Anglican Church of Australia Sydney Diocese
In the case of the Sydney PSU v Drew
Remember that the Sydney Anglican Church Organisation Started It All
By Louise Greentree[1]
Introduction
In my series of articles ‘It’s a Funny Thing … about the Disciplinary Tribunal’ I wrote about how the deputy President of the Tribunal the Hon. Acting Judge Peter Young AO QC did his utmost with words and demeanor to push Drew and his legal team into just walking away by extinguishing their hope that justice would be done by the tribunal.
What the Deputy President and his Tribunal colleagues, the director PSU, and the Archbishop and staff of the secretariat such as Registrar Marr need to remember is this: it was the officers and employees of the Anglican Church organisation of Sydney diocese who started this along with their invited consultant the Rev. Peter Barnett, and unless each one of them acknowledges that they were wrong and see that the case is withdrawn or dismissed, either it will have to go ahead (with a new set of tribunal members), or it just remains ‘frozen in time’ because Mr. Easton (PSU barrister) and Mr. Marr (Registrar of both the diocese of Sydney and the Disciplinary Tribunal) cannot bring themselves to move on many important issues and complainant 1 continues to twist the tail of the diocesan tiger. This threatens to wreak even greater injustice on Drew and Pippa and their children.
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 and the ‘child abuse consultant’ the Rev. Peter Barnett.
The Rev. Peter Barnett
This man, a former primary school teacher, now ordained Baptist minister, who has made an industry of himself in the field of child abuse and child sex abuse in churches [2], attended the first and second meetings between Lachlan Bryant and Drew and Pippa. According to their evidence in statutory declarations Drew and Pippa were told a series of lies and misinformation by this man, supported by Lachlan Bryant. In particular he was very much at fault in characterising any of Drew’s interactions with complainant 1 as child sex abuse, considering that complainant 1 himself did not claim that there was any sexual intent nor did he ever think there was.[3] . Barnett said in the meeting that he was simply reacting out of what he described as a greater sensitivity to child sex abuse. But his ‘sensitivity’ (whatever that might mean) is not the test for determining whether actions are child sex abuse or not.
There are two questions here. The first is – why was he in the room at all? Drew was not asked if he could be there, and even though he has no authority in the Sydney PSU he was allowed to run the meeting. The second question is: as it appears that Lachlan Bryant did not even think he had jurisdiction over Drew then was Barnett’s involvement in Bryant’s illegitimate meeting simply in order to use bullying and lying tactics to try to force Drew into a confession? If so, this is just as reprehensible (and contrary to Christian doctrine) as using physical torture to wring information or a false confession out of some unfortunate person.
Further, there is the problem of what interaction with complainant 1, if any, he had before the complaint was made to the PSU, either through the training sessions that the rev. Peter Barnett makes his money out of, or a child abuse conference, that he also makes his money out of, or some ‘consultation’ when complainant 1 was the youth minister in a south Sydney parish until the end of 2014. ? They would certainly have had the opportunity to meet at training sessions at YouthWorks or elsewhere. If it was he who told complainant 1 that he had a viable complaint against Drew for child sex abuse (even although complainant 1 did not complain about any sexual element to the interactions), then he is even more at fault.
No wonder he ran for his lawyers when Drew and Pippa wrote to him asking merely for an apology for all the lies and misinformation that he heaped on them over their entirely proper objections. They also asked for him to pay for counselling for them and their children (one of whom is already having an adverse reaction to what Drew and Pippa have been put through by the Rev. Peter Barnett and Lachlan Bryant).
They could have asked for much more for the way the Rev. Peter Barnett steam-rollered them into believing that ‘child sex abuse’ need only involve a ‘child’ (albeit one aged 16 or even one minute short of midnight on the eve of their 18th birthday) with no abusive actions or words and no sex.
