Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-ff9ft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-04T12:33:19.202Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Safeguarding and the law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2025

Peter Collier
Peter Collier*
Affiliation:
Retired Senior Circuit Judge Honorary Recorder of Leeds Deputy High Court Judge (Family Division) Sometime Vicar-General of the Province of York, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article traces the developments in the laws and guidance underpinning safeguarding practices in the Church of England over the last 30 years and critically analyses the methodologies used, and outcomes reached, in a number of Lessons Learnt Reviews (including the Makin Review).

Keywords

Church of Englandecclesiastical lawMakin Reviewsafeguarding

Information

Type
Article
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , September 2025 , pp. 355 - 379
Check for updates
Copyright
© Ecclesiastical Law Society 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 K Makin, Independent Learning Lessons Review: John Smyth QC (18 October 2024). The paper can be accessed here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2024-11/independent-learning-lessons-review-john-smyth-qc-november-2024.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).

2 Ibid, para 17.1.12. Emphasis added.

3 J Sentamu, Lord Sentamu’s Response to the Reviewer’s Report (undated), which can be accessed here: https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/sentamu.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).

4 See, for example, ‘Synod stops short of fully independent national safeguarding’, Church Times (11 February 2025).

5 P Collier, ‘Safeguarding in Church and State over the Last 50 Years: “From Ball and Banks to Beech via Bell”’ (2020) 22 Ecc LJ 156–193.

6 C Henry Kempe et al, ‘The Battered-Child Syndrome’ (1985) 9 Child Abuse & Neglect 143–154.

7 Department of Health, Child Abuse: A Study of Inquiry Reports 1973–1981 (London, 1982).

8 E Butler-Sloss, Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland in 1987 (London, 1988).

9 One such principle is the ‘Paramountcy Principle’. This sets out that when a court determines any question with respect to the upbringing of a child, or the administration of a child’s property or the application of any income arising from it, the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.

10 Department of Health, Working Together to Safeguard Children (London, 1999).

11 See https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/childabuseinenglandandwales/march2020 (accessed 18 May 2025).

12 Aston Cantlow v Wallbank (2004) 1 AC 546, para 61.

13 Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, s 4.

14 R v Archbishops of Canterbury and York, ex parte Williamson, The Times, 4 November 1993, CA (quoted in M Hill, Ecclesiastical Law, 4th edn (Oxford, 2018), para 1.24).

15 Middleton v Crofts (1736) 2 Atkyns 650.

16 Home Office, Safe from Harm: A Code of Practice for Safeguarding the Welfare of Children in Voluntary Organisations in England and Wales (London, 1993).

17 See note 10, above.

18 See https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20221215010309/https:/www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/8738/view/ACE002357.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).

19 No online version of this appears to be available.

20 See http://www.cheltenhambranch.org.uk/publications/CoE_Protecting_Children.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).

21 See https://exeter.anglican.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/promotingasafechurch.pdf (ac-cessed 18 May 2025).

22 See https://d3hgrlq6yacptf.cloudfront.net/5fbd76bf103bd/content/pages/documents/16044179621466808717.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).

23 Clergy Discipline Commission, Clergy Discipline Measure 2003: Code of Practice (July 2022), which can be accessed here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-12/cdm-code-of-practice-july-2022.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).

24 J Gladwin and R Bursell, Interim Report of the Commissaries Appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in Relation to a Visitation upon the Diocese of Chichester (August 2012). This can be accessed here: http://rowanwilliams.archbishopofcanterbury.org/canterbury/data/files/resources/2604/INTERIM-REPORT-OF-THE-COMMISSARIES-APPOINTED-BY-THE-ARCHBISHOP-OF-CANTERBURY-IN-RELATION-TO-A-VISITATION-UPON-THE-DIOCESE-OF-CHICHESTER.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).

25 J Gladwin and R Bursell, Final Report of the Commissaries Appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in Relation to a Visitation upon the Diocese of Chichester (April 2013). This does not appear to be available online.

26 Safeguarding: Follow-up to the Chichester Commissaries’ Reports (GS 1896). This can be accessed here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/gs-1896-safeguarding-consultation.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).

27 Proposals for Legislative Change in Response to the Report of the Archbishop’s Chichester Visitation (GS 1941), which can be accessed here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/gs-1941-safeguarding-propsals.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025). Emphasis added.

28 IICSA, The Anglican Church Investigation Report (London, 2020), 113, which can be accessed here: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20221215023918/https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/22519/view/anglican-church-investigation-report-6-october-2020.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025). Emphasis added.

