1. Definition of scope
The Anglican Church investigation (including case studies into the Diocese of Chichester and the response to allegations against Peter Ball) examines the extent of any institutional failures to protect children from sexual abuse within the Anglican Church.
The scope of this investigation is as follows:
- "1. The Inquiry will investigate the nature and extent of, and institutional responses to, child sexual abuse within the Church of England, the Church in Wales and other Anglican churches operating in England and Wales (collectively referred to here as ‘the Anglican Church’). The inquiry will incorporate case specific investigations and a review of information available from published and unpublished reports and reviews, court cases, and previous investigations in relation to child sexual abuse by those associated with the Anglican Church.
- 2. In doing so, the Inquiry will consider the experiences of victims and survivors of child sexual abuse within the Anglican Church, and investigate:
- 2.1. the prevalence of child sexual abuse within the Anglican Church;
- 2.2. the adequacy of the Anglican Church’s policies and practices in relation to safeguarding and child protection, including considerations of governance, training, recruitment, leadership, reporting and investigation of child sexual abuse, disciplinary procedures, information sharing with outside agencies, and approach to reparations;
- 2.3. the extent to which the culture within the Church inhibits or inhibited the proper investigation, exposure and prevention of child sexual abuse; and
- 2.4. the adequacy of the Church of England’s 2007–09 “Past Cases Review”, and the Church in Wales’s 2009–10 “Historic Cases Review”.
- 3. As case studies, the Inquiry will investigate:
- 3.1. the Diocese of Chichester and, in particular, consider:
- a) the nature and extent of child sexual abuse by individuals associated with the Diocese;
- b) the nature and extent of any failures of the Church of England, the Diocese, law enforcement agencies, prosecuting authorities, and/or other public authorities or statutory agencies to protect children from such abuse;
- c) the adequacy of the response of the Church of England, including through the Diocese of Chichester, and the response of any other relevant institutions to allegations of child sexual abuse by individuals associated with the Diocese;
- d) the extent to which the Church of England, including through the Diocese of Chichester, sought to investigate, learn lessons, implement changes and provide support and reparations to victims and survivors, in response to:
- i) allegations of child sexual abuse by individuals associated with the Diocese;
- ii) criminal investigations and prosecutions and/or civil litigation relating to child sexual abuse by individuals associated with the Diocese;
- iii) investigations, reviews or inquiries into child sexual abuse within the Diocese, including, but not limited to, the Carmi report; the Meekings report; the Butler-Sloss report; and the Arch Episcopal visitation;
- iv) complaints made under the Clergy Disciplinary Measure; and/or
- v) other internal or external reviews or guidance.
- 3.2. the sexual offending by former Bishop of Lewes and subsequently Bishop of Gloucester, Peter Ball, including the extent to which the Church of England, law enforcement agencies, prosecuting authorities, and/or any other institutions, bodies or persons of public prominence failed to respond appropriately to allegations of child sexual abuse by Peter Ball.
- 4. The Inquiry will consider the extent to which any failings identified in relation to the Diocese of Chichester and Peter Ball are representative of wider failings within the Church of England and/or the Anglican Church in general.
