A DEFINITION of the professional remit of diocesan safeguarding has been set out in an employment-tribunal ruling that criticises an assistant curate for trying to impose tasks that fell outside it on a diocesan safeguarding adviser (DSA).
The Revd David Green, a former assistant curate in 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 very 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 year of the report The Future of Church Safeguarding, in which Professor Alexis Jay criticised the use 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 frequently reported that they have unmanageable workloads”.
Her recommendation that definitions of child and vulnerable-adult safeguarding should be “standardised and should comply with the statutory definitions” has not been taken up. An “independent professional review” of the tribunal findings by Michelle Burns, a former DSA in the diocese of London, was commissioned by Mr Green. It refers 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 within church contexts”.
Mr Green was ordained deacon in 2019 and served his title in the Longnor Benefice. In October 2022, the Bishop of Lichfield, Dr Michael Ipgrave, decided that Mr Green would not be ordained priest in 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 employee, his complaints could proceed on the basis that, as he was a stipendiary assistant curate in training, he was a “worker” (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 nature and level of attention she was receiving” from Mr Green.
Mr Green had a different 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 first instance of Mr Green’s extensive correspondence with Neil Spiring, the Lichfield DSA. in which he sought Mr Spiring’s advice about attending the service. He also sought advice after reporting that another former Cuddesdon student had “verbally accosted” him at the service.
The tribunal decision states: “What David Green expected of Neil Spiring was not consistent with his job description and it was laudable that Neil Spiring spent so much time supporting David Green in connection to those matters when they fell outwith the scope of his job role.”
At no time did Mr Green present a “genuine safeguarding concern that fell within Neil Spiring’s remit to investigate”, it says. “What he wanted was for someone to act as his personal grievance investigator, to clear his name and reputation in regard to what he asserted were false or malicious allegations made by former Cuddesdon students.”
Mr Green, who represented himself at 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 not to ordain him — this was “due to his failure to meet the essential criteria set by the Church of England”. It continued: “This failure was of his own making and despite the significant investment made in him by the Respondents.”
Some of the disclosures he made were “selfish” or “self-serving” rather than in the public interest, it concluded. The tribunal also rejected Mr Green’s claim that he had been discriminated against because of 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 “understandable” that Mr Green felt “aggrieved” that the two professionals — a psychologist and psychiatrist — chosen by the diocese to conduct an assessment for possible neurodiversity were not qualified to provide 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 did not alter the Tribunal’s findings.”
This week, Mr Green said that he was “entirely unaware” of the nature of allegations concerning his behaviour while he was at theological college, and “largely unaware” of the nature 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 remains 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 is also considering an appeal.
The case is the first to recognise that a member of the clergy held “worker” status for the purpose of a whistle-blowing detriment claim.
