When writing about the ‘Kenneth’ case on this blog, I had cause to wonder whether any other justice system, apart from the Church, could be so indifferent to the cause of truth so as to believe an allegation of abuse without a proper investigation. Are other organisations so incurious that an uncorroborated allegation of abuse will be left unresolved and unexamined? Do other legal organisations or structures within British society allow the assumption of guilt to be upheld so that an accused can be left in a state of despair and trauma? Was it possible that the old principle in British law, that the accused are deemed innocent until proved guilty, is thought not to apply?
The Carl Beech (otherwise known as Nick) affair resulted in the most appalling set of allegations of abuse being made against prominent people in Britain. This created untold suffering and vast expenditure of resources of time and money. It had a massive effect on the trust that people felt overall for the police service and the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) in particular. Was it possible that the police could get things so wrong? Could the unsubstantiated word of a single disturbed individual ever be allowed to exercise such power to corrupt the thinking and the common sense of so many in a normally well-respected institution?
I recently had my attention drawn to a document that helps us to look at the blunders of the MPS and the way that the original false claims of Beech were not more quickly picked up by the police. The document examining these failings is one written by Richard Henriques, a prominent retired High Court judge. He looked at the police culture that was then current nd which had enabled the claims of Carl Beech, to be accepted as true for so long. Henriques noted the way that belief in the testimony of ‘victims’ was not just the bias of certain individuals; it had become institutionalised in the policing culture that was prevalent right up to 2016. A published policy of the College of Policing, dated 18th March 2016, stated: ‘When someone makes an allegation of crime, the police should believe the account given and a crime report should be completed.’ This follows another report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in 2014 which put the requirement to believe the victim more strongly. It declared: ‘The presumption that the victim should always be believed should be institutionalised’.
The College of Policing recognised the importance of detailed investigation of allegations, but Henriques points out that if investigations go on over six months with a built-in assumption of the truthfulness of a ‘victim’, this will affect the way that evidence is gathered. To quote the report:’ Was the obligation to believe the complainant to continue over a six-month period?’ In other words, it is very hard to gather corroborating evidence to support or undermine a claim, when the one investigating has internalised and assumed the truthfulness of one party from the beginning of the enquiry. While it is of vital importance to make victims of sexual assault feel believed and listened to when making a complaint, this does not stop the one listening having an open mind as they investigate. Objectivity and impartiality can and should prevail throughout the process of enquiry.
The preservation of objectivity and impartiality during the process of interviewing victims in an abuse case should not be incompatible with providing support to these complainants. It should be possible to say to the complainant, ‘I support you and take your complaint very seriously. At the same time, I am investigating what you say without fear or favour’. If assumptions are made and a complainant is ‘believed’ at any point of the investigation process while evidence is being gathered, that will mean that the other side is, at that moment, being disbelieved. Just because a complainant (typically a rape victim) was often treated in the past with suspicion and distrust, it does not mean that the system has to swing to the opposite extreme of treating every complainant as having to be believed as a matter of course. Henriques sums up this point rather elegantly when he says: ‘Replacing an unsatisfactory state of affairs with a flawed system is no solution.’ He says further that ‘any process that imposes an artificial state of mind upon an investigator is, necessarily, a flawed process…. The imposed “obligation to believe” removes impartiality.
Although it might be argued that complainants have no reason to make up their stories, the possibility that there are fantasists and liars among those who complain to the police must be allowed for. If a questioner at the outset of an enquiry has to ‘believe’ the complainant, this will affect the way the questions are asked. If the police questioning process does not allow for some element of doubt about what the true situation is, the questioning process would seem to be biased. A policy of ‘believing victims’, Henriques declares, ‘strikes at the very core of the justice process ‘. These are strong words; they can be seen to be true wherever forms of justice are being applied in various walks of life. Outside the police and justice service we have individuals working in such areas as social work, HR and employment tribunals. All of them would be failing in their responsibilities if the impartiality required in the legal process was abandoned. This is what evidently happened in the Carl Beech disaster. That case was not just catastrophic for those immediately involved, the falsely accused. It was a disaster for others in further cases where individuals have been at the wrong end of an obligation to believe by investigators. False accusations do occur, and it is here that impartiality and good judgement are not just desirable qualities in those who administer justice. They are literally a matter of life and death in situations like the one in London which involved a priest taking his own life.
