Thursday, 14 July 2016
Further points on the George Bell case
Updated Thursday evening
We reported in March that the George Bell Group had sent a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and also issued a press statement: George Bell’s naming as a paedophile is challenged today by a group of lawyers, academics, politicians and senior Church figures. The challenge was in a report published here as a web page, and also as a PDF file.
Yesterday, the Bishop of Durham, Paul Butler, Church of England lead bishop on safeguarding, issued this letter to the George Bell Group: Further points on the George Bell case.
Several questions were asked at General Synod on Friday 8 July relating to the George Bell case. The questions and answers are printed in this booklet, but for convenience they are copied below the fold. In addition I have transcribed the supplementary questions and answers from this recording; they are shown indented.
Mr David Lamming (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich) to ask the Church Commissioners:
Q17 It is understood that the Church Commissioners paid, or contributed to, the £15,000 paid in settlement of a civil claim regarding alleged sexual abuse by the late Bishop George Bell. Will the Church Commissioners please (i) confirm the accuracy of this information and, if others (whether insurers, the Diocese of Chichester or any other accountable Church institution) contributed to the settlement, state the amount(s) of their respective contributions, and (ii) state whether, in addition, the Church Commissioners made any, and if so what, financial contribution to (a) the complainant’s legal costs (including any success fee) and expenses, and/or (b) the costs and expenses (including the fees of experts) of the Diocese of Chichester incurred in relation to the said claim.
Sir Andreas Whittam Smith to reply as First Church Estates Commissioner:
A The Commissioners contributed to the settlement of the claim, but did not pay the whole. The damages paid were £16,800 and the claimant’s legal costs were £15,000. In addition, the Diocese of Chichester’s costs were £18,000. These figures include the costs of a medical expert instructed by the claimant and another instructed by the Diocese of Chichester. The Commissioners paid £29,800 towards the damages and costs, with the balance being funded by a donation from a private individual, not an insurer or another Church institution.
David Lamming: I thank Sir Andreas for his answer and for the additional information given. But in the light of the answer will you say whether insurers were asked to contribute to the settlement and if so whether they declined to do so, who in fact was the putative defendant on whose behalf the settlement was reached with the claimant, and I am assuming that court proceedings were not issued, and will you please state the particular speciality of the medical experts instructed respectively by the claimants and by the diocese of Chichester.
Sir Andreas Whittam Smith: Thank you. You are accrediting the Church Commissioners with far more involvement in this case than you might think. We have a discretion to pay bishops’ costs as you will probably know and we make judgments on what costs to bear depending on a variety of factors. In this case the answers are really clear in my answer; I don’t think I can add to them. There are the damages, there are the claimant’s legal costs, and there are the diocese of Chichester’s costs and we paid £29,800 of those and a private individual came forward, not an insurer, and paid the rest. I can’t add to that.
Martin Sewell (Rochester): There’s a very simple question on the table: Did any insurer decline to indemnify?
Sir Andreas Whittam Smith: I’ve no idea whether an insurer was involved. We were not told about such a case.
Martin Sewell: Who would know if an insurer …
Sir Andreas Whittam Smith: The diocese of Chichester would know.
Martin Sewell: Will that information be made available?
Sir Andreas Whittam Smith: I cannot speak for the diocese of Chichester, I’m afraid.
Mr Martin Sewell (Rochester) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops:
Q32 The Chichester Diocese publishes on its website a comprehensive 54 page report by Dame Elizabeth Butler Sloss into its handling of the cases of sexual predators Roy Cotton and Colin Pritchard; that report balances victim confidentiality with the public interest in having confidence in due and proper process. Given the continuing public concern at the handling of the case of Bishop Bell, will the Church now issue a comprehensive explanation of why transparency can apply in one case but not the other?
Mr David Lamming (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops:
Q33 In answer to a question from Miss Prudence Dailey (Q.13) at the February 2016 Group of Sessions concerning the response of the Church to allegations made against the late Bishop George Bell, the Bishop of Durham stated that it was “legally impermissible for the Church to disclose any evidence used in the settlement [of the claim against the Diocese of Chichester]” and that the law “rightly affords [the complainant] protection to safeguard the confidentiality of their deeply personal information.” In the light of
i. The call by the George Bell Group  for a proper review of both the process and the evidence that resulted in the statement issued by the Church of England media centre on 22 October 2015 effectively branding Bishop Bell as a paedophile;
ii. The Opinion by His Honour Alan Pardoe QC and Desmond Browne QC  that there are no legal constraints to disclosure of the evidence and documents (suitably redacted to preserve the complainant’s anonymity) that the Church considered before settling the claim; and iii. The fact that Dame Lowell Goddard has stated that “Bell’s guilt or innocence is not a critical aspect of this Inquiry, or of the Anglican investigation, or of the investigation’s case studies,” [3 and 3] so that any reliance by the Church that the Goddard Inquiry will investigate this issue is misplaced;
Will the House of Bishops now commission an independent inquiry as called for by the George Bell Group and, if not, why not?
