Our complete
recommendations (Recommendations 61 to 83)
Risk assessment
3.5.14 We use the term 'risk assessment'
to cover both an initial process of discernment about
whether there is cause for concern and a thorough technical
assessment of the risk posed by a person to children now
and in the future. The links that we have recommended
CPCs and Child Protection Teams should establish with
the local statutory Area Child Protection Committees are
important here. They should enable protocols to be established
in this area and ensure regular co-operation and exchange
of views. We would expect that:
(a) when there is a disclosure, the
statutory authorities should be brought in straight
away, without any process of filtering, to take the
lead in investigating and assessing the situation. There
is no need in these circumstances for an assessment
initiated by the CPMT.
(b) where there is only a suspicion,
there is a need for an initial assessment to be made
simply to discern whether there are concerns that should
be acted on. (We emphasise the wide spectrum of cases
that may arise, such as abusive language, a person behaving
inappropriately with young people, a veiled accusation
half-hinted at and then denied.) If there are any concerns,
then the statutory authorities should be brought in
as in (a). They will be able to make a considered assessment
based on all the relevant information that they have
(and which might include information about the alleged
victim, about the discloser, if it was someone other
than the victim, and about the alleged perpetrator).
(c) later, after an allegation has
been investigated, the case may be dropped or the alleged
perpetrator found not guilty even though concerns remain.
In these circumstances, a thorough risk assessment should
be made. Desirably this assessment will be undertaken
with the statutory authorities, or at least with the
benefit of relevant evidence collected by them in the
course of their investigations. The outcome of this
risk assessment should always be acted on to ensure
that a person is not placed in any role that might put
children at risk. So far as possible the subject of
the assessment should normally be informed of its outcome
face to face.
Recommendation 61. When there
is a disclosure, the statutory authorities should be
brought in straight away, without any process of filtering,
to take the lead in investigating and assessing the
situation.
Recommendation 62. When there
is or was only a suspicion, the CPC should arrange for
an initial assessment to be made to discern simply whether
there are concerns that should be acted upon. If there
are any such concerns, then the statutory authorities
should be brought in as in Recommendation 61.
Recommendation 63. After an
allegation has been investigated, the case may be dropped
or the alleged perpetrator found not guilty. In these
cases, a thorough risk assessment should be made. Desirably
this assessment will be undertaken with the statutory
authorities, or at least with the benefit of relevant
evidence collected by them in the course of their investigations.
The outcome of this risk assessment should always be
acted on so that a person is not placed in any role
that might put children at risk.
Recommendation 64. The subject
of a risk assessment should normally be informed of
its outcome face to face.
Suspension
3.5.15 Following the initial risk assessment
the person against whom allegations have been made may
need to be withdrawn from any contact with the child(ren)
concerned or possibly any other child. This removes risk
to the child, allows the investigation to proceed and
safeguards the rights of the alleged abuser. The initiative
within the Church should lie with the CPC and his team
acting on the advice of the statutory agencies in appropriate
cases.
Recommendation 65. Where judged necessary
by the police, social services, or the CPC and his/her
Team
• volunteers should be required to withdraw from
any church situation involving children until investigations
are complete;
• any person employed by the Church should be required
to take leave from their duties on full pay until investigations
are complete.
Administrative leave for clergy
3.5.16 We can see no grounds for treating
clergy differently from lay people in this respect. The
importance of removing risk to the child, allowing the
investigation to proceed and safeguarding the rights of
the clergy is just as great. Our clear view is therefore
that, on the recommendation of the CPC and his/her Team,
following consultation with social services and the police,
any priest or deacon should be required to take administrative
leave (the nearest equivalent for a priest of suspension
for a secular employee) at a location to be determined
by the bishop. We are aware that 'administrative leave'
is provided for in canon law within the context of a judicial
trial initiated by the Church. But we underline the necessity
for the Church to have satisfactory administrative procedures
to achieve the withdrawal of the priest or deacon from
contact with children in those circumstances where a judicial
procedure has not been, or cannot be, initiated by the
Church. It is well understood in professions such as teaching
that suspension in these circumstances does not imply
guilt.
Recommendation 66. On the recommendation
of the CPC and his/her Team following consultation with
social services and the police, any priest or deacon
should be required to take administrative leave at a
location to be determined by the bishop or religious
superior.
Allegations against a bishop or religious
superior
3.5.17 If the concerns or allegations
are about the bishop or religious superior him/herself,
similar procedures should be followed. In the case of
a bishop, the CPC will need to keep the Papal Nuncio closely
informed. The CPC may also like to request support from
the National Child Protection Unit or from the CPC of
another diocese. If administrative leave is appropriate,
we believe that it must apply to a bishop or religious
superior as to any other priest. We invite bishops and
religious superiors to signify their consent to such arrangements.
