Mr. Martin Sewell, 8 Appleshaw Close, Gravesend, Kent, DA11 7PB
To: Marsha De Cordova MP, Second Estates Commission, House of Commons.
Dr. Helen Earner, Senior Director, Charity Commission, London.
Richard Moriarty, Financial Reporting Council, London.
cc: Archbishops’ Council (AC), General Synod Members (GSM), National Safeguarding Team (NST) of the Church of England (CofE), London.
22nd May 2025
Dear Marsha, Helen and Richard,
I write as a member of the General Synod of the Church of England who has taken a special interest in the injustices of victims of abuse at the hands of the Church of England (CofE). I have been a primary advocate for their grievances, and I believe I enjoy a significant degree of trust in articulating their concerns to which I have listened with care and respect.
In this letter I raise matters of widespread disquiet not only of victims but also of a
significant number of Synod members in relation to the financing and functioning of CofE safeguarding operations. Ordinarily such a letter would be directed to the trustees (Archbishops’ Council – AC) of the national structures as the responsible body. However, all trust and confidence in the governance of the CofE – whether General Synod (GS), the NST or AC – is broken. We have seen that when serious issues of probity and legal process are raised, together with fiscal accountability and proper transparency, the issues are sidestepped or covered up.
There is now cogent evidence to believe that examples of legal and fiscal malpractice have occurred and have not been properly addressed. So, on behalf of seriously concerned parties I now ask that, as a matter of urgency, you formally initiate investigation of these concerns. In summary, the primary concerns are as follows
- Payouts for interim support allegedly made by the CofE to abuse victims, and featured in their public audited accounts, do not accord with the monies which victims claim that they have actually received. The evidence for these alleged discrepancies has been made available for analysis by the victims. Whether the issue is one of unclear presentation, faulty process, technical error or worse, victims receiving payments must be entitled to a clear explanation to address their concerns.
I am authorized to send you prima facie evidence on condition that I secure your agreement to investigate the matters, consult with the victims and provide them with your findings on these alleged disparities in the audited accounts.
- A public letter and Press release have been issued by the Church’s victims of abuse. (See: https://survivingchurch.org/2025/05/15/press–release–from–isbsurvivors–group/). It speaks in terms of misconduct in public office and mendacity by that Church’s leadership, including the General Synod of which I am a member. Like the Post Office sub-postmasters such accusations need to be properly investigated, and I ask that you do so. Whether or not these are fair accusations, they are heartfelt, and truth must be must at the very least be independently evaluated. The pain and distrust expressed in the letter are plain, the language unattractive, at times but the allegations must not be dismissed on that basis alone.
- Various attempts have been made to bring the Secretary General (and CEO) of the CofE to account for his actions on matters of safeguarding. These have been repeatedly suppressed by the AC, through reference to a secret process described as “private”, within which the form of inquiry itself and the reasoning supporting the “no further action” outcome, remain secret. The Church has repeatedly and publicly asserted that it has repented past cover-ups and that it now embraces and upholds the principles of ‘transparency and accountability’. Yet this is patently untrue in the case of its Chief Executive. An independent report by a professional psychologist complementing the findings of the Wilkinson Review confirmed that the Secretary General had caused “significant harm” to victims. This was submitted to the AC – who effectively chose to ignore the findings.
Another well documented case relates to the Secretary General misleading an abuse survivor and securing the dismissal of a complaint against himself under the same secret process (see: https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/safeguardingbishop–admits–that–survivor–was–misled/). This unaccountability in the principal officer is not a trivial matter and cannot but undermine public confidence in the national institution. Both cases, and the processes by which they were dismissed need to be urgently and independently investigated, not least in respect of why the Audit Committee of the AC has not accorded such matters serious consideration and reported to Synod. The membership of that committee currently lacks any external member exercising oversight and that fact is itself the subject of victim disquiet and lack of trust.
- Recent work by the late Clive Billenness, a forensic auditor, General Synod member and elected member of the Audit Committee of the AC, showed that potentially falsified and forged evidence presented within the Church’s legal disciplinary process required proper independent investigation. (On this see: https://survivingchurch.org/2024/12/16/the–weaponization–of–safeguarding/). The case represents a prime example of ‘the weaponization of safeguarding’ referenced in the Jay Report. Similar accusation has been identified in other cases relating to innocent CofE clergy, notably the late Revd. Alan Griffin who had committed suicide in consequence (c.f. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk–englandlondon–58326903). Such weaponization resulted in no disciplinary action in either case being taken against the alleged perpetrators. The prima facie findings of Clive Billenness must be independently tested.