Lachlan Bryant
Firstly, Bryant should not have intervened in the case at all. It is clear that there was no allegation of fact that could possibly support a charge of sex abuse, or just child abuse under the terms of the Discipline Ordinance 2006. The sheer triviality of some of the complaints and the lack of complaint of harm is fatal in any competent judicial process to a decision that they constituted abuse. What Bryant did was to give credence to what is an entirely misplaced belief in grievance and victimhood that complainant 1 has adopted without cause. Bryant has nourished complainant 1’s entirely misplaced sense of hurt where none should exist, and indeed none does exist in the minds of others similarly treated by Drew.
Secondly, having intervened he should have investigated properly before even taking the case any further. He certainly should have bound complainants 1 and 2 to secrecy while a preliminary investigation was carried out. Had Bryant carried out a proper investigation he would have uncovered the many people we have uncovered who have made statutory declarations supporting Drew’s actions. Instead he advised complainant 1 to carry out his own investigation to find persons to bring other (perhaps ‘better’) complaints to shore up the inadequacy of the actions complained of.
Thirdly, given his belief at the time that he did not have jurisdiction he should not have agreed to have any meeting with Drew. Not any meeting.
Fourthly, even if he did have jurisdiction, he should not have had a meeting with Drew, but simply posted to him all the material and included in his letter two pieces of information that he neglected to mention at the first meeting, before the apologies were discussed and written: (a) that drew had 21 days in which to respond to the complaints, and (b) that he should seek legal advice before making any admissions.
Fifthly, he should not have invited the Rev. Peter Barnett in to any meeting, particularly as it is clear that he was giving information that was plain wrong. His ‘advice’ went far further than anything supported by legislation whether State or church. Bryant should have had enough understanding of his role and his legislation, Federal, State and Anglican Church to have conducted the meeting himself. Did he invite Barnett in because he, Bryant, had decided that he did not have jurisdiction and there was no case but he was over-ridden by Barnett at complainant 1’s urging? The symbiosis between the two men in the joint bullying of Drew is something that would bear further investigation. Were they in a conspiracy together to destroy Drew that they had planned before the meeting? Or was Barnett representing complainant 1 and forced Bryant to hold the unlawful meeting? Or was it just the conjunction of two deeply incompetent and flawed individuals that resulted in such devastation for Drew, Pippa and their children?
Sixthly, it was his gross misconduct when he characterised the unconditional apologies that Drew made in accordance with the principles taught by Peace Wise as admissions. Bryant and Barnett both knew that those were the principles that Drew was going to follow because they discussed it in the first meeting. They virtually dictated what the apologies should say, including those lies and misinformation that they had heaped on Drew and brought him to that point.
Seventhly, he should not have made any announcement to the Parish, and certainly not one accusing Drew of grooming. Perhaps by then Bryant realised that there was no case of child abuse or child sex abuse, and therefore he had to fall back on the totally inapplicable accusation of grooming, which was not even defined in the Discipline Ordinance 2006 at that time until an amendment approved by Synod in October 2014, and which in any event required a course of conduct carried out by the accused with the intention either of initiating or hiding child sex abuse. Nothing in the interaction between Drew and complainant 1 was of this character or had that intention, and complainant 1 did not say it did. Once he had done this he was locked into a never-ending spiral of actions taken out of self-interest to protect himself and the ‘diocese’ from being sued for defamation, and he lost the ability to extricate himself from all the lies.
Eighthly, it was his inexplicable decision to make secret representations to the compliant members of the Professional Standards Committee (PSC) that resulted in them recommending to the Archbishop that he refer the case to the Disciplinary Tribunal, a recommendation which according to the Discipline Ordinance 2006 the Archbishop had to comply with. And, eventually, he did so comply, but only after pleading with the members of the PSC (and by implication, Lachlan Bryant) that they not put him in that position. Bryant improperly placed the apologies before the members of the PSC.
Archbishop Glenn Davies, or was it the diocesan registrar Douglas Marr?
