by Susan Hunt
![](http://survivingchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/justice.jpg)
Editor writes: The legal system in Britain has many strands; in particular there are two tasks it tries to perform well in delivering justice for our society. The first thing is to apprehend and punish malefactors, those who break the law and cause harm to individuals and institutions in our society. A second fundamental task is to determine when an accused person is in fact innocent. If anyone is declared ‘not guilty’, he/she can continue their life acquitted and free from the accusation made against them. Justice systems are course not infallible and get things wrong on occasion. Individuals may spend years in prison accused and sentenced for crimes they have not committed. The police, courts and officials who work for the cause of justice, however conscientious, sometimes allow things to go awry. Fortunately, we have in this country a further institution which may, on occasion, protest the guilt or innocence of individuals even after legal processes have apparently been exhausted. Despite its foibles and failures, the free British Press does sometimes act positively to promote the role of delivering justice. Many miscarriages of justice, like the Post Office accusations, have been exposed because a journalist has been prepared to burrow away to uncover evidence that the professionals, the police, lawyers and judges, have somehow missed.
The administration of justice in Britain is an expensive enterprise. Courts and prisons represent a huge investment of resources and personnel to provide a system that provides justice most of the time to serve the people of our society. It comes as surprise to many people to discover that the Church of England operates its own justice system. It does not operate prisons, but it has procedures and can make decisions which have force and authority, being backed up by the State. I hesitate in claiming to understand exactly how secular law and church law intersect but we have seen over the past week an illustration of the way that the alleged behaviour of one ordained individual, Canon Andrew Hindley of Blackburn Cathedral, interacted with the legal processes of both church and state.
The damage to the entire Church of England, and especially the cathedral and diocese at Blackburn, because of this Hindley affair has been considerable. For reasons that are shrouded in mystery the prosecuting authorities of the state refused to involve itself with the case, despite numerous police investigations into Hindley’s behaviour. The church’s internal legal processes have faced an uphill task in taking action. In the end, the departure of Canon Hindley was only secured through the payment to him of a considerable sum of money. It is enormously expensive to force a high-profile church employee to resign and the saga of the former Bishop of Winchester comes to mind. The pay-off for Canon Hindley will also have been prohibitively high. One questions as to whether these costs of possessing such an in-house legal structure are justified. A further problem is that, at the local level at least, the skills and expertise to determine the guilt and innocence of accused employees/volunteers are frequently absent. Would it not be cheaper, as Professor Jay suggested, to hand over the entire safeguarding process to be overseen by a secular body with the skills and authority to deliver reliable justice? This would be in accordance with the norms and protocols developed for employment law.
While the application of church law is problematic at the national level, it also, not surprisingly, encounters issues of professional competence at the local/ diocesan level. Surviving Church has for some years championed the cause of ‘Kenneth’, accused of sexual abuse by a church Core-Group appointed by a C/E diocese. No proper examination of the facts of the case has ever been undertaken and the unqualified opinions of the group have declared him guilty. The group has refused even to consider the possibility of his innocence. When justice is determined without legally competent methods being applied, the potential damage to an institution is considerable, quite apart from the pain suffered by the accused person.
Susan Hunt takes up this story of highly damaging and legally incompetent behaviour.
Let us remind ourselves about the treatment of ‘Kenneth’ whose advocate, I, Susan Hunt, have been, in relentlessly supporting his case for more than four years. This is a saga which is well documented, using objective information including Subject Access Request (SAR) documents.
Kenneth, an elderly ailing man of 79 years, was accused in March 2020 of sexually touching a chorister, an accusation he vehemently denies. He was refused not only an investigation but also the consideration of five pieces of significant evidence and a further one from the cathedral’s own records which might have exonerated him.
Kenneth’s case, is still, four and a half years later, without investigation or any scrutiny of evidence. Such a serious accusation has led to the gravest of injustices.