I began this blog piece with a mention of the ‘Kenneth’ case where things continue with no sight of proper resolution. Although no offence has been proved and none admitted, the case cannot be resolved with the existing system in place. Those with oversight of the core group apparently declared at the start of the process that the complainant must be believed. They maintained that this mantra is required in the House of Bishops’ advice on safeguarding. I have no means of knowing whether this is a misunderstanding or genuinely episcopal guidance. Whatever the situation, it has led this core-group into taking no further action in proving or disproving the allegation. Thus, the case remains in a state of limbo because someone has been infected by the same faulty reasoning as that which was infesting the MPS in the Carl Beech case. No one seems to have thought to share with the NST or the Diocesan safeguarding teams the excellent legal reasoning of Richard Henriques report. This compelling report has exposed the damaging and even dangerous way of thinking that has infested the safeguarding reasoning of much of the CofE. Because of it, Kenneth’s case, and maybe others, remain in a state of limbo. There are no obvious ways of moving forward. The truth of what really happened in the Kenneth saga seems to be of no real concern to those who sit as judge and jury in his case. Although Kenneth is now no longer being actively pursued and can now attend church, the cloud over him has no means of ever being removed.
It would be a good thing if the internal justice system operated by the Church of England – the one that creates phoney risk assessments, allows bishops to ignore complaints against individuals when it suits them, and keeps cases unresolved and without any decision being made for years at a time – could receive a thorough reform. A justice system which, for some, is experienced as corrupt and not fit for purpose is hardly conducive to the good name of the Church in the wider society. Do the Church of England and its leaders really care so little for its reputation, that it tolerates the poorly functioning legal system that we have created, to deal with safeguarding issues?
‘Research for the Home Office suggests that only 4% of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected to be false. Studies carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2% and 6%.’ (https://www.open.ac.uk/research/news/false-accusations-sexual-violence)
Some 95% of allegations of sexual assault are true. It’s important to remember that false allegations are exceptionally rare, and most complainants are telling the truth. But we also need to recognise that around 5% are false, and that some of the accused are indeed innocent. The policy that ‘the complainant must be believed’ doesn’t acknowledge that fact. Justice must be justice for everyone.
Bullying allegations may be false, too. But assuming the accuser is a liar is not assuming a neutral position. Which is what you’re doing if you assume innocence. At present, the balance is tilted towards the high status/valuable person, and away from the potential victim. Both sides may need pastoral support. Neutrality is difficult, but essential.
Nobody wants an assumption anyone is a liar. In the civil safeguarding field there is no controversy over this. You simply ask “ where does the balance of the evidence lead us” ? There is nothing unreasonable in that.
There may be statistical evidence about valid complaints but that is irrelevant: without proper methodology one does not know which case falls into the 95% or 5% cohort.
Exactly. And that is why complaints must be investigated thoroughly, and processes must follow proper procedures and be fair to all parties.
Many important questions are raised in this article, but perhaps the central one, to readers of this blog, is whether and how often accusations are false.
Not being believed compounded the original offence, as far as the suffering was concerned. In attempt to fix this, investigators adopted the presumption of truth in the allegations, from the outset. In doing so they inadvertently compounded the suffering for the other(s) involved.
We can never fully answer the question, because we are dealing with the depths of human nature and the unavailability of objective evidence.
A person can completely believe their own version of a story. A polygraph might even verify this, only for evidence to be obtained separately indicating otherwise. What we believe with certainty, isn’t always true. I don’t envy those in our courts having to make judgments on the balance of probabilities.
That our Church has a system of dealing with these matters, falling as it does well below the standard in secular society, is disreputable.
Why would they make up allegations? This question is becoming increasingly important, as a number of cases come to light. Jesus Himself was falsely accused.
