THE DIOCESE OF CHICHESTER

OPENING STATEMENT BY COUNSEL TO THE INQUIRY

OPENING REMARKS

1. Good Morning, Chair and Panel. I am Ms. Fiona Scolding, lead counsel to the Anglican

investigation . Next to me sits Ms. Nikita McNeill and Ms. Lara McCaffrey , junior

counsel to the Anglican investigation. Today we begin the first substantive hearing into

the institutional response of the Anglican Church to allegations of child sexual abuse.

The Anglican investigation is just one of thirteen so far launched by the statutory

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse established by the Home Secretary in

March 2015, offering an unprecedented opportunity to examine the extent to which

institutions and organisations in England and Wales have been able to respond

appropriately to allegations of abuse.

2. This hearing focuses upon the response of the Diocese of Chichester to allegations made

to it about various individuals – both clergy and volunteers over the past thirty years.

Some of the abuse you will hear about occurred during the 1950’s and 1960’s: some of it

is much more recent in origin. A series of allegations came to light from the late 1990’s

onwards and then engulfed the Diocese of Chichester in the first decade of the 21s t

century. The role of the hearing is to examine what happened and what that shows

about the ability of the Anglican Church to protect children in the past. It is also to ask

1

about its ability to learn lessons and implement change as a result of learning from the

mistakes which it has acknowledged that it has made.

3. This hearing also seeks to examine how the Church dealt with those who whilst abused

as children, came to speak to the Church as adults and tell their story – and of the

inadequacies of response by the Church to those disclosures, which again, the Church as

acknowledged.

4. Most of those from whom you will hear were abused, or make allegations of abuse from

very many years ago. The laws and practice of the Church of England have changed

markedly even in the past five years in response to the information that these individuals

have brought to light, and is still in the process of genesis , something from which we will

hear from the current Bishop of Bath and Wells, Peter Hancock, who is in charge of

safeguarding at present. The law, guidance and views of society have changed even more

radically since the time when much of the offending took place.

5. However, as this Inquiry well knows, the pain of those who were abused as children does

not go away or end simply because society’s views have changed. Sometimes, their lives

have been blighted by such abuse. Others have sought to become activists for a more

open and transparent culture both within our society and within the Church, using their

own experience as a way to promote change and compelling the Church to look at them

and face what some of those within it had done, even when the Church did not wish to

do so. We will be hearing evidence from some of these victims, survivors and

2

complainants, all of whom are seeking to use their own experiences as a way for us, as an

Investigation, to learn and make recommendations.

6. The feelings of shame and inadequacy associated with sexual abuse within childhood can

leave an indelible stain for even those with the most courageous and optimistic

personalities – the Inquiry wishes to thank them for the openness, their honesty and their

desire to assist us. The more that all of us can speak about abuse and expose it, the more

that society as a whole can change.

7. Some of the people who were involved in running the institutions as the time when the

abuse occurred are no longer alive or are very elderly. The majority of those individuals

who were in senior positions within the church when the disclosures of abuse camet to

light have also retired, or are no longer working within the Diocese. Some have also

passed away.

8. There have been a number of internal inquiries into the actions of the Diocese of

Chichester and individuals who spent time as clergy in Chichester even if their offending

took place elsewhere. This Inquiry will not hear much which has not been aired or

ventilated previously within the criminal courts, the civil courts or by internal review

processes of the Anglican Church itself. What is different is that the focus on this

investigation is upon the themes and issues which emerge from the reviews and trials: to

seek to draw them together and to synthesize the issues which arise: and to examine the

3

extent to which the Church has been able to change many of the deep rooted structural ,

governance and cultural problems identified following reviews. Our primary role is to

listen, and to inquire.

9. As a society, we have had to examine uncomfortable truths about our wilful blindness to

such abuse over decades over the past ten years. We have gone from a situation where

sexual abuse was not spoken about, discussed or heard. Where, in many people’s eyes, it

was even inconceivable that it could exist, let alone that individuals who were otherwise

pious, holy, charismatic people could have engaged in, to recognising that such abuse

occurs at all levels of society and can involve individuals who otherwise would be

considered to be paragons of their communities. This Inquiry is part of the continuing

conversation that our society is having about such truths.

INTRODUCTION

10. So what then is the purpose of embarking on this investigation within this inquiry?

11. First of all, these events did not happen so long ago as to consign them to history. The

institutional response of the Church which were are examining happened, largely, in the

last decade of the twentieth century and in the first decade of the twenty first century – a

time when sexual abuse was recognised as a problem by society and where the state had

systems in place to investigate it.

4

12. Second, the response of the church assists us in examining how society as a whole, and in

particular its established institutions have dealt with such abuse to date. The Church is

the “established” church of England: the national church. I will explain in a little more

detail exactly what that means in a moment, but it is a very important and powerful

institution within our society. The reaction of the Church and the issues raised reflects

other strands within our society to do with class, gender and sexual orientation which are

of wide applicability . Its internal laws have to be approved by Parliament: the Queen is

the head of the Church and its bishops still sit in the House of Lords. It provides

spiritual sustenance for many and is seen as a leader in terms of not just religious

questions, but related questions of social justice and ethics. Its management of

allegations of child sexual abuse reflect not just society’s difficulties in coming to terms

with it, but also how even institutions dedicated to good can both harbour individuals

who are malign but also be institutionally incapable of effective responses to concerns

about the sexual abuse of children.

13. Third, it is also still a very significant provider of voluntary services for children in

everything from the Cubs through to youth groups and mother and baby classes even for

those who do not worship within its Churches. It is also by far and away the largest

“sponsor” of state education within the country. 1 in 6 children attend an Anglican

school [check figures] . Whilst the Church does not directly fund many of these

institutions, clergy and volunteers from parishes and dioceses often sit on the governing

body or board of trustees (in the cases of Academy schools) and the Diocesan Board of

5

Education still plays a significant role in the supervision of religious education within

those schools, much of which has a social and ethical dimension.

14. Fourth, it allows the panel to consider whether deference to individuals in a position of

authority, not so very long ago, may have put children at risk of child sexual abuse. The

wider issue is whether the Church in its responses to allegations was too willing to believe

those who subsequently turned out to be abusers: too slow to interrogate information

that ought to have given rise to acute concern; and too willing to accept the status quo.

15. Fifth, the Panel can also consider issues emerging from this investigation which remain

relevant and will contribute to the Panel’s ability to put contemporary problems of child

sexual abuse in context, both within the Church but also within other institutions where

similar problems no doubt arise and are replicated .

16. Those who will be giving evidence and the available documentation suggests there may

be the following problems :

(i) A tendency to make children responsible for their sexual abuse instead of the

adults around them.

(ii) A tendency to let difficult issues drift rather than to confront them.

6

(iii) An inability to believe that those whose lives were ostensibly dedicated to

good could be capable of great harm towards children and young people.

(iv) An inability to spot “grooming” behaviours or even understand what

grooming behaviours were.

(v) An inability to understand that those who were abused as children would still

feel such abuse acutely as adults and require redress and reparation, no

matter how long ago the events occurred.

(vi) A culture of excessive deference to those at the top of the hierarchy and an

unwillingness to challenge them.

(vii) A culture of amateurism: a non professional, or largely non professional

safeguarding organisation with very limited professional oversight, run largely

by clergy who were willing but had limited experience of such matters within

their professional lives and where, for example, training was patchy and not

embedded within the professional lives of clergy, record keeping was not

standardised, and the sums of money spent upon safeguarding were, until

recently, very small. Bishops, with largely no professional management

qualifications or even experience running multi million pound institutions

with significant numbers of office holders and employees, as well as a vast

number of volunteers. You will hear evidence from a Canon and previous

management consultant who identified that absence of management

experience as a significant impediment to running an effective Diocese.

7

(viii) An excessive emphasis upon forgiveness, which allowed individuals to go

without justice and for individuals who complained of abuse feeling isolated

if they did not “forgive” their abuser.

(ix) An institution which, unsure of itself and its role within the late twentieth

century, was frightened of criticism from outside, and which preferred to put

its own reputation as an institution above the need to safeguard children.

(x) An institution where conflicts in different styles of worship and religious

traditions may have infected the ability to build strong interpersonal

relationships and which caused internal differences of approach which lead to

paralysis and thus inaction.

(xi) An institution which was grappling with the role of women, both ordained

but also as employees and volunteers in senior positions. The Church’s

voluntary services have always been dominated by women, but before 1992

when the ordination of women was permitted, women were not in clerical

positions of authority and some approaches to them by some clergy may have

been infected by unconscious bias.

(xii) An institution grappling with human sexuality and sexual orientation, where

many different views were expressed on this issue, which was and still is the

subject of fervent debate within the Church itself.

(xiii) An institution running to catch up with safeguarding changes taking place in

other parts of society : and sometimes falling behind to a significant degree.

8

(xiv) An institution which, despite internal reviews, moves slowly and in some

quarters, with some reluctance, to embrace change.

(xv) An institution which may have had policies, but did not embed those policies

within the very fabric of the Church until relatively recently.

(xvi) An institution which, at its grassroots level, has found it difficult, at times, to

grapple with some of the basic changes that most institutions now accept are

necessary for the management of risk – namely the provision of criminal

records and vetting and barring checks – you will hear of parishes where

individuals resign rather than face such checks, not because they have

perpetrated any criminal offending, but because they consider that it is a slur

on their character. These sorts of beliefs require a sustained and systemic

campaign of education and of societal shift which can be unfeasibly slow.

9. The Church sought (see JW 1/9 [need to insert URN] ) the statutory inquiry of which

this investigation is part and met with the then Home Secretary to urge her to launch it in

2014. The Panel will hear from the current Archbishop of Canterbury who stated in that

letter, in June 2014, that:

“Public authorities all need to be open about our own failures and not be perceived as hiding in the

undergrowth of others institutions’ shortcomings” and that such failures need to be faced in order to move

forward and to have more effective institutions in setting a better path for the future [ Justin W witness

statement at paragraph 14].

9

10. We seek, during the course of this investigation, to ask the Church, its office holders and

employees to be open in their own failings: this will involve airing uncomfortable truths :

matters which we have no doubt are embarrassing and awkward both to the institutions

and to the individuals concerned and which , with the benefit of hindsight,the Church

has accepted were significant failings. The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Peter Hancock,

when answering questions at General Synod in February 2018 recognised that this would

be the case. We acknowledge that this process is painful and difficult. What we seek is

to try and learn from these mistakes to try and minimize the risk that they will be made

again in the future. We a can but hope that this investigative process provides, if not

catharsis, then at the very least a greater appreciation of what we as a society can do to

try and to alleviate future difficulties.

11. As the most recent document from victims sent to the General Synod in February 2018

p14 identifies, what should be unique about the Church is that when faced with abuse

within its own ranks, it should act with urgency, compassion, transparency and

professionalism. You will hear evidence that those qualities have been absent in some of

the response of the past.

12. We will also seek to ask the victims and survivors of abuse, some of whom you will hear

give live evidence as to how they think the Church responded to their abuse at the time,

and how and what steps they think that the Church has yet to take to deal with abuse. We

must listen to them and have deep regard for what they have to tell us about what still

needs to change within the Church. Very often, their voices have been marginalised.

That must not be the case within this investigation.

10

The purpose of the opening statement

13. The purpose of this opening statement is to introduce some of the materials that the

investigation will ultimately ask the Panel to consider. We want to set the scene so that

when witnesses come to give evidence, it is understood why they are being asked certain

questions or why they are being asked to deal with certain criticisms.

14. There is a need to go straight to the key issues within the context of this Investigation.

There is a torrent of documentary material; witnesses have often given very many

accounts of their involvement in the events in statements and interviews; they have given,

on the whole, detailed and thought provoking responses to the questions which the

Investigation has asked them. The purpose of calling these witnesses is to ask them to

address the most significant points in issue, and to explore why things happened. There

will not be the opportunity to introduce every part of every piece of documentary

evidence which the Panel will, in due course, be invited to base their conclusions and

recommendations upon. Indeed, witnesses may not even be asked about much of the

documentary material to which I shall be referring in this statement but by referring to it

here I ask that it is put in evidence by being posted on on the Inquiry’s website . One of

the purposes of this opening statement is to draw attention to some of that material and

to demonstrate where it fits in the chronology.

11

15. In order to understand why decisions were made in certain ways, and how the church

operates, the investigation has sought evidence from a wide range of institutional

participants and also significant quantities of evidence from the Church itself as to its

internal workings. The Church’s organisation is byzantine and uses jargon and language

some may think is still redolent of Trollope. We will seek during this opening to try and

provide, for members of the public, a basic understanding of the way in which the

Church’s organisations and structures work. We will also seek, during the course of the

hearing, to seek explanations about those parts of the church institutions which use and

rely upon reformation and pre reformation concepts which would not be readily

explicable to the outsider.

16. I will deal with the issues in the following way:

(1) A background explanation of the Church of England and its structure.

(2) A background explanation of the evolution of safeguarding practice and procedure

within the Church over time.

(3) An explanation of what happened within the Diocese of Chichester.

A background explanation of the Church’s structure

17. A detailed explanation of the structure of the Church and its history is set out in the

witness statement of William Nye, who is currently the Secretary General of the

Archbishop’s Council and Secretary General of the General Synod. This means that he is

the chief administrator for the organisation which runs some aspects of central church

12

structure, and is the chief administrator of the body which makes legislative decisions for

the Church of England. I will explain both below.

18. The investigation cannot do justice to the detailed explanations provided within it and

so does not seek to do so, but just to highlight some information which is particularly

pertinent to the Church’s role in relation to children, and to our society.

19. Whilst Church attendance has been in decline, just over a million people attend church

regularly, of whom around 20% are children. A third of all worshippers are, however,

over 70[ see paragraphs 6-11 of the w/s of William Nye].

