CLOSING SUBMISSIONS RC Archdiocese of Birmingham 16th November 2018





  1. We act for A31-A33, instructed by Switalskis. Two were victims of James Robinson. The other of Eric Taylor. You heard evidence from A31. All have campaigned tirelessly for justice. The Church opposed them for decades.
  2. Our submissions are:
  3. The Archdiocese of Birmingham has proved to be a deceitful and malign institution. It is has proved to have little understanding of how to protect children in its care. Successive top level staff have ignored and covered up allegations. Jane Jones with her dubious views on child protection was recruited to do the Archbishop’s bidding keeping matters in house wherever possible. We reject the excuses and apologies and emphasize the impediments to self-governance presented by:
  1. Catholic teaching;;
  2. Its hierarchical structure;
  3. Its culture;
  4. Its unincorporated status.
  1. We recommend, in summary:
  1. Mandatory reporting as recommended by the MANDATE NOW campaign group.
  2. The creation of a new statutory body with powers to police and enforce basic standards of child protection. We envisage a body similar to the Health and Safety Executive.


  1. You have seen 78 reported cases in Birmingham [INQ002763]. In Robinson’s case he was sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment for offences committed over decades. There were at least six victims. I do not know if that sentence is a record for the many perpetrators you have heard in the course of this Inquiry. It is a sentence reserved in our society only for the gravest crimes.
  2. The Dioceses’ response must be measured against the seriousness of what they knew or suspected these priests had done. Robinson’s sentence is a measure of the sort of criminal that the Catholic church has harboured, protected and supported.
  3. You heard from A31 that he had ‘confessed’ as a child to the sexual abuse in the confessional. You heard how Robinson then ‘vanished overnight’ to Newcastle-Under-Lyme. The ‘seal of the confessional’ was apparently breached to protect Robinson and the Church.
  4. Later, Robinson was allowed to make a new life in California, probably after the police tipped the Church off about A31’s allegations in 1985. He was given a stipend of £800 a month, paid to him in a circuitous, difficult-to-trace way.
  5. Despite A31 obtaining and providing to the police a compelling tape recording of Robinson, the police refused to pursue the matter further in 1995. It is deeply concerning that Robinson felt able to implore the Vicar General Leonard, at the time to use his influence with the police to stop any investigation [CHC000246_127] (probably 11/10/95).
  6. It took a BBC investigative journalist to help track Robinson down in 2003. Archbishop Nichol’s response was not gratitude, but fury at what he took to be anti-Catholic bias. The IOPC only decided to investigate the police’s actions at the start of this Inquiry. Three-years in the making,  the report is cursory and superficial. DI Higgins refused to cooperate. The IOPC investigation has exposed serious short-comings with the agency and the police complaints legislation.
  7. These men, these damaged men, have had to fight for right, largely on their own and against formidable opponents. Many others will have been broken before they got any sort of justice. These are only some of the cases that we know about. Many others will have been successfully covered-up or dealt with internally in closed ecclesiastical courts.
  8. Despite Robinson’s conviction in 2010, he was only defrocked in February 2018. A31 [and the others?] has yet to receive a penny in compensation. Anybody involved in litigation with the Catholic church will know how hard they fight even the clearest cases. Any technical defence available to the Church is seized upon and argued to the bitter end. You will look around this room and note the eminent counsel deployed on the Church’s behalf. When it comes to the Church’s interests, no expense is spared. When it comes to the victims of their most heinous crimes, parsimony.
  9. You have heard i) how hard COPCA and the Safeguarding Commission had to fight for resources ii) how Jane Jones would put money from speaking engagements into the pot  iii) how badly paid the staff were compared to their professional peers  iv) the reliance on volunteers, part-timers’ and agency staff. It is hardly surprising  – and perhaps it was the intention – that only devout Catholics were likely to take these posts. In Jane Jones’ case it resulted in a biddable amateur with – to the Church – agreeable views on the nature of child abuse as Child Protection Coordinator in Birmingham. This was a ‘Safeguarder’ who committed to paper and circulated her views that ‘The first victim was [the abuser] himself.’ This was a ‘Safeguarder’ who never did, and was never likely to, challenge the authority of His Eminence Cardinal Vincent Nichols. This was a ‘Safeguarder’ who refused, point-blank, to provide the name of a suspected abuser to COPCA despite clear and repeated requests to do so. Her answer to why she refused was simply that that was what the Commission had resolved. This was the Safeguarder who took exceptional umbrage at failing Adrian Child’s audit.
  10. You have also heard how Cardinal Nichols was, despite the obvious conflict of interest, both chair of COPCA and Archbishop of one of the most scandal-ridden Dioceses in the country. You have heard how he was seemingly unable to get his own Diocese to comply with what Eileen Shearer said were the clear national policy requirements of the Church. COPCA was powerless to do anything about it.  The Church instead cavilled about the meaning of a ‘volunteer’, the use of the word ‘compliance’  and tried to chisel away at policies they regarded as too onerous.
  11. That is, in the opening words of Counsel to the Inquiry,  the ‘uncontroversial’ background. ‘Uncontroversial’ because that background is not, and could not be, controverted. But it remains one of the most scandalous accounts of cover-up in the Catholic Church – that we know about.
  12. You will understand that when His Eminence Cardinal Vincent Nichols writes that, “I wish to express my profound distress and sorrow for these repeated acts of evil committed in our Church”, the victims wonder at the sincerity of it; that when he writes, ‘We have not always understood the dynamics of the abusers, the web of deceit and manipulation which create to imprison a victim’, he understands only too well because the Church was a party to that deceit and manipulation; that when he says he offers ‘no excuses’, he knows the Church has ducked responsibility at every turn.
  13. Inferences
  1. This uncontroversial background demonstrates:
  1. The Church will go to extreme lengths to protect even the most heinous abusers and cover-up;
  2. A lack of will, even to this day, to do the right thing by those they know to have been victims of the most serious abuse;
  3. A willingness to admit only that which is incontrovertible;
  4. A willingness to pay lip-service only – and sometimes not even that –  to their own national policies and guidelines;
  5. That the leaders of the Church – even if I am wrong about all that – are incapable of imposing any good will they may possess. The structure of the Church means that every Bishop and head of religious is accountable, ultimately, only to himself. That is why Cardinal Nicols writes, ‘Persuasive cooperation is more of the manner of working in the Church. Conformity is not easily achieved, but convinced cooperation is more effective in the long-run.’ That is essentially an admission that leaders of the Church have great influence, good or ill, but little real power over its members.
  1. As the SCIE audit concluded only a month ago, “the gap between [the vision] and a safe, reliable safeguarding system functioning across the Archdiocese is stark’ and ‘A radical culture change is needed’.
  2. But it will not come from within. The Church is institutionally incapable of self-reform. When this Inquiry is over and the Catholic church vacates its current hot-seat, who can trust that it will not revert to type?
  3. None of this is new to you with respect to the Catholic Church. You concluded your executive summary into Ampleforth and Downside with David Molesworth’s contemporary assessment on those schools “‘I do not believe currently that the organisation as a whole understands or accepts their responsibilities for child protection issues … . We appear to be dealing with denial or downright obstruction.” The same applies here.
  4. There must be an end to the special pleading that the Catholic Church is a special case requiring special treatment. There must be one set of national standards for all with real sanctions for breach. We do not see how ‘name and shame’ could possibly be described as the ‘nuclear option’. That is the very least that is required.In 1985 A31 reported to police and to his local priest. Police met his complaint with an allegation that he was attempting to blackmail Robinson and gave his statement to the Vicar General. The police told his Father to keep him quiet. Within 2 days Robinson was out of the country. We do not know what the police did with A31’s tape recording in 1985 but his statement was passed to the Vicar General allowing Robinson to escape. The police had been recruited as an agent for the church just as Jane Jones would be in subsequent years.

Mandatory reporting

  1. A new law should require professionals who work with children in ‘Regulated Activities’ to inform the LADO (‘Local Authority Designated Officer’) or, in appropriate circumstances, children’s services, where the professional knows, suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting child abuse or sexual abuse by those in a position of trust. We support and promote the work of
  2. Strong laws should lead cultural change. In the absence of a legal requirement to report those staff who do report presently are, by default, whistle-blowers with very little protection. Without strong laws any institution – no matter how benign its culture – is vulnerable to a powerful person within that organisation acting without integrity.Mandatory reporting must make no exception for the confessional. We have seen in this case how the seal of the confession was gladly broken to relocate Robinson in Newcastle-Under-Lyme.

New statutory body

  1. The creation of a new independent statutory body to enforce basic standards of safeguarding, and to receive and deal with complaints of child sexual abuse in all institutions which are responsible for the care of children.
  2. This new statutory body would police and enforce minimum national standards of child-safeguarding. This body would have similar powers to the Health & Safety Executive. The Health & Safety Executive operates for the safety of workers. Children are an even more vulnerable group. The absence of a powerful statutory body dedicated to their protection is a serious defect.
  3. The new independent statutory body will:
  1. Establish a register of relevant Institutions that look after children.
  2. It will be an offence to look after children without being on the register.
  3. To be on the register institutions have to introduce a corporate structure.
  4. Registered institutions will be forced to adhere to minimum safeguarding regulations.
  5. The body will have the power to prosecute regulated organisations for breaches of these regulations (similar to prosecutions by the Health & Safety Executive). Fines will be imposed.
  6. All complaints are to be passed to the independent body by a receiving institution with a criminal sanction for failing to do so.
  7. The body will gather information from complainants, regulated institutions and third parties. It will have the power to compel disclosure of material.
  8. It will liaise with and assist civil authorities such as the police and social services. It would ensure the police and other statutory organisations are taking appropriate action within reasonable timescales. It will have the power to compel the police to investigate and refer cases to the CPS.
  9. It will provide coordinated support to victims, particularly those required to give evidence.
  10. The body will investigate the complaint using the balance of probabilities as the standard of proof. There will be no statute of limitations. It will have the power to make an award of compensation, similar to the CICA. It will decide the support to be offered to the complainant. A scheme will be established to provide adequate compensation for victims of child sex abuse which takes into account the effect on quality of life and a series of relevant factors (as opposed to the rigid CICA system).
  11. Complainants will be allowed to take advice from lawyers and a contribution towards legal costs will be awarded.
  12. The cost of the body’s work, support, reparations and legal costs are to be paid from a levy on the institutions with those found culpable paying the costs of dealing with individual cases in which they are involved.
  13. It will provide to Government regular reports on its progress and, inter alia, the extent to which its activity is promoting the UK’s obligations under the UN convention on the Rights of the Child.

Standing Inquiry into institutional failures in child abuse

This Inquiry is considering particular case studies. Many more examples of very bad practice have and will emerge and are worthy of full inquiry. We ask the panel to recommend that the Inquiry’s work is extended indefinitely to allow the investigation of other institutions.



16th November 2018


IICSA RC Archdiocese of Birmingham evidence summary 20-16 November 2018

12-16th November 2018
Evidence summary David Greenwood (representing RC-A31, RC-A32, and RC-A33)

Monday 12th November 2018
Counsel to the Inquiry (“CTI”) Jacqueline Carey set out the structure of the Catholic Church in England and Wales. There are 5 Archdioceses, Birmingham, Cardiff, Liverpool, Southwark and Westminster. The Birmingham Archdiocese is the largest with 250 parishes. Former Archbishops are :-
1947-65 Francis Grimshaw
1965-81 Gerard Dwyer
1982-99 Maurice Couve de Murville
1999-09 Vincent Nichols
2009-present Bernard Longley
There are also 65 separate Orders of Religious in the diocese.
The Nolan report in 2001 made recommendations on safeguarding. In 1994 Gerry McArdle was placed in charge of child protection for the diocese. Prior to this the Archbishop would deal with allegations. Nolan recommended that statutory authorities should be notified immediately when an allegation was received.
In around 2002 COPCA was established with Eileen Shearer as its head. She tried to introduce nationwide standard policies. COPCA’s successor, CSAS, did an audit of Birmingham in 2010 and found its paperwork needed improving.
The Nolan report was reviewed by Baroness Cumberledge in 2007. She asked CSAS to provide annual reports and asked it to re-commit to the paramountcy principle of putting the interests of children first.
In Birmingham in 1997 a Commission was established, now called the safeguarding Commission. Despite the existence of the Commission the Archbishop can still decide to ignore CSAS advice on how to deal with allegations.
A child protection co-ordinator, Jane Jones, was placed in post in 2003. He or she should liaise with survivors and deal with perpetrators. The co-ordinator is accountable to the Archbishop. What oversight and support was provided to Jane Jones?
A major difference of opinion arose between the national advice body COPCA and Jane Jones. Eileen Shearer of COPCA asked for the names of perpetrators before giving advice but Jane Jones refused to provide them. The Archbishop Vincent Nichols was aware and content with the impasse. Why the secrecy?
The Inquiry has identified four case studies; Samuel Penney, James Robinson, Tolkien, and F167.
Only Robinson and Penney have been convicted. A schedule of allegations will be published on the IICSA website at INQ002763. 78 Individuals are accused. Some are dead.
Samuel Penney
Born 1939 Ordained 1967. Charismatic, engaged with children in youth groups and trips. Abused at least 7 children. Convicted in 1993 and imprisoned for 7 ½ years. Laicised in 2006.
In 1980 a headmistress at the primary school to which he was allocated complained that he was interfering with the school. He was taking children into secret interviews and became abusive when he was confronted about this. In 1984 a mother said that Penney had made an inappropriate suggestion to her son. In 1986 Penney was arrested. No police documents exist of that arrest and neither Penney nor the police told the church that he had been arrested. In 1990 parents complained that Penney had abused their son. The Vicar General, Daniel Leonard, was told it is not known what action was taken. In 1991 a complainant, Mr Flanagan, told Bishop Pargeter that he had been abused by Penney (document CHC001507_024). The complaint was made in July 1991. The Bishop wrote to Mr Flanagan and said he had dealt with it. Penney was sent to a retreat house in Scotland then in 1991 to a house at Heringbrooke. He was treated. It was not secure. Penney was free to leave and actually returned to his local parish where he abused A357 when Penney had been invited into his home by the family. In May 1992 Penney was treated at the Gracewell Institute. In 1993 he was convicted and sentenced to 7½ years in prison. He was given financial support by the Archdiocese throughout until 2015.
James Robinson
On the 22 October 2010 James Robinson was found guilty of offences of buggery and indecent assault. He was sentenced to 21 years in prison. There were four complainants and two other victims who gave evidence. RCA31 had tried hard for more than two decades to bring him to justice. In 1985 some members of the church helped Robinson to leave the UK to go to California after an allegation had been made by RCA31. Robinson was a professional boxer. He rode a motorbike. He attended Oscott College. He applied but was rejected from the Diocese of Miami in 1975. He was ordained in 1971. There were concerns about Robinson in 1972. A347 told a friend that he had been abused by James Robinson. This friend was A337. He had been abused by Eric Taylor and told the church on the plight of A347. These abuse experiences were reported to Canon McCarthy and Sister Bernadette at Father Hudson’s home. David Mason and Karen Coine at the home received the complaints also it is not clear what action was taken.
RCA31 states that he complained to a number of priests in confession before 1985. In 1980 A337’s aunt became suspicious of Robinson. A337 returned from accompanying Robinson to a Coventry City Football match and he said that he did not want to see Robinson again and was upset. His aunt confronted Robinson. Robinson wrote a letter to A337 at CHC000611 during the period his aunt was keeping him away from Robinson. The letter was passed to Father Hanlon. Father Hanlon described it as a funny little letter (its contents show that Robinson was trying to be very persuasive in bringing A337 back into contact with him in order that he could sexually abuse him). Father Hanlon did not report the letter to the police. In autumn 1984 Robinson had been ill and a doctor recommended that he have a less stressful environment.
On the 5 May 1985 RCA31 attended Digbeth Police Station to report his complaint of abuse from Robinson. RCA31 went straight to see Father Grady at Smallheath. Father Grady said he would meet with Daniel Leonard. Father Grady said that Daniel Leonard was upset and angry. Father Grady learned the next day that Robinson had gone to the States. Father Grady felt upset and angry.
On the 7 May 1985 RCA31 had secretly tape recorded a conversation he had with Robinson in a local park in which Robinson admitted his relationship with RCA31 from the age of 10 to 16. One copy was given to the police which was subsequently lost. A copy was given to friends. We have a transcript of the conversation.
On the 8 May 1985 RCA31 told his parents. RCA31 has complaints about how the police handled his complaint to put it mildly. He believes his complaint was not taken seriously in any sense in that he was actually accused himself of blackmailing Robinson. Daniel Leonard, the Vicar General, wrote to RCA31’s father in a defensive tone (document INQ002478). Robinson was shipped out of the UK with the help of the Vicar General and Archbishop. In October 1985 Daniel Leonard wrote to his counter-part in California (letter CHC000246_044). In the last paragraph Daniel Leonard admits that Robinson was moved as a result of the allegation made by RCA31. The Los Angeles Diocese was not keen to keep Robinson but Archbishop Couve de Murville urged them to hang onto him. In 1986 Robinson wrote to the Los Angeles Diocese (CHC000246_287) denying the abuse and accusing RCA31 of being a “mentally ill Homosexual”. Daniel Leonard also wrote on the 6 February 1986 to the Los Angeles Diocese providing more cover for Robinson and a good reference.
In 1993 Archbishop Couve de Murville wrote to the Archbishop of Los Angeles admitting that the relationship between Robinson and RCA31 had taken place. In the same year the Archbishop of Los Angeles removed Robinson from his parish. Robinson at the same time requested financial assistance from Daniel Leonard, the Vicar General. This was paid from Parish funds and reimbursed from Diocesan funds.
In 1995 RCA31 tried to get the police to reopen their investigation but was rebuffed. In 1997 Robinson came home twice to see his mother and tried to contact Archbishop Couve de Murville without success. In 1999 another victim came forward. Father McArdle asked police to arrest Robinson. In December 2000 there was another request for police investigation. There was a police investigation in 2002. West Midlands Police discovered that documents relating to the 1985 complaint had been passed by the police to the Archdiocese. It is suspected that DI Higgins gave them to the church to help them expel Robinson from the church.
The Archbishop wrote to Robinson (CHC0001044_090) asking him to return. Robinson replied, denying the abuse and refusing to return from Los Angeles.
In October 2003 a journalist, David Baxter, and Paul Kenyon had put together a BBC documentary “Kenyon Confronts”. The programme makes confronted Robinson in a trailer park in Los Angeles about the abuse. Vincent Nichols put out a press release stating that the BBC was hostile to the Catholic Church and tried to stop the publication.
In 2007 extradition laws changed and it was easier to bring back Robinson. He was convicted in 2010.
In 2015 Archbishop Longley was involved. Robinson agreed to be laicised. Rome was informed and he was laicised in February 2018.
Throughout this period both RCA33 and RCA31 tried to persuade West Midlands Police to investigate the case without success. It was eventually taken up in 2016 by the IOPC. It is not in dispute that someone provided the church with the police statement. The question has to be asked why did they assist the church. It is suggested that we cannot know for sure (the writer’s suggestion is that officers of the West Midlands Police were assisting the church to help Robinson evade justice by getting him out of the country before he could be arrested). At best this is an extreme negligence by the officers concerned and at worst it is a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It is suggested that the IOPC and the West Midlands Police itself have each failed to critically analyse the behaviour of West Midlands police officers.
Father Tolkien
Born in 1917 and ordained in 1946. He is the son of the author named Tolkien. He was abusing in the 1950s and 1960s and died in January 2013.
The complainant, Christopher Rooney (name changed to Carrie) complains of abuse at Tolkien’s presbytery. Tolkien was reported in October 1993 to Couve de Murville (document CHC000253_021) but Mr Rooney says Tolkien continued to work in the church.
In November 2000 Mr Carrie wrote a book named Kloneit, an anagram of Tolkien and at that point I asked the police to investigate. West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service no longer had their papers from 1993 and in 2002 Crown Prosecution Service decided it was not in the public’s interest to proceed. Mr Carrie started a civil claim.
In June 2002 A348 wrote to Vincent Nichols to say that he had been abused by Tolkien. Vincent Nichols advised A348 to go to the police. Archdiocesan solicitors spoke to two other men and they were advised to pursue civil action and it appears that the Archdiocese were aware of Tolkien’s abuse of scouts in 1968 and the case was settled for £15,000. A343 brought a civil action and is angry at how the church defended his civil claim so strongly when they were aware of Tolkien’s abuse in 1968.
F167 was a teacher in 1985. There was an allegation that he had touched boys at his school. He left his teaching job and applied to become a priest in 1987. He was ordained in 1990. Two boys later went to the police and F167 was put on leave. In 1997 criminal proceedings were stayed. F167 was appointed to a parish after 1997 with primary school. A safeguarding group asked for a psychological assessment but was inconclusive. In 1998 a complaint was made that F167 had asked inappropriate questions in confession. He categorically denied this but was put on leave fully paid between 1999 and 2007. In 2007 he decided to leave the Ministry and became a teacher with a clear CRB check. The case was considered in 2004 /2005 by Jane Jones who asked advice from Eileen Shearer at COPCA, the Catholic Advisory Service on safeguarding but Jane Jones would not provide his name and this led to disagreement about cross-referencing of names and a requirement to provide COPCA with names.
The Diocese decided that he should be allowed to resign and the case was closed.
Safeguarding in the Diocese
Reviews were carried out in recent years by Jan Pickles and SCIE.
Jan Pickles Diocesan Review
Revealed that priests were in a position of great power and ability to groom. They were able to take children on trips and priests had been moved between parishes when allegations had been made in the past. Legal advice tended to focus on the protection of the church. She found there was no risk assessment pro-forma of the status of any assessments was questionable. She also found that the Diocese needed a case management system as the paperwork and files were difficult to follow.
Jan Pickles Parish Review
Miss Pickles, an experienced safeguarding professional, visited parishes and found individuals in favour of safeguarding, priests being aware of risks and all said they would refer any allegations to the Diocesan Safeguarding Team but found that Jane Jones was under funded and demands on her were high.
SCIE Review
Found that there was good information sharing with the police, good and regular training and parishes thought highly of the safeguarding team.
Areas of concern were as follows:-
1. Policies of Birmingham did not adhere to CSAS policies.
2. There was no case management system and files were not well kept.
3. Safeguarding Commission in the Diocese did not provide scrutiny.
4. There was a tangible and explicit fear that those accused should remain anonymous.
5. Feedback from anyone using the service was not welcomed. Criticism of the team or the Diocese was not welcome.
6. The Archbishop Bernard Longley accepts SCIE’s concerns.

