IICSA Inquiry (Preliminary) (Anglican investigation) 16 March 2016

Transcription

1 1 (10.30) Wednesday, 16 March THE CHAIR: Good morning. 3 Opening statement by THE CHAIR 4 THE CHAIR: I welcome you to the second preliminary hearing 5 held by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. 6 Today, we will be considering next steps in the 7 Inquiry's investigation into the institutional responses 8 to allegations of child sexual abuse in the 9 Anglican Church. We held our first preliminary hearing 10 into the investigation into allegations relating to 11 Lord Greville Janner last week. During that hearing, 12 Counsel to the Inquiry provided a comprehensive summary 13 of the Inquiry's work, which I'm not going to repeat, 14 but I will set out a little background to assist those 15 following proceedings today. 16 The scope of this Inquiry is broad and 17 unprecedented. Together with Panel members 18 Malcolm Evans, Ivor Frank, Alexis Jay and Dru Sharpling, 19 we must examine the extent to which public and private 20 institutions in England and Wales have failed to protect 21 children from sexual abuse in the past and we must make 22 recommendations for the future. 23 In my two public statements last year I explained 24 how the Inquiry is tackling this challenge. Briefly, we 25 have established three core projects: the Public Hearing Page 1 1 reparations to victims and survivors of childhood sexual 2 abuse. 3 Now before we begin today's business, I have one 4 housekeeping matter to advise. I propose to break at am for 15 minutes. I would ask you to please try 6 to return to your seats in good time following the break 7 as we have a great deal to consider this morning. 8 So now I will turn to Mr Emmerson QC who is 9 Counsel to the Inquiry and invite him to introduce 10 himself and his team. 11 Mr Emmerson? 12 MR EMMERSON: Thank you, Madam. 13 Opening statement by COUNSEL TO THE INQUIRY 14 MR EMMERSON: As you have indicated, I appear as Counsel to 15 the Inquiry together, for the purposes of this 16 investigation, with THE CHAIR: Mr Emmerson, remember the microphone is not 18 a microphone. It just looks like one. 19 MR EMMERSON: Yes, I have a note in front of me saying 20 "Speak up". 21 THE CHAIR: Please keep your voice up. 22 MR EMMERSON: I appear today together with my learned 23 friends Ms Aileen McColgan and 24 Ms Alexandra Tampakopoulos. 25 It might be helpful for those who are not familiar Page 3 1 Project, in which the Inquiry will hear evidence in its 2 13 investigations, the Research Project, which is 3 undertaking research on a range of issues essential to 4 the Inquiry's work, and the Truth Project, which is 5 hearing the accounts of victims and survivors of child 6 sexual abuse in private sessions. 7 The Anglican investigation is one of 8 13 institution-specific investigations that the Inquiry 9 have announced. The others concern alleged failures to 10 protect children in the Catholic Church and children in 11 the care or supervision of Lambeth Council, 12 Nottinghamshire Councils and Rochdale Council, in 13 custodial institutions and in residential schools. We 14 will also be inquiring into allegations of child sexual 15 abuse and exploitation involving people of public 16 prominence associated with Westminster. 17 In addition to the institution-specific 18 investigations, we are also conducting a series of 19 thematic investigations focusing on child sexual abuse 20 facilitated by the internet, institutional responses to 21 the sexual exploitation of children by organised 22 networks, the extent to which institutions in England 23 and Wales are effectively discharging their 24 responsibilities to protect children abroad and the 25 adequacy of existing services for providing support and Page 2 1 with the process if I indicate very briefly that Counsel 2 to the Inquiry's responsibility is to advise on the 3 Inquiry's investigations, to assist the Inquiry by 4 making independent submissions on the law, on the 5 procedure and on the evidence, to present witness 6 evidence at public hearings in a neutral and 7 non-partisan manner and to assist the Panel where 8 necessary by making submissions on the conclusions that 9 are open to them on the evidence. 10 Madam, with that few words, may I deal with the 11 introductions for the other representatives who appear 12 here today? I have indicated to each of them that it 13 would be helpful if they were able, when introduced, 14 just to say a word or two about the nature of their 15 clients' interests in these proceedings and the reasons 16 why they are here. Some represent existing 17 core participants; some represent individuals who are 18 renewing applications for core participant status. So 19 can I take them in turn? 20 First of all Mr Richard Scorer to my extreme left or 21 your extreme right is here representing a group of 22 victims and survivors represented by Slater & Gordon 23 Solicitors, 14 of whom have been granted 24 core participant status and three of whom have been 25 provisionally declined. Page 4 1 (Pages 1 to 4)

2 1 THE CHAIR: So to your right? 2 MR EMMERSON: To your right, Madam. 3 THE CHAIR: Yes, Mr Scorer. 4 Yes, Mr Scorer, do you wish to address the Inquiry? 5 MR SCORER: Yes, Madam. 6 Thank you for the opportunity to renew the 7 applications for core participant status on behalf of 8 three of my clients. Those are complainants who are 9 designated as A10, A11 and A13. Madam, you should have, 10 for all three of those, the initial application made on 11 4 February MR EMMERSON: Can I just indicate briefly, we will reach the 13 position of core participant submissions during the 14 course of the morning. At this stage I'm simply 15 inviting those who are here to indicate the nature of 16 their clients' interests. 17 MR SCORER: My apologies. Well, I represent core participants and three individuals who have been 19 provisionally declined. I apologise. 20 THE CHAIR: Mr Scorer, I will look forward to hearing your 21 submissions a little later. 22 MR SCORER: Thank you. 23 MR EMMERSON: Next along the line, so between myself and 24 Mr Scorer, is David Greenwood from 25 Switalskis Solicitors, and my learned friend Page 5 1 failings outside Chichester are brought before the 2 Inquiry. 3 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Leonard. 4 MR EMMERSON: Next, may I ask Mr Gerry Boyle to introduce 5 the position on behalf of Gloucestershire Constabulary. 