A Review Group has been appointed to oversee an independent review process of the handling of alleged safeguarding issues regarding the former Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, Dr Martyn Percy. Details are in a press release, which is copied below.
Christ Church Review Group announced
02/11/2023
A Review Group has been appointed to oversee an independent review process of the handling of alleged safeguarding issues regarding the former Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, Dr Martyn Percy.
The Review will look at the handling of these safeguarding issues, and relevant reports and investigations including those commissioned by National Safeguarding Team and the Diocese of Oxford as well as material from Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) proceedings. It will not be concerned with the wider issues between the former Dean and the College.
The Review Group, details below, will consider that evidence with a view to appointing and instructing an independent reviewer with relevant expertise and experience.
The Review, commissioned by the Archbishops’ Council and diocese of Oxford was originally referred to the former Independent Safeguarding Board, ISB, with Terms of Reference announced in May 2022. Later that year the ISB announced it was pausing work on the review due to finite resources and workload.
This is the first Safeguarding Practice Review, formerly known as a learning lesson review, set up under the new Safeguarding Code of Practice approved at General Synod in July. Its aim is to improve safeguarding practice.
Review Group membership:
Sir Mark Hedley (Chair) – Mark has practised Law for 50 years as Barrister, Circuit Judge and High Court Judge and now teacher. He has been both a Diocesan Chancellor and Deputy President of Clergy Discipline Tribunals
Philip Johnson – Phil is a survivor of Church-related sexual abuse and was a key survivor witness at the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, IICSA Anglican Church hearings. He is a member of the survivor working group for the Church’s national redress scheme.
Sarah McKimm – Sarah is a qualified solicitor, with particular expertise in the law of education, governance, and safeguarding. She is the Independent Chair of the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisory Panel for the Diocese of London.
Sir Roger Singleton – Roger was formerly chief executive of Barnardo’s and a Government adviser on safeguarding, He was author of the scrutiny report into the Church’s original Past Cases Review and was the interim Director of Safeguarding for the Church pending a permanent appointment.
The Very Reverend Nicola Sullivan – Nicola is Dean of Southwell, having formerly been the Archdeacon of Wells. She became the Lead Dean for Safeguarding in 2022 and serves on the National Safeguarding Steering Group, the IICSA Recommendations Programme Board and is also an elected member of the General Synod.
Danny Johnson (administration only)
The Terms of Reference are currently being finalised with all parties involved and will be published later this month. The final report from the independent reviewer is expected to be completed and published next summer (2024).
Notes
Well, we must await the published terms of reference for this Group brought into existence “with a view to appointing and instructing an independent reviewer with relevant expertise and experience”, but as an initial reaction, does it not already possess a wide range of expertise, chaired by a retired High Court Judge, to do the job itself?
What can one say? The cost of doing this ought to come from the H of B’s spending money, but I bet it won’t
We need to know why Dr Percy was barred from his Cathedral by the Bishop of Oxford. On what grounds was this extraordinary measure taken? I do not believe Stephen Croft has ever explained why.
I see that Roger Singleton has been interim Director of safeguarding, and Nicola Sullivan is on the NSSG. Were these two in these posts at the time the original complaint was being handled? If so, is there a conflict of interest here?
If there were a Conflicts of Interest policy operating in CofE safeguarding and the Archbishops’ Council, Roger Singleton would be excluded on the grounds of his previous close working relationship with Mr. Nye and NST. In the same way, Nicola Sullivan would also be excluded as the NSSG and its incompetence and collusion with the NST also form part of the complaint. And her relationships with those who acted against Dean Percy. This being the CofE, the jury is just stacked with vested interests looking after the firm. Victims of abuse have no chance of truth and justice. The leadership… Read more »
A review is clearly needed and was promised, but I thought the promise was for an independent reviewer, not this entire entourage of the great and the good (and doubtless the expensive) people? I know nothing of Sir Mark Hedley, but the rest sound like Friends of the C of E. I wonder what Martyn Percy makes of them, and whether he had any say in their selection? Eye watering sums of money have already been spent by Christ Church on this matter, and it seems that the C of E is now cheerfully following suit.All to ‘learn lessons’? This… Read more »
No consultation on the Panel took place with Dr. Percy. Safeguarding Practice Reviews [SPRs] aim is “to identify a limited number of key themes which, if implemented, will result in improved outcomes for victim(s)/survivor(s) and respondent(s).” And “It therefore follows that an SPR is not: An ‘investigation’ or ‘inquiry’ into an individual, the Church body or the NST, or focussed on the practice of any one individual or legal or disciplinary process in relation to personal and professional conduct that seeks to establish blame or guilt and/or recommend sanctions.” The document continues “The Reviewer’s recommendations: These should be focussed on… Read more »
The entire purpose of the SPRs is to be, in the words of a contributor below, ‘white-wash stitch-ups’. The composition of the panel in total is about as independent as putting William Nye and the entire AC on the panel, then adding a retired judge as Chair. I would not cast aspersions on the judge’s personal independence (about which I know nothing) but if one assumes that he knew about the composition of the panel, then his judgment/knowledge appear deeply flawed. The entire point of SPRs is to ensure that the type of material uncovered by the Makin review is… Read more »
I don’t think for one moment that Sir Mark Hedley’s judgement has been ‘deeply flawed’ (I realise you qualified that as a possibility and not a categorical assertion). I linked below (in reply to Jeremy) a very detailed, and self-revealing, article about Sir Mark. It really is worth reading for details of his wide background (and views on many other topics which regularly surface on TA). I was struck by the fact that as well as being a High Court Judge (some commenters on TA seem to have no concept of their independence and their important role in our constitution,… Read more »
A conflict of interest which would be regarded as a bar in any other sphere seems to be considered a qualification by the C of E. There is no will for change or justice.
