As an NGO to the UN committee for the Rights of the child we gave evidence against the Holy See to this committee and also the Committee against Torture. This is our submission which has now gone to the pre-sessional working party regarding the examination of the UK next year. We are very happy to give more information about our stance.
Sue Cox
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION OF THE RIGHTS OF
THE CHILD
SUBMISSION BY NGO SURVIVORS VOICE EUROPE
ON THE POSITION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN
AND NORTHERN IRELAND
Survivors voice Europe is an International
self funded organisation made up of, and supporting survivors of catholic
clergy abuse
The Committee will be aware of the criticisms made of the Holy See in
its report of 2014
Firstly
I would like to draw your attention to a particular concern that we have. It is
our contention that although there is “lip service” paid to the tragedy
surrounding childhood sexual abuse, there is a gaping hole in the understanding
of the severity of it’s consequences.
Despite
seeming outrage from anyone hearing of these crimes, there is a tendency to
view what are referred to as “historic” trauma as something that may seem only
to necessitate victims to have need of some “counselling” or perhaps psychiatry,
maybe social care or pastoral support.
This
is an offensive trivialisation of a devastating crime against a child, and is
particularly true of the attitude of the churches, and also the UK government.
Survivors
of these abuses are often viewed at best as unstable or at worst of dubious
character, and the crimes themselves are trivialised, the victims receiving the
very least that they can be offered rather than the very best they deserve.
Childhood
sexual abuse is a catastrophic, life sentence to all abuse victims, and has
serious consequences even for future generations.
It
is not possible to be sexually abused as a child and survive unscathed, and the
extent of those legacies, in our opinion needs to be properly highlighted and
taken into consideration when considering how any state or organisation deals
with it’s aftermath, or indeed safeguards future generations. We witness this
crime being relegated to an unfortunate “blip” rather than the tsunami of
dreadful proportions that it actually is.
Although
it is indeed important to recognise the mental and emotional effects of such
early traumas, it is a more important and a much-neglected fact that these are
merely symptoms of physical, and permanent changes that will have occurred for
that person.
Scientific
research has shown categorically that childhood sexual abuse cause physical
changes to the victims brains, immune systems and metabolic systems, even
further than that it has been proven to shorten expected life span by around
twenty years.
While
it is true that the victim may be put on a distorted life path which often
involves mental health problems, addictions, self harming, suicides, even
criminal behaviour, what is not being acknowledged is that what has become
referred to as “psychological damage” will all have a physical root.
A
victim may very well have serious physical conditions which can be clearly
attributed to their trauma.
They
will have a greater susceptibility to life threatening conditions such as heart
disease and cancer, diabetes, hypertension, and are far more likely to commit suicide.
These
facts are rarely considered, mostly avoided, and this is a travesty.
As
experts in this particular field, we are involved with the education of
professionals, and survivors alike into the true nature of this damage, and it
is our firm belief that unless everyone involved in any aspect of child abuse
should be in full possession of all of these facts.
This
should include therapists, lawyers, social workers, politicians and the UN
committees.
Otherwise
along with the damage that has already occurred, the victim is further abused
by the trivialisation of their ordeals.
It
is impossible to safeguard future children without a very full and searching
examination of past failures and ignorance of the facts.
There
has been a systematic refusal to look properly at the severity of the issues, a
refusal that threatens to undermine any progress being made in the safeguarding
of children.
Witness
the hastily formed “over arching enquiry” in the U.K. which failed almost as
soon as it was formed because of an ill informed knee jerk reaction to
childhood abuse scandals involving celebrities and institutions like the BBC
and previous governments. It was a halfhearted farcical attempt to placate
critics, and did more harm than good. It fractured an already vulnerable
survivor community.
Soft
soaping or patronizing survivors by including them inappropriately in the
formation of meaningless committees is a time wasting strategy, elevating them
to positions they cannot sustain or emotionally deal with, further compounds
their burden.
The
new “Goddard” enquiry, has begun, without any clear understanding or indeed
interest in clarity, and has an elitist and selective approach.
Unless
everyone understands the full effects of these crimes, we don’t believe there
will ever be a serious imperative on the part of any government to stamp them
out. While ever these effects are minimized there will be no justice for past
or future victims of these crimes against humanity.
Furthermore,
these enquiries and committees can never be truly independent while they
comprise of people within the organizations or governments being investigated.
We consider that while it is important that the British legal system to be
involved, we fear that as this is a nationwide problem, involving so many
established institutions, the body investigating these crimes should comprise
mostly of people outside the UK in order to achieve some sort of independence.
Sue
Cox – Co-founder Survivors Voice-Europe
Church
Organisations in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland
We have identified a number of situations in which the state has failed
to take adequate steps to control or police church organisations in the United
Kingdom and Northern Ireland and a copy of our findings are set out in our
evidence document Appendix 1 to this document.
Whilst we understand that the government of England and Wales has set up
an Inquiry into failings of institutions, this ‘Goddard Inquiry’, as it is
known, has terms of reference, which fall short of addressing the requirements
of the Convention.
We urge the UNCRC to recommend that either the terms of reference of
this Inquiry are broadened or that a new Inquiry is established to address the
requirements of the UK’s obligations under the convention.
In particular the UK government has failed to implement legislation to
mandate the reporting of allegations of child abuse to the Police and has
failed to take steps to regulate the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of
England, despite evidence that these two institutions are failing to prevent
the abuse of children and are in fact preventing proper investigation of abuse
allegations and have colluded in cover-ups.
Child Sexual
Exploitation
Despite the Police and Local Authorities being aware of widespread child
sexual exploitation in Rotherham and Oxford, systems failed to take adequate
action to prevent the sexual abuse of hundreds of children in these areas. Inadequate responses were provided by
Local Authorities and Police resources were directed towards financial crimes
such as burglary as opposed to sexual abuse of minors. Police forces throughout the country
continue to devote inadequate resources to the problem of child street
exploitation.
We urge the Committee to examine this important issue, which if
addressed properly will improve the quality of life for many children in towns
and cities in the United Kingdom.
Young Offenders
Institutions
We are also concerned that practices which breach the convention
continue in Young Offenders Institutions.
The UK has rejected the European Anti-Torture Committee’s recommendation
of 2008 in relation to strip searches.
A UK policy document issued in May 2014 still empowers Governors to
introduce routine strip searches and strip searching remains mandatory for
child prisoners assessed to be at a security risk.
Evidence of continued strip searching in young offenders institutions is
contained in the Youth Justice and Office of the Children’s Commissioner’s
report of 2011.
APPENDIX 1
EVIDENCE DOCUMENT
A call
for a Public Inquiry into abuse of children and vulnerable
adults
by Clergy in England and Wales.
1. The Call for an Independent Inquiry
For 20 years the leaders within the Catholic Church
and the Church of England/Wales have repeatedly stated that they will respond
appropriately to reports of child sexual abuse, and numerous safeguarding/child
protection procedures have been put in place. Despite these assurances and
procedures produced there have been repeated court cases in which clergy and
religious have been convicted of multiple child sexual offences often dating
back and continuing for decades and involving a number of children. And
repeatedly the prosecutions have revealed that Church authorities covered up
past reports of child abuse and allowed clergy and religious to remain in
ministry despite allegations and in some cases past convictions for child
sexual offences. In many reported cases further child abuse took place. The
James Robinson case in 2010 involving the Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham,
the recent convictions of monks and priests at Ealing Abbey, Buckfast Abbey and
Downside and the subsequent Inquiries now being carried out, and the Cotton
& Pritchard case in 2008 and subsequent Cof E Diocese of Chichester
Inquiries (2010, 2011 and ongoing 2012) are the latest examples.
The cases involving monks and priests at Ealing
Abbey and Downside Abbey underline the fact that abuse has been happening very
recently which could have been prevented. Clergy still have extensive access to
children in church–run schools and this document sets out below why the
safeguards are inadequate and are failing the current generation of children.
All the evidence points to the conclusion that the
cover up, denial and/or minimisation of child sexual abuse within Roman
Catholic Church and the Church of England was widespread, and seemed to be most
prevalent within a number of Dioceses and Church Institutions in England and
Wales, and that abuse may still be going on. Victims of abuse perpetrated over
the past six decades continue to report cases to Church authorities years after
the abuse took place and they first reported: in cases where prosecutions are
successful files continue to reveal what was already known by Church
authorities, in other cases as seen in the MACSAS Survey 2010 reports continue
to be ignored.
Until there is an inquiry which uncovers what was
known about child sexual abuse by Church authorities and when, and what actions
were taken when reports were made, these injustices will continue for decades
to come. Justice requires that the truth is told; that victims are allowed to
tell what happened to them and be listened to, and where it is proved that they
suffered harm it is acknowledged. Church leaders and the heads of religious
Organisations must accept responsibility for allowing sex offenders/abusers to
continue in ministry and to continue abusing those they were placed in
authority over. Only when the truth is known, when responsibility is accepted,
will the institutional dynamics be changed. To date neither the Catholic Church
in England & Wales nor the Church of England and in Wales has allowed such
an inquiry to take place.
We call upon the Government to set up an Independent
Commission of Inquiry into child sexual abuse perpetrated by clergy, religious
and other church officials within all
Dioceses and institutions the Catholic Church in England & Wales and
the Church of England and in Wales.
Such an inquiry should have powers to compel the
disclosure of all files of clergy, religious and other church officials
containing reports and allegations of child sexual abuse. It should receive
evidence, both oral and written from victims of child sexual abuse perpetrated
by clergy and religious within parish communities and church institutions and
also be able to compel those in positions of authority within Dioceses and
religious orders to attend and give evidence.
The Inquiry should investigate how cases were
handled by Church and religious authorities and should cover the period from
1954 to the present day. It should establish the extent of the abuse and the
mechanisms employed by church authorities to cover up, deny and/or minimise the
abuse.
The Inquiry should also examine the impact the
abuse and the response of Church and religious authorities had on the victims.
The Roman Catholic Church, the Religious Orders and
Church of England and in Wales should be compelled to pay for the cost of the
Inquiry.
2. Outcomes sought from
an Inquiry
(1) Mandatory reporting by church and religious leaders
of all allegations of child abuse perpetrated by those in positions of trust
and authority within Churches and Religious Institutions.
(2) An independent statutory body to monitor and review
safeguarding procedures within the Roman Catholic Church and its religious
institutions and the Church of England and in Wales. Such a body to have powers
to carry out regular and planned inspections, make recommendations for
improvements and enforce compliance,
as well as to inspect at no notice where substantive cause for concern
arises.
3. STATISTICS,
THE INTERNATIONAL SCENE AND COVER UPS
4.
The statistics
As we can see (at appendix 1)
a brief look into the numbers of allegations and convictions over the last 20
years reveals that 74 abusers have convictions. We know that abusers
often abuse multiple times. To work out an estimate of the true number of
abusers we have to relate these numbers to recognised research. We
have to remember that our figures are incomplete as not all solicitors in
England and Wales have contributed. Only specialist firms were asked
to contribute. We must look at the figures themselves and extrapolate them
against accepted research in this field.
To ensure that this document
provides an under-estimate of the true scale of clergy abuse we have
deliberately restricted the figures to cases where convictions have been
achieved in the criminal court (the highest standard of proof). The issue of
the standard of proof is examined below.
5. Surveys in other
countries
The incidence of adult
sexual abuse perpetrated by clergy and has been widely researched in the USA,
UK, Australia, and in international studies.
