Inside the Exclusive Brethren

The Exclusive Brethren church dominated every area of their lives.

He refused to eat or drink with non-members. She was outcast after obtaining a protection order.

They dedicated almost all their free time to church meetings. But at home, he used a wooden spoon to dish out punishment, and repeatedly raped his wife in their marital bed, as well as his son.

The Palmerston North trial of the Exclusive Brethren man for his son’s rape, which ended on Monday with the man guilty of almost all charges, focused as much on the church as it did on the horrible crimes.

A ‘‘trial by a group of one’s peers’’ is the idea behind jury trials being almost always held where an offender lives.

But in this trial, they were hardly his peers. In fact, as the trial heard, the only real peers of Exclusive Brethren are Exclusive Brethren.

We might think we know about the Brethren: the clothes, the windowless churches, the leader who has not been photographed in years, and the smear campaign orchestrated by senior leaders against the Labour and Green parties during the 2005 general election.

But Crown prosecutor Michael Blaschke used his opening address to let the jury know just how different the defendant and his peers were from everyone else.

Describing the group – also known as Plymouth Brethren – as effectively a cult, Blaschke explained how members would keep themselves apart from those outside the movement.

A family violence counsellor who knew the defendant – he was ordered by a judge to do an antiviolence course after abusing his wife for years, which ended in him being jailed for marital rape – said he would not eat or drink with fellow course participants.

He was not even able to watch the videos used in the course because of his religious affiliation, the counsellor said.

Women are subservient in the church, the trial heard, which Blaschke said was why the defendant ‘‘helped himself to sex’’, leading to the marital rape convictions.

But the machinations after those marital rapes give real insight. The defendant’s thenwife got a protection order through the Family Court, rescuing herself and the children from their abusive husband and father.

Instead of supporting the wife after what she had been through – constant rapes at the hand of someone who was supposed to love her – the trial heard she was ‘‘shut up’’ by the church.

That meant she could not associate with anyone in the church, not even her parents, without the permission of elders.

One of the woman’s daughters confirmed that, saying the same rules applied to the children.

The lawyer who helped the woman get the order made a note of her feelings. ‘‘[The woman] made it very clear she felt she was the bad one in this because she was stepping outside the church, and [her husband] was the good guy because he was staying in the church.

‘‘She felt she was at real risk because the church was the most important thing to the Brethren.’’

The trial heard the order only lasted months, with the woman going to a different lawyer to get the protection order waived.

A group of Exclusive Brethren members accompanied her, something her first lawyer was worried about. ‘‘The Brethren had a lot of pressure on her, because being in the fold was important.’’

The woman also signed a contract, saying her son would be raised in the teachings of the Exclusive Brethren church and cared for by the son’s paternal grandparents – Exclusive Brethren members.

The church dominated almost all parts of members’ lives outside church meetings every weeknight. There was church every Saturday. Sunday was taken up by religious meetings.

There were also working bees on Saturdays, which the defendant often took part in instead of spending time with his family.

While giving evidence in his defence, the defendant expressed regret about his dedication to the church over his family.

Blaschke said it made the defendant look like ‘‘a good Brethren’’ – something he was not at home.

He struck his children with his hands and boots. He used a large wooden spoon to dish out punishment well above what was reasonable. He repeatedly raped his wife in their marital bed.

The jury found he did the same to his son in the bathroom, his workplace and an isolated beach.

The closing arguments from defence and Crown lawyers were littered with religious references.

Defence lawyer Fergus Steedman gave the jury a paraphrased version of the parable of the prodigal son – a son rejects his father, goes out to the world, ends up broke, schleps home in shame, but is still welcomed back with open arms by his father.

But Blaschke perhaps summed it up best when he echoed the Ten Commandments. ‘‘The sins of the father have been laid bare for all to see.’’

The father will be sentenced in August.