The Bishop of Durham to reply as Lead Bishop for Safeguarding:
A I will take Questions 32 and 33 together. I refer both questioners to the statement issued by the Church of England on 28 June in which it was announced that an independent review of the handling of the George Bell case would be launched shortly. The House of Bishops practice guidance states that once all matters relating to any serious safeguarding situation have been completed, the Core Group should meet again to review the process and to consider what lessons can be learnt to improve safeguarding practice in the future. It will be for the independent reviewer to consider what evidence they deem to be relevant and publish in due course their view of any lessons learned from the Church’s handling of the case.
It should be noted that the Church has always recognised Bishop Bell’s principled stand in the Second World War and his contribution to peace but it also has a duty to listen to those who make allegations of abuse.
David Lamming: I thank the Bishop of Durham for his answer and for the announcement, post the date for submitting questions, that there is to be an independent review, not just a review by the Core Group. However the review announced on the 28th June is only into the processes used to inform the decision to settle the claim by the woman know as Carol, but the review will not be credible unless it examines all the evidence, and in the House of Bishops [sic] the 30th June the Bishop of Chelmsford said “The Church remains satisfied of the credibility of Carol’s allegation.” Will the Bishop, and perhaps on behalf of his successor, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, please now acknowledge that the terms of reference of the review must enable the reviewer both to review the process and to look at all the evidence including that that was not looked at by the Core Group.
Bishop of Durham: Thank you for that supplementary. The independent reviewer has yet to be appointed, the terms of reference will have to be agreed with that independent reviewer, and it is that this will be around the process that was followed, and when that reviewer is there then that’s what they will be briefed to do.
Martin Sewell: You’ve answered two questions together. I’m going to have to refer. I refer first of all to Alan Pardoe’s opinion and Desmond Brown’s opinion, there are no legal restraints to disclosure of the evidence and documents suitably redacted to preserve the complainant’s anonymity. I refer back to comparing the Bell case to the Cotton and Pritchard case saying that in the one case that is already out there on the Chichester website it balances victim confidentiality with public interest in having confidence in due and proper process. So I then ask why does it apply to one case and not the other? It’s a very simple question. You tell us that there’s going to be a review. We don’t need to know if the review knows how to do this. We need to know if there is a core competence in the Church’s people to do this sort of thing and to understand the law on confidentiality and how it applies in each and every case. We can’t assume that tht competence is there because we’ve not seen it demonstrated.
Chair: Do you want to put that into a question then please?
Martin Sewell: Yes, it’s very simple. Will you issue a comprehensive explanation of why transparency can apply in one case, that’s Cotton and Pritchard, and not in the other, Bishop Bell. It’s a very simple question.
Bishop of Durham: The simple reality is you may quote two lawyers and I could quote others, which I won’t, who would disagree with that opinion. The review will take place and there is not an exact equivalence between the Butler-Sloss report and how the Bell case was handled and the report that has come out.
Miss Prudence Dailey (Oxford) to ask the Chair of the House of Bishops:
Q36 In the light of the Bishop Bell case, has any consideration been given to the view that offering pastoral support to the complainant, independently investigating the complaint, dispassionately evaluating the evidence, and simultaneously managing crises whilst protecting the good name of the Church are incompatible objectives; and will consideration now be given to establishing a properly resourced, consistent, professional and independent central complaint handling body, removing the responsibility from dioceses with potentially variable expertise and processes?
The Bishop of Durham to reply as Lead Bishop for Safeguarding:
A Developing a more consistent and professional approach to safeguarding across the dioceses and nationally is one of our key priorities as a church, recognising of course that good safeguarding is fundamentally something that takes place in a parish context. There are a number of key elements to achieving this through national policy and guidance, regulations, training and quality assurance, including the independent audits being conducted across all dioceses during 2016 and 2017. These audits provide an important benchmark and areas for further improvement for dioceses and the national church. The intention to develop a standards based approach will include how we provide pastoral and other support to those who are accused as well as those who make complaints of abuse. Indeed a recent case review conducted by the National Safeguarding Team has highlighted this very issue. The Church of England must remain committed to responding to non-current abuse and abuse in the present day, as well as building a safer church for the future based on prevention.