The letter of the ISB Survivors Group – to whom the CofE promised swift justice more than two years ago – demonstrates that all statements on CofE safeguarding made by its Lead Safeguarding Bishop, the Archbishops or trustees (AC) are now viewed with distrust and disdain. All attempts to secure accountability transparency and justice have failed. No part of the institution functions properly honourably and consistently for its victims. No resolution is currently in sight.
I formally request that the recipients of this letter, as the only relevant external regulators, initiate the urgent investigations now required. There can be no confidence restored in the operation of the charity (i.e., the Archbishops’ Council) until the regulators initiate proper action.
This is an Open Letter, in order that parishes, congregations and churches, and those engaged in any other related charitable work and its governance, can be reassured that when extremely serious matters of fiscal probity and conduct in governance are raised, the public
can see that the statutory regulating bodies will act. I have copied the letter to the Archbishops’ Council and to the members of General Synod.
Yours sincerely,
Martin Sewell
KRW Law have this damning online report: ‘Neely abuse: Church of Ireland Bishop ‘apologises’ for unnamed rector – ignores Belfast-Tipperary transfer’.
Did the Church of Ireland Diocese of Down and Dromore cover up child abuse for almost 50 years? The late Eddie Gorman successfully demolished a demonic facade.
The stench of abuse and bullying cover up stretches far beyond the Church of England. There are significant questions for Anglican Primates in Scotland-Wales-Ireland.
Multiple former New Wine students have vanished from Down and Dromore Diocese. Is Archbishop John McDowell, All-Ireland Anglican Primate, too cowardly and passive?
He has singularly failed to fix a fully independent inquiry into Down and Dromore Diocese problems. It looks as if a vast amount of bullying and abuse remains hidden.
This is a very important open letter and raises many vital points crucial to the future of the church.
Putting the article through Chat GBT asking it to identify “possible criminal offences identified” shows a remarkable list of charges that could possibly be leveled against senior church members.
With two major documentaries shortly to be aired on these matters things could get interesting.
Which documentaries are those?
Rather not say for the minute, but one due on June 16th and one around 12th ish Second one date not yet set. But filming all done on both.
Mr Sewell is absolutely right to raise these issues and bring them into the open. As a survivor involved in the interim process, I personally reported both underpayments and overpayments—issues the Church later acknowledged and apologised for. While Bishops and others may call situations like these ‘mistakes’, and it is fair to allow for human error, the pattern of repeated financial discrepancies raises serious concerns. When multiple errors emerge, it is no longer sufficient to simply label them as mistakes and move on. What is urgently needed is a robust, independent investigation into these failures—particularly in the Church’s financial operations. Transparency, accountability, and proper auditing are not optional; they are the bare minimum for an institution that claims moral and spiritual leadership.
I know nothing about the ISS never having made a claim but am aware that there is a feedback form for the upcoming INEQE audit on the NST which specifically deals with this. Closing date is May 28th. It would perhaps be beneficial to anyone concerned to be explicit about finacial irregularities in it or even contact the INEQE team. There are other forms on the NST also available.
https://ineqe.com/churchofengland/national-safeguarding-team/
Unfortunately, I find that much of what the church organises around safeguarding can no longer be fully trusted. Too often, it feels like people are simply ticking boxes rather than genuinely engaging with the issues. Employing ex-police officers in safeguarding roles isn’t always the best solution—many have not been fully “de-policed” and may lack the trauma-informed approach needed to truly support individuals. They should not serve as gatekeepers for the church.
In contrast, I’ve found that former social workers working in safeguarding roles tend to be far more approachable and demonstrate a high level of emotional intelligence. Their background often equips them with a deeper understanding of trauma and a more compassionate approach to care.
Might judges or barristers be the better (or best) equipped people to extract answers from Archbishops or Bishops covering up scandals? Is SW or police experience what is needed?
Proof of guilt, or complicity in covering up bullying and abuse, can rest on very few words. Lawyers, and other senior legal officers, could bring what has been sadly lacking.
Do our Archbishops and Bishops perhaps have a nonchalant approach to safeguarding, or to bullying and harassment, because they have lots of built up experience of covering up scandal?
