Jersey's Dean----Steel and Gladwin Reports On The Rocks

It was last March that the Bishop of Winchester Tim Dakin suspended Jersey’s Dean, Bob Key. It was also last March that I published my first Blog on the matter. One year on I thought I would look back at what has or has not happened and what has been achieved.

The Dean was suspended following a review conducted by Ms Jan Korris into his handling of a complaint made in 2008 against a Church Warden by a young lady known as HG.

One question that has never been answered is what prompted Winchester to engage Jan Korris to conduct a review and what did it hope to achieve particularly as neither HG nor the Church Warden were ever interviewed. HG was never made aware of the review or received a copy of the report nor asked to comment on it.

The Korris Report contained a number of the recommendations and also identified a number of failings by the Dean and the Parish Vicar in the way they dealt with the complaint. The report also recommended that the way HG in 2010 was arrested, detained in La Moye Prison for two weeks, then removed/deported from Jersey in her pyjamas and left destitute at a UK airport on cold October night should be investigated.

The Korris Report is dated March 2013 yet within a matter of days of it's publication the Dean was suspended, unreserved apologies given to HG  and it was announced that a Visitation would be conducted by John Gladwin the former Bishop of Chelmsford. Quite dynamic action but thereafter it has been down hill all the way as those at the helm have struck one rock after another and is now stranded.

In looking back what has been achieved? At some stage it was unwisely decided that John Gladwin would only address the Constitutional issues and Dame Heather Steel would address the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaint but no immediate Terms of Reference were published. However when published they were narrow and unclear. There was also the issue of Dame Heather's perceived conflict which has never been addressed.

It was soon evident that Winchester was totally unaware of “the Jersey Way” and that questioning any establishment figure would be seen as an attack on Jersey. It only took a letter from Senator Bailhache to the Archbishop of Canterbury to lift the Dean’s suspension even before he had been interviewed by the Investigators so why he was suspended in the first place.

However it should be noted that on being reinstated the Dean apologised for mistakes made in 2008 and publicly apologised to HG, but not personally.

Last June with HG I met John Gladwin and Christine Daly in London and some very important promises were made. Meetings would be recorded and reports to be agreed. Further interviews would be arranged so that HG’s side of story could be recorded and acted upon. Tangible assistance would be given to help her and to avoid unnecessary stress all communications would come via me. Also reference was made of Dame Heather’s perceived conflict. It is now evident that these promises were not forwarded to Winchester or Dame Heather, why?

In early August a full page advert on behalf of the Jersey Laity appeared in the Jersey Evening Post. It asked members of the public who had experienced inappropriate or unbecoming behaviour by Bishop Dakin to write to Dame Heather Steel. The advert clearly placed Dame Heather in both camps but neither she nor Winchester took any steps to refute or clarify the Adverts’ claims.

Dame Heather’s investigation has been a disaster where she not only failed to interview HG or the Church Warden but her report which she claimed to have completed last October is apparently still incomplete. I wrote to Dame Heather on seven occasions asking to meet her but somehow my emails which were also copied in to the Bishop’s Chaplain and John Gladwin were ignored until late October when by that time Dame Heather had almost completed her report.

It was hoped that HG would accompany me to Church House in Westminster but on learning of her visit, the venue was changed because the powers that be refused to allow her on the premises. Unfortunately HG did not attend the meeting but Dame Heather promised that my meeting with her would be recorded and I would be given a copy of the transcript.

However Dame Heather has reneged on her promise and has refused to give me a copy. I have made repeated requests to Bishop Dakin for a copy but although first promising to let me have it he now fails to even respond to my further requests.

In November Bishop Dakin announced that although Dame Heather had not completed her report no disciplinary action would be taken against the Dean and the Vicar. He also announced that the Bishop of Dover would now have oversight over Jersey and that another review would be commissioned on the Constitution issue.

We are now into the third week of March but what has been achieved? It might be easier to ask what has not been achieved. For a starter John Gladwin has not published his report but now that a similar review has been commissioned his report is irrelevant.

