Jersey's Dean--- More Questions Without Answers

Last week saw the historic handshake between Prince Charles and Gerry Adams which led to a reader leaving a comment on my previous blog stating that if those two people could shake hands why can’t the Dean and Bishop?

It was a good question and on last Friday’s BBC Radio Jersey’s Questions to the Chief Minister Hour I was able to ask our Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst if he would agree to arrange a meeting with the Dean and Bishop and as a gesture of peace and reconciliation they too could shake hands which would not only set a fine example but would restore Jersey’s 500 year link with Winchester.

As is often the case when there are family disputes and parties go off in a huff it requires some one to bring them together. One of course would hope that when people aspire to positions of high office they would see service before self as the path to follow. Sadly this is not the case with our Dean or Bishop. Therefore to avoid further harm and embarrassment to our Island and the Church of England someone of the standing of our Chief Minister should be taking the lead to end the impasse.

The Jersey Dean’s appointment with Letters Patent and a seat in our States Assembly (Parliament) is well past its sell buy date. However as the Dean is in receipt of a States allowance of £26k in addition to his clergy salary and rent free accommodation he should be accountable to those he has the privilege of representing. There will be many who question the Dean’s position and whether it is becoming untenable because how can he lead our Members of the States which includes our Lt Governor, Bailiff, and Crown Officers in prayers when he himself is incapable of forgiving those who trespass against him. I don’t know what “trespass” the Bishop has inflicted but I doubt if it’s bodily harm or anything more than harsh words. How can he ask others to seek peace and reconciliation when he is oblivious to his own shortcomings?

The same could be said of the Bishop and we should not have to wait for Reports to find out who is responsible for the unseemly dispute. I mention Reports because in a rather disappointing answer the only way our Chief Minister could find a way forward was to wait for the publication of the Gladwin, Steel and the Archbishop’s pending review which could take some years before being published. Sitting on the fence is not an option.

Those who have closely watched events unfold will have no difficulty in finding faults on both sides and possibly the two men have been hurt by words and actions. But surely both men should be capable of privately settling their differences or being replaced by people with thicker skins and smaller egos.

I am grateful to BBC Radio Jersey for allowing me to ask the question and for Team Voice for supplying the video below which will enable Readers to listen to the questions and “answers.”  

  

Jersey's Dean--All Quiet on the Winchester Front.

Jersey has just celebrated the 70^th anniversary of its Liberation from 5 years of Nazi Occupation. In many of the sermons espoused by our Island’s clergy at Services held celebrate the anniversary was the need for reconciliation. 

Unfortunately for some clergy it is easier to talk about the matter than practice it. The same can be said for honesty where not for the first time the Church of England has provided ample evidence of its “Do as I say and not as I do” approach to life.

As an example of its double standards I cite the Jersey Deans infamous handling of a complaint made by a vulnerable person whereby the promised outcome is still awaited.

Although the complaint was made 7 years ago the matter only came to light 2 years ago following a review by Jan Korris. This resulted in the Dean being suspended by Bishop Dakin who soon fell foul of the Dean’s supporters who claimed that because of the ancient practice of the Dean, on appointment, receiving Letters Patent from the Crown, the Bishop was acting outside his remit.

Although the matter is now two years old those appointed to address the matter have either acted as though it never occurred or have arrogantly abdicated their responsibility.

The Dean was hastily reinstated following his "apology" for “any” mistakes he “may” have made and promised to co-operate with any review that might ensue.

Two reviews were undertaken and their outcomes should have been made known at least 12 months ago. 

Two weeks ago in an attempt to seek an update I emailed Tim Dakin, the Bishop of Winchester with a request that the four issues below be addressed. Sadly, but not surprisingly I have not received a reply

This is a copy of the email dated May 4^th.

Dear Bishop Tim, 

It is now 2 years since you suspended and reinstated the Dean. It is also 2 years since you appointed Bishop Gladwin and Dame Heather Steel to review the Constitutional situation and the Dean’s handling of a complaint. To date no reports have been published.

It has been reported that a further review is to be undertaken in respect of the Constitutional issues. If that is the case please could you inform me what steps you are taking to publish Bishop Gladwin’s findings or are they to be incorporated into the new review?

