The reputation of safeguarding in the Church of England could hardly be worse. Mired in controversy, badly led, and regarded as unworthy of trust of confidence, the crises in its provision and oversight lurch from one disaster to another.  As an illustration of the parlous state of affairs, these risk assessment documents analysed by Clive Billenness appear to be part of the planned, deliberate weaponisation of safeguarding with intent to cause personal, financial and reputational harm to Dr. Percy in 2020 and beyond. 

The documents remain a significant bone of contention with the honesty and integrity of Church of England safeguarding under such intense scrutiny from the media. Especially as coverups, conspiracy and corruption are so rife in this sphere, and go hand in hand with persistent incompetence. The analysis from the audit by Clive Billenness point to wider issues of grave concern, of which a handful are noted here.

1. Both Archbishops (Cottrell and Welby) have repeatedly blocked an independent inquiry into the forged documents and the weaponisation of safeguarding with intent to cause personal, financial and reputational harm to Dr. Percy. They have instead proposed internal investigations run by persons with extremely serious conflicts of interest, and under terms that would exclude consideration of the alleged forgeries, despite assuring General Synod otherwise.

2. Steven Croft as Bishop of Oxford consistently defended the forged risk assessments as “assessments of risk, which are different”. He did so publicly, knowing full well that the provenance of the documents were doubtful and lacked proper authorisation. This is an extremely serious safeguarding failure on his part. Dr. Croft made extensive efforts to defend the alleged forgeries and their authors, and avoid implication of his own lawyers and clergy in these actions.

3. The Diocese of Oxford may have a case to answer, as Bishop Croft consistently supported the documents as valid, and supported the authors as legitimate parties in their authorship. The analysis also shows that the Archdeacon of Oxford was originally in receipt of one complaint, and then later denied that in order to sit later as  a judge in a subsequent tribunal against Percy. Yet the Archdeacon denied and rejected any conflict of interest to preside as a judge. The metadata shows this to be unreliable.

4. A Church of England bureaucrat working in Westminster – Sion Hughes Carew, the Administrative Secretary to the Legal Office Synod Team  – who’s metadata suggests he had a hand in the preparation and dissemination of the forgeries was ordained by Glynn Webster, the Bishop of Beverely, a Flying Bishop. This raises the question of possible motive, with members of The Society, supported by CofE legal officers, engaged in weaponisation of safeguarding against Dr. Percy. The risk assessments were prepared and heavily promoted by those who already litigating against Dr. Percy, with clear evidence of assistance from senior CofE lawyers.

5. Emails and other documentation show that several written pieces of Dr. Percy’s evidence submitted to Kate Wood as part of her investigation were redacted and altered without his knowledge or consent. It is not known if these redactions and alterations were made by Ms. Wood herself or subsequently by church lawyers. However, we do know from emails that Ms. Wood invited plaintiffs to augment and co-ordinate their earlier evidence only after Dr. Percy had submitted his evidence. The plaintiffs were then allowed to re-present their modified accounts for her final report. Meanwhile Dr. Percy’s crucial evidence for his defence was removed without his knowledge or consent. 

In view of these findings, the case for an externally-led and fully independent inquiry is made. We can only guess at the reasons why the Diocese of Oxford, NST, Secretary General and both Archbishops have made such substantial efforts over the years to ensure that no such inquiry happens, and instead proposed an internal process run by persons with clear and substantial conflicts of interest in these matters. The evidence for deliberate weaponisation of safeguarding with intent to cause personal, financial and reputational harm to Dr. Percy appears to be very substantial. The NST has consistently deflected and declined calls for a fully independent inquiry into how their own processes were deliberately abused by persons working for the Church of England’s officers, and parties working for the Diocese of Oxford.

An analysis of the content and metadata of two documents by Clive Billenness

Certified Informations Systems Auditor (CISA)  For  Revd Dr Martyn Percy

Disclaimer

The contents of this report have been prepared using reasonable skill and are based on information or the use of software available in the public domain. Opinions expressed in this report are the good faith professional opinion of  the author based on the evidence presented. 15 December 2024

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report has been prepared at the request of Revd Dr Martyn Percy and is an analysis of the metadata of two Portable Document Format (.pdf) files provided to me by Dr Percy. I have also noted where there appear to be inconsistencies or matters of significant note between the contents of the documents and information freely accessible in the Public Domain.

I have noted the authorship and origins of both documents as described in the documents’ metadata and have concluded that while one document is a collation of multiple documents which have been assembled into a .PDF, the other is a document originated in Microsoft Word and containing evidence of tracked changes and comments from different sources identifiable by initials.

