“You will be afforded the opportunity to be represented and make your case before the Tribunal.” – what a joke!
by Pippa
Dear reader,
This is what Mr Marr, Diocesan Registrar, wrote on behalf of Archbishop Glenn Davies on December 6, 2013 in response to our argument that we could not afford the fees that would be required to secure legal representation for the Tribunal.
Do you know how much our legal fees are to date?
Our solicitor estimates the costs to date are almost $50 000 and these only cover the filing of Drew’s defence (at last … having waited 18 months for the first opportunity) four directions hearings, a barrister at two of these and an investigation (because the diocese refused to do one themselves). We haven’t even started the final Tribunal hearing yet!
And do you know how much of this the diocese is willing to pay?
Mr Marr has now confirmed that the diocese will pay $9,940 towards these. The cost of carrying out our own investigation and the fees for the barrister exceeded this!
So, here is the reality …
… a complainant can make a complaint and not pay a cent towards the process that ensues because of his/her actions, while the respondent could pay up to $100,000 to clear his/her name (and there was a situation where this occurred). And if you choose to settle the case before the final hearing (even if you complete your entire defence and then the charge is withdrawn or the like) the Diocese refuses to pay more than $9,940.
Where is the justice in this?
Additionally,
Initially $8,500 was the total that was to be offered, until our solicitor pointed out at the first Directions hearing that the appropriate CPI increase had not been applied since 2008. So now $9,940 is the limit set by the diocese for costs incurred if the situation does not proceed to the final hearing. If it does proceed, then the maximum is $40,000.
We sent a tax invoice for a three month period from our solicitor to Mr Marr as per the orders of the Tribunal. A month later, having heard nothing, we wrote to Mr Marr questioning the fact that nothing had been paid. Mr Marr replied that he was still updating the amounts in accordance with movements in the CPI. When we heard nothing again for a month, we wrote to Mr Marr again and he replied that he would have to seek instruction from the Tribunal because “The Rules of the Tribunal set out a Scale of Costs which does not seem to be based on hourly charges for work done.” and our solicitor had charged according to his normal hourly rates.
So at the Directions hearing in December, the Deputy President was closing the hearing when Drew and I had to jump in and say that Mr Marr had a question for the Tribunal about the payment of our solicitor’s invoice. The Deputy President’s response was that costs would be paid at the end of the Tribunal proceedings as was the norm. It would seem that the Anglican Church Sydney diocese believes it is quite reasonable for a respondent to pay for everything upfront and then for them to pay pittance towards these costs at the end of the Tribunal.
But note that according to the Rules of the Tribunal, if the Tribunal thinks you have behaved in ways they deem inappropriate then they can refuse to pay even this! An interesting situation to negotiate when you consider and have made it known that you consider the actions of the Director PSU and certain diocesan hierarchy to be less than appropriate!
HOWEVER…
Our solicitor was suddenly paid a few days after the last hearing … well $9940 of the actual costs . What are we to make of these people?
And the question remains …
How is any youth minister supposed to afford legal support under these circumstances?
Especially one who was forced out employment in the profession in which he worked for almost twenty years, due to false claims before they had been properly investigated and a defence allowed to be prepared.
AND YES we have tried to argue this point numerous times …
We argued this injustice firstly in November 2013 in response to the decision by the Professional Standards Committee that the Archbishop should enlist someone to promote a charge against Drew. Now remember that this decision was made based on material placed before the Committee by Mr Bryant, Director PSU, with no opportunity for Drew to make any defence, with no investigator’s report, against the principles of the Discipline Ordinance.
We argued a similar point about financial support in March 2014 prior to the Charges being finalised and sent to us. We asked for assistance with up-front funding to which Mr Marr simply replied that he was “not aware of any proposal to provide “assistance with up-front funding”.”
We argued this point when the first Directions hearing was called less than two weeks after we received the charge in the post (against normal procedures of the Tribunal Rules which stipulate that the Respondent’s defence should be submitted before the first directions hearing is held). We maintained that it was impossible for us to secure legal support without some guarantee of financial support from the diocese.
Our arguments fell on deaf ears … again.
It was a miracle that we did secure a solicitor (with very appropriate experience) at the last minute and were able to attend the first Directions hearing. You see, we had written to Mr Marr to say that the first hearing should be set aside until after Drew had made his defence, in accordance with the Tribunal Rules and until there was a guarantee of funds for us. But once again our arguments fell on deaf ears and the Tribunal planned to meet anyway and did not inform us of this fact. Our solicitor, wise to this kind of behaviour by the Diocesan hierarchy, found out it was to go ahead.
We had to get legal representation.
In our situation it was imperative to get a legal representative to speak for us for multiple reasons.
This case is not a simple one. It is not just one side of the story versus another. We also have the complication of our complaint against Mr Bryant, the solicitor with a current practicing certificate in the seat of Director PSU, whom we claim has behaved in a way that is unethical, unprofessional and unjust.
Mr Bryant was given the role of Promoter of the charge against Drew despite our arguments that this was inappropriate in the circumstances. So at the Tribunal, Mr Bryant has not only the interests of the complainant to promote, but his own! This is heightened by the fact that the Safe Ministry Board refuses to process our complaint against Mr Bryant until the findings of the Tribunal are complete.
Since our complaint highlights the improper way in which the charge was brought, it should have been dealt with first.
In complete contrast, with reference to our complaint, Mr Marr declared in December 2013 that “Once the tribunal matters are finalised the other issues may be seen in a different way.” This completely ignored the fact that our complaint has an objective truth of its own.
Add to the situation that they have placed Acting Judge The Hon Peter Young AO QC in the position of Deputy President (the Archbishop is President but enlists the Deputy President to preside over the Tribunal). Quite an overkill (or sheer intimidation) don’t you think for a case they were happy to simply say “Just don’t work for us for 5 years” without even hearing Drew’s defence? Then of course there is the representative female and lay person required for the situation, who happens to be a young barrister! A clergyman takes the third position on the Tribunal panel.
So, as you can see, it would be next to impossible for us to appear in our own strength in this situation. We had to get legal representation.
But note this …. God has provided not just one solicitor but, altogether, six legal minds who are giving their support to our case!
So let me ask these final questions …
Why should any respondent not be given the opportunity to receive proper legal support so that they can clear their name and restore their reputation?
Why should Drew, falsely accused of grooming and sexual abuse by the Director PSU and Complainant 1, be denied the opportunity to clear his name because of the lack of financial provision from the Diocese?
Remember that the current charge does not include the terms grooming or sexual abuse and contains nothing that a secular court system would even take up.
What is the diocesan hierarchy afraid of … a media scandal that may further undermine their reputation in the community at large?
Better to crucify one man ….. ? The two Directors PSU clouted Drew so hard in that first meeting with their false claims that he had committed a criminal offence. He could barely “stand up” let alone contemplate doing ministry again. Why did they do this? To protect the reputation of the Anglican Church? Because of incompetence? Fear? To save the depleted funds of the PSU from being spent on an investigation?
I would suggest that the longer they prolong this farce, the greater our anger grows!
Pippa