Earlier this week, on Monday 3rd September, the Daily Telegraph carried a story to indicate that Steven Croft, the Bishop of Oxford, was being called in by the police for questioning under caution. This relates to a story that has been circulating for some months about his failure to act in the case of Matt Ineson when Bishop of Sheffield. Matt, as we have recorded in another blog post, was abused as a child of 16 by the Rev Trevor Devamanikkam. His earlier story was set out here in some detail a year ago. The account http://survivingchurch.org/2017/07/09/safeguarding-and-child-abuse-case-of-matt-ineson/ reveals how Matt disclosed several times to his bishops in the Diocese of Sheffield and to the Archbishop of York. Individually and collectively they not only failed to take action to inhibit his abuser or tell the police, but they also blanked Matt and offered him no help pastorally or practically.
Matt has successfully kept the story alive at great cost to himself and his career. Although an ordained priest he felt under such pressure from the ‘othering’ he received by the bishops that he felt compelled to retire from his post as a Vicar in Rotherham in 2013. His financial situation is bleak and the emotional cost of trying to be heard in the Church over more than six years has taken its toll. The blanking of Matt by bishops who did nothing to support him has no doubt been done in the hope and expectation by them that he would eventually disappear from the scene. This has not happened; Matt took out, with the help of a lawyer, legal proceedings against the church using the provisions of the Clergy Disciplinary Measure (2003). This piece of Church of England legislation enables anyone to make a formal complaint against a member of the clergy. So far it has never, except in Matt’s case, been taken out against a serving bishop. Up till now, the Church has managed to stall these proceedings by citing time limits and other devices, but Matt’s case has clearly caused waves among church lawyers. The compilers of the new legislation did not expect that any bishops would be named in such cases. Because bishops inevitably become involved in the process of hearing CDM complaints against ordinary clergy, the system comes under strain when these adjudicators are challenged themselves for unprofessional/unbecoming behaviour. There does not seem to be any provision for what should happen when the Archbishop handling a complaint is himself the subject of a complaint.
Matt’s CDM complaints against Steven Croft, now Bishop of Oxford, are not however the focus of the current Telegraph story. The Telegraph article is concerned with the fact that the episode has gone beyond a CDM complaint to become a matter for the police and the civil authorities. They want to question Bishop Croft formally under caution in a matter that touches on possible criminal behaviour. It remains to be seen whether this questioning will result in any kind of prosecution. The whole case is made far more serious because the alleged perpetrator, Trevor Devamanikkam, died at his own hand on the eve of his trial in 2017. If he had been challenged at the time of the original disclosures (2012-2013) and the police informed, he would not have been an ongoing danger to society for five further years. Also, more seriously, no help was offered to him to prevent a descent into a spiral of despair which led to his suicide.
The reporter Harry Farley at the Telegraph published the details of the civil legal process that is under way against Bishop Croft. The questions to be asked of him by the police no doubt will cover their enquiries over what the Bishop knew and when. This topic was given a full airing on a television programme for BBC Yorkshire earlier this year. On camera Matt gave a clear and cogent account of the facts of his assault and he recounted his fruitless attempts to disclose the event to the church authorities. I have not read the Telegraph story in full -as it is behind a paywall- but the very existence and publication of this story in the post Cliff Richard environment means that it must have been carefully worded. No doubt newspaper lawyers will have checked this story with particular care.
Matt is a fairly prolific Twitter contributor, so it is possible to see what are some of the current outstanding issues from his perspective. We also have recorded something of Bishop Croft’s response to the case. The Oxford Mail on Monday pm put out a rapid response from an Oxford Diocesan spokesman. It stated that ‘Church leaders are refuting the suggestion that the Bishop of Oxford failed to pass on allegations of rape against a vicar’. During the Radio 4 broadcast in July 2017 Bishop Croft was asked why he had not passed Matt’s written disclosure to him, which dates back to 2013, to the police. The response was that he had taken the unilateral decision not to pass on the disclosure because he personally didn’t consider there was sufficient in it to pass on. This was a clear breach of safeguarding procedures. As the reported offence happened not in Oxford but in Sheffield, it is hard to know what ‘Church leaders’ are being referred to in the Mail account. A common-sense reading of the situation is that Bishop has telephoned the communications officer for the diocese and told him what to say to the Oxford Mail. It is to be hoped that the Mail, if they cover the story again, will take a more questioning and nuanced approach to the story.