6 THE CHAIR: Mr Boyle? 7 MR BOYLE: Good morning, Madam. Madam, the Constabulary 8 were involved in the original investigation into the 9 allegation against Peter Ball, the then Bishop of 10 Gloucester in 1992, as a result of which he received 11 a police caution. 12 We are here, Madam, to assist the Inquiry with its 13 inquiry into the conduct of that investigation and the 14 decision-making process which led to the then bishop 15 receiving a police caution. 16 THE CHAIR: Yes. Thank you, Mr Boyle. 17 MR EMMERSON: Madam, next to Mr Boyle sits my learned friend 18 Ashley Underwood, representing the Chief Constable of 19 Sussex. 20 THE CHAIR: Mr Underwood. 21 MR UNDERWOOD: Good morning Ma'am. Sussex Police was the 22 responsible authority for receiving and investigating 23 complaints in relation to the Diocese of Chichester and 24 the then Bishop of Lewes. They, like you, have a deep 25 and abiding interest in getting to the truth of these Page 7 1 Patricia Leonard, representing a group of 2 core participants, seven of whom have been granted 3 core participant status and six applicants have been 4 provisionally refused. There is one renewal in that 5 case. 6 The clients represented by Mr Greenwood and 7 Ms Leonard include C5, the individual whose case was the 8 subject of the first independent safeguarding review 9 published by the Church of England yesterday. 10 THE CHAIR: Ms Leonard and Mr Greenwood. 11 MS LEONARD: Very briefly, Madam, we would also to say that 12 one of the core participants whom we represent is 13 MACSAS, which is the Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse 14 Survivors. You may know that it is a national support 15 group for people who have been abused as a child or an 16 adult by a minister of the clergy. Mr Greenwood, who 17 sits beside me, wears two hats. He is on the board and 18 he also is the legal representative for that group. 19 It is in our interests to make sure that the voices 20 of the core participants we represent are heard and 21 ensure that it is a full investigation, as you have 22 already highlighted, Madam, dealing with the failings 23 and admissions and deliberate acts taken to cover up 24 some of the abuse that occurred. We are also anxious to 25 ensure that examples of bad practice and institutional Page 6 1 matters and learning lessons. They have committed to 2 supporting this Inquiry fully and are very grateful to 3 be given core participant status. 4 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Underwood. 5 MR EMMERSON: While we are dealing with the police 6 core participants, can I introduce my learned friend 7 Fiona Barton for the Chief Constable of Surrey. 8 THE CHAIR: Yes, Ms Barton. 9 MR BARTON: Good morning, Madam. I represent the 10 Chief Constable of Surrey. The application for 11 core participant status by the Chief Constable is put on 12 the basis that Surrey Police are currently conducting an 13 ongoing investigation into historic sexual allegations 14 involving the Church and the school. That investigation 15 includes consideration of whether previous 16 investigations fell short of the appropriate standards 17 and that is why the core participant status is sought. 18 THE CHAIR: Yes. Thank you, Ms Barton. 19 MR EMMERSON: Madam, can I re-introduce my learned friend 20 Mr Edward Brown, who appeared before you during the 21 Janner preliminary hearing for the Crown Prosecution 22 Service. 23 THE CHAIR: Yes, Mr Brown. 24 MR EMMERSON: 25 MR BROWN: Madam, thank you again for the grant of Page 8 2 (Pages 5 to 8)

3 1 core participant status. You have identified some past 2 decisions that will be examined during this part of the 3 Inquiry, in two particular areas, two case studies, and 4 we, for the Crown Prosecution Service, will co-operate 5 with the Inquiry as much as we can in as positive a way 6 as we can. 7 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Brown. 8 MR EMMERSON: May I introduce Mr Sam Jones at the back of 9 the room on your right, representing the former 10 Bishop Peter Ball. 11 THE CHAIR: Mr Jones. 12 MR JONES: Good morning. Madam. I represent the interests 13 of Peter Ball, who, in light of the investigation scope 14 relevant to this module of the Inquiry, has been 15 designated as a core participant. 16 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Jones. 17 MR EMMERSON: Madam, next moving to the Church of England 18 organisations, may I introduce my learned friend 19 Nigel Giffin on behalf of the Archbishops' Council to 20 explain the role of the Council to the Inquiry. 21 THE CHAIR: Yes, Mr Giffin. 22 MR GIFFIN: Madam Chair, you have granted the 23 Archbishops' Council core participant status. You have 24 seen the nature of it, but for those listening who may 25 not be so familiar, may I explain briefly? Page 9 1 learning from it for the future. Thank you, 2 Madam Chair. 3 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Giffin. 4 MR EMMERSON: Madam, may I now introduce 5 Ms Lynette Chandler, who is here today to represent the 6 Church in Wales. 7 THE CHAIR: Yes, Ms Chandler. 8 MS CHANDLER: Good morning, Madam. The Church in Wales is 9 grateful to have been granted core participant status. 10 May I take this opportunity on behalf of the 11 Church in Wales to state that we are here to assist the 12 Inquiry in its investigations, including investigations 13 into areas where there may have been institutional 14 failings and will co-operate fully. 15 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Chandler. 16 MR EMMERSON: Now, Madam, Mr Rory Phillips, who appears on 17 behalf of the Ecclesiastical Insurance Office. 18 THE CHAIR: Yes, Mr Phillips. 