I were victims of Religious discrimination within the Church of England. Because of a sermon 2019, I am being treated as a safeguarding risk. I don’t know why, as they have not yet told me exactly what this is about, but it seems to be because my sermon confirmed the Church’s teachings on marriage. I have been reported to the secular safeguarding authorities, but they have all cleared me. Only the Church stands against the acceptance of the Church’s own beliefs. To take this seriously, I have made a formal complaint to the Archbishop of Canterbury about my treatment by the Bishop of Derby, Libby Lane, who has “ultimate responsibility” for all safeguarding in her diocese. After much back and forth over more than two years, no action has been taken.
I suggested that What happened is a whitewash. This is very easy to say when you don’t get the answer you were looking for. Therefore, an explanation is in order, because there are several details that are, to say the least, unsatisfactory. Space only allows for a few “low points”.
The leadership of the church shows an accountability deficit
First, there is Justin Welby’s involvement – or lack of involvement. My original complaint was subjected to a preliminary review which divided it into thirteen headings. Mr Welby looked at each of these headings individually, rather than as a whole, and dismissed the complaint. I appealed and Gregory Jones KC, representing the President of the Tribunal (the Church’s highest legal officer), found that the Archbishop was clearly wrong on nine of the headings. This judgment ran to 98 paragraphs in 33 pages. “Clearly wrong” is a very high bar, much higher than just “I would have come to a very different conclusion”. In legalese it means that no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion. This suggests that the Archbishop acted on the basis of something other than a rational assessment of the case. Ouch.
Or take the fact that my complaint included the allegation that it was a safeguarding matter. The way Ms Lane had treated me was abusive. The Archbishop has a clear legal duty to refer every safeguarding complaint to the National Safeguarding Team (NST). He failed to do that. Hmm.
Or consider that the complaints procedure allows the Archbishop to order an attempt at conciliation with a professional mediator without any blame being assigned. Has a man who every day Nail Crossa symbol of reconciliation work, did he not consider this option even after admitting that the protection processes had not been respected? He has done valuable work for reconciliation in areas of armed conflict around the world. Would this much simpler matter in his own province not be suitable for such an approach? But no, he chose an approach that was to be rejected and no further action taken later.
And apart from the Archbishop, it seems to me that there is evidence that this may have been quiet words in back rooms. When Mr Jones KC ruled that the Archbishop was wrong on nine counts, he ordered that the case should be referred for official investigation because “given the nature and likely legal problems that may arise, I do not consider it appropriate to refer the matter back to the Archbishop.” No vote of confidence for the Archbishop. But then, just four days later, a revised decision came, referring the complaint back to Mr Welby after all. No explanation was given. Mr Welby then decided that no further action should be taken, although he admitted serious failings, so I appealed again and Mr Jones again decided he was clearly wrong, saying: “The case at hand is, in my view, egregious and the error gross.” But this time only four points passed the “manifestly wrong” test (65 paragraphs, seventeen pages). These were referred for formal investigation and still there was no attempt at mediation. But I had mysteriously lost five points of appeal.
When the formal investigation was completed, the investigating officer informed me that it had been referred to the Deputy Chairman of the Tribunal. However, the decision that this was not a case requiring determination came from the Chairman of the Tribunal, Dame Sarah Asplin. It ran to seventeen paragraphs in just seven pages. Was the change because the Deputy Chairman intended to order a full hearing of the complaint before the Disciplinary Tribunal and this could not be allowed?
And in such a short judgment, I simply cannot see that matters were handled properly. When I raised this with Dame Sarah and gave her clear reasons why she should reconsider, particularly because she had not taken into account the decisions already made by her colleague Mr Jones, she was told that decisions could not be changed. Strangely, this had not been the case before.
I will give one example, although there are many. In response to my complaint that I was never told what the safety concerns were, Dame Sarah says: “It is clear that the complainant was fully aware of the nature of the allegations prior to the meeting (with a safety officer).” I find that astonishing. But here’s the thing: Mr Jones KC ruled that the Core Group on Safety Concerns failed to state what the allegations were when they met to discuss my case. He says it repeatedly, for example: “The complainant in this case is entitled, in fairness, to have had an explanation given of exactly what he said which justifies that conclusion (that there are safety concerns). As things currently stand, the Core Group’s findings do not, in my view, meet that basic requirement.” or “The Core Group did not properly explain to the complainant how the ongoing concerns related to the definition of ‘safety’ in the guidance.” So which is more likely? Either the nature of the allegations was never explained to me (as there was nothing that actually met the protection criteria), or they were explained at some unspecified point in 2019, but by the time of the meeting in June 2021, the protection team itself had forget what they were.
In an unprecedented move, I am challenging the Church of England’s failure to properly implement safeguarding in a judicial review. The Church’s leadership has an accountability deficit. Perhaps my case will shake them out of their complacency. I am not hopeless.
They are not bothered by “just wrong.” More likely, they will continue to sugarcoat the truth, at least until Christ returns, and perhaps even afterward, if they are able.
