A DEFINITION of the skilled remit of diocesan safeguarding has been set out in an employment-tribunal ruling that criticises an assistant curate for attempting to impose tasks that fell outside it on a diocesan safeguarding adviser (DSA).
The Revd David Green, a former assistant curate within the diocese of Lichfield, insisted on labelling a “personal grievance” as a safeguarding matter, the tribunal ruled, leaving the DSA with what the latter described as an “unusual and really time-consuming addition” to his workload. He eventually warned Mr Green that he would telephone the police if he was not left alone.
The ruling follows publication last 12 months of the report The Future of Church Safeguarding, through which Professor Alexis Jay criticised the usage of safeguarding to “address matters of conduct which had nothing to do with risks to children or vulnerable adults” and warned of a “wasteful use of resources when safeguarding professionals regularly reported that they’ve unmanageable workloads”.
Her suggestion that definitions of kid and vulnerable-adult safeguarding needs to be “standardised and will comply with the statutory definitions” has not been taken up. An “independent skilled review” of the tribunal findings by Michelle Burns, a former DSA within the diocese of London, was commissioned by Mr Green. It refers back to the “intentionally broad” safeguarding framework of the C of E and states that any “limiting safeguarding to statutory thresholds misrepresents the DSA’s responsibilities and undermines recognised categories of adult safeguarding inside church contexts”.
Mr Green was ordained deacon in 2019 and served his title within the Longnor Benefice. In October 2022, the Bishop of Lichfield, Dr Michael Ipgrave, decided that Mr Green wouldn’t be ordained priest within the diocese.
In 2022, Mr Green brought complaints against the diocesan board of finance of protected-disclosure detriment (whistle-blowing) and disability discrimination based on a perception that he was autistic. In the findings, published last week, all were dismissed.
In 2023, an employment judge had ruled that, while Mr Green was not an worker, his complaints could proceed on the idea that, as he was a stipendiary assistant curate in training, he was a “employee” (News, 18 August 2023).
Events that took place at Ripon College, Cuddesdon, where Mr Green trained for ministry, and related events that occurred during his curacy were an “all-pervasive backdrop” to the case, the tribunal decision says. During his training, a female student (Person B) became “unhappy with the character and level of attention she was receiving” from Mr Green.
Mr Green had a special understanding of events. He alleged that other students were ostracising and bullying him, the ruling says.
In 2019, Mr Green was invited to attend the ordination of a friend, a service at which Person B was also being ordained. This prompted the primary instance of Mr Green’s extensive correspondence with Neil Spiring, the Lichfield DSA. through which he sought Mr Spiring’s advice about attending the service. He also sought advice after reporting that one other former Cuddesdon student had “verbally accosted” him on the service.
The tribunal decision states: “What David Green expected of Neil Spiring was not consistent along with his job description and it was laudable that Neil Spiring spent a lot time supporting David Green in connection to those matters once they fell outwith the scope of his job role.”
At no time did Mr Green present a “real safeguarding concern that fell inside Neil Spiring’s remit to analyze”, it says. “What he wanted was for somebody to act as his personal grievance investigator, to clear his name and popularity in regard to what he asserted were false or malicious allegations made by former Cuddesdon students.”
Mr Green, who represented himself on the tribunal, pursued 20 separate allegations of whistle-blowing detriment.
While the tribunal found that six met the statutory definition of a protected disclosure, it decided that, although Mr Green experienced detriment — the respondents’ decision to not ordain him — this was “on account of his failure to fulfill the essential criteria set by the Church of England”. It continued: “This failure was of his own making and despite the numerous investment made in him by the Respondents.”
Some of the disclosures he made were “selfish” or “self-serving” somewhat than in the general public interest, it concluded. The tribunal also rejected Mr Green’s claim that he had been discriminated against due to the (inaccurate) perception that he was disabled by reason of autism.
The decision defends the actions of Mr Spiring. But the tribunal also concluded that it was “comprehensible” that Mr Green felt “aggrieved” that the 2 professionals — a psychologist and psychiatrist — chosen by the diocese to conduct an assessment for possible neurodiversity weren’t qualified to supply occupational health assessments. It found that Mr Spiring did “retrospectively amend or otherwise manufacture” documents provided to the diocese — something that he denied. But, it states, “this reprehensible behaviour didn’t alter the Tribunal’s findings.”
This week, Mr Green said that he was “entirely unaware” of the character of allegations concerning his behaviour while he was at theological college, and “largely unaware” of the character of later allegations about him, before detailed disclosure for the employment tribunal took place in 2024. He emphasised that he had never been subject to a disciplinary investigation in any organisation and had never been contacted by the police concerning his behaviour.
He stays in several voluntary and paid positions that involve work with vulnerable adults and required references from the diocese of Lichfield. Mr Green has made an application for reconsideration and can be considering an appeal.
The case is the primary to recognise that a member of the clergy held “employee” status for the aim of a whistle-blowing detriment claim.
Read more on the story in our leader comment
