Senator Philip Bailhache Letter to ArchBishop of Canterbury.

Further to our PREVIOUS POSTING concerning the "Recognised Formula" of how Jersey deals with those who investigate, or report, abuse in the island; Senator Philip Bailhache is now, in our opinion, continuing the tradition of attacking the alleged victim (HG), and those who are investigating the safeguarding issues. Furthermore he is, in our opinion, defending those who have allegedly failed her when we believe it is the alleged victim who deserves defending. But that just isn't "The Jersey Way."

Below is the letter sent from Senator Bailhache to the Archbishop of Canterbury, which has been copied from Pdf to word and we regret any grammatical errors should there be any.

The Most Rev and Rt Hon the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Lambeth Palace 

London 

SE1 7JU

26th March 2013 

Dear Archbishop,

I write as a longstanding member of the Church of England and a senator in the States Assembly to express my deep dismay at the action taken by the Right Reverend the Bishop of Winchester to withdraw the Commission of the Dean, the Very Reverend Robert Key. The Dean enjoys wide respect in the lsland and the Bishop's action has caused shock and bewilderment. The action was taken on the basis of a report by Jan Korris ("the Reviewer") into events surrounding the church's treatment of a vulnerable young woman ("HG"). Following receipt of that report, and on the advice of the Winchester Diocesan Safeguarding Committee, the Bishop announced the withdrawal of the Commission and an investigation into the conduct of the case by the Dean. Subsequently it was announced that Bishop John Gladwin would chair the inquiries, now described as "safeguarding inquiries". It is not clear whether this investigation purports also to be a disciplinary inquiry into the conduct of the Dean. If it is, it appears to be contrary to the provisions of Jersey law. If it is not, it is unclear how the Dean is to exonerate himself from the accusations made against him.

My concerns are twofold. (1) The withdrawal of the Bishop's Commission seems disproportionate to any alleged failings of the Dean. Such alleged failings relate to procedural omissions and not to misconduct. (2) lt is not clear that the Bishop intends to respect the special historical relationship between the diocese and the Bailiwick, and to have regard to the provisions of the Canons of the Church of England in Jersey ("the 2012 Canons").

(1) 

The complaint laid by HG against the churchwarden EY needs to be seen in context. The Reviewer interviewed neither HG nor EY, nor did she examine the emails and text messages passing from HG to EY and his wife between April 2008 (when she was asked to leave their house) and July 2008 (when the complaint of abuse was made). It is clear from these communications that HG was between those times and even before April 2008 not only vulnerable but also mentally disturbed, volatile and abusive, I make the point because the Reviewer has stated that she is "unaware of any record of [HG] behaving rudely or abusively prior to the allegations being made [on 31st July 2008]", thus inferring that the Dean's handling of her complaint was in some way responsible for her subsequent behaviour.

I regret to say that the Reviewer appears to have approached her task with a predetermined view that procedures in Jersey were inadequate and that the Dean was responsible for those alleged inadequacies. Her sincerity is clear, but in my view she has allowed her empathy for HG to cloud her objectivity. I will not itemize all the flaws in the report but cite two examples of error below.

(a) The Reviewer accuses the Dean of being "disingenuous" in claiming that he had not seen the email from HG sent to his Yahoo address; the Reviewer failed to notice, or presumably to establish by inquiry, that HG had used the wrong email address which is why the Dean did not receive it on the day it was sent.

(b) The Reviewer states in relation to HG's alleged "deportation" from Jersey that it is "clearly a matter of concern that a vulnerable adult in such a distressed state could be removed from Jersey with no thought to her imminent care needs." It is a pity that the Reviewer did not seek to establish the facts. HG was not deported from Jersey. I have read the transcript of the proceedings and it is clear that the Magistrate acted with appropriate care and compassion throughout. HG admitted a course of harassment over 18 months which involved aggressive, obscene and abusive emails and telephone calls to the Dean and his wife. HG was supported in court by a mental health worker and by friends from Winchester. She was represented by experienced legal counsel. The Magistrate had psychiatric and other reports. The binding over order with a condition that she left the lsland for 3 years was made at the request of her counsel and with HG's consent. Inter olia, it was clearly considered by all concerned that that order was in the best interests both of HG and those she had abused. The Reviewer expresses surprise that the Dean was not consulted, but it would be highly irregular for a complainant to be consulted by the Magistrate about the proposed sentence in a criminal case.

