‘Drew’s Adventures in Wonderland’[1]
Part 1
By Louise Greentree
The book ‘Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland’ by Lewis Carroll is a classic story for children that is beloved by adults throughout the English-speaking world and beyond. Alice’s adventures start with her falling down a rabbit-hole and culminate in her attendance at the trial of the Knave of Hearts, charged with stealing jam tarts. There are some interesting parallels between that trial, presided over by the Red King and his Queen (she with the fondness for ordering ‘Off with their heads’ for no reason other than a momentary irritation) and attended by a number of odd and interesting witnesses Alice has previously met in her adventures, and the ‘trial’ in Drew’s case which has been set down for a two-day hearing in April 2015 by three members of the Anglican Church Sydney diocese Disciplinary Tribunal.
Considering that the actions complained of in the ‘charges’ were not offences under the Discipline Ordinance 2006 nor the Code of Conduct Faithfulness in Service (October 2004) nor the predecessors of these church laws, either at the time that they were allegedly ‘committed’ nor at the time that they were the subject of charges brought against Drew there is similarly an air of unreality about the process undertaken against Drew by the Director PSU Lachlan Bryant and furthered by the diocesan second deputy chancellor, barrister Michael Easton and endorsed with enthusiasm (or silence) by these members of Sydney diocese disciplinary tribunal.
Let me conduct you through this:
Alice had never been in a court of justice before, but she had read about them in books, and she was quite pleased to find that she knew the name of nearly everything there. ‘That’s the judge,’ she said to herself, ‘because of his great wig.’
The judge, by the way, was the King; and as he wore his crown over the wig … he did not look at all comfortable, and it was certainly not becoming.
In the Sydney Anglican Church disciplinary tribunal for Drew’s case, one of the tribunal members is the deputy president who is an acting Judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, a man who has had a distinguished career but who is still hearing cases in that Court. However, when participating in the disciplinary tribunal he is not an acting Judge and he is not in a courtroom. He is a private person in a private tribunal of a private organisation and the scope of his power and authority, and that of his two colleagues, is contained in the Discipline Ordinance 2006, church legislation without force and effect in the secular world.
He certainly would be most inappropriately dressed, peculiar indeed, should he don a wig for the directions hearings in Drew’s case, with or without a crown on top. And he does not do so. However, at least in the first two directions hearings he has conducted himself as if he did have power and authority either from State legislation or residual powers and powers in support of those contained in legislation. But there are no residual powers in the church legislation: the full scope and limits of power are set out in that document. As I have written before, the disciplinary tribunal differs from the Diocesan Tribunal which is set up under State and Federal legislation for the Anglican Church to deal with ordained parish clergy, which has powers similar to those exercised by a tribunal in the secular world. The disciplinary tribunal has none of these.
So in the first directions hearing when asked courteously by Drew’s solicitor Dr. Dobbs how he should be addressed: ’as your honour?’ the deputy president replied that if Dr. Dobbs liked to do so or as ‘sir’. No: this is to give an entirely misleading air to these proceedings, as if they are supported by secular law and authority, when they are not. Likewise, bowing to the three tribunal members is another entirely misleading performance indicating power where none exists. The room itself is set up with a raised area for the tribunal members to sit, looking down on those defendants hapless enough to be caught up in the charade that is the disciplinary tribunal. The pretense of these trappings of a courtroom is also entirely misleading.
Not a good start to proceedings.
‘Herald, read the accusation!’ said the King.
On this the White Rabbit blew three blasts on the trumpet, and then unrolled the parchment scroll, and read as follows:
‘The Queen of Hearts, she made some tarts,
All on a summer day:
The Knave of Hearts, he stole those tarts,
And took them quite away!’
‘Consider your verdict,’ said the King to the jury.
‘Not yet, not yet!’ the Rabbit hastily interrupted, ‘There’s a great deal to come before that.’
