By Martin Sewell
Shortly after joining General Synod in 2015 and following a maiden speech contributing to the debate of the Clergy (Risk Assessment) Regulations 2016, I found myself in the coffee queue alongside Archbishop John Sentamu. I had spoken critically, having contributed to commissioning some hundreds of such assessments, but the archbishop explained to me where I was reading the room wrongly. Essentially, I was seeking to align ecclesiastical legal process with secular safeguarding standards but, he said, “We are building a system suitable for the Church of England”.
Upon hearing of his being “stood back” from ministry following the Humphreys Review of the Devamanikkam case – and especially his “Old School” reaction to it – I could not but reflect that that project is now truly dead in the water and Sentamu’s assertion that Church Law trumps good (secular) safeguarding practice has delivered the coup de grâce.
The future of Church safeguarding must surely now involve the unequivocal embracing of secular standards of jurisprudence and about time too; ask the many, many abuse survivors who have campaigned for vital reform in the wake of the Matt Ineson case.
That case became, perhaps, the first very public cause célèbre because Matt had the courage and integrity to put his own name into the public domain as he told his harrowing story. When he saw one of the bishops who had wronged him promoted from Sheffield to the important see of Oxford, he protested outside Christ Church Cathedral at the enthronement. It was a low-key protest but it has become hugely symbolic.
He was joined by another hero of the safeguarding resistance, Gilo, as the great and the good largely passed by on the other side of the road and some inside were told that it was a “Families need Fathers” demonstration (so nothing really to do with the Church). One of the few clerics to break ranks, to engage and make the protestors welcome, was the Dean of Christ Church, Dr Martyn Percy. He did not ignore them; he brought them tea and sandwiches and let them use the toilets.
It may not have quite been the door at Wittenberg, but it proved to be an important event in the safeguarding life of the Church of England.
Many years later, Matt Ineson was offered a review of his case – with strings attached. “Old School” was at it again, reasserting its power over a victim and expecting gratitude. They found him awkwardly ungrateful.
If ‘Old School’ would not approach the matter in a modern collaborative way, consulting himself, Devamanikkam’s relatives, and Bishop Croft on the identity of the reviewer, and the terms of reference, Matt Ineson insisted that he would neither engage with the Review, nor permit his data to be used within it. ‘Old School’ ploughed on, ensuring from the outset that the Review could only ever assess part of the story.
Matt had told his story powerfully at IICSA – as had Gilo – but unfortunately the scope of IICSA closed just before the Smyth victims and Dr Percy could have their stories of cover-up and institutional bullying considered in that independent secular sphere, away from the corrupting influences of opacity and unaccountable power. There remains much unfinished business within the pursuit of cultural change.
Yet the Humphreys Review is not without value; it tells part, though far from all of the story, and the Church of England must now consider its response. If this is to be another step on the long slow journey towards integrity, the de facto suspension of the former Archbishop of York from ministry must be followed by the suspension of the current Bishop of Oxford pending a comprehensive re-examination of both their places within this story and beyond.
Bishop Croft has the historic misfortune of standing in the eye of a perfect storm of safeguarding scandals which we need to identify and confront. First, however, let us consider where we are in terms of precedent.
When the former Bishop of Lincoln Christopher Lowson was alleged to have responded inadequately to safeguarding matters, the then CofE Director of Safeguarding, Melissa Caslake, successfully established that the infamous ‘one year rule’, time-limiting complaints, ran from the date of her learning of the alleged infraction. She was accorded the status to act independently in such cases. But if she had it, then so must her successor Alex Kubeyinje: indeed, he must have the duty to act. Bishop Lowson suffered a lengthy suspension (initially imposed by Archbishop Justin before Caslake’s involvement) while the matter was investigated by Lincolnshire Police, with Welby insisting that the suspension was a neutral act. Those matters (in respect of of which the President of Tribunals later found there was no case to answer ) were not more serious than the multiple unexamined residual allegations against Bishop Steven Croft.
When six allegations of mishandling safeguarding were brought against Dean Percy (with no actual complainant supporting them) in 2020 he too suffered a lengthy suspension, at the hands of Bishop Croft, before those complaints were found to have no substance. Archbishop Sentamu is complaining: “Those who believe that suspension is a neutral act – its effect on me is more devastating than they will ever remember”. Does anyone recall him lifting his voice when Dr Percy was being repeatedly judicially bullied by College, Cathedral and Diocese? Me neither…
In June 2020 Bishop Croft revoked former Archbishop George Carey’s Permission to Officiate (PTO) in the church where he worships in retirement. Keith Makin had passed on to the National Safeguarding Team two letters that suggested a report about Smyth’s abuse had been seen by Carey in the early 1980s when he was principal of Trinity College Bristol – prior to becoming the archbishop. Carey denied ever seeing the letters and his PTO was restored by Croft seven months later. Croft was effectively instructed to revoke Carey’s PTO by the NST, but the point is that he was ‘suspended’ pending an investigation into poor complaint handling while Croft, still in active ministry, is not.