Posted by Peter Owen on
Thursday, 14 July 2016 at 9:31am BST
Prudence Dailey: Has any consideration been given to the potential for conflict of interest in the Church carrying out the various different functions alluded to in my question in relation to the Bishop Bell case?
Bishop of Durham: Quite specifically in all these the history of conflict of interest is always taken into consideration. Every core group has to work at that particular bit on every example that we have.
Simon Butler (Southwark): In view of the fact that many of the allegations are made against clergy, will the bishop, or his successor, consult with the House of Clergy Standing Committee about procedures for putting in place future support and the work around those who have been accused of abuse?
Bishop of Durham: Thank you for that question. One of the areas that has caused some concern is the level of support for clergy when they face allegations and that is firmly on the agenda to seek to make sure that they are given adequate pastoral support when going through such processes because they are deeply painful and difficult.
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Church of England
If "Carol" wanted to meet with the diocese in private to discuss her accusation, it's absolutely right that she remain anonymous.
The moment she lodged a civil claim, however, that anonymity wreaks havoc with the justice system. It's the sole reason we can't see the evidence against Bell, and is being used to shield the diocese and church from scrutiny. Even if the law doesn't strictly require this, they can say it does, and use it to deflect all criticism. Even more disturbingly (and I'm emphatically speaking generally here), it prevents false accusers from being exposed.
Anonymity's justified on the basis of trauma, but it's absurdly inconsistent: if a person alleged that a bishop kidnapped them and tortured them in a basement, they'd enjoy no right to anonymity; if they alleged a bishop groped them briefly at a party, bang, lifelong gag order.
Making a claim for damages is a public act: that act will always carry a cost (such as going to trial and being cross-examined), and a person who voluntarily takes it should accept open justice as part of the process.
I hesitate to enter this sensitive and difficult matter but it seems that James Byron has not studied the Bishop of Durham's further clarification of 13 July. The legal advice the diocese received could not have been clearer. At its heart was the fact that "on the balance of probabilities – the claimant was likely to succeed if her claim were heard in court." Indeed had the case gone to court 'Carol' would have been granted automatic anonymity. There is no way the George Bell Group, laudable though its objectives may be, will be able to unearth the evidence of abuse which formed the basis of the out-of-court settlement. It is for this reason that I decided not to sign the General Synod Private Member's Motion expressing no confidence in the process. That will now be subject to an independent inquiry, as well as evidence being provided to the Goddard Inquiry.
Yes Anthony, and several senior lawyers (including a judge who specialized in sexual assault cases) reached the exact opposite conclusion, that the preponderance of the evidence didn't come close to establishing Bell's culpability. The church accepts there's conflicting legal advice.
If they want to defend anonymity, an excellent start would be to release the evidence with "Carol's" name redacted. (To avoid any doubt, since she initiated this process on the understanding she'd be shielded, that must be respected.) English courts have been clear that it's down to the press to decide for themselves how far to go, and the same principle presumably extends to interested parties.
The Bible in many places tells us that judgement is reserved to the Lord. It seems to me that both Church authorities and those who disagree with them, seem to think they should judge Bishop Bell as either guilty or not guilty as the case may be. There are no live safeguarding issues to justify a need for judgement either way and I think both sides are conducting themselves in ways which do not accord with Biblical teaching.
I thought the question in Synod about insurance was a good one.
Did any insurer pay? If not, why not?
Insurers often act as good third-party checks on the strength of claims.
Actually, Kate, there is a live safeguarding issue. "Carol" is still alive.
Pam, you're not using "safeguarding" in its specific sense of protecting children's welfare, but a much looser sense of protecting "Carol's" well-being. Yes, the church should take all reasonable steps to do that, but "Carol" isn't a child, she's a grown woman who's lived longer than many posting here, a woman who's chosen, of her own free will, and acting under legal advice, to sue the church. She knowingly opened her accusation to legal scrutiny.
Since she was granted (wrongly, in my view) anonymity, that should be respected, but the substance of her claim should be released with her name redacted. Yes, there's some small risk her name would get out, but if it'd gone to trial, that would've happened anyway: the gag order applies only to the press, not the court or the public gallery. Currently, it's being used to hide the church's actions from scrutiny.
'Carol isn't a child, she's a grown woman.'
Some people, abused as children, never move on to that second condition, at least, not in any way complete or viable.
For some abuse victims, they are still that child, again and again, through their lives. Or are cut off from the childhood they had, and should have completed and evolved from, by the terrible interruption of their development, the violation of their childhood innocence.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of George Bell and his reputation, this woman needs help. There sometimes seems more concern for the deceased George Bell than for her.
There can be no pre-supposition of guilt without evidence and due process, but here we have a living woman who needs to be taken with the utmost seriousness - otherwise, here we go again - with a Church that has historically (as a fact, though not proven in this specific case) offered contexts and opportunities for dreadful abuse, colluded to cover things up, victim-blamed (which we are dreadfully close to doing in this case in some quarters), and minimising the impact and testimony of people who have, in effect, had their innocence ripped out; their lives spoilt and diminished for all time.
Carol, the child, needs safeguarding now, even if she was not safeguarded then. She needs to be heard. She needs to be loved. She may need justice if justice is possible, or at least, vindication after the event. She may need to experience first hand, that the Church, the very place where she should have been safe, is now a safe place, and a just place, a protective place that 'comforts' in the fullest sense of the word.
And in none of this, am I pre-supposing the facts (because I can't). But I am saying that Carol matters, as the child she was before everything maybe got spoilt, and the living woman she ought to have become, but maybe never could because of violation that kept her in a time-trap the way abuse does. I am not pre-supposing, but I am saying that there is a very real risk that this is true.
In the repetition of repetitions, childhood abuse still goes on, it happens again and again, long after the original events, revisited in flashbacks, brought back to the present by unanticipated triggers. In such ways, abuse victims may find themselves children again, in a horrific immediacy and newness. They can be there again, trapped in lives that are unable to completely move forward. As such, or the possibility of such, Carol needs to be heard and her claims respected as potentially terribly serious.
My other concern, of course, is any relatives or living friends of George Bell. I have children, and I would hate them to have accusations mad of me after my death (I'm not anticipating any, thankfully). But such a thing would be terrible too.
It is a sad situation, but Carol sounds like she needs safeguarding, now as well as then - albeit, as James says, in a different sense, as I don't think she's in imminent danger of fresh sexual abuse.
What she's in danger of, perhaps, is the original sexual abuse, subverting her and revisiting her, and she may still need protection from that. Acknowledgment is the very least we owe her, as a Church, and a commitment that she will be taken seriously... because these charges are deadly serious.
I am appalled by these cruel comments. Do ‘James’ and ‘Kate’ imagine that the trauma of abuse is soon over?
'James' and 'Kate' (hiding behind the anonymity of the web) think that it was all so long ago that Carol has only a grudging right to protection. No, they say, it's really all about a self-appointed group of rich lawyers and authors who must now be placated. They are horrified that their pet hero ‘George Bell’ is George Bell a real fallible human, not a plaster saint, and they can't bear it.
If Carol is treated as ‘James’ and Kate’ want, then the children who are being abused now will know what awaits them should they dare at any time to challenge their famous abusers. And those accustomed to command and control, even in the church, will never be confronted.
For God’s sake respect Carol and respect the discretion of those who have to make painful decisions.
Actually I am arguing that the efforts to clear Bishop Bell's name are un-Christian and I am very much aware that Carol is freshly victimised by that campaign. I really, really object to those who keep raking it over.
What I also feel though is that the church is wrong in providing the answers it does which are clearly intended to justify its position. The hurt is less but by keeping the debate alive they too risk hurting Carol.
Nor have I suggested that Carol should not be protected. On the contrary, I have said anonymity for victims is important and not lightly given.
The George Bell Group's (GBG) motives, which as I have recorded above are of course laudable, are solely to salvage the reputation of George Bell. However, in order to do this they need to find a way to gain access to the facts that were available to the Diocese of Chichester et al. Having no locus in the matter, this is a challenge and they are being disingenious in their legal arguments. It is clear beyond doubt that anonymity must be preserved and that the relevant legal documents are bound by privilege. The church could, of course, have decided not to settle and force 'Carol' either to drop her claim or pursue it through the courts. The fact that the advice received was that she "was likely to succeed", uncomfortable though that might be for the GBG, was determinative. It was of course the civil test, 'on the balance of probabilities.' The GBG might do well to reflect on the new culture of our times. The days when institutions reached for their lawyers to defend all claims, aided and abetted by their insurers, forcing claimants to go through the ordeal of the court, are largely over. The sheer scale of past abuse has taught the church that it needs to focus on the abused rather than defend its own reputation at all costs and that of the alleged abusers who receive or received a stipend from it.
