Tag Archives: Lord Lexden

“Two members of the House of Lords should make a point of reading these inspiring letters: the Archbishop of Canterbury and the current Bishop of Chichester…” ~ Lord Lexden

More information:



January 25 2018 – Lords criticise Church’s handling of George Bell case, as Bishop of Peterborough calls for ‘a major review of anonymity'” – Daily Telegraph – Olivia Rudgard

Lords criticise Church’s handling of George Bell case as Bishop of Peterborough calls for ‘a major review of anonymity’

In a debate in the House of Lords on Monday peers called on the Government to "uphold the cardinal principle that an individual is innocent until proved guilty".  
Peers called on the Government to “uphold the cardinal principle that an individual is innocent until proved guilty”.   CREDIT: PA ARCHIVE 

Peers including the Bishop of Peterborough have called on the Government to protect the identity of people accused of a crime after their death.

One member of the House of Lords said Anglicans were “deeply ashamed” of the Church of England’s handling of the case of Bishop George Bell, who was accused of abusing a child several decades after his death in 1958.

A report published at the end of last year by Lord Carlile found that the highly-respected bishop’s reputation had been unnecessarily damagedby the Church when it publicly named him in an apology to the alleged victim in 2015.

In a debate in the House of Lords on Monday peers called on the Government to “uphold the cardinal principle that an individual is innocent until proved guilty”.

In cases until there is overwhelming evidence to suggest guilt, it seems reasonable for people’s reputations not to be damaged in this public wayRt Revd Donald Allister

Official historian of the Conservative Party Lord Lexden asked home office minister Baroness Williams whether the Government would “review the law governing the naming of deceased individuals against whom criminal allegations have been made”.

He called on the Government to review the law in order to to ensure the anonymity of dead suspects accused by “one uncorroborated alleged witness”.

Fellow peer Lord Cormack added that the case was “deeply shocking” and said “the reputation of a great man has been traduced, and many of us who are Anglicans are deeply ashamed ​of the way that the Anglican Church has behaved”.

The Bishop of Peterborough, the Rt Revd Donald Allister echoed the calls and added: “In all cases where the complainant has a right to be anonymous, there seems to be a case for the respondent also to be anonymous, and in cases until there is overwhelming evidence to suggest guilt, it seems reasonable for people’s reputations not to be damaged in this public way.”

However Baroness Williams said the Government “do not have plans to review the law”.

“Any decision to name an individual where that is considered to be in the public interest will necessarily be specific to the circumstances of an individual case,” she said.

Lord Lexden on Bishop Bell and Presumption of Innocence – House of Lords – November 16 2016



My Lords, much gratitude is due to the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Campbell-Savours, for introducing and seconding this amendment, drawing on their long experience of work and reflection in relation to a very important issue. I shall return briefly to a question that has come up naturally in the course of our discussion—the simple question of whether the presumption of innocence until proved guilty is still in practical, effective existence where allegations of sexual abuse are concerned. Last week’s Henriques report showed that during Operation Midland innocent people were treated as if they were guilty, even though there was no serious evidence against them. A recent detailed study by the Oxford University Centre for Criminology concluded that there has been a cultural shift towards believing allegations of abuse and the presumption is now in favour of believing those who present themselves as victims. The study documents in great detail the immense harm done to very large numbers of ordinary, innocent people who had unfounded allegations made against them. In any walk of life, a person whose name appears publicly in relation to a mere allegation of abuse can expect to suffer much hardship. This wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs extends from state to Church, from the living to the dead.

As I have mentioned on previous occasions in your Lordships’ House, grave damage has been inflicted on the reputation of one of the greatest 20th century bishops of the Church of England, George Bell, after a completely secret and internal investigation of a single, uncorroborated complaint, made many decades after his death. At least the injustice done as a result of Operation Midland has been the subject of a thorough authoritative inquiry. In June, the Church announced an independent review of the case involving Bishop Bell. Four and a half months later, we still await the name of the review’s chairman and his or her terms of reference. There is no right reverend Prelate in the Chamber at the moment but I hope that these comments will be noted by the Lords Spiritual.

The authorities of Church as well as state must recognise that we need not just to halt but to reverse the trend that has eroded the presumption of innocence. We need another cultural shift, a decisive, morally responsible one that will stop the ruin of innocent lives and reputations. This amendment, I believe, would help us to achieve that shift.