Much of this would have emerged if the Bishop had shown a copy of the Reviewer's report to the Dean, and invited his comments upon it, before taking the decision to withdraw his Commission. His failure to do so was in breach of the principles of natural justice, and arguably unlawful. I do not doubt that the Bishop acted in good faith and in the interests of the Church as he perceived it. But in my view he made a mistake. Both the Dean and Mrs Key have been treated unfairly, and great distress has been caused in Jersey both to the Anglican community and more widely.

The essence of the complaint against the Dean, as it appears from the report, is that he was slow in responding to HG's complaint, did not immediately suggest that she should contact the police, did not notify the Safeguarding Adviser, and more generally did not follow the guidance laid down in the Diocesan Safeguarding Procedure. On the other hand he did see HG shortly after receiving the complaint on 5th August 2008, did encourage her to make a complaint to the police on 25th August, and gave his advice after HG wrote to Bishop Michael on 13th September. The diocese was in fact aware of the complaint 39 days after the Dean, Shortly after, the Dean did in effect suspend the churchwarden, EY. On the face of the chronology, there does appear to have been some slowness of response, but this is hardly the stuff of disciplinary action. Furthermore, not only was the diocese aware of HG's complaint on 13th September 2008, but it was closely involved with most of the difficulties caused by her relationships with many others in the church between September 2008 and the date of the review.

What really troubled the Reviewer was the apparent lack of cooperation from the Dean with the process of the review and the Dean's insistence that he was bound by local law. The Reviewer states "There was a constant refrain from [the Dean] about the legality of what could, or mainly could not, be done on the lsland." This perhaps goes to the heart of the difficulties and leads on to my second principal concern.

(2)

The Dean of Jersey is a Crown Officer. When he presents his Letters patent, issued by the Queen, and is sworn into office by the Royal Court, he takes an oath to observe the laws and customs of the Island. C17(2) of the 2012 Canons provides: "The Dean shall exercise his jurisdiction in accordance with the terms of his Letters Patent, the Bishop of Winchester's Commission, these canons and local law and custom." The Letters Patent and the Commission are the sources of the Dean's authority and, when he has been sworn to office, he is bound by those two sources and the law. It is not open to the Dean to ignore his legal obligation to exercise his jurisdiction in accordance with the law and, in particular, the 2012 canons, or their predecessor Canons promulgated by His Majesty King James I in1623. The Order in Council of 14th March 2012 sending down the 2012 Canons states ,,Her Majesty was pleased ... to order that the Canons of the Church of England in Jersey shall be '..observed." The 1623 Order in Council contained a similar provision. It seems to me wrong, therefore, to criticize the Dean for being concerned to comply with his oath to act lawfully in accordance with the laws and customs of the lsland.

Neither the Dean nor the Bishop is above the Law. If there is an allegation that the Dean has erred in some way that justifies a disciplinary process, that process is expressly set out in the 2012 Canons, and it should be engaged. It is not clear what the terms of reference of the visitation under Bishop Gladwin are to be, nor whether they include a disciplinary investigation. If they do, that would be a breach of the 2012 Canons.

The majority of churchgoers in the lsland wish earnestly to see reconciliation between the diocese and the church in Jersey. There is no difference between the diocese and the Island in so far as the importance of observance of appropriate safeguarding measures for vulnerable people is concerned. On the other hand, reconciliation cannot be achieved if the special historical relationship between the diocese and the lsland, and the connections between the churches and the ancient parishes that are not replicated in England, are ignored. The 500 year attachment to the diocese of Winchester is important, but so is the traditional connection between church and state in Jersey which does not appear to be fully understood by the Bishop. I accordingly respectfully request that you should take a personal interest in the resolution of this damaging dispute which threatens to do serious harm to the church in Jersey and lasting damage to its relationship with the diocese of Winchester.

