From the editor’s desk

Protect all the innocent

In response to the Nolan Report in 2001, the Catholic Church in England and Wales tightened its procedures for dealing with allegations of sexual abuse of children against priests. The aim was not only to rescue its reputation, which had been badly damaged by a series of appalling cases, but also to make the Church an example of childprotection best practice. It has undoubtedly come a long way towards that goal, but there is a growing unease among the clergy that the price they have had to pay may be too high. The procedures that the church authorities follow when faced with allegations of sex abuse are drastic and immediate in their impact on the accused, who may be innocent. Perhaps they have to be that stringent, but at the recent meeting of the National Conference of Priests the complaint was heard that the procedures often contravene the rules of natural justice and are not fully compatible with canon law. Accused priests quickly sense that the usual onus of proof has been reversed, and that they are guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent.

Some of the examples of thoroughly bad practice cited at the meeting by Fr Paul Bruxby, a canon lawyer, would make an English judge's hair stand on end. Natural justice requires that the accused priest should be given a fair opportunity to defend himself. Fairness means informing the accused of the allegation against him in time to prepare a defence, the right to challenge witnesses, the right to legal advice and representation and the avoidance of unintentional self-incrimination, always with a presumption of innocence.

All those rights automatically apply at the initial stage of an investigation when, under the Nolan procedures, allegations are passed to the police and local authority social services. The real problem comes when the secular authorities decide, for whatever reason, not to prosecute, when the rules say that the Church must still satisfy itself that the priest may safely be returned to active ministry.

It is at that point that the safeguards of natural justice seem to be swept aside and the case is treated as an administrative matter. And it is not hard to see how this happens. The Church's first responsibility is to avoid exposing children to risk. It is hard to reconcile that with the principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty. Indeed, good child-protection work sometimes involves giving heed to suspicion, hearsay, anecdote and rumour, and giving weight to a psychiatrist's subjective opinion.

This clash of priorities is common throughout child-protection work, in secular agencies as well as within the Church. So it will be familiar to members of the commission of experts set up by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor under Baroness Cumberlege to review the Church's response to Nolan five years on. Indeed, when she accepted the task, Lady Cumberlege referred to the need to be fair and just to those within the Church facing allegations, suggesting that she knows that this is an issue causing acute concern. For Catholic procedures to be best practice across the board, priests must be able to feel that they will be treated fairly. A wrongly accused priest who faces unjust penalties is as much a potential victim deserving protection as any vulnerable child.