For the details see: https://survivingchurch.org/2023/11/02/searching-for-truth-how-kenneth-has-been-failed-by-the-justice-system-of-the-church-of-england/
THE PROBLEM INCLUDES MANY OTHER PEOPLE
One case which bears similarities to that of Kenneth is that of the London priest, Father Alan Griffin. He committed suicide because of the way he had been treated in a safeguarding case. Of him his close friend, the Revd Peter Mullen, spoke of “the nonchalant cruelty of the officials who destroyed his life.” In Kenneth’s case there are nine parallels to the case of Father Alan Griffin. The Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser (DSA) in Kenneth’s case did not even bother to acknowledge the chart I made of the similarities; surely another case of ‘nonchalant cruelty’.
Martin Sewell wrote an open letter to the Chair of the Charity Commission, Mr. Orlando Fraser KC: 13 Dec 2022 signed by 51 others. A relevant paragraph reads:
‘We are all witnesses to a highly dysfunctional church culture – one lacking in care, wisdom and responsibility – uniformly poor in responses to allegations of abuse, and subsequent complaints about corrupted, cruel and inhumane processes. These have led to despair, suicides, travesties of justice, all perpetrating much longer term pastoral and personal damage on a colossal scale. Yet nobody in the Church of England takes any responsibility for this. We have no functional leadership in safeguarding.’
THE DIOCESAN SAFEGUARDING ADVISER
The blame for the bungling fiasco of Kenneth’s case seem to lie with the DSA. Although she claimed she was following procedures in the House of Bishops Guidance, she failed to follow fifteen procedures relating to respondents in that document. Neither would she ever give a reference to any of the claims she stated even though asked many times. These were:
1.“Our role is to believe the complainant whatever he says and any evidence to the contrary is inadmissible”:
2. “Our role is to weigh the balance of probabilities. This essentially means that we are weighing up whether, ‘more likely than not’ there is a risk based on the allegation that has been made”:
3.“Our role is not to seek the truth”:
4.“Our role is not to investigate the allegation”:
5.”Our role is not to assign guilt but to manage risk for the safety of the church and in so doing it is victim/survivor led”.
There are many contradictions in the above statements, as the DSA seems to have pursued her own version of the truth. This ‘Alice in Wonderland’ situation of ‘verdict first, judgement afterwards” that has been arrived at after four years cannot easily be resolved. Neither can the mantra ‘the child must be believed’ . The Diocesan Safeguarding Core Group (DSCG) members were persuaded that they could trust the DSA on this and they have now found themselves in a corner from which there is no obvious way out. In the same way that they trusted her judgement formed on a false assessment that Kenneth is High Risk. Now in that too there is no way back – the result of amateurs making professional decisions.
A piece of evidence from the choral registers which might well have exonerated Kenneth has been deliberately suppressed by the DSA. Although she knew it was legal to give Kenneth the information we learn that her most recent excuse for not giving it was that she said she looks at the case “through a safeguarding lens” (from SAR). It is strongly suspected that not giving it for more than four years is a cover-up to avoid divulging information which might exonerate Kenneth and incriminate one of their own.
The DSCG boast they instigated an ‘Independent Review’. Independent it was not: the reviewer had already worked alongside the DSA and he was only allowed to work within parameters laid down by the DSCG, which did not include any independent investigation of the allegation. Even so he strongly criticised the approach of the DSCG to the case.
Lord Carlile said of Safeguarding DSCGs that they are ‘undertaking legal work for which they are not trained’. Leaving the administration of justice to a group of legally unqualified amateurs taking the law into their own hands needs to be countered by a system of proper challenge and appeal. Professor Jay also found this a weakness in the system.
An example of illegal practice by amateurs is Kenneth’s Risk Assessment when he had been designated ‘High Risk’. This had been based on incomplete and false information including the DSA admitting they had confused Kenneth’s information with that of another person; even so it was still included in his assessment. The result was that he was ‘HIGH RISK’ – the same level as a convicted paedophile.
