The Anglican Church of Australia Sydney Diocese
Sydney PSU v Drew and Pippa
Whatever happened to the young man that Drew mentored that he unleashed devastation on Drew and Pippa and their children by bringing a groundless complaint against Drew?
Is it a case of ‘Find Someone to Blame?’ Part 3
By Louise Greentree[1]
Introduction
In Part 1 I pointed out several truths about complainant 1 (C1). Firstly, that he had refused Drew’s apology about things he had only complained about at the beginning of 2005 after the Code of Conduct Faithfulness in Service was accepted by Synod in October 2004, after C1 had turned 18.
Secondly, that he had otherwise behaved without communicating any discomfort both before and after making the 2006 complaint to Drew that he felt uncomfortable about some things. He continued to work with Drew in the parish while he completed his tertiary training as a youth minister; he took Drew to see the parish where he had obtained a youth ministry position; he and his bride invited Drew to lead the prayers at their wedding.
But by the time Drew and Pippa had returned from a year off touring Australia in 2011-12, he refused all opportunities to meet Drew and Pippa before they left to take up residence at Tunnel Ridge Ranch, a Christian young people’s camp where Drew was going to work. In November 2012, he informed them and a wide range of former youth group members that Drew was a child abuser and brought a now infamous complaint to the PSU of Sydney diocese[2]. I looked for possible reasons for this change in him. Apart from the possibility that he had been sprung still viewing internet pornography (that he had been addicted to in his middle teens) I considered whether he was a ‘Skilled Offence Taker’ (whose complaints are all about power and control: establishing their own egos at the expense of another) and Drew a ‘Responsibility Assumer’ (who is too ready to take responsibility for that person’s discomfort or whatever they have taken offence to), inspired by Bernard Salt’s article in The Weekend Australian in August 2015.
In Part 2 I looked at some more truths about complainant 1: surveying the various things we know about complainant 1 in relation to his behaviour in making the complaint. I conclude this: C1 is so totally self-focused that he is impervious to reason because he clings to a non-existent victimhood; he is ruthless in pursuing this victimhood rather than looking for other sources of his discomfort about things that even he does not imbue with sexual intent; that he has called for a disproportional punishment of Drew – this is akin to detonating a nuclear device in a Middle East country because of a terrorist attack on an Embassy – and even if Drew’s normal, lawful, moral, and Biblical actions are by some perverse interpretation characterised as inappropriate, then proposing that Drew never be allowed to exercise youth ministry nor ANY Christian ministry at all is the equivalent of detonating a nuclear device for a tuppence-halfpenny ‘crime’. C1 has no balance, no maturity. Because of his fixation on blaming Drew for something that no-one else has felt he has withdrawn himself from living the truly Christian way of seeking resolution and reconciliation. I wonder if this is because, at heart, he knows he has done something frightful – he has brought baseless accusations against a person who was never anything but a good and wise friend and mentor?
Now read on:
What else do we know about Complainant 1 (C1)?
In February 2015 the Archbishop of Sydney arranged to interview Drew and Pippa. He is President of the Disciplinary Tribunal and he is permitted to satisfy himself about any matters in the tribunal in any way he wishes, even to the extent of ignoring the recommendations of the tribunal. He was very concerned at the way they had been treated and about the mobilisation of the whole tribunal process against them in relation to activities that were so lightweight at worst.
In the interview he apologised for the way in which they had been treated by the PSU and members of his office. He also said, significantly, that in his view there was nothing in the activities complained of that warranted referral to what is now the Office of Children’s Guardian (formerly the CCYP). By implication, none of these would warrant referral to the Police. He said that he would instruct Lachlan Bryant to write to the OCG to withdraw the notification.[3]
So there goes C1’s complaint.
The Archbishop, if the tribunal should proceed to a hearing, cannot accept a recommendation based on any ‘finding’ that Drew has done anything that breaches the Discipline Ordinance 2006 nor its predecessor the Church Discipline Ordinance 2002 in the nature of child abuse or child sex abuse nor grooming because if he had, such behaviour would have been cause to refer the case to the CCYP. Nor can he accept a finding that Drew’s activities breached Faithfulness in Service or its’ predecessor the Code of Conduct for Clergy.
He has already nailed his colours to the mast.
There is also a problem with him accepting a recommendation that Drew’s actions were ‘disgraceful’ because common usage, apart from the evidence of many former members of his youth ministry, would contradict that[4].
But C1 does not want to let go of his complaint.
He is wedded to it. It must give him some sense of identity that he has otherwise lost, somehow. Even as I write he is holding out against a proper settlement of the case with the truth told in public and without any provision for Drew to suffer a spurious penalty for doing nothing wrong. He must have his revenge, his vindication and see his disproportionate punishment inflicted, regardless of the facts and the evidence.
And for the moment the diocesan deputy Chancellor and barrister Mr. Easton seems to be minded to try to force Drew to accept this[5].
The Archbishop offers C1 a meeting with him and Drew to find a Christian resolution to the case. But C1 refuses, repeatedly.