It’s a funny thing about the disciplinary tribunal. It seems that the deputy president, supported by the silence of his colleagues[2], wants us to believe that there is not and never will be justice to be had from the tribunal because they have prejudged the case in favour of Lachlan Bryant, the Promoter of the charges and director Sydney PSU and the interests of the church organisation to cover up the errors, lies and misrepresentations that have been made, not just to Drew and Pippa, but also to the complainants, to complainant 1 in particular[3]. What the deputy president has been saying in the four directions hearings that have taken place to date before any evidence has actually been given, have been statements that indicate that he has already made up his mind about at least one of the elements of the charges that Mr Bryant as Promoter has to prove. His colleagues have not contradicted him.
The charges: Just to remind you, dear Reader: the charges follow the format set down in the Discipline Ordinance 2006 for a generalised complaint where the behaviour complained of does not fall into one of the special categories of child abuse or child sex abuse, and that is this: that certain behaviour was –
- Disgraceful behaviour when performed by a youth minister: AND
- Which caused, or if known would have caused a scandal.
Now, what it is that is ‘disgraceful behaviour when performed by a youth minister’ is not described in the Ordinance, nor is it described as such in the Code of Conduct Faithfulness in Service nor its’ predecessor. That means that there is no reliable guide as to what it might be.[4]
But nor is it subjective – which means that the deputy president and his colleagues should not just decide that it means what they want it to mean. They need to hear some evidence of what sorts of behaviour might be considered ‘disgraceful behaviour when performed by a youth minister’ by the world at large, or at least within the world of the Anglican Church, or even the much more confined world of the Anglican church in Sydney diocese. Also, as a matter of fairness, what that ‘disgraceful behaviour’ was at the relevant time, not with the benefit of hindsight in these deeply suspicious times after shocking revelations of systemic abuse of children in the church and church organisations and cover-ups by senior clergy. And the closer the behaviour is to being lawful, moral, permitted or at least not prohibited by the Bible nor causing any harm[5], the harder it is for the Tribunal members to justify any decision they might make labelling such unexceptionable behaviour as ‘disgraceful’.
That means that the deputy president cannot in justice decide for himself that such things as giving a person who is in his mid-to-late teens a leg and/or back massage, with their permission[6], in a public place, in circumstances where this is beneficial therapy such as before or after a City2Surf run or skiing, is disgraceful behaviour when performed by a youth minister. He needs something more.
In relation to each and every one of the behaviours complained of there needs to be evidence from the Promoter (via the evidence of properly accredited witnesses) that:
- The behaviour complained of was of such a nature as to be disgraceful when performed by a youth minister.
But there is no such evidence. On the contrary, for the defence there is evidence from mature Christians that instances of the behaviour were welcomed and found to be profoundly helpful in reaching adulthood in both secular and spiritual terms[7].
AND that –
- This was known about in the parish and it did cause a scandal; or that it was not known about in the parish but it would have caused a scandal had it been known.
But there is no evidence to support either of these propositions in the material filed on behalf of the complainants. On the contrary there is evidence for the defence that it was widely known and did not cause a scandal: for example there is evidence that complainant 1’s mother knew the circumstances of, and actually assisted preparations for one of the incidents complained of and was not scandalised. There is evidence of many others treated in the same way or who knew about these behaviours who were not scandalised. The senior minister was not scandalised.
The Promoter’s case is doomed to failure because both elements have to be proved and neither have been, nor can be.
Drew pushed to abandon his defence: And yet from the very first directions hearing there has been a ‘push’ for Drew to abandon his defence – from before he had even filed the documents of his defence. The grounds for trying to push Drew into this position has been orchestrated by the deputy president in close working relationship with the second deputy chancellor who is conducting the case as barrister for the diocese: a ‘give and take’ conversation deploring the continuation of the case by Drew.
The deputy president has told them that it is a ridiculous waste of money when the worst that the Archbishop can do is to bar Drew from working in the diocese for 5 years (or so). But if Drew walked away without there being an appropriate settlement of the case resulting in dismissal of the charges the deputy president and his colleagues would be able to bring down a decision on the charges, condemning Drew’s entirely innocent actions in his absence without the need to give reasons based on the evidence and the law[8]. Thus they would be able to justify the unjustifiable: the lies, bullying, intimidation and abuse that have characterised the way the case has been handled by Lachlan Bryant and every other person in the diocesan organisation involved up to that point.
