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 »
Thank you for your supportive and understanding message.
Yes indeed, the strength of the position of the DSO is that she and the Diocese know we cannot afford a lawyer and they have free access to Diocesan lawyers.
It seems that within the Church of England justice is for those who can afford it (and not always then!). This can only enforce their view that they are above being held to account.
This is the frustrating conclusion for many other people in a similar situation.
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 »
Mullally is a new broom and a much needed first female Archbishop. As far as can be made out she was not even aware this complaint had been made against her until now and has asked for it to be investigated. We must not allow those who oppose female bishops to use this as a tool to stop Mullally taking office
I don’t think that it is reasonable to conclude that this is a conspiracy of “those who oppose female bishops”. I see no evidence for this.
A bit of a coincidence that these allegations came out now though, shortly before the first female Archbishop is enthroned. Plus that they came out in Premier Christian News, a site largely for conservative evangelicals many of whom are not keen on having a relatively moderate female liberal Catholic as the new Archbishop of Canterbury
The story emerged on Premier Christianity, a conservative evangelical site which would not be overly keen on a female relative moderate like Mullally as next Archbishop
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.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes custodum? (Who will guard the guardians of the guards?) Who will sit (super-indendently?) above the independent safeguarding structure to oversee and correct its inevitable and damaging human errors? From the Church Times, regarding a complaint against the Bishop of Lichfield: Dr Ipgrave’s decision was referred to Lord Justice Males by the national safeguarding director, Alex Kubeyinje. The complaint against Mr Hastie-Smith was that his response to the reports had been inadequate. There had been, Mr Kubeyinje argued, a number of errors in the Bishop’s decision. In his response, upholding Dr Ipgrave’s decision, the judge said… Read more »
I am not familiar with the case you describe, but surely in secular organisations, as soon as a complaint is made, everybody in the organisation stands back and the necessary secular authorities deal with it, for good or bad. There is zero reason for a bishop to start writing letters, of any kind, to either the accuser or the accused, unless…..maybe if it was merely to say that the accusation had been passed to some other independent authority and communications should be with that independent authority. if (in extremis) it was a murder, everybody should keep their distance while the… Read more »
It’s currently an allegation, subject to CDM process, isn’t it?
Perhaps wise not to be speculative about the actual substance, or propriety/impropriety of the Bishop’s actions while they are under procedural investigation and assessment?
I disagree entirely. I was not making any comment at all on the content of any letters, I was saying that under safeguarding or CDM processes there should not be any letters, and if there were it is a failure of the process and/or a failure to comply with the process.
My underlying point is that processes should be independent and be carried out by independent bodies.
Stop meddling.
In the church if a complaint is made the person complained against is told nothing until investigations have been undertaken and some resolution considered, at which point they may, if fortunate, be invited to make a counter case. If Bishop Mullaly wrote to the priest involved and advised that there was no substance to the claims made about him that suggests that the investigation had been undertaken and a conclusion reached. the complainant then some years later issues a complaint about the process- – the timing feels all wrong
Yes, if you go back to my original comment I was saying we should not be baying hounds and more information is needed.
Maybe she conformed fully with CDM or safeguarding processes.
Some light needs to be shed. Nature abhors a vacuum.
There are some people who, given a potentially difficult situation, react by ‘writing a letter’. It rarely works out well.
Poor woman! Really.
Are you expressing empathy or being sarcastic?
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 »
There’s something disturbing me that nobody else has discussed: the Church of England issued the two statements together. That means that Lambeth Palace coordinated with the subject of the complaint (the Bishop of London) to obtain her statement for publication at the same time. That feels totally wrong. And, I note, there’s no third statement from N – presumably he wasn’t invited to include a statement in the pack?
I’m not going to comment on the underlying accusations but the co-ordination of a response, in my opinion, stinks.
Kate, that is a really helpful and sharp observation – namely, that those who are responsible for now following up and investigating the CDM against the Bishop, have quite clearly just coordinated their press response with her, as part of a jointly agreed communications strategy. And that coordination itself is almost certainly another breach of procedure and impartiality on the part of those who ought to be conducting an independent investigation without fear or favour, and certainly without paying any consideration to the wider PR implications for the Bishop and the wider church. The (instinctive, natural and unthinking) press coordination… Read more »
Or just maybe it casts a tiny chink of light on how the Secretary General wields his power? He knows where all the bodies are buried. So perhaps not so ‘totally instinctive, natural and unthinking’?
But you are right about the current situation being unfit for purpose, and any secular organisation worth its salt would expect swift retribution
IIUC, that great modern source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton) reminds us of the words attributed to Lord Acton, in addressing the then Lord Bishop of London Mandell Creighton in 1887, a mere two bishops before the appointment of Geoffrey Fisher to that role:
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.
