This is an examination of the acts and omissions of Mr. Lachlan Bryant in his role as the Director Professional Standards Unit of the Anglican Church Sydney diocese (the PSU). With the advice and encouragement of Mr. Peter Barnett Director PSU for Bathurst and Riverina, in the first two of three meetings, and Dr. Selden (Registrar and Archbishop’s Executive Officer) at the third meeting, Mr. Bryant’s acts and omissions demonstrate breaches of the provisions of the Discipline Ordinance 2006, the general principles of natural justice and the guidelines of ethical behaviour required of a solicitor with a current practicing certificate.
This forms part of a Report that was first prepared for the Archbishop of Sydney and for the Safe Ministry Board. It was submitted in early November2013 and neither has responded that the Report has been considered.
The preparation and submission of the Report was on the advice (apparently incorrect) given by Dr. Philip Selden at a meeting on 9 September 2013 in response to Drew’s questions: ‘Who has authority over the director PSU? To whom should I make a complaint about the errors and failures in this case?’ Later Dr. Keith Condie, Chair of the Safe Ministry Board, told Drew and Pippa that while the Board has power to assess process failures with a view to making recommendations for amendment, the director PSU is ONLY responsible to the Archbishop of Sydney who, therefore, has authority over him and his errors and failures.
For the New Reader:
A brief history (see article ‘About Drew and Pippa’ for more details): Drew completed a Bachelor of Economics and Marketing in 1988 and Bachelor of Theology and Diploma (Youth Ministry) Australian College of Ministry (through Churches of Christ centres) in 1996. He completed a mentoring course with highly regarded John Mark Ministries over 1999 – 2001 while he was working as a lay youth minister with an Anglican Church parish in suburban Sydney.
Drew’s relationship with AS: AS, having attended Drew’s confirmation course in 2001 (Year 9) became Drew‘s office assistant from 2002 – 2004, while he completed the HSC, and thereafter from 2005 – 2008 while he completed youth ministry training courses at Youthworx College and SMBC. Over 2008-14 he took a youth ministry position in another church. He and Drew continued in a mentoring relationship as Drew encouraged him in his new ministry. At AS’s request, Drew and his wife Pippa attended AS’s wedding and Drew led the prayers.
AND YET: with no warning AS sent Drew this email on 11 November 2011:
‘Hi Drew. I’m not interested in meeting up. I’m just coming to terms with the fact that the way you treated me as a teenager constitutes abuse (massages, forced sleeping arrangements and numerous other repeated incidents.) I’ve been talking to Professional Standards about this and am extremely concerned that you are seeking to work with children and young people (or in any form of Christian Ministry). I don’t wish to have any further contact.’
What happened next: Drew was not contacted by the PSU, and he was left in a state of limbo as he could not ignore AS’s twice stated refusal to be contacted. So, naively but with a sincere desire to find out what was wrong Drew contacted the PSU and arranged to come in and meet the director Lachlan Bryant. Drew told Mr Bryant that he would be bringing his wife Pippa, and Mr Bryant was not happy with this, although reluctantly he agreed. However, he said, do not bring anyone else.
Three meetings followed with intervening actions by Mr. Bryant:
Nov 23 2012 First Meeting between Drew & Pippa on the one hand and Mr. Bryant and Mr. Barnett (PSU Bathurst and the Riverina).
Dec 18 2012 Announcement at former parish church but not in the agreed terms.
Feb 11 2013 Second Meeting between Drew & Pippa on the one hand and Mr. Bryant and Mr. Barnett
Sept 9 2013 Third Meeting between Drew & Pippa on the one hand and Mr. Bryant and Dr. Selden (diocesan Registrar and Archbishop’s Executive Officer).
The three meetings and intervening actions by Lachlan Bryant, all breached (a) the requirements of the Discipline Ordinance 2006 (Sydney diocese), (b) the rules of natural justice, (c) anti-bullying rules and protocols, and/or (d) the ethical obligations of a solicitor holding a current Practicing Certificate in dealing with an unrepresented person and undertaking honest and fair dealings.
Please read the accompanying articles setting out in detail what happened. The following sets out the deficiencies of process and honest dealing to assist the reader to make a quick appraisal of the bones of Drew’s complaint about denial of justice.
