There are many discussions between people that are rendered difficult or even impossible because each side understands particular words differently. When words which have contentious backgrounds come into a conversation, there is massive scope for non-communication. Recently someone used the word ‘cult’ in an online comment on this blog. The one thing wrong with using a word like this is that its use tends to foster misunderstandings. For this reason, I am reluctant to use it except when I go the annual conference of cultic specialists, the organisation known as the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA). There are of course numerous other words in the area of theology and religious thinking that have the same capacity for meaning different things to different people. A recent topical example is the word ‘review’ when used by an institutional body, like the Church, to describe an attempt to hold an examination of past (mis)conduct with the express aim of learning from what went wrong.
In the Church Times today (Friday) there is a story about the review of the case of Matt Ineson and his abuser, the late Trevor Devamanikkam. The National Safeguarding Team (NST) has commissioned Jane Humphries to carry out a ‘lessons-learnt’ review of the case. The basic facts of the original case are not disputed but what will be under examination are the responses of senior church people to Matt’s attempts to disclose to them what had happened to him. These disclosures were made over a period of several years. Matt has named four bishops, including the current Archbishop of York, as having been informed of the case by him personally. The review is thus being asked to consider some information which could potentially prove embarrassing to the bishops concerned. Up till now, despite attempts by Matt to establish accountability over the way his case was handled, there have been no apologies from the Church. In an excruciating encounter at the IICSA hearings, Justin Welby failed to offer any kind of apology to Matt even though he was sitting only a few feet away. No doubt, issues of legal liability were uppermost in the mind of the lawyers advising the Archbishop. It was, nevertheless, a shameful incident in the history of church safeguarding and its failures.
Matt is, according to the Church Times story, refusing to cooperate with this current review. He asks the valid and so-far unanswered question. How can you trust a review which is set up by the organisation that is being accused of bad behaviour? To quote his words: ‘The Church is steamrolling ahead, trying to control an investigation into themselves. This is open to corruption. I would work 100 per cent with a genuinely independent review. This is not it. …. We have repeatedly asked the Church to have a totally independent review, which they have refused’.
Matt’s concerns about the independence of the Church review process are not unfounded. One independent review did get conducted into an abuse case, the Elliot Review, but this was subsequently ignored and undermined. The IICSA process uncovered some of the falsehoods used to question the Elliot Review but the damage had been done. Although the review initially received the attention of Archbishop Welby himself, and a bishop was commissioned to implement the recommendations, there was a complete failure to do this and Elliot has been quietly dropped and ignored. It is not surprising that the word ‘review’ when used by senior church people means something different from the meaning it has for the rest of us.
The BBC Sunday programme in August broadcast an interview with Kate Blackwell QC about what a properly conducted review should look like. I took the trouble to have that interview transcribed and placed on this blog. http://survivingchurch.org/2019/08/05/bbc-radio-4-sunday-programme/ . It seemed to set out so clearly the common-sense approach to what a review of a past abuse case might involve. Her clarity seemed to show up how extraordinarily amateur the Church’s approach to this issue appears to be. Kate emphasised that the focus of any review must be the victim/survivor. There can no question of institutions using such reviews to protect themselves.
Interestingly, across the world in Florida, an example of good practice has appeared this week. http://anglican.ink/2019/11/27/independent-investigation-into-st-peters-anglican-cathedral/ An organisation called Godly Response to Abuse in a Christian Environment (GRACE) has been asked to investigate a Cathedral in Tallahassee within the fold of ACNA, the independent part of Anglican Church in North America. The case concerned one Father Eric Dudley, the Dean of St Patrick’s Cathedral. He was accused of grooming and molesting young men over a period of years. The report has now been published and it seems a thorough piece of professional work. A crucial detail of the investigation was that at the beginning, the ACNA bishop wanted to hold an internal inquiry. Senior clergy in the diocese prevailed upon him to engage GRACE as they realised (like Matt) that organisations which investigate themselves are in danger of doing a less than fully competent job. However good the reviewer is, the fact that they are employed by the organisation means that their true independence may be questioned.
GRACE interviewed fifty-one witnesses and reviewed countless documents and telephone records. The story that emerged about Dudley’s behaviour was deeply disturbing to his flock, especially since a major part of the rationale of their breakaway status was the firm resistance to the LGTB cause. Dudley chose lonely young men to abuse. These could be manipulated and sucked into a relationship over a period. The victims all expressed their gratitude for the professionalism of GRACE. One of the painful experiences for victims within the whole process was the way that some, early on in the process, had received ‘godly admonitions’ for coming forward to report their abuse. In other words, the Church left to itself had tried to shut the victims up for trying to speak out. The charismatic hold, as we would describe it, had meant that, at the beginning, people in the congregation had not wanted to hear any accusations against their Dean.
There is a great deal that cannot be mentioned in my perusing of this American document. The fact of its existence and the way that it provides detailed examples of good practice means that it should be part of the tool-chest of every safeguarding professional in this country. We need increased professionalism in this area. There is too much at present that seems like individuals making up good practice as they go along. Matt’s concern that the investigation in his case will not be adequate is a reasonable concern.
I’ve had to sit lightly to this blog for a while, for personal reasons, but this post prompts me to respond because it’s something I feel strongly about.
Firstly you have to feel for Matt and given all that we have learnt about his shameful treatment, I can totally support his decision not to participate in a review that is not sufficiently independent; and it’s hard to understand why the church would go ahead without his involvement, there must be room for a fresh approach there that gets everybody who needs to be around the table.
