In a strongly worded letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, Senator Sir Philip Bailhache has called the failure to publish an independent report into the circumstances surrounding the 2013 suspension of the Dean an ‘intolerable state of affairs’ which is ‘gravely affecting’ the church in Jersey.
The Dean, the Very Rev Bob Key, was suspended by the Bishop of Winchester, the Right Rev Tim Dakin, for an alleged mishandling of a complaint of sexual abuse by a churchwarden on a vulnerable Island woman.
The suspension was imposed following a report by psychotherapist Jan Korris, which was uploaded onto the Winchester diocesan website before the Dean could respond.
In the aftermath, the Bishop of Winchester commissioned former Jersey Court of Appeal Judge Dame Heather Steel to lead an investigation into the handling of the case.
Following Dame Heather’s inquiry, the Right Rev Dakin announced there would be no disciplinary action taken against the Dean or any members of the Jersey church – but the report has never been published.
And more than a year on, Senator Bailhache, who is also lay chair of the Jersey Deanery Synod, has written to the head of the Church of England demanding answers as to why the document has not been released.
He claims that the Bishop has not published the report as its contents could show that he over-reacted when the allegations against the Dean surfaced.
In the letter, which was copied to several high-profile members of the Church of England, the Bailiff, William Bailhache and Chief Minister Ian Gorst, the Senator:
- Attacks the Bishop of Winchester for failing to apologise for causing unjustified humiliation and distress to the Dean and his wife.
- Accuses the Church of burying the report to prevent embarrassment for the Bishop of Winchester.
- Warns that failure to act could cause irreparable damage between the Church of England and the church in Jersey.
- Urges the Archbishop to come out in support of the contents of the Steel report in the interest of Christian reconciliation.
After outlining the background to the investigation at the start of his letter, the former Bailiff writes:
‘It is a sad fact that no pleasure has been expressed, either publicly or privately (to the best of my knowledge), by the Bishop of Winchester that the clergy in Jersey have been exonerated.
‘Furthermore, no expression of regret has ever been forthcoming for the unjustified humiliation and distress visited upon the Dean and his wife.’
Later he adds: ‘In the discussions leading up to agreement on Dame Heather’s Terms of Reference, the Bishop of Winchester expressly stated in writing that the whole process should be as open and transparent as possible, and that a failure to publish the report would result in accusations of a “cover up”.
‘Regrettably, I am driven to the conclusion that the Bishop wishes to suppress a report which may be embarrassing and indicate a lack of good judgment on his part.
‘The need, in the interests of fairness, to vindicate publicly and unequivocally the reputations of the Dean and other clergy in Jersey seems to be of little importance.
‘It is difficult to believe that such an intolerable state of affairs would be accepted on mainland Britain.
‘I cannot imagine that the Church of England would so casually bury the report of a distinguished High Court judge on a matter of public importance in the UK.
‘I am afraid that, unless this nettle is firmly grasped in the near future, irreparable damage will be caused to the relationship between the Church of England and the church in Jersey.’
Dear Archbishop,
I write as a Senator in the States of Jersey and as Lay Chair of the Jersey Deanery Synod and on the direction of that Synod, in connection with a long outstanding problem which is gravely affecting the church in Jersey.
You will recall that on 8th March 2013 the Bishop of Winchester “suspended” the Dean of Jersey, the Very Reverend Robert Key, for alleged misconduct in investigating a safeguarding complaint.
That action was taken very precipitately on the basis of a report by Jan Korris (“the Korris report”) which was published shortly after on the Winchester diocesan website.
The Bishop did not allow the Dean the opportunity of responding to the unfounded criticisms of his conduct in the Korris report, before either of these actions was taken.
Understandably, the Bishop’s actions caused shock waves to reverberate around the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey, the effects of which are still being felt today.
On 26th March 2013 I wrote to you suggesting that the Korris report was seriouslyflawed, and asked for your intervention, specifically in relation to the Dean’s position.
The Dean’s Commission was reinstated on 28th April 2013.
In the aftermath of that reinstatement it was agreed between the Bishop and the Island’s authorities that Dame Heather Steel be asked to examine the alleged deficiencies in safeguarding practice in Jersey, and to make recommendations as to whether any disciplinary complaints should be brought against any member of the clergy (including the Dean).
