UPDATED
The suspension of the Bishop of Lincoln was reported earlier.
David Lamming has written a detailed analysis of the legal issues arising from this suspension. You can read this document here. (PDF)
He summarises as follows:
Whatever the nature or details of the “information” on which the Archbishop of Canterbury based his decision to suspend Bishop Christopher, in the light of the clear statement that “there has been no allegation that Bishop Christopher has committed abuse of a child or vulnerable adult”, the legal basis for the suspension is at least doubtful. An appeal to the President of Tribunals that would clarify the legal position would seem to be justified and appropriate.
David is a retired barrister, whose professional interests include ecclesiastical law. He is a member of the House of Laity of the General Synod of the Church of England, elected from the Diocese of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich.
UPDATE
Another article has been published on this topic.
Philip Jones has written: Safeguarding and Suspension: The Case of the Bishop of Lincoln.
Do read both articles.
So the Curia might have not been as thorough as it should have in applying law? And might have therefore drawn themselves into a greater muddle? What a massive shocker. In order to ‘get safeguarding right’, about which the whole church is rightly concerned, we actually have to get it fully right — which includes resisting an unseemly hurry (such as this, perhaps) to ‘do something’ (or indeed, be seen to), when the laws and guidelines properly applied would not support it. Presumption of innocence is so inconvenient.
Well done, David Lamming!
This very detailed analysis confirms several concerns discussed in the comments on the original post.
A “significant cloud” hangs over the Archbishop and his moral and legal integrity.
I’ve always had questions about his sense of judgment.
Based on David Lamming’s analysis, I also wonder who is giving the Archbishops legal advice. Or is the Archbishop of Canterbury simply not following the legal advice he is being given?
And here’s a question: Can Synod ask to see any legal advice justifying the first-ever “suspension” of a bishop?
“Can Synod ask to see any legal advice justifying the first-ever “suspension” of a bishop?”
I understand in the States it would be possible to see the legal advice, by filing a motion in court to release the relevant documents.
Whether or not that is possible here, I don’t know.
That has long been the case !
I hope this post will be read – carefully – by those who so strenuously challenged everything which was said to the same effect on the previous thread, below: “Bishop of Lincoln suspended from office for alleged safeguarding failure”: Thursday, 16 May 2019.
I have nothing against the Bishop of Lincoln and I really hope things turn out well for him. Having said that, where there is any ambiguity or doubt about the safety and wellbeing of children or adults in the context of the Church organisation, decisions should always prioritise the safety of these people. Threat to safety of course – as has been demonstrated in previous cases – may be at risk or compromised not only by the threat of direct abusers, but by the attitudes or actions of people in positions of power and influence in the Church. In this… Read more »
“I hope he is found to be safe”
Maybe his epitaph will read: “He was found to be safe”.
If there is any epitaph for me which reads “He was safe”, I will come back and haunt those responsible.
Being honest with you, I don’t understand what you are saying, Richard.
I hope the Bishop of Lincoln is found to be safe to resume his ministry. What is wrong with that?
Please forgive me Susannah – I just found your use of English [“I hope he is found to be safe”] tickled the mischievous part of my nature.
It’s fine, Richard. I was just confused. I trust your goodwill.
I think the idea that anyone can be “found to be safe” reflects muddled thinking about safeguarding.
Don’t many safeguarding precautions and procedures reflect the tragic learning that the safest-seeming people can turn out to be the opposite?
In the light of the 68 posts on the previous (and very recent) thread and David Lamming’s legal opinion linked above, I can only say I am astonished to read what you now say. This is an issue of the rule of law – and not for people to say that the law is wrong and, by implication, that they know better. If the Archbishop possessed a separate executive power to suspend a bishop in the way that you suggest, it would not have been necessary for the Church to legislate the statutory power given to him in section 37(1)… Read more »
With Archbishop Justin Welby still maintaining there is a “significant cloud” over Bishop George Bell, this living Archbishop clearly still finds the long-dead Bishop of Chichester ‘unsafe’.
Perhaps we have a utopian future to look forward to in which everyone – not just those involved in the Church – will be digitally-identified as ‘safe’.
God help those who have been declared ‘unsafe’.
