Updated again Friday
The Church of England has published a lessons learned review into the case of Trevor Devamanikkam.
The official press release is here. The text is copied in full below the fold.
The full report (58 pages) is available here.
There is also an Update on timings for review of Trevor Devamanikkam case dated 1 February 2022.
The Church Times has a detailed report Several bishops ‘failed to act’ after Devamanikkam abuse was disclosed, review finds
According to the Press Association: Lord Sentamu rejects review findings that he did not act on abuse allegation.
Lord Sentamu said he had told the review what he told the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) when it considered the matter – “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”.
He added: “I acted within the agreed procedures, rules and practice guidance on safeguarding, set by the House of Bishops and the Clergy Discipline Measure. Safeguarding is very important but it does not trump Church Law (which is part of the Common Law of England).
“And the law is not susceptible to be used as an excuse for exercising the role given to an archbishop. Church Law sets the boundaries for diocesan bishops and archbishops.”
The Bishop of Oxford has written to his clergy. The text of that letter is available here.
Update:
The full text of Lord Sentamu’s statement is now available, as a PDF.
CofE press release in full:
The independent lessons learnt review into the Church of England’s handling of allegations against the late Revd Trevor Devamanikkam has been published today.
Trevor Devamanikkam was due to appear in court in June 2017, charged with six counts of sexual abuse in the 1980s, against a 16-year-old. However, he did not arrive for the hearing and was found dead at his home later that day. An inquest found that he had died by suicide. In 2012 and 2013, the survivor, himself a member of clergy at the time, alleged he made a number of disclosures of non-recent abuse to senior clergy, and they failed to act on them.
The review was commissioned by the National Safeguarding Team, NST, and carried out by Jane Humphreys, a Senior Social Care Consultant, and previous Director of Children’s and Adult’s Services with a career spanning more than 30 years.
Its purpose is to identify both good practice and failings in the Church of England’s handling of the allegations, including its safeguarding practice, in order that the Church can take steps to enhance and improve its response to allegations of abuse and thereby ensure a safer environment for all.
The reviewer concludes that, although Trevor Devamanikkam was not convicted of the offences against him, the survivor was sexually abused by him. She makes a number of recommendations for the Church including about lessons learnt reviews and responding well to survivors; as well as the need for clear guidance to all clergy and Church officers as to what they should do and who they should take advice from if copied into an allegation of abuse.
She also addresses and outlines the survivor’s request not to engage with the Review, noting that she has drawn on his written experiences and accounts of events from his submission to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) in July 2019, and from other documents.
Statement from independent reviewer Jane Humphreys:
“This Learning Lessons review has taken far too long to complete and is well overdue. Whilst I respect the wishes of the survivor not to be involved in the review, I hope the findings and recommendations in my report give him some assurances that the abuse he suffered and the lack of support he received from the Church have now finally been recognised. It takes a lot of courage to disclose abuse and to not receive the right support and guidance at the time he disclosed his abuse is inexcusable, I hope he is now provided with the right support to rebuild his life. Sadly, this report would not have been required had the policies and guidance in place at the time the survivor disclosed his abuse been followed.
They were not, even though the disclosures were made only a decade ago at a time where the profile of safeguarding and protecting children and vulnerable adults was well publicised. This report also recognises that the late Trevor Devamanikkam had a significant history of mental illness and had been involved with a number of statutory agencies when he was subject to the police investigation. I have asked the Oxfordshire Safeguarding Adult Board to consider whether a safeguarding adult review should be undertaken to consider whether agencies involved with him, and the church could have worked together more effectively at that time.”
Statement from lead safeguarding bishop, Joanne Grenfell
“The Church should be ashamed that a vulnerable 16-year-old in its care was let down by the Church and abused by someone in a position of trust. We are truly sorry for the abuse he suffered and for our failure to respond well.
It is important that we now learn from this review. We thank Jane Humphreys for her work and welcome her recommendations, which will now go to the National Safeguarding Steering Group, including her comments about the length of time it took to commence and complete. Our response was not good enough and a new policy going to Synod this July about safeguarding practice reviews should help improve the process.
We respect the survivor’s decision not to take part. As the reviewer states, the survivor’s invaluable evidence provided to IICSA, along with other documents, helped her reach her conclusions. His voice remains important, as do the voices of all survivors, which must continue to inform our work.