20. The Church still plays a significant role in the education of our children and young

people. There are 4, 435 primary schools and some 227 secondary schools in the state

sector which have a Church of England ethos. The sites and buildings are usually owned

by the Church of England, but the running of the schools falls to the board of governors

or trustees. However, at least in some schools, the majority of governors are appointed

by a Church entity – the voluntary aided schools. There are also independent schools

which have an Anglican character, 165 of whom self identify as Anglican.

13

21. The Church also plays a role in voluntary provision. It provides youth groups and

community activities in the vast majority of Dioceses (paragraphs 169 – 172) . It also

provides nursery groups and pre school settings (paragraph 173 – 174) . It provides

holiday clubs and Sunday school (paragraphs 175 – 182 of William Nye). Approximately

4,500 parishes during the last meaningful statistical exercise said that they undertook

some form of pastoral biblical work with children . The Church also has some

involvement in the Church Lads and Girls Brigade as well as organisations such as Soul

Survivor which although independent charities, are designed to encourage young people

to have a relationship with Jesus. The Church of England also has a Youth Council

(paragraphs 195 – 196 of the w/s of Mr. Nye).

How does the Church work?

22. To the outsider, the Church looks like a centralised monolith with the Queen at its head.

The reality is somewhat different. It is a group of semi autonomous bodies over whom

the Archbishop of Canterbury may have some indirect influence, but no power of

direction or control. Mr. Nye’s statement sets out in some detail the way that the Church

works.

23. The “building blocks” of the Church are parishes and dioceses: within the Church of

England there are 12, 459 parishes and some 42 dioceses. A diocese is a geographic area

- this varies from small (Sodor and the Isle of Man) to the geographically enormous (the

diocese of Europe which covers large parts of Europe, but also central Asia and Turkey ).

There are some 7, 253 full time paid clergy operating within various capacities within the

14

Church of England. There are some 3,230 unpaid clergy – known as non stipendiary

clergy or self supporting ministers. A stipend is what clergyman receive, as they are not

employees, but rather office holders. There are therefore significant numbers of

clergymen administering in parishes who do it as a voluntary part time vocation, whilst

pursuing other careers. Not being an employee can also cause difficulties by way of

control of and direction of their duties. There are also nearly 6,000 clergymen who are

retired but have what is known as permission to officiate – this is a licence which allows

them to conduct church services.

24. The parish is described by Mr. Nye as the “heart of the church of England” (paragraph

13 of William Nye’s statement). Working up, a group of parishes are known as a

“deanery” which are run by clergymen who have been elected or appointed as “deans” ie.

they have some responsibilities for organising matters on a deanery wide basis. The next

structure is the archeaconery , with individuals acting as archdeacons. Again these are

groupings of parishes, with an archdeacon, who is a clergyman chosen for the task by the

Bishop, providing in effect day to day assistance and oversight over what happens in a

certain geographic area. You will hear from individuals who have acted both as Deans

and also as Archdeacons within the Diocese of Chichester.

25. The structure within which parishes operate are dioceses. Each is headed by a Bishop.

Some have more than one Bishop, which is often called either an Assistant or a Suffragan

Bishop, but there is an overall Diocesan Bishop. You will hear from both suffragan and

diocesan bishops. The Diocese is described both by Mr. Hubbard, who provides us with

15

evidence about recruitment and training, but also by Mr. Slack and Mr. Nye and even the

Archbishop of Canterbury as the key institutional unit of the Church (paragraph 6 of the

witness statement of Justin Welby).

26. Whilst the Church operates by way of dioceses, as one witness will say at the hearing –

each priest is a pope in his own parish (witness statement of Nicholas Reade, former

Bishop of Blackburn, paragraph 5) . A bishop also has a significant degree of autonomy

from the superstructures of the “Provinces” that I will describe below. He is a legal

entity known as a “corporation sole but with perpetual succession”: a concept which

dates back to before the Reformation [check this : w/s of William Nye paragraph 29}.

The Bishop is the chief pastor of the all that are within his diocese and each diocese has

its own policies and practices, but he is not the “manager” of each parish as is explained

below. Each diocese has its own administration and central secretariat. You will hear

evidence from Canon Ian Gibson who performed one of those roles, and here about

others, such as the Diocesan Secretary, who work in the administration.

27. The Church has been or is described as a federation of essentially autonomous office

holders and bodies. As a Panel, you may well be interested in how changes to practice

and procedures to strengthen safeguarding can take place within the context of disparate

institutions which have no overarching line of control.

16

28. Since 1995 and the publication of the Church’s first national safeguarding policy, there

have been diocesan safeguarding advisors or lay individuals tasked within some dioceses

with dealing with child protection and wider safeguarding issues: you will hear from three

of those: they are lay people with a variety of backgrounds related to safeguarding who

are employed by the Church to manage safeguarding within the diocese. One of them,

Janet Hind, was the Child Protection Advisor in Chichester from 1997 – 2001 – at that

stage, there was only a national safeguarding policy and no specific guidance or training,

or template policies, so she had to devise those herself (w/s of Janet Hind). She worked

part time in this role. She was succeeded by Tony Selwood who tragically died but he

held the role between 2002 – the beginning of 2007: Shirley Hosgood was in post

between 2007 – 2010, not long after she had expressed concerns about safeguarding

within the Diocese. You will hear evidence from her about this. She was then replaced

on an interim basis by Kate Wood, who was an independent safeguarding consultant

based at Lambeth palace, and from whom you will receive read evidence during this

hearing. Colin Perkins has fulfilled this role since 2011 and you will hear evidence from

him as to what he does, and how safeguarding has worked during his tenure. He was, for

a time, joined by an individual working primarily to support victims and survivors who

report abuse, Ms. Marks-Good whose evidence will be read. As Bishop Hancock sets

out within his witness statement (paragraphs 49 and 50) , the vast majority of

safeguarding takes place at this level. There has been criticism of the expertise of DSA’s

generally, although it should be noted that all the individuals in Chichester were qualified

social work or probation professionals with a background in child protection.

17

29. To provide assistance to the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor, from 2004 onwards, each

Diocese should have a Diocesan Safeguarding Advisory Panel (after a national

safeguarding policy came into force), to a multi-agency group, chaired by a lay person and

including professionals for example from the police, social services and health which

should meet at least annually to review diocesan policy and more often as required

(paragraphs 74 – 77 of the witness statement of Peter Hancock). You will have evidence

read from Keith Akerman, who was chair of this group for a time, and from Edmund

Hick from Sussex Police who was also part of the safeguarding advisory group for a

period of time.

30. At a parish level, responsibility for safeguarding rests with the clergy responsible for the

parish and the parish council. This (now) includes a parish safeguarding officer who

should have additional training and be responsible for enforcing parish safeguarding

policies and procedures (paragraphs 62 – 65 of Peter Hancock).

31. As far as the national picture is concerned, there was no national safeguarding lead on a

full time basis until 2015. You will hear from Elizabeth Hall and read evidence from

Pearl Luxon - whose ill health prevents her attending - who both fulfilled this role in the

past and Graham Tilby who does so now on a full time basis and with an expanded staff.

Since 2015, there has been more money and personnel dedicated to safeguarding at a

national level, including the employment of two specific provincial safeguarding advisors,

one for each Archbishop, on a full time basis (witness statement of Peter Hancock,

Graham Tilby and evidence from Synod February 2018, ACE026163) .

18

32. There has also been the creation of a national safeguarding panel of outside experts. You

will hear from Sir Roger Singleton and Phil Johnson, both members of this group about

its work. Sir Roger has also been involved in examining the church’s undertaking of a

past cases review in 2007 - 2008 and whether that review needs to be looked at again.

33. In order to run any organisation, money needs to be spent upon it. In Chichester, the

annual sum spent on safeguarding in 2010 was around 59k, of which the majority was on

staffing : now it is 226k, with 192 k on staff costs (paragraph 131 of Martin Warner).

John Hind, the previous bishop will tell you that the sums spent on safeguarding were

not sufficient in his eyes . Nationally , the best estimate of the Church is that national

expenditure (including all dioceses) has gone from £1.6 million in 2011 to £5.1 million

pounds in 2017 (Peter Hancock, paragraph 182).

34. It is also worth mentioning at this stage two other institutions which every Diocese has

and which are relevant to different aspects of Church structure: the Diocesan Board of

Finance and the Diocesan Board of Education. You have witness evidence from

Stephen Nye and Stephen Slack, an ecclesiastical lawyer which explains their role in some

detail, and also witness statements which deal with the role of the Diocesan Board of

Finance and the Diocesan Board of Education within the Diocese of Chichester. These

provide detail as to what the boards do, but ultimately, the Diocesan Board of Finance,

DBF is in charge of the financing of the Diocese and controls the purse strings. The

Board of Education provides advice and guidance and deals with appointments to church

19

schools which are voluntarily aided, voluntarily controlled or academies, as well as

advising on the provision of religious education.

How do the Dioceses supervise parishes within them and how do the

Archbishops supervise the Dioceses?

35. The Dioceses do have power to “visit” parishes, and the Bishop can correct matters

which are “amiss” under his common law powers (which again date back probably to

before the Reformation). Archdeacons also carry out “visitations” to each parish once

every three years. There is nothing which equates to “line management” in the way that

those who work in employment would recognise.

36. There are two Archbishops : the Archbishop of York and Canterbury, of which that of

Canterbury is described as the “Primate of All England”, that of York being “Primate of

England”. However, it would be wrong, according to the evidence given by the Church,

to think that they are or have any line management responsibilities over Bishops. As the

current incumbent of the post explains within his witness statement, whilst individual

bishops have to swear an oath of obedience to the Archbishop, he has no legal power to

direct that bishops take specific action or to dismiss a bishop. The power of the

Archbishop is one of “influence”.

37. The only mechanism for an Archbishop to intervene if he considers that matters within a

Diocese are going substantially awry, for whatever reason, is to carry out an

20

Archepiscopal Visitation. Again, as is identified, this cannot direct a diocese, but can

suspend aspects of its workings whilst this is going on. You will hear that such a

visitation took place in 2011 at the behest of the then Archbishop of Canterbury, in

Chichester because of safeguarding concerns. This was the first such occasion in over a

hundred years. You will hear from Canon Rupert Bursell QC who was one of the

individuals who undertook the Visitation, along with his colleague Bishop Gladwin,

whose evidence will be read. You will also hear from Lord Williams, then Archbishop of

Canterbury as to why it was commissioned.

Other bodies within the Church

38. There are other bodies which are run centrally, which are collectively known by the

Church as the National Church Institutions. Mr. Julian Hubbard, Director of Ministry

for the Church and Mr. Slack and Mr. Nye, in their witness statements about the

structure of the Church, explain who they are. They include organisations which you will

hear about during the hearing: the secretariat based at the palace at Lambeth and York,

known as Bishopthorpe, the Archbishop’s Council, which provides support to the

Dioceses, and the archbishops – the National Safeguarding Team sit within the

Archbishop’s Council Secretariat (paragraph 8 and 9 of the witness statement of Mr.

Hubbard).

39. It is also worthwhile noting at this stage that Cathedrals are often, but not always run

separately and autonomously to a diocese, with their own clergy and their own staff,

called a “Chapter” headed by the “Dean” of the cathedral. Bishops have the power to

21

“visit” cathedrals , and may give directions to the “Chapter” about how they should be

run , and can make recommendations but such visitations have been, until recently, very

rare.

40. Again, many clergyman are employed, or hold offices as Chaplains – for example, in

prisons, hospital or schools or universities. These individuals , whilst they will hold a

licence to practise from the Bishop within the area where they work, are autonomous

from parishes and the diocese and operate completely separately. They are regulated by

those from whom they hold office or are employed. So, if there were to be a complaint

about their inappropriate behaviour in, for example, a school, they would be subject to

the employment terms of the institution and clergy discipline measure would not be

used.

41. There are a couple of other issues relating to the structure of the Church which are worth

explaining at this stage. Firstly, there is a series of institutions called Royal Peculiars, the

best known of which is Westminster Abbey, which are not governed by Dioceses at all

but are completely autonomous bodies exempt from the jurisdiction of both the

geographic bishop and also the relevant archbishop. They are subject to the direct

supervision of the Crown. Members of the clergy who are appointed to them are not

subject to the same disciplinary processes as other clergy. Second, the Church of

England has a small number of religious communities, about whom you will hear more

when we hear the evidence of Bishop David Walker who is currently the Bishop with

lead responsibility for these communities on the Bishop’s Council and who is on the

22

Advisory Council for Religious Communities, a Church of England body which

“recognises” religious communities They operate autonomously from Dioceses,and

from the central Church of England bodies. They are wholly autonomous with relatively

little oversight and practically no enforcement powers by the Church of England central

or Diocesan institutions, unless those who are members of communities are also

ordained by the Church. Until 2015, there was no express guidance for them about

safeguarding from their perspective. Religious communities are important in this

investigation because the Community of the Glorious Ascension, founded and run by

Bishop Peter Ball is a key part of the story of sexual abuse within the Diocese of

Chichester.

The governance of the Church

42. The governance of the Church of England consists of both the institutions I have set out

above, and also councils of individuals, both clergy and lay people who provide the

personnel for deliberative decision making bodies at different levels of the church. At

the “heart” level there is the parish council, a body elected by the parish and the

churchwarden, who is elected by parishioners to represent them. There are then deanery

synods which are deliberative bodies which make decisions on a larger level, and then

diocesan synods which meet annually, or more frequently.

43. Lastly, there is the general synod. This is a deliberative body which has three houses –

that of the bishops, the clergy and the laity. Its membership is prescribed by canon law,

a brief discussion of which I will go into below. Most of the house of clergy and laity are

23

elected by either clergy in their dioceses or by members of the deanery synods. There are

now 467 members of the synod. Elections take place every five years. The synod meets

twice a year, in February and July and has two functions: one to express views on matters

of religious or public interest, and the second to pass the laws of the Church.

