Updated 12 December
This matter was first reported by Donna Birrell on Premier Christian News: Exclusive: Abuse survivor and former staff member say Church treatment pushed them to the brink. Her report is worth reading in full but here’s an excerpt.
The case of Survivor N
Survivor N’s case began more than a decade ago when he first reported accusations of abuse against a priest in the Diocese of London.
Premier has seen evidence that when he filed a complaint against the accused priest, Rt Rev Sarah Mullally as Bishop of London, contravened the Clergy Discipline Measure code of practice by sending a confidential email about the allegations directly to the priest concerned, outside of the CDM process. She also wrote to him that the claims were “unsubstantiated”.
Survivor N says he was then subjected to what he describes as a “systematic campaign of harassment and retribution as a CDM complainant”.
He later filed a formal complaint against Bishop Mullally for her handling of the case. In March 2020, in a letter seen by Premier, the then Bishop at Lambeth acknowledged receipt of the complaint. But 16 months later, when his lawyers requested an update, the same Bishop at Lambeth stated that the complaint had only just been received by Lambeth Palace.
A senior psychiatrist told Premier that during those 16 months, Survivor N’s mental health deteriorated sharply.
To this day, despite repeated requests from his solicitors, Survivor N says he has not received a formal response.
Today, the Church of England has issued two statements:
Lambeth Palace statement:
The provincial registrar for Canterbury has written to an individual – known as ‘N’ – to clarify and outline next steps in relation to a complaint the individual initially submitted in 2020 against the Bishop of London under the Clergy Discipline Measure.
Due to administrative errors and an incorrect assumption about the individual’s wishes, the complaint was not taken forward or appropriately followed up. The Bishop of London was unaware of the matter, as the process never reached the stage at which she would have been informed of the complaint or its contents.
The provincial registrar has apologised to those involved and urgent arrangements are now being made for the complaint to be considered according to the relevant statutory process.
The Bishop of London, Dame Sarah Mullally, said:
“N has been let down by the processes of the Church of England. While his abuse allegations against a member of clergy were fully dealt with by the Diocese of London, it is clear that a different complaint he subsequently made against me personally in 2020 was not properly dealt with.
“I am seeking assurance that processes have been strengthened to ensure any complaint that comes into Lambeth Palace is responded to in a timely and satisfactory manner.
“The Church’s processes have to change, both for complainants, and for the clergy who are the subject of complaints. Today, I am one of those clergy. As Archbishop of Canterbury, I will do everything in my power to bring about much needed and overdue reform. We must have trust in our systems, or else we cannot expect others to put their trust in us.”
Update 12 December
Donna Birrell has a further report: Church forced to revisit Mullally case as survivor raises concerns over contradicting evidence in its response which again I recommend reading in full. Another excerpt:
Lambeth Palace told Premier that the reason N’s complaint hadn’t been followed up was because additional documents hadn’t been provided after July 2021 and the provincial registrar had believed N had decided not to proceed with the matter.
However, Premier has seen evidence that two bundles of documents dated 22nd August 2021 were sent to Lambeth Palace as well as to the ‘Designated Officer at the Church of England Legal Office’. A copy of the bundle was also sent to the President of Tribunals on the same date. They were all marked as having been delivered.
Lambeth Palace has told Premier that this hard copy documentation had previously been received from N in electronic form the previous month. However N disputes this and said several bundles were sent in August 2021 including several witness statements which had not previously been sent via email. Lambeth Palace told Premier that the Office of the President of Tribunals has no record of receiving anything from the complainant in August or September 2021.
The first time N learned that the CDM against Sarah Mullally hadn’t progressed and was no longer outstanding, was when he was told by Premier Christian News earlier this month.