The Child Protection Coordinator, Jane Jones, has rejected these criticisms, views them as personal and has resigned.
Openings were then given by Slater and Gordon, David Greenwood on behalf of those represented by Switalskis, on behalf of D2, by David Enright on behalf of F48, F49, F53 and F59 who were at Crewe Court, Mr Hoarewell for the Archdiocese of Birmingham, Mr Mount for Jane Jones and Tanya Griffiths for Eileen Shearer and Adrian Child.
Tanya Griffiths remarked that the Diocese of Birmingham had serious problems. They included individual and organisational failures. COPCA and CSAS at national level did its best to help Birmingham but the Archdiocese of Birmingham failed to respond to the advice. Jane Jones of Birmingham saw CSAS as “secular outsiders”. Jane had the support of Vincent Nichols and Bernard Longley according to the 2010 Audit. Jane Jones complained that CSAS was non-Catholic and was telling her what to do. Jane Jones felt that CSAS was unjustifiably expensive. About Adrian Child’s findings in the 2010 Audit that there was lack of adherence to national standards, a lack of procedure and forms and the lack of governance, these all emerged from organisational failure which could not be laid entirely at the door of Jane Jones. Jane Jones was not qualified, was not supported by enough staff, was conflicted due to her developed Catholicism and was not properly managed.
Met Samuel Penney early in the 1980s. Penney was charismatic and magnetic. It fostered an environment of vibrancy. A15 considered him a friend. He chose special children to go on camping trips and stay overnight at the Presbytery. A15 stayed over on numerous occasions and slept in his own room. Penney encouraged him to call him Sam. In the 1980s they went away to Rhyll in Penney’s VW campervan. On the third night he was asleep next to Penney when he felt Penney’s hand run down his side. A15 brushed it off but on the fourth night A15 woke with Penney’s hands on his genitals. A15 pushed them away, turned over and the next day felt in his own mind that he had to try to deny that anything had happened. Penney the next day became aggressive and sullen. A15 wanted to maintain the friendship and didn’t tell anyone at home.
A week later he stayed over at the Presbytery and was asked by Penney to sleep in his room. Penney had a bed and there was a camp bed for A15. Penney asked him to get into bed with him and A15 said “I’m not like that”. He locked the bedroom door and tried to coax A15 into bed. Penney named other boys that had got into his bed. For two hours Penney tried to break him down and persuade him to get in. There was a point at which A15 almost gave in but he didn’t get into bed. Penney said eventually “I trust you are adult enough not to tell parents about this”. Within a couple of days A15 did tell his mum. His mum could tell something was wrong at a service and he left very quickly after the service at the church. A15 told his mum that Penney was gay. He didn’t tell her about the camping trip but he told her all about the bedroom. His parents got in touch with the Archdiocese quickly within a couple of weeks.
He was unsure what happened. In 1993 a letter came out of the blue from the BBC about the Everyman documentary. His mother was in the programme in silhouette. Couve de Murville was directly denying the report of his mother to Daniel Leonard. A15 was shocked and very surprised that an Archbishop who knows the truth would deliberately deny the truth. A15 later went to see Cardinal Hulme but said there was nothing he could do about Couve de Murville.
A15 had a strong faith from being a boy and had a sense of calling. He wanted to be a priest. He had an interview with an Archbishop. A15 told him he was part of the Penney complainants and the Archbishop told him “we don’t need to talk about that”. A15 became a curate. He landed in a parish where his predecessor had just been convicted of child abuse. Some parishioners were in denial about the priest and some agreed that it had happened. A15 apologised to the parish. In the early 2000s A15 met a woman and fell in love. He found the priesthood isolating and had a desire to have children. He left the priesthood. He recalls that in a seminary there were only three female teaching staff (nuns) and the rest were male. He recalls that when he was being taught, the Penney case and Couve de Murville’s denial was used as an example of how NOT to respond. Some seminarians’ did not engage well with this training, others took it in. He recalls being trained to report allegations to police and to help support victims but was not taught the impact of trauma on survivors. He still has a strong faith and believes in light, not shadow.
It was announced to the Inquiry that Vincent Nichols was unwell, had a doctor certify him being unable to attend on the 13 November 2018. It is suggested that Vincent Nichols gives evidence on the 13 December 2018.
13 November 2018
A31 was abused by James Robinson between the ages of 10 and 16. It started in 1970 and ended when A31 punched Robinson when he made an advance towards him at the age of 16. Robinson wrote to A31 a letter in 1974, essentially a love letter. A31 told priests in confessionals many times what he was doing with Father Robinson but did not tell his parents. He was from a family of Irish Catholics who had moved over to Birmingham in the 1950s.
In 1985 A31 had had no contact with Robinson for ten years and felt that he was old enough to tell the police. He arranged to meet Robinson in a local park and secretly tape recorded their conversation in which Robinson admitted the long standing relationship with A31 from the age of 10. The tape was used in the criminal trial in 2010 to convict Robinson.
There was no prosecution in 1985. In 1995 A31 asked West Midlands Police to investigate Robinson again. A31 received a letter from the police telling him that they did not see that the secret tape could stand up as evidence in court and A31 was rebuffed again.
In 2003 West Midlands Police looked at the case again and a letter from a detective, Sarah Bowen, recorded that the 1985 documents had been destroyed but that the police had passed his 1985 statement to the church. Relevant documents are OHY005312, INQ002478_015, INQ002478_019 and CHC000246_173.
A31 was shown a letter of forgiveness that he wrote to Robinson in 2013. A31 became upset at this and asked for a break in proceedings.
When proceedings resumed A31 explained that the forgiveness letter was recommended by his therapist.
A31 stated that the cover-up has systematically destroyed his life. A31 explained his work with David Baxter and Paul Kenyon on the Kenyon Confronts programme for the BBC in October 2003 entitled “Secrets and Lies”. A31 was “Mark” in the programme.
Vincent Nichols tried to stifle the story. Vincent Nichols has only ever replied to one email or letter from A31. This was in 2003 just before the Kenyon Confronts programme. Vincent Nichols offered to meet A31 to which A31 replied that he would meet Vincent Nichols but it would have to be on BBC news night.
A31 considers that the findings in the IOPC report of 2018 (released just before the start of this Inquiry) are preposterous. He explains that he has been complaining to the police and about the failure of the police to investigate for decades and that the IOPC investigation only started after he became a core participant.
RC-A343 describes sexual abuse at Cruden Court by a PE teacher who buggered him. He told a nun but was told by the nun that he should not lie and that he would rot in purgatory. He was beaten by the nun in front of the school assembly. He told no one of the abuse for forty five years until 2015. He reported it to the West Midlands Police but received no response.
RC-A1 RC-A493 (Read)
A1 was at Besford Court. He describes a teacher touching him. A swimming teacher touched him too. Also the caretaker paid him each week to allow him to sexually abuse him. A1 self-harmed by putting stinging nettles on his genitals and hit his own bottom with a stick. He reported the abuse to West Mercia Police in the 2000s but no prosecution took place. He asked again in 2018 for West Mercia Police to investigate again. There came a time when he asked for his Bedford Court records from Jane Jones, the Diocesan Child Protection Coordinator. He felt that Jane Jones was dismissive. She took him to a room in the cathedral and showed him records there. He saw a picture of himself as a boy and cried. His records were eventually sent to his home address. He burned them between 2005 and 2015 and got a new set when he approached a solicitor in 2017. He called Jane Jones in 2018 to give her more detail. He felt that she was being sarcastic and he shouted at her and passed the phone to his wife. He felt frustrated and upset at how the church had dealt with his complaint.
14 November 2018
Jane Jones Diocesan Child Protection Coordinator 2003 to present
Jane Jones was a woman in her fifties with dark shoulder length hair wearing a black top. She was evasive throughout her evidence to the point of treating the questions with contempt towards the end of questioning.
She was a qualified social worker and a committed catholic. She worked as a field social worker in Birmingham in the late 1970s until 1982. The emphasis was then on physical abuse. Since then she has lectured and taught in sociology. She became involved with the Columban Fathers to help them with their safeguarding supervision in the 1990s and was asked by Father McArdle of the Birmingham Diocese to write a paper on the Samuel Penney convictions in the 1990s. Following the Nolan Report in 2001 the Diocese wanted to recruit a child protection coordinator. They interviewed three people. Carmel Knowles got the job and Jane Jones was asked to support her. Carmel developed some problems and Jane Jones took over the role in 2005.
She was responsible for developing practice, advising the Archbishop, making referrals to the police, advising parishes, overseeing safeguarding agreements, coordinating support and advice to victims. It is a wide ranging role incorporating dealing with vulnerable adults and non-clergy abuses in parishes. Forty percent of the referrals she receives comes directly from the police.
Non-Diocesan orders of religious (there are sixty five of these in the Archdiocese of Birmingham) are asked to align themselves with the Diocesan Safeguarding Commission’s rules. Thirty have aligned. She was not certain how many others are considering becoming aligned or indeed how many others exist in the Archdiocese.
When asked about her supervision by Archbishop Vincent Nichols when he was the Archbishop she became evasive, giving unclear answers such as “I have no recollection of being unhappy about his direction. If there was a conflict between me and the Archbishop I don’t recollect it”. Jane Jones used evasive and non-committal language such as this throughout in answers.
When asked about Eileen Shearer and COPCA/CSAS her main criticism of Eileen Shearer was that she was from a “secular background”. Jane Jones thought that Eileen Shearer lacked the understanding of the structure of the Catholic Church. Jane Jones seemed to draw a distinction between the CSAS rules of reporting and language Catholics would deal with cases. When asked to explain all she could say was “the church is a body of believers”.
Eileen Shearer’s complaint that Jane Jones appointment was not advertised externally, that she did not fill in the necessary forms and did not have sufficient experience of child protection practice were refuted by Jane Jones.
She was shown a document in the COPCA Protocol which states “details of abuser and victim will be given to COPCA before COPCA can cross-reference and advise”. This was dated 03/02/04 document number CSA003225_0001.
There was dispute between Jane Jones and Eileen Shearer about whether Jane Jones should tell Eileen Shearer the name of the abuser and victim before Eileen Shearer could give advice. A letter from a COPCA employee to Jane Jones stated “you told me Archbishop Nichols was the person who advised you not to provide the name to COPCA”. Jane Jones replied that she did not have a clear recollection of her conversation with Vincent Nichols about this. Jane Jones stated that the Commission (the body in the Archdiocese of Birmingham which reviewed her work) advised her that she could seek advice without giving the name.
Eileen Shearer took up the issue with the Vicar General, Mr Moran. At this, Jane Jones became evasive stating that she did not recollect conversations and did not recollect a direction from Vincent Nichols about holding back the name. She did at least state that the Diocese is responsible for its own affairs and does not have to take orders from COPCA or CSAS.
Jane Jones was directed to an attempt by her to backtrack and suggest that when she was asking for advice she was asking a “policy query” rather than individual advice. In fact it was clear that she was asking for individual advice on this case. The case was actually F167’s case, the abuser who moved from being a teacher to a priest during the 1980s and 1990s.
Jane Jones then became evasive and blamed her decision making on being told not to release the names by the Commission. In fact there was evidence that Vincent Nichols had been the source of this advice.
There was mention that Adrian Child encountered the same problem with Jane Jones when he took over from Eileen Shearer in 2007 and COPCA was renamed CSAS.
Jane Jones suggested that the successor to Adrian Child, Collette Limbic at CSAS only asked for names on a case by case basis. It was shown that when referrals were made to the police or the LADO, names were given. She could not explain why they were not given to CSAS other than to prevent the generation of more records.
Jane Jones was shown documents at CHC001639_001 and _005 in which Vincent Nichols and she tried to excuse parish volunteers from having to have CRB checks on the basis that they are known within the parish.
She was told that Adrian Child viewed Jane Jones as being hostile after he had carried out the 2010 Audit. He described Jane Jones in CHC001464_004 at paragraph 66 as follows: “The attitude of Jane Jones was cynical and not conducive to making the church a welcoming place for all”.
She was questioned on her contact with A1 but denies being sarcastic or dismissive to him.
She was referred to document CHC001640_001 which was her position paper on Samuel Penney written in approximately 1993. She explained that it was intended for the eyes of only two or three people, that she was teaching when she wrote it. She recalls it was seen by Archbishop Couve de Murville who sent her a letter about this piece and that he felt it was a useful document. Within the document she seems to consider that abuse within a family is not necessarily a crime, that sexual activity in this context can be warm and comforting, that all the children are not as vulnerable as younger children and she speculated that one of the mothers in the Everyman programme in 1993 was fantasizing about having a sexual relationship with Samuel Penney. She states in the article that the first victim here is Penney himself.
This is a prime example of someone working for the church, putting the church and abusers first above the interest of victims.
She confirmed that Archbishop Couve de Murville, Bishop Budd and Bishop Longley knew about the briefing paper and approved it in around 2000. Anyone reading the paper would find it deeply disturbing. It should be published on the IICSA website. The person who holds these views should not be in a position of responsibility and safeguarding situation. There were other instances of her mentioning touching as a minor act of abuse essentially reducing the seriousness of particular cases.
In relation to the SCIE Report criticisms were:-
1. There is little evidence that CSAS Protocols were being used.
2. Policies and procedures of CSAS were not being used.
3. The recording system was fairly inadequate. There was no case management system.
4. The quality of response was good.
5. Contributors to the report (service users) suggested that the safeguarding team were more concerned with protecting the church and Jane Jones and senior clergy do not understand the harm done by abuse. Jane Jones response was “I hope I don’t have an ignorance about huge consequences of this evil”.
Jane Jones explained that she resigned a week ago as she feels that she has been side-lined in the preparation for IICSA since February 2018.
In questions, Alexis Jay, demonstrated that when Jane Jones assessed F167 as having no current risk, she could not have decided this. She also confirmed that she was not a registered social worker and has never been registered.
In questions from Drusilla Charplin she admitted that she now thinks she should have provided names of abusers and victims to CSAS so she changed her mind over a period of time.
In questions from Ivor Frank, Jane Jones agreed that the person supervising her was in fact a member of the Diocesan Safeguarding Commission (Sister Anna O’Connor).
15 November 2018
Eileen Shearer
A woman in her forties, dark hair, black jacket, self-assured. Statement document number INQ002671. Eileen Shearer was the Director of COPCA between 2002 and 2007. She was brought in to implement Lord Nolan’s report of 2001. Vincent Nichols was the Chair of COPCA.
Eileen Shearer explains that she had very strong opposition in Birmingham and there was overt hostility on occasions from some quarters. Some others did their best and wanted her to succeed. Her job was to unify safeguarding procedures throughout all Dioceses.
She felt that Vincent Nichols was generally positive. Birmingham had a regrettable history. Couve de Murville had not handled cases well. Vincent Nichols was a conscientious Chair of COPCA but did not put a real drive into to influencing others to adopt COPCA’s procedures and did not promote COPCA enough.
There was a police investigation into Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, arising from the Father Hill/Stanstead Airport case. Vincent Nichols was defensive and thought that COPCA had no role in this. Eileen Shearer thought that COPCA should have had a role. In the appointment of Jane Jones she confirmed that the process of the appointment was flawed, Jane Jones had been a social worker only pre-1982. The post was not advertised externally and she was a devout catholic. Eileen Shearer wrote to Vincent Nichols to complain about this that the appointment was not compliant with Lord Nolan’s recommendations. Vincent Nichols defended her appointment. Eileen Shearer felt that the Diocese had appointed her by tapping her on the shoulder rather than using an external process. Perhaps in this way the Diocese was able to use malleable and biddable people to do their work which included protecting the good name of the Diocese from scandal and protecting priests from prosecution.
Documents were shown to Eileen Shearer which charts the history of her writing to Vincent Nichols and explaining to him the reason why it is important for names of abusers and victims to be passed to COPCA. Eileen Shearer recalls that Vincent Nichols became unhappy when she started to ask questions about what was happening in the Diocese as he felt that she did not have a mandate to poke around in the Diocese. She explained that Vincent Nichols refused to step in to overrule the Commission on the issue of providing names. His excuse was that it would not be showing independence in his role. In reality the independence of Vincent Nichols on the COPCA Board was a sham in any case. Vincent Nichols comments that because F167’s case had been referred to the Education Authority and the police, Jane Jones had done her job, ignores the possibility that a central database at COPCA could have picked up abuse by F167 elsewhere and the police elsewhere may have been interested and assisted.
In questioning, Alexis Jay underscored the assistance which could have been provided if names had been provided and cross-referencing could have helped people elsewhere. In answer to Alexis Jay’s questions, Eileen Shearer stated that there had been problems elsewhere but problems were particularly acute in Birmingham.
In questions from Drusilla Charplin, cross-referencing point and assisting other statutory agencies was well made.
Adrian Child
A man in his fifties with thinning grey hair, wearing a dark jacket and tie and giving matter of fact delivery.
Adrian Child had been a social worker in the 1980s and became a Social Work Manager in the 1990s and Head of COPCA in 2007 after Eileen Shearer. It became CSAS after 2007. CSAS also experienced resistance from the Birmingham Child Protection Coordinator’s office in that they opposed having to be audited. He was required to audit every Diocese in the country. He recalls that Jane Jones was defensive about being audited. The main problems he found with the audit was that the files were jumbled and confused and case notes were poor. Two cases were sent off for review as they showed serious deficiencies.
He noted a later change in the approach from the Coordinator’s office and they became more willing to cooperate and constructive.
Adrian Child complained that in public the Diocese would say one thing but in practice do another. There was some discussion of the Diocese having put out an erroneous story to the press in the Leamington Spa Courier of the 7 July 2006.
Adrian Child did not think that Jane Jones met the specification for the Child Protection Coordinator’s role. Her experiences in safeguarding was not recent. Her relevant experience had been only in 1982.
Adrian Child had also met resistance to providing names of abusers and victims.
Adrian Child thought that the Commission was dysfunctional between 2003 and 2008 as Birmingham had not implemented any of the COPCA national policies during that period.
Adrian Child felt that “patronage militates against adequate safeguarding”. By this he meant that priests are dependent on their Bishop for money, housing and vocation and unless they get employment rights they will not speak out against their Bishop or those who influence him.
Adrian Child’s final point was that the focus here in on Birmingham. It is a good example of where things go wrong. Other Diocese do a lot of good work and across the church as a whole significant improvement has been made since before Nolan.
Collette Limbrick (CSAS) (Read)
She gives statistics on correspondence with Jane Jones. She feels that Jane Jones has had a positive attitude to safeguarding and makes a significant contribution to the training. She has not had any concerns about a disclosure of names and others require names on a case by case basis.

