Senator Sir Philip Bailhache The Most Reverend and Rt. Hon. the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury Lambeth Palace London SE1 7JU 2 November 2015 Dow- Anat lwp | 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 Guemsey, the effects of which are stil being felt today. On 26th March 2013 | wrote to you suggesting that the Korris report was seriously flawed, and asked for your intervention, specifically in relation to the Dean's position The Dean's Commission was reinstated on 28" 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 22" 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 L’Anquetinerie | Grouville! Jersey | JE3 9UX Tel: 01534 852533 | p.bailhache@gov.je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. | 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, | 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 faimess, 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 16" 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 unfaimess 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. | 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. | am afraid that, unless this nettle is firmly grasped in the near future, irreparable L’Anquetinerie | Grouville! Jersey | JE3 9UX Tel: 01534 852533 | p.bailhache@gov.jedamage will be caused to the relationship between the Church of England and the church in Jersey. Finally, | think that the people of Jersey are entitled to know where the Archbishop of Canterbury personally stands in relation to this unhappy dispute. On the 9" March 2013, no doubt at the request of the Bishop of Winchester, and immediately after the suspension of the Dean of Jersey, you issued a statement in which you were quoted as saying “The Bishop of Winchester’s swift, decisive and wholly necessary actions following his receipt of this [Korris] report are to be commended. ... | wholeheartedly support the investigation that the Bishop has launched. ... We cannot place a high ‘enough importance on safeguarding issues and it is vital that lessons are learned from this case, not just in Jersey but throughout the whole of the Church of England.” 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 ill judged, 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 leam 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? lam sending a copy of this letter to those listed below. Yours sincerely, 4 Lowy ba { SENATOR SIR PHILIP BAILHACHE cc The Right Reverend the Bishop of Winchester The Right Reverend the Bishop of Dover The Lord Faulks QC, Ministry of Justice His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor, Jersey The Bailiff of Jersey The Chief Minister of Jersey The very Reverend the Dean of Jersey Members of the Jersey Deanery Synod L’Anquetinerie | Grouville! Jersey | JE3 9UX Tel: 01534 852533 | p.bailhacheagov.je