What cannot be right is for the Bishop of Oxford to enjoy a more privileged response from the institutions of the Church than Lowson, Carey, Percy, and Sentamu pending the fullest investigation of the facts about his actions. His handling of both matters must be considered, especially after Archbishops Justin and Stephen have been joined by the independent members of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) in affirming the need for a proper examination of Dean Percy’s allegations of institutional bullying and a toxic culture across the upper echelons of the Church, including Lambeth Palace and Church House. Why the delay there?
There are eight points which readers might find clinch the argument for a swift Croft suspension and a joint Percy/Ineson review.
- Matt Ineson alleges that Bishop Croft gave damagingly inconsistent explanations to BBC Radio about the repeated disclosures made to him. This allegation must be resolved one way or the other.
- When an assessment was required of the risk (if any) that Dean Percy posed to all and sundry within Christ Church Oxford, following the allegation in October 2020, so-called ‘assessments of risks’ were prepared, ostensibly by cathedral staff rather than any of the ten approved assessors listed by the Diocese and ignoring the approved CofE procedures for such assessments. Bishop Croft has consistently refused to condemn such irregularity . He needs to account for effectively endorsing the departure from policy and good practice.
- When Dean Percy emerged unscathed from the allegations against him, Bishop Croft did not immediately allow him to return to ministry and refused him a proper leaving Service; now he is under scrutiny, he invites everyone to ‘draw the line’ early and move on. That looks a tad hypocritical, which should not become de rigueur for any bishop let alone a member of the House of Lords.
- Bishop Croft arrived in Oxford whilst under the Ineson CDM investigation. When Cathedral members brought to him evidence that one of his staff might be seriously misrepresenting the character of the final Percy allegation, he took no action and later wrote a ‘fit to receive’ letter, perpetuating the Old School culture of picking and choosing who gets the favours and who gets the hit.
- When such matters were aired publicly in the Archbishop Cranmer blog, questioning the Oxford safeguarding culture, the bishop’s response was to threaten the editor with ruinous defamation proceedings. That is not what openness and integrity looks like.
- In his self-exculpatory letter to 700 Oxford clergy in response to the Humphreys Review, the Bishop ‘victim blames’ Ineson for his being “distracted” by referencing a 10-year-old CDM brought against Matt Ineson after he had disclosed his rape and which Croft himself dismissed. Ineson says this infringes his right to anonymity on that dismissed allegation which he describes as “trumped up” in response to his disclosures.
- Matt Ineson’s complaint extends to the want of care afforded to his mentally ill rapist who committed suicide.
- While the effective suspension of Lord Sentamu is procedurally correct, it is unedifying to see public opprobrium heaped upon ‘the retired black guy’ while the white bishop with far greater responsibility in the matter remains in post.
Bishop Croft has had the Humphreys report for several months to prepare a response; regrets and the Ad Clerum letter are not sufficient for closure on doubts over his episcopal stewardship in these matters. There remains a great deal of unfinished business swept under the carpet at Woodstock Palace / Church House, Oxford / Bishop’s Lodge, Kidlington. It is not unknown for a suspension to free other complainants to come forward.
These are important matters of principle; they are not trivial, vindictive or personal. For too long the critics of the Church have seen cover-up and expediency rule the roost; we may be at the tipping point, but as things stand the essential change cannot be taken for granted especially if laxity, partiality, and expediency are allowed to creep back in.
Sentamu only articulated what many bishops have de facto thought for years, but it is substance not presentation that counts. Croft had primary responsibility for processing the complaint of abuse of a minor and leaving a potential rapist at liberty for a further five years.
Incidentally, one cannot help but notice a public silence on such an important point from Meg Munn, the putative acting chair of the Independent Safeguarding Board since the story broke. This may add to why there is a widespread lack of confidence in that appointment.
The Church is about to face another tsunami of embarrassment over the Soul Survivor allegations. The toxicity of lax process must surely be recognised as having played a part in this fresh scandal, for can it be seriously doubted that had the issues described above been addressed with due regard for transparency and accountability, the attention of the Soul Survivor leadership might have sharpened and victims been emboldened to come forward at an earlier stage?
