St Martin's School Field--- Rape or Progress???

In March last year the Planning Department published its plans for a new St Martin’s School to be built on its 7 vergee field which for over 60 years had not only been part and parcel of school life but also of the Parish and in particular its football club and the school’s cricket team.

On 16th March I published what was to be first of 8 further Blogs I published in an attempt to save the School field. Click HERE

It was never disputed that the current school which sits on a 3 vergee site had reached its sell by date. Although the school had been put on the Site of Local Interest Register the listing was only done in late 2009 as a ploy to build on the school field which it itself was listed. I was always of the view that the existing school and head teacher's house which has not been occupied by a head teacher for over 45 years could either be demolished or refurbished or  rebuilt on the existing site. This would save the field.

One of the concerns expressed by supporters for building on the school field was the disruption which would be caused to pupils who would have to be housed in port-a- cabins whilst the existing school was being refurbished or rebuilt. Other pupils had been educated in similar buildings when major work had been undertaken at their schools but that fact was conveniently ignored. What was also conveniently ignored was the fact that school life would be disrupted even if it was built on the field, and that is certainly the case.

Formal planning approval was given last November and although requests were made for the parish football team to continue playing on the field until work on it began, the request was refused. Since Easter there has been some activity on the field with white fencing being erected, tracks being laid and large amounts of machinery being left on the field. Sadly the school has been out of bounds for pupils, parents and other members of the public, who normally took their children to enjoy the play area, kick a ball, play cricket or for some other social or sporting activity.

Apart from the disruption on the field as the main services had to be extended to it; this has led to the main road being closed and hedges and trees removed to allow for more car parking and greater access onto the field.

None of this inconvenience both financial and environmental would have been required had the existing site been utilised but who cares, because in the land of the blind the one eyed are kings. Those chosen to lead have failed, where have the environmentalist and the sports leaders been hiding?

The loss of the field to the Parish football Club was always going to be a bitter pill to swallow. Last season with no home pitch it had a nomadic and demoralising existence. Promises to find an alternative pitch in the parish have been as hollow as the Church of England’s apology to HG. A further major blow is the recent loss of the Club’s team coach Darryl Parker who gallantly assisted me and others in opposing the application to build on the School field. Darryl has understandably moved to fresh pastures where his talents will be appreciated and valued.

Last year we celebrated Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee and the Queen Elizabeth 11 Fields Trust was established with local communities being asked to nominate 2012 playing fields which would protect them from being built on. A Body headed by the Island’s Bailiff, Lt Governor and Chief Minister was established to oversee the scheme. I nominated the St Martin’s field which clearly embarrassed the Jersey Body as it (contrary to the rules of the scheme) had nominated the Grainville School field.

It conveniently chose to ignore my request but following a few broadsides the clearly embarrassed Body quickly folded and transferred responsibility to the Connetable’s Committee. Needless to say that was as good as the kiss of death because the School field has been lost for ever and I am informed that no other fields have been nominated and the closing date has been reached.

On the last day of this summer's term there was a short ceremony on the field to “dig the first sod.” No doubt there was much breast beating and hearty cheers from those instrumental in destroying a much loved field. Some will say its progress; others will say it was rape. Unfortunately the real winner is apathy from the great majority of Islanders and Parishioners who at a time of crisis chose to do nothing.

Jersey's Dean---Another Meaningless Apology??

On 17th June I published a Blog titled Jersey’ Dean –Meaningless apologies. In that Blog I made reference to public apologies given to HG. In my view they were clearly meaningless because they were not given personally, there was no intention of doing so and when carefully looking into the wording of the apology it was unclear as to what the apology was for, if indeed there was one.

Yesterday in the States Chamber Senator Philip Bailhache a knight of the realm, former Bailiff, Chief Judge, former Attorney and Solicitor General and would be Foreign Minister made a Personal Statement. Interestingly he made it as a backbencher whereby according to the rules he could not be questioned on the contents/accuracy of his statement. This might not have been the case had he done so in his capacity as Assistant Chief Minister.

For readers who may not be acquainted with the background I will cover the relevant points and state that Senator Bailhache, as is his right, has been offering assistance to the Island’s Dean who is the subject of a complaint over his handling of an abuse complaint from a lady known as HG.