The other part of the story which attracts our curiosity is a reference to ‘written records and notes taken at the time’ by Bishop Croft. These were, according to the Mail report, ‘taken at the time (and) give a different picture’. Matt has protested that he has never been offered any sight of such documents. As an outside observer, I would have expected any such documents to have been given a long time ago to an independent person for examination and scrutiny. The fact that the Bishop has apparently failed to share them with anyone in six years, is curious. Throughout the CDM process they have never been produced. As this process has been underway for 2 ½ years the failure to produce these papers is a serious matter. This fact is particularly striking in the context of the upcoming police interview which has been planned and known about for several months.
The CDM process that Matt has initiated is still yet to be fully resolved. Although it is entirely separate from the questioning under caution by the police of Bishop Croft, the two have of course become muddled up in people’s minds. One thing we have learned in the last 48 hours is that a key legal figure active no doubt in both the church and civil cases was closely identified with the alleged abuser, the late Trevor Devamanikkam. The Provincial Registrar for Canterbury, who also happens to be the Oxford Diocesan Registrar, John Rees, once served as curate in a parish in Leeds where Trevor Devamanikkam was Priest in Charge. This is obviously something known but never revealed by Rees himself, Bishop Croft, Archbishop Welby or anybody else. The multiple conflicts of interest make his involvement untenable. The fact that this information has only just come to light would imply that the Bishop and his advisers were banking on the case not proceeding this far. Such a disclosure puts the legal team in the Oxford Diocese somewhat on the back foot as there are clearly conflicts of interest here for both the civil and ecclesiastical cases.
In view of these legal problems which Matt has brought to our attention in the past couple of days, it is hard to see how proper church legal processes can move forward smoothly towards resolution. Also, now that the civil authorities are becoming involved in the case, these CDM cases are less likely to disappear. The only logical defence for Bishop Croft is to attack the veracity of Matt and his claims of disclosure, in other words call him a liar-attack the victim. Whatever the final outcome of these sorry episodes, it will have the consequence of a victim going once more through the mill of being disbelieved, facing the power of senior churchmen, lawyers and others trying to undermine his narrative. Having studied Matt’s case, I have to say that my assessment points to his complete truthfulness and honesty. He deserves to win through, even though the full weight of the establishment is being wheeled on in an attempt to crush and discredit him.
The proliferation of legal cases, civil and ecclesiastical is likely to end up costing the Church of England a great deal of money, reputation and time. One cannot help but think that had there been professional standards of procedure as well as good ethical behaviour at the beginning, the Church would have saved itself much grief. Even now there is room for apology to the victim by the church for what he has suffered. He deserves that far more than being the object of vilification in what is probably now a vain attempt to protect the Church institution. How much do we keep hearing about institutional reputation being chosen in preference to truth, honesty and compassion?
Oh my goodness. Poor Matt. That is dreadful. Crowd funding might help him in a practical way.
Matt is my very close friend and he is a very good friend of our family we support him 100percent his life could have been so differentxxxalways here for you x
Thank you Stephen. I too have met Matt and followed his story closely, and am convinced of his truthfulness. It’s way past time Church leaders owned up and compensated Matt for what they put him through, as well as the original abuse.
However, can I just point out that the abuse occurred in Bradford, diocese, not Sheffield? It was Sheffield diocese Matt first reported his abuse to, which is where they come into it.
It reads like a catalogue of failure. I know Matt from 3 protests and much shared work in campaigning and raising of issues. I hope he won’t mind my saying this – he’s blunt, awkward at times. But he’s Yorkshire! And my experience of him (I know this can only be my opinion) – leads me to say this:
Had this bishop, and other bishops in this case, plus the NST – all said across the last two or three years – “we’re really sorry, we loused up, we didn’t respond in ways that we now know we should have done, what can do now to put this right” — I am quite sure that Matt would have accepted this and moved forward. Indeed, everyone would have moved forward with grace. The failure has to be put down to current culture amongst too many senior bishops, and to absymal failure and culture of their NST. There has not been straightforward honesty, decency, and compassion. That bishops have dug themselves so deep into an ugly and unnecessary hole is their own fault. They could have dug themselves out a year ago at least. It seems like the last gasp of the ‘purple circle’ that another survivor described at IICSA hearings. This self-protecting culture needs to die. The need for the hierarchy to run for the hills, or rely on the deferential cultures of an NST or their lawyers to provide blankets to hide in. It’s had its day.