Lord Lexden on Bishop Bell – House of Lords – October 25 2016


House of Lords

Here is what Lord Lexden said in the House of Lords last Tuesday (Oct 25):

  • To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are planning to give anonymity to sex abuse suspects before they are charged.

  • My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, an amendment on this issue has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in Committee on the Policing and Crime Bill, which will be debated in early November. The Government’s position is that there should be a presumption of anonymity prior to charge for any sexual offence, but that there will be circumstances in which the public interest means that a suspect should be named.

  • In relation to allegations of sexual abuse, does my noble friend agree that many people are asking themselves and Members of both Houses of Parliament whether the presumption of innocence until proved guilty is still in existence? Is it not our duty to take action—either by instituting anonymity until the point of charge, as backed by the Director of Public Prosecutions last week, or by other effective means—to reduce the terrible toll of suffering caused by false and malicious allegations against innocent people in all walks of life? Finally, do the Government agree that the institutions of both state and Church need to show much greater concern for the reputations of eminent people from the past who cannot speak for themselves? I refer to statesmen such as Sir Edward Heath, traduced by Wiltshire Police without a shred of evidence, and the great bishop, George Bell, who died in 1958 and whose reputation has been severely damaged by today’s Church authorities as a result of a secret process—a kind of private trial, which was widely deplored in a debate in this House earlier this year.

  • I totally agree with my noble friend that the strength of our legal system is that people are innocent until proved guilty, and I hope that that always stays the case. I also completely sympathise with his point about the terrible suffering that people can go through when their names are made public but they are not in fact guilty of anything. I will not talk about individual cases but he mentioned people against whom the accusations were found to be groundless. It is important to say that there is a very fine and difficult balance to be struck. The voicing of victims’ concerns and the naming of people in the public interest to allow further evidence or further victims to come forward needs to be balanced with the right to privacy and protection of the person who is suspected.



    Anonymity for sex abuse suspects

    Wednesday, 26 October, 2016

    In a Lords debate on 30 June (see below), Alistair Lexden called for the introduction of measures to protect people suspected of sex abuse from harassment by the media and misconduct by the police which do grave damage to their reputations while they are under investigation without any charges having been laid against them.

    He returned to this very serious problem, which has caused appalling personal tragedies, through an oral question in the Lords on 25 October.

    He asked the government to give anonymity to sex abuse suspects before they are charged. Follow the link to read the exchanges which followed… Hansard

Lord Lexden’s Review of “George Bell, Bishop of Chichester” by Andrew Chandler – The House Magazine – 8 July 2016 – www.politicshome.com


Bishop George Bell and his wife Henrietta

In just under 200 ‘incisive, elegantly
written pages’, Andrew Chandler’s
biography of George Bell recounts the
remarkable life of a man of high ideals,
writes Lord Lexden

George Bell, Bishop of
By Andrew Chandler
Wm. B.Eerdmans
Publishing Co.

Until a few months ago the formidable
reputation of George Bell (1883-
1958), Bishop of Chichester for
nearly thirty years and runner-up for the
Archbishopric of Canterbury in 1944,
seemed totally secure. Within the Church
of England he had long been revered as
one of its greatest bishops, learned, devout
and inspiring. More widely he was famous
for his courageous stands in international

affairs. Before 1939 no one did more to
sustain and defend German Christian
leaders and Jews of all kinds in the face of
Nazi persecution.
During the Second World War he
led the protests against the bombing of
entire German cities which killed so many
blameless civilians. This brought him much
criticism to which Churchill contributed
richly, but no one questioned his deep
Christian integrity. “The Church”, he
said in 1943,” has still a special duty to be
a watchman for humanity, and to plead
the cause of the suffering, whether Jew or
On 22 October last year everything
changed. The Church of England’s media
centre issued a statement announcing that,
under an out of court settlement in a civil
case, compensation (later revealed to be
£15,000) had been paid to an unnamed
individual, subsequently given the
pseudonym “Carol”, who had claimed to
have suffered sexual abuse at Bishop Bell’s
hands in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
The current Bishop of Chichester,
Martin Warner, said “we face with shame a
story of abuse of a child”. Yet neither he, nor
anyone else among the Church authorities,
has divulged any information about the
nature of the alleged uncorroborated abuse,
where exactly it is supposed to have taken
place, the manner in which investigations
were conducted or the expertise possessed
by the anonymous individuals who
examined the undisclosed evidence and
apparently found it convincing.
George Bell was condemned in secret
by processes whose character is totally
unknown. Today’s Church leaders have
denied natural justice to one of the most
eminent of their predecessors.
They themselves were subsequently
made subject to the rigorous independent
scrutiny which they failed to apply In
Bishop Bell’s case. A detailed review of
the Church’s conduct was carried out by
a group of lawyers (two of them QCs),
academics, members of both Houses and