- 5. In light of the investigations set out above, the Inquiry will publish a report setting out its findings, lessons learned, and recommendations to improve child protection and safeguarding in England and Wales."[1]
2. Core participants and legal representatives in the Anglican Church investigation
Counsel to this investigation:
| AN-A7, AN-A8, AN-A9, AN-A10, AN-A11, AN-A13, AN-A14, AN-A15, AN-A16, AN-A17, AN-A18, AN-A19, AN-A20, AN-A21, AN-A87, AN-A88, AN-A89, AN-A90, AN-A114 | |
|---|---|
| Counsel | Iain O’Donnell |
| Solicitor | Richard Scorer (Slater and Gordon Lawyers) |
| Mr Philip Johnson, Professor Julie MacFarlane, Reverend Graham Sawyer, Reverend Matthew Ineson, AN-A1, AN-A2, AN-A4, AN-A5, AN-A19, AN-A117 | |
| Counsel | William Chapman |
| Solicitor | David Greenwood (Switalskis Solicitors) |
| Archbishops’ Council for England | |
|---|---|
| Counsel | Nigel Giffin QC, Madeleine Reardon and Tim Johnstone |
| Solicitor | Peter Frost, Nusrat Zar and James Wood (Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) |
| Church in Wales | |
| Counsel | Mark Powell QC |
| Solicitor | Matthew Chinery (In-house Head of Legal Services) and Lynette Chandler (Consultant Solicitor) |
| Ecclesiastical Insurance Office | |
| Counsel | Rory Phillips QC |
| Solicitor | Angharad Hurle (Eversheds Sutherland LLP) |
| Secretary of State for Education | |
| Counsel | Cathy McGahey QC, Emily Wilsden. |
| Solicitor | William Barclay (Government Legal Department) |
| National Police Chiefs’ Council | |
| Counsel | James Berry |
| Solicitor | Matthew Greene (East Midlands Police Legal Services) |
| Gloucestershire Constabulary | |
| Counsel | Gerry Boyle QC, Aaron Rathmell |
| Solicitor | Michael Griffiths (Gloucestershire Constabulary) |
| Sussex Police | |
| Counsel | Ashley Underwood QC, Judi Kemish |
| Solicitor | Gareth Jones (East Sussex County Council) |
| Northamptonshire Police | |
| Counsel | Samantha Leek QC |
| Solicitor | Craig Sutherland (East Midlands Police Legal Services) |
| Crown Prosecution Service | |
| Counsel | Edward Brown QC |
| Solicitor | Laura Tams (In-house Head of Legal Services) |
| Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors | |
| Counsel | William Chapman |
| Solicitor | David Greenwood (Switalskis Solicitors) |
| AN-A3 (unrepresented) | |
|---|---|
| Baron Carey of Clifton, Bishop John Hind and Mrs Janet Hind | |
| Counsel | Charles Bourne QC |
| Solicitor | Susan Kelly (Winckworth Sherwood LLP) |
| Peter Ball | |
| Counsel | Richard Smith QC, Sam Jones |
| Solicitor | James Mumford (Amicus Law) |
3. Evidence received by the Inquiry
Statements were sought from 138 different individuals for the Chichester and Peter Ball case studies, with multiple statements from some witnesses.
Statements were sought from a further 79 individuals for the third public hearing, with multiple statements from some witnesses.
4. Disclosure of documents
| Total number of pages disclosed: 88,876 (73,179 pages in the case studies and a further 15,697 pages for the third public hearing) |
|---|
5. Public hearings including preliminary hearings
| Preliminary hearings | |
|---|---|
| 1 | 16 March 2016 |
| 2 | 27 July 2016 |
| 3 | 4 October 2017 |
| 4 | 30 January 2018 |
| 5 | 6 June 2018 |
| 6 | 15 January 2019 |
| Public hearings | |
| Chichester case study | 5–23 March 2018 |
| Peter Ball case study | 23–27 July 2018 |
| Third public hearing | 1–12 July 2019 |
6. List of witnesses
| Surname | Forename | Title | Called or read | Hearing date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AN-A15 | Called | 6 March 2018 | ||
| Johnson | Philip | Mr | Called | 6 March 2018 |
| Hosgood | Shirley | Mrs | Called | 6 March 2018 |
| Hind | John | Bishop | Called | 7 March 2018 |
| Jones | Philip | Archdeacon | Called | 7 March 2018 |
| Lawrence | Alana | Ms | Called | 8 March 2018 |
| Meekings | Roger | Mr | Called | 8 March 2018 |
| Gibson | Ian | Canon | Called | 8 March 2018 |
| Wood | Kate | Mrs | Read | 8, 13 March 2018 |
| Sibson | Angela | Ms | Called | 9 March 2018 |
