December 2 2017 – “Bishop Bell delay…What delay?” says the Church – Letters – The Spectator

IMG_0296 (1)
“Bishop Bell delay” [Martin Sewell – General Synod Member] – “What delay?” [Bishop Peter Hancock – Safeguarding] – Letters Page – The Spectator – December 2 2017
Advertisements
Featured post

November 17 2017 – “Publish the Carlile Report Now! We have waited long enough” – Peter Hitchens – Mail Online

Peter_Hitchens_at_SidneySussex
Peter Hitchens

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/11/publish-the-carlile-report-now-we-have-waited-long-enough.html

17 November 2017 4:24 PM

Publish the Carlile Report Now! We have waited long enough

I intend to ask, every day until it is published, why the report which the Church of England commissioned into its handling of an allegation against the late Bishop George Bell, has not been published. The report, which is highly critical of Church behaviour, was delivered to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Saturday 7th October 2017. Once again, I must explain why I am devoting so much of my life to clearing the name of a long-dead Bishop. Here goes.

The matter is strikingly similar in some ways to that of Lord Bramall, disgracefully accused in conditions of total publicity of appalling offences on the basis of scanty evidence. But Lord Bramall, being still alive,  was eventually able to secure a proper retraction (thoihgh his wife did not live to see it). George Bell, a man (in my view) of comparable integrity   only has us to stand up for him.

Those who wish to know why Bell, a rare courageous voice in this or any time, matters, might wish to read this full account of the case.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/11/as-the-c-of-e-still-sits-on-the-report-into-his-unfair-trial-the-story-of-how-george-bells-reputatio.html

Much more, including a detailed and professional review of the case by experts, can be found here

http://www.georgebellgroup.org/

Many weeks ago, the distinguished lawyer Lord Carlile of Berriew delivered a report to the Archbishop of Canterbury. This report has still not been published, and the Church can give no adequate explanation as to why it has not been.

I have good reason to believe that the report is pretty severe on the Church’s procedures. This is English understatement. I have little doubt that George Bell was publicly condemned on the basis of a procedure that would have shamed a banana republic.

Many people are affected by this, perhaps most shockingly  the Guardian newspaper, which reported the allegations against Bishop Bell as if they were proven charges and has never made any attempt to put this right, though I have pressed them to do so through their own internal procedures (the Guardian does not belong to any outside regulatory body). The Times did so slightly less prominently. A reasonable summary of the coverage is here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35971308

My attempts to get the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) to condemn their reporting also failed. I maintain that these reports would have been considered gravely inaccurate had Bishop Bell been alive. Why then were they not inaccurate just because he is dead? The BBC, surprisingly, did admit they had been wrong to accuse George Bell of ‘proven abuse’ and publicly regretted it, though they made no on-air correction.

The ‘Argus’ of Brighton and the Chichester Observer, while they have given me space in which to plead George Bell’s case, have continued to treat the matter as settled and George Bell as guilty.  Horrible, Stalinoid things have followed – a school and a school school house have been renamed, portraits have been taken down (and in one casae eventually restored) and flowers removed form Bell’s memorial in Chichester Cathedral (though this has now ceased, and the monument, once defaced by a nasty little notice about ‘safeguarding’,  is now rarely without flowers at its base). In some ways worst, George Bell House, given to the Church in his memory by a group of Anglican nuns who loved George Bell, and named in his honour by the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, has had Bell’s name stripped from it. Mentions of him have also been removed from a guidebook to Chichester cathedral.

The Carlile report was the result of many months of work. It is a review into the process which led to the public condemnation, as a child-molester, of the late Bishop of Chichester, George Bell.

George Bell is not to be confused with Bishop Peter Ball of Lewes, convicted of serious sexual offences a short time ago. I mention this because I have received more than one letter from persons who have made this confusion. I sometimes wonder if those who condemned George Bell realised that this confusion would be made.

Trying to clear George Bell’s name was difficult. The Church had recruited the Sussex Police to say that they would have arrested the Bishop had he been alive. Many ignorant people thought this was evidence of his guilt, though it is no such thing, and their foolish conclusions only show how poorly we are now taught the rules of our own liberty.

This was an absurdity. He had been dead since 1958 and the alleged offences supposedly dated from even earlier than that.  The only evidence they had was a single uncorroborated accusation.

