The Terms of Reference released this week, for the proposed John Smyth Review, gives us information about the review process taking place over the next nine months by the Reviewer Keith Makin. With my readers I have tried to follow Smyth’s story as best I can ever since the Channel 4 presentation in February 2017. The Channel 4 programme detailed the now familiar story of beatings in a shed in Smyth’s back garden in Winchester between 1979 and 1982. At the time when this story broke, I was roused into writing a letter to the Church Times. This was in response to a claim that these beatings of devout school boys had no theological dimension. It was then quite clear to me that Smyth believed in the redemptive power of pain, which related to his evangelical ideas about the Atonement. No one then or now would concur with this warped attempt at religious justification. His behaviour was criminal. At the time of his death in August 2018, Smyth was facing extradition from South Africa to England to face charges.
The Terms document for this proposed Review contains a so-called ‘factual summary’ of the Smyth story. Although it cannot be expected to go into detail, the author of the document does not seem to understand the meaning of the word ‘fact’. I pass over the inaccuracy of the described relationship between the Iwerne Trust and the current Titus Trust. That is unimportant. What is important is the attempt to gloss over the relationship between Justin Welby and Smyth. The document declares as fact that Welby knew Smyth but ‘not substantially’. This claim may be in fact true but the Reviewer should take nothing for granted. He needs to ask questions without any answers being decided beforehand. Only diligent enquiry can establish whether or not a relationship with Smyth was substantial. Questions, as in a court of law, have to be asked about every aspect of Smyth’s network. From my perspective, Smyth’s social circle has to be fully understood to make sense both of his crimes and the cover-up that follows them. The Terms of Reference speak about the response of the Church of England and its officers to the allegations. The Church of England as a body probably knew nothing but considerable numbers of individuals associated with the Iwerne camps, many of them senior CofE clergy at the time or subsequently, appeared to know a great deal but chose to keep quiet.
This brings us on to a second important misleading claim in the factual summary. It states that John Smyth subsequently moved to Zimbabwe. The implication is that he had been ‘encouraged to seek work overseas’ by the committee who had investigated his behaviour on behalf of the Iwerne Trust. This seems to be a misstatement of what actually happened. In brief, substantial funds were pledged in England by Smyth’s Iwerne circle to allow him to run a mission in Zimbabwe. This focused on running Christian camps for young men. This financial support owed much to the Coleman family and their names appear as trustees for well over a decade. The question has to be asked as to whether the trust that supported Smyth was genuinely interested in mission work or whether it had another motive – to keep a lid on a major scandal. Smyth had become an embarrassment to his wealthy evangelical friends in England and so packing him off to Africa was an expedient solution to a problem. Various problems and complaints arose from these camps and they are well documented. I have a 1993 document downloaded from the net running to twenty pages which detail complaints by other Christian groups working in Bulawayo. The question that needs to be asked by the Reviewer is whether the UK Zambezi Ministries trustees took any action in response to these credible accusations. The death of the young man, Guide Nyachuru, was not the only accusation of harm. You could characterise the camps as centres set up to gratify the needs of a leader rather than help Zimbabwean young people to grow as Christians.
The problems with the way the facts of the past are recorded is not the only limitation the Terms of Reference reveal. The Reviewer, Keith Makin, may be a thoroughly honourable person but questions remain how effective his Review can be. There is, as we have claimed, a slanted ‘factual summary’ of the past. But, to help him potentially, there are the principles for conducting a good Review which Kate Blackwell QC so ably outlined on the Sunday programme. She emphasised how important it was to have all the information that was needed. It was also important for the commissioning body not to set out any parameters, whether of time or perceived relevance. Although a Church of England review is not one conducted according to strict legal principles, John Smyth’s alleged offences were criminal. This ought to give a seriousness to everything that is said and reported to the Reviewer. We can only hope that he can break through various artificial constraints that are already in evidence. The Church should be asked to find a way round the refusal of two key witnesses, Scripture Union and Titus Trustees to cooperate with the Review. Can it really be true that legal cases outstanding prevent the Titus trustees from sharing information? As important stakeholders, the absence of their witness will make the Review less valuable.
Two final comments on the nine-page Terms of Reference need to be raised. The main concern of survivors and their supporters is an answer to one simple question. How is it that the nefarious deeds of an important figure in the Iwerne/Titus network was so successfully covered up for over thirty years? Is no one going to explain to the rest of the church how and why this happened? A cover-up on this scale must have dragged numerous individuals into its embrace and the corruption necessarily involved is not good to contemplate. It is in other words not just the reaction of the Church of England that is of potential interest to an unbiased reviewer but all the other people among Smyth’s network who knew and did nothing. The same question can of course be asked of Jonathan Fletcher and the attempts at cover-up of his misdeeds that are continuing.
