Skip to main content

0800 917 1000 Open weekdays 8am-10pm, Saturday 10am-12pm

IICSA Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

The Roman Catholic Church Investigation Report

Contents

Annex 1: Overview of process and evidence obtained by the Inquiry

1. Definition of scope

This is an inquiry into the extent of any institutional failures to protect children from sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.

The scope of this investigation is as follows:[1]

  1. “1. The Inquiry will investigate the nature and extent of, and institutional responses to, child sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales (‘the Catholic 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 The inquiry will incorporate case­-specific investigations and a review of information available from published and unpublished reports and reviews, court cases, and previous investigations in relation to child sexual abuse by those associated with the Catholic Church.
  2. 2. In doing so, the Inquiry will consider the experiences of victims and survivors of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, and investigate:
  3. 2.1. the prevalence of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church;
  4. 2.2. the adequacy of the Catholic 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;
  5. 2.3. the extent to which the culture within the Catholic Church inhibits or inhibited the proper investigation, exposure and prevention of child sexual abuse; and
  6. 2.4. the adequacy of previous reviews of safeguarding and child protection in the Catholic Church, including but not limited to the Nolan Review and Cumberlege Commission; and the extent to which the recommendations made in such reviews have been implemented in policy and practice.
  7. 3. As case studies, the Inquiry will investigate:
  8. 3.1. the English Benedictine Congregation and, consider, in particular:
  9. 3.1.1. the nature and extent of child sexual abuse by individuals associated with the Congregation including, but not limited to, teachers in Benedictine schools;
  10. 3.1.2. 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;
  11. 3.1.3. 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;
  12. 3.1.4. 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:
    1. a) allegations of child sexual abuse by individuals associated with the Congregation;
    2. b) criminal investigations and prosecutions and/or civil litigation relating to child sexual abuse by individuals associated with the Congregation;
    3. 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
    4. d) other external guidance.
  13. 3.1.5. 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.
  14. 3.2. the Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham and, consider, in particular:
  15. 3.2.1. the nature and extent of child sexual abuse by individuals associated with the Archdiocese;
  16. 3.2.2. the nature and extent of any failures of the Catholic Church, the Archdiocese, law enforcement agencies, prosecuting authorities, and/or other public authorities or statutory agencies to protect children from such abuse;
  17. 3.2.3. the adequacy of the response of the Catholic Church, including through the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham, and the response of any other relevant institutions to allegations of child sexual abuse by individuals associated with the Archdiocese;
  18. 3.2.4. the extent to which the Catholic Church, including through the Archdiocese, sought to investigate, learn lessons, implement changes and provide support and reparations to victims and survivors, in response to:
    1. a) allegations of child sexual abuse by individuals associated with the Archdiocese;
    2. b) criminal investigations and prosecutions, civil litigation and other complaints relating to child sexual abuse by individuals associated with the Diocese;
    3. c) investigations, reviews or inquiries into child sexual abuse within the Archdiocese;
    4. d) disciplinary measures taken against clergy; and/or
    5. e) other internal or external reviews or guidance.
  19. 4. In relation to each case study, the Inquiry will consider:
  20. 4.1. how the specific relationship between the Order or Archdiocese which is the subject of the case study and the Catholic Church in England and Wales impacts on child protection; and
  21. 4.2. the extent to which any failings identified by the Inquiry in relation to the Order or Archdiocese which is the subject of the case study are representative of failings within the Catholic Church in general.
  22. 5. In light of the investigations and case studies 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.”

2. Core participants and legal representatives

Counsel to this investigation:

  • Brian Altman QC
  • Jacqueline Carey
  • Christopher Saad
  • Matthew Donmall

Complainant core participants

C14, C15, C16, C17, C18, C19, C20
Counsel William Chapman
Solicitor David Greenwood (Switalskis)
D2
Counsel Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC and Angela Patrick
Solicitor Jon Wakefield (Bhatia Best)
F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F11, F12, F13, F44, F48, F49, F51, F53, F56, F59, Comboni Survivors Group
Counsel Christopher Jacobs
Solicitor David Enright (Howe and Co)
A43, A44, A45, A46, A47, A48, A49, A50, A51, A52, A53, A54, A55, A56, A57, A58, A59, A60, A61, A62, A63, A64, A65, A66, A69, A70, A72, A75, A80, A81, the West London Benedictine Order Abuse Survivors, Stephen Bernard
Counsel Iain O’Donnell
Solicitor Richard Scorer (Slater and Gordon)
G2
Solicitor Imran Khan QC (Imran Khan and Partners)
G3, G4, G6 and J4
Solicitor Alan Collins (Hugh James)
White Flowers and G1
Solicitor Robbie Brodie (Livingstone Brown)
C14, C15, C16, C17, C18, C19, C20
B20
Solicitor Peter Garsden (Simpson Millar)

