Overview of process and evidence obtained by the Inquiry

1. Definition of Scope for the case studies

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 Archepiscopal 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.

2. Counsel to this investigation

3. Core participants and legal representatives

Complainant core participants:

Institutional and other core participants: 

4. Evidence received by the Inquiry

5. Disclosure of documents

6. Public hearings including preliminary hearings

7. List of witnesses

Chichester Case Study hearing

7. List of witnesses

Peter Ball Case Study hearing

8. 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 CPs’). 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 order was amended on 23 March 2018 but only to vary the circumstances in which a complainant CP may themselves disclose their own CP status.^[1]

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 this Case Study was redacted, and where appropriate, ciphers applied, in accordance with the Inquiry’s Protocol on the Redaction of Documents (the Protocol).^[2] 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 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. Accordingly, 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 –

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.