open-minded senior Church figures, chaired
by Frank Field. The group, of which I am
a member, published its conclusions on
March 20.
Our report [http://www.
georgebellgroup.org] exposes the
astonishing inadequacy of the procedures
through which the Church authorities
reached their verdict. In a letter to the
Archbishop of Canterbury accompanying
the report, we stressed that “the processes
and the evidence which have produced
such a public denigration of Bishop Bell
should now be the subject of a thorough
On June 28, just two days before a debate
on historical child sex abuse in the Lords
which I introduced, the Church announced
an independent review of the Bishop Bell
case. It seems clear that the review will be
extremely limited in scope. Speaking in
my debate, the Bishop of Chelmsford said
“it is a review of the process, which will
enable us to learn lessons for future cases”.
No indication has been given that the
substantial evidence assembled by the Bell
group will be taken into account. A review
that does not examine whether a miscarriage
of justice has taken place will not be a proper
review at all.
Unsurprisingly, the Church authorities
have never felt any need to consult today’s
leading authority on Bell’s life and times.
Over the last twenty years Dr Andrew
Chandler, a well-known Church historian,
has published a number of studies on
aspects of Bell’s career, for which he drew
on Bell’s voluminous papers and diaries in
the Lambeth Palace archives. He has now
produced a most timely new biography.

Chandler was putting the finishing
touches to this outstanding biography –
the first for nearly fifty years – when the
Church issued its shattering statement last
October. Nothing in the abundant records
that he had consulted prepared him for
the shock. He writes in a postlude to his
book: “For Bell the piety of a bishop was
not simply a state of mind. It was a craft
and a discipline, and one that he exercised
with a rigour that was, even in his own day,
Bell’s daily life was an open book. A
world famous figure, he travelled a great
deal in a glare of publicity to advance major
Christian causes. At home in Chichester,
Bell “worked alone in his study, but the
door was always open so that his secretary
could be in earshot”. His chaplain during
some of the years of alleged abuse( whom
the Church has not bothered to consult) is
adamant that “no child or young teenager
ever entered” the Palace at Chichester,
apart from the large numbers who came
together for an annual Christmas party
given by Bell and his wife.
It is perhaps as well that Chandler
did not know what was coming when he
drafted his account of Bell’s life. He was
able to concentrate entirely on the task of
explaining how Bell became “one of the
very few Church leaders of the twentieth
century to achieve a genuine significance
in international history”. He was a lifelong
ecumenist, striking up a close friendship
with Cardinal Hinsley of Westminster
(after a long conversation with him Bell
wrote “I felt a richer man, richer spiritually
as well as richer in wisdom.”)
A founding father of the World Council
of Churches, he was the clerical counterpart
of those idealistic statesmen from 1918
onwards who believed in the need for
institutions that would bind nations
together in the cause of peace.
In this work the German problem was
for him always the most acute. He sought
ways of overcoming it in association with
many peace-loving Germans including two
of Hitler’s leading Christian opponents,
Martin Niemoller and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
The last thing that Bonhoeffer did
before his execution in April 1945 was to
send a message to Bell: “Tell him that for
me this is the end, but also the beginning
– with him I believe in the principle of our
universal Christian brotherhood which
rises above all national hatreds.”
Chandler recounts the life of this
remarkable man of high ideals in just under
200 incisive, elegantly written pages. He is
careful not exaggerate the extent of Bell’s
influence. The bishop delivered many well
argued speeches in the House of Lords
during the twenty years he was a proud
member of it. Lord Woolton, the Tories’
most successful Party Chairman, remarked
that the House “held him in the greatest
respect, in complete disagreement”.
At the most famous trial in history, held
in public and relived each year in Holy Week,
Pontius Pilate declared, according to St
Luke’s Gospel, “I find no fault in this man”.
Why should the reputation of one of
Christ’s greatest twentieth-century servants
be destroyed without proper forensic
scrutiny of the single, uncorroborated
allegation laid against him?
Lord Lexden is a Conservative peer
and historian

This review first appeared on TotalPolitics.com
42 | THE HOUSE MAGAZINE | 8 July 2016 http://www.politicshome.com