19 MR PHILLIPS: Madam, may I explain for the benefit of those 20 following that the Ecclesiastical Insurance Office was 21 founded in 1887 by churchmen to insure Anglican Church 22 buildings. It now offers a range of insurance, 23 specialising in charity, education, faith and heritage 24 sectors. It is owned by the All Churches Trust, which 25 distributes its available profits to the Church and Page 11 1 The Church of England is a somewhat complex 2 institution with many largely autonomous bodies and 3 office-holders within it, but the Archbishops' Council 4 is one of the national institutions that exists. It has 5 a co-ordinating role. It also has responsibility for 6 the national safeguarding team and, since clearly in 7 practical terms the Inquiry needs to deal with a single 8 body, the Archbishops' Council has put itself forward 9 and been accepted as a core participant to play that 10 role, including by co-ordinating and assisting the 11 Inquiry with the requests it has made for information 12 and documents, a task which is well in hand, I'm glad to 13 say. 14 On that note, I hope you will also allow me to 15 reiterate publicly what the Archbishop of Canterbury and 16 others within the Church have previously said. They 17 have called for and welcomed this Inquiry. We are glad 18 that the Church of England will be amongst the first 19 institutions to be considered by the Inquiry, even 20 though we are well aware that this will be a difficult 21 process clearly for survivors of abuse sharing their 22 stories and also difficult for the Church to hear about 23 where it has failed. 24 The Archbishops' Council is committed to engage 25 fully and positively with the Inquiry and also to Page 10 1 community, which makes it, on any basis, a most unusual, 2 if not unique, insurer. 3 Its interest in this investigation is simple. It is 4 the Anglican Church's liability insurer, covering some 5 95 per cent or so of Anglican churches. In that 6 capacity it has provided insurance cover for claims of 7 sexual abuse against the Church and, in particular, it 8 has handled claims which have arisen, for example, in 9 the Diocese of Chichester, on which the Inquiry intends 10 to focus in this investigation. 11 We are also grateful for the grant of 12 core participant status. We sought it in order to 13 assist the Inquiry with this part of its work and look 14 forward to working with you and your team in the weeks 15 and months ahead. 16 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Phillips. 17 MR EMMERSON: May I now introduce Ms Cathryn McGahey, who 18 appears for the Secretary of State for Education. 19 THE CHAIR: Ms McGahey. 20 MS McGAHEY: Madam, the Department for Education is 21 responsible for education and children's services in 22 England. It has responsibilities at a national level, 23 both legislation and policy, concerning child 24 safeguarding and protection and at a local level it 25 oversees the provision of education amongst children's Page 12 3 (Pages 9 to 12)

4 1 services by local authorities, faith organisations and 1 you said that the Inquiry would look at the adequacy of 2 others. 2 the Past Cases Review carried out by the Church of 3 As you already know, Madam, from the last 3 England and of the Historic Cases Review carried out by 4 preliminary hearing, the Department's national policy 4 the Church in Wales. 5 responsibilities were until 2003 held by the Department 5 Madam, you announced at that time that the Inquiry 6 of Health. That department has not sought 6 had selected as case studies the Diocese of Chichester 7 core participant status, but has undertaken to cooperate 7 and the case of Peter Ball, a former bishop of the 8 with the Department for Education and the Inquiry to 8 diocese. You said that the investigation would consider 9 assist with events before whether there were inappropriate attempts by persons of 10 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Ms MsGahey. 10 prominence to interfere in the criminal justice process 11 MR EMMERSON: Madam, finally to my right, Mr Desmond Browne 11 when Peter Ball was first accused of child abuse 12 appears on behalf of on behalf of the very Reverend 12 offences in Professor Martyn Percy and Dr Andrew Chandler, who 13 Madam, before addressing the specific issues 14 together have been provisionally refused 14 relating to the scope of this investigation, I would 15 core participant status, but will be here during the 15 like, if I may, just to provide some brief background to 16 course of this hearing in order to renew those 16 the allegations involving the Anglican Church that have 17 applications. I don't know whether Mr Browne would want 17 been brought to the attention of the Inquiry. 18 to say a word or two by way of introduction. 18 The evidence which is so far available suggests many 19 THE CHAIR: Yes, Mr Browne. 19 instances of sexual abuse by priests and others in 20 MR BROWNE: Madam, this arises out of the case study into 20 positions of authority within the Anglican Church over 21 the Diocese of Chichester and the interests of the 21 a long period of time and that there have been serious 22 applications in the allegations of sexual abuse which 22 failures on the part of those within the Church to 23 have been made against the late Bishop George Bell. 23 acknowledge, prevent and remedy such abuse. There is 24 Professor Percy is the Dean of Christchurch, Oxford, and 24 evidence that abuse has occurred and continues to occur 25 responsible for the cathedral, where there is an altar 25 in religious schools and within parishes. There is also Page 13 Page 15 1 consecrated to Bishop Bell. Dr Chandler, who sits on my 1 reason to believe that the Church of England's own 2 right, is the biographer of Bishop Bell. 2 scrutiny of the issue in the past, the past cases 3 THE CHAIR: Thank you, Mr Browne and Mr Chandler. 3 review, which was carried out in 2007 to 2009, provided 4 Yes, Mr Emmerson. 4 a picture that was less than comprehensive. 5 MR EMMERSON: My Lady, I'm proposing at this point to work, 5 The selection by the Inquiry of case studies to 6 so to speak, through the agenda, but in a rather 6 illuminate these general issues is based on a careful 7 different order to the points that are there set out, 7 assessment of the existing evidence, including the 8 and to begin, if I may, with one or two observations 8 testimony of victims and survivors in concluded criminal 9 about scope and about the nature of the way in which 9 cases. The Diocese of Chichester and the associated 10 this investigation has been structured. 10 case of Peter Ball will enable the Inquiry to explore in 11 Before I do, may I, at the outset, clarify one point 11 detail the ways in which child protection processes in 12 of terminology? I propose to refer, as I did in the 12 the Church appear to have failed. 