It is interesting that this is all it takes to get Sussex Police to arrest someone, when he has been dead for 57 years and there is no conceivable action they can take against him. For Sussex Police are among those many forces which claim they already have far too much to do.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5079547/Now-police-force-gives-solving-minor-crimes.html

But the Police have since explained that it was the Church which out them up to this. Did the Church realise that so many people would be persuaded by this ‘arrest’ of a corpse that George Bell was guilty as charged? I wonder.

The same Church was very hard on anyone who criticised its action. The Bishop of Chichester, the Rt Revd Martin Warner, complained : ‘The presence of strident voices in the public arena which have sought to undermine the survivor’s claims has added in this case to the suffering of the survivor and her family.’

Apart from being prejudicial, by using the term ‘survivor’ instead of the neutral expression ‘complainant’, this seeks to use the complainant as a sort of human shield.  It would be ridiculous if no objections to an allegation could be voiced lest the upset the person making the allegations. Justice of all kinds would cease, and every defendant, criminal and civil, would be guilty as charged.

One of his episcopal colleagues (who has since apologised after I engaged in a long struggle to explain to him that this was his Christian duty) actually claimed in the House of Lords that supporters of George Bell had said ‘hurtful things’ about his accuser, a flat untruth. For reasons which escape me, nothing has been done to amend the record of the House of Lords itself. Where there’s a will, there’s a way and I intend to return to this once the Carlile Report is eventually published. It is one of many unfinished tasks, which will be easier once this whole matter is in the light of day. There is no good excuse for further delay in publication.

 

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

 

 

Following this matter, I am becoming increasingly vexed and disgusted with the established Church and some of its members, which have shown themselves to be of dubious moral character – or at the least, poorly educated in both their Christian faith and duty, as well as traditional English law – despite their fancy titles. Many of us have known for years, even those like myself who aren’t and have never been CofE, that the Church of England is generally a progressive left-wing institution with barely a shred, if even that, of Christian conservatism or integrity remaining. But this case indubitably displays how far from grace this institution has fallen, when it so utterly failed to come to the aid of a revered Bishop, and one of its own, who, as far as we know and understand, was (at least) ten times the moral, wise, Christian man many of his modern day successors are, especially those who sought to blacken his name for one reason or other. Parts of the media and police have also been a disgrace. In our secular and generally anti-religious and poorly educated age, this comes as no shock or surprise, even though this doesn’t make it any less wrong. But the handling by the CofE in this matter has been utterly inexcusable and unacceptable. As you’ve rightly and repeatedly stated, nobody is safe if this is allowed to stand. And so full public apologies and retractions must be made by all those within the Church involved here. The media and police should also do the same, though I imagine the chances of this happening are even more remote.

 

I posted the following text yesterday.

However, I wonder if this part of the text that Mr Hitchens read aloud at some kind of the memorial service or meeting for Bishop Bell in the last winter?

I find interesting that there are some words quite ’relevant’ today in November.

Yes, we have been *waiting*.

***
Murder In The Cathedral by T.S.Eliot

Part I

Chorus

Here let us stand, close by the cathedral. Here let us wait.
Are we drawn by danger? Is it the knowledge of safety, that draws our feet
Towards the cathedral? What danger can be
For us, the poor, the poor women of Canterbury ? what tribulation
With which we are not already familiar? There is no danger
For us, and there is no safety in the cathedral. Some presage of an act
Which our eyes are compelled to witness, has forced our feet
Towards the cathedral. We are forced to bear witness.

Since golden October declined into sombre November
And the apples were gathered and stored, and the land became
brown sharp points of death in a waste of water and mud,
The New Year waits, breathes, waits, whispers in darkness.
While the labourer kicks off a muddy boot and stretches his hand to the fire,
The New Year waits, destiny waits for the coming.
Who has stretched out his hand to the fire and remembered the
Saints at All Hallows,

Remembered the martyrs and saints who wait? and who shall
Stretch out his hand to the fire, and deny his master? who shall be warm
By the fire, and deny his master?

 

Thanking you for fighting the good fight. The CoE has indeed become ‘the Labour Party at prayer’

 

I was not surprised by the actions of the Church of England.