I have hesitated long as to whether this letter should be placed in the public domain. I have no wish to exacerbate tensions, nor to prejudice any formal process that may ensue. On the other hand, the diocese has published a report which is in my view unfairly critical of the Dean and placed statements on its website that damage his reputation. I have been elected by the public, and I believe that the public is entitled to know that there is another side to the story.

Yours sincerely,

Senator Sir Philip Bailhache(END)

We (Team Voice) would like the Archbishop of Canterbury and in particular "HG" to be aware that Senator Bailhache does not speak for us. We are disgusted that, in our opinion, he has set out to discredit HG in this letter and she (HG) has a wealth of support here on the island and elswhere. We apologise if any victims of  Abuse are offended by Senator Bailhache's letter.

Readers might ask why Senator Bailhache has never spoken out against the way the former Police Chief, Mr. Graham Power QPM, was illegally suspended, how the former Police Chief was denied due process or a right to defend himself? His Force was investigating widespread Child Abuse at the time of his illegal suspension.

Philip Bailhache also makes big play, in defence of Bob Key, around the 2012 Canons Law; Canons of the Church of England in Jersey ("the 2012 Canons").

Considering the alleged "offences" took place from 2008 (4 years before the Canons Law existed) isn't he batting on a sticky wicket?

Bob Key, support, And A Recognised Formula.

One would have hoped that in light of the Jimmy Savile "reign of terror," and the whole Jersey Child Abuse cover up, lessons might have been learnt, when it came to dealing with vulnerable abuse victims (alleged or otherwise)? This clearly doesn't appear to be the case.

Below is the content of an e-mail sent to "The Christian Community," and others, along with one of its attachments, the other attachment (template letter) is published on Rico Sorda's Blog HERE.

Regular readers will be aware that the Dean of Jersey (Bob Key) was suspended by the Bishop of Winchester (Tim Dakin) as a result of the Dean's alleged mishandling of a Safeguarding issue concerning a complaint from a vulnerable parishioner of alleged abuse which we have reported on HERE and HERE.

The suspension (or not) has raised some huge constitutional issues between the church and the crown which have been very well covered by former Health Minister Stuart Syvret HERE. Former Deputy, Human Rights Campaigner, and 30 year MET Police Veteran Bob Hill has also reported on this case with the treatment of the alleged abuse victim being his focus and is a must read which can be read HERE.

The e-mail/letter below, in our opinion, demonstrates that nothing has been learnt  from the Savile and Haut de la Garenne atrocities, here in Jersey, indeed the very same culture that allowed/enabled the abuse to carry on for decades is as strong now as it ever was.

For those who have followed the Haut de la Garenne Child Abuse cover up you will recognise the formula employed to discredit the investigation and the investigator(s) and not least the victims. This is usually done through our State Media.

Readers might recall Channel Television winning an award for little more than a cut and paste job concerning the expenses of the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation (Operation Rectangle) which was seen as "A Kick In The Teeth" by some Abuse Victims/Survivors as published HERE.

The discredited, and disgraced, BBC, in our opinion, has also played its part, not so much in what it HAS reported but equally as important in what it HASN'T reported as demonstrated HERE and HERE.

Then we have Jersey's only "news"paper who spent a great deal of its time, in our opinion, doing whatever it could to discredit "Operation Rectangle" and its investigators as exposed in a damming report, a link to which can be found HERE.

Where in all of this has the support for the victims been?

So here (below) we have, what we see to be, a continuation of the "recognised formula" where there appears to be little support for the alleged abuse victim, full support for those who allegedly failed her, and an attack on those who tried/are trying to support her.

