An ordained Church of England chaplain is pursuing a judicial review of a decision not to allow a disciplinary case to proceed against a Bishop who was found to have wrongly blacklisted him as a safeguarding risk for giving a sermon on identity politics.
Rev. Dr Bernard Randall, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, brought the case after a senior Church legal officer for clergy discipline found that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, (ABC) ‘misunderstood the scope of his powers’, and was ‘plainly wrong’ for blocking a serious complaint of misconduct being investigated.
The story exposed how the ABC and the Bishop of Derby, Rt. Rev Libby Lane, repeatedly misused safeguarding processes to uphold an illegitimate ban on Dr Randall’s ministry.
The origins of the case began in 2018 when Dr Randall, 51, raised concerns about the extreme gender identity group, Educate and Celebrate (E&C), being invited into Trent College in Derbyshire, where he was employed as chaplain.
Revelations and scandals about E&C, which was quietly closed by the Charity Commission earlier this year, continue to highlight the deep injustice at the heart of Dr Randall’s case.
In August 2024, for example, a patron of E&C, Stephen Ireland, was charged with multiple accounts of sex abuse against children.
Yet it is Dr Randall who continues to be blacklisted as a safeguarding risk for giving a sermon on the CofE’s own teaching on marriage and human identity, in a CofE chapel in a school with a CofE ethos.
Chief Executive of the Christian Legal Centre, Andrea Williams, has said that the evidence in the case 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.”
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 dragging its feet over giving him his licence and life back.
Dr Randall’s case comes shortly after Justin Welby admitted to having ‘personally failed’ as he apologised to victims of ‘the most prolific child abuser associated with the Church of England’.
An independent report found the abuse had been covered up by the CofE for years.
Before seeking permission for a judicial review on Tuesday, Dr Randall also handed in a CitizenGo petition signed by 40,000 people calling on Justin Welby to apologise and give him his life and career back.
Ahead of the hearing, Dr Randall said: “In my case, safeguarding has been weaponised 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.
“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.
“Yet again, in the corridors of power, the Church has closed ranks to protect senior people. Where is the accountability? What of transparency? These are not the failings of years ago. This is now. Too many ordinary people have stopped trusting the Church, and my case is just one of many reasons why.
“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.”
Reported to Prevent
Dr 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.
This decision was made after Dr Randall was, in 2020, 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 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 subsequently missed out on at least three posts, 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 had 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.
Dr Randall was also reported to the local authority officer (LADO), but they said the criteria for a safeguarding concern had not been met so there was no cause for concern.
Despite Church officials knowing 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, for example, Dr Randall was told that he had to undergo an independent safeguarding assessment by a psychologist. The psychologist chosen specialised in assessing sex-offenders.
For refusing to undertake the assessment, because the process required him to accept wrongdoing, the safeguarding team recommended to the bishop that his licence to officiate should not be renewed.
This recommendation was made, 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.
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, 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, Jones KC 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 CofE’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.
‘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.”
Nine-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 faced no alternative but to apply for a judicial review of Dame Asplin’s decision not to convene a tribunal.
In his application for a 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.
