Church of England press release
The National Safeguarding Team has today announced the conclusion of the work to review all clergy under the authority or oversight of the Church of England who are criticised in the Makin review, published in November. The review was commissioned to look at the Church’s handling of the allegations of the horrendous abuse by the late John Smyth.
This has been a rigorous and independent process to look at whether those named present any immediate risk and consider whether there is a case for disciplinary proceedings for clergy, under the Clergy Discipline Measure. This has been undertaken in line with the process announced in December with recommendations of an independent panel and reviewed by an independent barrister.
Following this the National Safeguarding Team will now seek to bring disciplinary proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Measure against the following:
In all cases the CDM will be ‘out of time’ and so the permission of the President of the Tribunals will need to be sought to bring such cases. This will be done by the National Director of Safeguarding, Alexander Kubeyinje.
In reaching its conclusions the Stage 3 panel has considered the safeguarding policies and guidance which were in force at the relevant time, the facts of the particular case, the relevant legal considerations and whether there is sufficient evidence to justify proceedings.
The conclusions at Stage 3 were validated by the independent barrister at Stage 4 in the external scrutiny process,
In respect of all those under the authority or oversight of the Church of England not listed here but criticised in the Makin Review, the process has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to meet the threshold for instituting disciplinary proceedings at this time. There are two priests criticised in the report whose actions have not yet been reviewed as they are subject to other live, ongoing, processes. Once these have concluded they will be reviewed following the 4-stage process.
Victims and survivors and all those criticised in the Makin review have been informed and support offered.
Alexander Kubeyinje, the Church of England’s National Director of Safeguarding, said: “We must not forget that at heart of this case are the survivors and victims who have endured the lifelong effects of the appalling abuse by John Smyth, we are truly sorry. Today we have announced next steps in the process looking at both risk and disciplinary processes. We know this will never undo the harm caused but the Church is committed to taking very seriously its response to the findings of the review as well as responding to its recommendations.”
The National Safeguarding Team can make no further comment on these cases whilst the CDM proceedings are under way.
Finding support
(Media are requested to include these details in any coverage.)
If you or anyone you are in contact with are affected by the publication of this report and want to talk to someone independently, please call the Safe Spaces helpline on 0300 303 1056 or visit safespacesenglandandwales.org.uk.
Alternatively, you may wish to contact the diocesan safeguarding team in your area or the National Safeguarding Team at safeguarding@churchofengland.org.
There are also other support services available.
ENDS
Notes for editors
Dioceses in which those listed currently minister:
Let’s assume that the CofE does not have a deathwish, and does not block these cases on the grounds of being out of time. It could happen, but the consequences would be catastrophic. That said, it’s unclear quite what this process will achieve. Most of the major players at the time the abuse that took place in the UK was perpetrated are dead, long-since retired or were not ordained and therefore were never within the remit of the CDM. What’s left is whether or not action could have been taken which would have brought Smyth to justice in the UK… Read more »
Moreover, the CDM (2003) did not exist at the time of Smyth’s abuses and I’m not sure that it can be applied retrospectively. I think the possibly relevant law might be the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 which provided a very different disciplinary framework. The CDM can, surely, only be invoked for misconduct post 2003 and subject to the limitation period mentioned in the announcement. Doubtless the independent barrister has taken on board the above. But this is all technically sub judice now, so we must not discuss or speculate about individual cases. We can only wait to see how matters… Read more »
I’ve read Makin too and I agree. I don’t oppose these proceedings but it is unlikely they will fully diagnose the deeper pathologies that made Smyth possible.
I strongly agree with your comment about ‘the need to diagnose the deeper pathologies that made Smyth possible’. Every theology has a pathology. The focus so far has been the relentless pursuit of individuals, but Makin spoke of ‘conducive cultural and organisational factors’ that assisted and contributed to Smyth’s abusive behaviour.` (9.1.7)
Well known conservative evangelical bloggers and analysts have not missed any opportunities to pursue archbishops, bishops and others following the publication of Makin. But where is any sign of the self-critical journey – pastoral, theological, psychological and cultural – this still male-centred corner of the evangelical tradition urgently needs?
CEEC have published some materials on this subject (In Lament).
These are good resources but they are aimed at congregations not the leadership culture of this tradition. That is where serious discernment is needed.