 

Institutional/other core participants:

Archdiocese of Birmingham
Counsel Richard Horwell QC and Genevieve Woods
Solicitor David Smellie (Farrer and Co)
Catholic Council for IICSA
Counsel Kate Gallafent QC
Solicitor Stephen Parkinson (Kingsley Napley)
Secretary of State for Education
Counsel Cathryn McGahey QC
Solicitor Gary Howard (Government Legal Department)
West Midlands Police
Counsel Allison Hewitt
Solicitor Lisa-Marie Smith (Staffordshire and West Midlands Legal Services)
The Monastic Community of Ealing
Counsel Ruth Henke QC
Solicitor Anthony Nelson (Haworth and Gallagher Solicitors)
The English Benedictine Congregation
Counsel Kate Gallafent QC
Solicitor Stephen Parkinson (Kingsley Napley)
Ampleforth Abbey and Ampleforth School
Counsel Matthias Kelly QC
Solicitor Giles Ward (Milners Law)
Ofsted
Counsel Sarah Hannett
Chief Constable North Yorkshire Police
Solicitor Alan Payne/Emma Cruickshank
Metropolitan Police Service
Counsel Sam Leek QC
Solicitor Jonathan Dixey
Independent Schools Inspectorate
Counsel David Wolfe QC
Solicitor David Lawson
Adrian Child, Eileen Shearer
Counsel Tanya Griffiths QC and Julian King
Solicitor Lachlan Nisbet (Brabners)
Jane Jones
Counsel Peter Mant
Solicitor Matthew Smith (Bircham Dyson Bell)
Jonathan West
Counsel Iain O’Donnell
Solicitor Richard Scorer (Slater and Gordon)

 

3. Evidence received by the Inquiry

Number of witness statements obtained:
177

Organisations and individuals to which requests for documentation or witness statements were sent:

