by Martin Sewell

During my time serving on General Synod, having acquired a reputation for raising criticism of Church Safeguarding, a survivor presented me with a lapel badge bearing the words “Persistent and Vexatious”.  It was a description which had been bestowed upon him, and I was flattered to be included in the club.

Readers of this blog may call to mind various worthy candidates for such a badge – survivors, journalists, bloggers, and some clergy.

As the story of “Survivor N” emerges into the public domain[1] (rather like the Post Office scandal), some will want to add him to the list, understanding that, as usual, the Church of England will always throw their critic under the bus rather than hold power properly to account.

It will come as no surprise that Survivor N has been engaged in a battle for justice since 2018; it is not quite over yet, though avid readers of this blog will not be overly optimistic about the likely outcome.  I shall be appropriately careful not to compromise ongoing process, but already we can draw two very obvious conclusions.

First, Canon Law does not reliably deliver a timely fair trial to anyone who encounters it in a safeguarding context, especially if the complaint touches the handling of a matter by senior people.  Second, the way the various dioceses apply the current sub-optimal legal provisions can only be described as a capricious lottery.

Let me illustrate this by sketching out how the Survivor N’s case contrasts with the treatment of the former Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, Dr Martyn Percy. Both cases took an unconscionable time to reach resolution, to the disserve of everyone involved: for that reason alone we should recall that “justice delayed is justice denied”.  Nobody should be in limbo and emotional turmoil for the timescales which CDM participants endure. The CofE is a rich institution, with the privilege of administering its own justice system. It should resource properly all who are forced to engage with its Byzantine complexity, both complainants and respondents.

Both the Survivor N and Percy cases have significant backstories, which I shall set aside for the purpose of simplifying this analysis.  Essentially, both boiled down to the need to try an issue of whether a single alleged act occurred and, if so, whether it constituted “significant misconduct”.

Arguably, neither case was overly complex. In the Percy case, the disputed allegation was of touching hair for a maximum of ten seconds; in the Survivor N case, the allegation was that of groping a groin without consent—plainly, and unambiguously, an allegation of sexual assault.

In the Percy case, immediate and prolonged suspension followed. In the Survivor N case, the respondent accused cleric did not spend a day under suspension and was never asked to “step back”. This is odd.

What should happen in such cases is that the period of suspension should be minimised by a swift but thorough investigation, surely including the routine commissioning of an assessment under the Safeguarding (Clergy Risk Assessment) Regulations 2016, so that independent expertise can be brought to bear to ascertain what risk (if any) an accused  person poses in his/her ministry. That minimises risk and maximises speed, as well as introducing a degree of independent oversight.

For reasons still not explained, normal process was sidestepped. Dr Percy was made subject to an irregular “in-house” process, rather than the Bishop of Oxford requiring an assessment by one of the dozen risk assessors approved by the Diocese.

The metadata of the resulting report was examined, and its provenance questioned, by the professional cyber document examiner and member of General Synod and its Archbishops’ Council Audit & Risk Committee, the late Clive Billeness. He suspected that there were more contributors than disclosed on the face of the documents. At the time of his death a year ago he was urging Archbishops’ Council to have the suspicions raised by his data analysis independently professionally reviewed and verified. The powers that be continue to evade doing so, and one can only conclude that they are terrified of the implications if Clive were to be proved correct in his concerns. The PR interests of this institution always come before justice. 

In the Survivor N case, inexplicably no risk assessment at all was required by the safeguarding team in London diocese.  Purportedly, this was because the police had determined that they did not have sufficient evidence to charge the accused under the CPS guidelines. Two observations should trouble us.

First; the evidential bar for a criminal prosecution is set at a significantly higher standard to that triggering a clergy risk assessment. Second, Dr Percy had been treated by the police in precisely the same way as the respondent to Survivor N’s complaints, by those same standards, but had been suspended. Consistency there ain’t – and that troubles me.

A further contrast relates to the different ways in which the complaints were facilitated.

The Oxford accuser was immediately “protected” by the adoption of her complaint by a cathedral canon, who was the formal CPS complainant and who brought in significant logistical support from both college and diocese in the form of the diocese’s legal advisors Winkworth Sherwood LLP and PR consultants Luther Pendragon.

Survivor N received no such support whatsoever; quite the reverse—though he is universally acknowledged to be a “vulnerable person”.

The term bears a moment’s consideration. It does not connote intellectual impairment, or complete lack of judgment. Dr Percy’s complainant was competent and assertive; she was accorded protected status, and significant resources went with it. The processes of Canon Law are complex and labyrinthine. The Percy complainant was insulated, guided, and professionally supported throughout. I have no problem with anyone being fairly supported through such processes – but “anyone” isn’t.

In sharp contrast, Survivor N was abandoned to his own devices, notwithstanding his patent disadvantage. The human rights principle of “Equality of Arms” requires both sides of a dispute to have a fair and proportionate opportunity to formulate and advance their case. This did not, and routinely does not, happen in the CofE.

As a safeguarding lawyer, I was a member of the panel authorised by the Official Solicitor. Members assess those with potential litigation disadvantage and act on the vulnerable person’s behalf, informed by their wishes and feelings, while reporting to, and receiving ultimate instructions from, the Official Solicitor.  These lawyers are the “eyes and ears” of the OS, who oversees good and fair process. The secular world gets this right; Canon Law makes no such provision.

For years, Survivor N was left without continuity of support and the vital over-view which this brings.  The Church made multiple admitted mis-steps along the way, adding to his confusion and frustration. Canon Law presents to lay people as a series of complex, unfamiliar—sometimes hostile—legal procedures; unsurprisingly these complexities can overwhelm the vulnerable. Survivor N ran out of his own initial financial support and thereafter begged such intermittent support and legal advice from friends as he could secure from time to time. He is pitifully grateful for any pastoral support or guidance he was able to source.