In the old days removing someone from your organisation because they weren’t very good, were a threat to you, or you simply didn’t like them, was a lengthy and difficult process. Now you put an abuse allegation in the air, and that’s it, they’re out. Malicious allegation is the cynical new trick. Because allegations, as we know, are almost impossible to disprove. Malice equally is difficult to prove, but reasonable to infer, when we can see a repeating pattern. Rarely are these isolated incidents. Scapegoating tends to recur. A bad tree produces bad fruit.
We won’t be able to change the system, but we can inform it. We need to maintain pressure in calling out injustices, and in keeping these in mind for others.
I welcome Stephen’s blog wholeheartedly. It explains very clearly the methods and reasoning behind the processes of the safeguarding core group and why there has been and can be no progress in Kenneth’s case or other similar ones.Yes, Stephen is right in saying the repeated mantra from the Core Group is that they are following the House of Bishops advice but he does not know whether this is a misunderstanding or genuinely episcopal guidance.
I have a possible answer.
The Core Group said it is not its role to seek the truth or investigate and that the complainant should be believed at all times. I asked for the reference in the House of Bishop’s Guidance where that was said but there was no reply. So I read the House of Bishops Guidance for myself. I could not find the answers to those two questions but instead I did find fifteen procedures relating to respondents which had not been followed at all!
The only conclusion I came to was that the Core Group had made up their ‘rules’ because for their own reasons, one possibly being some having a close friendship with the boy’s mother, they wanted to claim the boy was speaking the truth. I found through Subject Access Request information that in three Core Group meetings three senior members of the meeting claimed officially they had ‘no personal knowledge of the respondent or claimant’ and yet they had worked closely with the boy in the choir and with Kenneth in his various voluntary roles. Such ‘conflict of interest is unlawful’ (Lord Carlile Micah 6:8 Initiative) which I had quoted many times to the Core Group.
It is now six months since Kenneth was allowed back in the church albeit with conditions. He has to sit in a place where he cannot be seen by the choir and where he can be officially observed. He must not sit with younger people although no particular age limit was specified. Kenneth is 77 years old, so many friends are younger.
When Stephen posted the blog Saturday October 15th saying: ‘Although Kenneth is now no longer being actively pursued and can now attend church, the cloud over him has no means of ever being removed’, he was not to know that a few days earlier a senior clergy had visited Kenneth and below is Kenneth’s record of the conversation:
i) he must not stay in the church after a service longer than half an hour.
ii) when he and his friends are talking together they must not hold hands or hug each other ‘because it is not British’ (the SC really said this).
After six months of everything apparently going well, all this came as a shock to Kenneth.
In the days of drafting the Safeguarding Agreement (when nothing was signed), he was told that if he broke any of the conditions the Police and Social Services would be informed! He said on to me on Sundays he would only stay for half an hour as he was really not strong enough to challenge them and wanted to be left in peace.
As Steve Lewis says ‘We need to maintain pressure in calling…
Hugging is not British? Where has this SC been hiding? I used to have people queuing up for a hug after services, and in many churches people hug before or after the service and during the Peace. And why can Kenneth stay only half an hour? Nothing has been proved against him.
It’s shocking that the C of E gets away with this.
Janet, Thank you for your supportive message. The irony is that when the SC left Kenneth (he visited Kenneth in his home), in Kenneth’s words the SC gave him ‘a big hug”!!
The half an hour after the service is that Kenneth must leave when the SC does because the SC is keeping ‘an eye on him’ and Kenneth has not noticed and been staying longer. It has taken the SC six months to realise this.
You are right that nothing has been proved against Kenneth and there still has been no investigation or scrutiny of the evidence we have which could well have exonerated Kenneth.
The whole system needs to. be taken out of the C of E’s hands, but I suppose that will have to wait until we have a stable government.
Yes, various different legislative areas are being postponed at the moment. But I don’t see stable government anytime soon. Even if there were to be a general election sooner than scheduled (2 years hence) the opposition parties have had their own factions and splits, or have almost disappeared.