13 Janner preliminary hearing, to those who have alleged 13 The Diocese of Chichester is one of 42 dioceses 14 sexual abuse within the Anglican Church as 14 within the Church of England and covers most of East and 15 "complainants", except where their abusers have been 15 West Sussex and part of Kent. The Bishop of Lewes, the 16 convicted or where the fact of the abuse has been 16 position that Peter Ball occupied from 1984 until 1992, 17 formally established in some other way, in which case 17 is one of the bishops in the diocesan area. The diocese 18 the terminology will be "victims" or "survivors". 18 is notable for a high reported rate of child sexual 19 Madam, as you have explained, the Anglican 19 abuse complaints against a clergy and for numerous 20 investigation is one of 13 investigations that you 20 examples of apparent failures of reporting and 21 announced in November last year. You said at that time 21 safeguarding. 22 that the Inquiry would examine the sexual abuse of 22 The problem of child sexual abuse within the diocese 23 children in the Church of England and the Church in 23 reached deep into Chichester Cathedral and its 24 Wales and would assess the appropriateness of child 24 associated institutions. A large number of clerics in 25 protection policies in the two churches. In particular 25 the diocese and others, including Terrance Banks, the Page 14 Page 16 4 (Pages 13 to 16)

5 1 head steward of Chichester Cathedral, have been 2 convicted of child sexual abuse. The Anglican Church 3 recently settled a claim in respect of an allegation by 4 George Bell, as you have heard, who was Bishop of 5 Chichester from 1929 until As you will be aware, counsel representing the 7 college, Mr Browne, will be making submissions in 8 relation to that shortly. 9 The investigation will examine previous inquiries 10 into child sexual abuse within the diocese which include 11 the Carmi report, completed in 2004 and published in ; the Meekings report, completed in 2004 but not 13 published until 2012, which was not accepted by the 14 diocese; and the Butler-Sloss report and addendum, which 15 were published in 2011 and 2012 respectively. The 16 addendum was made necessary by the revelation that 17 senior clerics in the diocese appeared to have 18 materially misled Baroness Butler-Sloss as to the 19 circumstances in which an alleged paedophile was granted 20 permission to officiate as a priest. 21 The history of Chichester raises concerns over the 22 accuracy of the Church of England's Past Cases Review. 23 That review reported in 2010 that diocesan scrutiny of 24 40,747 files disclosed just 13 cases which required 25 formal action. It did not pick up on Peter Ball's Page 17 1 cautioned, committed suicide before he was convicted. 2 The case of Peter Ball illustrates broader failings 3 in the Anglican Church and in the criminal justice 4 system. In 2015 the CPS accepted that there had been 5 "sufficient admissible, substantial and reliable 6 evidence" that Ball had committed the offences and that 7 a prosecution would have been in the public interest in The question, which of course remains opaque, is 9 whether, had that prosecution been pursued, the 10 subsequent offences might have been prevented. 11 The Inquiry has published the scope of the 12 investigation on its website. I should make it clear 13 that the Panel is bound only by the terms of reference 14 for the Inquiry itself as published by the 15 Home Secretary. The descriptions of scope for the 16 specific investigations such as this one were adopted by 17 the Inquiry Panel as a working guide to the direction of 18 the investigations and in order to help individuals and 19 organisations decide whether to apply for 20 core participant status. The descriptions are not, 21 however, set in stone. They may be amended as the 22 evidence develops. 23 Where a formal amendment is necessary, that will be 24 published on the Inquiry's website. In the Anglican 25 investigation there are, as yet, no formal amendments to Page 19 1 offending or on the history of allegations against other 2 clerics within the diocese, including Roy Cotton, 3 Robert Coles and Gordon Rideout. These cases cast 4 considerable doubt over the assertion made by the Church 5 in the wake of its review that it had "thoroughly 6 re-examined" allegations and taken "appropriate action". 7 As part of its examination of the Church and 8 Diocese, the Inquiry will consider the case of the 9 former Bishop of Lewes, Peter Ball. He was cautioned in for gross indecency and indecent assault against 11 a teenaged novice monk, Neil Todd, who was then aged At the time of the caution, which obviated 13 a prosecution, the police received thousands of messages 14 in support of Bishop Ball, including from people of 15 public prominence. Ball resigned from his then position 16 as the Bishop of Gloucester to live in a home belonging 17 to the Duchy of Cornwall. Then Archbishop of 18 Canterbury, Lord Carey, permitted Ball to continue to 19 officiate as a priest until In 2012, Ball was charged with sexual abuse of young men between 1997 and He pleaded guilty 22 to the offences, and allegations relating to indecent 23 assault on two children, boys aged 13 and 15, were 24 allowed to lie on the file. Neil Todd, the complainant 25 in the original offences for which the bishop had been Page 18 1 be made, but there are one or two matters that I want to 2 address briefly by way of explanation or clarification. 3 First, in order to determine whether allegations are 4 "well-founded", within the meaning of the scope 5 description, it is necessary to be clear what that 6 expression does and does not mean. It is not intended 7 as a term of art and it does not reflect any strict 8 legal test, nor does it imply any particular standard of 9 proof. The Panel may find that an allegation is 10 well-founded because, as a matter of fact, it has been 11 proven or because, as a matter of fact, the Panel finds 12 the allegation to be true. 13 Equally, although the Panel may conclude that the 14 evidence is not sufficient to justify a finding that an 15 allegation is true, it may reach the conclusion that 16 there was sufficient evidence to have imposed a duty on 17 a relevant institution to investigate the allegation or 18 take effective child protection measures. In that way 19 a finding that an allegation is "well-founded" may be 20 either a finding of particular facts or it may be 21 a finding that a gateway was met in order to require 22 investigation of the adequacy of institutional responses 23 to the allegation. Everything will depend upon the 24 context. 25 Secondly, the Inquiry must examine the extent to Page 20 5 (Pages 17 to 20)