Within a history of confusions and alleged errors in this case, do not minimise the importance of continuity and overview which the role of the Official Solicitor offers to the secular vulnerable, helping them to focus their submissions – sifting the wheat from the chaff and advancing the best points coherently. Amateur passionate pleas for justice are no substitute for forensic analysis. Canon Law doesn’t do overall justice; Canon Law does Canon Law.

Survivor N has struggled with two specific problems.

He presents with a disclosed, medically authenticated, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (‘OCD’). Although highly intelligent and articulate, this presents him with a real and constant difficulty in “seeing the wood for the trees”. This is the major feature of his condition, of which he is conscious.

Advised early on that if he did not present evidence comprehensively, he might have difficulty introducing it later, he sent everything in, often unfiltered and duplicated; then the Diocese lost track of the case for years.  Although he couriered his large bundle of papers (500+) to the published diocesan address and office of the bishop, the office had moved.  The examining registrar accused him of not presenting the evidence (foolishly quibbling when he produced the courier receipts) and he had to spend hundreds of pounds on duplicate photocopying that should not have been necessary.

Had Survivor N enjoyed the same support as the Percy accuser, the case would not have “sunk without trace”, with evidence bundles seemingly lost.  He would not have “banged his head against the diocesan wall”, feeding a sense of injustice, frustration and despair. The issues would have been identified early, and the evidence on his behalf would have been collated properly and professionally, to the benefit of himself, the respondent, the diocese and the CofE.  The case would not have stretched over ten years, only to be “fast tracked” in panic once the institution realised the horror of the position into which its structural and pastoral incompetence had delivered itself whilst under the public gaze.

“Somebody” briefed the Bishop of London to tell the media that his abuse allegations against a member of the clergy had been “fully dealt with”, only for her to have to backtrack days later.

The now Archbishop had received “survivor trauma” training along with all members of Archbishops’ Council after the Jay report excoriated the Church. Additionally, she, with Archbishops’ Council, had received the independent psychological report which Dr David Glasgow delivered on behalf of survivors, setting out the harms this kind of institutional cruelty inflicts upon victims.  She had every reason and opportunity to appreciate and act upon the kind of harm from which Survivor N was/is suffering.

Throughout this time, this vulnerable person – who was asking nothing of the Church except basic competence and justice- was constantly remembering how he had been dragged into a grotesque game of ecclesiastical whack-a-mole.

They cock up, he complains; they do not resolve it, they cock up again. He keeps pointing it out and, at the end of all this, HE is the one being called vexatious!

However, most serious point is this; farce almost became tragedy.

As Bishop of London, Sarah Mullally held formal responsibility for the “unfortunate’ overall handling of the case by the diocese, like the respondent to the original complaint she has not been suspended for a day.

The bishop’s defence—that she merely followed diocesan advice and had no general safeguarding duty—is irreconcilable with the document – House of Bishops’ Key Roles and Responsibilities of Church Office Holders and Practice Guidance (2017), which states unequivocally that ultimate safeguarding responsibility always rests with the diocesan bishop. Nobody has explained how this core principle was honoured in practice.

I remind readers of the stark contrast with the swift suspensions of Dr Percy and, in 2019, of the former Bishop of Lincoln, Christopher Lowson, who became the first Bishop suspended for not handling a case well[2].

Archbishop Sarah’s record is arguably more serious; she was formally responsible for diocesan failures when the infamous “brain dump” of tittle tattle resulted in the suicide of Fr Alan Griffin and the distress of multiple clergy, who also fell under ill-informed diocesan suspicion.  Little says “dysfunctional diocese” more strongly than a highly critical coroner’s reference to the then Archbishop of Canterbury of a regulation 28 ‘prevention of future deaths’ report.

This final part is crucial to taking these matters seriously.

I have Survivor N’s consent to place in the public domain that, during this dreadful saga, he, too, has suffered mental breakdown and has been driven to attempt suicide – twice.  The “powers that be” know this. On one occasion, he was saved by a casual passer-by who discovered him in a public place.  Archbishop Sarah and the Church are deeply indebted to that anonymous good Samaritan who saved them from a second coroner’s report.

Survivor N is known and respected for his work amongst a wide and diverse community for his commitment to peace and reconciliation; both there and beyond. Every person who has heard his story (except within the Church of England Establishment structures) is appalled by what they have witnessed – every… single… one.

I am ashamed by the new President of Tribunal’s decision to designate this victim’s complaint, in these circumstances, as “vexatious”. Describing a vulnerable person, a known suicide risk, in such a way carries plain and obvious welfare risks bordering on the irresponsible. You might have assumed that in the light of past history, and amidst all the publicity, somebody in the CofE legal team, NST, Diocese of London, or Lambeth Palace, would have thought it prudent to initiate a check on his safety and wellbeing. None has.

Lessons have not been learned.

To have his complaint termed “vexatious” by an institution which persistently behaves in such a manner towards the vulnerable is no disgrace.  I hope Survivor N will join me and many within the survivor community in embracing the term as a badge of honour.

---

[1] See the (redacted) decision of the President of Tribunals, Sir Stephen Males, posted on the CofE website at the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury: section-13-review-decision-n-v-mullally-12.2.26.pdf.  It is also on the Archbishop’s website: Publication of independent decision by the President of Tribunals on a complaint brought under the Clergy Discipline Measure against Archbishop Sarah | Archbishop of Canterbury.

[2] For a discussion of the legal issues related to Bishop Lowson’s suspension, see the article, published on Thinking Anglicans:  Suspension-of-Bishop-of-Lincoln-article-24.5.2019-v.2.pdf.