1. The judicial hearing should be opened with prayer with the accused present. The judicial committee should feel free to seek Jehovah’s wisdom through prayer at any time during their private deliberations. (Jas. 1:5) The chairman should state the reason for the meeting. He may offer a Scriptural point at the outset, such as from Proverbs 28:13 or James 5:14, 15. The elders on the judicial committee should convey their desire to be helpful and try to put the accused at ease. They should be quick to listen but slow to indicate a preference or a leaning one way or the other. Even if the accused is belligerent, they should treat him kindly and respectfully, never harshly.​—w89 9/15 pp. 19-20.

2. The chairman should invite the accused to make a personal statement. If the accused contends that he is innocent, the witnesses to the wrongdoing should be presented and their testimony should be given in the presence of the accused. It is best that the witnesses give their testimony in person. However, it may be that the witnesses live a great distance away or for some reason are not able to be physically present. If so, their testimony may be presented in the hearing of the accused by a secure phone call or perhaps submitted in writing and read to the accused. The accused should be given opportunity to respond to the testimony. If he wishes to present witnesses to establish his innocence, the judicial committee should allow them to give their testimony.

3. Hear only those witnesses who have relevant testimony regarding the alleged wrongdoing. Those who intend to testify only about the character of the accused should not be allowed to do so. The witnesses should not hear details and testimony of other witnesses. Observers should not be present for moral support. Recording devices should not be allowed.

4. In the rare event that testimony presented during the hearing causes the judicial committee to conclude that the matter should not be handled judicially, the hearing should be suspended. Inform the person that he will be contacted further regarding the matter. The body of elders should then be consulted to determine whether the judicial committee should be disbanded.

5. The committee should first seek to establish the facts and ascertain the attitude of the accused. This requires skillful and discreet questions. The judicial committee should be thorough but not inquire about needless details, especially in regard to sexual misconduct. However, in some instances, when Scriptural freedom to divorce and remarry may be an issue, details may need to be clarified. When the elders on the judicial committee feel that they have a clear picture, they may excuse the accused from the room and discuss the case and the individual’s repentance or lack thereof.

6. In Greek, two verbs are used in connection with repentance. The first stresses a changed viewpoint or disposition. The second emphasizes a feeling of regret. Therefore, repentance involves a deep regret over a damaged relationship with Jehovah, remorse over the reproach brought upon Jehovah’s name and people, and a sincere longing to come back into God’s favor. It includes a heart-motivated rejection of the bad course as something repugnant, hated. (Rom. 12:9) Such an attitude should be demonstrated by “fruits that befit repentance,” making evident to an adequate degree a sinner’s claimed repentance.​—Luke 3:8; it-2 pp. 770-777.

7. Judging repentance is not simply a matter of determining whether the wrongdoer is weak or wicked. Weakness is not synonymous with repentance. (w95 1/1, pp. 27-29) Neither should the judicial committee’s decision be determined by the notoriety of the wrong. The judicial committee should look for clear works of repentance commensurate with his wrongdoing. (2 Cor. 7:10, 11) In order to extend mercy, the committee must be convinced that the wrongdoer has a changed heart condition and that he has a zeal to right the wrong and is absolutely determined to avoid it in the future. Even if this is the individual’s first time before a judicial committee, it is necessary to determine whether his actions and attitude indicate that he has repented and can thus remain in the congregation.

8. The extent to which the person deviates from righteousness may be major or minor, and logically the degree of regret (repentance) ought to be commensurate with the degree of deviation. Was the individual caught off guard so that he momentarily succumbed to temptation, or did he plan to do wrong? Was he unaware of the gravity of his sin, or did he deliberately ignore counsel or warnings? Was it a single offense, or was it a practice? The more an individual repeats serious sin, the more that one reasonably gives evidence of being like wicked people who are “practicers of what is hurtful.”​—Ps. 28:3; it-2 p. 771 par. 5.

9. While there is no such thing as automatic disfellowshipping, an individual may have gone so far into sin that he may not be able to demonstrate sufficient repentance to the judicial committee at the time of the hearing. If so, he must be disfellowshipped, allowing time to pass for him to prove his repentance. Or it may be that the individual has been dealt with judicially a number of times in the past. Because he appeared repentant, he was reproved each time. Now he has sinned again. In such cases his life course may indicate a lack of repentance.​—w81 9/1 p. 26 par. 23.

10. Below are some indications of repentance. However, none of these is the sole criterion for determining whether the sinner is repentant or not.