Susannah, I’d agree with you about the need to act (not err) on the side of caution in safeguarding matters, especially having regard to the appalling record of the Church of England in past years, now being exposed (inter alia) by the IICSA hearings. However, the Church (like any other authority) must act within the law, and the only power to suspend a bishop is that contained in section 37(1) of the CDM 2003. In this case, having regard to the archbishop’s statement, the only possibly applicable power is that set out in section 37(1)(e). That requires the archbishop (not… Read more »
To a degree I concur with your final point, David. And I don’t say you are categorically wrong about your main points. However, what I am suggesting is that how one interprets the exact wording of the clauses you cite is open to different interpretations. And part of that may hinge on background information that you and I are not party to. I am no great champion of Justin, and I believe in justice. I agree that this suspension may be open to appeal on the grounds you outline (or similar). The courts can decide (which is your point). However,… Read more »
“The history of child abuse – in England, in Ireland, in the USA, in Australia – is littered with the tragic stories of innocents who were abused but who were not listened to because the establishment sided with the great and the powerful”
Let history speak a greater truth:
The history of child abuse is also littered with the tragic stories of innocents who were falsely accused of abuse and were not listened to because the establishment only sided with the complainant of abuse.
For goodness sake, let’s get some balance and perspective here.
Why is it a ‘greater truth’ that some people have been falsely accused of child abuse? It’s tragic when children (or adults) are abused, and it’s tragic when someone is falsely accused of abuse. Both are devastating.
But if we’re talking numbers, some abusers have multiple victims, whereas a relatively small number of people have been accused, whether falsely or truly.
Apologies – “a wider truth”
I’m sorry, but I still feel this is the wrong set of priorities. On pretty well any measure I can think of – number of instances, consequences for the people affected, culpability of the agencies that allow it to happen – I suggest that the issue of people wrongly accused of abuse is a smaller issue than the issue of people who are abused. It worries me when suggestions or implications still surface that the balance is the other way round.
Mr Swanson, it might surprise you just how many parish clergy are falsely accused of abuse eg suspended but not prosecuted.
It’s not a “smaller issue” – it is a different issue, but policy is implemented by the same incompetents.
This may seem a pompous response to some, but the scales of justice should be evenly balanced, and I make the tentative suggestion that is wrong for either side (both sides, if you prefer) to say that they are right and the other side is wrong. I find it offensive that some people on TA seem to assume that those of us who ‘support’ (their perception) the accused rather than the victim cannot realise that we support both. It’s called the rule of law. And some of us also speak with some personal experience of abuse – in my case… Read more »
It might interest some – but not others – that I too was abused at the hands [literally] of a private tutor as an excruciatingly shy, 12-year-old in the 1960’s living in Worthing. It would probably come under the category of what Rowland Wateridge describes as ‘mild’ sexual abuse. Do I remember it? Yes, vividly. Did I know it was wrong? Yes. Have I suffered because of it? Probably. Did he sexually abuse other children? Looking back, I’m sure he did. Would I report him now? If he was still alive, yes. Did you report him at the time? I… Read more »
No, I didn’t report him. Someone obviously must have done. I’m 77 and can’t now relate to what should have happened around 65 years ago when I was also ‘shy’ and physically small. Did I know that it was wrong? The best answer is that I was uncomfortable, but it was happening in the presence of about 30 boys – to all of us. I know the teacher’s name and have a vivid mental picture of him. None of the teachers at that school is still alive. I doubt that he ‘tried it on’ with senior boys – or maybe… Read more »
If it turns out the reason for suspension is that there is some doubt as to whether or not he passed sensitive information to the Police then there is at least one other bishop who should be similarly treated.
In case you might mean the Bishop of Chester, I can’t see that he could be similarly treated. The Archbishop of the Province (York) needs support from the two senior bishops. But Chester is the senior Bishop.
I can’t see anything that would allow the second and third most senior bishops to endorse. Perhaps I am missing something.
I tried replying to this by reference to Section 37(1) and 37(3) of the CDM, but it became too lengthy. They are, respectively. the legal authority for suspension of a bishop and provision of alternative pastoral arrangements during the period of suspension – both requiring the consent of the two senior diocesan bishops. They are closely related; the second cannot happen without the first, and importantly they are the only statutory powers open to the Archbishop. It baffles me that some people here continue to challenge David Lamming’ careful exposition and explanation of the law. On the two Lincoln threads… Read more »
I don’t think the Church has any intention of telling us the facts – now or at any time in the future – so we are forced to, and have a responsibility to, speculate.
