June 28 2016 – “Diocese of Chichester To Review Processes Used In Bishop Bell Case” – Chichester Observer


Diocese of Chichester to review processes used in Bishop George Bell case

Chichester cathedral
10:41Tuesday 28 June 2016
An independent review of the processes used in the George Bell case has been announced today by the Diocese of Chichester.

Last October the Bishop of Chichester issued a formal apology following the settlement of a legal civil claim regarding an allegation of sexual abuse of a child against the Right Reverend George Bell, who was Bishop of Chichester from 1929 until his death on 3rd October 1958.

In a statement, the diocese said: “The House of Bishops practice guidance on all complex cases states that once all matters relating to any serious safeguarding situation have been completed, the Core Group should meet again to review the process and to consider what lessons can be learned for the handling of future serious safeguarding situations.
“A review has always been carried out in any case involving allegations against a bishop.

“The review will be commissioned by the Church of England’s National Safeguarding Team, on the recommendation of the Bishop of Chichester, to see what lessons can be learnt from how the case was handled.

“The case involves the settlement in 2015 of a legal civil claim regarding sexual abuse against George Bell, who was Bishop of Chichester from 1929-1958.

“The Church has always recognised Bishop Bell’s principled stand in the Second World War and his contribution to peace but it also has a duty to listen to survivors.

“The diocese of Chichester continues to be in touch and offer support to the survivor known as Carol, who brought the allegations in this case.
“The review will look at the processes surrounding the allegations which were first brought in 1995 to the diocese of Chichester with the same allegations brought again, this time to Lambeth Palace, in 2013.

“It will also consider the processes, including the commissioning of expert independent reports and archival and other investigations, which were used to inform the decision to settle the case.

“The settlement was based on the balance of probabilities as criminal proceedings cannot be brought in a case where the alleged perpetrator is dead.

“Details of the review including Terms of Reference and name of the independent reviewer will be announced at a later date.”
The Bishop of Chichester, Dr Martin Warner said; “As in any serious safeguarding situation it is always important to learn lessons from the process and this review will ensure this is done.

“I have, however, made it absolutely clear that the survivor in the case be reassured that we will do everything we can to continue to support her as we have done throughout this process.

“Like her, we recognise the gravity of this matter, given its impact on the national and international reputation of Bishop George Bell.

“I hope that the review will provide a constructive way forward for all concerned.

“Along with my colleagues in the wider Church, I am committed to ensuring that the past is handled with honesty.”

Read more: http://www.chichester.co.uk/news/local/diocese-of-chichester-to-review-processes-used-in-bishop-george-bell-case-1-7452592#ixzz4CskCH59i


  1. “It’s hard to understand why the ‘terms of reference’ of the review have not been given if the review is ‘routine’. A routine review would have routine terms of reference. If every case is different, there are still the two basic requirements of thoroughness and impartiality. The church must commit itself to these.
    But there’s another point. The original investigation caused an uproar because the church expected the public to take its findings on trust. Will we be expected to do the same for the new independent review if it confirms the findings of the original investigation ?
    There’s an obvious need to keep the claimant’s – the alleged victim’s – identity out of the public arena. But a review that’s wrapped in secrecy will do nothing to reassure the public. The frustration over the original investigation will just be repeated”

    ~ XYZ321


  2. “I think my response at this stage would be a cautious welcome, but to say that you would want to see the Terms of Reference (yet to be announced, as is the name of the independent reviewer) before commenting in detail. A number of questions about the case have been put down for answer at General Synod in York next week, and it’s likely the statement today has been prompted by those questions. There is to be a debate about safeguarding in the House of Lords this Thursday, during which you would expect one of the C of E bishops to speak. The answers to the General Synod questions (which won’t be published till next Wednesday or Thursday (6 or 7 July) may prompt supplementary questions during the Question Time session at General Synod on the Friday evening (8 July). I also refer to the Petition and the belief that it has had an influence on the C of E decision, albeit the Petition has not yet been formally presented”

    ~ “D”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s