Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Retired bishop and friend of Prince Charles admits sex offences.

Victims of a former bishop who abused 18 boys and young men over 15 years yesterday accused the Church of a high-level ‘cover-up’.Peter Ball, 83, used religion as a ‘cloak’ to prey on youngsters who came to his home to explore their spirituality.He failed to get the case thrown out after claiming he accepted a caution for gross indecency in 1993 on the understanding that he would face no further action.Even his boss at the time – Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey – called prosecutors for an ‘assurance’ that the matter had ended.Prosecutors may have approved the caution to avoid publicity after ‘behind closed doors’ talks, judges were told. As a result no criminal charges were brought despite two other abuse complaints at the time and warnings that there was ‘sufficient admissible, substantial and reliable evidence’ for a trial.Last night one of his alleged victims said: ‘The Church and the Establishment has colluded in covering-up Bishop Ball’s offending at the highest level over very many years.’Ball – the former Bishop of Lewes and Gloucester and a friend of Prince Charles – was finally charged last year after police reopened his case following a Church of England review.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3226516/Ex-Church-England-Bishop-82-described-Prince-Charles-loyal-friend-admits-sexually-abusing-18-teenagers-young-men-thirty-year-period.html

Another high level child abuser protected from prosecution. Charles certainly can pick them.

Reply 1

gladders

Doesn't sound protected if he's been charged. And 'guilt by association' is a flimsy thing to attempt.

Reply 2

n09

Original post by gladders

Doesn't sound protected if he's been charged.

Did you bother to read it? He was protected when it mattered.

Ball was not charged when the allegations of abuse against him first emerged in 1993. Instead the police and senior figures in the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), then led by the late Barbara Mills, agreed to issue Ball with a caution.

This was done with the knowledge of the then archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey. Ball proceeded to resign as bishop and went to live in a property lent to him by his friend the Prince of Wales.

and still

On Tuesday, the Crown Prosecution Service allowed two charges of indecently assaulting two boys in their early teens to lie on file. The deal, hammered out in secret with CPS lawyers, means Ball will not face trial on perhaps the most serious alleged offences, which involved boys aged 13 and 15.

Bobbie Cheema QC, for the crown, told the Old Bailey in London there had been a great deal of communication between prosecutors and the defence, which had resulted in the pleas.

Cheema said as a result of the guilty pleas, the crown felt a trial on the remaining charges would not be in the public interest.

Original post by gladders

And 'guilt by association' is a flimsy thing to attempt.

Isn't it just.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 3

El Salvador

It did not say HRH The Prince of Wales was involved in the protection. It's probably more just The Right Reverend the form Archbishop of Canterbury's own doing.

Reply 4

Major Zero

Disgusting. The Rotherham grooming gang, another disgusting group of cockroaches, pale in comparison to the scale of grooming the Church has done over the years. Just sickening

Reply 5

n09

Original post by Little Toy Gun

It did not say HRH The Prince of Wales was involved in the protection.

No, just that he lent him a house once it was all over.

Original post by Little Toy Gun

It's probably more just The Right Reverend the form Archbishop of Canterbury's own doing.

Along with the police and CPS of course and maybe the retired judge appointed to lead the Government's major review of child sex abuse allegations?
Baroness Butler-Sloss hid claims of bishop's sex abuse

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 6

nulli tertius

Original post by n09

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3226516/Ex-Church-England-Bishop-82-described-Prince-Charles-loyal-friend-admits-sexually-abusing-18-teenagers-young-men-thirty-year-period.html

Another high level child abuser protected from prosecution. Charles certainly can pick them.

I haven't seen the reasons why the court allowed these charges to proceed.

I am very uncomfortable about the DPP going back on assurances solemnly given regardless of the circumstances in which those assurances were given. Just because it is now politically convenient to do so is not a good enough reason.

The Court made the correct decision not to allow the case to proceed against the Hyde Park bomber. However later there was the suggestion that the assurances given were being withdrawn for other IRA men.

Promises given by one government on behalf of the Crown bind future governments. That is a cornerstone of our constitution. You can't turn round and say "but not when it is the IRA" or "not when it is a kiddie fiddler" or "not when we don't like the look of your face".

This is how the Independent reported the story in 1993

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/bishop-quits-after-police-caution-for-indecency-1496511.html

I do not think anyone who read that article would have thought otherwise than that a deal had been done on the basis that in return for going quietly, he would accept a caution and he would not be prosecuted.

I do remember this occurring because I had heard Ball preach, very well, when I was at Oxford in the 1980s.

Reply 7

n09

Original post by nulli tertius

I am very uncomfortable about the DPP going back on assurances solemnly given regardless of the circumstances in which those assurances were given.

I believe they deny having given the assurances he claims to have had. Are you uncomfortable with the victims right to review?

Reply 8

nulli tertius

Original post by n09

I believe they deny having given the assurances he claims to have had.

That is what I haven't been able to find and read. I worry that semantic games are being played here about the nature of the assurances. Was the Indie journalist mistanen? Is the ex-archbishop gaga?

"Everyone" (which I put in brackets because obviously we are talking about a relatively small group of people) would have understood that he was being "let off" in return for going quietly.

Are you uncomfortable with the victims right to review?

Not in the slightest. That is now part of our system. Anyone who is now given any decision about prosecution should be aware that the decision is subject to review. The other point to make that any case dropped because of insufficient evidence is always subject to re-opening in the event of better evidence. What the Ball case is about is whether there was an assurance that the matter was closed.

Lots of offences are dealt with on the basis of perfectly proper "deals" of one kind or another. For example, guilty pleas in frauds are almost always dealt with on the basis of specimen charges. If they can't be relied upon by defendants, then no-one is going to plead guilty.

Closer to this, you may have a teacher or scoutmaster who has abused children for decades. Why should he plead guilty if he cannot get closure on his criminality? Make every one of the victims give evidence. Have your barrister try and tear them to shreds. Even if that doesn't get you off, it will make any other victims think twice about coming forward.