16 November 2018
RC-A494 (Read)
A494 was at Cruden Court in the 1960s. He tried to run away a couple of times. Each time he was brought back, stripped and hit with a leather belt by the nuns. He recalls Archbishop Dwyer visiting there at the time. He told Archbishop Dwyer about what the nuns had done to him. He recalls Archbishop Dwyer saying “the nuns wouldn’t do that”. He was then moved to Father Hudson’s home. A member of staff, F264 also caught him out of bed at Cruden Court at night and started to groom him, touch him but A494 rejected his advances.
In recent years he contacted Jane Jones for his records and told her about his experiences. He has been deeply affected by this.
The statements of RC-A15, Brian Hennessy, A32, A33, Amy Flanagan, A579 and David Mackle will be published on the IICSA website.
Bernard Longley (Archbishop of Birmingham 2009 to present)
He is a stout man with short greying hair, steel rimmed glasses, wearing a black suit, a dog collar and a black shirt. He has a slightly aloof manner.
In the 1970s and 1980s complaints of sexual abuse were taken by the Vicar General for a parish priest.
He agrees that he has ultimate responsibility for safeguarding in the Archdiocese of Birmingham and he will be free to disagree with CSAS policy. When pressed on this he gave a slightly evasive answer, explaining that policies initially conceived at the Bishop’s Conference (in reality polices are refined by CSAS who are responsible for ensuring that they are implemented nationwide).
He had a handover from Vincent Nichols when he took up his post and Vincent Nichols told him about Jane Jones being the Child Protection Coordinator.
He has appointed a CEO for the Diocese who was previously a Governor of Catholic Schools.
There was discussion of institutes and orders and how much control he could have over them (very little).
Cannon law was discussed and Bernard Longley agreed that “in safeguarding matters civil or criminal law takes precedence”. When pressed he said “I have never refused to accept a risk assessment on a priest so far as I can recall” (again an uncertain and slightly evasive answer).
He was challenged by being quoted the social work expert, Jan Pickles, view. She said “I was left in doubt as to whether Cannon law was more influential than criminal law in the Archdiocese. I found much more reference to the former than the latter in matters relating to priests about whom there were either allegations or concerns surrounding children”.
Bernard Longley was challenged as to why he wrote a “without prejudice” letter of apology to A491. He responded by saying that the letter was actually drafted by Jane Jones. He confirms that Jane Jones till drafts his letters but then changed his answer to saying that he usually drafts his own and then sends it to Jane Jones for amendments. He agrees that his apologies are not his own words but he agrees that this is not a caring response.
So we now know that the Archbishop of Birmingham does not use his own words to apologise to victims. He said he uses a devout catholic Child Protection Coordinator to draft his letters.
Bernard Longley acknowledged that this is a mistake. He also acknowledged that some mistakes have been revealed this week about the Archdiocese of Birmingham. He tries to apologise but Counsel to the Inquiry suggests that it may be too late. He responds “I hope it’s not too late”.
He tries to justify his actions by saying “as a charity, how do we hold together the legal requirements of a charity with a pastoral response?”. He goes on to say “I hope recommendations from the Inquiry will help”.
The Archdiocese clearly had no plans to change course. It continued to disregard very serious complaints from survivors of abuse, issuing insincere apologies and opposing claims for compensation with heavy handed legal tactics.
Care of Abusers
The Archbishop, Bernard Longley, admitted that Robinson had been paid £800 per month between 1985 and 2003. He also admitted that F167 had been paid between 1995 and the present day.
As a comment surely this is a great illustration of jobs for the boys/money for the boys.
Bernard Longley agrees that if a person is convicted before being laicised they would still receive payment until they are laicised. If they are not convicted before being laicised they would still receive pay until they are laicised. In fact the Archdiocese paid Penney for three years between his conviction and laicisation and Robinson between his conviction in 2010 until laicisation in 2018 and also Bede Walsh who was convicted in 2012 and is not yet laicised. There may be others.
He acknowledged that between the CSAS Audit in 2010 and 2016 when the Archdiocese of Birmingham was selected as a case study by IICSA, there was no audit or review of the quality of the Child Protection Coordinator Department to work and that this is a failing in addition to the failings pointed out in the Jan Pickles and SCIE reviews.
SCIE audit October 2018
It found :-
1) Recording systems were wholly inadequate. The paper trail was very poor.
2) In feedback from service users they described Jane Jones as hostile and interested most in protecting the church’s reputation. They felt marginalised and unsupported.
3) Potential whistle blowers feared retaliation. Priests and parish safeguarding reps felt unable to criticise the church for fear of losing their positions. Criticism is not welcome in 2018.
4) There is a gap between the official vision and the lack of a safe reliable safeguarding system functioning across the Archdiocese is stark”.
In response Bernard Longley plans to recruit a new child protection co-ordinator and the commission has devised a plan to meet the SCIE criticisms CHC001646-007
Questions from the panel revealed slightly evasive answers but he admitted he felt charitable status caused inhibition in responding better to victims. He also told the panel he was content with the advice he got from legal advisers.
Closing submissions were made by Slater and Gordon, Switalskis, D2 (Besford Court), Howe and Co, Mr Mant (for Jane Jones) and Mr Horwell QC OBE for the Archdiocese.
Vincent Nichols will give evidence on 13th December 2018 and written submissions can be submitted by 20th December 2018.
David Greenwood

OPENING STATEMENT – IICSA RC Archdiocese of Birmingham 12th November 2018




My remarks here are made against the background of what we already know about the Catholic Institutions examined as part of this Inquiry, how the church is organised into Dioceses, how orders come from Rome, the guidance given by Lord Nolan and Baroness Cumberledge, the evidence given in the Ampleforth and Downside Inquiry and indeed what that revealed about the reluctance of senior Catholics to share information with the police and their lack of engagement with outside agencies in relation to allegations of child abuse.

This particular Inquiry has only five days of evidence but we do know that there are a long list of identified abusers in the Archdiocese of Birmingham.

Numerous failures by the Archdiocese and West Midlands Police will be identified in the days to come. I know that my colleague, Richard Scorer, has dealt with the cases of Samuel Penny and Father Tolkien. I will deal here with the case of Father Robinson.

The way in which the Archdiocese of Birmingham dealt with Father Robinson paints a very disturbing image not only of denial and obfuscation by the Church but the clearest evidence of the Church protecting its good name and the perpetrator by sending him swiftly to another country. The Catholic Church regards itself as above the law. It has laughed at the rest of us mere mortals for decades. It has covered up, used lawyers and its recruits in state organisations to protect itself from disgrace. It has been facing disgrace now for more than two decades with the revelations of abuse and cover up coming thick and fast. This week will prove to be another week of utter disgrace for this deceitful organisation.

A letter from the Archdiocese in 1985 states in terms that Robinson was being sent across to California due to the allegations made by RC-A31(CHC000246_044). A draft statement of a priest to whom RC-A31 first reported in May 1985 records how the Vicar General Daniel Leonard arranged for Robinson to be moved from the country (CHC000246_116). You will recall we heard in the Downside Inquiry of the movement of Anselm Hurt to Ireland when an accusation of child abuse surfaced.

The Inquiry will have the opportunity to view evidence that the Archdiocese paid for Father Robinson’s upkeep in Los Angeles to the tune of £800 per month, the money initially coming from parish funds but then being reimbursed to the parish from the Diocese throughout the 1980s and 1990s. This was further concealed by it being channelled via his cousin through a Scottish bank account to which Robinson had access.

It has to be said that there is scant evidence in the papers of the Archdiocese disciplining him in accordance with its own rules from Rome until 2018. Why was this ?

You may hear evidence that Father Robinson denies that the allegation was reason for him moving to Los Angeles and that it was actually his ill health that caused this move. This was a patent lie according to contemporaneous documents. You will no doubt hear obfuscation from Vincent Nichols and Bernard Longley. Their very careful use of language in press releases over the years has been designed to avoid admitting the truth of the matter which is that the Archdiocese has known about and protected its abusing priests. I ask you to pay attention to what these two men are not saying in their evidence. They will continue to distance themselves, the Archdiocese and their church from wrongdoing. You must see through this.

We have become used to uncovering this type of institutional cover-up in the Catholic Church and indeed the Church of England. It is of deep concern that we do not or may never know the true extent of concealment activity carried out in such an organised way by both Churches.

Perhaps the most grievous affront to children’s’ rights emerging from this case is the complicity of West Midlands Police which amounted to state protection of Father Robinson. On receiving RCA31’s complaint in 1985 he was not taken seriously. There was no thorough investigation of his serious allegations. He was instead accused of blackmail. West Midlands Police refused to accept a covert recording he made of Robinson admitting abusing him from the age of ten. The police suggested that it may not be genuine.       He was subjected to an unnecessary intimate examination with instruments. West Midlands Police carried out only a cursory investigation. It is unclear as to whether West Midlands Police even reached the stage of interrogating Diocese officials. No crime was recorded on the police system enabling Robinson to come back to the UK in 1997 before returning to Los Angeles.

What seems to have happened in fact is that police officers colluded with the Archdiocese officials by passing to them a statement made by RCA31, thus tipping off the Diocese and Robinson thus enabling him to live out his days in the sunshine in California (or so they thought).

I could catalogue the letters passing between RCA31 and RCA32 and the Archdiocese but I would need a few days to do so. Suffice it to say that these two men urged the Archdiocese to bring Robinson to justice throughout the 1990s and 2000s with no success, the Diocese throughout being defended vigorously by its lawyers whilst retaining the knowledge of Robinson’s admission and supporting him to the tune of £800 per month via a concealed route.

The position worsens when police conduct in the 1990s and 2000s was chalenged. Both RCA31 and RCA32 each attempted to have the case investigated properly throughout this period but were unsuccessful.

RCA32 attempted repeatedly to persuade West Midlands Police to investigate between 1998 and 2014. An investigation in 2007 by West Midlands Police revealed continued unwillingness to properly investigate the case and the complicity of the police in 1985.

In relation to RCA31 there was a failure by WMP to respond adequately in 1995 when he approached them again asking for a proper investigation. In total he provided West Midlands Police with detailed evidence which deserved to be investigated in 1985, 1995, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2009-10.

Why did it take West Midlands police 6 years from the BBC Kenyon Confronts documentary to investigate the case properly ? Wht did Vincent Nichols complain about the documentary to the BBC when he knew it had revealed the truth ?

It was only in 2009 that the position changed when Crown Prosecution Service authorised an application for an extradition warrant from California and Robinson was brought to trial. Many courageous survivors came forward to give evidence and Robinson was convicted in 2010 of offending against multiple individuals, some of whose abuse could have been prevented had the Archdiocese and the police responded well. We will never know how many children Robinson abused when living in California.

RCA31 and RCA32 have tried repeatedly to involve the police complaints system and their attempts to have the police complaints system operate in this case have exposed some truths about flaws in the system which enable the police service to protect itself from criticism and suggest that the rigour which should be applied to these investigations is lacking within the current IOPC. The most recent IOPC investigation, Operation Fennel, has been criticised by RCA31 as having been launched only as a result of the interest shown by IICSA in the investigation and of lacking serious intent.

The plight of another CP in particular, RCA33, deserves to be mentioned. He was abused by Robinson in the early 1960s whilst Robinson was still studying for the priesthood at Oscott College. RCA343 mentions that he went through theological college and was concerned at the attitude of other Ordinands and their motives for joining the priesthood. Oscott college was of course the college at which Pope Ratzinger spoke in 2010. It would be interesting to know what Rome knew about the college and its teaching when it seems to have turned out a significant number of clerics against whom allegations have been made.

RCA33 like many has devoted a good part of his life to this case. He has helped the police after 2010, gave evidence at the trial of Robinson but has not received any offer of compensation. He like many he is bitter and is hopeful that the IICSA will expose the facts of the case.

I am grateful to the Inquiry staff for their diligent work in obtaining the various documents and statements.

Finally, we should all acknowledge the bravery of the victims of abuse who have come forward in this and other investigations and the journalists such as Mr Kenyon who tracked down Robinson in 2002.

David Greenwood



Huddersfield Child Sexual Exploitation

Details of the Prosecution of 20 sex criminals in Huddersfield were released to the press on Friday 19th October 2018.
This large organised gang was able to rape and degrade girls as young as 11 in West Yorkshire from at least 2004 until 2015. This came despite parents reports to police and some of these girls being in the “care” of social services.
How could he police ignore these serious offences ? Why didn’t they use their powers to get these serious criminals off the street ? Was it due to a lack of resources , a lack of understanding, a lack of training or a lack of commitment ? We’re these girls categorised as being “out of control” or unworthy of intensive help and support ?
We need to know the answers. Only then will we be able to understand and disrupt the activities of organised exploiters.
We must not just assume the modus operandi of all Asian origin exploiters is the same. Rotherham has its fair share of criminals who used girls as a currency. There are reports that the culture and teachings of Islam gives West Yorkshire groomers a green light to attack white girls. Whatever the motivations we need to understand the background and motivation of them in the same way that suspected terrorists are analysed. The harm done is certainly comparable. After all a significant proportion of a whole generation of Rotherham women have been deeply affected by child sexual exploitation. We must do whatever we can to prevent it for the future. My sincere hope is that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse header by Prof Alexis Jay will dig deep and provide guidance in the coming years.
In the meantime what is clear is that both Social Services and the Police in West Yorkshire have dramatically failed significant numbers of vulnerable girls and their families. I have asked he council and the police to each commission independent inquiries into the scale of Child Sexual Exploitation and their organisational responses and failures.
I will also continue to pursue legal claims for compensation for all girls affected. These girls will need ongoing support and compensation will help.
David Greenwood heads a team of female solicitors who have successfully pursued cases against councils and police in Rotherham and Oxford. If you need to speak confidentially call 01924 882000 or e

IICSA Peter Ball investigation 23-27 July 2018


Peter Ball (Anglican) Investigation

23rd to 27th July 2018

23rd July 2018

Counsel to the Inquiry, Fiona Scolding QC explained the questions to be asked over the next few week. They are :-

  1. Why had Peter Ball (PB) escaped detection as an abuser before 1992 ?
  2. How did the church allow his scheme to run without supervision ?
  3. Why did he receive a caution rather than being prosecuted ?
  4. His lawyer was also the diocesan registrar – was there not a conflict ?
  5. Was it wrong for the diocese of Chichester to have employed Brian Tyler the private investigator ?
  6. Were the police put under undue pressure by prominent people ?
  7. Why could a Bishop have been free from any sanction from the church until 2016 ?
  8. Why was PB allowed back into public ministry and schools ?
  9. Why didn’t Lambeth Palace pass on letters it had received making similar complaints to Neil Todd to the police ?
  10. Was an internal church investigation in 1992/3 adequate ?
  11. Why did the CPS accept guilty pleas to lesser charges in 2015 ? Why was there no trial ?
  12. Would the church do the same again today ?
  13. What steps do the church, police and society need to take to prevent this happening again ?
  14. Is “grooming” widespread in the church ?

PB became Bishop of Gloucester in 1992. He had been suffragan Bishop of Lewes from the 1970s. In the 1960s he set up the community of the glorious ascension. He spoke at public schools and set up his “give a year to god” scheme in 1980.Boys heard about it through schools and joined. Vickery House (another abuser) supervised the “schemers”. Most were just over 18 years old. Some were sent there from school, one was under 16 when he went.

PB agreed to plead to misconduct in a public office in 2015 on the basis that he had used his public office to obtain sexual gratification, had convinced the schemer that their chances in the church would be greater if he engaged in naked touching and used the scheme to assist his offending behaviour. The abuse included naked touching, naked prayer, inciting a boy to masturbate in a counselling session, naked kneeling at a baptism, suggesting flinging off underpants as a sign boys would be free in religion, asking boys to massage him in the groin area, ejaculating in their presence, spanking and flagellation of boys. Indecent assaults included beating with a sexual motive. There were 32 allegations in total. 13 were under 18. 2 had still been in school.

PB ‘s offending was brought to light by Neil Todd, a schemer who was with PB at Gloucester. He complained of beatings and indecent assaults to the housekeeper and gardener, Mr and Mrs Moss who took Neil away on holiday to France with them in September 1992. On their return Neil was in a state of anguish and the Moss’s went to see the former Bishop of Gloucester, John Yates who had become the Archbishop of Canterbury’s staff Bishop. He told them “What do you expect me to do ?”

Neil eventually left Gloucester and went t work in a parish in Brixton where another former schemer looked after him but after Neil had tried to kill himself his parents stepped in and informed the police.

Here began a sorry tale…

These were turbulent times for the Anglican church. The ordination of women threatened to split the church. Charles and Di were splitting and then this…

At the same time as Neil Todd was speaking to the police about his abuse others were making complaints about PB’s behaviour. 4 letters were sent to Lambeth palace and were seen and responded to by George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury. John Yates advised Carey he would have to investigate the allegations in the letters and that PB may have to resign. Despite this advice Carey did not pass the letters to the police and sent a message to all parishes in Gloucester that they should pray that the case is resolved in PB’s favour. There was no mention of Neil Todd or the other complainants. Carey actually wrote to the Chief Constable of Gloucester police to say this type of behaviour is not in PB’s character.

Letters were written by the great and the good supporting PB and denying that he could have committed crime. These included letters from a Court of appeal judge and heads of public schools.

The church set about recruiting a private investigator to discredit the complainants. In fact this investigator uncovered more evidence of PB’s misdeeds and set about trying to minimise the damage by trying to persuade the police to caution rather than charge Ball.