44. The witness statement of Stephen Slack,which is being put in evidence, identifies in some

detail how legislation is introduced and passed by the General Synod and ecclesiastical

law in general. It also identifies how legal advice and advisors operate within the Church

of England . Mr. Slack is Head of the Legal Office of the National Church Institutions.

The Inquiry will have to examine various legislative measures made in the past decade by

the Church which they say has improved and created greater “teeth” for the enforcement

of concerns about safeguarding within the Church. The Inquiry will have to consider if

what has been done to date is good enough.

45. However, for these purposes, the Church has various ways in which it regulates itself,

both its clergy and lay members. Prior to the early twentieth century, it was Parliament

which passed legislation about and concerning the Church of England. Now, if the

Church wishes to pass what we lawyers would call a statute, or what for the UK

Parliament is called an Act of Parliament , it does so by way of the General Synod , which

is then scrutinised and approved by Parliament. These are called Measures. They impose

binding obligations on clergy and lay people alike, and can, in some cases, amend or

repeal acts of Parliament (for example the ordination of women measure in 2014

amended the equality act (paragraph 28 of Stephen Slack, p7 of his w/s). Measures only

24

extend to matters which touch and concern the Church of England and so their

provisions only deal with and concern individuals whose activities relate to the Church of

England. There is a flowchart (ACE025207) which identifies who both measures and

canons, which I will come to below, are passed.

46. The Church also makes extensive use of Canons: these deal with a broad range of issues

concerning the church. Most importantly, they provide a broad framework to identify

how bishops, priests and deacons perform their duties (paragraph 63 of the witness

statement of Stephen Slack including how ministry (i.e. the performance of religious

rituals and duties) is to occur and the norms of life for the clergy. The canons have to

have the assent of the Queen before they come into force (under the submission of

clergy act 1533, see paragraph 69 of Stephen Slack ). You will hear, in particular, about

the introduction in 2015 of a canon specifically about safeguarding – known as Canon

C30. Mr. Slack deals with this at paragraphs 86 – 93 of his witness statement, but its

intent was to deal with the issues which arose from the Chichester Visitation and to

impose a duty on bishops to appoint a diocesan safeguarding advisor and making

provision on their functions, and to require risk assessments. The introduction of this

will be dealt with in oral evidence by Adrian Iles from the Church of England. Mr. Slack

sets out a wealth of information as to the other sorts of legislation that the Church can

pass, and also as the workings of the synods that I have mentioned above.

47. Canon law sits alongside secular law. It forms part of the law of the land. Where there is

an ecclesiastical statute, statutory instrument or canon which requires an office holder, or

25

lay person within an Anglican contex to do something, they are compelled to comply

with that provision as part of the law of the land (paragraphs 152 and 153 of the witness

statement of Stephen Slack).

48. Canon law also provides a route for exercising discipline over clergy – but not over lay

individuals or volunteers within the Church. There is also a wealth of other internal

ecclesiastical courts dealing with other matters, including discipline in respect of ritual

and doctrine, or property law issues. You will hear from Adrian Iles about the clergy

discipline measures, but again, this has been somewhat altered, according to the Church,

in the light of the difficulties within the Chichester Diocese and the Church is carrying

out another consultation about it at present, because it recognises that it may not be an

appropriate forum to deal with disciplinary issues concerning safeguarding. The results

of this consultation are not , as yet, known.

The status of clergymen

49. A peculiarity of the Church of England which again reflects its ancient and somewhat

complex origins is its clergy are office holders, and not employees. This has, in the past,

caused difficulties in respect of both who gets to appoint the individual and also how

they become dismissed. Mr. Nye in his witness statement (at paragraphs 44 – 61)

explains the position. Clergymen must be ordained. If they are a monk and have taken

holy orders, there is no legal basis upon which they can be divested of holy orders but

they can voluntarily relinquish them. If they are ordained, the church does have the

power to divest them of holy orders. There is the requirement for the office holder when

26

ordained to take an oath of canonical obedience. That obedience is, however, to the

bishop in the area where someone is licensed and not to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

50. The basis upon which someone can be appointed to a parish does change depending

upon their tenure: which can either be freehold tenure, or common tenure. It is

important to understand these distinctions because it plays upon the ability of individuals

to be disciplined effectively. Parish clergy are officer holders in their own right and

therefore have considerable autonomy according to the Church (paragraph 53 of the

witness statement of Stephen Slack). There is a system of patronage which still exists

within the church so that some individuals have “benefices” so that they are appointed by

individual patrons, rather than the diocese, as the “living” of the clergyman is the

property and other matters of the church. You will hear that even after Peter Ball

resigned from the Episcopacy, he still held, because of a peculiarity , a patronage of a

church within the Diocese of Chichester. These patrons could be the bishop of the

diocese, but could also be the Crown, charities, or Oxford Colleges. This is an inherited

right very often. Some parishes have benefices that are based upon a particular

theological tradition – eg Anglo Catholicism. Whilst the bishop does have some input

into the allocation, the patron also has some (paragraph 55 of Stephen Slack ).

51. Traditionally, incumbents have held their office with freehold tenure i.e. they had

unlimited tenure and so their right to be removed from office was limited. In practice,

this meant that it was very difficult to get rid of those who held benefices save on

disciplinary grounds, and those grounds did not, at least until 2003, adequately enable

27

removal on safeguarding grounds, but also in other circumstances as well. You will hear

more about the disciplinary process from Adrian Iles at the hearing. Most importantly,

there was no basis prior to 2013 to suspend someone from office without their consent

even whilst safeguarding investigations were ongoing. unless they had been arrested for a

criminal offence.

52. In 2009, the Church introduced the concept of common tenure, which creates a more

“employment” type relationship with dismissal being permitted and with an ability to

complain to the employment tribunal. This makes it easier to dismiss individuals for

gross misconduct, which could not in effect happen to those who were incumbents. (see

paragraphs 62-63 of the witness statement of Stephen Slack).

Recruitment and appointment and criminal records checks

53. Alongside the status of clergymen, we have the benefit of a statement from Hannah

Foster, who is Director of Human Resources for the National Church Institutions, along

with Julian Hubbard, who is Director of Ministry, i.e. in charge of recruitment of

clergymen to the Church. Ms. Foster and Mr. Hubbard explain how someone is

recruited to the Church, which again operates via a Diocesan process, so that it is for

each Bishop to recruit and manage the recruitment process at least at the first stages to

become clergymen.

28

54. Ms. Foster also tells us that it was only in 1995, with the introduction of a policy on

safeguarding, that it was identified that all future candidates had to declare that they had

been subject of criminal and civil proceedings and if they have caused harm to children

(paragraph 54). This also applied to others, whether volunteers or lay people

(paragraphs 53 – 54 of Mr. Hubbard’s statement). We also have a witness statement

from Ms. Adele Downey of the Disclosure and Barring Service who sets out some of the

history of vetting and barring, identifying that such checks only became compulsory for

“regulated activities” in 2002 (paragraph 1.4 of Adele Downey’s statement). Furthermore,

some acts involving contact with children within the Church would not be “regulated

activities”, the most obvious of which is being an organist. More information about

the operation of the DBS can be found in Ms. Downey’s statement which identifies that

there are currently concerns, not just in the church but in other institutions and

confusion as to what is a “regulated activity”.

55. The Department of Health, which at that time ran a list for those who were not

considered suitable to work with children, undertook a screening process for the church

after 1995 . Prior to that time, Mr. Hubbard tells us, as there was no national central

process for vetting applicants for the clergy, and only local arrangements with police

forces then such checks were not carried out (paragraph 92). It was the case however,

that clergy should have declared their convictions , and that references were to be sought

(paragraphs 94). It was only in 2004 with the introduction of a safeguarding policy then

(ace024892) see paragraph 63 of Mr. Hubbard, that those who were currently in post had

to declare whether or not they had been convicted of an offence and to seek an enhanced

29

CRB check for all such individuals. The position for the Church since 2013 is that all

ordained ministers required enhanced criminal record checks and barred list checks (HSF

ace002217 – the 2013 Safer Recruitment Policy) according to Ms. Foster at paragraphs 67

and 68 of her witness statement . You will hear that it was the introduction of the

declarations in 2004 that brought to light within the Diocese of Chichester that some

individuals had previous convictions for child sexual abuse which were not known about,

or not widely known (who knew what and when is a subject of considerable dispute

between individuals who are coming to give evidence)

56. It is still the case that there is not specific criterion that an individual has to demonstrate

a good understanding of safeguarding to be a member of the clergy, although the

selection criteria do refer to the need to be able to have maturity, integrity and capability

to exercise power responsibly (paragraphs 24 and 25 of Mr. Hubbard). The theological

training for those who wish to be clergymen, which includes academic study but also

practical assistance for being a clergyman . This does now include some safeguarding

training, but again this has been introduced over the past 5 years only and the Church is

considering introducing further training for those wishing to become clergy.

57. It was also the case, as Ms. Foster and Mr. Hubbard identify within their evidence, that

prior to 1995, individuals were not routinely asked about safeguarding when being

interviewed for ordination. This now does happen, the Inquiry is told. As for

appointment to more senior positions, it has only been, so it appears, very recently, as set

out by Ms. Foster at paragraphs 96 – 102 in line with the Church’s safer recruitment

30

guidance [ace025176 and ace025228] which was introduced in 2013. There has also been

since September 2014, a more structured programme for senior leaders to include the

need to create “psychologically safe” teams where openness and challenge are welcomed

and responded to (paragraph 106 of the witness statement of Ms. Foster).

58. It must also be remembered that it is for the Crown to nominate bishops and other

senior clergy to their posts. In practice, those decisions have been organised via the

Crown Appointments Commission and until 2007, when the Government indicated that

it would no longer do so, it did have the ostensible power to choose between candidates

selected by the Church or decide that it would appoint neither (see paragraph 109 of the

witness statement of Ms. Foster). Before 2004, it was in fact that government which

oversaw the administration and nomination of all bishops (paragraph 111 of the witness

statement of Mr. Hubbard). The recruitment of such individuals has only required panel

interviews since 2009: job roles were only created in 2009 (ace025176 and ace025174):

and it is only in 2017 that the Church has issued clear guidance on what the

responsibilities are of those throughout the Church in respect of safeguarding (see the

documents – key guidance for office holders published in October 2017 [ace025247].

Appendix One of the witness statement of Mr. Hubbard set out in some detail both how

individuals come to be recruited and appointed to more senior roles (ace025772 – 047

-049).

59. As for training, that has been recognised as a need within the Church since the turn of

this century, but again, it is only relatively recently that extensive national training

31

documents have been issued which apply to all levels of those working within Churches.

We will hear from Bishop Hancock and Graham Tilby who is currently the National

Safeguarding Advisor about the training, but to identify that this guidance, launched in

January 2016 and updated again in January 2017, only now provides a comprehensive set

of training manuals and materials which apply from parish to Archbishop, and which

consist of standardised training modules. Appendix 2 and 3 of the witness statement of

Ms. Hubbard sets these out in more detail and you will hear from Bishop Hancock and

Graham Tilby about this.

60. Further, the Church has only recently introduced some form of external audit of

Dioceses and this is still being “tested”. . An organisation called Social Care Institute for

Excellence has carried out audits of every diocese of England between 2015 – 2018 and

has produced some overarching reports identifying areas which are still of concern. You

will hear evidence from Ms. Edina Carmi, an independent social work practitioner who

has written the overview reports as to her views as to the strengths, and weaknesses of

the current safeguarding within Dioceses, and hear whether or not the SCIE system does

provide an adequate window to identify good or bad practice.

61. There have, as yet, been no audits of either monastic communities or of cathedrals.

There have been no audits of parishes. Audits of cathedrals by SCIE are due to start

later this year. There are also proposals for self assessment forms for parishes and to

consider how such audits could be undertaken [needs to be fact checked].

32

Discipline

62. Given that before 2009, there were very limited processes for removal from office , the

process for removal involved professional discipline. The Church first produced a series

of professional conduct guidelines which in 2003 but these were just guidance, and not

“minimum standards” (ace002246). Prior to this, there were no professional published

guidelines within the church. A revised version was introduced in 2015 which did

identify that it represented the minimum standards to which clergymen should adhere

and could be used in disciplinary proceedings to see if someone had fallen below the

standards set out in the guidance (ace002909) . Adrian Iles, a specialist canon lawyer, will

provide oral evidence about these guidelines paragraphs 12 – ace025283 at p2-6.

63. The clergy discipline measure is the legal mechanism by which the Church seeks to

exercise internal discipline and is the basis upon which clergymen can be removed from

ordained office. It includes courts staffed by members of the judiciary. We will hear

evidence from Mr. Iles and Bishop Hancock who will tell us about the changes which

have been made to such disciplinary actions over the past 20 years. Prior to 2003, very

few disciplinary cases were brought to a full trial (paragraph 26 of Adrian Iles) and the

Church itself decided that the system was inflexible, too complex and too costly, such

that Bishops were reluctant to use it (paragraph 28 of Adrian Iles and the report called

Under Authority: Report on Clergy Discipline [ace025226]. As a result of this, a Clergy

Discipline Measure was brought in 2003 which identified a new tribunal disciplinary

system known as the Clergy Disciplinary Commission, which exercised statutory

33

functions including issuing codes of practice and advice to create a consistency of

approach.

64. However, as you will hear during the course of this hearing, the 2003 Measure was not

felt to be satisfactory and so was amended in 2013 and then again in 2016. It was

amended in 2013 to extend the 12 month limitation period on bringing a complaint in

cases concerning safeguarding as it had been found that this was not enabling

appropriate redress where individuals may have been abused or manipulated by them to

not reporting such offending (see paragraphs 41, 82 and 83 of Adrian Iles). This was in

direct response to some of the problems found in Chichester and to the Chichester

Visitation report.