I have noted that a number of pages within the assembled document, entitled “Risk Assessment” falsely associate the name of Ms Kate Wood with them even though Ms Wood has publicly denied in the media having any involvement in their preparation. I have recommended a further investigation be conducted into how these pages were prepared since the criminal offence of Forgery may have been committed during their preparation given that they were subsequently submitted as evidence in legal proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003.

I have further noted that in the second document, which appears to be an earlier, draft version of the statement of facts within the complaint against Dr Percy to which the first document related, contain a number of factual statements about the involvement in the investigation of allegations against Dr Percy of different individuals as well as the involvement of members of the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team which were omitted from the final version.

1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
   1. Revd Dr Martyn Percy requested me to perform an examination of two  .PDF files, one containing a number of documents related to a complaint under the Church of England’s Clergy Discipline Measure brought against him in 2020, the other appearing to be a draft copy of one of the documents in the larger document
   1. He asked me to provide him with my observations on the documents, highlighting any significant issues which I discovered.
   1. I have performed a technical review, examining the documents as provided. They have been transmitted to me by e-mail by Dr Percy and I do not possess evidence of the full chain of transmission and storage since he received them. I am therefore unable to certify their provenance or authorship beyond that which is electronically detectable in each document.
   1.  Given, however,  that the metadata indicates that the document was created on 9 November 2020 at 16:48:37 and was last edited on the following day at 13:14:37 while the first discrete document within what is clearly a collation of documents bears the signature date of 5 November 2020, I have no reason not to believe that this the original file received by Dr.Percy.
   1. All documents have been managed in a Read-Only Environment since receipt and I certify no changes have been made to them whilst in my custody. Copies can be forwarded upon request to any third party for confirmatory examination.
2. METHODOLOGY
   1. Many computer applications store data about the properties of a document they have created to assist in document management and retrieval, and also to provide a history of changes (revisions) made to the file since it was first created. This referred to as Metadata. 
   1. Microsoft Word creates and stores not only a standard set of metadata on all files which are created using it, but offers various means to supplement this with additional metadata to assist with the tracking of changes to documents. I have confined my work in this analysis to the use of the built-in metadata reporting tools to be found in:
      1. File…Info…Properties and
      1. Review….Show Comments and Review 
   1. Portable Document Format (.pdf) documents are most often associated with the Adobe Acrobat software package, although there are now many other tools and systems which can create .pdf documents capable of being read by a wide variety of .pdf readers and tools available in the market.  .PDF software is also frequently built into multiple purpose printer/scanners which can operate independently of a computer (or be connected to one either directly or via a computer network), enabling documents and images to be converted directly into .pdf files. The .pdf format contains a wide range of options for the inclusion of metadata, including the capability to restrict the ability to print or alter the contents of a .pdf file and to apply Digital Rights Management so that only a licensed user can view the contents of a .pdf file.
   1. .pdf files can contain a wide range of metadata, some of which is dependent on the source files from which the .pdf has been created. Since .pdf’s can be assembled from multiple files originating from many different source computer packages.
   1. I have not attempted to parse the document deeply beyond the inbuilt analysers in my .PDF reader, other than to verify that there are no hidden JavaScript elements in the file which might constitute a risk to a computer on which the file is opened. No such risks were identified.
   1. For the purposes of my analysis, I first examined the .pdf files provided by loading them into Foxit Phantom PDF software and then using the inbuilt File…Properties function to view the “Description” information. I supplemented this with a further analysis of the Metadata using the online PDF Metadata analyser https://www.pdfyeah.com/, and finally conducted an examination of the files using the open source software package PdfStream Dumper v.9.3
3. DETAILED FINDINGS
   1. The following files were examined:
   1. Complaint CDM MP.pdf   (File 1) and
   1. CDM MP Draft.pdf (File 2)
   1. Turning first to File 1
      1. This a .pdf created using the DocsCorp PDF package on 09-11-2020 at 16:48:23 by an author identified by the initials ‘rmr’. The file was last modified on 10-11-2020 at 13:14:37.
      1. I was unable to determine whether this file was originated by combining a number of other existing .PDF’s or by the amalgamation of a number of source documents derived from multiple sources which were then recompiled as a single original .PDF from those sources. Given, however, that different pages contain different fonts including:
         1. Times New Roman
            1. Garamond
            1. SegoeUI
            1. Calibri
            1. Cambria
            1. Arial
            1. Courier

As well as pages which are identified as images and pages which are  identified as originated using a text-processor into TrueType fonts, it seems most likely that this file is an assembly of .pdf files and scanned documents originated separately.