Regarding Dame Heather's Report, you must be aware that there are a number of valid reasons why Dame Heather’s Report can never be published. Apart from the legal issues and Dame Heather’s flawed investigation, there is also the issue of the undertakings referred to in your letter to the former Bailiff last May and those submitted to Winchester Court last June.

My justification for claiming that Dame Heather’s investigation was flawed is because of her failure to interview the main witness, namely the complainant or review her arrest and deportation as recommended by Ms Korris in her Report. Concerns about Dame Heather’s conflict and unsuitability can be confirmed in the transcript of her 3 hour meeting with me in October 2013.

You will recall that before my meeting with Dame Heather it had been agreed that I would receive a copy of the transcript. After the meeting I was again promised a copy but despite numerous requests to you and Dame Heather the transcript has not been provided.

The Dean’s handling of the complaint has caused great distress to a number of people including the complainant, your self, the Dean and a large number of ordinary church goers who have seen their money wasted on flawed reviews and the ending of our 500 year association with Winchester.

The matter has dragged on and I believe it is incumbent on you as the instigator of the suspension, the Visitation, broken promises, distress, and the break from Winchester to come clean with the people you represent and make it known what you propose to do with the finding of the Gladwin Review and the Steel Report.

I know that sometimes it is difficult to accept that we are capable of making mistakes but the appointment of Dame Heather was a mistake as evidenced by the way she conducted her investigation and if her report was published it would cause even further distress. Therefore it should be shredded.

In summary I would be grateful if you would;

1 Update me on what you propose to do with the Gladwin findings. 

2 Confirm that you will not be publishing the Steel Report. 

3 Provide me with the copy of transcript of my meeting with Dame Heather. 

4 Advise me how much the Visitation has cost to date.

I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this email and assure me that my requests above will be addressed within the next two weeks. 

It is disappointing that the Bishop has ignored a simple request.  

It is not surprising that Bishop Gladwin has found the constitutional issues to be complex and that is probably why another review is to be undertaken, so why the silence?

The appointment of Dame Heather Steel was a mistake and for reasons above her Report should be shredded. I should also be given the promised transcript. So why continue to withhold it?

It has been reported that no disciplinary action is being taken against the Dean, however no reasons have been given nor whether the Dean has been exonerated.  

It could be said that as the Bishop had no powers to suspend the Dean then he has no power to discipline him. Leaving the matter open to speculation is unsatisfactory.

What is also unsatisfactory is that Bishop Dakin has claimed there are serious Safeguarding concerns in Jersey. Given my recent involvement with another safeguarding matter, I have no problem in endorsing Bishop Tim’s concerns. However what are those concerns and who is addressing them?

Given the time taken and of the personal involved the cost of conducting the reviews/investigations are likely to be in excess of the original estimate. The costs are not being met from the Bishop's pocket so why are they being withheld?

When I met a senior member of the clergy two years ago he described the Jersey situation as a mess. Two years on it can be said that not only does confusion reign supreme but the mess is now a much bigger and more expensive.

The issue will not go away and the longer there is a denial of the truth the more harm will be inflicted on the Church of England. It does little for its integrity when its Ministers espouse the virtues of reconciliation yet the Dean of Jersey and Bishop of Winchester cannot bury their differences. It also does little to inspire confidence when it cannot honour promised made.

Sadly I doubt whether anyone at Canterbury really cares, because if they did they would not permit the matter to fester. 

Jersey's Dean---Steel and Gladwin Reports---Update

It is now 18 months since Tim Dakin the Bishop of Winchester suspended Jersey's Dean Bob Key and announced that there would be an investigation into the Dean’s handling of a complaint against a Church Warden.

The suspension arose from the findings of report by Jan Korris who had in November 2011 been commissioned by the Safeguarding Panel for the Diocese of Winchester. What has never been established is why the Korris review was instigated in the first place? However is should be noted that Tim Dakin was not appointed Bishop until April 2012 so was unlikely to have played any part in that decision.

The Korris Report is dated March 2013 but must have been viewed by Bishop Dakin some time sooner because on 8th March he announced that he had suspended Jersey’s Dean.