Eighteen years ago in Ireland, during a sustained bout of anticlericalism (or rather Anti-Catholicism), which continues even today, Nora Wall, a nun in the Sisters of Mercy order, was convicted of rape (the first such conviction for a woman in this country) and gaoled for life (another first for a woman). A homeless man was also convicted of the offences, presumably to lend credence to the accusations. This man, Pablo McCabe, was actually in prison on the date of one of the offences.

Her religious order did not defend her. Journalist Kevin Myers (who was born in Leicester as far as I remember) quipped once that the Sisters of Mercy showed no charity and the Sisters of Charity showed no mercy. This was untrue of course but it did apply in the case of Wall. (Myers lost his job with the Sunday Times a few months ago for offences against political correctness.)

The judge when sentencing spoke of Wall’s “betrayal” of the young girl.

The Sisters of Mercy said they were “devastated by the revolting crimes”. “Our hearts go out to this young woman who, as a young child, was placed in our care. Her courage in coming forward was heroic.” Even after Wall was cleared they did not withdraw their statement of support for the accuser and did not apologize to their own nun.

The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre welcomed the verdict.

As for the press, Wall had been describes as “Vile Nun”, “Pervert Nun” and “Mercy Devil”. One headline was “I Was Raped By Anti-Christ”. The Sunday World newspaper let its imagination run wild and had to pay 175,000 euros in damages after her name was cleared. (The late Richard Webster noted that it is the serious papers which are in general more susceptible to losing their sense in witch hunts.) Myers was one of the very few journalists to stand up for Wall and to point to the witch hunt. The media in Ireland, including the state broadcaster, are with few exceptions, stridently critical of the Church, of course, in particular its surviving traditionalist members who are unwilling to accept the radical re-writing of history based on lies.

Wall was released from prison after the accuser and the witness unwisely gave a press interview and relinquished anonymity. The witness was recognized by a businessman who had earlier been falsely accused himself. It turned out the she had been declared unreliable as a witness then and should not have been allowed to testify afterwards. This detail was overlooked and is typical of witch hunts.

When Bishop Bell’s accuser made her first allegation there was already a climate of press hysteria about child abuse, centred on the infamous Bryn Estyn case (which Webster investigated in a lengthy book). She repeated her allegation a year after the death of the man who shall not be named, when hysteria had reached unprecedented levels.

 

I have read all the material about Bishop George Bell on the Chichester Observer and Brighton Argus websites and the conclusion I drew was shame on both publications and the Church of England and Sussex Police ; it all smacks of taking the easy option of finding a man who is long dead, guilty of highly questionable allegations.

 

Is the C of E bound by Freedom of Information requests? That might be a way to oblige them to furnish you with a copy of the report.

***PH : Thank you, but no, and this not the way FoI works anyway. ***

 

Mr. Hitchens, your cause and your tenacity in pursuing it are admirable. On the face of it, the Church of England has behaved abominably, and deserves to be hounded until this wrong is righted.

 

It is not so long ago the sense of proportion was mentioned in this blog.
I think there is a huge contrast between the cases of Bishop Bell and of ’Squawking’.

In October 2015 the Guardian and other newspapers had published articles on Bishop Bell with shamelessly thoughtless headlines with clear statement that he *was* a pedophile or he *abused* a child as if they knew it as a proven truth.

Although many people among others Mr Hitchens have been protesting, the articles are sadly still there on the internet and anyone would read them and misunderstand the falsehood as the truth.

The Guardian openly says in their PR;
”We will give people the facts, because they want and need the information they can trust, and we will stick to the facts.”

I have also noticed that the BBC changed a little bit, through inserting the word ’alleged’ in the sentences. This little word ’alleged’ is important but many other journalists do not care – probably because Bishop Bell is not with us and cannot protest.

I see here a parallel with the abortion of unborn babies – they cannot protest or escape.

And now we see so many people are reacting strongly against Mr Hitchens’s article and its headline as if it were wrong – although they really do not have any firm, reasonable basis. I think it is totally out of proportion – or selective sense of justice.

So many people are suddenly interested in truth and the meaning and intention of a text & its headline – where were they on 22 October 2015?

 

Absolutely right, the church and much of the media’s handling of this affair has been an absolute disgrace. Any decent fair minded person would applaud your stance. Is there anything practical we can do to help?