65. One of the further amendments made in 2013 was to extend the power of a bishop to

summarily remove someone from office if they had been convicted of criminal offences.

Whilst in 2003, the measure enabled those who had been imprisoned for an offence to

be removed from office, this was not the case for those who had not been imprisoned,

which enabled individuals who had been found to have downloaded obscene material

relating to children not to be automatically removed from office (paragraph 44 of Adrian

Iles). It was also only as recently as 2013 that someone could be removed from office

easily if they were on a barred list as operated by the vetting and barring agencies and

described earlier (paragraphs 45 and 46 of Adrian Iles).

34

66. It is also only , however, in 2016 that, through Canon law 30, an express ground of

misconduct was created about safeguarding which identified that failing to have regard to

the Bishop’s guidance on safeguarding children would be a disciplinary offence

(paragraph 30 of Adrian Iles). It was also only in 2016 that a bishop had the express

power to suspend a member of the clergy who potentially presents a significant risk to

children or vulnerable adults and included new disqualification and suspension provisions

on church wardens and other members of parish councils on safeguarding grounds

(paragraph 50 of Adrian Iles). As you will hear, it was the events within Chichester which

prompted and brought to light the need for these changes. It is understood that yet

further work is being undertaken to consider whether or not this current form of

discipline really works and we will wish to hear from witnesses about what this is

exploring and what changes may come out of the current situation.

67. It should also be noted that reference will be made by various witnesses to something

which is now called the Archbishop’s List of individuals prohibited from office or with

“black marks” against their name for various disciplinary reasons. Prior to 2006, who

went on this list and for what reasons was not clear, save for those who had been the

subject of censure or who had been deposed from holy orders. This was changed in

2006, again, partly in response to events in Chichester, to make it clearer who went on

this list and why. You will hear evidence about whether or not this system is adequate, as

certainly until late 2017, it was the case that only bishops, and not lay safeguarding

advisors could access this list (see paragraphs 191 – 217 of the witness statement of

Adrian Iles).

35

Permission to officiate

68. Another issue which appears to have caused difficulties in Chichester is the system which

permits clergy who have retired, but against whom suspicion were held or who had been

arrested for child sexual abuse but not convicted, permission to continue to be licensed

to carry out services. This is called permission to officiate. PTO is significant as retired

clergy often provide substantial support to parishes (Hancock and Iles) and deputise

when individuals were ill. They could also hold themselves out as being respectable and

having integrity by this office. The granting, or not granting, of permission to officiate

has now been changed within Chichester and nationally with much stricter controls on

who in the Diocese can grant it, and that all individuals who wish to have PTO must

undertake safeguarding training to get it and CRB checks, but again, this has only been

the case since 2016/2017. Who was or was not granted permission to officiate and on

what basis is the source of concern within Chichester.

Safeguarding

69. The national picture in respect of safeguarding cannot be forgotten when we are

investigating potential failings in the Church. It seems to be widely acknowledged by

distinguished individuals with a long track record of expertise in safeguarding, Ms. Carmi

who has provided written evidence to the Inquiry and Baroness Butler Sloss, who lead

the Cleveland Child Abuse Inquiry in 1987 – 1988 and who wrote a report for the

Diocese of Chichester in 2001 and is widely seen as producing a watershed report in the

history of safeguarding in 1988, both identified that there was a widespread culture of

36

denial both of the existence of child abuse, and the seriousness of it . Baroness Butler

Sloss, who was head of the Family Division of the High Court during the 1990’s,

identifies in the numerous child abuse cases that she was involved in in the 1990’s

(paragraph 13.1 of the witness statement of Baroness Butler Sloss) that there was still a

culture of denial, and also a view that such abuse could have the lasting impact upon

individuals that we now recognise and acknowledge.

70. The Inquiry has disclosed a chronology of significant safeguarding events which

occurred nationally. There is common ground between all the individuals who have

provided evidence to this investigation and who have historic knowledge of safeguarding,

that prior to the late 1980’s, there was very little discussion of child sexual abuse even

amongst child care professionals. The chronology circulated records that the DHSS

issued a circular which mentioned sexual abuse only in 1982. It was only in 1988 that

BASW (the professional organisation for social workers) issued a pamphlet which said

that child sexual abuse had been “recently discovered” and that before this, children who

told adults were not routinely believed. The Home Office only introduced checks for

those who wanted to work with children in care settings only in 1989.

71. The Children Act 1989 and the statutory guidance which accompanied it seems to be the

first time that non statutory organisations, such as the Church, were mentioned as

needing to have adequate policies and procedures in place to deal with safeguarding.

This was reinforced by the 1993 document, Safe From Harm, drafted by the Home

Office which included guidance that religious organisations needed to be alive to child

37

sexual abuse and have some systems in place to identify where such may have occurred

and provide reports to the local authority when such abuse was discovered.

72. You will hear evidence from Graham Tilby, the current head of safeguarding and the first

full time National Safeguarding Adviser in February 2015 (check w/s) who will describe

current policy. His written statement, at paragraph 136 onwards, has set out the history

and background of safeguarding within the Church and Annex 1 to his statement has a

chronology of the documents published by the National Church which dealt with child

protection.

73. The first national policy on child protection was issued in 1995 by the Church.

74. A further policy was issued in 2004 , called Protecting All God’s Children. This set out in

more detail the professional skills required of child protection advisers. A further policy

was issued in 2010, which also involved each diocese undertaking statistical returns about

cases causing concern. In 2011, a policy was provided about responding well to those

who have been sexually abused.

75. From 2013 onwards, there have been a series of amendments to policies, and

safeguarding has been discussed at least annually at the General Synod. The structure of

who provides safeguarding advice within the national church has also changed.

38

76. The current suite of policies are set out at paragraph 213 of the witness statement of

Graham Tilby, much of which has been published since 2015, and Mr. Tilby also

identifies the future work which is taking place at paragraphs 222 onwards of his witness

statement. Bishop Peter Hancock, from whom we will also be asking to give oral

evidence, gives us detailed information about safeguarding developments within the

church (at paragraphs 3-11 and paragraphs 34 – 37) and the current picture in respect of

safeguarding.

Past cases review

77. In 2007/2008, as a result of concerns expressed from various quarters about child

protection within the Church, the then Archbishop of Canterbury ordered a review by

every diocese of all past and historic cases. It was as a result of this review that some of

the cases within the Chichester Diocese came to light. Significant concerns have been

expressed about the efficacy of this review and Sir Roger Singleton will give evidence

both about it but also whether or not it may need to be repeated or re-reviewed (See Sir

Roger Singleton statement).

Managing adult survivors

78. The Church has been the subject of criticism, including by various core participants to

this investigation about the way that it has managed disclosures made to its staff by adults

who were abused as children. The Inquiry will hear from those individuals, and also

39

from MACSAS, a charitable organisation devoted to dealing with adult survivors of abuse

within a clerical setting. The Inquiry will hear evidence from senior clergy as to how they

responded to disclosures of abuse, and from the national safeguarding team as to what

work has been and is being undertaken to improve this response, including running a

national helpline service alongside the Catholic church. It will hear from Diocesan

Safeguarding Advisors around such. It will also read evidence from Ms. Gemma Marks –

Good , an independent domestic violence and survivor co-ordinator who has worked on

a daily basis with survivors during the course of criminal and civil proceedings.

79. Some of the major criticisms of the Church by various survivors are that the responses to

disclosures have not resulted in any action: that individuals were told to forget about it or

get over it: were not offered counselling or pastoral support, when the perpetrators of

the abuse were offered such support , and were not treated with dignity and compassion.

It is alleged that there has been “victim blaming” when cases have come to light. The

Church has recognised that many of the criticisms are accurate, and we will hear evidence

as to what they are doing to make this better.

80. The Inquiry has also sought evidence and information from the Ecclesiastical Insurance

Office. This is the body which insures the vast majority of church institutions.

Criticisms have been made of the Churches approach to civil litigation, namely that it is

hostile: it does not permit counselling to take place: and that its approach to reparations

is unfair. The EIO deals with this from the perspective of the insurers in its written

evidence. Whilst the EIO is a separate body, as its name suggests, it emerged from a

40

mutual insurance body set up by the Church and clergymen still sit on its senior boards.

Evidence will be read from both David Bonehill and Michael Angell of the EIO

describing their practices and procedures. As identified within the preliminary hearing,

we will be dealing further with these issues within the National Church investigation.

A history of the offenders and offending within Chichester, and the significant

events within Chichester

81. Having introduced the corporate background and structure, I now turn to a precis of the

events in the Diocese of Chichester which have lead to many of the changes that I have

described above. This is designed as an introduction to what happened and to explain a

little about the Diocese itself so that , Chair, you can have an understanding both of the

context and of the chronology of what occurred.

82. To give a brief context of what happened when, I will identify some of the major reviews

and other acts which lead to mounting concerns about the state of safeguarding within

Chichester. These are:

(a) 1997 - 2001: the Diocese appoints a safeguarding advisor, Mrs. Hind on a part time basis

whose role is to develop policy and training for the Diocese. Cases come to her

attention, and she is informed in 1997 of Rev Roy Cotton’s alleged sexual offending , In

2000, an individual called Phil Johnson self publishes a document outlining the

offending against him which he distributes within the Eastbourne area because of

frustrations about the way that the police and the Church had handled his allegations

against the Rev Cotton.

41

(b) 2000- 2005: Terrence Banks is convicted of sexual abuse against multiple young men: his

offending took place whilst he volunteered at the Cathedral , and the Bishop of

Chichester commissioned a case review lead by Edina Carmi, social worker. Her report

criticizes aspects of safeguarding. Other individuals are arrested, or complaints are made

about them to the Diocese about non recent sexual abuse allegations.

(c) 2005 - 2010: growing numbers of individuals are the subject of arrest or reporting for

child sexual abuse: the Church announces a past cases review to look at the national

picture to be lead by individuals outside the Diocese with experience in managing

safeguarding: within Chichester, this involves engaging Roger Meekings, who produces a

report in 2009.

(d) As a result of arrests, complaints by individuals and the past cases review documentation,

Roger Meekings undertakes an addendum review into the cases of Rev Cotton and

Pritchard. This addendum report identifies concerns at safeguarding within the Diocese,

but is controversial within senior clergy circles as it is seen by some of them as impartial

and inaccurate. You will hear evidence from Roger Meekings.

(e) 2010 - 2015. Bishop Hind, then Bishop of Chichester commissions a further report

from Baroness Elizabeth Butler Sloss, who reports in 2011. She is critical of both the

Church and local police in their handling of these cases. You will read evidence from her.

(f) In 2011, with mounting criticism at events in Chichester, the Archbishop of Canterbury

commissions the Archepiscopal visitation, set out above. This produces an interim

report in August 2012 and a final report in April 2013. You will hear evidence from

both Lord Williams and Canon BUrsell QC, one of the Visitors and read evidence from

Bishop Gladwin, the other visitor.

(g) In 2012, Bishop Benn retired as did Bishop Hind. Bishop Warner was appointed.

42

(h) The police engage, from 2011 onwards , in significant numbers of re- investigations as a

result of Operation Dunhill and Perry, both run by Sussex Police which emerged from

the Elizabeth Butler Sloss review where the police were criticized. A number of

convictions where obtained , which will be explained further in a moment.

(i) 2013 onwards: church undertakes significant revisions and expansions of clergy discipline

measure and other safeguarding changes in the light of the VIsitation.

(j) 2017: Dame Moira Gibb publishes a report: an Abuse of Faith concerning the case of

Bishop Peter Ball and the Carlile Rcview reports in December 2017 commenting upon

the Church’s handling of posthumous allegations made against Bishop George Bell.

83. The Panel will hear from the current Bishop of Chichester, Martin Warner about how the

Diocese was and is organised, as many witnesses consider that the structure of the

Diocese was one reason why the Church’s response to safeguarding may not have been as

effective as may have been expected . Chichester is a large diocese, which geographically

stretches from Hastings in the East, to Chichester in the West. It encompasses East and

West Sussex and Brighton. Its major urban centres are near London, being Crawley,

Redhill and also Brighton. It has pockets of significant deprivation, but also pockets of

wealth. It has a significantly higher than average population of the retirees particularly

amongst the clergy, of which there are over 400 within the Diocese. It is a largely rural

Diocese. Bishop Warner provides us with a history of the Diocese at paragraphs 9 of

his witness statement. I now provide a map which sets out where the parishes are [WE

NEED TO INSERT the URN and put these up on the screen]

43

84. There is one structural feature which is identified by some of those who give evidence as

a potential barrier to effective safeguarding in practice. There are three bishops in the

Diocese of Chichester : those in Lewes and Horsham are “Area” bishops. The overall

Bishop is that of Chichester, who also sits in the House of Lords as a “senior” bishop in

clerical terms (seniority seeming to be a matter of geography but also history – the older

the diocese, the higher up the hierarchy). Until 2012, an “area scheme” was in place: this

meant that the Bishops of Lewes and Horsham had far greater autonomy than would

usually have been the case. For much of the events in question, Bishop Eric Kemp, who

was Bishop for 27 years, from 1974 – 2001 was the Bishop of Chichester. He was much

loved but aged during the last half of his service (retiring only at 86) and the combination

of the area scheme plus his age, according to the current Bishop of Chichester, led to

what is as (paragraph 13 of his witness statement) a “loss of energy in defining and

implementing shared vision and policy”. This investigation would never suggest that

those over 70 lack vision and energy – the contribution of the House of Lords to the

current Brexit debate shows that – but in this case there does appear to have been a

degree of inertia and resistance to change.