Dame Heather submitted her report at the end of October yet almost 5 months later we are told that it has not been completed. If that is the case why has she refused to see HG or arranged for some one else to interview her so that her account of events is recorded? At the States Sitting on 4^th March Deputy Le Fondre via a written question asked the Chief Minister to provide an update on the likely date for the publication of the Dame Heather Steel review?

Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst replied “The position has not changed since I made my statement to the States Assembly in January. I continue to expect that the Bishop of Winchester will honour the commitment made in the terms of reference of the investigation by Dame Heather Steel that, upon receipt of the final report, the Bishop of Winchester will supply a copy to the Bailiff, the Dean and the Ministry of Justice. Lambeth Palace confirmed in January that the reports being conducted by Dame Heather Steel and Bishop Gladwin will be completed in due course. I hope that the Steel report will be completed as soon as possible in order that our community can be strengthened through reconciliation and healing based upon integrity and transparency.

I thought the Chief Minister was being hypercritical because he has commissioned a report on HG’s arrest which has not been satisfactorily investigated because like Dame Steel, the investigator Ms Glenys Johnson has not interviewed HG so her report will be as worthless as Dame Heather’s. Where is the integrity where is the transparency?

Following my meeting with Dame Heather I published a Blog on 28^th October 2013 Jersey’s Dean--- The truth, the whole truth or nothing but a whitewash? At  its conclusion I said the following, “What is becoming abundantly clear is that the Visitation is a waste of time and money, the guilty will be found innocent and the innocent condemned. What sort of message is the Church of England sending out to the poor, needy and vulnerable members of our society?

I stand by that statement, the Visitation has been a meaningless and financial disaster as events have overtaken it. John Gladwin’s report is pointless and Dame Heather’s should be confined to the dustbin. Not only has she failed to conduct her investigation in a satisfactory manner but her conflict and bias is evident by her failure to see HG and supply me with a copy of the transcript in which Dame Heather was less than discreet in her support for the Dean and her condemnation of HG.

The promise to assist HG has not been kept and Winchester’s decision last November to refer her to the NSPCC without consulting her or me was a disgrace. In his press statement dated 22^nd November the Bishop said he was praying that HG would accept what she had been offered. He knew full well that his offer was totally unacceptable and has since been reminded that it is action not prayers that is needed, but alas my advice is still being ignored.

Over £200k has been spent, no reports have been published, Winchester no longer has oversight for Jersey, apologies have not been given personally, promises made have not been kept and HG is still being ignored. What is interesting is that the Church Warden is certainly still within the fold and it is strongly rumoured that he is a candidate for the Church Warden’s position at the Town Church. If that is the case then God really does move in mysterious ways.

I have tried to find the positives from the past 12 months but to no avail. Perhaps readers may be able to inform me.

Jersey's Dean----- Press Release, No Peace, No Reconciliation, What's New?

The rumour that an arrangement was going to be put in place whilst the impasse between Jersey’s Dean and the Bishop of Winchester was resolved has now been confirmed via the following Press Release issued from Lambeth Palace earlier today.

“The Bishop of Dover, the Rt Revd Trevor Willmott, is to assume interim episcopal oversight of the work of the Church of England in the Channel Islands on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to whom the Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Revd Tim Dakin, delegated the oversight of the Islands.

The interim arrangement, which has the fullest support of the Bishop of Winchester, will be in place within a matter of weeks. The reports commissioned by the Bishop of Winchester, being conducted by Dame Heather Steel and Bishop John Gladwin in relation to safeguarding issues, will be completed in due course.

The Bishop of Dover is a former Bishop of Basingstoke in the Diocese of Winchester, and therefore has significant knowledge of the Islands. He and the Bishop at Lambeth, the Rt Revd Nigel Stock, undertook a pastoral visit to the Channel Islands in December, during which they met local church leaders and Island authorities from both Deaneries.    

The interim arrangement is also entirely separate from issues to do with the Islands’ formal relationship with the Church of England. The Archbishop intends to appoint a Commission to look at the relationship between the Islands, the Diocese of Winchester and the wider Church of England.”