We need to ensure that harm is prevented, wrongdoing reported, and victims and survivors heard. As well as better policies and practice, this will mean every member of the Church contributing to a healthier culture with vigilance, competence, and care.”
The Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell has also welcomed the report and has given his commitment that the Church of England will learn from the recommendations to ensure the Church is a safer place for all.
“I would like to echo Bishop Joanne’s response and have made personal contact with the survivor. While safeguarding in the Church has improved enormously in the past 10 years, we can never be complacent and today’s report is a reminder that we still need to learn from how to respond well to those who come forward always being mindful that the effects of abuse are lifelong.”
It is important to note that the victim refused to engage for two reasons of principle. First, the Church should not be marking its own homework which it did here by limiting the scope of the enquiry. The paper informing Synod of the need for an Independent (sic) Safeguarding Board spelt this out but the Archbishops and their advisors ignored it in this case. Second, in normal sound secular practice, all parties agree the identity of the independent reviewer, and the questions to be addressed. Not unreasonably Matt refused to be bullied into compliance. He refused to engage if the… Read more »
The truth is a little more complex than Mr Sewell suggests. A cursory search of your Crockfords archive will show that the ‘advising lawyer’ was ordained in 9/79 and served his curacy in the same team ministry, but at a separate church to Devamanikkam who was also a curate. Easy stuff to fact check. The reviewer points out that Matt’s requirements for the review are ‘[not] the approach taken when statutory authorities commission learning reviews.’ – see para 6.27. Further ‘[the National Director’s suggestion] of a joint approach with the survivor in identifying an Independent Reviewer were in the Independent… Read more »
That is not true. It was a two church parish. There was a vicar, Devamanikkam was priest in charge and Rees curate. Why has Rees never mentioned this? He spent his curacy working with Devamanikkam, was also Crofts registrar in Oxford and was giving legal advice in regard to a complaint about his own client. There could not be more conflicts of interest. The whole reason I did not co-operate is that things need to change. When those being investigated manage that investigation into themselves there is something seriously wrong. If it’s been done like that before that doesn’t mean… Read more »
Nope, he was curate. Do check. Can I ask, how do you know people who did wrong got the review five months ago? Where’s the evidence for that?
Whatever. John Rees still knew him on a regular working basis being in the same parish. He should have said so and stood back from the complaint into him.
The nst messaged me, through my solicitor, to say the report was being given to those criticised in the review in January so they could prepare a response. That was in December.
Matt you don’t need to engage with another’s pedantry. You’re the victim here and you don’t have to explain yourself to people some of whom use pseudonyms. May God bless you at what must be an emotionally turbulent time for you.
Mr Ward, you are splitting hairs. The two had worked in the same clergy team, so the lawyer had a conflict of interest which he should have declared.
I find it shocking that you could nitpick on this issue without expressing any compassion or concern for Matt. The reviewer found that a) he was indeed raped by Mr Devamanikkam, and b) the Church did not deal with his disclosures, or Devamanikkam’s offences, in an appropriate way. Doesn’t that concern you?
I don’t know whether I am more shocked by the review or the anodyne press release.
John Sentamu’s reaction tells you all you need to know about the ‘concern’ of the top of the C of E for whistleblowers and survivors.
So little progress made over the last 40 years, so far to travel.
Meanwhile they can’t even see/admit Meg Munn’s obvious conflict of interest.
Do you choose to laugh or to cry?
https://www.bordercountiesadvertizer.co.uk/news/national/23515728.lord-sentamu-rejects-review-findings-not-act-abuse-allegation/
Sentamu’s attitude is horrifying: a self-righteous Pontius Pilate.
I know nothing of British common law, Parliamentary acts, etc. All I know is that while Archbishop Sentamu may be technically accurate, his words are the very reason so many victims feel compelled to use secular law instead of Church law and — although I find serious fault with the Gospels’ depiction of Pharisees — Archbishop Sentamu sounds very much like the overbroad stereotype of the Pharisees the Gospels deplore rather than the Jesus of Nazareth the Gospels depict and in whose footsteps Archbishop Sentamu is supposed to walk. Regardless of the theology about the CofE’s structure and workings, the… Read more »
The Church of England website claims there are 108 Bishops.
The silence of > 100 of them on John Sentamu’s comments and also on the Archbishops determination to negate the ISB, including by appointing Meg Munn, suggests that more than 100 Bishops that agree with these views & decisions.
Shame on them.