6 1 which the Anglican Church and others were aware of 2 allegations of abuse. Awareness, in this context, 3 encompasses both actual and constructive knowledge. If 4 the diocese, for example, were to provide evidence that 5 it was not in fact aware of any allegations of abuse in 6 respect of a particular alleged abuser, you and the 7 Panel will be justified in asking why. The familiar 8 question will be whether the relevant authorities in the 9 Church knew or ought to have known of the abuse and 10 whether any failure amounted to an institutional 11 derogation of duty. 12 Thirdly, Madam, it will be important to interpret 13 the scope of this investigation, as with all of the 14 investigations conducted by the Inquiry, in a targeted 15 and proportionate way. This is, of course, one of investigations and those investigations collectively 17 form part of a Public Hearings Project, which is only 18 one of three projects making up the Inquiry. 19 Consequently the Inquiry and those engaging with it must 20 take care not to lose sight of the bigger picture. 21 It is, of course, essential that fact-finding must 22 be thorough and fair, but it must also remain 23 proportionate to the challenges facing the Inquiry as 24 a whole. It may not be necessary, for example, to reach 25 findings on all disputed facts; it may not be necessary Page 21 1 core participants to ask questions directly, having 2 regard in particular to the need to protect vulnerable 3 witnesses. However, core participants do have a right 4 to seek permission to ask questions and you have not 5 excluded the possibility of granting permission in 6 appropriate cases. 7 The criteria, put shortly and shorn of unnecessary 8 detail, are that the person concerned must have played 9 or potentially have played a direct and significant role 10 in relation to the matters to which the Inquiry relates; 11 or the person must have a significant interest in an 12 important aspect of the matters to which the Inquiry 13 relates; or, the person must be a person who is liable 14 to explicit or significant criticism in any Inquiry 15 report. 16 Ma'am, in exercising your power to designate 17 a person as a core participant, you are required to 18 consider the factors set out in rule 5 that I have just 19 outlined, but the list is not exhaustive and other 20 relevant factors may also be taken into account. In 21 common with any exercise of your discretion, the 22 decision whether to make a designation must be guided by 23 the principles of fairness, reasonableness and 24 consistency with regard to the overarching need to avoid 25 unnecessary cost. Page 23 1 to investigate all lines of inquiry in order to satisfy 2 the terms of reference and act fairly; and it may not be 3 necessary -- indeed it likely will not be necessary -- 4 to hear oral testimony from all relevant witnesses whose 5 evidence can otherwise be admitted in writing. 6 Madam, may I turn now to the substantive core agenda 7 items that will require submissions from other parties? 8 Can I start with the issue of core participant status? 9 I make one or two general submissions about the 10 approach of the Inquiry to CP status and outline the 11 decisions that have already been made. 12 Madam, a "core participant" is a person designated 13 by yourself under rule 5 of the Inquiry Rules The 14 designation is a matter for you alone as Chair and is 15 discretionary. The principal effect of designation is 16 to bestow on a core participant the right to make an 17 opening and closing statement under rule 11 and, if 18 legally represented, to seek leave under rule 10 to ask 19 questions of a witness. Although there is no statutory 20 right to disclosure, fairness is likely to lead to 21 a core participant being granted disclosure of relevant 22 documentation in relation to those parts of an inquiry 23 in which they have a clear interest. 24 It is worth noting that you have previously 25 indicated that it will be rare to permit Page 22 1 Ma'am, in your opening statement you gave some 2 general indications of your intended approach to the 3 designation of core participants, including the 4 following: 5 First, core participants will only be designated in 6 relation to individual investigations and not designated 7 across the Inquiry as a whole. 8 Second, victims and survivors of sexual abuse and 9 alleged victims and survivors are likely to be granted 10 core participant status, particularly if they are in 11 a position to give direct evidence on matters to which 12 the Inquiry relates. 13 Thirdly, individuals and organisations that are 14 potentially open to criticism or otherwise meet the 15 rule 5 criteria, including those organisations that are 16 not the direct subject of a particular investigation may 17 also be designated. We have seen illustrations of that 18 among the core participants here today. 19 Having opened applications for core participant 20 status in this investigation in mid-january, the Inquiry 21 received a total of 27 applications for core participant 22 status on behalf of 43 individuals or organisations. 23 A number of alleged victims and complainants who have 24 applied for core participant status have requested that 25 the Inquiry grants them anonymity for the purposes of Page 24 6 (Pages 21 to 24)

7 1 both the investigation itself and the determination of 2 the core participant application. In your opening 3 statement, you said that victims and survivors who wish 4 to give evidence without their identity or appearance 5 being made public will be able to do so if they wish. 6 It may also be appropriate in other limited 7 circumstances to offer anonymity to potential witnesses. 8 On the basis of that approach, where an alleged 9 victim or survivor has indicated a request for 10 anonymity, the Inquiry has anonymised that person's 11 identity for the purposes of the core participant 12 process and given them a cipher. However, in order for 13 you to grant anonymity for the investigation itself 14 going forward, an application from each person who has 15 been provisionally anonymised will be necessary for 16 a restriction order to be made under section 19(2)(b) of 17 the Inquiries Act Many of these alleged victims 18 are likely to be entitled to statutory anonymity under 19 the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act Nevertheless, 20 it will be necessary to determine each application for 21 anonymity individually and with regard to its own 22 particular facts. 