A thought for one group that gets a mention but little in the way of understanding or compassion, the surviving relatives of Smyth. They are victims in a different way from the survivors but they are likely completely innocent of his crimes. It would be good if they could be treated with respect instead of just having the review shared with them as an afterthought. Kate Blackwell in fact mentioned the involvement of every concerned party at the very start of the review process. This would include the relatives of a deceased alleged perpetrator as well as the victims/survivors.
The Terms of Reference for the examination of the case of John Smyth are like the curate’s egg – good in parts. It remains to be seen whether the Reviewer Kevin Makin can overcome the flaws of the Terms and produce a good and valuable Review. There will be many people watching, aware of the history of the Church in recent years to do everything to cover-up and bury truth if it appears to damage its image. As Kate Blackwell said in her broadcast, the most important people in a review are those who have been injured. Their verdict will be the one that matters. We await it with interest to see what they have to say.
I have thought long and hard about these matters, and can’t pretend to have any answers.
I once briefly met John Smyth, appearing as counsel, in the Winchester County Court at exactly the time of these events. He seemed a decidedly cool and aloof person (but a competent barrister). It would never have crossed my mind then that he might be a child abuser.
We are told that civil actions are pending, i.e., claims by some of the survivors. The police have investigated, and the current position is that they consider Smyth to be the only person who acted criminally. His sudden death prevented any prosecution.
This subject has now been vigorously debated on the ‘Thinking Anglicans’ website. Careful analysis of the precise language of the Terms of Reference reinforces the points which Stephen makes above.
This is an internal enquiry of the Church of England, not a second IISCA. Mr Makin cannot compel witnesses, although C of E clergy and staff will doubtless respond to what is asked of them (query: can retired C of E clergy be compelled?). Mr Makin is not authorised to make findings of fact; he can express a view based on the balance of probabilities. But the positions of the Titus Trust and the Scripture Union aren’t what one might expect after reading the ‘preamble’ to the Terms of Reference. Holding the Titus Trust and the Scripture Union “to account”, as suggested by one of the ‘Thinking Anglican’ contributors, is outside the remit of Mr Makin’s instructions.
The objective of the review “will allow those individuals who have indicated that they have sustained harm at the hands of John Smyth and given an account to the Church of England to describe their experiences. The Review will consider the actions of Church of England participants and will identity both good practice and failings in the Church’s handling of the allegations relating to John Smyth, including their safeguarding practice, in order that they can take steps to enhance and improve their response to allegations of abuse and, thereby, ensure the Church provides a safer environment for all.”
Mr Makin is specifically instructed to answer the questions in Paragraph 3 of the Terms of References: “(1) what did the Church of England (i.e. relevant officers and institutions) know about alleged abuse perpetrated by John Smyth, and (2) what was the response of the Church of England to those allegations.”
It will be noted that these extracts are wholly centred on the Church of England.
The Terms of Enquiry require Mr Makin “to consider approaching for evidence” the following:
(1) Survivors and those who have brought forward allegations of abuse, whether formally investigated or not, including those who wish to remain anonymous
(2) The Diocese of Ely;
(3) Hampshire Constabulary;
(4) Lambeth Palace;
(5) The National Safeguarding Team of the Church of England;
(6) The close living relations of John Smyth;
(7) The Warden and Fellows of Winchester College;
(8) The Round Church, Cambridge, and any associated church which may have promoted the Iwerne Trust; and
(9) Other related individuals.
It will be noted that he is to approach John Smyth’s family. No (9) could be seen to be a ‘catch-all’ but the inclusion of Winchester College and exclusion of the Titus Trust and The Scripture Union from the list must surely be significant.
What is clear is that the Enquiry is centred on the actions and responses of the Church of England. Any input by outside bodies will necessarily be voluntary.
And that is why this review is not what is needed to lay the matter to rest. Yet again the Church has formulated the terms of reference to limit the damage to itself and its own leaders, rather than to accomplish justice for the victims and survivors. Titus Trust and Scripture Union are equally guilty, and – ironically – the reputation of all 3 suffers by it.
What we need is to have reviews which meet QC Kate Blackwell’s criteria.
Yes, but, with respect, the kind of review which you want would require the equivalent powers of IICSA and the Church of England simply does not have such powers.