  • After PB was cautioned how did the church treat him ?
  • PB was not put on the Archbishop’s list
  • PB complained he was forced to resign
  • By Jan 1995 Carey allowed him limited permission to officiate
  • PB was allowed to have more and more church engagements
  • In Jan 1996 Carey allowed PB to do confirmations and preaching at schools
  • PB tried to convince Charles Windsor and others of his innocence
  • PB asked for and was given money
  • A 2000 review of the case suggested PB had been treated very leniently but despite recommendations to cut ties with PB, Carey and Rowan Williams simply told PB not to do confirmations in schools.
  • In 2008 his case was reviewed and an assessment by a psychologist was recommended. This took place in 2010. It showed PB had a lack of insight into offending, that he was highly manipulative and had a sexual interest on post-pubescent boys.

Eventually Phil Johnson complained about PB and a review of files was recommended. Kate Wood had gathered files together and they were passed to the police in 2012 sparking Sussex police to open Operation Dunhill leading to the convictions of PB and Vickery House.

At this point the opening statement from Core Participants represented by Switalskis was read. Here it is :-




  1. The story of Peter Ball is the story of the Establishment at work in modern times. It is the story of how the Establishment  a) minimised the nature of Peter Ball’s misdeeds b) tried to minimise the consequences for him and the Church c) silenced and harassed those who tried to complain.
  2. The Church of England is the Established Church of England. It is the mother church of an ever greater International Anglican Communion. The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The 26 must senior bishops sit as Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords. The Supreme Governor formally appoints high-ranking members of the church, including bishops, on the advice of the Prime Minister, who is in turn advised by church leaders. It is an institution that is directly plugged-in at the heart of our Constitution. It is innately powerful by design.
  3. Peter Ball was able to call upon the willing assistance of the Establishment.  It included the heir to the Throne, the Archbishop and a senior member of the judiciary, to name only the most prominent. In combination they provided Peter Ball with:
  4. Money and accommodation;
  5. Legal advice
  6. His own private detective to undermine the credibility of complainants;
  7. Emotional support;
  8. References;
  9. Approaches to the police and prosecuting authorities on his behalf;
  10. And, in the case, of AB Carey a lengthy witness statement in 2014 to try and stop further charges being tried [MPS002746_001].
  • The alacrity and extent of their response to one of their own in trouble was impressive. It is a horrible contrast to the way Peter Ball’s victims were treated. You will hear this afternoon from the Reverend Graham Sawyer and the lifetime of harassment he experienced from within the Church for daring to complain about Peter Ball and others. When AB Carey was presented with demands (after PB’s caution)  for an apology and steps to taken to ensure PB was never entrusted with responsibility for young men in the future, his response in his own handwriting was a) ‘I want to speak to a Senior Policeman about Peter’ and ‘We resist such demands’.   [ACE003298_193]. It was Bishop Kemp who paid for and sanctioned the use of Brian Tyler to try to undermine the police investigation. The Archbishop knew about this.
  • These Establishment helpers claim they were duped by Peter Ball. You will have to consider whether that is credible – given what they must have known or could easily have found out about Peter Ball. Prince Charles has many advisers. He only had to ask what a ‘caution’ meant. So does the Archbishop of Canterbury. Lambeth Palace had even the benefit of a Private Detective reporting from Peter Ball’s own mouth exactly what Peter Ball had done [BBC000004_001]. We know that other letters suggesting further abuse by PC were not passed to police in 1992/3. They were suppressed. A Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal knows the significance of a ‘caution’.
  • But even if you accepted their claim  – that they did not know what Peter Ball had done, that they were ‘largely in the dark’ or that they thought Peter Ball was ‘basically innocent’ – what these helpers were prepared to do was to lean against, add their weight against, the criminal process. They assume, even today – it is part of the mitigation they advance – that as members of the Establishment they are entitled, even duty-bound, to weigh-in on behalf of their Establishment friends accused of serious crimes – even when they are not sure (on their case) what’s been alleged.  In doing so, they went far beyond the normal obligations of friendship.
  • An important part of this Investigation will be for you to determine whether, in fact, the influence that was brought to bear upon the prosecuting authorities in 1992/1993 altered the way Peter Ball was treated. We believe it did. Consciously or unconsciously the weight of influence brought to bear meant Peter Ball received the lowest possible sanction in 1992, when, without his Establishment friends, he would have faced the prison sentence he eventually got. At the very least, as  DI Murdock put it, ‘…had the Church provided us with all the information held on Bishop Peter Ball back in 1992/3 then it might have been possible for us to have identified more victims and therefore present more charges and evidence to the CPS and DPP for consideration.”[GSP000012_087-7].
  • How could this have come about?
    1. Teaching, practice and theology
      1. PB committed his particular style of abuse – nakedness, flagellation, mutual masturbation –  as if it were the practice of St Francis. He must have known that was nonsense. But his authority and religious aura gulled his victims. No one challenged this until the first police investigation.
      2. Religion creates its own permissive atmosphere for abuse and biddable victims. The young and vulnerable are particularly susceptible to confidence tricks of this sort.
    2. Hierarchical structure and concentrations of power
      1. Each of the 42 bishops in CofE is largely unaccountable in his or her own diocese. Only in 2016 was there a mechanism put in place under the Church Disciplinary Measures to suspend or remove a bishop in office (s.24(2) CDM 2003). Even then, such penalty has to be confirmed by the Queen by Order in Council.
      2. DI Murdock was told by Lambeth Palace at the time of his investigations that ‘there was nothing the Church could do to remove Peter Ball from office’ [GSP000012_048 para 253].
  • The consequence of that was that Peter Ball was allowed to use his resignation as a bargaining chip to secure a lighter penalty. It was only something he could offer.
  1. Culture & traditions
    1. The story of Peter Ball reveals a culture of deference towards senior clergy:
      • A reluctance to believe that a ‘saintly’ figure could have committed these types of offences.
      • A reluctance to trust to the secular authorities to handle the matter.
      • A willingness to forgive and reintegrate PB, no matter, what PB had done.
    2. It also reveals confusion about the Church’s attitude towards homosexuality in its ranks:
      • DI Murdock makes clear that one of the factors that influenced his view of the public interest in bringing a prosecution was the risk that some Church witnesses would be exposed as homosexuals in court that ‘would have seen their roles within the Church effectively finished’.   [GSP000012_048 para 265] and ‘I believe that the issue of homosexuality had a detrimental effect in encouraging witnesses and potential complainants within the Church to come forward.’ [GSP00012_048 para 348].
  • All these are matters that support the measures we have advocated at the Benedictine hearings namely:
    1. The creation of a ‘failure to report’ offence;
    2. The creation of a ‘failure to protect’ offence;
    3. The extension of ‘position of trust’ offences;
    4. The creation of a statutory body with powers to police and enforce basic standards of child protection.



22nd JULY 2018


Opening remarks of Core Participants represented by Slater and Gordon followed which were :-

  • Bishops became accomplices in the attempted cover up of PB’s crimes
  • Carey was the most culpable as he deliberately concealed the 4 letters
  • Others such as Police, CPS and members of the establishment have some explaining to do
  • There is then a complaint about Charles Windsor having submitted a letter rather than a statement. It is questioned whether Charles Windsor has been less than frank about his contacts with PB after 1993.

At this point Fiona Scolding QC (counsel to the Inquiry) explained there had been lengthy discussions with Charles Windsor’s lawyers about the format of his submission. His lawyers, Harbottle and Lewis tried to object to providing a statement due to personal privacy reasons, data protection, confidentiality and human rights but she insisted he would be treated the same as anyone else. A section 21 request was withdrawn when a statement with a statement of truth was provided.

Neil Giffin QC for the Archbishop’s council said the church is sorry and ashamed. Safeguarding has changed. The NSSG has accepted all 11 recommendations and has begun to implement them but can’t be complacent.

Mr Bourne, Lord Carey’s lawyer, acknowledged that he had made serious mistakes and was too easily persuaded that PB was a man of integrity. He accepts the letters should have been shared with the police but notes there was only one further allegation in them (this is a disputed fact). He makes the point that there is a difference between a concealment or cover up and an error of judgement.

Mr Brown for the CPS explained the legalities of what was possible in terms of charges at the time. He confirms that in the present day PB would have been charged without question. He goes on to laud the CPS for using the offence of misconduct in public office.

Mr Boyle for Gloucester police explained Gloucester the police investigation was thorough. 60 witness statements were take. A 600 page report was prepared.

A117 gave evidence as a complainant. He was a good looking tanned young man with dark hair and designer stubble wearing a open necked white shirt and a dark blazer. He spoke in a soft but clear voice.

A117 was a schemer in the late 1980s. He explained how he was duped by PB into taking cold showers and being watched by Ball under the pretext of the Franciscan way being to lose one’s ego and pride. This became naked touching and eventually flagellation on the buttocks with a long wooden clothes brush as punishments for having masturbated.

A10 was a smart man in his late 40s wearing a suit.

A10 explained PB wanted to have discussions about sex and tried to persuade him to have sex. He felt PB was very manipulative. A10 was one of those who had written to Carey. PB had talked to him about having dinner with the Queen, Charles and the Queen Mum. He described PB as part Rasputin and part Tartouffe.

Graham Sawyer gave evidence standing, wearing a white shirt and tie. He was a smart man in his 50s with a clear received pronunciation accent.

He explained PB had the reputation of being a living saint. Graham met with PB a few times as after school he wasted to become ordained. He didn’t want to join his scheme in the early 1980s but was initially sponsored by PB for ordination. During their meetings PB insisted that Graham take his clothes off and on 3 or 4 occasions PB did this. On the last occasion Graham resisted and felt he had to withdraw from the ordination path as PB told him he would no longer sponsor him.

Graham went to Durham University and did jobs but in 1984 felt the calling again and applied for ordination and found that there was a black mark against his name. He was told this by a chaplain at Durham he knew had enquired for him. Graham had to qualify as a deacon in New Zealand. He met Rowan Williams in Sydney in 2000 who asked him to come to be a priest in Monmouthshire where he was then the Bishop.

There he suffered a series of harassments from senior clergy relating to his complaints about Peter Ball. He described the way in which Bishops close ranks as the “purple circle”. He said one retired Bishop in Newcastle Australia described it as an ecclesiastical protection racket. His main complaints are against Bishop Dominic Walker and Archdeacon Ken Sharp. The pressure was so much he returned to Australia. Graham was one of those included in the misfeasance charge against PB.



Graham Sawyer’s recommendations are :-

  • Take away the church’s ability to receive the first complaints as it tends to try to quash them at source.
  • Ensure Mandatory Reporting is imposed from outside
  • Ensure probity and transparency
  • The church can’t police itself
  • Need a system completely independent of the church to receive reports
  • Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser system cannot work as they are all different and all beholden to the Bishop.
  • All these new protocols are good but people let them down
  • We need a completely independent organisation
  • The Australian brought in independence almost immediately after the Commission reported – why can’t the UK Anglican church ?
  • The church is an easy place for paedophiles to operate.

24th July 2018

George Carey (Former Archbishop of Canterbury) – speaks clearly, wearing a Bishop’s purple shirt and dog collar. Short grey hair and dark-rimmed spectacles.

He was frustrated he couldn’t get rid of PB at the time according to ecclesiastical procedures as PB was a Bishop.

George Carey (GC) believes in the holiness and integrity of life and that clergy must maintain the highest moral standards. “I told my ordination students : you must not go back on your ordination vows”

He went on to say he’s dealt with an ordinand who was cautioned in 1985 and the police had told him the procedure then.

He believes the vast majority of clergy men and women are honourable.

Child protection was not at the forefront on its issues in 1992/3. We didn’t understand people can have an evil and negative effect.

I couldn’t believe a Bishop could do this. I actually believed him for quite a time.

We thought that because it wasn’t penetrative sex it was the lowest of the low and the police gave him a caution which was the lowest penalty.

GC maintained not a lot was known about child protection in 1992.

The first time I met PB was when I confronted him in December 1992.

There was discussion on how it was that PB was selected for the post in Gloucester. Sir Robin Catford had pushed him forward to John Major against the vote in the Canonical appointments Commission. Ball had been number 2.

It emerged that Mr and Mrs Moss had been to see John Yates to tell him about PB and Neil Todd but GC said he hadn’t told him. GC agreed it was a big thing – “he should have told me”.

Then Ball was arrested on 12th Dec. GC saw them merely as allegations at that stage. He has a pastoral meeting on 15th Dec with PB and his twin brother, Michael in Lambeth. PB was indignant and protested his innocence. After the meeting GC wrote PB a letter which GC describes as “sickly” saying “The matter does not diminish my admiration for you and my determination to keep you on the episcopal bench”. (This appears to be blind support ?).

The four letters.

When questioned about the four letters he didn’t pass to the police he said “It wasn’t in our mindset to pass them to the police”.

There was discussion about a particularly strong letter mentioning cover up. It transpired that GC was replying to the 4 letters when John Yates was meeting with DI Murdoch in the next room at Lambeth (unbeknown to GC).

There was a letter from a mother upset at homosexual advances to her son. Another boy had been asked to masturbate in a school counselling session in front of PB.

Asked “why didn’t you give the letters to the police?” GC replied “The police never asked for them”. Fiona Scolding replied that the police didn’t know they existed so couldn’t ask for them. GC said “We had no awareness that we should pass them to the police”

GC admitted that the internal investigation was “not up to much” and “fizzled out”.

GC said “This is very embarrassing we were fobbing people off. We delayed”

GC then explained that his personal letter to all Gloucester parishes to “pray that PB’s name will be cleared” was a very rare thing to send round but said “I couldn’t assume Peter was guilty”. For me there was still an open mind on his innocence. GC apologised that he had shown little concern for the victims.

Archbishop’s list

Asked why he didn’t put PB on the list GC replied “I decided he was sick and has resigned. What damage can he do ?”

“There is such a thing as grace, renewal and restitution”

I later recognised how manipulative he was.

In a meeting of 29th Jan 1993 the letters were passed to PB’s legal team but not to the police.

Tyler report

GC admitted Eric Kemp (Bishop of Chichester) paid for it. Lambeth knew of the report. Tyler briefed Yates. GC :”I saw it as someone else (Kemp) handling it”.

GC’s letter to Chief Constable of Gloucester

This letter states (among other things) “The testimony of the many young men he has helped over the years – and the list must run into the hundreds – is such that if guilty of unprofessional behaviour it is quite unrepresentative of his lifestyle”.

(This suggests Carey has no appreciation of his own office – ie an Archbishop should not be writing this type of special pleading to a police officer as he is bound to be putting pressure on him. The letter states on its face it is not trying to put pressure on him but in fact it was by its existence calculated to exert pressure).

GC says “I felt it was the honourable thing to do”.


I gave him £12,500 from our funds. Some for legal fees some for a holiday.

PB’s return to ministry

GC didn’t put him on the Archbishop’s list as he wanted him back into ministry as he has such gifts. John Yates and Colin Fletcher had urged him to put his foot down. Fletcher described PB ar status driven, money driven and manipulative.

GC allowed a gradual return to ministry eventually declaring to all Bishops that he should be treated like any other retired Bishop.

GC even stated in a 1998 letter that PB was “basically innocent”. GC felt that PB had lost such a lot he needed to help him.

GC admitted he gave a statement for PB’s defence urging the judge not to put him on trial as he’d already been punished.

Ivor Frank (panel member) reminded him that despite GC stating he believed in his innocence he has stated in a memo that he had appreciated what he had done and was “horrified” This casts some doubt of GC’s truthfulness when he said in his evidence he wanted to keep an open mind (and indeed urged others to pray for his acquittal).

Andrew Purkiss , a press adviser at Lambeth gave evidence of his involvement.

Former Det Supt Wayne Murdoch (WM) of Gloucester police, a man in his 60s with grey hair, a grey moustache, dark jacket and tie gave evidence.

When he was assigned the case in December 1992 he wanted to get to Neil Todd quickly as he thought there would be “some reaction” and he felt well placed to resist outside influence.

Neil Todd (NT) just wanted PB to admit what he’d done was wrong, removed from office and that no-one else would go through what he had endured.

Mr Murcoch interviewed Mr and Mrs Moss and the Gloucester chaplain, Rev Eldridge. Then he had reasonable grounds to arrest PB.

Mr Murdoch related his association (through being taught by) Brother Ken Penfold. He had taught WM at the technical college. Ken was a brother of the glorious ascension. WM said he used this knowledge to get PB talking during interview (to avoid a no comment interview).

He recalls there were 3 tapes used in the interviews under caution. Tape 1 was a denial. Tape 2 was PB agreeing to a lot of nudity and tape 3 contained admissions that he had beaten NT and agreed he had sent him a letter and talked about genital and non genital love. He mentioned ejaculation as being caused by some medical condition.

Did the letters from worthies had any influence on him ?

Letters from the head of Lancing college and Lord Lloyd were read out.

WM only commented “If those people knew what I knew they wouldn’t have written them letters”.

WM recalls a phone call in which he said “I know the DPP. I would like to influence her but I won’t”.

Dealings with John Yates at Lambeth palace

He had a meeting in December at Lambeth palace. With John Yates. “I asked for everything they had”

“Yates didn’t tell me they had files on people. I would have expected them to volunteer anything they held on a Bishop to the detriment.”

To the suggestion the church say he should have asked he replied “That’s a strange way of looking at things especially an Archbishop of Canterbury”.

A memo written by Yates of the meeting records part of the advice or options for the case given by WM was “CPS may not prosecute – non in public interest but Peter’s resignation may be a bargaining counter” WM agreed this is only one possible outcome and he may have said that (here WM seems to have predicted the future ?).

What if WM had been given the letters ?

WM says it may have made a difference to the outcome “but we should have been the judge of that not the Archbishop”.

There was an exchange around WM’s feeling that the church’s hostility to homosexuality internally may have put some people off giving evidence (gay clergy feeling it would damage their careers if they came forward. There are echoes of Graham Sawyer’s situation here).

Michael Ball

WM found out Michael Ball had been interfering with witnesses and was behind a lot of the letters. WM cautioned PB’s solicitor to tell him Michael was very close to being arrested for perverting the course of justice.

Tyler was also getting to people before the police could speak to them. He likewise was close to perverting the course of justice.

Bishop Eric Kemp

It appears Bishop Eric Kemp participated in an attempt to derail the investigation. He had a meeting with WM which was being covertly tape recorded and in which he had arranged to pull back the curtains for Tyler to burst in and confront WM if he had said anything which could affect the evidence.

Sup’t John Horan was the son of the Bishop of Tewkesbury but had no contact with WM other than to tell him his dealings with PB.

Tyler report

WM commented :-

  • I didn’t know Tyler
  • I didn’t say I’d give him statements
  • Tyler is making himself out to have done a wonderful job
  • I am angry with what Tyler has said and done
  • Tyler tried to dissuade witnesses from giving evidence
  • Tyler embellished that took place for his own financial gain

WM re-states that all he agreed to do at the meeting at the Crest Hotel in January 1993 with PB’s legal team and Tyler was to pass on the offer to accept a caution to the DPP.

WM’s 600 page report

He set out only options for charge, not caution. Misconduct in a public office was not on the radar back then. WM wanted charges not a caution.

He personally delivered the 600 page report t the DPP office and there was a later meeting not attended by the DPP (she was in New Zealand).

There is no note of this meeting and the recommendation for a caution emerged. WM says it fitted with NT’s wishes so he ran with that. He rand NT and he was content.

