Redress, Independence and Accountability
Introducing This Guest Blog:
Gilo is a survivor, campaigner and a prominent voice challenging the Church of England over its response to abuse.
He is co-editor of Letters to a Broken Church and co-creator of the House of Survivors website.
His work has consistently pushed for survivor voice, transparency and meaningful accountability, asking difficult questions about power, culture and institutional self-protection.
This guest blog is no exception.
"The Church of England has appointed Her Honour Heather Baucher as the Appeal Authority for the Redress Church of England scheme for survivors of Church related abuse. The Appeal Authority is the independent judicial role responsible for determining appeals made under the Scheme.”
Let’s examine this independence a little.
Heather Baucher is a conservative evangelical who at one time worked for the insurance arm of law firm
Hill Dickinson - which has an extensive history of defending insurers, local authorities, and institutions against historical child abuse and negligence claims. More recently Hill Dickinson was retained by insurers to represent their interests within the Accountability and Reparations investigation during the UK's Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). Partners from the firm famously expressed circumspection during the inquiry regarding whether national redress schemes would effectively improve the situation compared to traditional civil litigation.
But we might put all this aside on the basis that her employment with the law firm ended in 2009 and hopefully the retired judge might have long ago cast aside any remnant of the culture and mindset that may have helped forge her career. Perhaps of greater concern is the fact that Baucher endorsed a 2016 Evangelical Alliance publication whilst a serving judge.
This is surprising given judicial neutrality requirements. Judges are generally scrupulous about maintaining both the substance and appearance of neutrality. It’s hard to imagine any serving judge who would have thought it acceptable to endorse any controversial religious lobbying group in this way. The judiciary must be neutral — and seen to be neutral.
An important question arises from this endorsement. How will Baucher deal with any appeal involving spiritual abuse? The Redress Scheme recognises spiritual abuse. But the Evangelical Alliance has been hostile to the concept. According to them spiritual abuse does not exist. So how will a retired judge with this past affiliation rule on any question arising in this area?
The EA paper was co-published with the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship (LFC), a UK-based organisation for Christians in the legal profession, which itself has been at the centre of several controversies over the years - primarily involving political lobbying, judicial impartiality, institutional abuse cover-ups, and the actions of its former directors. The LCF is directly linked to the extensive abuse scandals surrounding John Smyth QC, a prominent British barrister who was a leading figure within the organisation. While the physical abuse predominantly occurred within the context of Christian summer camps and trusts rather than the LCF's offices, Smyth's prominent membership in the LCF cloaked him in professional legitimacy.
Following the exposure of his crimes by Channel 4 News in 2017 and the subsequent publication of the comprehensive Makin Review, the LCF faced intense scrutiny alongside other evangelical institutions for failing to uncover or act upon his predatory behaviour sooner. The scandal has led to ongoing demands for accountability, institutional transparency, and systemic reforms across UK Christian legal and spiritual organisations.
It may well be that Baucher will be compassionate and wise and fully independent of any part of the Church in any deliberations, and indeed might turn out to be a good choice. But in my view, the Survivors’ Advisory Group needs to meet with her urgently to seek clarification on all these and further points. At present too little is known. Survivors have a right to know how much awareness she has of the enormous ongoing struggle we have with a dishonest and strategically heartless institution. We need to know that she is on board with the recent Royal College of Psychiatry report on the impact of abuse. At the very least we have a right to know whether she can look critically at aspects of her former employment with Hill Dickinson where she was a partner, and now recognise that the aggressive litigation tactics of many law firms/insurers have led to the necessity for this Redress Scheme. Does she fully understand the lack of trust that the Archbishops’ Council has engendered with survivors.
Survivors are already up against a cynical culture and one unlikely to change anytime soon under current leadership. Why has the Redress Scheme been delayed as long as it has? Is it a coincidence that it has been pushed into the start of a new Synod when the Scheme will receive as little meaningful scrutiny as possible? Isn’t it also odd that the Archbishops’ Council is making an important and potentially controversial appointment at the same time as the survivors on the Redress Scheme Board have expressed grave misgivings about the direction of the Scheme? The relationship between the Survivors’ Advisory Group and Archbishops’ Council has deteriorated to such an extent that the survivors are feeling deeply unheard, jaded and disillusioned by the machinations of the Church. They carry major concerns about the passage and potential harm of the Scheme.