But these resources are aimed both at the leadership and congregation. And unchecked behaviour should be called out.
Presenting overwhelming evidence or reasoned arguments sadly often doesn’t equate to changed behaviour for the better (climate change is a pressing example of this) and paradoxically can often lead to irrational levels of denial and even more destructive behaviour by certain groups within faith and society. I think we see this played out repeatedly in conservative religious circles who close their minds ever more tightly, and act ever more unpleasantly when they feel threatened. The thing that desperately needs addressing (and where the real and urgent challenge lies) is the fact that conservative religious groups are now feeding and being… Read more »
Absolutely. Well said, and I know this point has been made before on Thinking Anglicans after the publication of Makin. The failure to leave no theological stone unturned in dealing with the fallout from this evil speaks volumes.
I thought they had already been fully diagnosed? The issue is how to avoid in future?
It’s virtually impossible for a process which is focussed on the responsibility, or indeed culpability, of individuals to also address systemic issues. That’s why AAIB/RAIB accident investigations very clearly set aside the apportioning of criminal, or even civil, blame. The temporary benefit of punishing people who may have been indolent or reckless is usually held to be outweighed by securing their honest testimony to the inquiry. There was a time when this was not the case, and largely it weakened protections for passengers. There are weird, edge-case prosecutions that seem justified (Connington South, 1967, which is in almost every way… Read more »
Thank you v.much for this post which speaks to far more than our current safeguarding problems, appalling as they are. ‘Off with their heads!’ is v much the tone of public discourse now. It allows feelings to be vented but whether it promotes real learning and better behaviours in future is open to question. I find it ironic that a church which uses the word ‘discernment’ so often finds it almost impossible to learn how to do better in the light of past failings. How to continue the deeply embedded policy of self preservation seems to be the preferred outcome.
If you go back into the past, before data recorders, air accident investigations usually blamed the crew. They were often conveniently dead, and the narrative was “an incompetent or reckless pilot flew a perfectly serviceable aircraft into the ground, but we [meaning the people doing the investigations] and our friends are better pilots and wouldn’t do this.” The idea that an aircraft might have inherent issues in, say, control layout, was anathema: less capable or inattentive crew got what was coming to them, and damn the passengers. The same was true, with variations, on the railways. Norton Fitzwarren 1940, for… Read more »
It is true that UK accident investigation boards are not concerned with punishment, but in finding out what happened & why, & recommending how to reduce probability of it happening again.
However, that does not mean that no criminal prosecution will follow, far from it, but that is a matter for police & CPS. Civil cases can also follow, and both can use accident report evidence.
Yes, in my area of expertise we had the Piper Alpha disaster which killed hundreds (and the more recent Macondo disaster), which resulted in the Cullen report. There were (and are) many systemic failures, the one which sticks in my mind was the failure in the maintenance work order/work permit systems, the inadequate handovers between maintenance teams, the lack of training by maintenance crew, and to be honest the blatant disregard by maintenance sub contractors of whatever systems were in place. This resulted in a vessel which was thought to have been purged, but was not, and this resulted in… Read more »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Alpha
You will see that responsibility for safety was changed from Department of Energy to Health and Safety Executive, as having both production and safety overseen by the same agency was a conflict of interest.
Sounds like an example of full independence. Jay and the above videos talk a lot about conflict of interest.
I lived with the aftermath when at Enterprise Oil and helping build the systems for operating the Nelson platform.
I have only just seen this. I will inform you in case you are interested that at the time of Macondo I published a monograph on it which is based on broadcasts I had given. It is called ‘The 2010 Gulf Coast Oil Spill’ and is an e-book downloadable free on:
https://bookboon.com/premium/books/the-2010-gulf-coast-oil-spill
I also gave a talk on the spill at an ChemE event in NZ in 2011. It is all now a long time ago and I did not know about the dancing class.
Fascinating! I think the story is that the well test engineers offshore were worried about the reverse pressure results, and tried to contact the BP onshore engineering manager. But he said he was about to leave home, he had to go to a dancing class, and was searching for his ballet shoes. Or something like that. I never worked with BP, although I visited their Houston offices a few times. Did a lot of work with Shell on Perido (GOM or is it GOA?), particularly on optimising 5 year drilling program using reservoir simulation. All those excellent teams have been… Read more »
Thank you Nigel. Please let me know if you have further comments on my book.