He refuses the use of a senior experienced Anglican man instead of the Archbishop (as offered by the Archbishop as an alternative) or a trained and experienced mediator (as proposed by Drew). No, no, no, no, no, says C1.
C1 does not want a Christian reconciliation.
He wants revenge, although for what it is hard to say because even he has no credible explanation for bringing his complaint.
C1 writes a letter of complaint to the deputy President of the Disciplinary Tribunal, the Hon. Acting Judge Peter Young AO QC.
This has to be a most remarkable document in this case. His letter deals with many issues that are extremely revealing of this man’s nature and fundamental areas of ignorance.
Firstly: he ‘dobs in’ the Archbishop for meeting Drew and Pippa privately and he asks the Deputy President to advise him whether he needs to obey (my word) his Archbishop’s request that C1 meet with just the Archbishop to try to resolve the case[6].
He does not see that his refusal to obey his Archbishop’s request demonstrates his own contempt for his ordination vows. He does not see that the Archbishop, as President of the Disciplinary Tribunal can talk to whomever he wants to, to inform himself about the case, as he has the final say in whether he even accepts the recommendation of the Tribunal.
He certainly does not see that the Deputy President has no power or authority to advise C1 whether to disobey a request from his Archbishop or not.
Secondly, he objects to meeting his Archbishop as requested on the basis that this would be a ‘private hearing’ (his words) while there was already a process underway[7]. He accuses the Archbishop of calling the meeting with the purpose of requiring him to defend himself. This is so interesting a misinterpretation of the Archbishop’s intention, which was, clearly, to find a way out for everyone concerned in a process that would bring the best, most Christian resolution to the case. C1 is entirely focussed on justifying himself – especially as the whole complaint is blowing up in his face – and fearful that he cannot do this. He is not interested in a Christian solution.
Thirdly: yet, at the end of the letter he proposes yet another process, an arbitration with Acting Judge Peter Young as the sole arbitrator. There was no chance that Drew and his legal team would consent to that, had it ever been proposed.
But it is interesting that he will consent to another form of ‘legalistic’, ‘courtroom-style’ adjudicative process. He is clinging to the idea that there are clear-cut issues that will result in findings in his favour which will result in a certain outcome, namely, Drew being banned from Christian ministry forever. But anyone who has read my articles should now know just how impossible that is going to be. It always was only barely possible and as the case unfolds it becomes even less likely, because of the bungling, of course, but also because the process itself and its’ enabling legislation is so flawed. And, of course, the fact that Drew has done nothing wrong.
It is interesting his flattering Peter Young with his final words: “For example, if there is to be an arbitration, I would consent to you presiding over it in light of your experience with the case.”
Perhaps he has received reports how the Acting Judge has been behaving in the directions hearing causing grave concern about his bias towards the PSU. This would be pleasing to him. Perhaps he thinks that the Acting Judge would favour him regardless of the process and the evidence.
Fourthly, he is unable to comprehend the nature of the non-adjudicative process which is controlled by the parties that is mediation, where the issues are whatever the parties want to talk about, rather than in the tribunal and arbitration models, only what the adjudicator is empowered by legislation to pronounce upon. His profound ignorance of a well-regarded process that is provided for in all State and Federal legislation setting up courts and tribunals dealing with the adjudication of disputes, such as the Supreme Court of NSW and the Family Court of Australia, is disappointing in a tertiary educated man.
Fifthly, although clearly he does not understand the nature of the process of mediation, he is vehemently opposed to any process that would require him to face up to Drew and Pippa as fellow Christians, seeking, with God’s help as well as that of his Archbishop to find reconciliation. This may be due to an underlying sense of guilt that he has brought complaints without foundation in reality, and that he has betrayed the trust and Christian ‘agape’ love which he, as well as all the other members of the youth fellowship, received from Drew. Or not. The overall tenor of the letter is overwhelmingly self-focused.
Sixthly. He claims to be distressed by the Archbishop’s offer ‘at a number of levels’ (not enumerated or described) and says that he ‘repeatedly refused’ the Archbishop’s request. But when it comes down to the wire, he claims only to be a ‘victim of this long process’.[8]
He does not seem to recognise that by the Archbishop’s offer he was being given the opportunity to have a meeting as soon as it could have been arranged, within a matter of weeks and before the April hearing dates, and to talk about the real issues with a view to finding a way to give him peace and reconciliation. It could have been all be over before the scheduled hearing dates but for his refusal to take that opportunity. The offer to attend a mediation, this time with a highly trained mediator of no connection with the church, was repeated on Drew and Pippa’s part before and after the hearing dates were cancelled. Again, C1 refused the offer.
Seventhly, he claims that the meeting between the Archbishop and Drew has been the culprit (my word) in giving the Archbishop the idea of delaying the tribunal so that the case can be settled through a mediated meeting with Drew and Pippa. In this he is mistaken. Certainly, the meeting with Drew and Pippa did a lot to open the Archbishop’s eyes to the terrible damage that is being done to these Christian people. But it was surely the shocked and disgusted reactions of people who attended the later directions hearings who made direct representations to him about the terrible rudeness and intimidation that was going on in the tribunal and its un-Christian process who also influenced his desire to find a Christian solution.