Sadly there is no-one on the inside of this structure speaking out alongside survivors. No-one is fighting our corner. The heroic and rather wonderful Bishop Alan Wilson sadly died. Bishop Helen-Ann Hartley who spoke truth to power for a short season has been successfully muzzled - presumably by bully power at the top of the Church. Bishop Julie Conalty was marginalised by a structure that wheeled out the Bishop of Dover on several occasions to negate any attempt she made to raise her head above the parapet. The lead bishop Robert Springett shows small signs of hope, but is as yet more or less invisible. When he finds his voice it may simply be too little, too late. Alexander Kubeyinje has responsibility without any power. The minute he speaks out about any corruption and malfeasance he must surely have witnessed and experienced in the corridors of Church House - he’ll get his marching orders. His mouth will be silenced with silver, and with a family to support he’d be a fool not to take it.
The Bishops are collectively cowed in the face of William Nye’s stranglehold on the ecology of the Church. They have all seen a diocesan step right outside the purple enclosure, receive public acclaim, but later dealt with by the powers and principalities. But who amongst them cared that much? While most cold-shouldered and glared, only one bishop spoke out in support calling hers a “prophetic voice”. Add to this the pressing fact that Nye controls the purse strings and if any bishop wants diocesan funding for this or that special project - it’s to his door they must beat a path with cap in hand. This shadowy civil servant presides over the rotten borough at the top and remains the most powerful and least accountable figure in the hierarchy. It cannot be in much doubt that there is considerable crossover between the cultures of chicanery in both Church House and Lambeth Palace and the ones INEQE referred to as resistant to change.
At the top of the woodpile we have two Archbishops who showed us earlier this year (January) that mutual protectionism is alive and well. I know of at least two bishops who found this mutual exoneration indefensible, and wonder how many others felt the same. Archbishop Cottrell is a throwback to the Church of at least a decade ago, when Archbishops were routinely able to sign off each others’ complaints.
Archbishop Mullally who seems to function as ‘Canterbury on castors’ lacks the determination to offer much other than soundbites and performative engagement.
Her advisors must be wondering whether they’ll need to stem the emergence of ghosts from her time in London. I’m aware from diocesan clergy of some of the spectres which may haunt the Church. These paint a picture of a dysfunctional diocese with abysmal leadership and a disturbing culture in the diocesan safeguarding team. Bishop Mullally from all accounts was out of her depth and unable or unwilling to join dots. All that I’ve heard from trusted contacts chimes with my own direct experience of the disconnectedness and cruelty of this bishop.
To close, I’m reminded of a hymn written in 2023. Admittedly not my best lyric writing by a long mile, but it sums up what I know many others think about the Church’s leadership at the moment. The Archbishops’ Council, or those who lead it, know exactly what they are doing. They need calling to account.
Holy and Broken
The Church must sing out, both holy and broken,
To claim for itself the redemption of lies;
For truth that’s forgotten, and truth left unspoken,
For truth that’s denied, and where any hope dies.
When hidden advisors and councils dissemble,
The hope that was promised now turns into dust;
The house that they borrow, once builded on truthfulness,
Through their misrule is a house of mistrust.
A Church is not safe when its leaders misgovern,
Who call bitter sweet, and refuse to repent.
A Church that throws shade to hide the misconduct
Is sick to the soul and must learn to lament.
So weep for a Church that’s been led into brokenness,
Weep for the bishops who can’t find their voice,
And weep for the gospel they’d shown had they courage
To weep for the weary who don’t have a choice.
How long in these times must survivors still bear it?
How long must survivors still carry the cost?
How long will deceit and pursuit of dishonestyS
tifle the hope for the wounded and lost?
~Gilo
Guarding the Flock is independent and gives space to voices and perspectives that need to be heard.
If you value this work and want to help the blog continue, including providing a platform for guest writers like Gilo, please consider buying me a coffee. Every bit of support helps keep these conversations going.