It appears that the Archbishop refused to consider not only doing justice but the appearance of justice when he appointed Lachlan Bryant, who started it all, to bring the charges despite our written 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 Barnett. And this remains the case: Bryant will have to undergo rigorous cross-examination should the tribunal hearing proceed. As an important witness he should stay outside the hearing room until he gives his evidence, yet he is supposed to be in the hearing room ‘instructing’ the PSU barrister. This means also Bryant has a conflict of interest. He has a vital interest in the Tribunal NOT being presented with evidence of his ignorance and incompetence as well as his failures to follow proper process resulting in the extortion from Drew of unconditional apologies that Bryant then misrepresented to the PSC and the Tribunal as admissions.
But we have now found out that certain correspondence was withheld from the Archbishop, in particular, letters of support from a number of well-regarded Christians out of concern about the way that this case had been handled. All of the Archbishop’s correspondence came through the Registrar’s office, and it may be that these representations did not even reach the Archbishop. We had cause in relation to other correspondence to complain to Mr. Marr that his opinions were not of any relevance and that we sought a reply from the Archbishop.
Lachlan Bryant again
Ninthly, he should have refused appointment to bring the charges in the Disciplinary Tribunal, because of the sheer ethical requirements of the situation. Instead of appearing to try to profit from his own errors in his handling of the case to that point, he should be keen to distance himself as an important witness from the mechanics of being in the role of the solicitor instructing the PSU barrister (and diocesan deputy Chancellor) Michael Easton. He should also be keen to keep back from the appearance of serving his own self-interest in protecting himself from criticism of his dismal performance.
Tenthly, it is unfortunate that he has not instructed a barrister who is not part of the diocesan organisation, even in an honorary capacity, to ensure the appearance of independence from concerns for the protection of the Archbishop, his appointee Bryant and other members of the church organisation and the consultant the Rev. Peter Barnett at the expense of a clear and objective assessment of the merits of the case and recommendations for a proper resolution. Mr. Easton’s over-riding concerns in this regard have all the appearance of hampering his ability to negotiate with fairness and in accordance with the demands of law and justice of the case.
The successive Registrars of the diocese, Dr. Selden and Mr. Marr
I have had cause to note in the past that Dr. Selden is a man who is ruthless in protecting the diocese from any accusations of injustice and deceit, even when the allegations are correct. Reportedly, his response to Drew and Pippa’s allegation that Lachlan Bryant had failed to apply the Discipline Ordinance 2006 when interviewing them and in many other ways had breached the process laid down by the Ordinance was that the Discipline Ordinance 2006 HAD been properly applied. So, if you just say it, it is so. In my experience it is only God who deservedly enjoys that sort of trustworthiness – as in ‘Let there be light’ and it was so. Dr. Selden, who I am sure would not dream of describing himself as God, none-the-less seems to suffer from the delusion that just saying something is so makes it true. As the Readers will know from my article ‘For the Lawyers’[4] there were so many breaches of the Discipline Ordinance 2006 by Lachlan Bryant that the whole of his and the PSU involvement in the case has been fatally flawed.
Dr. Selden retired early after Drew and Pippa’s commencement of protests against the way they had been lied to and treated and Mr. Douglas Marr, fresh from employment as the Bursar of Moore College was appointed Diocesan Registrar. Clearly in the early days of the dispute he was firmly ‘on the side of’ the PSU and the ‘diocese’ and his early involvement was in sending letters in which a determination to shut Drew Pippa up and protect the diocese from legal action was uppermost. Even when the Archbishop had intervened to talk to Drew and Pippa and offer to act as a mediator if Drew and complainant 1 could meet with him (Drew said ‘yes’ and complainant 1 said: ‘No, no, no, no, no.’ – so what’s wrong with him?) and suggested that the hearing dates 23 and 24 April 2015 be cancelled to allow the case to be settled through mediation, Mr. Marr tried to abort that process. He wrote to Drew in very haughty tones to say that the case was going ahead, when everybody else – the Archbishop, the Hon. Peter Young AO QC as deputy President of the Disciplinary Tribunal, Mr. Easton, barrister and deputy Chancellor for the diocese and Mr. Lachlan Bryant as well as Drew and his barrister, his solicitor and Pippa (and even me) – knew that the dates were being cancelled.