The John Jay Study
commissioned by the USA Catholic Conference of Bishops in 2002 and published in
2004 found that of the estimated 4,392 priests (4% of the priesthood) in the
USA alleged to have sexually abused more than 10,600 children between 1950 and
2002, only 6% had been convicted of child sexual offences. Only 1.5% of the
reported cases in the study were deemed to be false allegations. In the 5681
cases where the church investigated and reached a determination 80% were
substantiated. The survey excluded cases where the priest was completely exonerated.
(John Jay Study 2004 at www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy
Conviction rates
In Australia the General
Synod of the Anglican Church commissioned a similar study of child sexual abuse
perpetrated by clergy which was completed in 2009. Out of 191 allegations only
1.6% were deemed to be false or erroneous. Over half of reported cases were
substantiated and another third were inconclusive and yet only 12% of reported
cases resulted in a conviction. (The Australia Study 2009) at www.apo.org.au/research/study-reported-child-sexual-abuse-anglican-church
The failure of the criminal
justice system to provide effective protection and redress for victims of child
sexual abuse in the UK has been identified in numerous national surveys and
studies, which have found that only 3-4% of reported child sexual abuse cases
result in a conviction (Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre figures
2010 at www.ceop.gov.uk; Cawson, P. et al. (2000) Child maltreatment
in the United Kingdom: a study of the prevalence of child abuse and neglect. London,
NSPCC).
Research in the UK and the
USA has also found that only 2 - 3% of allegations of rape and sexual offences
have been shown to be false (Kelly, E., Lovett, J., Regan, L. (2005) A Gap
or a Chasm – attrition in reported rape cases Home Office Research Study
293 CWAS Unit London Metropolitan University).
The reality we face in our
society is that out of every 100 reported cases of child sexual abuse, on
average 97 victims reporting abuse are deemed to be telling the truth but only
4 of the cases will result in the conviction of the offender. This leaves over
93% of sex offenders without a criminal conviction. As such 93% of suspected
sex offenders working within Church communities and among clergy and religious
organisations in the UK will not have been convicted of any offence.
It is clear from research
across three continents that an allegation is not false just because the
alleged offender is not convicted. 93% of sex offenders are never convicted.
Those convicted represent only the tip of the iceberg and our view is that
safeguarding is not applied adequately to these suspects.
If we are generous to church
organisations and take the Australian figure of 12% of abusers being convicted
this leaves 88% of them without sanction, police investigation or undetected.
Relating this to our research shows that there are at least 513 abusers
who have not been brought to justice. If the 4% figure from CEOP figures of
2010 is used the figure of un-convicted suspects rises to 1,680. The respected
John Jay study found that 80% of its 5,681allegations had been substantiated.
This leaves the alarming figure of between 542 and 1,776 abusers un-convicted
and free to have contact with children or vulnerable adults.
6. England and Wales
is lagging behind on child protection
Despite the in depth research
and inquiries commissioned by governments into church child abuse in other
jurisdictions (most notably The Republic of Ireland, Australia, The
Netherlands, Canada, Northern Ireland and the US), England and Wales has failed
to explore the issue.
There is no credible reason
to suggest the proportions of clergy who have abused in England and Wales are
any different to other jurisdictions. The evidence gathered in this document is
likely to be a small fraction of the full extent of offending. Unless there is
an inquiry to establish the extent of abuse and to introduce effective
legislation on child safeguarding in this jurisdiction, England and Wales will
rank behind other countries in it’s commitment to abuse prevention.
7. The Standard of
proof
At the heart of the
difficulties faced in securing a conviction in child abuse cases is the
standard of proof required, which is proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Where a
child’s evidence has to be relied on, or the evidence of a victim reporting
decades after the offence took place it is very difficult to satisfy the
standard of proof without corroborating, independent evidence and this is
rarely available. This explains why the CPS often refuses to prosecute a case
or the accused is found not guilty – the age of the victim at the time of the
offence, the passage of time and the lack of independent supporting evidence,
all weaken the chances of securing a conviction.
However the standard of proof
required within Child Protection is on the balance of probabilities. The
‘paramountcy principle’ at the heart of child protection requires that the
welfare of the child is placed above the lack of certainty of an alleged
abuser’s criminal guilt. If on the balance of probabilities a cleric or
other person in a position of trust has or may harm a child based on all the
information available, then he or she should not be allowed access to children
or be placed in a position of trust that would enable him or her to exercise
authority over children.
An examination of all
allegations of abuse against priests and those working in church organisations
will reveal numerous allegations which can be substantiated on the balance of
probabilities test. At present church organisations do not appear to be
applying this standard when assessing all cases and as a consequence are using
this as an excuse to fail in their safeguarding responsibilities. This is an
area in which the discretion of the decision maker has and continues to enable
the church to "protect its own". Only legislation will remove the
discretion. This is examined in detail below.
As a footnote to this section
it is pertinent to make two further observations on the legal process. First
the criminal legal system is reluctant to look into Bishops failures to act.
There is a general reluctance to prosecute for “inaction”. Second since the
2001 case Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 and the advent of vicarious liability in this field
lawyers pursuing compensation for abused claimants are no longer forced to
carry out deep enquiry into negligence and potential cover ups and it seems
there is no-one looking into this important area of safeguarding.
8. Cover ups
It is an instinctive and
understandable reaction for an organisation facing challenge to defend itself
against attack. It is however unacceptable for an organisation to cover up for
individuals who it knows have abused children or vulnerable adults. At appendix
2 attached we can see that senior clerics have favoured protecting their
organisation rather than the protection of children.
There is a growing
realisation that this practice of cover up and bishops' failures to report
allegations to the police is hard-wired into the Catholic Church (see appendix
3). The Anglican Church faces similar criticism as we are seeing a self
preservation reaction having at best misguided senior clerics and at worst some
senior clerics aided and abetted known sex offenders in the Anglican Diocese of
Chichester.
The list of examples cited as
potential cover ups are of course only the unsuccessful ones. Without an
inquiry we will have no chance of finding out about cases of abuse which were
easily preventable had senior clerics acted responsibly. It is hoped that an
inquiry will have power to look into these issues.
9. THE DEVELOPMENT OF SAFEGUARDING IN THE
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND FROM 1990
10. Church culture and institutional dynamics are
standing in the way of effective child safeguarding measures.
The persistent
mantra from Church Institutions when child abuse is raised is that since the
Nolan and/or Cumberledge Commission (Catholic church 2002 & 2007) and since
Protecting All God’s Children (2004/2010 and the Past Cases Reviews (CofE 2010,
CofW 2011) there are now Child Protection/Safeguarding policies in place that
ensure that all allegations of child abuse are taken seriously and reported to
statutory authorities, and that appropriate actions are taken to ensure that
children are not put in danger of harm.
However the
difficulty for the Churches is that the procedures they rely upon are neither
sufficient nor effective in protecting children from harm. No independent or
published review of the effectiveness of current or past procedures has ever
been conducted. Whilst the Cumberledge Review on Child Protection in the
Catholic Church in 2007 highlighted a number of gaps in the procedures within
the Catholic Church; the lack of support for victims and a lack of procedures
for complaints where criminal convictions are not secured, and also highlighted
the failure of the Bishops to take ownership of the Procedures, it did not look
at effectiveness in terms of whether children were actually being protected
from harm posed by those alleged to have abused children. The Past Cases
Reviews within the Church of England in 2010 and the Church in Wales in 2011
were never published, the findings remain unknown and the published summary
reports of 1 ½ pages makes no reference to procedures.
Within the wider
society it has been long acknowledged that safeguarding procedures developed
since the mid 1990s and the ‘Every Child Matters’ agenda, have failed to have
any substantive impact on the prevalence and extent of child abuse within our
society. The detection rate remains lamentably low at an estimated 5%, and the
conviction rates for child abuse remain stubbornly at around 3-4% of reported
cases. Child Line celebrated its 25th Anniversary this year and
reported a record breaking 600,000 calls received in the previous year, of
which tens of thousands concerned sexual abuse. Child pornography and internet
grooming are a growing industry and child trafficking for sex or slave labour
is on the increase into this country and beyond.
What gives
Church leaders the sense of security in their assertions that all is fine now
they have procedures in place when we know that institutional dynamics, a
culture of indifference and apathy and a lack of moral and professional courage
have been found time and again to undermine even the best policies and
procedures? There is now compelling evidence that the mainstream Churches are
unable to recognise the institutional dynamics that continue to protect the
institutions at the cost of the safety of children; they continue to deny that
abuse has happened and/or that it was ever reported to them; they continue to
deny and minimise the impact on the victims; and even reject and deny the
victims themselves all in an attempt to maintain the power, reputation and
resources of the institution
11. The Current Safeguarding
Procedures
A simple
analysis of the main safeguarding procedures within the Catholic Church and the
Church of England raises major cause for concern.
12. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
13. Catholic Safeguarding Procedures 1990 – 2011.
The Bishop’s
Conference of the Catholic Church in England and Wales has had child protection
policies in place since 1994 (“Child Abuse: Pastoral and Procedural
Guidelines” (“the 1994 Guidelines”)). However it soon
became clear that the Guidelines were not being followed by Bishops,
Archbishops and Cardinals. In 2000 the newly elevated Cardinal of
England & Wales and former Bishop of Arundel and Brighton, Cormac
Murphy O’Connor was put under pressure to resign following the mishandling
of a clergy child sex offender who went on to abuse more children. The Cardinal
was forced to respond by commissioning Lord Nolan to review how reports
of child sexual abuse had been handled within the Catholic Church and to make
recommendations.
New Guidelines were drawn up, taken from the recommendations
of the Nolan commission (found at www.cumberlegecommission.org.uk) and
announced to the press in June 2002 with a statement from the newly
elevated Archbishop of Birmingham Vincent Nichols who was named Head of
Child Protection in the Catholic Church. He stated that at the centre of the
guidelines was ‘the paramountcy principle’ placing the welfare of
children first. He stated that “from now on those priests cleared in
court of child sexual abuse still faced a risk assessment and possible
sanctions”.
The Nolan commission did not discover or disclose the
extent of abuse reported within the Catholic Church, or those cases held on
file still waiting victims to come forward again and report to the police. It
focused only on the 102 cases that had gone through the criminal justice system
between 1995 and 1999. The Church leaders may know something of the scale of
the abuse perpetrated but they have never been compelled to disclose the files
of clergy and religious with reported allegations of child sexual abuse dating
back to the 1950s. Neither the Nolan nor Cumberledge Commissions had access to
those files.
From 2002 the Catholic Office for the
Protection of Children and Adults (COPCA), set up following the Nolan
commission recommendations, published an annual report setting out statistics
for reported allegation of child abuse within the Catholic Church and the
actions taken by statutory and Church authorities in response (www.csas.uk.net/document).
However from their introduction the New Guidelines
provoked controversy and misunderstanding within the Catholic Church. From the
beginning the hierarchy and clergy within the Catholic Church took the view
that when a priest was not prosecuted or convicted of a criminal offence the
presumption was that he was innocent of any wrongdoing and that the allegation
was false, and many considered the Guidelines to be optional.
In 2006 Baroness Cumberledge carried out a
five year review of the Nolan Commission and the effectiveness of the
procedures in place. The report was published in 2007 (www.cumberlegecommission.org.uk ).
Identifying that the Bishops had not taken ownership of child protection, which
undermined the effectiveness of the procedures, the Cumberledge Commission
recommended that the role of COPCA be transferred to the Bishops and Religious
leaders so that they would have direct responsibility for Child Protection. The
National Catholic Safeguarding Commission (NCSC) was established in 2008
with three Bishops and three Heads of Religious Orders included as members and
was to be headed by an Independent Chair. In addition the Catholic
Safeguarding Advisory Service (CSAS) was set up to advise the NCSC on
safeguarding matters. New guidelines and procedures were drafted in 2008 having
regard to the Cumberledge recommendations.
