Church of England abuse – more cases in the news and a long wait for victim compensation 

Five years on from the Independent Inquiry into Childhood Sexual Abuse (IICSA) report on the Anglican Church, the church has continued to garner media attention for its safeguarding decisions while the proposed scheme for survivors to receive compensation is still yet to be announced.  

When the Independent Inquiry into Childhood Sexual Abuse released its report on the Anglican Church in 2020 it noted “The Church’s failure to respond consistently to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse with sympathy and compassion, or to give practical and appropriate support, often added to their trauma.”  

The then-Archbishop of Canterbury said that this failure was “profoundly and deeply shocking”, and the Church of England subsequently announced an intended compensation scheme for survivors of abuse. However, despite the time which has since elapsed, the full redress scheme has not yet been announced, and the church continues to make headlines for its shortcomings on safeguarding. 

The Redress Scheme 

I wrote about the Church of England redress scheme and their safeguarding decisions in September 2023 when little was known about the scheme. I highlighted some important considerations including whether a survivors’ own evidence would be prioritised and whether survivors would be represented through the application process. This was two years ago, and since then we have passed the Church of England’s initial deadline to introduce a redress scheme. According to the church’s website, the earliest the redress scheme for abuse survivors will be announced is now July 2025.  

Safeguarding in the media again  

Unfortunately, the redress scheme delay has not been helped by the church’s safeguarding decisions in recent years. The past seven months alone have been a whirlwind, starting with the Makin Review, which was published in November 2024 and considered the church’s handling of the allegations of abuse by prolific abuser John Smyth. The review highlighted how senior members of the church failed to act on concerns and disclosures of sadistic abuse. As a result of the review, 10 members of the clergy will be facing disciplinary action including the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey.   

The review also led to the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, announcing his own resignation in November 2024. However, whilst it was pointed out that there was a missed opportunity for Smyth to be brought to justice had Welby notified the police, Welby remained in post for several days after the report’s publication before eventually resigning. Even then his resignation speech in the House of Lords caused considerable frustration for victims when he mentioned a 14th century beheading and suggested that feelings of pity should go out to his diary secretary. 

In his first interview since his departure, Welby expressed shame about the comments he made shortly after his resignation – but, in the same interview, went on to say that he would forgive Smyth. Welby was replying to a direct question when he said this, though given the former Archbishop acknowledged being overwhelmed by the scale of abuse allegations in the church, and as the former figurehead of an organisation which failed many survivors, many victims remained frustrated and let down.  

Moreover, with the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury remaining vacant since Welby officially left office in January 2025, the duties of head of the church are temporarily being overseen by the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell. There were then concerns raised as Mr Cottrell faced criticism for his handling of allegations of abuse linked to David Tudor, a priest who remained in post nine years after Cottrell was first told of concerns about him.

Tudor was only eventually removed from office late last year.  

Time for action 

This is all against a backdrop of the Church of England having commissioned a report by Professor Alexis Jay, the previous Chair of the IICSA, which was ultimately damning of the safeguarding within the church. Her view was that measures were so poor that victims and survivors no longer had trust or confidence in the church and recommended that the only option was to overhaul the safeguarding processes so that it was completely independent. 

Despite this, and all that has been happening of late, in February this year the General Synod, the church’s governing body, chose to create an independent central safeguarding team for the church, and keep diocesan and cathedral safeguarding officers in the same roles despite the concerns raised. Professor Jay afterwards commented that this was “deeply disappointing” and “devastating for victims and survivors”.  

Many of my clients who are survivors of abuse within the Church of England now have an understandable apprehension and scepticism, which is only to be expected when representatives of the church have subjected them to the most heinous of crimes when they were vulnerable children. 

It stands to reason that the church has an uphill battle in order to obtain the trust and confidence of survivors. Attempts to gloss over past inaction and dismissing calls for change following a thorough investigation will not help achieve this. Only swift, meaningful action and redress for victims will.