Ivor Frank (panel member) expressed concern that he had mentioned in his report that a consideration in the decision making process on public interest was whether many schemers would have felt duped if Ball was charged – that they would feel their study was groundless. The writer was left with the feeling that WM had a soft spot for the church, didn’t want to do it any damage and that held him back from being more robust in pushing for charges.

Det Sup’t Carwyn Hughes (CU)– a man in his 50s – a smartly dressed precise man.

Head of Sussex police Op Dunhill

Op Dunhill started on 25.07.12. He brought Kate Wood in to help his team. 7 more schemers came forward and 4 more after conviction of PB. NT died in August 2012 and that set the tone for the inquiry. Gemma Wadsworth was an ISVA who helped complainants.

CU was not influenced by the fact a staff officer for Charles Windsor asked whether there were any embarrassing things in letters between PB and CW.

He found the Gloucester file to be in good order. He was unconvinced by Tyler. There was some criticism that the caution had not been properly offered or administered as little evidence of admissions.

He had to grapple with whether there had been some immunity given to PB. This caused delay and some loss of confidence from complainants.

Eventually misconduct in public office and a basis of plea was agreed. Phil Johnson was very unhappy that his offence had not been charged. The other potential charge was unhappy but accepting. 3 more complainants came forward but not in public interest as pre-dated 1992. One was an offence of indecent assault in 1995 when PB took a 15 year old to play squash. He didn’t want to pursue it so no action.

He had also recommended no action against Carey in his dealings with PB.

A statement of Ian Beer (head of Lancing College) was read. He had supported PB in a long letter but realised on his conviction that he had been wrong to do so.


Gregor McGill (DPP’s office) – a smart man in his 50s. Wearing a suit, shaved head and dark rimmed spectacles

The case was dealt with centrally to demonstrate independence from local influences.

It was common to receive letters from MPs. There is nothing to suggest the letters had any influence on decision makers. 1,284 letters and media interest were irrelevant to the decision making.

A document (note of a telephone conversation with DI Wayne Murdoch) CPS000792_0348 showed that Ball could get a possible caution if he resigns.

In Mr McGill’s opinion the fact someone has to resign makes the case more serious as it demonstrates the seriousness. This means it was out of the caution category of offenses.

A CPS briefing note CPS000792_0351 was referred to which showed the caution was given because :-

1)Trial likely to be strongly contested

2) Prosecution witnesses were fragile

3) Offending at low end of the scale

4) Main objective for Neil Todd was Ball’s resignation

5) Acceptance of caution would be the end of Ball’s career. He’s indicated he’ll resign if gets a caution.

Fiona Scolding QC then took Mr McGill through the Home office guidance on cautions in place at the time and demonstrated with Mr McGill that none of the prerequisites were established. Mr McGill said “I don’t think the caution was administered in accordance with Home Office guidelines”. There was a lack of an unequivocal admission and no specifics of the acts Ball was cautioned for.

2012-15 Operation Dunhill

He agreed the delay in a decision on charge was unacceptable. The CPS file had been submitted in 2013 and a decision on charge was only made in late 2014.

He extolled the virtues of Alison Levitt QC who had considered all aspects carefully and suggested the misconduct in public office offence which caught most of his offending.

PB argued :-

  • He was too ill to stand trial
  • The post of a Bishop was not a public office
  • He had been given immunity from further prosecution

These abuse of process arguments took 12 months to be finalised.

A process than took place whereby Ball’s barrister spoke to the CPS barrister to try to work out a basis of plea.

It was recorded that once this agreement was reached (that he would plead guilty if the indecent assaults against Phil Johnson and Graham Sawyer were to lie on file Phil Johnson complained that he had not been consulted beforehand and had been handed a fait accompli. (CPS002280).

Mr McGill agreed position of trust offences could be expanded from the present position to encompass more abusers such as clergy but this would have to be done by parliament.

Malcolm Evans (Panel member) asked whether Bishops of other denominations could be public officers. Mr McGill replied he thought they could if they carried out public duties such as baptisms and weddings. It’s all about the role someone carries out.

Andrew Nunn (Lambeth palace staff) Man in his 50s with a suit and tie. Bald with dark rimmed spectacled.

He had spent 25 years working at Lambeth palace. He knew a lot about the PB affair and had always thought George Carey had ignored advice to cut ties with Ball. He spoke of Ball’s manipulative behaviour in taking Carey’s promises to restore him in vain.


Mr Nunn stated that Carey still said he believed Ball was innocent even after his caution. There were a series of enlightening notes at INQ000616 where Nunn criticises Carey and Carey takes a swipe back at his critics.


Anthony Lloyd (AL) (Formerly Law Lord – Lord Lloyd of Berwick) – A man in his 80s. Thick white hair. Round rimmed specs. Alert and with a cut glass accent.

Had been a barrister, High Court judge, Court of Appeal judge and Law Lord 1992-1998

Peter Ball (PB) was his nearest neighbour at Berwick, East Sussex. He though Ball had remarkable preaching skills. “We became good friends and still are”.

“I became aware of press reports of sexual activity with Neil Todd a 17 year old. Because of his age I didn’t think it was a serious offence although it was a great shock to me”.

AL recalled the telephone conversation he had with DI Wayne Murdoch and admitted he probably did say he knew the DPP and wanted to influence her but wouldn’t. He said he just wanted to find out what was going on.

He denied other people could have perceived he was trying to interfere with the investigation (AL appeared to have little insight into what others thought of him and his position although admitted he referred to himself as a Law Lord to his correspondents when in oral evidence he said he just wanted to find out what was happening). Was there a lack of insight or did AL know what he was doing throughout ?

He then wrote to the chief constable of Gloucester, Mr Pacey on Court of Appeal headed paper OHY000096_070. AL denied trying to influence the investigation.

“I wrote a similar letter to the DPP letting her know how highly I regarded him” (PB).

He wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury. There was a reference to the two of them having met at an all male “establishment” dining club called “Nobody’s Friends” This was half Bishops and half establishment figures (according to the Daily Mail quoted by Fiona Scolding QC). The letter was at ACE000877_001.

AL recalls in the summer of 1994 he was in favour of finding PB something to do and had a friend who was the patron of a Parish (he got to decide who would be the vicar) and wanted to get PB appointed. This plan didn’t materialise principally due to advice from George Carey (his memo is at ACE000877_001)

Throught out his evidence displayed a staggering lack of insight – he appears to be entirely ignoring any concerns for the safety of children or understanding of the seriousness of PB’s offending. He also has no perception of the weight his position as a court of appeal judge and law lord carried.

AL went on in 2009 to complain bitterly on PB’s behalf that he was being required to undergo a psychological assessment. AL described this as cruel and that PB should have had more of an explanation. At WWS000071_023 Lord Lloyd is recorded as having made a threat that some powerful people will be very upset. AL doesn’t recall having said that.

Interestingly a letter he writes at ACE001491 is written on notepaper of the House of Lords judicial appeal committee. At that stage he was not on the committee (having left in 1998). Was he authorised to use that paper ? Should the police investigate whether he has tried to deceive by this (possibly unauthorised) use of official paper ?

When the psychological assessment was carried out he described it as “meaningless”. In his oral evidence to IICSA he agreed he would withdraw that remark with apologies.

He wrote a letter to Kier Starmer CPS001584_001 “to try to get him to make a decision”.

Letter from Charles Windsor (read by Fiona Scolding QC)

Essentially Charles Windsor (CW) became good friends with PB. CW didn’t find out what the “indiscretion” was that had caused him to resign from being the Bishop of Gloucester and maintained a fairly close relationship with PB throughout the 1990s and 2000s until 2015 when PB was convicted.

CW gave him gifts of money and caused the Duchy of Cornwall (his own private trust) to buy a house for him and rent it to him and his brother.

A series of letters between the two of them were read out in which PB essentially characterises himself as a victim of his accusers and people in high places. Charles agrees with him and supports him.

Kate Wood former police inspector and currently safeguarding consultant – in her 40s, blonde hair, dark rimmed specs, clear speech and pink jacket.

Kate Wood (KW) worked on and off at Lambeth Palace between 2008 and 2016. It was a bit like going back in time – physically imposing.

She makes the point that the church has in the past had a woefully low headcount on safeguarding posts.

The Mellows review pointed out a remarkable difference between the treatment of Ball and the treatment of other clergy in similar positions.

The Ball file past cases review entry was referred to ACE003069.

KW eventually got some Chichester files from Shirley Hosgood and was shocked and angry that she hadn’t had them before or that there hadn’t been brought to light before – a correspondence file contained the Tyler report. She makes the point that the Tyler report has to be taken with a pinch of salt but its existence was shocking to her. ACE005779.

From that point she passed the papers to the police and wirked with them on Op Dunhill

She recalls having spoken to Neil Todd ACE001870 and had no concerns about his demeanour.

Ivor Frank (panel member) asks a question about document ACE006861 – this was a suspicion by Andrew Nunn that Carey had either destroyed or taken some documents out of the file at some stage.

Moira Gibb (author of the Gibb report on the conduct of George Carey). In her 50s. Brown hair, Dark rimmed glasses. Beige dress. Clear confident speaker.

She wanted in her report to set out for the public what had gone wrong.

She believed Carey was partial. “There was a degree of personal compassion for Ball not matched by an understanding of the nature and consequences of Ball’s abusive conduct”.

She characterised Carey’s behaviour as positive action rather than omission in not passing the letters to the police.

Switalskis oral submissions were then delivered. They are reproduced here :




  1. Our submissions are in two parts:
  1. On the facts;
  2. On the recommendations that follow from those facts.


  1. There is a big lie at the heart of this case. The big lie is that PB’s most prominent supporters, starting with Archbishop George Carey, believed Peter Ball was ‘basically innocent’. GC is the man who micro-managed from the day of Ball’s arrest on 14/12/92 what can only be described as Peter Ball’s defence team.
  2. GC’s attitude:
  1. There was no conception at any time that the Church should provide voluntary assistance to the police in their inquiries. No conception that they should pass on information that pointed towards PB’s guilt, as well as information that pointed away from PB’s guilt. George Carey’s attitude then – and now – was ‘if the police don’t ask for these letters more fool them. It’s their job to prove it and if they can’t, good’. We must assume that he personally prayed that the police investigation would clear PB’s name. And that he did so, even when he possessed powerful evidence suggesting that PB’s crimes were not isolated to just Neil Todd.
  2. The letters were not provided to the police. But they were provided to Peter Ball’s defence team. The only inference you can draw from that is that the Church wanted to help Peter Ball but not the police.
  3. If you needed further evidence that the Church was completely one-sided, you have the evidence of Mr Murdock and the farcical attempt to compromise him by covert tape recordings when he visited Bishop Kemp.
  1. Carey did not believe Peter Ball was basically innocent. No reasonable person could have believed that after receiving the letters from the other complainants.The evidence against Peter Ball only got stronger after that.
  • Meeting with Ball brothers 15/12/92. If you read Carey’s statement (para 45 WWS000143_010) you would think that no admissions had been made: ‘both he and his brother protested his innocence’. If you read Carey’s statement to the police in 2014 [MPS002746_002], there were significant admissions from Peter Ball. “He accepted he had had a close relationship with Neil Todd but he denied he had touched him sexually in any non-consual way”. Which of course suggests he had touched him in a sexual way. GC knew then breach of trust of sexual nature with vulnerable adolescent.
  1. The letters he received from other complainants, vague as they were, were obviously, powerful support for Neil Todd’s central allegation. Either there was a conspiracy against Peter Ball – who was widely regarded as a saint – or they were telling the truth.
  2. ABC knew this. That is the true reason why:
    1. they were not passed to the police;
    2. Lambeth Palace made no attempt to contact these witnesses directly.
  1. These letters were, however, passed to Peter Ball’s defence team, in case they could assist him in proving his only realistic defence of a conspiracy against him.
  2. There are two significant documents missing from the Lambeth Palace file on Peter Ball.
  • The first is any record of the meeting Carey had with the Ball brothers on 15/12/92. It seems inconceivable that this meeting, attended by Frank Robson, was not minuted in any way. Or, if it was not minuted, that was deliberate. The reason no record is available is because it probably contained significant admissions by Peter Ball.
  1. The second is the absence of Tyler’s report. That report was expressly stated to be written solely for the attention of Bishop Kemp and the Archbishop of Canterbury. It set out the truth about Peter Ball.

“I am quite convinced he has been living a dual life, not only as a pseudo-religious, but also in his interpretations of sexual morality. Unfortunately, I came to the conclusion he had been involved in abusing not only his Office but very many young men who passed through his care.”

That was a conclusion he had reached having contacted many of the complainants and having had significant admissions direct from Peter Ball including “I did have an emission.” It stated exactly the nature of what Peter Ball had done.

    1. Bishop Kemp certainly knew it. If ABC had wanted to know the truth, he could have had the truth from Bishop Kemp. ABC knew there was a private investigator on the case (para 77 WWS000143_015). At the very least ABC needed to know why one of his Bishops was accepting a caution for gross indecency.  In all probability, he was told by one form of communication or another. But the record, like that of the meeting on 15/12/92 has been carefully expunged from the file.
  1. The reality is that ABC did not care what Ball had done. He only hoped and prayed that ‘the investigation will clear his name and that he will be restored to his great work of Christian ministry’, as he enjoined the Diocese of Gloucester to do in the New Year 1993 [ACE000255].
  2. The reality is that when they weighed what they knew PB had done against PB’s status as a Bishop, his undoubted talents, and the Church’s reputation, it didn’t count for very much. It is a charge we level at George Carey, Lord Lloyd and Prince of Wales.
  3. It was, of course, a mistake that the terms of the caution were not properly recorded. For all DI Murdock’’s hard work, the police seemed to have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It was a mistake that was ruthlessly exploited by Peter Ball to protest his ‘basic innocence’. It was a mistake ruthlessly exploited by George Carey to promote Peter Ball’s return to the ministry. Carey repeatedly misrepresented the gravity of what Peter Ball had done whenever he could. I know Mr O’Donnell will list the examples we have heard. So I will not repeat them.
  4. We do not know if ‘after the police caution…and my resignation [George Carey] made a ‘solemn promise’” to Peter Ball that the Church would not take any further action against me, ‘because I had been punished enough’ [ACE003088], 22/9/09. But certainly, Carey’s actions in office were consistent with a such a promise.
    1. The internal inquiry against Peter Ball was quietly dropped.
    1. Ball was not placed on the Lambeth list as he clearly should have been.
    2. GC took steps, only a few years after the caution, to gradually introduce Peter Ball to public ministry.
    3. He misrepresented the gravity of what Peter Ball had done whenever he could.
    4. Recommendation to House of Bishops in 1997 that Peter Ball be offered ministry, [ACE003298_122]
    5. He provided a statement to the police in 2014 to try to stop the trial of further charges against him.
  1. ABC wanted to return to the status ante quo  – as if what Peter Ball had done had never happened. He did all this against, on occasion, strong advice from inside and outside of the Church. He did all this knowing that Peter Ball was almost certainly guilty of serious wrongdoing against many young men. He, in the words of Andrew Nunn, did try to ‘sweep it under the carpet’. If ABC thought by doing so, he would protect the reputation of the Church, it was a gross misjudgment.
  2. The tactics deployed by the Church were at the very edge of lawfulness.  We heard how:
    1. Bishop Kemp attempted to compromise DI Murdock in a covertly recorded meeting.
    2. several Bishops telephoned Ros Hunt to ask her to tell the young men who had written complaints to the Archbishop not to speak to the police or the press.
    3. Michael Ball, Bishop of Truro, had been contacting witnesses and trying to influence them.
  1. We would encourage police to review whether any of these matters, in particular the actions of the Bishops who contacted Ros Hunt, disclose offences of perverting the course of justice.
  2. It is hard to know what practical effect Establishment support for Peter Ball had on the decision for a caution. Of its nature, its effects are pernicious, subtle, hard to trace and unaccountable.
  3. Certainly, it was calculated to have practical effect. Lady Renton accepted that the reason her husband wrote to the DPP on House of Commons papers was in the knowledge that it would be taken more seriously. In other words, it was not the merits of what the letter contained but the status of its author that was intended to influence the recipient. Similarly, a Court of Appeal Judge could have no proper reason calling the investigative officer apart from simply making it known that Peter Ball had powerful friends. Again, that was calculated to influence by sheer reason of the status of the caller. The aim was simply to get PB treated more lightly than otherwise.
  4. We do accept that the biggest difficulty facing the prosecution was the fragility of the complainants and the potential harm to them from a trial. The decision to caution was at the bottom end of the reasonable range of options for dealing with Peter Ball. We suspect that ultimately that proved the most politically expedient way of dealing with it. What is inexplicable is the complete failure to record the terms of the caution and record a clear admission from Peter Ball.
  5. Where Peter Ball’s establishment supporters certainly did have effect was in fortifiying George Carey in his intended aim of minimising Peter Ball’s wrong-doing and returning him to ministry. That would have been a much more difficult task if Peter Ball had not had powerful support from the senior figures in our society including the Prince of Wales, who was, apparently inviting Peter Ball to give him communion at his own house after the caution in 1993.
  6. This is properly described as an Establishment cover up. It succeeded by delaying the time when Peter Ball faced the full consequences of his wrong-doing. In doing so it greatly increased the suffering of his many victims.Position of Trust offences
  7. Recommendations
  1. Everybody condemns what Peter Ball did. The great irony is that if he committed those offences today, it would be more difficult to prosecute. The charge of gross indecency has gone. The age of consent for homosexuals has been harmonised with the rest of the population. The current position of trust offences are only expressly framed to protect  a limited class of person: school pupils and those in hospital. It is not obvious it would capture Peter Ball running his own Schemers. It is not satisfactory that these offences were – and would now – have to be shoehorned into an offence of misconduct in public office. That depends on the accident of whether the offender occupies a public office. The extension of POT need careful drafting. But it must be framed to capture people in a position like Peter Ball. It might be broadened to include the case where the offender has an established personal relationship with the victim in connection with the provision of religious, sporting, musical or other instruction to the victim.
  2. Mandatory reporting
  1. A new law should require professionals who work with children in ‘Regulated Activities’ to inform the LADO (‘Local Authority Designated Officer’) or, in appropriate circumstances, children’s services, where the professional knows, suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting child abuse or sexual abuse by those in a position of trust. Failure to inform would be a criminal offence. Presently this is only guidance which is all too frequently ignored.
  2. Strong laws should lead cultural change. In the absence of law those staff who do report presently are, by default, whistle-blowers with very little protection. You have heard what happened Graham Sawyer. Without strong laws any institution – no matter how benign its culture – is vulnerable to a powerful person within that organisation acting without integrity.Statutory body
  1. The creation of a new independent statutory body to enforce basic standards of safeguarding, and to receive and deal with complaints of CSA in all institutions which are responsible for the care of children.
  2. 5.This new statutory body would police and enforce minimum national standards of child-safeguarding. This body would have similar powers to the Health & Safety Executive. The Health & Safety Executive operates for the safety of workers. Children are an even more vulnerable group. The absence of a powerful statutory body dedicated to their protection is a serious defect.
  3. The new independent statutory body will:
  1. Establish a register of relevant Institutions that look after children.
  2. It will be an offence to look after children without being on the register.
  3. To be on the register institutions have to introduce a corporate structure.
  4. Registered institutions will be forced to adhere to minimum safeguarding regulations.
  5. The body will have the power to prosecute regulated organisations for breaches of these regulations (similar to prosecutions by the Health & Safety Executive). Fines will be imposed.
  6. All complaints are to be passed to the independent body by a receiving institution with a criminal sanction for failing to do so.
  7. The body will gather information from complainants, regulated institutions and third parties. It will have the power to compel disclosure of material.
  8. It will liaise with and assist civil authorities such as the police and social services. It would ensure the police and other statutory organisations are taking appropriate action within reasonable timescales. It will have the power to compel the police to investigate and refer cases to the CPS.
  9. It will provide coordinated support to victims, particularly those required to give evidence.
  10. The body will investigate the complaint using the balance of probabilities as the standard of proof. There will be no statute of limitations. It will have the power to make an award of compensation, similar to the CICA. It will decide the support to be offered to the complainant. A scheme will be established to provide adequate compensation for victims of child sex abuse which takes into account the effect on quality of life and a series of relevant factors (as opposed to the rigid CICA system).
  11. Complainants will be allowed to take advice from lawyers and a contribution towards legal costs will be awarded.
  12. The cost of the body’s work, support, reparations and legal costs are to be paid from a levy on the institutions with those found culpable paying the costs of dealing with individual cases in which they are involved.
  13. It will provide to Government regular reports on its progress and, inter alia, the extent to which its activity is promoting the UK’s obligations under the UN convention on the Rights of the Child.

