Press Release

Archbishop of Canterbury ‘whitewashed’ serious and ‘egregious’ safeguarding failure that led to blacklisting chaplain

13 August 2024         Issued by: Christian Concern

Summarising the case

• Expert legal officer on clergy discipline cases concluded that the Derby diocese safeguarding team had provided no evidence to justify Rev. Dr Bernard Randall being marked a safeguarding risk to children for his Christian beliefs on human sexuality.
• Evidence was found that the diocese had blacklisted him, under the watch of Bishop of Derby, Rt. Rev Libby Lane, after it departed from safeguarding guidance and had given no reasons for doing so.
• The Archbishop of Canterbury was told twice by the same legal officer that he was ‘plainly wrong’, had ‘misdirected himself’ and had ‘misunderstood the scope of his powers’ after he said there was no disciplinary case for the Bishop of Derby to answer over the process which led to the blacklisting.
• After Justin Welby admitted safeguarding guidance had not been followed, but tried to downplay the seriousness of the case, he was told that the case was ‘egregious’ and ‘the error gross.’
• Justin Welby also ignored a safeguarding complaint that the Bishop of Derby had herself been guilty of abusive behaviour.
• The Bishop of Derby was told the safeguarding process in the diocese which led to Dr Randall’s blacklisting as a risk to children was ‘highly unsatisfactory’ and ‘flawed’ and should be reviewed.
• Evidence suggested Dr Randall had been discriminated against by members of the diocese’s safeguarding team because of his ‘certain theology.’
• An unprecedented tribunal hearing which would have examined whether Dr Randall had been discriminated against by the Bishop of Derby for his orthodox Christian beliefs was blocked at the 11th hour by President of Tribunals, Dame Sarah Asplin.
• Instead, Asplin advised that an independent review of safeguarding processes in Derby diocese in general and Bernard’s case in particular should be carried out.
• Six months since the decision, Dr Randall has still not been given his licence to officiate back and will now pursue a Judicial Review of Asplin’s decision not to proceed with a disciplinary case against the Bishop of Derby.
• Dr Randall has been vindicated by Prevent, the LADO, the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) and the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). Only the CofE is now dragging its feet over giving him his licence and life back.
• In 2019/20 Dr Randall was sacked for a sermon he gave on the CofE’s teaching on marriage in a CofE chapel in a school with a CofE ethos. Dr Randall had given the sermon following discredited and extreme gender identity group, Educate and Celebrate, being invited into the school to, in their words, ‘smash heteronormativity.’ He has been legally prevented from giving a sermon since losing his job at the school.
• Campaigners say even Jesus would have fallen foul of the Derby diocese’s safeguarding process.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, (ABC) ‘misunderstood the scope of his powers’, a senior Church legal officer for clergy discipline found, after he repeatedly tried to block a serious complaint of misconduct being investigated over a bishop blacklisting an ordained Church of England (CofE) chaplain.

The story exposes how the ABC and the Bishop of Derby, Rt. Rev Libby Lane have repeatedly misused safeguarding processes to uphold an illegitimate ban on Dr Randall’s ministry.

Supported by the Christian Legal Centre, Rev. Dr Bernard Randall launched the complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 against the Bishop of Derby, Rt. Rev Libby Lane, after the safeguarding team under her watch concluded, without evidence and without following official guidance, that he was a safeguarding risk to children.

They reached this conclusion because he held orthodox Christian beliefs on human sexuality and marriage, which are also the official beliefs of the CofE.

In 2020, Dr Randall was sacked and reported to the government’s counter-terrorism watchdog, Prevent, by Trent College for a sermon he gave in a CofE chapel which said it was ok for pupils to debate and question extreme gender identity teaching.

When the diocese’s safeguarding team were notified that Dr Randall had been dismissed for gross misconduct for preaching about the Church’s own teaching, and might therefore need to apply for a new ministry licence from the Bishop, a member of the team described the news as a ‘game-changer’.

In the event, Dr Randall did not apply for a new licence, but the process against him continued anyway.
Lawyers for Dr Randall have said that the events that followed revealed a campaign of harassment against him involving stereotypical assumptions that a Clergyman holding his beliefs was a safeguarding risk.

Even being part of such a safeguarding process would be disclosed in any future job applications, and Dr Randall has not been employed in ministry since his dismissal by Trent College.

Dr Randall has missed out on at least three posts since, including one where he would have been the only candidate. He was told that no application could be accepted whilst there was an open safeguarding process against his name.

