Letter to Michael Devlin, Chair of Salford Safeguarding Commission 11 August 2009 and his reply 18 August 2009

18 Dean Head

Todmorden Road

Littleborough

OL15 9LZ

11 August 2009

Dear Mr Devlin,

Re. Thomas Doherty – priest and tenant of the Diocese of Salford, sentenced to 6 years imprisonment in February 1998 for five offences of indecency against a boy under-16.

I refer to your letter dated 22 July 2009.

I note that you have finally confirmed that Doherty retains his canonical status as a priest and has not been laicised, despite having been convicted of a criminal offence against children and being sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.

I also note your attempt to close “correspondence on this matter”. I write to say that I cannot consider the matter closed for several reasons:

1. Regarding the recommendations of the Nolan Report, you advise me to “read the relevant sections of the report again.” I have, now, done so and note many grounds for questioning the stance taken in your letter of 22 July 2009.

· In paragraph 2.10.19 Lord Nolan states that “in our recommendation we were concerned to make plain that there is a level of seriousness, as demonstrated by the criminal courts, at which we would expect the process of laicisation always to be begun. We did not mean to imply by this, however, that laicisation was never appropriate for a lesser sentence. For example, an abuser may have a number of shorter sentences or cautions and laicisation may be appropriate in such cases. The judgement about initiating laicisation must turn on the facts of particular cases.” (Emphases added)

· In paragraph 2.10.20, Lord Nolan states that in view of the fact “that laicisation (except by consent) is the decision of a tribunal at the end of a legal process … what we recommend is that the process should be initiated”. (Emphases added)

· Recommendation 78 states that “If a bishop, priest or deacon is convicted of a criminal offence against children and is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, then it would normally be right to initiate the process of laicisation. Failure to do so would need to be justified. Initiation of the process of laicisation may also be appropriate in other circumstances.” (Emphases added)

Thus, while, you are correct in saying that “The report does not and indeed cannot make laicisation of a priest mandatory”, you cannot ignore the fact that the recommendations to which our Bishop declared that he was fully committed in November 2001 clearly require that decisions not to follow the course of action normally recommended “need to be justified”. Thus, the very least that I would expect from the Commission is that you ensure that the decision not to initiate the process of laicisation is, in fact, justified in the case of Doherty. This could be done, for example, in a letter to be read out in churches at Mass, as is suggested in Recommendation 77 for cases where a bishop or religious superior decides not to follow the “general rule” regarding clergy and lay workers cautioned or convicted of an offence against children.

• Despite your assertion that neither “the issue of laicisation of Father Doherty” nor financial arrangements between him and the diocese are “matters over which the Salford Diocesan Safe Guarding Commission has any authority or responsibility”, recommendation 51 is extremely clear in stating that the tasks of the Child Protection Management Team “include advising and supporting the CPC, assisting with decision making, hearing what action has been taken in response to disclosures or suspicions, ensuring that the statutory agencies are involved with appropriate speed, receiving information on steps taken to remove paid or lay workers, or a priest, from post while enquiries are made, and satisfying themselves that arrangements are made to safeguard the interests of children.” (Emphasis added) I would suggest that matters such as the accommodation arrangements for and the canonical status of convicted perpetrators of child sexual abuse fall well within “arrangements made to safeguard the interests of children” in our Diocese and are, thus, matters about which the Commission as the successor organisation to the CPMT should be “satisfying themselves”. Equally, I would suggest that the need to justify the decision not to take the normal course of action recommended by Nolan in relation to individuals such as Doherty is also a key part of any such arrangements. Will the Commission be satisfying itself that such action is finally taken?

2. You make several assertions in your letter about the supposed role of “the Child Protection Adviser at the time”. I have, consequently, shown your letter to my wife, Patricia Gilligan, who was “the Child Protection Adviser at the time”. She advises me that you have significantly misrepresented her role and opinions in relation to Doherty. In view of this, and in the absence of supporting evidence for most of them, it is impossible for me to know which of your assertions are accurate. Do you still insist, for example, that “The members of the Commission, the Child Protection Co-ordinator and the Child Protection Adviser in post at the time were all part of a group which very carefully discussed and analysed the arrangements which had been made in respect of Father Doherty at the time of his release from prison.”?
3. There appears to be a clear contradiction between the use of the clerical title “Father” in your letter and the statement made by Father O’Sullivan (as reported to me by the home news editor of The Tablet, Isabel de Bertodano in January 2009), that Doherty is “banned ... from using his clerical title”. Can you please clarify the arrangement as regards use of the term ‘Father’ by and in relation to Doherty?

Yours sincerely,

Philip Gilligan

Copies to:

Uschi Műller, Safeguarding Adviser, Salford Diocese Safeguarding Commission, Cathedral House, 250 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 5LL.

Jane Little, Safeguarding Vulnerable Persons Unit, Greater Manchester Police HQ, Chester House, Boyer Street, Stretford, M60 ORE.

Dr Maria Cunningham, Brunswick Health Centre, Hartfield Close, Manchester, M13 9TP.

Kathy Batt, Director, CCRS, 390 Parrs Wood Road, Didsbury, Manchester, M20 5 NA.

Marie Corran, Strategy and Performance Manager, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, Stopford House, Piccadilly, Stockport, SK1 3XE.

Patricia Gilligan, 18 Dean Head, Littleborough, OL15 9LZ.