Once again, CofE leaders, the NST and Archbishops offer their Travesty-Trinity: Listening, Pastoral Care and Lessons Learned. Victims want none of these. They want truth, justice, accountability, change and redress. The CofE leadership is utterly tone deaf to this, and just offers more of the same. The use of pastoral care as some kind of magic palliative cure-all trope is politically naive and abusive. If liberation theology teaches us anything, it is that there is no healing and justice without revolutionary social or moral change. We don’t have a single bishop who is capable of delivering such change, or if… Read more »
And meanwhile cantering down the track comes Soul Survivor…. Currently everyone on high is in full Damage Limitation Mode reassuring those who read the statement that the person concerned is not suspended, not subject to disciplinary charges, not subject to criminal investigation but has agreed to step aside by their own free will. Then, despite having make it clear the person being complained about is being given power and the one being looked after, there is a message from the safeguarding investigator encouraging anyone who may have things to report to contact ‘ABC1234’….. where they will be treated with sensitivity… Read more »
I find the Bishop of Oxford’s letter to his clergy & ‘repentance’ deeply unconvincing. He reinstated George Carey’s PTO in direct contradiction of the specific request by the then Bishop i/c Safeguarding, Peter Hancock, not to do so. The whole episode was played out on the BBC Radio 4 Sunday programme. At that time I, as a C of E safeguarding whistleblower and victim of Church-related abuse, requested a face to face meeting with Steven Croft. I offered to travel to Oxford or London, as suited him best. He categorically refused to meet me under any circumstances. By their deeds… Read more »
I have now read Stephen Croft’s Ad Clerum more closely.
I note that in 2016 he promised to ‘listen well to survivors’.
Stephen, you categorically refused in writing to meet me in 2018.
So will you finally meet me 5 years later?
Assuming the answer is yes (anything else would be utterly hypocritical to your Ad Clerum), how do I get back those lost 5 years?
I was part of an interview panel at a school this week (as a governor). There was a routine safeguarding question, with the follow-up from the headteacher (also on the panel): and if the problem was me, what would you do then? That kind of question at interview sets a culture – no-one in this organisation is beyond question. Everyone is responsible – and that means if it comes to your notice, even if it is not your main job, you make sure it is appropriately dealt with: and if it isn’t you escalate. It is simply not part of… Read more »
Safeguarding questions don’t belong in interviews. There should be an entirely separate meeting with candidates (it can be on the same day) to go through such information and should produce a report on candidates without revealing the background.
For example interviews shouldn’t ask questions about health but asking questions about gaps in a career history IS often asking about health.
In fact they should be in both places and handled depending on seniority of role and particular responsibilities. The safer recruiting training I have received from more than one source in relation to school interviews has always emphasised that safeguarding should be part of the interview. This is not an interrogation of history or personal details, though that does need to be done, but a test of attitude and knowledge. For the schools I am involved with safeguarding is a top priority – everyone needs to be able to handle potential disclosures and related situations well and under pressure. And… Read more »
The CNC has been using scenario questions for some time now. The core section of the interview on safeguarding is probably the only ‘pass/fail’ aspect of the process. Some candidates demonstrated exceptional knowledge and experience, good judgment, and high levels of emotional intelligence.
Kate – personal questions may not be appropriate in job interviews, including for parish ministerial posts, but questions to ascertain whether the candidate understands the importance of safeguarding policy and practice, that safeguarding is ‘everybody’s responsibility’, and what he/she would do in a particular situation (e.g. how to respond to a safeguarding disclosure; the need for appropriate training, and what to do if a volunteer in a particular role was unwilling to undertake the required safeguarding for that role) are not only routine but essential. I think that is what Mark is referring to.
Thanks for the clarification
Nothing shocks me any longer about the appalling responses of Bishops when they are finally forced to confront their mistakes, the conflicts of interest that pollute every layer of the Church’s practice or the ways in which Bishops consistently evade sanction, unless it suits the institution to throw one under the proverbial bus. I’m constantly brought back to a comparative analysis of what would happen to a rank and file priest found to have made these kinds of ‘mistake’. At best, they would face suspension while one of the draconian risk assessments is undertaken to assess their suitability to return… Read more »
You are playing an important part by voicing your views: with such support those of us who have campaigned for survivors cannot be written off as “ troublemakers “. Our cause is just.
