Jehovah’s Witness pedophile walked free from court despite one of his victims was a baby
September 5th, 2007 | Posted in: , (Sexual) Child Abuse | Keywords: Jehovah, Watchtower Society, Children, Video | 271 Comments
A Jehovah’s Witness pedophile was spared prison despite admitting carrying out a string of sex attacks on young children.
Michael Porter, 38, used his trusted position as a ministerial servant to indulge his habits as a pedophile. One of his victims was an 18-month-old baby.
Jehovah’s Witness parents trusted him to look after their children, and Porter regularly babysat for youngsters, took them away on holidays and invited them for sleepovers at his home.
Michael Porter pleaded guilty to 24 counts of indecent assault and gross indecency on children at Bristol Crown Court.
He walked free from court on August 23 (2007) despite admitting his sexual abuse of young children. Judge Thomas Crowther handed him a three-year community rehabilitation order after hearing he had undergone therapy.
Judge Thomas Crowther said:
“This is a case which in my experience is exceptional, in a sense historic and revealed by you in unusual circumstances which I am sure are linked with the faith by which you now run your life. ..
I’m satisfied, having the advantage of a number of reports as to your early background, that the reasons for your behaving as you did are complex and personal and reveal that you were subject to pressures which make it understandable that you should have acted as you did in this case. ..
What’s important, in terms of sentence, to realize is that you had changed your life before there was any question of these matters being revealed and I’m as satisfied as I can be, whereas in some circumstances punishment by way of imprisonment is inevitable, this is not one of those, and the proper sentence is a community rehabilitation order.”
However, Porter’s sister Tina Hughes spoke out against the ruling and warned that her brother would commit further offences now he was back in society:
“I think the judge was absolutely pathetic. He just took my brother’s side completely and believed that all he needed was a bit more therapy and now realized he had done wrong. …
He blamed his childhood for the attacks, which was a lie, but the judge ate it all up. …
I just broke down in tears when the judge said he wasn’t going to jail. The whole courtroom went quiet. No-one could believe it. …
I can’t believe the judge thinks he is safe to be allowed out on the streets. He won’t stop. …He has gone back to London and left us to pick up the pieces. He hasn’t lost anything. He hasn’t even lost his wife. He hasn’t been affected in any way. He can go away and pretend nothing has happened because he doesn’t have to live here.”
A source said:
“One of the problems was that most of the victims were not prepared to make statements or give any kind of evidence. The offenses took place a long time ago and most of them seemed keen to put it all behind them.”
Mr Porter’s current Jehovah’s Witness congregation has stood by him despite confessing to his crimes, according to his sister. He is thought to be an elder at the Mill Hill Kingdom Hall, in Barnet, north London. Mill Hill is one of the most significant congregations in United Kingdom, as it is the official home congregation for the Branch Office of the IBSA (International Bible Students Association). Porter is listed as a “Trustee” for the Mill Hill Congregation with the UK Charities Commission.
Jehovah’s Witness elders from Porter’s Mill Hill Congregation assured media that Porter would be “supervised” as he attended meetings and door to door ministry to offer bibles studies with families.
Update: On 19 September 2007 the BBC reported that Porter’s case is to be reviewed by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The Court of Appeal will now review the case to decide whether to increase Porter’s sentence.
A statement from the Attorney General’s office said:
“After a careful review, the Attorney General Baroness Scotland has decided to refer the sentence. She considers the sentence to be unduly lenient.
It will now be for the Court of Appeal to decide at a future hearing whether or not to increase the sentence.”