Many believe that it was a grievous mistake to place
child protection back under the control of the Bishops who had shown themselves
incapable of dealing with child sexual abuse in the past. The NCSC is
made up almost entirely of Bishops, clergy and religious superiors. The so
called independent chairs to date have include a former priest and friend of
the Archbishop of Westminster, a Baroness who failed to meet with an victims and
lasted just eight months (the post had a mere £30,000 annual budget half of
which went on a part time secretary), and we are now we are on our third chair.
The new chair of NCSC was chosen by a panel made up entirely of bishops, clergy
and religious superiors, and he was chosen on criteria kept secret from the
wider public.
14. Case Study – Ealing Abbey and St Benedict’s
School
The abuse
scandal at Ealing Abbey and St Benedict’s School which it runs, first came to
widespread attention in 2009, when Father David Pearce pleaded guilty to 10
indecent assaults and one sexual assault against 5 boys (all pupils of the
school) over a period of 36 years from 1972 to 2007. He was sentenced to eight
years, reduced to five on appeal. Pearce was placed on restricted ministry in
2006 following a civil action against him and Ealing Abbey, in which a former
pupil of St. Benedict’s claimed he had suffered sexual abuse at the hands
of Pearce. The judge found against the Abbey and Pearce, and awarded the victim
£43,000 plus costs. However, even after this, and although Pearce was placed on
restricted ministry on the advice of the Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser Mr Peter
Turner, Pearce was able to abuse another pupil of the school, who had been
employed to come into the monastery at weekends to wash dishes.
Pearce “retired” as headmaster in 1993 following
complaints from pupils and parents of abusive behaviour. It is likely that he
would have been prosecuted at the time, except that the father of one victim
died about then, and the mother understandably in the circumstances didn’t feel
able to sustain the complaint. Pearce was made Bursar of the school, and
remained in contact with children through his continuing supervision of the
Cadet Corps.
Father Stanislaus Hobbs was tried in 2007 on a charge
of sexual assault of a pupil in the 1990s. He was acquitted, but under police
questioning admitted to a similar assault against the same pupil on a school
trip to Italy. As the law stood at the time, this admitted offence could not be
prosecuted in the UK because it had occurred outside the country. He was
subsequently placed on restrictive covenant with no public ministry. When he
resigned as a Trustee following his arrest in 2005, the school had a statutory
obligation to issue a notification to the DfE.
Mr. John Maestri has been convicted on three separate
occasions, in 2003, 2005 and 2008, of indecent or sexual assaults against
pupils at St. Benedict’s when he was a teacher there in the 1970s and 1980s. On
one of those occasions he was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison. Maestri was a
teacher of mathematics at the school. In 1984 he was appointed Master of the
Middle School, but departed very suddenly as a result of complaints concerning
his abusive behaviour before taking up his new post. He was given a good
reference by the school and went on to teach (and quite possibly abuse)
elsewhere. Again, the school had a statutory obligation to report the
circumstances of his departure to the DfE and they did not do so.
The previous Abbot of Ealing, Abbot Lawrence Soper,
who has been residing in recent years at Collegio Sant'Anselmo in Rome, was
requested to return to the UK to answer police questions concerning alleged
sexual offences against boys at the school. He was permitted to retain his
passport, and has since failed to attend a police bail appointment and his
whereabouts are currently unknown. A European Arrest Warrant has been issued.
Complaints have been made against Father Gregory
Chillman, both concerning sexual abuse of boys at St. Benedict’s School when he
was a teacher there in the 1970s and 1980s, and more recently in connection
with his roles as Chaplain and Chairman of Governors of St. Augustine’s Priory
School, a nearby independent Catholic school for girls. As a result of these
complaints, an investigation was carried out by Ealing Social Services. No
charges have been brought, but following the investigation it was decided that
Father Gregory posed a danger to children. He resigned as a Trustee of St.
Benedict’s on 29th March 2010, and was placed on restrictive covenant on terms
which barred him from access to children and from any public ministry. Again,
the school had a statutory responsibility to report his resignation as a
Trustee, and they did not do so.
Mr Stephen Skelton, a lay teacher at the school for a
short time in 1983, was convicted in 2011 of an indecent assault on a pupil in
1983. Like Maestri, he was sent on his way with a good reference when a
complaint was made against him, and he did go on to abuse elsewhere. At the
same trial in 2011 he was convicted of an indecent assault against another boy
at West Hill Park School in Hampshire. Again, St Benedict’s school had a
statutory obligation to notify the DfE at the time of his departure, and
clearly they did not do so.
Serious complaints have also been made against Father
Anthony Gee, a former headmaster of the school, and against Father Kevin Horsey
(who died in 2006).
The Charity Commission carried out two Statutory
Inquiries into the school following the civil case against the school in 2006.
Their report was highly critical of the Trustees for failing to ensure that
restrictions against Pearce were not adequately enforced.
The Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) carried
out a routine inspection of the school in November 2009, and found nothing
wrong. As a result of information provided by a member of the public, the DfE
ordered the ISI to make a further inspection in April 2010, which found severe
shortcomings in the school’s safeguarding procedures, and records of unreported
incidents involving six different monks or members of staff. One of the
recommendations of the ISI was to “Ensure that any staff or members of the
religious community live away from the school, if they are subject to
allegations of misconduct related to safeguarding or convicted of wrongdoing.”
At the p[resent time, one of the monks against whom there have been allegations
is still living at the Abbey under restricted ministry.
Ealing Abbey commissioned Lord Carlile to conduct an
inquiry into the abuses that had occurred at the school. The inquiry took more
than a year, and resulted in a recommendation for a change in the governance
arrangements for the school, but no new recommendations concerning
safeguarding. The school’s safeguarding policy even now does not make a
commitment always to report allegations or incidents of abuse to the secular
authorities.
15. Current Safeguarding Procedures within the Catholic
Church
The current
procedures (found at www.csasprocedures.uk.net)
are constantly being updated by NCSC to keep up with the growing criticisms
made of them by analysts, survivors groups and professionals working in
safeguarding. This knee jerk response to criticism is itself a cause for
concern however there are a number of serious concerns with the substantive
procedures:
(i)
The structures for Safeguarding include:
four regional safeguarding commissions; a safeguarding commissioner for each
Diocese; and within each Diocese there may also be a Safeguarding
officer/advisor working under the Safeguarding Commissioner.
In recent years a number of safeguarding coordinators and
advisors within the Catholic church have resigned or been pushed out following
disagreement over how cases were handled within Dioceses. The most recent
resignations come from Bristol and the Diocese of Clifton where the
Safeguarding Coordinator, a retired judge on the Safeguarding Commission and
the Safeguarding advisor all resigned in January 2012 after they were
criticised/disciplined by the Bishop for treating a sex offender priest
unfairly. The Bishop of Clifton who led the criticism against the safeguarding
team is one of the vice chairs of NCSC Bishop Lang and was also on the
appointment committee for the new NCSCS Chair.
(ii)
Laicisation/removal from access to children. Where
a priest is convicted for a child sexual offence and sentenced to more than a
year in prison the Nolan commission recommended that steps are
taken for the priest to be laicised. However the Procedures make it
clear that when a priest is convicted or cautioned for child sex offences consideration
will be given to whether steps should be taken to laicise the priest,
and no more.
Senior researchers, social workers and other organisations have repeatedly
requested information from NCSC on how many priests who have been convicted and
sentenced to more than a year in prison have been actually laicised to date.
The simple truth is that no one at NCSCS is prepared to reveal this and all
statements made in the media over the past two years now appear to be
misleading.
(iii)
Risk assessment, discretion and reliance on
the criminal justice system. Whilst much is made of Independent
Risk Assessments being the “cornerstone of the Church’s commitment”
to safeguarding Children the details within the Procedures makes it
clear that not all those alleged to have abused children will be risk assessed
either independently or at all. The Procedures state that Independent risk
assessment may be carried out for those offenders who have been
investigated, prosecuted, convicted or cautioned for child sex offences.
The
published statistics from COPCA and NCSC for the period 2003 and 2007 there
were only 22 risk assessments carried out for the more than 206 priests and
religious with allegations of abuse made during that period, approximately 10%
of cases. This very low level of risk assessments may be because the
Procedures state that there is “no obligation in Canon Law for a
member of the clergy to undergo an assessment that asks for an examination of
conscience”. Also “the informed consent of the cleric is
required in all cases”.
The
very fact that clergy are allowed to refuse to undertake a risk assessment
under Canon law should raise very real concerns about what appears to be the paramountcy
of Canon law in child protection matters.
If
a risk assessment is undertaken, the procedures provide that the regional
Safeguarding Commission must have regard to the recommendations from the
Independent Assessment when determining the recommendations to make to the
Bishop. If there is a dispute over the recommendations made by the Assessor, or
the Safeguarding commission these must be resolved by reference to CSAS. It is also of concern that Diocesan
and/or safeguarding authorities can challenge the recommendations from an
Independent Risk Assessment; on what basis would they do this?
To
date no information has been provided by CSAS or NCSC on how many ‘disputes’
arise. Clearly in the Diocese of Clifton in January 2012 such a dispute led to
the complete collapse of the regional safeguarding commission and a case being
taken to the Employment tribunal. What happened to the Priest who was convicted
on child pornography offences?
(iv)
The Procedures say that where
police/statutory authorities do not prosecute or the priest is not convicted
then an independent risk assessment may be commissioned if concerns
remain.
·
Who determines whether there is sufficient
concern for an independent risk assessment?
·
How is the effectiveness of the ad hoc risk
assessment by the regional safeguarding commission, diocesan safeguarding
commissioner and/or the safeguarding officer/advisor being assessed?
The
Procedures do not make it clear what if any effective actions should be
taken to ensure that clergy and religious reported to have committed child
sexual offences do not pose a risk to children either following conviction or
following an allegation if there is no conviction.
This
wide discretion on what to do with alleged sex offenders led to such cases as
that of Father Michael Hill (above) and Fr David Pearce who both
went on to abuse more children following in one case a clinical assessment that
said he was an ongoing risk to children and in the other a civil court finding
that he had abused a child. Clearly whatever risk assessment was
undertaken in the case of David Pearce after 2004 it failed to identify
the obvious risk posed by letting a known child sex offender live beside a
school and remain a priest where children came into and out of the house on a
daily basis.
(v)
A curiously named Preliminary Investigation
Protocol was introduced into the procedures in May 2011. This protocol is
optional and is only engaged where there is no conviction or prosecution of a
reported case, and where the safeguarding coordinator believes that such an
investigation is necessary (May 2011). However this optional protocol is not
sufficient to mop up the more than 95% of cases where there is no conviction
and there are very real concerns about the independence and effectiveness of
the protocol where the decision to have an investigation, the remit and scope
of such and the investigation and the outcomes possible are entirely prescribed
by lawyers, insurers and the Bishop.
16. THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND WALES – an Overview
Whilst the press and public have focused on the failing within the
Catholic Church a similar events have gone unreported in the Church of England.
From its Cathedral Choir Schools and independent boarding schools to Dioceses
across the country there have been many reported cases of multiple child sexual
abuse perpetrated by clergy and other church officials within the Church of
England.