But the church organisation started it: What he and his tribunal colleagues and the Archbishop and others like Registrar Marr need to remember is this: it was the officers and employees of the Anglican Church organisation of Sydney diocese who started this and the members of the Professional Standards Committee who continued it, and unless each one of them acknowledges that they were wrong and agree to dismissal of the case as misconceived and vexatious, it will go ahead and in the public domain[9]. It is not in the power of Drew and Pippa to walk away when they have been forced to come so far by the errors, bullying, lies and intimidation that has been the product of the misguided (to say the least) intervention by Lachlan Bryant of the PSU Sydney diocese along with another PSU director Peter Barnett.
Lachlan Bryant: Firstly, Bryant should not have intervened in a case of a sense of grievance and victimhood that complainant 1 has adopted without discernible cause and which he has nourished with an entirely misplaced sense of hurt where none would normally exist, and indeed none does exist in the minds of others similarly treated by Drew. Quite the opposite in fact – a sense of gratitude.
Secondly: however, having done so, he should have carried out the mandatory requirements of the Discipline Ordinance 2006 by telling Drew he had at least 21 days to respond to the complaints, warning him not to make any admission without having obtained legal advice based on the documentation of the actual charges[10] and carried out a proper investigation which would have uncovered the many people we have uncovered who have made statutory declarations supporting Drew’s actions. On the other hand, if he truly thought at that time that the Discipline Ordinance 2006 did not apply to Drew then Lachlan Bryant had no power or authority to conduct any interview with Drew and Pippa nor take any action at all[11].
Thirdly, it was both unprofessional and a clear demonstration of his concern to protect his own back when he made secret representations to the compliant members of the Professional Standards Committee that resulted in them recommending to the Archbishop that he refer the case to the Disciplinary Tribunal.
The members of the Professional Standards Committee: who in defiance of justice and reason accepted Bryant’s secret ‘consultation’ and then made a recommendation that the Archbishop appoint a Promoter of charges.
This was unwise for two reasons: firstly, that as they decided to treat an unconditional apology as an admission (which they were not entitled to do) the case should have ended there as provided in the Discipline Ordinance 2006 with recommendations, not for a hearing but for sanctions against the defendant, Drew. Yet another example of persons meant to be experts in the provisions of the Ordinance that establishes the Committee and sets out the scope and limits of its functions and powers, being woefully incompetent.
Secondly: it was unwise because their recommendation was in fact made mandatory by the provisions of the Discipline Ordinance 2006: the Archbishop had to comply with the recommendation, willingly or otherwise. And, eventually, he did so comply, and this meant that the whole farce of a tribunal hearing by a toothless tiger that is the disciplinary tribunal was set in motion.
The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney: It was the Archbishop’s refusal to consider not only doing justice but the appearance of justice when he appointed Lachlan Bryant, whose questionable conduct started it all, to bring the charges that has set up a highly contentious situation. He did so despite our representations that Bryant would be a witness of fact concerning the admissibility of a key piece of evidence, an apology made by Drew under duress as a result of lies and intimidation by Bryant. And this remains the case: Bryant will have to undergo rigorous cross-examination on the statutory declaration that he made and which is filed with the charges and concerning his behaviour in his meeting with Drew and Pippa, and yet, at the same time he will be sitting in the hearing as instructing solicitor listening to the primary evidence and thereby allowed the opportunity to tailor his evidence. Normally witnesses are excluded from the hearing until after they have given their evidence to prevent just this possibility.
Bryant again: Fourthly, legal professional ethics prohibit a legal practitioner from acting as the solicitor instructing counsel in a trial in these circumstances of being a substantial witness of fact. Mr. Bryant held at that time a current Practicing Certificate as a solicitor. It is unfortunate if it appears that he is allowed to be less ethical when working for the Christian church than if he were working in a State or Federal Court.
Fifthly, this also means that Bryant has a personal interest in ensuring that the tribunal comes to a decision that supports his original incompetent conclusions[12], despite such a decision being in the teeth of the evidence, and not supported by church legislation.