Of course, suspension and inquiry does not equate to guilt and even adverse findings must result in a proportionate response. Yet if you want to change the Old School culture – you have to change the Old School culture. This can only be done by the Church following its logic over John Sentamu and applying it to Steven Croft without more ado. Good impartial process has to be the order of the day.
The elephant in the room, of course, is that much of what is said about Croft and Sentamu can also be said about Archbishop Justin Welby over similar matters: there is the long-delayed Makin Report. I suspect that after the week he has had, following the Coronation, Archbishop Justin will be seriously considering his own position alongside those of his colleagues.
Some of us have been pointing out that the writing has been on the wall for years.
For the purposes of suspension of a bishop under section 37 of the CDM 2003, these are the criteria to be met on the basis of evidence provided by the police or a local authority that the bishop presents a significant risk of harm:
“A person presents a significant risk of harm if there is a significant risk that the person may—
(a) harm a child or vulnerable adult,
(b) cause a child or vulnerable adult to be harmed,
(c) put a child or vulnerable adult at risk of harm,
(d) attempt to harm a child or vulnerable adult, or
(e) incite another person to harm a child or vulnerable adult.”
My understanding is that Archbishop Sentamu has not been suspended, rather that his PTO has been withdrawn until further notice. A fine distinction, possibly, but an important one. This decision has clearly been based on his past actions (or inaction) and not that he currently ‘presents a significant risk of harm’.
Rowland, I don’t think the formal basis on which Lord Sentamu has been de facto suspended has been made public. The statement published on 13 May on the Newcastle diocesan website says that “the Bishop of Newcastle, Helen-Ann Hartley, having taken appropriate advice, yesterday required Lord Sentamu, Honorary Assistant Bishop in Newcastle Diocese, to step back from active ministry until both the findings and his response can be explored further.” I suspect that Bishop Hartley made a ‘request’ to Lord Sentamu to step back from active ministry—a request he could hardly refuse, notwithstanding his trenchant criticism of Jane Humphreys’s report.
You refer to section 37 of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (as amended by the Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure 2016.) It was pursuant to that provision (specifically section 37(1)(e)) that Bishop Lowson was suspended by Archbishop Welby in May 2019, as mentioned by Martin Sewell in his above post. For the reasons I set out in an article, a link to which is still available on the Thinking Anglicans website, I maintain that Christopher Lowson’s suspension was at least problematic, if not unlawful, notwithstanding an appeal against the suspension being dismissed by the President of Tribunals, Dame Sarah Asplin, in an unpublished decision dated 27 June 2019:
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/legal-issues-arising-from-the-suspension-of-the-bishop-of-lincoln/ (24 May 2019)
Lord Carey’s PTO was withdrawn by the Bishop of Oxford in June 2020 (again, as stated above by Sewell), only to be restored 7 months later. By contrast with a suspension under the CDM, currently there is no right of appeal against the revocation of a PTO, this being entirely a matter for the bishop’s discretion. (It remains to be seen whether this issue will be addressed in the Clergy Conduct Measure, the draft of which is due for ‘first consideration’ by General Synod at York in July.)
In Bishop Lowson’s case, the President later ruled (in another unpublished decision, dated 21 December 2020) that he had ‘no case to answer’ in respect of the allegations on which his suspension was based and which founded the CDM complaint brought by Melissa Caslake. That decision of Dame Sarah Asplin was made after a full investigation of the evidence by the Designated Officer, who provided her with a confidential report. Lord Sentamu, by declining to waive any reliance on the ‘one year rule’, prevented the substance of Matt Ineson’s complaint being investigated as part of the CDM process. By contrast, the requirement that he should ‘step back’ follows a full investigation by Jane Humphreys and the findings set out in her independent Review.
I am glad to have read this post about Bishop Steven Croft.
In the last 3 years, I have been closely involved with a Priest in the Diocese of Oxford, who had two CDMs against him. They involved safeguarding issues within his Parish, and he had followed Diocesan Safeguarding advice. Eventually, after more than 3 years, the Judge found that there was no case to answer. But Bishop Steven had allowed the process to rumble on for more than 3 years, with many threats from him that amounted to bullying and harassment.
Earlier in my life, I was involved with the ministry of both John Smyth and Jonathan Fletcher. I thank God that I was never drawn into their inner circles, but both of them caused damage to others, because nobody in positions of responsibility had the courage to act wisely.
I pray that those with power and authority may change the ways of the Church of England.
