The Anglican Church
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Anglican Church Investigation Report October 2020 2020 The Anglican Church Safeguarding in the Church of England and the Church in Wales Investigation Report October 2020 A report of the Inquiry Panel Professor Alexis Jay OBE Professor Sir Malcolm Evans KCMG OBE Ivor Frank Drusilla Sharpling CBE © Crown copyright 2020 The text of this document (this excludes, where present, the Royal Arms and all departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the document title specified. Where third‑party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. Any enquiries related to this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] or Freepost IICSA INDEPENDENT INQUIRY. This publication is available at https://www.iicsa.org.uk/publications CCS0620778888 10/20 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled‑fibre content minimum. Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Contents Executive Summary v Pen portraits ix Part A: Introduction 1 A.1: Background to the investigation 2 A.2: The Church of England 2 A.3: The Church in Wales 6 A.4: Methodology 7 A.5: Terminology 10 A.6: References 11 Part B: The Church of England 13 B.1: Safeguarding in the Church of England 14 B.1.1: Introduction 14 B.1.2: Safeguarding structures 15 B.1.3: Safeguarding policies 25 B.1.4: Safeguarding in recruitment and training 27 B.1.5: Reviews of safeguarding practice 36 B.2: Reporting abuse within the Church of England 48 B.2.1: Introduction 48 B.2.2: Internal reporting and investigation 48 B.2.3: External reporting 52 B.2.4: Provision of counselling and pastoral support 53 B.3: Clergy discipline 57 B.3.1: Introduction 57 B.3.2: Procedure under the Clergy Discipline Measure 57 B.3.3: The efficacy of clergy discipline 61 B.4: Civil claims and redress in the Church of England 64 B.4.1: Introduction 64 B.4.2: Civil claims in the Church of England 64 B.4.3: Key issues in civil claims against the Church of England 66 B.4.4: AN-A4 and the Elliott review 68 B.4.5: Allegations against deceased individuals 70 B.5: The seal of the confessional 72 B.5.1: Introduction 72 B.5.2: Robert Waddington 72 B.5.3: The seal of the confessional in the Church of England 74 B.5.4: Mandatory reporting 78 B.6: The culture of the Church of England 80 B.6.1: Introduction 80 B.6.2: Concerns regarding the culture of the Church of England 80 B.6.3: Recent initiatives to improve the culture of the Church of England 82 B.6.4: Further steps to be taken 86 Part C: The Church in Wales 89 C.1: Introduction 90 C.2: Structure of the Church in Wales 91 C.3: Safeguarding in the Church in Wales 92 C.4: Recruitment and training of clergy in the Church in Wales 96 C.5: Responding to abuse within the Church in Wales 99 C.6: Past case reviews 101 C.7: Samples of safeguarding casework in the Church in Wales 104 Part D: Conclusions and recommendations 107 D.1: Conclusions in respect of the Church of England 108 D.2: Conclusions in respect of the Church in Wales 114 D.3: Matters to be explored further by the Inquiry 115 D.4: Recommendations 116 Annexes 119 Annex 1: Overview of process and evidence obtained by the Inquiry 120 Annex 2: Glossary 136 Annex 3: Expert analysis of safeguarding case files 143 Executive Summary This investigation concerns the extent to which the Church of England and the Church in Wales protected children from sexual abuse in the past. It also examines the effectiveness of current safeguarding arrangements. A public hearing on these specific areas was held in 2019. This report also draws on the previous two case studies on the Anglican Church, which related to the Diocese of Chichester and Peter Ball. In addition to recommendations made in the case studies, we make eight recommendations in this report, covering areas such as clergy discipline, information‑sharing and support for victims and survivors. We will return to other matters raised in this investigation, such as mandatory reporting, in the Inquiry’s final report. The Church of England The Church of England is the largest Christian denomination in the country, with over a million regular worshippers. Convictions of sexual abuse of children by people who were clergy or in positions of trust associated with the Church date back to the 1940s. The total number of convicted offenders associated with the Church from the 1940s until 2018 is 390. In 2018, 449 concerns were reported to the Church about recent child sexual abuse, of which more than half related to church officers. Latterly, a significant amount of offending involved the downloading or possession of indecent images of children. The Inquiry examined a number of cases relating to both convicted perpetrators and alleged perpetrators, many of which