The Church of England has announced the dismissal of two cases against clerics involving claims of failure in safeguarding against sexual abuse, Church Times has reported.
Both cases relate to the Makin Review, which detailed the abuses doled out by layman John Smyth, who cast himself as an agent of helping Christian boys “bleed for their faith.”
Sir Stephen Males, the president of tribunals, made both decisions. In accusations involving the Ven. Roger Combes, a former Archdeacon of Horsham, Males ruled that there was “no case for the respondent to answer.”
Sir Males declined to bring an “out-of-time complaint” against the Rev. Iain Broomfield, a former chairman of the Titus Trust, who also was named in the Makin Review.
“Mr. Broomfield was not interviewed during the Makin review because he was, at the time, suspended as Vicar of Christ Church, Bromley, after complaints about his behaviour, including concerns relating to safeguarding,” Francis Martin wrote for Church Times.
“These had been the subject of a [Clergy Discipline Measure] process, under which he received a rebuke and injunctions in 2022, for “conduct unbecoming and inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders,” Martin’s report added. “The matters considered did not relate to the Iwerne [now Titus Trust] camps.”
On a related note, the church’s General Synod is scheduled to vote on a plan for safeguarding that would involve entrusting investigations to an independent party. A 29-page report describes the work that has been achieved since General Synod gave initial support to the proposal.
“Many survivors do not have trust in the Church of England to properly manage safeguarding matters and do not believe that it has learned from past mistakes,” the report says. “Regardless of whether conflicts of interest are a practical reality in Church safeguarding, there are perceived conflicts of interest. In particular, there is the perception that clergy, including senior clergy, have decisive roles in safeguarding decision-making in relation to fellow clergy, rather than relying on objective professional judgments.”
The report adds: “Significant discrepancies remain in how mandatory safeguarding policies, procedures and processes are implemented in practice by various Church bodies. As a result, and despite notable improvement in many areas, problems of consistency, compliance and safeguarding culture remain.”
Gavin Drake, an activist concerned for improving the church’s guarding measures, has condemned another report, a five-page update on the National Safeguarding Team, in scathing language.
“The Archbishops’ Council’s latest safeguarding paper to the General Synod is not merely inadequate. It is offensive,” Drake wrote.
“Offensive not because it is clumsily written, or because it lacks polish, or even because it is complacent in tone. It is offensive because it has been produced, approved, and circulated as if the last six months had not happened at all.”
Drake adds: “Safeguarding reports are not neutral documents. They do not land in a vacuum. They are read by survivors, by victims, by advocates, by campaigners, and by those still trapped in Church processes. To write, at this moment, a report that foregrounds how well things are going is not merely tone-deaf. It is actively harmful.
“It tells survivors that what they have experienced does not matter. It tells them that regulatory findings of failure are footnotes. It tells them that Parliament’s rejection of Church legislation is an inconvenience, not a warning.”
This story has been revised to correct the reference to a report submitted for General Synod.
Douglas LeBlanc is an Associate Editor and writes about Christianity and culture. He and his wife, Monica, attend St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church in Henrico, Virginia.
