Mary Malaysia has been held out to be the scapegoat. She certainly deserves to be roundly condemned and the practices she brought from the Philippines are indeed indefensible. An apology from her has been produced. It was a curious document in that it was not an original and seemed almost to be part of a series. Though dated September 1992 it is apparently a document written in September 1993. It was addressed to the JETTS and Teens and Mary apologised "as one who laid heavy burdens on you and made life unpleasant for (you) during the times you were with me." She acknowledged "a big problem with partiality shown to some of the teenagers". She apologised:
"For implementing the five demerits policy for little mistakes you would make and enforcing such a strict silence restriction rule on you all which was not the standard for Victor Programmes. ... I am very sorry for laying on you burdens that were not the Lord's and I would like to ask you to please forgive me for hurting you in this way. ... I pray that you will continue to go on for the Lord in spite of things that you have found confusing and hurt by."
Mary was not called to give evidence before me. I know not why not. Her conduct was totally inexcusable.
The attempt to shift the whole blame onto Mary is disingenuous. JD and ED introduced practices from the Philippines into Wantage which I have already deprecated. Corporal punishment was administered at times other than during the course of Victor Programmes. The Victor Programmes were excessively abusive but the responsibility for that lies with the National Shepherds. Heidi is responsible. The Family is responsible. The Family knew perfectly well that things had gone wrong and they sent EM on a fact finding mission. I found her to be a totally unsatisfactory witness. She was not frank with me. She attempted to deceive me. She gave evidence to me on three occasions and I still did not get near the truth from her. If, which I do not accept, she believes even a part of what she presented to me in her report, which is a report which I understood to be remitted to World Services, then I am even more concerned for the children who remain in The Family. She must know that what she there reports is a travesty of the truth. How can she believe the following?
"From the accounts of the teens that we talked to, there was little over discipline. From all accounts one boy seemed to have been very difficult and the fact that he was in the programme at a young age was because of the insistence of his exasperated mother who just didn't know what to do with him. In one sense it was commendable for them to consider taking him on given his history, but on the other hand they clearly did not have sufficient experience to cope with him."
I ask rhetorically whether the beatings indiscriminately handed out to innumerable children, many of whom were bruised, can possibly be described as constituting "little over discipline". The sympathy she seems to require to be extended to an exasperated mother and the commendable carers at Tewkesbury seems to pay scant regard to a 10 year old boy who was horse cropped by another teenager till he his buttocks were cut and bruised. This wholly lamentable failure to face the truth and to acknowledge the full extent of their deficiencies gives rise to unallayed concern. If, which I doubt, the report presented to me was in fact the report being made to World Services, then how can one expect World Services to correct excesses when fed such anodyne information as EM presented to them? If, as I suspect, there are other internal documents which come closer to setting out the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the unpalatable truth, then why have I not been made privy to those disclosures? This case, being no different from all the others in this Division, is ultimately about trust. This young mother expects me to continue to trust her as she knows - and as The Family know - I have trusted her hitherto despite The Family's infamous history. Trust does not travel down a one way street. Trust must be earned. Trust must be mutual. I shall express my conclusions about this later.