• Additionally, different compression ratios are shown for graphical items on different pages (e.g. page 7 reports a compression ratio of 15% while page 9 reports a compression ratio of only 3.9%) as well as different sizes of originating graphical items.
  • It should be noted that on Page 7 of the document, the signature of Graham Ward appears to have been inserted into the document from a picture held digitally on file, and not to have been placed on the document directly as a signature. This is evidenced by the level of “artefacts” surrounding the signature (the distortions associated with the application of compression algorithms within the .jpg standard).
  • This is significant as it is not possible to determine whether this component of the file was ever actually directly authorised by Mr Ward or his consent given to the application of his signature.
  • I also noted that the page titled “Oxford Cathedral – Activity risk assessment for Cathedral Choir School” [page 41] referred to “Risk alerted in report received 22/1020 [sic] (Kate Wood)” and 

• the page titled “Christ Church – Activity risk in College” [pages 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46] contained the line

“Second risk assessment: Kate Wood (Independent Safeguarding Consultant) on 22 October 2020

• The same line also appears on the page titled  “Christ Church – Activity risk assessment on Site: Deanery and College” [page 47]

• I was mindful that in the 19 March 2021 Edition of the Church Times (page 6), Ms Wood was quoted as saying:

• “I asked the college several times to publicly explain the error and to confirm that I had not conducted a risk assessment…… This public correction does not appear to have happened, though I am told that the error has now been corrected on the document.”

• The article continues “A spokesperson for Christ Church confirmed that Ms Wood’s name had been incorrectly included in an early “risk assessment draft”. This was corrected before the assessment was finalised.”

• Ms Wood’s name, however, appears in the packet of papers prepared for the consideration of a Clergy Discipline Measure proceeding, apparently signed and submitted by Mr Graham Ward on 4 October 2020.

• I have further noted that in the Decision of the Bishop’s Disciplinary Tribunal for the Diocese of Oxford in the matter of a complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 by Ms K Gadd against Revd Canon Richard Peers, reference was made to concerns about these documents. However it was stated in paragraph 29.4 on page 7 that:
  
  

“four risk assessments were subsequently prepared on the basis of the conclusions in the Wood Report. (These and other safeguarding processes put in place at the time
have been criticised. For the avoidance of doubt, the Tribunal is not concerned with the details of how those operated or with evaluating their appropriateness.)”    

• Turning to File 2This is a .PDF file apparently created using a copy of Microsoft Word 2016 and authored by Sion Hughes-Carew. It was created on 12-06-2021 at 11:33:55 but clearly refers to an earlier document, since it contains the same text and signature of Graham Ward as in File 1 but is dated 1^st November 2020 – i.e. 4 days before the version which was included in File 1 as sent to Dr Percy. It should be noted that although this was clearly not a final document, it had already had a scanned signature applied inserted into it, which is perhaps slightly unusual for a legal document to be submitted as part of a judicial proceeding which is recognised for these purposes under the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.This version of the document appears to be displaying comments made on the document by ‘AJ’ and ‘GW’.  When Word is tracking changes made to a document during preparation, it normally applies the initials of the first and last name of the person to whom the copy of Word on which they are working is registered. There is no means within the document of identifying who ‘AJ’ and ‘GW’ are. I note however that the complaint was submitted by Graham Ward on behalf of Ms Alannah Jeune.There are a considerable number of differences between the two version of the text occurring on page 4 of File 2 and that which appears on page 4 of File 1 (the submitted document).The most significant differences between File 2 and File 1 are that in File 1 (the version apparently submitted as part of a CDM):References to the involvement of the Senior Censors of the College and the Archdeacon of Oxford in a discussion following the report of the incident have been removed.References to the Sub-Dean and the Archdeacon contacting the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer have been removed.References to the presence of the Diocesan Harassment Officer at a meeting following contact with the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer have been removed.References to a professional agency for Risk Assessment being contacted have been removed.References to the Diocesan Safeguarding office being unsure whether the allegation was a safeguarding matter, rather than sexual harassment/assault have been removed.References to the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team, while awaiting the full report of the investigation, having strongly recommended that a complaint be submitted under the CDM have been removed.

• I have also noted that both File 1 and File 2 state that

“The police have proceeded with an investigation (Ms. Jeune’s hair – cut on the day of the incident – has been sent for forensic analysis for traces of DNA).”

• I have noted that on social media recently (‘X’)  Ms Jeune has stated publicly that this did not occur, and that the Police returned her hair to her without submitting it for forensic testing.
  • FURTHER CONSIDERATION
    • I was mindful that in the 19 March 2021 Edition of the Church Times (page 6), Ms Wood was quoted as saying:
      
      “I asked the college several times to publicly explain the error and to confirm that I had not conducted a risk assessment…… This public correction does not appear to have happened, though I am told that the error has now been corrected on the document.”
      
