A guide to the situation at Christ Church Oxford.

Trying to make sense of what is going on

A casual reader could be forgiven for being totally confused and beginning to lose the plot over Christ Church Oxford and the travails of its Dean.  What started as a falling-out between a group of disgruntled dons and the head of their Oxford college, has grown into something far more substantial.  This blog piece is an attempt by an outsider to look at the substantial amount of new available information and try to make some sense of the facts that we are being given.  It may also help my readers to have this more recent material presented in a summarised, bite-sized version.  Some of the material is complex so setting out succinctly and, I hope, accurately, some of what is now in the public domain, may be helpful to a reader.   As we shall see, the complete story has yet to be told.

Back in 2018 a group of Christ Church dons made a complaint against Martyn Percy, their Dean and Head of College, accusing him of immoral conduct.  This complaint was made following the procedures available to them by the College statutes.  After a massively expensive enquiry, a retired judge, Sir Andrew Smith, threw out all twenty-seven charges and the Dean was re-instated.  The college appears to have spent over £2 million of their charitable funds in bringing their complaints forward and Dean Percy was forced also to employ legal support costing him £400,000.

Earlier this year the same group of complainants approached the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team to bring a further complaint against the Dean connected with safeguarding issues.  This complaint procedure is on-going.  Once again Dean Percy is forced to employ legal help as the NST have, in response, set up a quasi-legal Core Group to investigate the complaint.  This is where the situation becomes complex and the subject of procedural and legal arguments. 

  • A major issue yet to be resolved in the case is this.  Dean Percy wears two hats in his unusual double role.  On the one hand, he is a Dean of a Cathedral where Church safeguarding rules could come into operation if required.  On the other side he is the head of a college at a university which has its own set of protocols and guidelines.  A similar situation would exist for a school, prison or hospital chaplain.  While they are working in their respective work environments, chaplains have to work according to rules set by the institution that employs them.  In cases of safeguarding, Church and State have differing standards and regulations.  The Church has rules which talk about ‘vulnerable adults’.  All other non-church organisations, including universities, adhere to regulations which speak of a category referred to as ‘adults at risk’.  The precise definitions of these two expressions do not concern us at this point, but suffice to say, they are not the same.  It is hard to see how Dean Percy could be expected to operate according to two distinct sets of guidelines simultaneously.  It is clear anyway that all the safeguarding complaints are to do with episodes of college life, i.e. in areas of his responsibility where the Church has no obvious role or access.
  • The case seems to be full of potential conflicts of interest which make it almost impossible for the Core Group to work with an adequate level of independence.  There are just too many personal ties that exist between the Dean’s accusers and the publicity companies and legal firms who have now become involved in the case.  We obviously do not have all the facts of who knows whom, but there is a miasma of suspicion about the process which makes it hard to see how there will ever be a calm dispassionate examination of the facts. The two non-church organisations prominent in the case each have a lot of history and involvement with both Christ Church and the Church of England central structures.   One is the public relations firm, Luther Pendragon.  They have already been working for the complainant dons in their earlier case against their Dean in 2018.  They also do work for the Church of England and several of the dioceses.  Alongside Luther Pendragon is Winckworth Sherwood, a firm of top end London lawyers.  They are extensively involved with church work at the national level and also with the Provincial Registrar and the diocese of Oxford.   WS, as we shall now call them, used to be run by the Rev John Rees, who now works for the national Church at a senior level.  The letter sent to Martyn telling him that he faced investigation by the NST was written in the name of Melissa Caslake, the director, but it appears to have been drafted by another senior lawyer with connections with WS, Alex McGregor.  He is a priest lawyer who used to be chancellor for the Diocese of Oxford.  The WS Oxford office was also drawn in to issue the letter from the Bishop of Oxford to George Carey, removing his PTO. 
  • Given the close personal and professional ties that can be seen to bind all the individuals within these firms with the national church and with members of Christ Church, we would have expected to see a number of recusals from the Core Group. It is surely impossible for members of such a small network to regard themselves as independent in regard to this investigation.  In actual fact, 13 out 14 members of the Percy Core Group are believed to have personal or professional links with WS.  Two of Dean Percy’s accusers sit on the group while no one represents the interests of the Dean himself.  Further, Alex McGregor, the member of the Church’s legal team and who reputedly drafted the letter to Martyn, is an alumnus of Christ Church.  He can be expected to have continuing social and other contact with some of the dons involved in the case. 
  • The minutes of the Christ Church Core Group, which met on March 13th 2020, have not yet been released.  The various conflicts of interest that would appear to be in operation, in bringing together such a group, need to be fully explored.  The group that is claiming to seek justice for the Dean needs to explain how they feel able to do this with any degree of integrity while these apparent conflicts of interest are neither acknowledged nor examined.  There is also something less than healthy when committee proceedings are apparently wrapped up in secrecy.  The Carlile report, which scrutinised the processes in the case around Bishop Bell, called for all such Church core groups to carry representation of the interests of the complainants and the accused.  That, clearly, is not happening in this case.  The impression is being given that the whole process is an expensive and dishonourable exercise in trying to wear down the Dean by litigious-type activities.  To their shame, the Church of England has allowed itself to become party to a what appears to be a thoroughly shameful process.  The NST has been manipulated to become part of something so toxic that it may itself be destroyed by this involvement.
  • The reputations of two organisations are being severely damaged by this episode.  Christ Church dons have already seen twenty-seven accusations against the Dean rejected by a retired judge.  The repeat of the attacks on the Dean with a completely new set of accusations, while using another legal structure, seems foolish and even reckless.  The reputation of the Christ Church college has been muddied and brought low by this case.  At the same time the status of the Church of England is taking an equally heavy battering.   The Church, with the connivance of its top legal officers has allowed a church legal process to be used in a dispute within a wealthy Oxford college.  It is surprising that the advice of the Church’s own publicity machine and its reputation managers was not there to check this appalling waste of human and financial resources.  At a time of financial anxiety for the parishes and cathedrals of England, congregations are witnessing the expenditure of tens (even hundreds) of thousands of pounds of church money on this case.  This is money that properly belongs to the Church.  Quite apart from the evident flakiness of the case, the Church of England has allowed one of its structures to be used, abused and, arguably, totally discredited in pursuing a case which appears ultimately to be beyond its remit.  Let us hope that General Synod at its meeting in two weeks time will be able to do something to reverse this terrible train crash.