Dame Heather completed her investigation and sent a draft of her report to the Bishop in November 2013.
The Island’s authorities did not see the draft, but its content was sufficient for the Bishop to issue a press release on 22nd November 2013 stating that no disciplinary action would be taken against any clergyman in Jersey in relation to the handling of the safeguarding complaint in question or the subsequent review process.
The press release continued, however, “I am all too conscious that questions remain about safeguarding best practice”, thus leaving a cloud hanging over the conduct of the church in Jersey.
It is a sad fact that no pleasure has been expressed, either publicly or privately (to the best of my knowledge), by the Bishop of Winchester that the clergy in Jersey have been exonerated.
Furthermore, no expression of regret has ever been forthcoming for the unjustified humiliation and distress visited upon the Dean and his wife.
I understand that a “Maxwellisation” process was completed with those criticized in the draft report of Dame Heather, and that the final report was delivered to the Bishop of Winchester on 15th August 2014.
More than a year has now passed, but the Bishop has still not complied with the obligation set out in the Terms of Reference agreed with the Island’s authorities that “upon receipt the Bishop of Winchester will supply a copy of the report … to the Bailiff of Jersey, the Dean of Jersey and the Ministry of Justice.”
Various excuses have been proffered, but none of them seems to justify a refusal to comply with a clear obligation to send a copy of the report to the Bailiff and the Dean in Jersey.
It has been suggested that the report may be defamatory of certain individuals.
Given the judicial background of the author of the report, and the legal advice available to her, that seems difficult to accept; in any event a defence of qualified privilege would be available to the Bishop.
It is ironic, therefore, that in the discussions leading up to agreement on Dame Heather’s Terms of Reference, the Bishop of Winchester expressly stated in writing that the whole process should be as open and transparent as possible, and that a failure to publish the report would result in accusations of a “cover-up”.
Regrettably, I am driven to the conclusion that the Bishop wishes to suppress a report which may be embarrassing and indicate a lack of good judgement on his part.
The need, in the interests of fairness, to vindicate publicly and unequivocally the reputations of the Dean and other clergy in Jersey seems to be of little importance.
Furthermore, this refusal by the Bishop of Winchester to comply with his obligation to pass a copy of the report to the Bailiff, Dean and Ministry of Justice, leaves the Anglican Church in Jersey in limbo.
The temporary assignment of responsibilities to the Bishop of Dover appears to.have no end in sight.
The roadmap outlined by you in your letter of 16th January 2014 – that is, publication of the Steel report, completion and publication of the report of Bishop Gladwin’s Visitation in relation to safeguarding practices in Jersey (which depends upon sight of the Steel report), and subsequently an Archbishop’s Commission into the future relationship between the Church of England and the Channel Islands – has led nowhere.
Leaving aside the unfairness to the clergy in relation to the Steel report, the people of Jersey are surely entitled to know whether any criticisms of safeguarding practices in the local church were justified or not.
If they were not, all well and good; if there were deficiencies, they need to be remedied. Jersey needs to see the Gladwin report too.
It is difficult to believe that such an intolerable state of affairs would be accepted on mainland Britain.
I cannot imagine that the Church of England would so casually bury the report of a distinguished High Court judge on a matter of public importance in the UK.
I am afraid that, unless this nettle is firmly grasped in the near future, irreparable damage will be caused to the relationship between the Church of England and the church in Jersey.
Finally, I think that the people of Jersey are entitled to know where the Archbishop of Canterbury personally stands in relation to this unhappy dispute.
Three points arise. First, we now know that in fact the Bishop’s actions in suspending the Dean and publishing the Korris report on the Winchester diocesan website were illjudged, precipitate, unnecessary, and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
Is it not appropriate that the Church of England should acknowledge the wrong done to the Dean?
Secondly, how can anyone learn lessons in relation to safeguarding from this case if the Steel report is suppressed and the Gladwin report cannot in consequence be completed?
Thirdly, if you wholeheartedly supported the investigation by Dame Heather Steel, could you please confirm to the church in Jersey that you support the publication of her report, so that in the interests of Christian reconciliation this damaging affair can be brought to a speedy and just conclusion?
I am sending a copy of this letter to those listed below.
Yours sincerely,
SENATOR SIR PHILIP BAILHACHE