Concerned that Dr Randall’s sermon and beliefs were a ‘reputational risk to the organisation’, the safeguarding team contacted the Charity Commission.

Filling out the form to report the ‘incident’, they were asked if a crime had been committed to which they inexplicably responded: ‘don’t know’, despite never having any indication of unlawful conduct.

Despite the responsible local authority officer (LADO) indicating that the criteria for a safeguarding concern had not been met so there was no cause for concern, and the fact that Church officials knew there was no evidence of inappropriate behaviour in relation to Dr Randall’s pastoral ministry during his time at Trent College or previously, the CofE continued to pursue a case against him.

In July 2021, Dr Randall was told that he had to undergo an independent safeguarding assessment by a psychologist. The psychologist chosen specialised in assessing sex-offenders.

He declined to do so because the process would first require him to accept wrongdoing.

The safeguarding team recommended to the bishop that his licence to officiate should not be renewed, not because of his sermon or anything he had done, they claimed, but because of what he ‘might’ do if he was approached by a churchgoer who had questions and concerns about human sexuality.

The diocese even concluded that the Bible’s teaching on marriage was also a ‘risk factor.’

Welby decision reversed as ‘error in law’

After the refusal to renew his licence, in July 2022 Dr Randall brought a complaint of misconduct against Libby Lane under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003. Church safeguarding rules explicitly state that “ultimate responsibility” for all safeguarding in a Diocese “will always rest with the diocesan bishop.”

Dr Randall argued that: “The nub of my case is that the bishop discriminated against me on the grounds of my orthodox beliefs on gender and sexual orientation.”

The complaint also included a safeguarding complaint against the Bishop, alleging that her conduct was abusive.

On 21 December 2022, the Archbishop of Canterbury, however, refused to agree that a formal investigation should be undertaken and dismissed Dr Randall’s complaint saying it lacked sufficient substance. He ignored the safeguarding element, despite his clear legal duty to pass it to the National Safeguarding Team.

Dr Randall requested a review of this decision to dismiss and on 5 June 2023, it was largely reversed by Gregory Jones KC, acting on behalf of the President of Tribunals for the CofE.

Jones KC described: “the matters surrounding this complaint are somewhat unusual. They also in my view potentially involve issues of wider importance for the Church.”

Based on the House of Bishops’ safeguarding guidance, Jones KC found that the findings of the ‘core group’ in the Derby diocese who dealt with the safeguarding investigation into Dr Randall:

“Do not in my view support any finding of a “safeguarding” issue as defined by the Guidance. [Dr Randall] has not been found to have “Behaved in a way that has harmed a child, young person and/or vulnerable adult, or may have harmed a child, young person and/or vulnerable adult; Possibly committed a criminal offence against or related to a child, young person and/or vulnerable adult; – Behaved towards a child, young person and/or vulnerable adult in a way that indicates they may pose a risk of harm to children, young people and/or vulnerable adults.”

He added:

“As far as I can see, the core group has not sought to tie its safeguarding concern to the definitions of safeguarding found in the Guidance. If on the other hand it has consciously departed from the Guidance, it has not given cogent reasons why it has departed from the Guidance.”

‘Troubled by apparent failure’

Furthermore, he said: “The Guidance points to the need to have “credible, identifiable or believable evidence to support a safeguarding concern or allegation. Where has the core group identified such “evidence” in the present case?”

“Even if this conduct be said to amount to an ongoing safeguarding concern”, he said, “in my view, the Complainant in this case is entitled as a matter of fairness to have explained exactly what he has said which justifies this conclusion. As matters currently stand, in my judgement the findings of the core group do not meet that basic requirement.

“Perhaps more importantly, [Dr Randall] has also not been told what, in his answers, gives rise to the ongoing concern that he might pose a future safeguarding risk.

“When asked about hypothetical scenarios he has said that he would be able to set aside his own theological beliefs and give sympathetic advice to a young person struggling with their sexual identity.

This is against a background of no evidence that the Complainant has failed in the past to give what the core group would consider to be appropriate guidance. Accordingly, I respectfully disagree that there is insufficient substance in the complaint that the safeguarding concern has not been sufficiently identified or explained by [The Bishop of Derby] or by a person duly appointed on her behalf.”

