‘Drew’s Adventures in Wonderland’[1]
Part 3
By Louise Greentree
This is Part 3 of my four part exploration of some interesting parallels between the trial of the Knave of Hearts in ‘Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland’ by Lewis Carroll, 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.
Continuing the conducted tour of the two ‘trials’.
At this moment the King, who had been for some time busily writing in his note-book, called out ‘Silence!’ and read out from his book, ‘Rule Forty-two. All persons more than a mile high to leave the court.’
Everyone looked at Alice.
‘I’m not a mile high,’ said Alice.
‘You are,’ said the King.
‘Nearly two miles high,’ added the Queen.
‘Well I shan’t go, at any rate,’ said Alice: ‘besides that’s not a regular rule: you invented it just now.’
‘It’s the oldest rule in the book,’ said the King.
‘Then it ought to be Number One,’ said Alice.
As I wrote in my series of five articles published on this website about the creation of a new offence called ‘inappropriate pastoral conduct’, at the meeting of Synod in 2014, in clear acknowledgment that there was no proscription of any of Drew’s actions in the Discipline Ordinance 2006 or the Code of Conduct ‘Faithfulness in Service’ 2004, the members of Synod were induced to pass an amendment to the Discipline Ordinance 2006 on very short notice and with little discussion in which a new ‘offence’ called inappropriate pastoral conduct towards a child was created for the first time. Almost unbelievably in view of his behaviour in the interviews with Drew and Pippa, Lachlan Bryant as director PSU was given the power to decide what this might mean!
And in defiance of every principle of justice and good process, the new offence was made retrospective.
This is deviousness at its worst. It is shocking deviousness because it has been carried out in a Christian church organisation, and, no doubt, those who have perpetrated it think they are fine fellows indeed for providing a way of making an adverse finding against Drew in relation to lawful actions. His actions are still lawful according to State and Federal – that is, secular – law. It is only in the twisted world of the Anglican church Sydney diocesan ’law’ and the practice of it by certain diocesan officers and church lawyers that this is seen as appropriate and acceptable in the conduct of a case.
*****************
‘I haven’t opened it yet,’ said the White Rabbit, ‘but it seems to be a letter, written by the prisoner to – to somebody.’
‘It must have been that,’ said the King, ‘unless it was written to nobody, which isn’t usual, you know.’
‘Who is it directed to?’ said one of the jurymen.
‘It isn’t directed at all.’ Said the White Rabbit; ‘in fact, there’s nothing written on the outside.’ He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added ‘It isn’t a letter after all: it’s a set of verses.’
‘Are they in the prisoner’s handwriting?’ asked another of the jurymen.
‘No, they’re not,’ said the White Rabbit, ‘and that’s the queerest thing about it.’ (The jury all looked puzzled.)
‘He must have imitated someone else’s hand,’ said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)
‘Please, your Majesty,’ said the Knave, ‘I didn’t write it, and they can’t prove I did: there’s no name signed at the end.’
‘If you didn’t sign it,’ said the King, ‘that only makes the matter worse. You must have meant some mischief, or else you’d have signed your name like an honest man.’ …
‘That proves his guilt,’ said the Queen.
That this is a bizarre ‘trial’ indeed is emphasised by two aspects to this part of the story. First is the fact that no matter what the defendant says, against all principles of reason and justice it is interpreted against the defendant. He is damned if he did and damned if he did not.
And, secondly, that the Red King and the Queen (those persons responsible for the proper administration of justice and fair process) are actively involved in conducting the case against the defendant.
In parallel is the conduct of the directions hearings to date and that conduct certainly presages gross injustice should the case come to a final hearing by the tribunal, and that conduct contains clear indications of the probable outcome given the strong identification that all three tribunal members appear to have with the concerns of the diocesan organisation which they serve.
The problem is that the interests of the diocesan organisation are, firstly, that Lachlan Bryant’s and Peter Barnett’s incompetence, misrepresentations, inaccurate – just plain wrong – account of the law in the case[2] and deceptive statements, bullying and harassment of Drew (to the point of inducing his determination to commit suicide) should be covered up, not criticised and certainly that neither should be brought to account[3]; and secondly: that the whole business of the disciplinary tribunal should be cloaked with secrecy, not just the Clayton’s suppression order about which I have written (with scorn) earlier, but the verbal attacks on other people attending the directions hearings where there is no good reason that these preliminary directions hearings should not be open to the public. There has been intimidation of persons attending as support for Drew and Pippa and their legal team; there have been inappropriate demands that these people not disclose what has gone on in the directions hearing as if the deputy president and his colleagues have any power or authority to demand such undertakings let alone the ability to enforce them[4].
Mr. Easton, barrister for the diocese, hardly has a thing to do because the tribunal members have been arguing his case for him, particularly in the second directions hearing.
Part 4 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] Mr. Bryant, holder of a then current practicing certificate as a legal practitioner could be seen to be purporting to give legal advice to Drew and Pippa, and certainly that is how they interpreted it.
[3] In a secular organisation with access to Fair Work Australia the result could be orders for payment of compensation followed by the resignation or removal of these two directors. Surely the senior clergy, diocesan officers and church lawyers can see that they as representatives of the Anglican Church have an obligation to behave in accordance with ethical and Christian principles of conduct at their highest.
[4] Had the tribunal members and Mr. Easton confined their remarks to matters properly to be discussed in preparing the matter for hearing instead of actually disclosing material in some of the statutory declarations within the hearing of those supporters, there would have been no need for such strictures. The tribunal members themselves named the two complainants, and everyone in the room already knew who they were and in the case of some in the room, a great deal about them.