Evidence will not be taken on oath. The C of E cannot compel witnesses or involve other parties unless they participate voluntarily, and the report will not enjoy any legal privilege.
Given those facts, what do people realistically suggest as the alternative?
The kind of review which QC Kate Blackwell delineated on Radio 4s Sunday programme, in a discussion of the Matthew Ineson review, would do nicely. Anything less is really a waste of time and money.
I totally agree but would strongly suggest that the fact that it isn’t is intentional on the part of CofE to yet again control and cover up what it doesn’t want out there.
Exactly. The C of E has form: time and again it has been found to prioritise its reputation above the welfare of complainants and survivors.
Interesting stuff in the Church Times today. Including from Martin Sewell.
Just to repeat the point which is possibly being missed here, quoting from the Terms of Reference, the objective of the Review “will allow those individuals who have indicated that they have sustained harm at the hands of John Smyth and given an account to the Church of England to describe their experiences”.
It’s put in rather stiff, formal language, but that allows survivors to fully participate. And, later on, it states that they may do so anonymously.
I have explained that the Church doesn’t have the power to compel third parties, and that distinguishes this review from IICSA (which did have that power) and the model procedure described by Kate Blackwell QC. She was referring to the case of Matt Ineson, not John Smyth, and the significant difference is that Matt Ineson’s case does not involve third parties.
Martin Sewell’s letter to the ‘Church Times’, also reproduced on the ‘Thinking Anglicans’ site explains in detail how these matters should be handled. The germane point which Martin Sewell makes is that Matt Ineson’s case is, or should be, straightforward. His letter to the Church Times is worth reading in full.
Rowland, we haven’t missed that point – we just don’t think it’s sufficient.
Yet again the Church has dictated to survivors the terms of the review, instead of consulting them from the outset. And the Smyth survivors I’m in touch with don’t just want to describe their experiences: they want to know who knew what and when, and who participated in the cover up.
Janet: Have you taken on board my latest comment below, which was posted before yours? This opens up an entirely new arena. The Terms of Reference don’t mention abuse at Iwerne – unless they were being deliberately reticent about it.
Yes, I had seen it (and Martin’s letter) and I know this survivor. This is an illustration of why survivors need to be involved from the outset in formulating the terms of reference.
A development which, for me, puts a new perspective on this case.
Martin Sewell on the ‘Thinking Anglicans’ website has revealed that a victim received 800 strokes from Smyth at Iwerne – certainly the first time that I have heard any evidence that a beating had taken place at the camp itself.
I don’t think any further comments from me on the implications of this are necessary.
This was alluded to on archbishopcranmer 6.8.18 post, by Alan Wilson and Martin Sewell.
I read that. Whilst Martin Sewell’s article heading mentioned Iwerne, the text actually referred only to the garden shed. I don’t think there is any point to be taken here. Equally, abuse at Iwerne isn’t mentioned in the Review’s Terms of Reference. Martin Sewell and Janet Fife evidently knew about Iwerne, and the rest of us have just been told.
The implications of abuse at Iwerne as well as the shed are terribly obvious. How the review should proceed is now the salient issue.
I meant in the comments below. Both Alan Wilson and Martin Sewell said or implied in the comments below that article that there was a minority of abuse at Iwerne (? and elsewhere) as well as a majority in the shed.
Someone receiving 800 strokes would either be dead or have life changing and life long injuries that would be apparent on X rays and scans today. Recovery following such trauma would take months not weeks and significant health care would have to be administered at the time to prevent sepsis, fatal dehydration, muscle contracture and cardiac arrest. This would mean that there is evidence both today and I presume then on health care records and that parents and other significant care givers both at Irwene and outside must have known.
I have never suffered this level of physical violence but the tell tale signs are with me every day, the limp, the arthritis, the Boston brace and even the most junior doctor is quickly able to tell that my injuries and scars are not compatible with accidental trauma. This means that any review of survivors of serious physical abuse should include medical evidence as well (this was my experience of social care) as much can be learnt from the pattern and age of injury so making the balance of probability far more certain and could still lead to criminal proceedings today.
Hi Trish. Thanks for sharing this. I don’t know where I picked this up from, but I had the impression that the 800 would be a total over a period of time. This might affect how visible the wounds would be. But I also remember something from a survivor’s testimony that the boys would go back into the house and sit on the sofa with blood running down their legs, and trying to make polite conversation as if everything was normal. No further comment is needed there, either.
A childhood friend of mine received six strokes of the cane (at about age eight or nine, I think} from our primary school headmaster. What he had done wrong wasn’t apparent to him or anyone else present. These canings used to take place in front of the whole class, including girls, and now, almost 70 years later, I have no doubt whatsoever of the brutalising effect they had on witnesses as well as victims.
The bruising to my friend, was clearly visible to his mother afterwards who described them as “weals”. To repeat, that was ‘only’ six strokes and he was wearing trousers.
I believe it was Baroness Warnock (paradoxically from Winchester) whom we have to thank for the ending of such barbarous punishment in primary schools – and this one was a Church of England school.
Athena, this is what I read from Martin Sewell on Thinking Anglicans ‘The most severe beating of all, 800 strokes, did take place at Iwerne. John Smyth had to break for lunch as he was too tired.’ Martin also says it was reported at the time to the police but as Rowland says canings/beatings were an accepted part of child discipline in the 60’s and 70’s so it may not have been dealt with as severely as it should have been, if at all, I am assuming though that the report still exists for Mr. Makin to examine.
However in a newspaper article after the death of Smyth it does say 800 beatings overall so really not sure which is correct and not appropriate for me to speculate as clearly whatever took place was not lawful and for all those that suffered canings/ beatings, including Rowland’s friend, the psychological legacy is life long.
Oh, dreadful, I agree. I just wondered if the amount of visible injury had been “managed”. Which makes it harder to effect a prosecution. But I’d forgotten the bit about needing a break for lunch. What was allowed… it beggars belief. It’s sick.
English Athena: 800 strokes of the cane administered on bare flesh would surely constitute the offence of causing grievous bodily harm at the very least, and such an injury could not be disguised.
Martin Sewell’s post on the ‘Thinking Anglicans’ site states: “This is contemporaneously recorded and the police were given all the details”, but it is not 100% clear whether he meant that the facts were recorded at the time, but reported to the police much later, possibly when they began an investigation in 2017 – I suspect the latter. The police were seeking to extradite John Smyth in 2018 and this would have been an important piece of evidence both for his extradition and prosecution. His death intervened to prevent both.
The 800 strokes was the largest single beating. The Ruston Report mentions nothing else above 400. But it is important to note that Mark Ruston always took the lower estimate when people lost count and gave him a range of possible numbers. He did this to avoid exaggeration.
Trish you make a valuable point but I am not sure that the Reviewer appointed by the C/E is going to be allowed have that kind of overall view. Your comment about physical illness following abuse trauma is something that I am often noticing in the stories of survivors. When an individual suffers abuse, particularly as a child, that can apparently affect the immune system in dramatic ways . Obviously the legacy of physical illnesses later cannot be a proved connection with the original abuse, but the anecdotal evidence is strong.
Not a Christian book, but “The body keeps the score” makes the point about physical problems following trauma.
Thank you, Trish, for your courageous post and for telling us of your own experience.
I don’t think the point you make could possibly escape Mr Makin’s notice. We can only wait to see how he will deal with it. His professional background has trained him to investigate and evaluate every aspect of acts of abuse.
My apologies for the length of this post, and its lateness. I only picked up the following from the ‘Law and Religion’ website yesterday: update statements from the Titus Trust and the Scripture Union.
Titus Trust
“The Titus Trust welcomes the Church of England’s review into the Smyth case and has already shared a significant amount of information with the Church’s national safeguarding team, indicating to them several weeks ago that ‘We are very happy to be involved in a review and seek to be as transparent and supportive as we can be’ but that ‘we remain restricted by on-going legal action.’ We look forward to being able to participate in the review process to an even greater extent once the legal proceedings relating to the case are over.”
Scripture Union
“We remain deeply saddened by the accounts of abuse suffered by the victims of the late John Smyth, a trustee of Scripture Union from 1971 – 1979. That such acts were carried out by an individual who had been associated with Scripture Union is a matter of profound and sincere regret for us.
We maintain high standards of safeguarding for the children and young people in our care and continue to handle all cases with the utmost seriousness. Our commitment is to learn from what has happened in the past and continue to develop our safeguarding policies and practices. We have contributed to arrangements for independent counselling support for those affected by this case.
Having reviewed the Terms of Reference for the Church of England review, we decided not to participate and instead intend to conduct an independent review to learn lessons from our past connections with John Smyth. Initial extensive searches of our records show very little relevant information regarding the way in which the Iwerne camps were conducted in the 1970s and 80s.”
I would be astonished if Justin Welby knew John Smyth more than superficially. My understanding is that (in spite of internet statements to the contrary) he didn’t go to the camps as a schoolboy, and only helped as a junior officer on one or two camps after being converted at Cambridge. He became involved in charismatic groupings at Cambridge and afterwards, so like David Watson, he wouldn’t have remained a close part of Ewerne.
