From the moment Hillsong founder Brian Houston heard his father admit to sexually abusing a young boy, his “only focus” was to protect the church’s reputation, a Sydney court has heard.

Key points:

  • Brian Houston was scrutinised in court for allegedly concealing his father’s sexual abuse 
  • The court heard the culture was to “protect the church” in the face of scandal
  • Mr Houston is the founder of Hillsong, and his father Frank died in 2004

Closing addresses are underway in the case in which Brian Houston, 70, has pleaded not guilty to concealing his father’s abuse.

Sydney’s Downing Centre Local Court has heard that in 1999, Frank Houston confessed when confronted to molesting a seven-year-old in the 1970s.

But Brian Houston has argued he had a reasonable excuse for not going to police — that he was respecting the wishes of victim Brett Sengstock, then aged in his 30s.

Prosecutor Gareth Harrison today told the court Brian Houston’s motivation was to protect the reputation of the church and his father.

He said the accused made a conscious decision to elevate the matter to the church’s national executive but not outside authorities.

The evidence demonstrated a culture within Hillsong that “when faced with a potential scandal, the culture was to protect the church,” Mr Harrison said.

“That culture, in the Crown’s submission, allowed the accused to place himself as the only conduit of information between the national executive and Mr Sengstock.”

Mr Harrison also submitted an “entrenched reverence” to Frank Houston fostered protection of those in power and enforced a culture of silence.

“The Crown submits from the moment his father admitted abusing Brett Sengstock, his only focus was to protect the church and go nowhere near the police.”

Brian Houston knew he could “control the narrative” by not telling the national executive the victim was contemplating going to authorities, the court was told, and “clearly” knew a criminal offence had been committed.

McDonald’s napkin transaction

The court has previously heard Mr Sengstock signed a dirty napkin in a McDonald’s car park for $10,000 after meeting with Frank Houston in the late 1990’s.

In December, Mr Sengstock told the court that shortly after, Brian Houston told him he would be receiving the money — then a cheque for $10,000 turned up.

Mr Harrison said the church’s culture dictated that things should be kept “in house” and argued nobody could fail to understand the payment was to buy Mr Sengstock’s silence.

The prosecutor argued that Brian Houston “felt confident” the circumstances surrounding Mr Sengstock — including the payment of money — would prevent him from going to police or secular courts.

During his evidence last year, Brian Houston told the court he was left “stunned” and “speechless” when he first learned of the abuse.

He insisted Brett Sengstock was “very dogmatic” about not wanting police involved.

Frank Houston, who was stripped of his credentials as a pastor for the Assemblies of God, died in 2004.

Brian Houston’s defence counsel, Phillip Boulten SC, said Mr Sengstock never wanted the fact of his assault published to the church, the police, or in the media.

“He did not want any civil or criminal action taken against Frank Houston,” he said in his closing address.

“He never reported the matter to the police, not even after the Royal Commission.”

Mr Boulten told the court his client formed the view and continued to maintain the view — including under oath — that Mr Sengstock did not want the matter referred to the police.

“Brian Houston was guided in coming to that conclusion by what Brett Sengstock’s attitude was,” he said.

“If he took Brett Sengstock’s attitude into account and it was one of the factors which influenced the decision not to go to the police, then he had a reasonable excuse.”

Mr Boulten argued the focus point for the magistrate’s consideration was Brian Houston’s point of view, rather than that of a “theoretical human being” or “a lawyer analysing it”.

He said to some extent Mr Sengstock was a person “influenced by the attitudes of the church”, albeit not in the way the Crown was suggesting but because he was unhappy with the idea of the church raking through what happened.

“The complainant should be in charge of whether or not police take action against their perpetrator,” Mr Boulten said.

“They have a significant say, not necessarily in charge,” Magistrate Gareth Christofi replied.

The hearing continues.