Requirements
4D.3 Where a posthumous safeguarding concern or allegation is raised against a former Church Officer, the Safeguarding Officer must gather any relevant information and establish if there are any remaining risks associated with the situation.
4D.4 Any information gathered, and risk assessment carried out must be restricted to meeting the following aims:
- determining whether an individual was a Church Officer and if they have passed away;
- determining if safeguarding, statutory or disciplinary actions were previously taken against the respondent and, where possible, what the outcomes of those actions were;
- assessing any remaining safeguarding risks arising from any links that the respondent might have had with others who are alive and continue to serve as Church Officers, and whether further action need to be taken against them;
- assessing any safeguarding risks linked to the complainant and any other potential victims or survivors;
- assessing any safeguarding risks linked to the family or close friends of the respondent, if they become aware of the safeguarding concern or allegation;
- whether an initial SCMG is required to deal with support for the complainant/deceased respondents' family and any required communications.
Guidance
Establishing that the respondent is deceased
There will be circumstances in which a Safeguarding Officer receives information about an allegation involving a Church Officer, but the information received does not indicate if the subject of the allegation is deceased. Whether or not a person is alive is a key consideration for determining any ongoing safeguarding risks. For instance, if an allegation regarding a member of clergy’s alleged inappropriate behaviour towards a child is raised and they are deceased, any ongoing safeguarding risk and intervention may be very limited. However, if the same allegation is made about a member of clergy who has left the respective Church Body but continues to practice in a different diocese, then the level of safeguarding risk will be higher and different actions would need to be undertaken. The Safeguarding Officer may need to conduct initial searches or enquiries to determine if the person was a Church Officer, if they continue to be a Church Officer or if they are deceased. This includes:
- considering when the events are alleged to have taken place;
- searching the National Clergy Register,
- searching the Crockford’s Clerical Directory;
- checking any relevant clergy personnel records, HR records or pensions/housing information;
- accessing death records and archives that are public.
Obtaining relevant evidence
In gathering information to enable them to consider the issues listed above, Safeguarding Officers should make it clear to complainants and other relevant parties that the information is not being gathered as part of an investigation, but to ensure that any remaining risks are correctly mitigated.
Generally, in cases of non-recent abuse, the extent of any information gathering and risk assessment carried out by the Safeguarding Officer will be limited, unless they are asked to support the gathering of information that is relevant to a police investigation or a civil claim dispute.
In gathering information for the purposes of establishing risk, the Safeguarding Officer should prioritise accessing and checking records, if still available. This may include contacting other Safeguarding Officers to check if relevant information is held in other dioceses. Relevant records may include:
- clergy personnel records;
- HR records;
- safeguarding records;
- parish records;
- any archived records about disciplinary and criminal justice processes outcomes.
It is important to note that in many instances, local retention policies might mean that these records either do not exist anymore, or a data minimisation exercise was carried out, so only a limited amount of information may be available. It is also important to note that historically, data recording and retention arrangements might not have been as robust, there may be difficulties and delays in obtaining any records that might have been kept at the time, and the quality of those records may not meet today’s standards. It is good practice for the Safeguarding Officer to record in the case files what material has been unobtainable.
Where possible, Safeguarding Officers should avoid carrying out interviews and it may be disproportionate for them to share information about the allegation with those not involved, except in cases where there is information that indicates other Church Officers may pose a risk of significant harm to a child, young person or vulnerable adult. In such cases, the Safeguarding Officer would need to follow the appropriate pathway in this Code. It may also be appropriate to use interviews when engaging with complainants or the families of deceased respondents, particularly when assessing any safeguarding risks to their wellbeing. Any information shared needs to be necessary, accurate and proportionate, with a clear rationale and aim, and should meet the requirements under data protection legislation.
If abuse took place, Church Bodies should reflect on their safeguarding arrangements and understand where such arrangements have potentially gone wrong. Learning lessons from such incidents and addressing any identified weakness or gaps is an important aspect of the management of recent and non-recent concerns.
There are limited circumstances where this would require a formal Safeguarding Practice Review, but this is generally unlikely. However, the reflective exercises required by that Code of Practice, and this one, may be used to identify particular areas of improvement, and should always be undertaken if a SCMG is convened.