| Hind | Janet | Mrs | Called | 9 March 2018 |
| Hick | Edmund | Detective Sergeant | Called (via video link) | 9 March 2018 |
| Benn | Wallace | Bishop | Called | 12 March 2018 |
| MacFarlane | Julie | Professor | Called | 13 March 2018 |
| Bursell QC | Rupert | Dr | Called | 13 March 2018 |
| Sowerby | Mark | Bishop | Called | 13 March 2018 |
| Butler-Sloss | Elizabeth | Lady | Read | 14 March 2018 |
| Warner | Martin | Bishop | Called | 14 March 2018 |
| Williams | Rowan | Baron | Called | 14 March 2018 |
| Perkins | Colin | Mr | Called | 15, 16 March 2018 |
| Reade | Nicholas | Bishop | Called | 15 March 2018 |
| AN-A17 | Read | 23 March 2018 | ||
| Carey | George | Lord | Read | 16 March 2018 |
| Iles | Adrian | Mr | Called | 16 March 2018 |
| Tilby | Graham | Mr | Called | 16 March 2018 |
| Singleton | Roger | Sir | Called | 16 March 2018 |
| AN-A8 | Called | 19 March 2018 | ||
| AN-A7 | Called | 19 March 2018 | ||
| Walker | David | Bishop | Called | 19 March 2018 |
| AN-A11 | Called | 20 March 2018 | ||
| Carmi | Edina | Mrs | Called | 20 March 2018 |
| Atkinson | Peter | Dean | Called | 20 March 2018 |
| Hall | Elizabeth | Mrs | Called | 20, 21 March 2018 |
| Welby | Justin | Archbishop | Called | 21 March 2018 |
| Hancock | Peter | Bishop | Called | 21 March 2018 |
| Humphrey | Helen | Ms | Adduced | 22 March 2018 |
| Richards | Kate | Ms | Adduced | 22 March 2018 |
| Luxon | Pearl | Reverend | Adduced | 22 March 2018 |
| Akerman | Keith | Mr | Adduced | 22 March 2018 |
| Taylor | Laurence | Assistant Chief Constable | Adduced | 22 March 2018 |
| Smith | Chris | Mr | Adduced | 22 March 2018 |
| Nunn | Andrew | Mr | Adduced | 22 March 2018 |
| Marks-Goode | Gemma | Mrs | Adduced | 22 March 2018 |
| Grenville | Harvey | Mr | Adduced | 22 March 2018 |
| Booth | John | Mr | Adduced | 22 March 2018 |
| Ball | Peter | Bishop | Adduced | 22 March 2018 |
| Gallimore | Stuart | Mr | Adduced | 22 March 2018 |
| MacIver | Annie | Ms | Adduced | 22 March 2018 |
| Gladwin | John | Bishop | Adduced | 22 March 2018 |
| Kaur Narwal | Jarwant | Ms | Adduced | 22 March 2018 |
| Surname | Forename | Title | Called or read | Hearing date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AN-A117 | Called | 23 July 2018 | ||
| AN-A10 | Called | 23 July 2018 | ||
| Sawyer | Graham | Reverend | Called | 23 July 2018 |
| Carey | George | Lord | Called | 24 July 2018 |
| Purkis | Andrew | Dr | Called | 24 July 2018 |
| Murdock | Wayne | Detective Inspector | Called | 25 July 2018 |
| Renton | Alice | Lady | Read | 25 July 2018 |
| Hunt | Rosalind | Reverend Doctor | Called | 25 July 2018 |
| Hughes | Carwyn | Detective Superintendent | Called | 25 July 2018 |
| Beer | Ian | Mr | Read | 25 July 2018 |
| McGill | Gregor | Mr | Called | 26 July 2018 |
| Nunn | Andrew | Mr | Called | 26 July 2018 |
| Sargeant | Frank | Bishop | Called | 26 July 2018 |
| Wood | Kate | Mrs | Called | 27 July 2018 |
| The Prince of Wales | His Royal Highness | Read | 27 July 2018 | |
| Lloyd | Anthony | Lord | Called | 27 July 2018 |
| Gibb | Moira | Dame | Called | 27 July 2018 |
| Surname | Forename | Title | Called, read or adduced | Hearing day |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elliott | Ian | Mr | Called | 2 July 2019 |
| Bonehill | David | Mr | Called | 2 July 2019 |
| Wilson | Alan | Bishop | Called | 2 July 2019 |
| Singleton | Roger | Sir | Called | 2 July 2019 |
| AN-A88 | Called | 3 July 2019 | ||
| Forster | Peter | Bishop Dr | Called | 3 July 2019 |
| Fish | Sheila | Dr | Called | 3 July 2019 |
| Tanner | Mark | Bishop | Called | 3 July 2019 |
| Humphreys | Justin | Mr | Called | 3 July 2019 |
| Bursell QC | Rupert | Canon Dr | Called | 4 July 2019 |
| Sowerby | Mark | Bishop | Called | 4 July 2019 |
| Oatey | Alastair | Mr | Called | 4 July 2019 |
| Lain-Priestley | Rosemary | Archdeacon | Called | 4 July 2019 |
| Davies | John | Archbishop | Called | 5 July 2019 |
| Lloyd | Simon | Mr | Called | 5 July 2019 |
| Howe | Fay | Ms | Called | 5 July 2019 |
| Watkins | Christopher | Reverend | Called | 5 July 2019 |