Charity Commission

  1. A review of the powers of the Charity Commission to change that status when serious child safeguarding concerns are revealed should be initiated. We were disturbed to learn that ABC was using discretionary funds at his disposal to provide significant financial support to PB.
  2. Conclusion
  1. The story of Peter Ball makes clear that even one individual in a position of power can undermine any amount of safeguarding, policy and cultural change within an institution. There was on such individual – George Carey – but he was handsomely supported by others.
  2. What this reveals is that the bonds of loyalty to the institution and its senior members is too great to allow them to the right thing. We cannot trust they will. What is required is independent oversight and criminal sanctions of the sort we have proposed.DAVID GREENWOOD, SWITALSKISClosing submissions were made on behalf of Slater and Gordon, the Archbishop’s council, George Carey and the CPSAlexis Jay (Chair) explained the panel would produce a report in the first quarter of 2019 dealing with Chichester and Peter Ball.27th July 2018
  3. David Greenwood
  4. Fiona Scolding QC closed by thanking all who have contributed. She explained there have been 53,000 pages of evidence to read, 118 statements and 14 live witnesses.
  5. 27h JULY 2018



The past cases review (PCR) published in 2010 was announced with the following declaration in the church press release “We firmly believe that any concerns about a member of clergy or other office holder’s suitability to work with children have now been thoroughly examined in the light of current best practice by independent reviewers”

Contrast this with just one submission from one Diocese in which 390 personnel files were reviewed and 76 were found to have had no checks at all. 114 PTO files reviewed 12 had no checks at all. Of the 390 files reviewed and 24 needed further investigation. 1 person was ordained despite having a conviction for indecent assault; 1 person’s file had been taken by the Metropolitan police Paedophile squad. In another, “nasty” pornography discovered but no action taken. This information does not square with the quote above in bold. To our knowledge none of these cases were followed up, investigated further or reported to the police.

The true story is of vast cover up and avoidance of responsibility on an industrial scale.

The church set out in its review criteria to minimise any damage which could result from opening up the books. The criteria given to reviewers were that they should include (1) The number of files reviewed (2) The numbers referred to statutory authorities (3) The number dealt with formally internally. There seems to have been no concern that these three criteria ignored more detailed but still important safeguarding concerns such as cases where clergy had been arrested without being internally disciplined, retired clergy who still pose a risk, clergy against whom no action has been taken despite allegations against them, clergy with no CRB checks. Parish employees and volunteers were ignored. Non-diocesan organisations such as Cathedrals and monastic Orders were excluded

The question has to be asked what has happened to all these cases which remained very much live but which were ignored and swept under Rowan William’s bulging carpet ?

In the closing weeks of the PCR while the final results were being tallied – there was an extraordinary process in which Archbishop’s Council and senior figures in both Lambeth Palace and Church House were inviting dioceses to whittle their numbers down to zero. So for example in their original return, Chichester returned over 50 cases – but were asked to reduce this to zero on confused criteria that seemed almost to have been invented in closing stages. Chichester’s final return was in fact 3. 3 out of 13. Another diocese returned nearly 40 but this was reduced to zero. This seems to have been the pattern. We now know that Lincoln diocese has sent many files to the police, perhaps as many as 50 – but only within the last two years. Presumably many if not all these files should have led to arrest and potential prosecution at the time of the PCR.

In short the PCR was a whitewash. It was never going to be anything other. It left vast numbers of clergy un-investigated, unreported to the police, free to continue abusing and effectively protected by the church. This amounts at best to misfeasance in public office and at worst perverting the course of justice and harbouring criminals. Church officials’ behaviour should be investigated by the police.

Roger Singleton in his evidence to the IICSA IN March 2018 was critical of the Past Cases Review, its methodology and how it created a false rosy picture about safeguarding problems in the church. He made the point that files are very poorly kept and the press statement on the Past cases review was “under-evidenced”.

Yet we heard this morning on BBC R4 Today Roger Singleton now defending the past cases review by denying there was any cover up by the church. How can we have any faith in the review chaired by him when he has been so soft on the ludicrous charade that was the PCR? His review of the PCR has now been published. It is another attempt to keep things “in house” and persuade IICSA that “they can handle it”. Mr Singleton and his reviewers don’t get it and have been far too lenient with the church.

Mr Singleton’s report amounts to another attempted cover up. He uses loose words, and fails to call the PCR what it was – organised massage of the figures which hid abuse and allowed perpetrators and the good name of the church to be protected. He misses the point which is that the PCR was largely a statistical exercise unconcerned with rigorous assessment of church responses. There was no assessment of whether the church response in each case was appropriate (ie whether the alleged perpetrator had been treated too leniently or whether a case was reported to the police).

The CofE shoehorned a massive problem into an eggcup and hoped to get away with presenting this as a misrepresentation of reality. It has taken 8 years for this story to come to light as Phil Johnson and other members of MACSAS tried to get both the Church and the media to attend to this at the time. And we are seeing now today a whitewash of a whitewash. The church has vowed to introduce limited independent oversight but their idea of independence (for example their use of Roger Singleton) is not our idea of independence.

We need a bold minister to step in and appoint an truly independent reviewer to do a thorough examination of the cases and make referrals to the police of abusers and those responsible for covering up for them – and the church should pay for it.

David Greenwood and Gilo

22nd June 2018

Catholic Nun’s rapes of 13 year old boy covered up.

Catholic Nun’s rapes of 13 year old boy covered up.

The case of William Edward Hayes is a shocking but fairly typical case of the Catholic Church clergy abusing the trust they assumed when looking after children to sexually abuse them. We have seen this pattern emerge in many settings over the last 20 years.

What is extraordinary about William’s case is that he was sexually abused by a Nun who went on to have his child. She was expelled from the church and returned to Ireland. The child of the rape was taken into another convent and spent a lifetime looking for the biological parents. William fought for acknowledgement and redress and after a long fight through lawyers for compensation he eventually succeeded. This was not however without the Catholic Church putting obstacles in his way.

William has been helped in the last decade by Noel Chardon, a founder member of MACSAS (“Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors”), a support organisation for clergy abuse survivors. Noel is a trauma recovery counsellor based in London.

William describes the abuse as follows :

“In June 1951 when I was 10 years old, my sister and I were admitted to the John Reynolds Home at East Beach, Lytham St Anne’s in Lancashire. This home was run by the Catholic Order of Religious, The Franciscan Missionaries of St Joseph who were in fact nuns. The house itself contained about 30 children both boys and girls and contained three separate houses. The sisters lived in one of the houses, the boys in another and the girls in the other one. What I did notice was that we were then cleaned up and fed adequately whilst in this particular home where I remained until the age of 15.

The nuns could be nice at times but also very strict and we weren’t allowed to get away with anything. I had been at the home for probably a couple of years before I got a job in the laundry room at the back of the house and one of the nuns Sister Conleth (birth name Bessie Lawlor) was in charge of the laundry. I hadn’t been working in the laundry very long when I was taken to the back of the laundry room and sexually abused by her. She would push me to the floor and either lay on top of me or have me lay on top of her and showed me how to perform sexual intercourse with her. She would not undress at his particular time but would just pull her habit up and pull my trousers down and I would have sex with her. Initially I wasn’t sure what to do but she showed me how to put my penis inside her and then on a number of occasions over the next few years we would have regular sexual intercourse, by this I mean probably every day. When I said that I didn’t want to do these things she told me that I would be in trouble if I didn’t and she would tell people that I had been bad and that I would be in serious trouble. 

I honestly believed her and I knew that nobody would believe me over a nun and therefore kept having intercourse with her. The sex was Sister Conleth carried on for probably a couple of years before I was moved to my own bedroom. After that Sister Conleth would come to my room on most nights and come to bed with me. She would take all her clothes off, get into bed and have sex with me. Looking back at it now I realise this was rape when I did try to complain I was told to just get on with it and she would often make jokes and phrases such as “lets have a prop up”. Obviously looking back on this now I know that the prop up for me to put my penis inside of her and have sex with her.

Sister Conleth always threatened me with punishment should I say anything about what was happening therefore I tended to keep quiet. This changed because I noticed that my sister had become very unhappy and I later found out that she had been abused by Canon Moxham. After that we ran away on a couple of occasions but were caught and were taken back to the home. I was running away because of the abuse, at that time I obviously didn’t know about my sister but she came with me as she was also being abused. On return to the home I did mention what was happening with myself and Sister Conleth to the Mother Superior who was called Mary Osmond. I remember telling her twice but nothing was done. I was really frightened and embarrassed about talking to her but she just acted as though everything was okay. It would have been about 1956/57 when I was aged about 16 that I was called to a meeting. There was Sister Conleth, Mother Superior, a priest and I believe Canon Moxham was present. I was told that I was being sent back to Carlisle because I had got Sister Conleth pregnant. I was put on a train with no money and told to keep my mouth closed and told that if I said anything to anyone, nobody would believe me and I was also told in no uncertain terms that if I mentioned about the abuse and the relationship with Sister Conleth I would be in serious trouble.”

What William couldn’t have known is that Sister Conleth had her baby and was returned to Ireland. The baby was brought up in a Convent and now with the help of Noel Chardon and William finally breaking his silence to the Daily Express on 3rd April 2018 the daughter of the relationship as made contact with William. (see web link here)

William’s counsellor, Mr Chardon, has discovered not only that the church covered up the fact of the abuse in 1957 but has repeatedly ignored William’s attempts to get recognition and redress from them.

In 2001 William made contact with the Catholic Care organisation, Caritas who ignored him. Thinking he would get no help from the church he took no action until 2007 when he asked his local MP to write to Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor. O’Connor did not help but told William to write to the Bishop of Lancaster’s office. In 2008 William again tried Caritas who tell him that Bessie Lawlor passed away in 2002.

In 2010 William persisted and got a meeting with the Caritas and the head of the Franciscan Missionaries of St Joseph (who ran the children’s home where he was abused), Sister Philomena McCluskey. She told him she’d never heard of this report. William not has the feeling he is being passed around and ignored. No-one in the Church has taken ownership of his case, offered to help and support him, or investigated his case.

In November 2010 William contacts Noel Chardon through MACSAS and Noel provided support, advice and counselling.

In 2011 William, by now age 70 suffers a near fatal heart attack. In 2012 Noel asks for a donation of £1,000 to help William who is struggling financially. The request is denied and Noel is accused of “being on the political wing of MACSAS”. Between 2012 and 2015 Noel provided support and counselling to William. Throughout this period William is “befriended” by a Caritas social worker who works to persuade William that his lawyers are actually his enemy. This causes William great confusion and worry.

On 3rd April 2015 (Good Friday) Noel Chardon, after much research, writes to all 30 Catholic Bishops in England pointing out their breaches of Canon Law in failing to provide help and support to William (Cannons 678, Article 1 and 683 Articles 1 and 2). The 1956 evidence was included in the correspondence to evidence the case.

In 2016 William’s legal case was settled by the Franciscan Missionaries of St Joseph for a minimal payment.

In summary William and Noel accuse the Catholic Church of :-

  1. The abuse itself committed to William between the ages of 13 and 15 on a boy forced to live in the convent.
  2. Failing to support him after leaving the convent.
  3. Failing to try to find his child.
  4. Ignoring his case from 2001.
  5. Failing to alert the police and social services to the case in 2001. Failing to undertake any investigation in to these serious offences (failing to follow its own safeguarding guidance)
  6. Despite knowing his need for support with housing and benefits in old age, failing to help him.
  7. Actively using Jim Cullen, a Caritas social worker, to try to persuade him to drop his legal case.
  8.  Failing to follow its own Cannon law when it failed to help William.

David Greenwood

28th April 2018

IICSA Anglican Chichester closing submissions 23rd March 2018


Anglican Inquiry

Chichester Inquiry

Closing statement of David Greenwood on behalf of Core Participants Phil Johnson, Rev Graham Sawyer, Professor Julie MacFarlane, AN-A1, AN-A2, AN-A5, and AN-A6

1. Over the last three weeks I have been struck by just how inappropriate an organisation the church is to have charge or care of children or vulnerable adults. Personally I would not want my son to spend a moment in the company of a member of this organisation. Its lack of a coherent structure, the possibility of clerics carving out places where they can abuse, the ability to blame one-another, the defensiveness and lack of accountability are just a few criticisms. If this organisation were a school it would have been closed down a long time ago.

2. Issues of the status of the church in the constitution are the province of others and I see no reason why the church cannot continue doing its good work in other sectors but on safeguarding there has to be a case for (to use the words of Edina Carmi) “de-constructing and then re-constructing with appropriate checks and balances”.

3. Whilst I appreciate you must reserve judgement on the Anglican church until the final inquiry scheduled for 2019, it appears to me and the core participants I represent that Anglican church has proved itself incapable of self-governance in the protection of children in its care.

4. We reject the flaccid policies, apologetic language, excuses and promises of action in the future. Myself and members of MACSAS have worked to point out all the issues for many years but have been met with only a listening ear and half-hearted engagement.

The evidence of Chichester and the church as a whole

5. We have heard a catalogue of lamentable failures in Chichester and at national level.
6. A15 – A survivor of abuse by Army Chaplain Gordon Rideout (who later worked as a priest in the Diocese of Chichester) explained how she had been abused by Rideout as a young girl. She explained how powerless she felt during a court martial process in 1972 in which Rideout had been acquitted. Rideout was later convicted in 2012 of offending against her and others.
7. Phil Johnson – told us his story of having been extensively groomed by Roy Cotton and others, of safeguarding failures and of the danger caused to others by the police investigation having been starved of evidence by Wallace Benn. He explained his attempts to bring failures to light and how he had to go to extraordinary lengths in search of the truth which was never volunteered by the church.
8. Mr Johnson feels DSAs should be completely independent, an independent system of providing counselling support should be introduced and paid for by the church, that a culture change will only come via legislation and criminal sanctions. Overall his life has been blighted but he has tried to turn his experience into positive change by encouraging the church to behave better towards survivors. On one final note he reflected that he often thinks about the person he would have been if the abuse hadn’t shaped his life and missed opportunities.
9. Shirley Hosgood
10. In relation to Bishop Wallace Benn Shirley Hosgood said she felt it was not safe to appoint a youth worker and Bishop Wallace said he was a personal friend and he tried to change my view. It was a difficult phone conversation. She felt the diocese had not learnt the lessons of the Cotton and Pritchard failures. PTOs were being given without looking at the blue files. There were communication failings. Wallace Benn was very angry with her and this stifled communication. Eventually Shirley Hosgood was denied access to an important safeguarding crisis meeting. She felt so side-lined that she resigned.
11. John Hind
12. Bishop John Hind had 2 area Bishops. He failed to supervise their activities and allowed them almost a free reign in their parts of the diocese (Lewes and Horsham).He confirmed he would not break the seal of the confessional even for child abuse cases. He refused to take responsibility for action or inaction in the area of Wallace Benn (Lewes). He now wishes he’d given DSAs unfettered access to the blue files much earlier (they only got access in 2008). He explained how in 2001 with the Data Protection Act coming into force he organised staff to take “ephemora” out of blue files. It is significant and perhaps not unconnected that there was a 27 year black hole in Roy Cotton’s file.
John Hind told us that “there was definitely collusion and conspiracy taking place among abusing clergy in the East (Lewes). It was clear people were working in concert”.
13. Philip Jones told us there came a point at which he became aware that Wallace Benn had misled him about when he knew about Cotton’s 1954 conviction. Wallace Benn had told him he knew only in 2001 but it emerged he had known during the currency of the earlier police investigation.
14. Alana Lawrence (former chair of MACSAS) set out the work of MACSAS. Her Stones cry out recommendations accord with the ones I make on behalf of the Core Participants I represent.
15. Roger Meekings – I won’t repeat his evidence save to say that he was thorough and meticulous reviewer. The notion that he somehow ‘missed’ the crucial evidence relating to Bishop Peter Ball and Bishop George Bell is inconceivable. If it had been available to him he would have noticed it.
16. Ian Gibson – Worked as Bishop’s Chaplain in 2004. He was responsible for filing. Found files in disarray. PTOs were being granted without blue files being checked. 90% of clergy and staff didn’t have a CRB check. He found in a separate cabinet a file for Peter Ball. He was present when Wallace Benn asked John Hind to hold back the blemished Rideout CRB. Bishop Wallace called Ian Gibson a liar and denied the incident.
17. Janet Hind – was undoubtedly sincere in her evidence and her efforts and admitted making mistakes on some safeguarding matters. She drew up a safeguarding policy in 1996. Mrs Hind was overruled on the issue of Michael Walsh in the 1990s and produced her note of the case. On Robert Coles he had admitted abuse to Nicholas Reade (Archdeacon) who told Mrs Hind. She admits she should have told the police but didn’t. She assumed someone else would have told the police. Unfortunately everyone else presumed that she had.
18. Edmund Hick (Sussex Police) agreed that if he had known of the conviction of Cotton during the first investigation its complexion may have been different. He said it was routine to get previous convictions on arrest. He added that if he had known about the 2003 complainant the file would have been re-opened. He said the Diocese seemed to resent statutory agencies and the police and other safeguarders had to drag them into the 21st Century. It has been hard at times. He later worked on the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisory Group which was disbanded (he suspected he and others on the group were being a nuisance). He was effectively sacked for trying to bring his professional expertise to bear and being involved in the disciplinary action against Wallace Benn.
19. Wallace Benn – complained bitterly that Roger Meekings had turned speculation into fact. When it was put to WB that he had agreed with a chronology setting out his knowledge of Cotton’s activities which included him knowing about the 1954 conviction in 1998 he said “I was busy at the time and only gave it a cursory look. I corrected it later in 2008. WB maintained he didn’t know about Cotton’s conviction until he saw Cotton’s declaration in 2001. He maintains any paralysis from the diocese was self-induced. He said he had inherited a paedophile ring of priests. Overall he said “I could have done some things better but I was cleared of the CDMs made against me”. He regarded the Safeguarding Adviser’s criticism of him as ‘Nit-Picking”.
20. Rupert Bursell – was a commissary for the Arch Episcopal Visitation. Its findings were in summary that :-
· The Diocese of Chichester was slow to identify abuse taking place.
· Dysfunction caused mainstream reports of abuse to be sidelined.
· Safeguarding was not at the forefront of the Diocesan agenda
21. Julie Macfarlane – Survivor and law professor recounted her abuse and the difficulties she faced with the adversarial civil justice system. She and many of the other Core Participants I represent found the process retraumatising, especially the ‘hostile’ adversarial psychiatric assessments.
22. Bishop Mark Sowerby – identified a sub culture which accepted sexual abuse of children around Lewes. There are basic patterns involving Anglo-Catholics mainly not married. Most abusers were single and looked out for each other. They were a “tribe”. If threatened they responded by defending one another, regardless of the threat – even if it was an allegation of child sex abuse.
23. Bishop Martin Warner – MW doesn’t want to see safeguarding go to an independent body on the basis that he wants Parishes to take responsibility. MW would like to see a laminated card with the top 10 safeguarding issues rather than a long book. He thinks he should explore what can be done with a website. He doesn’t think Mandatory Reporting is the way to protect children. On the confessional he wants to keep it in its present form as it enables disclosure and the unburdening of survivors.
24. Former Archbishop Rowan Williams – confirmed that despite the abuse allegations emanating from the Catholic Church he mistakenly thought the problem was far smaller in the Anglican church. The Past Cases Review press release read to the effect “We have done a thorough review and are certain that the church has no problem cases”. RW admitted this was “an ambitious statement” (In our view it was entirely misleading). On the confessional he is in favour of preserving the seal as he says it allows vulnerable people to use the space. He admits we can’t know how big a problem it is due to the secret nature of the conversations. Under his watch, The Church appears to have wasted over £2m on an ill-conceived review that only identified 13 problematic cases from 40,000 clergy. Even a fraction of this figure could have provided significant amounts of support for survivors.
25. Bishop Nicholas Reade – On Roy Cotton he told Wallace Benn about the police investigation in to him in Dec 1997. NR personally took no further action until 12 months later when Cotton told him his ordination had been postponed due to earlier trouble (organ loft issue). He didn’t say there had been a conviction. NR said “It didn’t occur to me to ask (about a conviction) I take priests at their word. The idea of a priest telling lies to a Bishop horrifies me”. This typifies how the present system relies on trust and why reporting should be mandated. On the issue of Robert Coles he tried to minimise the seriousness of a serious sexual assault of a boy by Rideout as a way of justifying not reporting the confession Coles had made to him to the police despite him being aware that Coles had made a “no comment” interview to the police. “He never admitted rape” was Bishop Reade’s declaration. He felt Eric Kemp should have made the decision.
26. Colin Perkins – was clearly getting on with his work within a flawed system. We had the impression that his system works because of him taking the issues seriously whereas in other dioceses with weaker DSAs or more forceful Bishops the same mistakes as in Chichester can occur. Chichester is often now held up as a beacon of good practice. This has not happened out of the desire for the church to change and improve. It is a reaction to the crisis and has been driven by the pressure and determination of the survivors in their fight for truth and justice.
27. Sir Roger Singleton – was critical of the Past Cases Review, its methodology and how it created a false rosy picture about safeguarding problems in the church. He made the point that files are very poorly kept and the press statement on the Past cases review was “under-evidenced”.
28. A8 and A7 described in detail how they were groomed and abused by Bishop Peter Ball and again the difficulties faced in the civil justice process.
29. Bishop David Walker – explained that there is no outside control over religious communities.
30. Graham Tilby – explained in great detail (and sometimes in management speak) the efforts being made to improve the system in the church notably on training and the ability of DSAs to overrule Bishops. There was criticism that improvements were very slow and that following guidance is still not mandated.
31. Edina Carmi – recounted her findings that there were unacceptable practices at the Cathedral and then a resistance to allow her to do her work, then attempts to destroy all copies of her report.
32. A11 – the boy chorister who had been abused by Terence Banks and suffered with debilitating mental health issues. He complained again of the harmful nature of the compensation process.
33. Dean Peter Atkinson – said “I can see John Treadgold would have been defensive with the police. At the time of his retirement he burned a number of files. He had left the Deanery and returned, removed files from the basement and had a bonfire in the garden. I don’t know what the files were. They might have been Chapter files but could have been his own. We found it odd and told the police.”
34. Elizabeth Hall – (former national safeguarding adviser) gave her opinion that :-
· This can happen anywhere (not just in Chichester).
· People can abuse in plain sight
· These men are obsessed with creating safe places for them to abuse and take care to carve out spaces.
In questioning Ivor Frank asked about document ACE006654_002 which relates to the Bishop of Peterborough having a massive bonfire of documents when he retired. She said there is a theological underpinning to this – to give his successor a fresh start.’ She is also aware that clergy remove and keep documents in their attics after retirement.
35. Justin Welby – agreed that he has no real power and can only use his influence. He was non-specific about his views on many of the suggested changes.
36. Bishop Peter Hancock – He agreed the man in the street won’t know what giving “due regard” means legally and thinks there should be a change to clarify this. He agreed there should be a separate procedure on capability in the CDM. He agreed DSAs should be recruited nationally and work locally. Discussions are starting on a redress scheme. He agrees the seal of the confessional should not apply to child abuse. He is working on improvements to monitoring PTOs including a register with Crockfords. He refused to agree the church should implement Mandatory Reporting, instead stating it is the responsibility of everyone in the country to report. He feels the church is as close as it can get to MR.
37. For structure I return to the four essential ingredients which have prevented good safeguarding responses.

