The independent review led by Keith Makin into the Church of England’s handling of allegations of serious abuse by the late John Smyth was published on 7 November 2024. The 253-page Review includes eight Key Recommendations [Review paragraph numbers in black] and twenty seven Specific Recommendations directed at particular concerns [numbered in blue].

Key Recommendations

The Church must learn lessons from the organisational and institutional failings detailed in this Review. The Review makes 27 specific recommendations, reflecting the lessons to be learned from these terrible events. In particular, those recommendations include:

• Taking active measures to understand and incorporate into revised safeguarding policies the risks associated with the abuses of power by those in positions of trust, and prioritising safeguarding considerations in decision-making [1.14.1] ;
• Establishing international reciprocal safeguarding procedures with other Anglican communion institutions and leaders where allegations are made against a person in a position of trust who relocates overseas [1.14.2];
• Ensuring independent oversight of the implementation of safeguarding measures, including the development of a wholly independent body, free from direct influence by senior Church officers, to guide the development of the Church’s safeguarding procedures [1.14.3];
• Placing safeguarding measures at the centre of every Church officer’s professional responsibilities, including conducting a Church-wide review of existing policies and procedures and embodying the principle of ‘never not clergy’ in Codes of Conduct [1.14.4];
• Reviewing donations and funding arrangements and providing additional guidance regarding overseas missionary work, including an express and enhanced requirement of due diligence irrespective of amount [1.14.5];
• Seeking independent assurance as to the robustness of the Church’s whistleblowing procedures, to ensure that credible suspicions of abuse and the risks of a cover up can be reported and investigated [1.14.6];
• Considering the application, now, of mandatory reporting within future Church safeguarding policy and procedure prior to its possible introduction as a national requirement [1.14.7];
• Ensuring that the commissioning of a full independent review of John Smyth’s activities in Zimbabwe and South Africa is considered by the Church [1.14.8].

Specific Recommendations

ABUSE OF POWER

• Abuse of Position of trust and power: 17.1.1 to 17.1.10
• Deference: 17.1.11 to 17.1.13

Recommendations

• Ensure a clear mandate for all Church officers, institutions and participants that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility, until children and vulnerable adults are safe from harm and that this is referenced in job and role descriptions for all Church officers, participants and those employed in its institutions [1].
• That the learning and recommendations from this review are disseminated across Church constituencies, institutions, and provinces [2].
• That the following learning is included in Safeguarding training, policy/procedure and guidance: – signs of abuse of power by those in positions of trust – – – – – – amendment to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in 2022 to expand “Position of Trust”  offences to include anyone who is coaching, teaching, training, supervising, or  instructing in [a sport or] a religion  how ‘status related’ systems, cultures and practices can enable perpetrators to abuse  their power  the negative impact of victim blaming language and behaviour in terms of safeguarding  all at risk of harm, and  the impact of adultifying children, and use of adultifying language, erasing childhood  vulnerability and their rights as a child.   safeguarding statutory guidance, and associated legislation takes prime place in the ordering of decision-making and actions to stop and prevent abuse.  risks specific to religious organisations in terms of exploitation of theology, grooming and sexual abuse, including dangers of social media [3].
• Review the non-mandatory status of safeguarding guidance for Church officers with a view to making this mandatory for all Church officers, institutions and participants [4].
• Review relevant guidance to clarify the remit of pastoral carers and those providing ‘spiritual direction’ responsibility for others in the light of the learning identified in this case, to enable Church officers to be alert to the risks and indicators of grooming and for those having ‘uncontrolled access’ to children and vulnerable adults [5].
• Ensure oversight of an independent body, free from direct influence from Church leaders, to provide external oversight of safeguarding practice, and provide quality assurance within the Church. This body should include monitoring of the implementation of the recommendations given in this Review and ensuring learning from other inquiries and reviews of similar prolific offenders are considered alongside this (including IICSA, Peter Ball, Past Cases Review, BBC/ Dame Janet Smith Review) [6].

The abuse was ‘hidden in plain sight’: 17:14 to 17.4

• Review safeguarding training, safeguarding procedures and supervision guidelines to include avoidance of confirmation bias in safeguarding practice using the learning from this Review, reinforcing the need for a victim-centred focus in safeguarding practice [7].
• Establish international reciprocal safeguarding procedures with other Anglican communion institutions/leaders, including protocols for informing overseas Anglican leaders and statutory authorities, where there are allegations against a person in position of trust and they relocate abroad [8].

