Devamanikkam: Bishop of Newcastle responds to Sentamu
on Saturday, 13 May 2023 at 10.24 am by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Church of England, Safeguarding
Updated Monday
Independent Learning Lessons Review – Late Trevor Devamanikkam
First published on: 13th May 2023
Following the publication of the independent lessons learnt review into the Church of England’s handling of allegations against the late Revd Trevor Devamanikkam, and the response of those criticised, the Bishop of Newcastle, Helen-Ann Hartley, having taken appropriate advice, yesterday required Lord Sentamu, Honorary Assistant Bishop in Newcastle Diocese, to step back from active ministry until both the findings and his response can be explored further.
The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, is fully supportive of this decision. The Diocese of Newcastle remains committed to the highest standards of safeguarding which seeks always to place victims and survivors at the heart of this vital work.
For more about this review, click here.
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
The full text of the statement issued yesterday by Lord Sentamu is available here.
Update: Statement from national safeguarding director
13/05/2023
Statement from Alexander Kubeyinje, Church of England’s national safeguarding director following publication of lessons learnt review into the late Revd Trevor Devamanikkam
What happened in this case makes for incredibly harrowing reading and I apologise for the hurt and harm caused to the survivor. The review was to highlight failures and how the Church can and must learn from its past mistakes.
If we are to be true to our words that we want change then there is a responsibility that senior leaders would want and need assurances that lessons are learnt.
I support the Bishop of Newcastle’s decision completely as responding well to victims and survivors is a core part of the Church’s safeguarding and this review is part of this, we have a duty to and must do better.
Lord Sentamu, in his statement in response to Jane Humphreys’s Review, a link to the full text of which is now available on this blog, says that the evidence he gave to IICSA was the same he provided to the Reviewer “namely that the action following a Disclosure to the Bishop of Sheffield was his and his alone in line with established safeguarding procedures and guidelines.” The Reviewer sets out at paras 16.3.4 to 16.3.5 an account of what Lord Sentamu told her when interviewed for the Review, but this is an elaboration of what he said at IICSA. His witness… Read more »
… continuation: Lord Sentamu commented to the Reviewer (para 16.3.5) that “with hindsight” his “presumption” that the [then] Bishop of Sheffield (Steven Croft) would deal with the matters raised in [Mr Ineson’s] letter “was perhaps mistaken,” but he then seeks to excuse this by saying [Review, para 16.3.6.] that it was not his role to police disclosures made to another diocesan bishop. He finds “odd and troubling” Ms Humphreys’s “professional opinion… that no Church law excuses the responsibility of individuals not to act on matters of a safeguarding nature.” But this is the nub of the matter. Regardless of ‘Church Law’… Read more »
Readers here may be interested in the case of Peter Hollingworth, sometime Archbishop of Brisbane. He rose to be Governor-General of Australia prior to complaints being brought forward about his handling of safeguarding matters while in Brisbane.
Fast-forward twenty years, and he has just relinquished his PTO in the Diocese of Melbourne: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/12/peter-hollingworth-to-cease-practising-as-an-anglican-priest-to-end-distress-for-survivors
The Hollingworth case has some parallels with Sentamu’s situation.
Many thanks. Hollingworth was a case of rank bad due diligence on the part of John Howard, because (as far as I am aware) there were murmurings about issues in Brisbane prior to his appointment to Yarralumla in 2001, and which surfaced publicly shortly after his appointment and became increasing excruciating during his brief tenure. There has also been lobbying over the last 5 years for him to be stripped of his vice-regal pension (A$356k p/a or £190k p/a). Although clergy (not Anglican) had been appointed to state governorships in SA (by Don Dunstan) and Victoria (by John Cain, Jr.),… Read more »
Has anyone else noticed the possible parallel between the apparent lack of action on the part of the former Archbishop of York in this instance and the lack of action of the present Archbishop of Canterbury when notified in 2013 in relation to the actions of John Smyth? If John Sentamu is being asked to step back from exercising ministry what implications does this therefore have for Archbishop Welby?
Good question, Marian. In para 15.16 of her Review Jane Humphreys notes that “The Bishop of Sheffield did not follow the policies and procedures in place at that time” and, accordingly, that Matt Ineson’s allegations that he disclosed his abuse to Bishop Croft in letters dated 26 March 2013 and 1 June 2013 and that the Bishop did not act on the disclosures “are substantiated.” In his book Bleeding for Jesus, published in September 2021, Andrew Graystone dissects the statements made by Archbishop Welby in his April 2019 TV interview with Cathy Newman about the actions he said that he… Read more »
I recall that Lord Sentamu’s peerage was held up in 2020, and it was assumed that this was partly because of the question marks arising over the Devamanikkam affair, but the delay gave rise to complaints from his supporters (who protested at the ‘institutional prejudice’). Later that year the lords appointment commission (HOLAC) approved the nomination, and he received his patent of peerage shortly thereafter. It would be interesting to know why HOLAC appeared to change its position before Ms Humphreys’ report had been published (as per p. 11, it was delayed, in part for the usual pandemic reasons), and… Read more »
If the former Archbishop of York is correct, how is it possible to have things like the National Safeguarding group and the ISB?