 

In visiting the Carlile Review website, there are two items of interest about the report. The Terms of Reference state that ‘The Church of England will determine whether the full report can be sufficiently redacted or otherwise anonymised to enable its publication without risking disclosure of the complainant’s identity.’ Under the Frequently Asked Questions, however, it states that ‘The report will first be presented to the Church of England, National Safeguarding Steering Group. It will then be published in full.’

If we overlook this apparent clash (‘published in full’ vs. published ‘without risking disclosure’) and accept the narrower Terms of Reference as the controlling standard, it seems that the only permissible reason for the delay would be to redact any material that could somehow reveal ‘Carol’s’ identity. Are we to believe that it has taken over forty days to do this? Once asked, the question seems to answer itself, doesn’t it?

 

Along with the sly and weasily statement of October 2015, the statement of the Bishop of Durham (8th February 2016) still resides on the Church of England website, in which he says:

“Almost three years ago a civil claim was made, raising allegations of abuse by George Bell, the former Bishop of Chichester.
In response to the claim independent legal and medical reports were commissioned and duly considered. The evidence available was interrogated and evaluated. This led to a decision to settle the claim and to offer a formal apology to the survivor. This decision was taken on the balance of probabilities – the legal test applicable in civil claims.
The church therefore, having evaluated the evidence before them, accepted the veracity of the claims before them.”

It will be fascinating to learn the nature of the independent legal and medical reports mentioned, and the reasons why “the evidence available” was so limited – perhaps because it was not looked for?

Also keenly anticipated is the detail of what measures the Church undertook to test the assertions of the claimant, as any half decent employer would on behalf of an employee unable to defend himself.

Featured post

November 18 2017 – ‘Bishop Bell’ Letter by Ruth Hildebrandt Grayson – Church Times – Nov 17 2017

IMG_0167

From Dr Ruth Hildebrandt Grayson

Sir, – I was appalled to read the Revd Tom Brazier’s assertion that we “do no further harm” to anyone, if we happen to ruin the reputation of a deceased person against whom allegations of abuse have been made by apologising to the complainant (Letters, 10 November).

I am the daughter of one of the late Bishop Bell’s closest friends. I have been privileged to work over the last two years with many people who are seeking justice for George Bell: as relatives, friends, biographer, clergy, lawyers, journalists, and other supporters.

We have been deeply dismayed by the possibility of a miscarriage of justice in this case, and I am sure none of us would endorse the statement that “no further harm” has been done to the reputation and legacy of one of the country’s greatest Bishops.

I would suggest that Mr Brazier visit Chichester and find out for himself just how much harm has been done.

While we await the publication of the Carlile report on the procedures followed in this instance, the House of Bishops has produced two policy statements in 2017 which are relevant to it.

One [policy] notes that when investigating a complaint against an accused church officer, “a legal presumption of innocence will be maintained during the statutory and Church enquiry processes.” As the Revd Clifford Hall pointed out (Letters, 3 November), this did not happen in the case of the late Bishop Bell, who was presumed guilty on the basis of a single unchallenged accusation, without the production even a shred of hard evidence against him; and it may indicate that correct procedures – as required by the law of the land – were not followed here.

The other policy was published on 13 October, immediately after the Church’s receipt of Lord Carlile’s report. It states that those receiving safeguarding allegations against a church officer must “ensure that [the complainants] feel heard and taken seriously”.

This is not the same as saying that only their account of the matter should be considered. Indeed, it may well mean that it is not appropriate to apologise to a complainant without a complete and impartial investigation of both sides of the case, even when the accused is dead. The defendant may no longer be able to speak for himself, but other sources are often available.

Many of us are concerned that there appears to be a delay in publishing Lord Carlile’s findings in the George Bell case. I trust that the church authorities will see fit to release the report in its entirety soon.

Otherwise, rumours about the rights and wrongs of the case will continue to circulate that can only further damage the Church’s reputation over the handling of this matter.

To support a potential miscarriage of justice in this or any other case, on the grounds that the accused is already “entrusted to the Father”, beggars belief.

