‘Drew’s Adventures in Wonderland’[1]
Part 4
By Louise Greentree
This is the last of my 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.
Completing the conducted tour of the two ‘trials’:
That’s the most important piece of evidence we’ve heard yet,’ said the King, rubbing his hands; ‘so now let the jury –‘
‘If any of them can explain it,’ said Alice … ‘I’ll give him sixpence. I don’t believe there is an atom of meaning in it.’ …
‘If there’s no meaning in it,’ said the King, ‘that saves a world of trouble, you know, as we needn’t try to find any.’
One of the many things about this case that Drew and his advisers have struggled to understand is what was in the mind of complainant 1 when he made the complaint, or even decided to ‘speak to the PSU’ (to whom in that unit we do not know): first, things that happened many years ago not just without his objection but with his consent and active cooperation (remember he was aged about 16 and over and the activities are all legal and not immoral etc. as detailed by me earlier); secondly, about a man who faithfully mentored him so he was able to achieve his ambition and rid himself of addictive behaviour that would have prevented this. And there has been no complaint of anything in the way of harm suffered by this man: when challenged all he could put up was saying he felt uncomfortable. This from a man who was on the threshold of ’legal’ adulthood at the time (he had of course been physically adult before that) and who continued into full adulthood to participate in this same conduct with full consent and cooperation!
Where is the meaning in this?
Yet this does not seem to have penetrated the minds of the lawyers for the promoter and his witnesses, complainants 1 and 2. And judging by the comments that I have previously detailed by the members of the tribunal mere inability to find ‘an atom of meaning in it’ might not be a barrier but, perhaps, might even be a positive attribute of the complaint.
I would beg to differ: the tribunal will have to consider activities that by their own nature are not disgraceful no matter by whom they are performed. And in this case they were not regarded as disgraceful by those who knew about them including the senior minister and complainant 1’s mother. There is evidence that many others found them beneficial and indeed complainant 1 cannot and does not deny the benefits he received. Therefore, to make an adverse decision in the teeth of all this would be to embrace the view of the Red King: ‘If there’s no meaning in it,’ said the King, ‘that saves a world of trouble, you know, as we needn’t try to find any.’
If the tribunal members cannot find meaning in this then the complaint needs to be dismissed as vexatious and misconceived, and as soon as possible. So far the diocese has paid out about $10,000 towards Drew’s legal costs and it will pay a total of around $40,000 if the case is prepared for hearing and a settlement is not reached before that. And that is just legal costs: there is also a matter of the diocese paying for the costs of the investigation that Drew’s team has had to undertake because Lachlan Bryant refused to order one. Why wasn’t there an objective assessment of the whole case before what are really God’s assets were squandered on this case? Why wasn’t there a professional and objective assessment that Mr. Bryant should not have met with Drew and Pippa at all, given his belief at the time that the Discipline Ordinance 2006, which gives him legitimacy of jurisdiction, did not apply?
***************
‘Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
‘No, no!’ said the Queen. “Sentence first – verdict afterwards.’
The conduct of the trial by the Red King and his Queen is such that, in the real world, any decision it came to would be overturned on appeal. Anyone reading this would recognise that the right to have a decision reviewed on appeal is a fundamental rule of justice and fair process. But for Drew and Pippa there is no provision for a meaningful appeal. This is just another instance of the deceit that is implicit in the provisions of the Discipline Ordinance 2006 relating to the Disciplinary Tribunal. It is also another instance of the importance that the conduct of it’s members in these directions hearings as well as any final hearing must be impeccable both from the point of view of reason and justice and also as Christians who profess to worship the God of justice and truth. This means not indulging in many indications of bias and pre-judging the issues, foreshadowing the real possibility of an adverse result in the teeth of the evidence, and cooperating with others of the church organisation in the grossly improper manipulation of the terms of the Ordinance so many years after the events complained of to try to give the complaints some form of legitimacy that, in fact, they lack.
In their quest for justice, Drew and Pippa have been forced to walk a path where their eyes have been opened to the faults of the church organisation’s quasi-judicial processes and those who serve it by supporting deviousness and deceit.
****************
‘Stuff and nonsense,’ said Alice loudly. “The idea of having the sentence first!’
‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.
‘I won’t!’ said Alice.
‘Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
‘Who cares for you?’ said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) ‘You’re nothing but a pack of cards!’
Precisely.
****************
In a later article I will look at the role of the lawyers – whether acting as legal practitioners or not – in this case and in relation to the whole concept of the disciplinary tribunal, the drafting of the Discipline Ordinance 2006 and its predecessor the Church Discipline Ordinance 2002 which created the disciplinary tribunal. It is a little disappointing, to say the least, that responsibility for the patent flaws in the concept, design and drafting has to be laid at the door of lawyers, who should have known better, especially those who also profess to be Christians. In the meantime I would refer you to one of my earliest articles, first published on Louise’s Page of the Anglican Future website in 2008 and which follows this post on the church dispute website: ‘The Anglican Church Criminal Law System: The Anglican Church in Australia now acts as Police, Prosecutor, Judge and Jury against its own congregants’.
[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.