In the early 1990s a first attempt was made by the Church of England to draw up a formal safeguarding policy. This was undertaken by the then Bishop of Bath and Wells, Jim Thompson. According to Josephine Stein, in her essay in the book Letters to a Broken Church, this Bath and Wells document laid down the principle that the Church’s insurers should be immediately contacted whenever an accusation of abuse against a clergyman was made. Stein also observes that, thirty years on, the Church still operates with the legacy of this legal confrontational approach. When survivors of past abuse appear and seek help and support from the Church, what they often encounter is not compassion and understanding, but a wall of hostility and defensiveness, erected in part by the Church’s insurers and legal advisers. The one seeking help becomes the enemy to be fought vigorously by any legal methods available. This is something we explored when we looked at the story of Professor Julie McFarlane. She described the process of seeking justice from the Church as a ‘brutal’ one.
From the Church’s point of view, the policy of the past thirty years to rely heavily on legal processes in dealing with abuse complaints has mostly been a success from a financial perspective. The task of making the Church accountable in any way for the abuse, has proved, for survivors, onerous and unpleasant. Many would-be complainants have simply given up at an early stage. Others have simply disappeared, and the Church has been able to wash its hands of them, legally and pastorally. With this disappearance, potential financial burdens for the Church have also decreased. The few that have persisted in their complaining have had to cross numerous difficult hurdles to cross. The consensus among the survivors that I know is that the legal process to be endured after an experience of abuse is far worse than the original event. It is not surprising that there are relatively few survivors who are still visible in the public domain. They are a small cohort. Perhaps they can be seen as the heroic representatives of the much larger group of fellow abusees who have withdrawn from the field.
It would be good to say that the law of the land is an institution that is designed to bring justice to every citizen. In practice, it is those who have deep pockets who gain the most advantage from the system of law as we have it. It is here that institutions have tremendous advantage over individuals. An institution will, when feeling under any kind of threat, always be able to outspend an individual. Christ Church Oxford, an enormously wealthy college, has used some (well over £1 million) of its corporate resources in its attempts to remove the Dean, Martyn Percy. He, by contrast, has no access to the largesse of the college to defend himself from these attacks. He has had to find, according to the press, the eye-watering sum of £400,000 to pay for specialist lawyers. Quite apart from the rights and wrongs of this case, this situation of financial imbalance is something grossly unfair. A well-endowed institution can, through its wealth, have a legal clout which is difficult for any individual to compete with. As a small side point, I am proud to have made a small contribution to a fund that has helped to pay some of Martyn Percy’s legal costs,
Over the past two or three years, when the stories of survivors have come more and more into the public domain, the legal shenanigans being played against these survivors have come into clearer view. Among the methods being employed to maximise the advantage of the institution in legal cases, here the Church of England, I have noted the following. In one case I heard of a bishop, questioned under caution by the police about a safeguarding failure, who was accompanied to the interview by a top London QC. No doubt the bill for this QC was paid for by the central funds of the Church of England. Another example of playing the system to lessen the liability claims of survivors, is to employ lawyers who know how to intimidate witnesses through aggressive questioning. Also, the Church or its insurers, employ ‘expert witnesses’. These may, unchallenged, declare their opinion that a survivor was mentally fragile before the abuse and thus the claim for compensation should be lowered. In one case I know about, the ‘expert’ signed such an assessment of an abuse survivor without having met him. It is always helpful to an insurance company (and the Church employing it) to produce experts who can testify to such preexisting mental fragility. Were a full trial of an abuse case ever to occur as way of determining these liabilities, no doubt the sums involved would be huge. When such church abuse cases are settled ‘out of court’, as they regularly are, the sums actually paid out are modest. To receive £20-30,000 after a life-changing experience of abuse, having also endured a gruelling legal process during which your integrity may be attacked and your true motives for bringing the case challenged, is hardly worth it. The reason that these survivors are prepared to go on risking their physical and mental health in order to pursue these claims, is seldom about money. It is, as far as I can see, that they have a belief in justice, justice for themselves and for many others. These others for reasons of their own have laid low to avoid the ‘brutal’ processes that the institution throws at them through an aggressive use of the law.