R.H. GRAYSON

Sheffield

 

UNEDITED VERSION

Sir,

I was appalled to read the Revd Tom Brazier’s assertion that we ‘do no further harm’ to anyone if we happen to ruin the reputation of a deceased person against whom allegations of abuse have been made by apologising to the complainant (Letters, Church Times, 10 November 2017). His comment was made in response to the Revd Clifford Hall’s question of the previous week regarding apologies made by senior clergy in the case of another deceased bishop: ‘Have they learned nothing from Bishop Bell’s case?  When will the persecution of those conclusively presumed innocent until the contrary is proven cease?’ (Letters, Church Times, 3 November 2017)

For the Revd Brazier’s information, I am the daughter of one of the late Bishop Bell’s closest friends.  I have been privileged to work over the past two years with many people who are seeking justice for George Bell: as relatives, friends, biographer, clergy, lawyers, journalists, and other supporters.  We have been deeply dismayed by the possibility of a miscarriage of justice in this case; and I am sure none of us would endorse the statement that ‘no further harm’ has been done to the reputation and legacy of one of the country’s greatest bishops.  I would suggest that Revd Brazier visit Chichester and find out for himself just how much harm has been done.

While we await the publication of the Carlile report into the procedures followed in this instance, the House of Bishops has produced two policy statements in 2017 that are relevant to it.  One notes that when investigating a complaint against an accused Church officer, ‘a legal presumption of innocence will be maintained during the statutory and Church enquiry processes’.  As Revd Hall points out, this did not happen in the case of the late Bishop Bell, who was presumed guilty on the basis of a single unchallenged accusation without a shred of hard evidence ever being produced against him; and it may indicate that correct procedures – as required by the law of the land – were not followed here. It is unbelievable that a member of the clergy could publicly advocate ignoring such a fundamental precept of English law.  Moreover, it is simply not correct to claim that because an alleged perpetrator is dead, the truth may never be discovered.

The other policy was published on 13 October 2017, immediately after the Church’s receipt of Lord Carlile’s report.  It states that those receiving safeguarding allegations against a church officer must ‘ensure that [the complainants] feel heard and taken seriously’.  This is not the same as saying that only their account of the matter should be considered.  Indeed, it may well mean that it is not appropriate to apologise to a complainant without a complete and impartial investigation of both sides of the case, even when the accused is dead.  The defendant may no longer be able to speak for himself, but other sources – including family members and other witnesses – are often available.

Many of us are concerned that there appears to be some delay in publishing Lord Carlile’s findings in the George Bell case.  I trust that the Church authorities will see fit to release the report in its entirety in the very near future.  Otherwise, rumours as to the rights and wrongs of the case will continue to circulate that can only further damage the Church’s reputation over its handling of this matter.  To support a potential miscarriage of justice in this or any other case on the grounds that the accused is already ‘entrusted to the Father’ beggars belief.

Dr Ruth Hildebrandt Grayson

November 13 2017 – Resignation of Lorna Ashworth who “has represented the diocese of Chichester on the Synod for 12 years, and was elected to the Archbishops’ Council last year”

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2017/17-november/news/uk/lorna-ashworth-resigns-from-general-synod-over-revisionism

Lorna Ashworth resigns from General Synod over ‘revisionism’

10 NOVEMBER 2017

REFORM

A CONSERVATIVE Evangelical, Lorna Ashworth, resigned from the Archbishops’ Council and the General Synod on Thursday in a letter that condemned “an agenda of revisionism . . . masked in the language of so-called ‘good disagreement’”.

Mrs Ashworth, a member of Reform and the GAFCON UK Task Force, called in July for an alternative Anglican structure in Britain, similar to the Anglican Church in North America (News, 28 July).

In her resignation letter, published on Friday, she described “an ongoing and rapid erosion of faithfulness” at the General Synod. “Instead, an agenda of revisionism is masked in the language of so-called ‘good disagreement’. In fact, ‘good disagreement’ and ‘unity’ have trumped the saving gospel message of Jesus Christ.”

The letter continues: “In light of this revisionist agenda and the heretical teaching that comes with it, I am no longer willing to sit around the table, pretending that we, as a governing body of the Church of England, are having legitimate conversations about mission.

”I refuse to be mistaken as one participating in the fanciful notion of ‘good disagreement’. As such, I am standing down from the Archbishops’ Council with immediate effect and all subsequent bodies, including the General Synod.”

The Archbishop of York, Dr Sentamu, said that he was “sad” that she had decided to resign.

“Her prayerfulness, magnanimity, and her grasp of all matters in hand has been a great asset to us all,” he said. “Those who elected her were of the view that she had much to give to the working of the Council, especially in the area of Renewal and Reform.

“However, I do not share her doubts that the Church of England will be part of God’s renewal of the Christian faith in this nation. I am convinced that the Church of England remains faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ and will move forward rooted in the Christian faith as we have received it.

“I share Lorna’s passion to make disciples in all nations and her conviction that God will continue to build his Church in this nation. I certainly will miss her in our partnership in the gospel.”

Speaking in the Synod in July, Mrs Ashworth expressed concern that it had become “unable to articulate the saving message of Jesus Christ” (News, 14 July). She warned: “Until we have a House of Bishops full of shepherds who stand only for the truth . . . our work can only offer confusion and plurality to a lost and dying world.” She praised the “foresight” of GAFCON in appointing Canon Andy Lines as a missionary bishop (News, 4 July, 2017).

Later that month, she was among the signatories to a letter to The Daily Telegraph in July, requesting an alternative Anglican structure in Britain (News, 28 July). Noting the creation of the Anglican Church in North America, the letter sought “a similar renewal of orthodox Anglicanism and of Anglican structures in these islands”. Meetings to this end were under way.

She was among those listed one year ago as members of the GAFCON UK Task Force (News, 25 November).

Mrs Ashworth has represented the diocese of Chichester on the Synod for 12 years, and was elected to the Archbishops’ Council last year.

The Bishop of Maidstone, the Rt Revd Rod Thomas, also expressed sadness at her decision to resign, made “because she does not want to be drawn into compromise with those who seek to revise the plain teaching of Scripture. I pay tribute to her sincerity and courage.”

October 15 2017 – “‘Presumption of innocence’ – innocent until proven guilty – is a high standard of justice. ‘On the balance of probabilities’ – guessing – is a low standard of justice. Bishop Bell was judged by those with a low standard of justice. This led to a miscarriage of justice. Restoration of justice is therefore required by those with a high standard of justice” ~ Richard W. Symonds – The Bell Society

1 (1)

“Presumption of innocence” – innocent until proven guilty – is a high standard of justice. “On the balance of probabilities” – guessing – is a low standard of justice. Bishop Bell was judged by those with a low standard of justice. This led to a miscarriage of justice. Restoration of justice is therefore required by those with a high standard of justice” ~ Richard W. Symonds – The Bell Society

https://www.disabilitylaw.ca/disability-lawyer-calgary/proof-on-balance-of-probabilities

What does proof on a balance of probabilities mean?