It was claimed by two business men that Senator Bailhache whilst on a flight between Jersey and London was reading documents appertaining to the case which revealed the names of the victim and the accused. Most of us have read documents or other material whilst on flights so what has made a mountain out of a mole hole?

It is evident that the business men contacted Deputy Trevor Pitman and expressed concerns about Senator Bailhache reading what they thought was sensitive documents which could be read by them and possibly other members of the public. It is unclear what research was carried out by Deputy Pitman before asking questions in the States but it would be helpful to know whether Senator Bailhache was travelling on States business and in what capacity. Was he travelling as a backbencher or as an Assistant Minister, as one can see above, there is a difference but none of us is the wiser?

The exchanges that ensued could be akin to a playground spat whereby the bully whilst denying any wrongdoing called his accusers nasty names and impugned their integrity. The bully and the accusers were then questioned by the Head master who believed that everyone was telling the truth. However to his credit Deputy Pitman stuck to his guns and pursued the matter to a stage where Senator Bailhache has been boxed into a corner and has now made a skilfully drafted statement which includes an apology. However it is open to interpretation and appears to be very much a damage limitation exercise.

Senator Bailhache is strongly denying not telling the truth however it does appear that he has been very economical with it. He claims that had he been made aware of what was being alleged a misunderstanding could have been avoided? To those who have been following the matter it seems to have been a simple one. It was claimed that he was reading sensitive documents on a plane which he had not only denied reading but in rebuttal used language which he now accepts was stronger than was necessary or appropriate. He would like to make it clear that he did not impute dishonesty or malice to Deputy Pitman or his constituents. There are some people who may not be convinced with that claim.

I believe that most people when being accused of something ensure they know exactly what they are being accused of before shooting from the hip and casting aspersions on the accusers. However this does not seem to be the case with Senator Bailhache who appears to be of the belief that his actions are above reproach.

The matter could and should have been resolved the first time the matter was raised in the States on 30th April. The reason why it was not is not down to Deputy Pitman but rests squarely on the shoulders Senator Bailhache and Chief Minister Gorst who failed to investigate the matter in a thorough and expedient manner.

What the Personal statement reveals is that Senator Bailhache has problems with his memory; he is not sure what he reads and even today could be mistaken in what he thinks he was reading. Given that he is aspiring to be the Island’s first Foreign Minister it does not bode well for Jersey.

The Statement is published in full below and it will be for readers to draw their own conclusions.
**************************************************************

PERSONAL STATEMENT TO BE MADE BY SENATOR SIR PHILIP BAILHACHE


ON MONDAY 15th JULY 2013

On 18th June Deputy Trevor Pitman claimed that I was not telling the truth to the Assembly in relation to a complaint by one of his constituents and this is my first opportunity to respond to that claim. That claim is strongly denied.
I should like to begin by stating that I have at no time been approached by Deputy Pitman seeking an explanation as to what happened on a London flight; the only exchanges that have taken place have happened on the floor of this Chamber in response to questions. If I had been made aware of exactly what was being alleged, a misunderstanding could have been avoided. It was not until Deputy Pitman made available to the Chief Minister a copy of the email from his constituent shortly before questions were put on 14th May, and the Chief Minister passed that copy to me, that I was able to understand the precise nature of the allegations.

When questions were put to the Chief Minister on 30th April I had assumed that the flight in question was a flight that I made to London on the evening of 20th March not long after the suspension of the Dean’s Commission had taken place. On that flight to London I have a clear recollection of reading the Korris report, as stated by the Chief Minister to the Assembly on 30th April. It was only on 14th May that it became clear to me for the first time that the flight referred to by Deputy Pitman’s constituent was on the afternoon of 21st March when I was returning to Jersey from London. On that flight I do not believe that I would have been reading documents relating to this matter because I had read them in London, but I may be mistaken.