"Dear All
Attached to this e-mail you will find two documents.
The first is a summary of our issues and concerns with some points to raise in a letter to the Bishop, copied to the Archbishop, addresses supplied.
Secondly there is a letter that you can just add your name and address to and send if you prefer.
I urge you to act as we have a powerful collective voice in the Church, please do not leave this to other people!!
Also it matters not what denomination you are as Bob is the only overtly Christian voice representing us all in the States and I believe that cross denominational support adds strength to the case.

Please therefore not only write your own letter or sign and send ours but send this on to all your contacts, or print it off and hand it out to those who don't have e-mail.

Together we can make a difference!

Finally, please pray for all concerned in this unhappy situation, for
truth and justice to prevail and for a swift reconciliation.

In Christ

xxxxxxx"

A people’s response to the suspension of the Dean, Bob Key

Many of us have been shocked and confused by the recent suspension of Bob Key, the Dean of Jersey. For many of us in the Christian Community in Jersey, Bob has long been a pivotal member – a devoted leader, a compassionate pastor, a wise advisor and a faithful minister of the gospel. Indeed Bob seems to embody the description of the man of God in Micah 6 ‘ to act justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.’

A number of people have also asked how you can help – who you can write to and what you can say to express your support for Bob. This letter aims to clarify some issues that are being discussed and to ask you to show your support for Bob by writing a letter to the Bishop of Winchester copied to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Some points you may wish to include in a letter are set out at the end of the email.

Issues and concerns

There are a number of issues and concerns that have emerged in the days following the Dean’s suspension. Set out below are some of these, with some comments which you may find of use.

Reason for suspension: There has been some misrepresentation of the reasons why Bob has been suspended. At no point is Bob in any way suspected of behaving inappropriately towards this vulnerable adult. Indeed, at no time in Bob’s long ministry has there ever been the slightest suggestion of inappropriate conduct. The investigation and subsequent suspension are related solely to alleged irregularities in the way the investigation was handled.

Cooperation: It has been said in the review, and in the Diocese’s press release, that Bob did not cooperate with the review. This is categorically not the case. Reading the review you could easily infer that Bob did not speak with the reviewer – on the contrary he met with the reviewer on two separate occasions as requested, for several hours. At all times Bob was open and participated willingly. He was reserved in responding at times where it was not within his authority to disclose information, but the accusations about his failure to cooperate are damaging and untrue.

Failure to act: The review and press reports have stated that Bob failed to act quickly and appropriately in dealing with the allegations made. Again this is untrue. As soon as Bob received the allegation he began to investigate it. I am sure you know from personal experience of Bob that he is a man of great pastoral capability with a gracious manner and a keen concern for justice. Bob took this matter very seriously, acted swiftly and was at all times extremely concerned to ensure that the complaint was dealt with appropriately. It is easy in hindsight to pick holes in the order and timing of particular actions.

Legality of suspension: It is not at present clear whether the Bishop’s actions are entirely lawful within the island. As you know, Jersey is a separate legal jurisdiction and the Dean of Jersey is a crown appointment. Further the Dean has a specific and particular ceremonial and advisory role in the government of the island. It does not prima facie seem appropriate that the Bishop act to suspend the Dean apparently without sufficient consultation and agreement with the appropriate parties.

Failures of process: Throughout this process there has been little, if any, pastoral support for Bob and his wife Daphne through what has been a particularly difficult and challenging experience. The way Bob has been treated is unkind and disrespectful in the extreme and has not in any way followed either good practice or common humanity. Bob was not given a draft of the review, was not given an opportunity to respond and comment on the factual accuracy of the review, indeed he had no opportunity to see or read the review before it was published on the Winchester website.

Response

If you would like to write a letter in support of the Dean here are a few points you might like to consider including. In addition a draft letter is attached for convenience. Please feel free to write separately, use the letter as it is, or amend it to include any other points you would like to raise with the Archbishop.

· Character of the Dean: The Dean is well known in the island as a man of integrity, wisdom, and compassion who has a real concern to preach the gospel of Jesus and support the Christian community in Jersey. He is very well loved and respected and an important leader in our society here and this suspension has been very damaging both to the Christian community and to the cause of the gospel in Jersey.