Legislation that has been reasonably successful and to have endured, has had all-party support and this will be an essential element for mandatory reporting. Each MP, or in reality candidate for the next parliament, must be persuaded individually, one person at a time, over time.
We need to engage carefully with the embedded resistances, whatever they may be. Removing as much politics as possible from the subject, and emphasising the humanity of it, appears essential, at least.
I spotted our former MP and government minister outside Sainsbury’s yesterday, and was tempted to ask her to stand again, but decided weakly to respect her privacy, and chickened out.
Some are hoping that today’s release of iicsa’s report will “do it”. Likely its findings will be obliterated by the latest shenanigans in no 10. However, it will be the deliberate and sustained efforts of thousands of us engaging and lobbying, which will in the end prevail.
The other mechanism for change would be a thorough review of the C of E by the Charity Commission. I agree of course re mandatory reporting, but we need far more extensive change and reform than that. The C of E cannot be allowed to continue to run a parallel ‘justice’ system which amounts to kangaroo courts.
The pity of it is, all this will take a generation or two, even without governmental chaos, financial crisis, etc. And meanwhile people will continue to be damaged.
Thinking about what you have both said Steve and Janet:
‘it will be the deliberate and sustained efforts of thousands of us engaging and lobbying, which will in the end prevail’.Steve
‘The other mechanism for change would be a thorough review of the C of E by the Charity Commission. The C of E cannot be allowed to continue to run a parallel ‘justice’ system which amounts to kangaroo courts’. Janet
Would a possible solution be for as many people as possible to write to the Chair of the Charity Commission? If we bombarded her with evidence as to what is happening we might be ignored but at least she would know. In any case if most of us wrote that is a lot of people to ignore. We should have to work together on this as to the best time to do it so the comments arrived at more or less the same time.
What do you and other people think? (if you don’t like the idea do say. It is a discussion and so criticism is not a problem with me).
Yes, it’s a good idea. In fact, people have been writing to the Chair of the Charity Commission for some weeks, so now is a good time.
Writing en masse can be powerful, but can also come across as “noise” which gets screened out.
When I had multiple people canvassing me with their ideas, the ones I paid particular attention to came via my boss. Accordingly I’d write to her boss.
Before acting together you have to be sure you “have the room”. As Liz Truss discovered, if you don’t have people with you, nothing will work.
Regarding charities, each of the many thousands of churches is an individual charity, so I’d be careful to gather specific evidence for specific cases, as well as making general points of concern about all. Hope this helps.
Steve, in another context yesterday (when so much happened both in the country and the C of E), I made a simple Charity Search of “Church of England”. The result was a startling 166,611 ‘matches’! I think some people have little idea of the complexity of the C of E, this huge amorphous body with so many constituent parts, and I’m not sure that one can identify one specific Charity within it with responsibility for safeguarding: Archbishops’ Council possibly, but with 8,966 matches? Church Commissioners, I would think unlikely – but in the event 25,289 matches!
The proper target, I am certain, is HM Government. A letter to one’s MP rather than the Charity Commission being swamped on a scale that it cannot deal with, and the added problem that people have not identified the charity to be investigated. Also, the recommendations of the IICSA report need to be looked at closely.
Please see my detailed reply, with reasons, to Steve. With respect to Janet, I don’t think it’s a good idea and could be counter-productive. It’s by no means clear how – or if – the Charity Commission would act against the Church of England as a ‘corporate body’ and I don’t believe the C of E has that status! Diocesan bishops are legal corporations. Letters to MPs are, I suggest, the answer. The government cannot ignore public representations about the Established Church. I’m more optimistic that legislation will eventually result from yesterday’s IICSA Report. The C of E has given it a guarded welcome and will, of course, be bound by any legislation which follows.
The idea wasn’t mine, but that of lawyers who know much more about the Charity Commission and corporate governance than I do. The Charity Commission do instigate investigations and administer discipline in some cases (including Christ Church); the reasoning was (if I’m representing it correctly) that if presented with sufficient detail dividend eon corruption and malfeasance, the CC is likely to proceed to investigation. And there is certainly no lack of such evidence.
