Lambeth (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Lambeth Palace says a complaint against the Bishop of London was not properly followed up, raising concerns over procedural handling within the Church.
Premier Christian News reported on Monday that the claim concerned how Bishop Mullally and the diocese of London handled an allegation of abuse. Survivor N, the complainant, claimed to have been the target of a “systematic campaign of harassment and retribution as a CDM [Clergy Discipline Measure] complainant.”
According to Premier, the man lodged a complaint in March 2020, and the Rt Revd Tim Thornton, the Lambeth Bishop at the time, acknowledged it. However, Survivor N was informed that the complaint had only recently been received when they asked for an update over a year later.
According to Lambeth Palace’s statement,
“the complaint was not appropriately followed up due to administrative errors and an incorrect assumption about the individual’s wishes.”
“While his abuse allegations against a member of clergy were fully dealt with by the Diocese of London, it is clear that a different complaint he subsequently made against me personally in 2020 was not properly dealt with.”
According to her, Bishop Mullally was
“seeking assurance that processes have been strengthened to ensure any complaint that comes into Lambeth Palace is responded to in a timely and satisfactory manner.”
She declared that she will
“do everything in my power to bring about much needed and overdue reform”
in her capacity as Archbishop. If we don’t trust our systems, we can’t expect others to do the same.
Which statutory processes should have been triggered and were not?
Lambeth Palace conceded that statutory processes under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (CDM) weren’t duly initiated or followed up for the 2020 complaint against Bishop Sarah Mullally.
The diocesan register or parochial register should have launched an immediate factual assessment within days to determine if the complaint warranted formal disquisition, including notifying the bishop and gathering substantiation none passed for 16 months. Still, a formal CDM complaint form and questionnaire should have been issued to assess doctrine, conduct or securing failures.
The Independent Safeguarding Board review process, commanded post-IICSA, was also bypassed, as was escalation to the National Safeguarding Team for high- profile cases involving bishops; executive crimes assumed plaintiff pullout without evidence.