Treating survivors as legal problems to be solved will of course be a long way from a pastoral approach. Most clergy, from bishops downwards, will have a built-in pastoral instinct in their response to episodes of abuse. The culture of legal protectionism has, however, entered deep into the system so that nearly everyone in the Church involved with safeguarding, may be inhibited in the way they react. Instead of using their instinct for offering pastoral care, they think legal liability, protocol and the possibility of someone, even themselves, being sued. This situation of trying to deal with a pastoral situation of abuse from within a kind of legal mind-set will, of course, create strong dissonance. Such dissonance will be combined with other emotions, fear, uncertainty and doubt. What should be a straight-forward task of knowing the right way to react when disclosures are made, instead becomes fraught and hard to negotiate. What I am effectively saying is that that the legacy of Jim Thompson’s early attempts at safeguarding protocol has cast a long shadow in the Church. We now live in an institution that is more fearful, less spontaneous and more inclined to seek safety in the place of love. I am not sure whether we can ever return to a Church which practises trust and spontaneity again. Perhaps we will be able to, but first we will need to identify and hopefully, exorcise the spirit of fear in our dealings with one another in the area of safeguarding and relating generally. We need to rediscover the spirit of generosity and care when we meet others, especially those who have come through the terrible ordeal of being the victims of some kind of abuse within the Church.
It’s always difficult when taking other potential victims into account. It’s like the cowboy movie where the baddie holds a gun to our hero’s head and says “Do this or I’ll shoot you”. He says, “Never”, and the baddie holds the gun to the heroine’s head and says, “Then I’ll shoot her”. If you give up on pursuing your claims, and I have, to a degree you are leaving other people to be shot.
I think we have previously discussed the subject of pre-existing mental (and equally physical) fragility of a victim here, or it might have been on a ‘Thinking Anglicans’ thread.
The argument being advanced that such a condition should reduce an award of damages for personal injuries is completely spurious (and those advancing it, whether insurers or lawyers must be aware that it is spurious). English law is not so heartless as this.
The correct legal concept is known as the ‘Eggshell Skull Rule’ which can be translated in everyday language as “You take your victim as you find him” (or “her”, of course). The unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defence to the seriousness of any injury caused to him or her, and he/ she is to be compensated for the injury suffered without any reduction on that account.
Couldnt you say that if there was a pre-existing mental fragility , then they were more vulnerable ? So the abuse is worse.
I am not the best person to answer this, but I think that it’s widely accepted that abusers ‘target’ a vulnerable victim, so they have some perception of vulnerability. Yes, I agree that makes the abuse morally worse.
The proper level of compensation depends upon the medical examiner(s) being properly instructed. That should happen automatically if the claimant has a competent solicitor on board.
I have mentioned on another thread the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority which will handle claims with integrity, but that is a Government-funded body. It can only provide financial compensation without any direct redress against the abuser, so it cannot ‘fill the gap’ completely.
I was thinking that, but you put it better, Christopher. Give yourself a break, it sounds as if you need it.
Thank you for your comments Stephen , it is so comforting that someone understands and cares.
I think i am close to the point of giving up on justice for my own abuse within my Diocese.
When you have the DSA and the new Bishop telling you to shut up and go away , then where do you turn ?
I am so devastated by the behaviour of my Diocese that i am beginning to mistrust everyone except other victims.
Christopher, sorry to hear this. You can always try the media; they are interested in such stories nowadays and will preserve your anonymity if you wish. And the Church sometimes gives in to media pressure when it has otherwise proved resistant to doing the right thing. It’s the modern equivalent of the unjust judge eventually doing right by the persistent widow.
Thank you Janet ,
Maybe when i feel stronger i will try that.
But i feel so hurt at the moment that all i can do is try to dissociate.
Take it gently and look after yourself. And find any support you can.
Good to have you with us Christopher. If you visit this blog over a period of time you will meet other survivors and you may find some strength from knowing their support. Things generally do seem to be moving in the right direction and Bishops who behave badly have fewer places to hide.
So sorry to hear this, Christopher. I am going through my own core group thing at the moment, and I have found some good people working in a flawed system. Will say more in a separate reply
I also co-run a survivors organisation which has a small private peer support group. If I/we can help in any way do please get in touch connect@survivorsvoices.org.
I hear how tough & painful it is. Take good care of yourself. Do you have any support?
Hi Chris, so sorry to hear you are fighting a losing battle, join the club! I don’t know if this would be a way to being heard and seen a bit more but the Past Cases Review 2 have a helpline operated by the NSPCC the number is 0800 80 20 20, you will get to speak to a call handler and then an adviser and they can help you to talk to the independent reviewer that your diocese has commissioned to conduct the reviews. This by- passes the DSA and means that you can discuss your case with an independent person. However the independent reviewer cannot take action (how ridiculous!) but if there is a problem that they feel the diocese is ignoring it would be highlighted. PCR2 is in no way perfect but maybe it would be a way to give yourself a voice in a fairly safe way. Take care.
Thank you so much Trish , the Nspcc number has been publicised to i gave it a go and made complaints about 3 people plus the PCC.