At the time of the suspension Bishop Dakin said “Firstly I want to give my unreserved apologies to the complainant for her treatment. Protecting the vulnerable is at the heart of the Church of England's mission. With that comes a duty to ensure those in need are properly looked after. It is vital that robust safeguarding policies are in place and, above all, that they are properly implemented."

“This Independent Report suggests that, put simply our policies were not implemented as they should have been. I am particularly disappointed that the Dean of Jersey refused to cooperate with the review and I have now ordered an immediate and thorough investigation. In the wake of the report, difficult but necessary and decisive actions are required to ensure that, in the future, procedures will be followed properly.”

18 months on it is worth looking to see if there is an outcome of the “difficult but necessary and decisive actions.” On 26th March last year it was announced that John Gladwin the former Bishop of Chelmsford would head a Visitation/Inquiry whereby woolly Terms of Reference were published. This eventually led to the Inquiry being separated with John Gladwin looking into the complicated Constitutional issues and Dame Heather Steel being appointed to investigate the Dean’s handling of the complaint against the Church Warden.

It goes without saying that Bishop Dakin soon sailed into troubled and uncharted waters and was quite unaware of “The Jersey Way” of handling matters particularly if it affected establishment figures or constitutional matters. Soon after the former Bailiff but now Senator Bailhache wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury protesting at the Bishop’s handling of the matter whereby the Dean’s suspension was lifted.

The process had all the hallmarks of a “done deal” because the Dean offered a meaningless apology for failings in his administration. I may add that the Archbishop of Canterbury had also offered public but not personal apologies to the victim.

Given the importance of the matter let alone the obscene cost one would have hoped that by mid September 2014 the Gladwin and Steel Reports would have been published. It is worth reminding readers that last November Bishop Gladwin announced that Dame Heather was finalising her Report but based on her findings no disciplinary action was being taken against the Dean and the other clergy member.

I have always maintained that the Steel Report would be worthless for a number of reasons, such as she did not interview the two main witnesses, she did not, as recommended by Jan Korris address the issue of the complainant’s deportation from Jersey and being left destitute in the UK. Dame Heather is a former colleague of Senator Philip Bailhache a well known supporter of the Dean and in a 3 hour meeting with me she was less than complimentary to the victim and displayed a bias in favour of the Dean. It should be noted that Dame Heather reneged on a promise to provide me with the transcript of the meeting.

In May this year the Bishop informed Jersey’s Bailiff that Dame Heather had sent him her Report and that she had informed him that it was her final report. One gets the impression that Dame Heather had submitted a number of “final” reports and had got fed up with continually making amendments at the Bishop’s behest.

The Bishop made some further but very relevant points in that he was forwarding the Report to Counsel in London to look at defamation and confidentiality but hoped to publish the Report shortly. He had also assembled a small group of suitably qualified professionals to carry out an Impact Assessment to consider the likely impact on the person at the heart of the matter.

The Bishop went on to say that the Report highlighted a number of significant concerns about safeguarding in Jersey, including some which were directly connected with the Canons and the laws of Jersey.

We are now in mid September and one is perfectly entitled to know what is going on at Winchester and ask why the Reports have not been published and what if any steps have been taken in relation to the Impact Study and addressing the significant safeguarding concerns in the Island which were also raised by Jan Korris in March 2013.

I have tried to get answers from Winchester and Canterbury but needless to say I have not received replies. If 18 months ago Bishop Tim was of the view that it was vital that robust safeguarding policies are in place and, above all, that they are properly implemented it would be helpful if he, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Dover who now has oversight for Jersey or the Dean would make it publicly known what new safe guarding policies are in place and that when someone makes a complaint against a Church Official they wont end up being deported and left destitute in the UK.

At the same time it would also be helpful for the Bishop to announce that he will not be publishing the Steel Report as it has been so redacted it is now as meaningless as his apologies.

Today the Dean has announced that the Church is to seek the views of Islanders in relation to same sex marriages. It makes one wonder where the Church’s priorities are.

Jersey's Dean---Dame Heather-Saint or Sinner?

In early March this year following a review undertaken by Jan Korris on behalf of the Safeguarding Panel for the Diocese of Winchester Jersey’s Dean Bob Key was suspended.