Richard
Please feel free to contact me through Stephen about this matter. Yours in not the only story of bullying that I have heard in the Oxford Diocese. I cannot reference them publicly but two I know of, dismayed even me. Your colleague ought to write to the NST director Alex Kubeyenje whose responsibility it is to hear such material, though his line manager will be the Secretary General so we are back to our old friend, conflicts of interest. This is why we need an Independent Safeguarding Board. You might assume that would be uncontroversial but sadly not…..
Rowland: I suspect it’s more prosaic. Sentamu can be ‘suspended’ because pto can be withdrawn at whim (a serious weakness with it, which results in abuse/capriciousness), unlike a licence. Croft has the latter, thus would have to be subject to formal disciplinary process unless self-withdrawing. He avoided cdm on the technicality that it was out of time and chose not volunteer himself to be subjected to it (this is my understanding) – ie: he raised the timeousness as formal objection.
Second, re Sentamu I’m unsure there’s any meaningful distinction between historic ‘misconduct’ and the present. The assumption is that past misconduct (action/inaction) unaddressed remains current in that it could be repeated: the ‘risk’ remains. In the sense that it was unaddressed *then* it is current now. It is moot that the ‘now’ refers to a ‘then’ except in detail. This mootness is why a number of clergy have been disciplined for ‘historic’ misconduct – whether ‘cos it was mishandled or disregarded then or simply wasn’t known of.
One of many questions as to the adequacy of clergy discipline relates to why some are thrown under the bus and not others (typically bishops), and may be why this is happening to Sentamu only now when the essential facts have been known about by Welby et al for some years (it’s incidental that it’s again topical per report). Thus, was Sentamu allowed to retire, when suspension would have a much less serious effect on him/Church? And coming full-circle, why only him when Croft has the greater role (my answer above – ‘cos pto can be withdrawn for no reason and with no appeal).
Another absurdity: why was Dakin of Winchester allowed quietly to retire by Welby without disciple when there were multiple very serious wrongs? So egregious were some allegations about Dakin’s behaviour they should have been tested by cdm and would surely have resulted in prohibition if upheld. Just one aspect – bullying – almost becomes a safeguarding matter of the victim states they are or where suicidal (as in the instant case) – suicidality being unquestionably ‘vulnerability’ of the most serious kind.
I find it depressing that so much attention goes to safeguarding of the ‘vulnerable’ yet the vulnerability that clerical bullying/abuse of authority creates is relatively disregarded and seems virtually unpunished via cdm. Both are abuses of authority and both may be devastating for victims.
I dealt with these matters, making precisely the same point about Bishop Lowson’s irregular ‘suspension’ on the immediately preceding thread “The Thing under the Thing … ”!
The use of the word “required” (rather than ‘requested’) to stand back suggested to me that this was, or should have been, formalised legally.
I very carefully explained the difference between suspension under the CDM and withdrawal of PTO. I assumed that Archbishop Sentamu’s PTO had been formally withdrawn for the reasons explained to David Lamming above. The listed five criteria for CDM suspension all refer to an existing or potential significant risk.
The situation of Tim Dakin was entirely different: he and the Bishop of Basingstoke both ‘stood down’ voluntarily at the same time: neither was ‘required’ to do so. I’m not going to make any further comment about Winchester (which isn’t the subject here).
Sentamu himself, in his statement, said he had been suspended. Which is interesting, given his penchant for making fine legal distinctions.
To be clear (and I apologise if I wasn’t sufficiently), I was not making any comment at all about the position of Bishop Croft.
Returning to Archbishop Sentamu, my recollection, without checking, is that there are formalities and prescribed notices in writing to be used by a bishop when withdrawing permission to officiate. I don’t think it is ‘ad hoc’, as some comments appear to suggest. Adding also to what I said to David Lamming, it is surely significant that the bishop took legal advice and one would hope, and expect, that proper legal formalities were followed.
Bullying is usually included in training sessions on abuse/safeguarding. But it is horrendously difficult to get people to “get” it.
Re Croft’s suspension of Carey in 2020:
I have seen the correspondence between the NST and Carey. Keith Makin had come across, in the course of his Smyth investigation, a letter listing evangelical leaders who had been sent a ‘memo’ about Smyth. Carey was on that list, and Makin immediately forwarded the letter to the NST, who immediately assumed, without evidence, that the ‘memo’ was the Ruston Report. The Ruston Report detailed Smyth’s offences and made it clear there was a criminal element to them; it was sent to a strictly limited number of senior Iwerne leaders and to one other, David MacInnes. Its existence was kept secret for many years, but now anyone can find it on the internet.