We now see that one of the chief figures in all this – a senior CofE lawyer and Provincial Registrar to Archbishop Welby & Canterbury Diocese as well as Oxford Diocese – has conflict of interest by the shedload. How can survivors have any trust in any part of this structure when their lawyers and advisors behave in this underhand furtive way. Enough! Remove the response to survivors from the hands of this structure – and hand it over to independent management. Remove DSA’s from the patronage of bishops and diocesan emplyoment and TUPE them over to independent employment structure. Ditto the NST which is beyond salvage in current form.
Incidentally – can I offer a correction to the article. Other serving bishops have been subject to CDM complaints. Bishop Wallace Benn (Lewes, now retired) was subject of 2 CDM complaints made by Diocese of Chichester’s safeguarding officials. Both CDMs were dismissed by Archbishop Sentamu. And in 2016 Bishop Paul Butler (Durham) was subject to a CDM made by myself. It was dismissed by Archbishop Sentamu. But not before Butler felt it incumbent upon him to offer a 20 page report. His response was highly revealing – he showed the extent of the brazen dishonesty and legal games of the church’s insurer in the process. Quite whether he intended to do this – we’re not sure – but it was very revealing. And so it could be said that Bishop of Durham at last has been one bishop who HAS shown some measure of honesty in all this. I didn’t bother to take out a CDM against Bishop Thornton (Truro, now Lambeth) as we already knew he would receive the protection of Archbishop Welby. And it’s a draining and time-consuming process. But I now wish I’d done so – despite knowing that it’s a broken and flawed bit of church parephenalia.
Firstly, my thoughts and good wishes are with Matt and I’d like to thank him for standing up to “the usual treatment” that senior church leaders give to those who bring to light cases of abuse.
It is worth repeating here that Steven Croft’s statement in July about giving PTO to George Carey demonstrated his attempt to mislead the public, by implying (“no legal reasons to deny..”) that he didn’t really have the choice to deny PTO to him, when it was completely within his powers to withhold PTO from Carey. I hope the police who question him are aware of this and what it might say about the reliability of what Steven Croft says to them.
I would like to report, Stephen, that I think a number of CDM complaints have been taken out against serving bishops. I seem to remember seeing a document online from the Clergy Discipline Commission which recorded how many CDM complaints had been made by year, split between those made against bishops and other clergy. (I don’t know how many would have been serving bishops.)
I made a CDM complaint against the former serving bishop of Winchester in 2009 for the way he choose to (mis)handle information, which culminated in his refusal to open a parcel sent to him containing sworn statements. (What’s the betting he chose to open the garden party invitations though?!) I only made my complaint after my MP had written to the bishop to point out that his justification for not opening the parcel was spurious and contrary to the CDM Code of Practice, but to no avail. Unsurprisingly, my complaint was dismissed not because it was out-of-time but because – according to John Rees – “it was not of sufficient substance” to justify proceeding with it. So, if anyone has any doubts that bishops can turn a blind eye to abuse with impunity I would be happy to share my evidence with them. It is also worth noting that the Bishop’s choosing not to open some of his post happened at the very time as the Past Cases Review!
I’ve still not received any apology for the response I received to my complaint, despite a number of recent requests for an apology, but I’m wondering if one might suddenly be forthcoming before the next IICSA hearings. (Hint to Bishop Tim Thornton and those in Comms – you’d look less bad if you apologise immediately.)
Like Matt’s, my story will come out one way or another and I wonder who in the church wants to apologise and be, belatedly, on the right side of the story?
Bishop Trevor Willmott, now Bishop of Dover, was also aware of this parcel of sworn statements and stated on 9 March 2007 that neither he nor his colleagues would be reading them. I didn’t have the time or energy to pursue this with him, although I subsequently chose to do so with Bishop Michael Scott-Joynt as the parcel was addressed to him, but I think it is worthwhile reporting it here for the record.
JayKay
That is dreadful. I’m glad you’re making sure this information isn’t lost. I hope you have people supporting you?
Thank you Janet. There’s more information that should be known by the public too. I’m appreciative of all and any support that I find!
Oh, wow. I knew things were bad….. Mere bullying was never going to get a hearing, was it?
It always strikes me just how much information statutory services aren’t able to access. One of the Bishops that Matt says did not act on disclosures in his case (not Croft) is the same one as in my case. I told church people that I felt this was important as though circumstances were different the action was the same, ignoring disclosures, I got told it was irrelevant. This means that the picture the church can paint about that Bishop is ‘this was a one off – a lapse of judgement’ when actually it would show consistent failures if they actually listened to everyone respectfully.
I don’t understand why they behave like this!
I don’t know what justice would feel like to Matt now but I hope he finds something that brings peace.
Amen.