It is, therefore, important to make certain preliminary findings in this regard. I deal with EM's evidence in more detail. She swore an Affidavit in these proceedings in February 1994. She referred to the Victor Programmes which she and her husband had been running. She made reference to corporal punishment with a paddle "that is a ladle used for cooking rice", "between 4-6 stokes over a covered bottom". She asserted, "I do not believe it was administered harshly or cruelly." She referred to the Discipleship Training Revolution as having introduced "uniform minimum standards for all children." She acknowledged that Victor Programmes had been copied throughout the World, but, and significantly, she did not refer to the programmes conducted in this country even though she must have known that it was an issue in the case. She explained that silence restriction was intended to be that half hour period of silence in the morning after getting up, the one hour rest period during the day, and half an hour in the evening, it never being intended as a method of punishment. She acknowledged, "I have heard instances where some teenagers were placed on silence restriction for up to 4 weeks." She did not go further and admit that they were instances which had occurred in this country when again she must have known that was an issue in the case. Her Affidavit was wholly silent about the difficulties that the teenagers had been encountering in this country and which she had been sent to investigate. Is this not a perfect example of "Deceivers Yet True"? Indeed, when cross examined, EM asserted that it was permissible to lie to the system where the life and well being of the children was at stake, for example as it was in Argentina. She might have added "and in the United Kingdom!" In my note of her evidence in chief she explained that she had come to Europe because of the concern of World Services about the number of teenagers that were leaving the movement. She said that she had never seen so many teens leaving and so she thought The Family must be doing something wrong and she therefore visited all the homes in Europe. She also admitted that she had visited four homes in this country and that she had held a meeting for the teens to attend; that seventy did so in Nottingham; that it was acknowledged that there were problems and that they had an open forum session but that there were still problems in this country. She explained that the reason for the difficulties were that the children were subject to "diverse worldliness" in that they dabbled with heavy rock music, drink and violence and so the solution perceived to be necessary was "to bring back the standards we would expect in Family homes." She acknowledged the Victor Programme in Wales (Tewkesbury) and that Heidi, David, JL and SPM thought it better to set up training in individual homes. She was firmly cross examined on behalf of the Official Solicitor. It was interesting to read again comments I wrote in the margin of my notebook about the manner in which she gave evidence. Among the several things I noted were, for example, "nice lady but blind to the consequence of her acts"; "nervous, clenching and unclenching her fists and very tense"; "she is being defensive and is lying", "evading the truth" (when she sought to deny the authenticity of the picture in the Child Discipline letter where the adult holds a stick as I have already described). Thereafter my notes become variations on the theme of "evasive", "very evasive", "lies!", "not frank", "clear evidence of cover up". She was, therefore, an exasperating witness because she is an essentially sincere lady who simply cannot believe that her genuine actions taken with the best will in the world for the benefit of the teens with whom she has been so involved have nonetheless had wholly harmful consequences. Of the UK Victor Programme she said this:-
"The person asked to carry out the programme here didn't know enough to practice it effectively, so the leadership terminated it. People made mistakes and so it was thought better not to have another."
On the issue of separating parents from children she said this:-
"NT must therefore understand that if ever she were persistently to murmur against the leadership, then I, after anxious prayer and as a last resort, would feel constrained temporarily to remove S from her to gain the victory."
Further cross examined about the Victor Programmes here she admitted that possibly she was wrong because she knew of a "new model programme" being run by Mary Malaysia at Rugby. She spoke of Tony, Zack Attack, and said of him:-
"He did get a beautiful victory. If you could see him you would see the miracle of the way the Lord worked in his life. It took extreme measures but if you read the tale of murmurers in the Sinai Desert who were destroyed, the Lord had mercy on Tony. You could see the victory in his expression."
On hearing that I made the comment, "Frightening evidence," because her complacency had robbed her of insight into why his spirit had been broken.
She gave evidence for 3 to 4 days and at the end of which she identified mistakes she found had been made as follows: That Mary Malaysia had little experience with teenagers and had not any realisation of the sobering responsibilities she carried. Her feeling was that she was "partial" in her association with the teens. The treatment might have been harsh in some case, in that possibly MS had been beaten, that F1 (16) no longer had animosity from a few unfair paddlings and that CA who had left The Family, was partial but had not herself been paddled. Some of the teens F1, CA and M2 had said that silence restriction had been unfair and extreme. She knew much more than she was willing to disclose. Even now I doubt whether I heard the whole truth from her.
I now turn to SPM.
He has a long history with the family. He was a bishop in Australia before the RNR. He is the National Area Shepherd for the United Kingdom. He has filed voluminous evidence in the case I am in no doubt at all that he has had authority from World Services to devote himself to the defence of this action, that he has had free access to World Services and has taken instructions from them. He has been The Family's spokesman. In that capacity he has responded to the grandmother's case and the Official Solicitor's interrogatories. It is necessary to remind myself of some of the matters arising therefrom.
In September 1992 the Plaintiff pleaded her case in this way:-
"Children and adults are expected to be unquestioningly obedient. Children are particularly harshly disciplined by means including:-
(a) withholding of food.