85. There are a couple of cultural features which some of those who worked, or knew about

Chichester, comment upon in their evidence and which features prominently in

individuals’ views as to why certain relationships and dynamics may have been difficult

within Chichester. Firstly, whilst no diocese had any women in positions of power until

1992, the Chichester Diocese did not ordain women until 2012 [check]. This therefore

meant that there were limited numbers of women as clergy within the Diocese, and,

44

importantly, no women in clerical positions of power. The reasons for this are set out

below.

86. Chichester is also seen to be both Anglo Catholic in nature and conservative; in part

because of the prominence of Wallace Benn, former Bishop of Lewes within the

evangelical movement called Reform, which is conservative in its philosophy. Both

traditions, which I will ask senior members of the clergy to explain in their evidence, have

had significant numbers who opposed the ordination of women and the ordination of

women as Bishops, albeit from slightly different standpoints. The conservative

evangelical tradition represented by the Reform group also has what would be described

as traditional views about homosexuality. Bishop Warner and Lord Williams, former

Archbishop of Canterbury in their evidence, both identify that the Anglo Catholic

tradition has been welcoming of, and had strong undercurrents of homosexuality

amongst its number. Issues of gender and sexual orientation therefore had more

prominence in Chichester than may be the case elsewhere, but they may simply reflect

the divisions and difficulties of the Church as a whole. Both the issue of the treatment of

women, and of attitudes towards homosexuality are issues which you will need to explore

during this hearing.

The perpetrators

87. There have been a number of convictions of clergymen, and other individuals associated

with the Diocese of Chichester since 2000. I will now take you through some of these

45

individuals and identify what issues their particular case raises in respect of the

institutional response to such abuse.

Noel Moore

88. Firstly, Noel Moore. Mr. Moore was convicted of child abuse in 1951, and jailed until

1955. Despite this, upon his release he returned to work as a lay clergyman in the

Diocese of Chichester and allegations of abuse were made against him whilst working as

a chaplain at a children’s home in the Sussex area and within a school (see accoe0005439

–ace022130 ). In the mid 2000’s, individuals who alleged that they had been subject to

abuse by him did not receive any substantive response from the Church of England and

the correspondence between victim and survivor was seen as legalistic and defensive, and

less than helpful (accoe00005442, 43, 44 and 46 and accoe00005445). His case may

demonstrate that the Church plainly did not take sexual offending as a permanent bar to

office, or did not know about such offending. The Panel may view this as a surprise as

even at that time, criminal convictions for sexual offending against children would have

acted as a de facto, if not actual bar to further work that may involve them. Mr. Moore

is now dead and very little information remains about him and his activities.

Roy Cotton

89. Secondly, Rev Roy Cotton. Roy Cotton had been convicted in 1954 of indecent assault

against a child whilst training to be a member of the clergy and acting as a Scoutmaster.

He was banned by the Scouting movement after his conviction as unsuitable to be

46

involved in scouting and his ecclesiastical training was stopped. He founded a school at

some point in the 1960’s and was dismissed from it after allegations of abuse came to

light, but the police were not involved. Despite this, he was considered in 1967 suitable

for ordination within the Diocese of Portsmouth and a “man of considerable

ability….free of any trouble for 12 years” . The then Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael

Rumsey, permitted him to be ordained. Because of his criminal record, the then Bishop

of Portsmouth ensured that he did not have to undertake the usual recruitment

processes, which involved an interview by a Panel, and despite knowing of his

convictions, references were given in the 1970’s to various bishops which identified that

individuals “remained convinced of his innocence” and that there were no further signs

of trouble (acc0e0005595). He died in 2004 before he could be convicted of child sexual

offending again.

90. In 1997, Phil Johnson, from whom you will hear oral evidence, accused Rev Cotton of

committing serious, sustained and very significant sexual offending against him whilst a

child and young person. He went to the police to make his complaint. Unfortunately, as

ACC Laurence Taylor of Sussex Police confirms in his witness statement (OHY003521 at

paragraphs 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5), portions of which will be read to you, that no records exist

from that period of time within Sussex police so it is not clear what lead them to drop

the prosecution in 1999, although it is suggested by the police that it was the CPS who

decided not to proceed. The CPS state in their witness statement that they have no

records of this. Mr. Johnson was written to by the police (as identified at paragraph 2.8

of the statement of ACC Laurence Taylor) and told that the statements made by Mr.

47

Johnson and another would remain on file and the information would be invaluable if

Rev Cotton were to try and involve themselves with children in the future. The police

threw away their records after three years until 2007.

91. It is not just Mr. Johnson and his brother who made credible allegations: another

individual has also made credible allegations against Rev Cotton. He has given evidence

at the recent trial against Colin Pritchard (now known by another name) and alleged that

Rev Cotton abused him for a number of years whilst he was the vicar of Brede within

Chichester, and that Rev Cotton facilitated access to Rev Pritchard for him to undertake

sexual abuse of him, by ferrying him to Rev Pritchard’s home for abuse to take place.

This was between 1987 - 1992.

92. Rev Cotton was an alleged abuser hiding in plain sight: individuals knew, for example,

that Mr. Johnson and Rev Cotton would holiday together but did not think that odd or

unusual, which, had his past been fully known, may have been treated with significantly

more wariness.

93. Rev Cotton retired in 1999 and was granted permission to officiate in May 1999. This

was when at least some individuals knew that he had been arrested for child sexual abuse

but in the light of no prosecution being brought. It is not clear what the Diocese was, or

was not told, by the police at that time about the nature of the offences. and their view as

to their credibility.

48

94. There is then a factual dispute between various senior members of the clergy, from

whom you will hear evidence, as to what was known about Roy Cotton’s 1954 conviction,

when that was known, and what steps were then taken. The following facts seem not to

be in dispute, however:

(1) Roy Cotton’s conviction for sexual abuse in 1954 was known by Bishop Wallace

Benn, Bishop of Lewes in 2001 as Mr. Cotton wrote a confidential declaration at that

time which identified the nature of the conviction.

(2) This information was not, some 8 or 9 years later, found on the personnel files for

Rev Cotton when investigations came to take place by both Roger Meekings, from

whom you will hear, who was an independent child protection professional asked by

the Diocese to investigate what was known about Rev Cotton and when, or by

Baroness Butler Sloss, who was then asked to perform a review after senior clergy

disputed the findings of the report of Roger Meekings. The issue of who knew what

and when raises a series of questions about who should be responsible for such

matters: the nature and standard of record keeping: and the importance of some

form of central record or recording system to avoid difficulties such as arose in this

case.

(3) Rev Cotton did not appear on the Department of Health List or on List 99 despite

his conviction which would have, in most circumstances, placed him on that list

(wpb000001).

49

The following factors do seem to be in dispute:

(4) There is a dispute as to whether or not Rev Cotton’s Permission to Officiate was then

“amended” but not withdrawn. It was meant to only cover his celebration of

Eucharist in a nursing home. In fact, it transpires that he was not living in a nursing

home at that time, and because permission to officiate cannot , in reality, be

supervised in this way, he continued to take occasional services until his death. This

was despite the fact that Mr. Johnson was assured that there was no question of his

having further ministry as he was ill (see ap item 79 [get relativity reference]).

(5) There is a dispute as to whether or not someone informed the vicar of the parish

where Rev Cotton lived that he had been arrested for sexual offending or provided

him any information as identified within the witness statement of Rev Duncan Lloyd

James which will be placed upon the website [ang0000111]

(6) It is not in dispute that Mr. Johnson was not told until 2008 that his abuser had a

criminal conviction , despite making it clear by way of correspondence between

himself and Bishop Benn from 2002 – 2005 and by publishing an open document to

the people of Eastbourne about Rev Cotton’s abuse.

(7) Further allegations were made in 2002 by another individual about Rev Cotton which

the Diocese knew about and which were not pursued by the police (ace021705/30).

50

95. Mr. Johnson was granted damages after making a civil claim against the Church. The

issues which these allegations raised concerning the Church involve:

(a) How communication takes place between safeguarding advisors and members of the

clergy:

(b) How effective the system of Permission to Officiate was:

(c) The limited role of the clergy discipline measure and the fact that it was not used for

someone against whom serious allegations had been made.

(d) The absence of internal investigations by the Church even if the police did not

pursue the matter.

96. There are also a number of issues which this case raises about the treatment of adult

survivors of abuse by the Church.

97. You will hear from many of the individuals who were involved in handling this case both

in the 1990’s and up to 2011 and 2012: these include the Bishop of Chichester during

much of this time, John Hind. His wife, Janet, who was Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser

at the time of the arrest of Roy Cotton: the Bishop of Lewes, Wallace Benn, Nicholas

Reade, then Archdeacon of Lewes who went on to be Bishop of Blackburn and Philip

Jones who was Archdeacon of Lewes and Hastings between 2005 – 2012. In 2012 he was

renamed Archdeacon of Hastings and occupied this position until 2016.

98. The seriousness of the problems raised by this case led the Church to commission two

internal reviews into the handling of the case by the Diocese : as mentioned above, one

51

by Roger Meekings, who will be giving live evidence and one by Baroness Butler Sloss,

whose evidence will be read.

99. These internal reviews dealt with this case, but also others I will mention, and brought

into sharp relief a series of difficulties of internal management and structure within the

Church , which lead to the decision by the Archbishop of Canterbury to hold a visitation

into the Diocese of Chichester : you will hear evidence from one of the Visitors, Canon

Bursell QC and be able to read the evidence of Bishop Gladwin, the other visitor. The

visitation raised a series of concerns about how safeguarding was run within the Church

of England both within Chichester, but also as a whole which lead to many of the

reforms which I have outlined above. The Inquiry has asked questions about why it was

commissioned, what its conclusions were, if they were sound and what changes came

from them. Those in post at the time of the Visitation do not agree with all the

conclusions reached by the Visitation and consider that some of them are unfair to the

individuals concerned and to the Diocese.

100. The internal reviews of both Meekings and Butler Sloss led to a breakdown in the

relationship between various senior members of staff within the Diocese, and

contributed to the decision by the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisory Group to bring a

disciplinary complaint against the then Bishop of Lewes, Wallace Benn in 2012, which

was ultimately dismissed. You will hear about this breakdown from Bishop Benn: and

from Bishop Hind: and from read evidence from Keith Akerman who was Chair of the

Safeguarding Advisory Group at the time. You will also hear from Shirley Hosgood,

who was Diocesan safeguarding advisor, and then Colin Perkins, Current Safeguarding

52

Advisor. Why this is important to a Panel, is not because individuals did not get on with

each other or had different approaches: but because those approaches may have

impacted upon the management of safeguarding during that period of time to a

detrimental effect.

Colin Pritchard.

101. Running alongside the case of Rev Cotton is that of Rev Colin Pritchard, who was his

friend. He too abused Mr. Johnson during his teenage years. He was the vicar of St.

Barnabas, Bexhill until 2007 , and had previously been the vicar of Seddlescombe in the

Diocese of Lewes during the early 1990’s. . He pleaded guilty in 2008 to seven counts

of sexual assault against two boys and was jailed for five years. The offences took place

during the 1970’s and 1980’s whilst Rev Pritchard was the parish priest at St. Andrew’s

Church in Northamptonshire.

102. Rev Pritchard, who is now known by the name of Ifor Whittaker, was convicted on

22 February this year of several counts of indecent assault and rape against a teenage boy

between the ages of 10 -15, for which he received a sentence of 16 years imprisonment.

The allegations were that he conspired with Roy Cotton to commit these offences. The

individual concerned did not tell anyone whilst a child because he thought he would not

be believed. His family were involved with the parish church at the time in question,

which was when Rev Pritchard was the vicar of Seddlescombe.

103. There have been suggestions made that many knew, or should have been aware of a

culture of abuse operated by the Reverend Pritchard and that Bishop Peter Ball, who I

will discuss further, knew, or turned a blind eye to that abuse (accoe00002182).

53

104. It should be noted that Mr. Johnson made allegations against Rev Pritchard in 1997

and 1998 to Sussex Police. As with Reverend Cotton, there are no longer any records of

this investigation or why decisions were not taken to prosecute or charge Rev Pritchard

at the time (paragraph 3.1 – 3.8 of the witness statement of ACC Taylor).

Northamptonshire Police [insert URN’s] have provided a statement to the Inquiry which

sets out details of their investigation into Rev Pritchard in 2007 and the liaison they had

with the Church at that time.

105. As far as the focus of the investigation is concerned, which is upon, as should be

stressed the institutional response of allegations of such abuse, it is the case that:

(1) Northamptonshire Police informed the Diocesan safeguarding advisor (who

tragically died in a car crash in 2007), Mr. Selwood that he had been arrested for

sexual offending (wpb000045) .

(2) He was not suspended from ministry as a result of his 1997 arrest. He was not, in

reality, ministering at the time as he had signed himself off work with ill health.

(3) No steps were taken to subject him to the clergy discipline measure or to take interim

steps to lay a complaint pending the police investigation.

(4) He was granted permission to officiate in February 2007 upon his retirement despite

being arrested for child sexual offending.

(5) There were no restrictions upon his ability to attend church or be involved in

ministry with children from his arrest until July 2007, when steps were taken to

discuss this with the parish priest where he worshipped or was involved (wpb000002)

but no formal safeguarding agreement was then put in place.

54

(6) He was suspended from being able to have PTO on 12 September 2007 (wpb000002

and wpb000001) and a safeguarding agreement was then put in place on a formal

basis

106. Again, there are disputes as to whose responsibility it was to do what and at what

times. Again, these uncertainties and disputes led, long with the position in respect of

Rev Cotton to a series of internal reviews , including:

a. The Roger Meekings review of the cases of Roy Cotton and Colin Pritchard in

2009;

b. A chronology of safeguarding concerns within Chichester produced by the then

National Safeguarding advisor, Elizabeth Hall, in November 2010 (ace005423 –

001).

c. A report carried out by Baroness Elizabeth Butler Sloss in 2011/12 as a result of

dissatisfaction with the findings and details of the Meekings report.

d. A review carried out by Ian Sandbrook, safeguarding consultant in May 2011 to

audit the practices in place at that time and to advise upon them. We have a

witness statement from Mr. Sandbrook which outlines how he carried out his

report and what he found which identified, in brief, a number of the same issues

as identified by the other reports and the Visitation, namely (a) an ambivalent

culture at which the needs of alleged perpetrators come above those of

complainants (b) Procedures for dealing with those who report abuse ,

particularly non recent abuse were not as well established as they should be and

(c) an ambivalent culture can lead to ambivalent safeguarding (d) the Diocese

55

needed to be clear that abuse will not be tolerated and that past mistakes will not

and cannot be repeated.

e. The Archepiscopal Visitation, which reported both in 2011 and also in 2012.

