It has proved difficult to understand all the goings on at Christ Church Oxford and the trials of its Dean, Martyn Percy. I hesitate to write more on the topic, but the subject clearly falls within the scope of this blog. Abuse of power within a Church context is what Surviving Church is concerned about, so we need to examine some of the new information that is emerging from Christ Church and attempt to master some of the detail. One of the features of the affair is that, as with the case of the Midlands parish I wrote about earlier last month, we need, for proper understanding, to look beyond the people at the centre. The question of whether the Dean did or did not do a particular action is not the focus of this article. What is important is the way that people within large institutions have reacted and behaved, both individually and corporately. We need also to debate and decide whether these responses are reasonable and proportionate.
After reading a lot of material on the subject (including the report of Andrew Smith’s tribunal) I realise that I cannot present the material within the normal length of one blog post. I have therefore decided to divide the material I have into two halves. The first half will be addressing the activities of two of the individuals in the narrative. In each case there are queries as to whether they have maintained necessary standards of ethical and just behaviour. Recent happenings concerning the Dean at Christ Church can only be understood in the context of the attempt by a small group of dons to remove him. The Dean has been vindicated on two separate occasions. Charges against him have been examined and after a lengthy Tribunal under a senior High Court judge, the Dean was fully exonerated. Some of the evidence provided by witnesses before the Tribunal was been shown to be false or misleading. In spite of these two public vindication of the Dean,(including the Core Group case in September last group) this small group of dons have continued in their efforts to oust him.. The recent third attack began only in October 2020.
I have taken the view that the huge activity and expenditure by Christ Church and the Church of England have gone way beyond a reasonable level. One thing is clear. A College has allowed itself to engage in the deliberate (project-managed) persecution of its head. The use of this word persecution is deliberate. How else can one describe three separate attempts to remove the head of an Oxford College by a group of disaffected senior members? The College deserves a break from the destructive publicity and eye-watering expenditure that has taken place for over two years.
A detailed reading of the Smith Tribunal report is not a light task. The disputes of 2017/2018 centred mainly on the question of pay and how remuneration should be calculated. One striking part of the report is the sheer number of accusations brought against the Dean. One by one Judge Smith rejected each of them suggesting the Prosecutor’s interpretation of the Dean’s actions or decisions did not carry the suggested implications of bad faith or malfeasance. The Bishop of Oxford was also brought into the affair when he was briefed by one of the accusers who suggested that the Dean was involved in manipulating the College Salaries Board. The sheer energy expended by these senior members of the College in bringing all these charges as a way of removing the Dean suggest a degree of organised and determined malevolence.
Prof. Graham Ward was a complainant for the first attack on the Dean. After these complaints were all thrown out by the Smith Tribunal, Professor Ward went on to have himself appointed to the Core Group set up by the NST in March 2020 to examine some alleged safeguarding concerns relating to the Dean. When it became obvious that his presence on the Core Group was totally inappropriate, he and another of the complainants (the Senior Censor, Prof. Geraldine Johnson) were removed from the Group. For most people, this failure to notice that Ward’s presence on the Core Group was a clear impediment to the quest for truth and justice, would have resulted in deep embarrassment, even shame.
And now, Ward is taking a prominent role in the latest attempt to oust the Dean. He is named as the complainant on the CDM taken out as part of the current enquiry. This is the latest round of the Great Persecution, as we can call it. Two efforts to remove the Dean sponsored by Ward have so far failed. We might have expected that he might retreat back into the shadows, out of public view. No, the public and personal animosity towards Martyn Percy appears deep. It goes to the point where Ward is prepared to risk his personal and professional reputation.
Ward seems to be pursuing a vendetta. Could it by any chance have anything to do with the fact that he was also on the short list for the job of Dean back in 2014? Is the display of vindictiveness a mark of professional jealousy? Whatever the actual reality, the appearance in this case is what counts. Ward’s behaviour over the Percy affair has the appearance of being neither honourable nor in pursuit of justice.
We need to return to the situation that pertains to Christ Church now. Back in October of this year, an investigation was commissioned by the College against the Dean to ‘establish the facts and circumstances of an alleged sexual act against an adult woman. The allegation was presented to the police as a potential ‘sexual assault’, and to the NST and the Charity Commission as ‘safeguarding’.
In a process that has not been explained, Kate Wood, a safeguarding professional, was appointed to undertake the enquiry. Obviously one would expect any such investigation to be completely objective and even-handed to search out the truth. Several queries about the investigation have arisen to make us ponder if this exercise reached the necessary standard of objectivity and comprehensiveness that is required. It should be obvious that such an investigation needs to be thorough and impartial, It should also be free from conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts of interest.