Recommendation 67. If the concerns
or allegations are about the bishop or religious superior
him/herself, similar procedures should be followed.
We invite bishops and religious superiors to signify
their consent to such arrangements.
Allegations against those involved with
child protection
3.5.18 The fundamental principle is that
no-one should have any part in the handling of allegations
concerning themselves, and every effort should be made
to ensure that they do not even hear of any such allegations
prematurely. It follows that the maker or recipient of
an allegation about a CPC should refer the case to the
bishop or religious superior (rather than to the CPC)
who will arrange for it to be handled by the CPC and team
of another diocese or order.
3.5.19 Similarly there may be an allegation
against a member of the Child Protection Policy or Management
Team. The person making/reporting the allegation will
not necessarily know who these people are so what we suggest
in this case is that when the CPC is informed of the allegation
(as we have suggested for the general case) he/she will
ensure that it is assessed and handled by the CPC and
team of another diocese or order.
Recommendation 68. If the concerns
or allegations are about the CPC, they should be reported
to the bishop or religious superior who will arrange
for them to be handled by the CPC and Team of another
diocese or religious order. Allegations about members
of the child protection teams should also be handled
by the CPC and team of another diocese or religious
order.
Historical allegations
3.5.20 It is sometimes suggested that
cases where the allegation is of abuse that took place
some years ago can be handled differently, and by implication
with less urgency or rigour, from those that are current.
We do not take this view. The evidence is that those who
have abused in the past may still represent considerable
risks in the present. It is for this reason important
to treat such allegations in the same way as current allegations.
3.5.21 By extension, it is our view that
there may be current risks arising from cases in the past
that are known to the Church but, in the then state of
knowledge about child abuse, were not acted on or not
acted on fully at the time. We conclude that bishops and
religious superiors should ensure that all such cases
are the subject of an assessment as soon as possible,
and that there is appropriate follow-up action including
possibly regular continuing assessment.
Recommendation 69. It is important
to treat current allegations about abuse that took place
some years ago ('historical allegations') in exactly
the same way as allegations of current abuse.
Recommendation 70. Bishops
and religious superiors should ensure that any cases
which were known of in the past but not acted on satisfactorily
('historic cases') should be the subject of review as
soon as possible, reported to the statutory authorities
wherever appropriate, and that there is appropriate
follow-up action including possibly regular continuing
assessment.
Support for the victim
3.5.22 A number of the responses to our
consultation have suggested that the Church could and
must do more, following an allegation of abuse, to give
support to the victim and his/her family. Clearly an event
of abuse or a decision to disclose one is a very difficult
time for victims and their families. We have no doubt,
having regard to the Church's mission, that it should
provide all available help.
3.5.23 We believe the most helpful approach
would be to make a 'support person' available to those
who have, or may have, suffered abuse and their families.
Such a person would be, first and foremost, a focal point
for the victim and his/her family to turn to for help
and advice. They could assist those wishing to make a
complaint, facilitate them in gaining access to information
and other more specialised help, and represent their concerns
on an ongoing basis. (The family liaison officers now
being developed and used by the Metropolitan Police may
be a helpful parallel.) They must, above all, be acceptable
to the victim and his/her family while also, once appointed,
being completely independent of the CPC and his/her Team.
It may be that they would often not be called on (because
victims may well prefer to turn to others outside the
Church to take on this role). Nonetheless, it seems desirable
that such a person should be available if wanted and we
so recommend. The CPC should be responsible for ensuring
that they are available, and for appropriate training.
3.5.24 One further and substantial point
has been made to us about support. The need for victims/survivors
to be given support may last for very many years and is
not simply something for the weeks or months after disclosure.
We agree with this and believe the Church should do whatever
it can to support and foster the development of support
services to meet the needs, including the spiritual needs,
of survivors and their families. The National Unit should
compile and maintain a database of such services.
Recommendation 71. A 'support
person' should be available to those who have, or may
have, suffered abuse and their families, to assist them
in making a complaint, to facilitate them in gaining
access to information and other more specialised help,
and to represent their concerns on an ongoing basis.
Recommendation 72. Support
may continue to be needed long after the allegation
has been dealt with. The Church should do whatever it
can to support and foster the development of support
services to meet the needs, including the spiritual
needs, of survivors and their families. The National
Unit should compile and maintain a database of such
services.
Support for the parish
3.5.25 The parish where allegations arise
can also need special support. If the alleged abuser is
a worker for the Church the priest will be able to support
his congregation though he may need help in doing so.
But if the priest is himself the accused, then quite apart
from whatever interim arrangements are made for the ministry
of the Church in the parish, it seems sensible that the
bishop should also make arrangements to help the parish
cope with the situation in which they find themselves.
