Jersey – The Questions the Diocese Won’t Answer
Earlier this afternoon I asked the following questions of the Diocese of Winchester, through their PR firm Luther Pendragon.
Here are the questions.
I quote from the Bishop’s statement;
“I have received legal representations from an interested party requiring me to undertake not to release the report to any person. On legal advice I have agreed to comply with the request and this means that I am currently unable to publish the report or provide further information about the representations that have been made.”
Can you please tell me;
i) Whether there has been a formal injunction taken out to prevent the publication of the Steel Report, or any other instrument or order of court.
ii) Who has taken out this injunction / instrument or order of court.
iii) If you cannot answer (ii), please can you tell me why not. Does the injunction specifically prevent the release of the name or is the Diocese choosing to withhold it?
iv) If there is no formal injunction / instrument, please can you tell me who has asked for the report to be withheld? If not, why not?
v) If there is no injunction, is a “legal interest” a strong enough cause to withhold the name?Finally,
vi) Has the Diocese had any representations from Jan Korris, or anybody representing her, asking for the Steel Report to be withheld? Yes or no?
Here is Luther Pendragon’s response.
I’m very sorry but unfortunately we can’t offer any further comment for legal reasons.
I’ll let you make up your minds why they won’t answer the questions I posed, especially the last one. As far as I can see, there is no problem simply letting us know whether there is or isn’t an injunction in place, or denying whether a named individual has or hasn’t attempted to block the publication of the Steel Report. What possible reason is there for not simply batting down a name when it is suggested to them?
And all this in the name of transparency and safeguarding.
I understand ITV on the Channel Islands has an exclusive interview at 6pm.
What if there is a ‘super-injunction’ in place, which prevents disclosure of the existence of the injunction as well as the content of it? In that case, they would be legally prevented from being transparent, however much they might want to be.
If there was a super-injunction the Bishop wouldn’t have reported that there were legal issues.
And seriously, a super-injunction for the Steel Report? Come on… That takes tens of thousands.
Well, I dunno – I just know that there are situations where it really is better so say nothing at all, and you can’t say why without revealing more than you should. (I’ve come across that sort of thing in employment disputes, too, for example.) The Bishop of Winchester really is a decent sort of chap – and I certainly wouldn’t say that about every bishop.
The Truth:
Jessup: You can’t handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don’t want the truth, because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like “honor”, “code”, “loyalty”. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said “thank you”, and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
Well I dunno – I just know that sometimes there are situations where it really is better to say nothing at all, and you can’t reveal why without saying more than you should. (I have come across that sort of thing in employment disputes, too, for example.) The Bishop of Winchester is a decent sort of chap (and I certainly wouldn’t say that about every bishop).
I’d say Cease and Desist letter from a lawyer, containing threats and which is being swallowed, not a superinjunction.
ie game of poker and they blinked.