One extraordinary fact about the appointment is that the College has apparently successfully recruited a professional safeguarding expert who asserts she knew nothing prior about Martyn Percy and the political events at Christ Church since 2018. Given the amount of coverage afforded to the Percy case over three years, this appointment is a major achievement. One might have expected an investigator to do some homework before agreeing to the assignment. A casual search on Google would have identified previous spats, including some major concerns about safeguarding. In the earlier version of this blog I expressed the fact that my ‘credulity was stretched’ over this assertion, but we have to take Wood’s claim at face value.
Another claim that concerned me (and that worry was also articulated in the first draft), was the assertion that Ms Wood had never met before or during her investigations either Professor Ward or Professor Foot (another key player in the Smith Tribunal proceedings). Documents for the Wood investigation specifically mention Prof Foot as someone to be interviewed, as she had contact with the alleged ‘victim’. Professor Foot is the Chapter Treasurer so presumably must have agreed Ms Wood’s fee with her? Professor Ward himself claims to have been, with the Sub-Dean, the commissioner for Ms Wood’s report. Prof Ward is also the Cathedral Safeguarding Lead, so it would be a curious omission for Ms Wood to claim that she had never heard of or spoken to Ward.
Also of concern – and here I am only considering potential conflicts of interest- is Wood’s work on the very recent Whitsey inquiry together with Elizabeth Pollard (aka Polly) of the NST. Wood and Polly are colleagues, and Polly is a friend of the Senior Censor at Christ Church. It is possible that the two women have no knowledge of each other, but it is not unreasonable to suggest that there might have been some overlap.
In responding to my queries about Ms Wood’s objectivity and independence, she wrote to me as follows.
Prior to being commissioned for the investigation, I had never heard of MP, (Martyn Percy) I had no knowledge of previous allegations, and no knowledge of his commentary on other national cases. I ‘met’ him for the first time when I interviewed him on Zoom regarding this case.
I have never met Sarah Foot and did not interview her.
I was not commissioned by Graham Ward. I have never met him apart from him being at the Zoom meeting where I presented facts from my investigation.
I do not have any direct professional relationship with Elizabeth Pollard. Our paths have crossed on a couple of occasions. I believe she came to the NST many years after I had left Lambeth Palace
Graham Ward and the Sub-Dean signed off on risk assessments regarding the Dean, and these are counter-signed by Wood. They identify the Dean as being a ‘high’ or a ‘medium’ safeguarding risk in potentially perpetrating further ‘sexual harassment or sexual assaults, on staff, students or minors. It would be odd if Wood had not discussed these documents with those members of Chapter.
The old adage that he ‘who pays the piper, calls the tune’ is of importance in this Christ Church narrative. No one is suggesting that because Kate Wood is being paid by Christ Church, she is incapable of doing an independent inquiry. It would, however, have been preferable if Christ Church had chosen an individual unknown to anyone in and around the C of E or the College. But any slight previous association with any of the institutions involved (or the appearance of one (following Nolan principles) will have the effect of possibly tipping the balance away from a just and equitable process for the Dean. Total Impartiality must be seen to operate in such an enquiry, if it is to be truly just.
So far, we have raised queries about three key individuals (Ward, Foot and Wood) in the Percy affair where there may be grounds for suggesting that further scrutiny needs to be given to the question of their impartiality. We could go on to raise questions about the role of the Bishop of Oxford in this affair. It has been suggested that he has not shown the expected support for his Dean or even the impartiality that is needed in such circumstances.
Overall, the treatment of Martyn Percy by Church and College has left the observer feeling considerable disquiet about the whole process. The question as to whether Kate Wood has retained professional impartiality has been aired. However we read the evidence, something, for this commentator, does not add up. If there has been bias or any suppression of information as a route to debarring someone from ministry, that is an extremely serious matter. Having now read the Wood report I cannot say that I am any more confident that the whole truth has been revealed and that justice for the Dean will be found through the present process.
This revised post raises several concerns about Kate Wood and this investigation she is meant to have conducted. Do we know if these independent safeguarding consultants are regulated in any way? Too many things in this investigation smell fishy and don’t add up. Presumably the CofE and NST did not authorise Kate Wood’s investigation? I’d say that this is a matter that ought to concern the NST.
Kate Wood wrote in the aftermath of the first version of this blog piece which caused offence. She wished to put the record straight and asked me to publish this letter in full. I do so with regret that she found material in it impugning her professional standing.