Barristers demanding answers to awkward questions is what we desperately need. The response to this might well be a heap of resignation letters, and a cull of those Bishops who have sadly covered up all manner of misdeeds.
Confused, I couldn’t agree more with your analysis of ex police versus social worker employees and have frequently voiced this opinion.
Whilst being endlessly grateful to the police for the work they do their skill set on retirement and lack of formal training in abuse does not lend itself well to more complex or nuanced cases that may not involve breaking the law but are hugely damaging to the individual.
Policing, at its core, is about service—upholding the law, protecting the public, and maintaining peace. It’s not about control, domination, or judgment. Police officers are entrusted with authority, but that authority is not absolute; it is bound by principles of justice, fairness, and truth.
The phrase “Police are not the judge or jury” is critical. Their role is not to determine guilt or innocence. That responsibility lies within the judicial system, where evidence is weighed, arguments are heard, and verdicts are rendered by impartial judges or juries. When police overstep this boundary—acting as if their belief equals guilt—it erodes public trust and undermines justice.
Instead, the police are expected to serve the community, enforce the law impartially, and tell the truth. Telling the truth means accurately reporting facts, avoiding embellishments, and never withholding information to shape a narrative. In this way, honesty is not optional; it is fundamental. Without it, the legitimacy of any legal process begins to fall apart.
When officers operate with integrity—knowing that they are facilitators of justice, not arbiters—they uphold the spirit of democracy. They keep the peace not just by force, but by example. In doing so, they strengthen community bonds and reinforce the idea that justice is a collective commitment, not a unilateral decision.
In sum, the power given to police is not to decide but to deliver—facts, safety, and service. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, the police gather evidence and protect the public. They have zero role in challenging Anglican Bishops or Archbishops about cover-ups of abuse and bullying (unless there is something where a criminal charge is in order). Social workers, and most police officers, are generally not legally qualified.
Deciding when Bishops or Archbishops are guilty of abuse cover-ups is a role for a judges and/or senior lawyers. A radical shake up of safeguarding could be effective if senior legal professionals were in charge, and empowered to force Bishops and Archbishops to attend and answer questions.
The bullying/harassment I describe amply illustrates how Anglican safeguarding and protections are a farce: like something from Baldrick and Blackadder, or the Monty Python Show.
My written report to an Archbishop never saw any formal inquiry convened. Compelling evidence of horrific student bullying was covered up after an Archbishop passed the complaint to a Bishop. The Bishop then passed the matter of New Wine student ill-treatment to the regional New Wine leader. Utterly absurd!!!
But this type of claptrap is what has created the gigantic problems with Smyth, Pilavachi, Fletcher & Co. Yet senior Anglican clerics still have limited appetite for change, or for fully acknowledging the scale of Anglicanism’s bullying and abuse problems.
Patricia, anything to do with Ineqe is a complete waste of time. The terms and conditions of the Reviews are set by the Archbishops Council. They are poorly researched and have so many errors that they are not worth the toilet paper they are written on.
Example: In the Gloucester Diocese report they said that Bishop Ball didnt offend in that Diocese. Incredible as not only did he offend in Glos Diocese but he was arrested there! They are no more than paid muppets of William Nye and not at all Independent. Their lack of professionalism is painful.
Correct. I have found Ineqe to be corrupt and self-serving, and wholly in the pocket of Mr. Nye. Ineqe claim to be ‘independent’, which is a sick joke. The leadership of Ineqe is lamentable. Survivors and Victims need to keep their distance from such a corrupt company.
I understand your lack of trust in INEQE ChrisH, I held the same views about SCIE, and have no experience of this company. I think what I meant was that this letter has been sent too early regarding the ISS matter because professional etiquette would, or should, dictate that none of the recipients respond until INEQE has had an opportunity to conduct their audit.
Therefore giving INEQE as much detail as possible and seeing what they make of the financial discrepancies would seem prudent to me.
I’m not sure why victims, not being professionals, should be bound by professional etiquette? It looks like just another attempt by the Church to control survivors and their response. That isn’t the way to deal with traumatised people.
As I said Janet, it is the recipients of the letter who would be the ones bound by professional etiquette to wait for the INEQE audit. That is the MP, Charity Commission and FRC.
Many Christians believe that God is deeply grieved by the Church of England’s inadequate care for survivors of abuse. Scripture emphasises God’s compassion and justice, as seen in Psalm 147:3, which says, “He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds.” This suggests that God stands with the wounded and calls for justice and healing.
