The real victim remains Brett Sengstock, the eight-year-old boy sexually abused by visiting preacher Frank Houston in 1970. The abuse continued for years. Let’s use Sengstock’s own words – after the court case.
“Today, I’ve received some recognition for a seven-year-old child who was brutally abused at the hands of a self-confessed child rapist and coward, Frank Houston.
“Frank Houston was no pioneer for Christianity. His legacy remains a faded memory of a pedophile. Regardless of today’s outcome, I have received a life sentence. Blaming the victim is as repulsive as the assaults themselves. This battle has gone on for 45 years, 45 years of added trauma from this institution and their supporters.
“The narrative that had been set by others or took it upon themselves to speak for me has been exposed. I would like to thank the Crown [prosecutor, Gareth] Harrison, and Miss Dodd and Detective Hamilton for their dedicated work. Also, Senator David Shoebridge for his tireless work and standing firm for clergy child sexual abuse survivors who still do not have a voice in this country.
“It should not be this hard.
“A special thanks to my wife, Lisa, for her strength and support through such difficult years. And thank you to my fellow supporters who have turned up here today for my support. So I’d like to say thank you.”
###
The cruellest thing about this case: Watching victim/survivor Brett Sengstock in court as it became clear the prosecution was likely to lose this case was excruciating. The bar of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Brian Houston did not have a reasonable excuse was set extremely high. The reasonable excuse was that Brett Sengstock as an adult, had indicated that he did not want the case investigated by the church or the police.
Evidence of phone conversation (s) between Brett Sengstock and Brian Houston – even whether there was one or was it three – was contested. But Magistrate Christofi accepted evidence from people close to Sengstock, including his mother’s diaries, that he was reluctant to go public. And indeed, Sengstock’s own testimony based on his Royal Commission interviews reinforced that.
So when Sengstock says, “The narrative that had been set by others or took it upon themselves to speak for me has been exposed,” it is fair to say that would have been true if the prosecution had won. The false narrative Sengstock points to is most likely the narrative that said Sengstock did not want to go to the police. That is why he goes on to saying “Blaming the victim is as repulsive as the assaults themselves.” But the “Not Guilty” verdict Brian Houston received was based on the court accepting that Houston knew or believed Sengsrock did not want to go to the police.
The progress of the court case in that direction would have been very painful for Sengstock. It is cruel that losing the case hinged on the court accepting that Brian Houston possibly had a reasonable excuse – based on what he believed Sengstock wanted at the time. The prosecution failed to prove Brian houston had no reasonable excuse – and this failure centred on testimony for and about Sengstock. Very painful for
Sadly, this means what Sengstock said outside the court was incorrect. The narrative from “that had been set by others or took it upon themselves to speak for me” has not been exposed but rather became the basis of the acquittal.
In this sense, the case has re-victimised Sengstock. Once again, a victim.
But what Sengstock said about victims of clergy abuse is correct. we’ll come back to that.
###
Why torture Brian Houston? The case against Brian Houston fell apart. As did the case against Cardinal Pell, and, crucially the case against Phillip Wilson, the Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide who was tried under the same legislation as Brian Houston. Of the Wilson case Frank Brennan called for s316 to be re-drafted. It has become clear that the charge is extremely hard to prove. In both the Brian Houston and Phillip Willson cases examining the motivations of people years or decades ago created what Christogi called “Forensic Disadvatages.”
Why bring the charge against Brian Houston? It is clear other senior people, including John McMartin and Wayne Alcorn (the current president of the Australian Christian Churches) and a significant number of other pastors knew of Frank Houston’s offences, including many who heard about it from Brian Houston who as the magistrate said, talked freely.
“If I wasn’t Brian Houston from Hillsong, this charge would never have happened,” Brian Houston said outside the court. He was right. There has been a pattern of going after the most senior person in an organisation in child abuse cases, matched with an understandable desire from victims/survivors to see that offences are prosecuted with rigour, without regard to a person’s status or high office. No one should be untouchable.
But this has led to weak cases against Phillip Wilson, Cardinal Pell and now Brian Houston being prosecuted, leading to pain for the many survivors/victims of clergy abuse.
“Even getting this case to trial has been a victory,” one supporter of the prosecution said to me before we were let into court on judgment day. No – it is cruel and unnecessary to bring weak cases which raise the hopes of victims only to have them dashed.
###
Brian Houston has enemies, so what: no one should be forced to like Brian Houston or Hillsong the church he founded. But this case has no bearing on the doctrines or practices of Hillsong, whether Brian and Bobbie should still be there – it is not the reason he left – or whether Brian Houston is a sinner or saint.
It was about a narrow set of circumstances. A man found out his father, who he revered, was a pedophile. The man was the national president of the organisation in which his father had risen to prominence. He removed his father’s credentials, he took the matter to the board, and (imperfectly) recused himself. Afterwards, he told literally thousands about his father, describing him to their hometown newspaper as a pedophile. But he failed to go to the police – did he have an excuse for that?
The court has now found that the prosecution failed to prove he did not.
This won’t convince Brian Houston’s detractors. But this case was not about long-standing disputes within Pentecostalism or Christianity, It was about whether Brian Houston should have gone to the police – and the court found that no one could prove he had only bad motives. No doubt, the other issues will continue to be debated.
A weird case and the unfinished business: If you were choosing which case to use the limited resources of the legal system and the police to focus your efforts on in a sea of clergy abuse – would you pick the case of a man whom no-one thinks is an abuser, who defrocked his own father and was public about that.
Sadly there are other prominent Christians who should be pursued. Don’t let various bits on the media dictate who is worth pursuing – some have avoided the headlines.
Amongst a lot of unfinished business is compensation for Brett Sengstock: he has been let down by three well-financed Christian organisations. The New Zealand Assemblies of God (because the assault took place in Australia) , the Australian Christian Churches (because Frank Houston was not credentialled by them at the time) and Hillsong. You really should join together and compensate Brett Sengstock.
As Brett Sengstock rightly said, “It should not be this hard.”