No independent review has been conducted into child abuse within the
Church of England or in Wales. However following two high profile convictions
where failings by Bishops were revealed in 2007 the Archbishop of Canterbury
ordered all Dioceses to conduct a Past Cases Review of child abuse allegations
held within all Diocesan files. The review was completed in 2009 and the
summary report published in early 2010 identified only 13 cases on record where
allegations had been made and/or convictions secured and the offender was still
in ministry and concerns were raised. Of these no substantive action was taken
against any after reports and reviews had been completed. There were no figures
given of how many people in ministry within the C of E had allegations of child
sexual abuse, had been found guilty of such abuse and/or had been otherwise
assessed or deemed to have abused children. The C of W Past case review
identified only 5 cases in a similarly constructed report (2010). Some of the
Dioceses conducted internal reviews run by senior clergy and in others
independent consultants conducted the review. Whilst Bishops were urged to hand
over all files, it is now known that some Bishop’s chose not to do so which
undermined the validity of the Past Cases Review. This review will be studied
in more detail below.
The Joint National Safeguarding Advisor for CofE and Methodist Church is
not informed of cases reported within Dioceses and does not collate statistics
of cases reported either to the dioceses or to statutory authorities, or cases
where prosecutions and convictions resulted. There are no statistics of the
prevalence of abuse either now or in the past, no central record of risk
assessment undertaken and no understanding of what happened to those against
whom there were allegations of child abuse unless the cases are reported in the
press.
Abuse in the
CofE has taken place within parishes, in the Scouting movement and in youth
work where vicars and other church workers are involved. Also choirmasters have
been convicted of abusing choir boys where there have been numerous convictions
involving choir masters: Chichester Cathedral Prebendal School in the early
2000s, and those identified and Peter Halliday in Diocese of Guildford in 2007
just two of many. Bishop Peter
Ball, formerly of Lewis and then Gloucester accepted a caution for gross
indecency against a 17 year old seminarian in the 1980s; this was only one of a
number of allegations made against him and kept on file. Another vicar picked
up runaway boys from the train stations in London and abused them. In
Winchester in 1988 two vicars, a choirmaster, a solicitor and a convicted child
sex offender were convicted of 22 specimen charges of child sex offences with
boys which took place on church outings, at the YMCA and in the churchyard.
Something
similar to Winchester appears to have taken place in Chichester and continued
until the 1990s with Cotton now believed to have been abusing children up to
1996 from the latest victim to come forward.
17. CASE
STUDY Diocese of Chichester - Roy Cotton & Colin Pritchard, Inquiries and
Further Arrests
Bishop Hind
of the Diocese of Chichester apologised in March 2011 to the
victims of Roy Cotton and Colin Pritchard for the sexual abuse they
suffered and the failure of Diocesan authorities to recognise the danger posed
by Cotton, a known and convicted child abuser at the time he was
ordained in 1967 (see statement on www.macsas.org.uk
; and BBC South East report of 2nd March 2011 also available on www.macsas.org.uk ).
In fact Cotton
was convicted in 1954 whilst he was training for ordination and
was told to go away and come back when he was ‘more mature’. Cotton then
set up a boarding school where he systematically abused children until he left
in 1967 following allegations of child abuse being made against him.
Despite church authorities knowing of Cotton’s previous conviction and of the
more recent allegations made against him, he was ordained in 1967.
In 1996/7
two brothers reported Cotton and Pritchard to the police for child sexual
offences perpetrated against them in the 1970s. – 1980s. However following a
three year investigation no charges were brought because of lack of independent
evidence, i.e. another victim not related who had been abused. The Diocesan
authorities did not disclose the information they had on file, nor the fact
that Cotton had a previous conviction for child sexual offences. Although
Cotton was immediately retired and told that he was permanently barred from
ministry, he was granted a PTO in 1999 immediately after the police decided there
was insufficient evidence to prosecute him. He kept his PTO up until his death
in 2006. Pritchard meanwhile was allowed to remain in ministry and did not have
any restrictions placed on him after 1999. When he too retired in the early to
mid 2000s, he was immediately granted a PTO. Cotton worked regularly within the
same church where Pritchard was parish priest until he went into hospital in
2003. The house Cotton and later Pritchard lived in which the Diocese had
purchased, overlooking a primary school.
In 2006/7
Northampton Police investigated another allegation of child sex abuse made
against Pritchard, who had been a parish priest in Wellingborough in the 1970s
and 1980s. He was eventually charged with child sex offences. When a new
Safeguarding adviser arrived in the Diocese of Chichester in 2007 she found a
record of the prosecution of Pritchard in Northampton and told the Bishop of
Chichester to hand over the files on Pritchard and Cotton to the Northampton
police. Cotton had died in 2006. Pritchard was eventually sentenced to 5 years
in prison in 2008.
Since the
conviction of Colin Pritchard there have been two inquiries into the handling
of these cases. Roger Meeking an independent consultant who conducted the Past
Case review in the Diocese of Chichester reported in 2009 and his report was
not published. The diocese did not agree with his findings and asked Baroness
Butler-Sloss to conduct and inquiry and to recommend whether the Meeking report
should be published. That report was published in May 2011 (www.diochi.org.uk ) however despite
recommending that the Meeking report be published it has yet to see the light
of day.
Since the Butler
Sloss report it has been discovered that Butler Sloss was not told the whole
truth by the Bishop of Lewis and the now Bishop of Blackburn, former Archdeacon
of Hastings and Brighton, and there is concern that there may have been an
attempt to mislead both the Meeking’s and Butler-Sloss inquiries by some within
the Diocese of Chichester.
As a result of
considerable concerns raised the Safeguarding Advisory committee in the Diocese
of Chichester sent a report to Lambeth Palace in the Autumn of 2011 under the
Clergy Disciplinary Measures 2003 complaining about the conduct of Bishop
Wallace Benn and his failure to safeguard children. The committee recommended
his immediate suspension from his post. Whilst no action has been taken by the
Archbishop in respect of Wallace Benn he has ordered an Arch Episcopal
visitation to the diocese to investigate into the handling of child abuse
allegations led by Bishop Gladwin and Canon Bursell QC. This is the first such
visitation in over 130 years and the first ever into the diocese of Chichester.
Since being initiated the Investigation has broadened out in light of further
recent developments and police investigations which are ongoing.
In latest
developments in early March 2012 an Addendum to the Butler-Sloss report was
made public, in which the Baroness sets out that she had been repeatedly be
told misleading and incorrect information by Bishop Wallace Benn and Bishop
Nicholas Reade former Archdeacon of Hastings and Brighton concerning the
granting of a PTO to Roy Cotton in 1999. Bishop Reade, the Bishop of Blackburn,
announced his early retirement the day the Addendum report was published.
The following
week in March 2012 police arrested two more vicars of the diocese of Chichester
on allegations of child sex offences; Canon Gordon Rideout and Rev
Coles. It is understood that two other vicars in the Diocese of Chichester
have been arrested and bailed in recent months.
Also in
Chichester Rev Noel Christian Moore was originally arrested in 1950 and
convicted on 8 counts of indecent assault against minors in 1951. He was
imprisoned until 1955 but then returned to working as a priest and chaplain. In
the 1960s he and a lay teacher abused upwards of four boys in Warden House, a
private school in Crowborough. Some of the abuse was committed by both men
working together in the Chaplain's Lodge at the school. This involved alcohol
and boys were abused by each man in separate rooms and then swapped. The Rev
Moore died in 1973. The teacher and Moore were also working at a Church in
Crowborough where one of the victims was an Alter Server. Moore regularly took services there.
The teacher appears to have had a role much like a curate and he was only in
his 20s at the time the abuse took place, this man has yet to be identified and
questioned.
In 2003 Church officials re-launched
an investigation to find out how two cases of child abuse went unnoticed at
Chichester Cathedral. It was been re-opened after David Bowring, 54, a
maths teacher at the Prebendal School, which is linked to the cathedral, was
jailed for three years for sexually assaulting four boys in the early 1970s.
The case of Bowring came to light while police were investigating paedophile Terence
Banks. Banks, 64, was jailed in 2001 for 16 years for abusing boys he met
through the cathedral over 30 years. Church chiefs initially launched the investigation
after Banks was put behind bars but it was halted while detectives worked on
the Bowring case. The investigation was re-started and the Bishop of
Chichester, the Right Rev John Hind promised to publish the inquiry's findings.
A child protection officer was employed by the diocese to carry out the
investigation. Bowring pleaded guilty to six charges of indecent assault at
Chichester Crown Court.(http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/church_probe_after_child_abuse_case_1_1229594). No report was ever published by the
Diocese of Chichester.
It is understood
that a file containing the names of a number of ministers in the CofE Diocese
of Chichester with allegations of child sexual abuse against them was handed to
the police following a second secret report produced by Baroness Butler-Sloss.
Some of these are or were in senior positions within the Diocese. More details
can be found on www.macsas.org.uk.
Since the
Butler-Sloss report was published last May there are now 16 victims of Cotton
and 4 of Pritchard who have come forward. Cotton is now reported to have
continued to abuse up to at least 1997. As of this week upwards of 50 victims of child sexual
abuse perpetrated by clergy within the Diocese of Chichester have come forward
and this number is believed to be the tip of the iceberg.
The damage
caused to the victims, to the communities where these men served and to the
wider population is incalculable. As the Diocese begins to settle cases before
they reach courts, and vicars consider what options they have, faced with
mounting allegations against them it is time for an independent public inquiry
to establish what it was within the church, its institutional dynamics and its
culture of secrecy that attracted these men into Church ministry, into the
Diocese and enabled them to
continued to abuse scores of children for decades, whilst seemingly at all
times senior church officials knew about it.
See Appendix 4
for a list of cases concerning CoE/CofW vicars and other church officials. It
is notable that a number of cases in the Appendix 1 also involve connections
with the Diocese of Chichester.
18. Child
Protection and Safeguarding Procedures within the Church of England 1990
- 2010
The events unfolding in the Diocese of Chichester cut
across official church statements that with child protection procedures now in
place these things cannot happen again. But for the enormous courage of the
victims in Chichester who refused to allow the Church to get away with bland
apologies and worthless statements of intent there would not now be such
intensive police investigations, media scrutiny and church inquiries going on.
So what of the Child protection/Safeguarding
Procedures that are now in place, can these effectively change the
institutional dynamics that have been exposed in the Diocese of Chichester?
The first guidelines in the Church of England
concerned with handling child abuse cases were issued by the House of Bishops
in 1995 following the publication of the Government policy on Child Protection
‘Safe From Harm’ (1993). The Guidelines stated that no
cleric convicted of serious child sexual offences should be allowed to work
with or close to children. It is clear from past cases where
convictions have now been secured that this policy was not put into effect. It
is also clear that the House of Bishops had no regard to the danger posed by
the majority of offenders who are not convicted yet pose a considerable risk to
children (see Chichester case above).
In 2004 the Church of England published their
Child Protection/Safeguarding Guidelines and Procedures “Protecting All
God’s Children” which reflected the Government’s new child
protection agenda “Every child matters”. However in 2007 two
cases of child sexual abuse perpetrated within the Church resulted in
convictions which caused considerable concern about the handling of child abuse
cases within the Church of England. These concerns were similar to those found
within the Catholic Church (see Halliday and Smith cases Appendix xx) .
Following the conviction and imprisonment of Rev
David Smith and Peter Halliday in 2007 the House of Bishops
asked all Dioceses to review past cases/reports of child sexual abuse held on
clergy and other church personnel files.
It was clear from these two cases that Diocesan authorities were still
sitting on files containing allegations of child sexual abuse and had allowed
clergy and others in positions of trust to continue working with children,
leading to further abuse of children.