A. The first meeting on Nov 23 2012 between Drew & Pippa on the one hand and Mr Bryant and Mr Barnett (PSU Bathurst and the Riverina).
(a) Comparing the process applicable and the process applied in the first meeting. Discipline Ordinance 2006 Cl. 17 (1) & (2)
Applicable provisions of the Discipline ordinance 2006 that were breached:
1. Failure to caution re legal advice
17. (1) (e) to caution the person not to make any admissions without the benefit of legal advice.”
What occurred:
Drew received no such caution. He was told that the case was not a legal issue. In addition he was denied the opportunity to bring a legal representative to the meeting as Mr. Bryant told him not to bring anyone else, after reluctantly agreeing to allow Pippa to accompany her husband.
Instead, Mr. Bryant and Mr. Barnett told Drew that the ONLY way forward was to make an unconditional apology. After Drew had drafted this while contemplating suicide, Mr. Bryant told Drew that this and the discussion in the meeting constituted Drew’s ‘confession’. This constitutes also breaches of ethical obligations for dealing with an unrepresented person and for honest and fair dealing.
2. Failure to request a response
17. (2) (b) to request the person to provide a response to the complaint within a period of not less than 21 days specified by the Director
What occurred
Drew received no such advice or request. Therefore he has been denied the opportunity to prepare and file a statutory declaration setting out his response to the complaints. This constitutes also a denial of natural justice.
3. Failure to counsel re opportunities for suspension or mitigation
“17. (2) (c) to inform the person generally of the processes under this Ordinance, including the opportunity for conciliation (which may be done by providing the person with a copy of this Ordinance), and
(d) to advise the person of the possible sanctions that might follow if the allegations in the complaint are proven, and the opportunities for their mitigation or suspension, and”
What occurred
Mr Bryant only provided a copy of the Discipline Ordinance 2006 at the end of the meeting after making the inducements and misrepresentations referred to above. He failed to draw the respondent’s attention to the relevant clauses and allow him time to obtain legal advice in relation to these. This also is a breach of ethical obligations of honest and fair dealing.
Mr Barnett told Drew that information would be sent to the NSW Police and the Commission for Children and Young People (CCYP) and discussed the need for a safety plan for Drew to attend church. Mr Bryant did not discuss opportunities for their mitigation or suspension since there was no discussion about the most important points of the processes under the Ordinance such as seeking legal advice and responding in not less than 21 days.
Mr Barnett and Mr Bryant never suggested that an investigation was needed to prove whether the allegations were true or not.
In addition to breaching the clauses of the Discipline Ordinance this renders the information contained on the PSU website for the benefit of a respondent a serious lie and misrepresentation by and on behalf of the Anglican church in Australia Sydney Diocese.
The website states:
“What if I have had an allegation made against me?
Every opportunity will be provided to enable you to make a full response. Reports of abuse will be taken seriously and the Complainant will be treated with respect, however this is not the same as proof.”
Drew was denied any opportunity to make a full response.
(b) Stating that the normal procedures of the Discipline Ordinance 2006 would not be followed
At the end of the First Meeting Mr Barnett and Mr Bryant informed Drew that normal procedures would not be followed since Drew was no longer working in the diocese. There is no clause in the enabling church Ordinance, the Discipline Ordinance 2006 that permits the PSU to take a case and then fail to apply the procedures laid down by the Ordinance.
What occurred
In the letter to a Queensland Christian camping organisation, Mr. Bryant disclosed “It was explained to (Drew) that because he was no longer working for the Diocese that our formal complaints processes would not be proceeding in this matter.”
Both Mr Bryant and Dr Selden have been asked and have failed to provide the clause of the Discipline Ordinance 2006 that authorises the Director PSU to act outside the ‘normal procedures’ prescribed by the ordinance, in Drew’s case.
This failure of Mr. Bryant to act in accordance with his mandate is unprofessional and unethical.
Since the Discipline Ordinance 2006 does not authorise the Director PSU to act outside the ‘normal procedures’ prescribed by the ordinance, this statement was a misrepresentation of the provisions of the Discipline Ordinance 2006 and the conduct of Mr Bryant (and Mr Barnett) in the First Meeting and continuing actions by the PSU Director were in contravention of the Ordinance. These actions have denied Drew natural justice.