I apologise for getting my facts wrong over CDMs re bishops. The rest of my material has been fairly carefully checked. It is hard to get everything precisely right. I am puzzled by the way that the Telegraph story has gone quiet. One wonders if pressure has been brought to bear.
I think almost certainly pressure has been brought to bear, and probably disinformation is being spread too. That is the pattern in Matt’s case, and in others.
I have had difficulties over safeguarding with 3 of the same bishops as Matt, and have discussed these with the police as confirmatory evidence to Matt’s story (as showing a pattern of behaviour). So I know that the police are indeed conducting an investigation into the failure of bishops to report disclosures of abuse.
Many years ago Steven Croft interviewed me for a tutor post at Cranmer Hall. I had been asked (at short notice) to give a brief sample lecture on a subject of my choice, and chose a Pastoralia talk on the pastoral care of sexual abuse survivors in the congregation. I had recently completed a thesis on the subject, which they knew. I introduced my lecture by outlining statistics on the prevalence of abuse and the near certainty that there will be several survivors in any given group of 10 or more people; and therefore the necessity of clergy knowing how to handle a disclosure and provide support to victims.
I got a standing ovation from the students, but during the subsequent interview Steven Croft objected strongly to my choice of topic. It wasn’t merely a question ‘why that topic’ (which ought to have been obvious – time for preparing it was very limited and the subject was my area of expertise). He was actually highly indignant. I’ve always thought that was odd. Surely any theological college vice principal wants their students to be thoroughly prepared for their ministry? And why such an emotional reaction?
I didn’t get the job, though I was the only candidate.
I’m sure your question, Janet, about “Why such an emotional reaction?” could be the basis for many more theses!
It seems to be linked to the recently reported comment from a clergyman to a survivor which included saying “I have had enough of the vexatious torrent of abuse over how we handle safeguarding. I wish that survivors would crawl back from under the stone that they came from.”
Are clergy taught to be curious about strong emotional reactions which they experience and to explore them in supervision?
Perhaps we could hear from the bishops about the processes through which they become more self-aware and open to new understanding.
I think I’ve mentioned my ordained friend who is a psychologist. He has spoken more than once to people about using his training, and has been blanked.
When people in positions of power, such as bishops, respond by blanking to these sorts of suggestions it’s important that the discussions continue with the next most appropriate group -e.g. those members of the clergy and laity who can see the wisdom in the suggestion rather than perceiving it as a threat.
Let’s work to get this conversation bigger and louder.
‘Are clergy taught to be curious about strong emotional reactions which they experience and to explore them in supervision?
Perhaps we could hear from the bishops about the processes through which they become more self-aware and open to new understanding.’
We certainly weren’t taught that in my day. That was a long time ago but I don’t see any indication that things have changed. Nor do most clergy have professional supervision in the sense you mean. I have a friend, a professional therapist, who also gave supervision to health professionals and one or two clergy, but they weren’t Anglicans. I learned a huge amount from him.
Nor do I see any signs that most bishops have processes by which they become more self-aware. Maybe they’ll be learning that in their current jolly on Lindisfarne? Though they all seem to be walking about in purple cassocks, and being ‘in uniform’ (especially uniform denoting rank) does militate against allowing yourself to be open and self-aware.
Really, the way the Church operates strongly reminds me of a Georgette Heyer Regency romance, where the whole idea is to sort things out via covert means without letting the truth be known. But even Heyer realised that in her 1930s detective books the police would have to be involved, and told the truth!
Lindisfarne eh? I was quite well acquainted with a former vicar of Lindisfarne, now gone to his eternal home. It’s a thin place. Let’s pray that God makes his way through all the protective clothing and is heard.
It’s interesting how victims of “unspeakable” experiences often need therapy in order to enable them to process what has happened and make what was unspeakable speakable then, when they get to tell their stories, it becomes the abusers and secondary abusers (those who have disbelieved them or been complicit with a cover-up) who need therapy to face reality and their own conduct.
I wonder how far on in the process the purple circle are in facing the reality of the church’s response to victims of church abuse and whether, as leaders of the institution, they have reached the point of contacting a therapist yet? It can be difficult to admit one’s own need for help but I’m not the first to say that to do so is a sign of strength rather than weakness.
It would be good if Bishops were asked to divest themselves of clerical garb if they were invited to answer questions under caution at a police station. Power dressing shouldn’t have a place there.
