The 2017 document “Key Roles and Responsibilities of Church Office Holders and Bodies Practice Guidance” affirms that it is a Bishop’s legal duty includes: “discharging his/her legal duties to have regard for safeguarding in the authorizations of ministers and the exercise of discipline. This would include…where satisfied, directing a priest or deacon who has authority to officiate in the diocese, to undergo a risk assessment”.

1. Given that the Investigator appointed and instructed by the lawyers to the Diocese and College and Cathedral jointly, recommended precisely that the Bishop should exercise that power under the 2016 Safeguarding (Clergy Discipline Measure) why did he fail to do so and resolutely fail to revisit that decision thereafter?
   
2. The Bishop of Oxford has stated that these ‘Risk Assessments’ on Dean Martyn Percy, appended to the CDM that he processed and referred in a matter of hours, were “not ‘Risk Assessments’, but rather ‘assessments of risk’, which is different”.  Can the Bishop explain this distinction?  Why did the Bishop treat these (appalling and unjustifiable) documents as bona fide?
    
3. Given that the Diocese had invited tendering, scrutinized the CVs of multiple professional persons for preparing Risk Assessments, and there are only ten approved individuals or organizations for conducting these (nationally approved by the Church of England National Safeguarding Team [NST]) why did the Bishop completely ignore this and prefer to entrust the task of undertaking the risk assessment of the premier priest in his Diocese to wholly unqualified persons working to no disclosed standards?  When challenged about the suitability of two Canons undertaking that work, why did he not explain to them the basis for approving them as substitutes for the officially approved?
   
4. The Bishop was aware of the fragility of the Dean’s health at that time, not least because the report of Kate Wood which he received specifically reported it as an observation by the complainant herself.  Did he consider that his departure from duly authorized procedures was foreseeably likely to occasion the Dean additional unnecessary anxiety that he was being denied due process by his Diocesan Bishop for no proper reason?
   
5. The Risk Assessments bore the official stamps of the Church of England which implied the conferring official of provenance on the work under the processes of the Church of England. It transpired that this was not such an official document and had been downloaded and modified from the internet. Did it ever occur to the Bishop that such prima facie improprieties might:
   • Foreseeably and reasonably alarm the Dean in his medically certified fragile state occasioning him further harm?
   • Cause him and his family additional and unnecessary anxiety about the lack of due process and fairness in a case already replete with malfeasance and animus towards him?
   • Cause the Dean to doubt that he would receive the proper standard of judicial integrity that he ought to be able to expect from his Diocesan Bishop?
   • Cause other clergy in the diocese and survivors to fear that if such neglect of due process could be denied the senior priest in the diocese, none of them is safe within the Safeguarding regime run by this Bishop?
   • Engender serious doubt about the professional competence, pastoral care, and lack of empathy towards his clergy colleague?
   • Occasion outside observers to call for comprehensive and transparent explanations of how this unsatisfactory state of affairs came to pass?
     
6. Was the Bishop perturbed to learn that when concern about Miss Wood’s (inaccurately) reported involvement with the three Risk Assessments came to her attention, she swiftly denied any involvement with them? Did it alarm the Bishop that Miss Wood further stated on the public record that she had sought to be removed from association with those documents but despite having requested this (to unspecified persons) on several occasions, those to whom she complained ignored her request and made no effort to correct the public record as she asked?
   
7. Upon learning of this public disquiet over the Risk Assessments did the Bishop consult with the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor, or anyone else to ascertain who precisely had devised, contributed to, and signed off on the risk assessments? Specifically, was he told of contribution by, consultation with, or other involvement in the commissioning production or authorization in relation to these documents in any degree by:
   
   • Canon Graham Ward and Canon Richard Peers.
   • The Archdeacon of Oxford – “consulted”, it is claimed.
   • Richard Woodley, Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor for Oxford.
   • Winckworth Sherwood Solicitor, Alison Talbot.
   • Poli Shajko Diocesan Head of Diocesan HR for Diocese.
   • Penning Manches Solicitor Hilary Aldred
     
8. Does the Bishop agree it is strange that Winckworth Sherwood, already litigating against Dean Percy, wrote the Terms of Reference for Kate Wood’s “independent investigation”, but refused to disclose the Terms of Reference and its authors, as did the Canons directing the investigation?
   
9.  Why has nobody seen the Terms of Reference for Kate Wood’s work that were drafted by Poli Shajko and Hilary Aldred (versions 1 and 2)? Who rejected these, and gave the job to Winckworth Sherwood (version 3)? Does the Bishop think this could potentially look like another conflict of interest? Is the Bishop’s position essentially that there is “nothing to worry about here”? 
   
10. The 2017 “Key Roles” Guidelines further place upon the Diocesan Bishop “the duty to:
    • Ensure that the diocese develops a diocesan safeguarding strategy that is informed by the national ‘Promoting a Safer Church’ Business Plan.
    • Provide leadership and direction in promoting a Safer Church.
    • Ensure that a complaints and whistleblowing procedure is in place which can be used for those who wish to complain about the handling of safeguarding issues.”
11. Is there anything in that document that encourages a Bishop to run or approve Risk Assessment procedures “off grid”? Given his DSA, Head of HR and lawyers specifically approved these (so-called) ‘Risk Assessments’, why does the Bishop of Oxford continue to claim that there are no “systemic failures” of safeguarding in his Diocese?
    
12. Has the Bishop ever authorized another Risk Assessment in either Sheffield or Oxford Diocese that similarly failed to provide quality assurance or guaranteed impartiality towards the subject of the assessment?
    
13. If the Bishop regards his response to concerns over the (improvised?) Risk Assessments as a satisfactory discharge of his pastoring and legal obligations, can he explain so in plain terms?