Later in March it was announced that Bishop John Gladwin was appointed to head a Visitation/Investigation. The Terms of Reference (TOR) were published and it was evident that they mainly concentrated on the Constitutional position between the Jersey and Winchester but importantly did not include the Dean’s handling of an abuse complaint made in 2008 by a lady identified as HG against a Church Warden identified as EY.

The Dean’s suspension was lifted in early May following considerable pressure from Senator Bailhache and other interested parties. The Dean publicly apologised to HG but like the Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop of Winchester has not done so personally.

On 15^th May the Winchester Diocese released news that Dame Heather Steel a former High Court Judge with strong links with the Jersey judiciary was to lead an investigation into the 2008 church safeguarding complaint. The investigation would feed into the John Gladwin investigation, but surprisingly no TOR was published.

Following the publication of several Blogs on the Dean's suspension, HG contacted me and we agreed that I should act as her mediator. I made contact with John Gladwin and arranged to meet him with HG in London on 11th June. I envisaged that the investigation process would be a traumatic experience and at the outset had made it made abundantly clear that the Church of England should provide HG with some tangible support as she was living on the streets. I also asked that arrangements should be made for the public apologies to be given personally.

At the June meeting concerns were expressed regarding Dame Heather’s conflict and absence of her TOR. HG’s deportation was most unjust, was a life changing experience, should certainly have been included in the TOR and we sought confirmation.

A promise was made re tangible assistance, we would receive a copy of the report made from notes taken at the meeting, HG agreed to attend a further meeting and I would continue to be the intermediary and all communications would be through me. We would receive a copy of Dame Heather’s TOR which we anticipated would include HG’s arrest and deportation. We also expected John Gladwin to brief Dame Heather of our meeting and agreements. To date no assistance has been given, no clarification given re the TOR, no second meeting has been arranged and Dame Heather has not interviewed HG.

What is the significance of HG’s arrest and deportation? For a full account it would be helpful to read my Blog “Did the punishment fit the crime? “ posted on 14th May to read please click HERE. In summary by 2010 HG felt a great sense of injustice, not only did she believe that the Dean, the former Bishop Michael Scott -Joynt and Safeguarding Officer Jane Fisher had failed to satisfactorily deal with her complaint against the Church Warden but there was no way they could be accountable as even her complaint to the Arch Bishop of Canterbury about their failure was ignored. In short she felt betrayed and humiliated. This betrayal is exacerbated following the recent June meeting.

In attempting to seek justice she made repeated telephone calls and sent emails to the Dean, Bishop and Jane Fisher. Korris claims that HG’s demanding and abusive emails swung between anger and fear. I am not condoning HG’s actions but I do question whether they were deserving of being arrested, detained in La Moye Prison for 2 weeks before being deported, left destitute in the UK and banned from returning to Jersey for 3 years.

Korris on page 41 says; “The decision and manner of HG’s deportation requires further investigation. It is clearly a matter of concern that a vulnerable adult in such a distressed state could be removed from Jersey with no thought to her imminent care needs.”

In page 47 in her list of recommendations which form the basis of the Steel TOR Korris records; “There will also need to be an investigation into the deportation of HG on 11th October 2010 and why there is there is a complete lack of recording of this matter by Dean RK from the date of her arrest.”

The Steel TOR was published in August and it is unclear whether the deportation is included so to seek clarification. I sent emails to Dame Heather on 15th & 27th August, 3rd, and 9th and 20th September, I also said that I would be pleased to meet her to discuss the matter. John Gladwin was copied in to all these emails.

Last Thursday 3^rd October I again emailed Dame Heather with copy to John Gladwin stating that I would be drafting another Blog on Monday and asked whether the arrest and deportation were in the TOR and if she intended to meet me.

Unfortunately I have not received a reply and one is left to wonder whether Dame Heather is incredibly busy, inefficient or just rude. On her appointment Bishop Tim Dakin, said, “We are enormously grateful that Dame Heather has offered her considerable expertise to us all. As I have said before, we cannot stress enough the importance of safeguarding. We are committed to understanding fully the circumstances of this complaint and to ensuring that we take whatever action is required to ensure that our Church is a safe haven for the vulnerable.”

It is becoming evident that neither the Church nor Dame Heather is really interested in fully understanding HG’s complaint let alone address it and the real purpose of the Visitation is to address the Constitutional issue. This claim was made by the Dean’s supporters months back who claim that the Dean and HG are just pawns in a much bigger game.