In answering questions on 14th May I said that the content of the email from Deputy Pitman’s constituent “taken in the round [gave] a fictitious and malicious account of my reading habits on aeroplanes”. Having had time to reflect, I am sorry that I used language that was stronger than was necessary or appropriate. I withdraw the phrase “fictitious and malicious” and would like to make it clear that I do not impute dishonesty or malice to Deputy Pitman’s constituent or, for the avoidance of any doubt, to the Deputy himself. Having said that, the recollection of Deputy Pitman’s constituent is, at least in part, mistaken. That is perhaps not surprising because the constituent has stated in his email that he was sitting in a seat on the opposite aisle and reading papers in someone else’s possession from that position cannot be easy. That email alleged that the constituent had seen me reading “various police statements…” and it was later clarified to the Chief Minister that this meant “police witness statements”. That recollection is mistaken because I did not have in my possession on the aeroplane any copies of such police statements. I do not believe that it would have been possible for the other information referred to in the email to have been seen on that occasion, but in that respect I may be mistaken. If it was possible for any third party to have identified EY or HG from the papers in my possession, I would obviously regret that very much.

I should like to clarify two other points. First, I have never had in my possession any papers that I was not entitled to have in my possession, nor that involved a breach of the Data Protection Law or any other statute. Specifically, I have never seen any police statements relating to the investigation into allegations made by HG against EY. Secondly, my interest in these issues is not one that relates to my duties as an Assistant Minister. My interest stems from my position as an elected representative of Grouville Church on the Deanery Synod, and my strong feelings about the manner in which the Dean has been treated. Any backbench member has a perfect right to interest himself in matters of this kind.

Jersey's Dean ------Doubting Thomases

Four months have elapsed since Bishop Dakin suspended Jersey ’s Dean. The suspension or removal of the Dean’s Commission had been prompted following the publication of the much maligned Korris Report. The Bishop, shortly afterwards announced that the matter would be the subject of a Visitation which would be led by former Bishop John Gladwin with an Archdeacon, a suitably experienced and independent senior lawyer and a suitable lay person to assist him. The Terms of Reference were published but did not cover the complaint into the Dean’s alleged mishandling of HG’s complaint.

Following the firing of broadsides from the Dean’s supporters led by the former Bailiff but now Senator Philip Bailhache the Dean’s Commission was restored 7 weeks later before the Visitation had got underway let alone concluded. So one wonders why the Dean was suspended in the first place.

Two months ago Bishop Dakin announced that Dame Heather Steel had been commissioned to lead an investigation into the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaint which feeds into John Gladwin’s Visitation. One is to assume that apart from the investigation into the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaint it will include the decision and manner of her deportation from Jersey. On page 41 of her Report Jan Korris states “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.”

Unfortunately it is only an assumption because although the whole investigation is supposed to be based on safeguarding and the need for full transparency and accountability, no Terms of Reference have been published. It has been rumoured that Dame Heather wanted a no holds barred investigation which was considered to be too open for the Bishop. Could that be the reason for Dame Heather’s failure to get under way?

I am not the only one who has sought clarification or indeed an update on what is really (not) going on. However apart from notification that the Bishop had personally apologised to HG, which she says is completely untrue, the wheels of the Bishop’s chariot which were never secure appear to have come off.

It seems ironic that Korris who was critical of the Dean’s handling of HG’s complaint claimed that all the way along the line everything came too late. It seems that Bishop Dakin has learnt nothing from the report and his apparent lack of leadership and procrastination is now becoming an embarrassment.

It is also unfair on the leading players in the affair; allegations have been made against the former Bishop, the Safeguarding Officer, the Dean, his wife, the Vicar and the Church Warden. They are entitled to know whether the second part of the Visitation is going ahead.

Most importantly the procrastination is most unfair on HG who is the real but forgotten victim of what is becoming a complete shambles on top of the unholy mess created by the Dean and former Bishop. In previous Blogs I have stated that before the Visitation got under way personal apologies and tangible assistance should be given to HG.  These are still awaited.

In addition there are other questions that need answers. It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The same could be said of perception particularly in small communities like Jersey with its infamous “ Jersey Way .” Therefore one would have hoped that before anyone was appointed as a member of the Visitation Panel any suggestion of conflict whether implied or perceived would deem them, no matter how well qualified to be unacceptable.

If one accepts that principle then one must question whether someone who is a member of the Dean’s congregation at St Helier’s Parish Church and recently listed on its Electoral Role is a wise appointment to the Panel.