Yes. John Hutchison in ‘Persistently Preaching Christ’ is one who notes that Mark Ruston was the opposite of garrulous towards his student inmates.
Abp Justin’s connection with Iwerne was closer than that.
(1) In order to be a dormitory officer – well, the dormitory officer I remember from Easter 1991 was Vaughan Roberts who was obviously being trained for the top – so it is not a post that would have been held by someone who attended 1 or 2 camps or sporadically.
(2) He was at least sometimes part of the more trusted group that did school-to- school speaking – autumn 1982 he shared a very much appreciated talk about his Bible smuggling. He was not a core or regular part of this group and was not even entirely based in UK at the time.
(3) Thirdly he was not just an officer but one of the officers who was entrusted with giving talks.
(4) Fourthly he was conscientious in maintaining his link with Iwerne in what must have been a very busy schedule. There was a camp – and a more minor camp at that – when he arrived for a flying visit. I would imagine this was New Year 1987 rather than Easter 1991.
(5) At all events he was in the mid to late 1980s keen to maintain links (at the very least), even when unable to attend in full, and even if the camp was a more minor one. Good for him.
I think he may have by virtue of family, background, talent have fitted the prescription of key student from key institution. But more likely he was simply someone (regardless of wealth or snobbery) who would have been invited along by a Iwerne man such as Nicky Hills originally in the mid-70s.
The issue about whether or not Justin Welby knew Smyth well or not is not the issue in my comment. I am just objecting to the way that a ‘factual summary’ wants to wrap up the question. It is a legitimate area for questions to be asked if we are to have a proper truth finding enquiry. None of us were there so the people who were there need to questioned to make sense of what was going around the activities of Smyth. We are talking about cult-like activity by Smyth which went far beyond the 20 or so who were beaten.
Yes, it will be interesting to see the scope of Smyth’s web of influence. If you want to maximise your operation and also simultaneously keep it secret, there will certainly come a breaking point (1981).
He demonstrated secretiveness in:
-Keeping his activities from other leaders
-Telling victims not to mention what was happening
-Ensuring victims remained in very small groups of ones and twos etc.
The Bp of Buckingham’s idea that Iwerne was ‘John Smyth’s operation’ is pure spin, with an agenda. One honestly thinks that the impression that some want to give is that anyone who was not John Smyth or Jonathan Fletcher was their clone. In so doing, they just demonstrate the degree of their ignorance. Yes he held a supreme office. Yes he was heavily involved and constantly present. But Iwerne was at that time:
-a large organisation, with hundreds on the camps
-an organisation where the leader to boy ratio was terrific, something like 1:3
-an organisation where there were plenty of other significant leaders, some who in day to day matters would certainly figure larger than Smyth, who was atypical in background and especially in profession.
To compound this, the shoehorning of the Archbishop into the centre of the story is pure media spin (they seem to think that everything that is ever done ”has to” involve well-known names, as in Spitting Image), so that they downplay the generation gap between him and his ‘friends’. Simply by being selective with what is included and what is left out, very misleading impressions can be left without any lies actually being told. And they are blatant and unrepentant about this way of doing things. As I have discovered in recent exchange with a newspaper.
Fair comment …. I just worry that assumptions may get made, but I know that everything has to be checked …. and Smyth’s behaviour was such awful twisted stuff. I also believe that the rigid theology of Ewerne may have enabled his behaviour. My parents were involved with other similar camps (VPS – varsity and public school) and even as conservative evangelicals in the 1950s they regarded Bash camps as over rigid.
I wouldn’t want to tar the current Ewerne with the same brush as the 1950s or even the 1970s and 80s – From the small number of people I know connected with Ewerne, I suspect it is a very different camp now.
The 1950s were seen as a high point (and of course the first 50 years were scandal free, just like the last 37 years).
They produced church leaders of the highest calibre who were able to form much larger congregations and ministries than their peers. They were John Stott’s proteges of the Eclectics society – Lucas, Green, Watson, Sheppard. Of these, Lucas has carried on a similar tradition; Green strongly affirmed its influence (Bash was the single greatest influence on him) while adding a further charismatic dimension; Watson was inclined to see his new charismatic freedom as something bound to be restricted by Iwerne; and Sheppard identified with Iwerne less as time went on.
I strongly admire the character and self discipline of all these men, and the important thing is that we learn the keys and principles that would allow such character and self discipline to be emulated.