About Stephen Parsons

Stephen is a retired Anglican priest living at present in Cumbria. He has taken a special interest in the issues around health and healing in the Church but also when the Church is a place of harm and abuse. He has published books on both these issues and is at present particularly interested in understanding how power works at every level in the Church. He is always interested in making contact with others who are concerned with these issues.

9 thoughts on “A guide to the situation at Christ Church Oxford.

  1. “Further, Alex Macgregor, the member of the Church’s legal team and who reputedly drafted the letter to Martyn, is an alumnus of Christ Church. He can be expected to have continuing social and other contact with some of the dons involved in the case.”

    *Possibly*. However, the dons who are likely to have taught Mr McGregor (who read modern [sic.] history) are/were: (i) Katya Andreyev, a specialist in nineteenth century Russian and Ukrainian history; (ii) Christopher Haigh (whose wife, Alison Wall, another early modernist, also taught there); (iii) William Thomas, a specialist in early nineteenth century British political history and philosophy; and (iv) Patrick Wormald, an Anglo-Saxonist. The other college historian was Peter Hinchliff. All are retired, save Wormald, who died tragically young in 2004, and Hinchliff, who died suddenly in 1995. John Mason – largely a medievalist – was still around in the early/mid 1990s, but he died in 2009.

    The only one of these whom I understand has expressed a public opinion on the Percy case is Dr Haigh, an RC (one of the ‘revisionist’ historians of the English Reformation), who along with several other eminent colleagues wrote to the ‘Times’ in support of the protesting students. Dr Haigh is a former senior censor.

    None of the chapter from McGregor’s time there are still around: in addition to Hinchliff, Ronald Gordon and Frank Weston are also dead; John Drury is chaplain fellow of All Souls’; Keith Ward has retired to Abingdon; Oliver O’Donovan has retired to Dunfermline, whilst the college chaplain, Michael Jackson, is archbishop of Dublin.

    Of course it is possible that Mr McGregor remains in contact with his former tutors and other members of the SCR.

    Mr McGregor succeeded Stephen Slack as head of the Legal Office in the Commissioners last year.