ENDS

It is now 10 months since the saga was first made public; it has been described as a mess where its origins began in the summer of 2008 when an allegation of sexual abuse was unsatisfactorily dealt with by Jersey’s Dean for which he has subsequently apologised. It is hard to estimate what the allegation has cost the Church of England not only to its purse but to its reputation. What is again evident is that the victim known as HG is not mentioned in the Press Release nor any safeguarding issues.

What is unknown is how long the interim arrangement will last and what arrangements are in hand to end the impasse between the Dean and Bishop. What is evident is that after 10 months, the Archbishop has felt it necessary to make an interim arrangement because two of his senior Clergy are unable to resolve their differences.

Church goers are entitled to expect their leaders to set examples and to practice what they preach. However we have two senior clergy who are unable to work together, where is the peace and reconciliation? How can they and fellow clergy espouse the virtues of peace and reconciliation as advanced by the likes of Nelson Mandela when two of its senior clergy are unable to practice what they should be preaching?

The Press Release states that the interim arrangement has the fullest support of the Bishop of Winchester and that the reports he commissioned, the Steel and Gladwin will be completed in due course. It should be recalled that when I met Dame Heather Steel at the end of October she would not see HG on the grounds that her report was almost complete, there was nothing that HG could add to it which she was due to submit to the Bishop at the end of the month. If the report is not complete is it because steps are being taken to interview the Church Warden and HG.

What is also of interest is that not withstanding that former Bishop John Gladwin is investigating the Constitutional relationship, the Archbishop intends to appoint a Commission to look at the relationship between the Islands, the Diocese of Winchester and the wider Church. Has John Gladwin found insurmountable obstacles during his investigation and how much will the Commission cost and who will foot the bill?

Bishop Dakin has circulated a letter to his Clergy in which I am told he has apparently stated that what began as an important safe guarding matter has steadily become complicated by a range of political and legal issues but the safe guarding investigations will continue. It would be interesting to know what investigations are in hand. However what must now be evident to Bishop Dakin is that the short strip of water between Winchester and Jersey is not only hazardous but also shark infested and it must come as a relief that he is being released from an unenviable responsibility. 

Jersey's Dean----- The truth, the whole truth or nothing but a Whitewash?

Last Thursday after submitting 7 emails and waiting for over 2 months I finally met Dame Heather Steel. The meeting was due to be held at Church House which serves as the headquarters of the Church of England. However on learning of HG’s attendance the administrators asked that the meeting be held elsewhere so an alternative venue was found.

Winchester is reported to have committed approximately half a million pounds on a Visitation/Investigation into the Dean’s handling of an allegation of abuse on HG by a Church Warden. The investigation which is in 2 parts is headed by the former Bishop of Chelmsford John Gladwin who is looking into the Constitutional position between Jersey and Winchester. The other part is headed by Dame Heather Steel a High Court Judge who is tasked with investigating the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaint and whether he and another member of the clergy should face disciplinary proceedings.

It had been suggested by the Dean’s supporters last March that the investigation is not about HG’s complaint but more to do with a “spat” between the Dean and Bishop Dakin and a power struggle between the Winchester and Jersey hierarchy. Having been involved with the matter since last March it is becoming evident that the Dean’s supporters are correct and HG is again a victim of another cruel and serious mismanagement by the Diocese of Winchester.

Dame Heather’s appointment was announced on 15^th May but surprisingly no Terms of Reference were published. Questions were asked of her perceived conflict and of her relationship with Senator Sir Philip Bailhache who has played a leading role in supporting the Dean. Dame Heather was also to be assisted by a member of the States of Jersey Police who HG claims were less than professional when investigating her abuse allegation and later when they arrested her in her pyjamas, refused her bail which led to her being held her in custody for two weeks and then left destitute at a UK airport on a cold October evening when still in her pyjamas.