I don’t think we can expect Parliament to show much interest in the C of E when the government is in such chaos and there is so much urgent business to deal with to steady the economy. I hope they will, eventually, bring in mandatory reporting for all religions, but that won’t address problems with the NST, ISB, core groups, and systemic corruption at high levels. Only the Charity Commission have any chance of doing that within the next few years.
Christ Church is a single entity, and a registered charity. The Church of England, as I have demonstrated, is entirely different. All well and good if the Charity Commission is prepared to act as you suggest. I just question whether it is within their remit. I dealt with very many child abuse cases, but none involving the Church, so fully accept that is outside my experience.
I don’t think it will be helpful to deluge the Charity Commission with multiple letters. The lawyers you mention ought to be able to ask for a meeting to explore the Commission’s view and reaction. That would also be more courteous.
IICSA has published its final report today. It is available in different formats: the full report; a summary and recommendations from which I have extracted below Recommendation 13: Mandatory reporting
“The UK government and Welsh Government should introduce laws requiring certain people to report child sexual abuse. These people are called ‘mandated reporters’. These laws would apply where a child or an abuser tells a mandated reporter
that a child is being sexually abused, as well as if a mandated reporter witnesses
a child being sexually abused or can see signs that indicate that a child has been sexually abused.
“The Inquiry’s final Report sets out further detail about this recommendation including that it should be a crime to fail to make a mandatory report in certain circumstances. People who work in regulated activity in relation to children (under the Safeguarding and Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, as amended) and people in positions of trust and also police officers should be mandated reporters. Mandated reporters should make these reports as soon as possible to local authority children’s social care or the police.”
Not sure what happened to the tabulation in my previous comment. I suspect that Stephen will write an article on this important topic, so rather than quote any more verbatim, here is a convenient link with the complete list of recommendations:
https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/31212/view/report-independent-inquiry-into-child-sexual-abuse-rapid-read-october-2022_0.pdf
Note the proposal to introduce a national redress scheme. On my reading, the wording is wide enough to encompass the C of E.
Given that IICSA was set up by the government, I would have thought it highly likely that its recommendations will largely pass into legislation.
The sentence ‘The victim must be believed.’ does not even make sense. It is only if they are telling the truth that they are the victim in the first place. Whereas the sentence prejudges that central issue, bypassing discussion.
It’s a “soundbite” Christopher ! Heard of those, have you? In the context of people usually *not* being believed, as has been explained, it makes sense.
This kind of language ‘Heard of those, have you?’ is precisely what is wrong.
Everyone has heard of soundbites, and knows that they are renowned for their simplistic and therefore inaccurate language.
Thank you Janet,Steve and Rowland for addressing my particular comment of October 21st 6.42am. I do need further advice from you and anyone else who might have some ideas.
My present situation is that:
1. at the suggestion of the Safeguarding Officer at Lambeth Palace in a telephone conversation seven weeks ago, she ‘strongly urged me’ in view of new evidence I had from Subject Access Request information, to write my complaints again with that in view. This new evidence was solely based on confidential Core Group meetings, letters, emails and telephone conversations over a 30 month period although much information had been redacted. I sent this document and she asked me what I wanted her to do with it? Since I had found strong evidence of unlawful practice and even malfeasance on the part of senior clergy in Kenneth’s case, I suggested that the law department at Lambeth should have sight of it. That is where I am now although have no confirmation yet it was sent there.
2.I also sent this same SAR information to the Chair of the Charity Commission although I am not certain I used the correct address.
3. To reply to Rowland about writing to the MP we did this in early 2021 and, through a staff member, she refused help; although now with the new evidence from SAR she might be more interested.
4.In September 2021 I wrote to the Coroner in the Father Alan Griffin case because of many similarities as to the way his case had been treated and that of Kenneth. I had a formal acknowledgement of my email but no more. Now I have such incriminating evidence as my SAR information I shall write again.