  • Reverend Christopher Thomas, Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales
  • Adrian Child, former Director of Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service
  • Eileen Shearer, former Director of Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults
  • Dr Colette Limbrick, Director of Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service
  • Cardinal Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster and President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales
  • Monsignor Gordon Francis Read, Catholic Council for the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
  • David Marshall QPM, former Chair of National Catholic Safeguarding Commission’s Survivor Advisory Panel
  • Sister Jane Bertelsen, former member of Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors
  • Baroness Sheila Hollins, Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors
  • Danny Sullivan, former Chair of National Catholic Safeguarding Commission
  • Sean Harford, Ofsted
  • Kathy Perrin, Catholic Insurance Service
  • Stephen Spear, former member of National Catholic Safeguarding Commission
  • Reverend Marcus Stock, Bishop of Leeds
  • Sister Lyndsay Spendelow, former Religious Vice-Chair of National Catholic Safeguarding Commission
  • Peter Houghton, National Catholic Safeguarding Commission
  • Dom Richard Yeo, English Benedictine Congregation
  • Father Paul Smyth, President of the Conference of Religious in England and Wales
  • Archbishop Bernard Longley, Archdiocese of Birmingham
  • Canon David Oakley, former Rector of St Mary’s College Oscott
  • Michelle Russell, Charity Commission
  • Christine Ryan, Independent Schools Inspectorate
  • Kate Richards, Independent Schools Inspectorate
  • Christopher Pearson, Chair of National Catholic Safeguarding Commission
  • Amanda Spielman (Ofsted)
  • Andrew Johnson, St Benedict’s School
  • Christopher Cleugh, former headmaster of St Benedict’s School
  • Abbot Martin Shipperlee, Ealing Abbey
  • Gregor McGill, Crown Prosecution Service
  • Kate Dixon, Department for Education
  • Peter Turner, former Child Protection Officer/Safeguarding Advisor at the Diocese of Westminster
  • Reverend Jeremy Trood, Downside Abbey
  • Jonathan West, Campaigner
  • Philip James Falconer, Safeguarding Coordinator for Diocese of Arundel & Brighton
  • Michael Sheridan, Ofsted
  • Lord Carlile of Berriew QC
  • Carolyn Fair, Ealing Council
  • Abbot President Christopher Jamison, English Benedictine Congregation
  • Bishop John Arnold, undertook Apostolic Visitation of 2011
  • Penny Jones, Department for Education
  • John Nixson, independent child protection specialist, co-author of 2009 report on safeguarding at Ealing Abbey
  • Commander Neil Jerome, Metropolitan Police Service
  • Rachel O’Driscoll, National Catholic Safeguarding Commission
  • Reverend Mark Davies, National Catholic Safeguarding Commission
  • Reverend Canon Dr Brendan Killeen, National Catholic Safeguarding Commission
  • Sister Philomena McCluskey, Franciscan Missionaries of St Joseph
  • Elizabeth Manero, National Catholic Safeguarding Commission
  • Sue Cox, Survivors Voice Europe
  • Reverend Bishop Paul Mason, National Catholic Safeguarding Commission
  • RC-A33, Complainant
  • RC-A711, Complainant
  • RC-A704, Complainant
  • Bill Kilgallon, former Chair of National Catholic Safeguarding Commission
  • RC-A56, Complainant
  • Reverend Martin James Devenish, Comboni Missionaries Order
  • Gerard Francis McLaughlin, Complainant
  • RC-A41, Complainant
  • RC-A42, Complainant
  • Bede Mullen, Complainant
  • Mark Stephen Murray, Complainant
  • Thomas James Kirby, Complainant
  • RC-A669, Complainant
  • RC-A491, Complainant
  • RC-A494, Complainant
  • Christopher Speight, Complainant
  • RC-A493, Complainant
  • RC-A579, Complainant
  • RC-A49, Complainant
  • RC-A50, Complainant
  • RC-A52, Complainant
  • Peter Murray, Complainant
  • Brian Mark Hennessy, Complainant
  • RC-A705, Complainant
  • Paul Barber, Catholic Education Service
  • Mark Andrew Miller, Assistant Parish Safeguarding Representative, St Cuthbert’s Durham
  • Janet Perman, Parish Safeguarding Representative, St Anne’s Cathedral Leeds
  • Stephanie Mary Brown, Parish Safeguarding Representative, St Cuthbert’s Durham
  • RC-A51, Complainant
  • Frank McGinnis, Complainant
  • RC-A117, Complainant
  • Pamela Lythe, Parish Safeguarding Representative, St Anne’s Cathedral Leeds
  • Harvey Grenville, Charity Commission
  • Reverend Canon Roger Taylor, Rector of Allen Hall Seminary
  • Canon Paul Farrer, Rector of the Royal and Pontifical English College of St Alban, Valladolid, Spain
  • Monsignor Philip Whitmore, Rector of the Venerable English College, Rome
  • RC-A62, Complainant
  • Dr Nuala Graham, The Augustinian Province
  • Father Martin Ganeri, Dominicans
  • Sister Joan Moriarty, Daughters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul
  • Joanne Norman, Safeguarding Coordinator, British Society of Jesuits
  • John Mervyn Williams, Salesians of Don Bosco
  • Father Robert Gay, Dominicans
  • Sister Agnes Clare Smith, Institute of Our Lady of Mercy
  • Sister Marie Raw, Daughters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul
  • Angela McGrory, Diocese of Portsmouth
  • Bishop Philip Egan, Diocese of Portsmouth
  • Bishop Peter Doyle, Diocese of Northampton
  • Sandra Davey, Our Lady of Fidelity
  • Monsignor Patrick McKinney, Diocese of Nottingham
  • Sister Francis Ridler, Diocese of East Anglia
  • Bridget McNulty, Parish Safeguarding Representative for St Mary’s All Saints Newport
  • Catherine Taylor, Diocese of Salford
  • Dawn Lundergan, Diocese of Salford
  • Deacon Desmond Bill, Archdiocese of Liverpool
  • Martin Mahoney, Archdiocese of Cardiff
  • Michael Kenneth Thurley, Diocese of East Anglia
  • Michael Walker, Diocese of Middlesbrough
  • Morgan James Beake, Diocese of Menevia
  • Robert David Scott Brown, Diocese of Plymouth
  • Monsignor Seamus O’Boyle, Diocese of Westminster
  • RC-A37, Complainant
  • RC-A31, Complainant
  • RC-A32, Complainant
  • RC-A20, Complainant
  • Eammon Flanagan, Complainant
  • Clare McKenzie, Diocese of Nottingham
  • Rebecca Cawsey, Archdiocese of Clifton
  • Liam Ring, Archdiocese of Clifton
  • Baroness Patricia Scotland QC, former Chair of National Catholic Safeguarding Commission
  • RC-A1, Complainant
  • Canon Brian Coyle, Rector of St John’s Seminary Wonersh
  • Graham Wilmer, Complainant
  • RC-A54, Complainant
  • Father Andrew Richardson, President of the Conference of Diocesan Directors of Vocations
  • Susie Hayward, National Catholic Safeguarding Commission
  • RC-A19, Complainant
  • Eva Edohen, former Safeguarding Officer, Diocese of Westminster
  • Melissa Caslake, Director of Safeguarding within the National Church Institutions (the collective name for the seven administrative bodies that work to support the Church of England)