(c) Misrepresenting the nature of the first meeting by offering conciliation via an apology without instructions to do so from AS and without first following procedures as outlined above.
As represented in the Diagrammatic Summary of Provisions in the Discipline Ordinance 2006 (forming part thereof).
What occurred
Drew was unaware that there were two formal complaints to be revealed at this meeting. He was unaware that he would be called upon to respond immediately. The counsel given by Mr. Bryant was in error and Mr. Barnett’s unprofessional conduct was a form of bullying and harassment.
The diagrammatic summary reveals that either conciliation or an investigation should proceed from a complaint. An investigation was not suggested. Drew was led to believe that the only appropriate action was an unqualified apology to the complainants for the purpose of healing and conciliation. However, AS has never accepted this apology and therefore Mr. Bryant did not act under instruction from him.
(d) Breach of privacy
The director PSU called additional persons to the first and third meetings without warning and consent previously sought and received. Thereby he published the complaints to unauthorised persons.
What occurred
Drew was not informed by Mr Bryant that Mr Barnett would be present at the First Meeting. He was not informed that Dr Selden would be present at the Third Meeting.
He was not given the opportunity to object nor even advised that he had a right to object.
(e) Misrepresentation of role of Director PSU
The role of the Director PSU is to outwork the provisions of the Discipline Ordinance 2006
What occurred
Mr Bryant has failed in his mandate as Director PSU in multiple ways. Mr Bryant’s decision to defy the Discipline Ordinance 2006 and not apply normal procedures in the case against Drew, rendered him unprotected by the provisions of the ordinance.
Mr Bryant and Mr Barnett ‘designed’ their own process and rules for the situation and attempted to act as counselor for both parties, investigator and Director, representing to Drew and Pippa that this was appropriate.
Mr Bryant did not suggest nor provide a Support Person (as per SMB and PSU Annual Reports) for Drew but rather represented that he was available for assistance.
Mr Bryant conducted his own investigation but did not follow normal investigative procedures. (See (h)).
Mr Bryant did not involve the PSC in the process initially but made decisions and provided recommendations on his own. When Mr Bryant did consult the PSC a year later he failed to inform Drew that he intended to do so, provide him with the material in his possession and invite him to make written representations to the PSC.
These actions constitute flagrant breaches of Mr Bryant’s role as Director.
Mr Bryant’s failure to adhere to the Discipline Ordinance 2006, contravenes the Safe Ministry Board and Professional Standards Unit Annual Reports 2011-2013, which claims that one of their objectives is: “to enact just procedures to deal with respondents and persons of risk.”
(f) Misrepresentation of function of apology and misuse and deliberate misinterpretation of apology
As per the Diagrammatic Summary of Provisions in the Discipline Ordinance 2006, after a complaint is made either an investigation proceeds or conciliation is proposed.
What occurred
Mr Bryant never suggested that an investigation was necessary. The only action required of Drew (apart from the offer to pay for counselling for AS) was the provision of unqualified apologies to the complainants. Mr Bryant represented that these apologies would assist healing for the complainants.
Mr Bryant instead used the unqualified apologies as the basis of ‘findings’ of his non-existent investigation. The apologies were provided to the NSW Police and the Commission for Children and Young People and used as the basis for the public announcement at the Parish church, and (presumably) for the consideration of the PSC.
Mr Bryant has misrepresented to Drew the use he would make of these apologies, and misrepresented the apologies and therefore Drew to the PSC, the NSW Police, the CCYP, the PSC and the parish Church.
(g) Failure to observe ethical requirements of a solicitor holding a current practicing certificate for the protection of an unrepresented person
Mr Bryant holds a current Practicing Certificate as a solicitor and as such is bound by the Legal Professional Act 1995 (NSW) as amended and the Solicitors Professional Conduct Rules and the Law Society of NSW Guidelines.
What occurred
Mr Bryant did not set the parameters for dealing with an unrepresented party.
Mr Bryant did not recommend that Drew seek legal advice.
Mr Bryant failed to explain that his role was not as adviser nor counselor but as prosecutor in the case.
B. Breaches at later meetings and in relation to intervening acts and omissions
(h) Investigation of the complaint
22. General functions of investigator
(3) If the investigator interviews a person, the investigator must allow the person to have another person present with them, being a person who is not a witness to the matters which are the subject of the complaint.”