I have found that one of the dynamics that makes referring incidents to the police harder is that there are now many ex-police officers working as assistant DSA’s and many chair or sit on Safeguarding Reference (Management ) groups. In both of these roles money changes hands, in the first as a wage and in the second as ‘travel expenses’ or honorarium. This means that roles and reputations can become conflicted and influence within the ‘old boys network’ and masonic lodges of the police can also exert pressure to obfuscate.
I am not suggesting this would happen in cases where there is overwhelming evidence of criminal behaviour but certainly questioning can be a bit of a joke. My diocese is riddled with ex-police in positions of influence and I can honestly say that one of the poorest, most outrageous and dishonest responses into a formal complaint about the DSA has come from them. So sadly I wouldn’t go to the police with any sort of confidence, I just assume they are hand in glove with the diocese and MP.
If Matt reported his abuse to Sheffield diocese their safeguarding page hasn’t caught up with the publicity! Report safeguarding concerns about the clergy to the clergy not the DSA, and only a phone number given so no paper trail – brilliant all very transparent!!
You’d think that with all the publicity there’s been Sheffield would have got its act together! But it demonstrates the diocese has been very lax.
Interesting about the ‘no paper trail’. When I was submitting my Subject Access Requests to various dioceses and bishops’ offices, to see what records they held about me, I thought Lincoln Diocese was very progressive. They had on their website a form you can fill in. How convenient! I thought. But they were the only diocese not to reply at all, and of course I have no record of the SAR. Sly, isn’t it?Never fear, I’ll chase them up.
In dealing with abuse and the Establishment, it really does feel as if we are contending against ‘the principalities, the powers, the rulers of this world.’ And I think that’s what St. Paul meant by it, too.
I’d like to place on the public record that Matt has shown real compassion for his abuser, who took his own life.
Not every victim can find concern that an abuser who may have had mental health issues was also let down by our structures and systems.
Thank you Martin. It’s important that Matt’s compassion for his abuser is recognised and acknowledged.
In all of this welter of evil, a little good. I asked my friends here to pray for me as I asked for a licence. The answer has been yes. I’m so relieved! Thank you for your prayers.
Good point Martin, and one I can testify to.
Matt was denied justice, as was his abuser, through the incompetence and failure of the NST to act despite their knowledge that his abuser was vulnerable to serious mental health disturbance. I am aware that Matt extended sympathy and condolences to his family.
Through all of this – something fundamentally wrong at the core of the church’s structure has been fully exposed. And it all serves to show that the church cannot be trusted to respond to survivors safely or with anything like honesty. Matt’s situation is mirrored elsewhere in so many ways. Most people do not find the tenacity to push the cart uphill all the way in the way Matt has done – and he has had to do all that driving himself. I can also testify to that as well. I know only too well what that is like. And so too have so many others.
This church and its Faulty Towers structure have shown itself again and again in so many cases and situations – to be beyond salvage. This can only be redeemed by handing over management, training and professional supervision of their safeguarding to independent body. Remove DSA’s from the patronage of bishops and dsyfunctional cultures of deference within dioceses. Introduce consequences for failure to respond – the current CDM process is heavily skewered in favour of ‘purple circle’ protection of hierarchy and institution.
Major part of the problem is that the Church wants to control everything. Only one voice at Synod really questioned this. Dr David Dyson, Dean of St Paul’s – and if I’m right I think his words were along these lines: “why do we need to control everything, we’re clearly not expert at this – so let’s hand it over”. Martin will correct me if I’m wrong – but I think that paraphrase is as accurate as I can recall?
Things are going to get worse before they get better.
David Ison was certainly interesting and challenging. I know it was along those lines. I will check if the debate is yet transcribed. To the Chuech’s credit, all these contributions are made available verbatim as soon as they can be – it’s like Hansard.
I wasn’t called to speak n that debate, but to be fair I had emailed my views to many in advance of the debate so I had not gone unheard. That said. I would have liked the chance to react to what others were saying. I wanted to urge a large abstention vote to record unhappiness that the paper presented had not been be preceded by proper discussion in advance: it had good parts but the process culminating in a “ take or leave it” approach was not the best indicator of a refreshing change of culture.
Martin, maybe that’s why you weren’t called in the debate?
David Ison’s time at Bradford Cathedral will have shown him what damage can be done when predators aren’t dealt with. One of his predecessors was notorious.
Gilo, autocorrect has changed David Ison to David Dyson.
Otherwise I agree with all you say.
Athena, congratulations on getting your licence! That’s great news.
The full debate is available here at page 113
David Ison’s contribution is to be found at the bottom of p 119 https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/Report%20of%20Proceedings%20July%202018.pdf