What makes someone a “safeguarding risk”?

This week the Church of England announced the next stage in their response to the Makin Report. Having completed their risk assessments to determine whether, “there is any immediate safeguarding risk in light of criticisms made of individuals…”, they will now move on to determining, “whether complaints under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 should be brought” against those named in the Report.

A panel of safeguarding experts and lawyers has been brought together to review Makin’s evidence in the light of “the relevant safeguarding policies and guidance which were in force at the time.” The panel intend to publish a short report which will include any notifications of intended proceedings, possibly before February’s General Synod.

The Panel will certainly face a number of issues, raised by Makin himself regarding “whether the findings of failures to report knowledge of abuse, as demonstrated throughout this report, constitute a disciplinary matter, or not,” and the need for clarity around the the responsibilities of clergy who are also victims of abuse. One example given was an “unresolved issue” about how to deal with a situation where there were “discrepancies in the Church officer’s account relating to his experience of abuse” (Smyth Review p212).

It is unclear whether they will have the authority to consider the wider questions raised by the lead safeguarding bishop Joanne Grenfell and national safeguarding director Alexander Kubeyinje, in response to the review into Mike Pilavachi and Soul Survivor,

Read here