I wonder if some of those commenting here have read the report? It shows a very complicated picture – indeed one in which disclosures were not acted on but also where it not clear as to the details of events. Not all those mentioned in the report are found to have failed to act – though some are. Careful records were not kept at the time and- I cannot understand this – some agencies refused to share information with the reviewer which might have clarified matters. (This is not to contradict Realist’s pertinent question about what would happen to a… Read more »
Yes, I read it. Some allegations were not substantiated – as you say records were poor. But failure to keep records, while not proof, is consistent with wrongdoing (if someone doesn’t act on a disclosure there won’t be records because they did nothing) but so much time has passed that we will never know which is why it is a travesty that a review didn’t happen years ago – and that delay ought to be a great concern. What we can each do informally, however, is make a personal assessment of the survivor’s likely veracity by considering the allegations for… Read more »
What do we learn from this latest episode? 1. It repeats the same themes in other episodes. Bishops are unaccountable. They treat victims and clergy with shameful indifference. The Bishops lie all the time, virtually without any exceptions. 2. Sentamu’s position is like the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes all rolled into one. You want your bishop to be a Good Samaritan. Forget it. They walk by on the other side, look away, and will later deny even being anywhere near the crime scene. 3. The bishop will offer to meet the victim of the crime. But only with the bishop’s… Read more »
Sentamu’s response here reminds me of his ‘nothing to do with me, guv’ defence when he was initially cited as a respondent in the Jeremy Pemberton Employment Tribunal discrimination case – a defence I thought implausible at the time but which, in the absence of concrete contrary evidence, had to be accepted. I’m not suggesting an equivalence of seriousness in the cases but Sentamu’s MO appears, to me at least, to be just the same in both instances.
While one can see the argument for appointing independent reviewers, the disadvantage is that few of them understand the complexities of the Church of England. Many imagine it’s a national company with branches. Just as a CEO has control over a branch manager, so archbishops are thought to carry ultimate responsibility for what goes on in the dioceses of their Province. It’s not unusual for letters of complaint to diocesan bishops to be copied to either or both archbishops (and also to the Monarch, Prime Minister etc, etc). If they are acknowledged, the reply must respect the independence of the bishop concerned. That is… Read more »
Ecclesiastical lawyers are very adept at advising (and usually deferring to) their episcopal clients (when it suits the client) that based on a strict interpretation of the law they need do this or that, or perhaps nothing, which on a safeguarding matter as we see from this Review means not getting involved. The Independent Reviewer has exposed this tactic. The smarter advice is of course to consider the pastoral and reputational consequences of following such a legalistic course. What arrant nonsense to suggest to an archbishop of a province that he need not (indeed should not) follow up on a serious… Read more »
Matt – if you are still reading these comments I want to recognise how painful this all is to you and just how badly you have been let down. I wonder if the key here is any of us are confident that the lessons have been learnt? Steven Croft did not recognise that abuse was being reported to him. This may not be the case here, but so often when abuse is being reported the person reporting does so with trepidation and they are always testing the person they are disclosing to to see if they can be trusted. They… Read more »
I was struck that Bp. Croft, in his statement, says he ‘did not understand that (Matthew) was making a formal disclosure of abuse’. This suggests that Croft still does not understand the points you ably make about survivors and disclosures. Why would the disclosure need to be ‘formal’ for a bishop to respond as a compassionate pastor, or to act on the disclosure? And how is a survivor to know what is the ‘correct form’ for making such a disclosure? No wonder so few disclosures – however made – receive an appropriate response.