a. Internal rules (including disciplinary rules, secrecy and rules on the confessional and lack of mandatory reporting);
b. The limitations of Hierarchical structures;
c. Church Culture;
d. The Church’s Unincorporated status.

We have heard that the development of internal rules within dioceses was hap hazard, with Janet Hind committing them to paper in 1997 and not until 2004 did we see basic national rules. Over the last 2 years we have seen a torrent of new internal guidance. We question whether DSAs actually have the power to overrule a Bishop due to the employer/ employee relationship.
Mandatory reporting is still a long way off for the church. Even the October 2017 rules still only require “due regard” to be taken to the guidance.
It should be noted that at every turn you have heard Bishop after Bishop find ways to keen oversight structures in house. There has been strenuous resistance of external oversight in the face of the evidence.
Colin Perkins is held up as a model of how things are alright now. The reality is that the church does not have a Colin Perkins in each diocese. Systems have to be designed to be operated by mediocre or even poor employees. In our view the church’s systems are inadequate on almost all levels.
The CDM has been exposed as a hopelessly cumbersome instrument with impenetrable rules. No-one has been successfully disciplined for failing to report abuse. It has been shown to be ‘Not fit for purpose’ in safeguarding matters. Some changes have been made but a vulnerable complainant has to be aware of it in the first place, be able to interpret the rules. There is a need for independent arbitration and a child abuse procedure. PTO is still open to abuse.
The lack of Mandatory reporting has allowed the Chichester cover ups and failures to happen. All the bishops and DSAs would have been required to report yet we have heard or repeated failures to alert the police.
Centralised Rules on records need to be stringent and there needs to be document retention. Again these need to be fully mandated. We have heard of files being filleted, that safeguarding reports could have been thrown away. We have head of at least two bonfires of papers and that this may have been a widespread practice at the end of Bishops’ times in office.
Hierarchical structures;
38. The Church of England operates a highly hierarchical structure with the Diocesan Bishop sitting at the top of the pyramid and having the last say on all matters relating to safeguarding. Whilst an attempt has been made at diluting this structure with the implementation of Diocesan Safeguarding Advisers and allowing them to overrule a Bishop it will still take a brave and self-confident person to do this as they still owe their actual employment to the Bishop and can find themselves bypassed if the Bishop does not agree with their decisions.
We have heard of cultures of deference, factional cultures, anglo-catholics, evangelicals, tribes, middle ground being shut out. We have certainly seen Egos on display. Wallace Benn, Philip Jones and Nicholas Reade were certainly not shrinking violets. These differing cultures created conflict in Chichester and they are no doubt causing problems right now elsewhere in the country.

However the most important culture in the church is the defensive culture. None of our complainant witnesses have described having been welcomed and assisted at any point by church officials. Instead there are attempts at all levels to minimise the seriousness and volume of cases. For instance Rowan William’s evidence on the past cases review which was in fact an attempt to minimise the problem. Julie Macfarlane’s legal claim was resisted on the basis she was out of time and consented to it. There have been repeated attempts to resist Phil Johnson’s questions to get to the truth. The church at National level was prepared at one point to sacrifice Bishop John Hind to minimise the spread and protect Rowan Williams. We have heard some of the skulduggery around Peter Ball which we will hear more of in July, particularly around the Tyler report. The Halliday and Waddington cases elsewhere have demonstrated this is happening elsewhere.

The church and Justin Welby may have you believe that most of this is caused by having a hapless disorganised and disjointed structure. In reality the evidence demonstrates the church institutions have worked in concert to resist cases. It could be said that the Catholic Church’s more brazen approach to resisting cases due to their written rules on secrecy is actually less malign than the Anglican resistance which has requires conscious effort to treat survivors badly.

We have heard that the church is a very loose structure of unincorporated bodies and individuals with no strict system of control. They are not corporate and so not accountable. Better responses and serious attention to good safeguarding practice will only be achieved through serious sanctions such as fines, withdrawal of charitable status or closure of the offending organisations. Our recommendations to remedy this issue are set out below.

It will be for the panel to decide on the evidence but on behalf of the Core Participants I represent we will be asking the panel to agree the following :-

1) That the Anglican Church is unable to effectively respond to child sexual abuse risks. What is required is legislation to introduce mandatory reporting. Legislation is also required to introduce an independent statutory body to enforce basic standards of safeguarding. This statutory body would establish:
2) A Register of Institutions fit to look after children.
3) It would be an offence to look after children without being on the Register.
4) To be on the Register the institution will have to introduce a corporate structure.
5) The registered institution should be forced to adhere to the minimum standards of safeguarding regulation.
6) The independent body would have the power to prosecute organisations for breaches of regulations. Fines would be imposed for breaches. Organisations could be prevented from working with children.
7) All complaints would be passed to this independent body by any receiving institution with a criminal sanction for failing to do so.
8) The body would gather information from complainants, regulated institutions and third parties. It would have the power to compel disclosure of material.
9) The body would liaise with and assist civil authorities such as the Police and Social Services. The body would ensure that police and other statutory organisations are taking appropriate action within reasonable timescale.
10) The body would investigate complaints using a “balance of probabilities” standard of proof. There would be no statute of limitations under this scheme. The independent body would have the power to make awards of compensation similar to the CICA. It would have the power to decide on the support to be offered to a complainant and a scheme would be established to provide adequate compensation taking into account the effects on quality of life and a series of factors.
11) Complainants will be allowed to take advice from lawyers and a contribution to legal costs would be awarded.
12) The cost of the body’s work would be paid from a levy on institutions and those culpable would pay for the costs of dealing with individual cases in which they are involved.

Report potential offences
Having read through a great deal of the evidence gathered so effectively by the lawyers to the Inquiry we see that there are individuals whose conduct may require referral to the police. I ask the panel to consider referrals.

Commission of Inquiry
I do also ask the Panel to consider a recommendation that a permanent Commission of Inquiry is set up to carry out investigations elsewhere in the church and in other bodies similar unregulated bodies.

David Greenwood
23 March 2018

IICSA Anglican Chichester week 3 summary


Anglican Inquiry

Diocese of Chichester

Notes of week 3 (19th to 23th March 2018)


A8 had known from an early age that he wanted to explore the monastic life. He considered the Benedictines, Franciscans and Peter Ball’s Order of the Glorious Ascension. He decided on Pater Ball’s “Give a Year to God” scheme which was just for a year and he felt it gave more freedom rather than the very serious atmospheres of the other monastic orders. The trainees were also young men to whom he could relate.

He lived at the Rectory at Littlington, sleeping on mattresses on floors, praying regularly from 5am and was encouraged to subjugate himself entirely to Peter Ball. He now recognises that this was a grooming process. He was sexually assaulted three times by Ball.

In 1992 he was called by a policeman about offences committed by Peter Ball but did not confirm he had been a victim. He became ordained but left the priesthood between 1997 and 2012. In 2012 he took on a set of parishes in Shropshire and told the suffragan Bishop of Ludlow about the Ball abuse. He took no action. He later told the Bishop of Hereford who also took no action.

A8 feels abuse is not about sex but about control. He feels the church tries to crush people who speak out. He feels apologies are used as weapons by the church, the actual message being “you’re not on our team any more. It’s a way of saying goodbye. He didn’t find apologies helpful or genuine.


A7 became interested in monasticism after hearing Peter Ball speak at his school in 1981. He thought it would be a good way to “find” himself. He got a lot of attention from Peter Ball and was happy and flattered by this attention from such a holy man.

Peter Ball has been head boy at Lancing College and A8 drew parallels between the boarding school set up and the Littlington scheme arrangements with young men sleeping in the same rooms, communal living etc.

A7 told us Ball wanted to “toughen us up”, getting us out of bed early for prayers and to work all day. “In reality we were snowflakes” A7 could see that most of the schemers were “on the edge”. Ball sexually assaulted A7 between April and August 1985.

A7 is unhappy that over the course of the 10 years subsequent to Ball’s caution the church manoeuvred him back into the position of any other retired Bishop. His theories are either:-

  • The church accepted his pleas of innocence and denials, or
  • The church had forgiven him, or
  • The church allowed him the elevated status because he was old and frail.

Bishop David Walker

Bishop David Walker, a tall thin cleric with white hair and short beard wore a purple shirt, dog collar and a cross. He is Bishop of Manchester and lead on religious communities

He has a role in relation to monastic orders, religious communities. He explained he has no power over them but can carry out a visit to each community every 5 years. The only sanction he has is to remove the Order from the advisory council.

Graham Tilby

Graham Tilby (GT) wore a suit and tie, is around 50 years old with glasses. He has the manner of a management executive but personable. He tended to drift into vague management speak at times to demonstrate concepts. He is clearly doing a very challenging job in circumstances in which his organisation’s structure closes off possibilities for real and quick improvement.

He pointed out past failings eg that it was not compulsory for Dioceses to follow national policy until 2015, no effective mechanism for punishment of clergy for failing to report until 2015 and couldn’t compel a risk assessment until 2016.

Before he joined there was 0.5 posts in national safeguarding. Now there are 13.5.

His work areas are :-

Policy, training, quality assurance and complex case work.

In addition to his team he has a “network of associates” ie work is outsourced such as the development of the safe spaces project and safeguarding hub website.

There were various conversations on technical issues, in many cases GT acknowledged the present position is not acceptable but he had plans in place to bring improvement such as monitoring PTOs, “structured conversations” arising from SCIE audits, information sharing and the safeguarding hub website, training backlog, and psychological profiling.

The employment of DSAs at a national level to ensure independence is not ruled out by GT.

DSAs improvements are :-

  • Now need a Social Work qualification
  • DSAs can overrule Bishops on safeguarding
  • They can’t be clergy
  • They need management experience

GT was unable to adequately respond to the criticism that the give “due regard” to church safeguarding regulations wording was insufficiently imperative. He simply said there are other areas of the guidance which have a “must” wording.

GT was sadly equally woolly on mandatory reporting choosing excuses on thresholds for safeguarding over commitment to the principle.

He acknowledged there was more work to do on whistleblowing, cathedrals, working with survivors, ISVAs, data collection and the safe spaces project.

He managed to avoid a good question from Alexis Jay on whether he had found a diocese failing to report a safeguarding mater in to him centrally.

Ivor Frank describes GT’s flaccid language about future plans and underscores the need for urgency in pushing them through.

Edina Carmi

Edina Carmi (ED) is a very experienced social worker who prepared the report on failings of the Chichester Cathedral Dean and Chapter arising from the Terence Banks abuse conviction in 2000. She is a middle aged woman with short fair hair and is a very good communicator.

She found Dean John Treadgold to be resistant to allowing her access to employees and volunteers at the Cathedral. He felt there would be reputational damage, it would stir up more complaints and would damage their finances.

The main problem was that Bishop John Hind, the Diocesan Bishop was powerless to force the Cathedral to implement her recommendations.

Overall she found a divergence starting at the end of the 1970s between acceptable safeguarding practice and the Cathedral practices. Overall the Cathedral wanted to deal with everything “in house”.

ED is also the lead on the SCIE audits taking place at present. She acknowledges the shortcomings of the SCIE audit being paper only but feels it will give a baseline of how the church is complying with its own guidance.

ED’s thoughts on the future ?

She identifies that many in the church think they have literally “God-given” power. She questions whether it is possible to change the culture unless the church is de-constructed and re-constructed with in-built checks and balances.

She also identified there is a need for a more targeted spread of funding between dioceses to meet the needs of the particular diocese. She also worries for DSAs as they are appointed by Bishops and it would take a particularly strong DSA to challenge a Bishop. She advocates DSAs being recruited and employed nationally but operating locally. She also advocates an independent scheme for redress and decisions on cases.


A11 was a chorister at a choral school. He was befriended by Terence Banks, his parents were proud of him and were taken in by Banks who persuaded them to let A11 stay overnight with him. During the overnight stay he was sexually assaulted at age around 11 by Banks. Banks worked at the BBC in London and took A11 to his flat in London where he again sexually assaulted him. A further incident when he was 13 happened when an adult member of a choir took him to a flat in Richmond and sexually assaulted him. A11 told him Mum but she didn’t believe him. There was another more minor incident of over clothing touching by a teacher.

A11 reported all this to the police in 2000 and was treated well by the police. He had to fund his own counselling and suffered with mental health difficulties, preventing him working for an extended period. He criticised the cathedral’s provision of support for Banks but none for him.

A11 was never given a copy of the Carmi report despite being one of the complainants.

He has felt very strongly that the church has handled him very badly. He was invested very heavily in the church being a boarder at a chorister’s school and the behaviour of these men and the Cathedral afterwards has shattered his faith. He described the rottenness of the men and the complete absence of any kind of good response.

He criticised the use of a psychiatrist who did a desktop report without seeing him which led to an offer of compensation being withdrawn.

The second abuser described is by the way still working at the Cathedral.

Dean Peter Atkinson

Dean Peter Atkinson (PA) is the present Dean at Chichester Cathedral. He wore a grey suit with a dog collar, was very considered with his words and vague at times.

He described the arrest of Banks as a wake up call and found it shocking. He also mentioned the conviction of Michael Walsh who was imprisoned for 5 years for indecent assaults on girls. He admitted the chapter’s mistake in allowing Walsh back into the Cathedral – he racalls the discussion being about forgiveness and whether he was entitled to a fresh start after prison.

He admits John Treadgold handles the Banks disclosure and parents badly.

PA said “I can see John Treadgold would have been defensive with the police. At the time of his retirement he burned a number of files. He had left the Deanery and returned, removed files from the basement and had a bonfire in the garden. I don’t know what the files were. They might have been Chapter files but could have been his own. We found it odd and told the police.”

PA resisted the suggestion that the Cathedral was a closed community.

He regrets putting together an indignant document criticising the Carmi report.

Elizabeth Hall

Elizabeth Hall (EH) was the national safeguarding adviser (NSA) 2009-2013. In her 50s, she wore glasses and had collar length hair.

EH has worked in many posts throughout her career before taking the role of NSA which was 2 days a week.

She felt handicapped by a lack of funding, no national guidance on interrelation of dioceses to the centre, and feeling “outside the church house family”.

She describes her work supporting DSAs and the KATE Wood discovery of the Tyler report in April 2012. She felt the cover up of Ball had been managed and Sussex Police should be told.

She thinks :-

  • This can happen anywhere (not just Chichester).
  • People can abuse in plain sight
  • These men are obsessed with creating safe places for them to abuse and take care to carve out spaces.

In questioning Ivor Frank asked about document ACE006654_002 which relates to the Bishop of Peterborough having a massive bonfire of documents when he retired. She said there is a theological underpinning to this – to give his successor a fresh start. She is also aware that people keep documents in their attics after retirement.