Concluding that he was: “troubled by the apparent failure…of the core group to have full regard to the relevant safeguarding Guidance; particularly, in a case that the DSA described as “complex.””, he concluded that: “I cannot exclude the possibility that when pressed to give clear reasons, elements of doctrinal dispute (or as what [Dr Randall] has characterised as “discrimination”…might emerge such that doctrinal matters might have improperly influenced the decision. I therefore consider that at this stage the complaint has sufficient substance to require more detailed investigation.”

‘Serious weakness of safeguarding’ says Welby

Concluding that the Archbishop of Canterbury was ‘plainly wrong’ to dismiss the complaint, 9 of the 13 allegations Dr Randall made were sent back for the Bishop of Derby to provide a formal response.
In her response, the bishop sought to distance herself from the decisions made by her safeguarding team, whilst admitting that she had not done a number of things the guidance required her to do. On 26 July 2023, the Archbishop of Canterbury again determined that no further action be taken.

In his decision, the ABC deflected responsibility from the Church of England’s first female bishop when he said: “Bishops should not intervene in safeguarding matters except in the most egregious circumstances, where they have prior notice of a gross error. There is no evidence that would have justified the Bishop in intervening at the time,” but conceded, “although the failure to follow guidance is a serious weakness of safeguarding which needs addressing.”

Dr Randall sought a review of that decision and on 2 September 2023, Gregory Jones KC, again only upheld the ABC’s decision in part saying that “A Second Review is something which, itself, is unusual.”

‘Egregious and the error gross’

He said: “I agree with the Archbishop that there was a particular need for clarity in this case. But the basis of the advice from the Core Group was plainly not clear and I note that the Archbishop does not identify where can be found the reasons and evidence base justifying the conclusion that there were sufficient safeguarding concerns over [Dr Randall] so as to warrant the Bishop refusing to grant him a licence unless he be subject to a risk assessment.

“I do not consider it accurate for the Archbishop to characterise the matter as an intervention by the Bishop – it was the Bishop’s decision as to whether to grant a licence or not, or on what preconditions. I agree that concerns regarding child protection issues are capable of constituting good reasons for refusal of a licence or may justify requiring a person to undergo a full safeguarding assessment. But the Bishop must be sufficiently familiar with the relevant safeguarding guidance because the decision is ultimately one for her to make properly exercising her own discretion.

“I do not agree that the threshold for intervention need only be the most egregious case or that they require prior notice of a gross error. The Archbishop points to no rule or guidance to justify such an approach. But even if this is the threshold, the present case in my view is egregious and the error gross.”

Concluding the review, Jones said: “The Archbishop misunderstood the scope of his powers. I do not consider this has impacted on his finding. However, I do consider that a proper understanding of his powers might assist the Archbishop in his reconsideration of the three allegations in particular as to whether it is possible for there to be reconciliation between the parties for matters to move on the basis that an entire reconsideration of [Dr Randall’s] licence application with the Bishop advised by a properly appointed fresh core group acting in accordance with the Safeguarding Guidance or, in any event, providing cogent reasons to the Bishop should they depart from the Guidance.”

As a result, on 1 November 2023 Dr Randall’s complaint finally passed to the Designated Officer for investigation.

The President of Tribunals, Dame Sarah Asplin, then took over the review and had to consider whether it was appropriate to convene an unprecedented tribunal (known as a Vicar General’s Court) to rule on the complaint.

‘Safeguarding procedure was flawed and highly unsatisfactory’

In a short review, and with the full report and justification for her decisions not being disclosed, Dame Asplin said that she did not think the Bishop of Derby had a case to answer, apparently putting the blame for failings on other Church officers. There has been no disciplinary action against anyone else involved.

Throughout her ruling, however, she said: “Once again, however, the position is far from satisfactory. It appears that there were serious errors in the process adopted.”

Significantly she concluded:

“I must reiterate, however, that the way in which this matter appears to have been dealt with by Safeguarding staff, as a matter of procedure, was highly unsatisfactory. I consider the same to be true of the [Bishop of Derby’s] limited involvement. In the circumstances, although there is no case to answer in relation to which a tribunal ought to be empanelled, it seems to me from what I have seen that the whole safeguarding procedure was flawed. In the circumstances, it seems to me that the Diocese should look at this matter again and that it might well be appropriate for the safeguarding process to be commenced again from scratch by persons who are independent of the Diocese. Furthermore, an in depth look at the way in which safeguarding is conducted in the Diocese and how it is supervised may well be in order.”

Six-months since this decision, Dr Randall has not been contacted by the Bishop of Derby and there is no sign of him being given his licence back.

