Jersey's Dean and the Silly Season.

It is often said that the month of August is the silly season for news and readers of Saturday’s Jersey Evening Post will doubtless be scratching their heads at the sight of an expensive full page advert inviting witnesses to give evidence about the conduct of the Bishop of Winchester.

The advert makes reference to an advertisement placed in the same newspaper the previous Saturday by the Bishop of Winchester inviting members of the public to offer evidence in relation to the investigation being conducted by Dame Heather Steel. The advert also published Dame Heather’s Terms of Reference (TOR).

This Saturday’s advert cites a number of the Bishop’s failings in relation to one safeguarding issue which is deemed to be disproportionate, caused widespread anxiety and hurt, and has wrongly undermined public confidence in the Church in Jersey.

Included in the failings, “is the launching of two simultaneous and uncoordinated inquiries aimed less at caring for the vulnerable and more at assaulting the constitutional relationship between Jersey and the Diocese of Winchester, which may have caused a loss of confidence in the Diocese. Some may have experienced the relentless assault on the Church in Jersey through a PR company as placing power before pastoral care.”

“Others may be alarmed at the alleged expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds on lawyers, public relations consultants and two extensive inquiries. The terms of reference of the Steel inquiry invite evidence from the public of inappropriate or unbecoming conduct by the clergy in relation to events of the recent past. The Bishop of Winchester is a member of the clergy. If anyone has experienced the conduct of the Bishop of Winchester as inappropriate, or unbecoming, they should write to Dame Heather Steel at heather.steel@churchofengland.org and copy it to noconfidenceinwinton@gmail.com “

The advert appears to have been paid for by a group of concerned members of the laity of the Anglican Church in Jersey “who retain the highest confidence in the safeguarding record and practice of the Anglican Church in Jersey. Safeguarding provides for the care of the vulnerable, but also provides protection for those who offer that care. Courageous support is often provided by the Church for people who are deeply disturbed in the most challenging circumstances.”

Given such a powerful statement one wonders why those members of the laity did not have the courage to state who they are, who at no confidence in Winton will receive the evidence and what is its purpose? Also why should the evidence be forwarded to Dame Heather is she part of the laity, why no explanation? On reading her TOR it seems to be stretching things to claim that the Bishop’s alleged failings come within its remit.

I have questioned the Bishop’s handling of the matter ever since he suspended Jersey’s Dean Bob Key. If ever there was case of failing to plan there can be few which would surpass the Bishop’s. The advert placed by those claiming to be concerned members of the laity are no better and is akin to the pot calling the kettle black. Goodness knows what the ordinary members of the congregation up and down the country are thinking about their supposed leaders.

Those who have been following my Blogs will know that I believe the Dean and others have a case to answer, but they are entitled to expect the investigation to be conducted in an efficient and timely manner. This has not been the case and those questioning the conduct of the investigation are entitled to do so because there is ample evidence.

However what is distressing about the advert is that the concerned laity have made no mention of the real victim, that being HG, the lady whose suffered so badly at the hands of those who profess to care for the vulnerable and for giving courageous support.

Do they wish to continue turn a blind eye to those responsible for the abuse, do they wish to turn a blind eye to those responsible for HG’s arrest, detention and deportation. Do they wish to turn a blind eye to those who left her destitute in England whereby she lost her Jersey home, job and friends? Do they not care about her wellbeing and that her complaints are properly addressed?

Instead of petty squabbling among themselves, they should be united in pressing for an efficient and timely investigation and ensuring that HG receives tangible support and personal apologies. There may have been only been one safeguarding issue, but the way it has been mishandled and the fallout that followed is not down to HG but the incompetence of those tasked with the care of the vulnerable. They failed five years ago and are failing once more.

It looks to me that the advert is more about the concerned members of the Jersey Laity protecting their cosy and closed group so as to continue doing things the “Jersey Way.” Unfortunately the Bishop is playing into their hands.

Jersey's Dean--------Meaningless Apologies

Later today John Gladwin will be setting foot on Jersey soil to interview the Dean and other persons in his attempt to unravel what has now become a tangled mess where the shepherds are more concerned with protecting their corner than their flock. The Visit has come about following a review undertaken by Jan Korris who reported that there were serious failings in safeguarding the vulnerable in Jersey and in particular a lady named as HG.

The people concerned are the Dean of Jersey, the former Bishop and Jane Fisher the Diocesan’s Safeguarding Officer. Public apologies have been given to HG by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the present Dean of Winchester Tim Dakin and more recently the Dean following his reinstatement. However it now unclear whether the apologies are genuine or just a flag waving exercise?  

Way back in March the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby said:” The Bishop of Winchester's swift, decisive and wholly necessary actions following his receipt of this report are to be commended. I too wish to add my own personal apologies to the young woman who was so badly let down by those she had turned to for help and I wholeheartedly support the investigation that the Bishop has launched. He must receive full cooperation from all involved. 