Rev Robert Coles

107. In May 1997, Rev Robert Coles, who had been in charge at St. Wilfrid’s Chichester,

from 1982 – 1987 and had been a curate at St. John’s Church, Horsham, from 1979 -1982

was interviewed by police following an an individual reporting that he had been sexually

abused as a child by him. Rev Coles denied the allegations. Again, for reasons which are

not clear, there was no prosecution (paragraph 4.1 of witness statement of ACC Taylor).

It would appear (paragraph 4.9) that as there was no independent evidence and no

corroboration, a prosecution was not seen as feasible at the time (paragraph 4.9).

108. In 1997, Rev Coles retired on grounds of ill health. It subsequently transpired that,

without having permission to officiate, but with no-one checking, he had taken over 100

services at a Church in East Sussex between 1998 – 2002 , and no-one had informed this

parish of his previous arrests. In fact, the vicar within the parish at the time, Jonathan

Graves, has subsequently been convicted of child sexual abuse himself. It would appear

that during this period of time, according to a serious case review carried out in 2015

(ace022265), that he had sexually groomed a child in 2007 - 2008 in this parish and that

he had taken boys out, both collectively and individually. He apparently befriended

56

families with teenage boys and took them out alone and gave them keys to his flat. This

was known about in the parish but nothing was done or said about this, during the period

between 1998 – 2012.

109. Whilst much is disputed about who within the senior clergy within Chichester knew

what about Rev Coles and when, the following appears to be undisputed:

a. It is accepted that Bishop Benn accompanied Robert Coles to the police station

when he was arrested in 1997.

b. It is accepted that the senior clergy, including the Archdeacon of Lewes, the

Bishop of Lewes and the Bishop of Chichester, as well as the Diocesan

Safeguarding advisor knew of this arrest.

c. Senior clergy also intimate that even before his arrest there was some concern

about his inappropriate behaviour towards children (Wallace Benn, 72.3).

d. The Bishop of Lewes, Wallace Benn and Nicholas Reade met with Rev Coles

when he had decided to retire, but before his actual retirement at which he

admitted sexual activity with a child , describing it either as “inappropriate

fondling” (paragraph 75.5.2 of Wallace Benn ) or “buggery” (wws000034) or that

he had sat down on a boy’s penis whilst this boy stayed overnight at his house

(Nicholas Reade, paragraph 87). He also told this to Janet Hind, then Diocesan

Safeguarding advisor.

57

110. Bishop Nicholas Reade believes that this disclosure was made just before Rev Coles

was interviewed by the police in May 1997: Bishop Benn believes that it was later than

this, after his police interview: and Janet Hind’s diary has a note of this information

having been passed on to her in September 1997 and then reiterated by Rev Coles

himself in March 1998 (paragraph 40 of the witness statement of Janet Hind). Whatever

the date, it is agreed that none of them told the police about this disclosure.

111. Furthermore, for whatever reason, he was not subject to any risk assessment and was

permitted to continue ministry until his retirement in December 1997. No disciplinary

actions were taken against him and he was not placed on the Lambeth list for those

clergy (even retired) who are deemed to have acted in an unfit manner. He was not given

permission to officiate after his retirement because of his perceived risk to others, and

because he refused to undertake a risk assessment. However, he was not the subject of

any form of formal agreement, and when it was found in December 2000 that he was

attending a parish church with Jonathan Graves, about whom it was said that he had

engaged in inappropriate sexual conversations with a 17 year old, nothing was done to

prevent him worshipping at that parish or to put any kind of arrangement in place

(paragraph 41 of Janet Hind). It plainly troubled Bishop Benn that there was a

relationship or friendship between Graves and Coles, but nothing happened.

112. Bishop Benn also received a letter from a rector in Chichester referring to Rev Coles

fondling of two 8-10 year old boys in 1979 -1982. This was not referred to the police.

Archdeacon Reade and Bishop Benn did inform Rev Coles that he must not go on tour

58

with a school party which was his intention in 1999, but did not write to the school at the

time, nor propose or ask the school that he did not attend the school trip. It also

appeared that Rev Coles took school assemblies.

113. Rev Coles pleaded guilty to 11 counts of indecent assault and two of attempted

buggery and was sentenced in February 2013 to 8 years imprisonment. Three further

complainants came forward as a result of the publicity from these convictions. Two of

the three complaints were not proceeded with (see the CPS statement of Ms. Kaur at

paragraphs 98 – 99, where one alleged kissing and the other’s rape took place outside the

UK at a time when there was not worldwide jurisdiction (as there is now) for prosecution

for sexual offending against children). The third complainant related to a period between

1974 – 77 when there was an allegation of indecent assault. Rev Coles pleaded guilty to

two counts of indecent assault upon an individual aged 12 – 14 and was sentenced to a

further 16 months imprisonment.

Rev Graves

114. Reverend Jonathan Graves was a vicar at St. Lukes, Stone Cross until 2002. On 14th

September 2017, he was convicted of 12 offences including indecent assault and cruelty

to a child, and was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. He was acquitted of some

counts. This activity was alleged to have occurred from 1987 – 1992 and then at the turn

of the century in respect of two adults

59

115. Janet Hind will give evidence to state that she had warned Jonathan Graves in 2000,

that he must not have those under 18’s in the house, as it was known that he spent lots of

time with the young, having boys in the house and giving them a lot of time. No further

investigations took place despite all being suspicious of Rev Graves’ predilections, and no

referral was made to the LADO or police for investigations.

116. Rev Graves befriended teenage boys in his role as a priest, and then engaged in

sexual activity with them, which included sadism and masochism. These matters were

first reported to the Sussex police in 2005 but no charges were brought . No evidence

exists as to why this decision was made at the time, but it would appear it was because

there was no corroboration of events and because the complainant had significant mental

health problems (witness statement of the CPS, paragraph 155 and 162).

117. In 2009, after a CRB check upon his applying for a post involved him undergoing a

risk assessment interview, he disclosed both his interest in humiliation during sexual

activity and his sexual activity with a young person. He was referred to the Independent

Safeguarding Authority and barred from working with children in 2011.

Gordon Rideout

118. Rev Rideout was convicted of 34 counts of indecent assault and 2 counts of

attempted rape against a total of 16 victims in May 2013. He was sentenced to 10 years

imprisonment. He also pleaded guilty in December 2016 to a further count of indecent

60

assault against someone under the age of 16 and was sentenced to 9 months

imprisonment (paragraphs 69 – 75 of the CPS statement) .

119. Rev Rideout’s sexual abuse ranged from the 1960’s to the 1970’s. They involved

indecent assaults against female and male residents of Ifield Hall, a residential care home

where Rideout was a regular visitor based within the Diocese of Chichester and treated

as a visiting Chaplain in the 1960’s. He then moved to be chaplain at Barnardos

residential care home, Barkingside, where allegations were made against him of indecent

assault. He then moved to be chaplain of an army base between 1967 – 1973. In 1972,

he was tried, and acquitted, of indecent assault against three girls who alleged that he

indecently assaulted them whilst they were members of the choir. You will hear evidence

from someone who was sexually assaulted by Rev Rideout whilst part of the choir.

120. Four individuals made allegations against Rev Rideout shortly after his acquittal at

court martial as it had attracted a great deal of publicity about sexual abuse whilst he was

a visitor/informal chaplain at Ifield Hall. Evidence was taken from the army prosecuting

authorities at the time in 1974 but no further steps were taken (paragraph 42 of the CPS

statement).

121. An individual complained again in 2001 to Sussex police, who recorded it as “no

crime” on the grounds it had already been investigated by the Royal Military police

(witness statement of Laurence Taylor of Sussex police paragraphs 5.3 and CPS

61

paragraph 43). Bishop Wallace Benn accompanied Rev Rideout to the police station in

2002 to be interviewed. Both Bishop Hind and Bishop Benn were aware of the

allegations made against Rev Rideout from at least 1998, when Rev Rideout had

disclosed them as part of a confidential declaration to the diocese (paragraph 31.1 of

Shirley Hosgood).

122. The Panel may also wish to note the following (paragraph 31 of Shirley Hosgood:

paragraph 102 of Bishop Benn)

(1) Reverend Rideout was not dealt with as part of the Past Cases review carried out by

Roger Meekings in respect of the rest of Chichester.

(2) There was no safeguarding file ever opened on him despite the historic allegations

being known about.

(3) Rev Rideout had PTO to which no restrictions were attached, despite both Bishop

Hind and Bishop Benn being aware of the previous allegations and arrest.

(4) The Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor, Shirley Hosgood, only became aware of the

previous allegations during a routine CRB check.

(5) His PTO was withdrawn in September 2010 after the case had been referred to the

Diocesan Safeguarding Advisory Group. When the group initially recommended

withdrawing PTO they were asked to reconsider the case by Bishop Hind on the

basis that the allegations were “so historic”. The group repeated their advice.

(6) Even though PTO was withdrawn, this did not lead to the Diocesan Board of

Education from terminating his acting as governor of Bishop Bell School , nor did

they have the power to do so. It appears that separately a CRB check was obtained

62

by the school. The DSA sent this information to the LADO (shirley hosgood,

paragraph 31.8). We have a statement from the Diocesan Board of Education which

(at paragraphs 51-55) identifies that even though the school had received a blemished

CRB for Rev Rideout at around the same time, they did not provide this information

to the Diocese until November 2010 (having received in in May 2010) .

(7) Following on from the review carried out by Baroness Butler Sloss, Sussex police

reinvestigated the cases of Rideout and Coles , as well as others under Operation

Perry. Witnesses were recontacted and charges were brought. The statement of the

police sets out how Operation Perry worked, and the police identified that, at that

time, the Diocese of Chichester gave fullest co-operation to them and provided them

with access to all files (paragraph 6.5 of the Sussex Police Statement and paragraphs

9). In particular, the police pay tribute in their witness statement to Colin Perkins,

current Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor, from whom you will hear evidence.

123. Rev Gordon Rideout was a governor at various state and independent schools which

had an Anglican connection and to which he was appointed because of his role as a

clergyman in the Diocese of Chichester. . Until 2009, the governing body of the

secondary school where he was a longstanding governor, and from whom the evidence

of the current chair of Governors, David Jeffries has been sought, did not carry out DBS

checks on those who were governors.

124. In 2010, it was found by the local authority, who carried out the DBS checks on

behalf of the school that he had a blemished CRB check because of the earlier allegations

63

of child sexual abuse. East Sussex County Council brought this to the attention of the

then headmaster, who indicated that he was aware of this but that it was not information

which would appear on a CRB check. It is not clear whether or not the specific

information about the allegations made against Rev Rideout were brought to the

attention of the head. He continued to be a governor at this school until November

2011, when he resigned. He was also a governor at a special school in the area between

2005 – 2009. A CRB check carried out by this school in 2005 had not disclosed the

earlier arrests for child sexual offences, and they were not told of those arrests by Rev

Rideout or others. The statement of the Diocesan Board of Education (at paragraph 53)

identifies that despite knowing that Rev Rideout having had his PTO withdrawn by the

diocese following a risk assessment, the head of the school at the time was resistant to

removing Rev Rideout. The LADO had to become involved. Because the Diocese and

the local authority could not compel the resignation of a governor, they could do no

more than request that he resigned. Rev Rideout eventually resigned after the

independent safeguarding authority contacted the school.

125. Evidence has been received from the Diocesan Board of Education [ ace026133 ].

We will be hearing from Bishop Mark Sowerby, who is the current Chair of the Diocesan

Board of Education. Whilst this body is responsible for appointing governors to certain

forms of state school provision, it does not carry out DBS checks on those individuals

itself, and prior to 2015, governors were in effect appointed by the local parish council

(paragraph 12 of the DBE statement). It has no power to remove individuals appointed

as governors, and cannot suspend them. Prior to 2015, governors appointed by the DBE

64

did not receive safeguarding training from the Diocese, simply from the school where

they were a governor.

Keith Wilkie Denford and Michael Mytton.

126. Keith Denford was the Vicar at St. John the Evangelist Church, Burgess Hill. Two

brothers alleged that when they were members of the choir in the 1980’s that Rev

Denford sexually abused them. They reported matters to the police when told, as adults,

that Rev Denford had returned to the church. Rev Denford was convicted of 3 counts

of indecent assault in April 2013 and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment (paragraphs

110-121 of the CPS statement ). Michael Mytton was the organist at the same church

during the period when Rev Denford was the vicar. He was convicted of three counts of

indecent assault against a 10 year old boy by grooming him whilst giving him singing

lessons and then having him undertake sexual activity. Mytton received 9 months

imprisonment suspended for 2 years, 2 years supervision and to comply with a sex

offenders prevention order.

Christopher Howarth

127. Christopher Howarth was the non stipendiary vicar (i.e. unpaid) at Holy Trinity

Church, Uckfield as well as being a senior teacher at a local school. He was a family

friend of two boys, from whom you will hear read evidence from one of them, the other

being unable to provide evidence to this Inquiry due to extenuating circumstances. ,

65

They were groomed from the age of 9-10 and then sexually assaulted repeatedly over a

number of years, including acts of humiliation, sado masochism, and fetishism

(paragraphs 145 – 149 of the CPS statement. Both were offered money and presents to

remain silent about the abuse. The offences took place during the 1990’s and 2000’s. In

2015, Rev Howarth was convicted of 26 counts of sexual activity with a child and causing

a child to engage in sexual activity and received 16 years imprisonment in total.