One may wonder also, what was the role of the Bishop at Lambeth?
I heard Andrew Graystone being interviewed by Elizabeth Oldfield on the ‘Sacred’ podcast a couple of days ago – an extraordinarily moving interview. At one point he made a comment I’m still pondering (and I paraphrase from memory): ‘Around the country churches are doing amazing things to help people. The further away it is from power, the better the church is.’ At the end, Elizabeth expressed some reservations about that statement, but I thought it was very astute. The C of E is governed by a hierarchical power structure. Some of the people involved in that power structure are wonderful… Read more »
The Church of England, like the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Lutheran churches is a church with bishops of apostolic succession. Believed to follow a direct line of descent from St Peter. Now of course many Parishes and Vicars do fantastic work in their communities and for their congregations but as a Catholic if Reformed church the C of E will always have bishops. It just needs to ensure they do the right thing
Thank you; I am aware of all that, although you are not entirely accurate in a couple of details. Lutherans in Scandinavia may have bishops in the ‘apostolic succession’, but North American Lutherans do not (ELCA and ELCIC Lutherans have bishops, but not in the historic succession, and Missouri Synod Lutherans don’t have bishops at all). Also, my understanding is that ‘apostolic succession’ is connected to the apostles in general, not Peter specifically, but Anglo-Catholic friends here can correct me on that if I’m wrong. But the main thing is, I have not advocated for the abolition of bishops, but… Read more »
It is apostolic succession from the apostles but focused specifically on Peter. Having bishops without robes, thrones, titles, oaths, even the few who still have palaces rather defeats the point of the job. If you are that low church you basically want bishops in name only with no real authority or status from the job you may as well become a Baptist or Pentecostal
‘…rather defeats the point of the job’
So the point of the job is to have all the paraphernalia?
RC theology sees the Pope as the successor of Peter, but I’m not aware of any theology of apostolic succession in the early church that focuses the succession itself on Peter. Source, please?
Peter is so important to apostolic succession as Jesus gave him the keys to his kingdom and the rock to build his church and that authority passed down to his successor as bishops. In churches of apostolic succession a bishop has a specific role of hierarchical authority which is reflected as such.
I do not recognize this as an Anglican theology of apostolic succession. I am not familiar with any Anglican writer who isolates Peter as having a unique role in the apostolic succession. I have only seen it expressed as a succession from all the apostles together. To exalt Peter in this way seems to me to be a Roman Catholic theology of succession, not Anglican. Anglo-Catholic colleagues here, can you correct me?
“Lutherans in Scandinavia may have bishops in the ‘apostolic succession’, but North American Lutherans do not (ELCA and ELCIC Lutherans have bishops, but not in the historic succession …)” I’m not sure about the situation in Canada, but in the US that’s not quite accurate. TEC and ELCA entered into an agreement, “Called to Common Mission,” about 25 years ago, in which TEC and ELCA entered into full communion with each other. Under this agreement, ELCA agreed to have their bishops be ordained by bishops in apostolic succession, which would include bishops from Lutheran churches that had apostolic succession (such… Read more »
It’s not accurate in Canada either. Bishop Michael Pryse of Eastern Synod was the last ELCiC bishop installed prior to the Waterloo Declaration. Now that he has been succeeded by Bishop Carla Blakley, all ELCiC bishops now have had Anglican co-consecrators.
You are of course correct and I know this. I was referring to the ‘pre full communion’ ELCIC and ELCA situations.
There are also some pastoral disconnects. I know that the way we do episcopacy in my church in Canada is slightly different from the way it’s done in the C of E, but here’s one thing I’ve felt keenly through my entire ministry (and I’ve had some very good bishops). Our theology says that the bishop is the chief pastor of the diocese, and certainly he or she is the natural person to be the chief pastor of the clergy in the diocese. But, he or she also has the power to remove our licences and dismiss us from our… Read more »
Indeed but in the UK certainly a bishop is held to the same standards of employment law and ensuring only fair dismissals as any other manager
My point remains: your manager can’t also be your pastor. Psychologically, that just doesn’t work.
Your pastor is your priest, a bishop just manages him not the congregation
Dear T12. I was the priest. Who was my pastor?
Are you sure about that? If only ..
Parochial CofE ministers are not ’employees’ but ‘office holders’; they do not have recourse to Employment Tribunals.
Bishops can withdraw a licence.
Bishops can withdraw Permission to Officiate to retired clergy, without needing to justify it.
Is that ‘fair’?
Each diocese has disciplinary tribunals, the bishop alone does not have unchallenged power to withdraw licenses
Always pleased to be put right.