Friends of Mr. Marr tell us that he is not ruthless, not trying to derail the process of negotiation, he is just out of his depth. Please learn to swim Mr. Marr and check your facts before you intervene.
Conclusion
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 and of those in positions of power and trust who say that they serve it, but whose behaviour falls far short of an appropriate standard. In this even Archbishop Glenn Davies needs to be more forceful about ensuring that he makes a decision about whether he sees something and intervenes and ensure that these decisions are not usurped by someone who is supposed to be assisting him in his role. Because he will be the one who bears the blame when things go very wrong.
That said, Drew and Pippa are very grateful to Archbishop Glenn Davies who has been a shining light of transparent Christian behaviour, sincere and genuinely troubled by the case. He has made very proper offers to assist in a Christian process of reconciliation between believers. It is complainant 1, who owes him obedience, who has spurned his involvement.
Archbishop Glenn has apologised to Drew and Pippa for the mistakes made in their treatment by his office and the PSU. He has also expressed the view that he never thought that Drew’s actions warranted a report to the Office of the Children’s Guardian. By implication that would include a view that the actions did not warranting a report to the Police[5] – both of which the Rev. Peter Barnett wrongly advised Bryant to do. And yet when Bryant eventually did write a second letter to the OCG he still tried to leave the door open for confirmation that Drew’s actions did warrant a report to the OCG. And yet – how can they when the complainant says there is no sex abuse and there is no complaint of serious physical assault, the two forms of activities that are specified by the OCG legislation as warranting reporting?
So we still have certain individuals acting only to protect their own backs, and perhaps the backs of others in or consulted by individuals in the organisation. We are still a long way from seeing the human organisation demonstrating how to honour God with a commitment to truth, justice, holiness and righteousness, as befits the church.
18 August 2015
[1] Louise Greentree BA LLB LLM(Hons) ProfCertArb Admitted to the Supreme Court of NSW and to the High Court as a solicitor(now retired). Former partner of Sydney city firm of solicitors. Lately law academic with special interest in Legal Professional Conduct, Alternative Dispute Resolution and restorative processes. Professional training includes Real Justice Restorative Conferencing and Collaborative Law.
[2] As described in ‘Anglican News’ reporting for the church in western NSW September 2010:
“Peter Barnett is the National Coordinator for the Safe Church Training Agreement of the National Council of Churches in Australia. His background was in primary school teaching during the 1990s, and then church based worship and children’s ministry. An ordained Baptist Minister, he wrote the NSW Baptists’ Safe Church material in 2004 and SRE material now known as God Space from 2004-2007, and also produced and performed for The SHED children’s ministry particularly in SRE in NSW State schools. Over the past seven years Peter has delivered more than 180 Safe Church workshops (including Child Protection material) for several denominations and dioceses in Australia. Since 2007 Peter Barnett has also run a consultancy for churches in response to abuse issues under the name Safe Ministry Resources. Safe Ministry Resources clients have included Assemblies of God NSW, Christian Outreach Centre Australia, Baptist Churches in Western Australia and the Baptist Union of NSW & ACT.”
He is still included in the God Space team (as at 17 August 2015) and he is still running conferences in various denominations including the Sydney Anglican church.
[3] In another article I will set out from Drew and Pippa’s evidence the various statements that the rev. Peter Barnett made to bully and harass Drew to the point of contemplating suicide because of the lies and misinformation he received from this man.
[5] With which view the Police must have agreed as they have taken no action – unless it is the case that the threat to report to the Police was just that, a threat to further demoralise Drew and Pippa and force Drew into making the apologies to avoid a Police charge.