What happened at the directions hearing on 18 September 2014?
by Louise Greentree
Well, after the last directions hearing (see my previous post about this), we had a lot of people praying hard for a calm, competent, professional and appropriate directions hearing this time around.
Our prayers were answered – praise and thank God.
Our barrister and solicitor were given a fair hearing and if not all our applications were granted, one good thing was that the scope and extent of the suppression order was clarified so that it does not interfere with the investigation we have launched (in place of the one that the director PSU should have launched). Our thanks to the Tribunal members for presiding over the directions hearing in this manner.
An announcement to be made at all services of the Parish
The Tribunal members have authorised an announcement to be made to the Parish advising that the claims are being investigated and encouraging people to feel free to speak to the investigator and to know that they are not breaking any orders or directions of the tribunal.
What happens next?
We have until December for our investigator to complete a thorough and wide-ranging investigation in the parish and beyond as necessary and for us to prepare and file all statutory declarations that are the outcome of the investigation as well as the others from people we have approached directly for their evidence.
Then, in a telephone directions conference a timetable will be set for filing all other documents that each side wish to rely on in the hearing. By that stage we should have a good idea of how many hearing days will be required so that dates for the hearing can be set.
What does this will mean?
There will be a hearing some time in the early part of 2015, some two-and-a-half years after Complainant 1 had spoken to the PSU and he had decided that Drew should not be allowed to exercise not only any youth ministry but any Christian ministry at all, messaged Drew to that effect, also telling him that he would not speak to Drew about it.
At long last complainant 1, the one who is so coy about his identity even though he has not been sexually abused and even though he defamed Drew widely through SMS and Facebook disclosing his identity to do so, will have to stand up and be counted, and explain to us all in public why he chose to attack not only Drew’s bona fides as a youth minister but also attack the Christian faith Drew engendered by his good example to so many young people in the parish. This is not a good look for a youth minister in the absence of anything remotely like good cause to do so.
The hearing will be a little under two-and-a-half years from when Lachlan Bryant, director PSU, accused Drew of child sex abuse, told him that some of his conduct was criminal and drove him to planning to commit suicide. There is nothing in the complaints even at their highest that supports a claim of child sex abuse, nor is there anything that supports a claim of grooming for the purpose of initiating or hiding child sex abuse, and nor do the complainants claim that there is. So Lachlan Bryant’s misrepresentation of the criminal nature of the conduct complained of almost deprived a lovely Christian woman and her four children of their loving father.
I will be writing more about this disgraceful episode in the history of a number of disgraceful episodes presided over by the successive directors PSU Sydney diocese.
In the meantime we carry on our investigations and preparations to bring Drew’s defence to a point of readiness for hearing.
You dear readers who belong to a parish of the Sydney diocese of the Anglican Church in some way or another will be pleased to know that your offerings and tithing to the church organisation are going to be diverted into contributing to the cost of the diocese trying to rescue the disaster that was precipitated by Lachlan Bryant and to cover up his improper conduct at the start of the case – legal costs probably much in the order of $100,000 for each side – bearing in mind that the diocese has to contribute in any event part of Drew’s legal costs as well as pay ALL of its’ own legal costs regardless of the outcome.
So instead of being a case about preventing a child abuser from employment in the diocese, this case on the part of the diocese is ONLY about trying to rescue Bryant’s reputation (and by association that of the diocesan officers and clergy who support his actions), and to try to circumvent defamation proceedings against Bryant, the regional Bishop and, of course, against complainant 1.
I invite you to look at my next post in this category about how the diocese and Bryant are going to try to get around the undeniable fact that they have no tenable case against Drew under diocesan legislation as it now stands – by changing the legislation and applying the retrospective provision of the Discipline Ordinance 2006, seeking the approval of Synod in a couple of weeks’ time to do so.
But for now –
Has Lachlan Bryant apologised for this? No. He has admitted that he should have behaved in that meeting in accordance with the requirements of the Discipline Ordinance 2006, which means that he had to have given Drew details of the complaint and the names of the complainants; he should have told him he had 21 days in which to respond to the complaints and sent him away cautioning him not to make any admissions without seeking legal advice.
What he does not seem to have appreciated is that if, as he said at the time, the Discipline Ordinance 2006 did not apply to Drew and the complaint then he, Lachlan Bryant had no jurisdiction to even speak to Drew. His office only exists by virtue of the Discipline Ordinance 2006. He could not even accept the complaint if his view of the application of the Discipline Ordinance 2006 had been correct.
SO what the hell did he think he was doing?
If, as his legal adviser has suggested, his view was sincerely held at the time, but has changed after reflection to saying that the Discipline Ordinance 2006 did apply, then he is the worst kind of bully and liar: he accepted and acted upon a complaint that he had no power or authority to accept or act upon. Then he met with Drew, made false statements about the character of Drew’s conduct and suggested not only that Drew was at risk of complainant 1 reporting it to the Police but that he Lachlan intended to report it to the Police. Yet there was nothing in the complaint to support this view.
There is a ‘principle’ that says in broad terms: do not ascribe to malice that which can equally be explained by stupidity and incompetence.
So, Lachlan Bryant: which is it? Malice or stupidity and incompetence? I and my readers await your explanation for almost bringing about the terrible tragedy of a man dying by his own hand directly because what you told him was false.