In May after reading several of my Blogs HG contacted me and we agreed that I would act as her mediator. HG now lives on the street and our only means of communication is via email and only when she is able to gain access to broadband at libraries etc. HG had been unaware of the Korris report and the Visitation. I contacted John Gladwin, informed him that I was in regular contact with HG and if he felt it helpful HG would be prepared to see him provided I accompanied her. I was of the view that she needed support not only during the Visitation process but also in her every day life. Also steps should be taken for the public apologies to be given to HG personally.

John Gladwin wanted to see her and a date was agreed for us to meet with sufficient time being given for HG to get the meeting. We all met in June which was the first and only time we met; ironically it was on Methodist Church premises. We all felt that it was a productive meeting and that we should meet again. Very importantly it was agreed that steps would be taken by John Gladwin to provide support for HG and that all communication relating to the investigation would be through me. This was to avoid HG further distress and for good management.

In early August Dame Heather’s TOR was published but it was unclear whether they included HG’s arrest and deportation. A few days later a large advert appeared in the JEP which gave the impression of having been paid for by the Dean’s supporters. It called on members of the public who had complaints about the Bishop of Winchester to submit them to Dame Heather.

To the best of my knowledge neither Dame Heather nor the Diocese has ever clarified the matter so there is a presumption that Dame Heather is supporting both camps. On 15^th August I wrote to Dame Heather for the first time seeking clarification of the advert and whether her TOR included HG’s arrest and deportation. I also said that I wished to meet her. I wrote a further 6 times and copied in John Gladwin and eventually the Bishop’s Chaplain asking that they would forward my emails to Dame Heather because I was not receiving replies.

Until I met Dame Heather last Thursday I had been of the belief that the Visitation and investigation was being conducted in a timely and coordinated manner and the left hand knew what the right hand was doing, but alas this is not case. Rev.Gavin Ashenden has publicly questioned Bishop Dakin’s handling of the Visitation and has called on him to apologise to the Dean and HG for the suffering they have endured as a result of it. I can understand where he is coming from.

It is now evident that Dame Heather was unaware of the June meeting with John Gladwin or of the promised support and line of communication. How can that be, that elementary mistake has led to unnecessary hurt, delay and expense, none of which can be levelled at HG’s door.

In mid August Dame Heather emailed HG asking to meet and also instructed an Advocate to request her former Advocate to seek permission of HG for access to the police and court papers. I was not copied into Dame Heather’s email exchange but now know that HG objected to her participation on the grounds of perceived conflict. HG also saw the request for her documents as an intrusion by a person with whom she had no confidence, with a foot in both camps and as a betrayal of the John Gladwin agreement.

As mentioned above I continued sending emails to Dame Heather seeking clarification and requesting we meet but to no avail even though I copied them to John Gladwin and the Bishop’s Chaplain asking that my emails be forwarded to her. However on Friday 18^th October in the late afternoon I received a phone call from Dame Heather saying that she understood that I wished to see her. We had a lengthy conversation and in summary she told me that her report was almost complete and did not want to delay its submission to John Gladwin. I asked how she could submit a report if she had not seen one of the key witnesses to which she replied that HG had refused to meet her. I explained the circumstance outlined above and it was eventually agreed that we would meet on Thursday at Church House in London. I said I would contact HG asking that she attend. I also asked for an independent note taker because the promised notes of our June meeting had still not been received and I wanted a record of our meeting.

I was able to make email contact with HG who agreed to attend and although without funds she said she would find her way to the meeting.  Unfortunately due to travel difficulties she did not arrive. At Thursday’s meeting I asked that another date be arranged because there were extenuating circumstances as to why we had not met. Also although I had HG’s case papers, I would not release them without her consent. Dame Heather initially said that to arrange another meeting would incur further expense and she really wanted to complete her report because so many people were waiting for it.  I asked what price justice and that the Korris report had been criticised because neither HG nor the Church Warden had been interviewed. I was surprised to hear Dame Heather say that she has not interviewed the Church Warden either. 