Tue, Dec 29, 2020, 8:01 PM (4 days ago)
to me
Dear Mr Parsons
I have become aware of your blog article of 28.12.20, Current Affairs – Power Games and Conflicts of Interest at Christ Church Oxford. It is unfortunate that you made no attempt to contact me to fact check your article. You have been seriously misled, and have libelled me as a result.
You appear to have based your comments on numerous inaccuracies and have drawn misleading links between me, various people and events, which are quite simply not true. However, I note that you have stated, “Surviving Church cannot afford to carry unsubstantiated heresay” and so I am requesting that you make a number of urgent corrections.
For the record:
Prior to being commissioned for the investigation, I had never heard of MP, I had no knowledge of previous allegations, and no knowledge of his commentary on other national cases. I ‘met’ him for the first time when I interviewed him on Zoom regarding this case.
I have never met Sarah Foot and did not interview her.
I was not commissioned by Graham Ward. I have never met him apart from him being at the Zoom meeting where I presented facts from my investigation.
I do not have any direct professional relationship with Elizabeth Pollard. Our paths have crossed on a couple of occasions. I believe she came to the NST many years after I had left Lambeth Palace.
In any case, to suggest that these supposed connections and prior knowledge would lead to a conflict of interest is totally unfounded. I have already corrected some mistruths in the media – The Times recently contacted me to check for factual accuracy, and the Church Times printed a correction after another inaccurate piece. Despite these articles in the public domain, you have continued with a false narrative, and to use the phrase ‘strains credibility’ is to call me a liar.
You have gone further to suggest that aspects of my past have been concealed. I have no idea to what you refer.
I have no problem in my investigation and conduct being reviewed by those who are qualified to do so and in possession of the facts. Indeed, I would expect that to happen as part of a safeguarding process – but to have commentators print articles based wholly on inaccuracies is not acceptable.
I think what saddens me most is the comment in your opening paragraph, “The question of whether the Dean did or did not do a particular action is almost a side issue.” The absolute opposite is true. Moreover, your piece seems to identify the victim in this case by all but name by publishing details of the allegations. Why would you do that?
Last part of Kate Wood’s letter
I have worked tirelessly my whole career in search of justice for those who have been abused and mistreated. If you knew my work, you would know that I will not be influenced by anyone or any agenda other than to seek the truth. My work of 6 years to bring Peter Ball to justice is just one of many examples. You need to know that my pursuit of justice has also included supporting members of the clergy who have been falsely accused.
Surely you would agree that victims need to be encouraged and supported to come forward, allegations properly investigated, and that equally those accused must have access to due process? The character assassination you have undertaken on me and others does not help survivors or the accused – quite the opposite.
I ask that you remove all reference to me in your post, and in the comments there, with immediate effect. You have no basis upon which to question my professional integrity. I hope you also, as a matter of common decency, apologise publicly for attacking my ethics and professionalism, based entirely on false accusations. If you could make these amendments within the next 48 hours, I would be prepared to draw a line under this matter.
Should you wish to publish this email on your blog, you may do so in full only.
Looking at the story behind your website, we should be on the same side here – the side of justice, and supporting survivors. I do wish you had approached me first.
Yours,
Dean Percy is not exactly a slouch when it comes to issues of gender justice in the wider church and world. And his work on the churches and child sexual abuse is well known. His first published essays on this topic date from the late 1990’s, which is a long time before any UK theologian I am aware of addressing these issues. He has contributed to the Australian Royal Commission churches and child sexual abuse (also published), and work for victims of abuse, and those falsely accused. He is one of the few who spans both, so you find him writing on Bishop Ball and Bishop Bell. And on Jonathan Fletcher. He has met with victims of abuse, and convened gatherings for them, which I have some second hand knowledge of. He did this when most bishops would cross the street to avoid a victim of abuse. Can someone explain what Kate Wood is up in trashing Dean Percy? It would be interesting to know what her fee for this work was, and who set her on this task.
Faith, I may agree with you on many things, but we must not go down the route of bringing professional fees into question.
Having commissioned many experts, their cv would give their charge out rates, I would seek a costs estimate at the outset, my letter of instruction would routinely cap the expense and require them to get back to me and justify it if they sought authority to exceed it.
I am sure Ms Woods would have operated within such a normal protocol. There are predictable “ hired guns” in the expert community but as an advocate of fair process and the presumption of innocence I think Ms Wood is entitled to certain prima facie assumptions. There is, for example, a difference between mala fides and unconscious bias.
In the civil justice world, such issues are minimised within the system by the simple expedient of requiring the experts to be agreed by all the parties, with an agreed letter of instruction being hammered out in negotiation to ensure all relevant questions are on the table at the outset. It saves time and money at the hearing.