· Importance of safeguarding: it is important to take issues of safeguarding seriously and distressing to learn that a vulnerable member of our community has been damaged through the course of these events. All Christians in Jersey would affirm the importance of appropriate and effective procedures to ensure that these things do not occur, and are properly dealt with if they do.

· Heavy handed response: The suspension of the Dean appears to be very heavy handed in the circumstances – there is no evidence of an attempt to balance the perceived procedural failures against the very many years of faithful ministry in Jersey and elsewhere. Publishing the review on the internet and issuing press releases containing strong accusations against the Dean does not seem to be a biblical or brotherly way to handle the matter. No space has been given in the review or the press releases to the long service the Dean has rendered to the gospel and the church throughout his career and in recent years his dedicated service to Jersey.

· Unfair bias: the review and subsequent press releases appear to be unfairly biased against the Dean – the review appears to be very concerned with the failings of the Dean as an individual rather than the overall adequacy or otherwise of the procedures and the responsibilities of all parties involved to handle these matters. Indeed the review seems to be very personal – which has very significantly and unhelpfully undermined trust in the Bishop and the Diocese. Further the press releases by the Diocese, while nominally asserting that the action taken is a neutral measure, contain a number of allegations about the Dean’s behaviour in relation to the review which are clearly not neutral.

· Integrity of the review: the way the review has been approached is a matter for grave concern – there are repeated and heavy references to the ‘Interim Report on the Visitation of the Diocese of Chichester 2012’ and the ‘Review of the Diocese of Chichester 2012’ which were published some four years after these events. The layout of the review regularly implies that the Dean failed to implement these recommendations. This appears unreasonable given the disparity in dates between the reports (published 2012) and the events being investigated (2008) and would therefore seem to undermine the credibility and reliability of the review itself.

· Christian representation: the Dean of Jersey is the voice of all Christians in Jersey – his role in the States of Jersey and the respect and attention given to his views mean that he is able to express the Christian viewpoint in many areas of our civic life. The suspension of the Dean means that this key ministry has been summarily cut off and all Christians, from across the denominations, have been disenfranchised in Jersey.

· Justice: all parties in this affair should be treated with justice, including the Dean, which does not at present appear to be the case. The Dean’s suspension should be revoked imminently and steps taken to repair and restore relationships between the island churches and the Diocese of Winchester.

It would be wonderful if you feel you are able to write a letter in support of Bob and to encourage others to do the same.

Please address your letter to the Bishop of Winchester and copy it to the Archbishop of Canterbury and your own minister (if applicable). Please feel free to make any or all of the points above, and anything else you consider to be important. Please also pass this on to others you know and encourage them to write as well. The attached letter can be printed and name and address added by hand if that is easier for some. It is probably best to email a copy of your letter to the Bishop and Archbishop, and then, if you can, to send a signed hard copy in the post in order to ensure that as many letters as possible are received as soon as possible. The Bishop’s and Archbishop’s email addresses and postal addresses are included in the attached letter.

Thank-you for taking the time to read this lengthy letter – please take action to support Bob and ensure that our voice is heard. Please feel free to forward this email or share it with anyone who you feel might be interested and prepared to support the Dean.(END)

We ask our readers to show support for the alleged abuse victim by writing to the Bishop of Winchester in support of his actions, in suspending the Dean, or withdrawing his commission, making it clear that the good people of Jersey want to see an end to this "recognised formula" and to start putting the safety, well being, and protection of vulnerable people as their priority.

Alternatively readers can leave comments here in support of "HG" and Bishop Tim Dakin's decisive action as the Winchester Diocese will be reading it/them.

We also ask the question, when there is this kind of campaign for those who allegedly failed "HG," what chance does she stand of gaining justice and some kind of closure, while this recognised formula continues to prevail?