Does anyone have any other ideas as to who might be interested in such strong evidence as the practices of this safeguarding group? I want to extend my information to highlight other similar injustices of wrongly accused respondents. I look forward to any possible advice and suggestions.
It’s courageous to take this as far as you have. A minor point in writing or otherwise engaging with MPs would be to engage with the opposition candidates. I’d do this not just with a “carbon copy”, but actually approach with a view to discuss the matters.
Knowing the opposition are informed concentrates the mind for a sitting MP. You also get to assess what the other candidates are like. In our constituency, we’ve had different parties in power. Whilst not exactly a marginal seat, I’m fairly sure it will change hands at the next election.
I admire the way you’ve persevered with this. I would suggest you contact retired lawyers Martin Sewell and/or David Lamming, who both work hard to urge the C of E to stay within the law and carry out good process. Martin is on General Synod, and David was on Synod until recently. Stephen Parsons can put you in touch with them.
Thank you Janet but they have both been aware of the case for a long time and have been very supportive. I am immensely grateful to them and to Stephen.
Thank you Steve. What a good idea I should never have thought of that. Presumably I tell them both I have written to them Both? Many thanks
Yes, tell them both, via a ‘copy to’ at the bottom of the letter. It’s often a good idea when taking up a cause to copy several people in, it keeps them all on their toes.
Years ago when we couldn’t get the police to turn up to criminal incidents in my estate parish, I wrote to the Home Secretary and copied it to my MP. It proved very effective! A question was asked in Parliament, the local newspaper splashed the story, and the police started to work with us.
Yes of course I tell them both which is the whole point of your suggestion. Just excited at the idea. Thank you for your encouragement.
To all of you who have been so helpful today:
It is very disappointing but I found the reply to my previous complaint to the MP which was in November 2020. It read,
‘As this is a purely private investigation by a body outside of the public sector, the MP is unlikely to be able to have any significant agency or influence over the case. It would be more advisable for Kenneth to continue to engage with his lawyer, who is best equipped to both represent Kenneth’s interests in this matter and to conduct any future civil proceedings that may result from the process currently being followed by the Church involved’.
I have anonymised the names. Kenneth had a solicitor whom he knew and who accompanied him to meetings but was not acting for him as such. Kenneth does not have sufficient funding to pay legal fees. Does this mean that none of us can write to an MP (which I find difficult to believe after what you have all said today) or is just this particular one? My husband has just now rightly pointed out that in November 2020 I was only dealing with the one case of Kenneth when I wrote to the MP. Now, however, there are many such cases affecting respondents who have been wrongly accused and Kenneth is an example of these, most falling foul of ‘the child must be believed’ policy the substance of Stephen’s blog.
Where do you suggest I/we go with this ? Advice needed please.Many thanks.
I think your MP is being unhelpful. Probably s/he doesn’t want to get involved in church wrangles. However, as you say, a lot has happened in the last two years: publicity on the Christ Church/Percy case, with an intervention by the Charity Commission; a coroner criticising London Diocese’s handling of a baseless accusation; PCR2; and the IICSA report.
Parliament has an Ecclesiastical Committee which deals with matters concerning the Church of England. You might try approaching one or more of the MPs on it, with a copy to your MP
Here’s a list of members. You might actually find some of the Lords members more helpful than MPs, though I have no experience of raising a matter with a Lord (or Lady).
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/174/ecclesiastical-committee-joint-committee/membership/
They tend to be very busy people of course and many develop a system of triage to manage the volume of queries coming their way. A good assistant will spot the letters most likely to benefit from their principal’s attention, especially if other people of significance already know about the case, as discussed. Inaction could have more consequences than action for them, if you see what I mean. Everyone has a constituency.
Thank you very much for that. I shall certainly use it to make contact, it is well worth a try and I appreciate your giving me the link. It will take me a few days to sort out. In view of all that has happened in the past two years (I never thought of that) I might also give the local MPs another try. I have all the information to hand, no need to research facts. Thank you again.