On July 22nd 2024 I asked the Diocesan Secretary ‘Could you tell me please what professional body, if any, regulates the Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser?’ There has been no answer to this simple yes/no question. So presumably she is not accountable to anyone. Even three bishops and a dean claim they ‘cannot intervene in the processes of a DSCG’.
INFORMATION FROM SAR
From SAR there is strong evidence that the conversations in DSCG were inappropriate and unprofessional. They made cruel and disparaging remarks about Kenneth personally, his life, friends and interests. They speculated about important issues regarding Kenneth which they should have known as part of the case. The speculation often led to downright lies which Kenneth could not challenge or dispute because he did not know they were being said.
From SAR In the privacy of their meetings they even try to blame Kenneth for the impasse for ‘not engaging with the process‘. By this, they mean he would not sign a document admitting his guilt. Although Kenneth insists he wants me and my husband to be present at meetings, that was refused because I am frequently criticised for my ‘interference’ which has ‘obstructed process’. We even find advice given to the Dean to hold meetings with Kenneth in his office as that is his territory with him in control of the space. Thus he can refuse us the right to be present to support Kenneth. In an attempt to resolve this problem from their point of view there have been DSCG discussions as to what to tell Kenneth so he refuses further help from me.
In an email found in SAR to an outside person written by the Dean, he claims that the DSCG had ‘made considerable efforts at justice, honesty and compassion for the victim’. In the context in which it was written, ‘victim’ refers to Kenneth. So, it would seem that the Dean now realises that it is Kenneth who is the victim, but he can do nothing about it without the DSA’s agreement.
PROBLEMS FOR THE CATHEDRAL
The frustration for the cathedral in Kenneth’s case is that he has never signed any agreement plan admitting guilt. Without that final jigsaw piece, the case can never arrive at any complete resolution. So, although he can now attend the cathedral under certain conditions, he has been treated as though he accepts the DSCG’s judgement. Kenneth, however, does not believe that there is any intention to move towards his full and final rehabilitation.
I continue the task of supporting Kenneth with the encouragement of those who have followed this saga on Surviving Church. Recently, Stephen and his wife watched an online service from St Mary’s Episcopal Cathedral in Edinburgh where there was a public adult baptism. This included a promise by the candidate to ‘work for justice and peace, honouring God in all creation’. This promise is stated more strongly than in the words of Common Worship where the baptismal pledge is to ‘seek peace and justice’. For me, working for justice and peace through my efforts to obtain the complete rehabilitation of Kenneth, is part of my attempt to live out my Christian identity and vocation.
This story of Kenneth casts a shadow over the safeguarding processes, not just of one diocese, but through it, the entire C/E. By resisting the official institutional version of the truth, I, as an independent advocate, am challenging the competence and professionalism of many important church people, They come to be seen as unsafe. The only conclusion I can draw is that currently worshippers need to be warned that the C/E is a basically an unsafe organisation. It is unsafe because because its much-vaunted safeguarding procedures are not themselves safe.
It’s the sheer randomness of all this I find so disturbing. Any due process there is, is mixed up with a make-it-up-as-you-go-along set of manoeuvres entirely at the behest of those who hold power. There is no accountability.
One thing you can guarantee in this Church, is that if you happen to have the misfortune of falling within their fiefdom, you are certain to be treated unfairly.
Let the buyer beware.
Kangaroo Court Justice-is that what we are really talking about here? Is the Anglican Church one of the few places-or the only place-in the modern UK, where bible-derived wisdom about letting the evidence of 2-3 people speak for itself gets regularly ignored? Perpetrators protected and victims vilified-is that the order of the day often? The collapse of the Church and closures is an inevitable result. Small wonder lots of former members rarely attend and are wary of contributing!
This seems to have overtones of the current case between a Dr Taylor and Derby diocese – he’s effectively banned from work simply because he gave an address to a school assembly stating the traditional Christian (and at present official CofE) standing on sexual and marriage relationships. He was subsequently branded a High Risk offender by the DSA and driven out of his job.