Yes, I thought that was weird. It goes completely against everything I have been told in Safeguarding courses, both those run by Church of England dioceses and in state schools on disclosure of abuse. We are constantly told to take people seriously and to understand the great distress they may feel. To draw a distinction between ‘formal’ and ‘informal disclosure of abuse’ baffles me. Does Croft have an Official Oxford Diocesan Abuse Disclosure form? Telling a bishop that you were raped as a teenager by a clergyman resident in your diocese, presumably still with PTO, is not the same as… Read more »
Please note that I have now added the full text of the statement issued by Lord Sentamu to the original post. It’s a one page PDF. Worth the time to read in full…
The argument that “ some allegations were not substantiated” may be be perfectly reasonable – until that is, one recalls that because the Review was bulldozed through on CofE terms, the actual complainant did not participate or permit his data to be used. This is the direct responsibility of the CofE. Had a full and comprehensive review been commissioned with all parties contributing to find the truth some/many/all those allegations might well have stood up- that may be why the review was restricted in the first place. I remind readers that in another case involving Bishop Croft, after an investigation… Read more »
“Safeguarding is very important but it does not trump Church Law (which is part of the Common Law of England).” I think that tells us all we need to know. It also underscores the need for the abolition of ‘church law’ as law. The very notion that ecclesiastical law continues as part of the law of the land in 2023 is itself inherently risible. It is a pantomime species of law which has potentially serious consequences for victims. The fact that the report was passed around to those criticised by it as part of a Maxwellisation process months ago, and… Read more »
You are not alone, Froghole. Am I alone in being reminded by Sentamu’s “trumping” statement of Cardinal Connell’s responses to the unfolding saga of priestly abuse in the Archdiocese of Dublin, and indeed of Vatican statements in general? The place of the Catholic Church in Irish society meant that Connell’s handling of events was big news and widely criticised, but here I fear the CofE is so irrelevant that a raised eyebrow might be as much public reaction as we’ll get to the dissimulation of Sentamu and Croft. “Realist” speaks for me. I applaud Martin Sewell and all who work… Read more »
Indeed, I think that’s right. Journalists will not write about it, because the press are radically uninterested in the Church (for the simple reason that the demographic once interested in news about the Church has almost wholly died out, and media companies are commercial enterprises which need to make money with stories which can be assured of attracting a readership). The circulation of the Church Times (c. 18,000) is somewhat less than that of Horse & Hound (c. 20,000). The public are not interested, because for the overwhelming majority the Church counts for practically nothing, peddles a lot of self-serving… Read more »
Having read Sentamu’s statement the question must be asked…my correspondence with him said I had already disclosed on more than one occasion to Steven Croft and he had done nothing (hence me moving up the hierarchy chain to him). Why did Sentamu not then look at Crofts failure to respond in the proper way on a disciplinary level if, as Justin Welby has said, that clergy are required to report disclosures to the diocesan safeguarding advisor within 24 hours and if they do not it is a disciplinary matter? After all he acknowledges he had a quasi judicial role. By… Read more »
This report must just add to your sense of injustice and the abuse you have suffered . I’m not sure how it could have been conducted without you. My heart goes out to you. I don’t know whether the announcement that John Sentamu has been stood down in Newcastle will make you feel better or worse – and whether this having hit one of the broadsheets may have clinched the matter so he became the episcopal victim to be thrown under the bus? Unfortunately I think you are as likely to get a sensible response from those in high places… Read more »
“By their deeds shall ye know them” … I have never come across an official of the C of E, for whom there has not been some element of suspicion about their past … I would never trust any of them
I hope that I am not being pedantic, but please will someone explain the following: Lord Sentamu’s response to the Reviewer’s Report, states: … Church Law (which is part of the Common Law of England). My understanding of Common Law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of their stated written opinions. Common Law’s defining characteristic is that it arises as judicial precedent; judges’ opinions agglomerate with past decisions as precedent to bind future judges and litigants. Whereas, Ecclesiastical Law (relating to the administration… Read more »
Here is a can of worms. Throughout history despots have tried to rule without law. The current Church of England bishops are no exception. Legal opinions given by the GSLAC are not precedent in law. How are they “established as authoritative”, if indeed they are? They ought not to be. Some of them are ludicrously far-fetched misinterpretations. For example, their claim that it is forbidden to use individual communion glasses. But if the bishops want to make something illegal, without going through synod and Parliament, then they get GSLAC to issue an “opinion” that it is already illegal. The second… Read more »
John Sentamu wrote: I found the Reviewer’s opinion at para 16.3.16 odd and troubling. “The Independent Reviewer’s professional opinion, however, is that no Church law excuses the responsibility of individuals not to act on matters of a safeguarding nature”
All safeguarding courses by the Church of England I have attended completely disagree with Sentamu here.
This is a very convoluted sentence. The nub is “the responsibility of individuals not to act on (safeguarding matters)”. Do individuals have a responsibility not to act? I have heard of many safeguarding courses that say when an individual has a responsibility to act, but are there circumstances in which individuals have a responsibility not to act? The Reviewer’s opinion seems to be that there are circumstances in which individuals have a responsibility not to act. Furthermore, that Church law cannot allow them to act, when they have a responsibility not to. Church law provides no excuse for acting, where… Read more »
I have read all the report now and it is clear that Devamanikkam was a very troubled individual with severe mental health problems. He had also retired aged 49 from the ministry a brief time as a naval chaplain and in Spain. So he had not been in ministry for several years before the first complaint was made. Did bishops know about his mental health, or even who he was?
curious about supposed time as naval chaplain. Hard to envisage someone that unstable getting through the basic naval training phase that chaplains go through at Dartmouth, let alone coping with sailors in the raw.