Dame Heather clarified her TOR and that the arrest and removal issue were not included but she was addressing the matter at Bishop Dakin’s request, so one may ask why they were not in the TOR?  What is without doubt is that Dame Heather does not believe that HG was arrested in her pyjamas, the police did not allow her to get dressed, that she twice attended court and was eventually left destitute in the UK whilst still in her pyjamas. The arrest/deportation issue is clearly a major embarrassment to Winchester so it will be interesting to see how the issue is covered in Dame Heather’s report given that she has refused to see HG or seen the case papers.

My meeting with Dame Heather lasted 3 hours, I asked that I be given a transcript of the meeting but was told that I could but only if I was prepared to pay for it. The meeting was tape recorded and I have asked both Dame Heather and Bishop Dakin for a copy of it. There was no independent note taker but notes were taken by Dame Heather who has sent them to me. They are simply notes which are sketchy and some of the writing is hard to decipher.

Dame Heather has made it clear that even though she has not seen HG or heard her evidence or read the documentation, she is adamant  that nothing will be gained by seeing  her now and thereby delaying her report. If she does not need to see HG why did she want to see her in the first place and why did she go to the expense of instructing Advocates to contact HG for the case papers?

I have written a lengthy letter to Bishop Dakin, not only for record purposes but to explain why I believe that Dame Heather has not satisfactorily conducted her investigation. I have said that the investigation should be impartial, it should expose what is wrong, commend what is right and make recommendations to ensure that when a highly vulnerable person is abused by a church officer, their complaint will be investigated without fear or favour and they do not end up at a UK airport in their pyjamas and left destitute.

There were gaps in the Korris report and lessons should have been learnt. However there will be gaps in Dame Heather’s report because lessons have not been learnt. The witnesses not seen by Korris have not been seen by Dame Heather how can that be? 

It would be totally wrong to claim that HG refused to see Dame Heather because that is not the case. It is now Dame Heather who is refusing to see HG. It could be because Dame Heather has already reached her conclusions and does not want HG’s evidence in case she has to change them.

What is becoming abundantly clear is that the Visitation is a waste of time and money, the guilty will be found innocent and the innocent condemned. What sort of message is the Church of England sending out to the poor, needy and vulnerable members of our society?

Last Friday Dame Heather informed me that my emails had been traced. It is said that God moves in mysterious ways and now my emails have been traced but will He now ensure that we get an honest report or will it be a whitewash?  

Jersey's Dean--Diocese of Winchester Press Release --Dame Heather Steel

You could not make it up” is an expression often used by disbelieving and frustrated members of the public. However given yesterday’s Diocese of Winchester’s press release about investigating HG’s complaint, one could not really make it up, just what game is Bishop Dakin playing?

The following Press Release was published yesterday afternoon and my comments are shown in red

THE DIOCESE OF WINCHESTER has today confirmed that Dame Heather Steel DBE is leading the investigation into a church safeguarding complaint from 2008, which was announced by the Bishop of Winchester on 26 March 2013. The Investigation is feeding into the Church inquiry (Visitation), currently being carried out by Bishop John Gladwin, to consider the wider implementation of safeguarding in Jersey and across the Diocese. Bishop Gladwin will be publishing his report on the Visitation later this year, providing recommendations for enhancing the Diocese’s safeguarding policies and procedures.

Dame Heather Steel DBE is a former Judge of the Court of Appeal in Jersey, having retired in 2012, and is a former High Court Judge in England and Wales (Queen’s Bench Division.) The investigation follows the independent Korris Review into Safeguarding in the Deanery of Jersey, published in March 2013, which considered the case of a vulnerable adult parishioner, who had made a complaint about abusive behaviour by a churchwarden. The Investigation will now make further inquiries, find facts and make recommendations about whether or not disciplinary complaints should be brought against any member of the clergy as a result of the matters raised in the Korris Review.

The complaint against the Church Warden was made by HG to the Dean in July 2008. She later made complaints against the Dean, former Bishop of Winchester, and the Safeguarding Officer, Jane Fisher will those complaints be investigated?