Possibly I was too generous in my initial comment. We have yet to see the terms of reference – they will have to be different from last time, otherwise this fresh exercise will be largely pointless. I suspect that Sir Mark Hedley could do the job on his own; no one was left in the slightest doubt about the impartiality of Sir Andrew Smith (another former High Court Judge) acting solely in the first Christ Church Internal Tribunal. I suppose it can be argued that there must be some C of E input. Would it be impertinent to suggest by… Read more »
Sir Andrew Smith, Lord Carlile, and others…well, there really is no shortage of reputable and qualified people with high levels of legal expertise, who are also not in any way conflicted. But that won’t work for Mr. Nye and the Archbishops. They will need to know the verdict before the trial starts. That way they can work out whether to avoid the trial altogether – what they are trying to do here. Mr. Nye and the Archbishops’ Council took an oath not to ever pick a person again like Lord Carlile to judge CofE safeguarding standards after the Bishop George… Read more »
I think it’s intended to be largely pointless! And that would run true to form.
I think Sir Mark Hedley is an excellent choice as chair. He is sensible, fair and balanced.
He is, as I pointed out, a retired judge of the High Court. There aren’t many (any?) better qualifications. I can’t comment about the others, but do recall that Sir Roger Singleton, while in office as acting Director of Safeguarding, initiated the CDM against the former Bishop of Chester
May I again stress that I am not the “Martin” commentating on here – I always use my full name. I do however agree with the substantial points made. An exclusion for conflict of interest includes the case where a reasonable person might perceive bias. Sir Roger Singleton’s past role and inevitable engagement with persons criticised ( rightly or wrongly) by Professor Percy would surely exclude him on the application of this principle. It would be a small victory for good practice were he to withdraw, not because he has done something improper or might do so but out of… Read more »
I think some of the comments above are highly disrespectful of Sir Mark Hedley. I’m quite sure he would not have agreed to an appointment without certainty that his independence and impartiality would be accepted without question.
Disrespecting the maths? He is one of five and can be outvoted by the others. Otherwise, from the brief bio given, he is certainly a known quantity, from the Church POV.
Oh dear, oh dear. We haven’t seen any terms of reference, so we don’t know anything about their respective roles or powers. In an earlier comment I made the point that any repetition of last time’s terms would not do, but I am just an elderly armchair observer who cares about law and justice.
This, notwithstanding its length, will give a better picture than ‘the Church POV’:
http://www.projects.law.manchester.ac.uk/religion-law-and-the-constitution/mark-hedley/
I am not sure whether it is his call, this is the CofE nominating a panel not consulting within it: I doubt he has followed the controversies around Sir Roger. Put that aside: given he has worked so plainly close to those subject to the complaint, how does he escape from that perception of bias – or is it suggested that the survivors who object are somehow “ not reasonable”? It’s not about Sir Mark’s perception ( and I agree that Sir Mark is a good choice ) it’s an objective standard – what would the person on the Clapham… Read more »
A request that the Panel will adopt and comply with a standard Conflict of Interests policy has been made. A Register of Interests declaration by all the Panel has also been made to the Chair. There has been zero response or acknowledgement to the request thus far. We expect to be told such requests are not necessary or appropriate for such processes. Cottrell promised consultation. There has been none. Yet again one is left with an Archbishop whose statements cannot be taken on trust or as true. Any readers of TA are entitled to make the same request about conflicts… Read more »
I haven’t commented about Sir Roger, except to point out that he instigated the CDM against former Bishop Forster. You will know, better than I, if he has had some involvement which ought to disqualify him.
