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 The inquiry will incorporate case­-specific investigations and a review of information available from published and unpublished reports and reviews, court cases, and previous investigations in relation to child sexual abuse by those associated with the Catholic Church.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:

Complainant core participants

Institutional/other core participants:

3. Evidence received by the Inquiry

4. Disclosure of documents

5. Public hearings including preliminary hearings

English Benedictine Congregation case study

Archdiocese of Birmingham case study

Wider Catholic Church

6. List of witnesses

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.