The Bishop can be contacted by letter at:

The Bishop of Winchester

The Rt Revd Timothy Dakin

Wolvesey

Winchester SO23 9ND

He can be e-mailed at:

bishop.tim@winchester.anglican.org

Readers on Twitter can also Tweet this posting to the Winchester Diocese @CofEWinchester

THE JERSEY ESTABLISHMENT CLOSES RANKS (AGAIN.)

Following on from VFC's PREVIOUS POSTING  today there were two questions tabled in the States of Jersey (the island's Parliament) relating to the current position of the suspended (or not) Dean. 

Deputy Trevor Pitman asked;

"Will H.M. Attorney General inform the Assembly what procedures are followed in the event of a vacancy in the office of Dean of Jersey and who is responsible for making any appointment to the post?"

Deputy Roy Le Herissier asked;

Would H.M. Attorney General explain how the appointment and management of the day to day performance in regard to the Dean is divided as between the Crown and the Bishop of Winchester?"

Given the background to the current suspension of the Dean of Jersey by the Bishop of Winchester, done with the public support of the Archbishop of Canterbury no less, these questions would have provided any progressive modern government with a welcome opportunity to assert its positive credentials. It was a good chance for the Jersey Establishment to state its commitment in protecting the vulnerable, to assert the importance of following the correct procedures when issues arose, and to openly and publically state its intention to work with the Church of England in order to ensure that Jersey operated to the highest standards in cases where the interests of the vulnerable were concerned. Such commitments would of course have been in stark contrast to the recent policy of siding with the alleged abuser, and throwing the victim off the island when she had the nerve to protest about her treatment. Nevertheless, the Church is, or ought to be, renowned for its ability to repent and forgive so a bit of repentance might have been worth a go.

But that is not what we got.

In response to this challenge the Establishment reverted to type and did what it does almost better than anyone (with the possible exception of the better organised elements of the Sicilian Mafia.) It closed ranks and defied the world to do anything about it.

With a straight face, the political and legal establishment told the Assembly that contrary to what the Archbishop of Canterbury might think, the Dean of Jersey was not suspended. He was welcome, should he so wish, to take his seat alongside the great and the good in the States of Jersey, the St Helier Parish Rates Committee, and all of the other formidable features of his role. Listeners, to this morning's debate, may have got the impression that the Establishment would positively welcome him back to the top table in a direct challenge to any insubordinate Bishop who had dared to question their authority in the matter.

Members tried to establish just to whom the Dean was actually accountable. Apparently he was accountable to the Jersey Ecclesiastical Court which was presided over than none other than the Dean himself, although it was conceded that if the Dean was the subject of any complaint the chair would be taken by that renowned champion of victim’s rights, the Deputy Bailiff, William Bailhache who was Chairing this morning's States sitting, so no conflict of interest there then.

Members also attempted to discover just who actually selected and appointed the Dean. They were told that it was the Queen herself no less. However, given that most members were aware that Her Majesty does not as a rule place job adverts in the newspaper or conduct interviews of candidates, questions were asked as to who actually selected the candidate and advised the Queen on the appointment. The full Establishment, led by the Solicitor General himself, expressed total ignorance. They had, it appeared, absolutely no idea how the selection process operated. That is a little surprising given that a number present were active participants in the selection of the current Dean who we understand took part in a selection process which involved dinners and meetings with the “Great and the Good” intended to ensure that he was the “right sort” and would “fit in” with the pillars of the Jersey Establishment. Well he fitted in right enough. Arguably  putting the interests of a suspected abuser before those of the victim and attempting to bury the whole thing is about as “fitting in” as you can get at the top levels of the Island’s Government.

In today’s exercise in what passes hereabouts for “democratic accountability” the Island’s worthies will have impressed each other but we suspect, few others. No doubt they will have regarded what took place as a heavyweight analysis of the legal and other reasons why they had primacy over matters affecting the Dean, and an assertion of their political authority. We suspect however that to much of the real world it will have been seen as a bunch of Ruritanian pipsqueaks hanging onto the shrinking remnants of their status.

The test now lies with the Church of England. Will they put victims first and take on the dark forces of the Jersey Hierarchy or will they back off and let normal service resume? Time will tell but all of a sudden a good deal more than the Dean of Jersey and Church Procedure appears to be at stake.