Eighthly, he accuses the Archbishop, by setting up the meeting with Drew, of demonstrating contempt for the tribunal process[9]. He does not see that in writing to the Deputy President he himself is demonstrating contempt for the Tribunal process. He is also attempting to influence the deputy president of the tribunal. In any event, the Archbishop can do what he wishes in relation to this disciplinary tribunal process as he is not bound by anything the tribunal might think or recommend.
Clearly C1 needs to inform himself to a better degree about how this process works, or, realistically, fails to work. He needs to read my articles about it! But he’s probably too scared to do that – he just might have to confront some unwelcome truths about himself and his complaint.
Ninthly, he describes the delay to try to find a proper resolution of the case as ‘an unnecessary burden on my family and myself’ and ‘an insult (his word) to everything I have endured over the past year and a half.’ This man is just so out-of-touch with reality. Is it that no-one has explained the inappropriateness of his complaint and it’s baseless nature? Hasn’t anyone looked closely at this man’s complete self-regard at the expense of other people, his personality traits that make him un-empathic and legalistic and obsessive about non-existent harm to himself?
An insult?
What is insulting about trying to find a fast resolution which would short-cut two full ‘hearing’ days (at the very least – in reality there would be every likelihood of a spill-over to other days, or just evenings at 2 or 3 hours at a time)?
What is insulting about trying to bypass a process that is so highly flawed that it is impotent and unable to come to a real solution to the problems of the complaint?
Is it an insult to excuse an Acting Judge, a barrister (who is also a new mother) and a clergyman from spending all this time on the case with no other power than to make a recommendation to the Archbishop which he can ignore – and probably will, given the indications already there about his view of the case – so that they can get on with their various paid jobs and obligations to employer, client and parish?
An insult to him when it is Drew and Pippa who have to find tens of thousands of dollars to pay for a solicitor and a barrister, while C1 pays nothing?
An insult to act like Christians?
An insult to him to be called on to demonstrate that he is worthy of Christian ministry and his ‘calling’ to ordination as a deacon?
Is it not the case that –
- C1’s intransigence in the face of his Archbishop’s request;
- his rejection of understanding of the true nature of the case and appropriate ways to resolve what has been described at a senior level as no more than a ‘relationship breakdown’;
- his ignorance of the provisions of the Discipline Ordinance 2006 and its’ predecessor and the Codes of Conduct and his failure to read and understand these before bringing his groundless complaint with such devastating effects on Drew and Pippa and their children;
- his scrambling around to find some indication of ‘harm’ where none exists;
- his rejection of all that is Christian in resolving his concerns:
– are not all these an insult to the clergy, staff, honorary office-holders, parishioners and all those who contribute financially to the diocese?
An insult to Drew and Pippa and their children, and all those of their family and friends and supporters.
An insult to you and me, Reader.
End Notes
[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] When the PSU brought a charge against Drew in the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Sydney Anglican church, it was not for child abuse or child sex abuse but for ‘disgraceful behaviour’ in a youth minister which caused, or if known at the time would have caused a scandal. The PSU is now stalled in prosecuting this case because, (a) at least 19 former youth group members have given statutory declarations in support of Drew and (b) the evidence is that Drew’s activities were well known at the time and did not cause a scandal.
[3] What Lachlan Bryant actually did write, after some delay, which was against the spirit of what the Archbishop had promised I will reveal in another article. Suffice it to say that when a person like Lachlan Bryant who is responsible to the Archbishop (and he alone) seems to think that he has a right to ignore his directions there is something very unhealthy, stubborn in sin (it is sinful to lie and bully) and defiant in incompetence (characterising actions as sexual abuse when they have no sexual element to them), going on in the diocesan organisation.
[4] There is also a problem with the disciplinary tribunal making such a recommendation as it would be made in the teeth of the evidence and it would be manifestly perverse.
[5] In this case, we see how the advice the Archbishop has given Drew and Pippa is resolutely ignored (over-ruled even) by the deputy Chancellor of Sydney diocese, and by Lachlan Bryant. More about this in another article about Christian lawyers.
[6] How I would love to know how the Hon. Acting Judge Peter Young AO QC dealt with that one! It would not be wise to put in writing to a man who signs himself ‘the rev’ advice not to meet his Archbishop when requested.
[7] He writes: “I also do not believe that I should have to meet with the Archbishop and defend myself in a private hearing, especially when there is already another process underway.”
[8] He writes: “I also do not believe that I should have to meet with the Archbishop and defend myself in a private hearing, especially when there is already another process underway.” Yet, at the end of the letter he proposes yet another process, an arbitration with Acting Judge Peter Young as the sole arbitrator.
[9] This is what he says, carefully skirting around the issue that it was the Archbishop who asked to meet Drew:
“I am writing to you because I am concerned that (Drew’s) meeting with the Archbishop constitutes contempt for the Tribunal process.”