This has happened in some recent cases and we recommend
that it should become the general practice.
Recommendation 73. The bishop
should provide appropriate support to help parishes
cope where there are allegations against the priest
or a parish worker.
Support for the alleged abuser
3.5.26 It does not in any way detract
from the general principles set out in this report to
bear in mind that the alleged abuser is also entitled
to proper support and advice. The Paramountcy Principle
requires that the welfare of the child must be the first
priority. For that very reason someone who may not have
been charged with, and certainly has not been convicted
of, any offence, may find themselves suspended from their
job and, in the case of a priest, quite possibly removed
from their home and any kind of support. The Church is
fundamentally concerned to seek justice for all and we
are clear that in these circumstances it would be good
practice to appoint a 'support person' to be available
to those (whether priest, paid staff or volunteer) against
whom allegations are made. They would provide advice,
ensure legal representation if necessary and look to any
accommodation or other needs. As with the victim support,
though for different reasons, such a person, once appointed,
must be completely separate from the CPC and his Team.
The CPC should, however, be responsible for ensuring that
people are available to fulfil this role and that they
too receive appropriate training.
Recommendation 74. A 'support
person' should be available to those (whether clergy,
paid staff or volunteer) against whom allegations are
made, to provide advice, to ensure legal representation
if necessary, to look to any accommodation or other
needs, and to advise on other sources of help.
Recommendation 75. The CPC
should be responsible for ensuring the appointment of
people to provide support to victims and alleged abusers
and for overseeing that they receive appropriate training,
but they should operate completely independently of
the CPC and his/her team in relation to particular cases.
3.5.27 While the Church has responsibilities
towards its members, clerical or lay, who may be accused
of abuse which has led to the recommendation in the previous
paragraph, we consider it most important that the Church
neither acts nor appears to act on their behalf. It would,
for example, be completely inappropriate if the solicitor
acting for the alleged abuser was also acting for the
diocese or religious order.
Recommendation 76. A person
against whom allegations are made should not be legally
represented by the solicitor who is representing the
diocese or religious order.
Abusers who have been convicted or cautioned
3.5.28 The Committee is aware that some
other churches and many secular organisations have adopted
the principle that a person who has been cautioned or
convicted of a serious offence against children should
no longer be allowed to hold any position that could possibly
put children at risk again. The Committee believes, in
accordance with the Paramountcy Principle, that the Church
should adopt and implement a similar principle. Implementation
will, however, need to be done in a way that accords with
the structures and processes of the Church. So far as
lay workers are concerned, the position of the Church
is substantially the same as that of many other organisations.
The position of clergy is more difficult. Most posts to
which priests might be appointed are likely to involve
some contact with children. Nonetheless, the general principle
needs to apply in their case too.
Recommendation 77. As a general
rule, clergy and lay workers who have been cautioned
or convicted of an offence against children should not
be allowed to hold any position that could possibly
put children at risk again. The bishop or religious
superior should justify any exceptions to this approach
publicly (for example, by means of a letter to be read
out in churches at Mass).
3.5.29 Many argue that laicisation (dismissal
from the clerical state) is an appropriate penalty whenever
clergy are convicted or cautioned of a child abuse offence.
However, laicisation is the most serious perpetual penalty
that can be imposed by the Church. Normally it can be
imposed only after a formal judicial process involving
a collegiate tribunal of three judges. Furthermore it
can be argued that clergy can be much better supervised
if they remain as clergy than if they are laicised (because
it is argued that in the latter case the Church will have
no further relationship with them, and no role in their
supervision).
3.5.30 Our view is that laicisation is
an extreme step which is not always appropriate. Our report
covers the whole range of child abuse, not only sexual
abuse, and laicisation will not be a proportionate response
in every case. We believe that the principle to be applied
is that laicisation should be considered appropriate where
(in the words of a comparable decided case) 'all right
thinking members of the public, knowing all the facts,
would feel that justice has not been done by any other
course'. We suggest, therefore, that if a priest or deacon
is convicted of a criminal offence against children and
is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 12 months
or more (note that this is a slight modification of the
recommendation in our First Report - see para 2.10.21
above), then it would normally be right to initiate the
process of laicisation. The period of 12 months is the
minimum period adopted by statute for the compulsory disqualification
of adult offenders from working with children (The Criminal
Justice and Courts Services Act 2000, section 28(4)).
We say 'initiate' because we are aware that laicisation
(except by consent) is the decision of a tribunal at the
end of a legal process. We also appreciate that in cases
where the events took place some years ago the normal
canon law process would not be available because of the
statute of limitations. However, we understand that even
such cases can be taken forward by reference to the Holy
See.