I entirely agree that it is pointless to speculate about the facts at Lincoln or Chester: indeed, it would be wrong and quite inappropriate to do. There is certainly no ‘responsibility’ to speculate as asserted by Richard Symonds in his comment earlier today: rather, such speculation is irresponsible. However, sticking to the law, T Pott raises an interesting point about the Bishop of Chester who, as he points out, is currently the senior diocesan bishop in the Province of York (seniority being determined by “length of time that each of them has held office as diocesan in either province without… Read more »
“There is certainly no ‘responsibility’ to speculate as asserted by Richard Symonds in his comment earlier today: rather, such speculation is irresponsible” ~ David Lamming.
Responsible action may be questionable if we are speculating about the “facts” of any particular case.
Responsible action is not questionable if we are speculating about the legitimacy and legality of a decision by an Archbishop.
The statement that ‘there is ongoing concern (at a police level) over the safety of children and adults in interaction with the Church in the Lincoln Diocese’ is a misstatement of the truth. Lincolnshire Police issued a statement in response to the Archbishop’s suspension of the Bishop of Lincoln with an explicit endorsement of the Diocesan Safeguarding Team, and a recommendation that anyone concerned should ‘contact the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor’. It is also worth pointing out that the Safeguarding Team in the Diocese of Lincoln are overseen by an independently-chaired Safeguarding Board. It is my understanding that this is not… Read more »
Agreed in that the public statement by the police does not show any “ongoing concern” about the safeguarding procedures of the Diocese of Lincoln but rather the opposite. It shows interagency trust and confidence.
Consider the police view that “Because it is a live investigation and we do not want to jeopardise the outcome, we do not intend to make any further comment.” I detect in this a slight note of, “And we hope the Archbishop intends similarly.”
Your statement that there is an “independently-chaired Safeguarding Board” makes the suspension even more, as you put it, “puzzling.”
For those convinced by David Lamming’s argument, if ‘(c) put a child or vulnerable adult at risk of harm’ in Section 36(2A) is not redundant, i.e. there are circumstances other than (a), (b), (d) and (e) in which suspension might be justified, what might those be? And if, say, information from a police child protection team indicated that there was a significant risk that the power and influence held by a bishop over local clergy and laypeople might deter complainants and witnesses from speaking up about an alleged abuser, so that he might potentially be free to keep abusing, what… Read more »
We are now in a hypothetical scenario. David Lamming may have a different view, but my suggestion is that on receipt of such information the Archbishop would have to make enquiries in order to satisfy himself that a risk exists, and when and if satisfied, he might suspend a bishop. But as the law stands (it’s not an argument) as David Lamming points out, suspension is only lawful when the Archbishop, not the child protection team, is satisfied that there is a current risk (and, of course, a real one) and he could not suspend a bishop before being satisfied.… Read more »
I’m afraid I’m not a keen supporter of “restraint” or “wait and see” in cases such as this. Let history speak: delay in action simply leaves the Church hierarchy more time to wriggle out of responsibility and/or sweep it under the carpet.
There are time limits built into the CDM procedures. But as I have explained to Simon Dawson below, there is nothing that you, I or he can do about the course or the outcome other than to wait and see.
I don’t think I can contribute any more to this thread.
“Of course there would be other informal options open to the Archbishop – a ‘friendly word’ perhaps. We really ought to be exercising more restraint and just wait to see what happens.” A perfect description of the church’s safeguarding practise for the past 50 years, and look how successful that was. Am I the only person to be struck by the fact that even now, after the IICSA comments on clericalism, and the church’s habit of prioritising the needs and reputation of he church and it’s ministers over the needs of safeguarding victims, here we are on the TA blog… Read more »
I think some people on this thread, as on the first thread about Lincoln, are confusing what may be right with what might be illegal and unlawful.
If Lincoln is really about showing that the CofE is “getting serious about safeguarding,” if it’s all a matter of virtue signalling, then my concerns are not met but rather increase.
Next to go will be the law of defamation. Because that’s just “pussyfooting around” too.
Heads must be seen to roll. It doesn’t matter whose.
“As Susannah has said, such suspensions are commonplace in other regulated professions such as education,nursing,social services etc. They are brutal, but in a domain where people die, or commit suicide,or are seriously damaged by abuse, do we pussyfoot around when people “MAY” be at risk, or do we act first and investigate later…” Mr Dawson, such suspensions are commonplace in education, nursing, social services etc, but there are independent, professional bodies who investigate such matters in a court of law to ensure justice. The Church hierarchy has no such independence or professionalism – they have become a law unto themselves.… Read more »
The system of safeguarding in the Church of England is not a system rooted in justice, humanity and the rule of law – it is rooted in a system altogether different.