Sadly, the Bishop of London in my experience of her after the Elliott Review was hoovered up into the bloodless culture both of Church House Westminster and Lambeth Palace. Mullally had a unique opportunity given to no other bishop – to learn from Ian Elliott how to respond to safeguarding crisis. But she seems to have followed a different path with over-reliance on reputation managers in the diocese to ‘manage’ cases so that they could more easily form the presentational matrix. It’s not good. My own experience is one marked by bitterness. I have watched as she delivers public soundbites,… Read more »
Gilo, as so often , a deafening silence falls which has nothing to do with ‘The Nations favourite carols’. I am so sorry.
Another difficult Christmas lies ahead for victims and survivors in the face of a seemingly indifferent organisation.
I pray you all have support to get you through. When did any sense of shame quit the upper echelons of the C of E ?
As far as I can see it there was a complaint made by N that was investigated but not upheld. Where is the safeguarding error there?
The Bishop of London does say (in a statement, incidentally, published on the Archbishop of Canterbury website, not that of the Diocese of London) that “While his [i.e. N’s] abuse allegations against a member of clergy were fully dealt with by the Diocese of London…” My understanding is that N says that neither he nor his solicitor has ever been informed of the outcome of his original CDM complaint against the member of the clergy in London diocese. If it was “investigated but not upheld” as suggested by T12, N, as complainant, should have been notified, along with, if the… Read more »
Mullally herself said the complaints against the member of the clergy concerned were unsubstantiated and the Diocese of London fully investigated them. Normally if found innocent you cannot have your case taken further again unless major new evidence emerges, appeals are only for those found guilty
The questions are (i) how the complaint was ‘fully dealt with’ and what this means having regard to the requirements of the Clergy Discipline Measure and Clergy Discipline Rules, and (ii) how and when N was informed of the outcome (if it is alleged that he or his solicitor was), along with informing him of his right under the Measure to have the decision reviewed by the President of Tribunals. Those questions remain unanswered.
That is a matter for those conducting the investigation, Mullally would have initiated it but not had any part in the investigation. I am also unclear that if an accused is found innocent in an investigation the accuser ie N can appeal, that is certainly not the case in criminal law. Once innocent there is no appeal by accuser and prosecutor unless significant new evidence emerges
So much speculation, so much room for speculation.
If Bishop Mullaly communicated with N simply to advise that the complaint had been fully dealt with, then say so, and stop all this gossip.
If not, then say what was communicated.
I’m not au fait with this specific case (and am not commenting about it), but section 13 of the CDM 2003 (as amended) does permit reconsideration of a bishop’s ‘no further action’ decision at the request of the complainant:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/2003/3/section/13
Only if a tribunal considers that it ‘was plainly wrong’ as a decision and even then the bishop can only be asked to reconsider. The bishop can still decide to take no further action
You are misreading section 13. David Lamming helpfully has set out the position at length below.
We are not in the field of criminal law, but disciplinary proceedings under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003, which I have to assume you have not read. A complaint under the Measure is subject, first, to preliminary screening by the diocesan registrar or his/her delegate. Section 11 (as amended) provides: “(1) When a complaint in writing has been made in accordance with section 10 above it shall be referred in the first instance to the registrar of the diocese or province concerned, as the case may be, who shall thereupon scrutinise the complaint in consultation with the complainant with a… Read more »
Thank you. My problem is in: 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”. These accusations are serious. Unless this confidential email is exposed, speculation will continue. Maybe it can be exposed with some redaction? Maybe it was incompetence, and she was not fully aware of CDM processes? Some personal acceptance… Read more »
The bishop is the one who confirms no further action is needed post investigation and is then entitled to let the accused know the investigation outcome
N would need to have shown the decision was ‘plainly wrong’ to refer it to the tribunal
Not quite right. N would not need to show that the decision was plainly wrong. His right to refer the decision to the President is unqualified: there is no ‘permission stage’ as there is, for example when bringing a claim in the High Court for judicial review, or when challenging an appeal decision under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The right to refer is unfettered, but the President will only reverse the decision if he (it is ‘he’ now that Sir Stephen Males has replaced Dame Sarah Asplin in the post) considers it to be ‘plainly wrong’ –… Read more »
The President has to believe the bishop’s decision to be ‘plainly wrong’ to reverse it yes, see s3 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/2003/3/section/13. So extremely unlikely for it to be reversed. As even not fully correct is not fully and plainly wrong. It would be a breach of the data protection rights of the accused priest for the nature of the complaint against him by N to be published unless he wants it to be so given it has not been upheld
I am sure Buddhists are so much kinder to one another than those who claim to be Christians. Bit of a shame really.