In 2009 the Church of England completed the Past
Case Review. It is understood from discussions with those involved in the Review
that the Bishops were allowed to determine who should undertake the review
within their own Dioceses. Some commissioned independent consultants to review
the files and others decided to do it internally. Clearly issues of objectivity
and transparency arise in respect of those Dioceses where reviews were
undertaken internally. A number of the independent consultants called in asked
Diocesan Bishops to sign letters to the effect that all files had been
disclosed to those carrying out the review. It is not known how many Dioceses
had an independent review done or how many Bishops signed such a letter. We now
understand that in at least one diocese cases have been reported where
allegations have gone back decades but the files were not disclosed to those
undertaking the Past case review (Diocese of Chichester).
A less than 3 page summary of the Past Cases Review
report was made available to the public. Of very real concern is that only
13 files were found to cause concern requiring any action to be taken, and
of these 11 were sent to statutory authorities. From this brief note and
from speaking to those involved with the Past Cases review MACSAS was able to
clarify that the 13 cases referred only to ministers who had
allegations of child sexual abuse in their files and were still working
in active ministry at the time the review was conducted and for whom
concerns were raised during the inquiry. It is not known how many files there
are for ministers and other officials currently in post containing allegations
of child sexual abuse nor how it was determined that these ministers/officials
did not pose an ongoing risk to children thereby requiring formal action to be
taken. The brief report makes no mention of clergy, and other church official
who had died, retired, were ill, had left ministry, or those who had moved to
other countries. Given the Halliday case that triggered the
review concerned a man who was no longer a church official, these are
staggering omissions. The Church of England did everything it could to minimise
the true extent of child abuse perpetrated within the Church. It is clear that the
13 cases stated are just the tip of the iceberg of child sexual abuse
perpetrated within and reported to Diocesan authorities. This is evidenced by
the fact that upwards of 12 vicars are on file in Chichester alone.
Also of concern was that only three of the
thirteen cases were deemed to have required a risk assessment strategy to
be put in place, whatever that means; and that only two cases have
required formal disciplinary proceedings. No risk assessment appears to have
been undertaken for the remaining cases identified or the other cases where
allegations have been made and are on file. As we see in the cases within the
Appendix to this report the lack of effective actions being taken when allegations
have been reported in the Church of England has time and again led to more
children being abused by the alleged offenders.
The report of the Past Case Review also failed to
explain why Bishops in Dioceses across England have continued to allow clergy
and other church officials to remain in active ministry when there are
allegations of and even convictions for child sexual abuse on their files.
Despite the past case review which was itself triggered by revelations of such
practices, it is clear that this is still happening as evidenced from the
outcome of the past case review where actions were only taken in two out of the
thirteen cases identified (see also the Diocese of Chichester).
Of very real concern is that the Past Cases Review
report appears to have been a serious attempt by Church Authorities to minimise
and/or deny the true extent of child sexual abuse taking place within the
Church of England.
If for no other
reason than the now compelling evidence coming out of the diocese of Chichester
we can safely say that the past cases review was a whitewash, and can give no
comfort that the Church is any safer now than it was before the review was
carried out.
19. Current
Procedures in place in C of E (from 2010)
In 2010 the
Child Protection Procedures for the Church of England were updated: “Protecting
All God’s Children” (www.churchofengland.org/clergy-office-holders/child-protection-safeguarding.aspx).
The ‘paramountcy of the child’s welfare’ is repeatedly referred to
throughout and Words such as ‘justice’ are used, and statements about
working with those who have suffered abuse, and the commitment to safeguarding
children are liberally sprinkled about. However the substance of the Procedures
raises a number of serious concerns.
(i)
Lack of Independence and transparency. The
Procedures provide that every Diocese must appoint a Safeguarding Children’s
Adviser who is accountable to the Bishop and should have full access to
church files and other confidential material. The Safeguarding Adviser should
be a professional who has training and experience in child protection. However
the Safeguarding Adviser can also be a member of the clergy or a relative of
the Bishop/member of the clergy (Dioceses of London and Chichester). It is very
difficult to see how there is no conflict of interest if the person
investigating an allegation of clergy perpetrated child abuse is a colleague or
friend of the accused. The Procedures also provide that there should
also be a Coordinator in each parish to work with the parochial church
council (PCC) who should be a member of the PCC. This person could be a volunteer and again could be either
clergy or related to clergy.
As with the Catholic Church it is clear that the Safeguarding advisor is
placed in a vulnerable position when a case comes up that puts him or her in
direct conflict with the Bishop. In Chichester the safeguarding advisor at the
time of the Pritchard conviction was forced out of post in 2010 when she raised
serious concerns about the Bishops handling of allegations. It is now believed
that a dispute about Rideout led to her leaving. She settled her employment
case with the Diocese for an undisclosed sum and signed a confidentiality
agreement. On another Diocese the Safeguarding Advisor has reported that she
has faced repeated bullying from the Bishop and others working round him as she
has treid to do her job effectively.
(ii)
Responding to Concerns. The Procedures
provide that Diocesan authorities should respond to all reports where
a child is at risk or may have been harmed however adults who report
‘historic cases’ are not mentioned in the Responding to Concerns
section. This omission is of serious concern as most cases of child sexual
abuse are reported when the victim is an adult (see the Australian Study 2009;
John Jay Study 2004; NSPCC 2000 and 2011).
(iii)
Confession. The Procedures
explicitly state that Canon law constrains disclosure of details of a
crime/offence revealed in the course of formal confession. Whilst the
Procedures note that this may be inconsistent with civil law, there is
no attempt to set out what should happen in these cases.
Past cases such as the Halliday and Cranch
(Appendix xx) illustrate that Bishops know about the offending behaviour of
some priests yet they are still allowed to continue in ministry or to work with
children and invariably continue abusing. The MACSAS Survey identified two more
vicars who are believed to have confessed to their Bishops but are still in
ministry as no conviction was possible. These men have multiple allegations
against them.
(iv)
Managing Allegations against church
officials - when clergy and others in positions of trust are accused of
child sexual abuse it may be necessary to suspend the accused. If
there is a ‘prima facie’ case of serious misconduct/abuse the
accused should normally be suspended whilst the allegation is
investigated. With such wide discretion allowed even in ‘prima facie’ cases it
is little wonder that few if any of the alleged abusers were suspended in the
cases reported in the MACSAS Survey 2010 (www.macsas.org.uk)
. In past cases Diocesan authorities have even allowed priests to continue in
ministry up to the day of the court hearing.
The Procedures warn of the dangers of providing character
references in criminal matters. This may well reflect lessons learnt in
past cases where serial paedophile clergy have been provided with glowing
references from Bishops stressing the minister’s ‘outstanding and selfless
pastoral ministry over many years’. Often priests got reduced on suspended
sentences on the back of such references.
(v)
Where No Prosecution or Conviction. The
Procedures do state that the fact that no prosecution is brought or there is a
finding of ‘not guilty’ does not necessarily mean
that no concern remains. However the language speaks of minimisation
and denial. We know that the vast majority of reported cases of child sexual
abuse will result in no conviction. Most will not even be prosecuted (9% John
Jay Study 2004; 23% Australian Study 2009; COPCA/NCSC statistics 2003-2011).
(vi)
The Procedures go on to provide that “maybe”
it “might be” appropriate to continue disciplinary
actions; and “maybe” a risk assessment should
be undertaken if well founded concerns remain. Such
ambiguous wording ensures that it is highly unlikely that any risk
assessment is carried out or any actions are taken against those not actually
convicted of an offence.
(vii)
Risk Assessment & Redeployment. Where
a risk assessment is carried out the Procedures provide that it will be
done by an outside agency normally professionally qualified.
However by the time the procedures get to this point few if any of the accused
will be considered. This provision is set in the context of those with previous
convictions or cautions and with blemished CRB checks. Worryingly the
Procedures state that where a person has old offences of child abuse
this will not normally prohibit otherwise suitable people from working
with children. The Church will always recognise reformed characters.
The Procedures as currently drafted bend over backwards to
accommodate those with allegations of child sexual abuse made against them
enabling them to continue in ministry, in positions of authority over children
and invariably to continue to pose a risk.
(viii)
Ongoing reliance on the Criminal Justice
System. CRB checks are flagged up in all Church of England publicity on
their Child Protection/Safeguarding measures, yet we know that less than 10% of
child sex offenders have a criminal conviction. Many escape detection for years
and even when they are discovered only 3-4% of reported cases result in a
conviction.
20.
CONCLUSION THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
There is
currently no consistency in the responses to allegations of child abuse in
Dioceses in the Churches of England and in Wales, the National Safeguarding
Advisor has no access to information on allegations raised in all dioceses and
with no central overview it is very difficult to see how consistent responses
can be developed. MACSAS worked with the National Safeguarding Advisor giving
details of all cases reported in the MACSAS Survey 2010, which formed the first
information held national on what was happening in Dioceses across the country.
The Diocese of
Chichester is now undergoing a third church commissioned inquiry since the
conviction of Pritchard in 2008. Further it is known that the Police in Sussex
have an ongoing investigation into child abuse in the CofE in the Diocese of
Chichester and it is believed that arrests will be made shortly.
In other
dioceses there a vicars with multiple allegations of child abuse still in
ministry including those who are believed to have confessed to their Bishops.
The current safeguarding procedures do not protect children from risk of abuse
by those already reported for such offences lets alone those who are unknown.
21. Note on
Child Pornography
There have been
a number of convictions in recent years for child pornography which is also child
abuse and must be taken seriously, yet time and again we read of Bishops etc
writing references of support for these men as if they had done nothing wrong.
What we see in these illustrative cases is that often child pornography was
just one of the ways the vicars/priests abused.
Recent cases
include:
·
In 2000 Fr Joseph Jordan of the Archdiocese
of Cardiff was convicted in two separate trials for sexual offences against
boys in the 1980s and possession of child pornography, and was sentenced to a
total of 8 years in prison. During the trials it was revealed that Jordan was
subject to investigation following allegations of child sexual abuse when he
lived in Plymouth in the 1970s before he became a priest. Although Jordan had
been acquitted on that occasion the Bishop of Plymouth had warned the
Archbishop of Cardiff, Archbishop Ward that he was investigating Jordan’s
suitability for ministry as a result. The Archbishop ignored those warnings.
·
In 2006 the Rev Richard Thomas former
director of communications in the Diocese of Oxford was found guilty of
making and possessing images up to the most severe level 5 which includes
images of child rape. Quite extraordinarily the Bishop of Oxford gave a
character reference for Thomas at the hearing which ensured that he received a
3 year community order rather than a prison sentence.
·
In 2007 the Rev James Morrish pleaded
guilty to child pornography charges in the Diocese of Hereford after his wife
reported him to the police.
·
In 2008 the Rev Richard Hart
parish priest in Powys, Mid Wales was convicted of possession of 56,000
child pornography images including 44 images at category 5, depicting sex with
children. He also took photographs of girls. He had been collecting child
pornography for 16 years from 1991 to 2007. He was ordained in 1988 and was
also the governor of a local primary school. He was sentenced to 3 ½ years in
prison.
·
In 2009
Rev Trevor Diaper of the Diocese of Chelmsford pleaded guilty
to six charges of making indecent images of children including moving images
and to the possession of 1,145 indecent images of children ranging in
seriousness form level 1 to 4. Diaper had also been charged with seven counts
of child sexual offences against a child which took place between 1999 and
2003; however the CPS decided not to proceed with the charges when he agreed to
plead guilty to the child pornography offences to spare the victim further
distress. Extraordinarily Diaper was only given a three year community order.
However Diocesan officials indicated at the time that he would be subject to
disciplinary procedures to ensure that Diaper does not minister in church
again.
·
In 2010 Rev Dominic Stone of the Diocese
of Lichfield was found guilty of 16 charges of downloading indecent images
of children after 600 child pornography images were found on his computer. He
was given a nine month sentence suspended for two years and ordered to sign the
sex offenders register for 10 years. Stone resigned from ministry following his
conviction.
