Skip to main content

0800 917 1000   Open weekdays 9am-5pm

IICSA Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

The Roman Catholic Church (EBC) Case Study: Ealing Abbey and St Benedict’s School Investigation Report

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

1. Definition of scope for the case study

This case study is an inquiry into the extent of any institutional failures to protect children from sexual abuse within the English Benedictine Congregation.

The scope of this investigation, in so far as it relates to this case study, is that the Inquiry will investigate:[1]

3.1. the English Benedictine Congregation and, consider, in particular:

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;

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;

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;

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:

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.

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.

2. Core participants and legal representatives

Counsel to this investigation:
Riel Karmy-Jones QC
Matthew Donmall
Jelia Sane
Complainant core participants:
A43, A44, A45, A46, A47, A48, A49, A50, A51, A53, A54, A64, A65, A66, A69, A70, A72, A75, the West London Benedictine Order Abuse Survivors
Counsel Iain O’Donnell, Emma-Louise Fenelon
Solicitor Richard Scorer, Slater and Gordon
Counsel Chris Jacobs
Solicitor David Enright, Howe and Co
Solicitor Imran Khan QC, Imran Khan and Partners
C18 and C19
Counsel William Chapman
Solicitor David Greenwood, Switalskis
Institutional core participants:
Adrian Child and Eileen Shearer
Counsel Tania Griffiths QC and Julian King
Solicitor Lachlan Nisbet, Brabners
Jonathan West
Counsel Iain O’Donnell, Emma-Louise Fenelon
Solicitor Richard Scorer, Slater and Gordon
The Monastic Community of Ealing
Counsel Ruth Henke QC
Solicitor Anthony Nelson, Haworth and Gallagher Solicitors
The Catholic Counsel for IICSA
Counsel Kate Gallafent QC
Solicitor Stephen Parkinson, Kingsley Napley
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
The Secretary of State for Education
Counsel Cathryn McGahey QC
Solicitor William Barclay, Government Legal Department
Independent Schools Inspectorate
Counsel David Wolfe QC, David Lawson
Solicitor Sarah McKimm, Independent Schools Inspectorate
3. Evidence received by the Inquiry
Number of witness statements obtained:
Organisations and individuals to which requests for documentation or witness statements were sent:
Jeremy Harvey, Complainant
RC-A6, Complainant
RC-A8, Complainant
RC-A24, Complainant
RC-A645, Complainant
Jonathan West, Campaigner
Dom Richard Yeo, English Benedictine Congregation
Philip Wright, Safeguarding Coordinator, co-author of 2009 report on safeguarding at Ealing Abbey
Commander Neil Jerome, Metropolitan Police Service
Michelle Russell, Charity Commission
Michael Sheridan, Ofsted
Lord Carlile of Berriew QC
Peter Turner, Former Child Protection Officer/Safeguarding Advisor at the Diocese of Westminster
Abbot Martin Shipperlee, Ealing Abbey
Andrew Johnson, St Benedict’s School
Christopher Cleugh, Former headmaster of St Benedict’s School
Jenny Share, Ampleforth School
Carolyn Fair, Ealing Council
Kate Richards, Independent Schools Inspectorate
Father Alban Nunn, Ealing Abbey
Gregor McGill, Crown Prosecution Service
Peter Halsall, Former teacher at St Benedict’s School
Katherine Ravenscroft, St Benedict’s School
Abbot President Christopher Jamison, English Benedictine Congregation
Reverend Jeremy Trood, Downside Abbey
Bishop John Arnold, undertook Apostolic Visitation of 2011
Penny Jones, Department for Education
Suzanne Smith, Disclosure and Barring Service
John Nixson, independent child protection specialist, co-author of 2009 report on safeguarding at Ealing Abbey
Kevin Gregory, Former Officer with the Metropolitan Police Service
Kate Dixon, Department for Education
4. Disclosure of documents
Total number of pages disclosed: 10,694
5. Public hearings including preliminary hearings
Preliminary hearings
1 5 June 2018
2 1 November 2018
Public hearings
Days 1–5 4–8 February 2019
6. List of witnesses
Forename Surname Title Called/Read Hearing day
RC-A8 Called 1
Jeremy Harvey Mr Read 1
RC-A24 Read 1
Neil Alan Jerome Commander Called 2
Gregor McGill Mr Called 2
Peter William Turner Mr Called 2, 3
Martin Shipperlee Abbot Called 3, 4
Richard Yeo Dom Called 4
Christopher Joseph Cleugh Mr Called 4, 5
Sharon Michelle Russell Ms Called 5
Peter Christopher Jamison Abbot President Called 5
RC-A622 Read 5

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.

The following further restriction order was made during the course of this case study:

  • Restriction order 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, dated 8 December 2017.[2]

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 the investigation was redacted and, where appropriate, ciphers applied, in accordance with the Inquiry’s Protocol on the Redaction of Documents.[3] 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 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.

10. 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.

Back to top