Jersey's Dean---Still More Questions--- BBC Radio Jersey Broadcast.

During Question Time at last Tuesday’s States sitting Deputy John Le Fondre asked Chief Minister Senator Gorst if he was able to update Members as to when the Steel Report would be released? The Chief Minister could not give a date but stated that he was greatly disappointed that the matter had not been brought to a swift conclusion.

Followers of my Dean Blogs will know that 2 years ago Dame Heather Steel was commissioned by Bishop Dakin to review the Dean’s handling of a complaint made by a young lady against a Church Warden in 2008.

Radio Jersey has maintained an interest in the matter and yesterday along with Bruce Willing I was invited to join Matthew Price to discuss the impasse between the Bishop of Winchester and Jersey’s Dean and the delay in the release of the Steel and Gladwin Reports.

Bruce Willing is a member of a small group of people which includes Senator Philip Bailhache who have been vociferously critical of Bishop Dakin’s handling of the “Dean Affair” and have been unstinting in their support for the Dean. I don’t have a problem with their stance but they seem oblivious of some of the Dean’s shortcomings and of  the resultant wedge that has now been securely lodged between Winchester and Jersey thus ending our 500 year old link.

Two years ago I published this BLOG which is well worth reading because it contains a letter from a Dean supporter and a set of questions posed by Bruce Willing. It also contains a quote from the Dean when apologising for mistakes made in his handling of the complaint in which he states “If Christians can’t put things like this behind them and move on then we are all in a mess.” 

Given the impasse it is evident that some Christians have not put things behind them or moved on. Not only do they want the Bishop’s blood but also his head. It is also now evident that following Bruce Willing’s concerns regarding the initial Terms of Reference (TOR) they were amended. This possibly accounts for why the Korris recommendation that the arrest and deportation of HG from Jersey be investigated was omitted from the final TOR.

It should also be recalled that Korris was heavily criticised for not interviewing the complainant, however neither has Steel yet the same criticism is not being levelled at her. After my 3 hour meeting with Dame Heather Steel in October 2013 I wrote to Bishop Dakin informing him of my concerns regarding Dame Heather’s partiality and later published a blog on the matter which can be read by clicking.HERE

Now that it is evident that the TOR were amended and the author's partiality questionable its not surprising that some people are keen for the Steel Report to be published. 

The broadcast may be heard by clicking HERE  Readers will note that there are disagreements between Bruce Willing and me. I don't have a problem with what I said but I disagree with some of Bruce's comments which I am pretty sure would also be refuted by Bishop Dakin who was certainly at the sharp end of Bruce's tongue 

It is interesting that the issue of the Dean's "exoneration" was again raised. In my book the fact that disciplinary action is not being taken does not mean that one is exonerated. What is evident is that mistakes have been made on both sides and no good will come by the publication of a Report which is already discredited and will do more harm than good.

I believe the public and the Church would be better served if both parties acted as Christians, put things behind them and moved on so everyone gets out of the mess that they have created.

If readers have difficulty in opening the links to my two blogs above should be able to access them by clicking HERE    and      HERE

I am grateful to Radio Jersey for providing the link to yesterday's broadcast which can also be accessed by clicking HERE

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.