It is known that a much wider circle of evangelical leaders were sent a brief and vague memo hinting about concerns re Smyth. It is also known that the memo was sent to Carey at Trinity College, Bristol, where he was principal. He was away a lot and Smyth was a very part time student at Trinity; Carey denies ever having seen the memo.
It was on these extremely tenuous grounds that Carey had his PTO removed. None of the other recipients of the ‘memo’, and none of those whose initials appeared on the detailed Ruston Report, have undergone any discipline at all.
Justice is only justice if it applies equally to everyone.
It was scandalous for George Carey to be singled out for investigation by the NST (with the Bishop of Oxford, Steven Croft, effectively instructed to withdraw Carey’s PTO – though since it was his decision he should have had the moral fibre to resist) on such a flimsy basis. It gives rise to the inference that Lord Carey, in retirement, was seen as a ‘soft target’, with the Church unwilling to risk the reputational damage of taking action against any bishop currently in post. Makin may be (disgracefully) three years late in reporting, but when his report on John Smyth eventually sees the light of day, the chickens may come home to roost.
It is an open secret that Bishops do not ever get found culpable in the CDM process.
When the CDM process tells an Old Age Pensioner and cancer survivor that when making a complaint about an Assistant Bishop, it was being dismissed because she had failed to prove that when he published untruthful allegations about people for which he could provide no supporting evidence, he was actually working for the Diocese who had asked him to write the report, then what hope is there for anyone ?
It is time that the Church of England had a totally independent Complaints Authority headed by a judge who is not a member of the Church.
I agree – as so many seem to – that the process is rotten. How, for example, is diocesan registrar independent from bishop, given that registrar ‘advises’ bishop at preliminary scrutiny whether a complaint should proceed and otherwise works closely with him? Registrars have vested – financial – interest in encouraging cases for full consideration as fee and representation payment generation is created among their small pool when complaints go to full consideration. How absurd of bishops to create this farrago of costs and payments to lawyers – typically over trivial cases.
Well said Shirley.
Feel for you Shirley. Sounds as if it doesn’t matter that you can prove misconduct, they will always come up with some technicality to save the Bishop. That is if you are lucky enough not to have your cdm ignored. It is all so cynical. I thought the code of clergy conduct said a high standard is expected of clergy. Most of us could not, and would not wish to, meet such low standards. It is very hard when such callousness and lack of integrity is added to the original injury. As the Church insists cdm is a legal process, why does it not follow court guidelines for those found guilty of defamation? Look after yourself.
If Mr Croft has nothing to hide why not voluntarily step down and let a genuinely independent investigation happen? If he is right he will be vindicated. Except that the NST and hierarchy of the Church of England have just completed (what they call) an ‘independent ‘ review (it wasn’t) and that, with all its shortcomings, found him guilty as charged.
Mr Croft you ignored 4 disclosures of abuse and made 4 of your ‘mistakes’, not one. You have repeatedly changed your story and lied. Stop victim blaming, re abusing and do the honourable thing and stop this re abuse. Don’t you realise the hurt and pain you are causing?
At present 46 peers have been granted leaves of absence from the house of lords – none of them are bishops. The reasons for obtaining such grants are various: some peers have been disqualified, some have fallen ill, some have been suspended, and some took leave for reasons of principle (such as certain former lords of appeal in ordinary or retired senior judges in receipt of life peerages wanting to adhere to the doctrine of a separation of powers).
As I see it, if a serving or retired bishop (whose right to sit effectively derives from his or her moral authority, and who may have received a life peerage in order to provide ‘moral input’ in the legislature) is subject to suspension or inquiry, especially in connection with a safeguarding matter, then I think that any such bishop should seek a leave of absence for as long as the suspension or inquiry endures (or thereafter if the bishop in question is responsible for malfeasance and/or negligent acts and omissions). The convenor of the lords spiritual (presently the bishop of St Albans) ought to prepare a protocol in connection with this. What little remains of the reputation of the lords spiritual will depend upon the institution of a credible arrangement for dealing with such cases, although I suspect that the lords spiritual might be abolished in the near future.