It is now 7 months since the Dean was suspended and on Friday it will be 3 years to the day that HG was deported. If the Visitation is to have any credibility then Dame Heather must abide with Jan Korris’s recommendation and investigate HG’s deportation. The least she can do is to clarify her TOR and if she has no intention of reviewing the deportation issue then someone else should be appointed to so. It seems inconceivable that any report can be compiled unless all the concerns are addressed, and the complainant and all the witnesses are interviewed. 

To read “Did the punishment fit the crime” please click HERE.

The Dean---- And a Voice in the Wilderness

There have been a number of developments since I published my last Blog, regretfully the Dean is now on the sick list suffering from stress and I am sure we wish him a speedy recovery.

The Terms of Reference have been published.

Senator Bailhache has written an open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury expressing his ‘deep dismay’ over the suspension of the Dean saying the Bishop made a ‘mistake.’ The Letter can be accessed here

It is also alleged that Senator Bailhache was a little careless with his documents on a recent flight.

I have again written to the Chief Minister asking that he instigate an investigation into the circumstances leading to HG’s arrest and court appearances.

The Terms of Reference (TOR)

The Bishop of Winchester has published the Terms of Reference for an independently led inquiry - ‘Visitation’ - into safeguarding procedures in the Deanery of Jersey. The Visitation will commence with immediate effect and will consider the implementation of safeguarding in Jersey and across the Diocese, providing recommendations for enhancing policies and procedures.

The Visitation is being led by the former Bishop of Chelmsford the Right Reverend John Gladwin who led a recent Visitation to Chichester. He will be joined on the panel by the Venerable Norman Russell, Archdeacon of Berkshire and an independent senior lawyer.

It should be noted that the Visitation to Chichester was the first such appointment of Commissaries for over 100 years and was evidence of the deep concern held in the Church of England for the diocese and its failure properly to protect children in its care. Thus it is apparent that the same concerns are felt about the circumstances surrounding HG’s complaint in 2008.

The Chichester Visitation began on 21st December 2011, an Interim Report was published on 30th August 2012 but I am not aware of the existence of a Final Report so presumably the investigation which began 15 months ago is not concluded. It should be noted that John Gladwin has now begun his Jersey investigation which is intended to be fair and independent, but no target is set for its completion. Given the time taken with the Chichester Visitation, Jersey’s could take as long which is not good news for Dean Bob Key or his wife.

I shall be forwarding this Blog to Winchester and Canterbury with a request that the Dean and indeed the Island is given some indication of the time the investigation is intended to take. I have assisted a number of suspended people and am well aware of the stress and trauma they and their families suffered. As we know in Jersey, some lengthy suspensions have been used as device to dismiss by stealth or de-skill employees whereby they are unfit to return to work. I would not wish for the Dean or anyone else to suffer the same experience.

I shall also be asking for an update on HG’s health and assurance that she is being cared for. I believe the Church of England has a duty to safeguard her health and well being until she is able to stand on her own two feet.

The Visitation will also include an investigation into the findings of the recently published Independent Korris Review which raised concerns about how a safeguarding complaint in 2008 was handled. Given the allegations contained in the Review/Report one wonders when the Dean and the Vicar will be able to defend the allegations.

Full Terms of Reference are below and my comments are in red

In order to secure the good order of the Church for the mission of God in promoting the common good, And given the importance of safeguarding as an expression of the Gospel priority to care for the vulnerable, And with reference to the Korris Review,

The Bishop of Winchester hereby:

1. Appoints as his Commissary for Visitation of the Parishes of the Deanery of Jersey the Right Reverend John Gladwin.

From research via Yahoo it apparent that John Gladwin is a modern thinking and opened minded individual. His Interim Report into the Chichester Visitation can be accessed here.

2. Directs that during the period of the Visitation, all issues relating to or affecting Safeguarding within the Parishes of the Deanery of Jersey shall be dealt with solely as directed by the Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser and the Diocesan Safeguarding Panel, and by no other.

The Church of England of England is clearly reminding Jersey clergy that all safeguarding matters are solely within its remit and not as envisaged by the Dean.