By the same token Dame Heather is a former Judge of the Court of Appeal in Jersey and a former colleague of Senator Philip Bailhache. Dame Heather accepted Senator Bailhache’s invitation to be a Speaker at his 2010 Conference called “Dependency or Sovereignty? Time to take Stock.” A fellow Speaker was Advocate Richard Falle who was the Magistrate responsible for HG’s shameful removal from Jersey. 

If Dame Heather is to conduct her investigation in line with the Korris recommendation on page 41 of her Report, she will be required to question Mr Falle. Dame Heather will also have to investigate members of the States Police who arrested HG but did not charge her until 12 hours later after taking statements from the Dean and former Bishop. They also successfully opposed her Bail. Therefore one is entitled to ask why a Member of the States Police is assisting Dame Heather.

While there must be transparency, witnesses when necessary should be entitled to confidentiality particularly in Jersey where there is a genuine fear of reprisal and/or marginalisation for anyone coming forward with evidence questioning the role of “Establishment” figures. The current composition of the Visitation Panels is deterring at least two witnesses submitting evidence. HG has also made it abundantly clear that she will not appear before the Dame Heather Panel. Unfortunately no one is listening.

The football season has not yet commenced but Winchester is already conceding a number of own goals. The normal remedy is to replace the Manager but no one is holding their breath. It was suggested at the outset by the Dean’s supporters led by Senator Philip Bailhache are calling all the shots. It also lays weight to the belief that Winchester ’s concerns about HG are just a smoke screen as a cover for the real agenda that being Constitutional matters. Regretfully that is now becoming abundantly clear.

I am not the only Doubting Thomas but regretfully am being joined by an ever growing number of sceptics who doubt whether the Church of England really gives a damn about the vulnerable and last weekend’s General Synod Conference at York was just another case of hot air and humbug.

Jersey landlord and Tenant disputes-----Sledgehammer to crack nuts?

The States has recently debated changes to Jersey’s Housing Law which will shortly come into force and will bring about a number of changes but will still be discriminatory because the 10 year housing qualifying rule will remain. At present although one is able to live in Jersey one cannot rent or buy in the qualified sector unless one has resided in Jersey for 10 years, or is a multi millionaire (who agrees to pay a minimun amount of tax) or is considered to be essentially employed. Life for newcomers can be difficult because they can only occupy property in what is known as the unqualified sector which does not afford the same housing rights as in the qualified sector.

Since the early 1960’s Jersey has had a steady flow of immigrants from the UK and from further afield but the lack of legislation allowed for exploitation, sub standard and expensive property and dubious practices adopted by landlords. However over the course of time the lot of the immigrant has improved and it anticipated that the soon to be repealed Jersey Housing Law is intended to be fairer and more equitable.

The Control of Housing and Work (Jersey) Law 2012 is essentially new immigration legislation and it merges the existing Housing and Regulation of Undertakings Laws. Although the Law is about to come into force there are no significant changes to the principles behind the current laws.

It can not be denied that there are good and bad tenants and landlords but hopefully the bad are very much in the minority. However if there are disputes between landlords and tenants there must be a more user friendly system to adjudicate than at present.

One of the most common complaints is in relation to deposits given to landlords as surety prior to tenants taking up occupancy. The sum is arbitrary and at the Landlord’s discretion but is often levelled at one month’s rent. There are a number of reasons why a surety is required but basically it is a form of insurance should anything untoward occur to the property.

Unfortunately the system is open to abuse and some landlords withhold all or part of the deposit for a number of reasons including, if in their opinion, the property is not left clean and tidy. In the first instance the landlord is the sole arbiter and is the judge in their own cause. Whilst it is open for tenants to dispute the land lord’s claim the only remedy is via the Petty Debts Court. Even if a tenant has limited legal expertise the fees required just to get the dispute into Court are in the region of £130, which might not be refunded even if the claim is successful?

During my time as a States Member I often assisted residents with problems and have recently assisted a young immigrant with a rent dispute. Below is the case which I am sure will be familiar to many readers.

A young immigrant paid a month’s rent as surety for a property which turned out to be an ice box and a health hazard. At the time of taking up occupancy the only means of heating was a wood/coal stove in the kitchen which heated the radiators and hot water which was presumed to be working adequately. Items of the previous tenant’s property remained in a small shed outside the property which the land lady said would be removed, but never was.