23 Ma'am, the task of getting at the truth of a public 24 inquiry clearly does not necessarily require that the 25 identity of every person who gives evidence to the Page 25 1 public. The introductions are sufficient to cover it. 2 We are left at this stage with effectively three 3 sets of applications for renewal: first of all on behalf 4 of Slater & Gordon, A10, A11 and A13, ciphered 5 core participant applications that were provisionally 6 refused; secondly, on behalf of Switalskis Solicitors, 7 C8 is renewing but the other group of core participant 8 applications that were provisionally refused are not 9 renewed; as you have heard, Dr Andrew Chandler and the 10 very Reverend Professor Martyn Percy are renewing 11 following a provisional refusal in their case and those 12 are the applications that you will now hear. 13 THE CHAIR: Yes, thank you, Mr Emmerson. 14 Mr Scorer, are you to address me first? 15 MR SCORER: I am Mr Scorer, Madam. 16 THE CHAIR: Are you to address me first on behalf of A10, and 13? 18 MR SCORER: That's correct, Madam. 19 THE CHAIR: Just one moment to let me find the appropriate 20 documents. 21 Yes, Mr Scorer. 22 MR SCORER: Yes, Madam. You should have for those three the 23 initial application, your initial decision and then the 24 written submissions. 25 THE CHAIR: I have those, thank you, Mr Scorer. Page 27 1 Inquiry should be disclosed in public. The Panel will 2 know the identity of the witnesses and, unlike a court, 3 will itself take responsibility, through Counsel to the 4 Inquiry, for investigating their credibility if there is 5 reason to think that such an investigation is necessary. 6 That said, Madam, you will wish to consider 7 carefully whether all or some core participants should 8 be entitled to know a particular witness's identity 9 subject to obligations of confidentiality. In some 10 cases it may be unfair to make a restriction order which 11 prohibits the disclosure of a witness's identity to 12 core participants if the core participant is a person 13 against whom the witness is giving direct evidence. 14 Finally this: it is important in considering any 15 application for core participant status, in our 16 submission, to bear in mind that, where there is 17 a borderline case, as between core participant status 18 and the status of an individual as a potential witness, 19 the Act and the rules make provision for the funding in 20 appropriate cases of legal representation for those who 21 are witnesses, not solely for those who are 22 core participants. 23 Madam, you have already heard in outline those 24 organisations who have been granted core participant 25 status. I don't therefore propose to repeat that in Page 26 1 MR SCORER: It may be helpful if I just briefly set out the 2 circumstances of each of these victims. 3 THE CHAIR: Yes. 4 MR SCORER: All three victims make allegations of sexual 5 assault against former Bishop Peter Ball. All three are 6 proven victims of Ball. Ball pleaded guilty to offences 7 against these three victims in September Madam, in terms of the context of the assaults, in 9 relation to A10 and A11, as Mr Emmerson has set out, you 10 will remember that Peter Ball was Bishop of Lewes 11 between 1984 and 1992, Lewes being part of the Diocese 12 of Chichester. During that time, Peter Ball operated 13 a monastic training programme at Littlington Priory. 14 That was colloquially known as "The scheme" or as "Give 15 a year to God". Participants in that scheme took a vow 16 of total obedience to Ball and were expected to treat 17 him as a father figure. Both A10 and A11 were 18 participants in a scheme and they were young adults at 19 the time of the assault. A10 was 21 years old and A11 20 was 22 years old. 21 Whilst participating in that scheme, both A10 and 22 A11 were coerced into sexual acts with Peter Ball, 23 matters to which, as I said, he pleaded guilty in 24 September Madam, in the case of A13, A13 was 25 indecently assaulted by Peter Ball at the age of 21, so Page 28 7 (Pages 25 to 28)

8 1 again as a young adult. The context of that was 2 a domestic or family context. So A13 has a family 3 connection with Peter Ball. 4 So, Madam, in our submission, all three can give 5 very important evidence to the Inquiry about Ball's 6 behaviour and his modus operandi, the way in which he 7 selected young and vulnerable victims to abuse, the way 8 in which he abused his position of authority, and two of 9 them can talk to the way in which he abused the vows of 10 obedience which all of the participants in the scheme at 11 Littlington were obliged to make to him. 12 Madam, in addition to that, two of these three 13 victims have important insights and evidence to share 14 with the Inquiry regarding the Church of England's 15 response to complaints of abuse. You, of course, have 16 identified that specifically as a key component of 17 the investigation. As you put it in the briefing note, 18 "... the extent to which the culture within the Church 19 inhibits or inhibited the proper investigation, exposure 20 or prevention of abuse". 21 Madam, A11 has important evidence to share with the 22 Inquiry about the complaints he made about Peter Ball in , in the early part of 2012, to two senior Anglican 24 bishops and the Anglican Church's response to those 25 complaints. Those complaints were made on two separate Page 29 1 is: did they play or do they play a direct and 2 significant role in relation to the matters to which the 3 Inquiry relates? 4 Madam, in our submission, respectfully they do. As 5 Mr Emmerson has set out, the Inquiry has chosen to make 6 events in the Diocese of Chichester a central plank of 7 your investigation into the Anglican Church and you have 8 chosen, quite rightly in our view, to make Peter Ball 9 a central plank of that investigation. We submit that 10 that's the right choice. There is no diocese in the 11 Church of England which has given rise to so many 12 allegations of abuse and so many concerns about how they 13 were handled as the Chichester Diocese, and Peter Ball 14 sits at the centre of that in respect of his time as 15 a bishop in the diocese. So this is absolutely the 16 right choice. 