LEADERSHIP OF, AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SAFEGUARDING

• Organisational accountability: 18.4.1 to 18.4.4
• Theological differences within the Church: 18.4.5
• “Never not Clergy”: 18.6 to 18.12

Recommendations

• Safeguarding developments currently underway should take full account of the learning from this Review, with a particular focus on the need for a clear “golden thread” of safeguarding, and line of sight from leaders within the Church (at Diocesan and Provincial levels) to those dealing directly with abuse investigations [9].
• The principle of ‘never not clergy’ should be made clear in relevant Codes Of Conduct and to all those ordained, in relation to their duties to safeguard children and vulnerable adults and as representatives of the Church in all of their activities [10].
• Ensure Clergy Discipline Measures (CDM) procedures include provision for the consideration of historic, as well as current, conduct issues. Include consideration of use of social media in any revised CDM [11].
• Develop and agree guidance to detail how Church officers, participants and ordained persons, who are also victims of abuse, should be investigated, where a safeguarding allegation related to their abuse is raised [12].

FUNDING

Recommendation

• Provide clear guidance relating to “giving” of financial and other donations by Church officers, institutions and participants, particularly where this relates to overseas missionary work and other related, unregulated activity outside the UK. This should take full account of the need for due diligence to be carried out, however small the funding amount [13].

COVER-UP

• Independently review Church of England systems and constituencies to identify areas of concern that may undermine a ‘safeguarding first’ approach, highlighting potential conflicts linked to beliefs, reputational damage that may prevent ‘whistleblowing’ reflecting on the learning from this case [14].
• Seek independent safeguarding assurance that the current whistleblowing procedures are robust and that individuals, whether ordained, lay or volunteers feel able to report concerns of a safeguarding nature, as well as institutional and individual ‘cover-up’ of abusive situations. This to include a review of all relevant policies and procedures, ensuring that they explicitly protect people from the risk of personal criticism when reporting allegations or suspected abuse [15].

RADICALISATION AND THE EXPLOITATION OF THEOLOGIES

• That the Church takes account of the learning from this Review to avoid ‘groupthink’ in terms of safeguarding decisions and assures itself that there is sufficient external and independent influence on decision-makers and leaders in their everyday approaches to safeguarding matters [16].

SAFEGUARDING SYSTEMS AND PRACTICE

• Ensure Church safeguarding guidance includes a requirement to assess the risk posed by alleged perpetrators to their own family including children in their care, partners/ex partners and other family members, and that referrals are made to statutory services immediately where any risk is identified [17].
• Include a new declaration to the “Confidential Clergy Declaration Form” to facilitate disclosure of an individual’s ‘prior knowledge’ of allegations of abuse, perpetrated by individuals or within institutions. This should also be included in the Church’s Safer Recruitment Practice Guidance [18].
• That the revised clergy declaration is resubmitted by those that have completed it (within a reasonable timeframe to be determined by the Church) to ensure that similar safeguarding issues come to light, are risk assessed and responded to [19].
• Develop a joint working protocol with key statutory safeguarding organisations and safeguarding partnerships to include an ‘Escalation Policy’ for Church officers to follow when they are dissatisfied with the response or where there is no update from; Police, LADO and other statutory services to a report of allegations [20].
• Ensure that records are kept relating to refusals for ordination where safeguarding of children or adults is a concern, and that these are regularly reviewed to ensure relevant information is passed to relevant statutory safeguarding services [21].
• Learn from trauma informed approaches that have developed in recent years across statutory safeguarding services and apply the learning to Church safeguarding practice through training, policy development and engagement with victims [22].
• Consider applying ‘mandatory’ reporting within future Church safeguarding policy and procedure, ahead of this being introduced as a national requirement, reflecting on learning from this review, Past Cases Review and IICSA [23].
• Expand Core Group guidance, specifically where a nationally led group is convened, stating the need to ensure that the Group develops [24]:
  • ToR for the Core Group, clearly stating the scope of the group, and how a victim (as well as respondent) focus will be ensured;
  • A trauma-informed approach with risks posed by respondents to victims and family members proactively considered, assessed, and documented;
  • An approach that enables victim participation (via advocacy or directly) with the Group;
  • Qualified, trauma-informed and independent (from the case) support including helplines where multiple victims are likely or known, that are well communicated, and a single contact point for victims;
  • Single point of liaison from the Church to Police and vice versa;
  • Due diligence checks in terms of conflict of interest for all Core Group members;
  • Clarity about contact and collaboration with other Church organisations and those overseas.
• Ensure that future learning lessons reviews relating to national, high-profile cases involving serial abusers, overseas contact, with multiple victims are led by a multidisciplinary reference group, with independent safeguarding advice, legal advice and victim voices represented [25].

THE ABUSE IN ZIMBABWE AND SOUTH AFRICA

• Consider the commissioning of a full independent review (directly or through another UK or overseas body) into learning from the abuses perpetrated by John Smyth in Zimbabwe between 1985 and 2001 [26].
• Consider the commissioning of a full independent review (directly or through another UK or overseas body) into learning from the potential abuses perpetrated by John Smyth in South Africa between 2001 and his death in 2018 [27].