 

4. Disclosure of documents

Total number of pages disclosed: 14,587

 

5. Public hearings including preliminary hearings

English Benedictine Congregation case study

Preliminary hearings
1 28 July 2016 (Ampleforth and Downside)
2 6 June 2017 (Ampleforth and Downside)
3 5 October 2017 (Ampleforth and Downside)
4 5 June 2018 (Ealing)
5 1 November 2018 (Ealing)
Public hearing
Days 1–5 27 November–1 December 2017 (Ampleforth & Downside)
Days 6–10 4 December–8 December 2017 (Ampleforth & Downside)
Days 1–5 4–8 February 2019 (Ealing)

 

Archdiocese of Birmingham case study

Preliminary hearings
1 9 May 2018
2 25 September 2018
Public hearing
Days 1–5 12–16 November 2018
Special sitting day 13 December 2018

 

Wider Catholic Church

Preliminary hearings
1 23 May 2019
2 25 September 2019
Public hearing
Days 1–5 28 October–1 November 2019
Days 6–10 4 November–8 November 2019

 

6. List of witnesses

Surname Forename Title Called, read, summarised or adduced Hearing day
RC-A711 Called 2
RC-A49 Called 3
Kirby Thomas James Mr Called 3
McGrory Angela Ms Called 3
Howarth Doyle Peter John Bishop Called 3
Egan Philip Anthony Bishop Called 3
Sullivan Danny Mr Called 4
Spear Stephen Mr Called 4
Pearson Christopher Mr Called 4
Marshall David John Mr Called 4
Hollins Sheila Baroness Called 5
Limbrick Colette Alexandra Dr Called 5
Russell Sharon Michelle Ms Called 5
Hayward Susie Ms Read 6
Bertelsen Jane Sister Called 6
Perrin Kathy Janina Ms Called 6
Read Gordon Francis Monsignor Called 6
Carmi Edina Mrs Called 7
Smyth Paul Andrew Father Called 7
Nichols Vincent Gerard Cardinal Called 8, 9
Farrer Paul Canon Read 9
Coyle Brian Canon Read 9

 

7. Restriction orders

On 15 August 2016, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 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 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. That restriction was amended on 23 March 2018 but only to vary the circumstances in which a complainant core participant may themselves disclose their own core participant status.

On 30 October 2019, the Chair issued a restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 prohibiting the disclosure or publication of the name of RC-F338.[2]

On 30 October 2019, the Chair issued a further restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 prohibiting the disclosure or publication of the name of RC-F338. [3]

On 30 October 2019, the Chair issued a further restriction order under section 19 of the Inquiries Act 2005 prohibiting the disclosure or publication of the name of the organisation that RC-F338 was involved with and the country in which they operated.[4]

On 30 October 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.[5]

8. 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.

9. Redactions and ciphering

The material obtained for this phase of the investigation was redacted and, where appropriate, ciphers were applied, in accordance with the Inquiry’s Protocol on the Redaction of Documents (the Protocol).[6] 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 were 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 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. “(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. (2) The recipient of a warning letter may disclose it to his recognised legal representative.

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

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