17 Madam, we submit that having made that choice, you 18 need to have the full picture, both as regards the 19 nature of the abuse and the nature of any allegations 20 around cover-up. Madam, the reality is that Ball 21 targeted both children and young adults. In order to 22 properly understand what he did, the totality of his 23 abusive behaviour and the totality of the church's 24 response to it has to be fully examined. 25 In our respectful submission it would be entirely Page 31 1 occasions in the early part of 2012, and A11 will say 2 that he received a dismissive response to those 3 complaints. Madam, that information is critically 4 important in assessing the church's response to 5 allegations of sexual abuse in the very recent past. 6 Madam, A13 can tell the Inquiry about a very 7 detailed complaint he made to Archbishop George Carey in regarding Ball's behaviour ten years earlier. That 9 was the incident which led to the conviction in That was in the latter part of 1992 that A13 made that 11 complaint to Archbishop Carey. That was during the 12 police investigation into Ball in the latter part of We believe that Archbishop Carey failed to pass 14 that information on to the police and that was one 15 reason why we believe a proper investigation of Ball's 16 activities and his abuse was delayed by over 20 years. 17 Clearly, Madam, given that the Inquiry wishes to examine 18 how allegations of sexual abuse were handled within the 19 Anglican Church, this is critically important 20 information. 21 Madam, you have indicated that you are minded to 22 refuse core participant status to A10, A11 and A13 on 23 the basis that they were over 18 at the time of the 24 abuse and therefore do not come within the Inquiry's 25 mandate. However, as Mr Emmerson stated, the question Page 30 1 wrong and artificial to hive off or to treat differently 2 abuse involving young adults as this would give rise to 3 a distorted and incomplete picture of Ball's activities. 4 In fact, as I understand -- and I think Mr Emmerson 5 said -- all the matters in fact for which Peter Ball has 6 been convicted related to young adults. 7 Madam, you will appreciate that designation of 8 core participant status brings with it a particular 9 opportunity to engage fully with the investigation and 10 with the Inquiry. We submit that, without that 11 core participant status, these three victims of Ball 12 will not have a full opportunity to do that. We suggest 13 that the Inquiry will be the poorer for it. So, Madam, 14 we respectfully renew these applications. 15 THE CHAIR: Yes, thank you, Mr Scorer. Your submission is 16 based very squarely on the measure of relevance, which 17 of course is the yardstick by which most evidence is 18 submitted, if not all, in any hearing. So as 19 I understand the thrust of your submission, it is that 20 these three applicants can give relevant evidence 21 relating to the modus or alleged modus of Bishop Ball 22 and also to the institutional responses of the Church to 23 the receipt of such allegations. 24 So I will consider very carefully all that you have 25 said in your written submission and again today in this Page 32 8 (Pages 29 to 32)

9 1 open hearing and I will let you have my decision as soon 2 as I can in writing. Thank you. 3 MR SCORER: Thank you, Madam. 4 THE CHAIR: Now, Ms Leonard, is it you or Mr Greenwood who 5 is to address me? 6 MS LEONARD: It will be me. 7 On behalf of Switalskis, I'm renewing the 8 application of the individual known by the cipher of 9 "C8" to be a core participant. 10 THE CHAIR: Yes. Let me just find this. Thank you. 11 MS LEONARD: Hopefully, Madam, you will have a copy of his 12 initial application and his application to renew. Of 13 course a provisional review was taken THE CHAIR: Sorry, Mr Solicitor. Thank you. 15 Sorry, Ms Leonard. 16 MS LEONARD: -- a provisional review was taken on February 2016 as a result of the application made on January. 19 Madam, in relation to C8, I would say the 20 designation of core participant status will allow him 21 not just to provide evidence, but also to actively 22 engage with the investigation and Inquiry and contribute 23 towards it. 24 We have heard from both Mr Scorer and Mr Emmerson 25 that this Inquiry is going to be carefully concentrating Page 33 1 Peter Ball at the time C8 came into contact with him. 2 C8 was asked to give evidence at Peter Ball's trial. 3 His complaints were included in the investigation 4 carried out by Sussex Police, Operation Dunhill. 5 However, as Peter Ball pleaded guilty, he was not 6 required to testify. 7 Madam, you will have noted the provisional view for 8 the refusal was that, as C8 was over the age of 18 at 9 the time of the alleged abuse, he can't be considered to 10 be a child at that point and his interest should be one 11 of a potential witness. 12 Madam, I would draw your attention to the fact that, 13 although the abuse happened when he was 20 and 21, the 14 law considered him at that time to be unable to consent. 15 You will be aware of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, the 16 age of consent was THE CHAIR: Yes. 18 MS LEONARD: Further, I say the abuse happened at a time 19 when he was in a vulnerable position. He was training 20 to be a priest and had hoped to become a priest and 21 Peter Ball, of course, was in a position of power. If 22 C8 is granted core participant status, he can engage 23 with the Inquiry and help to provide a fuller picture of 24 what was happening in terms of the nature and the 25 frequency of the abuse. Page 35 1 on the case regarding Peter Ball as it illustrates 2 broader failings within the Anglican Church and the 3 criminal justice systems. Therefore evidence about how 4 he abused his power and the level of abuse he 5 perpetrated will be central to this Inquiry. C8 was 6 a victim of Peter Ball and an individual, Vickery House. 7 So on that basis, Madam, I say he does fulfil the 8 core participant just when one looks at rule 5 of the 9 Inquiry. 10 Madam, you will know Peter Ball was a senior member 11 of the hierarchy and he was a bishop at the time the 12 abuse was perpetrated against C8. C8 gives evidence 13 about how Peter Ball abused his position as a bishop to 14 identify, groom and exploit sensitive and vulnerable 15 young men who came into contact with him. 16 C8 was also on the monastic training scheme 17 described by Mr Scorer and he was expected to treat 18 Peter Ball as a father figure. In fact the abuse 19 happened under the guise of Peter Ball administrating a 20 sacrament upon C8. So he will be able to give evidence 21 about Peter Ball's modus operandi, how he selected 22 individuals to be abused and the frequency of the abuse. 