I admit I only know of what I’ve read in a thread on TA which gave a detailed, conservative synopsis of the case, and quotes by an evangelical minister, quoting sources sympathetic to Dr Taylor. (Yes, there may just be a possible element of bias there.) But there are parallels in the problems of his counsel obtaining proof of the ‘evidence’ on which the decision was based, and other issues.
There could well be a major element of prejudice in the decision – if taken consistently, it would also require the removal of every copy of C S Lewis’ ‘Mere Christianity’ from the diocese – Lewis’ comments on same sex relationships and Christian marriage would be too inflammatory, offensive and dangerous – and, indeed, the gagging, for fear of reprisals of every one holding ‘straight’ or traditional Christian within the said diocese. Has that been thought through? I suspect not
Or is it a case of a high profile victim being pilloried ‘pour l’encouragement des autres’ – ie management by intimidation?
Certainly, equality means everybody has equal rights to be heard and, provided such views are not criminal in any way, to express their valid opinions. This doesn’t sound as if that applies in this case – or, indeed a good many others.
I think you’ll find, if you read the report, that there was rather more to this case than some folk are suggesting. Having said that, I’m not sure that I agree with the Employment Tribunal’s final decision: https://tinyurl.com/mrxdbsw7.
Thank you for this, Andrew. You probably noticed my own caveat, that there could be an element of bias in my available sources, and I’m rather glad I put it in. When you work in law enforcement, as I have, you find that a certain amount of suspicion can be a big asset. And, very sadly, I’ve found that the same holds true about some evangelical Christians.
Essentially a clergyman mentioned this case, and a couple of others, including ‘a Christian nurse sacked for refusing to remove a crucifix necklace’ in a sermon I attended; the whole tenor of the references was to convince us that our days of religious freedom are numbered, the humanist, liberal enemy is closing in and persecution is on the horizon.
The story about the nurse I suspected was grossly over-simplified and doctored to ‘prove’ a point – my daughter is a nurse and I understand the hygiene reasons behind the ban, which applies to any jewellery. Not knowing anything about the Taylor case, I couldn’t comment on it until a transcript, from I think Taylor’s counsel appeared on another TA thread a few weeks ago. And that, as I said above, gave a very one sided version of the story, sufficient to raise exactly the kind of fears and concerns that were intended.
My speaker friend told us that he’d heard Taylor’s sermons and that there was nothing in them which was ‘wrong’, or sufficient to warrant what happened subsequently. Now that is very much a matter of opinion – and depends on how the message was delivered and the intended audience perceived it. C S Lewis, as I mentioned is even more blunt and one-sided on this subject, but he was writing in a different era and for a different, older audience.
What I find particularly annoying is the way in which the con/evan wing continue to misrepresent so many of these cases, with the clear intention of misleading their audience and gaining support for their ’cause’. Its the sort of thing you expect on GB News – yet we proclaim that ‘if you know the truth, it will set you free.’
Truth in these cases seems to be a very selective commodity, so caveat emporia. When does the careful selection of truth become a lie? And, sadly, trust and confidence increasingly need to be applied very, very cautiously to anything that comes from particular sources within the church community.
Autocorrect does sometimes come up with some beauties. ‘Caveat emporia’ is a real gem.
-‘The law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable’-is the first of Lord Bingham’s famous ‘eight principles of law’. ‘Unintelligible, murky and unpredictable’-describes Church law. The opening page of ‘House of Survivors’ website [https://houseofsurvivors.org/] has 13 reports on the Canon Andrew Hindley case at Blackburn Cathedral…….
https://houseofsurvivors.org/ has a Church Times report (see ‘RECENT’ section on first page of their website) which contains this sentence : ‘One occasion, detailed on Tuesday evening’s episode of BBC Radio 4’s File on 4, related to Canon Hindley’s conduct at a drinks party in the cathedral gardens, at which he was accused of indecently assaulting a woman, kissing an under-age girl, and improperly touching two men.’