• Was his confession voluntary, or did he have to be accused by others? Some offenders are so deeply ashamed or have such difficulty expressing themselves that they are reluctant to speak.

• Is the individual truthful? (Acts 5:1-10) When questioned, are his answers forthright? Is he cooperative with the judicial committee? The judicial committee should be especially cautious if the individual has shown himself to be guilty of hypocrisy, lying, or deliberate efforts to deceive.

• Has he contritely prayed to Jehovah and sought his forgiveness and mercy? Keep in mind that some wrongdoers, though repentant, find it difficult to pray.​—Jas. 5:14.

• Has he made restitution, expressed willingness to do so, or apologized to offended ones, those damaged by his sinful course? Has he sought forgiveness of those wronged?​—w92 9/15 p. 10; w81 9/1 pp. 25-26; w73 p. 351.

• In cases of adultery, has he confessed to the innocent mate and asked for forgiveness?​—w73 pp. 351-352; w68 pp. 319-320.

• Note: The option to forgive adultery rests with the innocent mate. The guilty mate cannot be viewed as repentant if, after committing adultery, he refuses to inform her and allow her the opportunity to forgive. If the wrongdoer is unwilling to confess and ask for forgiveness because of fear of violence by the innocent mate, contact the branch office before proceeding.

• Does he manifest a spirit of agony and regret over having damaged his relationship with Jehovah?​—Ps. 32:3-5; 51:1-4.

• Does he demonstrate godly sadness or worldly sadness? (2 Cor. 7:8-11) Is his sadness primarily because of hurting Jehovah and bringing Him into reproach or because of the disappointment he has caused to family and friends and the shame he has experienced? (Ezra 10:1; Luke 22:59-62) Individuals vary in their emotional makeup and control. Tears do not necessarily indicate sincere repentance; neither does a lack of strong emotion show a lack of repentance.​—Gen. 25:29-34; 27:34.

• Does he accept responsibility for his error, or does he minimize or justify his bad course?​—1 Sam. 15:24; 2 Sam. 12:13.

• Does he recognize the fact that lesser sins led up to the wrongdoing, and is he determined to avoid these?

11. Each case is different. The judicial committee should consider all the unique factors involved, including any extenuating circumstances. For example, the wrongdoer may have been a victim of some type of abuse in the past. Extenuating circumstances do not excuse the wrongdoing. (g93 10/8 p. 4) However, discerning them will help the judicial committee to understand better the wrongdoer and his response to the judicial committee. Nevertheless, there would be no basis to extend mercy if fruits of repentance are lacking.

12. The same is true regarding wrongdoers who suffer from mental or emotional problems. (See 6:16) The congregation cannot overlook his wrongdoing if he is able to discharge normal responsibilities toward himself and the community in a reasonably acceptable manner and others generally view him as one who could be held accountable for what he does and says. However, the judicial committee should show consideration and patience in their dealings with him and be especially aware of the need for discernment in evaluating his repentance. On the other hand, if the judicial committee discerns that his mental condition is so severe that others generally regard him as not being responsible for what he does, they may recommend to the body of elders that no judicial action be taken, explaining the reasons for their recommendation.

13. If the wrongdoer’s degree of repentance is unclear, the committee should invite him back into the room for further discussion. They should use God’s Word to help him understand why his conduct was wrong and how it has affected his relationship with Jehovah and the congregation. It is possible that even as late as the judicial hearing, he will demonstrate repentance to the point that mercy by the judicial committee may be warranted. In most cases the individual will show some repentance, but is it commensurate with the degree of his wrongdoing? The judicial committee should be modest and keep in mind that if the wrongdoer has demonstrated few or no works of repentance before the judicial hearing is held, it may not be possible during the hearing to move him to demonstrate sufficient repentance to justify extending mercy. Even if it is determined that he must be disfellowshipped, their efforts to lead him to repentance may help him to begin making straight paths for his feet and work toward reinstatement. (Heb. 12:13) After trying to help him and hearing his further expressions, the judicial committee may excuse him from the room and deliberate.

14. In complex cases, if the judicial committee is not sure of the Bible’s direction or the organization’s counsel, the hearing may be adjourned and reconvened a few days later. However, an additional meeting should not be scheduled just to give the accused time to stop the wrongdoing or to demonstrate works of repentance. If he has demonstrated little or no repentance during the initial hearing, there would generally be no basis on which to prolong the case and schedule a second meeting.