During the tenant’s occupancy the fire when lit emitted fumes which caused headaches and nausea, the land lady said the matter would be addressed but never did and it was not long before mould appeared on the walls and the house in general became too cold and uncomfortable to live in. After living there for a short time he gave ten days notice to quit which by coincidence would be over the Easter holiday period.

It is understood that the property, which is inherited, is administered by a registered company. However in reality the main decisions are taken by an absentee land lady who appears to be responsible for leasing the property and deciding what surety should be paid and returned.

Although the tenant gave more than the requisite one day’s notice to vacate, it was not convenient for the land lady to be in the Island when the tenant vacated the property so she arranged for an agent to attend. However because of the Easter holidays the agent was unable to attend until two days after the property was vacated. On inspection the agent was of the opinion that although the tenant had paid for the property to be cleaned, it was not to her satisfaction. She was also of the view that the shed was not cleared of rubbish even though it belonged to the former tenant.

The land lady has withheld £250 claiming that she had to pay approximately £140 to have the property cleaned and the rubbish removed. Interestingly she is also deducting 3 days rent and water rates (£110) on the pretext that the property was unfit to rent because of its alleged condition.

The deduction is not only bizarre but totally unreasonable, how can someone claim for something that is not lost? It was not the tenant’s fault that neither the land lady nor the agent was available when he vacated the property. Also no rent was lost because having been advised that the property was a health risk the land lady, after the property was vacated, arranged for the stove to be removed and replaced by a central heating system. Therefore no rent was lost because of the property was unfit due to work being undertaken for the installation.

Although requests have been made to the land lady to meet to discuss the deductions they have been rejected. The young tenant is not the first and will certainly not be the last to suffer at the hands of unreasonable landlords. However because of the fees and hassle involved in going down the court route land lords are sitting pretty.

The new Control of Housing and Work Law will not cover the issue of surety disputes but the Housing Minister has given assurances that a rent deposit scheme will soon be implemented. I understand that it will be similar to that operating in the UK where all deposits are placed with a third party who adjudicates surety disputes.

Whilst such a scheme is welcomed it does appear to be cumbersome and akin to a sledgehammer to crack a nut approach which will involve large numbers of deposits being unnecessarily held with an Ombudsman or third party. I believe a better scheme would be that when ever there is a dispute the land lord would be required to deposit the disputed sum of money with an Ombudsman/third party who would then speedily adjudicate and decide what if any of the surety should be with held or returned.

Unfortunately whatever scheme is to be adopted, it will be too late to help the young immigrant and others who currently find themselves at the mercy of unreasonable land lords.

I know that my Blogs are read world wide and would be grateful to hear from readers how landlord/tenant disputes are resolved and of surety deposit schemes operating in their part of the world.



.

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----- Red Letter Day?????

After a lull in letter writing there appears to have been a sudden two pronged surge questioning the need and cost of the investigation into the Dean’s handling of HG’s abuse allegation and the Church of England's Safeguarding Policy.

Last Friday 24th May the JEP published a letter from Jennifer Ahluwalia which claimed that given the cost and damage, Bishop Dakin has a lot to answer for. On Tuesday 28th May the JEP published another letter in which the author Bruce Willing included 20 questions which he had sent to Bishop Dakin.

What is interesting is how the original issue of the mishandling of an abuse complaint along with Safeguarding issues is becoming secondary to what now seems to be a Constitutional issue. In neither letters do the authors express sympathy for HG for the abuse suffered at the hands of the original abuser nor as a result of the Church of England’s subsequent actions for which the Dean, Bishop and Archbishop have all issued public apologies, but to date have failed to apologise to HG personally.

In my previous Blogs I have questioned the Dean and the former Bishop's handling of what should have been a straight forward complaint. However what has followed has done very little to instill any confidence in the Church as a whole and the hole is getting deeper.

I don’t have a problem with Bruce Willing’s questions (which can be seen below) but it is the timing and the motive that is questionable. In previous Blogs I have said that I could not understand why the Dean was suspended before any framework had been assembled to conduct the Visitation/Investigation. The details of the panel along with its Terms of Reference and predicted date of completion should have been published at the time the Dean was suspended. Bruce Willing is right to question the tardiness and procrastination but that is now history as the wheels are now slowly beginning to turn.