While it is important that individuals be held to account, the systemic failings which can lead to dioceses being treated as almost feudal entities, so that if something goes wrong with their safeguarding processes this may be hard to redress, are worrying. Time for a truly independent national system designed with active involvement by survivors perhaps, even if this means giving up some of bishops’ power (maybe some will be glad to hand responsibility to a body better equipped to exercise it?) A less localised approach could also reduce the risk that an investigation of allegations by, and communication with,… Read more »
A while back I suggested that reviews should address at least the following questions [summarising previous] (1) If wrong has been done, has it been righted so far as possible? (2) Have the immediate causes of the wrong been addressed in a way which is likely to prevent repetition? (3) Are there wider lessons to learn to avoid similar wrong occurring elsewhere? The first of these questions is rarely addressed, and is not really dealt with in this review. We need reports which give recommendations on righting wrongs (redress, support etc) where this has not yet been adequately done. If… Read more »
If there are grounds to withdraw Setanmu’s PTO, why wasn’t it done sooner? Why only when the review was made public? Was there a hope that the public reaction would be weak and he could stay?
The Church of England always hope that it will blow over because the news cycle is so short these days. What they cannot grasp is the pain of the victims never goes away and they will not keep silent or crawl into a dark corner and disappear. Social media enables the echoes of misconduct to roll around indefinitely.
For someone who apparently has legal training, Lord Sentamu has a rather checkered career when it comes to legal issues.
Oh dear, oh dear, how the mighty have fallen! I read the NST Director’s Statement with a complete and unshakable hermeneutic of suspicion. All it says to me is the institution has now decided +Sentamu can go under the proverbial bus, in the hope it might deflect attention from the significantly more complicated questions of what can be done about +Oxford (and others named as having failed in their duty who are still in ‘active’ office). I don’t say this to minimise the seriousness of +Sentamu’s actions. I find his response to the report utterly appalling, and applaud +Newcastle for… Read more »
That is a very good question. Safeguarding is the new trump card. I regret that the days of a hermeneutic of trust are over, at least for this issue. Sadly safeguarding is a serious business and people get harmed while the game is played, or not played. However, if bishops were treated the same as parish clergy, the least that might be expected is to undergo a type b safeguarding risk assessment with an independent assessor.
In safeguarding I think a hermeneutic of suspicion is entirely appropriate.
For the purposes of suspension of a bishop under section 37 of the CDM 2003, these are the criteria to be met on the basis of evidence provided by the police or a local authority that the bishop presents a significant risk of harm: “A person presents a significant risk of harm if there is a significant risk that the person may— (a) harm a child or vulnerable adult, (b) cause a child or vulnerable adult to be harmed, (c) put a child or vulnerable adult at risk of harm, (d) attempt to harm a child or vulnerable adult, or… Read more »
In his statement, Lord Sentamu also says: “[The] issues were considered separately by the President of the Tribunals following a complaint by the survivor under the Church of England Discipline Measure. The complaint, made in similar terms to those considered here by the reviewer, was not upheld for the same reasons specified by the National Safeguarding Team.” But it would appear from the IICSA Report on the Anglican Investigation, published in October 2020, that the reason Matt Ineson’s CDM complaint was not upheld (and the merits of it therefore not considered) was because it was made out of time: “When… Read more »
Continuation… This was Sentamu’s reply [transcript pp 136/9 to 137/1]: “Well, the President of the Tribunal asks, if he is going to set aside the time limit, reasons why the time limit should be set aside, and in the application by Mr Ineson to the President of the Tribunals, he actually did not give what the evidence was that demanded this to be set aside. All I said to the President of the Tribunal was that the facts in here have not actually been put into this — but President of the Tribunal has got power to do whatever he… Read more »
Conclusion… However, there is this important paragraph in the President’s decision: “By way of a preliminary observation it is right to record that the Complainant’s complaint raises important issues involving an alleged failure on the part of those in authority, to whom complaint had been made, to take the steps required under the relevant Safeguarding Guidance. At any time, but certainly in the current climate, such a failure, if established, could only be regarded as serious.” [emphasis added] The Independent Reviewer, Jane Humphreys, has found the archbishop’s failure to act on Matt’s disclosure of Devamanikkam’s abuse as established… Read more »