Skip to main content

0800 917 1000   Open weekdays 9am-5pm

IICSA Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Ampleforth and Downside (English Benedictine Congregation case study) Investigation Report

Annex 1: Overview of process and evidence obtained by the Inquiry in connection with this public hearing

1. Definition of scope for this case study

The case study will investigate:

1.1. The English Benedictine Congregation and, consider, in particular:

1.1.1. The nature and extent of child sexual abuse by individuals associated with the Congregation including, but not limited to, teachers in Benedictine schools.

1.1.2. The nature and extent of any failures of the English Benedictine Congregation, the Catholic Church and/or other institutions or agencies to protect children from such abuse.

1.1.3. The adequacy of the response of the English Benedictine Congregation, the Catholic Church, law enforcement agencies, prosecuting authorities and any other relevant institutions to allegations of child sexual abuse by individuals associated with the Congregation.

1.1.4. The extent to which the English Benedictine Congregation and the Catholic Church sought to investigate, learn lessons, implement changes, and/or provide support and reparation to victims and survivors, in response to:

a) allegations of child sexual abuse by individuals associated with the Congregation

b) criminal investigations and prosecutions and/or civil litigation relating to child sexual abuse by individuals associated with the Congregation

c) investigations, reviews or inquiries into child sexual abuse within the Congregation, including but not limited to: Dr Elizabeth Mann’s 2003 review of Ampleforth School; the Independent School Inspectorate’s 2010 inspection into St Benedict’s School; Lord Carlile’s 2011 inquiry into St Benedict’s School/Ealing Abbey; the apostolic visitation of 2011; and the Charity Commission’s inquiries into Ealing Abbey and/or

d) other external guidance.

1.1.5. The adequacy of child protection and safeguarding policy and practice across the English Benedictine Congregation during the relevant period, including the adequacy of any response to the recommendations of the Nolan and Cumberlege Commissions.

2. Counsel to this investigation

Riel Karmy-Jones QC
Lois Williams
Jelia Sane
Ellen Shaw


3. Core participants with a particular interest in this case study and their legal representatives

Complainant core participants:

West London Benedictine Order Abuse Survivors
Jonathan West
Counsel Iain O’Donnell
Solicitor Richard Scorer (Slater and Gordon)
Counsel Sam Stein QC
Solicitor David Enright (Howe and Co)
Counsel William Chapman
Solicitor David Greenwood (Switalskis)
White Flowers Alba
Counsel Dominic Ruck Keene
Solicitor Alan Collins (Hugh James)
Counsel Imran Khan QC (Imran Khan and Co)


Institutional core participants:

Ampleforth Abbey Trust
Counsel Matthias Kelly QC
Solicitor Giles Ward (Milners)
Downside Abbey
English Benedictine Congregation
Catholic Council for the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (CCIICSA)
Counsel Kate Gallafent QC
Solicitor Stephen Parkinson (Kingsley Napley)
Adrian Child
Eileen Shearer
Counsel Tania Griffiths QC and Julian King
Solicitor Lachlan Nisbet (Brabners)
Ealing Abbey
St Benedict’s School
Counsel Alex Carlile QC
Solicitor Anthony Nelson (Haworth and Gallagher)
North Yorkshire Police
Counsel Alan Payne
Solicitor Emma Cruickshank (North Yorkshire Police Legal Department)
Metropolitan Police Service
Counsel Jonathan Dixey
Solicitor Asma Karam-Aslam (Directorate of Legal Services, Metropolitan Police Service)
Secretary of State for Education
Counsel Cathryn McGahey QC
Solicitor William Barclay (Government Legal Department)
Independent Schools Inspectorate
Counsel David Lawson
Solicitor Sarah McKimm (Independent Schools Inspectorate Legal Department)
Counsel Jessica Simor QC
Solicitor Sandra Walker (Ofsted Legal Services)


4. Evidence received by the Inquiry

Organisations and individuals to which requests for documentation or witness statements were sent
The English Benedictine Congregation
Ampleforth Abbey Trust
Downside Abbey and Downside School
Conference of Religious England and Wales
Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service
Charity Commission
Diocese of Middlesbrough
Lucy Faithfull Foundation
North Yorkshire Police
Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Northamptonshire Police
Cumbria Constabulary
Clifton Diocese
Diocese of East Anglia
Diocese of Northamptonshire
Department for Education
Independent Schools Inspectorate
Crown Prosecution Service
National Probation Service
Somerset County Council
North Yorkshire County Council
Elizabeth Mann
Malcolm Daniels
St Luke’s Centre


5. Disclosure of documents

Total number of pages disclosed 62,898


6. Public hearings including preliminary hearings

Preliminary hearings
1 28 July 2016
2 6 June 2017
3 5 October 2017
Substantive public hearings
Day 1–5 27 November 2017 – 1 December 2017
Day 6–10 4 December 2017 – 8 December 2017
Day 11–15 11 December 2017 – 15 December 2017