The other point to make is that the CNC must clarify with the prospective preferred candidates for appointment to any see (or translation from one see to another) that there have been, and are, no actual or prospective safeguarding cases. Prior to consecration or translation, the preferred candidate should sign a bond undertaking to resign with immediate effect if there are any such cases which ought to have been declared at the outset of the CNC process. Although the deliberations of the CNC are (unwarrantably) secret, it is hard to understand why, when Mr Ineson had notified the authorities of his case in 2012-13, this was not taken into account in the Oxford CNC (which was remarkably protracted, running from 2014-16) or, if it was taken into account, why it did not result in the translation being blocked. Either way, this indicates a serious deficiency in the CNC’s processes (but then I should add that I think that the CNC system should be abolished anyway).
Froghole. I know not every bishop is in the Lords. I take it that Croft is?
Yes, he is, EA. He was introduced almost 10 years ago whilst at Sheffield, having held the see for 5 years previously. If he continues at Oxford for another 5 years (he is 65), he will have had an unusually long spell in parliament for a modern lord spiritual.
I recall that just a year ago (on the 10 May 2022) Birketts LLP, lawyers for Bishop Croft wrote to the publisher of the “Archbishop Cranmer” blog stating that “There are no outstanding ‘unresolved safeguarding cases’ relating to Bishop Steven Croft, and to suggest that any such cases remain open or to infer that he has been guilty of any misconduct is deliberately misleading and defamatory”. The letter went on to demand that the blog post on the matter be taken down.
It is now clear that the statement quoted was false in two material ways. Firstly, according to the LLR, the NST had convened a Core Group to examine the allegations in July 2016, meeting until 2018. In 2017 it agreed that the NST should commission an independent LLR, and work began on that in 2019. At the time of sending that letter in 2022, then it was known that there was an outstanding unresolved case, namely the case which was the subject of the LLR, and this is accepted by Croft in his ad clerum, “the reviewer answers questions that have been pending for many years”. Secondly, according to that ad clerum, he “made a mistake” in his safeguarding practice,.
It is clear that lawyers, “representing” (their own words) Croft, wrote a letter making false assertions and demanding that true assertions be removed. Will Croft apologise for this misrepresentation?
That letter (or e-mail) to Adrian Hilton (aka Archbishop Cranmer) would have been written on Bishop Croft’s instructions (if not, then the solicitors must be referred to the SRA). This alone, surely, calls not only for an apology by bishop Steven Croft, but also calls into question his current suitability to be ultimately responsible for safeguarding within the diocese of Oxford (with the principle, apparently not accepted by Lord Sentamu, that safeguarding is ‘everybody’s business’), and whether those who may be affected in his diocese can have confidence in their bishop complying with current safeguarding policy and practice. Hence, regardless of the formalities set out in section 37 of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (as amended)—which may not, or not yet, be able to be satisfied—the case is surely clearly made out for the bishop to ‘step back’ voluntarily from active ministry, following the lead of Lord Sentamu and as Timothy Dakin did in Winchester in 2021 for different reasons.
By the way, it is interesting to note that Adrian Hilton, while he has closed his blog, posted the following tweet on twitter earlier today:
“Both of these bishops have been criticised for failures in safeguarding, regarding the rape of a 16-year-old boy and suicide of the accused priest. Only the one on the left [Sentamu] has been suspended from ministry, while the one on the right [Croft] has suspended clergy in his diocese for less.”
It is clear to many of us in this diocese that Croft should at least step back pending further inquiries. As Unreliable Narrator correctly points out, +Steven used his substitute lawyer (Birketts) to mislead and bully, and threaten anyone who questioned his unresolved CDM.
Another reason Croft should step back or be suspended is that when our beloved Dean Percy’s CDM was resolved after a long investigation (Judge Asplin declined to take the allegation further as a serious or disciplinary matter), Croft decided off his own bat to reach an entirely different conclusion. Bishop Croft defended the falsified risk assessments drawn up against the Dean, and allowed the Core Group to be compromised by persons who had clear conflicts of interest. This included our diocesan lawyers, who were litigating against our Dean. The lawyers were also using Luther Pendragon to brief against Dean Percy. Even our Diocesan Communications joined in with Croft issuing a number of media statements saying how “serious” the allegations against Percy were, and that this justified the harshness of Percy’s treatment.
At the same time, Bishop Steven had just dismissed his own ineptitude as “a mistake” as though it was a one off. This trivialises the fact that those mistakes were perpetrated (and evaded) over several years. Steven would not have hesitated to pull the trigger if this was one of his own clergy. But as +Croft “had a lot going on at the time” and Mr Ineson was “complicated” we should apparently let bygones be bygones. I wonder if clergy deprived of their PTO by +Croft for far lesser transgressions are feeling in a generous and forgiving mood? More likely, they will feel betrayed by yet another episode of episcopal hypocrisy.
