Listen to the audio version of this article (generated by AI).
May 17, 2026 • 2:56pm
A High Court judge has ruled a Royal Commission report into the Jehovah’s Witnesses was unlawful, finding the inquiry strayed beyond its legal remit and into wider criticism of the faith’s practices and beliefs.
In a newly released judgment, Justice Boldt found the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care exceeded the scope of its powers by examining broader aspects of the religion’s doctrines and social practices, rather than limiting itself to abuse occurring within care settings.
The 57-page case study criticised practices within the faith including its “two-witness rule” for addressing allegations of wrongdoing and the practice of “shunning” former members.
Justice Boldt rejected arguments from the Jehovah’s Witnesses that the Commission breached rights to religious freedom or failed to follow natural justice, stating the inquiry acted with “the sincerest of motivations throughout”. However, he found the Commission was still legally required to remain within the limits of its mandate.
“In a nutshell, this was a commission of inquiry into abuse in care, not a general inquiry into abusive or harmful practices,” Justice Boldt said.
He said the evidence before the Commission showed the faith “rarely assumed responsibility for others”, meaning instances of abuse occurring in care settings connected to the religion were limited.
“At best, the Commission was able to say that if abuse in care were happening, certain features of the faith … may have made disclosure more difficult,” the judgment said.
The Royal Commission’s final report, released in July 2024, found up to 256,000 children, young people and vulnerable adults were abused in state and faith-based care between 1950 and 2019.
The Commission also published a standalone volume examining the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The judgment records that 24 survivors connected to the faith registered with the inquiry, and that the Commission identified one historical instance during the inquiry period involving sexual abuse by an elder in a care context.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses argued the faith did not operate institutions such as schools, children’s homes, youth camps or Sunday schools, and therefore generally did not assume responsibility for members in the way contemplated by the inquiry’s terms of reference.
Justice Boldt found the Commission was entitled to investigate informal or pastoral care relationships, but ruled much of the case study focused on religious doctrine and conduct occurring outside care settings.
“The overriding impression left by the case study on the ordinary reader is that the faith is controlling, oppressive and manipulative,” the judgment said, adding that this went beyond what the Commission was authorised to investigate.
“The terms of reference required a focus on abuse in care. The Commission strayed beyond its lawful powers, meaning this ground of review must succeed,” Justice Boldt ruled.
Because the Royal Commission has completed its work and no longer exists as an active body, the court said it could not order the report removed or amended. Instead, the court granted declaratory relief.
“Necessarily, the only remedy likely to be appropriate is declaratory relief,” the judgment stated, adding the practical effect was “as if the words in the … report to which they relate have been crossed out”.
Justice Boldt declared “the whole of the Commission’s ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’ case study was unlawful as it exceeded the inquiry’s terms of reference”.
The ruling does not affect the wider findings of the Abuse in Care Royal Commission, or references to the Jehovah’s Witnesses contained elsewhere in the inquiry’s final report.