‘[The] oil industry isn’t what it used to be.’
I have also written a book on offshore decommissioning, link below.
https://bookboon.com/premium/books/offshore-oil-and-gas-decommissioning
There was an attempt to prosecute the driver of the Croydon Tramlink crash. (He was acquitted.).
In the list of dioceses in which the various bishops and priests minister, it should make it clear that not all have a licence or permission to officiate. Lord Carey, for example, has handed his PtO in; he is therefore not ministering in the way this suggests.
As the victim of John Smyth who first disclosed in 2012, it has been a long 13 years. We know from the Makin Review that 13 Bishops or Archbishops had received the disclosure by August 2013. And between them, they failed to locate or stop Smyth, and did not bring him to justice. They did not “actively cover up” the abuse, and are not as culpable as some who had known since 1982. However, by 2013, safeguarding was evolving rapidly, and still they did not do enough ( if anything, in most cases). And todays list does not include those… Read more »
If the Bishop of Lincoln were an honourable man he would have offered his resignation as soon as the Makin report with its critical comments about his failings was published. You and the other survivors have been repeatedly let down by the establishment. Jesus’ ministry was almost exclusively with the ‘little people’ but the institutional CofE thinks that Jesus was gauche.
Perhaps helpful also to reflect that Jesus’ ministry is with the little people. ‘For he that is mighty has magnified me ,,, holy is his name … his mercy is on them that fear him … he has put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted the humble and meek.’
Is it normal to publish the names of people who are under a CDM?
A couple of folk have raised this point. As far as I can gauge, since the the NST is the complainant, then they can say what they like from that point of view. However, I do wonder whether the President of Tribunals, who decides whether or not to grant permission to proceed “out of time” may be affected by this point. That said, in other legal proceedings, anonymity is only granted in certain circumstances.
“the President of Tribunals […] may be affected by this point” He might be, but the consequences for the CofE of using that figleaf would be very serious. What it would say to people involved in safeguarding is that if they have a mind to cover something up, just cover it up for a year and you’ll be fine. An awful lot of people were keen to erect a veil of “contempt of court” or “sub judice” over the entirely non-judicial Makin process, but the chronology and cast list required to bring such actions only arises from the final Makin… Read more »
Keith Makin was on Ch 4 news last night, saying he reported some of these people to the NST 4 years ago and disciplinary action should have been taken then.
You earlier said “assume that the CofE does not have a deathwish, and does not block these cases on the grounds of being out of time” I think it’s worth remembering that it is NOT the CofE who decide if it can go ahead or not – the judge is an independent judge whose qualifications come from the same place as any UK judge (i.e. not the Church) and whose career is also not in the hands of the church of England. They may decide to block – but if they do the CofE hierarchy (which in this case I… Read more »
The judge is paid by the C of E, isn’t he or she? So not entirely independent.
“the judge is an independent judge” I think “independent” is doing a lot of lifting there. It’s a judge selected by the CofE from a limited pool of those willing to take on the role. Their career is not in the hands of the CofE (although the CofE equally cannot protect them from reputational blowback) but they presumably have some affiliation with the CofE as otherwise they would not have taken on the role. It pretty much the definition of the “good chap” theory of governance. I think on paper you are right. But if the CofE is blocked from… Read more »
The judge is also constrained by the CDM rules, and those rules were not drafted by an independent body.
The respondent in a CDM complaint may need to disclose the existence and the substance of the complaint in order to secure witness statements to support their response. In my experience complainants are often voluble with their grievances and so any attempt to keep the matter confidential is hopeless. Nevertheless bishops will often try and coerce respondents into silence whilst the complainant is singing like a canary to anyone who will listen.
Can someone (Anthony Archer??) explain how Andrew Cornes can still be a GS member when he is retired and has PTO? I thought you needed a licence to stand in the House of Clergy.
There is a route to GS for PTO clergy.
Church Representation Rule 15(1)(f) provides for representation of clergy with PTO on deanery synods.
The following (among others) are eligible to stand for election to GS: “… all clerks in holy orders who are members of a deanery synod in the area and have written permission from the bishop of the diocese to officiate within that diocese”. [Canon H2 Both Convocations 4(e)].
It’s wider than that – see H2(5). PTO clergy need to be on a deanery synod to vote, but they needn’t be on a deanery synod to stand.