Very importantly what appears to have been forgotten is that the Dean when apologising for his mistakes is reported as saying “If Christians can’t put things like this behind them and move on then we are all in a mess.” He pledged to co-operate with the investigation (JEP 29/4/2013) so why the letters and late questions if the Dean is taking part in the Investigation?

Above I mentioned the word motive, is the motive behind the letters to brush aside the investigation, and if so why? Jersey has a poor record when it comes to investigating abuse or other sensitive matters, but whilst it concerns Jersey, the Dean Affair is a Winchester matter but it is clearly of concern to those who like to do things the Jersey Way and don’t like “ outside interference” no matter how warranted.

Senator Bailhache, the Dean's knight in shining armour is organising a public meeting next week to discuss "the crisis in the Diocese." Given the Senator's involvement in the matter one may ask is the crisis of his making?

The Investigation/Visitation is being conducted at the instigation and expense of the Diocese of Winchester via the Bishop. He is of the view that there are Safeguarding and accountability issues which are too great to be ignored. While some contents in the Korris Report have been criticised there are issues, which for the Anglican Church in Jersey’s own credibility needs to be addressed. Although I have been critical of Bishop Dakin’s handling of the suspension and tardiness in establishing the Investigation, he is never the less right to conduct it in a timely, orderly and financially prudent manner.

Yesterday the JEP kindly published my letter which is in response to Jennifer Ahluwalia’s mentioned above. I am mindful of the many readers from outside the Island who do not receive the newspaper so for their benefit I publish both letters.

"Given the cost and damage, the Bishop has a lot to answer for."
• From Jennifer Ahluwalia.

As a long-standing member of the Church of England, I have serious concerns about the situation between the Bishop of Winchester, Dean of Jersey and the Anglican Church of Jersey.

This long-standing affair began in Jersey in August 2008 and is covered in the Korris Review, the conclusions of which seem to have been laid down before it was published. I do hope that will not be the case with the Dame Heather Steel inquiry And why was either inquiry necessary? Should the Bishop not have discussed his concerns with the Dean before suspending him, and why did he refuse to discuss this omission in the BBC Radio Jersey interview on 12 April?

The complainant, a vulnerable young woman (referred to as 'HG' in the Korris Review), had unwisely accepted an invitation to stay with a churchwarden and his family against advice. She was offended by some words and/or gestures of her host and made a complaint to the Anglican Church in Jersey.

The Dean interviewed the accused churchwarden and HG. The Dean's wife acted as a chaperone and witness. Admittedly, it would have been wiser to have had an unrelated witness and the Dean should have made full notes.

Quite properly, the Dean referred this sensitive case to the police, who took no further action because of insufficient evidence. So the case was dropped, but kept on file, and HG withdrew the complaint. In spite of the Dean's suggestions, HG refused to renew the complaints to the church. The churchwarden was asked to stand down temporarily. Then HG became dissatisfied with the Dean's handling of the matter and complained to the then Bishop of Winchester and he discussed it with the Dean. In former years, she had made similar accusations in Guernsey and twice in the Diocese of Winchester.

As the author of the Korris Report failed to interview the complainant, how could it have been accepted? With his commitment to safeguarding, how does the Bishop justify breaching confidentiality in this sensitive case by putting the Korris Report on the internet, without HG's permission, thereby exposing her very private problems to the public? It is not true that the young woman was deported, as stated in the Korris Review. As Sir Philip Bailhache has pointed out, her behaviour led to court charges, she had lost her job and accommodation in Jersey and, as suggested by her advocate, agreed to leave the Island for three years. How can this and other inaccurate statements in the Korris Report be rectified?

Christians should look after their staff. There seems to have been a total lack of concern for them. Has anyone of the Bishop's staff considered the considerable strain that these five years - dealing with the complaint, even though it was not pursued, negotiating and being investigated, as well as keeping up with their other work- have imposed on the Dean and others caught up in this mess?