As a result of the Jersey and Winchester clergy’s failure to respond to HG’s complaints in an efficient manner, her frustration in seeking redress eventually led to her being arrested and “removed” from the Island and left destitute in the UK. Will the decsion and manner of these actions be investigated? (See Korris Report page 41) Also see my previous Blog Here.

The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Rev 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.”

“I am also grateful for the cooperation of the Dean in these matters, following his recent apology. As he has said, together we recognise the importance of safeguarding children and vulnerable adults in Jersey and we want to ensure the safeguarding procedures of the Diocese achieve this as part of the whole Church's mission. These ongoing inquiries will form a vital part of our learning."

There should be no reasons as to why the Dean should not cooperate because he is also a key player, but like Bishop Dakin and the Archbishop of Canterbury he has not apologised to HG, so it questions their integrity and recognition of the importance of safeguarding vulnerable adults in Jersey or elsewhere in the UK. HG says she has not received any apology and I can see no reason to disbelieve her.

The Investigation will gather and review all available and relevant evidence including, but not limited to, that considered by the Korris Review. Dame Heather Steel will also be advised and assisted in her inquiries by a police officer, nominated by the States of Jersey Police.

Although Jan Korris published a 50 page Report it was somewhat devalued by the author’s failure to interview HG who is the key witness to the whole sorry affair.

Winchester must be aware that its Safeguarding policy is in tatters, this is evident by its failure to handle HG’s original complaint and the debacle that followed. The Korris Review is a disturbing report about failings in Jersey. So too is John Gladwin’s interim and recent final report on his Chichester Visitation where considerable failings were identified.

Surely Bishop Dakin must be aware of the Jersey and UK Police involvement with HG’s complaint, so one must ask why Dame Steel is going to be advised and assisted by a police officer, nominated by the States of Jersey Police.

I am not casting any aspersions on the police officer who is to be nominated, but because of its involvement with HG the States Police is conflicted. If Dame Steel, the Diocese of Winchester and the States Police cannot see the conflict then one must question their judgement and whether they are suitably qualified to conduct the investigation.

Those who have been following the Dean Affair are aware that there are hidden agendas, the latest press release just adds to that belief. Given the way that HG has suffered at the hands of Winchester and the police any likelihood of her partaking in the John Gladwin review was remote. The latest press release will almost certainly be read with incredulity not only by HG but those who have little or no confidence in Winchester. This can only be good news for Senator Bailhache and his supporters who are seeking a constitutional break from the UK.

The Dean, Bishop and Good Shepherds, Fact or Fiction?

The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester have both given unreserved apologies to the complainant known as HG. It is unknown whether the apologies were delivered personally or in writing but it appears that HG is the forgotten person as supporters on both sides make their positions known. There are calls for the Dean to be reinstated for a number of reasons, but cool heads are required and it is to the Acting Dean’s credit that he has circulated the following letter to the Clergy.
                                     ******************************
Friends,

The last week and a half has been enormously difficult for all of us. Thank you for your support.

Saturday’s meeting with Bishop Tim provided a welcome and much-needed opportunity to discuss the events leading up to Bob’s suspension. I was personally grateful for the opportunity to meet in person and for the service beforehand.

We now know that Bishop John Gladwin will be leading the upcoming investigation and visitation and I understand that he will be assisted in this by Norman Russell, Archdeacon of Berkshire. I do think the process being put in place is a welcome next step and I am sure all those involved will require our support and cooperation.

It goes without saying that there is there is considerable respect and love for Bob and Daphne in Jersey. Nevertheless, the recently-published Independent Review raised a number of very serious issues and it is absolutely for the best, not just for Bob but for the Church in Jersey and beyond, that these things are investigated properly. Support for Bob and support for what we trust will be a full and thorough investigation should surely be seen as mutually and entirely inclusive.

Finally, but not least today, there has been a great deal of unhelpful speculation in the press around constitutional questions. Much of this has only served to distract from the fundamental issue of safeguarding which, like the Bishop, we must be clear is at the heart of the Church’s mission. Whatever other conversations are required, the very best practice in safeguarding has got to be our overriding concern here. I know each of you places the greatest importance on safeguarding, as do I, and this is why we must look forward to the next steps in this process.