·
Also in 2010 former senior vicar Paul
Battersby was convicted of downloading child pornography and sentenced to
eight months in prison. This was the second offences for which he was
convicted. Battersby had been the Church of England national youth officer.
In 2007 he was reported to police after his family found pornographic
images on his computer. One of the movies was of a 10 year old girl being raped
by her father. Battersby, then a parish priest in Leyland was given a 34 week
suspended sentence, 200 hours community service and ordered to attend a sex
offenders’ programme.
·
A Roman Catholic priest John Shannon from
the Diocese of East Anglia who was teaching at Durham Seminary was convicted in
January 2011 on 16 counts of making indecent photographs of children. He
was sentenced to 8 months for each count to run concurrently.
22. Note on safeguarding in church schools.
Church organizations run many
schools around the country. Priests and other church officials have free access
to pupils. An effective safeguarding policy is more likely to deter abusers, as
well as empowering parents and children to speak about any abuse, reducing
trauma and preventing other victims from suffering. The government’s statutory
requirements do not ensure that an effective policy exists in all schools. There is no statutory obligation on the
management of a school to report allegations or even known incidents of abuse
to the authorities. Parents are mostly unaware of this, and trust that the
safeguarding policy is adequate without checking it themselves. When they do
check it, they find it is in education jargon and difficult to interpret.
Many Church of England and Catholic
schools still do not have effective polices in place. The Department of
Education’s statutory guidelines, last updated in July 2009, state:
“The local authority is required to take the lead role in ensuring the safety
of children and young people but safeguarding is everybody’s responsibility.
Safeguarding should be of concern to the whole community. All public services,
not just those directly providing services for children, have a role in
safeguarding children and young people for example housing and leisure
services.”
For church schools to make their contribution to this, they need to report any
suspected abuse to the Local Authority Designated Officer for Child Abuse
(LADO), without delay. Unfortunately, this is merely guidance, and schools have
no statutory obligation to follow it. Research has found that a large
proportion of church schools do not commit to reporting all allegations or
incidents of abuse (www.stopchurchchildabuse.co.uk ).
This gap in
safeguarding legislation in failing to make reports to the police and/ or
social services or the LADO (Local Authority
Designated Officer) mandatory is putting children at risk. The Downside
Abbey case (Richard White – appendix 2 below) is just one example of how easy
it is for church organisations to protect their own without compulsion.
The issue of
clergy access to children in schools makes clear the importance of tightening
safeguarding in church organisations as children are at risk today. Despite
what we hear from churches it cannot be said that this is an old issue and that
there is no urgency.
APPENDIX 1
List of convicted
clergy and church officials
Name of Priest/
Religious Person
|
Years of Abuse
|
Venue
|
Details of conviction
(if any)
|
Remarks
|
1. Fr Pearce
|
74-07
|
St Benedict’s
Ealing
|
Convicted
|
5 Claimants
|
2. John Maestri
|
1970s and 1980s
|
St Benedict’s
Ealing
|
Convicted
|
|
3. Fr Penny
|
1970’s
|
Leamington
|
Convicted
|
4 Claimants
|
4. Fr David Taylor
|
1980’s
|
Holy Island
Netherlands
|
Convicted
|
|
5. Fr James Murphy
|
1999
|
St Gertrude’s
South Croydon
|
Convicted
|
|
6. Peter Stewart
|
|
St Mary
Church
Canterbury
|
Convicted
|
|
7. Colin Adams
|
1990-93
|
Church of Wales
|
Convicted
|
C of Wales
|
8. Pastor Albert
|
2006-07
|
Glory
Evang Peckham
|
Convicted
|
|
9. Pastor Colin Jones
|
|
Salvation Army Gateshead
|
Convicted
|
|
10. Fr McCallen
|
1980’s
|
|
Convicted
|
|
11. Fr Peter Carr
|
1970’s
|
Salesians
|
Conviction
|
|
12. Fr Gallagher
|
1960’s
|
Diocese of Southwark
|
Conviction
|
|
13. Fr Bede Walsh
|
1970’s
|
Diocese of
Birmingham
|
Conviction
|
|
14. Fr Kenneth Arkley
|
1980’s
|
St Peter the Apostle
|
Convicted 1990
|
|
15. Fr Michael Creagh
|
1980’s
|
Douai
Abbey School
|
Convicted
|
|
16. Richard White
|
1980’s
|
Downside Abbey
|
Convicted
|
|
17. Brother
Anselm Hurt
|
1960’s
|
Downside
Abbey
|
Cautioned
|
|
18. Fr Raphael Appleby
|
1980’s
|
Downside Abbey
|
Cautioned
|
|
19. Fr John Kinsey
|
1980’s
|
Belmont Abbey
|
Convicted
|
|
20. Fr William Manahan
|
1970’s
|
Buckfast Abbey
|
Convicted
|
|
21. Fr John Lloyd
|
1980’s
|
Cardiff
|
Convicted
|
|
22. Fr Joseph Jordan
|
1980’s
|
Cardiff
|
Convicted
|
|
23. Fr Paul Couch
|
1970’s
|
Buckfast Abbey
|
Convicted
|
|
24. Fr Bernard Green
|
1980’s
|
Ampleforth College
|
Convicted
|
|
25. Fr Grant Ferris
|
1975
|
Ampleforth College
|
Convicted
|
|
26. Fr John Coghlan
|
|
Diocese of Westminster
|
Convicted
|
|
27. Fr William Hofton
|
|
Diocese of Westminster
|
Convicted
|
|
28. Fr Malcolm McLennan
|
|
Diocese of Portsmouth
|
Convicted
|
|
29. Fr Michael Hill
|
|
Diocese of Arundel
|
Convicted
|
|
30. Fr Martin McLennan
|
|
Diocese of Southwark
|
Convicted
|
|
31. Fr James Murphy
|
|
Diocese of Southwark
|
Convicted
|
|
32. Fr John
Flahive
|
|
Diocese of Birmingham
|
Convicted
|
|
33. Fr O’Malley
|
|
Diocese of Birmingham
|
Convicted
|
|
34. Fr Edmund Cotter
|
|
Diocese of Lancaster
|
Convicted
|
|
35. Fr James Pearce
|
|
Diocese of Lancaster
|
Convicted
|
|
36. Fr Anthony McKay
|
|
Diocese of Lancaster
|
Convicted
|
|
37. Fr Noel Barrett
|
|
Diocese of Middlesbrough
|
Convicted
|
|
38. Fr Michael Dunn
|
|
Diocese of Middlesbrough
|
Convicted
|
|
39. Fr David Crowley
|
|
Diocese of Middlesbrough
|
Convicted
|
|
40. Fr Gregory Carroll
|
|
Diocese of Middlesbrough
|
Convicted
|
|
41. Fr William Green
|
|
Diocese of Salford
|
Convicted
|
|
42. Fr Thomas
Doherty
|
|
Diocese of Salford
|
Convicted
|
|
43. Fr Adrian McLeish
|
|
Diocese of Hexham
|
Convicted
|
|
44. Fr William Jacks
|
|
Diocese of Hexham
|
Convicted
|
|
45. Fr Patrick Fitzpatrick
|
|
Diocese of Hexham
|
Convicted
|
|
46. John Corrigan
|
|
Diocese of Hexham
|
Convicted
|
|
47. Brian Rutledge
|
|
Diocese of Portsmouth
|
Convicted
|
|
48. James Kelly
|
|
Tingwall Hall – Brothers of Charity
|
Convicted
|
|
49. Fr Joseph Jordan
|
1980’s
|
Archdiocese of Cardiff
|
Convicted
|
|
50. Rev Richard Thomas
|
|
Diocese of Oxford
|
Convicted
|
C of E
|
51. Rev Richard Morrish
|
|
Diocese of Hereford
|
Convicted
|
C of E
|
52. Rev Richard Hart
|
1991-2007
|
Powys, Wales
|
Convicted
|
C of Wales
|
53. Rev Trevor Diaper
|
1993-2003
|
Diocese of Chelmsford
|
Convicted
|
C of E
|
54. Fr John Shannon
|
2010
|
Diocese of East Anglia
|
Conviction
|
C of E
|
55. Rev Paul Battersby
|
2007
|
Leyland. Lancs
|
Convicted
|
C of E
|
56. Rev Dominic Stone
|
|
Diocese of Lichfield
|
Convicted
|
C of E
|
57. Br Eunan
|
|
Tingwall Hall – Brothers of Charity
|
Convicted
|
|
58. Fr Patrick Maguire
|
|
UK and Ireland
|
Convicted
|
|
59. Canon Laurence Davies
|
|
Diocese of Llandaff
|
Convicted
|
|
60. Rev Malcolm Brooks
|
|
Church of Wales
|
Indecent assault proven at Church Tribunal
|
C of Wales
|
61. Rev Richard Parry
|
|
Wrexham
|
Convicted
|
C of E
|
62. Rev Peter Cranch
|
|
Diocese of Exeter
|
Convicted
|
C of E
|
63. Rev Roy Cotton
|
54-97
|
Diocese of Chichester
|
Convicted
|
C of E
|
64. Rev Colin Pritchard
|
|
Diocese of Chichester
|
Convicted
|
C of E
|
65. Rev Richard Gizzard
|
|
Kent
|
Convicted
|
C of E
|
66. Rev Noel Moore
|
|
Diocese of Chichester
|
Convicted
|
C of E
|
67. Peter Halliday
|
1980’s
|
Farnborough
|
Convicted
|
C of E
|
68. Rev Peter Hedge
|
1990 – 2005
|
Diocese of Bradford
|
Convicted
|
C of E
|
69. Rev Michael Walter
|
1970’s and 80’s
|
Dioceses of Durham and York
|
Convicted
|
C of E
|
70. Rev David Smith
|
1975-2005
|
Diocese of Bath and Wells
|
Convicted
|
C of E
|
71. Bishop Peter Ball
|
|
Diocese of Chichester
|
Cautioned
|
C of E
|
72. Fr Anthony Laundy
|
|
Archdiocese of Southwark
|
Convicted
|
|
73. Fr Peter Edwin Tidmarsh
|
|
Diocese of London
|
Cautioned
|
C of E
|
74. Mr Stephen Skelton
|
1980’s
|
St Benedict’s Ealing
|
Convicted
|
|
APPENDIX 2
Archdioceses/
Dioceses where cover ups are known to have taken place
Father James
Robinson
James Robinson, a
former catholic priest was jailed for 21 years in October 2010 for sexual abuse
of boys. His abuse covered a period of 24 years.
Between 1959 and
1983 he repeatedly abused at least 6 boys. In 1985 a victim told the Arch
Diocese of Birmingham and the police about his abuse and West Midlands Police
began an inquiry. At that point Robinson moved to California. Despite
the police investigation and knowledge by the Arch Diocese of Birmingham of the
allegations the Arch Diocese continued to pay him £800 per month until
December 2001 and a separate payment of £8,400 in the year
2000. The Diocese presumably knew of his address when sending
the cheques.