Sixthly, it is unfortunate that he has instructed a barrister who is part of the diocesan organisation, even just in an honorary capacity[13]. There would have been two clear benefits had he not done so: first, to ensure the appearance of independence of the barrister from personal concerns for the protection of the Archbishop, his appointee Bryant and other members of the church organisation; and second, the appearance of an early, clear and objective assessment of the merits of the case and recommendations for a proper resolution.
Unless, says the deputy president presciently, Drew wants to clear his name: And that being the case, the deputy president has then embarked on a series of ‘off-the-cuff’ comments that indicate that he at least (and there is no reason to suppose that his colleagues would go against him) has already made up his mind that at least some of the actions are disgraceful if performed by a youth minister: witness his artless comment during one of the directions hearings that he would have thought that there is a difference between a registered sports masseur massaging somebody and other people massaging.
Other such artless comments on the facts abound, such as an initial assessment that the charges were serious! Come on: have a read of the evidence being given to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse. That conduct – the rapes and beatings – that is serious. Read about the trial of some students of Trinity Grammar School, the school attended by both complainants almost contemporaneously with the events for which those students were charged, about making a dildo and using it on young male students. That’s serious. Read about the reign of terror by 4 or 5 pedophile teachers at Knox School over some 20 years, protected by the Headmaster, the sexual assaults in the dormitories, the demands for oral sex, showing pornography to students – that’s serious.
Massaging legs before or after a fun run is not serious. A complete absence of sexual intent – admitted by complainant 1 – means Drew’s lawful actions cannot, seriously, be viewed as serious.
Another artless comment: in the third directions he said to the effect that there are very specific acts alleged and that if there was another member of the community who was also the subject of those acts, that wouldn’t go in favour of Drew’s defence. It would go against him. Actually: there have been upwards of 20 statutory declarations all supportive of Drew and his conduct, exactly the same conduct that complainant 1 says, all these years later, that he has been hurt by. Why will that go against Drew’s case?
Flippancy: Unlike the Red King and Queen, who view the whole trial with the utmost seriousness despite the inherent triviality of the alleged offence (stealing jam tarts), Drew and Pippa and their legal team and supporters have witnessed a most regrettable flippancy in a remark by the deputy president despite the inherent seriousness of a tribunal hearing and the damage that has already been done to his and Pippa’s reputation and mentally, emotionally and psychologically to Drew as well as to Pippa and their children. At the end of a lengthy directions hearing the deputy president remarked to the effect that he had told his wife that he should be bored for an hour at the directions hearing.
Why are the tribunal members behaving like this? We think it is because they want to serve the Anglican Church organisation: not God, who is the God of truth and justice; not the church that is the body of all believers; nor the church that is the Bride of Christ, holy and righteousness in His sight. No, they seem to be serving the flesh-and-blood office-holders and employees of the human organisation: the church that has so completely through its’ flawed personnel and their incompetence, arrogance, dishonesty, deviousness and deceit brought calamity upon Drew and Pippa and their four children, even though Drew is a man who has done nothing wrong.
Certainly, we need a White Rabbit to remind the deputy president and his compliant colleagues that ‘there is a great deal to come before’ a verdict is considered. And, not least, that like the court of the Red King and Queen, the whole process of this disciplinary tribunal is a farce because of its lack of power and authority. A very expensive farce, a very emotionally, psychologically and spiritually abusive farce, but a farce none-the-less.
Part 2 follows immediately.
[1] All quotes from ‘Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland’ by Lewis Carroll are from my copy Puffin Books published by Penguin Group 1997. First published 1865.
[2] The female lay member (appointed to fulfil the requirements of the Discipline Ordinance 2006) has been absent from the last two directions hearings because of her confinement and the birth of her child. The third member is a Sydney diocese clergyman, likewise appointed to fulfil those requirements.
[3] Who on earth told him he could rely on a suppression order to prevent publication of his name and all details of the charges, when it is clear that such an order is unenforceable – a Clayton’s order, as I have written elsewhere: the order you have when you have no power or authority to make an enforceable order? This is just one, and not the first, of a series of errors and misinformation fed to this man about the role of the PSU and the disciplinary tribunal.