(b) corporal punishment which includes beating and enforced exercises.
(c) enforced silence
(d) humiliation in front of their peers
(e) bullying by adults and by peers incited by adults
(f) children are punished inter alia for expressing an interest in anything which is outside the very narrow scope of their educational curriculum."
She had also asserted that:
"It is common for children at the age of puberty to be sent to teen schools or teen camps or Victor camps the address of which is rarely known to their parents."
The answer was that:
"There are such schools and camps but none in Great Britain, and where there are, attendance is voluntary and usually short term!"
There is no acknowledgement of the schools at Wantage and Burnt Farm or of the programmes being run at Tewkesbury and Rugby, the last of which ended about three of four months before that answer was given.
The answer continued in this way:-
"It is denied that children and adults are expected to be unquestioningly obedient. Leaders within The Family expect those under them to carry out their reasonable instructions, but such instructions are the product of a process of counselling and discussion between those involved. It is denied the children are harshly disciplined. Further and in particular it is denied that the allegations at paragraph 14(a)-(f) represent Family policy or general practice. It is admitted in relation to paragraph 14(b) that reasonable corporal punishment may be administered. It is admitted in relation to paragraph 4(c) that on a few occasions it some homes silence cards had been used to discipline children. It is adverred that violence or physical abuse towards children is incompatible with continued membership of the family."
In his Affidavit sworn in September 1993 to answer the interrogatories he stated inter alia that: "The Family no longer operates teen camps, teen schools or Victor camps." In answer to a question about corporal punishment he stated:-
"The Family policy is that corporal punishment is permissible as the last form of discipline to be used with children and would normally involve a smack with the hand for younger children and possibly smack with a fly swatter for older children, but usually with the hand. Very young children would not be smacked. It is not something that is particularly encouraged. We feel that if children are treated appropriately then corporal punishment should not be necessary. Most children of toddler age would be spoken to and may be as a last resort be given a slap on the leg or hand. We would tend to smack the offending member, for example like their hand if they touch or take something they have been asked not to do after several warnings. With children of 10, 11, 12 we would tend not to encourage corporal punishment, but would consider the removal of privileges as a more appropriate way of dealing with discipline problems. Punishments are usually carried out by parents, but, if in a classroom situation, by whoever is taking the class, usually one of the parents."
In answer to a further set of interrogatories he responded by Affidavit sworn in January 1994 that he had no knowledge of food ever being withheld from a minor:-
"While corporal punishment is an infrequently used instrument for child training within The Family, where legal, it is absolutely against Family policy and practice to use it excessively or inappropriately. It is considered a last resort in child training, and all other avenues are tried first before employing corporal punishment. Even when corporal punishment is deemed necessary by a parent or care giver, it is never excessive, and it is always tempered with love and understanding and is given with the goal of being to teach and instruct, rather than to punish."
Of silence restriction he said:
"To my knowledge this was never a widespread practice and does not now occur in any family community of which I am aware. In any case, even those isolated instances where silence cards were used, were never contrary to the welfare of a minor."
In his evidence in chief he admitted knowledge of a Victor Programme at Tewkesbury and of a "New Model programme", not a Victor Programme, run by Mary Malaysia at Rugby. He had very little knowledge of these matters because he was concentrating on preparing this case. He expressed concern and upset on learning, as he had as the case unfolded, that some things had gone wrong. He said he was doing research on it, that he was reporting to World Services and that he hoped that it would never happen again.
Cross-examined by the grandmother he explained that Heidi and JL had been in charge of child care and "because it was war time for us there had been shortcomings in our shepherding." I have no doubt that is how The Family have regarded these proceedings, as a war-like battle against The Family. He labours under a deep and bitter sense of persecution. The evidence given by CA seemed to take him by surprise and he did not appear to know of any abusive physical ill-treatment of MS by Mary. Cross examined by the Official Solicitor he stated that he first heard of these matters when researching CA' Affidavit served after the evidence had started. He knew of Mary's apology but understood it to be for her partiality. He said also that he had received a report that whilst at Tewkesbury, Mary had spanked a boy and bruised him. He said he had heard that from the child's mother who must have known about it from the time it had happened. He had not asked JL for any reports. He had not sought help from JL or anyone else before answering the interrogatories. He said he had spoken to the children from Wantage but not to those from Tewkesbury and to only some from Rugby. He said he had received a written report from the children after MS had filed her Affidavit but he said he had received no report from EM. He had only been aware of Mary's partiality as the only problem for the teens. He could give me no satisfactory explanation at all for his failure to have dealt with these matters in his answers to the interrogatories.