For now, I encourage you to continue in praying for all those involved and especially Bishop John Gladwin and Archdeacon Norman Russell in their leading of the inquiries.

Yours in Christ, Canon Geoff Houghton, Acting Dean of Jersey.
                               *******************************

Given the circumstances and the Review's/Report’s preliminary findings I don’t think the Bishop had any alternative other than withdraw the Commission of the Dean of Jersey, it is a pity that decisive action was not taken years ago whereby the former Bishop of Winchester could also have been “suspended” because I believe he has much to answer for.  If he was supposed to be a good shepherd he certainly allowed the wool to be pulled over his eyes. I may add that although in layman’s language the Dean is suspended, there is a difference between withdrawing the Commission and suspension. At last Tuesday’s States Sitting Members were reminded that as far as the States is concerned the Dean is at liberty to take his seat in the House. I am sure that statement was met with utter bewilderment by HG.

The Dean is reported as saying, “In Jersey there is a real feeling that suspending someone reverses the burden of proof in the public mind. Instead of our much cherished ‘innocent until proven guilty’, the suspended person becomes thought of (no matter what those in authority may say), as ‘Guilty until exonerated.’

I agree with that statement, the suspension is supposed to be a neutral act but has been used as a blunt but effective tool to end careers because of the time taken to complete the investigation. I can understand the Dean’s concerns, he is entitled to an even handed and timely investigation and hopefully that will be the case.

People will now have had time to read and digest the Independent Report written by Jan Korris. It would have been helpful if a Time Line had been included because it would have been easier to see how the matter was allowed to fester and like the Titanic was heading for disaster almost upon the Dean’s receipt of HG’s complaint.

As much as I respect protocols they do not override safeguarding victims or addressing their complaints, yet that appears to have been the problem with this case. It was in the autumn of 2008 that the Safeguarding Advisor (JF) informed the Bishop that the Diocese could be hugely exposed if the Church Warden was allowed to continue in post. Yet the warning went unheeded. It should be recalled that at that time the eyes of the world were focused on Jersey and the way it was investigating what became known as Jersey’s Historical Abuse. Concerns were being openly expressed about cover ups and old boy networks, yet this elephant in the room was not seen by the Dean nor the Bishop and his advisors.

I can understand the author’s difficulty in compiling a report and sifting through around 2000 documents, not having sight of the Dean’s nor the Vicar’s documents, plus meeting resistance from the Dean, his wife and the Island’s clergy, however I do believe there are some issues in the Report which needs to be addressed.

Whilst the Report is mainly about the Dean, it is evident that the former Bishop of Winchester was completely out of his depth and never got a grip of the situation. It is also evident that he never sought advice from senior church leaders including the Archbishop to overcome the impasse with Jersey’s Dean.

It is reported that “Bishop Michael described himself at interview as having been submerged in his role and facing very many tasks. He agreed that there was a difficulty in stopping and reflecting, or seeking external expertise and support. In an email to the Safeguarding Advisor in April 2009 Bishop Michael looks at the deteriorating situation and regrets he did not take a more forceful approach earlier on.”

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it cannot be used as an excuse for utter failure by a very senior church figure. The Bishop not only let himself down but it was at the expense of a highly vulnerable lady who was seeking his help.

The Report states that the situation was not helped because the Diocesan Chief Executive A.R. was away from July 2009 – September 2010. I ask how that claim can be made. HG first made contact with the Bishop’s Office on 13th September 2008 which was almost 10 months before AR temporally left his post, what was AR doing in the meantime? He claims “the Diocese takes its safeguarding duties very seriously.” If it does, there is little evidence of this being the case in 2008.