I wonder if the Confirmation of Bishop Mullally’s election as Archbishop of Canterbury in the light of this may have to be delayed or even put off altogether and she may be forced to step back from taking up the role of Archbishop altogether as well as resigning the See of London with immediate affect, and the whole process of seeking a new archbishop may have to be gone through all over again, so whoever takes up the post of Archbishop or even takes up office as the enxt Bishop of London has the absolute trust of the Church as… Read more »
I do agree Jonathan that for the Church of England to be a trusted as a positive force for good it is essential that both the Archbishop and Bishop of London should have the absolute trust of abuse victims and survivors. There is the question of the whole issue of Father Alan Griffin. On Monday 8 December, Sarah Mullally said on Premier radio that such a thing must never happen again. It has happened again and no-one has cared or possibly even noticed. There are nine parallels in the case of Father Alan and a friend (which many readers of… Read more »
Yes, it makes a nonsense of her appointment. Yet they knew all of this anyway so who knows, it’s totally exasperating.
Here is the link to my recent book on the cultural factors within the Church of England that I believe are instrumental in bringing about these constant examples of the mishandling of safeguarding cases. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Safeguarding-Institution-culture-England-facilitates/dp/1908706546/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0
So we reach the half way point of Advent and so far instead of three wise men behold three semi suppressed safeguarding scandals… Last week it was the unfortunate Read sisters still seeking justice 35 years on. This week survivor ‘N’ appears alongside the programme highlighting the sufferings of the survivors of John Smyth- and the Church of England smugly shows itself to be the slowest of learners in its response to the Makin review. Susan you bring up your unfortunate friend alongside the handling of Father Griffin. A response to survivor ‘N’ yesterday- which seems to have melted overnight-… Read more »
The Bishop says processes have to change. That is barking up the wrong tree. The allegation is that the Bishop went outside the CDM process in colluding with the complained-about priest. Tweaking processes will have precisely zero effect, unless bishops who fail to follow them are rooted out. The Bisjhop claims N was let down by the processes. Passive tense. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the Bishop of London let N down by refusing to follow processes. If she did act outside the process, as is alleged and as Premier confirm, then she must know that she… Read more »
Hopefully we all believe that safeguarding is utterly non negotiable in the Church.
Sarah Mullally has taken on an unimaginably challenging task to inherit from her predecessor.
Perhaps the hounds should be called off.
No doubt mistakes have been made; perhaps in absolutely good faith.
I have no doubt that she is committed to Safeguarding and cares deeply about justice and pastoral care. She is patently a good and able person.
Should we not give the poor woman a chance?
The obsessive baying of the hounds is becoming unhelpful.
Use every man (or woman) after his/her desert, and who should ‘scape whipping?
I would hope that the accusation of violating procedure by sending messages to a person subject to complaint can surely be dealt with quickly. The correspondence can’t be that voluminous.
Has the Bishop asserted that she followed procedures correctly. If she is hesitant about doing that it’s quite worrying
I tend to agree. It is not at all clear what she personally may have done wrong or omitted to do. What exactly was in her letter to the accused priest?
Is it possible to shed a bit more light on all this mess?
The way I see it is that these kinds of difficulties are inevitable when the hierarchy gets embroiled in safeguarding or CDM issues. Worse when they start meddling.
The whole process needs to be independent. Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, Lambeth, everybody must get out of the room, fast. Any other body knows this, it is fundamental.
Poor woman! Really.
I have updated the article to add a further report containing more details.
The Archbishop of York got off lightly.No police investigation as on the Presbyterian Church of Ireland.
To invoke her new title in her statement cruelly presumes the outcome of the investigation. So much for reforming the processes. Postponing her election is the only way to save her tenure as Archbishop.
Absolutely. Any rank and file member of the clergy facing a CDM complaint relating to safeguarding would rightly be mindful that deprivation of office and prohibition are two of the possible sanctions, and given the many abuses of process reported, would no doubt be fearful, however convinced of their innocence they may be. They would also most likely be suspended. Yet here we seem to have a Bishop so assured of the outcome before the case has even been heard that her public response includes an implicit assumption that her preferment will go ahead unimpaired. Oh what a joy it… Read more »