Judicial review

With all remedies afforded to him by the Church’s own ecclesiastical courts exhausted, Dr Randall has faced no alternative but to apply for a Judicial Review of Dame Asplin’s decision not to convene a tribunal.

In his application for Judicial Review, his legal team say that he has ‘been unfairly and unlawfully blocked by the Decision he seeks to challenge.’

His legal team will say that the President of Tribunals has ‘erred in law’ in finding there is no case to answer in regards misconduct.

A further ground to the application is that the President of Tribunals has failed to disclose the Designated Officer’s Report or to explain how its findings undermine the conclusions already reached by Gregory Jones KC.

They seek full disclosure of the report and say that departing from his earlier conclusions was irrational and Dame Asplin failed to give adequate reasons.

‘Failure to hold anyone to account is a scandal’

Dr Randall said: “In my case, safeguarding has been weaponized as a political tool against a theological position which is wholly consistent with the Church’s doctrine.

“I have been vindicated by a number of secular bodies, but the CofE, who on paper share my beliefs and should be supporting me, are refusing to give me my life back.

“In this case, I was assumed to be a safeguarding risk because of the content of my sermons. This amounted to stereotyping on the grounds of belief which is unlawful.”

“Obviously I would like to get this whole mess sorted out because of the personal impact it has had on me, but there are much wider issues here too, as Gregory Jones highlighted. I wish that the problems had been identified at an early stage, and formal complaints and legal actions had never been needed. A simple, early, “sorry” and a reset would have made all this unnecessary.

“But the problems run far deeper than my own case. A Church which can turn against its own teaching is deeply unhealthy. A Church where the leadership can apparently whitewash over problems is in denial.

“The failure to hold anyone to account for such deeply flawed processes is a scandal. It looks like a whitewash, as if the Archbishop’s knee-jerk reaction was to protect a senior colleague, rather than to seek justice or reconciliation, even to the extent of ignoring a safeguarding complaint.

“If taking the nuclear option of legal action, and going public, can help the Church to recognize the problems, diagnose the causes, and heal the illness, then what I have been through will have had a meaning.

“I long to see a Church which healthy and strong, unashamedly proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which brings life in all its fulness to all people without exception. As it stands, the Church of England is not that Church. That is a cause of deep sorrow to Christians up and down this land, me included.”

Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “The evidence shows that even Jesus, let alone Bernard Randall, would have fallen foul of the diocese of Derby’s approach to safeguarding and would have been marked a risk to children.

“No evidence has ever been presented that shows that Bernard is a danger to children. From the beginning this scandalous blacklisting has been because of the beliefs that he shares with Jesus, the Bible and, officially, the Church of England.

“Because of the archbishops’ and bishops’ departure from the Bible’s teaching on sexual ethics they are scapegoating innocent clergy who uphold it.

“It is telling that a series of secular organisations have vindicated Bernard over any suggestion of wrongdoing and said he has no case to answer. Yet, the Church, even the Archbishop of Canterbury, continues to drag its feet.

“Christian leaders at the highest level who should have supported him the most instead cannot bring themselves to admit they have done wrong and reinstate him. It’s not just Bernard, I’ve seen many good men in the Church of England sabotaged and hurt by the bishops and archbishops simply for upholding Jesus’s teaching.

“It is over six months since the decision was made that the safeguarding process that led to Bernard’s blacklisting was flawed and must be urgently reviewed. In that time, no one from the diocese has contacted Bernard and there is no sign of him being given justice.

“The Church has prioritised a cover-up over justice for Bernard and his welfare. Rather than admitting its error, the Church has dug in. The hole is very deep and they are exposed. It’s a resigning matter.

“Now is the time to publicly apologise to Bernard and give him his life and career back.”

ENDS

Noted to editors:

Video interviews with Bernard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvhZAnTkzkw

Photo: https://mcusercontent.com/bed173cc9adfcad1e0e442a35/_compresseds/542b35bb-f8c4-f3e7-ef9e-a488970ed675.jpg

https://mcusercontent.com/bed173cc9adfcad1e0e442a35/images/67bfcc96-d2b0-2fd6-7343-6ca9edc8bf31.jpg

The Sermon: https://christianconcern.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CC-Resource-Misc-Bernard-Randall-Competing-Ideologies-Talk-20210506.pdf

Video of Educate and Celebrate’s Ellie Barnes discussing ‘Smashing Heteronormativity’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdbMcLlpQEM&feature=youtu.be
For more information and for interview requests, please contact tom.allen@christianconcern.com / 07974304620.