In reply to Charles, having PTO is sufficient to qualify a deacon or priest for being a proctor / member of the House of Clergy. The relevant provisions are Canon H2 paragraph 4(e) read together with paragraph 5. Para 4: “Where a diocese or part thereof is an electoral area, the electors shall be… (e) all clerks in holy orders licensed under seal of the bishop of the diocese and all clerks in holy orders who are members of a deanery synod in the area and have written permission from the diocese to officiate within that diocese.” Para 5:”Subject to… Read more »
Thanks David!
In answer to RW, the Measure does reach back beyond its commencement date (1 Jan 2006). Very recently David Tudor who had previously in 1988 faced proceedings under the EJM 1963 in relation to girl Z, has recently faced proceedings under the CDM in relation to girls X and Y for events between 1982 and 1989.
The case report is available here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/determination-on-penalty-the-revd-david-tudor-29-october-2024-4130-4263-1764-v.1.pdf
Thank you, but see paragraph 8.15 of the CDM determination which you cite. Apparently there were proceedings under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure [1963] “although the misconduct accepted then took place at the same time as the current misconduct”. So this remains a curiosity: generally law is not retrospective unless it specifically states that it is.
Purely an interesting aside, the limitation period in the EJM 1963 was three years.
Since, the allegations against the ten clerics named are of safeguarding failures, not abuse (unlike the charges faced by David Tudor), it will be interesting to see the “safeguarding policies and guidance in force at the relevant time” in each case, along with “the relevant legal considerations” considered by the Stage 3 panel, and ‘validated’ by the (unnamed) independent barrister, in deciding that the institution of CDM proceedings was justified.
Neither the EJM nor the CDM create offences, but each provides a mechanism by which an offence can be prosecuted. In 1963 the offences for which “proceedings may be instituted under this Measure” were (a) … (b) any other offence against the laws ecclesiastical, including (i) conduct unbecoming the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders, or (ii) serious, persistent or continuous neglect of duty. And under the CDM, “disciplinary proceedings under this Measure may be instituted … for …. (c) neglect or inefficiency in the performance of the duties of his office, (d) conduct unbecoming or inappropriate… Read more »
It does specifically state that it is retrospective – see s47(2) CDM 2003.
Thank you. I apologise for missing that and having muddied the waters. I wholly agree with David Lamming’s post above.
Statement from House of Survivors is here: https://x.com/HseofSurvivors/status/1894414295380742529
For those of us who have left X.com, are there any other sources of this statement?
I have my doubts about the solidity of the Makin report’s speculations about who may have known what and when about Smyth. That said, if there is any evidence (or even a solid suspicion) these people did cover his abuse, it will a scandal if a CDM is ruled ‘out-of-time.’
Frankly, there really should be no time-limit on covering up abuse.
So we now have the CCM/CDM soon to replaced/updated, the option 4 independent safeguarding which ought to bring in new codes of conduct, policies and procedures, confusion between secular legal and ecclesiastical legal and bad behaviour (‘I wasn’t convicted so I did nothing wrong’ lark) , historic and evolving policies on bad behaviour and codes of conduct, cases sub judice, cases where the accused is deceased….CoE v. quasi autonomous organisations, sexual child abuse v. adult non-vulnerable-but-coerced abuse, and all the legal fandango and issues about 12 months. Is it any surprise journalists are confused? At least I didn’t know any… Read more »
Found the link again – it must have been a glitch yesterday. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/the-future-of-church-safeguarding.pdf Actually first time I have read the Jay report. I’m afraid it leaves some areas remaining very confused. It defines ‘vulnerable’ in appendix C, plucked from official documents, but I don’t think that clarifies much. It seems to say that a vulnerable adult is one who ‘is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect’. Doesn’t that mean that as soon as I, for example, experience bullying, I am then vulnerable? Still curious what a non-vulnerable adult is, and whether it is a unicorn when subject… Read more »
Nigel, you state “actually first time I have read the Jay Report”. You might find it helpful/useful to view the 3 episodes of the Jay Files (you tube) by Martin Sewell and Clive Billenness.
Thanks. Watching now. I should really be doing some work….
Agree with everything said, so far. Excellent.