128. Perhaps by contrast with earlier events, Rev Howarth was suspended from ministry

even before he was arrested on the advice of the local police and Lado (Colin Perkins

w/s paragraphs 96 – 105) in December 2012, even though there was no clear practice

guidance as to how to deal with this available nationally at the time, nor was suspension

then permitted, so he had to be asked to step aside (although it is now – see paragraph

105 and 108 of Colin Perkins witness statement).

129. After Christopher Howarth’s arrest in 2013, a group of parishioners set up a

facebook group in support of Rev Howarth which Colin Perkins, the Diocesan

Safeguarding advisor and the police had to manage (ace022915, ace022933 and

ace022937). Colin Perkins and the relevant senior clergy also had to visit the parish

church to explain, after his conviction, that Rev Howarth had not been the subject of a

miscarriage of justice and that individuals who are charming and popular could still be

capable of grooming (Colin perkins witness statement paragraph 110 – 118 of witness

statement of Colin Perkins). This lead to considerable upset of both the individuals

66

subjected to abuse who said that they were harassed by parishioners or blamed for the

allegations that they made.

Peter Pannett

130. Peter Pannett was a Deacon in the Brighton area. In 2012 he shared indecent images

of children over the internet and had online conversations of a sexual nature with teenage

boys . He pleaded guilty to 2 counts of making indecent images of children, one count

of attempting tincide a child to engage in sexual activity , and 2 counts of inciting a child

under 16 to engage in sexual activity and 2 counts of causing a child to watch a sexual act

(paragraphs 177 – 181). He was sentenced to 32 months of imprisonment.

Vickery House and Peter Ball

131. Peter Ball was the Bishop of Lewes between 1977 – 1992, and prior to that was the

Prior of the Community of Glorious Ascencion, a monastic order he had founded in the

1960’s . The inquiry is devoting a week of its time in July to the events surrounding Peter

Ball’s resignation as Bishop of Gloucester and the institutional response of the Church to

his offending, but it will be examining during the course of his hearing his activities

whilst Bishop of Lewes, and in particular:

(a) How he came to set up his scheme, called “giving a year to God” which involved

having young people living with him during the 1980’s

(b) What supervision there was of this scheme and of others within his monastic order

living with him at the time.

67

(c) What oversight or monitoring took place by the Diocese or the national church at

this time.

(d) What the Diocese may or may not have known in respect of rumours about Peter

Ball’s activities with young people.

132. Vickery House was a vicar within east Sussex and was a close associate of Peter Ball.

He was the “right hand man” in respect of the Scheme and was responsible for the

theological education of the young people who went onto the scheme. You will hear the

oral evidence of two young people who participated in the Scheme during the 1980’s .

You have details in the witness statement of ACC Taylor as to the investigation carried

out in respect of Peter Ball by East Sussex Police called Operation Dunhill in 2012. You

will hear evidence about this in July. This operation came about as a result of concerns

both within the Diocese and within Lamb Palace, after a review written by Kate Wood,

an independent safeguarding consultant in 2009 that a thorough investigation into his

activities had not taken place. You will hear read evidence from Ms. Wood.

133. Peter Ball accepted a caution in 1993 to counts of indecent assault against a young

man who was over 18 , Neil Todd, who tragically took his own life in 2012. He pleaded

guilty to counts of misconduct in public office concerning sexual activity with young

adults and 2 counts of indecent assault against adults in September 2015. He was

sentenced to 32 months imprisonment. We have a written statement from Peter Ball

which will be read in full. The witness statement of Sussex police, at paragraphs 8.1 – 9.1

sets out the actions taken during Operation Dunhill.

68

134. The Investigation team suggests that as Lord Williams of Oystermouth is coming to

give evidence and has provided detail about his role vis a vis steps taken in respect of

Peter Ball during his time in office that the investigation and also Elizabeth Hall, the then

safeguarding advisor to the national church, that questions are asked of them at this

hearing. The same will also occur to other witnesses whom the Core Participants have

been informed about, and the Panel will have regard to this evidence when considering

the Peter Ball case study.

Vickery House

135. Sussex police investigated this matter as part of Operation Dunhill. He was

convicted of 5 counts of indecent assault and was sentenced to 6 and a half years

imprisonment in October 2015. These offences related to the late 1960’s and 1970’s and

two of the complainants were on the “scheme” outlined above when the allegations took

place. One of the complainants had reported matters in 2001 to Devon and Cornwall

Police who did not take matters further. Another complainant had made a statement in

1993 which did not result in any action (paragraphs 135 – 144of the CPS statement).

Michael Walsh, Terence Banks and David Bowring.

136. These three individuals were involved with Chichester Cathedral and the Prebendal

school, which educates the choristers who sing in the Cathedral and has boarding

facilities. In 1990, Michael Walsh, who was a teacher at a state run Anglican secondary

school and was head of music at an Anglican church in Chichester, St. George’s , Whyke

69

and was also involved in the music at Chichester Cathedral. He was convicted in 1990

for offences of unlawful sexual intercourse involving teenage girls who were pupils at the

school and some of them may also have been involved with Chichester Cathedral as well

(appendix paragraph a1 of Colin Perkins). He was sentenced to five years

imprisonment.

137. Subsequent to his release from prison, he re-entered the musical scene in Chichester

and was involved in playing the organ and various choirs within the Anglican Church in

West Sussex. Janet Hind, who was the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor from 1997 – 2001

identifies within her evidence that she asked that he not be allowed to participate in

choral services, or to take private singing lessons involving children. She sought to stop

this once she found out (wws000044), after having been lied to by the parish priest about

his activities when she asked in 1997. The bishops told her that this could not happen

and Mrs Hind thought they wished to side with the clergyman who did not think that

there was a problem with his undertaking these activities. She says she almost resigned

over this (wws000046 – Janet Hind paragraph 17).

138. Mr. Perkins in his statement identifies that in 2011 that when he became involved in

this matter that the individual was only involved in adult choirs, and that although he was

an organist, that this did not did not require a CRB/ DBS check as it would not have

been considered to be a “regulated” activity. In 2012, Bishop Warner therefore had to

issue a directive that no-one with an unspent conviction for child sexual abuse could

take a leading role in any musical performance in any church building within the Diocese,

70

because of the difficulties in taking any other steps to prevent this individual coming into

contact through the church with children .

David Bowring

139. David Bowring was a teacher at the Prebendal School. He pleaded guilty to six

charges of indecent assault of four boys who were at the school in the 1970’s. He was

convicted as a result of the conviction of Terrence Banks in 2001 which I will deal with

below. He was sentenced in May 2003 to three years imprisonment.

Terrence Banks

140. Terrence Banks was the steward of Chichester Cathedral. This was a lay role which

involved organisation during church services. He was also heavily involved in the

organisation of the Chichester festival, a music festival involving various choirs run

annually. He was convicted in May 2001 of 16 years imprisonment for 32 sexual offences

against 12 boys. The offences took place over the course of 29 years from 1971 onwards.

You will hear oral evidence from an individual abused by Terrence Banks whilst a

schoolboy and attending the Chichester Festival.

141. The conviction of Mr. Banks, along with the associated offending of Michael Walsh

and David Bowring lead to the Church commissioning an internal case review which

became known for the Chair of the review, Ms. Carmi. She will be giving oral evidence

about what she found during that review, and those involved in the commissioning and

71

response to the review, including Janet Hind, John Hind and Mr. Dean Atkinson, who

was the Dean of Chichester Cathedral about the difficulties found within the Cathedral.

As I have already identified, Cathedrals are not necessarily governed by the Diocese and

have their own systems of governance. They did not necessarily have to follow Diocesan

safeguarding policies and have not, as yet been audited by SCIE. Issues around

safeguarding within cathedrals, which will nearly always have choristers made up of

children attending the church almost daily will also be dealt with the national

safeguarding advisor and Bishop Hancock during the course of their evidence.

142. As the offending of Mr. Banks and Mr. Bowring involved children at the Prebendal

school, the Inquiry sought evidence from them and from OFSTED and the ISI who

were responsible for inspecting them during this period of time. We will be putting

information from the Prebendal school on the Inquiry website.

143. The Prebendal school (ANG000136) does not identify nor state what the

safeguarding policies were at the time (paragraph 2.2) nor what training had taken place

(paragraph 4.1). A series of minutes of meeting of the governing body were put to Rev

Waine but it was not clear the extent to which the Prebendal school was involved in the

commissioning of the Carmi report (paragraph 7.1) but that they were concerned about

sending information to parents and to parishioners as a call for evidence at the time

(paragraph 7.3 and ang000132) and were concerned that the report of Ms. Carmi could

cause a risk to the reputation of the school (paragraph 8.1, ang000133).

72

144. It is still the case that the Dean of the Cathedral is the Chair of Governors and that

there are 2 additional clergy members of the Cathedral on the governing body (paragraph

1.3 of the witness statement of Stephen Waine).

145. You will also hear evidence from Dean Peter Atkinson, who was a canon at

Chichester cathedral at the time and is now Dean of Worcester Cathedral. He will give

evidence as to the operation of the Chapter at the time of Terrence Banks arrest and

difficulties that individuals may have had in dealing and managing safeguarding at the

time in question. He indicates (Dean Treadgold who was the Dean at the time) that

some boys had approached him some time before the police became involved to tell

them of Terrence Banks’ offending. He had not told the police and he did not tell the

chapter what was happening until Terrence Banks was arrested (statement to police by

Dean Atkinson ace023433 and paragraph 36 of his witness statement).

146. We will be reading evidence from the ISI and OFSTED, who say that:

(a) The ISI held no records relating to the offending of Terrence Banks or David

Bowering and records no longer exist which could show whether the school

informed ISI of these convictions at the time they were inspected in 2003 (paragraph

28) and the Carmi report was never sent to the ISI (paragraph 30) , but that

safeguarding would have been inspected (paragraph 28) .

73

(b) The ISI did contact the LADO to ask for information about the school prior to

inspections in 2012 and 2015, but the LADO did not inform them of the issues

raised by the Carmi report or the sexual offending of banks and Bowering (paragraph

30). No external organisation informed the Isi about the offending of these

individuals (paragraph 36 and 37).

(c) There is no legal requirement for schools to report to the ISI issues related to child

sexual abuse as they come to light, but the ISI now (and since 2010) has asked

whether someone connected to the school is subject to investigation or disciplinary

action in respect of conduct with children in order to elicit that information

(paragraph 35).

(d) The school within its 2012 inspection failed to meet the national minimum standards

as it did not carry out some DBS checks before individuals started at the school and

that non teaching staff had not received child protection training (paragraph 2.3 of

the OFSTED report from 2012 and paragraph 45 of the witness statement of the

ISI.

(e) The ISI notes that safeguarding inspections became much more rigorous even for

schools without a boarding element between 2003 – 2015 (paragraphs 49-53).

147. The Ofsted statement also identifies that they hold no records showing whether or

not the offending of Banks and Bowering was ever sent to them or their predecessor

body which, until 2012 would have been responsible for the boarding welfare element of

74

inspections. Now is not the time to go into the standard and nature of inspections in

existence at that time, it appears that no boarding welfare inspections were carried out

between 2004 – 2009, despite the fact that it would have been usual for such inspections

to take place at least every other year (paragraph 52 of the witness statement of Helen

Humphreys). They also identify that they did not receive a copy of the Carmi report or

any information about sexual offending from the records that they still have.

148. The Head of the Prebendal School (ohy0000316) wrote to the Department of

Education in 1976 about a teacher who had been found sexually assaulting a pupil and

who had admitted perpetrating such abuse. The DFE [ ]

149. The DFE says

Other individuals.

150. The witness statements of Adrian Iles (at paragraph 265) sets out a further 11

individuals against whom allegations of child sexual abuse were made. All of them have

been examined by the police at some point or involved the LADO. Of those 11 , one

who was a chaplain at schools and who was subject to written warnings because of his

inappropriate behaviours was not permitted to have permission to officiate in 2013 but

no disciplinary action was taken by the church as he was a chaplain and so not employed

by the Diocese (see paragraph 265(i)) : in another case a risk assessment was undertaken

and a complaint was raised under CDM : in another a CDM complaint lead to a penalty

75

by consent after inappropriate behaviours to teenage girls including refraining from

public ministry.

151. The witness evidence of Mr. Perkins also provides an appendix which outlines

further details about individuals who have not been convicted (and who are the same

individuals mentioned by Adrian Iles) which outlines what the diocese has done and

when after allegations are made to them since 2011.

George Bell

152. Allegations were made in 2012 about George Bell, a former Bishop of Chichester

who died in 1958.. A core group was convened and decisions were made to pay that

individual a sum of money by way of compensation and to publicise such . The Church

subsequently commissioned an internal report from Lord Carlile QC, a senior criminal

barrister and former independent reviewer of terrorist legislation which was published in

late December 2017 about the procedures which lead to this payment and the subsequent

publicity generated by it. An extensive critique is made of various actions of the Diocese

and the national church in cases concerning posthumous allegations. The Panel will hear

from Justin Welby, the current Archbishop, Colin Perkins, the Diocesan Safeguarding

Advisor and the EIO, who have provided written documentation as to their response to

the review. It is understood that very recently another allegation has been made. This

Inquiry will not be concerned with the truth or otherwise of these allegations – its role is

76

simply to examine the Carlile review and how the Church deals with posthumous

allegations of child sexual abuse.

The visitation and afterwards

153. I have told you about some of the internal investigations which took place into the

Diocese of Chichester, culminating in the Archepiscopal Visitation, as a result of which

significant changes were made to procedures and policies within the Church of England.

