header-logo header-logo

Church failed children on abuse

06 October 2020
Issue: 7905 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-detail
Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse puts Anglican Church under the spotlight

The Anglican Church failed to protect children from predators within its ranks, and supported abusers rather than victims, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (IICSA) has concluded.

Since the 1940s, at least 390 clergy or persons in positions of trust have been convicted of sexual offences against children. Many more victims have come forward with allegations against priests, vicars and youth leaders. In its report on abuse in the Anglican Church, published this week, the IICSA made eight recommendations, including creating a mandatory code of practice for clergy on safeguarding, the appointment of a diocesan safeguarding officer and implementing a formal information-sharing protocol between churches.

However, the ICCSA stopped short of recommending mandatory reporting, although it expects to address this issue in its final report. It heard widespread support, particularly among victims and survivors, for making failure to report child sexual abuse a crime. However, there were conflicting views on what should be reported, when and to whom. The Charity Commission also expressed concerns that an increase in referrals might divert attention from the most serious cases―instead, it supported a criminal offence of deliberately concealing child sexual abuse.

The government consulted on mandatory reporting in 2016 but only 12% of respondents were in favour of a change in the law.

Alan Collins, partner at Hugh James and specialist child abuse lawyer, said: ‘The evidence presented to IICSA makes it abundantly clear that it should be mandatory for any person in a position of trust to report an allegation, or suspicion, of child sexual abuse to the police.

‘To be effective, any failure to do so should be an offence for both the individual and the body that they belong to or represent. Without this, children remain in grave danger of being failed, not only by the perpetrator, but by the system that should be there to protect and serve. This would be a serious missed opportunity.’

Issue: 7905 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll