The Church of England issued the following press release this morning.
Next stage of Makin Review CDMs announced
05/06/2025
Following the conclusion of the work to review all clergy under the authority or oversight of the Church of England who are criticised in the Makin review, it was announced in February that the National Safeguarding Team (NST) would seek to bring disciplinary proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) against 10 clergy including two bishops. In all cases, the complaint was ‘out of time’ and so the permission of the President of the Tribunals needed to be sought to initiate proceedings. The President has now considered the applications and granted permission in seven of the 10 cases. This is an independent judicial process, and the National Safeguarding Team entirely respect the decisions.
The NST will now initiate proceedings under the CDM against the following individuals:
No further action under the CDM will be taken against the following individuals:
The decision to bring CDMs was undertaken in line with the process announced in December and concluded in February with recommendations of an independent panel and reviewed by an independent barrister.
Victims and survivors and all those criticised in the Makin review have been informed and support offered. The National Safeguarding Team will make no further comment on these cases whilst the CDM proceedings are under way.
I am the victim of John Smyth who came forward in 2012. We now know from the Makin report and Cape Town review that three ArchBishops and eleven Bishops knew about the abuse by John Smyth by August 2013 Yet, the majority do not appear on this list. The Makin Review was tasked with investigating the response of the CofE to the disclosure, yet, patently not enough was done to find Smyth, stop him and bring him to justice. This was the greatest failure, yet the majority remain untouched. Jo Bailey Wells was forced to “step back”, yet is not… Read more »
I sympathise. One of the problems is that many may have ‘known’ in 2013, but the extent of their knowledge is less clear. Anybody who read the Ruston report and did nothing deserves exposing. For others, they may have been unaware of the extent and brutality of the abuse.
So when you say ‘they were told’ we maybe need to clarify?
Of course, lack of curiosity is an issue.
The secrecy of these proceedings is hugely unfair both to victims and to those whose names have been mentioned. Proceedings in the Crown Court have to be open unless there is some good reason for them being in private and then restrictions must be no more than essential – for instance when a witness in a case of sexual assault has to be protected (over and above the lifelong anonymity of victims) then victims and a representative of the media will still be permitted to be in the court – although the witness may be shielded from view they will… Read more »
I assume you are referring to this
https://open.substack.com/pub/jegerton/p/a-dogs-breakfast-f7b
Most of the clergy here are retired – does the CDM still apply to them? And what sanctions can be applied to a retired priest with no PTO?
Deposition from Holy Orders.
Not under the CDM 1963 (as amended). As far as I am aware deposition from orders has been proposed but has not yet been legislated. The replacement CCM is still under parliamentary scrutiny.
Yes, it applies to retired clergy and the penalties are no different to those in active ministry [Section 24 of the CDM 1963 (as amended)]: “(a) prohibition for life, that is to say prohibition without limit of time from exercising any of the functions of his Orders; (b) limited prohibition, that is to say prohibition for a specific time from exercising any of the functions of his Orders; (c) removal from office, that is to say, removal from any preferment which he then holds; (d) in the case of a minister licensed to serve in a diocese by the bishop… Read more »