Following the Dean’s reinstatement in April he said: “I regret mistakes that I made in the safeguarding processes and I understand that, upon reflection, it would have been more helpful if I had co-operated more fully with the Korris Review. I now add my own apology to that of the Bishop of Winchester and Archbishop of Canterbury to the vulnerable person at the heart of this matter.”

I have always maintained that unless the apologies are given personally they are meaningless. However it is now highly questionable whether they were apologies at all and my reasons are as follows.

Although John Gladwin will begin his investigation in Jersey today, last Tuesday in London I accompanied HG to a meeting with him and fellow Panel member Christine Daly. Prior to the meeting I had written to the Archbishop via his personal assistant Christopher Smith stating that as HG would be in London it would be an ideal opportunity for the Archbishop, if free to personally apologise to her and also offer some tangible support now that the Church of England had made her destitute. Regretfully my email was neither acted upon nor even acknowledged.

Yesterday morning on the BBC Radio Jersey Chris Stone programme in his interview with the Dean, Chris said that as he had issued a public apology to HG along with the Archbishop and Bishop Dean why had he not apologised personally and what steps had he taken to do so?  (please see comment below)

It was clearly an uncomfortable question which caused the Dean to think carefully for an answer. In summary he said that the public statement was a result of several drafts and the apology was for administrative mistakes. He had not been asked nor had it been suggested and indeed he did not know if in doing so it would be most helpful to apologise to HG. He and the Bishops would have to think most carefully when all the facts had emerged and the clouds in the sky had been removed.

So it would appear that apologies offered by the most senior leaders of the Church of England have to be carefully drafted, no doubt by PR companies which are only intended to be favourable media sound bites and nothing else. In my book that is dishonest, disingenuous and most unbecoming of anyone let alone church leaders who are supposed to be God's representatives.

In his "apology" the Archbishop said that HG was so badly let down, that is very much an understatement. Last Tuesday before John Gladwin and Christine Daly HG was able to give an account of how she was not only a victim of abuse by a Church Warden but also a victim of abuse of process by those charged with handling her complaint. As if that was not bad enough her arrest, detention and deportation would not have occurred had the Dean and former Bishop called on the plethora of specialist in social care to assist them rather than sign the relevant police documents which conveniently removed her out of Jersey to become destitute in the UK.

I am sure that John Gladwin, Christine Daly and Archdeacon Norman Russell will make good use of their first visit to Jersey. Not only will they have to untangled the mess but also learn of the “Jersey Way” which protects the guilty and marginalises those who like HG are brave enough to put their head above the parapet.

**************************************************************
I am grateful to BBC Radio Jersey for providing the link to the Dean's interview and complement Chris Stone on manner in which he conducted the interview.

Please press HERE for the interview.

Jersey's Dean---Did the Punishment fit the Crime?

Readers who have followed my Dean Blogs will know that from the very outset I raised concerns about the circumstances which led to HG being “deported” from Jersey and left destitute in the UK. I questioned whether the agencies with responsibility with dealing for people like HG had the competence and resources. Having read and re read the Korris Report, Senator Bailhache’s letter and documentation provided by HG my concerns have not been allayed but have increased. On Page 41 of her Report Jan Korris states “The decision and manner of HG’s deportation requires 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 of her imminent needs.”

I agree with Jan Korris and although I have repeatedly requested the Chief Minister to instigate an investigation, his failure to even respond can only indicate that he will not to agree to my request. The arrest is not included in the Visitation Terms of Reference and it is unclear whether the proposed investigation into the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaints will come within its remit.

However the purpose of this Blog is to allow readers an insight into the circumstances that led to HG’s arrest and removal from Jersey.

It is evident that HG had made complaints to the Dean, the Bishop and the States Police. It is also evident that whilst there was some substance to her complaint against the Church Warden, the police did not have sufficient evidence to level criminal charges. In page 40, Korris states “it is debatable once the police case had been settled whether HG’s abuse complaints remained a Safeguarding issue. However as soon as HG started to make complaints against Officers of the Church in December 2008 it may have been helpful for the task of investigating this to have changed hands.”

Unfortunately the same people tasked with addressing HG’s abuse complaints then addressed her complaints against them for abuse of process. This seems extraordinary given that HG had informed Lambeth Palace of her complaints. I understand that the Church of England has access to a wide range of agencies with the relevant expertise including Autism yet it is apparent that little or no contact was made for advice or assistance.

HG had a double grievance, her allegation against the Church Warden and also against the Church Officers, their wives and the Safeguarding Officer who in HG’s eyes was not acting impartially. This grievance lasted (and still does) from December 2008 until September 2010. It is apparent that in seeking justice, HG sent hundreds of emails to the Dean, Bishop and the Safeguarding Officer Jane Fisher which were often copied to various other people. To remedy the problem the States Police were eventually contacted and apparently suitable words of advice were given along with a Harassment Order which HG denies receiving.

It appears that on Sunday 26th September 2010 a church service was due to take place in which both the Dean and Bishop would be attending. It is alleged that HG made a telephone call in the late afternoon of Saturday 25th September in which she was rude and threatened to disrupt the church service. Although Korris (page 25) states that the Bishop made a statement at the Deanery on 26th September the statement was taken some hours AFTER HG had been arrested and not before as reported by Korris. Korris goes on to state that the Bishop’s statement was made with the expectation that this would enable the police to keep HG from disrupting the Service that day. Was he that naïve? Statements were also taken that afternoon from the Dean and Mrs Key.

One would have assumed that at the time the statements were being taken all 3 were aware that HG had been in custody for some hours. It is not known whether any of the 3 asked of the purpose for the statements but one might have assumed that they knew their statements would be used as evidence against HG.

What is evident is that earlier at around 930am two States Police officers had called at HG’s home and arrested her on suspicion of harassment. It appears that HG was arrested and the evidence to justify the arrest and detention was obtained some hours after the arrest and HG was charged some 11 hours after her arrest and well after the Church Service.

What is also evident but deemed irrelevant is the fact that on the Sunday morning HG was getting herself ready to lend support at a charity event. She was arrested from her home; she was in full employment and of good character. If she was arrested to prevent disrupting the Church Service, why was she not bailed after the Service and warned to attend the Magistrate’s Court the following morning?

HG was held in custody overnight and taken by prison van to the Magistrate’s Court on the Monday morning. Legal Aid in Jersey is not as advanced as in the UK; however HG was seen by a duty advocate who advised her to reserve her plea and to apply for bail.

HG did not appear before the Magistrate until almost lunch time. The Court Transcript records the Magistrate twice stating that the matter was not an ordinary run of the mill case, yet no explanation is given. What he did say was in normal circumstances with a case such as this, conditional bail would be quite normal. Yet it is apparent that he sought excuses to deny bail. HG’s Advocate stated that HG had somewhere to live, had been living there for 6 months and gave details of her current employment; if she did not turn up that day she might lose her job. HG also understood that any breach of bail would lead to her arrest. However despite the facts and assurances HG was remanded in La Moye prison for two weeks.

HG appeared at the Magistrate’s Court two weeks later where the two original charges were dropped but replaced by a third. It will be for others to take me to task but it appears that there was a great deal of behind the scenes activity to find the most expedient way of dealing with a touchy and sensitive situation. The rationale for the change was that the original charges included the Bishop and Jane Fisher who lived in the UK. On page 24 Korris mentions Jane Fisher writing to the Bishop on 14th August 2010 expressing concerns as to how harassment to which they were being subjected, could be handled. Adding that if a court case was involved she felt the Diocese would be rather exposed, saying “I don’t think we have written evidence to support any investigation into her complaints against us at all” worrying that the Diocese’s competence could be questioned, “Particularly in light of the internal debate- well documented-about an independent review.”

By removing the Bishop and Jane Fisher from the charges it paved the way to bind HG over to leave the Island on the grounds that she was homeless and unemployed and could no longer harass the Keys. However it should be recalled that only two weeks earlier HG could not be bailed because she was allegedly homeless and unemployed. HG has stated that she feared that if she did not agree to be bound over she would be subjected to a further period in prison.

However where was the logic in binding HG to leave the Island where she would be destitute and a possible risk to the Bishop and Jane Fisher, but logic did not play a part in the Court’s thinking. Like Pontius Pilate the Magistrate washed his hands of the matter. After being sentenced arrangements were made for a flight later that day. HG was held in custody until she was placed in a police car to be transported to the airport. She pleaded with the officers to allow her to collect her belongings from her home which was on the way to the airport. Her plea was respected but rather than allow her to enter her home to collect her property she had to remain in the car whilst a police officer rummaged through her belongings selecting various items to be taken on the plane.

HG arrived in the UK on a dark October night with no means of support, homeless, unemployed and with criminal record. On page 25 Jane Fisher is reported as saying that "she was shocked that HG was bound over and summarily deported from the Island for 3 years and put on a plane with no-one to meet her. No planned accommodation and no accommodation." I wonder whether the Dean and the Bishop were also shocked.

Last Thursday the now re-instated Dean led the 68th Liberation Day Service to celebrate the ending of 5 years of the Nazi Occupation of Jersey. 70 years ago the Occupying Nazi's gave many Jersey families very short notice to report at the harbour to be deported to Germany. They were more fortunate than HG because they were given the opportunity of choosing what they could put in their suitcase. Some small consolation I suppose, but did HG’s punishment fit the crime, did she deserve to be deported and have we learnt nothing from the past?