3. Mandates that the Visitation shall be limited in its scope to:

a. clarifying and describing the legal, ecclesiastical and practical nature of the relationship between the Deanery of Jersey, the Diocese of Winchester and the wider Church of England, including the roles of the Bishop of Winchester, the Suffragan Bishops, the Archdeacons, Diocesan staff, the Dean and Vice-Deans of Jersey and the ecclesiastical courts of Jersey in relation to the appointments process, the safeguarding of children and vulnerable people, disciplinary provisions and the general oversight of the Deanery of Jersey.

I trust that the position of the Letters Patent is clarified so they are understood by everyone. I also hope that the matter of the Dean remaining an unelected Member of the States will be addressed. It seems anomalous that an employee can be suspended from one area of work but not from another.

b. examining progress made in implementation of and actions taken in accordance with the Diocesan Safeguarding provisions (Winchester Diocese Child Safeguarding Manual, 2003), the current House of Bishops’ Guidelines (Promoting a Safe Church, 2006, Protecting All God’s Children, 2010 and Responding Well, 2011) and the recommendations made by Jan Korris in her report dated March 2013;

It is apparent from the Korris Report that Jersey’s Safeguarding procedures leaves a lot be desired and there must be uniformity across the Island. That said it is evident via the Chichester Interim Report that there are similar shortcomings in the UK.

c. considering the results of the investigation set up in response to the Korris Review and making recommendations for the Deanery, Diocese and the wider Church of England in response to it;

As with TOR 3(a) I would welcome clarity as to what this term means. Are the Korris findings/recommendations being taken as read or will the allegations be re-visited? It should be recalled that some of the leading players, including HG and EY were not interviewed by Jan Korris.

d. making such further recommendations as may appear necessary and expedient.

This is often found in TOR.

4 Directs that the Visitation shall commence with immediate effect.

I hope the Visitation is conducted in a timely manner.

Senator Bailhache’s letter.

Senator Bailhache is a former Solicitor General, Attorney General, Deputy Bailiff, Bailiff, President of the States Assembly and Judge. He raised some interesting points and I believe he was right to question whether the investigation purports to be a disciplinary inquiry because the matter is unclear.

His concerns are two fold, first he believes that the withdrawal of the Bishop’s Commission seems to be disproportionate to the alleged failings of the Dean in that, in his opinion the alleged failings relate to procedural omissions and not misconduct.

The second is that the Senator is unclear whether the Bishop intends to respect the special historical relationship. I will deal with this matter first. I am sure that Winchester and Canterbury will have taken advice on the matter, are acting on that advice and John Gladwin will respect what ever protocols are in place.

Senator Bailhache is of the view that alleged failings of the Dean, in his opinion relate to procedural omissions and not misconduct.

On page 47/48 of the Korris Review/Report she states

“A number of potentially very serious matters came to light during the course of the Review that to have investigated further would have been beyond the original terms of reference. The matters listed below must be investigated as soon as possible in order to establish whether there has been inappropriate or unbecoming conduct on the part of those identified below, which may lead to the need for a disciplinary process to be conducted.”

1) Allowing a church warden to operate in contravention of the Safeguarding procedures and the training he had undertaken.

2) Failure to notify the Safeguarding Advisor on receipt of the complaint.

3) Failure to implement and act in accordance with Diocesan Safeguarding Procedure in the handling of the initial complaint interview.

4) Failure to record and make all documentation available for a review of a Safeguarding matter as required by the Safeguarding procedures.

5) Despite the request of the Bishop of Winchester, unwillingness to permit review of safeguarding practice and also discouraging others from participating.

There will also need to be an investigation into the deportation of H.G. on 11th October 2010 and why there is a complete lack of recording of this matter by Dean R.K. from the date of her arrest.

Senator Bailhache believes the matters above are merely procedural omissions and not misconduct, but clearly that view is not shared by the Bishop and Archbishop who have apologised to HG and I doubt whether they will be sidetracked from the Visitation by Senator Bailhache or anyone else.

Senator Bailhache has stated that it is pity that the Bishop made a mistake by not speaking to the Dean before removing his Commission. I don't know how the Dean learnt of his suspension/withdrawal of Commission but I hope it was not via the postman because the Senator may well have a point. I am unsure as to whether the Dean is subject to the States Employees' Suspension Policy which is now in place following States approval of my 2010 proposition. This now requires for would be suspended employees being informed in person along with written details of the reasons for suspension.