And has the Bishop realised the damage that he is causing the Anglican Church in Jersey How can that be alleviated? Who is going to pay for all this? I understand that two reports, two sets of lawyers, a PR firm in London employed by the Bishop, the travel costs from Winchester to Jersey and to London for the Bishop and his advisory team, etc, will cost between £500,000 and £1 million. Are we, through the Jersey quota from its Anglican Churches? Finally, how can the reputation and integrity of the Anglican Church of Jersey be saved?

The Bishop seems determined to eradicate centuries- old laws and grind Jersey under his heel. Are the Ecclesiastical Court and the States of Jersey willing and determined to fight and, if necessary, secede from the Diocese of Winchester?

**************************************************************

Below is the letter I submitted to the JEP and published yesterday for which I am grateful and accept that the Editor reserves the right to amend the author's letter. This has occurred and below is a copy of the letter it published and what was omitted is in red.

I was amused to read the headline “Given the cost and damage, the Bishop has a lot to answer for” which preceded Jennifer Ahluwalia’s letter published on Friday 24th May. Those who have closely followed the Dean affair would certainly question whether the current Bishop is the only person who has a lot to answer for. The author rightly describes the situation as a mess but there is little else in her letter I can agree with because it contains many inaccuracies.

I am in regular contact with the lady referred to in the Korris report as HG and have read the relevant background documents. While the Dean’s supporters are entitled to campaign on his behalf it is unfortunate that they appear do so at the expense of HG’s who is very much the forgotten victim, without a voice and still waiting for the Dean, Bishop and Archbishop’s apology.

The author criticises Jan Korris for failing to interview HG but she too has failed to do so hence the inaccuracies, in fact one wonders where she obtained her information.

It is not disputed that HG made a complaint about the Church Warden but it was never withdrawn as claimed by the author. How ever it was the events that followed that led to further complaints against the Dean, the former Bishop and Safeguarding Officer which is now subject to the Visitation/Investigation.

Ms Ahluwalia states that HG unwisely accepted an invitation to stay with a churchwarden and family against advice. This is news to HG but it does suggest that the officer concerned was not above suspicion yet was able to continue in office. Malicious mischievous and unsubstantiated rumours have constantly been spread about HG making similar accusations in the UK and now Guernsey. Where did the author obtain that information and why did she not substantiate it? Even if the allegation was true does being a victim of one abuse deny the right of any victim complaining if they are unfortunate to become a victim a second or more times.

Your correspondent takes Korris to task by stating that HG was deported when according to the author, who is relying on information provided by Senator Bailhache, HG had lost her job and her accommodation and as suggested by her Advocate agreed to leave the Island for three years. Again this information is incorrect. HG had just risen from her bed and preparing to assist at a charity event when police called at her home at 9am on Sunday 26th September 2010 and arrested her on suspicion of harassment. She was in full employment and when pleading for bail stated that if kept in custody she might lose her job.

Unfortunately HG never returned to her home or employment because she was charged at the behest of the Dean and former Bishop, held in custody at the police station overnight and after appearing at the Magistrates Court was remanded in custody for two weeks. It was then that she was bound over to leave the Island for three years. She was not a high risk terrorist but a harmless soul whom it is alleged had threatened to disrupt a church service to be conducted by the Dean and Bishop because they would not address her complaints.

If the author had read the report written by HG’s legal adviser before her second court appearance, she would have seen that HG was happy to stay in Jersey as she liked doing things here and had friends in the Island. When she was sentenced she was detained in a court cell until driven by police to the airport and put on a plane which deposited her in the UK in the dark and destitute. She was not even allowed to collect any of her personal items which were in her flat. When the Nazis deported Jersey’s deportees at least they were able to pack a suitcase, but this was denied of HG.

HG’s arrest, detention, trial and deportation is a travesty of justice which should be the subject of an investigation but the Chief Minister has repeatedly ignored my requests.

Your correspondent has stated that Christians should look after their staff and asks whether anyone has considered the strain the Dean has had to endure for the past 5 years. That is a good point but she makes no reference to Christians considering the strain the now homeless HG has had and still has to endure.