      The article continues “A spokesperson for Christ Church confirmed that Ms Wood’s name had been incorrectly included in an early “risk assessment draft”. This was corrected before the assessment was finalised.”

• Dr Percy has informed me, however, that this document originated from a set of electronic documents provided to him as a part of the exhibits for use in the forthcoming hearing of the complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure, and were therefore identical to papers which would have been provided to those responsible for considering the complaint.

• Despite requests from Ms Wood to have references to her name removed from the document, and a public confirmation by Christ Church that this would be undertaken, her name remained on a document giving the impression that she, as an external expert, had participated in the preparation of this document.
  • I then considered the provisions of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 which sets out a number of criminal offences:
    
                  1. The offence of forgery. 

A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.    

2. The offence of copying a false instrument. 

It is an offence for a person to make a copy of an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as a copy of a genuine instrument, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice. 

3. The offence of using a false instrument. 

It is an offence for a person to use an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, false, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice. 

4. The offence of using a copy of a false instrument. 

It is an offence for a person to use a copy of an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as a copy of a genuine instrument, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

• Given that Ms Woods had publicly stated that she had repeatedly requested that her name be removed from these documents, and that representatives of Christ Church had publicly stated that her name would be removed, and yet it remained on Risk Assessments which formed part of the evidence bundle submitted against Dr Percy, it appears that documents containing information which was known to be false were submitted, an act which was arguably to Dr Percy’s prejudice.
  • As such, these documents appear at first sight to contain knowingly false information and so meet the criteria specified to be ‘false instruments’ and consequently for an offence of forgery as specified in Section 1 of the Act to have been committed. Offences under Sections 2 – 4 of the Act may also have been committed by others if they knowingly copied or used these documents in proceedings against Dr Percy. 
  • Given also that when concerns were raised about these documents before a Bishop’s Disciplinary Tribunal, it declared that is was ‘not concerned with the details of how those operated or with evaluating their appropriateness’,  further independent investigations are now recommended to determine the process by which these documents were created, who authorised their release containing false information and how this occurred. These investigations will then indicate whether criminal proceedings should be instituted.
• CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  • The two documents passed to me for examination contain metadata which show that they are consistent with the dates on which any original copies would have been created, and I am therefore reasonably satisfied that they are true, unaltered copies of files sent to Dr Percy.
  • File 1 contains copies of “Risk Assessment” which allude to the involvement of an external consultant – Ms Kate Woods – which she has denied any involvement in the preparation of and which a spokesperson for Christ Church College Oxford publicly acknowledged and stated that her name would be removed. However, her name, and therefore her professional status, remain associated with the documents submitted in support of a charge under the Clergy Discipline Measure.
  • Since this appears to disclose possible offences under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, the matter should be referred for further investigation since the issue of false instruments may well meet the criteria of the offence of forgery.
  • This will involve inquiries into how these documents were originated and also what approvals were given for their publication and distribution.
  • A comparison of the 1 November 2020 version of the particulars of complaint and the submitted 5 November version show that a considerable number of items of potentially relevant information were omitted. The effect of these omissions is to conceal the involvement of a number of associated parties in relation to the incident under investigation, including the apparent involvement of the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team in encouraging a Clergy Discipline Measure case to be initiated.
  • Given that all cases against Dr Percy have been dismissed, these omissions apparently had no effect on the ultimate outcome of the matter, and they are therefore remitted to Dr Percy to decide what action(s) if any to take.

CB, 15-12-24

NOTES:

The potential corruption on part of the NST and senior church officials raises crucial questions over the integrity and honesty of safeguarding in the Church of England. The forged documents appear to be part of a deliberate attempt at character assassination, and point to the lack of regulation, transparency, accountability and responsibility in safeguarding process. Much as the Post Office did, complainants of injustice perpetrated by the CofE are met with coverups coercion and corruption. Victims are often sent threatening ‘cease and desist’ letters from church lawyers, or reported to the police for harassment. That’s why the CofE needs fully independent safeguarding and a fully independent national statutory inquiry into the mishandling and weaponization of safeguarding.

Further reading:

• https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2020/24-july/news/uk/qc-has-doubts-over-percy-investigation
  • https://nineveh.live/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/usb_stick.pdf
  • https://nineveh.live/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/bin_scan.pdf
  • https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/isb-statement-percy-v-independent-safeguarding-board-case-resolved/
  • https://modernchurch.org.uk/martyn-percy-1984-1
  • https://www.judiciary.uk/prevention-of-future-death-reports/alan-griffin/
  • https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-57780729
  • https://independentsafeguarding.org/donate#daa83363-8567-4b79-8ec4-7cde2ac5c98e
  • https://independentsafeguarding.org/