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have both been involved with the Blackburn Cathedral fiasco, where an award of £240,000 was allegedly offered to Canon Hindley. Anglicans need to get real here and not just endlessly prevaricate. I think there might arguably be grounds for a mass sanctioning of the Church by withholding member financial contributions for 2024-2025.
Our Anglican Bishops and Archbishops desperately need a wake up call. Ian Elliott writes in-‘Letters to a Broken Church’-how the dire situation in Irish Catholicism was only radically altered when the most senior levels of Church leadership were fully held to account.
Voltaire wrote jokingly (about the Royal Navy) how: “In this country, it is good to kill an admiral from time to time, in order to encourage the others”. We certainly do not need to kill any Anglican Bishops or Archbishops, after the manner of Admiral John Byng!
But Bishops must face having their careers killed when issues like the story at Blackburn Cathedral arise. That’s what changed Irish Catholicism, and no amount of endless Anglican waffle will achieve the required result. Can Justin Welby be respected as Archbishop of Canterbury, and senior leader of the global Anglican communion, when anyone looks up that dreadful Blackburn Cathedral story?
Subsequent to the Blackburn expose a friend told me of an incident which involved a disabled lady she knows. This lady was subjected to deep-throat kissing by a vicar, under the guise of ‘greeting one another with a holy kiss’ and was seriously upset by the experience; my friend subsequently accompanied her to the appropriate clerical disciplinary hearing, at which the offender was reprimanded and sent for appropriate training.
He subsequently met the lady and remarked that he would keep his nose clean for a couple of years, and then go back to his old, ‘normal’ ways! In other words, female colleagues and parishioners look out – the disciplinary process was a resounding success……
I’m not a lawyer, but spent twelve years as Preacher to one of the Inns of Court. She writes “A second fundamental task [of the criminal justice system] is to determine when an accused person is in fact innocent”. This needs correcting but doing so may well strengthen her argument. The task is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to declare the accused person guilty. Not semantics, but a crucial difference.
Anglicanism’s-‘Elephant in the room’-is how a single and weakly made charge can stand against a relative nobody. But there are often ‘teflon’ leaders or chosen ones, where vast trails of evidence appear to get discounted or ignored. This will probably continue until a Bishop (or Archbishop) receives a ceremonial boot evicting them from their palace and perks. Blasphemous contempt for the biblical principles of justice, which inform national law and Church rules, brings the C of E to its knees as lots of Anglicans not unexpectedly depart in the wake of serial scandal cover ups…..
As I understand it there isn’t, at present, a mechanism for booting bishops and archbishops out of their jobs and palaces; unless, perhaps, they were to be convicted in a court of law of a criminal offence.
We need the government to put it right, as we don’t seem able or willing to do it for ourselves.
Are there sinister (or completely unacceptable) overtones in the handling of the Blackburn Cathedral case? Was there an NDA and why?
If a legal situation arose, where removal could not be accomplished without a payout, why not go for a bigger payment and transparency with the wider Church membership? Why use Church funds in a payout without describing the actual amounts, or including associated legal expenses and arrangements?
There is surely a strong case for Church members to defer making any Anglican Church contribution for 2024-2025. The Blackburn case should make the blood of Anglican Church members boil.
There is just something incredibly sleazy about the story. “Lessons learnt” from Pilavachi-Fletcher-Smyth-Ball? Lessons will only ever be learnt when a furniture removal van calls at Lambeth Palace or the Archbishop’s residence in York.
The wider Irish Catholic abuse tragedy forced a serious reform of practice, as told by Ian Elliott in ‘Letters to a Broken Church’. That points to where the CoE now needs to go…….
BBC InDepth: ‘Why does the Church of England struggle to deal with child abuse allegations?’ Published 15 August 2024.