I am driven to conclude that he was not fully frank with me. I cannot accept that he was so immersed in the preparation of this case that he was blind and deaf to what was going on about him. (I have to confess that my sympathies for him have increased as the burden of my completing this judgment has weighed like a larger and larger millstone around my neck!) It defies belief that he could live in the NAS home where his wife resided when she was in charge of childcare and, even if separated from her, not be aware of the teenagers' discontent so rife that World Services had sent EM to investigate in the Autumn of 1993, before his final Affidavits were sworn. My confidence in The Family is not enhanced even if I approach the case on the basis that SPM was largely left in a state of blissful ignorance. That would serve only to demonstrate the abject breakdown in the chain of communication which is supposed to be there to provide the checks and balances against abuse. Whichever way I look at it, children in The Family had been left unprotected.
EM was recalled on day 60. She then admitted more of the meeting held in Nottingham over the weekend of 20th October 1993. About 70 teens attended. Complaints began to emerge about Tewkesbury. No complaints were made about Rugby. This worries me. If the children were truly free to speak openly and confidently at a special forum called to investigate their worries and complaints, why was information about Rugby withheld? The answer must be that the children were under some inhibition. What did emerge was that four or five boys aged between 11 and 13 spoke of being beaten with a "switch" at Tewkesbury. AM and KA made public apologies. EM did not feel that AM was being frank but she did believe KA who said he had not himself administered any swatting. He had, in fact, wielded the stick at Rugby. AM had beaten Oxford S's son with the horse crop and KA confirmed that he had told Heidi of that matter. EM said Heidi no longer held a position of power. She referred to reports which had been sent to Europe of the events in Tewkesbury and seemed to suggest that these had been sent towards the end of 1990 to the beginning of April 1991. I certainly have not seen them. In her written report EM informed me "both Ricky and I wrote a report about our Nottingham meeting which was submitted to the European Shepherds." I have not seen that document either. When cross- examined, EM was prepared to admit that there was inappropriate corporal punishment administered to MS and to 10 year old S4 with the horse crop, but she was not prepared to concede that MS had been bruised or that S4 had been cut. That evidence was not complete when the Court rose on Friday afternoon. On Monday EM did not attend and I had to wait 10 days for her to reappear. She then produced her report. It was not what I wanted. I did not need her to prepare a written report for me. I wanted to read what she had reported to World Services. Her conclusions were myopic. Her analysis of the mistakes that appeared to have been made were identified as follows:-
"1. The UK NAS had insufficient information available to them about Mary's experience in working with teenagers, in particular that her experience appears to have been limited to working at the Jumbo in the Philippines.
2. That Mary had little or no experience in running Victor Programmes as they had been developed in Japan, and relied upon limited literature available and her outdated experience in the Philippines.
3. She had personal difficulties in that she showed partiality to her favourites, was overly strict and not sufficiently Spirit-led. Her manner of involvement in the programmes was inadequately thought through. There was a failure to work properly with the local teamwork and there were failures in her being adequately shepherded by the NAS teamwork.
4. The subsequent conflict between her and the local shepherds was probably inevitable.
5. That conflict was adequately resolved by the local teamwork referring the issue to the NAS teamwork and her being instructed to work within the local teamwork. When she did work more satisfactorily within the local teamwork her influence was modified.
6. She was withdrawn from further work with JETTS and Teens.
7. When she redirected her ministry to outreach and then subsequently worked with YAs, the YAs had no difficulty in voting her off the teamwork in light of their dissatisfaction at her shepherding.