I also updated my complaint saying i really wanted to speak to the IR , but ive heard nothing.
I wonder whether i could get contact details of my IR to make my case.
I have put some faith in PCR2 but if i keep quiet i fear my case will be further covered up.
Thank you for replying Jane , i have had pockets of support outside the establishment although not lately.
I suppose i expected support from the DSA and the new Bishop (libby Lane) .
The DSA became the problem rather than the solution , and Libby slammed the door in my face.
So sad. I can pray, but sadly, I have no advice. All the best, Christopher.
Oh Stephen, thank you for this. I think it goes to the heart of the problem. I am supposed to be on a social media/abuse break this week, but can’t resist this as have SO much I could say.
I originally reported non-recent abuse in early 2000s (abusive response from bishops) and re-reported last autumn. There has been a big improvement. They are taking my report seriously, they did refer to the police, there is a current investigation, I have been helped to find appropriate support. Some people have shown great care and compassion.
However, as I recently fed back to my core group, however genuine & caring individuals are, the system is flawed and built on sand. It’s a perpetrator-centred system, essentially risk management. The survivor is essentially a trigger & then an afterthought. We are not represented on the core group and have no agency. I receive a heavily redacted report of the progress of the investigation, because of privacy. I have had redacted minutes of core group, but only because I put in a DPA subject access request. I am told that many of my questions can’t be answered because of DPA. one of my abusers died 2 weeks ago (before he cld be interviewed) & now I am told nothing else can happen because he is dead. This makes sense if the only point is risk management, but not if you are a survivor seeking justice.
The system is based on managing risk, not responding with compassion and care and restorative justice to survivors. I don’t see much compassion for abusers either. People who abuse need accountability, boundaries, challenge, treatment that gets to the root of their behaviour. The Circles of Support programme is a good model. The church needs less lawyers, data protection experts, insurers, & more trauma-informed, trained circles of support for both people who have been abused and people who abuse.
Statutory safeguarding has moved in this direction, although budget cuts means practice often falls short of policy. (I still have a little involvement in children’s risk) In child protection, everyone sits down in a meeting and uses a strength-based approach (eg 3 Houses tool) to identify protective as well as risk factors & create a plan to keep child safe. The child’s views, wishing & feelings must be considered & their best interests are paramount. In Children Act complaints, the child’s wishes & feelings are equally important.
How different church safeguarding would be if it wad centred around the wishes & feelings of victims. If the survivor (or their advocate) was at every core group, and the focus was on restorative justice and healing, as well as safeguarding.
A compassionate response is not legalistic or moneterist. It puts the needs of survivors before the protection of the institution. Actually that also serves the institution well. The church destroys itself too, when there is no justice or compassion.
Jane, if an abuser dies, they can’t reply, so, no trial. But fact finding is useful and helpful. It makes me cross when officialdom says you can’t do anything. You obviously have far more helpful advice than I do. Power to your elbow!
The Data Protection issue is a huge one Jane that is being challenged. The church uses it as an excuse not to do many things but the Information Commissioner’s Office always says that safeguarding takes priority over data protection so even though your abuser is dead if other vulnerable victims can be identified from case files they should be. The investigation into Jimmy Saville only really took hold once he was dead and through that many victims were given a voice if not justice.
The over redacted document is a real slap in the face and I know the intense, burning rage that comes with that. Yet of course if we as the victims go into melt down we are looked at as being mentally unstable!
Trish I am very pleased to hear others are challenging the data protection issue as I am trying to do that at the moment. Talking with ICO & IICSA & a lawyer friend. If you have any contacts I can connect with, I would be very grateful for an introduction, jane@survivorsvoices.org
Always power in numbers.
I tried to get the church data protection officer to explain how balancing privacy with safeguarding responsibility but no good answer yet.
Thank you Trish and Jane for this helpful practical advice. I hope other survivors will find it. This area of where Data Protection meets confidentiality is not one I feel capable of expounding, even if I claimed to understand it properly. The fact is that some dioceses do well and some don’t is a matter of great concern. Basically some bishops seem to take the line ‘I can’t be bothered with this’. They then instruct the DSAs to make it disappear. Unfortunately for them, the internet has been invented and so survivors can contact one another and find out what is going on elsewhere. That is power and power is needed by these survivors to reclaim their lives and well-being.
I like the way you put it “instruct DSA to make it disappear”.
I wonder what the role of the DSA is ?
Is it to safeguard people , or to safeguard the church ?
One Timothy six verse ten, generally translated as The love of money is a root of all evil, is in the plural in the Greek, so can be read as a root of all kinds of evil. Whenever I observe evil in our society now, an early question in my mind is who is benefitting financially from this. It seems to apply here.