Submitted by VFC reader(s).

Bob Key And "The Jersey Way."

Following the suspension of Jersey's Dean, Bob Key, we bring our readers the damming Report written for the Diocese of Winchester concerning the former.

The full Report can be downloaded from HERE. In the meantime we offer a few paragraphs that demonstrate "The Jersey Way" and a harrowing story of a (alleged) victim who looks to have been destroyed by "The Jersey Way" for daring to report abuse.

This vulnerable lady was let down by all in Jersey, including, it would appear, by the State Media. She was deported, by a Jersey court, where she was left penniless and destitute in England.

This is a truly disturbing case where the Report should be read in its entirety in order for readers to get a grasp of what this woman has been put through and how uncooperative the Dean appears to have been with this Review.......And the alleged victim.

Alleged victim "H.G."

Bob Key "R.K."

Page 9.

5 days later R.K responded from his deanofjersey work email account saying, “I have not been able to access my gov.je email for a few days so have only just found this”.This seems disingenuous as H.G. had not sent her email to that address. It implies that Dean R.K. had just discovered its contents whereas it is highly likely that he had already discussed it with other recipients, not least with Vicar

Page 17.

On the subject of requesting a church warden to relinquish his duties Dean R.K. expressed concern about how the people on Jersey would react. Later R.K. reported, “In Jersey there is a real feeling that suspending someone reverses the burden of proof in the public mind. Instead of our much cherished ‘innocent until proven guilty’, the suspended person becomes thought of (no matter what those in authority may say), as ‘Guilty until exonerated’

Page 23.

H.G. felt disbelieved and publicly humiliated. In reaction to her sense of getting no adequate response to any of the issues she raised she appealed to the higher authority of the Bishop, to Lambeth Palace, and to the media in the form of BBC Jersey, all to no effect. Following this she went on a much publicised offensive against any number of people connected to the Church.

Page 25.

Following this H.G. was arrested for breaking a harassment order, brought before the magistrate and as she had no money, was at that time of no fixed abode and appeared mentally distressed, she was remanded in custody.

Safeguarding Advisor J.F. records her concern at these extreme measures and worked at setting up care for her with the prison chaplain. She is shocked when on 11th October H.G. was bound over and summarily deported from the Island for three years and put on a plane with no-one to meet her, no planned accommodation and no money. J.F. wrote to Bishop Michael, “Whilst I don’t think this is our responsibility in that the court decision and action was not of our making, I do feel we have a basic responsibility, as we would have for anyone, to do all we can to ensure her wellbeing

Page 33.

There seems to be no spirit of willingness or inquiry in this matter. I found that some of the Island clergy had been actively discouraged by the Dean of Jersey from fully engaging with me and therefore complying with the Bishop’s request.

Page 37

However, as a result of the absence, or withholding, of records on Jersey and Dean R.K.’s resistance to co-operate with my requests, against the expressed desire of his Bishop, I have had to look more deeply into the possible reasons for this and comment upon whether there are disciplinary matters involved.

Page 37

The Church let H.G. down. Despite the difficulties of her background and disablement, and struggle with some everyday practicalities, H.G. was none-the-less in employment, pursuing hobbies, socializing and wanting to be accepted in the church community. Over the next three years H.G.’s life changed from having no history of being in trouble with the law, to having a police record and being a displaced person, homeless on the streets of the mainland.

Page 38.

Dean R.K. has not refuted H.G.’s description of their meeting. The only witness was Dean R.K.’s personal assistant who is his wife and she has refused to be interviewed for this Review.

Page 40.

Safeguarding Advisor J.F. described the annual training sessions on Safeguarding she had offered on Jersey over the past seven or eight years. She was not aware that the Dean of Jersey had attended at any time.(END)

How many more times are we going to have to read Reports like this before the people of Jersey are protected from "The Jersey Way?"

We urge our readers to read this Report in its entirety HERE.