The civil standard of proof is proof on a balance of probabilities. The criminal standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This article deals with civil standards of proof. Saying something is proven on a balance of probabilities means that it is more likely than not to have occurred. It means that it is probable, i.e., the probability that some event happens is more than 50%. So mathematically proof on a balance of probabilities is 50.1% likelihood of something having occurred.
A lawyer I once knew explained it this way. You see the scales of justice. They are evenly balanced. Both sides are the same height. But if one side has the weight of a feather added to it, causing it to go down and the other side to go up. Now that side with the weight of a feather has won. Proof greater than that is not required. Simply a balancing of both sides seeing which side has the stronger proof.
Quotes from cases where judges have commented on the civil standard of proof follow:
McIver v. Power, [1998] P.E.I.J. No. 4, Prince Edward Island Supreme Court – Trial Division, MacDonald C.J.T.D.,
5 In any civil case the plaintiff must prove their case on a balance of probabilities if they are to succeed. This means that the plaintiff must prove that his facts tip the scale in his favor even if it is only a 51% probability that he is correct.
F.H. v. McDougall, [2008] S.C.J. No. 54:
44 Put another way, it would seem incongruous for a judge to conclude that it was more likely than not that
an event occurred, but not sufficiently likely to some unspecified standard and therefore that it did not occur.
As Lord Hoffman explained in In re B at para. 2:
If a legal rule requires a fact to be proved (a “fact in issue”), a judge or jury must
decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for a finding that it might have
happened. The law operates a binary system in which the only values are zero and one.
The fact either happened or it did not. If the tribunal is left in doubt, the doubt is resolved
by a rule that one party or the other carries the burden of proof. If the party who bears
the burden of proof fails to discharge it, a value of zero is returned and the fact is treated
as not having happened. If he does discharge it, a value of one is returned and the fact
is treated as having happened.
In my view, the only practical way in which to reach a factual conclusion in a civil case is to decide whether it
is more likely than not that the event occurred.
[49] In the result, I would reaffirm that in civil cases there is only one standard of proof and that is proof on a balance of probabilities.
Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311 is a medical malpractice case and the issue was whether the plaintiff required a firm medical opinion to establish a causal link between her surgical outcome and the defendant doctor’s actions. Sopinka J., speaking for the Supreme Court of Canada, commented on the difference between medical certainty and legal certainty. He commented that “near certainty” is the medical standard of causation while the legal standard requires only a 51% probability. He concluded that a firm medical opinion is not required to establish causation in law. Rather, causation is a question to be determined by weighing all of the evidence in order to determine whether a causal link has been established on a balance of probabilities.
Veerasingam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 241 — Federal Court of Canada
. . .paras 29 that the term “balance of probabilities” was equivalent to “more likely than not”, but with two distinct steps involved as to the burden of proof and legal test. […] to be persuasive evidence of that risk “on a balance of probabilities” or to show that it was “more likely than not.” The Board uses this terminology throughout its decision. […] As demonstrated, the Board was mindful of its role in considering the evidence of “risk” to the Applicant on a balance of probabilities. . .
Roseanne Conley v. Keel Construction, 2005 NBQB 263
[2] On the question of liability the onus of proof must be met by the claimant, Mrs. Conley and the standard of proof is that of a balance of probabilities, i.e. is it more likely than not that the incident occurred in the manner she alleges.
Bhullar v. I.C.B.C., 2009 BCPC 44
But the burden of proof here is not like a criminal charge, beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities, more likely than not. . . While I have an expert opinion, which I accept, that this car was either driven with a key or towed, for the reasons I have already gone into, I do not find this vehicle was towed, which means the likelihood is, more likely than not, balance of probabilities proven the vehicle was driven with a key. The only people that had keys were the claimants. Nobody else. If that is true, which seems to be true on the facts, then again more likely than not, Mr. Bhullar was involved in the theft and burning of the vehicle.
Mitcham v. Canada, 2003 FCA 340 Federal Court of Appeal
. . . While Mr. Mitcham is now diagnosed as having fibromyalgia symptoms, the Board, weighing the evidence on a balance probabilities, held that he was more likely than not capable of regularly . . .
R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103 — 1986-02-28 Supreme Court of Canada
. . . in such a case and it is sufficient if the court considers that upon the evidence before it it is more likely than not that the fact does not exist. . . . The test is the same as that applied in civil proceedings: the balance of probabilities. . .
Canada (Minister of National Revenue) c. Fabrication GMCA Inc., 2002 FCT 1260 Federal Court of Canada
. . . (3) The evidence must show, on a balance of probability, that it is more likely than not that collection would be jeopardized by delay. . . Lamer J. for her to conclude that on a balance of probabilities it was more likely than not that giving the respondent further time could compromise the collection in question. . .
R. v. Turner, 2004 BCSC 1778, Supreme Court of British Columbia
. . . [14] The standard of proof in civil trials is proof on a balance of probabilities; namely, proof that something is probable or more likely than not. . . . . In criminal trials, such as this trial, the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is higher than the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities. . .
So you can see the test of proof in a civil case is whether it is more likely than not, that something occurred. No more, no less.


Author:
Allan Bayda

“Church Protected Paedophile Bishop” – The Argus – Front Page – June 23 2017

IMG_8551.JPG

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/15366174.Church_helped_to_cover_up_sexual_abuse/

Church helped to cover up sexual abuse

THE Church of England “colluded” with and helped to hide the long-term sexual abuse of young men by one its bishops rather than help his victims, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said.

The Most Rev Justin Welby’s statement came as the Church published Abuse Of Faith, an independent review of how it handled the case of Peter Ball, the former Bishop of Lewes who was jailed for 32 months at the Old Bailey in 2015 after pleading guilty to a string of historical offences, including two counts of indecent assault.

