On 26th March 2013 I 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 November 2, 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 January 16, 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. 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. I 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 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

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 I Grouvillel Jersey I JE3 9UX
Tel: 01534 852533 I p.bai1hache@gov.je

http://www.scribd.com/doc/290257373/2015-11-02-Letter-to-the-Most-Reverend-and-Rt-Hon-the-Lord-Archbishop-of-Canterbury