23 He gives evidence about seeing Peter Ball taking 24 a child -- one child in particular -- to his room quite 25 frequently and the general rumours surrounding Page 34 1 I do say it is artificial to set aside his abuse 2 because of the age at which he suffered it. His 3 evidence is quite clear. Peter Ball selected his 4 victims on the grounds of vulnerability and age was only 5 a factor in that part. 6 So I would ask, Madam, respectfully, that C8 be 7 granted full core participant status in order to allow 8 him to fully engage with this Inquiry. You have already 9 indicated that, if there has been victims of sexual 10 abuse, they are likely to be granted, particularly if 11 they can give evidence. 12 Thank you, Madam. 13 THE CHAIR: Thank you Ms Leonard. As I said to Mr Scorer, 14 the relevance to matters that are at issue in the 15 Inquiry, of course, is something that must be considered 16 in the context of core participant applications, so 17 I will give very careful consideration to what you also 18 have said, which is similar to Mr Scorer's submission, 19 and I will let you have my decision in writing as soon 20 as I can. 21 MS LEONARD: Thank you, Madam. 22 THE CHAIR: Thank you. 23 This may be a convenient point at which to take an 24 adjournment. 25 I have not invited you to respond to each submission Page 36 9 (Pages 33 to 36)

10 1 individually, Mr Emmerson, but I will invite you to 2 respond to all three once I've heard all three. I will 3 hear from Mr Brown, obviously, after the adjournment. 4 Is that satisfactory? 5 MR EMMERSON: Absolutely, yes. 6 THE CHAIR: Thank you. 7 (11.25 am) 8 (A short break) 9 (11.40 am) 10 THE CHAIR: Just before I call on you, Mr Browne, I have had 11 a request -- addressed to myself, I have to say, as well 12 as to all counsel -- to please keep our voices up 13 because the acoustics in the room make it difficult for 14 people in the back of the public gallery to hear. So it 15 is important that they can hear what is being said. 16 Yes, Mr Browne. 17 MR BROWNE: Do not reproach yourself, Madam. 18 Lord Justice Leveson had precisely the same problem. 19 THE CHAIR: Well, I'm in good company then. 20 MR BROWNE: I know I can safely assume that you will have 21 read the separate applications by Dr Chandler and 22 Professor Percy dated 2 February -- I emphasise the date 23 because there were events subsequently which I shall 24 come to in a moment -- and also my written submissions 25 in support of the renewal application dated last Page 37 1 nature and extent of child sexual abuse by -- and 2 I emphasise these words -- individuals associated with 3 the diocese. In the context of allegations of child 4 sexual abuse, there could not be a more prominent 5 "individual associated with the diocese" than Bishop 6 George Bell, the revered Bishop of Chichester from to Indeed, some regard him as the most saintly 8 holder of the see since Sir Richard himself. 9 So the case study could not possibly be complete 10 without examining those allegations, particularly when 11 they are coupled with an allegation of a failure to 12 investigate them properly in 1995 during the time of 13 Bishop Kemp. 14 I make those submissions because, in addition to the 15 scope of the investigation being said under 3(1)(a) to 16 be the nature and extent of child sexual abuse by 17 individuals associated with the diocese, (c) involves 18 the adequacy of the response of the Church of England; 19 (d) -- and I'm taking this very shortly -- the extent to 20 which the Church of England, including through the 21 Diocese of Chichester, sought to investigate such 22 allegations. We say that the allegations against 23 Bishop Bell were most inadequately investigated, but it 24 is not for today for me to develop the details of that 25 submission. Page 39 1 Wednesday. 2 If I can just summarise the effect of those 3 submissions: as you will appreciate, the basis of the 4 application at all times by both applicants has been 5 paragraph 5(2)(b) of the Inquiry Rules. We have never 6 placed reliance on either 2(a) or 2(c), although they 7 are touched upon in the provisional determinations. 8 Let me summarise the basis of the renewed 9 application, firstly on the law. We respectfully submit 10 that analysis of paragraph 5 of the provisional 11 determination in Dr Chandler's case and of paragraph 6 12 in that of Professor Percy shows that the Inquiry has 13 not applied the precise test that it must do -- "must" 14 being the word in the rule -- under the 2005 rules. 15 Secondly THE CHAIR: Yes. 17 MR BROWNE: -- on the facts that proper consideration was 18 not given to the relevance and weight of the matters 19 which in the case of each applicant gives them 20 a "significant interest" in an important aspect of this 21 Inquiry and the Chichester case study, namely the 22 alleged guilt of Bishop Bell of child sexual abuse. 23 The Diocese of Chichester is one, of course, of the 24 two case studies. As one can see from the written scope 25 of the investigation, the Inquiry will be looking at the Page 38 1 Suffice it to say that clearly the current bishop, 2 bishop, Bishop Martin Warner, expects the Inquiry to 3 investigate the allegations. He made that clear in 4 a letter which he had published in the Daily Telegraph 5 on 5 January Perhaps I can hand that up. I have 6 given Ms Prochaska and Mr Emmerson a copy. 7 THE CHAIR: Yes, thank you. (Handed) 8 Just approach the solicitor, thank you. 9 Shall I just take a moment to read this? 10 MR BROWNE: Yes, it is the last two paragraphs that you need 11 to concentrate on. 12 THE CHAIR: Shall I read the whole article? 13 MR EMMERSON: Yes. 14 THE CHAIR: Thank you. You may be seated. 15 Yes. Yes, thank you very much. These were letters 16 written to The Telegraph, I see, on 5 January this year. 17 MR BROWNE: Published on 5 January, if we are being 18 pedantic, yes. 19 THE CHAIR: Yes, thank you. 20 MR BROWNE: I rely on them obviously to show the 21 importance -- the importance in 5(2)(b) being a relevant 22 issue -- of the matter. 23 Following the applications, on the very next day, 24 3 February, the complainant, whose gender had been 25 concealed in the original statement made by the Church Page (Pages 37 to 40)