In terms of good practice models I think we can look at complaints as well as reviews. I have worked as an Independent Person for Children Act Complaints and most families and children we investigated with found this a helpful role. This is a statutory process where an Independent investigator leads the investigation and as independent person you ensure it is fair, thorough, child-centred. For less complex and far-reaching cases, this would be a proportional approach. I have no recent experience of serious case reviews, so others will be better placed to draw lessons from this. The other model I think works well is the CHIRP confidential aviation and marine incident reporting, which allows for confidential reports so makes whistle blowing easy, and takes an inquisitorial lessons learnt approach, avoiding legalistic, adversarial positions. If trust is engendered earlier on by an independent investigation process ad soon as things go wrong, the need for major reviews should fall significantly.
As a small not for profit, I have also through my company been employed by small community groups and in one case a parish church to undertake an independent review, and I think this can work well too. It would be best if there is an independent ombudsman role, with some power, to appeal to at the end, if it all goes wrong.
Fundamentally its actions indicate that the Church believes it is above reproach. It is exempted from external review.
In PCR2 all cases that have not been previously reviewed will need to undergo independent review and where reviews have happened, but the survivor did not feel their voice had been heard, there will be an opportunity for them to discuss this with a PCR2 reviewer.
It is important that survivors feel safe enough and feel it will be worthwhile enough to engage with this so I would like to offer a slightly different perspective on learning reviews. My case is undergoing review, I do not have a solicitor or journalist so like most learning reviews it will not be common knowledge. I asked the church to employ independent external mediators which I selected them from an internet search, to provide the negotiation. The mediators who are highly skilled, neutral and completely outside the church have helped us to negotiate terms of reference, me having a wide choice of who the reviewer is, and will stay on board until I receive an unredacted copy of the report and have agreed with the church how the information will be disseminated and used for learning outcomes. I have no interest in the resport being published just that it is used to enhance practice.
The church has been amenable in all of this. It is impossible for me to tell if without that mediation the same result would have been achieved but along the way I have experienced an understanding within the church that these reviews need to matter so I do hope survivors will feel able to engage in PCR2.
Are we supposed to know if our case is being reviewed? I haven’t heard that mine is.
Hi Janet, details as to how to become involved should be appearing on diocesan websites soon. I think it is that difficulty of striking the right balance that may be problematic, the church cannot and are advised not to blunder into people’s lives if they haven’t heard from them for years but this does mean it has to have sufficient publicity for people to know and engage if they want to.
Reviews need to be completed by the end of next year so time yet but I would definitely make contact when you see the details appear, if you want to, and make sure you have a voice.
Thank you Trish. I’m in touch with a diocese regarding my case, so hopefully they will tell me when my case is being reviewed. They are already aware that a letter vanished from the files.
Filleting of files is a real problem particularly if the survivor doesn’t get in touch to be involved because a reviewer can only review what is there. If you know something is not there ask the diocese to make a note in the file that it is missing so that flags up in any review. If you supply a copy of anything that is missing make sure you label it clearly as a copy so they can’t suddenly find the original!
Stephen, your article sets out cogent reasons why General Synod needs to be given the opportunity to debate various safeguarding reviews and reports, such as Carlile, Gibb and Singleton, in addition to Elliot. So far, this has been denied: see the answers to (i) my question at General Synod in February 2019 (Q.101), and (ii), earlier this week, to my question (Q.31) asked in response to the opportunity given to Synod members by the Business Committee (pursuant to SO 117) to ask questions for written answer between groups of sessions.
Bishop Peter Hancock’s recent answer says that “The House of Bishops will request the Business Committee to ensure the General Synod has the opportunity at each group of sessions to consider safeguarding matters. This may not best be achieved by debates on individual cases or reports.” It remains to be seen whether a motion for debate will be on the agenda in February: an “opportunity… to consider” could be just an update presentation followed by a short time of Q&A.
Setting out how General Synod should approach reviews in detail is probably beyond my pay grade. I just hope that the contributions of Kate Blackwell, Matt and the work of GRACE in America can bring about a better more common sense approach to the mechanisms involved. There is room for an outsider to keep hammering on with these basic observations about just and clear practice. It is good that my concerns are being heard by some on the Synod itself even if I don’t follow or understand all the detail of procedure and protocol.
So glad to hear about your review process, Trish, I hope the outcome is good, well done for setting up such a good process. Do you know of anyone researching good practice models?
Hello Jane, thank you for your kind comments but the review process has been set up by the church not me, after the failings of the past cases review of 2008 were discovered. I do have a very vested interest in it as it will apply to me and many others who were not even in the remit of the first past cases review as that only considered victims who were children. This one considers adults as well though therein may lie a bit of a problem if they apply the term ‘vulnerable adult’ too rigidly, but in most local authorities anyone who has suffered abuse as a child, be it familial or institutional, is considered someone who may be vulnerable to further abuse.
The project manager for PCR2 has an extensive working knowledge in the study of abuse but sadly this does not always translate into them being able to bring their best work to the table if they can’t get it passed by the various boards it needs to get through.
https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/promoting-safer-church/safeguarding-news-statements/past-cases-review-2
I think the project could be good and worthwhile but only if enough survivors feel able, or want to, engage which is why I would like people to hear that reviews are not always stressful or traumatic.
Hello Trish, I was aware of the PCR2 so hadn’t read all the guidance, so thanks for the link. I hold by my well done, as it sounds to me like you’re navigating the process carefully and positively and that isn’t easy to do. And you’re right, it’s really important to spread the word about how the process can work well for survivors. I am really keen to do more of that, when it’s the right time.