154. As a result of the concerns raised within the Visitation and the report of Baroness

Butler Sloss and others, the local authority and LSCSB wrote a series of letters to the

Diocese and to the Archbishop of Canterbury . You will hear about these letters from

Colin Perkins, the then safeguarding advisor as well as evidence to be read from both

East Sussex County Council and West Sussex County Council and criticizing in the

strongest terms the management of safeguarding within the Diocese. They were, in

particular, unhappy about the role that Bishop Benn continued to play within the

Diocese. At ACE24509 (p08 and 09) they wrote to state that they did not believe that

current arrangements within the Diocese could assure the safety of children.

155. This LCSB identified and stated that they had no confidence in the then Bishop of

Lewes, Bishop Benn. This view was shared by the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisory

Group , who then sought to bring what a complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure

in 2012 over what was considered to be his approach to safeguarding. These complaints

77

were dismissed by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal that heard them, one on the basis that it

would out of time and the other becuase it was agreed that the complaint no longer

existed.

156. Bishop Benn retired in 2012, as did Bishop Hind. You will hear evidence from

Martin Warner , current Bishop of Chichester as to what has been done following the

concerns raised internally and what more needs to be done, as well as Mark Sowerby, the

Suffragan Bishop of Horsham and the Deputy to Bishop Peter Hancock, current

safeguarding lead Bishop for the Church of England.

157. Witness statements say that relationships between the local authority and the Diocese

have considerably improved from the low point of 2012. The witness statements of

Stuart Gallimore, current Director of Children’s Services at East Sussex County Council

and Annie McIver, Director of Children’s Operations in West Sussex County Council

both identify that they were asked to sit on the current Diocesan Safeguarding Panel

(paragraph 16.1 of Stuart Gallimore), and identify that there has been a clear shift in the

culture in respect of safeguarding practice, which included presenting a diocesan strategic

safeguarding plan to the LCSB in 2013, and an update on progress again in 2015

(esc000105 – 106 and then esc000107, 108 and stuart gallimore , paragraph 18.1).

158. As well as the local authority, the Charity Commission also wrote to the Diocesan

Board of Education in June 2011 (ace009765) to identify the need to report serious

78

incidents, including safeguarding incidents to them: a further letter was written in

September 2012 (ace023898) following the Visitation to again identify that despite being

written to in 2011, the Diocese had not acted or complied with the regulatory

requirements to report serious incidents and the Charity Commission monitored matters

between 2012 – 2014 (exhibit cyc000167) to ask for updates from the Diocese. The

Charity Commission closed the case on the basis that the Diocese was co-operating with

the police and local authority and was putting in place an action plan to take forward the

recommendations of the visitation (see paragraphs 70-96 of the witness statement of

Harvey Grenville, Head of Enforcement at the Charity Commission).

159. Following on from the conviction of Robert Coles, the LCSB commissioned what is

known as an independent management review of the Diocese’s handling of Robert Coles

case . (ace022265) . Various recommendations were them made that the Diocese

indicates have now been implemented (see paragraphs 24 – 28 of the statement of Colin

Perkins).

Police investigations

160. As identified in the individual cases set out above, Baroness Butler Sloss in her report

(ohy000186 at 38 and 39) concluded that the Police were not well equipped to deal with

allegations of child abuse made by adults (paragraph 38 of her report: chapter 8). She

identified that they were slow to recognise the significance of historic child abuse and did

79

not take the disclosures of victims in their area sufficiently seriously (p40 of her report –

ohy000186-040). She also criticized their record keeping .

161. Sussex police have responded to these criticisms (paragraph 9.1 of the witness

statement of AC Taylor onwards). They provide an explanation as to why the documents

were thrown away: and identify that looking at the limited documents concerning the

investigation of Roy Cotton in 1997 did not “inspire confidence in the investigation.”

(PARAGRAPH 9.12) and it was not of the highest quality (PARAGRAPH 9.16). We will

be hearing evidence from former DI Edmund Hick by video link who was the Detective

Serjeant at the time of the 1997 investigations into Roy Cotton and Colin Pritchard who

may throw some further light as to investigative practices at the time.

162. As a result of the concerns raised by the Butler Sloss report, Sussex Police re-opened

and re-investigated a number of cases under Operations Dunhill and Perry, which you

have heard about above and which lead to some of the convictions I have told you about.

It does also appear to be the case that a much closer working relationship is now in

existence between police and the Diocese, with the police praising the Diocesan

Safeguarding Advisor for his close collaboration with them on investigations.

163. In order to provide contextual background to the question of the information and

advice given to police forces about the investigation of child sexual abuse, the Inquiry

commissioned an analysis of policing policy between 1990 – present day from the Cardiff

80

University Crime and Security Research Institute . This involves analysis of policing and

Home Office advice and guidance from this time. This report has been circulated to all

Core Participants in this investigation and will be placed upon the website. Whilst this opening is not the place to deal in detail with the information that it provides, I will highlight the following :

(1) From the Children Act 1963 onwards, there were references to the need for the

police to work with local authorities (on an informal basis) about children who were

in need of care, protection and control. The need for inter agency working and

partnership working is stressed throughout the Circulars issues concerning child

abuse from the 1960’s onwards.

(2) Even in 1964, Chief Officers of Police were, according to a Home Office circular, to

notify the children’s officer of the local authority where a person is convicted of

offences.

(3) There was discussion within the Department of Health in the 1980’s as to whether or

not sexual abuse should be considered in the definition of child abuse.

(4) A circular sent out in 1988 in the wake of the Cleveland child abuse scandal by the

Home Office set out in some detail as to the content and focus they expected in

approaches to the investigation of child sexual abuse and set out details about

training of interviewing children, and creating a clear direction for specialist child

protection units.

(5) The introduction for the Children Act 1989 which created the paramountcy

principles and also set out a series of cross cutting national guidance to identify how

agencies should work in cases concerning children, and which identified that sexual

81

abuse was one of the key categories of abuse and in defining the roles of

professionals in making inquiries concerning such abuse.

(6) By the end of the decade, i.e. the 1990’s, all forces had child protection units. A

research study in 1996 identified that whilst such units were successful, there were

problems with their resourcing, and individuals moved regularly so did not build up

expertise in the work, and a need for general standards to provided across the boards.

It was also identified that there was limited intelligence systems for sharing

information across forces. Their remit was, however, largely focused upon cases of

intra familial abuse, whereas sexual abuse by strangers or organised paedophiles was

undertaken by vice squad officers. Officers with particular experience of vulnerable

children were not routinely engaged in the police response to cases.

(7) From the start of the 21s t century, within the first decade, the Home Office circulars

and policing plans meanions child abuse but it did not feature in a consistent way

across various forums where the policing priorities are articulated. However, the

Association of Chief Police Officers published a handbook for the investigations of

historic institutional child abuse which provides a template for investigations of this

kind in 2002.

(8) The Laming and Bichard Inquiries both criticized HMIC for not taking a sufficiently

active role in relation to child protection, and the Laming report recommended the

need for those working in child protection role within the police to be senior and to

have appropriate qualifications. Centres for training specialist child abuse

82

investigators were established by the National Centre for Policing Excellence . The

Bichard Inquiry was critical of the standard of record keeping and information

sharing operating within the police at present and make recommendations as to inter

force data sharing. This decade also lead to the setting up of the Child Exploitation

and Online Protection Centre for online child abuse.

(9) In 2015, HMIC undertook a report of the policing of child protection which, whilst

identifying that there had been significant improvements to police practice, whilst still

identifying that they are not adequate.

(10) Since 2010, there has been a significant increase in the volume of allegations of

non recent child sexual abuse which has altered the demand on the police service.

There has also been the issue of comprehensive and detailed guidance in 2014 on

dealing with an investigating child abuse and safeguarding problems, and identifies

different sorts of problems.

(11) The most recent reports of HMIC do identify that police forces are struggling to

cope with rising demand, with systemic weaknesses and high workloads with

significant strains on staff.

Conclusion

164. From the wealth of information which has been gathered - over 200,000 pages of

documentation has been received: 64 witness statements will be used in one way or

83

another through the hearing, and more were provided, there are certain issues which stand out and which we will be exploring with the witnesses, which are:

(1) How practical the system was and is for reporting abuse and how easy was it for

those abused to report it to other adults or to the Church itself?

(2) How those who disclosed abuse were treated by the Church , and whether or not the

practices and procedures have improved over time

(3) Whether the systems of recruitment sought to take reasonable steps to identify those

who may be a risk to children : to assess that risk: and to take steps to ensure that , as

far as is possible, those who are a risk do not get to work with children?

(4) Whether or not the training, and implementation of both national and diocesan

policies in respect of safeguarding existed at various points in time and if they did

not, if they should have done, and if it is accepted that these systems were deficient,

what is now being done to rectify those deficiencies?

(5) Whether or not the system of promotion within the Church did, or now does ,

enable assessment of an individual’s abilities in respect of safeguarding and

management of such to be taken into account?

(6) Even if the policies and practices are considered to be acceptable, are they in fact

used and implemented in practice?

(7) How far did the church promote and what is it now doing to promote a culture of

safeguarding, and how can this be embedded given the disparate and autonomous

nature of church institutions`?

(8) How far did reputational risk get in the way of adequate transparency of safeguarding

failings?

84

(9) How far did different styles of ritual and worship inhibit good communication and

effective management of safeguarding issues?

(10) How far did the church’s position on homosexuality inhibit the reporting of child

sexual abuse?

(11) How far did the church’s position on the ordination of women, and the church as

a largely male lead and run institution impact upon the management of safeguarding?

(12) How far can or should the church run safeguarding at a diocesan, rather than

national level?

(13) Was there, or is there now, a system for effective auditing and monitoring of

safeguarding practice , and a system for ensuring that the lessons to be learnt from

past reviews are put into practice?

(14) Is the structure of the church and its autonomous nature inimical to being able to

have effective safeguarding management?

(15) Whether there is an effective system for management of safeguarding within

monastic communities and cathedrals, and what steps are being taken to explore this?

(16) How can the church manage those who work as chaplains and is the current

management adequate?

(17) When abuse was disclosed, what steps were taken by the Church when allegations

were made, including the taking of disciplinary sanctions or reporting to the police or

statutory authorities? And if that did not happen in the past, what steps are now

taken so that these sorts of failings will not happen again.

(18) Were and Are the current internal disciplinary sanctions suitable for complaints

about failure to take steps to deal with safeguarding concerns?

85

(19) Did the church work with local authorities and the police to ensure swift

resolution of safeguarding cases in the past and what does it do at present?

(20) Where matters were reported to the Police, did they and prosecuting authorities

undertake adequate investigations, and if their investigations were inadequate, what is

now happening to improve and learn from te past?

(21) How far have the responses to victims, survivors and complainants been

adequate and was there appropriate reparations offered and what steps are being

taken to work with victims and survivors and improve practices?

(22) Was and is the system for dealing with posthumous complaints adequate?

(23) What future steps should the church take to improve its practices and to regain

the trust and confidence of the community?

165. This is an ambitious list of questions. Most of them are not capable of easy answers.

We hope that at the end of this hearing there has been a frank exchange of views and

opinions by those who have the best knowledge and understanding of the issues facing

the Church: both those within it, and those who have had experience of it.

PROCEDURE

166. Each of the counsel for the core participants will now have an opportunity to make a

short statement lasting no longer than [ ] . The evidence will begin tomorrow and will be

structured in as logical way as is possible given the time constraints and witness

availability.

86

167. For the first week, we will hear from an individual who alleges abuse by Gordon

Rideout whilst a chaplain on an army base in the 1970’s. Then we will hear evidence

from Mr. Philip Johnson, a member of MACSAS and someone who was sexually abused

by Roy Cotton and Colin Pritchard and who also made allegations against Bishop Ball .

In the afternoon we will hear from Shirley Hosgood, the Diocese of Chichester

safeguarding advisor from 2007 – 2010, who resigned and was frustrated at what she saw

as problems within the Diocese of Chichester.

168. We will then hear on Wednesday from Bishop John Hind, Bishop of Chichester from

2001 – 2012 about his experience of the Diocese during that period of time. In the

afternoon we will hear from Philip Jones, who was the Archdeacon of Lewes and

Hastings from 2005 – 2016, and so worked closely with the then suffragan bishop of

Lewes, Wallace Benn.

169. On Thursday we will hear from a representative of MACSAS , and also from Roger

Meekings, who undertook the past cases review in respect of the Diocese of Chichester

in 2008 and 2009 and who provided an internal report on the cases of Cotton and

Pritchard which was the subject of much controversy within the senior ranks of the

Diocese. In the afternoon, we will hear from Canon Ian Gibson, who was personal

chaplain to Bishop John Hind and so was responsible for much of the day to day

administration of the central diocesan functions from 2004 – 2013.

87

170. On Friday we will hear from Janet Hind, the wife of Bishop John Hind who was

Diocesan safeguarding advisor from 1997 – 2001 and then again from 2007 – 2008 . In

the afternoon we will hear from DS Edmund Hick by video link, who was involved in

police investigations in the late 1990’s..

WITNESSES - A REMINDER

171. For everyone’s understanding, may I explain how live witnesses who have not waived

anonymity will appear in person. Live witnesses who are anonymous will have special

measures in place to protect their identities. Before anonymous witnesses testify, the

hearing room will need to be cleared of press and members of the public, who will be

able to listen to audio of the witness in a separate room. I shall invite the Chair and the

Panel to rise while these arrangements are being made, and, in the case of those who are

to give their evidence by video-link, while the video-link is being set up for those

witnesses.

172. In the case of witnesses whose evidence is to be read, they will not be called in the

hearing room but their account/s will be read into the record. Their witness statements

will be available at some point on the website.

173. The witness statements neither given live nor read will be placed upon the website at

some point today for the public to see.

88

89