A lot of what you attribute to “option 4” – HR and accountability – was not an explicit part of the plan (also finance had not been specified, and consistent under-resourcing would be consistent, but not adequate) – ‘consistency’ is no more a magic word than ‘independent’ (apparently independent bodies can be subject to “regulatory capture” ie collusion with the regulated entity). That is one reason why I could not vote for option 4 – it didn’t deal with the actual issues, which could not be solved by any independent body which had no lever on the culture of church… Read more »
The culture you describe came out of a public school sub culture that the ruling class inhabited, which is all about advancement through patronage. There is no Easter redemption, just an uprooting.
Thanks Mark and Pilgrim. I started a few weeks ago on this topic by opining that even option 4 was not independent. It is good to know I am far from alone in this view. Some quotes from yourselves and the videos and Jay: semi-detached, not independent cultural and systemic issues power and control power to legislate change Legal changes need to be part of the plan We still don’t have a real strategic grip on the change required. Coming back to the original topic of this thread, the CDM process is not independent and follows poor practices. Jay did… Read more »
How does the CDM apply to retired clergy, particularly those who don’t have a PTO?
All clerks in Holy Orders are subject to the CDM until the day they die. The only way for a cleric to escape its jurisdiction is to formally resign/renounce their orders. It matters not if you don’t hold a licence or PtO. The scope and effectiveness of any penalties are limited where there is no licence or PtO of course, but that doesn’t preclude a complaint being made and decided upon. A formal prohibition could be applied even if there is no current ministry taking place, it might conceivably be a wise thing to do to prevent a future return… Read more »
But to Joe Public any actions against retired clergy are meaningless while they retain the right to the title of bishop/canon/rev, etc. When you are dishonourably discharged from armed forces, as a maj-gen was recently, you are formally stripped of all rank.
The Clergy Conduct Measure, which received final approval at General Synod on 12 February and now awaits consideration by the Legislative Committee and scrutiny by the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, followed, hopefully, by motions to approve in each House and Royal Assent, does contain provisions enabling a deacon, priest, or bishop to be deposed from Holy Orders in those cases where a disciplinary tribunal (or the Vicar-General’s court in the case of a bishop) imposes the penalty of prohibition for life. Clause 41 provides: (1) Where a bishop’s disciplinary tribunal imposes the penalty of prohibition for life on a priest… Read more »
Ah well…the argument in favour of wholly independent safeguarding oversight and processes made in one pitifully short list.
Only retired Bishops seem to make it on to the list….again. As the House of Survivors’ statement records, there is at least one serving Bishop whose absence seems extremely difficult to defend on the stated basis of not reaching the threshold for even having a case to answer pursuant to the CDM.
I also wonder if the timing of the release of this information is significant…i.e. after the GS vote on the future trajectory of safeguarding oversight and management.
Given the national team was going to become an independent national team under either option 3 or option 4 – I don’t see how it would have changed anything other than to say “let’s wait until we have implemented option 3 as voted in before starting any CDMs”. Which would clearly be worse… Starting some CDMs is better than none. Maybe some more should start at another point – maybe not. But I think there are some logical leaps in what you say that don’t quite make sense [or only make sense given the lack of trust and therefore assumed… Read more »
What is your estimated period before CDM’s are reformed and become quasi independent or semi-detached or ideally fully independent? Given that it would involve changes to ecclesiastical law, even if it went full steam ahead for option 4 and everybody was fully behind it, can you see it being reformed within 5 years? 10 years?
Just for the record the CDM has just been reformed as the Clergy Conduct Measure (CCM) having passed its final drafting and final approval stages at the February General Synod. There are some procedural matters to complete before it comes into force. The reforms may not do everything you imagine needs to be done, but many of the things that were wrong with the CDM have been changed, and Synod members raised issues through the legislative process. The Sheldon Hub did a lot of work at the formative stage and also hosted a discussion group about the changes. No system… Read more »
Thanks. I was responding to TimP’s point about timing. But the bigger issue for me, at least, is what quasi-independent or fully independent safeguarding means for CDM/CCM. The ‘intersection’ (to use Jay’s words) seems to be ignored in everything I read. Yet surely CDM/CCM is intimately connected to safeguarding? What is the intersection? 10%, 50%, 90%?
I agree with TimP that we have to proceed today with what we have today. As-is v. to-be.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2008/oct/10/publicschools-teaching