7. List of witnesses

Forename Surname Title Called/Read Hearing day
Luke Beckett Father Read 2
Christopher Thomas Rev Read 2
Paul Smyth Father Read 2
Christopher Pearson Mr Read 2
Colette Limbrick Ms Read 2
Richard Yeo Dom Called 2, 12, 13
RC-A2 Called 3
RC-A61 Called 3
RC-A154 Read 3
RC-A182 Read 3
Nicholas Mark Hartnett Mr Read 3
RC-A30 Called 3
Eileen Lesley Shearer Ms Called 4
George Corrie Father Sworn 5
Arthur David Molesworth Mr Called 5
Lisa Winward Detective Chief Constable Called 5
Leo Chamberlain Father Called 6
Barry Honeysett Mr Called 6
RC-A154 Read 7
Dominic Milroy Father Read 7
Susie Hayward Ms Read 7
Cuthbert Madden Abbot Called 7
RC-A117 Called 8
Michelle Jane Dziadulewicz Mrs Called 8
RC-A221 Called 9
James Sebastian Whitehead Dr Called 9
Liam Dominic Vincent Ring Mr Called 9, 10
Mark Arthur White Mr Called 10
Charles Fitzgerald-Lombard Dom Called 10
Dominic Aidan Bellenger Dom Called 11
Andrew Richard Hobbs Mr Called 11
Leo Maidlow Davies Dom Called 11, 12
Adrian Child Mr Called 13
Claire Winter Ms Called 13
Helen Humphries Mrs Called 13
Kate Richards Ms Called 13


8. Restriction orders

On 15 August 2016, the Chair issued a restriction order under s.19(2)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005, granting general anonymity to all core participants who allege that they are the victim and survivor of sexual offences (referred to as ‘complainant CPs’).[1] The order prohibited (i) the disclosure or publication of any information that identifies, names or gives the address of a complainant who is a core participant; and (ii) the disclosure or publication of any still or moving image of a complainant CP. The order meant that any complainant CP within this investigation was granted anonymity, unless they did not wish to remain anonymous. That restriction was amended on 23 March 2018 but only to vary the circumstances in which a complainant CP may themselves disclose their own CP status.[2]

On 8 December 2017, the Chair issued a restriction order under s.19(2)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005,[3] prohibiting the disclosure or publication of the name of any individual whose identity has been redacted or ciphered by the Inquiry in connection with its investigation into the English Benedictine Congregation, as part of the wider Roman Catholic Church investigation and referred to during the course of the evidence. This includes, but is not limited to, the identities of individuals ciphered within the documentation or referred to in the transcripts published in the following ways:

  1. On the ‘hearings’ and ‘documents’ pages of the Roman Catholic Church section of the Inquiry’s website.

  2. In any report of the Inquiry published in connection with this investigation, and any documents published with it.

9. Broadcasting

The Chair directed that the proceedings would be broadcast, as has occurred in respect of public hearings in other investigations. For anonymous witnesses, all that was ‘live streamed’ was the audio sound of their voice.

10. Redactions and ciphering

The material obtained for the investigation was redacted, and where appropriate, ciphers applied, in accordance with the Inquiry’s Protocol on the Redaction of Documents.[4] This meant that (in accordance with Annex A of the protocol), absent specific consent to the contrary, the identities of complainants, victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and other children was redacted; and if the Inquiry considered that their identity appeared to be sufficiently relevant to the investigation a cipher was applied.

Pursuant to the protocol, the identities of individuals convicted of child sexual abuse (including those who have accepted a police caution for offences related to child sexual abuse) were not generally redacted unless the naming of the individual would risk the identification of their victim in which case a cipher would be applied.

The protocol also addresses the position in respect of individuals accused, but not convicted, of child sexual abuse or other physical abuse against a child, and provides that their identities should be redacted and a cipher applied. However, where the allegations against an individual are so widely known that redaction would serve no meaningful purpose (for example where the individual’s name has been published in the regulated media in connection with allegations of abuse), the protocol provides that the Inquiry may decide not to redact their identity.

Finally, the protocol recognises that while the Inquiry will not distinguish as a matter of course between individuals who are known or believed to be deceased and those that are, or are believed to be, alive, the Inquiry may take the fact that an individual is deceased into account when considering whether or not to apply redactions in a particular instance.

The protocol anticipates that it may be necessary for core participants to be aware of the identity of individuals whose identity has been redacted and in respect of whom a cipher has been applied, if the same is relevant to their interest in the case study. Therefore, the Inquiry varied the Restriction Order and circulated to certain core participants a key to some of the ciphers.

11. Warning letters

Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 provides:

(1) The chairman may send a warning letter to any person –

a. he considers may be, or who has been, subject to criticism in the inquiry proceedings; or

b. about whom criticism may be inferred from evidence that has been given during the inquiry proceedings; or

c. who may be subject to criticism in the report, or any interim report.

(2) The recipient of a warning letter may disclose it to his recognised legal representative.

(3) The inquiry panel must not include any explicit or significant criticism of a person in the report, or in any interim report, unless –

d. the chairman has sent that person a warning letter; and

e. the person has been given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the
warning letter.

In accordance with rule 13, warning letters were sent as appropriate to those who were covered by the provisions of rule 13 and the Chair and Panel considered the responses to those letters before finalising the report.

Back to top