The Trial Judge His
Honour Patrick Thomas QC viewed the catholic churches role as highly
questionable when he remarked :
'It is not for me
to judge. Others may take the view that a full investigation and full
disclosure of the results of that investigation is due to the members of that
church and Robinson's victims "
Fr Samuel Penney
In March 1993 Fr
Samuel Penney a parish priest in the Archdiocese of Birmingham was convicted on
10 charges of child sexual abuse and sentenced to 7 ½ years in prison. In May
1993 the Everyman Programme on BBC1 broadcast "Breach of Faith" a
documentary on the Samuel Penney case. A young man who had been sexually abused
by Penney for 10 years finally told his parents and they went to see the
Archbishop of Birmingham, Maurice Couve de Murvill, who persuaded them not to
report the case to the police and that the matter would be dealt with. In 1991
the victim returned from Australia where he was living, to find that Penney was
still a parish priest and still abusing children. Penney was moved into
treatment in July 1991 first at one centre in England and then to Gracewell
Clinic from where he was arrested in July 1992. Alan Draper - an adviser to the
Motherwell diocese on child abuse, who wrote a report on the case of Father Sam
Penney, said "I would call it a cover-up. There was a tendency to
protect the institutions and to minimise the full impact of what was going
on."
Father
Christopher Oliver Clonan
Father
Clonan fled the UK in 1992 following allegations of
sexual abuse by 8 of his former altar boys. Clonan had been a
priest at Christ the King Church, Coventry (operated by the Arch Diocese of Birmingham). Clonan died reportedly of a
brain haemorrhage in Australia in October 1998.
In 1974
an altar boy's parents had told the head of the church Father
Michael McTernan that Clonan had molested their son. Father
McTernan ignored the allegation and it appears that Clonan went to abuse
more boys.
Fr Eric Taylor
Father Taylor was
convicted of child abuse in 1975, but is alleged to have been allowed to carry
out church duties between 1989 and 1996. In 1998, the priest was jailed for
seven years on 18 charges of sexually abusing boys at Father Hudson's
Children's Homes in Warwickshire for crimes dating back to the 1960s.
(Archdiocese of Birmingham)
Diocese of
Arundle and Brighton
Father Michael
Hill
In 2000 the press
revealed the mishandling of a known sex offender Father Michael Hill in the
Diocese of Arundel and Brighton. Hill was eventually convicted of child
sex offences in 1997. The newly elevated Cardinal of England and
Wales (previously Bishop of Arundel and Brighton),
Cormack Murphy O'Connor, was put under pressure to resign.
O’Connor had just been promoted to the post of Archbishop of Westminster and
his former diocese had just settled a compensation case which offered extra
damages in return for a secrecy clause. The allegations against him however
were leaked and he was forced to appoint Lord Nolan to look into the Catholic Church’s
handling of abuse allegations. It seems the Nolan Commission would not have
been put in place without the damaging leak of O’Connor’s attempted cover up.
It appears that very few of these shocking incidents are revealed without
outsiders shining a light on particular shocking events. We will never know
without an inquiry how many more similar incidents have gone unreported.
The background to
this was that Michael Hill was a parish priest in the Diocese of Arundel and
Brighton when convicted in 1997 of 10 sexual assaults on boys. He was
sentenced to 5 years imprisonment on charges dating back to 1959 (the year before his ordination) . It was discovered that police
investigations and complaints against Hill first surfaced in the 1980's
and that he was, with the knowledge of his Bishop, sent to a clinic in
Gloucestershire for evaluation in 1982 (Our Lady of Victory, Stroud).
Doctors there advised Bishop Murphy O'Connor that Hill was a risk to
children, however the Bishop appointed him chaplain at Gatwick Airport in 1983
where he went on to abuse more children including a learning disabled child on
his way to Lourdes.
Fighting off
pressure to resign and stating that back in the 1990's less was known about
sexual abuse, Cardinal Cormack in 2000 commissioned Lord Nolan to review how
reports of child sexual abuse had been handled within the catholic church and
to make recommendations. The Cardinal also sent 10 files on other priests of
allegations of sexual abuse against them within the Diocese of Arundel and
Brighton to a Leeds based solicitor for an apparently independent
inspection. The solicitor turned out to be working for the catholic
church. In a brief statement the public was informed that no problems
arose in respect of the handling of those cases. There has been a culture
of resistance and a lack of transparency.
Father
Timothy Garratt
In December 2002
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor was investigated by police over 12 new
allegations that he failed to report claims of child abuse to the police whilst
he was Bishop of Arundel & Brighton. A number of victims went to the police
to complain that when they reported allegations to the Bishop in the 1980s
nothing happened to the alleged abusers. The Cardinal confirmed that the Diocese
was prepared to hand over the files to the police . (The Times 7th Dec
2002). One well publicised case concerned Fr Timothy Garratt who was convicted
of making child pornography in 1984 in Portsmouth. He also admitted that whilst
in a previous parish he had taken photographs of a 12 year old boy undressed
for bed and asked for the incident to be taken into consideration by the
magistrate. Following this conviction the Cardinal gave Garrett a job in
Arundel and Brighton as assistant priest in Redhill, Surrey in 1986 and he
later moved to a parish in Eastbourne in 1989
Diocese of
Northampton
Fr Anton Mowatt
The first time the
issues of clergy perpetrated child sexual abuse truly surfaced into public awareness in the UK was in
1992 when Granada Television broadcast a programme called ‘Sins of the
Father’. The researchers uncovered the case of Fr Anton Mowat, a priest in
the Diocese of Northampton who was allowed to move to America in 1986 and to
become a parish priest in Georgia, despite the Diocesan authorities knowing of
multiple reports of child sexual abuse against him, which a church spokesman
referred to as ‘rumours’. The parish he went to was not informed of
these ‘rumours’. Mowat fled America when charges were filed against him
there in 1988 and hid in Turin in Italy with the knowledge of the Diocese
of Northampton. Diocesan authorities eventually turned him over to the police
when he returned to England and refused to accept the need for treatment. Mowat
was sentenced to 16 years imprisonment in America in 1990.
Institutions
run by religious orders
Father Raphael Appleby
Appleby was for many years headmaster of
Downside School. In 2007, Abbot Aidan Bellenger received a complaint concerning
long-term abuse of a vulnerable adult by Appleby in the 1980s. The complaint
came from the victim of the abuse. Nothing was done, and no report made to
social services. The victim sent a letter in 2009 to the abbot providing full
details of the abuse. The letter appears to have been destroyed or lost -
police obtained a copy kept by the victim. It wasn't until Appleby accepted a
police caution that he was placed on restricted ministry and required to leave
Downside Abbey.
Richard White (Father Nicholas White)
White was a monk and priest at Downside
School in Somerset. He pleaded guilty in January 2012 to several offences in
1988-89 against Rob Hastings, a pupil at the school, who was aged 12-13 at the
time. (Hastings has waived his right to anonymity and has been interviewed on
radio and TV about his experiences, with the aim of persuading more abuse
victims to come forward to the police). White was sentenced to five years. In
documents read out in court it was made clear that there had been a complaint
made against White the previous year
concerning abuse of another boy. White was not placed on restricted ministry.
He was simply moved from teaching the youngest boys. According to statements
made in court, the school consulted its lawyers to find out whether they were legally obliged to report the abuses (which White
had admitted to the Abbot of the time).
They were told that there was no obligation to make any report. This discretion
on reporting is at the heart of the problem with safeguarding
Mr Stephen Skelton
Skelton was convicted in
December 2011 of two indecent assaults, one on a boy at St Benedict's, Ealing in 1983 and another 10 years
later on a boy at West Hill Park School, a private boarding school
at Tichfield, Hampshire. It was stated in court that Skelton had been
urged by St Benedict's to “go quietly” after a year at the school when the
parents of the pupil complained of an attack on their 11-year-old son during a
private maths lesson. Again, the school had a statutory duty to send a
notification at the time to the Teacher Misconduct Section of the Department for
Education, and they did not do so, otherwise Skelton would not have been
able to obtain another teaching post. The former St Benedict's pupil was
interviewed (face hidden) by BBC London News, and stated that the school had
been highly uncooperative towards the police investigation.
Father
David Pearce
In
2009, Father David Pearce, a monk and priest at Ealing Abbey and former Head of
the junior school at St. Benedict’s, pleaded guilty to 10 counts of indecent
assault and one count of sexual assault, against five different boys, all
pupils of St. Benedict’s School at the time. The offences took place over a
period of 36 years, from 1972 to 2007. He was sentenced to eight years in
prison, later reduced on appeal to five years.
Pearce
had been a teacher in the school and Headmaster of the junior school. His
sexual interest in boys was widely known, and his nickname at the school was
“Gay Dave”. He “retired” as headmaster in 1993 following complaints from pupils
and parents of abusive behaviour. It is likely that he would have been
prosecuted at the time, except that the father of one victim died about then,
and the mother understandably in the circumstances didn’t feel able to sustain
the complaint. Pearce was made Bursar of the school, a role he kept until about
2000 and he remained in contact with children through his continuing
supervision of the Cadet Corps.
Pearce
was placed on restricted ministry in 2006 following a civil action against him
and Ealing Abbey, in which a former pupil of St. Benedict’s claimed he had
suffered sexual abuse at the hands of Pearce. The judge found against the Abbey
and Pearce, and awarded the victim £43,000 plus costs.
However,
even after this, Pearce was able to abuse another pupil of the school, who had
been employed to come into the monastery at weekends to wash dishes. This
occurred in 2007, and was the last of the cases to which he pleaded guilty in
2009. The victim did not know that Pearce was under restrictions. Moreover,
those few people who did know of the restrictions were told by the Abbot that
the reason was "to protect Father David from unfounded allegations"
according to a letter from the Abbot read out in court during Pearce's
sentencing hearing.
In 2005 Fr Piers Grant-Ferris admitted 20 incidents between
1966 and 1975 including beating boys bare-handed on the buttocks at Ampleforth College , and taking temperatures rectally. The Yorkshire Post reported in 2005 that former Abbot Basil Hume did not call in police when the initial incident
came to light in 1975, but relocated Father Grant-Ferris to a parish in Cumbria
where he went on to further abuse. Several other incidents came to light in
2003, when the abbey hired a psychologist to conduct risk assessments on staff.
APPENDIX 3
THE CULTURE AND
RULES OF THE CATHOLIC AND CHURCH OF ENGLAND ON SAFEGUARDING
The Roman Catholic Church
A decree from the Vatican dated 16 March 1962 was issued to all Bishops
and dealt comprehensively with the procedures to be employed by all Bishops
when a report of sexual abuse was received. Bishops were put under threat of ex-communication if they
did not follow the decree which was known as “Crimen Sollicitationis”. The
decree required Bishops to enforce (with the threat of ex-communication)
complete secrecy by the complainant, the alleged abuser and any other Church
officials dealing with these cases. The Crimen document also requires Bishops
to keep reports of abuse from civil authorities (i.e., the police). An internal investigation was to take
place and the result of the internal investigation was to be sent to the
promoter of justice in Rome (later the head of the congregation of the doctrine
of the same) within 10 days. The
Vatican officials were to decide on the result of any “sentence” to be imposed. Penalties at worst were
ex-communication and in the last 10 years only 3 recorded cases of
ex-communication has been imposed.
Most involve the carrying out of further work for the Church, being
moved to different jobs within the Church or indeed different places.
There is further
evidence of the Roman Catholic Church encouraging Bishops to keep quiet about
allegations made to them and not inform the police. Cardinal Castrillon wrote a letter in September 2001 to a
French Bishop congratulating him for refusing to report an abuser priest to the
police. http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/cardinal-castrillon-must-feel-trapped
More details can be found in the book by Geoffrey Robertson QC entitled
“The Case of the Pope”.
The Crimen document requires Bishops to keep a secret archive. It has to
be presumed that the Dioceses throughout England and Wales hold secret archives
relating to reports of abuse which have been kept secret and have not been
reported to the police.
There have been a number of high profile “cover ups” in which the
Catholic Church have failed to notify the police and have moved abusers between
Diocese and even out of the Country (See Appendix 2). Two examples are set out
here.