I was often the lawyer for the child; I would have carriage of the instruction letter deliver the agreed enclosures, and generally manage the process, including the finance. If anyone had an issue with my work we took it to the judge. Because that “ appeal” process existed, it rarely needed to be invoked. I generally found that my professional colleagues’ contributions and objections improved my first draft.
This is but one of the obvious safeguards of due process which my discipline can teach the Church lawyers who have shaped the processes that have proved so bad for complainants and respondents alike.
In the Percy case, I understand the respondent was totally excluded from this important preparatory part of the process, and effectively told to “ take it or leave it “. Such an approach is extraordinary and outrageous to someone from my background.
The Church does not know how to be fair in these matters, and neither do their lawyers. They “ don’t know what they don’t know” and do not routinely engage with those who do.
There are some at a senior level who “ get it” but as yet this has yet to influence the appalling process in the Percy case, which is just the latest example.
As others here testify, the “ little people” have been re-abused by poor process for decades. This is why Stephen correctly began his blog by saying this is not “ just” about what happened in this individual case.
Stephen, I think the word count limit for comments has truncated Kate Wood’s email, which I am sure you will want to correct.
Thank you Sam for pointing this out. I have now put it right
I cannot comment personally on the conduct of Kate Wood as I have no direct knowledge. I believe but x not know, that she was a former police officer working in a force possibly during the time of the Chichester paedophile ring, who then worked for NST. If this is wrong please correct me. I would be very glad to know from Ms Wood if this is true or false, as she is obviously reading this blog. Ms Wood writes that she would expect to be monitored by those who are qualified to do so. This is the point I wish to take up as it is the only one I have knowledge of. I have evidence that at least in one case a former police officer guilty of misconduct in several counts in regard to safeguarding in the church was allowed to work for NST. I can also provide evidence of misconduct by another police officer who then went on to work as DSA. In the light of this I personally could place no credence in any system set up by the church which purports to establish that safeguarding advisors have behaved professionally. As I say I this is purely a general comment as I have no first hand knowledge of Ms Wood so it does not pertain to her except to say that you know you are working in an institution which has been publically found to be guilty of serious misconduct for decades and to date has not cleaned up its act.
I am sorry Ms Wood, but I, for one could place no credence in any investigation or monitoring by NST of any safeguarding advisor. My apologies to those who have integrity.
The problematical situation that the church has engineered for itself is that over, and over, and over again, it has left undone what it should have done, and done what it should not. I am not the only complainant to say from personal knowledge that this continues to the present day. I was not surprised by the resignation of Melissa Carslake as even now people of integrity are working with colleagues who lack that integrity. Only recently some of us pointed out that 31/8 are providing reports to diocese who do not act justly and misuse their report.
Whilst some of us have good reason to doubt the integrity of the NST as a whole, some of us who comment have sent evidence to Stephen which is not always in the public domain. Stephen, to my knowledge, is man of integrity who has no wish to cast unjust aspersions. He is aware of the intense pressure placed on genuine complainants whose unimpeachable evidence is ignored and who are harassed and threatened by the church.
Hi Mary, Kate Wood was the safeguarding adviser for Lambeth she did not work for the NST which was not created in it’s current format until after she left. When Elizabeth Hall resigned as the National Safeguarding Adviser due to poor health Jill Sandham DSA of Southwark took over in the interim. Southwark and Lambeth used to provide cover for each other as well as the National team so all incredibly nested in that sense. In those days if you spoke to one you may as well have been speaking to the other.
If this CDM goes to tribunal the victim will not be exempt from giving evidence just because she didn’t bring the complaint. I hope that fact has been taken into account by Ward and Wood and the complainant is given sufficient control back of her situation to make sure that she does not experience this as further abuse.
Thank you Trish for your explanation. Much appreciated. As you say we hope the complainant is not further abused by the process and is not pressurised.
I don’t know who Mary is, above. However, I do not find Ms. Wood credible. She must know ‘Polly’ from the NST, who is a Senior Caseworker there. The pair of them are in the same recent Whitsey Report, so they do know each other. Polly is BF with Senior Censor at Christ Church. How did ChCh get hold of Wood, except by some “wily” back door, that has previously been referred to on this matter. Ms. Wood may not even know she has been been an unwitting part of a stitch-up. But she should know better, and as the DSA in Oxford said this was not safeguarding, and everyone agreed at the outset, it is very peculiar that Wood becomes the hired-hand to naysay the DSA. Wood’s investigation would get thrown out of any court. Shoddy work in the hands of shoddy people. Shameful, really.
