The Anglican Church of Australia Sydney Diocese
PSU v Drew
The Longest-running Tribunal case in diocesan history.
On 14 November 2015, Pippa wrote this:
‘On November 11, we marked the three year anniversary of the beginning of our ongoing debacle with the Sydney Diocese and on October 30, it was two years since the Professional Standards Committee declared a Tribunal was necessary. We have the dubious distinction of being the longest running Tribunal in the history of the Sydney Diocese. The Deputy President told us that the previous record had been 306 days. We have just reached 540 days!’
And still going.
‘We have been talking settlement for 11 months and our barrister cannot believe that it is still going. We keep assuring him that this is no different to the behaviour of the Diocese in the first two years of our negotiations with them. Unfortunately they have dug themselves into such a hole and I guess they are hoping we might help them to climb out of it. Considering that they buried Drew’s reputation when we reached out a hand in trust to them in the past, we are being very careful in our approach now.’
Is this not yet another example of the disgusting behaviour of the diocesan lawyers and representatives?
Surely they have learnt something from the parade of witnesses, from victims to archbishops, at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sex Abuse? In November 2013 the founding director of Sydney diocese PSU Mr. Phillip Gerber (himself a solicitor) had to confess that he failed in his role as concurrent director Lismore PSU to protect people who had been victims of diabolical sexual and physical abuse at a Church of England Children’s home in that diocese. Instead he agreed that he had cooperated with the Lismore diocesan registrar Mr. (formerly the rev.) Pat Comben (also a solicitor) allowing him to ruthlessly do all possible to try to deny the claims and mentally and financially destroy the righteous complainants. This behaviour of Mr. Gerber, Mr. Comben and the diocesan Bishop makes revolting reading for us Anglicans, let alone the community at large.
Of course in their world these people and their successors still can think of doing nothing but trying to force an iniquitous ‘settlement’ on Drew and Pippa to save the diocese money, to save the faces and reputations of their own – Mr. Lachlan Bryant (a solicitor) and the rev. Peter Barnett (diocesan consultant) – and to ‘bury’ the case, rather than act at all times in accordance with the issues of truth and justice, two concepts of grave importance to God (if they believe in Him) if not to them.
They treat the Archbishop of Sydney with contempt.
They refuse offers of proper settlement processes such as mediation or a facilitation by a senior churchman to bring the case to an early conclusion.
As I wrote elsewhere, Complainant 1 had complained to the sitting Deputy President of the Disciplinary Tribunal the Hon. Acting judge Peter Young AO QC in an entirely improper letter that he needed ‘a finding’ by 23 April 2015. Had Complainant 1 obeyed his Archbishop’s perfectly proper request to attend a mediated discussion of the issues, the case would have been settled and over by 23 April 2015. Had he been seeking a just resolution instead of a ‘finding’ which in any event cannot be in the form he wants[1], and had he been obedient as a deacon to his ordination vows to obey his Archbishop, and had he been a truly committed Christian in his life he would have found instead proper resolution and reconciliation.
As he has not been abused as child or adult, and especially not sexually abused, by Drew, his assumption of victimhood was always, seemingly and bewilderingly, that of a person of mental and/or emotional impairment. He could not claim that a mediation was not appropriate because, as he had not been victimised and abused in the first place, the mediation could not re-victimise him.
Complainant 1 – this is a ‘record’ that you have been directly responsible for creating. Congratulations!
Mr. Lachlan Bryant – this is a ‘record’ that you have been directly responsible for creating. Congratulations!
The rev. Peter Barnett, consultant to the diocese – this is a ‘record’ that you have been directly responsible for creating. Congratulations!
Mr Marr, diocesan Registrar and your predecessor Dr. Selden – this is a ‘record’ that you have been directly responsible for creating. Congratulations!
Members of the Professional Standards Committee – this is a ‘record’ that you have been directly responsible for creating. Congratulations!
Mr. Michael Easton, Deputy Chancellor of the Diocese – this is a ‘record’ that you have been directly responsible for creating. Congratulations!
Where is the wisdom, truth and justice you would expect from a Christian organisation? Apparently nothing has been learned yet – that the truth will emerge and the attempts of the diocesan representatives and lawyers to cover up will be exposed.
EndNote
[1] The ‘finding’ that complainant 1 was still as at that date looking for was, presumably, that Drew had been guilty in ecclesiastical law of child abuse and/or child sexual abuse. I have said on numerous occasions that complainant 1 had not established the facts required for a ‘finding’ of child abuse or child sexual abuse (on his own admission in the latter case). However when the diocesan lawyers came to the point of having to draft their ecclesiastical charges, they found they did not have the evidence for that. The best they could do was allege that it was behaviour that was disgraceful when performed by a youth minister and which caused or if known would have caused a scandal. As it was known and did not cause a scandal there is a fundamental flaw in the diocesan case, let alone basing an ecclesiastical law precedent of stunning stupidity as to what constitutes ‘disgraceful’ behaviour on the facts of this case. What ‘finding’ complainant 1 now seeks given the collapse of the diocesan ‘case’ I find it hard to imagine.