    Are WS a firm of ‘top end’ lawyers? I think that they are a fairly distinguished Westminster firm, whose relationship with the Commissioners has waxed considerably over the last twenty or so years, arguably at the expense of Lee Bolton & Lee (now Lee Bolton Monier-Williams) and one or two other firms. They have also done much work for the Met. However, I think it would be a little bit of a stretch to characterise WS as a ‘top end’ firm; as parliamentary agents they will probably have to yield place to Pitmans, i.e., the old Bircham Dyson Bell (and possibly also Eversheds), and as private client lawyers to other ‘mid-town’ and ‘west end’ firms. It is true that they have largely ‘cornered’ the Church market, not that it’s much of a market.

    1. Mention of Patrick Wormald reminds me that his late mother (who married the ‘difficult’ Brian Wormald – biographer of Clarendon and Bacon, and dean of chapel at Peterhouse before converting to Roman Catholicism) was the sister of Lord Lloyd of Berwick, whose interventions in the Peter Ball affair will be recalled by some SC readers.

      Wormald was a very brilliant but self-destructive personality.

  2. Stephen, I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the detail of your post: Martin Sewell and I have written about the situation at Christ Church, Oxford, in our open letter to General Synod members and Martin has followed this up with his lengthy (4,000+ words) open letter in reply to Peter Adams, published as part of a post on Archbishop Cranmer on 5 July. All three letters/posts can be accessed via links on Thinking Anglicans:
    https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/christ-church-vs-martyn-percy/

    However, may I correct one point at the end of your post. The meeting of General Synod (a ‘virtual’ informal meeting via Zoom) is not in two weeks time: it is this coming Saturday, 11 July, from 10.30 am to 4.30 pm. There will be two sessions of ‘Question Time’, from 11.45-12.45 and from 15.00-16.00. Around 140 written questions have been submitted, and these include some arising out of the situation at Christ Church. The Q&A paper with the written answers should be available to download from the GS pages of the C of E website tomorrow, 8 July. The two ‘Question Time’ sessions on Saturday will provide the opportunity for GS members to ask oral supplementary questions, but there will be no debate about safeguarding or Christ Church.

    (The meeting is informal in that neither our governing Measure nor our standing orders have been amended yet to enable the Synod to have a formal ‘remote’ meeting. Hopefully, this will change before November so that, if we cannot by then meet physically at Church House (the dates set are 23-25 November 2020), we will be able to hold a virtual meeting when we can consider formal business, including draft legislation. However, I understand that Saturday’s meeting will be open to anyone to view via a livestream link on the C of E website.)

  3. I’m not sure that it explains everything about involvement of the SMT Core Group, but this is William Nye’s answer to General Synod Question 91:

    “Mr William Nye to reply as Secretary General:
    “A: The clergy of any peculiars other than Royal Peculiars are subject to the ordinary disciplinary processes of the Church including the provisions of the Clergy Discipline Measure. Christ Church, Oxford is not a Royal Peculiar. I apologise for the error in my evidence to IICSA. I have written to the Inquiry to correct my evidence and to apologise for the error.“

    I don’t think there can be any room for argument, albeit that the Crown is the Visitor, that Christ Church is not a Royal Peculiar, otherwise it would not have been possible for the Governing Body – with the agreement of the Chapter – to have suspended and sought to dismiss the Dean.

    1. Rowland, by ‘SMT’ do you mean ‘NST’? Or is there another group involved?

      1. A ‘senior moment‘ – apologies to all. It should be ‘NST’.

  4. I hope this is not thought too off topic but I think the theme of lack of transparency is the basis for both my comment and this post. I have read some of the General Synod questions and question 17 makes reference to a group of survivors termed the SRG (Safeguarding Refernce Group) that have been working with the NST to look at issues surrounding learning reviews, have sat on interview panels, presumably one of them being for the newly appointed Partnership director (survivor engagement person) and will help this person develop strategic ways of engaging survivors.

    However no terms of reference, contact details or membership are available for this SRG so they are not accountable to other survivors or even contactable. The issues they are collaborating with the NST on are important to many survivors yet the SRG has seemingly not asked for the views of the wider survivor community. My understanding is they work in partnership with SCIE, who did the audits, so they cannot be viewed as independent if this remains the case.

    Any enquiries I make are blanked and I have felt reabused by this lack of openness and inclusivity. If anyone can shed some light on this mysterious group I would be grateful?All survivors deserve a voice not just those that the NST favours!

Comments are closed.