Archbishop Justin Welby

Justin Welby (JW) wore round spectacles, was clean shaven and had short grey hair and wore a grey suit, black shirt and a dog collar and cross.

His aims on safeguarding are to:-

  1. Use his influence
  2. Provide leadership
  3. Make resources available
  4. Use discipline

He acknowledged he can’t compel any Bishop to do anything. His only tool is visitations which are cumbersome and rare. He complained the church took a long time to change things and that causes frustration. He wants to eradicate a culture of deference to bishops by working as teams, he hopes to pick up bad management before it becomes catastrophic. He’d advocate psychometric testing if its proven to help. He commented on integrating “tribes” and feels the Oxbridge class bias at the top is breaking down.

On the issues of forgiveness he used biblical quotes and theology to explain what the church should do.

On the issue of an independent redress system he said “we need justice therefore if we can’t find it in the present system we need to find a better one”

On the Bishop George Bell case he stressed the need for transparency and his principled avoidance of non disclosure agreements.

He agrees data collection is not good enough, that DSAs need outside supervision and nore ASVAs are needed. He also agreed the CDM process needs a separate strand for child abuse cases.

He learned that he’s become ashamed of the church, the insanity of a deferential culture, that Parish safeguarding officers are the front line, and the church has got to find ways of implementing change more quickly.

Bishop Peter Hancock

Peter Hancock, a fair haired man of around 60 wore a grey suit, purple shirt, dog collar and cross. He spoke with excitement about safeguarding.

He agreed the man in the street won’t know what giving “due regard” means legally and thinks there should be a change to clarify this.

He agreed there should be a separate procedure on capability in the CDM.

He agreed DSAs should be recruited nationally and work locally.

Discussions are starting on a redress scheme.

He agrees the seal of the confessional should not apply to child abuse.

He is working on improvements to monitoring PTOs including a register with Crockfords.

He refused to agree the church should implement Mandatory Reporting, instead stating it is the responsibility of everyone in the country to report. He feels the church is as close as it can get to MR.

He’s learnt its not enough to listen. The church needs to act and make policies visible and credible.

IICSA Anglican Chichester Inquiry Week 2 summary


Anglican Inquiry

Diocese of Chichester

Notes of week 2 (12th to 16th March 2018)


Wallace Benn

Wallace Benn (WB) was an elderly man wearing a purple shirt and dog collar. He spoke with a soft Scottish accent. His manner was of self-confidence in his belief that he had no responsibility on safeguarding matters.

WB was Bishop of Lewes between 1997 and 2012. His boss was the Bishop of Chichester, Eric Kemp then Bishop John Hind.

He felt he had inherited some poor appointments in terms of clergy in the Diocese of Lewes, being individuals appointed by Bishop Peter Ball, who had been B of Lewes for 17 years.

He complained that he hadn’t been given enough safeguarding training. He had 4 days in 15 years.

If there were safeguarding issues he saw his responsibility as being to report to the Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser or the Bishop of Chichester. He had access to only some Blue files. He said even the DSA procedures drafted by Janet Hind had required her to do the reporting to the police.

On Shirley Hosgood he commented :”I think she had a chip on her shoulder from her previous safeguarding job (Catholic). She and Roger Meekings were overly aggressive saying “We’re the professionals and you’re the amateurs”. She was nit-picking. He gave the example of her criticising his delay in passing on the Nov 2007 blog on to the police until Feb 2008. It is disputed whether that would have helped the police to prosecute Pritchard earlier.

On the issue of him failing to report Cotton’s previous conviction to police or B of Chichester he said “Looking back I could have queried things a bit more but it was Janet Hind’s job and I didn’t have to tell the police and there was fear of litigation from the priest himself… It looked like it wasn’t that serious as it had been dropped by the police…I thought (Cotton) was a villain. There had been a false accusation that had stopped him being ordained. What I did was refer him to my then boss, Eric Kemp…who said @in my opinion he’s alright – give him PTO’…I did tell Nicholas Reade and Janet Hind…I only found out about Cotton’s 1954 conviction in 2001.”

WB denied that when he said “You can’t write off a good guy because of a bad day” it concerned safeguarding.

WB complained bitterly that Roger Meekings had turned speculation into fact. When it was put to WB that he had agreed with a chronology setting out his knowledge of Cotton’s activities which included him knowing about the 1954 conviction in 1998 he said “I was busy at the time and only gave it a cursory look. I corrected it later in  2008. WB maintained he didn’t know about Cotton’s conviction until he saw Cotton’s declaration in 2001. He listed his reasons for this and it is only fair to reproduce them here :-

  • Nicholas Reade mentioned “something” in the past – not a conviction
  • If either of us had known we’d have told Janet Hind
  • The conviction was news to me in 2001
  • Type of services he was allowed to take were consistent with his conviction having been discovered after 2001 (their nature changed after that date).
  • WB had a very unpleasant conversation with Cotton after altering his PTO in 2001.
  • The allegation was mentioned in the staff meeting in 1997. If it had been a conviction I’d have mentioned it.

WB agrees he should have stopped Cotton’s PTO altogether in 2001.

There were numerous inconsistencies in his recollection put to his and the way in which his recollection does not marry up with the evidence of others but WB continued to assert he had done nothing wrong if failing to report Cotton earlier to the police or his Bishop.

On the subject of Colin Pritchard WB was accused of failing to suspend him when in 2007 he knew of his activities. He agrees in hindsight he should have suspended Pritchard.

He feels traduced by the Meekings report which criticises him. On the subject of his threat of legal action he maintains that although he discussed legal action against the diocese if it published the Meekings report he denied threatening proceedings. He maintains any paralysis from the diocese was self-induced.

He said he had inherited a paedophile ring of priests.

By way of comment – a pattern seems to have emerged around WB. He fell out with almost everyone in the Diocese – Janet Hind, Shirley Hosgood, John Hind, Philip Jones, Roer Meekings, E Butler Sloss, and Rupert Bursell.

On the subject of Robert Coles who had been engaged in sexual relations with a young socially inadequate parishioner he admitted knowing and said he thought the police knew about it and in any case it was Janet Hind’s responsibility to report it. He assumed it had been done. WB was unwilling to accept any responsibility.

On Gordon Rideout, despite evidence to the contrary and a letter supporting Rideout and he has “affection for Gordon and concern for his welfare” WB denied he did anything wrong when he asked John Hind not to forward a blemished CRNB check to Shirley Hosgood. He explained it didn’t show anything new and a later return would give the full picture. At this point he called Ian Gibson a liar for giving evidence to the contrary.

Overall he said “I could have done some things better but I was cleared of the CDM s made against me”.

Ivor Frank of the panel in questioning rebutted WB’s assertion that his “standard letter” in response to Cotton’s request for PTO was standard as it had been tailored by WB.

In further response to Mr Frank WB said “Saving my skin wasn’t the predominant issue.”

Rupert Bursell

He was a commissary for the Arch Episcopal Visitation.

Its findings were in summary that :-

  • The Diocese of Chichester was slow to identify abuse taking place.
  • Dysfunction caused mainstream reports of abuse to be side-lined.
  • Safeguarding was not at the forefront of the Diocesan agenda
  • Colin Perkins (new DSA) was doing well but with limited finance.
  • There was a tendency to believe the cleric rather than the abused because the accused was a colleague.
  • The CDM against WB demonstrates the dysfunction.
  • The area scheme could have worked if the personalities had co-operated.
  • Eric Kemp believed in forgiveness.
  • Training for senior clergy was not good.
  • Until the church deals with the past and acknowledges ongoing complaints there can be no reconciliation.
  • Apologies need to be genuine.

On the CDM his concerns are :-

  • It is too cumbersome
  • Individual Bishops shouldn’t participate (due to conflict of interest)
  • The “trivial” threshold should be removed (at present CDMs only go forward if the priest could be removed from office if found proven.

On the confessional he said “It is a considerable problem” and believes there should be an exemption to the seal of the confessional for child abuse crimes.

He commented “The church won’t do this voluntarily so we need legislation for Mandatory Reporting”.

He discussed Spiritual abuse and exorcisms and feels they need more regulation. Good behaviour contracts are unenforceable. Fairness is needed in dealing with posthumous allegations. Provision of Therapy support should be centralised. On the October 2017 guidance he criticised the use of the words “Due regard” as being unclear to non-lawyers.

Professor Julie Macfarlane

Julie Macfarlane is a professor of law at Windsor University, Ontario. She has written books on conflict resolution.

She became an evangelical Christian in the 1970s and was converted by listening to Billy Graham. F12 was a priest in her area and age 16 she was beginning to have doubts about her faith so went to him for spiritual guidance. He told her God would want her to engage in sexual activity with him there and then in his study and believing he was truly being told this by God she did this. It led to him taking her out regularly under the pretext of learning to drive and regularly sexually assaulting her. This turned into stalking and she was finally able to escape his clutches by moving to University.

She wasn’t able to tell anyone about the abuse until her Father died. Then she told her Mum who didn’t appear to react with any distress. The professor found F12 was still a priest in a country abroad and raised a complaint about him. A hearing was set but F12 resigned before it took place and moved to work in a church of a different denomination in the same city.

Professor Macfarlane complained to the police in 2014 after hearing there was another complainant. Throughout she has been unimpressed by the police who seemed to take her complaint begrudgingly.

Professor Macfarlane was so unhappy with how the Defendants in her civil case had tried to resist her case that she wrote an article for the Church Times. This met strong opposition from the police but with a lot of effort it was published.

As part of Professor Macfarlane’s settlement it was agreed that the insurance company EIG would not treat other survivors the same way. She and David Greenwood, her lawyer, set out standards they wanted the insurance company to adhere to which were :-

  • Limitation defence never to be used
  • No use of a defence of consent for under 18s
  • No use of consent for adult abuse by clergy
  • Not to discontinue pastoral support when a civil case starts

Her overall reflections are :-

Adversarial system is totally inappropriate for these cases as it causes trauma by 1) having to hear defence assertions, 2) Unwillingness by defence to talk about settlement, 3) examination by Maden too long and traumatic.

Her view is that an independent redress system like Canada’s residential school process is needed. Australia looks at these cases from the starting point that there are very few false claims.

Overall she believes :-

  • Better measures of compensation to make people feel whole again are needed.
  • The test should be balance of probabilities.
  • There are low false reports so a basic clear and competent investigation only is needed.

Bishop Mark Sowerby

A youthful looking man clean shaven with short grey hair and wearing a purple shirt and dog collar.

Mark Sowerby (MS) is the Bishop of Horsham. He confirmed the area scheme has been revoked. In terms of safeguarding in Chichester the Diocesan Bishop deals with recruitment and departures. The two suffregan Bishops deal with granting PTOs and licencing readers. The principal point of contact with statutory agencies is the DSA Colin Perkins.

MS has found an unwillingness among parishioners to believe allegations. Older people have a lot of deference for clergy. Long tenures in parishes allowed different customs to become the norm. MS has identified a sub culture which accepted sexual abuse of children around Lewes. There are basic patterns involving Anglo-Catholics mainly not married. Most abusers were single and looked out for each other. They were a “tribe”. If threatened they responded badly.

Bishop Martin Warner

Bishop Warner (MW) is a thin man with a bald head and round glasses wearing a black shirt and a dog collar.

He arrived to a situation in Chichester where there was pressure to remove Bishop Wallace Benn. The local authority were requiring his removal from office. Various perpetrators had been convicted during WB’s time in office.

When he arrived he found paralysis. He detected a culture of deference to clergy and a defensiveness. Many people thought Peter Ball had been badly treated. He is trying to give parishes direction. His aims for parishes are Safeguarding, Growth, and Giving. He has visited every parish in the first 18 months.

On the files – the DSA has full access to files now.. He undertook a Visitation to the Cathedral in 2016 and required them to put together an updated safeguarding policy and to defer to the DSA. Chaplains now need a licence from him.

MW doesn’t want to see safeguarding go to an independent body on the basis that he wants Parishes to take responsibility.

MW would like to see a laminated card with the top 10 safeguarding issues rather than a long book. He thinks he should explore what can be done with a website.

MW is opposed to the ordination of women and won’t accept the sacrament from them but he thinks sexism is unacceptable. He thinks there is a danger of missing paedophiles when the church focusses on equating being gay with being a paedophile.

Me doesn’t think Mandatory Reporting is the way to protect children.

On the confessional he wants to keep it in its present form as it enables disclosure and the unburdening of survivors (and possibly abusers, Martin ?).

He wanted to register his sorrow for the abuse and how it was subsequently handled.

On questioning by Alexis Jay he confirmed he would welcome examination by another diocese but does not support entirely external independent oversight.

On questioning by Druscilla Sharpling MW confirmed the church also needs to be alert to domestic abuse in the community.

Overall MW wants to preserve the status quo.

Rowan Williams

Rowan Williams (RW) was Archbishop of Canterbury between 2002 and 2012. Now a master at Magdalen College, Cambridge. He has wiry grey hair and a beard reminiscent of a folk singer, wore glasses and a black shirt and dog collar.

He confirms he knows little of safeguarding and had little involvement.

In answer to a question from David Greenwood he confirmed that despite the abuse allegations emanating from the Catholic Church he mistakenly thought the problem was far smaller in the Anglican church.

On the question of the past cases review he admits a few high profile cases caused him shock and he had to make a visible gesture and a willingness to examine his own back yard. Hence he took part in designing and implementing the Past Cases Review (PCR). He the measurements made in dioceses failed to look at cases where there had been arrests but no further action by police, where the clergy had died or retired, where there were no allegations made by actual complainants and whether there were CRB checks.

The PCR press release read to the effect “We have done a thorough review and are certain that the church has no problem cases”. RW admitted this was “an ambitious statement” (In fact it was entirely misleading). He agreed the PCR was inadequate in three respects :-

  • It failed to do justice to victims
  • The stats produced gave us a clearer bill of health than was justified
  • It looked too much backwards and not to the future.

On the confessional he is in favour of preserving the seal as it allows vulnerable people to use the space. He admits we can’t know how big a problem it is due to the secret nature of the conversations.

On Peter Ball he is sorry he didn’t do enough for victims. He launched the Arch Episcopal Visitation as Wallace Benn’s CDM had not succeeded in removing him. An e mail from Andrew Nunn to George Pitcher at Lambeth was revealed that showed a strategy of “throwing Bishop John Hind to the press as a sacrifice to avoid it getting to the Archbishop” RW denied knowing about the strategy.

There came a point at which the head of Education at Sussex Council wrote a 7 page letter to RW to demand measures in schools run by the Church. RW replied with what Fiona Scolding describes as an “impossibly weedy response” (a 2 paragraph letter thanking the council and assuring them that all was in hand). RW said “What I wanted to say was that Wallace Benn had no contact with children, was not an abuser, was just possibly incompetent and we were trying to negotiate his exit. WB didn’t have the confidence of his colleagues or the wider world. I could have initiated a CDM but that would have been cumbersome. There needs to be something akin to an employment law type measure.”

On peter Ball RW explained that PB was pestering him for rights to officiate and had to repeatedly turn him down. The Northants police investigation was launched and the Mellows report recommended waiting before taking further action until the outcome of the police action. This ended with no action so Kate Wood reviewed the papers and found letters. We contributed to a risk assessment of Ball, and brought the file together (at this point the famous e mail from Chris Smith to RW setting out the plan was quoted “So much has been swept under the carpet for so long that we are in peril of the furniture tumbling over.” The plan was to gather all files on Ball together and be prepared for press intrusion. This took almost 3 years from 2009 to 2012 before the police were involved and RW regrets the delay.

Retired Bishop Nicholas Reade

Nicholas Reade (NR) was a bald man wearing a black shirt and dog collar. He has an incredibly “posh” accent and his mannerisms had an air of caricature. He was confident and self-assured, willing to admit he had not taken safeguarding seriously. He had a strong personality which was almost domineering.

NR was Archdeacon of Lewes 1997-2003. He described himself as “a trouble-shooter”.

On Roy Cotton he told Wallace Benn about the police investigation in to him in Dec 1997. NR personally took no further action until 12 months later when Cotton told him his ordination had been postponed due to earlier trouble (organ loft issue). He didn’t say  there had been a conviction. NR said “It didn’t occur to me to ask (about a conviction) I take priests at their word. The idea of a priest telling lies to a Bishop horrifies me”.

“Bishop Eric should have checked the file and found the 1954 conviction in 1997. Cotton later told Cotton in 2001 about his conviction. WB told me in 1999 he thought Cotton was a villain and I was always personally uneasy about him. When the police closed their case I thought that was it. I now know his PTO was abused after retirement.”

There was discussion about Cotton’s PTO and whether WB knew that he was actually ministering after retirement outside the care home where he was said to be (he was actually in his own house in Seddlescombe). In summary Nicholas Reade only knew of Cotton being in a nursing home from 2003. Wallace Benn declaring that NR had told him this information in 1999 cannot be a genuine memory.

On the issue of Robert Coles NR’s pathetic attempts to defend him removed what credibility he had until this point in his evidence. He tried to minimise the seriousness of a serious sexual assault of a boy by Rideout as a way of justifying not reporting the confession Coles had made to him to the police despite him being aware that Coles had made a “no reply” interview to the police. “He never admitted rape” was NR’s declaration. He felt Eric Kemp should have made the decision.

Colin Perkins

Colin Perkins was a smartly-dressed man wearing a tie with short hair aged around 50.

He has been the DSA since 2011 in Chichester. He explained how collaborative working with other agencies has been a vast improvement in Chichester. He agrees the diocese was in a state of paralysis when he arrived. Things became so bad that he and others on the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisory Group (DSAG) launched a CDM against WB.

On reporting to statutory authorities he confirmed “We no longer ask the Bishop’s permission to report out. We just get on with it.”

A number of cases were examined and CP explained how things on reporting had gone wrong.

On the adequacy of the CDM mechanism he confirmed its failures are :-

  • There was a 1 year time limit until 2016 and now you have to justify an exemption
  • There is power to suspend clergy only when arrested (Bishop now has a discretion to suspend)
  • All CDM complaints have to be made in writing
  • The standard of proof was high until the late 1990s
  • It is not possible for a complainant to speak only to a woman
  • A CDM could not be pursued if someone was acquitted before 2013
  • Penalties can only be by consent
  • There is no monitoring of statistics
  • There is no central record of complaints or the type of complaint

Overall Colin Perkins was clearly getting on with his work within a flawed system and was complacent about how well the system was working. I had the impression that his system works because of him taking the issues seriously whereas in other dioceses with weaker DSAs or more forceful Bishops the same mistakes as in Chichester can occur.

Roger Singleton

Sir Roger Singleton (RS) id a grey-haired man with a pleasant manner in his 60s. He sits on the national Safeguarding Advisory Panel. He complains it doesn’t decide anything.

He was critical of the Past Cases Review, its methodology and how it created a false rosy picture about safeguarding problems in the church. He made the point that files are very poorly kept and the press statement was “under-evidenced” (presumably a euphemism for “a lie”).

The most significant problems he saw were :-

  • Work on Culture
  • Appropriate responses to survivors
  • Prevention
  • Forgiveness is too entrenched
  • Recording quality and standards must improve

He said there is a serious case for having serious allegations investigated outside the church.

On Mandatory Reporting he agrees we need MR but more clarity on triggers to reporting.

Lord George Carey

(Archbishop of Canterbury 1990-2002). His statement was read. He essentially says he can remember nothing and will have to consult the records before he can give a statement for the Peter Ball Inquiry in July 2018.