IN THE MATTER OF THE LATE BISHOP GEORGE BELL, AND IN THE MATTER OF AN INVESTIGATION BEFORE THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL TIMOTHY BRIDEN, COMMISSARY OF THE BISHOP OF (CHICHESTER REPORTIN THE MATTER OF THE LATE BISHOP GEORGE BELL AND IN THE MATTER OF AN INVESTIGATION BEFORE THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL TIMOTHY BRIDEN, COMMISSARY OF THE BISHOP OF CHICHESTER REPORT A Introduction |. On July 30 2018 the Right Reverend Martin Wamer, Bishop of Chichester appointed me to act as his commissary for the purpose of inquiring into certain allegations of misconduct made against Bishop George Bell, who was bishop ‘of that diocese from 1929 unit 1958. A copy ofthe instrument of appointment and its accompanying terms of reference appear as Appenlix Ito this report. 2, Theallegtions in question had been reported othe Sussex police fllowing the publication on December 15" 2017 of the Independent Review by Lord Carlile ‘of Berrie CBE, QC (‘the Carlile Review") Lord Cate was concemed with ‘the process adopted inthe evalaton ofa previous complaint against Bishop Bell made by a woman given the pseudonym of “Cara”. In April 2018 the Sussex police issued a statement indicating that the had closed thei inqiies ino the eshallepations. The stement included the folowing passage: “The information was assessed and a proportionate investigation has been ‘carried out to clarify the circumstances... Of course further police Imestigtion or ation isnot possible as Bishop Bell ied 60 years ago.” Further detils ofthe police investigation have not been eased. 3. Given he inconclusive character af the police inquiry it ws appropriate forthe Church of Eagland to conduct its own investigation, In accordance wi paragraph 49 ofthe Calle Review, the civil standard of roof, namcly onthe balance of probabilities, hasbeen adopted. The burden of roving an allegation to that standard rests on the person mskng it follows rom the adoption of the civil standard of proof that the eules of evidence apt (a least in general tems) the principles of procedure applied in the civil courts shoul aso be followed. A distinctive festre, however, is the involvement ofthe Core Group convened under Seton 1.6 of Practice Guidance: Responding 1, assessing and managing safeguarding concerns or allegation agains! church ofcers (2017) forthe purpose ofthe oversight and management ofthe response othe gations. Ithas been appropiate to treat the Core Group, chaired by Mr.Graham Tilby (National Safeguarding Adviser to the Church of England) as an interested party. The particular function ofthe Core Group has been to make representations in relation to any safeguarding factors or concerns which arise as part ofthe investigation. This role is distinct from that ofthe decision maker, inthis instance myseas the bishop's commissary. 4, For the purpose of conducting this investigation there have been two hearings before me. They took place on July 30® and October 25 2018. Although formally listed as hearings for directions, in practice exploration ofthe evidence and the relevant isues was on each occasion more extensive. On the second hearing the parties were specifically invited to make oral submissions about certain matters. The complainant known as “Alison” (not her real name) was represented throughout by Mr, William Chapman of counsel instructed by ‘Switlskis Solicitors, while the surviving members of Bishop Bell's family were represented by Mr. Desmond Browne QC and Mr. Adam Speke, acting pro bono. At the second hearing the Core Group also instructed counsel, Ms. ‘Samantha Cohen, At various tages, upto November 13 2018, counsel forthe parties provided me with written submissions. [am grateful tothe parties’ legal representatives for thei assistance, consistently given with dignity and restrain 5. Some ofthe evidence has been provided under terms of confidentiality, which this report seeks to respeet. Thus the names of Carol and Alison are used to identify the complainants eoncemed, while some ofthe witnesses are described by a random intial Ieter (such as “K" of “R") alone. Where witnesses have provided statements containing their names, no issve of confidentiality arses and the names appear in the repor. I have drawn no adverse inference ‘whatsoever from the choice ofa witness to withhold his or her name. 6. While my terms of reference ae broadly expressed, paragraph 15 precludes any reassessment of Carl's allegations or the decision-making process associated with them. The exclusion of Carol's complain from the curent inquiry is further considered at paragraph 23 below. 'B. Evidence: General Considerations 7. The Core Group commissioned Me. Ray Galloway, a former police office with onsidcrable expeticuce i this ch, to iterview potculal witnesses wl prepatea report upon the evidence which he had assembled, In his por, dated September 1* 2018, Mr. Galloway was careful to provide factual analysis ‘hich did not encroach upon my task of evaluating the evidence. The partes were given the opportunity 1o object to my sccing any part of the report considered to be prejudicial to them; no such objection was made and I have therefore scen the report in its entirety. Appended to it are transcripts of Mr. Galloway's interviews with a total of 12 witnesses, along. with his correspondence with Mrs Schumann, who lives in the USA. The material