(4) The investigator is –
(a) to make a written record or, with the consent of the person, an audio record, of all interviews with the person, and
(b) to provide the person with a copy of the record, and
(c) to have the person verify the record by signing a copy of it or, in the case of an audio record, by signing a statement to the effect that the audio record is a true record of the interview.
What occurred
Mr Bryant did not appoint an official investigator. He attempted to investigate the case himself but failed to follow the protocols of the Discipline Ordinance
Nor did he conduct an investigation himself but sought to delegate the role of investigator to AS.
Mr Bryant approved the suggestion of AS that he contact others whom he thought may have a similar complaint against Drew. Mr Bryant did not instruct the young man on appropriate investigative procedures. His electronic message was widely distributed and contributed to the meeting being held at the Parish Church inciting gossip. This formed the second component of some kind of unofficial investigation as parishioners were told that Drew had confessed to crossing boundaries and grooming teenagers at the parish Church. Parishioners were invited to contact the PSU with any concerns or questions.
The third component of the investigation was the appointment of the Director himself as investigator at the First Meeting. After the complaints and consequences were revealed, Drew was strongly urged to respond immediately. Drew had been strongly urged by Mr. Bryant not to bring anyone else to the First Meeting. Drew was aware that Mr Bryant was not recording his response to the complaints and was never provided with any record for verification.
Mr Bryant did not follow the Discipline Ordinance procedures for investigations.
(i) Misrepresentation of need to adopt procedural requirements which had been rejected by Synod 2012 when considering an amended Ordinance, later withdrawn.
In the 2nd Ordinary Session of the 49th Synod held in early October 2012, the Discipline Ordinance 2006 Amendment Ordinance 2012 was proposed.
It included the insertion of a new clause 20A : “The Director may, instead of appointing a person to investigate a complaint under clause 17 or 20, investigate the complaint him or herself. In this case, the Director is to be treated, as far as relevant, as the person appointed to investigate the complaint”
This bill was rejected and subsequently withdrawn.
What occurred
Within six weeks after this Ordinance had been rejected Mr Bryant attempted to investigate the case.
(j) Continued denial of opportunity to file response
17. (2) (b) to request the person to provide a response to the complaint within a period of not less than 21 days specified by the Director
What occurred
In the Second Meeting, when Pippa attempted to question the definition of Drew’s actions as sexual abuse and grooming, Mr Barnett closed the conversation with the declaration that “It is not possible to determine intent.” Mr Bryant and Mr Barnett have not adhered to the definitions of these actions in Faithfulness in Service which clearly indicate that intent of action is foundational to the interpretation of these activities to bring them within, or not, the definitions. This also constituted a misrepresentation of the criminal law where intent is a necessary part of what is required to be proved by the Prosecution in a case brought by the Police.
In relation to Complaints 3 and 4 (submitted March 2013 by two men related to complainant 1), Mr Bryant notified the substance of the complaint to Drew but required no response and no apology. This is again an extreme denial of natural justice.
Drew requested Mr Bryant to follow the normal processes of the Discipline Ordinance in relation to these complaints and Mr Bryant has refused to do so.
(k) Failure to follow prescribed procedures in relation to the referral to the PSC (and thereby misleading Drew and the members of the PSC
32. Action on receipt of investigator’s report
(2) The Director must –
(a) notify the person against whom the complaint is made that the complaint has been referred to the PSC, and
(b) furnish the person with a copy of all material in the Director’s possession relevant to the complaint, including a copy of the investigator’s report, and
(c) invite the person to provide any further information or material, and to make written representations to the PSC, relating to the complaint, within 28 days or such longer period as may be agreed to by the Director at any time.
What occurred
Mr. Bryant misrepresented to Drew that he was seeking advice as to whether to comply with his request to provide access to the material in the Director’s possession concerning him and to receive copies of the 3 emails.(See(m)) In fact he then referred the matters to the PSC.
Drew had not admitted any of the complaints and so should have been notified that Mr Bryant was doing so. Dr Condie has explained that 32(2) is only required on receipt of an investigator’s report. There obviously is none and therefore the apologies have been used as Drew’s confession.
