prosecutor Harrison asks complex questions, which defence counsel Boulten successfully objects to.
“What I am suggesting to you is having alluded to whatever you alluded to you are trying to minimise [Frank Houston’s crime] and distance itself from the church,” was one example.
Brian Houston was questioned over what he meant by telling the Hillsong congregation that the allegation “did not come to light until after my father had resigned.”
“That was just a lie,” Harrison said.
“No, I took over the church [Sydney Christian Life Centre] in May 1999.”
Harrison points out that Frank Houston’s resignation letter came a lot later.
“As far as I was concerned he resigned in May 1999.” The convoluted admin processes of his churches did Brian Houston no favours in this trial.
The same might be said about what possibly was an unfortunate slip by Sydney Morning Herald reporter Greg Bearup. “Finding out that his father had abused a child back in New Zealand was ‘like the jets flying into the twin towers of my soul,’” Bear reported Brian Houston as saying.
“That was talking about Brett Sengstock?” Harrison asked.
“Yes,” Brian Houston responded.
“He has jumped to the conclusion it was a child in New Zealand?” Harrison suggested.
“Yes, that is what happened.” Brian Houston responded. He added he could say more about the media.
Harrison puts it to the accused that the confusion was deliberate.
Magistrate Christofi comments “It’s not unheard of that a journalist makes an error.”
Brian Houston answers “yes”.
Christofi asked: What does it matter if it happened in New Zealand or Australia?” with regard to the story’s impact.
But Harrison raised the matter of how Brian Houston repeatedly referred to his father’s crimes “when he was a pastor in New Zealand” several times suggesting that this form of words was deceitful or designed to conceal.
Referring to a fax earlier in 2003 to Sydney Morning Herald reporter Kelly Burke, Harrison read out Brian Houston’s admonition to her “let me remind you that the issues relating to my father happened over 30 years ago while he was a pastor in New Zealand.”
The prosecution’s case was that Brian Houston said this to conceal the fact that Frank Houston had offended against Brett Sengstock in Australia.
Brian Houston on the other hand said he was making it clear that the offences against Sengstock occurred before the Sydney or Hills churches had been founded, and that his father was a New Zealand pastor at the time. The offences against Sengstock occurred when he visited Sydney.
Magistrate Christofi sums up (informally)
At the end of the cross examination, the lawyers discussed what should happen next. The two sides would put in written submissions, but would the oral submissions go for longer than a day each?
“I would say that the issues become pretty simple in the end,” said Magistrate Christofi responding to a suggestion that oral submissions could take days.
“Is there a reasonable excuse?
“What is the reasonable excuse?
“Can it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no reasonable excuse?
“Did the complainant [Brett Sengstock] say he did not want to go to the police?
After establishing what dates the parties were available, June 15 and 16 were established as the dates for oral submissions in the case.
The court rose.