Concerns have been raised about the damage along with the cost the Bishop is causing the Anglican Church in Jersey, but surely the damage and cost would be far greater to the Church’s integrity and reputation if the Bishop turned a blind eye and shoved the matter under the carpet. Or is that what the author is suggesting? She asks how the reputation and integrity of the Anglican Church of Jersey can be saved. Then claims that the Bishop seems determined to eradicate centuries old laws and grind Jersey under his heel.

If retaining centuries old laws allows for allegations of abuse to be swept under the carpet then surely no true Christian should object nor count the cost of replacing outdated centuries old laws with modern fit for purpose laws under which justice is not only done but seen to be done.

*******************************************************************

The Bruce Willing questions are as follows:

1. Please explain the sequence of actions leading to your decision to commission the Korris Review into a complaint made by a woman (HG) against a churchwarden (no longer in office) and resolved by the Dean nearly five years ago.

2. Why were the terms of reference not discussed with the Dean, The Bailiff of Jersey and the Attorney General (AG) of Jersey prior to the start of the Review?

3. Are you aware of the oath of office sworn by the Dean in the Royal Court of Jersey on appointment as Dean of Jersey? If so, why did you not acknowledge this in your Press release on 8 March 2013 announcing the suspension from office of the Dean, when you knew, or ought to have known, that you had no power to suspend the Dean?

4. Were you aware of the context of the passing into law of the Jersey Canons in March 2012 and the differences that exist between the Jersey Canons 2012 and the Anglican Church Canons 1969 (as amended) on which the Jersey Canons are based?

5. Why was the previous reported behaviour of HG, in two separate Parishes of the Diocese of Winchester, both of which were known about by the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer, not investigated and reported on as a part of the Korris Review? It is mentioned on page 35 of the Review.

6. Page 40 of the Korris Review states: It is debatable whether, once the police case had been settled, this remained a Safeguarding issue. As soon as H.G. began 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. If this is a conclusion, why did the Review happen at all?

7. Why does the Korris Review compare the Jersey situation to the Butler-Sloss Report of 2011, when the core issue there was a paedophile ring being operated by clergy in the Diocese between 1970 and 1984, and having no connection with the alleged procedural failures of the handling of the HG case in Jersey between August 2008 and October 2010?

The Dame Heather Steel Investigation.

8. On 8 March 2013 you announced I have now ordered an immediate and thorough investigation. We are now 70+ days after your announcement, yet the investigation has not started and Korris (Page 12) criticised the Dean for a 45-day delay. Why are different rules being applied?

9. Have you agreed the Terms of Reference (TOR) of the Investigation with the authorities in Jersey? (The Bailiff, Lieutenant Governor and AG) If so, why are they being kept secret?

10. How will the laity have an opportunity to submit evidence and comment to the Investigation?

The Bishop Gladwin Visitation.

11. Given that the constitutional relations between the Island and Diocese are in question, were the TOR for the Visitation agreed with the Dean, Bailiff, and AG of Jersey before they were announced; if not, why not?

12. Now that you understand the legal position regarding Jersey and the Jersey Canons, will you abandon paragraph 3a of the TOR that seeks to question the validity and relevance of Jersey Canon Law 2012 that was so recently adopted by the States and approved by the Privy Council?

13. How is Bishop Gladwin to be orientated on the legal, social and economic situation in Jersey before starting his Visitation?

Costs.

14. How much has the Korris Review and subsequent actions, including travel and accommodation, legal advice, press releases, the preparations for the Investigation and Visitation cost to date?

15. What are the budgeted costs of the Investigation and Visitation?

16. Given the Dioceses declared economic difficulties, where are the funds for the Korris Review and subsequent actions coming from?

17. Specifically, what is the budgeted cost of the employment of Luther Pendragon, PR Consultants, in relation to this dispute, given that there appears to be a team of three consultants available to the Diocese around the clock?
Miscellaneous.

18. Do you recognise that you unfairly traduced the Dean in your message to the Islands Anglican clergy of 8 March 2013?

19. Do you recognise the hurt you have caused to the Key family, not just through the Korris Review, but through your suspension of Daphne Key from her employment as PA to the Dean, and your instruction to the Dean at the time of his suspension, banning him from speaking to his own clergy in clear breach of his human rights?

20. How do you think you will ever repair the substantial damage to your ministry in Jersey as our Bishop?

*****************************************************************

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.