3.5.31 We do not mean to imply by this,
however, that laicisation is never appropriate for a lesser
sentence. For example, an abuser may have a number of
shorter sentences or cautions and laicisation may be appropriate
in such cases. The judgement about initiating laicisation
must turn on the facts of particular cases.
3.5.32 We should add that laicisation
does not mean that the Church has no further part to play
in relation to the abuser. As with lay worker abusers
who are no longer employed by the Church, the Church may
nonetheless be able to assist with the rehabilitation
and pastoral needs of the individual.
Recommendation 78. If a bishop,
priest or deacon is convicted of a criminal offence
against children and is sentenced to serve a term of
imprisonment of 12 months or more, then it would normally
be right to initiate the process of laicisation. Failure
to do so would need to be justified. Initiation of the
process of laicisation may also be appropriate in other
circumstances.
3.5.33 The Church can also 'suspend'
a priest or deacon, or declare him 'impeded', from the
exercise of his orders. These penalties can only be applied
for a period and whilst the underlying reason for imposing
the penalty continues to exist. We believe these are certainly
appropriate penalties for any conviction or caution for
a child abuse offence, particularly in less serious cases.
Recommendation 79. 'Suspending'
a priest, or declaring him 'impeded', will usually be
an appropriate penalty for a conviction or caution for
a child abuse offence.
Mistakes and lapses
3.6.1 Even with a culture of vigilance,
mistakes will be made. Examples might include a failure
to take up references correctly, being alone with a child
when this should not have occurred or failure to report/pursue
an allegation. It is important that mistakes are not ignored
or covered up. They should be corrected wherever possible
and lessons learnt. Our view is that mistakes should be
acknowledged (publicly if necessary), recorded, reported
(as appropriate) and rectified wherever possible. If the
mistake indicates that systems need to be changed, then
that should be done.
3.6.2 In this connection it is important
that the culture should be one of encouraging people to
admit mistakes so that someone who has made a mistake
will not feel inhibited from acknowledging it and handling
it in the right way. Training will undoubtedly have a
significant part to play. So will good supervision and
mentoring. Inevitably, consistently making mistakes will
suggest that an individual cannot cope with their responsibilities;
these may need to be changed to ensure that children are
adequately protected.
Recommendation 80. Mistakes
and lapses should be acknowledged (publicly if necessary),
recorded, reported (as appropriate) and rectified wherever
possible. If the mistake indicates that systems need
to be changed, then that should be done.
Child abusers in the congregation
3.7.1 Comprehensive proposals for child
protection in the Church need to include policies with
respect to child abusers who are intent on not re-offending
and are present in the congregation but not in positions
of responsibility. The Church will want to minister to
such individuals but it will also be necessary to establish
clear boundaries for the protection of the young and to
lessen the possibility of the adult being wrongly accused
of abuse. Some other churches address this issue by drawing
up a form of agreement with the involvement of the abuser,
key personnel in the parish and statutory workers (including
the probation officer, if any). We recommend this for
the Church. Such an agreement could cover
- the risks posed to the Church and young people and
how they should be managed
- how those in the parish who 'need to know' can best
respond in order to help the abuser in their efforts
not to repeat their abusive behaviour
- the level and kind of involvement in parish activities
that is considered safe and acceptable, and how to monitor
it
- what to do if the agreement is not adhered to.
Recommendation 81. The National
Unit should prepare and issue guidance on arrangements
to enable the safe participation of former child abusers
in the life of the Church.
Child abuse in the community
3.8.1 We have concentrated in our reports,
as we were asked to do, on preventing abuse by clergy,
lay workers and volunteers and responding to allegations
of abuse by them. But most abuse takes place in the family
or in other contexts outside the Church (see para 3.1.2).
The raising of awareness among both adults and children
which we recommend will have a wider value in helping
to prevent abuse in the community. But members of the
Church also need to know that when they hear of disclosures
or suspicions, or have suspicions themselves, unconnected
with church workers, they should report them immediately
to the local authority social services or police.
A wide understanding
3.9.1 We emphasise the importance of
everyone in the Church understanding what is being done
and why. For that reason we lay stress on a culture of
vigilance: raising awareness and making information available
in a simple and accessible form. We do not underestimate
how difficult this is.
Recommendation 82. A brief
user-friendly leaflet should be prepared by the NCPU
for wide distribution within parishes explaining the
policies and practices that the Church has put in place.
Further review
3.10.1 Finally, all experience tells
us that knowledge about child abuse, how to prevent it
and how to respond to allegations will continue to grow
and best practice to develop. The arrangements we propose
should themselves enable the Church to keep its practice
up to date but we also recommend a more in depth review
after five years.
Recommendation 83. These recommendations
should be reviewed after five years.
|