15. At times, complicated judicial cases may necessitate consultation with an experienced mature elder in another congregation or the circuit overseer. In such a situation, inform the wrongdoer that the decision is pending. Do not inform him that you will be consulting with parties outside of the judicial committee, which may at times include the branch office. While pertinent details may be discussed, names should not be used when discussing the case with another elder. However, when the circuit overseer is consulted or when circumstances require that the branch office be contacted, the judicial committee should reveal the names.

16. Generally, those serving on a judicial committee should endeavor to be unanimous in their decision. Any difference of opinion can usually be resolved by discussing matters thoroughly as a judicial committee, researching the Scriptures and Christian publications, praying for wisdom and direction, and even consulting with an experienced elder outside the congregation. However, if the committee is unable to reach a unanimous conclusion, the minority should give support to the decision reached by the majority.

17. Anything submitted in writing to the committee by the alleged wrongdoer or by witnesses should be kept in strict confidence. If it is necessary to continue the matter later, the members of the committee should submit to the chairman any personal notes they have taken. The chairman will keep these notes in a secure place to prevent breaches of confidentiality. The notes may be returned to the individual elders for consultation before the hearing resumes.

18. If the elders on the judicial committee determine that the wrongdoer is genuinely repentant, they should inform him of the decision, the judicial restrictions, and whether the reproof will be announced. They should also give reproof from the Scriptures, showing the seriousness of the wrongdoing and the minor sins that may have led up to it. Reproof is defined as “that which is designed to convince others of their having erred, in order to move them to acknowledge their mistakes and correct these.” (it-2 p. 780) Hence, administering judicial reproof includes more than just making a decision or announcing it. It involves reinforcing the wrongdoer’s resolve to do what is right. The original-language word for reproof comes from a verb meaning ‘to show plainly, point out by facts, demonstrate, show by evident or convincing reasons or arguments.’ Helpful suggestions should be given to help him make needed adjustments. If witnesses testified during the hearing, they may be invited to hear the Scriptural reproof. In this way the accused is reproved “before all onlookers.” (1 Tim. 5:20) The judicial committee should pray with the repentant wrongdoer before concluding the hearing.

19. In all cases of judicial reproof, the wrongdoer is disqualified from special privileges. These include pioneering, offering congregation prayer, and sharing in any parts on the Service Meeting until he has made further spiritual progress. This also includes other congregational assignments that might be given to those who are exemplary. In addition, some judicial restrictions will be imposed in all cases of judicial reproof. Judicial restrictions may include not commenting at congregation meetings and not giving student talks in the Theocratic Ministry School. However, the judicial committee determines what judicial restrictions to impose. When the elders inform a repentant wrongdoer of restrictions, it would be helpful to tell him the date of the next meeting, at which his progress will be reviewed. It may be discouraging to the repentant wrongdoer if restrictions are imposed for a prolonged period of time. It would be an exceptional case when many months have passed and restrictions have not been gradually lifted.

20. The judicial committee should determine whether the reproof should be announced to the congregation. (w88 11/15 p. 18; w81 9/1 pp. 26-27) If the individual thereafter moves, no announcement of such previous judicial reproof is made in the new congregation.​—km 3/75 p. 4.

• The reproof should be announced if the sin is widely known or will likely become known in the congregation or community. An announcement will safeguard the reputation of the congregation.

  For example, in a case of adultery, an innocent mate may lean toward forgiveness but is not ready to resume sexual relations at the time that the judicial committee concludes the case. If the possibility of a Scriptural divorce still exists, an announcement would protect the reputation of the congregation and the innocent mate.

• The judicial committee may have specific reasons to believe that the congregation needs to be on guard concerning the repentant wrongdoer. Perhaps he ignored previous counsel several times concerning steps leading to the same wrongdoing.

  For example, in a case involving wrongdoing that could be viewed as child sexual abuse, announcing the reproof of a repentant wrongdoer will serve as a protection for the congregation.​—See August 1, 2016, letter to all bodies of elders.

21. The coordinator of the body of elders should approve the announcement before an elder reads it to the congregation. It should read as follows: “[Name of person] has been reproved.” Restrictions are not announced.​—See January 6, 2017, letter to all bodies of elders for direction on filing confidential material.