In 2010 James Robinson was extradited from America to England, tried and
convicted of 21 child sexual offences between 1959 and 1983 and was sentenced
to 21 years imprisonment. Robinson
was a former Priest in the Arch Diocese of Birmingham and left the Country in
1985 whilst the police were still investigating allegations of child sexual
abuse against him. During Robinson’s trial it was disclosed that the Arch
Diocese continue to pay Robinson £800 per month between 1985 and 2001 and have
given him £8,400 in 2000. At no
time did the Diocese or Authorities inform either the police in America or
England of his whereabouts.
The Vatican’s response to abuse is not improving. No positive steps have been taken to
overturn the Crimen document.
Church of England and Wales
Reports of vicars and other church officials within the Church of
England and Wales began to emerge in the 1980’s. Time and again criminal cases reveal that church authorities
knew that allegations of child sexual abuse by clergy and other church
officials yet did nothing to protect them from further harm. This is continuing up to the most
recent cases in the Diocese of Chichester. An enquiry by Baroness Butler Sloss
into the Diocese of Chichester has revealed shortcomings with the report
handling procedures. Furthermore it appears that she was lied to by Bishops.
The past case reviews undertaken in all diocese in the Church of England
(reported 2010) and in Wales (reported 2011) has sounded alarm bells within
survivor organisations and published reports only explicitly admit to 13 cases
in England and 5 cases in Wales as causing concern. It is known that many clergy still in ministry have
allegations of child sexual abuse on their files. Some even have previous convictions, others have confessed
to abuse of children to Bishops.
Only some of the Dioceses engaged independent consultants to carry out a
review of their files. The Church of England has yet to produce a policy or
procedures for responding to victims abused within the church and/ or it’s
children’s institutions.It has been criticised by support organisations as
safeguarding officers lack independence and evidence shows that the
implementation of the policy patchy.
Appendix 4
A list of cases concerning CoE/CofW vicars
and other church officials
·
In the 1980s and early 1990s a number of cases
of child sexual abuse involving clergy from the Church of England were reported
in the press. The most concerning of these was the case in 1988 when two
vicars, a solicitor, a choirmaster and a convicted child abuser were convicted
at Winchester Crown Court on 22 specimen charges of sex with boys which
took place on church outings, at the YMCA and in the churchyard.
·
17 cases involving Anglican clergy dating from
the early 1980s to the early 1990s have been found on internet searches before
any safeguarding policies and procedures were in place. It is not known how
many clergy convicted of child sex offences in the 1980s and 1990s were allowed
to remain in ministry afterwards. Given the recent cases reported in the media
it is likely that a number of these sex offenders continued in licensed
ministry.
·
In 1993 the then Bishop of Gloucester,
the Right Rev Peter Ball accepted a caution after pleading guilty to
indecently assaulting a 17 year old novice monk whilst he was Bishop of Lewis
in the Diocese of Chichester. At the time the Archbishop of Canterbury
expressed his sorrow and support for Peter Ball. Notwithstanding his admission of guilt he has remained a
Bishop within the Church of England.
·
In 1994 the Rev Richard Gizzard from
Kent was sentenced to 3 years in prison for sexual offences against two boys.
Also in 1994 the Rev Stephen Brooks was sentenced to 4 years in
prison in Swansea County court for sexual offences against eight boys staying
at his vicarage. In all MACSAS has found 17 cases of child abuse involving
clergy in the 1980s and 1990s.
- The
case of Rev Michael Walter is highly illustrative. He was first
convicted of child sexual offences in 1970. He was then allowed to
continue in ministry in the Dioceses of Durham and York where he
went on to assault more children until his eventual arrest and second
conviction in 1988 for violent assault. After release from prison
he moved to London and was a curate in Feltham. On retiring
in 1996 he was granted permission to officiate by the Bishop of Fulham,
and assisted at a number of churches, including St Luke’s Church in
Kingston Upon Thames until April 2003 when it was discovered
that he had been convicted of child sexual offences and he was removed
from ministry whilst everyone worked out what to do with him.
- In
the Diocese of Exeter Peter Cranch was eventually convicted
of child sex offences in July 1999 twenty years after he had
confessed to the then Bishop, Eric Mercer that he had
committed very serious sexual offences against young boys in Tavistock,
Devon. The Bishop did not report him to the police and following an
internal private investigation Cranch was allowed to leave his post in Torquay
and immediately take up a Chaplaincy at a hospital in Exeter. In
the mid 1980s he was back in parish ministry in Exmouth where
further complaints were made against him. He was again moved to another
parish this time in Exeter where he was a curate in two churches
until the early 1990s. Eventually one of his victims found out he was
still a priest and still abusing children and he was reported directly to
the Police. Despite the seriousness of the offences against him, he
received only a suspended sentence.
- In
2003 Canon Laurence Davies, parish priest in Cardiff in the Diocese
of Llandaff was sentenced to 10 years in prison for child sexual
offences which took place over a 25 year period. When were the first
allegations reported to Church authorities and what actions were taken
then to protect other children from harm?
- Richard
Parry a former vicar in North Wales was convicted of sexual
offences against children in 2004 and sentenced to four years in
jail. He had abused children whilst parish priest in the 1990s
at Southsea, near Wrexham and at Holywell, Flintshire. He left
the church in 2000 and started working as a counsellor. It is not
known what Church Authorities knew about his offending behaviour nor why
he left the Church in 2000, however given other cases we now know of, it
may well be that once again the Church dealt with previous allegations by
quietly moving Parry on.
- In
2006 in one of the few cases where the church took action against a
vicar, the Rev Malcolm Brooks parish priest in Ystrad Mynach
was deposed from Holy Orders by the disciplinary tribunal of the Church
of Wales after allegations of indecent assault of a boy dating back to
1987 were found proved.
- In
2007 the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams issued a
public apology over the ‘mistakes’ made by the Church of England in the Peter
Halliday child abuse case. The Archbishop declared “Any case in
which the Church has failed to prove itself a safe place for children is
deplorable. This is one such case, and we can only express our keen
awareness of the damage and deep sorrow for the suffering caused”.
He stressed that the new procedures in place and the expertise within the
Church made such cases less likely in the future.
In the early 1990s Peter Halliday had admitted to Church
Authorities that he had abused children in the 1980s. This followed a
report to Church Authorities in 1990 by the parents of a child abused at St
Peter’s Church in Farnborough where Halliday was the Choirmaster. At the
time he was allowed to leave the Church quietly. Bishop David Wilcox
then Bishop of Dorking in the Diocese of Guildford was among
those who made the decision not to inform the police of Halliday’s behaviour,
and at the time of Halliday’s conviction in 2007 stated openly that this
was the common way of dealing with such cases.
Halliday had continued to work with children at the Royal School of
Church Music until he was charged in 2006 with indecently assaulting
children. Halliday was convicted of child sexual abuse offences in 2007 at
Winchester Crown Court and was sentenced to 30 months in prison after admitting
the offences.
- Also
in 2007 the Rev David Smith, in the Diocese of Bath &
Wells was convicted of sexually abusing six boys over a 30 year
period from 1975 to 2005, and was sentenced to 5 ½ years in prison.
During the trial it was revealed that victims had first reported
allegations to Church Authorities in 1983 whilst Smith was in the Diocese
of Gloucester and again in 2001 after he had moved to the Diocese
of Bath & Wells. Church authorities had assured the victims that
the matter had been ‘dealt with’ but Smith was allowed to remain a
parish vicar where he continued to abuse boys. Whilst the Bishop of
Bath & Wells, Peter Price expressed his shock and horror
at Smith’s actions and conduct, he failed at all to reflect upon the
totally irresponsible conduct of church authorities who knew about his
offending behaviour for more than twenty years and yet failed to take
actions to protect children.
·
In the Diocese of Bradford Peter Hedge
was able to continue to abuse children until at least 2000 and young men
until at least 2005 whilst a curate at St Margaret’s Church Thornbury and
Holy Trinity Church Queensbury, despite serious allegations against him investigated
by police in 1997. No reported allegations were disclosed from Church files
held by Diocesan authorities at the time of the investigation and without
supporting evidence no prosecution was brought. In October 2009 Hedge
was sentenced to 14 years in prison for 2 offences of rapes, 32 indecent
assaults and one serious sexual offence against six children. Whilst Bishop
David James made some bland statement about the commitment to protect
children within the Church of England he made no reference to any investigation
or risk assessment undertaken following the previous allegations and police
investigation in 1997. Hedge was allowed to continue in ministry until 2007
when police again began investigating him after more victims reported abuse.
Hedge was found to have continued to abuse children until 2000, three years
after the original investigation took place. Only time will tell if other
children were abused by Hedge up to 2007 if and when they are able to report
their abuse. The diocese informed MACSAS in 2011 that it had carried out an
independent review of this case but the findings were not made public. The questions
remain as to what the diocese knew about Hedge and when did they know it.
·
In 2009 the Rev Mountford who worked as a
school chaplain in the Diocese of Birmingham in the 1980s, was murdered in
Libya. He had been arrested in Thailand in 2004 and extradited to Australia to
face police investigations into allegations of child abuse in Adelaide in the
early 1990s. The prosecution collapsed in 2007 when the victims refused to
testify. The Archbishop of Adelaide resigned after the trial amid allegations
that he had protected Mountford. Mountford had worked as a chaplain at Blue
Coats CoE School in Birmingham in the 1980s. Given the other past cases now
revealed, we must ask what the Church knew in the 1980s about Mountford before
he went to Australia?
·
The Rev Guy Bennett from the diocese of
Guilford which borders the Diocese of Chichester is another
convicted child sex offender who came out of prison in 2000 and
immediately held himself out as a vicar at, at least, one church service in the
Diocese of Chichester where he now lives. One of Bennett’s victims has been
told by Church authorities that (i) Bennett only admitted the sexual
offences in 1999 to spare the victims the court hearing, but wasn’t really
guilty: and (ii) that he is no longer a risk to children because the offences
for which he was convicted dated back to the 1970s and 1980s. In fact he
admitted only a limited number of offences and plea bargained his way to a nine
month sentence of which he served only 4 ½ months. In 2009 another
victim reported to the police that she was sexually abused by Bennett
and a Catholic priest in the diocese of Arundel & Brighton which
overlaps the CofE Diocese of Chichester for five years from the late 1980s
to 1993.
Whilst
the CPS refused to prosecute Bennett again when the new victim reported
the case in 2009, the Diocesan authorities should have carried out a
full risk assessment based on this new allegation and realised that Bennett
is a compulsive liar manipulating the authorities to remain in contact with and
have authority over children.
The brief (less than three page) report on the Past
Cases Review published for public consumption in February 2010 stated:
“As a result of this review, we are now
able to say that nobody representing the Church in a formal capacity has
allegations on file that have not been thoroughly re-examined in the light of
current best practice and any appropriate action taken...
As a result of the
diocesan reviews of 40,747 files, 13 cases were identified as requiring formal
action. Eleven cases were referred to statutory authorities: five cases related
to past allegations originally involving police investigations and some of
which resulted in convictions . . . Six others were referred to the police
for advice and investigation. . .
and the police have since indicated they are unable to take further action. In
three of these cases, a risk assessment strategy has been put in place. . .
There are no cases where a police investigation is still ongoing. . . A
further two cases . . . were deemed to warrant formal disciplinary action
by the Church.” (www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2010/2/pr2610.aspx)
David Greenwood
Child Abuse Lawyer - Switalkis Solicitors
Sue Cox
co-founder Survivors Voice Europe
+441926
640525
mobile: 07813808026