| AN-X2 | Called | 8 July 2019 | ||
| Carmi | Edina | Mrs | Called | 8 July 2019 |
| McMahon | Margaret | Mrs | Called | 8 July 2019 |
| AN-X3 | Called | 9 July 2019 | ||
| O’Hara | Julie | Ms | Called | 9 July 2019 |
| AN-X7 | Called | 9 July 2019 | ||
| Munn | Margaret | Ms | Called | 9 July 2019 |
| Ineson | Matthew | Reverend | Called | 10 July 2019 |
| IIes | Adrian | Mr | Called | 10 July 2019 |
| Sentamu | John | Archbishop | Called | 10 July 2019 |
| Tilby | Graham | Mr | Called | 11 July 2019 |
| Hancock | Peter | Bishop | Called | 11 July 2019 |
| Welby | Justin | Archbishop | Called | 11 July 2019 |
| Titchener | John | Mr | Called | 12 July 2019 |
| Mullay | Sarah | Bishop | Adduced | 1 July 2019 |
| Angell | Michael | Mr | Adduced | 4 July 2019 |
| Carlile QC | Alexander | Lord | Adduced | 4 July 2019 |
| Fewkes | Richard | Mr | Adduced | 4 July 2019 |
| Perkins | Colin | Mr | Adduced | 4 July 2019 |
| Kind | Jo | Mrs | Adduced | 4 July 2019 |
| Young | Susan | Ms | Adduced | 4 July 2019 |
| Higton | Mike | Professor | Adduced | 4 July 2019 |
| Holland | Sally | Professor | Adduced | 4 July 2019 |
| Waters | Samantha | Ms | Adduced | 4 July 2019 |
| Heaney | Albert | Mr | Adduced | 4 July 2019 |
| Slack | Steven | Mr | Adduced | 9 July 2019 |
| Lake | Stephen | Very Reverend | Adduced | 9 July 2019 |
| Hardman | Christine | Bishop | Adduced | 9 July 2019 |
7. Restriction orders
On 23 March 2018, the Chair issued an updated restriction order under section 19(2)(b) of the Inquiries Act 2005, granting general anonymity to all core participants who allege they are the victim and survivor of sexual offences (referred to as ‘complainant core participants’). 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 core participant. The order meant that any complainant core participant within this investigation was granted anonymity, unless they did not wish to remain anonymous.[2]
On 13 June 2019, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 granting anonymity to the witnesses known as AN-X1 to AN-X8. The order covered the identities of eight witnesses who provided statements in connection with the sampling exercise. The order prohibited the publication and disclosure of their names or information capable of identifying them.[3]
On 1 July 2019, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 to prohibit the disclosure or publication of the name of any individual whose identity has been redacted or ciphered by the Inquiry, and any information redacted as irrelevant and sensitive, in connection with this investigation and referred to during the course of evidence adduced during the Inquiry’s proceedings.[4]
8. Broadcasting
The Chair directed that the proceedings would be broadcast, as has occurred in respect of public hearings in other investigations.
9. Redactions and ciphering
The material obtained for this phase of the investigation was redacted and, where appropriate, ciphers applied, in accordance with the Inquiry’s Protocol on the Redaction of Documents (the Protocol).[5] This meant that (in accordance with Annex A of the Protocol), for example, absent specific consent to the contrary, the identities of complainants and victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and other children have been 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) will not generally be 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 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 who 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 investigation.
10. Warning letters
Rule 13 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 provides:
- “(1) The chairman may send a warning letter to any person –
- he considers may be, or who has been, subject to criticism in the inquiry proceedings; or
- about whom criticism may be inferred from evidence that has been given during the inquiry proceedings; or
- 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 –
- the chairman has sent that person a warning letter; and
- 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.