The first that Drew knew about the referral was the receipt of an email advising that the PSC’s report would be available mid the following week.
In this Mr Bryant failed to furnish Drew with a copy of all material in his possession and to allow Drew time to prepare and lodge a formal response to the allegations to be placed before the PSC. Nor did he allow Drew the opportunity to prepare and lodge formal submissions to the PSC.
He has misled the PSC into making a report on the basis of the apology and he has thereby misused that document. By omission, he has misled the PSC that Drew had been given these opportunities but had not exercised his rights under the clause
(l) Improper documentation supplied to CCPY – misrepresentation that there had been an investigation and a finding and use of documents for worst category.
“The Commission for Children and Young People holds only basic information about this matter, for example your name, sex, date and place of birth and the findings of our investigation. We retain the full records of the relevant employment proceeding and give them to the Commission or Approved Screening Agency when there is a Working with Children Check that considers this record.” (NSW Working with Children Check Rep Employee Advisory Letter)
What occurred
Unknown to Drew, Mr Bryant sent the unqualified apologies along with the complaints to the NSW Police and the Commission for Children and Young People.
The Rep Employee Advisory Letter from the Commission clearly states that only the findings of the investigation are to be sent to the Commission. The CCYP manager Mr David Reeds confirmed this to Drew.
Since there was no official investigation, Mr Bryant has misrepresented to the Commission that an investigation had occurred and a finding was made through it.
The unqualified apologies were also used as ‘evidence’ to qualify Mr Bryant’s decision to classify the case as CCYP Category 1 and not Category 2
(m) Denial of proper access to documents generated by Mr. Bryant
Natural justice, as instituted by God through Moses, declares that both sides of an argument must be heard and given due consideration before a judgement can be made.
NSW Working with Children Check Rep Employee Advisory Letter
“You are entitled to seek documents that we hold relating to you and this Relevant Employment Proceeding under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009.”
What occurred
Drew has been repeatedly denied access to three emails sent to the PSU after AS conducted his unofficial and spurious ‘investigation’. Initially Mr Bryant explained that they did not contain matters that could be processed under the Discipline Ordinance. Then he presented them to the PSC and has now dealt with them one year later.
Mr Bryant used the existence of the emails against Drew in a letter to the Queensland Christian Camping organisation where Drew was seeking employment.
Mr Bryant has so far refused to allow Drew to defend himself against these accusations. Mr Bryant states merely that these have been ‘dealt with’ without specifying in what manner, and he has refused to confirm that the complainants have been told as such. This is an extreme form of denial of natural justice. Drew requested access to the documents held by the PSU about him and was denied access. Mr Bryant confessed that the Rep Employee Advisory Letter given to Drew was potentially the wrong form.
C. The announcement to the Parish Church
(n) Misrepresentation to the parish Church
Mr Bryant informed Drew that the announcement was to “put an end to speculation among members of the parish” as to “whether there is a complaint concerning you etc”. (Email December 11, 2012)
What occurred
Mr Bryant misrepresented the purpose of this meeting to Drew. When Drew questioned this at the Second Meeting, Mr Barnett countered: “These meetings never go well.”
The final announcement, which was changed on the day of the Meeting to include the term “grooming”, declared Mr Bryant’s premature and faulty ‘findings’ from his non-existent investigation. The lack of clarity in the content created speculation rather than diminishing it.
Mr Bryant misrepresented the situation to the parish Church and Drew’s position on it. He incorrectly stated that Drew had made a “full confession” to “inappropriate and grooming behaviour” and was “for this process” undertaken by the PSU.
Drew had not made a confession. He was presented with only one option (an unconditional apology) and took this under the misapprehension, fostered by Mr. Bryant and Mr. Barnett of the outcomes it would achieve, ie healing the complainants.
D. Support Person
(o) Failure to outwork protocols described in the SMB / PSU Annual Reports 2011-2012 and 2012-2013
In the Safe Ministry Board and Professional Standards Unit Annual Report 2011-2012(July 6, 2012) it was explained:
“Panel of Support Persons for Respondents
The SMB has recently approved detailed plans for the establishment, maintenance and operation of a Panel of such persons.”
And in the Annual Report 2012-2013:
“Respondents are offered a Support Person to help pastorally care for and look after them while they are going through the Discipline Ordinance process.”