Recent events have highlighted significant shortcomings in the Church’s response to abuse survivors. The resignation of Archbishop Justin Welby followed the Makin Review’s findings on the mishandling of abuse allegations against John Smyth, revealing systemic failures in safeguarding . Despite some efforts to improve oversight, such as the General Synod’s vote to enhance abuse claim handling, survivor groups have expressed disappointment, feeling that these measures fall short of full independence and fail to address conflicts of interest .
Furthermore, the Church’s Redress Scheme, intended to provide support for survivors, has faced delays to reassess its eligibility criteria in light of the Makin report . Survivors have voiced frustration over the lack of transparency and meaningful action, with some expressing a loss of faith in the Church’s commitment to justice .
In light of these issues, many believe that God calls for the Church to embody true repentance and take concrete steps toward justice and healing for survivors. This includes listening to survivors, implementing fully independent safeguarding measures, and ensuring accountability at all levels. Only through such actions can the Church begin to restore trust and reflect the compassion and justice that are central to its faith.
What I saw, along with my partner, and also a senior female teacher, exemplifies the depth of crisis within Anglicanism. We all saw a grown man (a diocesan evangelist trainee on a Belfast New Wine programme) reduced to tears for a prolonged time in my home, immediately after a meeting with a Church-New Wine tutor.
His mental state was akin only to victims of terror attack I saw as a junior medic in A& E. I have reported this to successive Archbishops of Armagh, but no formal inquiry has ever been convened by the Primates. Are they a pair of useless monkeys?!? I am almost 60 years old, and my partner is a little older. She is a university professor, and was stunned by the way New Wine and Church representatives failed to take responsibility for ill-treating students.
Successive Archbishops and Bishops have failed to address a glaring crisis and fairly deal with multiple victims. A trail of senior professional or business people faced vile abuse, and complained about savage bullying. We all felt unfairly accused of sexual misconduct in foul language.
A distinguished senior minister, from outside of Anglicanism, advised the victims to exit the local diocese to escape risk of further savage bullying at the hands of Church or New Wine representatives. The minister outlined contempt for law and fair practice, and was concerned about the immoral abuse of innocent people.
Furthermore, it is far from clear if New Wine and/or the local Anglican Diocese (Down and Dromore) pay much attention to fair recruitment on the basis of credentials and qualifications. That’s a question for Bishop David McClay, a GAFCON evangelical who claims to have a special interest in” leadership”.
Olive Tree Media produced this film (see 30.1.22 post: ‘Karl Faase interviews Joe Turner for Jesus the Game Changer Season 2’) about revival and parish growth at St Brendan’s parish in Belfast. But Joe Turner (*yet another missing ex-New Wine student*) has vanished from the Diocese. What else is Bishop David McClay covering up in the Diocese? Will it take some kind of dire tragedy, like child abuse or rape or suicide, or a combination of such things, before the Church of Ireland ask McClay to resign?
David McClay should surely be asked to resign, or be fired, before he endangers any more innocent people through his leadership incompetence and immorality. The blasphemous ineptitude of the local Diocese is exposed in the cover up of child abuse for around 50 years.
Yet even court and media exposure has not seen Bishop David McClay formally and publicly name the abuser (see KRWLAW post: ‘Neely abuse: Church of Ireland Bishop ‘apologises’ for unnamed rector – ignores Belfast-Tipperary transfer’].
This is an incredibly important letter. For an institution to offer its abuse victims with anything less than repentance, repair and justice for such life long debilitating crimes is clearly accepted as immoral and inhumane.
For that institution to instead be found guilty of inflicting suffering on those it is already responsible for abusing – by corporate malpractice, shows nothing but malice.
The effect of prolonged exposure to this is like a cancer to one’s life. To seek understandable justice, accountability – and repair from a Christian organisation and be met with at best contempt – and at worst, to have damage inflicted, breaks your heart and life. For this institution and what it should stand was part of your life’s scaffolding. It is repeated betrayal at an existential level.
Everything surrounding the highest core of the Anglican Church in relation to safeguarding and its approach to its victims and survivors emanates the antithesis of what is expected. There is something very very wrong at its centre.
I have hoped for change for decades now. I am ground down to despair – hope is lost.
Reading tbis open letter on whst would have been Clive Billenness birthday is poignant. I thank Martin Sewell for going public. Thanks to all of you who are speaking truth to power.