I made the point earlier that disqualification on grounds of conflict of interests in core group(s) is something which should be high on the agenda for this review. There’s also ‘that’ risk assessment. Let’s see whether the terms of reference will encompass these issues!
It is not just the existence of bias that subverts confidence, but the perception of bias. The latter alone is sufficient to subvert trust and confidence in a process. If someone is at risk of being perceived as less than impartial, or having connections with one party, or in some way aligned to the interests of one party, such that partiality may operate and influence… then those with least grounds and reasons to trust the commissioning organisation will start to lose faith in the findings.
Most comments so far on this thread miss a fundamental point, namely whether a Review pursuant to the Safeguarding Practice Reviews Code of Practice (issued under section 5A of the Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure 2016, as amended by the Safeguarding (Code of Practice) Measure 2021 and approved by General Synod (GS) on 10 July 2023 after just a ten-minutes debate#) is appropriate in this case. As the Code states (para 1.2, page 10): “… an SPR is not · An ‘investigation’ or ‘inquiry’ into an individual, the Church body or the NST, or focussed on the practice of any one… Read more »
[Christ Church Review Group – comment part two] It is worth recalling what Dr Percy is seeking. As set out in the unaltered text of Martin Sewell’s questions 40 and 41 at GS in July, it is Dr Percy’s “complaint into the deliberate weaponisation of safeguarding allegations, with intent to cause harm to me, perpetrated by senior clergy, church lawyers and church PR.” [see page 3 of the Appendix to the Report of Proceedings, July 2023]. In answers to these questions, the Archbishop Stephen Cottrell, said: “…. the Archbishops’ Council recognises the importance of this Review into the handling… Read more »
[Christ Church Review Group – comment part three] Rowland Wateridge has already made the point on this thread that the Terms of Reference “will have to be different from last time, otherwise this fresh exercise will be largely pointless.” ‘Last time’ is a reference to the review the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) was commissioned to carry out, but which the Archbishops’ Council subsequently cancelled: see the ‘Statement on ISB and Christ Church review’, posted on the C of E website on 1 February 2023, which announced that the Archbishops’ Council had “agreed that the review of the handling of safeguarding issues… Read more »
[Christ Church Review Group – comment part four] As for the lack of consultation before any ‘way forward’ was decided upon, effectively promised by Archbishop Stephen, the following question has been submitted for answer at GS next week by the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council: “Please could you provide Synod with an update on the Independent Review to be set up in response to a complaint by Dr Martyn Percy, following up from the answers given to Qs 40 & 41 at the July 2023 Synod. Please could the update cover the consultation happening prior to the Review, when a Reviewer… Read more »
David, thank you for all of these posts, which are right to the point. There are very significant questions that should still be addressed about the whole 4 year period when Martyn – a member of the Diocese’s senior management team – was subjected to what many see clearly as horrendous vendetta and abuse. The last time it was proposed this was addressed (though later curtailed) it was proposed that only a shorter period should be reviewed, focussing on events around an unsubstantiated allegation. This framed Martyn as the potential safeguarding risk, whereas in fact he himself was victim of… Read more »
Susannah: This is a bit more complex. As we know, Christ Church is a ‘peculiar’, a non-Royal one (as confirmed by William Nye) albeit in a Royal foundation! The Dean of Christ Church (not the Bishop of Oxford) is the Ordinary in the Cathedral. This is acknowledged both by the Governing Body and the Diocese. The Dean is not on the C of E payroll, but I agree that he should have received, and any future Dean should receive, 100% pastoral support. My view, but it involves a complicated argument, is that the CDM should have been referred to the… Read more »
Rowland: I think your suggestion that the CDM complaint against Martyn Percy should have been referred to the Archbishop of Canterbury introduces an unnecessary complication. Procedurally, I think that what happened was correct save, arguably, for the delegation of his CDM functions by Bishop Croft to the Bishop of Birmingham after he had determined (pursuant to section 42(2)(b) of the 2003 Measure) that Graham Ward had “a proper interest in making the complaint.” The alacrity with which Croft responded to Ward’s request for such determination is a separate matter that might well feature in any investigation. As for the delegation… Read more »
I can’t see any ‘unnecessary complication’ in treating the Dean’s unique status as in equivalence to a diocesan bishop. As we both know, most C of E Measures, and specifically the Cathedrals Measure 2021 (with one minor, not relevant, exception), do not apply to Christ Church, and noteworthy that Dominic Grieve was instructed to consider the 2021 Measure in the course of the Christ Church internal governance review. It’s arguable that the CDM was badly/ wrongly, or certainly inconsistently, drafted. I accept the point is academic. I seldom see common sense as a factor in thinking about church matters and… Read more »