demonstrated the Church’s failure to take seriously disclosures by or about children or to refer allegations to the statutory authorities. These included: • Timothy Storey, who was a youth leader in the Diocese of London from 2002 to 2007. He used his role to groom teenage girls. Storey is currently serving 15 years in prison for several offences against children, including rape. He had admitted sexual activity with a teenager to diocesan staff years before his conviction, but denied coercion. • Victor Whitsey, who was Bishop of Chester between 1974 and 1982. Thirteen people complained to Cheshire Constabulary about sexual abuse by Whitsey and the Church of England is aware of six more complainants. The allegations included sexual assault of teenage boys and girls while providing them with pastoral support. He died in 1987. • Reverend Trevor Devamanikkam, who was a priest until 1996. In 1984 and 1985 he allegedly raped and indecently assaulted a teenage boy, Matthew Ineson, on several occasions when the boy was living in his house. From 2012 onwards, Reverend Matthew Ineson made a number of disclosures to the Church and has complained about the Church’s response. Devamanikkam was charged in 2017 and took his life the day before his court appearance. Between 2003 and 2018, the main insurer of the Church of England (the Ecclesiastical Insurance Office) managed 217 claims relating to child sexual abuse in the Church. v The Anglican Church: Investigation Report The culture of the Church of England facilitated it becoming a place where abusers could hide. Deference to the authority of the Church and to individual priests, taboos surrounding discussion of sexuality and an environment where alleged perpetrators were treated more supportively than victims presented barriers to disclosure that many victims could not overcome. Another aspect of the Church’s culture was clericalism, which meant that the moral authority of clergy was widely perceived as beyond reproach. As we have said in other reports, faith organisations such as the Anglican Church are marked out by their explicit moral purpose, in teaching right from wrong. In the context of child sexual abuse, the Church’s neglect of the physical, emotional and spiritual well‑being of children and young people in favour of protecting its reputation was in conflict with its mission of love and care for the innocent and the vulnerable. Culture change is assisted by senior Church leaders now saying the right things, but lasting change will require more than platitudes. It will need continuous reinforcement of the abhorrent nature of child sexual abuse and the importance of safeguarding in all of the Church’s settings. We examined how well current safeguarding practice within the Church was responding to the issue of child sexual abuse. Until recently, at least 2015, the Church of England did not properly resource safeguarding. Funding has increased considerably, in particular for safeguarding staff. A further recent change means that the advice of safeguarding staff should not be ignored by senior clergy if they do not like the advice they are given. Nevertheless, examples of this continuing to occur were found in the file sampling undertaken on behalf of the Inquiry. Diocesan bishops hold ultimate responsibility for safeguarding within a diocese, and diocesan safeguarding advisers (DSAs) still do not provide a “sufficient counterweight to episcopal authority” according to Mr Colin Perkins (DSA for the Diocese of Chichester).1 We concluded that diocesan safeguarding officers – not clergy – are best placed to decide which cases to refer to the statutory authorities, and what action should be taken by the Church to keep children safe. Diocesan bishops have an important role to play, but they should not hold operational responsibility for safeguarding. In respect of cathedrals, the Church has proposed a number of changes which should integrate safeguarding in cathedrals into the mainstream of the Church’s safeguarding structures, though there remains much to do to ensure better protection of children in cathedrals and their linked choir schools. The Church has failed to respond consistently to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse with sympathy and compassion, accompanied by practical and appropriate support. This has often added to the trauma already suffered by those who were abused by individuals associated with the Church. This failure was described as “profoundly and deeply shocking” by Archbishop Justin Welby.2 Excessive attention was often paid to the circumstances of the alleged perpetrator in comparison to the attention given to those who disclosed they had been sexually abused or to the issue of the risk that alleged perpetrators posed to others.