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---Did the Punishment fit the Crime?

Readers who have followed my Dean Blogs will know that from the very outset I raised concerns about the circumstances which led to HG being “deported” from Jersey and left destitute in the UK. I questioned whether the agencies with responsibility with dealing for people like HG had the competence and resources. Having read and re read the Korris Report, Senator Bailhache’s letter and documentation provided by HG my concerns have not been allayed but have increased. On Page 41 of her Report Jan Korris states “The decision and manner of HG’s deportation requires investigation. It is clearly a matter of concern that a vulnerable adult in such a distressed state could be removed from Jersey with no thought of her imminent needs.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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