I agree Faith, it is shameful. Ms Ward has taken umbrage at the original post but in my opinion rather gone over the top, firstly by claiming libel and secondly writing a very over long objection. There are more discreet, more productive ways of objecting to a blog post. Particularly one written by someone with the dedication, doggedness and intelligence of Stephen Parsons. I do not know him but I know of his work. Ms Ward seems to have treated him as is he were a Twitter troll. He could have dug in and ignored her but he acted properly in my view by engaging with her
objections.
Dear Ms. Wood,
As a survivor of the church, along with many readers of this blog, we have often found ourselves in positions where we are speculated about. Our mental health histories, our sexual choices, our race, our physical challenges are often used as evidence to discredit us in some way. We are gossiped about, ganged up on by whole dioceses to either ignore us or bring injunctions against us. These things are not done openly they are done behind our backs. At the time you were employed in the church such behaviour was rife and because of that culture you would have been involved in it at some level.
Stephen Parsons has considered abuse in the church with compassion and integrity his blog has united survivors and clergy in a way that no other group has been able to do. He is fair, thoughtful and passionate about the topic and has shown you the courtesy of printing your response. The things he has written may be uncomfortable for you to read but at least you have been able to defend your position. Many of the survivors that you would have dealt with, like me, only found out the terrible things that have been said about them years later in SAR’s.
Your bruised pride is not the victim in this Mr. Percy and the person who was upset by his actions are and those who comment care, along with Stephen, that justice and kindness are served.
Yours sincerely
Patricia
Thanks, Trish, beautifully put.
Ms. Wood’s letter seemed to me to have a bullying tone which reflects the attitude of the ‘wily dons’ – though possibly she didn’t intend it so. Well done to Stephen for handling this matter the way he has. It shows us yet again his integrity and passion for truth and justice.
Well said Trish.
Part of the problem within Church culture is the schizophrenic approach that you describe. On the one hand it is content to destroy the reputations of those that enter its processes as “subject matter” but if you turn the spotlight onto its practices and ( necessarily) those who create, implement and defend them, you may be taken aside for a good talking to and lectured for your harsh ill manners.
Contact with how the real world justice system handles these cases is currently part of the culture shock within the Church, whose culture has been carefully curated by a handful of legal practices which do not undertake work where the vast majority of safeguarding cases are resolved under the eye of expert judges.
We safeguarding lawyers are rather like the prairie dogs and hyenas of the African Savannah. We may not be pretty as we go about our work, but it does keep the environment clean.
All the experts I knew, knew and accepted that if they were prepared to trash my client’s family life and reputation, they would be subject to robust scrutiny. As I understand Ms Woods cv, her consultancy practice has been largely within a CofE context which we all agree is a broken and corrupted process, not least in relation to conflicts of interests.
In my former world, such ties would be the first thing to look at. The second would be to underline what is within her sphere of professional competence ( thorough investigation) differentiating it from risk assessment in its predictive phase. To be absolutely fair, I do not think Ms Wood claims the latter but in the amateur world of the core group, I am not confident that these boundaries are understood, let alone respected.
“ The expert says” need to be the start of conversation, not the conclusion. Those discussing it need to be either expert in themselves or have an independent lawyer
with expertise in the specialism on hand to advise. Juries are lay people; they do an excellent job guided by judges and adversarial advocates addressing them directly.
The Church places people at serious risk of harm with none of these protections in place and no policies to control conflicts of interests and no protocols for the conduct of “ experts”.
Saying this will not make us popular but needs to be done.
Thank you for expressing our thoughts and feelings so well, Trish
Dear Ms. Wood
Perhaps you can tell us also:
1. If you did interview the Dean, how long was the interview?
2. Has what he said and was alleged been fact-checked by someone independent?
3. Did the Dean get to see your Report before it was circulated or since – as this would be the normal practice in HR process and ACAS-run investigations?
4. Can you explain how an adult employee with an alleged harassment grievance is some “safeguarding” matter? And if it is so in the case, presumably every person in any subordinate relationship due to age, rank or role is also “safeguarding”? What is your definition of safeguarding that you are working with?
You have concluded at the end of your work at Christ Church that the Dean should be subject to a 1. police investigation, 2. CDM, 3. NST investigation and 4. internal disciplinary proceedings, any one of which could result in him losing his home, ministry and livelihood.
Are you satisfied that the alleged offence and your report that recommends all four of these processes at once was correct, proportionate and fair? If you had any doubts did you express these and to who? Your seem to be acting like the police, prosecutor and judge in your report, and I am wondering what your terms of reference were, and who your were reporting to. I am sure you could answer all of these questions, but readers would be interested in how your professional opinion and conduct came to such (what seems to me, very one-sided) devastating conclusions.