22. The judicial committee should monitor the spiritual progress of the repentant wrongdoer and be alert to remove judicial restrictions progressively as he recovers spiritually. It is not necessary for the entire body of elders to decide on the removal of restrictions, except in unusual cases. The committee should inform the body of elders when any restrictions are removed. When an elder serving on the original committee moves or is no longer serving as an elder, the body of elders will select a replacement to monitor the wrongdoer’s progress. If the wrongdoer moves before the committee lifts all of his restrictions, the new congregation should receive sufficient details so that the elders can evaluate his true spiritual condition. Provide the type of information and details you would appreciate receiving if the individual was moving into your congregation. The elders of the new congregation should choose two or three elders to continue to monitor the wrongdoer’s progress and lift the remaining judicial restrictions.

23. In some cases the elders may feel that it is necessary to warn the congregation by means of a Scriptural talk about the type of conduct practiced. A member of the judicial committee should generally give the talk. He should explain the wrongness of the conduct and how to avoid it but without saying anything that would connect the wrongdoer with the type of sin under discussion. In the case of an announced reproof, the elders should wait a few weeks before giving such a talk; when the reproof is unannounced, there is no need to wait.

24. Once the case has been concluded, no further judicial action is taken unless the wrongdoer again engages in gross wrongdoing. However, in rare cases there may be an exception if within a few days of the decision new information comes to light that makes it obvious to the judicial committee that the wrongdoer was not repentant, perhaps because he gave misleading testimony or purposely omitted important facts during the hearing. In such instances there may be a basis for the judicial committee to reconsider its decision and decide to disfellowship, especially if no announcement of reproof had been made. When the hearing resumes, the individual would be given opportunity to hear any new evidence and to present his side of the matter. In cases of this nature, it is best to inquire of the branch office for direction before proceeding.

25. If the wrongdoer again engages in serious wrongdoing after the judicial committee renders a decision and completes the case, the judicial committee that handled the previous case will not automatically handle the new case. The body of elders should meet and select the judicial committee. In most cases, the elders will choose the same elders to serve on the new judicial committee, but the body of elders may decide to use different brothers or to add another elder to the committee.

26. If the wrongdoer lacks genuine repentance, he should be disfellowshipped. (See 7:8) The committee should inform him of its decision and endeavor to help him see how he can use the time he is disfellowshipped in a way that will repair his damaged relationship with Jehovah. The committee may share with him scriptures such as 2 Corinthians 7:10, 11 and Hebrews 12:5-7. The judicial committee should be kind and positive, assuring him that forgiveness is possible if he truly repents.

27. The following information should be conveyed orally to the wrongdoer after informing him of the committee’s decision:

• Outline the steps necessary for future reinstatement.

• Inform the wrongdoer that he may appeal in writing within seven days if he feels a serious error in judgment has occurred. (od pp. 153-154) He should address his letter of appeal to the judicial committee.

28. The judicial committee should neither encourage him to appeal nor discourage him from doing so. Before dismissing him, the elders should ask if he has any questions. The judicial committee will conclude with prayer after dismissing the wrongdoer.

29. If the unrepentant wrongdoer did not attend the judicial hearing, the judicial committee should make reasonable efforts to inform him orally of their decision, his option to appeal, and so forth. The elders should not leave a message of a confidential nature on a telephone answering machine or by means of voice mail or by way of e-mail. If he does not cooperate with the efforts to inform him, the judicial committee should contact the branch office.

30. Allow the seven-day appeal period to elapse even if the person states he does not wish to appeal or if he failed to appear for the judicial hearing.

31. The coordinator of the body of elders should check the announcement to make sure that it conforms to the guidelines outlined by the organization. An elder should read the announcement. The wording should be as follows: “[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

32. Disfellowshipping takes effect at the time of making the announcement to the congregation. In the interim before the public announcement, the wrongdoer should not comment or offer prayers at congregation meetings or care for any special privileges of service. (od p. 154) Make the announcement in only one congregation.

33. The judicial committee should promptly inform the branch office of the disfellowshipping using the appropriate forms. When making the report, read and carefully follow the instructions on the form.

34. Upon conclusion of the case, the chairman should place only necessary notes and documents, a detailed summary of the case, and the S-77 forms in a sealed envelope for the congregation’s confidential file. Elders on the committee should preserve nothing outside of this sealed envelope (including personal notes). On the outside of the envelope should be written the wrongdoer’s name, the names of those who served on the judicial committee (with the chairman indicated), the action taken, and the date of the action.​—See January 6, 2017, letter to all bodies of elders for further direction on filing confidential material.