However it is for the Employer to decide whether to suspend an employee and given that Jan Korris acting on behalf of the CoE attempted to establish the circumstances behind the HG’s complaint but was apparently thwarted by the Dean it is not surprising that Bishop Dakin decided to withdraw the Dean's Commission. On page 37 of her report Jan Korris states “I believe R.K. (the Dean) has done himself a disservice, and his desire to prevent transparency and co-operation has not been of benefit to the clergy or to the relationship between Jersey and the Diocese of Winchester. They deserved better.”

Senator Bailhache has cited two examples of errors in the Reviewer’s report, one is about the email to the Dean being sent on his private rather than his Government address. I do not share the Senator’s view if one has more than one email address surely one has a duty to regularly check them all. Regarding the other alleged error about HG’s “deportation” from Jersey. Like Senator Bailhache I too have read the transcript and it has reinforced my belief that the issue must be the subject of an independent review. As one can see above that is also the view of the Reviewer, Jan Korris.

In my previous Blog I raised the Deportation issue because HG was bound over to leave Jersey, however having now read the Court Transcript I can understand why Jan Korris formed the view that HG was deported.

I have concerns about how Harassment Order was issued and implemented because the Transcript records that on 9th August HG received a police warning about her future actions but she denies knowing of its existence or receiving the warning. I was not privy to the police report or charge sheet but it is evident that HG was arrested sometime prior to the church service that was being conducted by the Dean and the former Bishop on Sunday 26th September 2010. HG was charged and detained overnight in a police cell. It is not known whether she received any legal aid but she was seen by a police medical officer and deemed fit to be questioned and charged. However she was not bailed, why?

HG appeared at the Magistrates Court the following morning and was seen by a Duty Advocate who presumably also had other clients to see. The Transcript shows that the Magistrate commenced the Hearing at 1210pm. He is on record as saying to the Duty Advocate “This is not a run of the mill situation, is it? “ To which he received a reply “No Sir.”

I ask what made the case “not a run of the mill situation” because the Transcript does not record the names of the people allegedly to be harassed. HG reserved her plea and was willing to comply with bail conditions, however as a result of police checks at her home address she was refused bail and remanded in custody at La Moye prison for 2 weeks. Why was she not bailed, she was of previous good behaviour and the Magistrate was aware of her medical condition. Remanding an innocent and vulnerable person for two weeks in prison was not conducive to her health and was certainly heavy handed.

HG appeared again at the Magistrates Court on Monday 11th October where concerns were raised about her fitness to plead however she was assisted by a delegated Advocate and a person with a mental health background. What is evident is that there must have been some behind the scene activity because the 2 original charges were dropped and replaced by a similar harassment charge to which HG pleaded “guilty” and agreed to leave the Island and be bound over not to return for 3 years.

Nowhere in the Transcript are the names of the alleged victims mentioned nor was any mitigation offered. In his letter Senator Bailhache says that HG admitted a course of harassment over 18 months which involved aggressive, obscene and abusive emails and telephone calls to the Dean and his wife. I do not know where he received that information because it does not appear in the Transcript.

Senator Bailhache states that both the Dean and his wife have been treated unfairly and great distress has been caused in Jersey both to the Anglican community and more widely. However he makes no mention about HG being treated unfairly for which both the Bishop of Winchester and Archbishop of Canterbury have apologised. He appears to be more concerned about Constitutional matters than natural justice. Unfortunately he does not seem to understand HG’s sense of grievance at being effectively fobbed of by the Church in both Jersey and Winchester.

HG sought justice but hers was a voice was in the wilderness where the interests of others were deemed more important than hers. From being the victim she became the villain, arrested, detained in a police cell, spent two weeks in prison and then bound over to leave the Island with a criminal record.

Senator Bailhache has claimed that the Magistrate acted with appropriate care and compassion throughout, he may well be right but binding HG to leave the Island for 3 years seems to have been more expedient than compassionate.

I have written twice to the Chief Minister asking that he instigate an enquiry/investigation into the circumstances of HG’s arrest, but am still waiting for a response. Surely the matter is too important to be swept under the carpet.