Commission overshot its terms of reference but cleared on natural justice and BORA grounds
The High Court has declared the entire Jehovah's Witnesses case study published by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care unlawful.
In Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (Australasia) Ltd v Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions [2026] NZHC 1295, Boldt J issued the declaration on 15 May 2026, finding the Commission exceeded its terms of reference. The ruling leaves the rest of the Commission's 3,000-page final report intact, including its references to the faith in volumes one and two.
The Commission dedicated a 57-page standalone case study to the Jehovah's Witnesses – the only faith singled out in that way. Of the faiths the Commission investigated, the Jehovah's Witnesses had the smallest number of registered survivors, at 24.
Boldt J dismissed most of the faith's grounds of review. The Commission did not breach the faith's right to freedom of religion under sections 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and it adhered to the rules of natural justice. Boldt J reasoned that being free from state interference does not equate to being free from state criticism, so long as the criticism connects to matters in which the state has a legitimate interest.
The terms of reference ground succeeded. The inquiry's focus was abuse in care, and the Commission identified only a single instance during the 50-year inquiry period in which a congregant was physically or sexually abused while in the care of an elder. Rather than confining the case study to that narrow intersection between care and abuse, the Commission produced a far-reaching critique of practices including shunning, the two-witness rule, and the faith's attitudes to homosexuality and blood transfusions.
Boldt J found that because the faith rarely assumed responsibility for others, abuse in care was correspondingly rare. The Commission's harshest criticisms, he held, concerned practices that, while arguably abusive, had nothing to do with the provision of care.
Boldt J rejected the attorney-general's submission that declaratory relief would serve no purpose almost two years after the Commission reported. A declaration would affirm the law and mark out the proper boundaries of the terms of reference, he held, even though the court cannot order Parliament to delete or suppress any part of its official record.
On costs, Boldt J signalled the proceeding belongs in category two, band B. He indicated the faith's award should be reduced by perhaps between a third and a half, to recognise that most of its grounds of challenge failed. Boldt J also criticised the sheer volume of material the parties placed before the Court, which he considered well beyond what the case required.
The parties have 20 working days to file costs memoranda if they cannot reach agreement.