[4] This is not only significant for a decision by the tribunal members, but also it goes to the issue of how a person was to know at the time that this was ‘disgraceful behaviour if performed by a youth minister’. In Drew’s case a decision that the behaviour was disgraceful etc. would reflect badly on an otherwise highly respected and much-loved senior minister of the parish at the time, who himself appears not to have known that this was ‘disgraceful behaviour if performed by a youth minister’. It is on his shoulders that rested the primary responsibility for supervision of all activities of the parish employees in whatever position, especially including the youth ministers as set out in the ‘Guidelines for youth ministry’ contained in the ‘Code of Conduct for Clergy 1998’ that preceded Faithfulness in Service (2004) and which was in force at all relevant times. Strictly speaking if any adverse decision is made by the Tribunal members Drew would have a claim against that senior minister for his failure to provide proper guidance and supervision.
[5] The complainants do not allege harm.
[6] Permission that is recognised as conclusive the closer they are to the age of 18 – in the case of complainant 1 he was aged between about 16 and 18 when he participated willingly in the acts and conduct he now complains about. It is only consent to sexual activities with such as a youth minister that these teenagers under age 18 are unable to give, by virtue of the provisions of the Discipline Ordinance 2006. Neither complainant alleges sexual activity nor any activity that could be designated grooming for the purpose of initiating or hiding sex abuse. The Code of Conduct ‘Faithfulness in Service’ specifically refers to the increasing ability of ‘children’ to consent to non-sexual conduct, physical touching (on any area not covered by a swimming costume).
[7] It might be a different result had Drew carted the entire male under-18’s of the youth group to a Kings Cross strip club for a birthday treat. Even if not unlawful (although this would be a dubious proposition if the under 18’s were served alcohol), it would certainly be a disgraceful thing for a youth minister to do and the parental complaints would certainly create a scandal in the parish.
[8] Which is what almost happened: after the witness statements and charges finally had been delivered to Drew, the case was listed for a directions hearing before the expiry of the time allowed for Drew to prepare and lodge his own documents. When we objected, and, more importantly, asked the Archbishop to authorise financial assistance for Drew to get legal representation, this was ignored. We delivered material to Dr. Scott Dobbs, and he rang the diocesan office that afternoon to ask whether it was going ahead. Yes, he was told, and when he arrived at St. Andrew’s House that evening, there was not just one tribunal member present (which would have been usual) but all three of the tribunal members, ready to deal with the case in Drew’s absence. Clever! But in the event, not clever enough.
[9] It will need to be dismissed in these terms so that a totally specious notification made by Bryant to what was then the CCYP reporting Drew as a child sex abuser of the worst type can be withdrawn and his name removed from that record. Remember, the complaints have not alleged sex abuse or grooming. Until that happens Drew is barred from working with children.
[10] Which in this instance comprised just a letter thrown hastily together by Bryant just before he invited Pippa and Drew into that first meeting. Not all the instances of conduct complained about in that letter have actually made it to the charges. We were relieved to find the omission from the charges of the complaint about being given a gift of a pair of swimming trunks – Speedos, so beloved by Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
[11] Mr. Bryant has admitted that he did not think that the Discipline Ordinance 2006 applied to Drew. Therefore he had no authority to hold a meeting with Drew or to deal in any way with the complaint. He has admitted that he was mistaken in this view. So much for the professional competence of the director of the PSU to be unreliable on the extent of his mandate under the church legislation creating his position and setting out the scope and limits of his responsibilities.
[12] Such as his labelling Drew’s actions as sex abuse and grooming when there was no complaint of sexual activity or actions undertaken to initiate or hide sexual activity. Mr. Bryant’s authorisation of complainant 1’s defamatory contacts with a wide range of former youth group members alleging sex abuse, and the defamatory announcement to the parish alleging grooming place him and the diocese in a position of vulnerability.
[13] Mr. Easton is second deputy chancellor for the diocese, having been appointed by the Archbishop in 2013.