Full record of his CofE career would have been useful all round in tracking his abuse (Ineson cannot have been his first or last victim) & its absence is striking.
This is his entry in the 2004/2005 edition of Crockford’s Clerical Directory
Devamanikkam, Trevor.
Born 47. Ripon Hall Oxford 74.
Ordained deacon 76 Ordained priest 77.
Curate Manston Ripon 76-79;
Priest-in-charge Moor Allerton 79-81;
Priest-in-charge Harrogate St Wilfrid and St Luke 81-84;
Vicar Buttershaw St Aidan Bradford 84-85;
Succ St Davids Cathedral St Davids 85-87;
Vicar Llanwnda, Goodwick w Manorowen and Llanstinan 87-90;
Chaplain Royal Navy 90-94;
Chaplain Fuengirola St Andrew Europe 94-96;
retired 96.
As I understand it Crockford’s uses information from the person concerned. Need to check with relevant years for Navy List. With his track record there is no way he should have passed the initial security checks. If he did somehow slip through & become a Naval Chaplain that would have given him access to under-age (under 18) sailors, so the Navy should be seriously worried & run its own investigation.
As I said above, he hadn’t been in ministry for quite a few years when the survivor began making his complaints and maybe this was a factor in the inaction by bishops: he wasn’t licensed or serving in any way and perhaps they knew something about his mental state. The reports says he trashed the vicarage in Bradford in the course of a breakdown and the Bishop of Bradford (Roy Williamson) wanted him to go on a ‘retreat’ but he left quickly. The Crockford’s entry showed he jumped from job to job every 2 or 3 years, not a good… Read more »
Goodness, what a ‘red flag’ profile for an appointments panel. Frequent moves, never staying long enough to meet a conventional minimum time in post at any point after curacy. Changes of Diocese, Region, Country and Jurisdiction. I’m amazed he continued to get jobs…
..and had PtO in Lincoln diocese from 2002 to 2009.
(Entry still available on Crockfords on-line if you include “deceased” in the search.)
That is a surprise to read. Did nobody in Lincoln diocese ask questions about his background?
I think the report says he was let go by the navy after a suicide attempt and then he was sacked after a brief time as a chaplain in Fuengirola. The report also mentions distressing mental illness and episodes of disturbed behaviour in his last years. Perhaps the Navy concealed details when he left.
As the Royal Navy has never had a base in Fuengirola not quite sure how that would fit in to naval chaplaincy.
On grounds of security vetting (which even chaplains have to go through) more interested how on earth he would have been allowed in, not why they got rid of him.
The Crockford’s entry indicates he left the Navy chaplaincy in 1994 and was a chaplain attached to St. Andrew’s Fuengirola, Spain (Diocese of Europe) between 1994 and 1996.
It does not suggest he remained a Naval Chaplain during his time at Fuengirola.
There is a C of E church, St Andrew’s, in Fuengirola. According to Peter Owen’s extract from Crockford’s (above) he was chaplain there after leaving the navy.
The chaplaincy at Fuengirola was AFTER he left the Navy – it was St Andrew’s chaplaincy, Diocese in Europe. Two different things.
Thanks for clearing up about Spain chaplaincy, but still no clearer about how Devamanikkam managed to join despite being such an obvious security risk. Certainly his service was far shorter than normal minimum (6 years), so if he was regular service something went very badly wrong. Total silence from Chaplain of the Fleet is a worry as silence in such matters does not tend to indicate that all is well. I may say that my expectation of naval chaplains was set by the ‘fighting padre’, Ken Mathews, OBE (mil), DSC, who as padre for HMS Norfolk in WW2 refused to… Read more »
Yes. The church knew of his poor mental health for over a year before his death, even that he had been hospitalised. They admitted to me (eventually) that not a single risk assessment was ever carried out on anybody. And the first line of the Church of England’s safeguarding policy clearly states ‘the diocesan bishop is ultimately responsible for good safeguarding practice in their diocese ‘.
A complete failure in leadership, then. And I see Devanimakkan had PTO 2002-2009. Was there no investigation of his background?
And Steven Croft has tried to sack clergy for much less than his own failures that he now wants people to overlook.
They like to dish it out but not to receive it.