The appointment of David Pearl – a distinguished lawyer and former judge (and entirely independent of the Church) – in the Chester matter must be a promising sign. His instructions may seem slightly “woolly” but he is being asked (i.e., instructed) to make findings to the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities. But this is, of course, a one-off.
Those responsible for the appointment of David Pearl – the Archbishops’ Council presumably – appear to be trawling for ‘amenable’ independent lawyers. They’ve already tried Lord Alex Carlile QC and Timothy Briden in the Bishop Bell debacle.
I am grateful to Jeremy for reminding people (or pointing it out to those who haven’t taken it on board) that this is an issue of the rule of law. No one denies or ignores the suffering of abused people. Three people are potentially involved in the Lincoln issue: (1) the Bishop as recipient of the suspension and the possible appellant, if he so chooses; (2) the Archbishop who would be the respondent to the appeal (if any) and has power to revoke the suspension at any time, if that is appropriate; (3) the President of Tribunals who would hear… Read more »
“what would be the right course of action”
It would _not_ be to act lawlessly. That way lies archiepiscopal dictatorship.
It could well be to amend the law in order to address the hypothetical you describe.
Hoping that I could retire from this thread which has become increasingly contentious, I have just read the article by David Jones: Safeguarding and Suspension: The Case of the Bishop of Lincoln. For me, this muddies the waters. He appears to be suggesting that the bishop is possibly susceptible to a charge of misconduct. But that does not carry a power to suspend the bishop. Nor does he address whether or not the actual suspension is lawful.
Time for me to say, I think, over to others.
I am increasing in the conviction these legally-suspect judgements are weapons of control. They have nothing to do with safeguarding the victim and everything to do with safeguarding the Church hierarchy – and its power.
Rowland Wateridge is right. Nothing any of us say on this TA forum will make the blind bit of difference. We have no power.
The only people powerful enough to stand up to this unacceptable and illegitimate authoritarianism within the Church are those in the General Synod – which meets in July.
Time for me to say, I think, over to them.
Correction: It has been pointed out to me that I should have referred to Philip Jones – not David. Apologies to him.
“He appears to be suggesting that the bishop is possibly susceptible to a charge of misconduct.” I do not get that from the Philip Jones analysis. Jones points out, in his final sentence, that the statute of limitations on any CDM charge is one year. That’s on the retrospective, clergy-discipline side. Which Jones is very careful to distinguish from the prospective, safeguarding side. Jones emphasizes that the suspension used here is an emergency, interim measure due to a supposed risk, _going forward_. Prospective. In other words, as I read Jones, he thinks the suspension power used here cannot be used… Read more »
[continuation] Nor does Jones discuss the implications of the statement by the police in response to the suspension. In that statement, the police say three things that to my mind are very revealing. 1. Their investigation is of certain “historic” cases. “Phase two” of this same “investigation” is into “wider safeguarding issues and management decisions within the diocese.” 2. The police say they are “continu[ing] to work with the full co-operation of the Lincoln Diocese.” So the Diocese is cooperating fully now and apparently (“continu[ing]”) has been cooperating fully. 3. Furthermore the police say that “There is an absolute multi-agency… Read more »
It seems that you are not going to let me leave the field! I quote, verbatim, from Philip Jones: “Clergy Discipline is addressed elsewhere in the 2016 Measure. S.5(1) of the Measure introduced a new and specific safeguarding duty. This provides that bishops and other clergy ‘must have due regard to guidance issued by the House of Bishops on matters relating to … safeguarding’. S.8(1)(aa) of the 2003 Measure (as amended by the 2016 Measure) now provides that failure to have ‘due regard’ to this guidance now constitutes misconduct.” That was the basis for my reference to misconduct, and I… Read more »
So, there is a propinquity to illegality and unlawfulness on the part of Archbishop Welby.
