Drew & Pippa
What happened to the hearing that was set down for 23rd and 24th April 2015?
Well, nothing has happened! The case is still on foot, although when it will be listed again for a hearing is uncertain. There is a suggestion, more of an understanding between the two barristers that in about 6 weeks’ time from the former hearing dates there will be yet another directions hearing: to report on the status of the case, whether it is close to settlement or it needs to be put in order for a hearing.
No date for the next directions hearing has been set.
This state of affairs is the result of events involving a lot of to-ing and fro-ing involving the Archbishop himself, who is also the President of the Disciplinary Tribunal, diocesan Registrar Mr. Marr, the Deputy President of the Disciplinary Tribunal Acting Judge the Hon. Peter Young, second deputy Chancellor of the diocese barrister Mr. Easton, director PSU Mr. Bryant, Drew and Pippa and their legal team. But as late as the day before the scheduled commencement of the hearing it was still uncertain whether it would or would not go ahead as a hearing or as a directions hearing on the Thursday evening.[1] Neither took place.
This is an extraordinary story of crossed wires and cross-purposes among the various people involved on the side of the PSU and the diocese generally, including complainant 1. It is a story of muddle and confusion.
Settlement discussions and a proposal for mediation:
What is clear is that from December 2014 and into February 2015 Mr. Easton and Drew’s barrister had a ‘settlement’ discussion that produced something in the form of a settlement offer that was unacceptable to Drew and Pippa. From there discussions at that level languished.
Then in February 2015 the Archbishop had a face-to-face meeting with Drew and Pippa. As a result, in a later telephone conversation with them he said that it was proposed that the hearing be postponed to about October 2015 to allow settlement discussions to continue – in particular using mediation. Although his knowledge of the process was a bit hazy, none-the-less he was trying to find a Christian process to resolve the many issues that the case involved.
The Archbishop treated the adjournment of the hearing as a done deal, on the basis that it had been agreed to not only by Mr. Bryant and Drew (as the two parties to the case) but also Acting Judge the Hon. Peter Young. However, at that point Mr. Marr and, we deduce, some others became aware that the Archbishop had become personally involved and had arranged the postponement of the hearing. This they set out to thwart.
At first Mr. Marr wrote to Drew to say that the hearing was on. Mr. Bryant wrote a formal letter to Acting Judge the Hon. Peter Young asking for the hearing to be postponed to allow for discussions to continue. Drew and Pippa heard nothing in response.
Later Mr. Marr had to write and say that he had cancelled the reservation of the hearing room for those dates, and Drew and Pippa were left to deduce that the hearing was off.
Complainant 1 puts his oar in:
Unfortunately complainant 1 flatly refused his Archbishop’s request that he agree to take part in a face-to-face discussion with Drew moderated by the Archbishop himself.
Then on 26 March 2015 he wrote direct to the Deputy President Acting Judge the Hon. Peter Young, a serious breach of protocol. Amongst other things he said that he needed the hearing to go ahead on the 23rd April, and he proposed that the Acting Judge should decide the case as an arbitrator instead of the matter being heard by the three tribunal members in order to get an early decision.
Silence from the Tribunal members:
Surprisingly for a conscientious Judge who had set the dates to fit in with his judicial and other commitments elsewhere, Acting Judge the Hon. Peter Young has not responded to any of the letters as far as Drew and Pippa are aware. Apparently he has not convened a meeting with the other two members of the tribunal to make a formal order vacating the hearing dates and either setting another date for the parties to come back and report whether settled (or nearly so) or that a hearing is still required. There has been a deafening silence.
On 22 April 2015 it was still not clear whether the hearing was or was not going ahead the next day:
In the meantime, Drew and Pippa were left entirely up in the air as to whether the hearing or at least a directions hearing was going ahead or not, and they had to contact Mr. Marr on the 22nd April to obtain information about what was or was not going to happen the very next day. Mr Marr said that he was actually waiting on the two barristers to make a decision about whether to have the directions hearing or not.
So, where are we up to now?
- On Tuesday 28 April 2015 there was another meeting between Mr. Easton and Drew’s barrister.
- Easton asked, forcibly, that my article ‘Twenty-one reasons why the case promoted by Sydney PSU Director Lachlan Bryant against Drew cannot and should not be allowed to go to a hearing’ should be taken down from my website. Drew replied that he had no power to do this as it was my website. The article remains on the website as it represents my comments on the state of the evidence and the very many difficulties of the case generally.
- The fact is that since the hearing dates were set in December 2014 neither Mr. Easton nor Mr. Bryant have initiated the processes required for the case to be made ready for hearing. This indicates that as far as they are concerned there is a strong lack of willingness to take the case to a hearing.
- The latest settlement discussions are going no-where and Mr. Bryant is refusing to meet Drew and Pippa in a mediation, although this represents the ONLY way that a proper resolution of the case can occur.
- The Archbishop has been silenced. Pippa and Drew are very concerned about the position in which the Archbishop has been placed by the Diocese. He is responsible for the actions of the staff in his Office and the Director PSU (as well as, presumably, the staff and counsellors of the PSU and the members of the Professional Standards Committee and the Safe Ministry Board) and yet he seems to have no authority over how they conduct themselves.
- Presumably the proposal for a mediation of the real issues has been stamped out by hard-line advisers whether within the diocesan organisation or acting for complainant 1. This is what I call ‘a witness taking the diocesan tiger by the tail and twisting it to do his purpose’.
In the meantime we await the next gripping episode.
Louise Greentree
29 April 2015 – 12 May 2015
[1] It was indeed fortunate that it did not proceed the next day. Cyclonic winds and torrential rain up and down the coast of New South Wales north and south of Sydney over the last part of that week caused wide-spread damage, flash flooding cutting roads, increased risk of road accidents, downed electricity lines cutting off electricity to some parts for days on end, loss of telephone, mobile and internet networks and complete chaos. Living as they do on the Central Coast, looking after their four children who could not get to school, and deprived of electricity, and telephone, internet and mobile contact, Drew and Pippa could not have travelled safely into the centre of Sydney to attend the hearing. The same applied to their solicitor coming up from Wollongong, and to others from within Sydney suburbs.