UK: Makin review of the Smyth case published

“The abuse at the hands of John Smyth was prolific and abhorrent. Words cannot adequately describe the horror of what transpired. Many of the victims who took the brave decision to speak to us about what they experienced have carried this abuse silently for more than 40 years.

Despite the efforts of some individuals to bring the abuse to the attention of authorities, the responses by the Church of England and others were wholly ineffective and amounted to a coverup. The Church and its associated organisations must learn from this review and implement robust safeguarding procedures across their organisations that are governed independently.

This has been a long process but a necessary one to uncover the extent of John Smyth’s despicable behaviour and how the Church reacted to it. I would like to sincerely thank the victims for their courage, grace and dignity and I would like to remind everyone reporting on this review about their right to anonymity and privacy.”

The key findings of the report are as follows:

“John Smyth was an appalling abuser of children and young men. His abuse was prolific, brutal and horrific. His victims were subjected to traumatic physical, sexual, psychological and spiritual attacks. The impact of that abuse is impossible to overstate and has permanently marked the lives of his victims. John Smyth’s own family are victims of his abuse.

John Smyth’s activities were identified in the 1980s. Despite considerable efforts by individuals to bring to the attention of relevant authorities the scope and horror of Smyth’s conduct, including by victims and by some clergy, the steps taken by the Church of England and other organisations and individuals were ineffective and neither fully exposed nor prevented further abuse by him.

Church officers and others were made aware of the abuse in the form of a key report in 1982 prepared by the Reverend Mark Ruston. The recipients of that report participated in an active cover-up to prevent that report and its findings — including that crimes had been committed -coming to light. There is no excuse or good explanation that justifies that decision. Different- and we strongly suspect better, for subsequent victims — outcomes would have followed had appropriate reports to the police and other statutory authorities been made then.

In line with the ToR, we have placed the actions of individuals and Church bodies in context, and considered against the standards of practice which applied at the relevant time. An argument which has been offered in order to partially explain John Smyth’s abuses is that they were examples of over-enthusiastic corporal punishment. The conclusion of the Review is that he committed criminal acts of gross abuse.

Further abuse could and should have been prevented. John Smyth’s victims were not sufficiently supported by the Church and their views on escalating his abuse to the police and other authorities were not sought.

In the period between 1984 and 2001, at which time John Smyth relocated to Zimbabwe and subsequently South Africa, Church officers knew of the abuse and failed to take the steps necessary to prevent further abuse occurring. Throughout this period — and particularly given the Church’s adoption of formal safeguarding policies from 1995 — the Church had sufficient knowledge of the abuse to have taken those steps.

The requirements of the safeguarding policies adopted by the Church, coupled with the moral and legal responsibilities to which Church officers were subject, demanded that more be done.

There were individual failings by senior clergy, and clergy who subsequently became senior. That grouping includes a former Archbishop of Canterbury, Diocesan Bishops and Canons and Reverends.

Following specific developments in 2012, from July 2013, the Church of England knew, at the highest level, about the abuse that took place in the late 1970s and early 1980s. John Smyth should have been properly and effectively reported to the police in the UK and to relevant authorities in South Africa. This represented a further missed opportunity to bring him to justice and may have resulted in an ongoing and avoidable safeguarding threat in the period between 2012 and his death in 2018.

The Church’s reaction to the expose of John Smyth’s abuse by Channel 4 in February 2017 was poor in terms of speed, professionalism, intensity and curiosity. The needs of the victims were not at the forefront in terms of thinking and planning; the response was not trauma-informed.”

You can read more here: https://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-report-reveals-church-of-england-cover-up-of-abuse-from-barrister-john-smyth
And Here: file:///C:/Users/David/Downloads/independent-learning-lessons-review-john-smyth-qc-november-2024.pdf
And here:: https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2024/15-november/news/uk/prolific-brutal-and-horrific-makin-report-calls-out-the-smyth-abuse-and-the-cover-up

UK: Makin review of the Smyth case published

by Frank Cranmer
Law & Religion UK
7 November 2024

The independent review led by Keith Makin into the Church of England’s handling of allegations of serious abuse by the late John Smyth has been published, here: https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2024-11/independent-learning-lessons-review-john-smyth-qc-november-2024.pdf

According to the C of E press release, Keith Makin said this: