The Bell Affair -an attempted defence of the C of E and my rebuttal of it

I have been asked if, for the sake of fairness, I could link to a supposed defence, by an official of the Church of England,  of the Church���s decision to publicise an allegation of child abuse against the late Bishop George Bell.

Happy to do so

 

Here it is. The author is Gabrielle Higgins, The Chichester Diocesan Secretary

'In October 2015, the Church of England announced that the Bishop of Chichester had issued a formal apology following the settlement of a civil claim regarding sexual abuse against the Right Reverend George Bell.

Bishop Bell had a long and distinguished ministry as bishop of Chichester from 1929 until his death in 1958.

The process leading up to the settlement, the apology and the announcement was long, complex and carried out with all the sensitivity that a case of this nature demands. Given the nature of the allegations and the reputation of Bishop Bell, it is however understandable that questions have been raised since the announcement was made. These have come from members of the church nationally and locally, as well as from the media.

We would like to take this opportunity to try to answer some of these concerns ��� as best we can. For legal reasons, it has often been impossible to respond to specific questions about the case and we understand this has been frustrating. It is possible however to clarify three broad areas to which the majority of concerns relate.

Presumption of Innocence

In criminal cases, innocence is presumed until guilt is proved and the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution. This means that no-one can be subjected to criminal penalties by the state unless their guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The concept is probably familiar to most people, but not well understood. In popular culture the assumption is that this principle applies to all ���legal cases���, but in fact it applies to criminal prosecutions only.

The case of Bishop George Bell was a civil and not a criminal case ��� regardless of the serious nature of the allegations. Bishop Bell has not been denied the ���presumption of innocence���, because proceedings were never brought before a criminal court. This may seem like a technical point, but it is important that this fundamental legal principle is understood.

Where allegations are made against a deceased person, as is the case with Bishop Bell, they must ��� of course ��� be taken seriously and dealt with accordingly, however uncomfortable this may prove, or however high profile the individual may be. The death of the person does not mean that allegations should not or cannot be investigated at all. It only means that a criminal prosecution cannot be pursued.

The Evidence was not disclosed

Many have asked to see the evidence on which the civil case was settled, and many have expressed concern that we have not been able ��� or seemed willing ��� to provide it.

The desire for transparency does not sit easily with the requirement for confidentiality. Many vexed questions from local, national and international correspondents have been raised, which is understandable given the international standing of Bishop Bell as a theologian and church leader.

But here we must also consider the courage displayed by any survivor in coming forward. The law rightly affords them protection to safeguard the confidentiality of their deeply personal information.

Time and again we hear from people reporting abuse about how painful it is for them to disclose their experiences, as reporting involves re-living. We sympathise with those struggling to come to terms with Bishop Bell���s situation. We also understand the desire to see the evidence. However, this cannot outweigh the individual���s right of privacy.

Even if we wanted to reveal the information, we would be unable to do so: the survivor���s privacy is protected in law. It is legally impermissible for the Church to disclose any evidence used in the settlement, or any information that might lead to identification of the complainant. To be absolutely clear: no specific confidentiality agreement has been applied in Bishop Bell���s case; confidentiality laws apply in all cases of this nature.

Betrayal of Memory?

The third tranche of questions raised by this case is an extremely difficult one. It relates to the question of betraying the memory of someone praised as one of the greatest Churchmen of the 20th Century, a man who had devoted so much of his ministry to the cause of peace.

There is no doubt that George Bell achieved many great things during his lifetime, for which he is rightly honoured and which should continue to be remembered. But any suggestion that those who have done good deeds should be afforded an extra degree of protection from serious allegations cannot be upheld. This is fundamentally wrong.

This position led many institutions, including the Church, to respond to allegations of sexual abuse so poorly in the past and we cannot ��� and will not ��� allow this to continue in the 21st century. All allegations of abuse must be taken seriously and dealt with sensitively and professionally; we must never demand a higher threshold of suspicion because the accused person is of high standing, or has an ���impeccable��� reputation, however uncomfortable this may make us feel.

To conclude: this case has been extremely difficult for all concerned. Many complexities ��� legal and otherwise ��� have given rise to many questions. A number of the questions which have risen cannot be answered, and this blog offers clarification as to why that is so, and also provides some guidance to those frequently-posed questions to which answers can be given.'

Gabrielle Higgins, Chichester Diocesan Secretary

22nd Jan 2016

 

It can be found here:

http://www.anglican.ink/article/diocese-chichester-defends-handling-george-bell-abuse-claims

MY reply: To be clear, it is the *publicising* of a solitary unproven accusation made by an unnamed person concerning events alleged to have happened decades ago, and the way in which this revelation of an unproven allegation somehow turned into several prominent media stories declaring that the allegation was a fact,  that seems to me to be completely indefensible.

If the details can���t be publicised, and I personally accept that they now can���t.  then why should the general accusation be publicised?

I have no objection to the kind and generous treatment of the complainant, and indeed support it up to and including the payment of compensation.  In the absence of proof, we should give the complainant the benefit of the doubt to that extent.

But I cannot see what purpose was served by this publicity, nor, as it happens, can I see how it has helped the complainant, who clearly wishes to stay out of any spotlight.  

I am more than happy to publish this supposed defence, as it seems extraordinarily weak to me.  It is absurd, in my view,  to say that the case ���was a civil and not a criminal case���.

No civil case against George Bell in such a matter could, in my view, conceivably have taken place before a criminal case on the issue had been heard. If a serious crime such as this is alleged against someone, then its truth or falsehood are resolved in a criminal court to criminal standards of proof ���beyond reasonable doubt���. Only after such a trial might the accuser be able to sue for a civil tort. I think it would have been extremely difficult to proceed, let alone succeed, with such a suit had the Jury brought in a verdict of 'not guilty'. Thus, the presumption of innocence still very much applies, and would have stood as a barrier against any civil suit had the accusation been made in Bishop Bell���s lifetime. There is no excuse for dispensing with it now.

In any case, no criminal or civil case could have been mounted against George Bell in either 1995, the time of the first allegation, or 2013, the time of the revival of the allegation, since on both occasions he was deceased (in 2013 he was considerably more deceased than he was in 1995, having died in 1958) , and you cannot sue the dead, any more than you can prosecute the departed.

I am not sure what civil case could ever have been mounted in an English court against anybody or anything connected with this. I'd be interested in the opinions of others as to what shape it might have taken. The Bishop who is alleged to have mishandled the original complaint, in 1995, the late Eric Kemp,  is also deceased, having died in 2009. So he cannot be sued. Could the current Church of England or the Chichester diocese be sued? You would have to ask a lawyer, which I am not,  but for what, exactly,  could they be sued, and what could such a  trial establish? Could the church or diocese be held responsible for the alleged actions of a defunct bishop, half a century ago?  Or for the alleged inaction of another defunct bishop, 18 years ago at the time of the second complaint, now 21 years ago?

 

I can see difficulties here.  In any case,  the normal law of limitations on civil suits is 12 years, which would have expired in 2007 in the case of Eric Kemp���s alleged failures, and by about 1956 in the case of George Bell���s alleged actions. And surely at such a trial some effort at defence of the Church and of Bishop Bell might have been attempted, which seems to have been absent from any of the processes which led to the public and probably permanent damaging of Bishop Bell���s hitherto high reputation. Personally, I don���t accept that his reputation can be taken in parts. If this charge were proven to be true, all else collapses in dust and ashes. True Good is done in minute particulars, and so is true evil. Publicising the charge was the most damaging thing anyone could do to a deceased man with a high reputation, imprisoning that reputation for all time in a dank cell of shame.  Did anyone truly know enough to do this?