Cara, as someone living in the diocese of Oxford, are you willing to identify yourself to us? Or, at least, get in touch with me at djlamming@hotmail.com: I’m concerned to co-ordinate those who say that +Croft should step back voluntarily, even if the legal grounds for his formal suspension under section 37 of the CDM 2003 may—arguably—not (or not yet) be made out.
If it’s any consolation, Cara, it was people power (specifically the likelihood of losing a confidence motion by Diocesan Synod) that led to Dakin of Winchester first ‘stepping back’ and then being ‘encouraged’ to retire.
: “Steven Croft has apologised to Matthew multiple times for an error, and it was an error. There’s nothing malicious in that. He’s not the abuser of Matthew. Of course the bishop will not be standing down on this matter. There was an awful lot going on with Matthew. It is a mistake, but that’s it.”
Cara – I gather that what you are quoting is a ‘tweet’ put out by or on behalf of Bishop Croft. Two comments:
First, to say that “there was an awful lot going on with Matthew” is diversionary and tantamount to ‘victim blaming’.
Second, to describe Steven Croft’s failure to act on the written disclosures of abuse communicated to him by Matt Ineson in 2013 as “a mistake, but that’s it” is not how the then President of Tribunals, Sir Andrew McFarlane, described the matter in his decision of 5 August 2016, declining to give permission for Matt to bring his CDM complaint against Croft two years after the expiry of the normal one-year limitation period. The President of Tribunals said this at para 11:
“By way of a preliminary observation it is right to record that the Complainant’s complaint raises important issues involving an alleged failure on the part of those in authority, to whom complaint had been made, to take the steps required under the relevant Safeguarding Guidance. At the time , but certainly in the current climate, such a failure, if established, could only be regarded as serious.” (There was a similar paragraph in the separate decision of the President, declining to give permission for Matt to bring his CDM complaint against Archbishop Sentamu out of time.)
The Independent Reviewer, Jane Humphreys, has now found Croft’s failure as established: “The survivor’s allegations he disclosed his abuse on two occasions in written form and the Bishop of Sheffield did not act on the disclosures, are substantiated.” [Review, para 15.17 on page 32.]
The time limit for bringing CDMs really ought to be extended when the CDM is revised. In Matt’s case, as in others I’m aware of, the complainant had to wait until the police had finished their investigation before lodging a CDM. The time limit does not allow for such genuine reasons for being ‘late’.
The one year limit in the CDM is not nearly as rigid as people seem to believe – this is a link to section 9 dealing with the point:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/2003/3/section/9
Agreed that its implementation is another matter. The CDM is to be replaced by the Clergy Conduct Measure (no draft text yet available so far as I am aware). One hopes that the new Measure will address this and other shortcomings in the existing CDM.
Many thanks. I note that Section 9 (1) states that where there has been some form of sexual abuse then the 1 year limit can be extended at the discretion of the president of tribunals. However, I do find that inherently problematic, because it supposes that the victim will be ready to appeal to the president at the time relatively soon after the abuse has been committed; the victim may also have to incur costs and/or effort to make the application to the president, without any assurance that the extension will be granted. The Church may well resist the application; as such, the application to extend may itself become an exhausting and debilitating experience for the victim.
I cannot help but think that Section 9 was drafted by the Legal Office in order to make things somewhat harder for victims (and to give greater leverage to the Church authorities), whilst also giving the *impression* of ‘balance’. However, this balance is largely illusory: the authorities know full well that abuse will often be relatively hard to prove, and also that there is a significant asymmetry in bargaining power, resources, etc., between individual victims and the ecclesiastical authorities; this reminds me of Lord Darling’s aphorism that ‘in England, justice is open to all, like the Ritz’.
Although I note the other provisions in Section 9, I do feel that (insofar the Church should retain any special processes) it should be reformed, such that: (i) reference is made to other forms of abuse; and (ii) the limitation period is extended to 3 years, as per Section 11 (4) of the Limitation Act 1980 (which, as you will know well, covers personal injuries). With respect to limitation periods, I fail to see why the physical, emotional and psychological injuries suffered by abuse victims should be treated by the Church any differently to personal injuries suffered by litigants in the secular world.
Good points, Froghole.
On the subject of limitation, the Home Secretary made a statement in Parliament yesterday with the Government’s preliminary responses to the 20 recommendations made by IICSA.
This was IICSA recommendation 15: “Removal of the three-year limitation period for personal injury claims brought by victims”.
