Section 4.4: Selecting and Appointing the Independent Reviewer

Good Practice Advice

Final responsibility for the selection and appointment of the Reviewer rests with the Review Group.

Independence of the Reviewer

‘Independence’ does not require a Reviewer to have no connection whatsoever with the wider Church of England. For instance, a Reviewer’s independence may not be undermined if they attend a church in another diocese, or another cathedral, or they led previous safeguarding work in the Church. However, there may be cases where the Review Group and victims and survivors agree that a Reviewer must be entirely independent of the Church of England.

Reviewers may come from a variety of backgrounds and are likely to be identified via professional networks. These might include:

• someone who has completed a review before;
• a recommendation from DSAP members;
• a recommendation from statutory or third sector services.

It is important to note that just because someone is recommended, that does not automatically mean they will be appointed. The Review Group will still need to satisfy themselves that the individual meets all the desired criteria.

Experience of the Reviewer

In addition to the requirement for independence, all Reviewers will have the relevant personal qualities and professional experience to conduct the Review:

• The Reviewer should possess the inter-personal skills and experience to engage sensitively with victims and survivors, respondents and other Church officers. Being able to evidence the soft skills required to hold detailed and painful conversations with people (both individually and in groups) is of as much importance as their experience. Ideally, they should have experience of successfully involving survivors in case reviews.
• The Reviewer should have the relevant skills and experience for the matter being reviewed. This would normally consist of experience derived from employment in social work, police, probation, law, but may also, depending upon the case, include other professional backgrounds such as psychiatry or psychology. ‘Relevant’ here means ‘specifically relating to’ rather than just in the same general field. For instance, a retired senior police officer with an extensive experience in fraud investigations would not be an appropriate person to review a case involving child sexual abuse.
• The Reviewer would normally be expected to have held ‘senior management responsibility’ as part of this experience. ‘Senior management’ means responsibility for leadership and management of an organisation which included leadership of organisational change, improvement and quality assurance. They need to demonstrate understanding of how organisational systems work, how change happens and the significance of organisational culture. They need to have a good understanding of the requirements of data protection law in the operational context.
• The Reviewer should have proven analytical skills, experience of quality assurance and service improvement in safeguarding. This experience may include formal, structured reviews of complex casework, for instance, Serious Case Review, Serious Further Offence Review or Domestic Homicide Review work, and have had these reports published.
• The Reviewer will also need experience of organisational culture and change, and experience of being able to “get inside” of an organisation, in order to fully understand the challenges and dynamics, and see beyond the surface. A key skill will be the ability to ask the right question, of the right person, at the right time to unlock the capacity for learning and improvement. It will be an advantage if this has been previously carried out in a Church context, as an understanding of the workings of the Church will be needed. Where they do not, the Review Group will need to ensure that the Reviewer has adequate access to material, briefings and individuals who will help them understand any relevant issues. It is for this reason that the Reviewer will need to contribute to the methodology section of the ToR – they should have the experience to be able to provide advice on what methodologies are best suited to achieve the outcomes needed from the Review.
• In high profile cases, it may be appropriate to consider a Reviewer with experience in managing media and public scrutiny.
• The Reviewer will need to confirm they can commit sufficient time to conclude the Review within the time parameters set.
• The Reviewer must be able to demonstrate the ability to properly anonymise data and carry out representation processes.

It is expected that a published¹⁰ SPR will include a section outlining how the Reviewer meets the above criteria and an ‘Independence Statement’ showing their separation from the matters being reviewed. The Reviewer needs to be made aware of this in advance and it must be included in the Privacy Notice.

After the appointment of the Reviewer, the Review Group must give the Reviewer any specific instructions as to the conduct of the Review. These might include¹¹:

• That the victims and survivors should be asked what they wish to contribute, and what support they might need to do so.  They should also be asked if any of the information they have already provided as part of the case can be used if they do not want to give it twice.
• That the Reviewer must, as part of the process of interviews of respondents and other Church officers, put any potential criticism or judgement to them so that they have a right to reply before the report is written.
• The Reviewer must also take notes of interviews and send them for approval to interviewees, to mitigate the risk of challenge at the representations stage.
• The Review Group will also supply the Reviewer with a detailed chronology of the case, which will be published within the final report, subject to anonymity considerations.
• The Reviewer must work closely with the Church body’s legal and data protection lead throughout the SPR.