It is also reported that upon receipt of HG’ s email to the Bishop on 13th September 2008, the Bishop’s Lay Assistant (M.S) in forwarding the letter to J.F. on 14th September, commented in the referral, “I have been in contact with [R.K.], and he thinks it’s all a lot of nonsense.” One may ask why did the Lay Assistant make contact with the Dean and what was his motive? Surely his job was to forward the email directly to the Safeguarding Advisor ?

On page 25 the author covers the arrest and HG leaving the Island, I believe the matter needs clarification because what is recorded is not accurate. What is evident is that in September 2010 the Bishop was visiting the Island, staying with the Dean and was to attend a Church Service on 26th September. There was concern that HG might disrupt the Service and somehow a Harassment Order was obtained to prevent HG disrupting the Service. There is no explanation as how the Harassment Order was obtained or the circumstances in which it was executed.

However it is apparent that HG was arrested on or just before the Church Service on 26th September then charged and held overnight in police custody to appear before the Magistrate on Monday 27th September. It is evident that HG was remanded in custody at La Moye Prison and appeared before the Magistrate two weeks later on Monday 11th October 2010. It is also evident that the Safeguarding Advisor became aware of the situation because in her Report she records "her concern at these extreme measures and worked at setting up care for her with the prison chaplain.” However we do not know what she achieved or what help or advice HG received.

What is known is that the Safeguarding Advisor (JF) was shocked when on 11th October H.G. was bound over and summarily deported from the Island for three years and put on a plane with no-one to meet her, no planned accommodation and no money. J.F. wrote to Bishop Michael, “Whilst I don’t think this is our responsibility in that the court decision and action was not of our making, I do feel we have a basic responsibility, as we would have for anyone, to do all we can to ensure her wellbeing.”

I have made enquiries into the matter and it is apparent that when HG appeared before the Magistrate on 28th September there was a Duty Advocate in attendance but it is not known what advice, if any was given to HG. I have been unable to ascertain what advice or assistance was given during the 2 week remand period but at the Magistrate’s Court on 11th October HG was represented via Legal Aid by an Allocated Advocate. I do not know what pre court time was given to HG but I am advised that the Court has no authority to deport any one from the Island and contrary to what is recorded on page 25 HG was not summarily deported.

In cases of Harassment the accused is given the option of being bound over to leave the Island or accepting what ever sentence the Court considers to be appropriate. I am told that on the advice of the Advocate HG chose to be bound over to leave the Island. Given what is known of HG’s health one wonders whether she received the appropriate help and advice at the time of her arrest, whilst in custody or at her Court appearances.

What is evident that despite JF stating that “in her opinion the Diocese had a basic responsibility, as we would have for anyone to do all we can to ensure HG’s wellbeing,” it is unknown whether anyone accepted any responsibility and I include the Jersey authorities? Surely it must have been or should have been made evident to the Court that shipping HG to the UK was akin to sending a time bomb which was likely to explode at any time.

On page 41 the author records, “The decision and manner of H.G.’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. It seems surprising that the complainant against H.G., in this case the Dean of Jersey on behalf of the Church, was not consulted or informed about the decisions taken, or action planned, concerning H.G.’s future. There are no records of communication from R.K. with the Diocese at this time and Bishop Michael later expressed shock and distress that the deportation had occurred.”

This is a statement I entirely endorse the need for further investigation and to this end I shall forward details of this Blog to our Chief Minister. I believe  this is an Island matter and should be addressed via an Inquiry/investigation. I will request the Chief Minister to take immediate steps to address the matter and make his intentions known via a Statement before or at the next States Sitting which because of the Easter holidays is not until Tuesday 16th April.

The author records “the Church let H.G. down. Despite the difficulties of her background and disablement, and struggle with some everyday practicalities, H.G. was none-the-less in employment, pursuing hobbies, socializing and wanting to be accepted in the church community. Over the next three years H.G.’s life changed from having no history of being in trouble with the law, to having a police record and being a displaced person, homeless on the streets of the mainland.”

As a responsible and caring community how could the above happen, are our Health, Social Services, Police, Courts, Legal Advisors and other relevant agencies fully trained and resourced to respond to people like HG? Given her experience one is left to wonder.