The Government response: “We accept the critical issue this recommendation seeks to remedy, and we will consult on strengthening existing judicial guidance in child sexual abuse cases and set out options to reform limitation law in child sexual abuse cases.”
Which seems to equate to ‘watch this space’.
Many thanks for that. I imagine that if that limitation is lifted completely or extended (perhaps to 6 years as per claims in contract or tort) then it will make the 1 year limit under the CDM appear even more anomalous, onerous and indefensible.
For what it is worth, my prediction is that the relevant government department will point out that the three years limitation period for personal injuries which have been held to include trespass to the person (as appropriate to sexual abuse) is already extendable by the Court without limit of time. I have only known of one case, possibly two years ago, where the Court refused to extend the time limit.
Also, limitation does not apply at all to claims from persons under a disability: all infants (thus a child abused at the age of three can bring an action at age 21) and, e.g., adults with mental incapacity. I think the Home Secretary’s answer hints at clearer and possibly more binding guidance on exercising the existing judicial discretion.
I think it is worth noting the basis of the President’s decisions not to grant an extension of time to Matt Ineson in respect of his CDM complaints against Croft and Archbishop Sentamu. I’ve just posted a lengthy three-part comment on Thinking Anglicans (the thread following the post ‘Devamanikkam – Bishop of Newcastle responds to Sentamu’), quoting the relevant part of Sir Andrew McFarlane’s decision in the Sentamu case. He gave a similar reason for declining to extend time in respect of Matt’s complaint against Bishop Steven Croft.
That said, Sir Andrew also said (as I quoted in a previous comment on this thread) that Sentamu’s and Crofts’s alleged failure to act on the disclosures “if established, could only be regarded as serious.” That has now been established by Jane Humphreys (see her Review, paras 15.17 and 16.3.18) – hence justifying the action taken by the Bishop of Newcastle and raising the question as to whether similar action should be taken in respect of the current Bishop of Oxford.
As a Baptist Minister, I find it inconceivable that the normal (secular) safeguarding standards and processes do not apply to the Church of England. I appreciate that, as the “State Church”, it occupies a different legal space to us Nonconformists. But we, over what is now many years, have had to write and rewrite our Policies and Procedures in line with Home Office guidelines, and I for one cannot see why this should not be the case for the Church of England. This, together with the many other points including of the oft-made ones transparency, episcopalian responsibilities, “marking one’s own homework” and the rest hardly give the CofE credibility with the wider public, let alone with its own members.
As one who is credobaptist but having a love of many things Anglican, I was persuaded by a genuine minister of the Church of England to be confirmed into that Church. I spent happy years there under his ministry; but, after his departure, when there set in intolerable rot both local and national, I had to get out. From time to time, I have considered re-entering, but the accelerating pace of the obvious downgrade has made re-entry almost impossible. The CoE is on the threshold of apostasy. Not so long ago, in “conversation” with some Anglican clergy, I drew attention to the first quality of the overseer at 1 Timothy 3:1 – he must be “above reproach/blameless/etc.”; but, not only would they not agree about the meaning of the (Greek) word, they also dismissed the dictum as being “postPauline” and to be ignored – and, in any event, even if Paul wrote it, it’s only his opinion and so to be ignored. Where is the learning of the modern Anglican clergy? and do they have any biblical faith? And does anyone ever insist that Scriptural trenching is applied to the clergy?
A year ago last Christmas I made some weak joke about omega and alpha being eclipsed by omicron and delta (the latest variants of covid). To my amazement our curate did not know that omicron and delta were Greek letters! That the clergy you met are capable of arguing about the meaning of a Greek word is, in the context of the Church of england today, not to be assumed.
The clerical profession has past form in this regard, and it seems like we are going full circle back to Erasmus’s ‘mumpsimus sumpsimus’ (1516).
One of many.
In other words he and they lied
I don’t know what will happen next, but here are some probable outcomes. The “Old School” responses would be (1) do nothing: brazen it out, on the grounds that an LLR has been held and that is the last word; (2) pension Croft off: have him take a three-month sabbatical to “reflect” and meanwhile offer him a prestigious-sounding job to go away such as Archbishop of Antarctica (a variation on this is three months sick leave because of stress and then resign on a hefty medical pension), so that everything becomes moot (3) throw Croft under the bus: take formal sanctions, such as suspension, and declare that they close the matter. My guess, for what it’s worth, is some form of (2). There is justification for a Core Group, since Croft’s current failure to understand safeguarding as evidenced by his ad clerum, could be held to require a current risk assessment.
Sadly, none of these likely options look like justice for the survivors.