8. The team working procedure appears to have functioned well to limit her influence. Although her involvement in the Victor Programme was unfortunate, the shepherding system managed to correct the problem. She should not be a scapegoat however for a more general problem about how to engage and involve family adolescents with ordinary Family life and that issue presents a positive challenge to The Family which is what we are engaged in and which we feel we are making progress with."
It did not present a difficult task for Counsel to cross examine EM into acknowledging that many others apart from Mary practised and/or permitted undue and excessive corporal punishment, silence restriction and isolation. I have no doubt that they did.
It is clear from a letter which appears to have been sent to all DO homes in the British Isles from the European Shepherds that either they have an imperfect knowledge of what went on or that they are trying to pretend to themselves and to the teenagers they are addressing that things were not as bad as everybody knows they were. It is a letter of apology but the first page seems to lay all the blame on Mary Malaysia. they write:
"Mary was working closely with the NASs and we were receiving reports from them as to how you teens were doing, however these reports were not very detailed and we weren't aware of how different disciplinary measures were handled, nor that the spirit in which Mary and some of the older teens were shepherding you wasn't right. In the spring of 1992, one of the members of our teamwork (Dawn G. who was not called to give evidence) "made a quick visitation around some of the homes in England with SPM."
This suggests that SPM must have had more knowledge than he declared. The concerns revealed, which were almost inevitably concerns linked to Mary Malaysia, were "later shared with the NASs especially Heidi."
"Some of you did speak up about something that had taken place with your teens that you weren't in agreement with, and we believe that NASs did take action in these cases - at least we hope they did, and if not, again we offer our apologies."
The letter then revealed how knowledge of the dissatisfaction had grown to the point that at the end of 1993 Mary wrote her apology.
"Ricky and EM arrived in England towards the end of last year, and one of the things they were initially hit with was the discontent and bitterness towards the past Victor Programme which Mary helped to shepherd. ... So the combination of these two - reports from Ricky and EM and info from the Court case - has helped us to see that Mary did use and advocate an excessive use of disciplinary measures such as silence restriction, the demerit chart system and excessive corporal punishment in some cases and for this we're truly sorry. We're sorry for the unnecessary hurt that was caused physically - although that heals fairly quickly - but more so for any emotional and spiritual battles that resulted as those are the scars which take the longest to heal. Again, we ask your forgiveness of our teamwork for not being closer in our communication and involvement ... Actually because of the active "grapevine" among our teens in The Family, and because we have good reason to believe that some of the teens who left have at best exaggerated parts of their testimonies, it has been difficult to discern what actually happened and what is hearsay and exaggeration. We know that excesses did occur, but rather than go into further detail on that side of it, some of which would probably wind up being quite a bit of speculation, what we would like to talk about is what has probably been the greater cause of bitterness and anger which some of you still feel and that is the spirit behind Mary's shepherding and training."
Once again blame was being heaped upon Mary. She seemed to have been punished by banishment from The Family home for 7 days. She was then placed on "Babes Status" for 6 months to:
"Provide an environment for her to hopefully learn more about truly being a servant to the flock, to help her grasp the lessons that she needs regarding her weaknesses of self righteousness, pride and man-pleasing which have sometimes motivated her actions ..."
The letter then continued - and this is important -:
"The last point we would like to address is how we can safeguard our Family from these things ever happening again. One thing which we believe will help are some specific guidelines for discipline which will be coming out soon from WS. These make it clear where the boundaries lie in the use of different disciplinary measures and what is excessive. This in itself should make it impossible - or highly difficult - for anyone to take matters into their own hands or to have their own particular brand or style of discipline."
The letter concluded:-
"Our prayer is that we can all go on to the dawn of a brighter day, free from the clouds which have overhung those of you who were affected by all the above, and clearer in understanding of how to avoid it in the future. As Dad prayed, "Sometimes, Lord, we even learn by our defeats, very needed lesson. We learn also by our mistakes, very needed lessons, in order to teach others not to make the same mistakes, not enter into the same frays, to incur the same defeat, but to stay in the narrow path of Thy Will, very close, in tune with Thy spirit."
I must wait to see how much The Family are willing to learn from their mistakes.