For me, @Jeremy had it right in the previous thread about the Bishop of Lincoln’s suspension – and he’s certainly got it right here. The Church’s obsession with its own reputation works both ways, and here we have a perfect example of how ill-informed panic has led to a legally questionable series of events, namely unlawful suspension and defamation (in contrast to the cover-ups and conspiracies of silence in former times). This is so the Archbishop of Canterbury can face the media and say ‘there was no cover-up by me – oh, and by the way, have you downloaded the… Read more »
It seems to me that the one thing this thread demonstrates is the urgent need for investigation of allegations and any disciplinary action arising to be turned over to an independent body. As it is, every action of this kind in the Church of England gives rise to accusations of bias, partiality, score-settling, ulterior motives, cover up etc. Neither survivors nor those accused now have any confidence in the Church’s internal processes. This is a point I made in my opening submission to the IICSA Chichester hearing in March 2018, citing comments along these lines by Martin Sewell, a General… Read more »
Philip Jones’ article shows the risk of reaching your preferred position by use of a dictionary. It makes much play on the idea of “put at risk” meaning active steps which move someone not at risk to someone at risk, by looking at a dictionary definition of “put”. But the phrase “put at risk” is routinely used of passive failure to act: for example https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-15103824/emergency-patients-put-at-risk or https://www.bbc.com/news/av/health-14911015/mps-say-patients-put-at-risk-due-to-lack-of-inspections are both cases of the phrase “put at risk” being used to include passive failure to take appropriate action. Dictionaries are notoriously poor with phrasal verbs, because they often have to be read… Read more »
Laying aside the specifics in this case, I imagine myself as having been suspended—neutral act or not—for something that mystifies me. I can even now feel the palpitations, upset bowels and belly, anxiety, stress sweats, sleeplessness. It would be one thing to bear this were I in a job that was properly paid and supported, in my own (or the bank’s) house with advice of a professional body and/or union. It is entirely otherwise when one is on 25K in a tied house with no support whatsoever—indeed quite possibly feeling that nobody was on my side. I note that many… Read more »
Thank you for that insight. Although they might occupy a Deanery or a Palace, I can envisage at least three high-ranking clergy who must currently be experiencing similar feelings.
Now, can you imagine being a person who was sexually abused some years ago? The abuse has poisoned your life and left you unable to trust anyone or commit to relationships. You’re on antidepressants and have for years been paying out hundreds (even thousands) of pounds on therapy. Finally you get to the point where you feel just about strong enough to report the abuse to Church authorities. You’re pretty sure the culprit has abused others, and you feel that reporting the abuser will help those other victims. It Amy even prevent more vulnerable children/people from being abused. So you… Read more »
I certainly can. It’s dreadful. But it’s not either/or. We need procedural consistency and transparency. Again, I say with others, into the hands of independent professionals.
This bears out that it is about “two sides of the same coin” – those abused and those wrongfully accused of abuse: IICSA Transcript – Monday March 5 – Page 129 -Paras. 2-19 – Richard Scorer [Counsel for the complainants, victims and survivors represented by Slater & Gordon]: “…this is not simply an issue of attitude but of competence too. This is a point which has been made powerfully by Martin Sewell, who is both a lay member of the General Synod and a retired child protection lawyer. He points out that diocesan staff are typically trained in theology and… Read more »
Janet, your post describes my own experience with uncomfortable accuracy. I was regularly abused between ages 11-13, never told a soul about it because I thought it was my fault and I’d be in more trouble. I became an angry, distrustful young man. Later, when I was 21, I chose to confide in a senior member of the clergy I had come to believe I could trust. At the end of our discussion he summed up by saying he was sorry for what I had told him but all of us have secrets best left alone. I thought about it… Read more »
Guest, that is a very sad story – and tragically, a common one. Have you read Rosie Harper and Alan Wilson’s book ‘To Heal and Not to Hurt’? I found it helpful. Andrew Graystone’s open letter to the bishops (posted on TA today) is also good.
But what we all need is people in authority in the Church to support us and to change the toxic culture.
If I am not overtaken by the Editors, David Pocklington has written on the Law & Religion UK website today “Different Perspectives of the CDM”. This should be of interest to people who have contributed to this thread.
David Pocklington, “Different perspectives of the CDM” in Law & Religion UK, 28 May 2019, http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2019/05/28/different-perspectives-of-the-cdm/
“The shortcomings of the CDM raised by the Sheldon Hub and reported in the CT article, include:
1. the bishop’s role of “wearing the mitre and the wig”;
2. the ideal of fully informed and pastorally supported clergy is often unmet;
3. the lack of opportunity for clergy to tell their side of the story, particularly when a case is dismissed;
4. a formal complaint “can be stressful for all parties concerned”, but “experience shows that many complaints are without substance”
Sound familiar?
Historically there appears to be little precedent in the Church of England for such action. However at least until the seventeenth century Church of Ireland bishops were each regularly suspended in turn for a year for their archbishop to administer their dioceses and conduct enquiries into their conduct. Hence Jeremy Taylor (and presumably three of his colleagues in the other provinces) were entitled to some time off and in Taylor’s case from spend it usefully in Dublin and London.