What occurred
Drew was not offered a Support Person.
Further when Drew asked Mr Barnett to approach a church on the Central Coast on his behalf about the Safety Plan that was considered necessary, he had to wait three months for a response from Mr Barnett. This was traumatic for the family as they tried to settle into the Central Coast after 12 weeks of searching for a rental home.
The process of investigating and preparing findings on the faulty process employed by Mr Bryant has been extremely time consuming as well as emotionally, mentally, spiritually and financially draining. A suitable adviser was not secured until July 2013 and Drew remains legally unrepresented. This has had a grave impact on Drew & Pippa and their family.
E. Delay in acknowledging the Rule against Double Jeopardy
(p) Breach of the legal rule against double jeopardy
The principle of the Rule against Double Jeopardy is that a person cannot be tried more than once for the same crime. This extends to proceedings under the Discipline Ordinance 2006.
What occurred
In 2000, a complaint was lodged with the Archbishop of Sydney about a letter sent by Drew to a youth group member which contained language that was alleged to be sexual grooming in nature. Drew was never contacted about this. This complaint was the foundation of the recent complaint 2. Mr Bryant and Mr Barnett expressed surprise when Drew informed them that he was completely unaware of this complaint.
Originally, Mr. Bryant did not exclude this complaint on the basis that it has had been considered and dealt with in 2000. It was not until his email of October 30, 2013 that Mr Bryant confirmed that “no further action is to be taken or continued under the Ordinance in respect of one complaint (Complaint “A”) as the conduct the subject of the complaint is not materially different from conduct already dealt with under the Church Discipline Ordinance 1996”. Now that Mr Bryant has confirmed it had been dealt with under Church Discipline Ordinance 1996, it would suggest that point 1 of AW’s complaint should never have been included.
F. Misrepresentations in correspondence
(q) Misrepresentation of the facts in Mr Bryant’s written communications
There are numerous errors in Mr Bryant’s communications with Drew.
1. Email containing Recommendations (November 26, 2012)
The error is the declaration that Drew accepted the contents of the complaints.
2. The Announcement at St James Church on December 18, 2012
Mr Bryant misrepresented the situation and Drew’s position on it.
3. Email in response to questions from Drew (April 18, 2013)
It is clear that Mr Bryant was still in error in his understanding of the timing of events detailed in the complaints.
4. Document written by Mr Bryant for the Board of a Queensland Christian camping organisation. (February 19, 2013)
This document contains multiple inaccuracies as well as revelations of the faulty processes employed by Mr Bryant. The summaries of the complaints sensationalise the conduct and include a most defamatory lie.
The fact that these are a grave misrepresentation of the truth renders the possibility that the initial complaints also do not represent the truth as told by the complainant because. To date the only documentation seen by Drew has been a letter composed by Mr. Bryant.
Conclusion
It is incomprehensible that Drew, as a minister with a Bachelor of Theology and Diploma of Youth Ministry who has worked full time in two significant youth ministries in the Sydney diocese of the Anglican Church for almost fifteen years, and was featured in an article for Southern Cross as an example for youth ministry, should not be afforded the rights of any other church worker or a clergy member.
Neither Mr. Bryant nor Dr. Selden, experts on the terms and operation of Discipline Ordinance 2006, have provided Drew an answer as to which clause of the Discipline Ordinance Mr. Bryant was applying when he made the decision to bypass normal procedures in Drew’s case.
It must be concluded then that Mr. Bryant and Mr. Barnett did not follow the provisions of the Discipline Ordinance in breach of Mr. Bryant’s responsibility as Director PSU. Acting outside his mandate is an extraordinary misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the extent of his mandate and the terms of his jurisdiction.
The Discipline Ordinance 2006 advocates just processes so that Respondents are not harassed, bullied and lied to as Drew was in the First Meeting and subsequently. All Mr. Bryant’s actions in regard to the complaints against Drew to date have been outside the powers conferred by and in direct contravention of the requirements of the Discipline Ordinance 2006 and are therefore null and void.
The harm done has been immeasurable.
Neither justice nor healing has been achieved. It would seem that Mr. Bryant would do well to consider whether he has truly and faithfully discharged his duties, not just in the eyes of the church and the world but in the eyes of God.