29 Safeguarding (Code of Practice) Measure Steering Committee: Responses to Matters Raised in the Debate on the First Consideration and in Correspondence (GS Misc 1271), which can be accessed here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/gs-misc-1271-safeguarding-copm-sc-response.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).

30 Ibid, emphasis added.

31 Emphasis added.

32 Safeguarding Code of Practice: Safeguarding Practice Reviews, July 2023 (GS 2295), which can be accessed here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/gs-2295-safeguarding-code-of-practice.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).

33 Safeguarding Code Safeguarding Learning and Development Framework 2024, August 2024 (GS 2370), which can be accessed here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/gs-2370-safeguarding-learning-and-development-framework-2024-1.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).

34 Safeguarding Codes of Practice: Religious Communities, August 2024 (GS 2373), which can be accessed here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/gs-2373-safeguarding-code-religious-communities.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).

35 Safeguarding Codes of Practice: Managing Safeguarding Concerns and Allegations; Reporting Safeguarding Concerns and Allegations, December 2024 (GS 2372), which can be accessed here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/gs-2372-safeguarding-code-managing-allegations.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).

36 Ibid, 12.

37 House of Bishop’s Policy on Granting Permission to Officiate (July 2018), which can be accessed here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2018-07/house-of-bishops-policy-on-pto-july-2018.pdf (accessed 18 May 2018). Emphasis added.

38 Review of the Clergy Terms of Service: Part II (GS 1564), para 11.

39 Ibid, para 19.

40 Collier (note 5), 189–193.

41 Makin (note 1).

42 The report can be accessed here: https://houseofsurvivors.org/shared-files/26/?B01-OHY000184-The-Carmi-Report.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).

43 R Meekings, Independent Historic Cases Review: Roy Cotton/Colin Pritchard, 29 May 2009, which can be accessed here: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20221215034437/https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/8754/view/ACE022267_058-095.pdf (accessed 26 May 2025).

44 E Butler-Sloss, Historic Cases Review of Roy Cotton and Colin Prtichard (January 2012), which can be accessed here: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20221215032245/https:/www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/8755/view/ACE022296.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).

45 Above, notes 24–25.

46 Never formally made public.

47 National Safeguarding Team (Church of England), Elliott Review Findings, which can be accessed here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/elliot-review-findings.pdf.

48 M Gibb, The Independent Peter Ball Report: An Abuse of Faith (June 2017), which can be accessed here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/the-independent-peter-ball-review.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).

49 Lord Carlile, Bishop George Bell: the Independent Review (15 December 2017), which can be accessed here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/bishop-george-bell-the-independent-review.pdf.

50 D Pearl et al, A Betrayal of Trust: The independent report into the handling of allegations that have come to the attention of the Church of England concerning the late Hubert Victor Whitsey, former Bishop of Chester (10 September 2020).

51 J Humphries, Independent Learning Lessons Review – Late Trevor Devamanikkam (11 May 2023), which can be accessed here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2023-05/llr-trevor-devamanikkam.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).

52 Makin (note 1).

53 Emphasis added.

54 Which can be accessed here: https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/safeguarding-e-manual/safeguarding-practice-reviews (accessed 18 May 2025).

55 Emphasis in original.

56 Emphasis in original.

57 The Appendices can be accessed here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2024-12/john-smyth-review-all-appendices.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).

58 Statutory Guidance issued by the Clergy Discipline Commission (pursuant to the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003, s 3(3)(b)), 14, para 2. Emphasis in original.

59 Humphries (note 51).

60 Terms of Reference: Learning Lessons Case Review the late Revd Trevor Devamanikkam (February 2020), para 4.1(2), which can be accessed here: https://lawandreligionuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/TOR-TD-for-Independent-Review-Trevor-Devamanikkam.pdf (accessed 27 May 2025).

61 The archbishops, acting jointly, are required to maintain a list of all clerks in holy orders covering six categories, including those who have resigned preferment following the making of a complaint in writing under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003: see s 38(1)(d). There would be no other reason, in this context, for the archbishop to be formally involved in this CDM process as it was against a priest and not against a bishop: Clergy Discipline Measure 2003, s 10(2). It is unfortunate that this context is not made clear within the Humphries Review itself.

62 The survivor resigned his position in February 2013 after being informed that a formal CDM complaint against him was imminent: Humphries (note 51), paras 14.4–14.5.

63 Humphries (note 51), paras 16.3.5–16.3.6.

64 Humphries (note 51), para 16.3.16.

65 A Jay, The Future of Church Safeguarding (February 2024), which can be accessed here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/the-future-of-church-safeguarding.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).

66 Which can be accessed here: https://ineqe.com/churchofengland/annual-report-press-release/ (accessed 18 May 2025).