I'm afraid you are missing the main point of all this, which is - to my mind - WAS IT BISHOP BELL WHO SEXUALLY ABUSED 'CAROL'? I have little doubt 'Carol' was abused by a 'man of the cloth' in Chichester, but I have very serious doubt it was Bishop Bell.
Carol's own testimony bears this out. We are in danger of being party to a most obscene miscarriage of justice if this is not investigated further. What happened to Bishop Bell could happen to any one of us. It happened to David Jones the Southampton football manager, but at least he is alive to defend himself - and wrote a book about it "No Smoke. No Fire". Bishop Bell cannot defend himself, so it behoves us to do what we can to ensure a gross miscarriage of justice doesn't happen in front of our noses.
Susannah, from a therapeutic perspective, I agree with everything you say, but that just illustrates the incompatibility between investigation and healing. Victims need unconditional affirmation and support: to work, an adversarial or inquisitional legal process just can't offer that. The law isn't caring, and can't ever be caring: criminal or, to a lesser extent, civil, it's lawful coercion. That inherent cruelty is mitigated by due process and safeguards, one of which is open justice. They protect everyone, including "Carol."
RevPeterM, I can spin this around easily, and ask about the welfare of the wrongfully accused. I don't want "Carol" to be treated with anything but compassion, but that's not reason to disregard fundamental legal safeguards.
The issue, Richard, is whether the principal danger is a false allegation or an ignored victim. In the past the victims have been disbelieved out of hand, but now their claims are given a fair hearing.
In this case, unlike David Jones', the relevant authorities have accepted the testimony of the victim. Why, when we know little about the circumstances, is this so difficult to accept?
James, I am not disagreeing with your well-made points. My comments were my own feelings, rather subjectively expressed, and not directed at you.
You are a long-term contributor on these boards, who I hold in high regard for your intelligence and your honesty.
If I appear to be siding with Carol, maybe I am, but that's why I'm not part of the legal process. I have subjective views on sexual abuse, and I hope they are sane and compassionate, and in some way contribute to this thread.
Of course, there is a sense in which, even by discussing it at all, we risk objectifying Carol, and reducing her to a 'topic'. I haven't said much on this whole affair, but I wanted to add some words of support for her.
Susannah, I likewise hold you and your contributions in highest regard, and welcome your perspective on this. I also welcome the reminder to keep the humanity of the complainant in mind, which I endeavor always to do.
The 'problem' in the George Bell 'case' is, at one and the same time, listening to and providing care for the complainant ('Carol', as she is is now referred to following the interviews she gave to The Argus newspaper in February 2016), and providing justice for George Bell. At issue is how the interests of a deceased alleged abuser (in Bell's case, someone who has been dead for 58 years) are properly protected in the investigative process: a concern highlighted by Baroness Butler-Sloss in her contribution to the debate in the House of Lords on 30 June 2016, as to which, in relation to George Bell, there remains substantial doubt because of the Church's unwillingness to be transparent. Yes, there must be care for Carol, but not at the cost of ensuring justice for Bishop Bell.
It is not an "either/or" question, as Anthony Archer seems to regard it (the Church "need[ing] to focus on the abused rather than defend[ing] its own reputation at all costs and that of the alleged abusers who receive or received a stipend from it.") We must both "act justly and love mercy" and "speak the truth in love" (Micah ch 6 v 8; Ephesians ch 4 v 15.)
What is now reasonably clear is that the Core Group, who examined Carol's complaint and agreed to the settlement announced on 22 October 2015, did not examine ALL the available evidence. Accordingly, the legal advice on which the settlement was based (that "had the claim been tested by a court, on the balance of probabilities, Carol would have won her claim" - Bishop Cottrell in the HL on 30 June) is now shown to have been flawed.
This is why the supplementary question I asked at the General Synod in York emphasised the need for the Terms of Reference of the Independent Review (announced on 28 June 2016) to enable the Reviewer (whose name has yet to be announced but who, I suggest, should be a senior lawyer, preferably a judge) not only to review the process that led to the settlement with Carol, but also to re-examine ALL the evidence, including the evidence that was not looked at or considered by the Core Group but which has come to light subsequently.