The review, chaired by Dame Moira Gibb, found that “Ball’s conduct has caused serious and enduring damage to the lives of many men”.

It stated: “Peter Ball betrayed his Church and abused individual followers of that Church.

“The Church at its most senior levels and over many years supported him unwisely and displayed little care for his victims.

“Much of what we have described took place in different times and should be viewed from that perspective.

“But such perverse and sustained abuse by a senior figure in the Church and the Church’s failure to safeguard so many boys and young men still casts a long shadow.”

During his time as bishop, Ball hand-picked 18 vulnerable victims to commit acts of “debasement” in the name of religion, such as praying naked at the altar and encouraging them to submit to beatings, his trial heard.

The Archbishop described the report as “harrowing reading”, adding: “The Church colluded and concealed rather than seeking to help those who were brave enough to come forward.

“This is inexcusable and shocking behaviour and, although Dame Moira notes that most of the events took place many years ago, and does not think that the Church now would conduct itself in the ways described, we can never be complacent; we must learn lessons.”

He restated his “unreserved apology” to the victims who had been brave enough to come forward, adding: “There are no excuses whatsoever for what took place and the systematic abuse of trust perpetrated by Peter Ball over the decades.”

There is criticism in the review of Lord Carey, who was the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time, and other senior figures in the Church, saying the Church was “most interested in protecting itself”.

The review states that Lambeth Palace’s actions, especially in failing to pass on six letters of allegations to the police, while giving them one which was of “least concern”… “must give rise to a perception of deliberate concealment”.

The review points out that the Church’s management of those seven letters, containing allegations against Ball, was perhaps “its greatest failure in these events”.

The NSPCC spoke of its disgust at the findings.

A spokesperson said: “It is utterly disgraceful to discover that collusion at the heart of the Church of England led to the abuse of so many young men and boys. Abuse can happen in any institution or walk of life and we must ensure it can never be covered up by the powerful. Abuse in our most revered institutions must be exposed and investigated, offenders brought to justice, and victims given confidence to come forward.”

ARCHBISHOP CALLS ON LORD CAREY TO STAND DOWN FOLLOWING RELEASE OF DAMNING REPORT

THE archbishop of Canterbury has asked his predecessor George Carey to step down as an honorary assistant bishop.

Lord Carey was singled out for criticism in yesterday’s report, with it stating he was more concerned with protecting the church rather than the victims.

In particular, it refers to Lambeth Palace’s failure to pass on six letters of allegations to the police.

Instead it forwarded one letter which was described as being of “least concern”.

The report stated this “must give rise to a perception of deliberate concealment”. It added that management of the seven letters was perhaps the church’s “greatest failure”.

It stated: “The letters came from a range of families and individuals quite independently of each other. They raised concerns which were all either indirectly or precisely suggestive of sexual impropriety, or worse, by Ball.

“These were not people who were at war with the Church or had any axe to grind. In fact, some of the correspondents go to great lengths to try to avoid rancour and find a constructive way forward.”

The report found that Lord Carey was significantly involved in the way the Church treated victim Neil Todd in 1992/1993. Despite years of abuse in Sussex, Ball was able to leave the diocese in 1992 to take up his post as Bishop of Gloucester.

A year later, the then 16-year-old trainee monk Neil Todd prompted a police investigation which led to Ball’s resignation from the clergy. Ball escaped with a police caution in 1993 for an act of gross indecency against Mr Todd who took his own life in 2012.

Lord Carey described the paedophile bishop as “basically innocent” and said he had a “very high” regard for him in a September 1993 letter to Ball’s brother Michael.

The review, which said Lord Carey had played a leading role in enabling Ball to return to ministry, described this comment as “alarming”. It added: “Ball was basically guilty and had admitted that. Lord Carey was also aware that the Church had received further allegations of potentially criminal actions by Ball.”

Current Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, said the review made for harrowing reading.

Steven Croft, the bishop of Oxford, said Mr Welby had written to Lord Carey asking him to “carefully consider his position”. Mr Croft and Lord Carey will meet “in the coming days for that conversation. In the meantime he has voluntarily agreed to step back from public ministry”.

FURTHER INFORMATION
The Guardian

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