So you don't want to give evidence?

There is a piece in this morning's paper about a court case involving an alleged sex abuse offender and the way in which some Jehovah's Witnesses do not want to give evidence about him in court. 

I have no doubt that someone will soon ask me what I think about this. It doesn't make me happy.

Quite a few years ago now I remember a late friend and his wife were here for the evening meal. I had been in court that day as "amicus curiae" in the broader sense. I was there to help someone who was not likely to understand the proceedings or be able to respond without someone there to help.  It was my role to do just that, help - nothing more and nothing less. At one point the opposing party tried to get me into the witness box to state my own opinion. I refused and the judge backed me as I had known he would. I was not there as a witness. I had no knowledge of the matter that could be used as evidence. 

That conversation with our friends continued. B... had just done jury service. He told us how one of the witnesses had been questioned about his own driving record. Apparently years before he had been driving a milk float at a low speed when a child had run out on to the road without looking and this witness had hit him. The child suffered some minor injury. 

I remember B...saying, "You would think this poor man had committed a hanging offence. They really had a shot at him and he was only a witness."

I knew why of course. In this case, if found guilty, the driver would lose his licence and, because the ability to drive was essential, his business as well. The defence would do all they could to prevent that happening. I explained this and B... was not impressed. The jury, not impressed by the defence tactics, had found the driver guilty.

Now I wonder what B... would make of the refusal to give evidence in an entirely different set of circumstances. I was well within my rights not to go into the witness box and state an opinion. No judge would have asked me to do it and nobody should even have considered asking but these circumstances are different.

The alleged offender is accused of very serious offences which will lead to a term of imprisonment if he is found guilty. Members of his church, high ranking members, are trying to shield him from that. They appear to believe their "internal" investigation is sufficient and that the courts have no role to play in this.  They claim not to recognise the authority of the courts. They may try to refuse - in which case they are likely to be held in contempt of the court. If they do appear then they may try to avoid answering questions - which could also lead to a charge of contempt. 

The case is being heard by judge alone - and I don't envy the judge.